Abstract

AbstractModern and ancient analogues are often consulted by geologists to help understand subsurface systems. While modern analogues provide information on the areal relationship between facies, ancient systems provide detailed data on the vertical facies variations, typically along a two‐dimensional outcrop. Combining data from modern and ancient systems effectively requires translating areal morphology, which is often still evolving, to the related sediments preserved in three dimensions. Process‐based models simulate both depositional processes while preserving stratigraphy. These models can be employed to unravel the relationship between sediment supply and preserved deposits in natural systems and to help integrate field data. Four synthetic deltas were modelled using different sediment supply compositions, from coarse to very fine sand systems. The resultant sedimentary deposits are classified into architectural elements, and the grain size composition of each architectural element is studied over time. Facies that are extensive in their horizontal dimensions are often less abundant in three‐dimensional preserved deposits. Between deltas, grain size compositions of a specific architectural element type (e.g. mouth bars) are more similar than their corresponding sediment supply compositions. This is due to selective deposition of grain size classes across each architectural element type. This selective deposition causes overrepresentation of the same range of grain sizes, even for systems with different sediment supply compositions. When a particular supply composition does not contain enough of the overrepresented grain size class for a particular architectural element, that element will be under‐supplied and constitute a smaller proportion of the overall delta deposits. It is imperative to account for over‐representation of grain size classes in particular architectural elements when estimating palaeo‐sediment supply, delta architecture and morphology from field data. Even when data availability/accessibility does not allow the inclusion of distal deposits in field studies, process‐based simulations can contribute valuable information on sediment sorting patterns in three dimensions.

Highlights

  • The resultant sedimentary deposits are classified into architectural elements, and the grain size composition of each architectural element is studied over time

  • This study focusses on the fractionation and preservation of the upstream sediment composition within the architectural elements of deltaic depositional environments

  • The final sediment composition of the mouth bar deposits preserved at the end of the simulation is compared to the sediment composition supplied to the delta

Read more

Summary

| INTRODUCTION

At the scale of an individual depositional environment such as a delta, morphology and stratigraphy are known to be influenced by the characteristics of the supplied sediment (Orton and Reading, 1993). Where modern deltas are classified by their fluvially supplied sediment composition or delta top grain sizes (Syvitski and Farrow, 1989; Orton and Reading, 1993; Syvitski and Saito, 2007), ancient examples from outcrop or subsurface are studied based on preserved and accessible deposits. The influence of process‐driven sediment fractionation on the relationship between plan view observations of modern deltas and vertical observations of delta architecture is investigated here To accomplish this deposited sediment is classified into six distinct architectural elements: channel accretion (channel bars), channel fill, delta top background (overbank) sedimentation, mouth bars, delta front background sedimentation and prodelta.

| METHODOLOGY FOR
Findings
| DISCUSSION
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call