Digital rocks: linking forward modelling to carbonate facies |
| |
| Authors: | A L Boylan D A Waltham D W J Bosence B Badenas M Aurell |
| |
| Institution: | SedTec Modelling Group, Department of Geology, Royal Holloway University of London, Egham, Surrey, TW20 0EX, UK;Departamento de Ciencias de la Tierra, Universidad de Zaragoza, 50. 009-Zaragoza, Spain |
| |
| Abstract: | Forward stratigraphic models usually display sediment types on simulated stratigraphic profiles as ‘facies’ defined only by their depth of deposition. More recently, ‘facies’ have been defined and displayed in terms of the dominant processes of deposition (e.g. in situ growth, pelagic production, turbidite deposition). Standard carbonate facies; that is, the Dunham classification, are defined by rock textures and grain composition that imply that a combination of processes acted together to generate a facies. For example, a bioclastic wackestone is a matrix‐supported rock containing up to 90% matrix and > 10% shelly grains. In terms of modelled processes, the muddy matrix could be generated by: (i) reworking of the shallow platform sediments, (ii) from pelagic deposition, or (iii) in situ production. A traditional depth of deposition process display would not be able to distinguish such a wackestone from any other facies deposited at this water depth and a majority process display would not combine reworked, pelagic muds and in situ contribution in one simulated ‘facies’. This paper introduces a new scheme that enables forward models to output simulated facies defined by a range of values for each of the controlling processes and thereby predicts rock textures within simulated stratigraphies. This approach has been applied to the Jurassic carbonate ramps of the Iberian Basin in northeastern Spain. It is shown to provide more accurate information about the processes that are being simulated, allowing more direct comparisons to be made with the facies observed in the field and providing potential for a more rigorous method for assessing the ‘goodness of fit’ of a simulated stratigraphy. |
| |
| Keywords: | |
|
|
