eBook series: Chapter 1

Fluvial architecture

Sarah Cobain1*
1
Petrotechnical Data Systems Ltd

*Corresponding author: Sarah.Cobain@pds.nl

This series of chapters is designed for geoscientists in their first few years of working in the industry,
or those wanting to brush up on a range of applied geological and reservoir knowledge. The eBook
will begin by covering fluvial architecture and processes from an applied perspective, followed by
common pitfalls of geomodelling across several workflows, geology for reservoir engineers, and
more.

This chapter specifically looks at depositional and architectural element-scale genetic units of fluvial
reservoirs; their geometry, and common facies composition. The schema described are those
employed by the Ava Clastics application.
Introduction to fluvial architecture

It is standard practice for geologists and reservoir engineers to use models when characterising a
reservoir, they often do this by combining an array of analogues; modern, outcrop, numerical
models etc. (Miall, 2006). Understanding of fluvial architecture is important when building a
reservoir model as it is the key to representing facies variation along flow paths, its control on
permeability, and sand body connectivity. Reservoir engineers and geologists are often involved
with heterogeneities in the subsurface at intermediate scales (10s cm vertically and perhaps up to
a few 100 m laterally), therefore, we will focus on elements within this scale range.

Hierarchical control
It is common practice to characterise any depositional system into a hierarchical classification
(Halderson and Lake, 1984; Weber, 1986; Miall, 1988; Colombera et al., 2012). Here, we present a
classification scheme that has been recently refined by Colombera et al., (2012, 2013, 2016) building
upon hierarchal classifications described through over 40 years of previous research (see
Colombera et al., 2013 and references therein).

The highest order of sedimentary unit is the depositional element; units of this rank are classified
as channel-complex or floodplain, and represent large-scale features. Each depositional scale
element is subdivided into architectural element-scale units; these follow the concepts defined by
Miall, (1985) and Miall, (1996), and are characterised by their facies associations interpreted as sub-
environments. Architectural elements are further subdivided into facies units; defined as genetic
bodies characterised by homogenous lithofacies type including textural and structural characters
(Colombera et al., 2016) (Fig. 1).

Figure 1. Representation of the main scales of observation and types of sedimentary genetic units
included in the FAKTS database (Colombera et al., 2012b).

2|P a g e
Depositional elements
As previously mentioned,
depositional elements are the highest
order of sedimentary unit, and can be
classified as either channel-
complexes or floodplains,
representing large-scale features (Fig.
2). Channel complexes represent
channel body infills, and range from
individual channel infills cutting
through floodplain deposits, to multi-
storey valley fills. Floodplain
depositional elements are
characterised as the remaining or
subsequent genetic units after Figure 2. Three-dimensional schematic box diagram
channel-complexes have been demonstrating the genetic relationship between
defined, they are often finer-grained floodplain and channel-complex.
units juxtaposed to the channel bodies

in a spatially coherent way (Fig. 3).

Figure 3. Google Earth image showing the spatial relationship of an active channel-complex and
floodplain. Rio Negro, Argentina.

3|P a g e
Architectural elements
The division of architectural elements follows the criteria of Miall, (1985; 1996), and are defined as
components of a fluvial system interpreted as sub-environments.

Coal - C
These elements are the sedimentary expression of floodplain swamps/mires dominated by organic
accumulation.

These elements consist as packages of coal/peat or carbonaceous mudstones, typically having

irregular sheet-like geometry, possibly associated with thin clastic partings. Coal seams deposited
in floodplain lakes or abandoned channels would rather be included as C facies units within LC or
AC (see Fig. 4A key) elements, wherever the distinctive facies associations and geometries of these
elements are recognised (Colombera et al., 2013 and references therein).

Figure 4. A) Schematic diagram illustrating position of coal body relative to other architectural
elements (adapted from Colombera et al., 2013). B) Outcrop example of coal body.

4|P a g e
Abandoned channel fill – AC
These elements represent the infill of ponded water bodies developed in abandoned reaches. Like
aggradational channel-fills, abandoned channel fills are channelised units dominated by vertical
accretion. However, the associated facies assemblages demonstrate that deposition occurred in
the lower energy conditions of an abandoned reach, where the importance of suspension settling
and organic accumulation in ponded waters increases relative to stream-flow processes, which
tend to become intermittent. In modern case studies, the recognition of these elements can be
based on purely geomorphological observations, as they typically form ponded water bodies with
channelised planforms (Colombera et al., 2013 and references therein).

Figure 5. A) Schematic diagram illustrating position of abandoned channel fill relative to other
architectural elements (adapted from Colombera et al., 2013). B) Modern and outcrop example. C)
Example log response (adapted from Hornung and Aigner, 1999).

5|P a g e
Aggradational channel fill – CH
These elements generally represent the overall aggradational infill of active channel forms. They
are characterised by incisional concave-upward bases, on which depositional increments (facies)
are overall vertically stacked, either concentrically or onlapping the channel margins, resulting in
the dominantly horizontal orientation of planar, undulating or scour-like internal second and third-
order bounding surfaces. They significantly lack the laterally persistent bedding grown through
inclined accretion that is typical of barform deposits (Colombera et al., 2013 and references
therein).

Figure 6. A) Schematic diagram illustrating position of aggradational channel fill relative to other
architectural elements (adapted from Colombera et al., 2013). B) Modern and outcrop example. C)
Example log response (adapted from Hornung and Aigner, 1999).

6|P a g e
Crevasse channel - CR
These elements represent the infill of channels emanating from the river into the adjacent
floodplain and active during floods. Similar to most aggradational and abandoned channel-fills,
crevasse channels are channelised units with concave upward bases and usually forming ribbon-
like bodies; the intimate association with other floodplain deposits (for example, levees, crevasse
splays) is a key feature for their recognition (Colombera et al., 2013 and references therein).

Figure 7. A) Schematic diagram illustrating position of crevasse channel relative to other architectural
elements (adapted from Colombera et al., 2013). B) Modern and outcrop example.

7|P a g e
Crevasse Splay – CS
These elements represent the sedimentary and geomorphic product of splay progradation and
aggradation through the periodic unconfined flow from crevasse channels tapping channel-belts
during floods. These elements are tongue-shaped bodies bordering channel-belt margins. These
bodies thin away from the channel margins, as they interfinger or grade laterally into other
elements, and they tend to have flat, sharp and slightly erosive bases; although tabular bedding is
common, internal accretion surfaces usually downlap, dipping at low angle to the angle of repose,
as they record the progradation of the splay onto the floodplain or into standing bodies of water.
They are distinguishable from levees when there is no amalgamation of thin coalescing splays, but
instead they form recognisable fans or lobes, which tend to be coarser and thicker; as crevasse
splays and lacustrine deltas are difficult to distinguish in the rock record, they are classified under
the same type (Colombera et al., 2013 and references therein).

Figure 8. A) Schematic diagram illustrating position of crevasse channel relative to other

architectural elements (adapted from Colombera et al., 2013). B) Modern and outcrop example. C)
Example log response (adapted from Hornung and Aigner, 1999).

8|P a g e
Downstream accreting macroform – DA
These elements represent the infill of active channel-belts by downstream-migrating bars.

They are characterised by subhorizontal to slightly concave-upward and often erosional bases, on
which depositional increments are stacked at low angle with respect to palaeoflow, determining a
dominance of low-angle (generally <10°) downstream-dipping second and third-order bounding
surfaces. DA elements may be locally composed of oblique, lateral or upstream-accretion
increments, but the overall preponderance of downstream growth is their key character
(Colombera et al., 2013 and references therein).

Figure 9. A) Schematic diagram illustrating position of downstream accreting macroform relative to

other architectural elements (adapted from Colombera et al., 2013). B) Modern and outcrop example.

9|P a g e
Downstream and laterally accreting macroform – DLA
These elements represent the infill of active channel-belts by the migration of compound bars that
accrete both downstream and laterally in comparable proportions.

These elements differ from pure LA and DA elements in that bedding geometries demonstrate
dominantly oblique accretion, embodied by a combination of downstream accretion at their
downstream ends and cross-bar accretion along their flanks. Upstream and vertical-accretion
increments are often observed but are volumetrically minor (Colombera et al., 2013 and references
therein).

Figure 10. A) Schematic diagram illustrating position of downstream and laterally accreting
macroform relative to other architectural elements (adapted from Colombera et al., 2013). B) Outcrop
example of downstream and laterally accreting macroform.

10 | P a g e
Overbank fines – FF
These elements are the sedimentary expression of vertically aggrading flood basins, in which
suspension settling from subaerial unconfined flows is the dominant process; bedload deposition
of mud aggregates on the floodplain can also produce fine-grained floodplain units.

These elements are usually tabular or prismatic fine-grained bodies in which laterally persistent
depositional increments tend to be vertically stacked and bounded by planar surfaces,
demonstrating an overall aggradational character; pedogenic alteration is relatively common
(Colombera et al., 2013 and references therein).

Figure 11. A) Schematic diagram illustrating position of overbank fines relative to other architectural
elements (adapted from Colombera et al., 2013). B) Modern and outcrop example. C) Example log
response (adapted from Hornung and Aigner, 1999).

11 | P a g e
Scour-hollow fill - HO
These elements represent the infill of deeply incised trough shaped scours within channel belts, for
example by the migration of mouth-bars into deep confluence scours or by infilling of flood-related
scours during waning-flood stage.

This element type encompasses major scour-hollow fills, characterised by incisional concave-
upward scoop-shaped bases, and by infill through accretion on inclined or horizontal surfaces or
on a combination of both (Colombera et al., 2013 and references therein).

Figure 12. A) Schematic diagram illustrating position of scour-hollow fill relative to other architectural
elements (adapted from Colombera et al., 2013). B) Outcrop example of scour-hollow fill.

12 | P a g e
Laterally accreting macroform – LA
These elements represent the infill of active channel-belts by laterally migrating bars, most
commonly typified by meander point bars.

They are characterised by sharp, subhorizontal to slightly concave-upward, and often erosional
bases, on which depositional increments are laterally stacked, with the dip direction at a high angle
with respect to the palaeoflow direction, and dip angle up to 25°, generally showing off-lapped
upper terminations (Colombera et al., 2013 and references therein).

Figure 13. A) Schematic diagram illustrating position of lateral accretion relative to other architectural
elements (adapted from Colombera et al., 2013). B) Modern and outcrop example. C) Example log
response (adapted from Hornung and Aigner, 1999).

13 | P a g e
Floodplain lake – LC
These elements represent the infill of ephemeral or perennial floodplain lakes. They are typically
characterised by having non-erosive bases, tabular shapes and laterally persistent, vertically
stacked sheet-like depositional increments; they may have a wide lithological variety, including
clastic, organic and chemical deposits testifying to deposition in a lacustrine setting. Floodplain
lakes are distinguishable from abandoned channels as they lack a channelised base; in the rock
record, they are distinguishable from overbank fines by the evidence of subaqueous conditions,
either ephemeral or perennial (Colombera et al., 2013 and references therein).

Figure 14. A) Schematic diagram illustrating position of floodplain lakes relative to other architectural
elements (adapted from Colombera et al., 2013). B) Modern and outcrop example. C) Example log
response (adapted from Hornung and Aigner, 1999).

14 | P a g e
Levee – LV
Although levees may develop at smaller scales (for example, crevasse channel levees), LV elements
usually represent the sedimentary and geomorphic expression of the most proximal over-bank
deposition next to channel-belt margins.

Levee elements typically take the form of tapering wedges that thin away from channel-belt
margins, demonstrating superelevation on the rest of the floodplain; their base may be poorly
defined, and internal accretion surfaces may offlap and/or downlap, showing dip angles up to 10°,
although 2 to 5° are more common, associated with the sloping topography bordering channels;
(palaeo) flow direction is usually oriented at a high angle with the channel border (Colombera et al.,
2013 and references therein).

Figure 15. A) Schematic diagram illustrating position of levees relative to other architectural elements
(adapted from Colombera et al., 2013). B) Modern example with elevation profile. C) Example log
response (adapted from Hornung and Aigner, 1999).

15 | P a g e
Sandy sheetflood dominated floodplain - SF
These elements represent vertically aggrading areas controlled by bedload deposition from
unconfined flows; they can encompass sedimentary sheets forming proximal terminal splays.

Sandy sheetflood dominated floodplains are characterised by having lower bounding surfaces that
are sharp, planar to irregular, and ranging from non-erosive to slightly erosive in nature; they
usually form tabular or lenticular sandstone bodies, in which depositional increments tend to be
vertically stacked and bounded by subplanar surfaces, demonstrating an overall aggradational
character. SF elements are differentiated from FF elements by grain size because the proportion of
sand-grade deposits demonstrates that traction-current deposition is dominant over suspension
settling (Colombera et al., 2013 and references therein).

Figure 16. A) Schematic diagram illustrating position of sandy sheetflood dominated floodplain
relative to other architectural elements (adapted from Colombera et al., 2013). B) Outcrop example of
a sandy sheetflood dominated floodplain.

16 | P a g e
Sediment gravity flow -SG
These elements may represent gravity-flow sheets/lobes, the genetically related levees, or possibly
a complex association of them both. They are characterised by irregular and sharp – but often non-
erosional – bases, and form lobes, ribbons or sheets. The associated facies assemblages testify to
the activity of debris flows and related sediment gravity flows as formative mechanisms (Colombera
et al., 2013 and references therein).

Figure 17. A) Schematic diagram illustrating position of sediment gravity flows relative to other
architectural elements (adapted from Colombera et al., 2013). B) Outcrop example of a sediment
gravity flow.

17 | P a g e
Appendix

Figure A.1. Full key applicable to all log responses (adapted from Hornung and Aigner, 1999).

18 | P a g e
19 | P a g e
 Figure A.2. Pie charts
for each architectural
element showing the
proportions of facies
type in each. These
values are an average
across all fluvial types
and are taken from the
FAKTS database.

20 | P a g e
References

Allen, J.R.L. (1978) Studies in fluviatile sedimentation: an exploratory quantitative model for the
architecture of avulsion-controlled alluvial suites Sed. Geol., 21, 129-147.

Colombera, L., Mountney, N.P. & McCaffrey, W.D. (2012) A relational database for the digitisation of
fluvial architecture: concepts and example applications. Petroleum Geoscience, 18, 129-140.

Colombera, L., Mountney, N.P. & McCaffrey, W.D. (2013) A quantitative approach to fluvial facies
models: Methods and example results. Sedimentology, 60, 1526-1558.

Colombera, L., Mountney, N.P., Howell, J.A., Rittersbacher, A., Felletti, F. & McCaffrey, W.D. (2016) A
test of analog-based tools for quantitative prediction of large-scale fluvial architecture. AAPG
Bulletin, 100, 237-267.

Halderson, H.H. & Lake, L.W. (1984) A new approach to shale management in field-scale models.
Society of Petroleum Engineers, 24, 447-457.

Hornung, J. & Aigner, T. (1999) Reservoir and aquifer characterization of fluvial architectural
elements: Stubensandstein, Upper Triassic, southwest Germany. Sedimentary Geology, 129, 215-
280.

Miall, A.D. (1985) Architectural-element analysis: A new method of facies analysis applied to fluvial
deposits. Earth-Science Reviews, 22, 261-308.

Miall, A.D. (1996) The Geology of Fluvial Deposits. Springer Verlag, Berlin. pp. 582

Miall, A.D. (2006) Reconstructing the architecture and sequence stratigraphy of the preserved fluvial
record as a tool for reservoir development: A reality check. AAPG Bulletin, 90, 989-1002.

Weber, K.J. (1986) How heterogeneity affects oil recovery. In: (F.G. Ethridge, R.M. Flores and M.D.
Harvey, eds.) Recent development in fluvial sedimentology. SEPM Special Publication 39, 329-342.

21 | P a g e
Comments on this chapter?

Want to learn more?

Please join us online at:

www.pds.group/avaclastics.com