Pseudo-toplap in seismic models of the Schlern-Raibl contact (Sella platform, northern Italy) |
| |
| Authors: | JAN Stafleu WOLFGANG Schlager |
| |
| Institution: | Faculteit der Aardwetenschappen, Vrije Universiteit, De Boelelaan 1085, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands |
| |
| Abstract: | In the Sella platform of the Dolomite Alps, the horizontal beds of the Raibl Formation directly overlie the Upper Schlern Dolomite (Cassian Dolomite of some authors). The Schlern Dolomite comprises steep clinoforms, together with a few tens of metres of horizontal topset beds in the platform interior. Two-dimensional seismic modelling techniques were used to determine the seismic-response of this interesting situation. To perform this, two different lithological models were constructed based on outcrops of the Sella south face. The first model is that of a rapidly prograding platform with slow aggradation in the platform interior. The second model shows clinoforms toplapping against the topset beds of the platform interior. P-wave velocities and bulk densities were assigned to the lithostratigraphical units in accordance with values from a similar study, involving the same formations. The vertical-incidence method was used to construct perfectly migrated time sections and depth sections of reflectivity. These were convolved with zero-phase Ricker wavelets of different peak frequencies to produce the final synthetic seismic sections. Using conventional, low frequencies (e.g. 25 Hz), the seismic response of the two models is almost identical. The topset beds and the Schlern-Raibl contact appear as one event. In a real seismic survey, both sections would be interpreted as toplap of Schlern clinoforms against the Raibl Formation. At higher frequencies (75 Hz), however, differences are revealed. The angle of progradation in the progradation & aggradation model becomes visible, as opposed to the horizontal surface in the progradation & toplap model. Topset beds are resolved separate from the Raibl Formation, but still appear to form a single dipping pseudo-toplap surface. Another modelling technique, simulating unmigrated sections, shows few differences between the two models even at high frequencies. In addition, the clinoforms are disturbed by the refraction of rays. This study demonstrates that, even under ideal acquisition and processing conditions, the seismic tool can introduce a pseudo-toplap. This implies that toplap in a seismic section is not necessarily toplap in outcrop. |
| |
| Keywords: | |
|
|
