Scaling Relationships in Fluvial Depostional Systems*

Kristy Milliken1, Mike Blum2, and John Martin1

Search and Discovery Article #30245 (2012)**
Posted August 20, 2012

*Adapted from oral presentation at AAPG Annual Convention and Exhibition, Long Beach, California, April 22-25, 2012
**AAPG 2012 Serial rights given by author. For all other rights contact author directly.
1
2

ExxonMobil Exploration Company, Houston, TX

ExxonMobil Upstream Research, Houston, TX (mike.blum@exxonmobil.com)

Abstract
Fluvial systems possess a range of scaling relationships that reflect drainage-basin controls on water and sediment flux. In
hydrocarbon exploration and production, scaling relationships for fluvial deposits can be utilized to constrain environmental and
sequence-stratigraphic interpretations, as well as predict the lateral extent of fundamental reservoir flow units. This study documents
the scales of channel fills, point and channel bars, channel belts, and coastal-plain incised valleys from well-constrained Quaternary
fluvial systems.
Data on channel-fill and point-bar to channel-belt scales were compiled from published thicknesses for sinuous single-channel
systems, with spatial dimensions measured from GoogleEarth. Fluvial systems included in this database span 3 orders of magnitude in
drainage area, from continental-scale systems to small tributaries, and span tropical to sub-polar climatic regimes. Channel-fill and
channel-belt scales were measured upstream from backwater effects, so as to minimize inclusion of distributive, highly avulsive
systems. Scales of incised valleys were derived from well-constrained published examples that are known to have formed during the
last 100 kyr glacio-eustatic cycle.
All scaling relationships are represented by statistically-significant power laws, with absolute dimensions that scale to drainage area,
but distinct clustering occurs between channel fills, point bars and channel belts, and incised valleys. Mean width-to-thickness ratios
for channel fills are ~10:1, whereas point bars commonly range from 70-250:1. Coastal-plain incised valleys from the last glacio-

eustatic cycle range from 25-150 m in thickness, and a few kilometers to more than 80 km in width, with width-to-thickness ratios of
~600-800.
Scales of Quaternary examples compare well with previous compilations of channel-belt scales interpreted in the ancient record, and
with theory. However, the smallest Quaternary incised valleys in our database reside in the uppermost part of the domain of published
compilations of ancient incised valleys, with ancient examples overlapping significantly with both interpreted channel fills and
channel belts. When interpreted within the context of this database from modern systems, we suggest many ancient examples may
have been overinterpreted, which in turn suggests a persistent lack of objective criteria for differentiating channel fills, channel belts,
and incised valleys.
References
Blum, M.D., M.J. Guccione, D.A. Wysocki, P.C. Robnett, and E.M. Rutledge, 2000, Late Pleistocene evolution of the lower
Mississippi River valley, southern Missouri to Arkansas: GSA Bulletin, v. 112/2, p. 221-235.
Blum, M.D., J.H. Tomkin, A. Purcell, and R.R. Lancaster, 2008, Ups and downs of the Mississippi Delta: Geology, v. 36/9, p. 675678.
Jackson, R.G., II, 1976a, Depositional model of point bars in the lower Wabash River: Journal of Sedimentary Petroleum, v. 46, p.
579-594.
Jackson, R.G., II, 1976b, Large scale ripples of the lower Wabash River: Sedimentology, v. 23, p. 593-632.
Kolla, V., H.W. Posamentier, and L.J. Wood, 2007, Deep-water and fluvial sinuous channels; characteristics, similarities and
dissimilarities, and modes of formation, in R.B. Wynn, and B.T. Cronin, (eds.), Sinuous deep-water channels; genesis, geometry and
architecture: Marine and Petroleum Geology, v. 24/6-9, p. 388-405.
Miall, A.D., 2002, Architecture and sequence stratigraphy of Pleistocene fluvial systems in the Malay Basin, based on seismic timeslice analysis: AAPG Bulletin, v. 86/7, p. 1201-1216.
Reijenstein, H.M., H.W. Posamentier, and J.P. Bhattacharya, 2011, Seismic geomorphology and high-resolution seismic stratigraphy
of inner-shelf fluvial, estuarine, deltaic, and marine sequences, Gulf of Thailand: AAPG Bulletin, v. 95/11, p. 1959-1990.

Rittenour, T.M., R.J. Goble, and M.D. Blum, 2005, Development of an OSL chronology for late Pleistocene channel belts in the
Lower Mississippi Valley, USA: Quaternary Science Reviews, v. 24/23-24, p. 2539-2554.
Rittenour, T.M., M.D. Blum, and R.J. Goble, 2007, Fluvial evolution of the lower Mississippi River valley during the last 100 k.y.
glacial cycle; response to glaciation and sea-level change: GSA Bulletin, v. 119/5-6, p. 586-608.
Willis, B.J., S.L. Dorobek, and Y. Darmadi, 2007, Three-dimensional seismic architecture of fluvial sequences on the low-gradient
Sunda Shelf, offshore Indonesia: JSR, v. 77/3-4, p. 225-238.

Scaling Relationships in Fluvial Depositional Systems

KT Milliken*, MD Blum, JM Martin

Exxonmobil Upstream Research
Houston, TX 77252
* now at Chevron

FLUVIAL SCALING RELATIONSHIPS

Channel-Belt Sand Bodies Significance of Scaling Relationships

50 m

Travis Peak Fm., Zone 1, original interpretation by R.S. Tye

well-spacing ranges from 0.8-2.2 km, with a mean of 1.54 km

reinterpretation by Miall (2006) using scaling relationships

7 m deep and 420 m wide

7 m deep and 1750 m wide

50 km
Milliken et al. (2012) AAPG Annual Meeting

FLUVIAL SCALING RELATIONSHIPS

Motivations Recent Compilation by Gibling (2006)
Compilation of scales
in published literature
Scale domains are
very different from
modern systems,
much larger range
Raises issue of how
original data were
interpreted, and
criteria that were used
Need to cross-check
with modern systems,
where dimensions are
an observation, not
interpretation
Milliken et al. (2012) AAPG Annual Meeting

FLUVIAL SCALING RELATIONSHIPS

Goals Quantify Scales of 1st Order Fluvial Elements
Construct a database of modern channel-belt and channel-fill scales
Google Earth Approach: Scour literature and global landsat / DEM
mature point bars, recently cutoff or close to cutoff
point bars with thickness measurement, i.e. core through deposit,
measure width, thickness, asymetry

Construct dataset of Late Quaternary incised-valley scales

coastal-plain valleys with robust geochronological control

channel-fill
muds

point-bar
sands

channel fills and

channel-belt margins
are fundamental barriers
to flow
after Jordan and Pryor (1992)

basal scour
surface

Milliken et al. (2012) AAPG Annual Meeting

FLUVIAL SCALING RELATIONSHIPS

Bar Accretion and Large-Scale Inclined-Strata Sets
LIDAR Image,
False River,
Louisiana

exhumed acrretionary topography,

Triassic Chinle Formation,, Arizona

1 km
3d seismic slice, illustrating
accretionary signature

1 km

5-7 m

20 m
from Reijenstein et al. (2011)

large-scale inclined strata set,

lower Eocene, Tremp-Graus basin
Milliken et al. (2012) AAPG Annual Meeting

FLUVIAL SCALING RELATIONSHIPS

Definitions Channels, Channel Fills, and Channel Belts
bankfull
channel

channel fill
(a deposit)

large-scale inclined strata sets

Qbf
Milliken et al. (2012) AAPG Annual Meeting

FLUVIAL SCALING RELATIONSHIPS

Dataset
Channel-belt and channel-fill scales from 38 modern rivers
periglacial to tropical
drainage areas = 250 to 3,000,000 km2
124 measured meanders

Incised-valley Scales from 10 Late Quaternary Systems

drainage areas = 50,000 to 3,000,000 km2

Milliken et al. (2012) AAPG Annual Meeting

FLUVIAL SCALING RELATIONSHIPS

Methodology: Wabash River Example

Jackson (1976)

GRAPHIC
COLUMN

Thickness: 9 m
Point bar areal extent: 0.8 km2
Abandoned Channel Width: 190 m
Translation Length: 1450 m
Non-translation length: 650 m
Drainage Basin: 75,700 km2

Milliken et al. (2012) AAPG Annual Meeting

FLUVIAL SCALING RELATIONSHIPS

Bankfull Discharge (m3/s)

Derivative Relationship Exploration Scale

Derivative Relationship Production Scale

Point-Bar Width (m)

Point-Bar Thickness (m)

Drainage Area (km2)

Drainage Area (km2)

1st Order Relationship

(bankfull channel depth)

1st Order Relationship

Point-Bar Thickness (m)

Bankfull Discharge (m3/s)

Scaling of Channel Belts

w/t ~ 200:1

Point-Bar Thickness (m)

Milliken et al. (2012) AAPG Annual Meeting

FLUVIAL SCALING RELATIONSHIPS

Channel Width (m)

Heterolithic Abandoned Channel Fills

Castlegate-Blackhawk
Seismic examples
Kolla et al. 2007,
Willis et al. 2007,
Miall, 2002;
Reijenstein et al. 2011

w/t ~ 10-15:1

Channel Depth (m)

Examples from other studies

1m
Blackhawk Fm

Donselaar and Overeem, 2008

Kolla et al., 2007

Milliken et al. (2012) AAPG Annual Meeting

FLUVIAL SCALING RELATIONSHIPS

Fundamental Contrasts in Channel-Belt Scales: Why??
Low-Net End Member
Highly heterolithic
Ribbon sands and thin sheet sands
encased in muds
Dominated by avulsion processes
Highly aggradational stacking

High-Net End Member

Amalgamated sand bodies
Channel fills and channel-belt margins
are dominant barriers to flow
Dominated by channel-belt migration
Fluvial processes confined to discrete
valley
Degradational or low aggradational
stacking

Milliken et al. (2012) AAPG Annual Meeting

FLUVIAL SCALING RELATIONSHIPS

Fundamental Contrasts in Channel-Belt Scales: Backwater Effects
14000
6

12000
channel belt width

9
10000

8
7

8
8000

backwater
limits

12
14

6000

11
13

4000

4
3

upstream
R2 = 0.91

2000

downstream
R2 = 0.76

0
15

20

25

30

35

channel belt thickness

40

45
10 km
Milliken et al. (2012) AAPG Annual Meeting

FLUVIAL SCALING RELATIONSHIPS

Fundamental Contrasts in Channel-Belt Scales: Why??
Low-Net End Member
Highly heterolithic
Dominated by avulsion processes within
backwater length
Highly aggradational stacking
Distributary channel belts w/t = 20-50:1

High-Net End Member

Amalgamated sand bodies
Channel fills and channel-belt margins
are dominant barriers to flow
Dominated by channel-belt migration
Fluvial processes confined to discrete
valley
Degradational or low aggradational
stacking
Channel belts w/t = 200:1, channel fills 15:1

Milliken et al. (2012) AAPG Annual Meeting

FLUVIAL SCALING RELATIONSHIPS

Scales of Incised Valleys Published Ancient

Gibling (2006) data

Milliken et al. (2012) AAPG Annual Meeting

FLUVIAL SCALING RELATIONSHIPS

Significance of Incised-Valley Scales to Interpretation
TRINITY VALLEY

LOWER MISSISSIPPI VALLEY

New Madrid

Memphis

lease
size
Vicksburg

lease
size

Baton Rouge
New Orleans

10 km
Mississippi
incised valley

50 km
Milliken et al. (2012) AAPG Annual Meeting

FLUVIAL SCALING RELATIONSHIPS

Coastal-Plain Incised Valleys - Lower Mississippi River
New Madrid

Memphis

Vicksburg

Baton Rouge
New Orleans
Mississippi
incised valley
based on Blum et al. (2000), Rittenour et al. (2005, 2007), and Blum et al. (2008)

Milliken et al. (2012) AAPG Annual Meeting

EJf(onMobii

FLUVIAL SCALING RELATIONSHIPS

Upstream Research

Coastal-Plain Incised Valleys - Lower Trinity River, Texas

A
>80 ka

Modern
Alluvial
Ridge

I
I
I
I
I

I
I

Middle
Deweyville
Terrace

High
I Deweyville
: Terrace

50-35 ka
33-24 ka
22-18 ka

0
I

2km
I

20
15 m
10 ro
<
g
5
::0
0
3
-5
-10

'"

Milliken et al. (2012) AAPG Annual Meeting

EJf(onMobii

FLUVIAL SCALING RELATIONSHIPS

Upstream Research

Scales of Incised Valleys Published Ancient vs. Late Quaternary

-'

10000

--

--

,-,

-E

..c
+-'

"0

1000

$
100
. ,--

Mississippi River
Parana/Rio de la Plata
//
Rhine River
I
Colotcldo River (Texas USA)
Po River
Trinity River (Texas USA)
coastal/alluvial valleys
bedrock valleys

_
-

10~~~~~~~~~--~~~~~~~

10

100
1000
Thickness (m)

10000

Milliken et al. (2012) AAPG Annual Meeting

EJf(onMobii

FLUVIAL SCALING RELATIONSHIPS

Upstream Research

Scales of Incised Valleys, Channel Belts, and Channel FIlls

100000

- - - - - - - - --:::;;
.--

10000

modern/coastal-platn
incised valleys, /
700) - / /

{w:t -

- ':... modern chaonei

belts (w:t. ... /70-300) . /

..........

'-'"

..c
......
"0

1000

fIII'-.,modern channel
fills (w:t -:.10:20)

$:

/
Gibling (2006) Data
/ (fistributary channel belts
/ meandering channel belts _
coastal/alluvial valleys
bedrock valleys

100
.

..

10
1

10

100
Thickness (m)

1000

10000

Milliken et al. (2012) AAPG Annual Meeting

FLUVIAL SCALING RELATIONSHIPS

Summary
Fluvial stratigraphic elements exhibit scaling relations that
are consistent across a range of river system scales

Channel-belt sand bodies range from ~100-300:1, with a mean of ~200

Distributary channel-belts range from ~20-50:1
Abandoned channel-fills range from 10-30:1
Each element occupies the same thickness domain, because of scaling to
bankfull discharge, but differ in width domains due to lateral migration

Coastal-plain incised valleys range from 500-800:1

Scaling relations defined from modern systems commonly

differ from scales interpreted in the stratigraphic record
Scaling relationships from modern systems are observations, not
interpretations, and tied to process-based understanding of system
parameters (discharge, sediment flux)
Can be used as an additional set of recognition criteria to guide, crosscheck, or calibrate interpretations in outcrop or subsurface data
Milliken et al. (2012) AAPG Annual Meeting