LABORATORY 3:

SILICICLASTIC PETROGRAPHY

Faculty/Department Faculty of Earth Science/Geoscience Department

Programme: Geoscience Course Name: Sedimentology (EGE 3083)
Name of Course Coordinator: Dr. Hafzan Eva Binti Mansor

1.0 Task
Students are given one thin section sample during laboratory class and microphotograph of
FOUR (4) sandstone samples (Sample 1, Sample 2, Sample 3, and Sample 4; see Appendix
1).

For the thin section sample given during laboratory class and the FOUR (4) sandstone
samples:

a. Do microscopic drawings
b. Explain sphericity, roundness, sorting, maturity, and grain contact. Label if
necessary
c. Label grains, cement, pores etc. in your microscopic drawings (e.g. monocrystalline
quartz (Qm); polycrystalline quartz (Qp); feldspar (F); rock fragments/lithics (RF);
micas; heavy minerals; other constituents)
d. Sandstone classification, provenance, and tectonic provinces
i. Conduct point counting and record your result in table form. Note: Table 1 is
an example to record your point counting result.
ii. Plot the percentage of Q-F-L in McBride (1963) triangle classification for
sandstone classification (Figure 9)
iii. Plot the percentage of Qt-F-L and Qm-F-L in W.R. Dickinson’s models
provenance and tectonic provinces (Figure 10)
e. Provide discussion and conclusion based on a – d

2.0 Report Rubric

Refer Table 1.

3.0 Dateline policy

Failure to hand in assignments/lab exercises on time will result in a grade penalty. Mark will
be docked 10% of points for each late day. The first “late day” begins immediately after the
deadline. Student will get zero (0) mark if no work handed in.
Sample 1
This is a thin section of Sample 1 made of quartz, feldspar and lithic fragments. Please refer
video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIMz7UPdENE to get a brief description on t he
properties of the main rock-forming minerals as seen under a polarising light microscope.

Figure 1: Sample 1 taken with plane-polarized light (PPL)

Figure 2: Sample 1 taken with crossed polars (XPL)

Sample 2
Sample 2 consists of a large plagioclase grains. The highly birefringent, fine-grained alteration
product is probably sericite, a mica.

Figure 3: Sample 2 taken with plane-polarized light (PPL). Magnification x25

Figure 4: Sample 2 taken with crossed polars (XPL). Magnification x25

Sample 3
Sample 3 consists many rock fragments. The two fragments in the centre of the
photomicrographs above the large quartz grain are made up of fine-grained material which
cannot be resolved at this magnification. They are fragment of shale or slate.

Figure 5: Sample 3 taken with plane-polarized light (PPL). Magnification x25

Figure 6: Sample 3 taken with crossed polars (XPL). Magnification x25

Sample 4
Sample 4 are made up of a number of composite or polycrystalline quartz. The much finer
sediments surrounding the composite quartz grains contains monocrystalline quartz grains
and brownish clasts of fine-grained material which are probably shale or slate fragments.

Figure 7: Sample 4 taken with plane-polarized light (PPL).

Figure 8: Sample 4 taken with crossed polars (XPL).

 Figure 9: McBride (1963) sandstone classification

Figure 10: W.R. Dickinson’s models relating provenance and tectonic provinces
 Table 1: Point counting result for modal compositions

Qt-F-L (100%) Qm-F-Lt

(McBride 1963 (100%)
Classification) (provenance
+ tectonic)
Sample Qt (Qm+Qp) Qm Qp F L Lt (L+Qp) Mx Others Qt F L Qm F Lt
ƩQt/ƩPT % ƩQm/ƩPT % ƩQp/ƩPT % ƩF/ƩPT % ƩL/ƩPT % ƩLt/ƩPT % ƩMx/ƩPT % ƩOthers/ƩPT %
1
2
3
4
5

ƩPT = Total number of point counting; Qt = Total Quartz; Qm = Monocrystalline Quartz; Qp = Polycrystalline Quartz; F = Feldspar; L = Lithics;
Lt = Lithics + Polycrystalline Quartz; Mx = Matrix
 Appendix A

Table 2 Report rubric

Performance
Components Scale
1 2 3 4 5
Professionalism: Overall Report Completion (Weightage = x1; Total
= 5)
- Completed as instructed, on time, as scheduled
Neatness (Weightage = x1; Total = 5)
- Work is neat and very professional
- Work is very easy to follow
- Organization is coherent, clear, with formatting and graphic elements
that strongly support readability.
Results: Tables (Weightage = x2.5; Total = 12.5)
1. Results and calculation in the table/s are correct
Results: Petrographic Sketches and Labelling (Weightage = x6.5;
Total = 32.5)
1. Petrographic sketches (grains, matrix, rock fragments, and other
components) are drawn neat and proper
2. Grains, matrix, rock fragments, other components (pores, other minerals,
etc.), and sample characteristics (roundness, sphericity, and grain
contact) are label correctly
Results: Other Diagrams (Weightage = x1; Total = 5)
1. Presentation of results in other diagrams are correct
Discussion: Geological Interpretation – Writing Conventions
(Weightage = x1; Total = 5)
1. Language is professional, concise and precise, with no noticeable
grammar (error-free sentence-level grammar), usage, spelling, or
punctuation error
2. Report show full control (logical coherence) and excellent use
of cohesive devices (key words, pronouns, references, transitions,
etc.); ideas are clear and coherent.
3. Spelling, capitalization, punctuation, and citations are accurate.
Discussion: Geological Interpretation – Knowledge/Skills and Critical
Thinking (Weightage = x7; Total = 35)
1. Clearly understands the main point; contains unusually insightful or in-
depth commentary or analysis.
2. The content of the discussion consists of information and evidence which
are accurate, appropriate, and integrated effectively
3. Claims and ideas are supported and elaborated
4. Alternative perspectives are carefully considered and represented
5. Connections between and among ideas are made
6. Interpretation of graphs, tables and figures:
Analysis/synthesis/evaluation/interpretation of all results are effective
and consistent to support each graph produced
7. Independent thinking is evident
8. Originality is evident

Total Mark = 100