‘BULLETIN OF CANADIAN PETROLEUM GEOLOGY VOL. 28, NO. 1 (MARCH 1980), P. 5.80, CYCLICITY AND THE FACIES MODEL CONCEPT IN FLUVIAL DEPOSITS' ANDREW D. MIALL? ABSTRACT Since the finirig-upward cycle model for meandering-river deposits was published in 1963, about a dozen facies models have been defamed for rivers of varying sediment grain size, channel multiplicity and sinuosity. However, this suite of models is inadequate for the interpretation of many fluvial deposits because it does not incorporate the effects of a variety of outside-the-basin (allocyclic) sedimentary controls. The most important of these controls is tectonics, because differential ‘movement between basin and source area, and changes in the rate of movement, can cause major changes in fluvial sedimentary environments. These changes give rise to fining- or ‘coarsening-uipward cyclic sequemces which are superimposed on the cycles generated by Wwithin-basin (autocylic) mechanisms. Variations in climate can cause variations in sediment grain size and in depositional style as a result of alterations in weathering modes and discharge characteristics. These latter variations have been studied in hot arid, warm temaperate and fluvioglacial regimes, but are poorly known in other climatic zones. As a result, many of our preconceptions about fluvial geomorphology and sedimentation may be inappropriate for other climatic conditions such as hot, humid environments Channel morphology varies between four basic styles: braided, meandering, anastomosed and straight, but the sedimentological characteristics of intermediate morphological types have yet to be quantified. Many pre-Carboniferous rivers appear to have lacked clearly defined channels with cutbanks. The probable cause was Jow bank cohesion caused by an absence of land vegetation, a condition that cannot be modelled accurately from observations of modern rivers. The absence of Vegetation would have favoured a flashlood depositional process, which tends to generate sheet-like deposits rather than lenticular, channel-bound units. Sedimentological studies in modern rivers are beset by the problem of preservability, in that a river’s long-term aggradation behaviour is commonly unclear. The problem is compounded by the fact that many studies have been carried out on rivers that are actively degrading Cyclic sequences in fluvial sediments can be produced by a variety of mechanisms, and the interpretation of a given deposit solely in terms of a published facies model may be misleading. For ‘most fluvial sequences itis necessary to adopt a multivariate “basin analysis" approach, INTRODUCTION The recent ‘Fluvial Sedimentology” volume published by the Canadian Society of Petroleum Geologists (Miall, 1978a) contains much new data and many new ideas regarding fluvial geomorphology and fluvial facies models but, as happens in every other specialized science, the acquisition of this new knowledge has raised as many problems as it has solved. This is particularly true in the area of fluvial facies models. In any kind of practical field problem dealing with ancient fluvial deposits, such as Tegional basis analysis or exploration of an economic prospect, the researcher is commonly required by limitations of outcrop scale or well density to generalize and ‘The substance of this paper was delivered as a keynote address at ““Geokongres 79", Port Elizabeth, South Africa, September 27, 1979 ‘Department of Geology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario MSS 1A1, Canada ‘Thanks are due P. F. Friend, N. D. Smith, P. Glaister and J. S. Bridge, who read earlier drafts ofthis Paper and provided many thoughtful comments Copyright © 1980, Canadian Society of Petroleum Geologists 9o ANDREW D. MIALL simplify his conclusions. For many depositional environments, facies models have become a useful way to deal with this problem by providing an easily grasped distillation of the current level of knowledge. The fluvial environment, however, is characterized by a particularly complex, multivariate set of sedimentary controls, some of which cannot be \corporated into facies models without considerably broadening the original model ‘concept. The purpose of this paper is to review briefly the range of sedimentary controls in fluvial environments,, drawing several examples from the Fluvial Sedimentology book, and to demonstrate how facies models should ideally be used only within a broad ““basin analysis” context when examining ancient fluvial deposits. Much of the discussion centres on the origin and interpretation of cycles in the sedimentary record. The subject of facies models is of considerable practical importance because models are so widely used to interpret the size, shape, trend and continuity of porous sandstone bodies in exploring for hydrocarbons and certain economic minerals. The emphasis throughout this paper is on vertical profiles, which are commonly the only detailed data available to the subsurface geologist. MoveL CONCEPT FACIES A facies model has been defined as “‘the distribution pattern or arrangement of lithologic units within any given association” (Potter, 1959). The word association is used here to mean “a collection of commonly associated sedimentary attributes" as described by “gross geometry (thickness and areal extent); continuity and shape of lithologic units; rock types ... , sedimentary structures, and fauna (types and abundances)" (Potter, 1959. Walker (1976) described a facies model as “'a general summary of a specific sedimentary environment’, which can be used to intercept a particular sedimentary deposit and as a guide or predictor for future observations. Modern facies models are process-response models, in which the sedimentary assemblage is related to a specific set of physicochemical, hydrodynamic and biogenic conditions. ‘A facies model is commonly presented in a simplified, abbreviated form in terms of a vertical stratigraphic profile, which sets out a typical sequence of lithologies with their accompanying fauna and sedimentary structures (e.g., Visher, 1965). This practice follows from Walther’s Law, which states that only those facies that can be found forming side by side in nature can occur in contact with one another in vertical sequence unless the sequence contains internal erosion surfaces (Middleton, 1973). The vertical profiles are cyclic, in the sense that they are repeated several or many times in a succession, generally with some internal variation. The model may also contain formation about lateral variability, particularly with reference to the position of a shoreline or sediment source area and the direction of prevailing air or water currents Most models are based on a combination of observations from modern environments and the ancient rock record. In subsurface analysis, application of Walther's law enables us to interpret lateral facies relationships from their vertical sequence as expressed in a facies model The value of facies models in providing syntheses of a diverse array of facts is offset by the danger that uncritical use of a facies model may lead to a loss of information or to misinterpretation, because it is tempting to observe strata in terms of a preconceived model. Objective field measurements commonly are difficult to make, particularly in areas of poor exposure. One of the trends in current fluvial sedimentological research is to quantify observations of lithological successions in order to enable model sequences or cycles to be defined statistically. Markov chains analysis is commonly used for this purpose (e.g., see recent applications to fluvial deposits by Allen, 1970; Miall, 1973, 1977; Cant and Walker, 1976). Although this approach allows more precision in defining the model, it can cause valuable observational detail to be ignored. Collinson (1978, p. 579) makes’ this point about the Battery Point sandstone sequence, a highly varied,CYCLICITY AND FACIES MODELS 6 low-sinuosity river deposit from which Cant and Walker (1976) extracted a single “summary’” cyclic sequence. Such a model cycle cannot, of course, encompass all the depositional variability found in a typical sandy, low-sinuosity river, but this obvious fact may be lost if the Battery Point model is applied uncritically in other field situations Ifa facies model is being used properly in new field situations, each use may generate a refinement of the model or it may lead to the recognition of situations where the particular model is inappropriate. The development of a new model could then follow. FLUVIAL Facts Mopets The first modern fluvial facies model was the now classic fining-upward cycle of Allen (1963b, 1964) and Bernard er al. (1962), based on earlier work by Barrell, Dixon, Bersier and others (see Miall, 1978b). It encompassed a single restricted range of environments: that of a sandy, single-channel river with broad meanders, flowing in a basin undergoing moderate subsidence, in an indeterminate climate. At last count there were at least a dozen fluvial facies models: five for high-sinuosity “meandering” rivers (Jackson, 1978), six or seven for low-sinuosity “braided” rivers (Miall, 1977, 1978c; Rust, 1978b) and new model for “‘anastomosed"’ rivers (Smith and Smith, 1980). Some of these models are refined or updated versions of earlier models, for example those of Allen (19656). (The terms ‘“braided”” and “meandering” are used here in the conventional sense, but as there is some degree of overlap in their application to natural rivers they are therefore unsatisfactory as precise technical terms. This will be discussed later.) It is not the purpose of this paper to document the evolution of fluvial facies models in detail, as that has been done elsewhere (Miall, 1978b). It is useful, however, to focus attention on why such a large number of models has become necessary, What this tells us about trends in fluvial research, and how, even with such an array of models as we have now, there is ‘much available knowledge that still cannot be incorporated into the over-all model package. ‘The present large number of fluvial facies models became necessary as it was realized that: 1) there are several different fluvial-channel_ styles, the “‘braided’” and “meandering” styles being those most commonly recognized: 2) there is a wide range of grain-size variations in fluvial deposits, from boulder conglomerate to mudstone; and 3) some facies characteristics began to be related to discharge quantity (channel scale) and variability (for example, steady flow versus highly variable flow) Variations in channel morphology beyond the classical “meandering” style were first incorporated into fluvial sedimentology with the work of Doeglas (1962), Ore (1964) and Moody-Stuart (1966) on “‘braided’ or “‘low sinuosity” stream deposits. Grain-size Variations in fluvial deposits from coarse fanglomerates to distal, silty deposits have long been recognized, as has the fact that some rivers have perennial flow while others are ephemeral. The full implications of these facts for fluvial facies models, however, have been explored only in a few recent syntheses (Miall, 1977, 1978c; Jackson, 1978; Rust, 1978). McKee et al. (1967) and Williams (1971) were the first to document in modern Sedimentological terms the nature of flash-flood deposits. Schumm (1968) pointed out the importance of vegetation as a stabilizing influence in the development of channel Patterns. Recently another distinct style of fluvial sedimentation has become apparent — that of the “‘anastomosed" river characterized by rapid aggradation and near-vertical growth of facies units, with minimal later accretion (Smith and Smith, 1980). Other fluvial Styles are referred to later in this paper.