Fault interpretation in seismic reflection data : an experiment analysing the impact of conceptual model anchoring and vertical exaggeration

Alcalde, Juan and Bond, Clare E. and Johnson, Gareth and Kloppenburg, Armelle and Ferrer, Oriol and Bell, Rebecca and Ayarza, Puy (2019) Fault interpretation in seismic reflection data : an experiment analysing the impact of conceptual model anchoring and vertical exaggeration. Solid Earth, 10 (5). pp. 1651-1662. ISSN 1869-9529 (https://doi.org/10.5194/se-10-1651-2019)

[thumbnail of Alcalde-etal-SE-2019-Fault-interpretation-in-seismic-reflection-data-an-experiment-analysing-the-impact]
Text. Filename: Alcalde_etal_SE_2019_Fault_interpretation_in_seismic_reflection_data_an_experiment_analysing_the_impact.pdf
Final Published Version
License: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 logo

Download (14MB)| Preview


The use of conceptual models is essential in the interpretation of reflection seismic data. It allows interpreters to make geological sense of seismic data, which carries inherent uncertainty. However, conceptual models can create powerful anchors that prevent interpreters from reassessing and adapting their interpretations as part of the interpretation process, which can subsequently lead to flawed or erroneous outcomes. It is therefore critical to understand how conceptual models are generated and applied to reduce unwanted effects in interpretation results. Here we have tested how interpretation of vertically exaggerated seismic data influenced the creation and adoption of the conceptual models of 161 participants in a paper-based interpretation experiment. Participants were asked to interpret a series of faults and a horizon, offset by those faults, in a seismic section. The seismic section was randomly presented to the participants with different horizontal-vertical exaggeration (1:4 or 1:2). Statistical analysis of the results indicates that early anchoring to specific conceptual models had the most impact on interpretation outcome, with the degree of vertical exaggeration having a subdued influence. Three different conceptual models were adopted by participants, constrained by initial observations of the seismic data. Interpreted fault dip angles show no evidence of other constraints (e.g. from the application of accepted fault dip models). Our results provide evidence of biases in interpretation of uncertain geological and geophysical data, including the use of heuristics to form initial conceptual models and anchoring to these models, confirming the need for increased understanding and mitigation of these biases to improve interpretation outcomes.