See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/263807576

Fault-related folding: A review of kinematic models and their application

Article in Earth-Science Reviews · July 2014

DOI: 10.1016/j.earscirev.2014.06.008

CITATIONS READS

153 8,012

2 authors:

Christian Brandes David C. Tanner

Leibniz Universität Hannover Leibniz Institute for Applied Geophysics
94 PUBLICATIONS 1,655 CITATIONS 186 PUBLICATIONS 1,810 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by David C. Tanner on 18 October 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Earth-Science Reviews 138 (2014) 352–370

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Earth-Science Reviews
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/earscirev

Fault-related folding: A review of kinematic models and their application

Christian Brandes a,⁎, David C. Tanner b
a
Institute for Geology, Leibniz Universität Hannover, Callinstr. 30, 30167 Hannover, Germany
b
Leibniz Institute for Applied Geophysics (LIAG), Stilleweg 2, 30655 Hannover, Germany

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Folding that is directly related to fault activity is an important deformation feature that occurs all over the world
Received 3 December 2013 in mountain belts, accretionary wedges, fold-and-thrust belts, and intra-plate settings in either strike-slip,
Accepted 27 June 2014 compressional, or extensional regimes. Due to their widespread occurrence, knowledge about the development
Available online 4 July 2014
of these structures is important to a broad spectrum of geoscience sub-disciplines, such as structural geology,
seismology, geomorphology, petroleum geology, and Quaternary geology. Fault-related folding has been
Keywords:
Kinematic model
analyzed intensively over the last 140 years. For the sake of this review, we divide the folds according to the
Fault-related folding way the faults and the folds form; that is into detachment, fault-bend, and fault-propagation folds.
Fault-propagation fold All fault-related folds are caused by changes in fault parameters. The simplest method to produce folds is to trans-
Fault-bend fold port material along faults that have stepped, flat–ramp–flat geometries (fault-bend fold). Alternatively the slip
Detachment fold can decrease along the length of the fault, and depending on whether the fault remains within a detachment
Trishear layer or steps up through mechanical stratigraphy, either a detachment fold or a fault-propagation fold is formed,
respectively.
Detachment folding was first investigated in the early 20th Century, whereas the full significance of fault-
propagation folds was recognized quite late in the 1980s. Seminal work on fault-related folding was carried
out in the 1930s, but quantitative kinematic models have only been available in the last 30 years. These models
are extremely valuable, because they allow a comprehensive understanding of the evolution of fault-related
folds and lead to more accurate predictions of the sub-surface structure. From the mid-1990s onwards, numerical
simulations have been used to identify how fault parameters (such as dip and fault-bend angle, propagation-to-
slip ratio, and shape of the trishear zone) influence the geometry of the related folding. This is directly applicable
to the analysis of the shape of anticlines produced. However, this does not mean that fold geometry is uniquely
related to fault geometry; on the contrary, different kinematic approaches can lead to a similar fold shape.
© 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 353
1.1. Aims and scope of this work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 353
1.2. Why is fault-related folding important? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 353
2. The history of fault-related folding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 355
2.1. The early years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 355
2.2. The period of application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 355
2.3. Rise of the kinematic approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 355
3. The definition of geometrical, kinematic and dynamic models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 356
4. Kinematic models of fault-related folding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 357
4.1. Drag folds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 357
4.1.1. Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 357
4.1.2. Kinematic models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 357
4.2. Detachment folds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 357
4.2.1. Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 357
4.2.2. Kinematic models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 357

⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +49 511 762 4391; fax: +49 511 762 2172.
E-mail address: brandes@geowi.uni-hannover.de (C. Brandes).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2014.06.008
0012-8252/© 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
 C. Brandes, D.C. Tanner / Earth-Science Reviews 138 (2014) 352–370 353

4.3. Fault-bend folds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 359

4.3.1. Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 359
4.3.2. Kinematic models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 359
4.4. Fault-propagation folds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 361
4.4.1. Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 361
4.4.2. Kinematic models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 361
4.4.3. Velocity models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 362
4.4.4. Trishear kinematics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 363
5. Folding mechanisms, distribution of deformation and growth-strata evolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 363
6. Fault-related folding in extensional domains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 364
7. Fault-related folding and the structure of deforming wedges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 365
8. Fault-related folding and inversion structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 365
9. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 366
10. The future of fault-related folding kinematic models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 366
11. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 367
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 367
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 367

1. Introduction different kinematic models, and to show the relevance of fault-related

Numerous outcrops and seismic reflection lines show the intimate
association of faults and folds; this is termed fault-related folding
(Fig. 1). In this work we discuss the geometrical relationship of the
two structural elements and show the various kinematic models that
have been produced to explain them. Folds that are related to faults
were recognized early on in the history of geological science (Buxtorf,
1916; Rich, 1934; Rettger, 1935) and quantitative kinematic models
have been available since the mid-80s onwards (e.g. Suppe, 1983;
Suppe and Medwedeff, 1990; Epard and Groshong, 1995; Poblet and
McClay, 1996; Mitra, 2003).
The number of different fault-related fold types depends on how
strictly the group is defined. Since folds have to evolve, not only geomet-
rically, but also temporally linked to fault movement (as summarized by
Suppe and Medwedeff, 1990), then three kinds of fault-related folds can
be defined: detachment folds, fault-bend folds, and fault-propagation folds
(Jamison, 1987). Hybrid structures are also possible (Marrett and
Bentham, 1997). Drag folding can be added to this list because it is also
temporally and geometrically-related to faulting.
Fault-related folds are, in general, due to the changes in fault param-
eters. Thus the simplest method to produce folds is to transport material
along faults that have stepped, flat–ramp–flat geometries (fault-bend
fold model; Fig. 2C). Alternatively the slip can decrease along the fault's
length, which is either compensated by folding at the fault tip, if the
fault cuts through stratigraphy (fault-propagation fold model; Fig. 2D),
or if instead the fault does not ramp up, a detachment fold may form
(Fig. 2B).
Secondary faults that form as the result of strain discontinuities
during folding are named fold-accommodation faults (Mitra, 2002a).
They usually show distinctly smaller amounts of slip than the fold-
forming faults. Fold-accommodation faults form as a consequence of
increased curvature of folds, shear of forelimbs, or as back-thrusts
that accommodate hanging-wall strain during fault-related folding
(Mitra, 2002a). In general, fault-related folds can form on a kilometer-
(Apotria and Wilkerson, 2002; Korsch, 2004) to meter-scale
(McConnell et al., 1997).
1.1. Aims and scope of this work
Over the last 30 years, fault-related folding has been treated in a
kinematic context. The aim of this paper is to summarize and review
these models. We will focus on the kinematic evolution and the
resulting geometry of fold structures. The intention is to stress the role
of fault-related folding as one of the most important deformation
mechanisms that globally occur in various tectonic settings, to review
folding in several geosciences subdisciplines. This review aims to syn-
thesize the state of the art by presenting the first comprehensive review
of the full range of fault-related folding kinematics. Previous reviews
have only focused on individual kinematic approaches. We refer to the
simplest kinematic solutions of the models because this makes it easier
to understand. However this also reduces the degrees of freedom and
therefore the necessary variables. In addition, we treat both contrac-
tional and extensional structures, where applicable. Finally we identify
the limitations of the current models and give an outlook on future
fault-related folding research.
1.2. Why is fault-related folding important?
Fault-related folding is a significant deformation mechanism that
occurs in mountain belts and foothills (e.g., Boyer, 1986; Vann et al.,
1986; Erslev and Mayborn, 1997; Ford et al., 1997; Homza and
Wallace, 1997; Delcaillau et al., 1998; Burbank et al., 1999; Tozer et al.,
2002; McClay, 2011; Calamita et al., 2012) (Fig. 1A, B), deepwater
fold-and-thrust belts (Corredor et al., 2005; Morley et al., 2011), accre-
tionary wedges (Biju-Duval et al., 1982; Gulick et al., 2004), intraplate
settings (Bump, 2003), and during basin inversion (Mitra, 1993;
Okamura et al., 2007). The beauty of the concept of fault-related folding
is that it can explain the evolution of folds in the upper crustal levels,
where brittle processes are typically expected to exist (Suppe, 1983).
Besides its dominance in compressional regimes, it is also an important
deformation process in extensional settings (Howard and John, 1997;
Sharp et al., 2000; Ferrill et al., 2012) (Fig. 1C, D), where it is often
expressed either as roll-over anticlines on listric normal faults (Song &
Cawood, 2001) (Fig. 1E), as extensional fault-propagation folds, or as
extensional forced folds.
In addition, fault-related folding can occur in strike-slip situations
(e.g., Tindall and Davis, 1999). It is also significant in the field of deep-
water fold-and-thrust belts (Camerlo and Benson, 2006; Morley et al.,
2011), soft-sediment deformation, gravity-driven slumps, and mass-
transport complexes (Alsop and Marco, 2012), as well as in ice-sheet
induced glaciotectonics (Thomas and Chiverrell, 2007; Burke et al.,
2009; Brandes and Le Heron, 2010). It has been well known for a long
time that anticlines represent traps for oil and gas (Hopkins, 1917;
Rich, 1921). Therefore fault-related folding plays a great role in the for-
mation of structural hydrocarbon reservoirs (Mitra, 1990; Ingram et al.,
2004; Kent and Dasgupta, 2004). It also acts as an important co-seismic
deformation process (e.g. Kao, 2000; Chen et al., 2001; Johnson and
Segall, 2004; Guzofski et al., 2007; Lin et al., 2007). Consequently,
fault-related folding is of great economic interest and represents a cru-
cial parameter in the evaluation of earthquake hazards (Allmendinger
354 C. Brandes, D.C. Tanner / Earth-Science Reviews 138 (2014) 352–370

TWT
A) B)

fault
trace

fault tr ace 2

C) D)

fault tr ace

E)

roll-over anticline

fault tr ace

Fig. 1. Different types of fault-related folds. A) Fold in the hanging wall of a large thrust sheet, Alps, southern Germany. B) Seismic section showing a fault-propagation fold, Limón fold-and-
thrust belt, offshore southeastern Costa Rica. Modified after Brandes et al. (2007a). C) and D) Extensional fault-propagation fold, northern foreland basin of the Alps, southern Germany.
E) Syn-tectonic growth fault in Namurian siliclastic sediments exposed on the west coast of Ireland, Donegal Point, County Clare.

and Shaw, 2000; DeVecchio et al., 2012). Fault-related folding also influ-
ences the evolution of the Earth's surface (Jackson et al., 1996; Mueller
and Suppe, 1997; Delcaillau et al., 2006) by its impact on the evolution
of the drainage pattern (Keller et al., 1998), and it would even seem that
it affects the topography on other planets (Okubo and Schultz, 2004).
This shows that not only is fault-related folding relevant to the field of
pure structural geology, but it is also highly pertinent to a wide range
of geoscience subdisciplines, such as seismology, geomorphology,
petroleum geology and Quaternary geology. Kinematic models (see
Table 1), of fault-related folding can be utilized in all fields of applied ge-
ology, in which an understanding of the deformation in the subsurface is
required (such as hydrocarbon/geothermal energy exploration and CO2
sequestration). The limits in visualization deformation in the vicinity of
faults on seismic surveys due to the so-called “fault-shadow” the correct
citation is (Aikulola et al., 2010) can be overcome by kinematic models.
Kinematic models allow to forward model the position of the faults,
 C. Brandes, D.C. Tanner / Earth-Science Reviews 138 (2014) 352–370 355

A) undeformed state Fischer & Wilkerson, 2000), but it has been also shown that these sym-
metric fracture-fold models can fail (Reches, 1976). Kinematic fault-
related fold models can relate the anticline shape to the fault geometry
and therefore serve as a tool for fracture prediction.

2. The history of fault-related folding

2.1. The early years

B) detachment fold
detachment
C) fault-bend fold
fault bend
D) fault-propagation fold
fault tip
Fig. 2. The three main types of fault-related folds. A) Undeformed state. B) A detachment
fold evolve from the shortening of a rock mass above a detachment. The space in the fold
core is filled with mobile material. C) A fault-bend fold forms when material is transported
over a bend in a fault. This forces the material into an antiformal geometry. D) Fault-
propagation folds form as a consequence of variation in the slip along the fault. The slip
on a fault is assumed to decrease to zero at the tip, which is compensated by buckling of
material above the fault.
based on the geometry of the hanging-wall deformation. Another appli-
cation for kinematic models of fault-related folding is in the field of pe-
troleum geology for fracture prediction. In many cases, hydrocarbons
are trapped in fractured reservoirs and fractures are important migra-
tion pathways (e.g. Aydin, 2000; Nelson, 2001), but in general, such
fractures are below the resolution of standard geophysical methods
and their orientation and extent is rather difficult to map in the subsur-
face and can only be predicted by models. The geometry of an anticline
has been put forward as a proxy for fracture distribution (Lisle, 1994;
The fact that faults and folds could be linked was recognized early on
in geological research (Fig. 3). Willis (1894) introduced the break-thrust
concept, in which folding and faulting are directly related. He concluded
that the rocks were initially folded, and, if the deformation continued,
the shortening was compensated by faulting. This is not strictly fault-
related folding because in Willis' model, faulting follows folding.
Cadell (1889) presented analogue models where faulting and folding
could be observed as closely-linked processes. Later, Chamberlin
(1910) introduced the first method to calculate the position of a basal
detachment, based on the geometry of folds exposed at the Earth's
surface. Buxtorf (1916) showed an interpretation of the Swiss Jura
Mountains, with several detachment folds, highlighting the regional
importance of this type of deformation. Stille (1924) defined the so-
called german-type paratectonics (= type of intraplate deformation in
northern Germany), where faults and folds are the dominating structur-
al elements. Benchmarking work on fault-related folding was presented
by Rich (1934). He analyzed folds in the Appalachians and concluded
that anticlines in a fold belt were the result of thrust sheets moving
over ramps. This model is still valid and the resulting structures are
known today as fault-bend folds. Direct proof that faulting can cause
folding was presented by Rettger (1935), based on analogue models.
Cloos (1936) presented generic models to show that folding can
be the consequence of faulting (Fig. 4). He interpreted folding in the
hanging-walls and footwalls of large thrust faults to be related to drag.
The term Bruchfaltengebirge (lit. — “brittlely-folded mountain belt”)
was explicitly used for areas in which folds are related to faults (Cloos,
1936).
2.2. The period of application
The 1960–80s were characterized by strong advances in the quanti-
fication of deformation processes. Several studies dealt with structural
restoration techniques (Dahlstrom, 1969; Hossack, 1979; Elliott, 1983)
and fault-related folds played a major role in quantifying shortening
in fold-and-thrust belts (Cooper and Trayner, 1986; DePaor, 1988;
Dahlstrom, 1990; Wu et al., 2005).
2.3. Rise of the kinematic approach
From the early 1980s onwards, fault-related folding began to be
treated in a kinematic fashion (Fig. 3). Suppe (1983) introduced the
first kinematic model of fault-bend folds, based on the concept of
kink-band migration. Later in the 1990s, different kinematic models

Table 1
Glossary of specific expressions used in the text.

• Kinematics: The study of the motion of points within a body without consideration of the cause of the motion.
• Velocity: A vector that is defined by magnitude and direction. It represents the rate of change of the position of an object. Velocity is an important concept in kinematics.
• Flexural-slip: The concept of allowing differential movement to take place on a detachment or multiple detachments.
• Detachment: A discontinuity within a body, usually along planes of mechanical weakness, i.e. bedding, across which points move with different velocities.
• In-plane motion: All the motion that is caused by the deformation is within a two-dimensional plane. This notion is synonymous with bulk plane strain.
• Line-length, area, and volume preservation. This is an attempt to constrain a kinematic algorithm, and therefore make it more realistic, by maintaining line-length and/or area in two-
dimensions or up to all three values in three-dimensions, between, for instance, pins.
• Pins. Virtual lines or planes that are used to divide and bind a model. Fixed pins are set at the boundaries between deformed und undeformed domains or along the axial planes of
folds, while loose pins are allowed anywhere in the model, and may move and possibly rotate with the deformation. Analysis of the pins allows the quantification of deformation as
well as the possibility to judge, e.g. the amount of strain within the model. Subdividing a model with a number of pins allows incremental deformation to be determined.
356 C. Brandes, D.C. Tanner / Earth-Science Reviews 138 (2014) 352–370

extensional fault- trishear kinematics in 3D

propagation folding by Cristallini et al.
by Hardy & McClay
double-edge fault-
Stille´s f ault Suppe & Medwedeff´s propagation folding
and fold dominated kink band migration model by Tavani et al.
deformation style for fault-propagation folds trishear velocity
Chamberlin calculated folding and fracturing description by
detachment depth recognition of trishear kinematics Zehnder & trishear kinematics
of rocks by Ramsay
fault-bend folds by Erslev Allmendinger in 3D by Cardozo
by Rich
analogue models Dahlstrom´s balanced kinematic model
of faults and folds cross-sections for detachment f olds trishear for
analogue models
numerical modelling continuously
by Cadell of fault-related folds by Epard & Groshong
of deformation by curved faults by
by Rettger and velocity description for
Waltham Brandenburg
simple and pure shear by
Willis introduced Buxtorf´s Cloos described Suppe´s kink band Waltham & Hardy
break-thrust Swiss Jura drag folds as fault migration model for
concept section related fault-bend folds

1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020

Fig. 3. History of research on fault-related folds and their basic kinematic models.

for detachment folds (Epard and Groshong, 1995; Homza and Wallace,
1995; Poblet and McClay, 1996) and fault-propagation folds (Mitra,
1990; Suppe and Medwedeff, 1990; Erslev, 1991; Mitra and Mount,
1998) were developed. These 2D models were then extended to pseudo
3D (Wilkerson et al., 1991). At the same time, contractional fault-related
folds were successfully analyzed using analogue sandbox models
(McClay, 1995; Storti et al., 1997; Bernard et al., 2007). The use of
numerical simulations since the late 1990s has greatly extended knowl-
edge on fault-related folds (Hardy and Ford, 1997; Allmendinger, 1998;
Tanner et al., 2003; Allmendinger et al., 2004; Cardozo and Aanonsen,
2009; Cardozo et al., 2011). Computer simulations led to a more quan-
titative understanding of these structures. Parameters such as the
propagation-to-slip ratio of the fault were recognized as highly
significant for the geometric evolution of the related fold (Hardy and
Ford, 1997; Allmendinger, 1998). The propagation-to-slip ratio was
shown by Chapman and Williams (1984), using displacement–distance
graphs, to be a key parameter of fault-propagation folds. Displacement–
distance plots have been used also to compare fault-related folding pro-
cesses that occur in natural structures observed at different scales
(Tavarnelli, 1997). Also in the late 1990s, fault-related folding in exten-
sional regimes moved in the research focus (Howard and John, 1997;
Hardy and McClay, 1999; Sharp et al., 2000) and attracted interest up
to the mid-2000s (Khalil and McClay, 2002; Finch et al., 2004; Jin and
Groshong, 2006). The work of Medwedeff (1989), Suppe et al. (1992,
1997) and Shaw and Suppe (1994, 1996) opened the door for the analy-
sis of fault-related folds based on their growth strata. In the following
years, growth strata studies increased (Hardy et al., 1996; Ford et al.,
1997; Poblet et al., 1997; Storti and Poblet, 1997; Vergés et al., 2002;
Brandes et al., 2007b). Recent developments in this field are also the
analysis of growth-strata distribution on the evolution of fault-related
folds (Strayer et al., 2004).

3. The definition of geometrical, kinematic and dynamic models

Our model definition follows the criteria of Greenwood (1989), in

Fig. 4. Drawing by Cloos (1936) that illustrates the evolution of a fold associated with a
fault. The picture shows that the fold grows with increasing slip. This early illustration of
fault-related folding shows faulting and folding as a contemporaneous process.
that they 1) are based on a guiding conceptual model, 2) have a
theoretically-based submodel, 3) have a predictive capability, and
4) have the ability to deliver testable predictions. Nevertheless it is
entirely possible for different models to produce the same structure. If
a model is unique, then only that model can explain an observation,
whereas if a model is consistent, more than one model can explain the
observation (Stüwe, 2000).
Models that contain a primary dataset (2D or 3D) of stratigraphic
units, faults, and other geological information, as e.g., shown in
Culshaw (2005), can be termed geometrical. Depending on the quality
and extent of a dataset, either a two- or three-dimensional geometrical
model can be built. The accuracy of the dataset, for instance the resolu-
tion of the seismic data used to generate the geometrical model, deter-
mines the final resolution. Similarly, outcrop data can be included in
the model, but they are increasingly limited in their ability to predict
structure at greater depths.
Kinematic models determine the evolution of a geometrical struc-
tural model (e.g. Laubscher, 1985), so that the paths of material points
in the model can be followed and examined. Kinematic indicators,
i.e. information about the kinematic vectors involved in the structural
development, are, for instance, slickensides on faults, axes of folds, cur-
vature of faults, and stratigraphic contacts. Kinematic models can be
compounded to include different geological events (i.e. unconformities)
and various kinematic movements (i.e. basin inversion).
 C. Brandes, D.C. Tanner / Earth-Science Reviews 138 (2014) 352–370
Dynamic models study the forces and stresses required to produce
the structure. They require geometrical and kinematic models as
input, as well as rheological information (e.g. density, thermal proper-
ties, Young's Modulus, and Poisson's ratio) about the rocks involved
(e.g. Braun and Sambridge, 1994). Boundary conditions must include
gravitational forces and the far-field stress vectors, including paleostress
vectors when considering structural development over geological time.
4. Kinematic models of fault-related folding
4.1. Drag folds
4.1.1. Characteristics
Ramberg (1963) defined drag folds as quasi-monoclinic folds
that often develop in thin competent rock layers bounded by more
competent thick layers. In this model, drag folds form when a package
of alternating competent and less competent layers bends as the result
of horizontal shortening. More commonly the term drag fold is
used for a fold that developed as a consequence of friction along a fault
(e.g. Cloos, 1936), although this is viewed skeptically by Grasemann
et al. (2005), who propose that drag folds are in fact caused by the
heterogeneous displacement field around a fault as it undergoes slip.
Both reverse and normal drag can be distinguished (Fig. 5). Normal
drag means that the deformed rock layers are convex in the direction
of transport along the fault, whereas in the case of reverse drag they
are concave in the transport direction (Hamblin, 1965; Grasemann
et al., 2005).
4.1.2. Kinematic models
The sense of shear along the fault can be determined by the asym-
metry of the drag fold. Furthermore, the slip vector can be estimated
using Hansen's Method (Hansen, 1971; Twiss and Moores, 1992). If
the fold is conical, then the fold axis is the axis of rotation of the beds
at the fault, which is perpendicular to the slip direction (Becker,
1995). Recently, numerical (finite element) models have been used to
test drag folding geometries and processes (e.g. Reches and Eidelman,
1995; Resor and Pollard, 2012). These models prove that edge disloca-
tion in an elastic half space is sufficient to produce the majority drag
folds, and that friction on the fault is not important.
4.2. Detachment folds
Detachment folds are folds that evolve from the shortening of a rock
mass above either a detachment or a décollement (e.g. Poblet et al.,
1997; Rowan, 1997; Scharer et al., 2004; Poblet and Hardy, 1995)
normal fault
normal drag
reverse drag
Fig. 5. Drag folds develop along normal faults and reverse faults. They can be classified into drag folds with normal drag and drag folds with reverse drag. Normal drag means that the beds
are convexly warped in the transport direction of the fault while reverse drag means the opposite. Drawn after Grasemann et al. (2005).
357
(Fig. 6A). A detachment is defined as a low-angle fault that may be
nearly, but not exactly parallel to a horizon, whereas as a décollement
is a bedding- or layer-parallel fault (Peacock et al., 2000). Detachment
folds also develop above the tip of a bedding-parallel thrust (Poblet
and McClay, 1996) in competent rocks and are often cored by less-
competent rocks (Homza and Wallace, 1995). Distinct detachment
folds can only form if there is enough mobile material present in the
detachment layer to fill the core of the growing anticline (Stewart,
1996). If there is not enough material to fill the amplifying fold, fold
growth will stop and shortening may be compensated by faulting
(Stewart, 1996).
4.2.1. Characteristics
The most important characteristic feature of detachment folds is the
detachment horizon (i.e. décollement) (Fig. 6A) that is developed either
above, below, or above and below the fold. Layer-parallel strain allows
the fold to develop above a fixed stratigraphic detachment (Groshong
and Epard, 1994). Detachment folds are often symmetric (Hardy and
Finch, 2005) and their geometries range from concentric to chevron-
type folds or even box folds (Rowan et al., 2004; Shaw et al., 2005).
Internally, detachment folds are characterized by homogeneous strain,
second-order folds, second-order conjugate faults, or duplex structures
(Epard and Groshong, 1995).
Detachment folds can be subdivided into two main groups: a) dis-
harmonic folds and b) lift-off folds (Mitra and Namson, 1989). Dishar-
monic folds are parallel or concentric folds with disharmonic folding
in the core (Fig. 6B). Lift-off folds are parallel folds, where the core of
the anticline is characterized by isoclinal limbs (Fig. 6B). Early models
of detachment folds were geometrical (Jamison, 1987) that focused on
the shape of the folds. Different kinematic models were developed
later. From an area-balanced cross-section it is possible to derive the
depth of the detachment (Fig. 6C).
4.2.2. Kinematic models
Epard and Groshong (1995) introduced the limb rotation model,
which describes the evolution of detachment folds above a fixed
layer-parallel detachment (see also Hardy and Poblet, 1994). The basic
assumption of this model is that the deformation takes place between
two pin lines and the displacement along the detachment is compensated
by folding, which means that the model is locally line-balanced. Deforma-
tion occurs by amplification of the anticline. The model emphasizes
symmetric folds (Epard and Groshong, 1995). The fold in the model has
three axial planes, a vertical one in the center (corresponding to the
plane of symmetry) and two vertical or inclined ones that separate
the fold from the undeformed area (Fig. 6D). Following Epard and
reverse fault
358 C. Brandes, D.C. Tanner / Earth-Science Reviews 138 (2014) 352–370

general characteristics of detachment folds B) basic types of detachment folds

A)
disharmonic detachment fold
competent rocks

less competent
rocks

slip
fault tip
detachment

detachment

C) l0 balanced detachment fold

lift-off detachment f old

l0 - l 1 l1

A z
depth to detachment: z = A
l0 - l 1
detachment
detachment

D)
model of Epard & Groshong (1995)

fixed hinge migrating hinge

W
fixed pin line
reference level B B
C A C A

D H D H
s
s h h
Θ Θ

E)
model of Poblet & McClay (1996)

1) constant limb dip/v ariable limb length 2) variable limb dip/constant limb length

3) variable limb dip/v ariable limb length 4) variable limb dip/v ariable limb length

Fig. 6. Detachment folds. A) General characteristics of detachment folds are a horizontal detachment and a core of less-competent rocks. B) Types of detachment folds: 1. fold core
is characterized by disharmonic folds, 2. Lift-off folds, where the core is characterized by isoclinal limbs. C) Depth-to-detachment calculation of a detachment fold, using the
excess-area-method. D) Kinematic model of Epard and Groshong (1995) for fixed and migrating hinges (see text for explanation). E) Kinematic model of Poblet and McClay
(1996), see text for explanation.
Panel A redrawn after Poblet and McClay (1996). Panel C modified after Mitra and Namson (1989), Epard and Groshong (1993) and Wiltschko and Groshong (2012).
 C. Brandes, D.C. Tanner / Earth-Science Reviews 138 (2014) 352–370
Groshong (1995), the key parameters of the model are the width of
the fold (W), the dip of the external axial planes (θ), the distance from
the reference level to the detachment (H), and the displacement along
the detachment (D). The fold grows by an increase of the area s that is
equal to Dh (Fig. 6D). Their model describes the evolution of a detach-
ment fold with a fixed hinge, as well as the evolution of a fold with
migrating hinge. In case of a fixed hinge, no material crosses the axial
surfaces. The fold growth is the result of limb rotation and changes in
bed length (Hardy and Poblet, 1994; Epard and Groshong, 1995).
Homza and Wallace (1995) presented another geometrical and
kinematic model for the evolution of detachment fold. Their model
deals with two different scenarios: a) a detachment fold that develops
above a detachment unit with constant thickness and b) a detachment
fold that forms above a detachment unit with changing thickness during
deformation. The model of Homza and Wallace (1995) assumes the
conservation of bed length and area. The competent layer produces par-
allel folds by flexural-slip, therefore conserving bed length. The constant
detachment depth model produces folds that are initially symmetric
and grow with a fixed arc-length. The variable detachment fold model
allows both fold growth with fixed and migrating hinges.
A third model for detachment folds was presented by Poblet and
McClay (1996). These authors analyzed three individual kinematic
mechanisms for: a) constant limb dip, b) constant limb length and
c) variable limb dip and limb length (Fig. 6E). Constant limb dip
means that the fold grows by lengthening of the limbs, whereas in
the constant limb-length mechanism, fold growth is achieved by
limb rotation. The variable limb length/limb dip mechanism pro-
duces a detachment fold that grows by limb lengthening and limb ro-
tation. Poblet and McClay (1996) consider four different end-
members (Fig. 6E): No. 1 assumes constant limb dip and variable
limb length. In this case, the dip of the limb and the axial surfaces
are fixed. The shortening is accommodated by an outward migration
of the fold boundaries. No. 2 has a constant limb length and fold
growth is caused by steepening of the limb dip (limb rotation). The
stratigraphic thickness is maintained by the rotation of the axial sur-
faces. Nos. 3 and 4 are both characterized by variable limb dip and
length. In these latter models, shortening is compensated by limb ro-
tation and outward propagation of the axial surfaces. The fold grows
by lengthening of the limbs and steepening of the limb dip. No. 4 is
similar to No. 3, but in this case, the detachment depth is given by
the intersection of the opposing axial surfaces. Poblet and Hardy
(1995) showed that the key aspects of detachment folds, such as
fold amplification and slip along the fault, can be derived from the
analysis of the growth-strata geometry that records the rotation of
the anticline limbs.
Mitra (2002b, 2003) presented a kinematic model for detachment
folds that explains why a large number of geometrically-different
detachment folds can occur. Like all previous models, it assumes that
the fold develops in a competent rock layer that is underlain by a less
competent unit. The fold mainly deforms by flexural slip, with some ad-
ditional faulting and fracturing. The wavelength of the fold is controlled
by the thickness of the involved rock units. Continued deformation
leads to increasing amplitude and wavelength of the fold. This is driven
by the rotation of limb segments and hinge migration (Mitra, 2003).
The initial limb rotation is a flexural-slip process. Ongoing shortening
causes internal deformation between locked hinges. Variations in the
structural style of detachment folds are controlled by the mechanical
stratigraphy, the amount of shortening, the asymmetry, and the occur-
rence of faulting (Mitra, 2003).
Contreras (2010) considered detachment folding on the basis of the
conservation of mass, and not on a specific folding mechanism. There-
fore in his model fold limbs are not necessarily straight. The model
can be extended to include erosion and sedimentation during the fold-
ing. From the resulting velocity models, Contreras (2010) has shown
that detachment fold amplitude increases exponentially over time
under constant shortening, which has been hypothesized from
359
theoretical models (Biot, 1961), natural observation (e.g. Daëron et al.,
2007), and retro-deformation of cross-sections (Tanner et al., 2011).
4.3. Fault-bend folds
Fault-bend folds occur when material is transported over a thrust
footwall ramp (Berger and Johnson, 1980), i.e. a steepening of the
fault plane that typically crosscuts stratigraphy rather than following
the bedding plane (Suppe, 1983) (Fig. 2C). This concept was originally
introduced by Rich (1934) based on his observations in the Appala-
chians. Wiltschko (1979) developed a mechanical model for a thrust
sheet that moves over a ramp. Fault-bend faults have been recognized
in fold-and-thrust belts all over the world and have been the focus of
many studies (Suppe, 1983; Zoetemeijer et al., 1992; Medwedeff and
Suppe, 1997; Savage and Cooke, 2003; Suppe et al., 2004).
A special type of fault-bend fold is a triangle zone or antiformal
stack. Triangle zones are common structural elements that occur
globally and are characteristic of the transition between fold-and-
thrust belts and foreland basins. The term “triangle zone” has been
given to different types of structures with a triangular shape in the
cross section (e.g., McClay, 1992). In most cases, it describes an
antiformal duplex on the leading edge of a fold and thrust belt that
internally consists of vertically-stacked horses. Different studies have
focused on the mechanical and kinematic evolution of triangle zones
(e.g., Erickson, 1995; Erickson and Jamison, 1995; Jamison, 1996;
Jones, 1996; Stockmal et al., 2001; Tanner et al., 2010). Triangle zones
begin as fault-bend folds. After a first fault-bend fold is formed by mate-
rial that is transported over a footwall ramp, the ramp shifts slightly for-
ward, which leads to the vertical stacking of overlapping fault-bend
folds that form the core of the triangle zone (Jones, 1996). An antiformal
stack forms when the displacement on each horse equals the ramp
spacing (Doglioni and Carminati, 2008).
4.3.1. Characteristics
The basic requirements for the evolution of fault-bend folds are
changes in the geometry of the fault plane, such as bends or ramps. A
footwall ramp usually connects two horizontal detachments (flats) at
different stratigraphic levels (Fig. 7). By moving from the first, deepest
footwall flat to the shallowest, the hanging-wall material will be
deformed into a syncline–anticline–syncline structure. Another require-
ment for fault-bend folding is that the fault blocks are in tight contact
along the plane and the bend in the fault does not lead to the develop-
ment of significant voids (Suppe, 1983). In the case of fault-bend folds,
the propagation rate of the fault must be much higher than fault slip,
because the fold forms before the first increment of slip (McNaught
and Mitra, 1993). Bending of the material during the transport over
the ramp is accommodated by bedding-parallel simple shear and the
magnitude of shear strains is related to the ramp angle (Sanderson,
1982). This causes beds to thin over a concave fault bend. To produce
a fault-bend fault, enough energy must be available to overcome
the friction on the fault, uplift the fold, and shear the fold material
(Williams, 1987).
4.3.2. Kinematic models
Suppe (1983) introduced the first, and still one of the most compre-
hensive kinematic models for fault-bend folds, which is now often
called the “kink-band migration model”. Folds evolve above bends in
the fault plane (i.e. the bends between the flats and ramps). The basic
assumption is that the fault consists of straight segments, which are sep-
arated by an angular bend and only the hanging wall block deforms by
flexural slip; the footwall block remains rigid (Suppe, 1983; Medwedeff
and Suppe, 1997). As the movement begins along the fault, two kink
bands evolve, one at the base of the ramp and one at the upper end
(Suppe, 1983) (Fig. 7). The axial surfaces of the kink band at the upper
ramp end are named A and A′. The axial surfaces of the kink band at
the base of the ramp are named B and B′ (Fig. 7). The axial surface B
360 C. Brandes, D.C. Tanner / Earth-Science Reviews 138 (2014) 352–370
A)
flat
B´
B) B A A´
Y´
Y
B´
A1 + A2 = A0
C) B A´
A0
Y´
Fig. 7. Kink-band migration model for a fault bend fold, based on Suppe (1983). Material is transported over a footwall ramp and deformed into an antiform, see text for explanation.
bisects the angle between the flat and the ramp. The axial surfaces A and
B end at the fault bends (points X and Y, respectively). Further move-
ment causes one of each of the axial surfaces of these folds to migrate
in the slip direction, so that the two folds increase in amplitude with
continued slip. The axial surfaces A′ and B′ end at the points X′ and Y′,
respectively.
Due to the formation of the upper kink band, the slip along the fault
decreases on the forelimb side by about 60% (Suppe, 1983). The basic
pre-assumption for this kinematic model is layer-parallel slip that
produces parallel folds. This means that bed thickness and length are
conserved. The great advantage of the model of Suppe (1983) is that it
relates the geometry of the fold directly to the geometry of the fault.
This allows predictions of the subsurface geometry of tectonic struc-
tures to be based only on a small set of observations. The model assumes
the following: a) sharp bends in the fault plane up to 30°, b) conserva-
tion of area and c) constant layer thickness of the beds. This implies
conservation of bed length (in the slip direction), layer-parallel slip
and the formation of kink folds that have straight limbs and show infi-
nite curvature (Suppe, 1983). In such a case, the axial surface of the
fold bisects the angle between the fold limbs. The model then predicts
the fault bend angle ϕ, the cut-off angle θ, and the opening angle of
the fold, characterized by the angle γ:
 
−1 sin2γ
ϕ ¼ θ ¼ tan :
1 þ 2 cos2 γ
The maximum ramp angle of 30° consequently limits the forelimb
angle of the resultant fault-bend fault. The relationship of the fold
shape to the fault-bend angle means that the fault geometry can be pre-
dicted from the form of the fold. This is a key method for reconstructing
the subsurface geology based on outcrop data. It allows the construction
ramp flat
X X´
A
γ2 γ
A1 1
ϕ
A2
β
Θ X X´
of cross-sections that can be used for the exploration of structural
hydrocarbon traps and the assessment to seismic risks by identifying,
for instance, the position of a potentially-seismogenic blind thrust.
Many earthquakes occur along thrusts that are blind, i.e. they lack a
surface fault trace (Lettis et al., 1997). In these cases near-surface short-
ening is accommodated by folding (Dolan et al., 2003). There are several
well-studied examples of seismogenic blind thrusts from the Los
Angeles area (Shaw and Shearer, 1999). For instance, the 1994
Northridge earthquake in Southern California took place along a blind
thrust (Yeats and Huftile, 1995) and the 1987 Whittier Narrows earth-
quake was related to a pronounced, fault-related hanging-wall anticline
that developed above a blind ramp (Shaw et al., 2002). Namson and
Davis (1988) showed that the Coalinga anticline and the Kettleman
Hills are also fault-related folds that evolved above seismically-active
faults. Analyzing blind thrusts with standard geological methods,
such as mapping, is difficult because the faults do not intersect with
the surface (Roering et al., 1997), and therefore other approaches have
to be used. For instance, balanced cross-sections make it possible
to identify unknown faults. This was shown by Davis and Namson
(1994), who constructed a cross-section based on the kink-band meth-
od that revealed the seismogenic fault that caused the 1994 Northridge
earthquake.
A modification of the kink-band migration approach is the concept
of shear fault-bend folds (Suppe et al., 2004), which considers the inter-
nal shear that commonly affects thrust sheets. This kinematic model ex-
plains the observation that backlimb angles dip less than the fault ramp
does. This problem has been tackled with the concept of shear fault-
bend folding, which is a combination of limb rotation and kink-band mi-
gration (Suppe et al., 2004). Two end-member models for shear fault-
bend folding have been developed (Fig. 8) (Suppe et al., 2004; Shaw
et al., 2005). In the simple-shear case, the décollement layer experiences
 C. Brandes, D.C. Tanner / Earth-Science Reviews 138 (2014) 352–370 361

A) Medwedeff and Suppe (1997) presented solutions for fault-bend

simple-shear fault-bend fold
folds, in which more than one bend is developed. Whereas single
bends produce folds that have kink-like shapes, multi-bend faults
will lead to more curved fold hinges. (Medwedeff and Suppe, 1997). A
modified model for fault-bend fold with rounded hinges was developed
by Tavani et al. (2005) using circular hinge sectors, in which the hinge
sectors are pinned to the fault plane and replace the straight axial sur-
décollement
faces of the kink-band migration model. This is a step towards rounded
layer
“natural” fold shapes.
Tavani and Storti (2006) pointed out that the standard kinematic
model for fault-bend folding is limited because it requires the entire
fault to have propagated before any hanging-wall deformation can
begin. They propose that progressive fault propagation is more realistic.
no flat developed ramp
This means that fault-bend folding can be treated as a type of fault-
propagation folding (Tavani and Storti, 2006). With the concept of
B) pure-shear fault-bend fold double-edge fault-propagation folding (Tavani et al., 2006) (for expla-
nation see chapter fault-propagation folding) it is possible to create
realistic fault-bend folds. With small slip-to-propagation ratios a fault-
propagation fold is produced, which when transported forward along
the upper flat, is geometrically similar to standard kink-band migration
fault-bend folds (Tavani and Storti, 2006).
décollement Another kinematic algorithm to simulate fault-bend folding, known
layer as “fault-parallel flow”, was developed by Egan et al. (1997). This
algorithm quite simply states that all material objects within the hang-
ing wall move parallel to the fault surface, along virtual flow paths
(Fig. 10) (Tanner et al., 2003; Ziesch et al., 2014). This is theoretically
applicable to a large range of complex fault geometries, such as rounded
flat ramp fault bends and multiple-dipping fault domains. However, Ziesch et al.
(2014) have shown that the algorithm gives unnaturally high strain in
Fig. 8. Shear fault-bend folding. Two end-member models for shear fault-bend folding have
the hanging walls of extensional faults and is therefore only suitable
been developed. In the simple-shear case, the décollement layer experiences bedding-
parallel shear, in the pure-shear case, the décollement layer moves above a flat, as in the for fault bend angles of less than 40°, i.e. typically compressional
no-shear fault-bend fold model, but instead shortens and thickens above the ramp. structures.
Modified after Suppe et al. (1992) and Shaw et al. (2005).
4.4. Fault-propagation folds
bedding-parallel shear (Fig. 8A) (Suppe et al., 2004; Shaw et al., 2005).
In the pure-shear case, the décollement layer moves above a flat, as in Fault-propagation folds may also form in the hanging walls of faults
the non-shear fault-bend fold model, but also shortens and thickens (Fig. 11). However these folds are different from fault-bend folds,
above the ramp (Fig. 8B) (Shaw et al., 2005). By unfolding the hanging because they form as a consequence of variations in the slip along the
wall, the resulting shearing of the back pin gives the shear profile. fault. The slip on a fault is assumed to decrease to zero at the tip. This
From such a shear profile it is possible to derive the amount and position decrease in slip is compensated by buckling of material above the fault
of shear in the deformed package (Suppe et al., 2004). (Williams and Chapman, 1983; Suppe and Medwedeff, 1990). In con-
A kinematic velocity field of the Suppe fold-bend model was pre- trast to fault-bend folds, fault-propagation folds do not require transfer
sented by Johnson and Berger (1989) (Fig. 9) and Hardy (1995). In the of volume out of the structure (Mitra, 1990).
Johnson and Berger (1989) model the thrust sheet is divided into
three velocity domains, which are related to the flat-ramp-flat geome- 4.4.1. Characteristics
tries of the fault. The velocity domains are separated by velocity discon- The typical characteristics of fault-propagation folding were summa-
tinuities that correspond to the kink-bands A and B in the model of rized by Suppe and Medwedeff (1990) and Shaw et al. (2005). Such
Suppe (1983). In domain 1 the velocity vectors are parallel to the folding is generally located in the hanging wall of a low-angle thrust
lower flat, in domain 2 they are parallel to the ramp and in domain fault. The fold tends to tighten towards the fault, which indicates
3 the velocity vectors are parallel to the upper flat (Fig. 6). This model that fold and fault are related. Often the fold has a distinct asymmetry
perfectly reproduces the structural style of simple fault-bend folds. with a steep or even overturned forelimb and a less steep backlimb
(Fig. 11). The forelimb is narrow, whereas the backlimb is wide. As a
consequence the vergence of the fold points towards the transport
Domain II direction of the thrust. In general, the folds are associated with low-
Domain I Domain III angle thrust faults, which have low displacements (McNaught and
Mitra, 1993). Typically the thrust dies out in the core of the fold. During
VII = V0 propagation of the fault, the fold grows and preserves its initial geome-
VZ
VI = V0 VIII
V0 VX γ try (Shaw et al., 2005). The deformation in the fold is controlled by the
fault angle and the form of the fold (McConnell, 1994). Ongoing defor-
Θ
90 - _
mation can lead to modifications of the fault-propagation fold geometry
Θ 2
90 - _
2 by breakthrough thrusting (Mercier et al., 1997).
Θ

4.4.2. Kinematic models

Fig. 9. Velocity model for fault-bend folds. The model has three velocity domains. The
Kinematic models for fault-propagation folds have been developed
velocity vectors are always parallel to the fault trace. by Suppe and Medwedeff (1990), Mitra (1990) and Mitra and Mount
Modified after Johnson and Berger (1989). (1998). The classic kinematic approach is the parallel kink-fold model
362 C. Brandes, D.C. Tanner / Earth-Science Reviews 138 (2014) 352–370
α'
η
α
Fig. 10. Fault-parallel flow. Material nodes move, parallel to the fault, along flow paths. A material line (l0) is transported by the length z over a concave ramp (angle 2η), which is bisected
by a flow deflector (fd). The line l0 undergoes strain (l1) and the angle α is now α′. The parallel line (l1′) is moved over a similar, but convex ramp, again by the length z. The line is restored
in length to l0 and the angle α′ is restored to α.
Modified after Ziesch et al. (2014).
introduced by Suppe and Medwedeff (1990). This model is similar to
the approach of Suppe (1983) for fault-bend folds.
The basic assumption is a bedding-plane-parallel detachment. The
folding is caused when the fault steps up over a ramp. The evolution
of anticlines is controlled by the formation of two kink bands. The
right axial surface of the lower kink band in Fig. 11 (named B in Suppe
and Medwedeff, 1990) terminates at the point where the fault steps
up and the left axial surface of the upper kink band (named A′ in
Suppe and Medwedeff, 1990) ends at the fault tip. Another important
plane is the surface AB′, which represents the axial surface of the fold
(Fig. 11). It starts from the center of the fault trace and terminates at
the point where A and B′ merge. The tip of the fault and the branch of
the axial surface AB′ are in the same stratigraphic position. When the
fault propagates, the beds roll from a flat position into the steep kink
band A–A′ (Suppe and Medwedeff, 1990). Therefore fold growth is a
self-similar process.
Jamison (1987) developed a model that extends the parallel fold
approach. In this model fault-parallel shear is possible. This is appropri-
ate to explain the tightening of fault-propagation folds that is observed
in many natural examples. Another kinematic model for fault-
propagation folds was presented by Mitra (1990). This model is based
on area-balancing and is suitable to describe the evolution of the fold
in the case where the fault continues to propagate through undeformed
units and the initial fault-propagation fold is subsequently translated
into a fault-bend fold as it passes over the footwall ramp (Mitra,
1990). Spang and McConnell (1997) showed a kinematic model for
fault-propagation folds, where deformation occurs in both the hanging
wall and footwall of the faults. This model can also produce a footwall
syncline and thus it is a step towards more realistic kinematic models.
The kink-band migration model of fault-propagation folding pro-
duces folds, in which the backlimb dip is parallel to the dip of the
ramp (Fig. 11). However, natural examples often show diverging dips
of ramp and backlimb (Tavani et al., 2006). Furthermore, analogue
B´
A ure, isostasy, and compaction. The advantage of velocity descriptions
B
A´
γ1 γ1 γ
γ great flexibility of the method to model combined effects of e.g. tecton-
γ γ
γ1 γ1 Θ AB´
Fig. 11. Geometry and kinematics of a fault-propagation fold (based on Suppe and
Medwedeff, 1990; Hardy and Poblet, 1995). See text for explanation.
α'
models have shown that faults in fold-and-thrust belts can have a
more complex propagation pattern, whereby a fault nucleates within
the deforming material and propagates upward and downward, finally
merging with the basal detachment to form a flat-ramp geometry
(Storti et al., 1997). Tavani et al. (2006) presented a kinematic model
called double-edge fault-propagation folding that implements these
observations and is able to overcome the limitations of previous models.
The double-edge fault-propagation approach assumes a basal detach-
ment above which layer-parallel shortening is accommodated (Tavani
and Storti, 2011). A reverse fault nucleates in the deforming material
above the basal detachment (Tavani et al., 2006). The key feature
of this model is the reverse fault that propagates in two directions,
upwards and downwards. Above this reverse fault hanging-wall defor-
mation occurs. Ongoing shortening leads to continued ramp propaga-
tion and finally the connection of the downward propagating tip with
the basal detachment (Tavani et al., 2006). The double-edge fault-
propagation folding approach is also suitable to model extensional
fault-related folds (Tavani et al., 2006) and the evolution of growth
strata patterns (Tavani et al., 2007).
Storti and Salvini (1996) proposed another kinematic model
for fault-propagation folding called progressive roll-over fault-
propagation folding. The aim of this approach is to compensate the
problems of the standard fault-propagation to produce overturned to
recumbent forelimbs, which are common in fold-and-thrust belts
(Storti and Salvini, 1996). The model of Storti and Salvini (1996)
extends the approach of Suppe and Medwedeff (1990) by the incorpo-
rating additional bending of the material in the hanging wall at the
tip line. This requires more axial surfaces than in the model of Suppe
and Medwedeff (1990) and splits the forelimb into a forward-dipping,
a recumbent, and an overturned sector.
4.4.3. Velocity models
Waltham (1989) showed that tectonic deformation can be modeled
using a velocity description and subsequently, Waltham and Hardy
(1995) presented velocity solutions for simple shear, pure shear, flex-
are their applicability to many different deformation styles and the
ics and sedimentation (Waltham and Hardy, 1995). A velocity field
provides the rate and movement direction of every point in the model
at all times and therefore allows the position of any element in the
model to be tracked. Because the velocity components of all the defor-
mation mechanisms can be added together, this approach is highly
flexible (Waltham and Hardy, 1995). The relevance to this study is
given by the work of Hardy and Poblet (1995), who applied velocity
descriptions to fault-bend folds and fault-propagation folds, and by
the work of Waltham (1989), who used a velocity approach to simulate
 C. Brandes, D.C. Tanner / Earth-Science Reviews 138 (2014) 352–370
the hanging-wall deformation above listric normal faults. Hardy and
Connors (2006) extended the velocity description to shear bend folding.
4.4.4. Trishear kinematics
As seen above, the kinematic model of Suppe and Medwedeff (1990)
produces folds with straight limbs and tight hinges that can be classified
as kink or chevron folds. This kink-fold model is limited to reproduce
several characteristics of fault-propagation folds, such as the curved
fold shapes and the presence of footwall synclines, as well as systematic
variations in the thickness and dip of syn-tectonic strata deposited on
the anticlinal forelimbs (Allmendinger et al., 2004). This problem was
solved by Erslev (1991) by the use of trishear kinematics to explain
the development of fault-propagation folds.
Trishear kinematics are consistent with the thinning of beds in the
anticline hinge and thickening of beds adjacent to the syncline hinge.
Hardy and Ford (1997) showed that in contrast to kink-band migration
models, trishear kinematics produce folds with smooth profiles and
rounded hinges. The trishear concept is a numerical approach that as-
sumes a triangular shear zone in front of the tip of a propagating fault
(Fig. 12) (Erslev, 1991). At the top of this zone the slip vectors are
equal to that of the hanging wall, whereas at the base the slip is zero.
In the trishear zone the slip vectors vary linearly in their magnitude
and orientation from top to bottom (Allmendinger, 1998). In the follow-
ing years, the trishear concept has been extended to a velocity descrip-
tion (Hardy and Ford, 1997; Zehnder and Allmendinger, 2000; Hardy
and Allmendinger, 2011). The velocity field is calculated in a Cartesian
coordinate system. The ζ–η coordinate systems is fixed to the initial
tip of fault, the X–Y coordinate system is attached to the tip of the
fault and moves with the fault tip (Fig. 12; Zehnder and Allmendinger,
2000; Allmendinger et al., 2012). A basic boundary condition is that
the hanging wall is a rigid block, in which all points move with the
same velocity parallel to the fault (comparable to fault-parallel flow,
see above). The footwall is fixed and the velocity vectors are zero
(Fig. 12). In addition, area is conserved in the trishear zone (Zehnder
and Allmendinger, 2000; Hardy and Allmendinger, 2011), however
bed thickness is not preserved, which means layer-parallel shortening
occurs. This must be considered when line-length balancing is carried
out.
The geometry of a trishear fold is determined by the ramp angle, the
slip along the fault, the position of the tip line (X/Y), the trishear angle
velocity vector
hanging wall
y (with constant
velocity)
actual
fault tip
propagation distance
v0
η ζ
ζ
initial ramp
fault tip angle
Fig. 12. Concept of the trishear approach. Trishear kinematics assumes a triangular shear zone in front of the tip of a propagating fault. At the top of this zone the slip vectors are equal to
that of the hanging wall, whereas at the base the slip is zero. Across the trishear zone, the velocity decreases. Material is deformed within the trishear zone.
Modified after Allmendinger (1998), Zehnder and Allmendinger (2000), Hardy and Allmendinger (2011).
363
and the propagation-to-slip ratio (Allmendinger et al., 2004). The
propagation-to-slip ratio is one of the most important controlling fac-
tors for the geometry of fault-propagation folds (e.g. McNaught and
Mitra, 1993; Hardy and Ford, 1997; Allmendinger, 1998). The value
of the propagation-to-slip ratio is largely responsible for the shape of
hanging-wall anticlines (Allmendinger and Shaw, 2000). The most
obvious advantage of trishear is the great flexibility in the choice of dif-
ferent propagation-to-slip ratios (Allmendinger et al., 2004). Trishear
allows the simulation of the strain distribution within fault-related
folds. In cases where strain leads to fracturing, this can help to identify
fractures reservoirs and predict strain paths (Allmendinger et al.,
2004). With trishear kinematics it is also possible to predict the position
of blind faults from the geometry of the hanging-wall anticline (Bump,
2003). The inverse grid search tool of Zehnder and Allmendinger
(2000) makes it possible to calculate the best-fit model for the tip line
position of the fault, based on the fold shape. In recent years the trishear
approach has been widely applied to natural examples (Hardy and Ford,
1997; Cristallini and Allmendinger, 2001; Cardozo, 2005) and further
computer programs that use trishear kinematics have been developed
(Liu et al., 2012). The most recent advances are the realization of
trishear in 3D (Cristallini et al., 2004; Cardozo, 2008) and the optimiza-
tion of the inverse trishear approach (Cardozo and Aanonsen, 2009;
Cardozo et al., 2011).
5. Folding mechanisms, distribution of deformation and
growth-strata evolution
There are two major folding mechanisms that occur in the field of
fault-related folding: folding by kink-band migration (also known as
active-hinge folding), and folding by progressive limb rotation (also
known as fix-hinge folding) (Shaw et al., 2005). These two folding
mechanisms strongly influence the distribution of strain in the fold
and the geometry of syn-tectonic sediments in the hanging wall of an
evolving anticline. In the case of kink-band migration, material moves
across the axial surfaces and the anticlinal limbs widen, but maintain a
constant dip (Suppe et al., 1992). This can be clearly seen in the case
of fault-bend folding (Fig. 13). The axial surfaces in the pre-growth stra-
ta are parallel. Migration of material across the axial surfaces allows a
progressive extension of the rock volume. By the final stage of folding,
deformation is distributed throughout the limb of the fault-bend fold
v0 trishear zone
x
1
2
footwall (fixed)
trishear
angle
364 C. Brandes, D.C. Tanner / Earth-Science Reviews 138 (2014) 352–370
A) fault-bend fold (limb widening)
growth
strata
B)
C) narrowing kink-band
widening backlimb
moderate limb deformation
Fig. 13. Comparison of kink-band migration folding and fixed-hinge folding. In the kink-band migration model (A), the limbs widen; in case of a fixed hinge (B), the limbs rotate. This
affects the related growth-strata. In kink-band migration folding, a growth triangle forms, whereas in the fixed-hinge case, the growth-strata beds also rotate. Based on Shaw et al.
(2005) and Salvini and Storti (2004).
(Salvini and Storti, 2004). Syn-tectonic sedimentation that exceeds the
uplift of the growing anticline is characterized by a narrowing kink-
band that has converging axial surfaces (Suppe et al. 1992; Shaw et al.,
2005). In the case of limb rotation, the hinge is fixed and the limbs
rotate, which means the limb dip progressively increases (Fig. 13;
Poblet and McClay, 1996; Shaw et al., 2005). The same rock volume
stays within the axial surfaces and undergoes progressive deformation.
In case of fixed-hinge folding, the fold has a narrow, strongly deformed
area in the axial surface sector, with highest strain at the pin of the
axial surface, which decreases towards the limbs (Salvini and Storti,
2004). Fixed-hinge folding is an important mechanism in the case
of detachment-folding, as shown by Poblet and McClay (1996). The
growth strata evolution reflects the progressive limb rotation; therefore
the limb dip shows a characteristic fanning. The syn-tectonic sediments
thin towards the anticline. Due to the limb rotation, the axial surfaces
change their dip and some material also moves across the axial surfaces
(Shaw et al., 2005).
6. Fault-related folding in extensional domains
Fault-related folds have also been recognized in extensional regimes.
They have been analyzed in the field (Howard and John, 1997; Corfield
and Sharp, 2000; Sharp et al., 2000), with analogue models (Withjack
et al., 1990), and numerical simulations (Khalil and McClay, 2002; Jin
and Groshong, 2006). Six different types of extensional fault-related
folds were summarized by Khalil and McClay (2002): a) hanging-wall
fault-bend folds formed due to variations in fault dip, b) “normal”
drag folds developed as a consequence of frictional resistance on a
normal fault, with hanging-wall strata dragged up and footwall strata
dragged down the fault surface, c) “reverse” drag folds with hanging-
A) detachment fold (limb rotation)
B)
C) strong deformation in the hinge area
wall strata that are bent down at the fault plane (roll-over anticline),
d) transverse folds caused by along-strike changes in fault displace-
ment, e) fault-propagation folds above the tip line of a normal fault
and f) differential compaction over a pre-existing fault-scarp. Exten-
sional forced folds can be also added to this list.
The recognition of fault-propagation folding in extensional regimes
can explain the presence of monoclines and overturned beds (Sharp
et al., 2000), as well as the occurrence of hanging-wall synclines
(Khalil and McClay, 2002).
Kinematic models for extensional fault-propagation folds have been
also developed based on the trishear approach (Hardy and McClay,
1999; Jin and Groshong, 2006). Fig. 14 shows a comparison of contrac-
tional and extensional trishear folding. As in the compressional fault-
propagation case (Fig. 14A), a triangular zone above the tip line of the
(in this case) normal fault is assumed that is characterized by a velocity
field that decreases from the hanging-wall to the footwall (Jin and
Groshong, 2006). This velocity field determines the strain rate in the
trishear zone. As a consequence of fault-propagation, a monocline
evolves above the tip line of the normal fault (Fig. 14B). The geometry
of the fold and the strain distribution is strongly controlled by the
propagation-to-slip ratio of the fault (Jin and Groshong, 2006). This
is comparable to the compressional fault-propagation folds. High P/S
ratios produce narrow folds that are less deformed. The trishear angle
is an important controlling factor for the geometry of the hanging-wall
syncline. Large trishear angles cause only small amounts of footwall
deformation and wide hanging-wall synclines, whereas small trishear
angles produce the opposite (Hardy and McClay, 1999; Khalil and
McClay, 2002). The trishear approach allows the simulation of asymmet-
ric extensional fault-propagation folds, which resemble the geometry of
field examples (Khalil and McClay, 2002; Jin and Groshong, 2006).
 C. Brandes, D.C. Tanner / Earth-Science Reviews 138 (2014) 352–370
A)
contraction
trishear zone
Fig. 14. Comparison of trishear in A) compressional and B) extensional regimes. The fault dip is 50°, trishear angle is 60°, and the P/S ratio is 2 in both cases. The slip increment is equal.
Simulation was carried out using the software FaultFoldForward by R. Allmendinger.
7. Fault-related folding and the structure of deforming wedges
Fault-related folds are dominating elements of fold-and-thrust
belts (e.g. Boyer, 1986; Vann et al., 1986) and accretionary wedges
(e.g. Biju-Duval et al., 1982; Gulick et al., 2004). In general, the overall
geometry of such deforming wedges can be described by the critical-
taper wedge theory (Davis et al., 1983; Dahlen, 1984; Dahlen et al.,
1984), in which fault-related folds are largely responsible for the inter-
nal structure.
Trains of fault-bend folds in contractional regimes, such as delta
toe areas and accretionary wedges, are often dominated by ramps
that sole out into a single décollement layer (Zoetemeijer and Sassi,
1992; Corredor et al., 2005). The position of the initial décollement is
controlled by pore fluid pressure, the strength of the rocks, and the
accretion mode of the deforming wedge (Bigi et al., 2003). The position
of the initial décollement defines the area of the deforming wedge.
However, the depth of the basal décollement can vary along strike
(Bigi et al., 2003). The décollement dip has a strong impact on the geom-
etry of fault-related folds in the hanging wall. Mariotti and Doglioni
(2000) showed that the distance between the ramps increases with in-
creasing dip of the basal décollement. On the other hand, the distance
between the ramps is a controlling factor for the geometry and kinemat-
ics of piggy-back basins on top of the wedge (Doglioni et al., 1999a). The
décollement dip can be also a function of the orientation of the related
subduction zone. Doglioni et al. (1999b) showed that in westward-
directed subduction zones, the décollement is downwarped, while in
east to northeast-directed subduction zones, the related décollement
365
B)
extension
trishear zone
ramps up to the surface. Variations in décollement dip also control
whether the fault-related folds will be exhumed and eroded (flat
décollement) or buried under syntectonic sediments (steep hinterland-
dipping décollement) (Mariotti and Doglioni, 2000). In addition, there
is also interplay of fold uplift, regional subsidence, and sedimentation
rate (Doglioni and Prosser, 1997). The total fold uplift is the fold uplift
rate minus the regional subsidence. When the uplift rate of the fold is
higher than the subsidence rate, the fold will be eroded and the onlap
of the syn-tectonic strata will move away from the anticlinal crest. If
the total fold uplift is negative and the sedimentation rate is high enough,
the syn-tectonic strata will move towards the anticlinal crest (Doglioni
and Prosser, 1997). A comparable interplay can be observed along
normal faults. In such cases, the total subsidence is the sum of fault-
controlled subsidence and the regional subsidence; it can be positive or
negative. In addition, the subsidence rate can be higher or lower than
the sedimentation rate. The interplay of fault slip, regional subsidence,
sedimentation rate, and sea-level fluctuations determine the architec-
ture of growth-strata along normal faults (Doglioni et al., 1998). This
concept is applicable to the sedimentation above roll-over anticlines
along normal faults.
8. Fault-related folding and inversion structures
Inversion is defined as the reactivation of a normal fault in a reverse
sense. Thus inversion structures are characterized by a two or more-
phase fault evolution. In general, initial normal movement is followed
by reverse movement along the same fault. The resulting hanging wall
366 C. Brandes, D.C. Tanner / Earth-Science Reviews 138 (2014) 352–370
is an antiformal feature that is called a “positive inversion structure”
(Williams et al., 1989), “harpoon”, or “arrow head” structure (McClay,
1992; McClay and Buchanan, 1992; McClay, 1995). Inversion structures
have been described by various authors from different locations
(Roberts, 1989; Letouzey et al., 1990; Lowell, 1995), and they are char-
acteristic of complex intracontinental basins (Kockel, 2003; Mazur et al.,
2005). Inversion structures can occur on a kilometer- (Letouzey et al.,
1990) to meter-scale (Brandes et al., 2012). A comprehensive review
of inversion structures is given by Turner and Williams (2004).
Inversion structures are further examples of fault-related folding.
Their antiformal geometry resembles the shape of fault-propagation
folds with a typically steep forelimb and a gently-dipping backlimb.
Anticlines can be formed in two ways along an inversion structure.
Initial normal faulting may cause the formation of anticlinal roll-overs
(Yamada and McClay, 2004). The subsequent reverse movements pro-
duce a hanging-wall inversion anticline. Yamada and McClay (2004)
showed that the shape of these anticlines is controlled by the geometry
of the fault plane (concave-up/convex-up). Convex-up listric faults pro-
duce less asymmetrical hanging-wall anticlines than the concave-up
listric faults.
9. Discussion
Kinematic models of fault-related folding evolved from the early
1980s onward. The ignition was the development of the kink-band
migration models (Suppe, 1983; Suppe and Medwedeff, 1990), which
then were followed by numerical descriptions (e.g. Waltham, 1989;
Erslev, 1991; Hardy and Poblet, 1995). All kinematic models of fault-
related folding should fulfill the general criteria for models in Earth
Sciences as defined by Greenwood (1989). Models can be validated by
testing their predictions, although it must be kept in mind that models
are often not unique and different models may produce the same geom-
etry (e.g. Thorbjornsen and Dunne, 1997).
Since their development the advantages of these kinematic models
have become apparent. They give insight into deformation processes
on different scales (Yielding et al., 1996; Lohr et al., 2008) and they
allow the prediction of parameters, such as the fault geometry, which
are not usually exposed (Davis and Namson, 1994; Allmendinger and
Shaw, 2000). Their simplistic approach can isolate important controlling
factors e.g. the propagation-to-slip ratio, as demonstrated by Hardy and
Ford (1997) and Allmendinger (1998). Numerical kinematic models are
also able to describe different deformation styles (Waltham and Hardy,
1995) and allow a great flexibility in the choice of the input parameters
(Allmendinger et al., 2004). Using kinematic models of fault-related
folding can significantly reduce the uncertainties in the reflection seis-
mics workflow by predicting fault trace from fold geometry and tip
line location from the propagation-to-slip ratio.
Besides these advantages, there are also limitations of the kine-
matic models. First of all, they mostly lack a mechanical foundation
(Allmendinger et al., 2004). The mechanical stratigraphy of a succession
has a distinct impact on the deformation style (e.g. Fischer and Jackson,
1999). Hardy (2011) pointed out that velocity models like trishear can
only describe large-scale structures and the bulk strain, whereas the
distinct element method is able to reproduce small-scale features and
allow a more detailed strain analysis. In addition, the lack of rheology
in the model means that aspects of temporal evolution are not con-
sidered. In case of multi-layer folds, several parameters such as the
material properties of the individual layers, the interlayer cohesion,
contrasts in the layer properties, and the bulk moduli of the whole
layer package control the behavior during deformation (Woodward,
1997). Johnson and Johnson (2002) have shown that the shape of the
forelimb of forced folds is strongly controlled by the rheology of the
cover but only weakly controlled by the geometry of the fault.
With true geomechanical models it should be possible, for instance,
to simulate parallel and similar fold morphologies, or predict the path-
ways of new faults. Due to the need to maintain a physical continuum,
the velocity field of kinematic models cannot incorporate effects such
as strain partitioning. Finite element modeling and finite difference
modeling studies that implement, e.g. the mechanical stratigraphy,
can close this gap and allow the analysis of the related effects on fault
and fold evolution (e.g. Strayer and Hudleston, 1997; Doglioni et al.,
2011; Albertz and Lingrey, 2012; Albertz and Sanz, 2012; Smart et al.,
2012). Discrete element modeling is also an appropriate tool to analyze
the impact of material properties like the mechanical stratigraphy
on the deformation style (Hardy and Finch, 2007). Finch et al. (2003)
demonstrated the effects of the cover strength on the geometry of
fault-propagation folds. In this context a weak cover causes wide
zones of deformation with limited fault propagation, while a cover
with a high strength results in narrow zones of deformation and pro-
nounced fault propagation (Finch et al., 2003).
It is immanent that the physical process of generating a kinematic
model requires fixing the model geometry, i.e. the geometry of fault,
stratigraphic units, and other markers. The modeling itself then will
add further constraints to predict the (future or extended) fault
geometry.
Kinematic models of fault-propagation folding, fault-bend folding,
and detachment folding tend to oversimplify the natural deformation
processes (Storti et al., 1997). With scaled sand-box models, Storti
et al. (1997) were able to show that during the formation of a thrust-
related anticline, the kinematic regime changes from layer-parallel
shortening, through detachment-folding and fault-propagation folding,
to fault-bend folding. This shows that the mechanism of fault-related
folding may change over time (Storti et al., 1997) and this should be
considered in the setup of kinematic models (see below “the future of
fault-related folding kinematic models”).
Furthermore, all faults and folds have three dimensional termina-
tions and therefore 3D kinematic models are required to cope with
natural variations in fault slip and fold geometry. At present, only
the trishear method (Cristallini et al., 2004; Cardozo, 2008) can fulfill
this criterion. Other methods use parallel 2D sections to achieve a
kinematically-unraveled 3D geometrical model. For instance fault-
parallel flow in 3D can only maintain bed length in the transport
direction, but not in any other section that is oblique to the transport
direction (Tanner et al., 2003; Ziesch et al., 2014).
Fold models are an important tool for predicting strain and thus the
orientation and distribution of small-scale deformation features such as
fractures (e.g. Fischer and Wilkerson, 2000; Salvini and Storti, 2004).
They therefore have a predictive capability (Greenwood, 1989). Never-
theless, the results strongly depend on which model is used. In case of
fixed-hinge folding, the deformation is concentrated in the crest of the
anticline, whereas for active hinge folding it is manifested on the
limbs (Salvini and Storti, 2001). This stresses the demand for unified
kinematic models of fault-related folding.
10. The future of fault-related folding kinematic models
Though much work was carried out on fault-related folding during
the last century, there is still potential for further research. Future
work should focus on integrating seismic-scale and outcrop-scale
observations to predict the orientation of features like joint sets or
deformation bands. This would require the development of coupled
kinematic and geomechanical models.
Understanding small-scale structural elements like joints and defor-
mations bands is crucial to develop more comprehensive models that
consider the influence of structural elements on the sub-surface fluid
flow. Increasing energy demands makes it imperative to achieve better
reservoir characterization in hydrocarbon geology and geothermal
applications. Kinematic fault-related folding models are a strong tool
to predict the orientation of small-scale tectonic fabrics, as demonstrat-
ed by Lohr et al. (2008) and Brandenburg et al. (2012). Further research
on fault-related folding should also focus on the evolution of soft
 C. Brandes, D.C. Tanner / Earth-Science Reviews 138 (2014) 352–370
A) fault-parallel flow
loose pin
B) trishear
loose pin
Fig. 15. Fault-related folds produced by A) fault-parallel flow over a detachment and ramp of 30°, B) trishear of a ramp propagating upwards from a detachment at 30°, P/S ratio 2. The slip
increment is equal. The resulting hanging-wall folds are substantially different in their geometry, which is a function of the P/S ratio. Future algorithms could aim to combine these
approaches to create a unified kinematic model.
sediment fault-related folds to generate holistic models for mass
wasting along continental margins.
Fault geometry is more complicated than has been modeled up
to now. Using natural fault geometries would boost the reliability of
the results and lead to the development of new algorithms. Steps into
this direction were recently made by Brandenburg (2013) who extend-
ed the trishear algorithm to naturally-curved fault planes.
All kinematic models of fault-related folding in the present-day
include similar simplifications and limitations, such as:
1. They enforce the same kinematic behavior throughout the model. If
they could be combined, for instance using 40% trishear and 60%
fault-parallel flow, this would allow the chance to get closer to natu-
ral deformation (Fig. 15).
2. They are mostly two dimensional. Natural deformation is always
three-dimensional. Two-dimensional models can only model plane
strain, which is exceptional in nature. All present-day algorithms
should attempt to make the huge leap to three dimensions. The
result would be far more realistic, albeit at the cost of computing
power.
There are a number of general ways that the algorithms could be
improved or even new algorithms written. For instance:
1. Analogue models, using, for instance, plasticine or sand, could be
used, maybe analyzed using, e.g. particle image velocimetry, to
design new velocity models for fault movement. The results could
then be converted to numerical algorithms for kinematic modeling.
2. Ground-truthing. The authors are of the opinion that far more
emphasis should be placed on the analysis of natural structures
(e.g. Tanner et al., 2010). Algorithms can then be discriminated as
to their applicability to particular structures. An algorithm, however
good, is, without ground-truthing, of much less value.
3. Extraction of material properties from geophysical methods, such as
reflection seismics. Examples of this include Poisson's Ratio from the
seismic reflection velocities, i.e. Vp/Vs (e.g. Gassaway and Richgels,
1983; Beilecke et al., 2014). This will allow rheological parameters
to be entered in to models.
11. Conclusions
Fault-related folding is one of the most important deformation
processes in structural geology at all scales and occurs in very different
tectonic settings (compressional, extensional and strike-slip). Never-
theless, the evolution of the structures can be explained or be at least
partly reconstructed by simple kinematic models. Basic prerequisites
367
fixed pin
A
sheared fixed pin
are the presence of layer-parallel strain and mechanical stratigraphy.
Layer-parallel strain is important for the evolution of detachment
folds and fault-bend faults, where fixed stratigraphic detachments are
involved. The mechanical stratigraphy determines the position of de-
tachments and the development of ramps, which are the key elements
for fault-bend folds and fault-propagation folds. Mechanical stratigra-
phy is also significant for the development of detachment folds because
they require a stack of less competent and competent rock units.
Kinematic models clearly enhanced the understanding of the defor-
mation processes that control fault-related folds. However, this does not
mean that fold geometry is uniquely related to fault geometry; different
kinematic approaches can lead to the same fold shape.
Acknowledgments
This manuscript could not be possible without the discussion and
suggestions of many colleagues over many years. We would like to
thank P. Blisniuk, B. Leiss, K. Reicherter, A. Vollbrecht, and J. Winsemann
for discussions. We are grateful to F. Storti, E. Tavarnelli and an anony-
mous reviewer for their constructive comments and C. Doglioni for
helpful comments and editorial work. Midland Valley Exploration Ltd.
is gratefully acknowledged for the use of their software package Move.
References
Aikulola, U.O., Olotu, S.O., Yamusa, I., 2010. Investigating fault shadows in the Niger Delta.
Lead. Edge 29, 16–22.
Albertz, M., Lingrey, S., 2012. Critical state finite element models of contractional fault-
related folding: part 1. Mechanical analysis. Tectonophysics 576–577, 133–149.
Albertz, M., Sanz, P.F., 2012. Critical state finite element models of contractional fault-
related folding: part 2. Mechanical analysis. Tectonophysics 576–577, 150–170.
Allmendinger, R.W., 1998. Inverse and forward numerical modeling of trishear fault-
propagation folds. Tectonics 17, 640–656.
Allmendinger, R.W., Shaw, J.H., 2000. Estimation of fault propagation distance from fold
shape: implications for earthquake hazard assessment. Geology 28, 1099–1102.
Allmendinger, R.W., Zapata, T., Manceda, R., Dzelalija, F., 2004. Trishear kinematic model-
ing of structures, with examples from the Neuquén Basin, Argentina. In: McClay, K.R.
(Ed.), Thrust Tectonics and Hydrocarbon Systems AAPG Mem. 82, 356–371.
Allmendinger, R.W., Cardozo, N., Fisher, D.M., 2012. Structural Geology Algorithms —
Vectors and Tensors. Cambridge University Press (289 pp.).
Alsop, G.I., Marco, S., 2012. A large-scale radial pattern of seismogenic slumping towards
the Dead Sea Basin. J. Geol. Soc. Lond. 169, 99–110.
Apotria, T., Wilkerson, M.S., 2002. Seismic expression and kinematics of a fault-related
fold termination: Rosario structure, Maracaibo Basin, Venezuela. J. Struct. Geol. 24,
671–687.
Aydin, A., 2000. Fractures, faults, and hydrocarbon entrapment, migration and flow. Mar.
Pet. Geol. 17, 797–814.
Becker, A., 1995. Conical drag folds as kinematic indicators for strike-slip fault motion.
J. Struct. Geol. 17, 1497–1506.
Beilecke, T., Ziesch, J., Tanner, D.C., Krawczyk, C.M., the Protect Research Group, 2014.
Poisson's ratio model derived from P- and S-wave reflection seismic data at
368 C. Brandes, D.C. Tanner / Earth-Science Reviews 138 (2014) 352–370
the CO2CRC Otway Project pilot site, Australia. European Geosciences Union General
Assembly 2014, Vienna, Austria, 27 April–2 May 2014.
Berger, P., Johnson, A.M., 1980. First order analysis of deformation of a thrust sheet
moving over a ramp. Tectonophysics 70, 9–24.
Bernard, S., Avouac, J.-P., Dominguez, S., Simoes, M., 2007. Kinematics of fault-related
folding derived from sandbox experiments. J. Geophys. Res. 112, B03S12.
Bigi, S., Lenci, F., Doglioni, C., Moore, J.C., Carminati, E., Scrocca, D., 2003. Décollement
depth vs accretionary prism dimension in the Apennines and the Barbados. Tectonics
22, 1010.
Biju-Duval, B., Le Quellec, P., Mascle, A., Renard, V., Valery, P., 1982. Multibeam bathymet-
ric survey and high resolution seismic investigations on the Barbados Ridge Complex
(eastern Caribbean): a key to the knowledge and interpretation of an accretionary
wedge. Tectonophysics 86, 275–304.
Biot, M.A., 1961. Theory of folding of stratified visco-elastic media and its implications in
tectonics and orogenesis. GSA Bull. 72, 1595–1620.
Boyer, S.E., 1986. Styles of folding within thrust sheets: examples from the Appalachian
and Rocky Mountains of the USA and Canada. J. Struct. Geol. 8, 325–339.
Brandenburg, J.P., 2013. Trishear for curved faults. J. Struct. Geol. 53, 80–94.
Brandenburg, J.P., Alpak, F.O., Solum, J.G., Naruk, S.J., 2012. A kinematic trishear model to
predict deformation bands in a fault-propagation fold, East Kaibab monocline, Utah.
AAPG Bull. 96, 109–132.
Brandes, C., Le Heron, D.P., 2010. The glaciotectonic deformation of Quaternary sediments
by fault-propagation folding. Proc. Geol. Assoc. 121, 270–280.
Brandes, C., Astorga, A., Back, S., Littke, R., Winsemann, J., 2007a. Fault controls on
sediment distribution patterns, Limón Basin, Costa Rica. J. Pet. Geol. 30, 25–40.
Brandes, C., Astorga, A., Blisniuk, P., Littke, R., Winsemann, J., 2007b. Anatomy of anti-
clines, piggy-back basins and growth strata: a case study from the Limón fold-and-
thrust belt, Costa Rica. In: Nichols, G., Williams, E., Paola, C. (Eds.), Sedimentary
Processes, Environments and Basins. IAS Special Publication, 38, pp. 91–110.
Brandes, C., Winsemann, J., Roskosch, J., Meinsen, J., Tanner, D.C., Frechen, M., Steffen, H.,
Wu, P., 2012. Activity of the Osning thrust during the late Weichselian: ice-sheet and
lithosphere interactions. Quat. Sci. Rev. 38, 49–62.
Braun, J., Sambridge, M., 1994. Dynamical Lagrangian Remeshing (DLR): a new algorithm
for solving large strain deformation problems and its application to fault-propagation
folding. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 124, 211–220.
Bump, A.P., 2003. Reactivation, trishear modelling, and folded basement in Laramide
uplifts: implications for the origins of intra-continental faults. GSA Today 2003,
4–10 (March).
Burbank, D.W., McLean, J.K., Bullen, M., Abdrakhmatov, K.Y., Miller, M.M., 1999.
Partitioning of intermontane basins by thrust-related folding, Tien Shan, Kyrgyzstan.
Basin Res. 11, 75–92.
Burke, H., Phillips, E., Lee, J.R., Wilkinson, I.P., 2009. Imbricate thrust stack model for the
formation of glaciotectonic rafts: an example from the Middle Pleistocene of north
Norfolk, UK. Boreas 38, 620–637.
Buxtorf, A., 1916. Prognosen und Befunde beim Hauensteinbasis- und Grenchenbergtunnel
und die Bedeutung der letztern für die Geologie des Juragebirges. Abh. Naturforsch. Ges.
Basel 27, 181–205.
Cadell, H.M., 1889. Experimental researches in mountain building. Trans. R. Soc. Edinb. 35,
337–357.
Calamita, F., Pace, P., Satolli, S., 2012. Coexistence of fault-propagation and fault-bend
folding in curve-shaped foreland fold-and-thrust belts: examples from the Northern
Apennines (Italy). Terra Nova 24, 396–406.
Camerlo, R.H., Benson, E.F., 2006. Geometric and seismic interpretation of the Perdido fold
belt: northwestern deep-water Gulf of Mexico. AAPG Bull. 90, 363–386.
Cardozo, N., 2005. Trishear modelling of fold bedding data along a topographic profile.
J. Struct. Geol. 27, 495–502.
Cardozo, N., 2008. Trishear in 3D. Algorithms, implementation, and limitations. J. Struct.
Geol. 30, 327–340.
Cardozo, N., Aanonsen, S., 2009. Optimized trishear inverse modeling. J. Struct. Geol. 31,
546–560.
Cardozo, N., Jackson, C.A.-L., Whipp, P.S., 2011. Determining the uniqueness of best-fit
trishear models. J. Struct. Geol. 33, 1063–1078.
Chamberlin, R.T., 1910. The Appalachian folds of central Pennsylvania. J. Geol. 18,
228–251.
Chapman, T.J., Williams, G.D., 1984. Displacement–distance methods in the analysis of
fold-thrust structures and linked-fault systems. J. Geol. Soc. 141, 121–128.
Chen, W.-S., Huang, B.-S., Chen, Y.-G., Lee, Y.-H., Yang, C.-N., Lo, C.-H., Chang, H.-C., Sung,
Q.-C., Huang, N.-W., Lin, C.-C., Sung, S.-H., Lee, K.-J., 2001. 1999 Chi-Chi earthquake: a
case study on the role of thrust-ramp structures for generating earthquakes. Bull.
Seismol. Soc. Am. 91, 986–994.
Cloos, H., 1936. Einführung in die Geologie. Verlag von Gebrüder Bornträger, Berlin (503
pp.).
Contreras, J., 2010. A model for low amplitude detachment folding and syntectonic
stratigraphy based on the conservation of mass equation. J. Struct. Geol. 32, 566–579.
Cooper, M.A., Trayner, P.M., 1986. Thrust-surface geometry: implications for thrust-belt
evolution and section-balancing techniques. J. Struct. Geol. 8, 305–312.
Corfield, S., Sharp, I.R., 2000. Structural style and stratigraphic architecture of fault prop-
agation folding in extensional settings: a seismic example from the Smorbukk area,
Halten Terrace, Mid-Norway. Basin Res. 12, 329–341.
Corredor, F., Shaw, J.H., Bilotti, F., 2005. Structural styles in the deep-water fold and thrust
belts of the Niger Delta. AAPG Bull. 89, 753–780.
Cristallini, E.O., Allmendinger, R.W., 2001. Pseudo 3-D modeling of trishear fault-
propagation folding. J. Struct. Geol. 23, 1883–1899.
Cristallini, E.O., Giambiagi, L., Allmendinger, R.W., 2004. True three-dimensional trishear:
a kinematic model for strike-slip and oblique-slip deformation. Geol. Soc. Am. Bull.
116, 938–952.
Culshaw, M.G., 2005. From concept towards reality: developing the attributed 3D geological
model of the shallow subsurface. Q. J. Eng. Geol. Hydrogeol. 38, 231–284.
Daëron, M., Klinger, Y., Tapponnier, P., Elias, A., Jacques, E., Sursock, A., 2007. 12,000-
year-long record of 10 to 13 paleoearthquakes on the Yammoûneh fault, levant
fault system, Lebanon. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 97, 749–771.
Dahlen, F.A., 1984. Noncohesive critical Coulomb wedges: an exact solution. J. Geophys.
Res. 89, 10125–10133.
Dahlen, F.A., Suppe, J., Davis, D., 1984. Mechanics of fold-and-thrust belts and accretionary
wedges: cohesive Coulomb theory. J. Geophys. Res. 89, 10087–10101.
Dahlstrom, C.D.A., 1969. Balanced cross sections. Can. J. Earth Sci. 6, 743–757.
Dahlstrom, C.D.A., 1990. Geometric constraints derived from the law of conservation of
volume and applied to evolutionary models for detachment folding. AAPG Bull. 74,
336–344.
Davis, T.L., Namson, J.S., 1994. A balanced cross-section of the 1994 Northridge earth-
quake, southern California. Nature 372, 167–169.
Davis, D., Suppe, J., Dahlen, F.A., 1983. Mechanics of fold-and-thrust belts and accretionary
wedges. J. Geophys. Res. 88, 1153–1172.
Delcaillau, B., Deffontaines, B., Floissac, L., Angelier, J., Deramond, J., Souquet, P., Chu, H.T.,
Lee, J.F., 1998. Morphotectonic evidence from lateral propagation of an active frontal
fold; Pakuashan anticline, foothills of Taiwan. Geomorphology 24, 263–290.
Delcaillau, B., Carozza, J.M., Laville, E., 2006. Recent fold growth and drainage development:
the Janauri and Chandigarh anticlines in the Siwalik foothills, northwest India.
Geomorphology 76, 241–256.
DePaor, D.G., 1988. Balanced section in thrust belts part 1: construction. AAPG Bull. 72,
73–90.
DeVecchio, D.E., Keller, E.A., Fuchs, M., Owen, L.A., 2012. Late Pleistocene structural
evolution of the Camarillo fold belt: implications for lateral fault growth and seismic
hazard in southern California. Lithosphere 4, 91–109.
Doglioni, C., Carminati, E., 2008. Structural styles and Dolomites field trip. Mem. Descr.
Carta Geol. Ital. 82, 1–299.
Doglioni, C., Prosser, G., 1997. Fold uplift versus regional subsidence and sedimentation
rate. Mar. Pet. Geol. 14, 179–190.
Doglioni, C., D'Agostino, N., Mariotti, G., 1998. Normal faulting versus regional subsidence
and sedimentation rate. Mar. Pet. Geol. 15, 737–750.
Doglioni, C., Merlini, S., Cantarella, G., 1999a. Foredeep geometries at the front of the
Apennines in the Ionian Sea (central Mediterranean). Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 168,
243–254.
Doglioni, C., Harabaglia, P., Merlini, S., Mongelli, F., Peccerillo, A., Piromallo, C., 1999b.
Orogens and slabs vs. their direction of subduction. Earth-Sci. Rev. 45, 167–208.
Doglioni, C., Barba, S., Carminati, E., Riguzzi, F., 2011. Role of the brittle–ductile transition
on fault activation. Phys. Earth Planet. Inter. 184, 160–171.
Dolan, J.F., Christofferson, S.A., Shaw, J.H., 2003. Recognition of paleoearthquakes on the
Puente Hills blind thrust fault, California. Science 300, 115–118.
Egan, S.S., Buddin, T.S., Kane, S.J., Williams, G.D., 1997. Three-dimensional modelling and
visualisation in structural geology: new techniques for the restoration and balancing
of volumes. Proceedings of the 1996 geoscience information group conference on
geological visualisation. Electron. Geol. 1, 67–82.
Elliott, D., 1983. The construction of balanced cross sections. J. Struct. Geol. 5, 101.
Epard, J.-L., Groshong, R.H., 1993. Excess area and depth to detachment. AAPG Bull. 77,
1291–1302.
Epard, J.-L., Groshong, R.H., 1995. Kinematic model of detachment folding including limb
rotation, fixed hinges and layer-parallel strain. Tectonophysics 247, 85–103.
Erickson, S.G., 1995. Mechanics of triangle zones and passive roof duplexes: Implications
of finite element models. Tectonophysics 245, 1–11.
Erickson, S.G., Jamison, W.R., 1995. Viscous–plastic finite-element models of fault-bend
folds. J. Struct. Geol. 17, 561–573.
Erslev, E.A., 1991. Trishear fault-propagation folding. Geology 19, 617–620.
Erslev, E.A., Mayborn, K.R., 1997. Multiple geometries and modes of fault-propagation
folding in the Canadian thrust belt. J. Struct. Geol. 19, 321–335.
Ferrill, D.A., Morris, A.P., McGinnis, R.N., 2012. Extensional fault-propagation folding in
mechanically layered rocks: the case against the frictional drag mechanism.
Tectonophysics 576–577, 78–85.
Finch, E., Hardy, S., Gawthorpe, R., 2003. Discrete element modelling of contractional
fault-propagation folding above rigid basement fault blocks. J. Struct. Geol. 25,
515–528.
Finch, E., Hardy, S., Gawthorpe, R., 2004. Discrete element modelling of extensional fault-
propagation folding above rigid basement fault blocks. Basin Res. 16, 489–506.
Fischer, M.P., Jackson, P.B., 1999. Stratigraphic controls on deformation patterns in fault-
related folds: a detachment fold example from the Sierra Madre Oriental, northeast
Mexico. J. Struct. Geol. 21, 613–633.
Fischer, M.P., Wilkerson, M.S., 2000. Predicting the orientation of joints from fold shape:
results of pseudo-three-dimensional modeling and curvature analysis. Geology 28,
15–18.
Ford, M., Williams, E.A., Artoni, A., Vergés, J., Hardy, S., 1997. Progressive evolution of a
fault-related fold pair from growth strata geometries, Sant Llorenc de Morunys, SE
Pyrenees. J. Struct. Geol. 19, 413–441.
Gassaway, G.S., Richgels, H.J., 1983. SAMPLE: seismic amplitude measurements for primary
lithology estimation. 53rd An. Inter. Meeting Soc. Expl. Geophysics September, Las
Vegas, pp. 610–613.
Grasemann, B., Martel, S., Passchier, C., 2005. Reverse and normal drag along a fault.
J. Struct. Geol. 27, 999–1010.
Greenwood, H.J., 1989. On models and modeling. Can. Mineral. 27, 1–14.
Groshong, R.H., Epard, J.-L., 1994. The role of strain in area-constant detachment folding.
J. Struct. Geol. 16, 613–618.
Gulick, S.P.S., Bangs, N.L.B., Shipley, T.H., Nakamura, Y., Moore, G., Kuramoto, S., 2004.
Three-dimensional architecture of the Nankai accretionary prism's imbricate thrust
 C. Brandes, D.C. Tanner / Earth-Science Reviews 138 (2014) 352–370
zone off Cape Muroto, Japan: Prism reconstruction via en echelon thrust propagation.
J. Geophys. Res. 109, B02105.
Guzofski, C.A., Shaw, J.H., Lin, G., Shearer, P.M., 2007. Seismically active wedge structure be-
neath the Coalinga anticline, San Joaquin basin, California. J. Geophys. Res. 112, B03S05.
Hamblin, W.K., 1965. Origin of “reverse drag” on the downthrown side of normal faults.
GSA Bull. 76, 1145–1164.
Hansen, E., 1971. Strain Facies. Springer, New York (207 pp.).
Hardy, S., 1995. A method for quantifying the kinematics of fault-bend folding. J. Struct.
Geol. 17, 1785–1788.
Hardy, S., 2011. Cover deformation above steep, basement normal faults: insights from 2D
discrete element modeling. Mar. Pet. Geol. 28, 966–972.
Hardy, S., Allmendinger, R.W., 2011. Trishear: a review of kinematics, mechanics, and
applications. In: McClay, K., Shaw, J.H., Suppe, J. (Eds.), Thrust-fault Related Folding
AAPG Mem. 94, 95–119.
Hardy, S., Connors, C.D., 2006. Short note: a velocity description of shear fault-bend
folding. J. Struct. Geol. 28, 536–543.
Hardy, S., Finch, E., 2005. Discrete-element modelling of detachment folding. Basin Res.
17, 507–520.
Hardy, S., Finch, E., 2007. Mechanical stratigraphy and the transition from trishear to
kink-band fault-propagation folds forms above blind basement thrust faults. A
discrete-element study. Mar. Pet. Geol. 24, 75–90.
Hardy, S., Ford, M., 1997. Numerical modelling of trishear fault propagation folding.
Tectonics 16, 841–854.
Hardy, S., McClay, K., 1999. Kinematic modelling of extensional fault-propagation folding.
J. Struct. Geol. 21, 695–702.
Hardy, S., Poblet, J., 1994. Geometric and numerical model of progressive limb rotation in
detachment folds. Geology 22, 371–374.
Hardy, S., Poblet, J., 1995. The velocity description of deformation. Paper 2: sediment
geometries associated with fault-bend and fault-propagation folds. Mar. Pet. Geol.
12, 165–176.
Hardy, S., Poblet, J., McClay, K., Waltham, D., 1996. Mathematical modelling of growth
strata associated with fault-related fold structures. Modern Developments in
Structural Interpretation, Validation and Modeling, pp. 265–282.
Homza, T.X., Wallace, W.K., 1995. Geometric and kinematic models for detachment folds
with fixed and variable detachment depths. J. Struct. Geol. 17, 575–588.
Homza, T.X., Wallace, W.K., 1997. Detachment folds with fixed hinges and variable
detachment depth, northeastern Brooks Range, Alaska. J. Struct. Geol. 19, 337–354.
Hopkins, O.B., 1917. Oil and Gas Possibilities of the Hatchetigbee Anticline, Alabama.
Hossack, J.R., 1979. The use of balanced cross-sections in the calculation of orogenic
contraction: a review. J. Geol. Soc. 136, 705–711.
Howard, K.A., John, B.E., 1997. Fault-related folding during extension: plunging
basement-cored folds in the Basin and Range. Geology 25, 223–226.
Ingram, G.M., Chisholm, T.J., Grant, C.J., Hedlund, C.A., Stuart-Smith, P., Teasdale, J., 2004.
Deepwater North West Borneo: hydrocarbon accumulation in an active fold and
thrust belt. Mar. Pet. Geol. 21, 879–887.
Jackson, J., Norris, R., Youngson, J., 1996. The structural evolution of active fault and fold
systems in central Otago, New Zealand: evidence revealed by drainage patterns.
J. Struct. Geol. 18, 217–234.
Jamison, W., 1987. Geometric analysis of fold development in overthrust terranes.
J. Struct. Geol. 9, 207–219.
Jamison, W.R., 1996. Mechanical models of triangle zone evolution. Bull. Can. Petrol. Geol.
44, 180–194.
Jin, G., Groshong, R.H., 2006. Trishear kinematic modeling of extensional fault-
propagation folding. J. Struct. Geol. 28, 170–183.
Johnson, A.M., Berger, P., 1989. Kinematics of fault-bend folding. Eng. Geol. 27, 181–200.
Johnson, K.M., Johnson, A.M., 2002. Mechanical analysis of the geometry of forced-folds.
J. Struct. Geol. 24, 401–410.
Johnson, K.M., Segall, P., 2004. Imaging the ramp-décollement geometry of the Chelungpu
fault using coseismic GPS displacements from the 1999 Chi-Chi, Taiwan earthquake.
Tectonophysics 378, 123–139.
Jones, P.B., 1996. Triangle zone geometry, terminology and kinematics. Bull. Can. Petrol.
Geol. 44, 139–152.
Kao, H., 2000. The Chi-Chi earthquake sequence: active out-of-sequence thrust faulting in
Taiwan. Science 288, 2346–2349.
Keller, E.A., Zepeda, R.I., Rockwell, T.K., Ku, T.L., Dinklage, W.S., 1998. Active tectonics at
Wheeler Ridge, southern San Joaquin Valley, California. GSA Bull. 110, 298–310.
Kent, W.N., Dasgupta, U., 2004. Structural evolution in response to fold and thrust belt
tectonics in northern Assam. A key to hydrocarbon exploration in the Jaipur anticline
area. Mar. Pet. Geol. 21, 785–803.
Khalil, S.M., McClay, K.R., 2002. Extensional fault-related folding, northwestern Red Sea,
Egypt. J. Struct. Geol. 24, 743–762.
Kockel, F., 2003. Inversion structures in Central Europe - Expressions and reasons, an open
discussion. Neth. J. Geosci./Geol. Mijnb. 82, 367–382.
Korsch, R.J., 2004. A Permian–Triassic retroforeland thrust system — the New England
orogen and adjacent sedimentary basins, eastern Australia. In: McClay, K.R. (Ed.),
Thrust Tectonics and Hydrocarbon Systems AAPG Mem. 82, 515–537.
Laubscher, H.P., 1985. Large-scale, thin-skinned thrusting in the southern Alps: Kinematic
models. GSA Bull. 96, 710–718.
Letouzey, J., Werner, P., Marty, A., 1990. Fault reactivation and structural inversion.
Backarc and intraplate compressive deformations. Example of the eastern Sunda
shelf (Indonesia). Tectonophysics 183, 341–362.
Lettis, W.R., Wells, D.L., Baldwin, J.N., 1997. Empirical observations regarding reverse
earthquakes, blind thrust faults, and Quaternary deformation: are blind thrust faults
truly blind? Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 87, 1171–1198.
Lin, M.L., Wang, C.P., Chen, W.S., Yang, C.N., Jeng, F.S., 2007. Inference of trishear-faulting
processes from deformed pregrowth and growth strata. J. Struct. Geol. 29, 1267–1280.
369
Lisle, R.J., 1994. Detection of zones of abnormal strains in structures using Gaussian curva-
ture analysis. AAPG Bull. 78, 1811–1819.
Liu, C., Yin, H., Zhu, L., 2012. TrishearCreator: a tool for the kinematic simulation and strain
analysis of trishear fault-propagation folding with growth strata. Comput. Geosci. 49,
200–206.
Lohr, T., Krawczyk, C.M., Oncken, O., Tanner, D.C., Samiee, R., Endres, H., Thierer, P.,
Trappe, H., Bachmann, R., Kukla, P.A., 2008. Prediction of subseismic faults and
fractures: Integration of three-dimensional seismic data, three-dimensional retro-
deformation, and well data on an example of deformation around an inverted fault.
AAPG Bull. 92 (4), 473–485.
Lowell, J.D., 1995. Mechanics of basin inversion from worldwide examples. In: Buchanan,
J.G., Buchanan, P.G. (Eds.), Basin Inversion Geol. Soc. Spec. Publ. 88, 39–57 (London).
Mariotti, G., Doglioni, C., 2000. The dip of the foreland monocline in the Alps and
Apennines. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 181, 191–202.
Marrett, R., Bentham, P.A., 1997. Geometric analysis of hybrid fault-propagation/
detachment folds. J. Struct. Geol. 19, 243–248.
Mazur, S., Scheck-Wenderoth, M., Krzywiec, P., 2005. Different modes of the Late
Cretaceous/Early Tertiary inversion in the North German and Polish basins. Int.
J. Earth Sci. 94, 782–798.
McClay, K.R., 1992. Glossary of thrust tectonics terms. In: McClay, K.R. (Ed.), Thrust
Tectonics. Chapman and Hall, London, pp. 419–433.
McClay, K.R., 1995. The geometries and kinematics of inverted fault systems: a review
of analogue model studies. In: Buchanan, J.G., Buchanan, P.G. (Eds.), Basin
InversionGeol. Soc. Spec. Publ. 88, 97–118 (London).
McClay, K., 2011. Introduction to thrust fault-related folding. In: McClay, K., Shaw, J.H.,
Suppe, J. (Eds.), Thrust-fault Related Folding AAPG Mem. 94, 1–19.
McClay, K.R., Buchanan, P.G., 1992. Thrust faults in inverted extensional basins. In:
McClay, K.R. (Ed.), Thrust Tectonics. Chapman and Hall, London, pp. 93–121.
McConnell, D.A., 1994. Fixed-hinge, basement-involved fault-propagation folds,
Wyoming. GSA Bull. 106, 1583–1593.
McConnell, D.A., Kattenhorn, S.A., Brenner, L.M., 1997. Distribution of fault slip in outcrop-
scale fault-related folds, Appalachian Mountains. J. Struct. Geol. 19, 57–267.
McNaught, M.A., Mitra, G., 1993. A kinematic model for the origin of footwall synclines.
J. Struct. Geol. 15, 805–808.
Medwedeff, D.A., 1989. Growth fault-bend folding at the Southeast Lost Hills, San Joaquin
Valley, California. AAPG Bull. 73, 54–67.
Medwedeff, D.A., Suppe, J., 1997. Multibend fault-bend folding. J. Struct. Geol. 19,
279–292.
Mercier, E., Outtani, F., Frizon de LaMotte, D., 1997. Late-stage evolution of fault-
propagation folds: principles and examples. J. Struct. Geol. 19, 185–193.
Mitra, S., 1990. Fault-propagation folds: geometry, kinematic evolution, and hydrocarbon
traps. AAPG Bull. 74, 921–945.
Mitra, S., 1993. Geometry and kinematic evolution of inversion structures. AAPG Bull. 77,
1159–1191.
Mitra, S., 2002a. Fold-accommodation faults. AAPG Bull. 86, 671–693.
Mitra, S., 2002b. Structural models of faulted detachment folds. AAPG Bull. 86, 1673–1694.
Mitra, S., 2003. A unified kinematic model for the evolution of detachment folds. J. Struct.
Geol. 25, 1659–1673.
Mitra, S., Mount, V.S., 1998. Foreland basement involved structures. AAPG Bull. 82, 70–109.
Mitra, S., Namson, J., 1989. Equal-area balancing. Am. J. Sci. 289, 563–599.
Morley, C.K., King, R., Hillis, R., Tingay, M., Backe, G., 2011. Deepwater fold and thrust belt
classification, tectonics, structure and hydrocarbon prospectivity: a review. Earth Sci.
Rev. 104, 41–91.
Mueller, K., Suppe, J., 1997. Growth of Wheeler Ridge anticline, California: geomorphic
evidence for fault-bend folding behaviour during earthquakes. J. Struct. Geol. 19,
383–396.
Namson, J.S., Davis, T.L., 1988. Seismically active fold and thrust belt in the San Joaquin
Valley, central California. GSA Bull. 100, 257–273.
Nelson, R.A., 2001. Geologic Analysis of Naturally Fractured Reservoirs, 2nd edn. Gulf
Publishing Co. Book Division (332 pp.).
Okamura, Y., Ishiyama, T., Yanagisawa, Y., 2007. Fault-related folds above the source fault
of the 2004 mid-Niigata Prefecture earthquake, in a fold-and-thrust belt caused by
basin inversion along the eastern margin of the Japan Sea. J. Geophys. Res. 112,
B03S08.
Okubo, C.H., Schultz, R.A., 2004. Mechanical stratigraphy in the western equatorial region
of Mars based on thrust fault-related fold topography and implications for near-
surface volatile reservoirs. GSA Bull. 116, 594–605.
Peacock, D.C.P., Knipe, R.J., Sanderson, D.J., 2000. Glossary of normal faults. J. Struct. Geol.
22, 291–305.
Poblet, J., Hardy, S., 1995. Reverse modelling of detachment folds; application to the
Pico del Aguila anticline in the South Central Pyrenees (Spain). J. Struct. Geol. 17,
1707–1724.
Poblet, J., McClay, K., 1996. Geometry and kinematics of single-layer detachment folds.
AAPG Bull. 80, 1085–1109.
Poblet, J., McClay, K., Storti, F., Muñoz, J.A., 1997. Geometries of syntectonic sediments
associated with single-layer detachment folds. J. Struct. Geol. 19, 369–381.
Ramberg, H., 1963. Evolution of drag folds. Geol. Mag. 100, 97–110.
Reches, Z., 1976. Analysis of joints in two monoclines in Israel. GSA Bull. 87, 1654–1662.
Reches, Z., Eidelman, A., 1995. Drag along faults. Tectonophysics 247, 145–156.
Resor, P.G., Pollard, D.D., 2012. Reverse drag revisited: why footwall deformation may be
the key to inferring listric fault geometry. J. Struct. Geol. 41, 98–109.
Rettger, R.E., 1935. Experiments on soft-rock deformation. AAPG Bull. 19, 271–292.
Rich, J.L., 1921. Moving underground water as a primary cause of the migration and
accumulation of oil and gas. Econ. Geol. 16, 347–371.
Rich, J.L., 1934. Mechanics of low-angle overthrust faulting as illustrated by Cumberland
thrust block, Virginia, Kentucky, and Tennessee. AAPG Bull. 18, 1584–1596.
370 C. Brandes, D.C. Tanner / Earth-Science Reviews 138 (2014) 352–370
Roberts, D.G., 1989. Basin inversion in and around the British Isles. In: Cooper, M.A.,
Williams, G.D. (Eds.), Inversion Tectonics Geol. Soc. Spec. Publ. 44, 131–150 (London).
Roering, J.J., Cooke, M.L., Pollard, D.D., 1997. Why blind thrust faults do not propagate to
the Earth's surface: numerical modeling of coseismic deformation associated with
thrust-related anticlines. J. Geophys. Res. 102 (B6), 11901–11912.
Rowan, M.G., 1997. Three-dimensional geometry and evolution of a segmented detach-
ment fold, Mississippi Fan foldbelt, Gulf of Mexico. J. Struct. Geol. 19, 463–480.
Rowan, M.G., Peel, F.J., Vendeville, B.C., 2004. Gravity-driven foldbelts on passive margins.
In: McClay, K.R. (Ed.), Thrust Tectonics and Hydrocarbon Systems AAPG Mem. 82,
157–182.
Salvini, F., Storti, F., 2001. The distribution of deformation in parallel fault-related folds
with migrating axial surfaces: comparison between fault-propagation and fault-
bend folding. J. Struct. Geol. 23, 25–32.
Salvini, F., Storti, F., 2004. Active-hinge-folding-related deformation and its role in hydro-
carbon exploration and development — insights from HCA modeling. In: McClay, K.R.
(Ed.), Thrust tectonics and hydrocarbon systems AAPG Mem. 82, 453–472.
Sanderson, D.J., 1982. Models of strain variation in nappes and thrust sheets: a review.
Tectonophysics 88, 201–233.
Savage, H.M., Cooke, M.L., 2003. Can flat–ramp–flat fault geometry be inferred from fold-
shape?: A comparison of kinematic and mechanical folds. J. Struct. Geol. 25, 2023–2034.
Scharer, K.M., Burbank, D.W., Chen, J., Weldon, R.J., Rubin, C., Zhao, R., Shen, J., 2004.
Detachment folding in the Southwestern Tian Shan-Tarim foreland, China: shortening
estimates and rates. J. Struct. Geol. 26, 2119–2137.
Sharp, I.R., Gawthorpe, R.L., Underhill, J.R., Gupta, S., 2000. Fault-propagation folding in
extensional settings: examples of structural style and synrift sedimentary response
from the Suez rift, Sinai, Egypt. GSA Bull. 112, 1877–1899.
Shaw, J.H., Shearer, P.M., 1999. An elusive blind-thrust beneath metropolitan Los Angeles.
Science 283, 1516–1518.
Shaw, J.H., Suppe, J., 1994. Active faulting and growth folding in the eastern Santa Barbara
Channel, California. GSA Bull. 106, 607–626.
Shaw, J.H., Suppe, J., 1996. Earthquake hazards of active blind-thrust faults under the
central Los Angeles basin, California. J. Geophys. Res. 101, 8623–8642.
Shaw, J.H., Plesch, A., Dolan, J.F., Pratt, T.L., Fiore, P., 2002. Puente Hills blind-thrust system,
Los Angeles, California. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 92, 2946–2960.
Shaw, J.H., Connors, C., Suppe, J., 2005. Seismic interpretation of contractional fault-
related folds: an AAPG seismic atlas. AAPG Stud. Geol. 53.
Smart, K.J., Ferrill, D.A., Morris, A.P., McGinnis, R.N., 2012. Geomechanical modelling of
stress and strain evolution during contractional fault-related folding. Tectonophysics
576–577, 171–196.
Song, T., Cawood, P.A., 2001. Effects of subsidiary faults on the geometric construction of
listric normal fault systems. AAPG Bull. 85, 221–232.
Spang, J.H., McConnell, D.A., 1997. Effect of initial fault geometry on the development of
fixed-hinge, fault-propagation folds. J. Struct. Geol. 19, 1537–1541.
Stewart, S.A., 1996. Influence of detachment layer thickness on style of thin-skinned
shortening. J. Struct. Geol. 18, 1271–1274.
Stille, H., 1924. Grundfragen der vergleichenden Tektonik. Verlag von Gebrüder
Bornträger, Berlin (443 pp.).
Stockmal, G.S., Lebel, D., McMechan, M.E., MacKay, P.A., 2001. Structural style and evolu-
tion of the triangle zone and external foothills, southwestern Alberta: implications for
thin-skinned thrust-and-fold belt mechanics. Bull. Can. Petrol. Geol. 49, 472–496.
Storti, F., Poblet, J., 1997. Growth stratal architectures associated to decollement folds and
fault-propagation folds. Inferences on fold kinematics. Tectonophysics 282, 353–373.
Storti, F., Salvini, F., 1996. Progressive rollover fault-propagation folding: a possible kine-
matic mechanism to generate regional-scale recumbent folds in shallow foreland
belts. AAPG Bull. 80, 174–193.
Storti, F., Salvini, F., McClay, K., 1997. Fault-related folding in sandbox analogue models of
thrust wedges. J. Struct. Geol. 19, 583–602.
Strayer, L.M., Hudleston, P.J., 1997. Numerical modeling of fold initiation at thrust ramps.
J. Struct. Geol. 19, 551–566.
Strayer, L.M., Erickson, S.G., Suppe, J., 2004. Influence of growth strata on the evolution of
fault-related folds — distinct-element models. In: McClay, K.R. (Ed.), Thrust tectonics
and hydrocarbon systemsAAPG Mem. 82, 413–437.
Stüwe, K., 2000. Geodynamik der Lithosphäre. Springer Verlag, Berlin (405 pp.).
Suppe, J., 1983. Geometry and kinematics of fault-bend folding. Am. J. Sci. 283, 684–721.
Suppe, J., Medwedeff, D.A., 1990. Geometry and kinematics of fault-propagation folding.
Eclogae Geol. Helv. 83, 409–454.
Suppe, J., Chou, G.T., Hook, S.C., 1992. Rates of folding and faulting determined from
growth strata. In: McClay, K. (Ed.), Thrust Tectonics. Chapman and Hall, London,
pp. 105–121.
Suppe, J., Sàbat, F., Muñoz, J.A., Poblet, J., Roca, E., Vergés, J., 1997. Bed-by-bed fold growth
by kink-band migration: Sant Llorenç de Morunys, eastern Pyrenees. J. Struct. Geol.
19, 443–461.
Suppe, J., Connors, C.D., Zhang, Y., 2004. Shear fault-bend folding. In: McClay, K.R. (Ed.),
Thrust Tectonics and Hydrocarbon Systems AAPG Mem. 82, 303–323.
Tanner, D.C., Behrmann, J.H., Dresmann, H., 2003. Three-dimensional retro-deformation
of the Lechtal Nappe, Northern Calcareous Alps. J. Struct. Geol. 25, 737–748.
Tanner, D.C., Brandes, C., Leiss, B., 2010. Structure and kinematics of an outcrop-scale fold-
cored triangle zone. AAPG Bull. 94, 1799–1809.
View publication stats
Tanner, D.C., Bense, F.A., Ertl, G., 2011. Kinematic retro-modelling of a cross-section
through the Western Irish Namurian Basin. In: Poblet, J., Lisle, R.J. (Eds.), Kinematic
evolution and structural styles of fold- and-thrust belts Geol. Soc. Lond. Spec. Publ.
349, 61–76.
Tavani, S., Storti, F., 2006. Fault-bend folding as end-member solution of (double-edge)
fault-propagation folding. Terra Nova 18, 270–275.
Tavani, S., Storti, F., 2011. Layer-parallel shortening templates associated with double-
edge fault-propagation folding. In: McClay, K., Shaw, J.H., Suppe, J. (Eds.), Thrust-
fault Related Folding AAPG Mem. 94, 121–135.
Tavani, S., Storti, F., Salvini, F., 2005. Rounding hinges to fault-bend folding: geometric and
kinematic implications. J. Struct. Geol. 27, 3–22.
Tavani, S., Storti, F., Salvini, F., 2006. Double-edge fault-propagation folding: geometry and
kinematics. J. Struct. Geol. 28, 19–35.
Tavani, S., Storti, F., Salvini, F., 2007. Modelling growth stratal architectures associated
with double edge fault-propagation folding. Sediment. Geol. 196, 119–132.
Tavarnelli, E., 1997. Structural evolution of a foreland fold-and-thrust belt: the Umbria–
Marche Apennines, Italy. J. Struct. Geol. 19, 523–534.
Thomas, G.S.P., Chiverrell, R.C., 2007. Structural and depositional evidence for repeated
ice-marginal oscillation along the eastern margin of the Late Devensian Irish Sea Ice
Stream. Quat. Sci. Rev. 26, 2375–2405.
Thorbjornsen, K.L., Dunne, W.M., 1997. Origin of a thrust-related fold: geometric vs
kinematic tests. J. Struct. Geol. 19, 303–319.
Tindall, S.E., Davis, G.H., 1999. Monocline development by oblique-slip fault-propagation
folding: the East Kaibab monocline, Colorado Plateau, Utah. J. Struct. Geol. 21,
1303–1320.
Tozer, R.S.J., Butler, R.W.H., Corrado, S., 2002. Comparing thin- and thick-skinned tectonic
models of the Central Apennines, Italy. EGU Stephan Mueller Spec. Publ. Ser. 1,
181–194.
Turner, J.P., Williams, G.A., 2004. Sedimentary basin inversion and intra-plate shortening.
Earth-Sci. Rev. 65, 277–304.
Twiss, R.J., Moores, E.M., 1992. Structural Geology. Freeman and Company, New York
(532 pp.).
Vann, I.R., Graham, R.H., Hayward, A.B., 1986. The structure of mountain fronts. J. Struct.
Geol. 8, 215–227.
Vergés, J., Marzo, M., Munoz, J.A., 2002. Growth strata in foreland settings. Sediment. Geol.
146, 1–9.
Waltham, D., 1989. Finite difference modeling of hangingwall deformation. J. Struct. Geol.
11, 433–437.
Waltham, D., Hardy, S., 1995. The velocity description of deformation. Paper 1: theory.
Mar. Pet. Geol. 12, 153–163.
Wilkerson, M.S., Medwedeff, D.A., Marshak, S., 1991. Geometrical modeling of fault-
related folds: a pseudo-three-dimensional approach. J. Struct. Geol. 13, 801–812.
Williams, R.T., 1987. Energy balance for large thrust sheets and fault-bend folds. J. Struct.
Geol. 9, 375–379.
Williams, G., Chapman, T., 1983. Strains developed in the hangingwalls of thrusts due to
their slip/propagation rate: a dislocation model. J. Struct. Geol. 5, 563–571.
Williams, G.D., Powell, C.M., Cooper, M.A., 1989. Geometry and kinematics of inversion
tectonics. In: Cooper, M.A., Williams, G.D. (Eds.), Inversion Tectonics Geol. Soc. Spec.
Publ. 44, 3–15 (London).
Willis, B., 1894. The Mechanics of Appalachian Structure. Department of the Interior —
U.S. Geological Survey (281 pp.).
Wiltschko, D.V., 1979. A mechanical model for thrust sheet deformation at a ramp.
J. Geophys. Res. 84, 1091–1104.
Wiltschko, D.V., Groshong Jr., R.H., 2012. The Chamberlin 1910 balanced section: context,
contribution, and critical reassessment. J. Struct. Geol. 41, 7–23.
Withjack, M.O., Olson, J., Peterson, E., 1990. Experimental models of extensional forced
folds. AAPG Bull. 74, 1038–1054.
Woodward, N.B., 1997. Low-amplitude evolution of break-thrust folding. J. Struct. Geol.
19, 293–301.
Wu, S., Yu, Z., Zhang, R., Han, W., Zou, D., 2005. Mesozoic–Cenozoic tectonic evolution of
the Zhuanghai area, Bohai-Bay Basin, east China: the application of balanced cross-
sections. J. Geophys. Eng. 2, 158–168.
Yamada, Y., McClay, K., 2004. 3-D Analog modeling of inversion thrust structures.
In: McClay, K.R. (Ed.), Thrust tectonics and hydrocarbon systemsAAPG Mem.
82, 276–301.
Yeats, R.S., Huftile, G.J., 1995. The Oak Ridge fault system and the 1994 Northridge
earthquake. Nature 373, 418–420.
Yielding, G., Needham, T., Jones, H., 1996. Sampling of fault populations using sub-surface
data: a review. J. Struct. Geol. 18, 135–146.
Zehnder, A.T., Allmendinger, R.W., 2000. Velocity field for the trishear model. J. Struct.
Geol. 22, 1009–1014.
Ziesch, J., Tanner, D.C., Krawczyk, C.M., 2014. Strain associated with the fault-parallel flow
algorithm during kinematic fault displacement. Math. Geosci. 46 (1), 59–73.
Zoetemeijer, R., Sassi, W., 1992. 2-D reconstruction of thrust evolution using the fault-
bend fold method. In: McClay, K.R. (Ed.), Thrust Tectonics. Chapman and Hall,
London, pp. 133–140.
Zoetemeijer, R., Sassi, W., Roure, F., Cloetingh, S., 1992. Stratigraphic and kinematic
modeling of thrust evolution, northern Apennines, Italy. Geology 20, 1035–1038.