Pitfalls among the promises of mechanics-based restoration: Addressing implications of unphysical boundary conditions

Abstract

Mechanics-based restoration has been seen by some in the structural geology community as a panacea – a new technology that melds the retrodeformational merits of kinematic balancing with principles of continuum mechanics. The method has been touted for its ability to simulate complex 3D systems without assumptions of plane strain, allowing for heterogeneous fault slip distributions and mechanical interaction of fault segments. It has been suggested as a means to predict distributions of geologic strain and associated small-scale structures; however, we demonstrate that the kinematics of restoration models may differ significantly from forward deformation. Restoration models are governed by boundary conditions that are different from the forces driving forward geologic deformation. Models may be improved by supplementing restoration boundary conditions with loads that attempt to reverse tectonic strain, but unphysical artifacts persist. Mechanics-based restoration may be an appropriate tool for traditional applications of kinematic models including validation of structural interpretation and modeling geometric evolution; however, more subtle features, particularly strain distribution, should be treated with skepticism. Restoration models may provide insights to the initial configuration of forward mechanical models with physically appropriate boundary conditions and non-linear material behavior. Forward models provide the best means for simulating deformation and predicting subsidiary structures.