Andersen & Pedersen 2025: GEUS Bulletin 59. 8386. https://doi.org/10.34194/t407hg84 1 of 20 RESEARCH ARTICLE Piggyback imbrications, duplex stacking and sequential superimposed deformation in the Fanø Bugt Glaciotectonic Complex, Danish North Sea Lærke Therese Andersen1,2* , Stig A. Schack Pedersen2 1Department of Geoscience, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark; 2Near Surface Land and Marine Geology, Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland, Aarhus, Denmark Abstract This study provides a detailed structural analysis of a selected part of the Fanø Bugt Glaciotectonic Complex in the south-eastern part of the Danish North Sea. The 200 km2 study area was mapped in 3D using high-resolution, 2D multichannel seismic data. The interpretation of seismic profiles demonstrates an architecture markedly separated into a lower and an upper thrust fault level, sep- arated by the upper décollement surface. The lower level is characterised by >15 thrust sheets, with crests that form subsurface ridges with reliefs up to 150 m, scattered over c. 15 km. The upper level is characterised by thrust sheets grouped in imbricate complexes with thrust faults connecting to the upper décollement. The structural style changes in the direction of transport, possibly related to the position of the ice-sheet margin responsible for the thrusting and changes in the properties of the basal décollement. The structural style is generally large-scale thrusting and folding, sug- gesting proglacial deformation. However, the hinterland of the upper thrust fault level displays heavily folded layers or a chaotic reflection pattern associated with subglacial deformation. Special attention is drawn to two exceptional structural frameworks containing a hidden hill-hole pair: SF1, an imbricate thrust fault fan in a 5 km long and 2.5 km wide basin, developed above an extensional normal fault imbricate, and SF2, a frontal ramp uplifting an imbricated fan c. 90 m above the aver- age level of thrusting. Restored cross-sections demonstrate a shortening of the lower thrust fault level between 9–43% and 44–49% of the upper level across SF1 and SF2, respectively. We suggest that the glaciotectonic complex was formed proglacially due to gravity spreading in front of an ice margin. Gravity gliding due to an inclined décollement surface of 0.5° and elevated porewater pres- sure at the décollement might also have facilitated the deformation. *Correspondence: laerketherese@gmail.com Received: 01 Dec 2024 Revised: 04 May 2025 Accepted: 11 Jun 2025 Published: 06 Nov 2025 Keywords: seismic interpretation, multiple detachment levels, hill-hole pair, gravity spreading, gravity gliding, thin-skinned thrust-faulting Abbreviations: DWTFB: deepwater thrust fault belts ITFL: intermediate trust fault level LTFL: lower thrust fault level UTFL: upper thrust fault level SF1: structural framework 1 SF2: structural framework 2 S.P.: shot point TWT: two-way traveltime GEUS Bulletin (eISSN: 2597-2154) is an open access, peer-reviewed journal published by the Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland (GEUS). This article is distributed under a CC-BY 4.0 licence, permitting free redistribution, and reproduction for any purpose, even commercial, provided proper citation of the original work. Author(s) retain copyright. Edited by: Kristian Svennevig (GEUS, Denmark) Reviewed by: David Colin Tanner (LIAG Institute for Applied Geophysics, Germany) and one anonymous reviewer Funding: See page 18 Competing interests: See page 18 Additional files: None provided 1. Introduction Glaciotectonic structures are, together with erosional and depositional fea- tures, the primary evidence of former glaciation (Aber & Ber 2007). Glaciotec- tonic complexes provide a record of the nature of the deformation made by various ice advances that formed the surface morphology. In a glacial setting, gravity-spreading caused by the load of the ice sheet and frictional drag caused by the motion of the ice sheet are the driving mechanisms for the deformation of the substratum (Pedersen 1987, 1996, 2000; Aber et al. 1989; Hart 1994; Boulton & Caban 1995; Klint & Pedersen 1995). The resulting deformation creates various structural styles in relation to the position of the ice-sheet margin. Structural styles that appear in the proglacial zone differ from those formed by shearing at the sole in the sub- glacial zone (e.g. Hart & Boulton 1991; Kupetz 2001; Andersen et  al. 2005; Pedersen 2014). In the proglacial zone, deformation is the result of longitudinal compres- sive stress in front of an ice sheet (e.g. Aber et al. 1989; Boulton & Caban 1995; Andersen et al. 2005). The structural styles of this zone are associated https://doi.org/10.34194/t407hg84 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4296-2510 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7867-5118 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.en Andersen & Pedersen 2025: GEUS Bulletin 59. 8386. https://doi.org/10.34194/t407hg84 2 of 20 GEUSBULLETIN.ORG with both ductile deformation (i.e. folding) and brittle deformation (i.e. thrusting), depending upon the rheol- ogy and competence of the sediments and the behaviour of the ice sheet (Hart & Boulton 1991; van der Wateren 1995). Considering the development of fold and thrust structures in glaciotectonics, it is at present regarded as being the result of fault-propagation folding (Brandes & Le Heron 2010). In the subglacial zone, deformation is the result of frictional drag beneath the ice sheet due to the ice-sheet movement and extension caused by its load (Moran 1971; Hart & Boulton 1991; Boulton & Caban 1995; van der Wateren 1995; Pedersen 1996, 2000; Andersen et al. 2005). The resulting structural styles include folded, often refolded, pervasively sheared or chaotically mixed sediments (Aber 1985), boudinage structures (Berth- elsen 1979) and listric normal fault imbricates (Croot 1987). High porewater pressure below the snout of the ice sheet may reduce the effective load of the ice sheet to zero. This will force the proglacial compressional zone to move up-glacier to the point where the load of the ice sheet is being exerted on the subsurface again. Hence, compression can occur below the ice-sheet margin (Boulton & Caban 1995; Andersen et al. 2005). The existence of a décollement horizon at a suitable depth in the subsurface sediments is of great impor- tance for the development of glaciotectonic structures (e.g. van der Wateren 1985; Huuse & Lykke-Andersen 2000a; Andersen et al. 2005). The rheology of the décol- lement surface and circumstances that can alter it, such as permafrost or high porewater pressure, determine the efficiency of the décollement surface (Boulton & Caban 1995; Boulton et  al. 1999). Porewater flow and the derived elevated groundwater pressure facilitate the formation of décollement surfaces in a glacial set- ting (Mathews & Macay 1960; Boulton & Caban 1995; Boulton et al. 1999). A dipping décollement surface may induce the mech- anism of gravity gliding and contribute to deformation. Structural styles such as a linkage of up-dip extension with down-dip contraction via a detachment zone is usually associated with the mechanism of gravity gliding (Morley et al. 2011). According to Hubbert & Rubey (1959), an inclination of 0.5° is enough to facilitate gravity gliding. Glaciotectonic deformation is like other compressional crustal disturbances, the only significant differences being temporal and spatial scales. In general, the size of the structures and depth of deformation are related to the size of the advancing load and the time interval during which the load was effective in reducing shear strength of the deformed material. Displacement above a décollement with elevated hydrostatic pressure is essential in glaciotectonic deformation as well as in other tectonic settings (Aber & Ber 2007). Hence, the thrust fault architecture of proglacial glaciotectonic structures is analogous to tectonic structures in thin-skinned fold and thrust belts that appear in orogenic foreland basins, at accretionary wedges or in the toes of large deltas and landslides. Consequently, the same structural analysis techniques (Dahlstrom 1969; Hossack 1979; Boyer & Elliott 1982; Butler 1987; De Paor 1988; van der Pluijm & Marshak 2004) can be applied to interpret glaciotectonic structures (e.g. Pedersen 1987, 1996, 2005, 2014; Hart 1990; Klint & Pedersen 1995; van der Wateren 1995; Boul- ton et al. 1999; Phillips et al. 2018). Offshore mapping of the subsurface is often carried out using seismic data. Applying this method to the investigation of glaciotectonic thrust fault complexes has advantages and disadvantages. Often the seismic data can reveal the remains of the entire glaciotectonic com- plex from base to top. Several profiles across the glacio- tectonic complex give a good basis for performing a 3D geometric analysis and describing the internal architec- ture and structural styles of the thrust structures (e.g. Høyer et al. 2013; Pedersen & Boldreel 2017; Vaughan- Hirsch & Phillips 2017; Phillips et  al. 2018; Winsemann et al. 2020; Lohrberg et al. 2022). However, the seismic method has its limitations. The horizontal and verti- cal resolutions of seismic data are primarily controlled by the Fresnel zone and the bandwidth of the seismic source, respectively. Furthermore, steeply dipping layers or faults may not be accurately resolved, as reflections from high-angle features may fall outside the recording aperture (Yilmaz 1987). Hence, features smaller than the seismic resolution, and nearly vertical layers or steeply dipping faults recognised in many of the onshore coastal profiles of glaciotectonic complexes (Rosenkrantz 1944; Steinicke 1972; Pedersen 2000, 2005; Burke et al. 2009; Phillips et  al. 2018; Gehrmann et  al. 2019) may not be detected or imaged correctly in the seismic profiles. This study is focused on an area of 200 km2 of the Fanø Bugt Glaciotectonic Complex in the south-eastern Danish North Sea (Fig. 1). The aim is: (1) to use high-res- olution marine multichannel reflection seismic data to map and describe the detailed geometry, architecture and structural styles of the deformation framework pres- ent in the investigated area; (2) to conduct a structural analysis on two exceptional structural ‘sub-complexes’, named the structural framework 1 (SF1), situated in the centre of the area, and the structural framework 2 (SF2), situated at the mid-northern boundary of the investi- gated area (Fig. 1). From these two ‘sub–complexes’, the structural analysis is directed towards the development of a kinematic model that supports the structural evolu- tion of the investigated part of the Fanø Bugt Glaciotec- tonic Complex; (3) to discuss and suggest the possible formation mechanisms related to the mapped architec- ture and structural styles of the deformations. https://doi.org/10.34194/t407hg84 Andersen & Pedersen 2025: GEUS Bulletin 59. 8386. https://doi.org/10.34194/t407hg84 3 of 20 GEUSBULLETIN.ORG 2. Geological setting The Fanø Bugt Glaciotectonic Complex is situated in the south-eastern part of the Danish North Sea, 25 km off the west coast of south-west Jylland, Denmark, and cov- ers an area of more than 600 km2 (Fig. 1). The western border of the thrust complex can be mapped within the extent of the seismic data, but towards the east, north- east and south-east, the seismic sections reveal that the thrust complex extends farther towards the coast of Jyl- land (Andersen 2004). This study concerns only a minor part of the Fanø Bugt Glaciotectonic Complex (200 km2), where the seismic lines are spaced close enough to map details of individual structures. The successions affected by the glaciotectonic defor- mation consist of Neogene silts and clays of late Burdi- galian and younger age (Fig. 2). These sediments were deposited as a progressing accretion sourced from onshore areas of southern Norway and Sweden (Huuse 2002). During the early Miocene, sedimentation in the study area was dominantly shallow marine and terres- trial (Rasmussen 1996, 2004; Rasmussen et al. 2010). A regional transgression in the middle Miocene changed the depositional environment to a fully marine shelf environment, which led to the deposition of the fine- grained marine sediments of the Hodde and Gram formations (Friis 1995; Huuse 2002; Rasmussen 2004; Rasmussen et  al. 2010). The youngest Neogene sedi- ments are shallow marine or brackish-water sediments of late Miocene or early Pliocene age (Berthelsen & Kris- toffersen 1974; Fig. 2). The translated, faulted and folded sediments in the Fanø Bugt Glaciotectonic Complex detach on a c. 0.5° westward-inclined basal décollement surface located in the Lower Miocene succession (Andersen 2004). The surface, which in part constitutes the basal décollement surface, displays a regional dip towards the west and south-west of the Cenozoic succession in the eastern Danish North Sea (Huuse et al. 2001). The main cause for this is the post-Danian subsidence centred on the Central Graben and late Palaeogene to recent uplift of Fennoscandia (Jordt et al. 1995; Japsen 1998; Michelsen et al. 1999). Several other thrust complexes in the East- ern North Sea detach in Miocene sediments (Huuse & Lykke-Andersen 2000a; Lohrberg et al. 2022). A common feature for several of these complexes – including the Fanø Bugt Glaciotectonic Complex – is that their direc- tion of thrusting is almost parallel to the dip of the décollement surface (Huuse & Lykke-Andersen 2000a). Mid-latitude ice sheets transgressed parts of the North Sea and melted back several times during the Els- terian and the Saalian glaciations, whereas the Weichse- lian ice sheets only reached the northern part of the North Sea (Ehlers 1990; Houmark-Nielsen 2011). A suc- cession of tills from the Elsterian and Saalian glaciations and fine-grained interglacial sediments from the Hol- steinian and the Eemian succeeded the Neogene depos- its (Knudsen & Penny 1987; Sha et al. 1991). Quaternary buried valleys cutting both the Neogene and Quater- nary successions are recognised in several places in the North Sea (Salomonsen 1995; Huuse & Lykke-Andersen 2000b; Andersen et al. 2013; Steward et al. 2013; Prins & Andersen 2019; Lohrberg et al. 2020; Ottesen et al. 2020; Wenau & Alves 2020) as well as onshore Denmark (Andersen et al. 2013; Sandersen & Jørgensen 2017). Fig. 1 Location in the south-east Danish North Sea of the Fanø Bugt Glaciotectonic Complex and the seismic lines used for interpretation. The 10 × 20 km2 study area is marked with a red rectangle. Locations of the two structural frameworks SF1 and SF2 are marked with purple and blue rectangles, respectively. Locations of seismic lines shown in Figs 3–6 are outlined in yellow. Jylland, Denmark 0 25 km 55°00’ 55°30’ 55°30’7°30’ 0°E 20°E 60°N DK DE SE NO UK Germany Study area Deep well SF2 N SF1 Fi g. 5 Fi g. 5 Fi g. 6 Fig. 4 Fig. 3 S-1 Fanø Røm ø Sy lt https://doi.org/10.34194/t407hg84 Andersen & Pedersen 2025: GEUS Bulletin 59. 8386. https://doi.org/10.34194/t407hg84 4 of 20 GEUSBULLETIN.ORG The upper boundary of the deformed succession in The Fanø Bugt Glaciotectonic Complex is interpreted to be a Saalian glacial unconformity. This erosional surface forms a hummocky and even hilly landscape with small erosional basins (Larsen & Andersen 2005). The deformation of the glaciotectonic complex is not directly dateable, as no adequate borehole information is available in the Fanø Bugt area. An Elsterian or early Saalian age has been suggested (Huuse & Lykke-An- dersen 2000a). Kinetostratigraphic correlation with onshore glaciotectonic deformations of similar size, style and transport direction indicates that the Fanø Bugt Glaciotectonic Complex formed during a stage of westward movement of the Late Saalian (Warthe) ice sheet (Andersen 2004; Houmark-Nielsen 2007; Jør- gensen et  al. 2012). A pre-Elsterian or early Elsterian age of formation has recently been suggested by Win- semann et al. (2020), based on a correlation with the glaciotectonic complex at Heligoland in the south-east- ern German North Sea. 3. Data and methods 3.1. Seismic data acquisition and parameters The University of Aarhus and the Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland (GEUS) acquired the high-res- olution marine seismic data on scientific cruises in the North Sea during the years 1999–2001 with the Dan- ish Navy ship, Flyvefisken. The seismic data from these surveys, named FL99, FL00 and FL01, were collected to map the area of the Fanø Bugt Glaciotectonic Com- plex (Andersen 2004). The surveys make up a dense grid of 1065 km long, high-resolution, multichannel-re- flection seismic lines, distributed over an area of c. 10 × 20 km2 (Fig. 1). The grid spacing is c. 250 m between NE QUAT. Holocene Pleistocene PL IO . L E Piacenzian Zanclean Messinian TortonianL Serravallian M M IO CE N E N EO G EN E E 10 15 20 25 30 Chattian Langhian Burdigalian Aquitanian L E RupelianO LI G O CE N E 5 PA LA EO G EN E PE RI O D SW EP O CH M a AG E SE IS M IC RE FL EC TI O N LITHOSTRATIGRAPHY Marine silt and clay Hiatus Brackish water silt and clay Quaternary erosion Fluvial and marine sand GS Coal Branden Fm. ? Linde clay Viborg Fm. Odderup Fm. Arnum Fm. Gram Fm. Hodde Fm. Bastrup sand Basal décollement surface Re�ections on the seismic pro�les correlated with S-1 well Vejle Fjord Fm. Ribe Fm.?? Fig. 2 Stratigraphic diagram (modified from Rasmussen 2004). The succession involved in the thrusting consists of fine-grained sediments (the south-western part of the diagram) of late Burdigalian and younger age. The basal décollement surface (black line) developed in the fine-grained sed- iments of the Arnum Fm (Early Miocene). The upper décollement surface developed in the fine-grained sediments of the Hodde Fm (Middle Miocene), between the orange and purple reflectors. https://doi.org/10.34194/t407hg84 Andersen & Pedersen 2025: GEUS Bulletin 59. 8386. https://doi.org/10.34194/t407hg84 5 of 20 GEUSBULLETIN.ORG approximate dip lines and c. 1500 m between approxi- mate strike lines. In addition, a few lines from the sur- veys DA95 and GR98 (Huuse 2000), which crossed the area, were used, and a few conventional oil-seismic data (RTD–RE94 and NP85N) were used for the correlation of the interpreted horizons to the well S-1 about 70 km west of the study area (Andersen 2004). The signal bandwidth of the migrated seismic data is 50–180 Hz, and the vertical penetration is 2000 ms two- way traveltime (TWT), corresponding roughly to 2000 m (Clausen & Huuse 1999). The seismic data acquisition was limited towards land by the 10 m water-depth contour, selected as a safety precaution for equipment and ship. The vertical and horizontal resolutions are approximately 5 m and 20 m, respectively. Data quality is generally good; however, interpretation of the top 50–100 ms TWT is often hampered by water-layer multiples. Minor mis-ties between individual surveys and mis-ties due to migration problems in the neighbourhood of steeply dipping faults and associated tilted layers were identified and corrected prior to interpretation. The limited resolution and chal- lenges in imaging steep dips may explain the presence of large areas of chaotic reflection patterns (e.g. Fig. 3, shot point, S.P., 0–730, top half of the profile). It is likely that the structures in this area were either smaller than the seismic resolution (5 m vertical and 20 m horizontal) or that layers or faults were steeply dipping. However, the nature of the deformation can also contribute to obtain a chaotic reflection pattern in areas where structural and sedimentary architecture is particularly complex. 3.2. Interpretation, maps and plots The seismic data were interpreted digitally using Land- mark’s Openworks, Seisworks 2D software (2002–2003). Difficulties occurred when interpreting thrust horizons, as the software does not allow multiple TWT values for a single horizon at the same shot point (S.P.). Hence, an advanced interpretation strategy was necessary. As the overlap of a thrust horizon cannot be represented by a single horizon, a new horizon was made where a TWT value occurred at the same S.P. representing the deeper TWT values of overlap between the adjacent thrust sheet. Hence, all the upper TWT values were rep- resented by the same horizon. Maps of the basal décollement (floor thrust), the upper décollement (roof thrust) and a structural map of an inter- nal reflection in the lower thrust level were drawn using Landmark’s Openworks, Z-map+ software. The horizons data were imported from Seisworks and were gridded using the least squares algorithm, with a grid increment on 45 m. Smoothing was performed before contouring with an interval of 10 ms and 20 ms, respectively. The dip of the basal décollement surface was calcu- lated using a velocity of 1850 m/s and basic trigonome- try by the following equation: tan(A) = a/b (Eq. 1) where A = dip angle, b = distance between contours per- pendicular to the strike of contours measured on the map. a is defined in Eq. (2) as follows: Fig. 3 Seismic section (Fl01–50) showing a duplex with imbricated thrust sheet in two levels. The lower thrust fault level (LTFL) is detaching on the basal décollement surface acting as a floor thrust. The UTFL is detaching on the Upper décollement surface, acting as a roof thrust for the LTFL and a floor thrust for UTFL. LTFL and UTFL can be divided into three and two structural domains, respectively, showing different structural styles (see Section 4.3 and 4.5 and Fig. 8). The seismic section is an approximate dip line to SF1, showing piggyback imbricates in a basin (S.P. 725–900) behind a huge hanging wall anticline (S.P. 900–1050). Seismic section shown with 5x vertical exaggeration. Interpretations shown below the seismic section with no exagger- ation. Here, the inclination of the thrust faults ramps is measured. Crossing seismic lines are marked on the seismic section with a figure number, see Figs 1, 7 and 8 for location of this cross-section. S.P.: Shot point. TWT: Two-way travel time. Fig. 5Fig. 6 Fig. 5Fig. 6 Vertical exaggeration 5x No exaggeration Inclination of thrust ramps 34° 32° 35° 25° 25° 15° 15° 15° 15°23° 23° 20° 1000 m EW TWT (ms) UTFL SF1 Distal domain UTFL Proximal domain UTFL Proximal domain LTFLDistal domain LTFL Extension Extension Extension ? Intermediate domain LTFL Hangingwall anticline Strongly sheared sedimentsPiggyback imbricates in the basin of SF1 LTFL S.P. S.P. 1002003004005006007008009001000110012001300 Pull up 1002003004005006007008009001000110012001300 0 500 0 500 0 500 0 500 https://doi.org/10.34194/t407hg84 Andersen & Pedersen 2025: GEUS Bulletin 59. 8386. https://doi.org/10.34194/t407hg84 6 of 20 GEUSBULLETIN.ORG a = ((ContourTWTmax – ContourTWTmin)/2) × velocity (Eq. 2) The velocity used here is an average velocity of the Post Chalk Group, based on Nielsen & Japsen (1991). A velocity range of 1700–2000 m/s was considered for uncertainty, resulting in a variation in dip angle of approximately ±0.03°. Plots of the seismic data and interpretation were produced for illustrations. The vertical scale was cal- culated using a velocity of 1850 m/s, while the horizon- tal scale was determined by multiplying the number of traces by the distance between traces. The seismic data plots were produced with a 5x vertical exaggera- tion. A version without vertical exaggeration, displaying only the interpretation, is presented below the seismic section. This version was created by reducing the ver- tical scale by a factor of five while preserving the hori- zontal scale. 3.3. Structural analysis A structural analysis was conducted based on the map- ping and description of horizon topography, thrust fault orientation and geometry of thrust sheets. Restoration of SF1 and SF2 was performed to give a rough estimate of the minimum amount of shortening and to recon- struct the deformational history of SF1 and SF2 in a ten- tative kinematic model. The concept for the restoration of the cross-section was based on the method for balanced cross-sections (Dahlstrom 1969; De Paor 1988; Wilkerson & Dicken 2001; van der Pluijm & Marshak 2004). This method assumes constant layer thickness, constant along-strike displacement along faults and plane-strain deformation. We realise that these assumptions cannot all be fulfilled in a glaciotectonic context, and that the limitations of the seismic method have implications for the result. When performing the structural balancing, it is essential to restore all strains and displacements in the reverse order in which they were applied (Butler 1987). Hence, the restoration was done stepwise, starting with the youngest, westernmost faults in the lower thrust fault level (LTFL) towards the oldest, easternmost faults. The same procedure was performed for the structures in the upper thrust fault level (UTFL), as it was assumed that the UTFL was deformed before the LTFL (see Sec- tion 4.6 for more details). We performed a tentative 2D line-length balanc- ing of the structural interpretation of the two seismic cross-sections, approximate dip lines to SF1 and SF2 (Figs 3 and 4) on the interpreted reflections, the purple reflector in the UTFL and green reflector in LTFL (results in Sections 4.8 and 4.9). The starting point for the kinematic model was the deformed sections (the interpreted seismic sections) illustrated in the final step of the restoration. From here, Fig. 5 Fig. 5 Vertical exaggeration 5x No exaggeration 500 m EW TWT (ms) ITFL ? S.P. S.P. 0 500 0 500 0 500 0 500 100200300400500600700800 100200300400500600700800 UTFL Hanging wall anticline LTFL Distal domain LTFL Intermediate domain LTFL Basal décollement Upper décollement Intermediate décollement SF2Distal domain UTFL Piggyback imbricates on duplex Fig. 4 Seismic section (Fl01–54) showing an approximate dip profile across the structural framework SF2, showing piggyback imbrication of the sedi- mentary succession of LTFL repeated and uplifted more than 100 ms (c. 90 m; see also SF2 in Fig. 8) on a frontal ramp and a flat acting as an intermedi- ate décollement surface for ITFL. West of SF2 is the general duplex of the area with large-scale thrust structures (some more than 1000 m long) in LTFL and UTFL translating across the basal décollement and upper décollement, respectively. Hanging wall anticlines in LTFL is superimposed in the upper décollement as folding of the surface. Small-scale structures can be seen in the hinterland part of the cross-section but cannot be outlined accurately. Seismic section shown with 5x vertical exaggeration. Interpretations shown below the seismic section with no exaggeration. Crossing seismic lines are marked on the seismic section with a figure number. See Figs 1, 7 and 8 for location of this cross-section. S.P.: Shot point. TWT: Two-way travel time. https://doi.org/10.34194/t407hg84 Andersen & Pedersen 2025: GEUS Bulletin 59. 8386. https://doi.org/10.34194/t407hg84 7 of 20 GEUSBULLETIN.ORG the model progresses stepwise up to step 1 – the bal- anced section. Folding is generally regarded as fault-related; how- ever, in one place, we tentatively interpret the defor- mation as ductile attributed to hydrodynamic shear deformation (see section 4.9; Step 3, top of SF13). A sed- iment package subject to hydrodynamic shear defor- mation could potentially spread in multiple directions. Hence, in this case, line balancing is first applied to the tilted normal fault blocks, and the area subjected to hydrodynamic shear deformation is reconstructed to fill in the rest of fault block SF13. Since the restoration was performed only on one reflector in each level, the fault dip was preserved as observed in the deformed section throughout the res- toration process. To calculate section shortening, a fixed pin line was placed at the front of each thrust-fault level and a loose pin in the rear. The displacement between the deformed and restored sections provides the average contraction of the upper and lower thrust fault levels, respectively. The calculations were done by measuring the distance between the front (fixed) pin and the rear (loose) pin for each thrust-fault level and for each step, relative to the original length. Erosion of the top of the sections is not accounted for. Hence, the calculated shortening represents a min- imum estimate. An exception is the westernmost fault block of the UTFL in SF1, where an eroded fault block segment is added to maintain the front pin line position, as this fault block is moved eastward during the resto- ration of the LTFL from step 4 to step 3 (see section 4.9). 4. Results 4.1. The seismic interpretation The seismic data quality is generally good and provides many excellent images of the glaciotectonic structures in a large part of the study area. The line spacing in the W–E direction is close enough to trace the largest faults from line to line, providing a good opportunity to describe the geometry, the internal architecture and structural styles of this part of the Fanø Bugt Glaciotec- tonic Complex. The interpretation is based on the recognition of dis- tinct reflection patterns; equal thickness of undeformed layers across faults was used in areas where the iden- tification of the reflection pattern was difficult. Ramps of thrust faults or normal faults were mapped where an abrupt cut of reflections occurs in the vertical plane. Thrust-fault flats or décollement surfaces were mapped where more or less horizontal discontinuities existed. These boundaries appeared where undeformed sedi- ments were overlain by deformed sediments, or where different structural patterns were recognised across a horizontal or weakly inclined surface. Five internal reflections, including two décollement surfaces and numerous thrust faults and normal faults, were interpreted. The following description of the inter- preted and mapped surfaces and fault is exemplified on four seismic cross-sections: Two approximate dip sec- tions (Figs 3 and 4) and two sections oblique to strike (Figs 5 and 6) cross the centre of SF1 and SF2, respec- tively (see Fig. 1 for location). The internal architecture Fig. 5 Seismic section (Fl00–27) is crossing the area oblique to strike of the structural elements and across both SF1 and SF2. The cross-section is showing an apparent ‘spreading’ of the transport direction of thrust sheets between thrust fault levels. The apparent direction of thrust sheets of UTFL is towards south (S.P. 570–1300). At SF2, the lower succession is repeated in ITFL; here, the apparent thrust direction is towards north (S.P. 1500–1800). The apparent direction of thrusting of LTFL is towards south, ending at S.P. 900. South of the study area, thrusting only appears in the UTFL. Normal faults in the LTFL are seen at SF1 dipping opposite the thrust fault. The UTFL repeats across SF1 (see purple reflector), compare also with dip-section across SF1 (Fig. 3). The true thrust direction can be inferred from Fig. 8. Seismic section shown with x5 vertical exaggeration. Interpretations shown below the seismic section with no exaggeration. Crossing seismic lines are marked on the seismic section with a figure number. See Figs 1, 7 and 8 for location of this cross-section. S.P.: Shot point. TWT: Two-way travel time. TWT (ms) S.P. S.P. No exaggeration vertical exaggeration 5x NS Fig. 3 Fig. 4 1000 m 0 500 0 500 0 500 0 500 210020001900180017001600150014001300120011001000400 500 600 700 800 900 210020001900180017001600150014001300120011001000400 500 600 700 800 900 SF1 SF2 Study area Piggyback imbricates/ ITFL Folding of UTFL Hanging wall anticlines Complex area between SF1 and SF2 on Fig.9 Basal décollement https://doi.org/10.34194/t407hg84 Andersen & Pedersen 2025: GEUS Bulletin 59. 8386. https://doi.org/10.34194/t407hg84 8 of 20 GEUSBULLETIN.ORG and structural styles seen in these figures are described in the figure caption. 4.2. The mapped surfaces The lower boundary of the glaciotectonic complex is the basal décollement surface. This surface separates the undeformed layers below from the deformed layers above, see the seismic lines Figs 3–6. The surface that constitutes the basal décollement surface within the study area has been mapped in a larger area, and a TWT map has been generated (Fig. 7). This map is described in Section 4.4. The layers just above the basal décollement surface have a distinct reflection pattern of several parallel (when not disturbed) very strong reflections. The top reflection of this unit is marked with green in the seis- mic cross-sections (Figs 3–6). It is possible to follow the green reflector in most of the study area, and a struc- tural TWT map shows the topography of this surface and the thrust fault trends of the LTFL (Fig. 8). A descrip- tion of this map is given in Section 4.5. The reflection pattern above the green reflector also consists of parallel reflections, although less intense. The orange reflector marks the top of three (sometimes only two) very strong reflectors in the upper part of the LTFL (Figs 3–6). Because of disturbance due to defor- mation, it has only been possible to map this surface in parts of the study area, and no resulting topographic map has been generated. The roof thrust of the LTFL appears above the orange reflector. We refer to it as the upper décollement sur- face (Figs 3–6). Above this surface, there is the UTFL. The upper décollement surface sometimes displays a very strong reflection, and in other parts, it was mapped where a marked change in structural styles appears above and below the surface. A perspective view of this décollement surface is seen in Fig. 9 and described in Section 4.6. In the UTFL, only one reflector was outlined, which, in the seismic cross-sections, is displayed in purple (Figs 3–6). This surface is the reflection from a series of par- allel-layered beds above the upper décollement surface. These are easily recognised in the undeformed layers west of the thrust front (Figs 3–6). The interpretation of the purple reflector was hampered by multiples and deformation of the layers, making it difficult to recog- nise in large parts. Hence, no resulting topographic map was generated of this reflector. Above this surface, the reflection pattern is semi-parallel and generally noisy and often distorted by multiples (Figs 3–6). The westward continuation of the basal décollement surface is stratigraphically located in the Lower Miocene succession (Andersen 2004), and the green, orange and purple reflectors are in the Middle Miocene succes- sion, when correlated with the S-1 well, situated c. 70 km NW of the Fanø Bugt Glaciotectonic Complex (Fig. 2). The LTFL is representing the Early/Middle Miocene marine Arnum Formation with possible intercalations of Vertical exaggeration 5x No exaggeration Fig. 3 Fig. 3 TWT (ms) S N 500 m S.P. S.P. 0 500 0 500 0 500 0 500 2100 2000 1900 1800220023002500 24002600 2100 2000 1900 1800220023002500 24002600 SF1 Study area Folded UTFL Upper décollement surfaceUpper décollement surface Hanging wall anticlines Extensional faults in LTFLBasal décollement Fig. 6 Seismic section (Fl01–19) is crossing the area oblique to the strike of structural elements and across SF1 at S.P. 1800–2200. LTFL and UTFL show apparent thrusting towards south. Thrusting of UTFL is continuing further towards south (out of the study area) than deformation of LTFL. In the north- ern part of the profile, extensional faulting is seen in LTFL below the depression of the upper décollement surface. UTFL is repeated in the basin of SF1 (S.P. 1880–2030, see purple reflections). The true thrust direction can be inferred from Fig. 8. Seismic section shown with 5x vertical exaggeration. Interpretations shown below the seismic section with no exaggeration. Crossing seismic lines are marked on the seismic section with a figure number. See Figs 1, 7 and 8 for location of this cross-section. S.P.: Shot point. TWT: Two-way travel time. https://doi.org/10.34194/t407hg84 Andersen & Pedersen 2025: GEUS Bulletin 59. 8386. https://doi.org/10.34194/t407hg84 9 of 20 GEUSBULLETIN.ORG the sandy Bastrup and Odderup Formations, whereas the UTFL constitutes the Middle Miocene, fully marine, clayey Hodde and Gram Formations (Fig. 2). The struc- tural styles of the UTFL are generally more ductile than the deformation in the LTFL, which is interpreted to be due to the different rheology of the sediments. Thrust-fault trends in the UTFL were mapped from the seismic cross-sections, which provide the transport direction of the thrust sheets (Fig. 10 and Section 4.7). The structures of the UTFL are eroded or truncated at the top by a possible late Saalian unconformity (Larsen & Andersen 2005) or the seafloor (Fig. 3, S.P. 1000–1200). 4.3. Architecture and structural styles The thrust fault architecture of the study site indicates that the overall geometry is a large-scale duplex with imbricate structures bounded by a floor thrust (the basal décollement) and a roof thrust (the upper décollement). N6140000 8˚ E E4 40 00 0 E4 50 00 0 E4 60 00 0 N6130000 55º15 55º20 N6120000 N6110000 8˚ E E4 40 00 0 E4 50 00 0 N6130000 55º15 55º1055º10 N6120000 N6110000 300 400 55º20 Fi g. 5 Fi g. 6 Fig. 4 Fig. 3 Depth in TWT (ms bsl.) 0 5 km Projection ED50, UTM 32 Jylland, Denmark Røm ø Fanø Study area SF2 SF1 Deformation front Normal fault Dip direction Area with pull up e�ect Fig. 7 A two-way time-contour map of the basal décollement surface and its continuation beyond the western limit of LTFL deformation. The defor- mation front shows that the maximal western extent of the Fanø Bugt Glaciotectonic Complex is situated in the study area. The contour curves of the surface show a marked change in dip and dip direction at the bor- der of the study area (see Section 4.4 for further details). A pull-up of the surface below the basin of SF1 is marked with a black dashed line. Loca- tions of SF1 and SF2 are shown. A small normal fault and a depression of the surface are seen in the southern part of the study area. Seismic sections shown in Figs 3–6 are marked with black lines. Fig. 8 A structural two-way time (TWT) contour map showing the strike of the main structures at the level of an internal reflection in LTFL and ITFL (green reflector on Figs 3–6). To enhance the overview, the map only shows the larger faults. Thrust faults are marked with red, and nor- mal faults are marked with black lines. The change of strike of faults reveals different structural domains. In the eastern proximal domain, the faults strike 160°, in the intermediate domain, the strike of faults is 155° and in the western distal domain, the strike is 170°–180°. The three structural domains are showing different structural styles (see Section 4.5 and Fig. 3). The trend of the faults is turning in the southern part of the area from west south-west to south-west following the same depression in the surface as is seen in the basal décollement surface (Fig. 7). In the area of SF2, the mapped reflector is elevated c 100 ms (c 90 m) on a huge frontal ramp and flat and display the structural trend of ITFL. The remaining parts of the map show the structural trend of LTFL. The structural trend of ITFL is towards the north-west, hence dif- ferent to the general structural trend of LTFL, which is towards the west south-west. SF1 displays two huge hanging wall anticlines in front of an extensional basin/depression. The location of SF1 and SF2 is market with rectangles. The seismic sections shown in Figs 3–6 are marked with black lines. 0 5 km Projection ED50, UTM 32 N6140000 8˚ E E4 40 00 0 E4 50 00 0 E4 60 00 0 N6130000 55º15 55º20 N6120000 N6110000 8˚ E E4 40 00 0 E4 50 00 0 N6130000 55º15 55º1055º10 N6120000 Strike 160° Strike 160° Strike 155° Strike 155° Strike 170-180° Strike 170-180° N6110000 Fi g . 5 Fi g. 6 Fig. 4 Fig.3 100 150 200 250 300 350 Jylland, Denmark Røm ø Fanø Distal domain Intermediate domain Proximal domain Study area SF2 SF1 Thrust fault Extensional fault Strike of faults Location of �gs.3-6 https://doi.org/10.34194/t407hg84 Andersen & Pedersen 2025: GEUS Bulletin 59. 8386. https://doi.org/10.34194/t407hg84 10 of 20 GEUSBULLETIN.ORG The LTFL shows three deformation domains, charac- terised by different structural styles (Figs 3 and 8) as follows: 1. Small imbricated thrust sheets are seen in the proxi- mal domain to the east (Fig. 3). 2. Larger thrust sheets with tailing tilted normal faults are seen in the intermediate domain (Fig. 3). 3. The distal domain constitutes large thrust sheets with hanging-wall anticlines. Close to the deformation front in the west, back thrusts and pop-up structures dominate the distal domain (Figs 3 and 4). A more thorough account is presented together with the map of the LTFL (Fig. 8) in Section 4.5. The succession above the upper décollement sur- face, the UTFL, displays two different deformation domains: (1) a distal domain with an imbricate system of piggyback thrust structures (Figs 3 and 4); (2) a prox- imal domain with a diffuse or chaotic reflection pattern (Fig. 3), interpreted to resemble pervasively sheared or chaotically mixed sediments, possibly involving boudi- nage structures, fluid flow structures and hydrodynamic brecciation. In the central part of the study area, the structural framework SF1 dominates the seismic images (see dip section in Fig. 3, S.P. 760–1020, sections oblique to strike in Fig. 5, S.P. 1100–1300 and Fig. 6, S.P. 1800–2200), showing a piggyback imbricate fan of the UTFL in a depression 5 km long and 2.5 km wide. Below the piggy- back imbricate fan, several partly rotated normal faults are present. In front of the depression, a huge thrust sheet forms a hanging-wall anticline repeating the LTFL in the narrow crest of the anticline (Fig. 3, S.P. 900–1050 and Fig. 6, S.P. 2100–2200). In the mid-northern part of the study area, another spectacular structural framework is displayed in the seismic sections SF2 (see dip section in Fig. 4, S.P. 0–250 and the section oblique to strike in Fig. 5, S.P. 1500– 1800). SF2 consists of a ramp and a flat, along which an imbricate fan of thrust sheets is translated westwards and leaves a tailing depression to the east. The imbri- cate fan formed by ramp collapse of a thrust segment derived from the LTFL and raised c. 90 m above the average level of thrusting in the LTFL. This flat acts as an intermediate décollement surface, and, hence, the imbricated fan represents an intermediate trust fault level (ITFL), situated between an intermediate décol- lement surface and the upper décollement surface (Fig. 4, S.P. 0–250). The imbricate fan repeats the sedi- mentary succession of the LTFL in an area of approxi- mately 8.5 km2, which now comprises a structural high (see SF2 in Fig. 8). The eastern part of SF2 is seen as a depression at the level of the green reflection, which Fig. 9 3D map of the upper décollement surface with a 2.5x exagger- ation gives a perspective view of the hilly landscape with ridges above hanging wall anticlines and depressions above extensional faulting in the LTFL. Both SF1 and SF2 comprise hill-hole pairs at this surface level, although the internal structural framework is very different (Figs 3 and 4). SF1 and SF2 are connected by a low-lying area with a complex reflec- tion pattern; hence, the interpretation of this area is uncertain (see Section 4.6). There is a remarkably large coherent ridge just proximal SF1 and SF2. SF1 SF2 Complex area/Tear fault? 25 0 20 0 15 0 10 0 502.5 km Depth in TWT (ms) N Fig. 10 Map comparing the trends of the faults of the UTFL (black) com- pared with those of the LTFL (grey), see Section 4.7. The structural trend of the UTFL generally follows that of the LTFL in a smooth manner, for example, across SF2, and the structures of the UTFL connect the two fault directions of LTFL and ITFL in smoothly curving faults. In the south, the bending faults in the LTFL seem to affect the trend of the UTFL much more gently. Jylland, Denmark Røm ø Fanø 0 5 km Projection ED50, UTM 32 8˚ E E4 40 00 0 E4 50 00 0 N6130000 55º15 55º20 N6120000 8˚ E E4 40 00 0 E4 50 00 0 55º15 55º1055º10 N6120000 SF2 SF1 Fault UTFL Fault LTFL https://doi.org/10.34194/t407hg84 Andersen & Pedersen 2025: GEUS Bulletin 59. 8386. https://doi.org/10.34194/t407hg84 11 of 20 GEUSBULLETIN.ORG is partly due to extensional faulting of the LTFL (Fig. 8) and partly caused by the removal of material due to the thrust-sheet translation described earlier (Figs 4 and 8). 4.4. The basal décollement surface A time-contour map of the basal décollement surface is presented in Fig. 7. North of the study area and in the north-eastern cor- ner of the study area, the surface dips towards south- west. Inside the study area, the dip is gentler towards west-south-west, changing to south-south-west in the south. South of the study area, the surface dips towards north-west and south-west due to a depression in the surface (Fig. 7). The strike of the contours changes from c. 155° to 160° at the 280 ms TWT curve in the hinterland to c. 170° at the 340 ms TWT curve in the foreland. Further- more, a change in dip angle characterises the transition from the hinterland with low dip (c. 0.3°) in the east to a slightly steeper dip towards the foreland (c. 0.4°–0.6°). The steepest dip is just east of SF1. In the south-west, the contours change direction again due to a depres- sion of the surface in the south-western corner, and the dip increases to c. 1.5° (Fig. 7). This depression and the small normal fault in the southern part of the study area are also seen in the Top Chalk surface (Clausen & Huuse 1999). The contour curve at 320 ms TWT of the basal décol- lement surface makes an upward bulge just at the base of SF1, marked with an elongate circle of black dots in Fig. 7. This is presumably a ‘pull-up’ effect caused by higher seismic velocities in the piggyback-imbricate thrust sheets filling the basin (Fig. 3, S.P. 850-925). In the surrounding area, the décollement surface is relatively smooth, with no obvious indications of a real bulge on the décollement surface. The existence of velocity pull-up is supported by the seismic image in Fig. 3 (see basal décollement, S.P. 850–925). The deformation front of the LTFL (Fig. 7) marks the transition from the deformed frontal part of the com- plex to the undeformed foreland towards west. The deformation front reaches its maximal western extent in the study area (Fig. 7). Towards the south-west, the deformations reach their maximum depth and coincide approximately with the 400 ms TWT contour curve of the basal décollement (Fig. 7). This may indicate that c. 360 m (c. 400 ms TWT) is the maximum deformation depth in the Fanø Bugt Glaciotectonic Complex. 4.5. The structural trend of the lower and intermediate thrust fault levels A structural two-way time-contour map was generated (Fig. 8) to investigate a distinct internal surface in the lower part of the complex (indicated by the top level of the green reflector in Figs 3–6). The map shows both the topography of the surface and the geometry, dimension and transport direction of the structures of the LTFL translated on the basal décollement surface. Further- more, Fig. 8 shows the structures of the intermediate thrust fault level (ITFL) translated on the intermediate décollement surface at the location of SF2. Thrust faults and back thrusts are displayed by red lines and normal faults with black lines. For an overview, Fig. 8 shows only 25 of the larger faults out of a total of 35 faults shown for the LTFL in Fig. 3. The fault trend in the LTFL can be divided into three structural domains based on the change in strike of the fault structures (Fig. 8). On the seismic sections, the change in fault strike correlates with a change in struc- tural styles (see LTFL in Fig. 3). The three structural domains are as follows: 1. The eastern proximal domain consists of a succes- sion of relatively small imbricated thrust sheets strik- ing 160°, with thrust faults dipping c. 15° (Fig. 3, S.P. 125–335). 2. In the intermediate domain, a 2 km wide block of more or less undeformed sediments (Fig. 3, S.P. 335– 480) constitutes the eastern part of the domain (Fig. 8). Farther west, a succession of larger thrust sheets with tailing extensional listric normal faults exists. The faults are striking 155° (Fig. 8) and dipping c. 20°– 25° (Fig. 3, S.P. 480–750). The significant structure SF2 is located in the central northern part of the interme- diate domain (Fig. 8). Sections crossing this structure are shown in Fig. 4 (S.P. 0–250) and Fig. 5 (S.P. 1500– 1800). A correlation of a hill-hole pair is expressed by the depression east of the ‘thrust-fault high’ (Fig. 8). At the ‘thrust-fault high’, the LTFL is repeated directly on top of itself with the UTFL above. Hence, at this place, one could argue that a third ITFL is present, which, however, consists of the same sediment package as the LTFL (see e.g. Fig. 4, SF2). The map (Fig. 8) always expresses the upper position of the mapped green horizon, so, in areas where the horizon repeats itself, it is the ITFL, which is represented in the ‘thrust-fault high’ (Fig. 8). The structural trend of ITFL in SF2 is towards the north-west, which is notably different to the general structural trend of LTFL, which is towards west and west-south-west (Figs 5 and 8). 3. The western distal domain contains faults with a strike direction of 170°–180° (Fig. 8). The significant SF1 appears in this domain (Fig. 3, S.P. 750–1000). In the frontal part, SF1 comprises a more than 1000 m long thrust sheet (Fig. 3, S.P. 900–1000). The inclina- tion of thrust faults in SF1 is 25–23°, the same as for https://doi.org/10.34194/t407hg84 Andersen & Pedersen 2025: GEUS Bulletin 59. 8386. https://doi.org/10.34194/t407hg84 12 of 20 GEUSBULLETIN.ORG the structures in the intermediate domain (Fig. 3, S.P. 950–1000). However, in the map view, the strike of the faults in SF1 is the same as for the distal domain (Fig. 8). In the tailing part of SF1, tilted normal faults created a depression (Fig. 3, S.P. 775–900). A spatial view of this depression can be seen in Figs. 8 and 9. This depression covers an area of c. 5 km × 2.5 km, where it is most pronounced. In the distal domain west of SF1, the structural style comprises relatively large thrust sheets with pop-up structures in the frontal part, dipping c. 25°–35° (Fig. 3, S.P. 950–1270). These structures delineate the western boarder of the thrust complex (Fig. 8). Small thrusts or reverse faults, with fault planes dipping towards the west, express the thrust front towards the north-west- ern corner of the study area (Fig. 4, S.P. 700). These structures could have started as nucleation points of conjugate contractional faults (Andersen et  al. 2005), which developed into pop-up structures and fore-thrust/ back-thrust pairs during the progressive compressional deformation. 4.6. The upper décollement surface The upper décollement surface is interpreted to be a decoupling unconformity separating UTFL from LTFL (see Figs 3–6) in most of the study area. A perspective view of the upper décollement surface (Fig. 9) shows a hilly topography with variations of about 250 ms TWT (c. 225 m) from low to high areas. The topography appears as a series of ridges elongated in a north-west – south- east direction, which probably represents folding intro- duced by superimposed sequential deformation over hanging-wall anticline crests and small extensional basins in the LTFL. The bumpy nature of the surface, especially in the east, is probably a combination of dif- ferential displacement across thrust faults in the LTFL and uncertainties in picking the reflection of the upper décollement surface, as this is not a clear and unambig- uous reflection in all places (e.g. see Fig. 3, S.P. 0–350). At the location of both SF1 and SF2, a hill-hole pair is outlined in the upper décollement surface (Fig. 9). The glaciotectonic feature referred to as hill-hole pair is applied in the sense of Aber et al. (1989). A low-lying, elongated area striking west-south-west – east-north-east is situated between the two hill-hole pairs (Fig. 9). A tentative interpretation of this area could include a tear fault departing the two structures, SF1 and SF2. However, as SF1 and SF2 have different internal architectures, it is not a tear fault in the tradi- tional sense, where the same structure can be found on each side of the tear fault (Hills 1963). However, in a glaciodynamic setting, the two structures could have undergone further deformation individually after the separation. The low-lying area shows a complex reflec- tion pattern; hence, the seismic interpretation here is uncertain, probably due to the limitations of the seismic method and the complexity of the structure (e.g. Fig. 5, S.P. 1400–1500). 4.7. The structural trends in the UTFL The structural trends of the thrust faults in UTFL are mapped to see if there were any discrepancies between the structural trends of UTFL, ITFL and LTFL, which could imply stress from different directions (Fig. 10). The thrust front to the west ends at the same location for the UTFL and the LTFL (Fig. 10). In general, the trends of the struc- tures in UTFL are notably like those of the LTFL and ITFL, except for small discrepancies (Fig. 10), indicating that they have been subject to similar stresses during formation. The structures of UTFL can be divided into two struc- tural domains based on Fig. 3, a westerly distal domain, where imbricate thrust structures are translocated along the upper décollement surface until the eastern margin of SF1 (Fig. 3, S.P. 730–1260), and an easterly proximal domain, where the sediments are strongly deformed (see Fig. 3, S.P. 0–730). The thrusting of UTFL continues south of the study area, where LTFL is not deformed (Fig. 5, S.P. 550–880). The seismic lines in this area are, however, so far apart that the individual faults cannot be traced. Strike sections in the study area show large (up to c. 4–6 km) folded thrust sheets of UTFL in connection with and in between SF1 and SF2 (Fig. 5, S.P. 1200–1600 and Fig. 6, S.P. 2260–1875). 4.8. Restoration of the deformed sections The method for performing the restoration is described in Section 3.3. The method is only giving a rough esti- mate of the minimum shortening across the two struc- tural frameworks SF1 and SF2. Figure 11 shows the restored section across SF1 from S.P. 550–1100 (Fig. 3). The restoration shows a minimum average shortening of UTFL of 44%, corresponding to a lateral displacement of 3400 m and only 9% average shortening of LTFL, corresponding to a lateral displace- ment of 600 m. The shortening of UTFL across SF1 is very strong with large displacements across each thrust fault. The displacement is generally much less in the LTFL, where extension at some points is the prevailing deformation (Step 3). Hence, the UTFL shows more com- pression than LTFL in the cross-section across SF1. Figure 12 represents the restoration of a section across SF2 in the mid-north of the study area from S.P. 0–440 (Fig. 4). In this cross-section, the LTFL is repeated in an imbrication fan above the normal level of LTFL. The UTFL is forming a duplex stack in front of the imbrication https://doi.org/10.34194/t407hg84 Andersen & Pedersen 2025: GEUS Bulletin 59. 8386. https://doi.org/10.34194/t407hg84 13 of 20 GEUSBULLETIN.ORG fan (Step 3 and Step 4 in Fig. 12). The average minimum shortening of the UTFL is 49% at SF2, corresponding to a lateral displacement of c. 2.2 km. The shortening of LTFL is 43%, corresponding to a lateral displacement of c. 3.8 km. The restoration shows the amount of shortening in each thrust-fault level varies from place to place within the thrust-fault complex. Data from the fringing areas of the study area show that the deformation continues farther east of the mapped area, towards the coast. Therefore, a full account of shortening of the Fanø Bugt Glaciotectonic Complex cannot be provided with the existing data. 4.9. The structural framework and dynamic development of SF1 and SF2 The structural framework of SF1 is situated in the distal domain, although it has many similarities with the struc- tures in the LTFL intermediate domain (Fig. 3). They both involve extensional faulting and have a frontal-thrust ramp with a low dip (Fig. 3). However, the strike of the faulting is like the strike of the structures of the distal domain (Fig. 8). The sequential development of SF1 com- prises three dynamic phases illustrated in four steps in Fig. 11. Fault blocks in the LTFL are coloured green and annotated SF11–SF14. The normal fault imbricates (the extensional area) are grouped in SF13. The fault blocks in the UTFL are not annotated but coloured purple (Fig. 11). The four steps are described as follows: 1. Step 1 (Fig. 11) presents the balanced cross-section of SF1, where the thrust sheets are organised into their pre-deformation position. 2. Step 2 (Fig. 11) illustrates the first phase of initial deformation, where the UTFL is laterally displaced about 2.15 km, corresponding to 28% over the upper décollement surface, and the LTFL is compressed by 6% along the basal décollement surface. At the tailing end of the UTFL, a thrust-fault imbricate fan formed, which corresponds to the 2.15 km contrac- tion. Note that the deformation of UTFL occurred slightly ahead of thrusting in LTFL. 3. Step 3 (Fig. 11) illustrates the second phase, during which a hole is formed in the LTFL, and a piggyback imbricate fan of UTFL thrust sheets is piled up in the hole. A tentative interpretation is that body forces from the weight of the UTFL imbricate fan cause hydrodynamic shear deformation and the exten- sional normal fault imbricate fan in the LTFL (SF13 in Fig. 11). The fault block subject to hydrodynamic Fig. 11 Four steps in the dynamic development of the glaciotectonic framework SF1 illustrated by balancing and stepwise deformation of the segment S.P. 550–1100 of the seismic section in Fig. 3. Purple UTFL above green LTFL. To calculate the shortening, a fixed pin line is drawn at the front of each thrust-fault level and a loose pin in the rear. Step 1 shows the balanced cross-section. The thrust sheets in LTFL are annotated SF11–SF15. Step 2 shows initial translation of imbricate thrust faulting in both UTFL and LTFL. The thrusting of UTFL is slightly ahead of the thrusting in the LTFL. In Step 3, the weight of the imbricates in the UTFL created a combined hydrodynamic shear deformation and extensional normal fault imbricate with extension about 300 m, see SF13 in the LTFL. In Step 4, compressional thrust fault imbrication of the UTFL resulted in an imbricate fan. The fan filled the exten- sional depression and pushed SF12 above the leading thrust sheet SF11 forming a huge hanging wall anticline. The further compression of the LTFL proximal to the depression leads to normal faulting in UTFL above SF12. The total compression of this part of the section leads to a shortening of about 3400 m (44%) in the UTFL and 600m (9%) in LTFL (see also description in Sections 3.3, 4.8 and 4.9). 1000m SF14 SF15 W E Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 SF11 SF11 SF11 SF12 SF12 SF12 SF13 SF13 SF13 SF14 SF14 SF15 SF15 SF11 SF12 SF13 SF14 SF15 5 x exaggeration Shortening 0% 2150m = 28% 400m = 6% 2600m = 34% –300m = 105% 3400m = 44% 600m = 9% 0% Hydrodynamic shear Front pin purple Front pin green Rear pin green Rear pin green Rear pin green Rear pin green Rear pin purple Rear pin purple Rear pin purple Rear pin purple https://doi.org/10.34194/t407hg84 Andersen & Pedersen 2025: GEUS Bulletin 59. 8386. https://doi.org/10.34194/t407hg84 14 of 20 GEUSBULLETIN.ORG shear is seen on the seismic sections as a non-reflec- tive area (Fig. 3, S.P. 920–850). During this stage, the extension of LTFL was 5% greater than the compression. 4. Step 4 (Fig. 11) illustrates the final phase, when the excessive weight of the UTFL in the hole caused more compression in front, pushing the huge thrust sheet of the LTFL (SF12 in Fig. 11). This generated a hanging wall anticline above SF11 and at the same time caused an even greater hole for the piggyback imbricate fan of the UTFL to slide into. This movement caused the observed hill-hole pair on the upper décollement sur- face (Fig. 9). Hence, it is suggested that body forces from the imbricate fan in UTFL were an important fac- tor in the formation of SF1. The resulting compression of the UTFL and LTFL is c. 44% and c. 9%, respectively. The structural framework for SF2 is situated in the inter- mediate domain of LTFL in the northern part of the inves- tigated area (Fig. 4, S.P. 0–250; Fig. 8). The north-eastern part of the structure could not be fully mapped because the linespacing is too large (Figs 1, 8). SF2 consists of an imbricate fan, which, as a whole segment, was trans- lated up along an easterly dipping ramp and displaced across a flat (the intermediate décollement in Fig. 4). The top of SF2 is truncated by a roof thrust (the upper décol- lement). The sequential evolution of SF2 can be divided into four phases, as illustrated in the four steps in Fig. 12. These four steps are described as follows: 1. Step 1 (Fig. 12) illustrates the balanced cross-section of the segment between S.P. 0–440 from Fig. 4. The thrust sheets in the LTFL are annotated SF21–SF24. Note that the succession with a chaotic reflection pat- tern above and behind the ITFL is excluded from the reconstruction (Fig. 4). 2. Step 2 (Fig. 12) illustrates the early phase of defor- mation, where the ramp collapses, and imbrication of thrust sheets in the LTFL is initiated. Internal deformation of SF24 is happening, and compression of the thrust sheet SF23 results in an imbricate fan. Moreover, gentle folding and displacement of thrust sheets in UTFL start. 3. Step 3 (Fig. 12). In this phase, the thrust sheets constituting the imbricate fan (SF23) are pushed farther up the ramp by thrust sheet SF24 and translated piggyback on top of the LTFL towards the foreland. In front of the imbricate fan (SF23), UTFL started to form a thrust-fault duplex stack. 4. Step 4 (Fig. 12). In the final phase, the translation of the imbricate fan (SF23) continues. A combination of uplift and push from the rear resulted in the further development of the duplex stack of the UTFL, which is carried piggyback on top of thrust sheets SF21 and SF22. In this final phase, the tailing thrust sheet of UTFL became trapped in the position between the translated imbricate fan of the LTFL (SF23) and the duplex stack of UTFL. The frontal part of the duplex stack was thrust up and displaced towards the Fig. 12 Four steps in the dynamic development of the glaciotectonic framework SF2 illustrated by balancing and stepwise deformation of the segment S.P. 0–440 of the seismic section in Fig. 4. Purple UTFL above green LTFL. To calculate the shortening, a common fixed pin line is drawn at the front of the thrust-fault level and a loose pin in the rear of each level. Step 1 shows the balanced cross-section. The thrust sheets in LTFL are annotated SF21–SF24. SF23 consists of the imbricate fan ITFL (Fig. 4). Small-scale deformation and hydrodynamically brecciated in the succession above and behind SF23 and SF24 (Fig. 4) are excluded from the reconstruction. Step 2 shows the initial ramp collapse at the rear end of SF22 and imbrication of LTFL and gentle folding and displacement of UTFL above LTFL. In Step 3, the imbricate fan (SF23) starts to translate the tailing end of SF22. Piggyback on LTFL, the UTFL initiated to form a thrust-fault duplex stack above SF22. In Step 4, the duplex stack of UTFL is pushed by the translated imbricate fan SF23 on the thrust sheet back of SF22, and the tailing thrust sheet of UTFL is trapped in the position between the translated imbricate fan SF23 and the duplex stack of UTFL displaced towards the foreland. Compression is about 2200 m (49%) in the UTFL and 3800 m (43%) in the LTFL (see also description in Sections 3.3, 4.8 and 4.9). 5 x exaggeration Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 W E Shortening 0% 0% 300m = 7% 1600m = 18% 1600m = 36% 3000m = 34% 2200m = 49% 3800m = 43% Rear pin purple Rear pin purple Rear pin purple Rear pin purple Rear pin green Rear pin green Rear pin green Rear pin green Common front pin 1000 m SF23 SF23 SF22 SF22 SF22 SF24 SF24 SF21 SF21 SF21 SF24 SF23 SF23 SF24 SF22SF21 https://doi.org/10.34194/t407hg84 Andersen & Pedersen 2025: GEUS Bulletin 59. 8386. https://doi.org/10.34194/t407hg84 15 of 20 GEUSBULLETIN.ORG foreland, and minor ramp thrusting of the frontal part of SF22 accentuated the central depression above the UTFL developed in SF2. 5. Discussion This study shows that the investigated part of the Fanø Bugt Glaciotectonic Complex consists of large-scale thrust fault structures on the scale of hundreds of metres to kilometres. The structures constitute a duplex in two thrust fault levels separated by an internal décol- lement surface. The basal décollement surface is weakly inclined (around 0.5°) towards the direction of transport of thrust faults. The age of the deformed sediments ranges from lower Miocene and younger sediments with a thin Quaternary sediment covering above an erosional surface mapped in Larsen & Andersen (2004). Inside the complex, different structural styles are recognised, and in several places, normal faulting occurs, resulting in extension in an otherwise compressional setting. 5.1. Unique features of the Fanø Bugt Glaciotectonic Complex Although glaciotectonic complexes have been described in many studies from all over the world, only a few were discovered on a scale comparable to the Fanø Bugt Gla- ciotectonic Complex (e.g. Pedersen & Boldreel 2015, 2017; Winsemann et  al. 2020; Lohrberg et  al. 2022). Common amongst those glaciotectonic complexes is that they all involve Pre-Quaternary sediments. This is possibly because Pre-Quaternary sediments often by their nature are more compressed than Quaternary sed- iments and, therefore, have greater coherence, hence the ability to evolve larger coherent thrust sheets than seen in studies only involving Quaternary sediments (e.g. Vaughan-Hirsch & Phillips 2017; Phillips et al. 2018). The Heligoland Glaciotectonic Complex in the German sector is less than 100 km south of Fanø Bugt Glaciotec- tonic Complex and is the most comparable, described by Lohrberg et al. (2022). The Heligoland Glaciotectonic Complex is comparable in scale and has many similar structural features, such as imbrications in two levels separated by an internal décollement surface, a detail, which is seldom described for glaciotectonic complexes. Analogues in terms of their orogenic setting with mul- tiple detachment levels and imbrications in two levels have been described for the central Andes of Peru, the Norwegian Caledonides and the Cumberland Plateau in the Southern Appalachians (Pfiffner 2017). A basal décollement surface dipping towards the transport direction of the thrust faults and the ice sheet, as seen in the Fanø Bugt Glaciotectonic Complex, is also found at the Heligoland Glaciotectonic Complex (Lohrberg et al. 2022) and in other glaciotectonic com- plexes in the eastern part of the North Sea (Huuse & Lyk- ke-Andersen 2000a). The basal décollement of the Fanø Bugt Glaciotectonic Complex is situated in lower Mio- cene sediments and has a maximum depth of 400 ms TWT. The basal décollement of the Heligoland Complex is situated a bit higher (350 ms TWT) and at a younger stratigraphic level, the Miocene-Pliocene boundary (Lohrberg et  al. 2022). The glaciotectonic complexes situated north of Fanø Bugt have décollements at the Mid Miocene unconformity or at the Base Quaternary boundary at a depth of 150–300 ms TWT (Huuse & Lyk- ke-Andersen 2000a). Three zones of deformation are identified in both the Heligoland Glaciotectonic Complex (Lohrberg et al. 2022) and the Fanø Bugt Glaciotectonic Complex. How- ever, while the Heligoland Glaciotectonic Complex shows the steepest thrust angles close to the ice margin in the hinterland, like ones observed in other glaciotec- tonic complexes (e.g. Pedersen 2005; Phillips et al. 2017), the opposite pattern is observed in the LTFL in the Fanø Bugt Glaciotectonic Complex. Here, thrust faults steepen towards the foreland (Fig. 3, no exaggeration section), deviating from the typical pattern observed in fold and thrust deformation. The average shortening found in this study varies from 9 to 49% (Figs 11 and 12). It was measured not only across parts of the complex that potentially expe- rienced the largest compression but also in the area of largest extension (LTFL in SF1, step 3; Figs 3–6, 8). Hence, it only resembles the shortening in the part of the com- plex where the two profiles exist and does not repre- sent the total shortening of the Fanø Bugt Glaciotectonic Complex. This study shows that the LTFL has experienced much less compression in certain areas than the UTFL and also less compression when compared to glaciotectonic complexes in general, 11–61% (values from Croot 1988; Hart 1990, 1994, 1995; Klint & Pedersen 1995; Pedersen 1996, 2005, 2014; Harris et al. 1997; Boulton et al. 1999; Huuse & Lykke-Andersen 2000a; Williams et  al. 2001; Gehrmann 2019; Winsemann et al. 2020; Lohberg et al. 2022; Vaughan et al. 2024). This is most likely due to the relatively large amount of extension found in the LTFL in certain areas of the Fanø Bugt Glaciotectonic Com- plex. Furthermore, the limitations of the seismic data in resolving small-scale or very steeply inclined structures will result in a minimum calculation of the compression, when compared to studies on seismic data with a higher resolution or studies of onshore outcrops where small- scale details can be included in the restoration of the glaciotectonic complexes. We attribute the unique features of the Fanø Bugt Thrust Complex (highlighted here) to the deformation https://doi.org/10.34194/t407hg84 Andersen & Pedersen 2025: GEUS Bulletin 59. 8386. https://doi.org/10.34194/t407hg84 16 of 20 GEUSBULLETIN.ORG mechanism. Thus, there may have been a subtle interac- tion between various features that could facilitate defor- mation during the formation of the complex. 5.2. Deformation mechanisms and structural styles In the Fanø Bugt Glaciotectonic Complex, different deformation domains exist, each characterised by vari- ous types of structures, a common phenomenon in thin- skinned tectonics both in orogenic settings and glacial settings (e.g. Boulton et  al. 1999; Pedersen & Boldreel 2015). Various structural styles occur in the individual thrust fault levels, which may be related to the former position of the ice-sheet margin responsible for the deformation. Glaciotectonic deformation is generally considered to be driven by a gravity-spreading mecha- nism (e.g. van der Wateren 1985; Pedersen 1987; Aber et al. 1989; Andersen et al. 2005); however, it could also be argued that some of the structures found in this study indicate a gravity-gliding mechanism contributed to the deformation. The UTFL can be divided into two different structural domains based on the different structural styles: (1) a distal domain showing thrusting and folding implying proglacial deformation; (2) a proximal domain show- ing a chaotic reflection pattern, interpreted to resem- ble pervasively sheared or chaotically mixed sediments (Aber 1985), boudinage structures (Berthelsen 1979), fluid flow structures and hydrodynamic brecciation (Pedersen 2005). These structures imply subglacial deformation or a combination of both proglacial and a later phase of subglacial deformation. The reflection pattern of the strongly sheared and deformed sediments of the UTFL stops abruptly at the upper décollement surface (Fig. 3, UTFL, proximal domain). Hence, it is suggested that the upper décolle- ment surface absorbs the induced subglacial stress and prevents the same kind of deformation of the sediments below this surface. An exception is seen in the eastern- most part of the study area, where the entire sediment package down to the basal décollement surface was probably subject to strong subglacial deformation (Fig. 3, LTFL, S.P. 0–125). The LTFL exhibits three structural domains with dif- ferent structural styles, which changes in dip (Fig. 3) and strike (Fig. 8) of the faults along the direction of trans- port. The structural styles mostly imply proglacial defor- mation, except for the presence of extensional faulting, mainly in the intermediate domain (Fig. 3), and the per- vasively sheared or chaotically mixed sediments in the easternmost end of the proximal domain (Fig. 3). The structural frameworks in the intermediate domain com- prise a combination of compressional and extensional faulting, which may imply subglacial deformation close to the ice margin (Croot 1987). Hence, each framework may reflect the position of the ice margin. If this is the case, subglacial stress did go deeper than the upper décollement. However, the excessive load of the UTFL piggyback imbricates in the hole of SF1 could also have induced the hydrodynamic shear and extension, as seen in the LTFL (SF13, step 3, Fig. 11). Extensional faulting in glaciotectonic settings has been described in a few studies (Croot 1988; Peder- sen 2005; Vaughan et al. 2024). However, the existence of several structural frameworks of thrust faults with tailing listric normal faults detaching on a gently dip- ping basal décollement surface (Fig. 3, intermediate domain of LTFL) has, to our knowledge, not previously been reported in glaciotectonic settings. This structural framework has, although on a much smaller scale, huge similarities with structural frameworks seen in deep- water thrust fault belts (DWTFB; e.g. Morley et al. 2011; Mahanjane & Franke 2014), where a linkage of up-dip extension with down-dip contraction via a dipping detachment zone is usually associated with the mecha- nism of gravity gliding (Morley et al. 2011). This combination of structural styles and deforma- tion types seems to be unique for the Fanø Bugt Gla- ciotectonic Complex, compared with other large-scale glaciotectonic complexes. One hypothesis is that the deformation mechanism was gravity spreading caused by the load of an ice sheet, and in the case of SF1 helped by the excessive body mass of a piggyback imbricate fan in the UTFL, combined with the mechanism of gravity gliding due to the inclined basal décollement surface. The basal décollement surface in the Fanø Bugt Gla- ciotectonic Complex is a gently inclined surface situated in Lower Miocene sediments with an approximate dip of 0.5° (Andersen 2004). A distinct change in strike and dip of the basal décollement surface occurs on each side of the study area (Fig. 7). Hence, the area stands out as hav- ing a lower inclination than the surrounding areas and a dip in the main part of the area parallel to the direction of transport of the LTFL. This begs the question as to whether this variation in dip of the décollement surface could have influenced the deformation. One hypothesis is that porewater flowing from the north was directed towards the study area following the dip of the basal décollement surface. The decrease in dip and change in strike on the border of the study area (Fig. 7) would slow porewater flow, allowing porewater pressure to build up. The high porewater pressure could have facilitated deformation and enhanced the possibility of both grav- ity spreading and gravity gliding. The Fanø Bugt Glaciotectonic Complex was formed by an ice sheet coming from an eastern source area (Huuse & Lykke-Andersen 2000a; Andersen 2004). The https://doi.org/10.34194/t407hg84 Andersen & Pedersen 2025: GEUS Bulletin 59. 8386. https://doi.org/10.34194/t407hg84 17 of 20 GEUSBULLETIN.ORG coincidence in the dip direction of the basal décollement surface and transport direction of the ice sheet possibly enhanced the deformation forces and caused the defor- mation to reach its maximum extent in the area studied here compared to the rest of the Fanø Bugt Glaciotec- tonic Complex, note the curvature on the deformation front (Fig. 7). The dipping décollement towards the foreland in the Fanø Bugt Complex contrasts with the common critical taper wedge models, where the basal detachment dips in the opposite direction towards the hinterland (Davis et al. 1983). However, it is important to keep in mind that it is the direction of dip of the topographic surface that drives the thrust movement and not the dip of the décol- lement (van der Pluijm & Marshak 2004). In the case of a glaciotectonic complex, the topographic surface of the ice provides the driving mechanism (Aber et  al. 1989; Andersen et al. 2005). In the case of the Fanø Bugt Gla- ciotectonic Complex, a relatively huge topographic high must have developed in connection with the formation of SF2, where the green reflection is elevated about 150 ms (c. 140 m) above normal level (Fig. 4). However, this raised topography is concentrated in a relatively small area (Fig. 8). 5.3. The kinematics of the Fanø Bugt Glaciotectonic Complex The kinematic evolution of the two structural frame- works SF1 and SF2 shows that the deformation of the UTFL preceded that of the LTFL (Figs 11 and 12). This is supported by the map of the internal décollement (Fig. 9), which shows a wavy pattern with highs above thrust ridges and lows in between, indicating superimposed deformation. This should be seen in contrast to the area south of the study area, where the UTFL is sliding on a planar décollement surface, and no LTFL exists (Figs 5 and 6). Based on our observations, we suggest that progres- sive deformation took place nearly simultaneously, in the LTFL and UTFL, but with a small difference in timing during propagation from the east to west. The deformations reach their maximum depth in the south-western corner of the study area, approximately coinciding with the 400 ms TWT (c. 360 m) contour curve of the basal décollement (Fig. 7). This may indicate that the south-western limit of the deformation of the LTFL in the Fanø Bugt Glaciotectonic Complex was controlled by the depth to the basal décollement (Andersen 2004; Andersen et al. 2005). The deformation of the UTFL con- tinues farther to the south beyond the study area (Figs 5 and 6). The westward progression of the deformation front is located at the same position for both the UTFL and the LTFL (Figs 3, 4, 10), suggesting that the deformation at both levels occurred during the same deforma- tion event. This conclusion was also drawn in the case of the Heligoland Glaciotectonic Complex (Lohrman et  al. 2022), where similar thrust fault architecture is observed. A key argument, which applies to both the Heligoland and Fanø Bugt Glaciotectonic Complexes, is the absence of undisturbed sediments and erosional truncation between the two levels of deformation. This suggests that the folds and thrusts at both levels formed contemporaneously, likely as part of a single deforma- tional event. 6. Conclusions The mapped area of the Fanø Bugt Glaciotectonic Com- plex contributes significant documentation of large- scale glaciodynamic features in the south-eastern North Sea. The complex architecture includes two main thrust- fault levels (LTFL and UTFL) and possibly a third (ITFL) in a small area. The LTFL is a duplex comprising imbri- cate thrust sheets and normal faults, detaching on a westward dipping basal décollement surface. The roof thrust of the duplex acts as an internal décollement, separating imbricated thrust faults of the UTFL from the LTFL. Thrust ridges range from hundreds of metres to kilometres scale, with crest elevation varying from a few tens of metres to more than 150 m above the level of the foreland deposits. Deformation extends down to c. 400 ms TWT at c. 360 m b.s.l., and prominent hanging-wall ridges can be traced along strike for more than c. 10 km. The UTFL reflects sequential superimposed defor- mation of the LTFL, both presumably formed during the same pre-Weichselian ice advance from the east. The deformation propagated westward with slight temporal offsets between the LTFL and the UTFL and a varying shortening within the complex. Structural styles vary across the complex, from east to west, as do the strike and dip of the faults. The UTFL generally deforms in a more ductile way than the LTFL, due to differences in sediment rheology. The LTFL rep- resents the Early/Middle Miocene marine Arnum Forma- tion with possible intercalations of the sandy Bastrup and Odderup Formations, whereas the UTFL constitutes the Middle Miocene, fully marine clayey Hodde and Gram Formations. Two spectacular structural frameworks, SF1 and SF2, have been analysed. Both structures include a hidden hill-hole pair potentially separated by a tear fault. A ten- tative restoration of profiles across SF1 and SF2 shows an average minimum shortening of c. 9–43% of the LTFL and c. 44–49% of the UTFL. The displacement var- ied in the order of –300 m (extension) and up to 3.8 km (compression). The unique combination of architecture and struc- tural styles suggests a deformation mechanism involving https://doi.org/10.34194/t407hg84 Andersen & Pedersen 2025: GEUS Bulletin 59. 8386. https://doi.org/10.34194/t407hg84 18 of 20 GEUSBULLETIN.ORG a combination of proglacial gravity spreading caused by the differential load of the ice sheet, possibly aided by gravity gliding due to the inclined basal décollement surface. High porewater pressure and the alignment of ice-sheet movement with the basal décollement dip possibly facilitated deformation further. If an opportunity arises to collect core material from within the complex, it would be valuable for future research to enable detailed analyses of the physical and mechanical properties of the sediments in and around the décollement surfaces and thereby enhance our under- standing of the mechanism behind their formation. Core material could also help constrain the glaciostratigraphic timing of the complex. Furthermore, seismic data with a higher resolution could contribute with images of small- er-scale structures, distinct sedimentary units and more accurate erosional contacts within the top 50–100 ms TWT, hence provide better conditions for reconstructing a detailed history of ice advance. Acknowledgements Holger Lykke-Andersen, Peter R. Jakobsen and James A. Chalmers are thanked for valuable discussions and comments on a first draft of the manuscript. Kristian A. Rasmussen and Anders Mathisen are thanked for the help with the topographic subsurface maps and Jette Halskov for the help with refinement of figures. The authors would like to thank David Collin Tanner and an anonymous reviewer for providing critical comments and suggestions that greatly improved the manuscript. Additional information Funding statement This project was financed by the Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland and the Danish Research Agency. The seismic data were financed by The Royal Danish Administration of Navigation and Hydrography, the Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland and the University of Aarhus. The Royal Danish Navy provided the ship for acquisition. Author contributions LTA: Conceptualisation, interpretation of seismic data, writing origi- nal draft, structural analysis, visualisation. SASP: Conceptualisation, interpretation, structural analysis. Competing interests The authors declare no competing interests. Data availability statement None provided. References Aber, J.S. 1985: The character of glaciotectonism. Geologie en Mijnbouw 64, 389–395. Aber, J.S. & Ber, A. 2007: Glaciotectonism. Developments in Quaternary Sciences 6, 246 pp. Aber, J.S., Croot, D. & Fenton, M.M. 1989: Glaciotectonic landforms and structures. Glaciology and Quaternary Geology series, 200 pp. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/ 978-94-015-6841-8_10 Andersen, L.T. 2004: The Fanø Bugt Glaciotectonic Thrust Fault Complex, Southeastern Danish North Sea. A study of large-scale glaciotectonics using high-resolution seismic data and numerical modelling. Dan- marks og Grønlands Geologiske Undersøgelse Rapport 30, 143 pp. PhD thesis, University of Aarhus. Andersen, L.T., Hansen, D.L. & Huuse, M. 2005: Numerical modelling of thrust structures in unconsolidated sediments: implications for gla- ciotectonic deformation. Journal of Structural Geology 27, 587–596. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsg.2005.01.005 Andersen, T.R., Poulsen, S.E, Christensen, S. & Jørgensen, F. 2013: A syn- thetic study of geophysics–based modelling of groundwater flow in catchments with a buried valley. Hydrogeology Journal 21, 491–503. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10040-012-0924-5 Berthelsen, A. 1979: Recumbent folds and boudinage structures formed by subglacial shear, an example of gravity tectonics. In: van der Lin- den, W.J.M. (ed.): Fixism, mobilism or relativism: Van Bemmelens Search, 253–260. Berthelsen, F. & Kristoffersen, N.F. 1974: On the environments and stratigraphy of the Late Tertiary of Rømø, SW Denmark. Danmarks Geologiske Undersøgelse, Årbog 1973, 5–14, Danmarks Geologiske Undersøgelse, Copenhagen. Boulton, G.S. & Caban, P. 1995: Groundwater flow beneath ice sheets: Part II – Its impact on glacier tectonic structures and moraine deformation. Quaternary Science Reviews 14, 563–587. https://doi. org/10.1016/0277-3791(95)00058-w Boulton, G.S., van der Meer, J.J.M., Beets, D.J., Hart, J.K. & Ruegg, G.H.J. 1999: The sedimentary and structural evolution of a recent push moraine complex: Holmstrømsbreen, Spitsbergen. Quaternary Science Reviews 18, 339–371. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1571-0866(04)80103-9 Boyer, S.E. & Elliott, D. 1982: Thrust Systems. AAPG Bulletin 66, 1196–1230. https://doi.org/10.1306/03b5a77d-16d1-11d7-8645000102c1865d Brandes, C. & Le Heron, D.P. 2010: The glaciotectonic deformation of Quaternary sediments by fault-propagation folding. Proceedings of the Geologists’ Association 121, 270–280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. pgeola.2010.03.001 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. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1502-3885.2009.00085.x Butler, R.W.H. 1987: Thrust sequences. Journal of the Geological Society of London 144, 619–634. https://doi.org/10.1144/gsjgs.144.4.0619 Clausen, O.R. & Huuse, M. 1999: Topography of the Top Chalk Surface on and offshore Denmark. Marine and Petroleum Geology 16, 677–691. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0264-8172(99)00003-3 Croot, D.G. 1987: Glacio-tectonic structures: A mesoscale model of thin-skinned thrust sheets? Journal of Structural Geology 9, 797–808. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8141(87)90081-2 Croot, D.G. 1988: Morphological, structural and mechanical analysis of neoglacial ice-pushed ridges in Iceland. In: Croot, D.G. (ed.): Glaciotec- tonics: Forms and Processes, 33–48. Balkema, Rotterdam. Dahlstrom, C.D.A. 1969: Balanced cross-sections. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences 6, 743–757. https://doi.org/10.1139/e69-069 De Paor, D.G. 1988: Balanced section in thrust belts part 1: construction. AAPG Bulletin 72(1), 73–90. https://doi.org/10.1306/703c81cd-1707- 11d7-8645000102c1865d  Ehlers, J. 1990: Reconstructing the dynamics of the North-West Euro- pean Pleistocene ice sheets. Quaternary Science Reviews 9, 71–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/0277-3791(90)90005-u Friis, H. 1995: Neogene aflejringer. In: Nielsen, O.B. (ed.): Danmarks geologi fra Kridt til i dag. Aarhus Geokompendier 1, 115–128. Aarhus Geokompendier Aarhus University, Aarhus. Gehrmann, A., Meschede, M., Hüneke, H. & Pedersen, S.A.S. 2019: Sea cliff at Kieler Ufer (Pleistocene stripes 11–16) – Large-scale archi- tecture and kinematics of the Jasmund Glacitectonic Complex. DEUQUA Special Publications 2, 19–27. https://doi.org/10.5194/ deuquasp-2-19-2019 https://doi.org/10.34194/t407hg84 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-6841-8_10 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-6841-8_10 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsg.2005.01.005 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10040-012-0924-5 https://doi.org/10.1016/0277-3791(95)00058-w https://doi.org/10.1016/0277-3791(95)00058-w https://doi.org/10.1016/s1571-0866(04)80103-9 https://doi.org/10.1306/03b5a77d-16d1-11d7-8645000102c1865d https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pgeola.2010.03.001 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pgeola.2010.03.001 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1502-3885.2009.00085.x https://doi.org/10.1144/gsjgs.144.4.0619 https://doi.org/10.1016/s0264-8172(99)00003-3 https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8141(87)90081-2 https://doi.org/10.1139/e69-069 https://doi.org/10.1306/703c81cd-1707-11d7-8645000102c1865d https://doi.org/10.1306/703c81cd-1707-11d7-8645000102c1865d https://doi.org/10.1016/0277-3791(90)90005-u https://doi.org/10.5194/deuquasp-2-19-2019 https://doi.org/10.5194/deuquasp-2-19-2019 Andersen & Pedersen 2025: GEUS Bulletin 59. 8386. https://doi.org/10.34194/t407hg84 19 of 20 GEUSBULLETIN.ORG Harris, C., Williams, G., Bramham, P., Eaton, G. & McCarroll, D. 1997: Glaciotectoniczed Quaternary sediments at Dinas Dinille, Gwynedd, North Wales, and their bearing on the style of deglaciation in the Eastern Irish Sea. Quaternary Science Reviews 16, 109–127. https:// doi.org/10.1016/s0277-3791(96)00050-9 Hart, J.K. 1990: Proglacial glaciotectonic deformation and the origin of the Cromer Ridge push moraine complex, North Norfolk, England. Boreas 19, 165–180. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1502-3885.1990.tb00577.x Hart, J.K. 1994: Proglacial glaciotectonic deformation at Melabak- kar-Ásbakkar, west Iceland. Boreas 23, 112–121. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1502-3885.1994.tb00592.x Hart, J.K. 1995: Drumlin formation in Southern Anglesey and Arvon, Northwest Wales. Journal of Quaternary Science 10, 3–14. https://doi. org/10.1002/jqs.3390100103 Hart, J.K. & Boulton, G.S. 1991: The interrelation of glaciotectonic and glaciodepositional processes within the glacial environ- ment. Quaternary Science Reviews 10, 335–350. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/0277-3791(91)90035-s Hills, E.S. 1963: Elements of structural geology. New York: Wiley, 483 pp. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003465362 Hossack, R.J. 1979: The use of balanced cross-sections in the calculation of orogenic contraction: A review. Journal of the Geological Society 136, 705–711. https://doi.org/10.1144/gsjgs.136.6.0705 Houmark-Nielsen, M. 2007: Extent and age of Middle and late Pleisto- cene glaciations and periglacial episodes in southern Jylland, Den- mark. Bulletin of the Geological Society of Denmark 55, 9–35. https:// doi.org/10.37570/bgsd-2007-55-02 Houmark-Nielsen, M. 2011: Pleistocene glaciations in Denmark: a closer look at chronology, ice dynamics and landforms. In: Ehlers, I. et  al. (eds): Quaternary glaciations – Extent and chronology. Developments in Quaternary Science 2, 47–57. Elsevier, Amsterdam. https://doi. org/10.1016/b978-0-444-53447-7.00005-2 Hubbert, M.K. & Ruby, W.W. 1959: Role of fluid pressure in mechanics of overthrust faulting. Geological Society of America Bulletin 70, 115–166. https://doi.org/10.1130/0016-7606(1959)70[167:rofpim]2.0.co;2 Huuse, M. 2000: Cenozoic evolution of the eastern North Sea Basin – New evidence from high-resolution and conventional seismic data. 130 pp. PhD Thesis, Aarhus Geoscience. Huuse, M. 2002: Late Cenozoic palaeogeography of the eastern North Sea Basin: climatic vs. tectonic forcing of basin margin uplift and del- taic progradation. Bulletin of the Geological Society of Denmark 49, 145–169. https://doi.org/10.37570/bgsd-2003-49-12 Huuse, M. & Lykke-Andersen, H. 2000a: Large-scale glaciotectonic thrust structures in the eastern Danish North Sea. In: Maltman, A. et  al.: Deformation of Glacial Materials. Geological Society, Lon- don, Special Publications 176, 293–305. https://doi.org/10.1144/gsl. sp.2000.176.01.22 Huuse, M. & Lykke-Andersen, H. 2000b: Overdeepened Quaternary valleys in the eastern Danish North Sea: morphology and origin. Quaternary Science Reviews 19, 1233–1253. https://doi.org/10.1016/ S0277-3791(99)00103-1 Huuse, M., Lykke-Andersen, H. & Michelsen, O. 2001: Cenozoic evolu- tion of the eastern Danish North Sea. Marine Geology 177, 243–269. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0025-3227(01)00168-2 Høyer, A.S., Jørgensen, F., Piotrowski, J.A. & Jakobsen, P.R. 2013: Deeply rooted glaciotectonism in western Denmark: geological compo- sition, structural characteristics and the origin of Varde hill-is- land. Journal of Quaternary Science 28(7), 683–696. https://doi. org/10.1002/jqs.2667 Japsen, P. 1998: Regional Velocity-Depth Anomalies, North Sea Chalk: a record of overpressure and Neogene Uplift and Erosion. AAPG Bulletin 82, 2031–2074. https://doi.org/10.1306/00aa7bda-1730-11d7- 8645000102c1865d Jordt, H., Faleide, J.I, Bjørlykke, K. & Ibrahim, M.T. 1995: Cenozoic sequence stratigraphy of the central and northern North Sea basin: tectonic development, sediment distribution and prove- nance areas. Marine Petroleum Geology 12, 845–879. https://doi. org/10.1016/0264-8172(95)98852-v Jørgensen, F. et al. 2012: Transboundary geophysical mapping of geo- logical elements and salinity distribution critical for the assessment of future sea water intrusion in response to sea level rise. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 16, 1845–1862. https://doi.org/10.5194/ hess-16-1845-2012 Klint, K.E.S. & Pedersen, S.A.S. 1995: The Hanklit glaciotectonic thrust fault complex, Mors, Denmark. Danmarks Geologiske Undersøgelse Serie A 35, 30 pp. https://doi.org/10.34194/seriea.v35.7055 Knudsen, K.L. & Penny, D.N. 1987: Foraminifera and Ostracoda in Late Elsterian-Holsteinian deposits at Tornskov and adjacent areas in Jut- land, Denmark. Danmarks Geologiske Undersøgelse Serie B 10, 7–67. https://doi.org/10.34194/serieb.v10.7076 Kupetz, M. 2001: Glazialtektonik Von der Wirkung pleistozäner Inlandeis- gletcher, Naturwissenschaftliche Rundschau 54, Jahrgang 9, Stuttgart, 457–464. Larsen, B. & Andersen, L.T. 2005: Late Quaternary stratigraphy and morphogenesis in the Danish eastern North Sea and its relation to onshore geology. Netherlands Journal of Geosciences – Geologie en Mijnbouw 84, 113–128. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0016774600023003 Lohrberg, A., Schwarzer, K., Unverricht, D., Omlin, A. & Krastel, S. 2020: Architecture of tunnel valleys in the southeastern North Sea: new insights from high-resolution seismic imaging. Journal of Quaternary Science 35, 892–906. https://doi.org/10.1002/jqs.3244 Lohrberg, A., Krastel, S., Unverricht, D. & Schwarzer, K. 2022: The Heligo- land Glacitectonic Complex In the southeastern North Sea: indicators of a pre- or early Elsterian ice margin. Boreas 51, 100–117. https://doi. org/10.1111/bor.12551 Mahanjane, E.S. & Franke, D. 2014: The Rovuma Delta deep-water fold- and-thrust belt, offshore Mozambique. Tectonophysics 614, 91–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tecto.2013.12.017 Mathews, W.H. & Mackay, J.R. 1960: Deformation on soils by ice and the influence of porewater pressure on permafrost. Transactions of the Royal Society of Canada 54, 27–36. Michelsen, O., Thomsen, E., Danielsen, M., Heilmann-Clausen, C., Jordt, H. & Lauersen, G.V. 1999: Cenozoic sequence stratigraphy in the eastern North Sea. In: de Graciansky, P.Ch. et al. (eds.): Mesozoic and Cenozoic Sequence Stratigraphy of Western European Basins. Soci- ety of Sedimentary Geology (SEPM) Special Publication 60, 91–118. SEPM (Society for Sedimentary Geology), Tulsa, Oklahoma. https://doi. org/10.2110/pec.98.02.0091 Moran, S.R. 1971: Glaciotectonic structures in Drift. In: Goldthwait, R.P. (ed.): Till, a symposium, 127–148. Columbus: Ohio State University Press. Morley, C.K., King, R., Hillis, R., Tingay, M. & Backe, G. 2011: Deepwater fold and thrust belt classification, tectonics, structure and hydrocar- bon prospectivity: a review. Earth-Science Reviews 104(1–3), 41–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2010.09.010 Nielsen, L.H. & Japsen, P. 1991: Deep wells in Denmark 1935–1990. Litho- stratigraphic subdivision. Geological Survey of Denmark. Danmarks Geologiske Undersøgelse Serie A 31, 179 pp. Ottesen, D., Steward, M., Brönner, M. & Batchelor, C.L. 2020: Tunnel valleys of the central and northern North Sea (56°N to 62°N): Dis- tribution and characteristics. Marine Geology 425, 1–19. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.margeo.2020.106199 Pedersen, S.A.S. 1987: Comparative studies of gravity tectonics in Qua- ternary sediments and sedimentary rocks related to fold belts. In: Jones, M.E. & Preston, R.M.F. (eds): Deformation of sediments and sedimentary rocks. Geological Society, London. Special Publications 29, 165–180. https://doi.org/10.1144/gsl.sp.1987.029.01.14 Pedersen, S.A.S. 1996: Progressive glaciotectonic deformation in Weichselian and Palaeogene deposits at Feggeklit, Northern Den- mark. Bulletin of the Geological Society of Denmark 42, 153–174. https://doi.org/10.37570/bgsd-1995-42-13 Pedersen, S.A.S. 2000–02–10: Superimposed deformation in glaciotec- tonics, Bulletin of the Geological Society of Denmark 46, 125–144. Copenhagen. https://doi.org/10.37570/bgsd-1999-46-11 Pedersen, S.A.S. 2005: Structural analysis of the Rubjerg Knude Glacio- tectonic Complex. Vendsyssel, northern Denmark. Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland Bulletin 8, 192 pp + 2 plates. https://doi. org/10.34194/geusb.v8.5253 Pedersen, S.A.S. 2014: Architecture of Glaciotectonic Complexes. Geo- sciences 2014(4), 269–296. https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences4040269 https://doi.org/10.34194/t407hg84 https://doi.org/10.1016/s0277-3791(96)00050-9 https://doi.org/10.1016/s0277-3791(96)00050-9 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1502-3885.1990.tb00577.x https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1502-3885.1994.tb00592.x https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1502-3885.1994.tb00592.x https://doi.org/10.1002/jqs.3390100103 https://doi.org/10.1002/jqs.3390100103 https://doi.org/10.1016/0277-3791(91)90035-s https://doi.org/10.1016/0277-3791(91)90035-s https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003465362 https://doi.org/10.1144/gsjgs.136.6.0705 https://doi.org/10.37570/bgsd-2007-55-02 https://doi.org/10.37570/bgsd-2007-55-02 https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-444-53447-7.00005-2 https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-444-53447-7.00005-2 https://doi.org/10.1130/0016-7606(1959)70[167:rofpim]2.0.co;2 https://doi.org/10.37570/bgsd-2003-49-12 https://doi.org/10.1144/gsl.sp.2000.176.01.22 https://doi.org/10.1144/gsl.sp.2000.176.01.22 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0277-3791(99)00103-1 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0277-3791(99)00103-1 https://doi.org/10.1016/s0025-3227(01)00168-2 https://doi.org/10.1002/jqs.2667 https://doi.org/10.1002/jqs.2667 https://doi.org/10.1306/00aa7bda-1730-11d7-8645000102c1865d https://doi.org/10.1306/00aa7bda-1730-11d7-8645000102c1865d https://doi.org/10.1016/0264-8172(95)98852-v https://doi.org/10.1016/0264-8172(95)98852-v https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-16-1845-2012 https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-16-1845-2012 https://doi.org/10.34194/seriea.v35.7055 https://doi.org/10.34194/serieb.v10.7076 https://doi.org/10.1017/s0016774600023003 https://doi.org/10.1002/jqs.3244 https://doi.org/10.1111/bor.12551 https://doi.org/10.1111/bor.12551 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tecto.2013.12.017 http://P.Ch https://doi.org/10.2110/pec.98.02.0091 https://doi.org/10.2110/pec.98.02.0091 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2010.09.010 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.margeo.2020.106199 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.margeo.2020.106199 https://doi.org/10.1144/gsl.sp.1987.029.01.14 https://doi.org/10.37570/bgsd-1995-42-13 https://doi.org/10.37570/bgsd-1999-46-11 https://doi.org/10.34194/geusb.v8.5253 https://doi.org/10.34194/geusb.v8.5253 https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences4040269 Andersen & Pedersen 2025: GEUS Bulletin 59. 8386. https://doi.org/10.34194/t407hg84 20 of 20 GEUSBULLETIN.ORG Pedersen, S.A.S. & Boldreel, L.O. 2015: Thrust fault architecture of glaci- otectonic complexes in Denmark. Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland Bulletin 33, 17–20. https://doi.org/10.34194/geusb.v33.4479 Pedersen, S.A.S. & Boldreel, L.O. 2017: Glaciotectonic deformations in the Jammerbugt and glaciodynamic development in the eastern North Sea. Journal of Quaternary Science 32(2), 183–195. https://doi. org/10.1002/jqs.2887 Pfiffner, O.A. 2017: Thick-skinned and thin-skinned tectonics: A global perspective. Geosciences 7, 71, 1–89. https://doi.org/10.3390/ geosciences7030071 Phillips, E., Evans, D.J.A., Atkinson, N. & Kendall, A. 2017: Structural architecture and glacitectonic evolution of the Mud Buttes cupola hill complex, Southern Alberta, Canada. Quaternary Science Reviews 164, 110–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2017.03.027 Phillips, E., Cotterill, C., Johnson, K., Crombie, K., James, L., Carr, S. & Ruiter, A. 2018: Large-scale glaciotectonic deformation in response to active ice sheet retreat across Dogger Bank (southern central North Sea) during the Last Glacial Maximum. Quaternary Science Reviews 179, 24–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2017.11.001 Prins, L.T. & Andersen, K.J. 2019: Buried late Quaternary channel sys- tems in the Danish North Sea –Genesis and geological evolution. Quaternary Science Reviews 223, 105943. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. quascirev.2019.105943 Rasmussen, E.S. 1996: Sequence stratigraphic subdivision of the Oligo- cene and Miocene succession in South Jutland. Bulletin of the Geo- logical Society of Denmark 43, 143–155. https://doi.org/10.37570/ bgsd-1996-43-14 Rasmussen, E.S. 2004: Stratigraphy and depositional evolution of the uppermost Oligocene – Miocene succession in Denmark. Bul- letin of the Geological Society of Denmark 51, 89–109. https://doi. org/10.37570/bgsd-2004-51-07 Rasmussen, E.S., Dybkjær, K. & Piasecki, S. 2010: Lithostratigraphy of the Upper Oligocene – Miocene succession of Denmark. Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland Bulletin 22, 92 pp. https://doi. org/10.34194/geusb.v22.4733 Rosenkrantz, A. 1944: Nye bidrag til Forståelsen af Ristinge Klints Opbyg- ning. Dansk Geologisk Forening 10, 431–435. Salomonsen, I. 1995: Origin of a deep buried valley system in Pleisto- cene deposits of the eastern central North Sea. In: Michelsen, O. (ed.): Proceedings of the Second Symposium on Marine Geology – Geology of the North Sea and Skagerrak. Danmarks Geologiske Undersøgelse Serie C 12, 7–19. Geological Survey of Denmark, Copenhagen. https:// doi.org/10.34194/seriec.v12.7106 Sandersen, P.B.E. & Jørgensen, F. 2017: Buried tunnel valleys in Den- mark and their impact on the geological architecture of the subsur- face. Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland Bulletin 38, 13–16. https://doi.org/10.34194/geusb.v38.4388 Sha, L.P., Schwartz, C., van Lemberge, V.M., Cameron, T.D.J., Zöllmer, V., Konradi, P., Laban, C., Streif, H. & Schüttenhelm, Q. 1991: Qua- ternary Sedimentary Sequences in the southern North Sea basin. Sedimentology Working Group of Southern North Sea Project. In: Sha, L.P. (ed.): Final discipline report of the project: The Modelling and Dynamics of the Quaternary Geology of the Southern North Sea and their Applications to Environmental Protection and Industrial Developments. Commission of European Communities Rijks Geolo- gische Dienst, Haarlem 135 pp: Directorate General, XII, Science Pro- gramme Contact No. SCI* 0128–C (EDB). https://doi.org/10.13140/ RG.2.1.4118.2803 Steinicke, G. 1972: Endogene Tektonik in den Unter-Maastricht-Vorkom- men auf Jasmund (Rügen). Geologie Supplement 71/72, 207 pp. Stewart, M.A., Lonergan, L. & Hampson, G. 2013: 3D seismic analysis of buried tunnel valleys in the central North Sea: morphology, cross-cut- ting generations and glacial history. Quaternary Science Reviews 72, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2013.03.016 van der Pluijm, B.A. & Marshak, S. 2004: Earth structure: An introduction to structural geology and tectonics. 2nd edition. 672 pp. WW Norton & Company, Inc., New York. van der Wateren, D.F.M. 1985: A model of glacial tectonics applied to the ice-pushed ridges in the central Netherlands. Bulletin of the Geological Society Denmark 34, 55–74. https://doi.org/10.37570/ bgsd-1985-34-06 van der Wateren, D.F.M. 1995: Structural geology and sedimentology of push moraines. Medelingen Rijks Geologische Dienst 54, 1–168. Vaughan, D.P., Phillips, E., Lee, J.R. & Hart, J.K. 2024: A thin-skinned thrust model for ice-marginal glaciotectonic detachment and emplacement of Caboniferous bedrock rafts at Kilcummin Head, NW Ireland. Pro- ceedings of the Geologists’ Association 135, 260–281. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.pgeola.2024.04.001  Vaughan-Hirsch, D.P. & Phillips, E.R. 2017: Mid-Pleistocene thin-skinned glaciotectonic thrusting of the Aberdeen Ground Formation, Central Graben region, central North Sea. Journal of Quaternary Science 32(2), 196–212. https://doi.org/10.1002/jqs.2836 Wenau, S. & Alves, T.M. 2020: Salt-induced crestal faults control the formation of Quaternary tunnel valleys in the southern North Sea. Boreas 49, 799–812. https://doi.org/10.1111/bor.12461 Wilkerson, M.S. & Dicken, C.L. 2001: Quick-look techniques for evalu- ating two-dimensional cross-sections in detached contractional set- tings. AAPG Bulletin 85(10), 1759–1770. Williams, D.G., Bramham, P.J., Eaton, G.P. & Harris, C. 2001: Late Deven- sian glaciotectonic deformation at St Bees, Cumbria: a critical wedge model. Journal of the Geological Society of London 158, 125–135. https://doi.org/10.1144/jgs.158.1.125 Winsemann, J., Koopmann, H., Tanner, D.C., Lutz, R., Lang, J., Brandes, C. & Gaedicke, C. 2020: Seismic interpretation and structural res- toration of the Heligoland glaciotectonic thrust fault complex: Implications for multiple deformation during (pre-) Elsterian to Warthian ice advances into the southern North Sea Basin. Qua- ternary Science Reviews 227, 106068. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. quascirev.2019.106068 Yilmaz, Ö. 1987: Seismic data processing. In: Doherty S.M. (ed.): Investi- gation in Geophysics, Volume 2. Society of Exploration Geophysicists Investigations in Geophysics 2, 526 pp. Tulsa, Oklahoma. https://doi.org/10.34194/t407hg84 https://doi.org/10.34194/geusb.v33.4479 https://doi.org/10.1002/jqs.2887 https://doi.org/10.1002/jqs.2887 https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences7030071 https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences7030071 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2017.03.027 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2017.11.001 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2019.105943 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2019.105943 https://doi.org/10.37570/bgsd-1996-43-14 https://doi.org/10.37570/bgsd-1996-43-14 https://doi.org/10.37570/bgsd-2004-51-07 https://doi.org/10.37570/bgsd-2004-51-07 https://doi.org/10.34194/geusb.v22.4733 https://doi.org/10.34194/geusb.v22.4733 https://doi.org/10.34194/seriec.v12.7106 https://doi.org/10.34194/seriec.v12.7106 https://doi.org/10.34194/geusb.v38.4388 https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.4118.2803 https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.4118.2803 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2013.03.016 https://doi.org/10.37570/bgsd-1985-34-06 https://doi.org/10.37570/bgsd-1985-34-06 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pgeola.2024.04.001 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pgeola.2024.04.001 https://doi.org/10.1002/jqs.2836 https://doi.org/10.1111/bor.12461 https://doi.org/10.1144/jgs.158.1.125 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2019.106068 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2019.106068 Piggyback imbrications, duplex stacking and sequential superimposed deformation in the Fanø Bugt Gla 1. Introduction 2. Geological setting 3. Data and methods 3.1. Seismic data acquisition and parameters 3.2. Interpretation, maps and plots 3.3. Structural analysis 4. Results 4.1. The seismic interpretation 4.2. The mapped surfaces 4.3. Architecture and structural styles 4.4. The basal décollement surface 4.5. The structural trend of the lower and intermediate thrust fault levels 4.6. The upper décollement surface 4.7. The structural trends in the UTFL 4.8. Restoration of the deformed sections 4.9. The structural framework and dynamic development of SF1 and SF2 5. Discussion 5.1. Unique features of the Fanø Bugt Glaciotectonic Complex 5.2. Deformation mechanisms and structural styles 5.3. The kinematics of the Fanø Bugt Glaciotectonic Complex 6. Conclusions Acknowledgements Additional information Funding statement Author contributions Competing interests Data availability statement References Figures Fig. 1 Location in the south-east Danish North Sea of the Fanø Bugt Glaciotectonic Complex and the Fig. 2 Stratigraphic diagram (modified from Rasmussen 2004). The succession involved in the thrustin Fig. 3 Seismic section (Fl01-50) showing a duplex with imbricated thrust sheet in two levels. The lo Fig. 4 Seismic section (Fl01-54) showing an approximate dip profile across the structural framework Fig. 5 Seismic section (Fl00-27) is crossing the area oblique to strike of the structural elements a Fig. 6 Seismic section (Fl01-19) is crossing the area oblique to the strike of structural elements a Fig. 7 A two-way time-contour map of the basal décollement surface and its continuation beyond the w Fig. 8 A structural two-way time (TWT) contour map showing the strike of the main structures at t Fig. 9 3D map of the upper décollement surface with a 2.5 times exaggeration gives a perspective vie Fig. 10 Map comparing the trends of the faults of the UTFL (black) compared with those of the LTFL ( Fig. 11 Four steps in the dynamic development of the glaciotectonic framework SF1 illustrated by bal Fig. 12 Four steps in the dynamic development of the glaciotectonic framework SF2 illustrated by ba