Preprints
https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-369
https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-369
08 Jun 2022
 | 08 Jun 2022

How do differences in interpreting seismic images affect estimates of geological slip rates? An example of a shear fault-bend fold

Wan-Lin Hu

Abstract. Uncertainties of geological structural geometry constructed based on seismic reflections can stem from data acquisition, processing, analysis, or interpretation. Especially uncertainties arising from structural interpretations and subsequent estimates of geological slip have been little quantified and discussed. To illustrate the implications of interpretation uncertainties for seismic potential and structural evolution, I use an example of a shear fault-bend fold in the Central Himalaya. I apply a simple solution from the kinematic model of shear fault-bend folding to resolve the geological slip, and then compare the result with a previous study to show how differences in structural interpretations could impact dependent conclusions. The findings show that only a little variance in interpretations owing to subjectivity and an unclear seismic image could yield geological slip rates differing by up to ~10 mm/yr, resulting in significantly different scenarios of seismic potential. To reduce unavoidable subjectivity, this study also suggests that the epistemic uncertainty in raw data should be included in interpretations and conclusions.

Journal article(s) based on this preprint

12 Aug 2022
How do differences in interpreting seismic images affect estimates of geological slip rates?
Wan-Lin Hu
Solid Earth, 13, 1281–1290, https://doi.org/10.5194/se-13-1281-2022,https://doi.org/10.5194/se-13-1281-2022, 2022
Short summary

Wan-Lin Hu

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

Comment types: AC – author | RC – referee | CC – community | EC – editor | CEC – chief editor | : Report abuse
  • RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-369', Filippo Carboni, 06 Jul 2022
    • AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Wan-Lin Hu, 22 Jul 2022
  • RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-369', Filippo Carboni, 11 Jul 2022
    • AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Wan-Lin Hu, 22 Jul 2022
    • AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Wan-Lin Hu, 22 Jul 2022
  • RC3: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-369', Charlotte Botter, 12 Jul 2022
    • AC3: 'Reply on RC3', Wan-Lin Hu, 22 Jul 2022

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

Comment types: AC – author | RC – referee | CC – community | EC – editor | CEC – chief editor | : Report abuse
  • RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-369', Filippo Carboni, 06 Jul 2022
    • AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Wan-Lin Hu, 22 Jul 2022
  • RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-369', Filippo Carboni, 11 Jul 2022
    • AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Wan-Lin Hu, 22 Jul 2022
    • AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Wan-Lin Hu, 22 Jul 2022
  • RC3: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-369', Charlotte Botter, 12 Jul 2022
    • AC3: 'Reply on RC3', Wan-Lin Hu, 22 Jul 2022

Peer review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision | EF: Editorial file upload
AR by Wan-Lin Hu on behalf of the Authors (23 Jul 2022)  Author's response   Author's tracked changes   Manuscript 
ED: Publish as is (29 Jul 2022) by Stefano Tavani
ED: Publish as is (29 Jul 2022) by Federico Rossetti (Executive editor)
AR by Wan-Lin Hu on behalf of the Authors (29 Jul 2022)  Author's response 

Journal article(s) based on this preprint

12 Aug 2022
How do differences in interpreting seismic images affect estimates of geological slip rates?
Wan-Lin Hu
Solid Earth, 13, 1281–1290, https://doi.org/10.5194/se-13-1281-2022,https://doi.org/10.5194/se-13-1281-2022, 2022
Short summary

Wan-Lin Hu

Wan-Lin Hu

Viewed

Total article views: 293 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
HTML PDF XML Total BibTeX EndNote
219 68 6 293 4 4
  • HTML: 219
  • PDF: 68
  • XML: 6
  • Total: 293
  • BibTeX: 4
  • EndNote: 4
Views and downloads (calculated since 08 Jun 2022)
Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 08 Jun 2022)

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 246 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 246 with geography defined and 0 with unknown origin.
Country # Views %
  • 1
1
 
 
 
 
Latest update: 07 Oct 2023
Download

The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.

Short summary
Having a seismic image is generally expected to enable us to better determine fault geometry and thus can estimate geological slip rates accurately. However, the process of interpreting seismic images may introduce unintended uncertainties, which have not yet been widely discussed. Here, a case of a shear fault-bend fold in the frontal Himalaya is used to demonstrate how differences in interpretations can affect the following estimates of slip rates and dependent conclusions.