Concepts and Applications of A 3-D Multiple Lithology, Diffusive Model in Stratigraphic Modeling

Granjeon, Didier; Joseph, Phillip

doi:10.2110/pec.99.62.0197

Cited by 95 publications

(113 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

113

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Dionisos is a stratigraphic forward model of basin-scale stratal architectures developed on geological time-scales (Granjeon & Joseph, 1999). The model consists of a two-or three-dimensional grid of cells.…”

Section: Modelling Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Non‐unique stratal geometries: implications for sequence stratigraphic interpretations

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is now strong evidence that stratal geometries on basin margins are most likely a consequence of multiple controls, not just variations in accommodation. Consequently, correct sequence stratigraphic interpretation of stratal geometries requires an understanding of how multiple different controls may generate similar geometries. Using a simple numerical stratigraphic forward model, we explore the impact of time variable sediment supply and different sediment transport rates on stratal geometries. We demonstrate how four common types of stratal geometry can form by more than one set of controlling parameter values and are thus likely to be non‐unique, meaning that there may be several sets of controlling factors that can plausibly explain their formation. For example, a maximum transgressive surface can occur in the model due to an increase in rate of relative sea‐level rise during constant sediment supply, and due to a reduction in rate of sediment supply during a constant rate of relative sea‐level rise. Sequence boundaries, topset aggradation and shoreline trajectories are also examples of non‐unique stratal geometries. If the model simulations in this work are sufficiently realistic, then the modelled stratal geometries are important examples of non‐uniqueness, suggesting the need for a shift towards sequence stratigraphic methods based on constructing and evaluating multiple hypotheses and scenarios.

show abstract

Section: Modelling Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Non‐unique stratal geometries: implications for sequence stratigraphic interpretations

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Harbaugh & Bonham-Carter, 1970;Kenyon & Turcotte, 1985;Bosence & Waltham, 1990;Flemings & Jordan, 1990;Lawrence et al, 1990;Martinez & Harbaugh, 1993;Kendall et al, 1995;Chalaron et al, 1996;Granjeon, 1996;Griffiths et al, 2001;Syvitski & Hutton, 2001;Bernal & Hardy, 2002;Bitzer & Salas, 2002;Clevis, 2003;Pelletier, 2004;Overeem et al, 2005;Burgess et al, 2006;Ligtenberg & Neves, 2008;Alzaga-Ruiz et al, 2009;Gratacos et al, 2009;Somme et al, 2009). In this study, the Dionisos model is utilized (Granjeon, 1996(Granjeon, , 2009Granjeon & Joseph, 1999;Granjeon & Wolf, 2007) to analyse the stratal patterns, reconstruct the palaeogeographical evolution of the Eastern Pannonian Basin for the last 10 Myr and investigate the possible causes for the origin of the Messinian unconformity.…”

Section: Stratigraphic Modelling Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

A three‐dimensional stratigraphic model for the Messinian crisis in the Pannonian Basin, eastern Hungary

et al. 2012

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A three‐dimensional quantitative stratigraphic forward model is employed to investigate the controls leading to the Messinian events in the lacustrine Pannonian Basin of Central Paratethys, and the link between the Messinian salinity crisis in the Mediterranean and the late Miocene‐Pliocene stratigraphy of the Pannonian Basin. Subsurface geological data show that a prominent unconformity surface formed during Messinian time in the Pannonian Basin associated with a sudden forced regression, abrupt basinward shift of facies and a subsequent, prolonged lowstand normal regression. The lowstand prograding series filled up the shallow basin fast, while, at the same time, the marginal areas of the basin were subject to tectonic inversion. The Dionisos program used in this research is built on a nonlinear water‐driven sediment diffusion process, and it employs multiple sediment classes, basin flexure and compaction. Four different scenarios were built in the experiments to test possible basin histories with different rates and timing of tectonic inversion. Each scenario was modelled in two versions: including and not including a lake‐level fall in the Messinian. The results confirm that the Pannonian Basin in the study area has undergone a tectonic inversion since the Messinian, although the exact rates of uplift at different locations remain uncertain. The unconformity and the observed stratigraphic architecture and facies pattern could be modelled adequately only in the versions that applied a Messinian lake‐level fall. Our research concludes that the Messinian unconformity in the Pannonian Basin was caused by an absolute lake‐level drop, likely linked to the desiccation of the Mediterranean, followed by subsidence and normal regression in the basin centre and concomitant tectonic inversion and uplift along the basin margins.

show abstract

“…All these mechanisms share the same characteristic, in that, by increasing the sediment mobility, they contribute to sediment redistribution over a short distance and consequently smooth topography. Over su⁄ciently large spatial and temporal scales, the cumulated effects of these processes are classically represented by a di¡usive equation (Jordan & Flemings, 1991;Rivenaes, 1992;Quiquerez et al, 1997;Granjeon & Joseph, 1999;Quiquerez et al, 2000).…”

Section: Sediment Dispersal Induced By Continuous Processesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impact of storms on mixed carbonate and siliciclastic shelves: insights from combined diffusive and fluid‐flow transport stratigraphic forward model

et al. 2004

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A quantitative stratigraphic model of mixed carbonate/siliciclastic continental shelves is presented to investigate the relationships between depositional processes and stratigraphic responses at long‐term, large spatial scales. A diffusion model is combined with a fluid‐flow approach to simulate both long‐term factors, i.e. the processes controlling large‐scale architecture, and short‐term processes, i.e. sediment redistribution by storms. Any net sediment accumulation is the result of the succession of a storm and a fair‐weather period. Sediments are mobilized by waves and advected by low‐frequency currents during storm events. Sediments are then reworked and redistributed downslope by diffusive processes during fair‐weather period. The results are successful in capturing several major characteristics of both modern and ancient depositional systems (geometry, differential preservation, net accumulation rates). The study highlights the importance of waves and unidirectional currents. Depositional geometry and shelf morphology depend on the balance between available sediment supply (generated in situ or detrital) and the transport energy, which is related to the style of sediment transport (diffusive or advective), and to the magnitude and frequency of storms.

show abstract

Concepts and Applications of A 3-D Multiple Lithology, Diffusive Model in Stratigraphic Modeling

Cited by 95 publications

References 0 publications

Non‐unique stratal geometries: implications for sequence stratigraphic interpretations

Non‐unique stratal geometries: implications for sequence stratigraphic interpretations

A three‐dimensional stratigraphic model for the Messinian crisis in the Pannonian Basin, eastern Hungary

Impact of storms on mixed carbonate and siliciclastic shelves: insights from combined diffusive and fluid‐flow transport stratigraphic forward model

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About