Basin Analysis with a Spreadsheet
Theodore Lloyd Larrieu
Geology Department
Vanderbilt University
Nashville, Tennessee 37235
ABSTRACT
Using a spreadsheet, students can easily apply
backstripping corrections to a sedimentary column
to determine total and tectonic subsidence as a
function of time, without programming. Because the
spreadsheet performs calculations openly in a logi-
cally ordered series of tables, students learn more
about the process of backstripping than if they use
a "black-box" program which conceals the path from
input to output. Creating high-quality plots of un-
compacted stratigraphy versus time or basement
subsidence versus time is simple with a spread-
sheet, and inspection of such graphs can give stu-
dents insight into the mechanisms that drive
subsidence in different tectonic settings.
Keywords: Computer-assisted instruction; geology
- teaching and curriculum; geophysics - general;
miscellaneous and mathematical geology; stratig-
raphy, historical geology, paleoecology.
Introduction
As spreadsheets become more powerful and more
versatile, and as the desktop computers that run
spreadsheet software get faster, many quantitative
geologic problems, which heretofore required pro-
gramming ability or specialized software to tackle,
can now be solved using spreadsheets. A series of
authors haCVe demonstrated the application of spread-
sheets to laboratory and classroom instruction for
steady-state groundwater modeling (Ousey, 1986), for
petrogenetic modeling (Martin 1993, Holm, 1988), for
calculation of CIPW norms (Malisetty and others,
1992) and for geochemistry (Dutch, 1991). Now that
most spreadsheets (Excel, Quattro Pro, and Lotus 1-2-3)
contain built-in "equation-solvers" (utilities for nu-
merically approximating maxima, minima, and roots
of equations), backstripping analysis can be added to
the list of geologic spreadsheet applications.
General-purpose spreadsheet software frees geolo-
gists from the expense and constraints of specialized
software. Even to geologists with strong program-
ming abilities, spreadsheets provide an appealing
alternative to the time-consuming process of writing
and debugging hundreds or thousands of lines of code.
The contrast between the spreadsheet discussed in
this article, which took a day-and-a-half to create, and
the program Subside! written by Wilkerson and Hsui
(1989), which contains 1,100 lines of Pascal code, is
clear. Holm (1988) suggested the following benefits of
spreadsheets compared to other software for class-
room instruction:
Journal of Geological Ed nation, 1995, v. 43, p. 107
1) programming skills are not a prerequisite for us-
ing a computer to solve problems;
2) graphs of output can be viewed instantly for a
given solution;
3) the interactive nature of spreadsheets allows
rapid testing of the effects of changes in variables
or constants;
4) report-quality graphs and tables can be printed
directly from within the spreadsheet.
Furthermore, because of the open manner in which
spreadsheet data are calculated, students who use
spreadsheet models to solve instructional problems
are more likely to understand the solution than stu-
dents who use "black box" programs where only the
input and output are evident.
Backstripping Calculations
Backstripping analysis is the quantitative analysis
of subsidence rates through time (Allen and Allen,
1991). The fundamental tool of backstripping analy-
sis is the mathematical decompaction of sediments to
their correct thickness at any time since their depo-
sition. If decompaction can be coupled with informa-
tion on paleo-water depth and eustatic sea-level
fluctuations, it is possible to discern the magnitude
and rate of driving (tectonic) subsidence in a basin
during its history. The process of separating the tec-
tonic subsidence from isostatic subsidence is called
backstripping. A thorough discussion of the back-
stripping process can be found in the text by Allen
and Allen (1991). Papers by Steckler and Watts (1978),
Moxon and Graham (1987), Pinter and Fulford
(1991), and Erikson and Pindell (1993) make good
case studies for the application of backstripping in
various tectonic settings.
Mathematical decompaction is based on the relation
of a sediment's porosity (percentage of water-filled void
space) to its burial depth. Sediment porosity decreases
with depth according to the relation
<t> - <|>0e-cy , (1)
where <|> is the porosity at a depth y, <|)0 is the .porosity
of the sediment at the surface, and c is a lithology-
dependent compaction coefficient (Allen and Allen,
1991). From the foregoing relation, an equation can
be derived for decompacting a stratigraphic unit by
conceptually sliding it up from its current buried
depth to any prior depth and determining its new
uncompacted or partially compacted thickness. The
decompaction equation (Allen and Allen, 1991) is
 Basin Analysis with a Spreadsheet
With an initial guess of y 2 ' in one spreadsheet cell,
Add (3) and equation (2) in another cell, EocceVs equation
Remove (2) and (3). Add (2) Partially compact (2) solver (Figure 2) can be invoked to iteratively find a
Decompact(l) Partially compact (1) Fully compact (1) solution to equation (2).
After completing the decompaction process, the
worker has in hand a record of the burial depths (and
by simple manipulation, thicknesses) of units in the
sediment column at different times in its history.
Changes in the elevation of the base of the sediment
column over time represent the total subsidence (or
uplift) of the basin floor. Bulk density of the strati-
graphic column can be determined for each time in-
terval from the porosity-depth relation (equation (1)),
therefore, the component of subsidence attributable
to sediment loading can be calculated as local (Airy)
isostasy (or as flexural loading if preferred). Sub-
tracting the isostatic subsidence from the total subsi-
dence yields the tectonic or driving subsidence.

Interpretation Of Backstripping Results

Ultimately geologists want to analyze the tectonic
Figure 1. Steps to decompact a column of sedimentary
units. From Allen and Allen (1991). subsidence in the basin they are studying. Large er-
rors in variables such as age and paleobathymetry
can confound straightforward calculation of subsi-
c cy dence timing and rates. For instance, in Cretaceous
o - y 2 - yi - (<J>/C)(e" yi - e' 2) + turbidite sequences of Mexico, paleobathymetry in
most of the section can only loosely be constrained to
(<J>/c)(e"cyi' - e - c V ) - y 2 ' + y,' . (2) lie between depths of 200 m to 3000 m, based on the
presence of "outer neritic to bathyal" benthic for-
Equation (2) must be solved for y 2 ', where y 2 ' and y^ aminifera (personal communication, Douglas Smith,
are the bottom and top burial depths of a unit at a 1994). However, although "absolute" determination
given time interval, y 2 and yx are present-day lower- of tectonic subsidence may carry large uncertainties,
and upper-burial depths (Figure 1), is the initial po- the shape of the curve can still yield insight into
rosity of the unit, and c is the compaction coefficient of subsidence mechanisms.
the unit. Equation (2) however does not have an alge- If subsidence has occurred primarily as a result of
braic solution; its solution must be approximated using thermal contraction (Figure 3a) of the basin litho-
a numerical technique such as Newton's Method. sphere, as would be expected at an oceanic or continen-
tal rift, the tectonic subsidence
curve will show initially high
rates of subsidence tapering off to
low rates over a period of about 50
million years (McKenzie, 1978).
Steckler and Watts (1978) provide
a good example of this behavior
along the eastern passive margin
of North America.
Another subsidence mechanism
is proximal tectonic loading. For ex-
ample, when continents collide, one
continent typically rides up onto
the other as subduction comes to a
close. The gradual encroachment of
the over-riding plate causes the
lithosphere of the continent be-
neath to flex ("peripheral foreland
basin," for example, see Ingersoll,
Figure 2. The Excel 4.0 "equation solver" dialog box. A reference to a cell 1988). The resulting tectonic sub-
containing an equation to minimize, maximize, or find the root of is entered
in the "Set Cell" field. An initial guess for the solution is entered in the "By sidence curve would show thermal
Changing Cells" field. Constraints to be observed when solving the equation subsidence of the continental
may be added. The "Options..." button calls up a second dialog box in which shelf, followed by a sudden and
users can enter approximation tolerances, search strategies, and iteration substantial increase in tectonic
limits. subsidence reflecting the onset of
Journal of Geological Education, 1995, v. 43, p. 108
 Basin Analysis with a Spreadsheet
B
I
& basement that was unaffected by the Laramide oro-
Time
D
Laramide
1
I
Time
tectonic loading (Figure 3b). Erikson and Pindell
(1993) use backstripping to reveal how the southern
edge of the Caribbean plate depressed the continen-
tal shelf of northeastern Venezuela.
One further example illustrates how varied the ap-
plications of backstripping can be. Moxon and Graham
(1987) used backstripping techniques on borehole data
from the Great Valley forearc basin of California. Their
results showed that the onset and cessation of Laramide
orogeny were recorded in the behavior of the North
American plate edge. Moreover, their work verified the
Journal of Geological Education, 1995, v. 43, p. 109
Figure 3 (left). Examples of tectonic subsidence curves
with shapes attributable to different subsidence mecha-
nisms. A) geometrically decreasing subsidence attribut-
able to thermal contraction (After Steckler and Watts,
1978); B) initial period of gradual subsidence reminiscent
of late-stage thermal contraction followed by rapid subsi-
dence attributable to tectonic loading (After Erikson and
Pindell, 1993); C) oceanward (west) side of the Great Val-
ley forearc basin records rapid subsidence during time of
Sierran arc magmatism, followed by uplift during
Laramide orogeny, while D) arcward (east) side of the
basin subsides due to thermal decay, apparently undis-
turbed by either event (After Moxon and Graham, 1987).
presence of a fundamental lateral change in the
basement underlying the Great Valley forearc. They
showed that the western half of the basin is under-
lain by easily deformed accreted material, whereas
the eastern half is underlain by much more rigid
geny (Figure 3, c and d).
SPREADSHEET ORGANIZATION.
The backstripping spreadsheet discussed below
was implemented in Excel 4.0, which is available for
Windows-compatible and Macintosh microcomput-
ers, although users familiar with other spreadsheets
such as Quattro Pro or Lotus 1-2-3 should have no
trouble implementing a similar spreadsheet. The ex-
ample spreadsheet utilizes data from Conoco Well
15/30-1 as presented in Allen and Allen (1991).
The spreadsheet layout consists of four blocks of
cells. Each of the first three blocks of cells has several
related tables containing input, variables, intermediate
values, formulae, or output. The fourth block of cells
contains graphs that are dynamically linked to the
various tables and update automatically when vari-
ables are changed and the spreadsheet recalculates.
The first block of cells consists of three tables con-
taining all the initial data required for backstripping
analysis. Figure 4 illustrates the layout of this first
block. The first table holds all lithologic information,
including names and descriptions of lithologic units, as
well as unit ages, depths, thicknesses, initial porosities,
compaction coefficients, and densities. The second ta-
ble in this block defines a matrix of named variables
from the data entered in the first block. Naming vari-
ables simplifies error correction and makes reading for-
mulas entered in cells easier. To name cells, one uses
the Excel 4.0 command {Formul^Create Names}. Be-
neath the variables table, a 2x2 block of cells defines
named constants for the density of water and of the
mantle.
The second block of cells contains two nearly sym-
metrical tables, situated one above the other (Figure 5).
This layout facilitates using Excel!s "Solver." The first
table contains row entries for each lithologic unit and
columns for each time interval. Initial guesses of depth
of the base of each decompacted unit at each time
interval are stored in the upper table. The lower table
contains decompaction equations (equation (2)), one
corresponding to each entry in the upper table.
Each time "Solver" is invoked (using the command
 Basin Analysis with a Spreadsheet

B c D E F G H I J K L
7 TABLE 1.1 - Data Entry - Lithologic
Depth
Thickness Coefficient Surface Density
8 # Unit Top(km) Base (km) (km) (1/km) Porosity (Kg/cu. m) Age (Ma)
9
10 0
11 5 Eocene-Paleocene 0 1.944 1.944 0.51 0.63 2720
12 Shales 55
13 4 Paleocene 1.944 2.549 0.605 0.27 0.49 2650
14 Sandstones 65
15 3 Upper Cretaceous 2.549 3.517 0.968 0.71 0.7 2710
16 Chalk 100
17 2 Lower Cretaceous 3.517 3.976 0.459 0.51 0.63 2720
18 Shales 140
19 Un6oftformity " lllilBl
20 160
21 1 Pre-Cretaceous 3.976 5.028 1.052 0.39 0.56 2680
22 Shaley Sandstones 210
23

L M N O P Q R S T

8 TABLE 1.2 - Variables Definition

9 Y1 Y2 Thick C Phi Rho
10 Unit5 0 1.944 1.944 0.51 0.63 2720
11 Unit 4 1.944 2.549 0.605 0.27 0.49 2650
12 Unit 3 2.549 3.517 0.968 0.71 0.70 2710
13 Unit 2 3.517 3.976 0.459 0.51 0.63 2720
14 Unit 1 3.976 5.028 1.052 0.39 0.56 2680
15
16 TABLE 1.3 - Constants
17 Rho H20 1030
18 Rho Mantle 3330
19

Figure 4. The first block of cells. All lithologic data are entered in table 1.1. Table 1.2 is used to define variables for
use in the spreadsheet (for example Unitl Y1 can be typed into a formula instead of $N$14) and updates itself
automatically based on the values entered in table 1.1. Constant values for the density of water and the mantle go
into table 1.3 and can also be referred to by name as Rho_H20 and RhoJVIantle in a formula. The data shown here
are from Allen and Allen (1991).

{Formul^Solver}) to solve an equation in the lower
table, it does so by changing the corresponding value
in the upper table. The process of changing the value
in the upper table is iterative; at each iteration,
"Solver" refines the approximate value in the upper
table until the solution to the equation in the lower
table is less than or equal to the tolerance specified
in the Solver/Options dialog box. Note that the equa-
tions in the lower table are all less than or equal to
1 x 10"6 , the tolerance limit set for the current spread-
sheet run.
The third block of cells (Figure 6) contains tables
that manipulate the decompacted formation depths lo-
cated in the first table of the second block. The first
table in this third section contains the thicknesses of
Journal of Geological Education, 1995, v. 43, p. 110
the formations, determined by subtracting the bot-
tom elevation of each unit from the bottom elevation
of the unit above. The second table in this section
calculates average porosities for each of the units,
beginning with the post-rift Upper Cretaceous sedi-
ments (see Allen and Allen, 1991 for discussion). The
third table uses the porosities in the second table to
calculate a bulk density of the column. The bulk den-
sities are used in yet a fourth small table to calculate
the tectonic component of subsidence by removing
the effects of Airy-type loading.
The fourth block of cells contains two graphs (Fig-
ure 7). The first is a bar graph that utilizes the infor-
mation in table 3.1 to present a stratigraphic column
of the backstripped units showing their thicknesses
 Basin Analysis with a Spreadsheet

Figure 5. The second block of cells. Table 2.1 contains the basal elevations of each unit at each time interval after
backstripping. Table 2.2 contains decompaction equations used to calculate the basal elevation of each unit at each
time interval. Initially, each cell in table 2.1 was given an initial value equal to the unit's modern thickness, and then
the equation-solver was invoked to find an approximate solution to each formula in table 2.2 by changing the
corresponding value in table 2.1. Note that all the values in table 2.2 are less than 1E-06, the specified tolerance for
this solution.

over time. The second graph, a line graph (Figure 8),
presents the total and tectonic subsidence of the
backstripped section at each time interval beginning
at 100 Ma. The concave-up shape of the curve sug-
gests that thermal decay is the mechanism causing
the tectonic subsidence (Allen and Allen, 1991,
Steckler and Watts, 1978).
Conclusions
The spreadsheet described here can serve as an in-
structional tool for students studying basin analysis
and as a data-reduction tool for researchers. Because of
the interactive nature of the spreadsheet program, stu-
dents can experiment with changing input values and
immediately see the consequences of the changes in the
spreadsheet's tables and graphs. One suggested class-
room use of the spreadsheet involves assigning groups
of students to find and run published data sets from
different types of sedimentary basins and then compar-
ing results among groups. Different basin types can
have varying patterns of subsidence, from exponen-
tially decaying (for example passive margins, Steckler
and Watts, 1978) to episodic (for example forearc
basins, Moxon and Graham, 1992) and students can
learn about the different mechanisms that cause subsi-
dence from the exercise.
The spreadsheet described in this article is being
made freely available. Interested parties may obtain a
copy through anonymous FTP. The files Basin4.xlw
and Basin5.xls (for Windows) and Basin For Mac
(Macintosh version) are available at ftp.vanderbilt.edu
in directory \pub\geology. The distribution version
of the spreadsheet contains complete instructions for
its use and macros that automate the process of set-
ting initial values and solving the decompaction
equations.
Acknowledgments
I thank Douglas Smith for his encouragement in
getting me to develop this spreadsheet. This paper is
an outgrowth of a semester project in Geology 241,
Sedimentation and Tectonics, taught by Douglas
Smith at Vanderbilt University.
References Cited
Allen, P.A and Allen, J.R., 1990, Basin Analysis: princi-
ples and applications. Blackwell Scientific Publications,
Oxford, 451 pp.
Dutch, S.I., 1991, Geochemical calculations using spread-
sheets: Journal of Geological Education, v. 39, p. 127-
132.
Erikson, J.P. and Pindell, J.L., 1993, Analysis of subsi-
dence in northeastern Venezuela as a discriminator of
tectonic models for northern South America: Geology,
v. 21, p. 945-948.
Holm, P.E., 1988, Petrogenetic modelling with a spread-
sheet program: Journal of Geological Education, v. 36,
p. 155-156.
Ingersoll, RV., 1988, Tectonics of sedimentary basins: Geo-
logical Society of America Bulletin, v. 100, p. 1704-
1719.
Malisetty, M.R, Garlick, G.D., and Rao, RJ., 1992, Use of
a spreadsheet in teaching the CIPW norm: Journal of
Geological Education, v. 36, p. 237-240.

Journal of Geological Education, 1995, v. 43, p. 111

 Basin Analysis with a Spreadsheet

Figure 6. The third block of cells. Table 3.1 contains unit thicknesses at each time interval, calculated from table 2.1
(see Figure 3). Table 3.2 calculates the average porosity of each unit beginning with the Upper Cretaceous at 100
Ma. The average porosity of table 3.2 is used in table 3.3 along with the various sediment densities from table 1.2 to
calculate the bulk density of the sedimentary column at each time interval. Table 3.4 calculates the (tectonic) subsi-
dence not attributable to Airy-type sediment loading.

Martin, B.S., 1993, Interactive modelling of open magma Wilkerson, M.S., and Hsui, A.T., 1989, Application of sedi-
systems with spreadsheets: Journal of Geological Edu- ment backstripping corrections for basin analysis using
cation, v. 41, p. 164-169 microcomputers: Journal of Geological Education, v. 37,
McKenzie, D.P., 1978, Some remarks on the development p. 337-340.
of sedimentary basins: Earth and Planetary Science
Letters. 40, p. 25-32.
Moxon, I.W., and Graham, S.A., 1987, History and controls
of subsidence in the Late Creataceous-Tertiary Great
Valley forearc basin, California: Geology, v. 15, p. 626-
629.
Ousey, J.R, Jr., 1986, Modeling steady state groundwater
flow using microcomputer spreadsheets: Journal of
Geological Education, v. 34, p. 305-311.
Steckler, M.S., and Watts, A.B., 1978, Subsidence of the
Atlantic-type continental margin off New York: Earth
and Planetary Science Letters. 41, p. 1-13.
Journal of Geological Education, 1995, v. 43, p. 112
 Basin Analysis with a Spreadsheet

Figure 7. The backstripped sediment column over time. Note the progressive compaction of units lower in the column
as units are added above.

Backstripped Subsidence Plot

Age (Ma)
100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

Figure 8. Plot of tectonic and total subsidence since 100 Ma. Note the concave-up shape of the subsidence curve,
reminiscent of thermal contraction of the basin lithosphere (Allen and Allen, 1991).
Journal of Geological Education, 1995, v. 43, p. 113