Assignment submitted to: Narayan Gopal Ghimire

Assignment submitted by: Nirajan Pandey

Roll.No. 27
Msc Geology First Semester, 2077
Subject: Sequence Stratigraphy``Time attributes for the definition of stratigraphic surfaces``

Q. What are the methods of defining stratigraphic surfaces? Elaborate your answer with
illustration.
The eustasy-driven stratigraphic approach provided an easy, but oversimplified way of looking at
the temporal significance of stratigraphic surfaces. In reality, no surface can possibly be an
absolute time line, and the degree of diachroneity may vary greatly with the mode of formation
and the dependence on parameters characterized by variable rates along dip and strike, such as
tectonism and sedimentation. The timing of all sequence stratigraphic surfaces and systems tracts
is defined relative to one curve that describes the full cycle of sea-level, base level changes,
depending on the modal that is being employed. The generic nature of this reference curve
originates from the early seismic sequence stratigraphic models of the late 1970s to the late 1980s,
which were based on the assumption that eustasy is the main driving force behind sequence
formation at all levels of stratigraphic cyclicity. Later subsequent realized that eustasy is as
importance as tectonism. Sequence stratigraphic models are centered on, which describes the
changes in accommodation at the shoreline and all seven types are linked to the reference curve of
base level changes at the shoreline. Three of these surfaces i.e. subaerial unconformity, wave/tidal
transgressive ravinement surface and the regressive surface of marine erosion form during the
particular stages of shoreline shifts, whereas the remaining four i.e. correlative conformities of the
onset and end of forced regression, maximum regressive surface and maximum flooding surface
are related to changes in the direction and/or types of shoreline shift.

 Correlative conformities
a. One set of fall correlative conformity: The correlative conformity of Posamentier and
Allen (1999) (equivalent to the ‘basal surface of forced regression’ of Hunt and Tucker, 1992)
approximates the seafloor at the onset of forced regression of the shoreline, and therefore it is
generally regarded as a time line in the rock record, particularly along dip. In reality, a low
diachroneity rate is recorded in relation to the rates of sediment transport in an offshore
direction (Catuneanu et al., 1998b), as it takes time for the first gravity flows associated with
forced regression to reach the deeper parts of the basin. The rates of offshore transport of
 terrigenous sediment along the depositional dip within a marine basin vary from 10-1–100 m/s
in the case of low-gradient shelf settings to 101–102 m/s in the case of turbidity flows associated
with steeper gradients in continental slope settings. This low diachroneity rate is generally
undetectable relative to the resolution of current biostratigraphic or radiometric techniques and
the degree of diachroneity may be more significant and may vary greatly depending on
subsidence patterns.

Figure 1 Timing of sequence stratigraphic surfaces relative to the main events of the base-level cycle (modified from
Catuneanu et al., 1998b, and Embry and Catuneanu, 2002).

b. End of fall correlative diachroneity

The correlative conformity of Hunt and Tucker (1992) is also defined on the basis of stratal
stacking patterns, separating offlapping forced regressive lobes from the overlying aggradational
lowstand normal regressive deposits (Haq, 1991: ‘a change from rapidly prograding parasequences
to aggradational parasequences’). This definition implies a diachronous correlative conformity,
younger basinward, with a diachroneity rate that matches the rate of offshore sediment transport.
‘The subaerial unconformity is developed and migrates seaward during base level fall and reaches
its maximum extent at the end of the fall the depositional surface in the marine realm at this time
of change from base level fall to base level rise is the correlative conformity,’(Embry,1995).

 Maximum regressive and maximum flooding surfaces

They are currently defined on the basis of
a. Overall grading and stratal stacking patterns
b. Bathymetric changes(water-depth)
Although these two approaches are often considered equivalent, being used interchangeably, they
allow for different temporal significances for each surface. The marine portion of the maximum
regressive surface is part of the transgressive–regressive (T–R) sequence boundary, and only a
systems tract boundary in the view of the depositional and genetic stratigraphic models. It may be
defined either:
(1) On the basis of stratal stacking patterns, as a conformable surface that separates regressive
strata (progradational, coarsening-upward trend) below from transgressive strata (retrogradational,
finingupward trend) above; or,
(2) On the basis of bathymetric (water-depth) changes, as a conformable surface recording the start
of a deepening episode, i.e., formed when the water depth reaches the shallowest peak.
Similarly, the marine portion of the maximum flooding surface may also be defined in two
alternative ways i.e. on the basis of stratal stacking patterns, marking the change from fining-
upward, retrogradational (transgressive) strata below to coarsening-upward progradational
(regressive) strata above (‘downlap surface’ of Galloway, 1989); or: on the basis of bathymetric
(water-depth) changes, being formed when the water reaches the deepest peak (i.e., at the top of a
deepening-upward succession; Embry, 2002). These two methods define surfaces which are not
necessarily superimposed. End-member boundary conditions can be applied to surfaces formed as
a result of the complex interplay between eustasy, subsidence, and sedimentation, such as the
maximum regressive and maximum flooding surfaces defined on the basis of water-depth changes.

Two dimensional model

To illustrate the effect that subsidence and sedimentation rates have on the timing of maximum
regressive and maximum flooding surfaces defined on the basis of bathymetric changes, a simple
two-dimensional geometrical basin model applied to a marine shelf setting is constructed. The
model considered eustasy as the highest frequency variable, two facilitate comparison with the
depositional sequence model of posamentier et al. (1988). But similar results may be obtained by
taking subsidence as the higher frequency parameter instead. The model considers eustasy as the
highest-frequency variable, to facilitate comparison with the depositional sequence model of
Posamentier et al. (1988), but similar results may be obtained by taking subsidence as the higher-
frequency parameter instead.
The assumptions of the model are as follows;
1. Curve of eustatic changes considered in the numerical model (modified from Catuneanu et
al., 1998b). Eustasy varies sinusoidally with an amplitude of 10 m and a period of 2 Ma (Fig. 7.23).
For the sake of brevity, only half of the eustatic cycle is shown, from highstand to lowstand. The
rate of eustatic fall increases from zero at highstand (0 Ma) to a maximum of 15.7 m/Ma at the
inflexion point (0.5 Ma), and then decreases to zero at lowstand (1 Ma).
2. The modeled portion of the basin is 200 km across, and the tectonic subsidence rate is constant
at any particular point, but increases basinward from 20 m/Ma at the proximal end of the profile
to 40 m/Ma at the distal end. This is similar to the simple divergent margin models of Pitman
(1978).
3. The sedimentation rates change along dip in a linear manner, decreasing from 15 m/Ma at
the proximal end of the basin profile to 5 m/Ma at the distal end. This reflects the tendency of
coarser-grained sediments to be trapped closer to the shoreline. Since the sedimentation rate at any
point along the basin profile is a function of its distance from the shoreline, it must therefore vary
through time as the shoreline transgresses and regresses.
Figure 2Curve of eustatic changes considered in the numerical model (modified from Catuneanu et al., 1998b).
Model results

 The model starts at eustatic highstand where rate of eustatic

changes is zero.
 The rate of water depth changes at this time is thus equal to
rate of vertical motion the sea floor and is positive along the
entire length of the profile.
The successive incremental time steps of the model through a
1 Ma eustatic half-cycle from highstand to lowstand is shown
in the figure left.

Figure 3Timing and locus of formation of surfaces that mark the peaks of shallowest and deepest water, along basin Profile A, as a
function of the interplay between eustasy (E), subsidence (T) and sedimentation (S) (modified from Catuneanu et al., 1998b). The
input values for subsidence and sedimentation are provided on the top cross section.

The surface generated between time steps 1 and 5 is the maximum flooding surface defined on
bathymetric changes, as it separates trends of water deepening below from water
shallowing above.
 The surface generated starting with time step 5 is the maximum regressive surface defined
on bathymetric changes, as it corresponds to the peak of shallowest water.
  As the rate of eustatic fall increases from time step 1 to 5, a progressively larger value of
net subsidence is required to balance it and maintain the stationary water-depth condition
that ends the deepening-upward trend.
Time step 5 (0.5 Ma) is the inflexion point on the falling limb of the sinusoidal eustatic curve and
represents the maximum rate of eustatic fall. This is balanced by subsidence and sedimentation at
a distance of 71.3 km along the profile. During time steps 5 to 9 the rate of eustatic fall decreases
to zero. As the rate of eustatic fall decreases, it is balanced by a progressively lower value of
vertical seafloor shift, and the point of balance between shallowing and deepening-water
conditions moves towards the basin margin. The surface that marks the peak of shallowest water
is therefore older offshore than it is towards the basin margin. At time step 9, continued subsidence
results in a water deepening trend across the entire profile.
Strike variability
To further illustrate the diachroneityof surfaces defined on water-depth changes, two more basin
profiles (B and C) are added to the model.These represent dip sections across the same basin at 50
and 100 km along strike from Profile A. Profiles B and C are assigned slightly different values of
subsidence and sedimentation rates, to reflect the type of strike variability that is commonly found
in the real world. All three models are run through the same eustatic half-cycle. It should also be
noted that the shallowing-upward trend does not extend across the entire basin but is replaced by
continuous deepening beyond the point where the sum of subsidence and sedimentation starts to
outpace the rates of eustatic fall on a permanent basis. This is an important observation because it
emphasizes the fact that maximum flooding and maximum regressive surfaces defined on water-
depth changes may join offshore before reaching the basin center, which defeats the primary
purpose of sequence stratigraphy which is to map bounding surfaces with basin-wide extent.
Discussion
Maximum flooding and regressive surface defined on the water depth changes are not suitable for
sequence stratigraphic analysis, for two reasons.
 They potentially have a limited lateral extinct, restricted to the portion of the basin that
may be subject to shollowing trends;
 They may be highly diachronous, within the range of biostratigraphic resolution.
The timing of these surfaces depends on the offshore variations in subsidence and sedimentation
rates.
--------------------------------------------------------END------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------