Australian Journal of Earth Sciences

An International Geoscience Journal of the Geological Society of

Australia

ISSN: 0812-0099 (Print) 1440-0952 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/taje20

Recent development in stratigraphic forward

modelling and its application in petroleum
exploration

X. Huang, C. M. Griffiths & J. Liu

To cite this article: X. Huang, C. M. Griffiths & J. Liu (2015) Recent development in stratigraphic
forward modelling and its application in petroleum exploration, Australian Journal of Earth Sciences,
62:8, 903-919, DOI: 10.1080/08120099.2015.1125389

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/08120099.2015.1125389

Published online: 18 Jan 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 726

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 9 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=taje20
Australian Journal of Earth Sciences (2015)
62, 903
919, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08120099.2015.1125389

Recent development in stratigraphic forward modelling

and its application in petroleum exploration
X. HUANG1*, C. M. GRIFFITHS2 AND J. LIU1
1
Research Institute of Petroleum Exploration and Development, PetroChina, PO Box 910, 20 Xuanyuan Road,
Beijing 100083, PR China
2
Curtin University of Technology, Bentley, WA 6012, Australia

In order to better predict the geometry and spatial distribution of reservoir facies and permeability
barriers, it is critical to understand stratigraphic geometries and architecture at all scales within a basin.
Stratigraphic forward modelling (SFM) allows geologists to forward project the deposition and evolution
of sedimentary facies within a stratigraphic framework with given prior boundary conditions. The
method can approximate depositional processes while taking into consideration a range of factors
that affect basin evolution and sedimentation. This paper presents an overview of recent
developments in stratigraphic forward models that are currently available and have been successfully
employed in simulating stratigraphic development, including geometric models, diffusion models, Fuzzy
Logic models and hydraulic models. In addition, the paper discusses SFM used in the simulation of the
behaviour of natural sedimentary systems and verification of the potential for hydrocarbon entrapment
and accumulation in a basin using an example from the Ordos Basin, western China.
KEY WORDS: stratigraphic simulation, stratigraphic forward modelling, Yanchang Formation, sedimen-
tary heterogeneities, Ordos Basin, basin analysis.

INTRODUCTION variables including the quantity of sediment supply,

Reservoir heterogeneities are mainly influenced by sedi-
mentary facies geometry, grain-size characteristics and
diagenetic processes (e.g. Haldorsen 1986). Post-deposi-
tional processes such as tectonic stress, compaction and
fluid evolution, all act upon the initial sedimentary
framework to produce the final heterogeneous reservoir
at various scales. Many studies have emphasised that
depositional facies, combined with diagenesis and stress
histories exert fundamental controls on the evolution of
fluid flow properties in reservoirs, with respect to both
matrix and fracture characteristics (e.g. Kyser & Hiatt
2003; Eichhubl et al. 2004; Beitler et al. 2005; Abouessa &
Morad 2009; Morad et al. 2010; Caracciolo et al. 2013). The
quality of most reservoirs, however, primarily depends
on the original depositional environmental variations
within their respective depositional systems (Bloch &
McGowen 1994). Therefore, an understanding of the ini-
tial depositional environment and processes and their
evolution is critical for effective prediction of the spatial
distribution and geometry of reservoir facies and perme-
ability barriers.
Computer modelling is an efficient way to under-
stand such dynamic depositional systems. In his 1962
paper, Sloss proposed the first modern stratigraphic
model based on the hypothesis that the shape of a
body of sedimentary rock is controlled by four
the rate of subsidence relatively to base level, the sed-
iment flux and the sediment composition and texture.
Although this model was conceptual rather than
quantitative, it provided the original idea for quanti-
tative modelling and was formalised by Schwarzacher
(1966), who proposed a one-dimensional sedimentation
model according to the relationship between sedimen-
tation rate and water depth. Schwarzacher’s model is
useful and its formulation serves as the basis for
some aspects of carbonate simulation to the present.
The model also provides a solution in which sedimen-
tation rate balances accommodation.
However, one-dimensional modelling of a vertical suc-
cession is only the starting-point for stratigraphic for-
ward modelling (SFM), and the model naturally evolved
into two-dimensional models, which added a horizontal
dimension parallel to the mean transport direction. Sub-
sequently, many computer programs were developed
including: DEPOSIM (Bitzer & Harbaugh 1987), SEDPAK
(Strobel et al. 1989; Kendall et al. 1991a, b), CARBONATE
(Bosence & Waltham 1990; Bosence et al. 1994; Whitaker
et al. 1999), CARBPLAT (Bosscher & Southam 1992), 2D
SEDFLUX (Syvitski & Daughnay 2001), 2D CYCOPATH
(Demicco 1998), PHIL (Bowman & Vail 1999), SEDFLUX
2D (Hutton & Syvitski 2004) and SEALEX (Koelling et al.
2009). These models provide a rapid and effective means
of simulating possible depositional scenarios behind the

*Corresponding author: X. Huang. huangxiu1983@petrochina.com.cn

Ó 2016 Geological Society of Australia
904 X. Huang et al.
reflection geometries observed on 2D seismic data, well
logs and cross-sections. The development of strati-
graphic packages, however, is inherently a three-dimen-
sional problem (Karner & Driscoll 1997) and hence these
2D forward models fail to simulate the physics control-
ling the processes of transport, deposition and erosion.
In order to resolve the issue mentioned above,
computer programs addressing three-dimensional
stratal architectures were developed, such as, SEDSIM
(Tetzlaff & Harbaugh 1989; Griffiths et al. 2001), CLAS-
TIC (Hardy & Waltham 1992; Ritchie et al. 1999),
€ ssner & Roessler 1996; Hu € ssner et al. 2001),
REPRO (Hu
FUZZIM (Nordlund 1996, 1999), DIONISOS (Granjeon
1997; Granjeon & Joseph 1999; Rabineau et al. 2005),
DIBAFILL (Quiquerez et al. 2000), FACIES-3D (Mat-
suda et al. 2004), SIMSAFADIM (Bitzer & Salas 2001,
2002), CARBONATE-3D (Warrlich et al. 2002), SIMSA-
FADIM-CLASTIC (Grataco s 2004) and SEDFLUX 3D
(Hutton & Syvitski 2008). These models provide geolo-
gists with a direct way of gaining more insight into
the internal dynamics of depositional processes and
allow geologists to investigate factors that influence
and control stratal architectures.
The stratigraphic forward models mentioned above
(whether 2D or 3D models) use different mathematic
methods or algorithms and thus have different
strengths and weaknesses (Table 1). This paper pro-
vides a brief overview of the major categories (algo-
rithms) of stratigraphic forward models and discusses
their use in simulating geological processes at scales
appropriate for reservoir to basin-scale prediction.
The review does not intend to be exhaustive, as there
are several other reviews on the simulation of geolog-
ical process in the literature emphasising different
aspects (e.g. Cross & Harbaugh 1990; Slingerland et al.
1994; Griffiths 1996; Harbaugh et al. 1999; Watney et
al. 1999; Paola 2000; Naish & Liu 2000; Tetzlaff &
Priddy 2001; Fagherazzi & Overeem 2007; Syvitski &
Kettner 2007; Shafie & Madon 2008; Burgess 2012). In
this paper, we mainly focus on the recent develop-
ment of a main stream representation of SFM using
some selected examples from some key categories.
The review focuses on the mathematical models used
and evaluates their relative advantages, disadvan-
tages and the geological results obtained through
their applications. As mentioned above, the computa-
tional study of stratigraphic forward models is a sub-
ject with a long history. Over the last few years, the
number of papers has grown rapidly. Chapters cover-
ing some of the methods discussed here appeared in
Burgess et al. (2006) and Grataco  s et al. (2009). This
review is by no means comprehensive but aims to
give a useful overview of the main features, and at
the same time provide rationale on why the hydrau-
lic-based SEDSIM computer program was used in our
study.
To demonstrate how SFM can be used to assist geo-
scientists to better understand the infilling of a sedimen-
tary basin we utilised the SEDSIM program to simulate
the development and evolution of a shallow-water deltaic
system in the Ordos Basin, western China, where explo-
ration for both conventional and unconventional petro-
leum reservoirs are under way.
Various stratigraphic forward models
By using equations, algorithms and heuristics, SFM is
proving to be a useful tool to reconstruct the morphology
and internal structure of sedimentary bodies ranging
from centimetres to metres in thickness by quantifying
and simulating the physical and biological processes act-
ing over geological time-scales. This makes SFM a more
rigorous approach than conventional qualitative extrap-
olations based on conceptual and empirical geological
models (Watney et al. 1999). As mentioned above, the
varieties of SFMs relative to different mathematical
approaches include geometric models, diffusion models,
Fuzzy logic models and hydraulic models. The algo-
rithms, advantages, disadvantages, representative com-
puter implementations and references to the softwares
are summarised in Table 1.
Geometric models
One of the early well-established geometric models is
SEDPAK (Strobel et al. 1989; Kendall et al. 1991a, b). By
honouring mass balance, energy conservation and static
sediment accommodation equilibrium, this program
models sedimentation and stratal stacking utilising sim-
ple geometric rules (Liu et al. 1998). In SEDPAK, the vol-
ume of clastic sediment depositing column by column in
a basin is represented as a right triangle, and sediment
distribution is controlled by depositional slopes that are
pre-determined for each lithology, and for sediments
above and below the water level. For instance, sediment
deposition occurs when the slope between adjacent col-
umns does not exceed the pre-determined depositional
slope (represented as the maximum stable slope). For a
good discussion of SEDPAK the reader is referred to
Strobel et al. (1989) and Kendall et al. (1991a, b). It is a use-
ful tool to introduce the concepts of sequences and
systems tracts as a function of accommodation and
sediment supply changes in clastic and carbonate sed-
iment deposition over large spans of time (Kendall et
al. 1991a, b). However, SEDPAK has several limita-
tions. For instance, it is only a two-dimensional simu-
lation model and consequently unable to effectively
model out-of-plane sediment supply or erosion. The
use of a constant depositional slope cannot reflect the
sediment distribution realistically. It is more reason-
able to deal with the compaction rates as a function
of permeability at all depths for both sands and
shales rather than using the static empirical equa-
tions of Baldwin & Butler (1985), and Sclater & Chris-
tie (1980) as pointed out by Griffiths & Hadler-
Jacobsen (1995). Other early 2D models including
Thorne & Swift (1991), Bowman & Vail (1993), Steckler
et al. (1993), Wehr (1993) and Ross et al. (1995)
attempted to model the 3D sedimentary bodies
through a series of 2D cross-sections, which were
arranged along strike, but such an approach fails to
effectively model 3D effects of river migration and
avulsion that fundamentally control the ages and
preservation of fluvial terraces above the evolving
erosion surface. Therefore, these geometric models
are primarily two-dimensional or at most pseudo-3D
(Bhattacharya 2011).
Table 1 Summary of characteristics of SFM discussed with key references

Name Mathematical
approaches Advantages Disadvantages Representative models References

Geometric models Simple geometric rules Quick 2D illustration of sequences and
systems tract concepts in relation to
accommodation change and
sediment supply
Diffusion models Fick’s laws of diffusion Simplicity and wide applicability to
different depositional systems
Fuzzy logic models Fuzzy logic/fuzzy-set Quick and computationally efficient
theory means of simulating 3D ecological
niches over time in carbonates and
vegetation (source rocks). Can be
readily integrated with hydraulic
models for mixed carbonate/
siliciclastic systems.
Hydraulic models Approximations to Excellent capability to deal with flow in
Navier
Stokes a very natural way, allows the
equations realistic patterns of sediments and
topography to be well developed
Only two-dimensional and SEDPAK Strobel et al. (1989),
consequently unable to effectively Kendall et al. (1991a, b)
model the 3D distribution of stratal
packages. Models the consequences
of processes rather than the
processes themselves.
The appropriateness of the diffusion DEMOSTRAT, STRATA, Rivænes (1992), Flemings
process to represent sediment DIONISOS, DIBAFILL & Grotzinger (1996),
transport is questionable owing to its Phil, SEDFLUX 2D Granjeon (1997),
non-uniqueness and some inherent Granjeon & Joseph
assumptions (1999), Quiquerez et al.
(2000), Hutton &
Syvitski (2008)
Not as predictive as hydraulic FUZZIM Nordlund & Silfversparre
simulation in siliciclastics. (1994), Nordlund (1996,
1999)
Very computationally intensive and SIMSAFADIM-CLASTIC, Grataco
 s (2004),
some inherent assumptions need to SEDSIM, SEDFLUX 3D Tetzlaff & Harbaugh,
be pre-determined relating to the (1989), Hutton &
appropriateness of approximations Syvitski (2008)
and simplifications to fluid flow
equations.
Stratigraphic forward modelling
905
906 X. Huang et al.
More recent geometric models (e.g. Pattison 1995;
Plint 2000, 2002; Payenberg et al. 2003; Garrison & van
den Bergh 2004; Kreitner & Plint 2006; Vakarelov &
Bhattacharya 2009; Hampson 2010; Lorenzo-Trueba et al.
2013) using 3D seismic surveys have created 3D descrip-
tions of sequence architecture via cross-sections and
map-views. Nevertheless, they still fail to predict the
development of stratigraphic packages and their bound-
ing unconformities because of the limitation of sediment
transport and deposition within the plane of consider-
ation (Paola 2000). As a consequence, geometric models
are rarely able to produce terrace deposits.
Diffusion models
In contrast to geometric models, diffusion models are
based on physical potential gradient models that com-
monly use Fick’s laws of diffusion to model sedimenta-
tion. For instance, Fick’s first law relating the mass flux
to the concentration under the steady state, it assumes
that flux going from regions of high concentration to
regions of low concentration is proportional to the con-
centration gradient. In one dimension, the equation is
given as:
@f
JD ¡D (1)
@x
where J is the mass flux, D is an isotropic diffusion coef-
ficient, f is the concentration of material, and x is the
coordinate direction parallel to flow and perpendicular
to the reference surface. Fick’s second law is usually
used to predict the change in concentration caused by
diffusion with time. In three dimensions, the law can be
expressed as:
 2  rule can be based on personal experience, empirical data
@f @ f @2 f @2 f
DD C C (2)
@t @x2 @y2 @z2
where t is time, and x ,y ,z are different directions in spa-
tial derivatives, respectively.
Various diffusion models have been presented includ-
ing: DEMOSTRAT, STRATA (Flemings & Grotzinger
1996), DIONISOS and DIBAFILL (Table 1). The diffusion
approach attracts significant attention because of its
simplicity and wide applicability to different deposi-
tional systems. Rivænes (1997) used a diffusion model,
DEMOSTRA, with input parameters including tectonic
subsidence, eustasy and two component (sand and mud)
constants. By varying the transport coefficients, he
found that the magnitude of transport coefficients seems
to have an important impact on sequence development.
Quiquerez et al. (2000) demonstrated that DIBAFILL can
handle variable grainsizes, and can be applied at differ-
ent depositional environments including siliciclastic,
mixed siliciclastic/carbonate and carbonate environ-
ments at various spatial scales (reservoir and basin
scales). DYONISOS introduced by Granjeon & Joseph
(1999) can also handle different grainsizes, and even
extend diffusive transport to fluvial environments. How-
ever, diffusion modelling is not without its hurdles. It is
difficult for a diffusion-based model to simulate
sedimentary transport with multiple grain-size classes.
The appropriateness of the diffusion process to repre-
sent sediment transport has been questioned owing to
its non-uniqueness and some inherent assumptions such
as the flow can be represented at each downstream loca-
tion x by an average depth, velocity, shear stress, etc.
(e.g. Perlmutter et al. 1998; Paola 2000).
Fuzzy logic models
There are a number of general papers dealing with appli-
cations of fuzzy logic for controlling the spatial and tem-
poral distribution of sediments in the forward
stratigraphic simulations. These include Nordlund &
Silfversparre (1994), Nordlund (1996, 1999), Edington et
al. (1998), Parcell et al. (1998), Demicco & Klir (2001), Par-
cell (2003), Kamali & Mirshady (2004), El-Shahat et al.
(2009) and Ghiasi-Freez et al. (2012). Nordlund (1996) pro-
vides a useful introduction detailing the application of
fuzzy-set theory to quantify geological data in numerical
modelling. More discussion of fuzzy logic applications in
geology can be found in the book edited by Demicco &
Klir (2003).
As an extension of conventional Boolean logic (zeros
and ones), fuzzy logic can handle the concept of ‘partial
truth’, which means that the degree of truth is expressed
by a real number between 0 and 1 (Demico & Klir 2003).
Moreover, these truth values are managed by their mem-
bership functions. Unlike conventional Boolean logic, it
does not need to allocate a particular value to a set with
fixed boundaries; rather, it can assign different degrees
of membership of a particular value to many different
‘fuzzy sets’ (Zadeh 1965). Another component of fuzzy
systems is the fuzzy rule, which is a logic rule involving
fuzzy sets rather than using conventional crisp sets in
the premise and conclusion. The formulation of a fuzzy
or expert opinions (Zadeh 1965; Nordlund 1999).
There is no doubt that the distinct advantages of for-
ward models based on fuzzy logic are more attuned to
common sense and field geological experience owing to
the use of a natural language description systems and
computational efficiency (Perfilieva 2003). To some
extent, this can overcome the intensive computation
demanded by hydraulic models. Fuzzy-set modelling pro-
vides a computationally efficient means of simulating
3D ecological niches over time in carbonates and vegeta-
tion (source rocks). Such a model is most useful when
integrated with hydraulic models for mixed carbonate
or siliciclastic systems as fuzzy-set based models are not
as predictive as hydraulic simulations in siliciclastics
depositional environments and hydraulics cannot be
used to model living systems such as coral reefs, vegeta-
tion and lacustrine algal growth.
Hydraulic models
Hydraulic models attempt to simulate the physical pro-
cesses that govern fluid flow, sediment transport deposi-
tion and erosion. In such a model, sediments are
incorporated into the moving fluid, and then are trans-
ported and accumulate as a function of the correspond-
ing fluid flow dynamics. For more detail on the

transport and sedimentation equations, readers are
referred to Graf (1984), Tetzlaff & Harbaugh (1989), and
€ rk (1992).
Simons & Şentu
Fluid flow can be sufficiently described by the
Navier
Stokes equations,
 @q  Stokes equations, their capability to deal with the flow
r C ðqrÞq D ¡ rp C rmU C rðg C VqÞ (3)
@t
where q is flow velocity vector, r is fluid density, p is pres-
sure, m is fluid viscosity, U is hydrodynamic tensor, V is
the Coriolis tensor, g is the gravitational acceleration,
and t is time. Equation (3) is strictly a statement of the
conservation of momentum. In order to fully describe
the fluid flow, a statement of the conservation of mass is
also necessary. The mass continuity equation is given as
@r
C rrq D 0 (4)
@t
i.e. the net change in mass (or volume) in the down-
stream, cross stream and vertical directions is zero.
Since these equations [Equations (3) and (4)] are non-lin-
ear for four independent variables, they are impossible
to be fully solved mathematically. Simplifications and
approximations are required to derive approximate
numerical solutions.
In order to address the above issue, in the SEDSIM
program some simplifications have been made (e.g. SED-
SIM of Tetzlaff & Harbaugh 1989; SIMSAFADIM of Bitzer
& Salas 2001, 2002; SIMSAFADIM-CLASTIC of Grataco s
2004). Tetzlaff & Harbaugh (1989) proposed a method
called ‘maker-in-cell’ developed by Harlow (1964) as fluid
elements used in the SEDSIM program. By adapting the
‘maker-in-cell’ technique, flow velocity and sediment
load are represented at points that move with the fluid
(Tetzlaff & Harbaugh 1989), thereby problems caused by
flow-field distortion and material interfaces are con-
trolled and the sub-grid scale features can also be
resolved by using the fluid element concept. For exam-
ple, studies by Salles et al. (2010) on the Algarve Margin,
South Portugal, show different types of interactions
between gravity processes and contour currents on a
margin using SEDSIM. They suggested that new ele-
ments in the potential formation and preservation of
coarse-grained deposits along a margin that may con-
form to several margins, a new potential sedimentary
interest. Gratacos (2004)’s model SIMSAFADIM-CLAS-
TIC used the fluid flow model developed by Bitzer &
Salas (2002) called SIMSAFADIM. Considering flow as
irrotational and ignoring the viscosity of water, this
model simulates fluid flow as a quasi-steady state poten-
tial flow model using a finite-element model (Bitzer &
Salas 2002). Gratacosa et al. (2009) demonstrate the capa-
bilities of SIMSAFADIM-CLASTIC to simulate the physi-
cal process of clastic transport using a large deep
elongated artificial lake, the Camarasa reservoir in the
Noguera Pallaresa River, NE of Spain. They found that
the fluid flow and depositional pattern in the reservoir
are mainly controlled by the opening and closure of tur-
bine gates and the basin geometry. Comparing the scope
and 3D nature, SEDSIM and SIMSAFADIM can be con-
sidered as closely related to each other (Grataco  s et al.
Stratigraphic forward modelling 907
2009). It should be noted that neither SIMSAFADIM nor
SEDSIM can simulate turbulence.
Although hydraulic modelling is relatively computa-
tionally intensive, and some inherent assumptions need
to be pre-determined relating to the appropriateness of
fluid flow system, the major advantage of the Navier

in a very natural way, allows realistic patterns of flow
and topography to be developed (Poala 2000). As a result,
hydraulic modelling is probably the most useful tool to
simulate siliciclastic dynamic processes at geological
spatial and temporal scales.
APPLICATION OF STRATIGRAPHIC FORWARD
MODELLING IN PETROLEUM EXPLORATION
As discussed above, hydraulic modelling is an appropri-
ate method to reconstruct the process of siliciclastic sedi-
mentary basin fill. By incorporating some fuzzy-set
routines, the hydraulics-based SEDSIM program is capa-
ble of modelling most aspects of mixed siliciclastic
car-
bonate basin fill at scales from centimetres to hundreds
of kilometres and seconds to millions of years. To demon-
strate the application of stratigraphic forward modelling
for hydrocarbon exploration and production problems,
the computer program SEDSIM is used here to simulate
the development and evolution of shallow-water deltas
of the Upper Triassic Chang-8 Member within the
Yanchang Formation in the Odors Basin.
The general workflow of SFM, such as that used in
SEDSIM, is shown in Figure 1. It always starts with a
conceptual geological or sedimentary model (Step 1),
which may be based on geological understanding of the
target area and stratigraphic interval from regional
analysis and/or modern analogue study (Figure 1a). At
this step, the objectives of the simulation must be set. A
set of input parameters or parameter sets are then col-
lated and screened to the initial model construction
(Step 2; Figure 1b). The model was then run for the target
time interval to generate a preliminary model (Step 3;
Figure 1c). The simulation outputs are then compared
with the known geological observations, records, spatial
and temporal data, such as seismic, well log and core
data (Figure 1d). If the discrepancy between the simula-
tion results and the real geological data is beyond the
expectation, then Steps 1
3 will need to be repeated iter-
atively until the modelled outputs and the real geological
data converge to a satisfactory level. The modelling pro-
cess itself is also a process to test various scenarios,
remove uncertainties and understand the geological
model.
The Chang-8 Member is one of the main oil-producing
intervals in the Yanchang Formation. The reservoir
interval is quite heterogeneous, consisting of thin-bed-
ded sandstone units of deltaic to lacustrine facies (Li et
al. 2007; Zou et al. 2010; Liu et al. 2011; Chu et al. 2012;
Yang et al. 2013). What we are interested in is the predic-
tion of potential reservoirs properties such as lithology
and porosity in fine resolution in the Maling area of the
Odors Basin by using the nested modelling capability
within the SEDSIM program.
908 X. Huang et al.
Figure 1 Workflow of SEDSIM.
SEDSIM has been applied to petroleum exploration
for over two decades (Tezlaff & Harbaugh 1989; Griffiths
et al. 2001; Liu et al. 2001). The capability of SEDSIM has
been proven by several researchers (e.g. Li et al. 2007,
2008; Salles et al. 2010; Huang et al. 2012, 2014; Zhu et al.
2013a, b). Liu et al. (2002) shows that SEDSIM can be
effectively used to model sedimentary heterogeneities
and for upscaling by stepwise modelling using varied
spatial and temporal resolutions.
Conceptual sedimentary model for the
Yanchang Formation
The Ordos Basin in western China is an intra-cratonic
depression (Hu & Huang 1991). It was dominated by a
marine sedimentary system during the lower Paleozoic,
and a marine
fluvial depositional system in the upper
Paleozoic. By the Mesozoic era, the area became a lacus-
trine basin. The Yanchang Formation was deposited in
the Upper Triassic marking the heyday of the develop-
ment of the basin, with about 1000
1300 m-thick
interbedded high-quality lacustrine source rocks and
deltaic reservoir sandstone.
Zhu & Xu (1990) and Yang et al. (2007) showed that dur-
ing the Late Triassic the Ordos Basin was opened to the
southeast and bounded by the Yin Mountains to the
north, the Alashan to the northwest, the Longxi Uplift to
the southwest and the Qinling Mountains to the south
(Figure 2a). Based on the marker beds, sedimentary
cycles and lithological associations, the Yanchang For-
mation is subdivided into 10 informal oil reservoir units
from the top to the bottom, named Chang-1 to Chang-10
(Figure 1b; Wu et al. 2004; Li et al. 2007; Zou et al. 2010).
Contacts between each member are conformable (Yang
et al. 2013). Some studies point out that the Chang-8 Mem-
ber with a thickness of 70
100 m represents a sequence
characterised by a single cycle of lake level fall and rise,
because two large-scale flooding periods occurred when
the Chang-9 and Chang-7 members were deposited,
respectively (Li et al. 2007; Zou et al. 2010; Liu et al. 2011;
Chu et al. 2012; Yang et al. 2013). Therefore, the Chang-8
Member can be further subdivided into two units from
the bottom to the top: Chang-82 formed during the lake
 Stratigraphic forward modelling 909

Figure 2 Geological characteristics of the Triassic Chang-8 Member in the Ordos Basin. (a) Location map of the Ordos Basin
showing locations of wells and correlation section; (b) generalised stratigraphic column of the Triassic Chang-8 Member,
showing lithologies, lake level change and lithological associations (modified after Zou et al. 2010); and (c) NW
SE strati-
graphic cross-section of the Triassic Chang-8 Member showing the extremely low gradient of the initial basin morphology,
which is about 0.1 . See (a) for the location of the cross-section in (c). (Modified from unpublished database of Changqing Oil-
field, PetroChina.)

level fall, and Chang-81 developed at the period of lake
level rise.
According to Yang et al. (2013), the Chang-8 Member
was deposited from 231 Ma to 228.2 Ma. At that time, the
initial basin morphology has an extremely low gradient
of 0.1 or 2 m/km (Figure 2c; Liu et al. 2011). The inactive
interior of the continental lake was unaffected by
regional plate tectonics. The depositional rate was low
ranging from 25 to 35.7 m/Ma (Li et al. 2007; Zhao et al.
2012). This meant that small changes in the relative lake
level have large effects on the location of the shoreface.
The depositional system was dominated by shallow-
water delta and lacustrine sediments (Figure 3; e.g. Zou
et al. 2010; Liu et al. 2011). Several authors have com-
mented on the importance of the sediment sources,
which are from northeast, southwest, northwest and
west (Figure 4; e.g. Cao 2008; Yang et al. 2013).
Input parameters for the simulation
The input parameters used for the simulation include
an initial topographic surface, sediment sources and
supply rates, tectonic subsidence, lake level curve,
porosity table and compaction. The information was
derived from many observational surveys and data
obtained from published papers and supplied by the
Changqing Oil Field (Li et al. 2007; Cao 2008; Liu et al.
2011; Zhao et al. 2012; Yang et al. 2013).
The simulation began from 231 Ma on an initial
topographic surface that mimics an interpreted
bathymetry of the Ordos Basin at the time (Figure 4).
This surface was reconstructed from the interpreted
facies and paleo water depths of the Chang-9 Member
immediately below the Chang-8 unit (Yang et al. 2013).
The sediment infilling process was then simulated
using tectonic subsidence rates of 25
35.7 m/Ma and
locally derived lake-level fluctuations and sediment
supply over the 2.8 million years (Li et al. 2007; Zhao
et al. 2012). The modelled area is 455 km by 295 km
covering most of the Ordos Basin with a spatial grid
resolution of 5 km. In order to produce a relatively
high-resolution reservoir-scale model for the Maling
area in the basin, the nested modelling option in the
SEDSIM program was used. The Maling area is 40 km
by 40 km in size and the spatial grid resolution is
1 km. The initial morphological gradient of the basin
910 X. Huang et al.

Figure 3 Conceptual model of the Triassic Chang-8 member in the Ordos Basin. (Modified from Liu et al. 2011).

was less than 0.1 or approximately 2 m/km (Liu et al.
2011), sloping from the north to the south in the mod-
elled area.
The lake-level curve used in the simulation
(Figure 2b) was constructed from Zou et al. (2010),
forming a low frequency base-level curve. This curve
was then modulated with Milankovich frequencies
and re-sampled every 40 ka to produce a high-
frequency base-level oscillation curve (Figure 2b).
It comprises a full transgressive
regressive cycle.
The transgression period was from 231 Ma to 229.6
Ma, while the regression was from 229.6 Ma to 228.2
Ma.
Based on published literature and field observa-
tions, four sediment sources were simulated (Figure 4;
e.g. Cao 2008; Yang et al. 2013). A number of simula-
tion runs were carried out to match the geological
records through fine-tuning input parameters interac-
tively. On the basis of core data, three siliciclastic
grainsizes were used in the simulation including

Figure 4 Conceptual model of the base of the Triassic Chang-8 Member in the Ordos Basin.
 Stratigraphic forward modelling 911

Table 2 Sediment characteristics used in SEDSIM. obtained from 1212 core plug data (Figure 5). The poros-
ity range in the study area is from 4% to 15%, typical of
Medium sand Fine sand Clay tight sandstone reservoirs. The post-depositional com-
paction and loading was also modelled by calculating the
Diameter (mm) 0.40 0.15 0.001
reduction in porosity owing to overburden stress for dif-
Density (kg.m
3) 2600 2600 2550
ferent grain-size ratios. The compaction was calculated
in reference to the top of the preserved Chang-8 Member.
It should be pointed out that porosity reduction owing to
medium sand, fine sand and mud (clay) fractions cementation was not modelled in this simulation but a
(Table 2). correction was applied based on calibration porosity
The rate of porosity reduction owing to the overbur- data through the porosity table in the SEDSIM input
den stress was calculated from a porosity
depth curve parameters.

Figure 5 (a) Core plug porosity values for the Chang-8 Member. (b) Distribution of the core plug porosities for the Chang-8
Member samples from 20 wells.
912 X. Huang et al.

Figure 6 Sediment distribution of the Chang-8 Member predicted by SEDSIM simulations.

Discussion of simulation results reproduces these geological observations overall

(Figure 6).
In order to constrain the simulation to match the geolog-
Quantitative assessment of the ‘goodness of fit’ of the
ical observations, numerous calibration simulations
simulated is compared with the real thickness data from
were carried out by changing the initial morphological
a total of 71 wells (Figure 7). The simulation achieves
gradients, locations of sources, grid sizes, input flow
around 70% thickness match between the SEDSIM-
rates and sediment concentrations, as well as the degree
derived synthetic with real log data. As a sensitivity
of erosion of the underlying sediment. The final model
analysis of vertical lithofacies goodness of match, a
presented here represents the satisfactory one from the
pseudo-Vsh (V-shale) curve derived from the high-resolu-
suite of simulations. The simulation results and compar-
tion Maling model at Well Mu-30 was compared with the
isons between the field data and simulation results are
Vsh log from the wireline. An 85% match of lithofacies
shown in Figures 6 to 8.
was achieved (Figure 8). After post-depositional compac-
The Jiyuan area in the western part of the Ordos
tion the porosities from the SEDSIM model range from
Basin, is dominated by medium-grained sandstone and
4% to 14%, which are generally comparable with the
fine sandstone (Wang et al. 2008; Han et al. 2009; Deng et
core data with a range of 2% to 18% (Figure 9). It can
al. 2012), whereas the sediments in the Longdong area
also be observed that the porosity trend predicted by
are mainly characterised by medium and fine sand-
SEDSIM is apparently more heterogeneous than the
stones with minor mudstone (Zhong et al. 2013). In addi-
wireline porosity trend. This may be due to the porosi-
tion, the fine sandstone and mudstone are mainly
ty
stress relationship curves used in this simulation
present in the southeast, coinciding with a possible sub-
were calibrated using high-resolution core-plug data set
sidence centre. The SEDSIM simulation adequately
instead of the wireline data. In addition, the core plug

Figure 7 Comparison of sediment thickness between simulation output and well log data. (a) Sediment thickness predicted by
SEDSIM simulations; (b) sediment thickness derived from well logs; and (c) relative mismatch (% error) of the simulated vs
the real thickness. The location of well Mu-30 is indicated in (a). The thickness derived from SEDSIM simulations and that
from Well Mu-30 log are 88.2 m and 81 m, respectively, with mismatch of 7.6%.
 Stratigraphic forward modelling 913

Figure 8 Comparison of the Vsh logs

between Well Mu-30 well log and that
derived from SEDSIM simulations (a).
The location of Well Mu-30 is presented in
(b).

porosities diverge with a similar trend as the wireline

porosities.
As discussed above, the simulation largely recon-
structs a reasonable sedimentary model of the Chang 8
Member in the Maling area of the Ordos Basin, in terms
of stratal thickness, sedimentary facies, grainsizes and
porosity distribution.

Potential reservoir plays in the Chang-8 Member

in the Maling area
The Chang-8 Member of the Yanchang Formation can be
subdivided into two units including Chang 82 and Chang
81 from the bottom to the top based on lake level change
(Li et al. 2007; Zou et al. 2010; Liu et al. 2011; Chu et al.
2012; Yang et al. 2013). Comparing the sandbody thick-
ness between the SEDSIM simulation output and well
logs of the Chang-82 and Chang-81 units, the nested simu-
lation outputs achieve around 76% and 66% match,
respectively, in sandbody thickness over the entire mod-
elled area (Figure 10).
Based on the analysis of hydrocarbon source rock dis-
tribution, petrology and geochemistry in the Ordos
Basin, Yao et al. (2013) proposed that the potential reser-
voirs of the Chang-8 Member can be targeted if the per-
meability range is from 0.3 mD to 1.0 mD. The analysis of
1212 core plugs suggests that it is a function relationship
between porosity and permeability for the Chang-8
Member samples (Figure 11a), and there is an envelope
of porosity from 7% to 13% within which the permeabil-
ity level becomes favourable around 0.3 mD to 1.0 mD
(Figure 11b).
The simulation results shown in Figure 12 suggest
that those areas with the optimal permeability for devel-
opment targets in the Chang 82 unit mainly correspond
to the delta-front deposits and a few sand-rich areas on
the delta-plain. The favourable areas in the Chang-81 Figure 9 Comparison of porosities derived from various data
unit are characterised by both sand-rich delta-plain and including laboratory core plug measurements (blue dia-
delta-front facies. Furthermore, Figure 12 also indicates mond), well logs (red) and SEDSIM simulations (green).
914 X. Huang et al.

Figure 10 Comparison of sandbody thickness between simulations and well logs. (a, d) show the sandstone thicknesses of the
Chang-81 and Chang-82 intervals predicted by SEDSIM simulations; (b, e) are the sandstone thicknesses derived from well
logs; and (c, f) show the percentage errors of the sandstone thicknesses from the simulation vs that derived from core and log
data. The location of Well Li-187 is marked by a ‘white square.’ In the Chang-81 interval, the simulated sandstone thickness of
Well Li-187 (a) and that derived from well log (b) are 18.65 m and 16.60 m, respectively, with an mismatch of 11.68% (c); for the
Chang-82 interval the simulated sandstone thickness of Well Li-187 (d) and that derived from well log (e) are 21.48 m and
19.20 m, respectively, with a mismatch of 11.88%.

that the reservoirs of the Chang-81 unit have better
potential compared with the Chang-82 unit in terms of
total sandbody volumes and porosity distribution.
CONCLUSIONS
Various stratigraphic simulation techniques allow depo-
sitional systems to be modelled in quite different ways.
These techniques have various advantages and disad-
vantages. Geometric modelling is able to produce 2D
geometries and stacking patterns of stratigraphy effec-
tively and is able to demonstrate the relationship
between sequences and system tracts observed on seis-
mic data, well logs, cores and outcrop over a large area
and time span. However, most geometric models cannot
model 3D stratigraphic packages owing to the limitation
of simple 2D sediment transport and deposition assump-
tions. Diffusion models allow the simulation of erosion,
transport and sedimentation processes under different
depositional environments. However, the appropriate-
ness of the diffusion process to represent sediment trans-
port is currently still debatable. Fuzzy-set modelling is
most useful when integrated with hydraulic models for
mixed carbonate/siliciclastic systems as fuzzy-set based
models are not as predictive as hydrodynamic simula-
tions in siliciclastics depositional environments, while
hydraulic-based models cannot be used to model living
systems such as coral reefs, vegetation and lacustrine
algal growth. Taking advantages of the Navier
Stokes
equations, hydraulic modelling can develop the realistic
patterns of flow, siliciclastic sedimentation and topogra-
phy, but such approach is quite computationally
demanding. Nevertheless, comparatively speaking
hydraulics-based modelling is presently the best strati-
graphic forward model among all the numerical
approaches reviewed in this paper.
Among the available 3D stratigraphic forward mod-
els, SEDSIM is preferable since it is able to handle flow-
field distortion and material interfaces by using the

Figure 11 (a) Relationship between porosity and permeability. (b) The envelope of porosity from 7% to 13% within the range of
permeability around 0.3 mD to 1.0 mD.
‘marker-in-cell’ approach. The shallow-water deltas of
the Chang-8 Member, Yanchang Formation in the Ordos
Basin has been successfully simulated using SEDSIM
within the entire basin with the potential reservoirs in
the Maling area being reasonably well predicted using
the nested modelling capability. This demonstrates that
SEDSIM can not only reconstruct depositional environ-
ments efficiently at the basin scale by considering fac-
tors including flow velocity and direction, sediment
sources, topography, subsidence, lake level curve, poros-
ity table and compaction, but also allow reservoir-scale
models in the same basin to be built simultaneously.
Therefore, the potential reservoirs, source rock or seals
can be identified and delineated in more details for pro-
duction purposes. SEDSIM allows an adoption of an
Stratigraphic forward modelling 915
experimental and hydrodynamic process-oriented
approach in dealing with factors more systematically
and quantitatively than the qualitative classic sequence-
stratigraphic analysis approach. In addition, the output
of SEDSIM can be imported into any other 3D geological
and reservoir modelling programs such as Petrel, RMS,
Eclipse, GoCad for further simulation, modelling and
visualisation.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This research is sponsored by the ‘Element and process
constraint petroleum system modelling’ project (No.
2011A-0207) under the PetroChina Science Innovation
916 X. Huang et al.
Figure 12 Potential reservoirs predicted from SEDSIM simulations with a porosity range from 7% to 13%. (a, c) Planar views
of the potential reservoirs predicted within the Chang-81 and Chang-82 intervals, respectively. The black areas represent poros-
ity values that are below the commercial cutoff range; (b, d) 3D views of the potential reservoirs within the Chang-81 and
Chang-82 intervals, respectively.
program from the Research Institute of Petroleum
Exploration and Development, PetroChina, the National
973 research program on ‘Terrestrial tight oil in China’
(No. 2014CB239004) and the ‘Development of low perme-
ability stratigraphic reservoir of the Ordos Basin’ proj-
ect (No. 2011ZX05044) funded by the Changqing Oilfield,
PetroChina.
REFERENCES
ABOUESSA A. & MORAD S. 2009. An integrated study of diagenesis and
depositional facies in tidal sandstones: Hawaz formation (Middle
Ordovician), Murzuq Basin, Libya. Journal of Petroleum Geology
32, 39
65.
BALDWIN B. & BUTLER C. O. 1985. Compaction curves. American Associ-
ation of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin 69, 622
626.
BEITLER B., PARRY W. T. & CHAN M. A. 2005. Fingerprints of fluid flow:
chemical diagenetic history of the Jurassic Navajo Sandstone,
southern Utah, USA. Journal of Sedimentary Research 75,
547
561.
BHATTACHARYA J. P. 2011. Practical problems in the application of the
sequence stratigraphic method and key surfaces: integrating
observations from ancient fluvial
deltaic wedges with Quater-
nary and modelling studies. Sedimentology 58, 120
169.
BITZER K. & HARBAUGH J. W. 1987. DEPOSIM: A Macintosh computer
model for two-dimensional simulation of transport, deposition,
erosion, and compaction of clastic sediments. Computers & Geo-
sciences 13, 611
637.
BITZER K. & SALAS R. 2001. Simulating carbonate and mixed carbona-
te
clastic sedimentation using predator
prey models. In: Mer-
riam D. & Davis J. C. eds. Geologic Modeling and Simulation:
Sedimentary Systems, pp. 169
204. Kluwer Academic Plenum Pub-
lishers, New York.
BITZER K. & SALAS R. 2002. SIMSAFADIM: three-dimensional simula-
tion of stratigraphic architecture and facies distribution model-
ing of carbonate sediments. Computers & Geosciences 28,
1177
1192.
BLOCH S. & MCGOWEN J. H. 1994. Influence of depositional environ-
ment on reservoir quality prediction [A]. In: Wilson M D, ed. Res-
ervoir quality assement and prediction in clastic rocks. SEPM
shot Course 30, 41
57. Tulsa Ok.
BOSENCE D. & WALTHAM D. 1990. Computer modeling of the internal
architecture of carbonate platforms. Geology 18, 26
30.
BOSENCE D. W. J., POMAR L., WALTHAM D. A. & LANKESTER T. H. G. 1994.
Computer modelling a Miocene carbonate platform, Mallorca,
Spain. American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin 78,
247
266.
BOSSCHER H. & SCHLAGER W. 1992. Computer simulation of reef growth.
Sedimentology 39, 503
512.
BOWMAN S. A. & VAIL P. R. 1993. Carbonate sedimentation process in
PHIL. (abstact). American Association and Petroleum Geologists
Ann Convention Program 78.
BOWMAN S. A. & VAIL P. R. 1999. Interpreting the stratigraphy of the
Baltimore Canyon section, offshore New Jersey with PHIL, a
stratigraphic simulator. In: Harbaugh J. W., Watney W. L., Rankey
E. C., Slingerland R., Goldstein R. H. & Franseen E. K. eds. Numer-
ical Experiments in Stratigraphy: Recent Advances in Strati-
graphic and Sedimentologic Computer Simulations, pp. 117
138.
SEPM Special Publication 62, Tulsa Ok.
BURGESS P. M. 2012. A brief review of developments in stratigraphic
forward modelling, 2000
2009. In: Roberts D. G. & Bally A. W. eds.
Regional Geology and Tectonics: Principles of Geologic Analysis,
Vol. 1, pp. 379
404 Elsevier Science, Amsterdam.
BURGESS P. M., LAMMERS H., VAN OOSTERHOUT C. & GRANJEON D. 2006. Mul-
tivariate sequence stratigraphy: Tackling complexity and

uncertainty with stratigraphic forward modeling, multiple sce-
narios, and conditional frequency maps. American Association of
Petroleum Geologists Bulletin 90, 1883
1901.
CAO H. X. 2008. Research on the rule of depocenter migration and evolu-
tion of Late Triassic in the Ordos Basin, Dissertation, Northwest
University of China, Xi'an China.
CARACCIOLO L., ARRIBAS J., INGERSOLL R. V. & CRITELLI S. 2013. The diage-
netic destruction of porosity in plutoniclastic petrofacies: The
Miocene Diligencia and Eocene Maniobra formations, Orocopia
Mountains, southern California, USA. In: Scott R. A., Smyth H.
R., Morton, A. C. & Richardson N. eds. Sediment Provenance Stud-
ies in Hydrocarbon Exploration and Production. Geological Soci-
ety, London, Special Publication 386. London UK.
CHU M. J., GUO Z. Q. & BAI C. 2012. Evolution and deposition of Chang
8 member of Yanchang formation, Ordos basin. Journal of Oil
and Gas Technology 34, 13
18.
CROSS T. A. & HARBAUGH J. W. 1990. Quantitative dynamic stratigraphy:
a workshop, a philosophy, a methodology. Quantitative dynamic
stratigraphy: Eaglewood Cliffs, pp. 3
20. Prentice Hall, New
Jersey.
DEMICCO R. V. 1998. CYCOPATH 2D- a two-dimensional, forward model
of cyclic sedimentation on carbonate platforms. Computers &
Geosciences 24, 405
423.
DEMICCO R. V. & KLIR G. J. 2001. Stratigraphic simulations using fuzzy
logic to model sediment dispersal. Journal of Petroleum Science
and Engineering 31, 135
155.
DEMICCO R. V. & KLIR G. J. 2003. Fuzzy Logic in Geology, Academic
Press, San Diego Ca.
DENG G. W., LI J. Q. & ZHAO X. Q. 2012. Facise of Chang 8 member of
Yanchang formation in Jiyuan area, Ordos Basin. Technology of
Neijiang 1, 137
137.
EDINGTON D. H., POETER E. P. & CROSS T. A. 1998. FLUVSIM; a fuzzy-logic
forward model of fluvial systems. Geological Society of America
Annual Meeting Abstracts with Programs 30, A105.
EICHHUBL P., TAYLOR W. L., POLLARD D. D. & AYDIN A. 2004. Paleo-fluid
flow and deformation in the Aztec Sandstone at the Valley of
Fire, Nevada
Evidence for the coupling of hydrogeologic, diage-
netic, and tectonic processes. Geological Society of America Bulle-
tin 116, 1120
1136.
EL-SHAHAT W., VILLINSKI J. C. & EL-BAKRY G. 2009. Hydrocarbon potenti-
ality, burial history and thermal evolution for some source rocks
in October oil field, northern Gulf of Suez, Egypt. Journal of
Petroleum Science and Engineering 68, 245
267.
FAGHERAZZI S. & OVEREEM I. 2007. Models of deltaic and inner continen-
tal shelf landform evolution. Annual Reviews in Earth and Plane-
tary Science 35, 685
715.
FLEMINGS P. B. & GROTZINGER J. P. 1996. STRATA: Freeware for analyz-
ing classic stratigraphic problems. GSA Today 6, 1
7.
GARRISON J. R. & VAN DEN BERGH T. C. V. 2004. The high resolution depo-
sitional sequence stratigraphy of the Upper Ferron Sandstone,
Last Chance Delta: an application of coal zone stratigraphy. In:
Chidsey T. C. Jr, Adams R. D. & Morris T. H. eds. The Fluvial-Del-
taic Ferron Sandstone: Regional to Wellbore-Scale Outcrop Analog
Studies and Application to Reservoir Modeling, Vol. 50, American
Association of Petroleum Geologists Studies in Geology, Tulsa
Ok, pp. 125
192.
GHIASI-FREEZ J., KADKHODAIE-ILKHCHI A. & ZIAII M. 2012. Improving the
accuracy of flow units prediction through two committee
machine models: An example from the South Pars Gas Field, Per-
sian Gulf Basin, Iran. Computers & Geosciences 46, 10
23.
GRAF W. H. 1984. Hydraulics of sediment transport, Water Resources
Publication, Littleton Co.
GRANJEON D. 1997. Modelisation stratigraphique deterministe: con-
ception et applications d’un modele diffusif 3D multilithologique.
These Doct. University of Rennes 1, France 175.
GRANJEON D. & JOSEPH P. 1999. Concepts and applications of a 3D multi-
ple lithology, diffusive model in stratigraphic modeling. In: Har-
baugh J. W., Watney W. L., Rankey E. C., Slingerland R., Goldstein
R. H. & Franseen E. K. eds. Numerical Experiments in Stratigra-
phy: Recent Advances in Stratigraphic and Sedimentological Com-
puter Simulations, Vol. 62, SEPM Special Publication, Tulsa Ok,
pp. 197
210.
GRATACOS O. 2004. SIMSAFADIM-CLASTIC: Modelizacio n 3D de trans-
porte y sedimentacio n cla
stica subacuatica. Doctoral thesis. Uni-
versitat de Barcelona.
Stratigraphic forward modelling 917
GRATACOS O., BITZER K., CASAMOR J. L., CABRERA L., CALAFAT A., CANALS
M. & ROCA E. 2009. Simulating transport and deposition of clastic
sediments in an elongate basin using the SIMSAFADIM-CLAS-
TIC program: The Camarasa artificial lake case study (NE
Spain). Sedimentary Geology 222, 16
26.
GRIFFITHS C. M. 1996. A stratigraphy for the 21st century. First Break
14(10), 383
389. doi: 10.3997/1365-2397.1996020
GRIFFITHS C. M. & HADLER-JACOBSEN F. 1995. Practical dynamic model-
ling of clastic basin fill. Norwegian Petroleum Society Special Pub-
lications 5, 31
49.
GRIFFITHS C. M., DYT C., PARASCHIVOIU E. & LIU K. Y. 2001. SEDSIM in
hydrocarbon exploration. In: Merriam D. & Davis J. C. eds. Geologic
Modelling and Simulation, pp. 71
97. Kluwer Academic, New York.
HALDORSEN H. H. 1986. Simulator parameter assignment and the prob-
lem of scale in reservoir engineering. In: Lake L. W. & Carroll H.
B. eds. Reservoir Characterization, pp. 293
340. Academic Press,
Orlando.
HAMPSON G. J. 2010. Sediment dispersal and quantitative strati-
graphic architecture across an ancient shelf. Sedimentology 57,
96
141.
HAN Y. L., WANG C. Y., WANG H. H., LI S. C., ZHENG R. C., WANG C. Y. &
LIAO Y. 2009. Sedimentary characteristics of shallow-water deltas
in Chang-8 subsection of Yanchang Formation,Jiyuan area. Acta
Sedimentologica Sinica 27(6), 1057
1064.
HARBAUGH J., WATNEY L., RANKEY G., SLINGERLAND R., GOLDSTEIN R. &
FRANSEEN E. eds. 1999. Numerical Experiments in Stratigraphy.
SEPM Special Publication 62, Tulsa Ok.
HARDY S. & WALTHAM D. 1992. CLASTIC 2.0: a Clastic modelling pro-
gram for the Macintoch (User Manual). Department of Geology,
Royal Holloway & Bedford New College, University of London,
London UK 17 p.
HARLOW F. 1964. The particle-in-cell computing methods for fluid
dynamics. Methods in Computational Physics 3, 319
343.
HU J. Y. & HUANG D. F. 1991. The theory of continental petroleum geology
in China, Petroleum Industry Press, Beijing, China.
HUANG X., DYT C., GRIFFITHS C. M. & SALLES T. 2012. Numerical forward
modelling of ‘fluxoturbidite’ flume experiments using SEDSIM.
Marine and Petroleum Geology 35, 190
200.
HUANG X., LIU K., ZOU C. N., YUAN X. & GUI L. 2014. Forward strati-
graphic modelling of the shallow-water delta system in the
Poyang Lake, southern China. Journal of Geochemical Explora-
tion 144(A), 74
83.
€
HUSSNER H. & ROESSLER J. 1996. Modeling of reef growth in a 3-dimen-
sional space. In: Reitner J., Neuweiler F. & Gunkel F. eds. Global
and Regional Controls on Biogenic Sedimentation, pp. 397
404.
Gottinger Arb. Geol. Spec. 2. Universita €t Go€ttingen, Germany.
€
HUSSNER H., ROESSLER J., BETZLER C., PETSCHICK R. & PEINL M. 2001. Test-
ing 3D computer simulation of carbonate platform growth with
REPRO: the Miocene Llucmajor carbonate platform (Mallorca).
Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 175, 239
247.
HUTTON E. W. H. & SYVITSKI J. P. M. 2004. Advances in the numerical
modeling of sediment failure during the development of conti-
nental margin. Marine Geology 203, 367
380.
HUTTON E. W. H. & SYVITSKI J. P. M. 2008. Sedflux 2.0: An advanced pro-
cess-response model that generates three-dimensional stratigra-
phy. Computers & Geosciences 34, 1319
1337, doi:10.1016/j.
cageo.2008.02.013
KAMALI M. R. & MIRSHADY A. A. 2004. Total organic carbon content
determined from well logs using DlogR and neuro fuzzy techni-
ques. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 45, 141
148.
KARNER G. D. & DRISCOLL N. W. 1997. Three-dimensional interplay of
advective and diffusive processes in the generation of sequence
boundaries. Journal of the Geological Society of London 154,
443
449.
KENDALL C. G. S. C., MOORE P., STROBEL J., CANNON R., PERLMUTTER M.,
BEZDEK J. & BISWAS G. 1991a. Simulation of the sedimentary fill of
basins. In: Franseen E. K., Watney W. L., Kendall C. G. S. C. &
Ross W. eds Sedimentary Modeling: Computer Simulations and
Methods for Improved Parameter Definition, Vol. 233, Kansas Geo-
logical Survey Bulletin, Lawrence Ka, pp. 9
30.
KENDALL C. G. S. C., STROBEL J., CANNON R., BEZDEK J. & BISWAS G. 1991b.
The simulation of the sedimentary fill of basins. Journal of Geo-
physical Research 96, 6911
6929.
KOELLING M., WEBSTER J. M., CAMOIN G., IRYU Y., EDOUARD B. & CLAIRE S.
2009. SEALEX-Internal reef chronology and virtual drill logs
918 X. Huang et al.
from a spreadsheet-based reef growth model. Global and Plane-
tary Change 66, 149
159.
KREITNER M. A. & PLINT A. G. 2006. Allostratigraphy and paleogeogra-
phy of the Upper Cenomanian, Lower Kaskapau Formation in
subsurface and outcrop, Alberta and British Columbia. Bulletin
of Canadian Petroleum Geology 54, 110
137.
KYSER K. & HIATT E. E. 2003. Fluids in sedimentary basins: An intro-
duction. Journal of Geochemical Exploration 80, 139
149.
LI F., DYT C. & GRIFFITHS C. M. 2007. Predicting seabed change as a
function of climate change over the next 50 years in the Austra-
lian southeast? In: Harff J., Hay W. W & Tetzlaff D. M. eds. Coast-
line Changes: Interrelation of Climate and Geological Processes,
Vol. 426, Geological Society of America Special Paper, Boulder
Co., pp. 43
64
LI F., GRIFFITHS C. M. & SALLES T. 2008. Climate change impact on NW
Shelf seabed evolution and its implication on offshore pipeline
design. APPEA Journal 48, 171
189.
LIU H. Q., LI X. B., WAN Y. R., WEI L. H. & LIAO J. B. 2011. Palaeogeo-
graphic and Sedimentological Characteristics of the Triassic
Chang 8, Ordos Basin, China. Acta Sedimentologica Sinica 29,
1086
1095.
LIU K., GRIFFITHS C. M. & DYT C. 2001. Computer modelling of the
Oxfordian depositional system, Kendrew Trough, Dampier Sub-
basin. The APPEA Journal 41, 463
481.
LIU K. Y., LIANG T. C. K., PATERSON L. & KENDALL C. G. ST. C. 1998. Com-
puter simulation of the influence of basin physiography on con-
densed section deposition and maximum flooding. Sedimentary
Geology 122, 181
191.
LIU K. Y., PATERSON L., WONG P. & QI D. A. 2002. A sedimentological
approach to upscaling. Transport in Porous Media 46, 285
310.
LORENZO-TRUEBA J., VOLLER V. R. & PAOLA C. 2013. A geometric model for
the dynamics of a fluvially dominated deltaic system under base-
level change. Computers & Geosciences 53, 39
47.
MATSUDA F., SAITO M., IWAHASHI R., ODA H. & TSUJI Y. 2004. Computer
simulation of carbonate sedimentary and shallow diagenetic pro-
cesses, in integration of outcrop and modern analogs in reservoir
modeling. American Association of Petroleum Geologists Memior
80, 365
382. Tulsa Ok.
MORAD S., AL-RAMADAN K., KETZER J. M. & DE ROS L. F. 2010. The impact
of diagenesis on the heterogeneity of sandstone reservoirs: A
review of the role of depositional facies and sequence stratigra-
phy. American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin 94,
1267
1309.
NAISH T. & LIU K. 2000. Review of ‘Computerized Modelling of Sedimen-
tary System’ by Harff et al. (1999). Sedimentary Geology 130,
145
147.
NORDLUND U. 1996. Formalizing geological knowledge with an example
of modeling stratigraphy using fuzzy logic. Journal of Sedimen-
tary Research 66, 689
698.
NORDLUND U. 1999. FUZZIM: forward stratigraphic modeling made
simple. Computers & Geosciences 25, 449
456.
NORDLUND U. & SILFVERSPARRE M. 1994. Fuzzy logic
a means for incor-
porating qualitative data in dynamic stratigraphic modeling
(abstract). International Association for Mathematical Geology
Annual Conference, Mount Tremblant, Quebec. Proceeding. Papers
and Extended Abstracts, 265
266.
PAOLA C. 2000. Quantitative models of sedimentary basin filling. Sedi-
mentology 47, 121
178.
PARCELL W. C. 2003. Evaluating the development of Upper Jurassic
reefs in the Smackover Formation, eastern Gulf Coast, USA
through fuzzy logic computer modeling. Journal of Sedimentary
Research 73, 498
515.
PARCELL W. C., MANCINI E. A., BENSON D. J., CHEN H. & YANG W. 1998. Geo-
logical and computer modeling of 2-D and 3-D carbonate lithofa-
cies trends in the Upper Jurassic
Oxfordian, Smackover
Formation, Northeastern Gulf Coast. Geological Society of Amer-
ica Abstracts with Programs 30, A338.
PATTISON S. A. J. 1995. Sequence stratigraphic significance of sharp-
based lowstand shoreface deposits, Kenilworth Member, Book
Cliffs, Utah. American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulle-
tin 79, 444
462.
PAYENBERG T. H. D., BRAMAN A. & MIALL A. D. 2003. Depositional envi-
ronments and stratigraphic architecture of the Late Cretaceous
Milk River and Eagle formations, southern Alberta and north-
central Montana: relationships to shallow biogenic gas. Bulletin
of Canadian Petroleum Geology 51, 155
176.
PERFILIEVA I. 2003. Fuzzy transform: application to reef growth prob-
lem. In: Demicco R. V. & Klir G. J. eds. Fuzzy Logic in Geology, pp.
275
300. Academic Press, Amsterdam.
PERLMUTTER M. A., RADOVICH B. J., MATTHEWS M. D. & KENDALL C. G. ST.
C. 1998. The impact of highfrequency sedimentation cycles on
stratigraphic interpretation. In: Gradstein F. M., Sandvik K. O. &
Milton N. J. eds. Sequence stratigraphy: Concepts and Applica-
tions, pp. 141
170. Norwegian Petroleum Society Special Publica-
tion 8, Oslo, Norway.
PLINT A. G. 2000. Sequence stratigraphy and paleogeography of a
Cenomanian deltaic complex: the Dunvegan and lower Kaskapau
formations in subsurface and outcrop, Alberta and British Colum-
bia, Canada. Bulletin of Canadian Petroleum Geology 47, 43
79.
PLINT A. G. 2002. Paleovalley Systems in the Upper Cretaceous Dunve-
gan Formation, Alberta and British Columbia. Bulletin of Cana-
dian Petroleum Geology 50, 277
296.
QUIQUEREZ A., ALLEMAND P. & DROMART G. 2000. DIBAFILL: a 3-D two-
lithology diffusive model for basin infilling. Computers & Geo-
sciences 26, 1029
1042.
RABINEAU M., BERNE S., ASLANIAN D., OLIVET J. L., JOSEPH P., GUILLOCHEAU
F., BOURILLET J. F., LEDREZEN E. & GRANJEON D. 2005. Sedimentary
sequences in the Gulf of Lion: a record of 100,000 years climatic
cycles. Marine Petroleum Geology 22, 775
804.
RITCHIE B. D., STUART H. & GAWTHORPE R. L. 1999. Three-dimensional
numerical modeling of coarse-grained clastic deposition in sedi-
mentary basis. Journal of Geophysical Research 104(B8), 17
759
17 780.
RIVæNES J. C. 1992. Application of a dual-lithology, depth-dependent
diffusion equation in stratigraphic simulation. Basin Research 4,
133
146.
RIVæNES J. C. 1997. Impact of sediment transport efficiency on large-
scale sequence architecture: results from stratigraphic computer
simulation. Basin Research 9, 91
105.
ROSS W. C., WATTS D. E. & MAY T. A. 1995. Insights from stratigraphic
modeling: mud-limited versus sand-limited depositional systems.
American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin 79,
231
258.
SALLES T., MARCHES  E., DYT C., GRIFFITHS C. HANQUIEZ V, & MULDER T.
2010. Simulation of the interactions between gravity processes
and contour currents on the Algarve Margin, South Portugal
using the stratigraphic forward model SEDSIM. Sedimentary
Geology 229, 95
109.
SCHWARZACHER W. 1966. Sedimentation in a subsiding basin. Nature
5043, 1349
1350.
SCLATER J. G. & CHRISTIE P. A. F. 1980. Continental stretching: An expla-
nation of the post
Mid
Cretaceous subsidence of the central
North Sea Basin. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth
(1978
2012) 85(B7), 3711
3739.
SHAFIE K. R. K. & MADON M. 2008. A review of stratigraphic simulation
techniques and their applications in sequence stratigraphy and
basin analysis. Bulletin of the Geological Society of Malaysia 54,
81
89.
€
SIMONS D. B. & Ş ENTURK F. 1992. Sediment transport technology: water
and sediment dynamics, Water Resources Publication, Littleton
Co.
SLINGERLAND R., HARBAUGH J. W. & FURLONG K. 1994. Simulating Clastic
Sedimentary Basins, PTR Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New
Jersey.
SLOSS L. L. 1962. Stratigraphic models in exploration. Journal of Sedi-
mentary Petrology 32, 415
422.
STECKLER M. S., REYNOLDS D. J., COAKLEY B. J., SWIFT B. A. & JARRARD R.
1993. Modelling passive margin sequence stratigraphy. In: Posa-
mentier H. W., Summerhayes C. P., Haq B. U. & Allen G. P. eds.
Sequence Stratigraphy and Facies Associations, pp. 19
41. Interna-
tional Association of Sedimentologists Special Publication 18,
Blackwell Sientific Publications, Oxford UK.
STROBEL J., CANNON R., KENDALL C. G. S. C., BISWAS G. & BEZDEK J. 1989.
Interactive (SEDPAK) simulation of clastic and carbonate sedi-
ments in shelf to basin settings. Computers & Geosciences 15,
1279
1290.
SYVITSKI J. P. M. & DAUGHNEY S. 2001. 2D SEDFLUX 1.0 C: an advanced
process-response numerical model for the fill of marine sedimen-
tary basins. Computers & Geosciences 27, 731
753.
SYVITSKI J. P. M. & KETTNER A. J. 2007. On the flux of water and sedi-
ment into the Northern Adriatic Sea. Continental Shelf Research
27, 296
308.

TETZLAFF D. M. & HARBAUGH J. W. 1989. Simulating Clastic Sedimenta-
tion. Computer Methods in the Geosciences, Van Nostrand Rein-
hold, New York.
TETZLAFF D. & PRIDDY G. 2001. Sedimentary process modeling: from
academia to industry. In: Merriam D. F. & Davies J. C. eds. Geo-
logic Modeling and Simulation, pp. 45
69. Kluwer Academic/Ple-
numPublishers, New York.
THORNE J. A. & SWIFT D. J. P. 1991. Sedimentation on continental mar-
gins, II: application of the regime concept. In: Swift D. J. P., Oertel
G. F., Tillman R. W. & Thorne J. A. eds. Shelf Sand and Sandstone
Bodies: Geometry, Facies and Sequence Stratigraphy, pp. 33
58.
Special Publications of International Assocation of Sedimentolo-
gists 14, Blackwell Publishing Ltd., Oxford UK.
VAKARELOV B. K. & BHATTACHARYA J. P. 2009. Local tectonic control on
parasequence architecture: second Frontier Sandstone, Powder
River Basin, Wyoming. American Association of Petroleum Geolo-
gists Bulletin 93, 295
327.
WANG C. Y., ZHENG R. C., LI S. X., HAN Y. L., WANG C. Y., SHI J. N. & ZHOU
Q. 2008. Early tectonic evolution and sedimentary response of
Ordos basin: A case study of Chang 8
Chang 6 oil layers of Yan-
chang Formation in Jiyuan area. Geology in China 37, 134
143.
WARRLICH G. M. D., WALTHAM D. A. & BOSENCE D. W. J. 2002. Quantifying
the sequence stratigraphy and drowning mechanisms of atolls
using a new forward modeling program (CARBONATE 3-D).
Basin Research 14, 379
400.
WATNEY L., RANKEY E. C. & HARBAUGH J. W. 1999. Perspectives on strati-
graphic simulation models: current approaches and future
opportunities. In: Harbaugh J. W., Watney W. L., Rankey E. C.,
Slingerland R., Goldstein R. H. & Franseen E. K. eds. Numerical
Experiments in Stratigraphy: Recent Advances in Stratigraphic
and Sedimentologic Computer Simulations, pp. 3
21. SEPM Spe-
cial Publication 62, Tulsa Ok.
WEHR F. L. 1993. Effects of variations in subsidence and sediment sup-
ply on parasequence stacking patterns. In: Weimer P. & Posa-
mantier H. W. eds. Siliciclastic Sequence Stratigraphy: Recent
Developments and Applications, Vol. 58, American Association of
Petroleum Geologists Memoir. Tulsa Ok, pp. 369
379.
WHITAKER F., HAGUE Y., SMART P., WALTHAM D. A. & BOSENCE D. W. J. 1999.
Structure and function of a coupled two-dimensional diagenetic
and sedimentological model of carbonbate platform evolution.
In: Harbaugh J. W., Watney W. L., Rankey E. C., Slingerland R.,
Goldstein R. H. & Franseen E. eds. Numerical Experiments in
Stratigraphic forward modelling 919
Stratigraphy: Recent Advances in Stratigraphic and Sedimento-
logic Computer Simulations, pp. 337
355. SEPM, Special Publica-
tion 62, Tulsa Ok.
WU F. L., LI W. H., LI Y. H. & XI S. L. 2004. Delta sediments and evolu-
tion of the Yanchang Formation of Upper Triassic in Ordos
Basin. Journal of Palaeogeography 6, 307
315.
YANG H., FU Q. & FU J. H. 2007. Sedimentary Sequence and Hydrocarbon
Accumulation in Late Triassic Ordos Basin, Geology Press,
Beijing.
YANG H., LIU Z. L., ZHU X. M., DENG X. Q., ZHANG Z. Y. & QI Y. L. 2013.
Provenance and depositional systems of the Upper Triassic Yan-
chang Formation in the southwestern Ordos Basin, China. Earth
Science Frontiers 20, 10
18.
YAO J. L., DENG X. Q., ZHAO Y. D., HAN T. Y., CHU M. J. & PANG J. L. 2013.
Characteristics of tight oil in Triassic Yanchang Formation,
Ordos Basin. Petroleum Exploration and Development 40,
150
158.
ZADEH A. 1965. Fuzzy sets. Information and Control 8, 338
353.
ZHAO Z. Y., GUO Y. R., WANG Y. & LIN D. J. 2012. Tectonic evolution and
paleogeographic characteristics of Ordos Basin: An overview.
Special Oil and Gas Reservoirs 19, 15
20.
ZHONG D. K., ZHOU L. J., SUN H. T., YAO J. L., LIU X. Y., LUO A. X. & DENG
X. Q. 2013. Petrology of sandstone reservoirs in Longdong Area,
Ordos Basin. Earth Science Frontiers 20, 52
60.
ZHU H. T., LIU Q. H. & LIU Z. B. 2013a. Quantitative simulation on the
retrogradational sequence stratigraphic pattern in intra-cra-
tonic basins using physical tank experiment and numerical sim-
ulation. Journal of Asian Earth Sciences 66, 249
257.
ZHU H. T., LIU K. Y., YANG X. H. & LIU Q. H. 2013b. Sedimentary controls
on the sequence stratigraphic architecture in intra-cratonic
basins: An example from the Lower Permian Shanxi Formation,
Ordos Basin, northern China. Marine and Petroleum Geology 45,
42
54.
ZHU X. & XU W. 1990. Meso-Cenozoic Sedimentary Basins in China,
Petroleum Industry Press, Beijing.
ZOU C. N., ZHANG X. Y., LUO P., WANG L., LUO Z. & LIU L. H. 2010. Shallow-
lacustrine sand-rich deltaic depositional cycles and sequence
stratigraphy of the Upper Triassic Yanchang Formation, Ordos
Basin, China. Basin Research 22, 108
125.
Received 7 October 2015; accepted 6 November 2015