Journal of Sedimentary Research, 2012, v.

82, 364378
Research Article
DOI: 10.2110/jsr.2012.30
STANDARDIZING TEXTURE AND FACIES CODES FOR A PROCESS-BASED CLASSIFICATION
OF CLASTIC SEDIMENT AND ROCK
KATHLEEN M. FARRELL,
1
W. BURLEIGH HARRIS,
2
DAVID J. MALLINSON,
3
STEPHEN J. CULVER,
3
STANLEY R. RIGGS,
3
JESSICA PIERSON,*,
1
JEAN M. SELF-TRAIL,
4
AND JEFF C. LAUTIER
5
1
North Carolina Geological Survey, Raleigh Field Office and Core Repository, 1620 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1620, U.S.A.,
2
2
Department of Geography and Geology, University of North Carolina Wilmington, Wilmington, North Carolina 28403, U.S.A.,
3
Department of Geological Sciences, 101 Graham Building, East Carolina University, Greenville, North Carolina 27858, U.S.A.,
4
4
U.S. Geological Survey, 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive, Mail Stop 926A, Reston, Virginia 20192-0002, U.S.A.
5
North Carolina Division of Water Resources, 1611 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1611, U.S.A.
e-mail: Kathleen.Farrell@ncdenr.gov
ABSTRACT: Proposed here is a universally applicable, texturally based classification of clastic sediment that is independent from
composition, cementation, and geologic environment, is closely allied to process sedimentology, and applies to all compartments in
the source-to-sink system. The classification is contingent on defining the termclastic so that it is independent from composition
or origin and includes any particles or grains that are subject to erosion, transportation, and deposition. Modifications to Folks
(1980) texturally based classification that include applying new assumptions and defining a broader array of textural fields are
proposed to accommodate this. The revised ternary diagrams include additional textural fields that better define poorly sorted and
coarse-grained deposits, so that all end members (gravel, sand, and mud size fractions) are included in textural codes. Revised
textural fields, or classes, are based on a strict adherence to volumetric estimates of percentages of gravel, sand, and mud size
grain populations, which by definition must sum to 100%. The new classification ensures that descriptors are applied consistently
to all end members in the ternary diagram (gravel, sand, and mud) according to several rules, and that none of the end members are
ignored. These modifications provide bases for standardizing vertical displays of texture in graphic logs, lithofacies codes, and
their derivativeshydrofacies. Hydrofacies codes are nondirectional permeability indicators that predict aquifer or reservoir
potential. Folks (1980) ternary diagram for fine-grained clastic sediments (sand, silt, and clay size fractions) is also revised to
preserve consistency with the revised diagram for gravel, sand, and mud. Standardizing texture ensures that the principles of
process sedimentology are consistently applied to compositionally variable rock sequences, such as mixed carbonatesiliciclastic
ramp settings, and the extreme ends of depositional systems.
INTRODUCTION
Proposed here is a universally applicable, texturally based classification
of clastic sediment that is independent from composition, cementation,
and geologic environment, is closely allied to process sedimentology, and
applies to all compartments in the source-to-sink system (Smme et al.
2009). Here, the term texture refers to attributes of grain size as utilized
by Folk (1954). Process sedimentology, the foundation for reconstructing
ancient depositional environments and for understanding reservoir
potential, is a subdiscipline of physical sedimentology that links texture
and event strata with flow dynamics and the physics of depositional
processes (after Shanmugam 2006). A process-based approach to
stratigraphy, invented by Bouma (1962, also see Bouma and Nota
1961), requires identification of surfaces but focuses on vertical changes in
texture and other attributes between surfaces to define facies; these are
displayed in a graphic log format. This approach has been applied in
detail to submarine slope and fan deposits (e.g., Gani 2004; Shanmugan
2006; Haughton et al. 2009), where texturally based graphic logs
document event strata that are linked to specific flow processes.
Process-based stratigraphy depends on a systematic approach to
characterizing textural trends at a variety of scales, and links a hierarchy
of event strata with dynamic geomorphic processes that are driven by
either autocyclic or allocyclic events. Because it requires identifying both
surfaces and vertical changes in texture and attributes between surfaces, a
process-based approach effectively integrates facies analysis and sequence
stratigraphy. Principles for interpreting process-based stratigraphy are
summarized by Friedman et al. (1992), Posamentier and Allen (1999, their
table 1.1) and Catuneanu (2006, his fig. 2.1).
Interpreting the hierarchy of event strata between surfacese.g.,
laminae, beds, bedsets, parasequences, parasequence sets, and sequences
(Van Wagoner et al. 1990)depends on a standard method of classifying
and displaying vertical trends in texture. Unfortunately, classification
systems for clastic deposits are commonly segregated by composition
first, and not all are texturally (grain-size) based. This problem is well
known (see Folk 1954, 1956; Klein 1963; Mount 1985). Siliciclastic and
* Present address: Department of Geology and Geography, West Virginia
University, 98 Beechurst Avenue, 330 Brooks Hall, Morgantown, West Virginia
26506-6300, U.S.A.
Published Online: May 2012
Copyright
E
2012, SEPM (Society for Sedimentary Geology) 1527-1404/12/082-364/$03.00
carbonate sedimentation, for example, are part of a continuum (Doyle
and Roberts 1988), but separate classifications exist for each end member.
Difficulties in standardizing textural trends and assigning facies codes
may arise if end-member grain assemblages are compositionally
heterogeneous, interbedded, variably cemented, or situated in diverse
compartments of the source-to-sink system. Hoffman (2011) provided an
extreme example of a complex system that includes carbonates in a
glaciated terrane. Unique classification schemes may exist for specific
environments. The diamictites, for example, were proposed to accom-
modate poorly sorted, coarse-grained deposits in upstream areas where
subaerial slope and glacial processes dominate (see Harland et al. 1966;
Eyles et al. 1983; Moncrieff 1989). Sundell and Fisher (1985) summarized
some classification problems associated with the coarsest clastic deposits.
Should we switch classification systems to accommodate each variation in
heterogeneity, composition, degree of cementation, depositional process,
or position in the source-to-sink system? Or is there a simpler approach
that applies universally to all clastic sediment?
We propose a simple solution based on attributes of texture related to
grain size that universally applies to all clastic sediment, and is a modified
version of Folk (1980). Our goal is not to provide a comprehensive review
of all classification systems for each facies association or compositional
suite but to provide a solution for standardizing texturally based
descriptions of clastic rocks. Although several common classification
systems for end-member compositions are summarized here, the origins
of classification schemes for clastic sediment and rock are provided
elsewhere (Klein 1963; Pettijohn 1983; Pettijohn et al. 1987). The widely
used classification that is based on texture is Folk (1954, 1980), which in
turn, is based on Wentworths (1922) grain-size classes to define gravel,
sand, and mud-sized grain populations, and Uddens (1898) subclasses.
Folks (1980) classification was intended for use with siliciclastic deposits,
but he acknowledged problems with separating lithology, texture, and
composition (Folk 1954 1956). Other common classifications are based
on fabric (Dunham 1962; Trappe 2001), facies (e.g., Embry and Klovan
1971), composition (e.g., Folk 1956, 1959), or some other attribute (e.g.,
Kearns and Davison 1983), but not grain-size attributes of texture, and
therefore, they are not standardized for process-based interpretations of
vertical trends in grain size.
Dunham (1962) provided a simple but elegant classification of
limestones that is based on the fabric of the framework grains, and
intergranular mud and cement. Embry and Klovan (1971) expanded this to
include facies- and fabric-based categories for reef limestones, but
bioherms such as oyster reefs in siliciclastic systems are not included.
Grain size is not a component of either of these classifications; gravel- and
sand-size clasts are not separated, although lime mud is differentiated. Folk
(1959 1962) also provided a more complex system of classifying limestones
that is based on dominant allochems, micrite versus sparite intergranular
material, and rudimentary grain size (e.g., rudite as suffix for gravel-size
allochems). This method is not fully integrated with Wentworths (1922)
grain-size classes. Unconsolidated lime sediment is better served by Folk
(1980) rather than either the Dunham (1962) or Folk (1959 1962) limestone
classification. Mount (1985) proposed a solution for classifying clastic
deposits in mixed carbonatesiliciclastic systems; it uses both texture and
composition, but it is not widely used. Trappe (2001) promoted classifying
phosphates and glauconites using Dunham (1962), which could technically
apply to all clastic rocks if composition is ignored. Kearns and Davison
(1983) provided a classification system for organic-rich sediment (detrital
plant debris) that is integrated with the USDA (1951) soil classification for
non-organic materials. USDA (1951) has different size classes than
Wentworth (1922) and Folk (1980); thus it is incompatible with process-
based sedimentology.
Basing a textural classification on grain size permits the principles of
process sedimentology to be consistently applied to compositionally
variable, heterogeneous rock sequences. To promote this concept, we
propose a method of classifying texture that is independent from grain
composition and is universally applicable to all clastic sediment, in
particular, bioclastic and siliciclastic assemblages of strata, for which
separate classifications exist. The new classification is simply a modified
version of Folk (1954, 1980) that includes new assumptions and an
expanded repertoire of textural classes. The revised classification requires
that the term clastic is defined so that it is independent from
composition or origin and refers to any particles or grains that are
subject to erosion, transport, and sedimentation. The resulting classifi-
cation provides a mechanism for standardizing clastic sediment and rock
description, facies codes and permeability fabric, and the vertical display
of textural trends in a graphic log format. Without this standardization,
interpretations of facies and the sequence stratigraphic framework may
remain ambiguous or unsubstantiated.
The proposed classification was developed at the North Carolina
Geological Survey to describe sedimentary units and standardize
description of aquifers and confining units in cores and outcrops from
the Atlantic Coastal Plain Province of eastern North America; these
include Cretaceous through Holocene strata. This is the updip sector of a
passive continental margin, currently characterized by incised valleys that
separate flat interfluves. The deposits include predominantly siliciclastic,
bioclastic, glauco-phosphatic, and organic-rich (detrital plant debris)
assemblages of facies. Published examples that utilize the proposed
method of classifying texture include Culver et al. (2007), Culver et al.
(2008), Culver et al. (2011), and Mallinson et al. (2010).
The purpose of this paper is to produce a systematic approach to
textural terminology that applies universally to all clastic sediment and is
useful for process-based interpretations of stratigraphic sequences.
Specific goals include: (1) review Folks (1980) classification of sediment
based on grain size; (2) provide new assumptions for establishing a
universally applicable classification of texture that applies to composi-
tionally diverse grain populations; (3) review the mathematical bases for
establishing ternary diagrams that classify textural fields; (4) establish
new, mathematically based, revised ternary diagrams that include a
complete range of textural classes for classifying clastic sediment; (5)
implement the revisions to standardize lithofacies codes; and (6) provide
an example of deriving permeability fabric from lithofacies codes. The
proposed method is comprehensive but flexible, and it can be used in
conjunction with other classification systems. It applies to a broad range
of facies, depositional settings, ages, clast compositions, and degrees of
consolidation and cementation, and it applies equally well to core and
outcrop. The method may not, however, readily apply, without additional
analyses, if primary clastic fabrics are obscure or diagenetically altered, or
if a unit is chemically precipitated, replaced, or recrystallized.
A STANDARDIZED UNIVERSAL CLASSIFICATION OF TEXTURE
Review of Folks (1954, 1980) Classification of Sediment
The original intent of Folks (1980) classification was to use texture,
a principal attribute of lithology, as a basis for naming siliciclastic
sedimenti.e., that composed of quartz, feldspar, rock fragments, etc.,
and consolidated equivalents. Two attributes of texture are necessary to
apply Folks (1954, 1980) classification: (1) the relative proportions of the
three grain size populationsgravel, sand, and mud, and (2) the principal
(median) diameter of the dominant grain population (e.g., pebble gravel,
medium sand, or coarse silt). Figure 1, based on Wentworths (1922) size
classes and Canadian Stratigraphics grain-size card, shows the ranges in
grain diameter for gravel-, sand-, and mud-size grain populations. Sand,
as a size term, is divisible into very fine, fine, medium, coarse, and very
coarse fractions (after Udden 1898). Gravel is divided into four classes:
granules, pebbles, cobbles, and boulders. Mud includes silt and clay
fractions.
STANDARDIZING TEXTURE 365 J S R
Folk (1954, 1980) used the size classes for gravel, sand, and mud to
define end members and fifteen textural fields in his ternary diagram
(Fig. 2), which is mathematically not to scale. For non-end-member fields,
modifiers (e.g., gravelly, sandy, and muddy, and slightly muddy, etc.) help
define mixed populations of grains. His ternary diagram (Fig. 2) provides
an orderly nomenclature for mixtures of gravel, sand, and mud, and their
consolidated equivalentsconglomerate, sandstone, and mudstone
(Fig. 3). Folk (1954) considered even a small amount of gravel as highly
significant process-wise, because the proportion of gravel is, in part, a
function of the highest current velocity at the time of deposition. Thus
gravel content is emphasized and measured first. Figure 3 lists the fifteen
textural fields provided by the Folk (1980) classification. These formed
the bases for assigning facies codes as suggested by Miall (1985). Once a
textural field was established, the principal diameter of the dominant
grain population further refined the lithologic description (e.g., medium
gravelly sandstone).
Folk (1980) also provided a second ternary diagram for fine-grained
sediment that has sand, silt, and clay as end members (Fig. 4). It was
intended for samples that lack gravel and to further differentiate the mud
fraction. Using the silt:clay ratio, the total mud fraction of Figure 2 is
divisible into silt and clay end members, and an intermediate zone of
undifferentiated mud (Fig. 4). Folks (1980) ten textural fields for fine-
grained sediment are listed in Figure 5 adjacent to four of his major
textural classes. Folks (1980) ternary diagram for sand, silt, and clay
(Fig. 4) is secondary but complementary to his diagram for gravel, sand,
and mud (Fig. 2). Adjustments to Figure 4 are addressed later in this
paper, after revisions to Figure 2 are justified.
FIG. 1.Principal grain-size classes for mud, sand, and gravel-size populations
of clasts, in common use. Size classes are based on Wentworth (1922), Udden
(1898), and Folk (1980). Diagram is partly based on grain-size card from Canadian
Stratigraphic Services: U, upper; L, lower.
FIG. 2.Ternary diagram from Folk (1980) that shows textural categories for
unconsolidated to cemented sediment. Diagram is not to scale.
FIG. 3.Texture codes for unconsolidated and consolidated clastic sediment,
derived from Folks (1980) ternary diagram that is shown in Figure 2.
FIG. 4.Ternary diagram from Folk (1980) for fine-grained sediments that has
sand, silt, and clay as corner end members. Diagram is to scale.
366 K.M. FARRELL ET AL. J S R
New Assumptions
To develop a universally applicable classification scheme for clastic
sediments (and rocks), the underlying assumptions to Folks (1980)
triangular diagram (Fig. 2) and method of classifying sediment are
revised to incorporate a broader range of potential textural classes and a
systematic approach to lithologic terminology. The assumptions for the
ternary diagram with gravel, sand, and mud as end members are revised
as follows:
N All sedimentary particles, regardless of composition, are clasts.
N All clastic sediment can be defined texturally using grain-size
attributes.
N The terms gravel, sand, and mud are size terms that are independent
from composition.
N Clastic sediment includes gravel-, sand-, and mud-size populations of
grains.
N The total mud fraction (M) includes silt (Z) and clay (C).
N The relative proportions (by volume) of gravel (G), sand (S), and mud
(M) must sum to 100%.
N Ternary diagrams with gravel (G), sand (S), and mud (M) as members
accommodate all possible combinations of % G, S, and M, provided
that G + S + M 5 100%.
Plotting Texture on a Ternary Diagram
Ternary diagrams theoretically accommodate all possible combinations
of percent gravel, sand, and mud (% G:S:M), assuming that these sum to
100%. Figure 6 (AF), mathematically accurate and drawn to scale,
demonstrates this. Grid lines mark 0100% of each end member at 10%
increments (Fig. 6AD). Figure 6B, C, and D, respectively shows how
scales are drawn for each end membergravel, sand, and mud. Examples
are provided that show plots of values of % G:S:M on the ternary
diagram (Figs. 6E, F). In Figure 6E, a sample with 30% gravel, 30% sand,
and 40% mud (% G:S:M 5 30:30:40) plots at a single point located at the
intersection of the three lines defined by the three percentages. Similarly,
Figure 6F shows the point plotted for a sample consisting of 90% sand
and 10% mud, with no gravel (% G:S:M 5 0:90:10). The sum,
G + S + M, equals 100% in each example.
Mathematical Bases for Defining Revised Textural Fields
In the ternary diagrams (Figs. 2, 7), textural fields for classifying
sediment are defined by line segments that represent values of % gravel
(G), sand (S), and mud (M). Figure 7 (AE), which is drawn to scale,
shows the origin of the line segments that form these fields. The 30% line
defines gravel, above, from sand or mud, below (Fig. 7A). Gravel is
tagged as highly significant process-wise because the proportion of gravel
is partly a function of the highest current velocity (Folk 1954), hence 30%,
not 50% as one would predict, is used to define it. Figure 7B shows the
configuration of three perpendicular bisectors that meet at a point in any
equilateral triangle. Each of the bisectors defines a 1-to-1 ratio between
two respective end membersS:M, G:M, and G:S. Figure 7C shows that,
below the 30% line defining gravel, sand and mud fields are separated by
a segment of the vertical bisector marking the 1:1 ratio for S:M. The 5%
lines are added to define fields that mark slightly (, 5%) impure end
members (Fig. 7D). Figure 7E combines the 5% lines with boundaries of
G, S, and M fields, and segments of the three bisectors to further define
FIG. 5.Additional textural classes for the mud fraction as defined by Folks
(1980) ternary diagram for sand, silt, and clay.
FIG. 6.A guide to plotting values of percent
(%) Gravel (G), Sand (S), and Mud (M) on a
ternary diagram. Diagrams are drawn to scale.
STANDARDIZING TEXTURE 367 J S R
368 K.M. FARRELL ET AL. J S R
textural fields. Figure 7F is based on Figure 7E, and includes codes for
textural fields (Fig. 8).
The Revised Ternary Diagrams for G:S:M
Figure 7 (F, G) includes two ternary diagrams that together define a
complete range of potential textural classes for any combination of %
G:S:M. These are revised after Folks (1980) diagram (Fig. 2), which is
not to scale, but is also based on Figure 7 (AD). Figure 7F is drawn to
scale; hence it does not show all textural fields defined at corners of the
triangle (, 5%) because they do not fit in the graphic. To show textural
classes for slightly (5%) impure end members, Figure 7G is drawn not to
scale; sides are exaggerated and corners are expanded. Figure 7G shows
the complete range of possible textural classes for systematic naming of
clastic sediment. These are listed with textural codes in Figure 8.
Discussion of Revised Textural Fields
Although Folk (1980) clearly explains the use of textural terminology
that is nearly identical to that proposed here, his triangular diagram
(Fig. 2) does not incorporate all possible combinations of % G, S, and M
as unique textural fields. Figure 2 shows textural class fields that are
bilaterally asymmetric with respect to the vertical bisector that defines the
S:M ratio equal to 1:1. The other two bisectors (Fig. 7B) are unused. As
examples of this asymmetry, smG and gsM fields are missing from the left
side of Figure 2, and mG and sG fields do not occupy analogous
positions. Other inconsistencies are: (1) the modifying term, slightly,
referring to 5% or less of a grain population, applies only to fields along
the S:M boundary, and (2) end members are defined using 80% for gravel
but 95% for sand and mud. Ideally, a one-to-one correspondence between
a potential end-member ratio (G:S:M) and a texture field is useful,
especially for converting analytical results to textural nomenclature.
Folk (personal communication 2011) cites several geological reasons
for the asymmetry in his textural fields (Fig. 2). He observed that most
sediment textures plotted in the common zone on the inset in Figure 2,
with rare textures (gM and mG) plotting along the M:G side of the
diagram. Hence the textural fields on the G:S side of the diagram and
within the common zone (inset, Fig. 2) were more specifically defined
than those on the M:G side. He considered a minute amount of gravel to
be highly significant because of its relationship to the highest current
velocity (Folk 1954) while small amounts of sand or mud were
insignificant. These ideas contributed to the asymmetry of textural fields
in Figure 2. The slightly gravelly descriptor (g) was included, but slightly
muddy (m) and slightly sandy (s) descriptors were excluded. His point was
to keep the classification simple but complex enough to be useful (Folk
1954).
The revised ternary diagrams (Figure 7EG) are bilaterally symmetri-
cal along the S:M bisector with respect to textural nomenclature. In
keeping with Folk (1980), gravel is defined at 30% (Fig. 7A), and the
vertical bisector (Fig. 7B, S:M ratio 5 1:1) separates sand and mud
fields (Fig. 7C); the term, mud (M) includes clay (C) and silt (Z). All
three bisectors (Fig. 7B), including line segments that define 1:1 ratios of
G:S and G:M below the 30% gravel line help demarcate the extent of the
symmetrically distributed textural fields (Fig. 7E, F). Figure 7 (E, F)
shows that all three end members, G, S, and M, are defined consistently at
95%. The 5% difference (100%95%) at the corners of the triangle
includes both pure and slightly impure (, 5% other) end members. Four
new textural classes are: gsM, or gravelly sandy mud; smG, sandy muddy
gravel; sgM, sandy gravelly mud; and mgS, muddy gravelly sand. Prior to
the revisions, samples with G:S:M ratios of 15:20:75 and 35:25:40,
respectively, plotted in the gM (gravelly mud) and mG (muddy gravel)
fields. In both cases, the sand fraction was ignored.
The resulting ternary diagrams (Figs. 7 F, G) provides for a continuum
in all possible combinations of % G:S:M, including slightly impure end
members. Figure 7G, not to scale and more akin to Figure 2, has
exaggerated sides, to show the range of textural classes, for slightly
impure (, 5%) end members. This expanded repertoire of textural codes
allows for more accurate visualization of framework grains, matrix, and
fabric. Figure 8 lists all possible textural classes for both unconsolidated
and consolidated equivalents. To name a textural field, the G:S:M ratio is
used directly. Each textural term has a main componentthe principal
grain-size population (gravel, sand, or mud) and one or two modifiers.
A G:S:M ratio equal to 40:40:20 is a gravel (G . 30%) with two
modifiersa muddy, sandy gravel. The term slightly refers to
constituents that are 5% or less. If G:S:M is 5:85:10, the sediment is
called slightly gravelly muddy sand. The least abundant modifier is listed
first. In Figure 7G, a textural field exists for every possible combination
of G:S:M, assuming 30% cutoff for gravel and 95% cutoffs for slightly
impure to pure end members. These systematically developed textural
fields form the bases for universal lithofacies codes, and they apply
readily to analytical results of G:S:M that sum to 100%.
Logic Chart for Simplifying Classification of G:S:M
A logic chart (Fig. 9) is proposed to simplify the new classification
procedure to three steps. The first step is to decide if the sample is a gravel
(G . 30%) or not (G , 30%). If it is not a gravel, the principal size class
is either a sand (S) or a mud (M). After identifying the principal size class
(G, S, or M), the second step is to assess the S:M ratio and decide if sand
or mud dominates. The third step is to choose the appropriate descriptors
(0, 1, or 2) to modify the principal size category and assign the textural
class. Pure end members have no descriptors (0). Impure end members
have 1 or 2 descriptors depending on relative percentages of G, S, and M.
Basically, the classification requires the operator to recognize only the: (1)
30% cutoff for gravel, (2) 5% cutoffs to demarcate slightly descriptor,
and (3) order of relative abundance (% by volume) of the three descriptor
classes, listing the least abundant first.
Precision of % G:S:M Estimates
Precise or exact G:S:M estimates (e.g., 20:30:50) are not required to
assign textural classes if the logic chart is followed. Considerable
flexibility is built into the range of estimates of G:S:M for most of the
textural classes. Visually based estimates of G:S:M will probably not
precisely match mechanical or electronic analytical results of G:S:M
derived from grain-size analysis via wet or dry sieving, pipette analysis,
r
FIG. 7.Proposed modifications to Folks (1980) principal ternary diagram. A through E (to scale) show basic construction of the revised classification for clastic
sediment using a ternary diagram. A) Gravel (G), sand (S), and mud (M) occur as end members, with 10% subdivisions for each side of equilateral triangle that sum to
100%. B) Location of three respective perpendicular bisectors for each angle. The 1:1 ratios on each side correspond to a 50% component of each end member. C) 30% G
defines the gravel field, and the vertical bisector, 1:1 5 S:M defines sand and mud fields, below the gravel field. D) 5% lines demarcate slightly impure end members. E)
Revised ternary diagram incorporates segments of the alternate bisectors, 1:1 5 G:S and 1:1 5 G:M, to define new fields below the gravel field. F) Revised ternary
diagram shows a complete range of textural fields, assuming that 30% by volume defines gravel; slightly impure end members (5%) are not shown. G) Revised ternary
diagram (not to scale) with exaggerated sides (5%) to include slightly impure end members.
STANDARDIZING TEXTURE 369 J S R
FIG. 8.Complete range of textural classes
for unconsolidated and consolidated sediment
derived from the revised ternary diagram for
gravel, sand, and mud (Fig. 7F, G).
FIG. 9.Flow chart that shows simplified
logic for assigning a textural class from the
G:S:M ternary diagram in Figure 7 to a
clastic sediment.
370 K.M. FARRELL ET AL. J S R
settling tube, laser defraction, or other methods. Inconsistencies between
visual and analytical estimates may be attributable to the sample
collection process, the complexity or heterogeneity of primary sedimen-
tary or biogenic fabric, water content or wetness, core preparation, or
technical skill. Channel samples (e.g., . 10 cm lengths of section)
commonly crosscut heterogeneities: the collection process mixes, dilutes,
and destroys the fabric relations of two or more discretely organized
lithologies (e.g., sand with mud flasers or mud-lined burrows). Smaller-
scale point samples (e.g., , 10 cm length of section) may only
characterize the dominant lithology in a facies unit.
Textural Fields for Silt and Clay
Because it may be difficult to differentiate silt from clay and obtain
reliable estimates of each, mud is utilized as a generic term for all
sediment less than 62.5 mm in diameter (Folk 1954). Although the
proposed classification and ternary diagrams in Figure 7 are based on %
G:S:M, the total mud fraction (M
T
) is further divisible into silt (62.5
2 mm) and clay (, 2 mm). Figure 5 shows that sandy mud, sandy silt, and
sandy clay plot in the same textural fieldsM. Similarly, muddy, silty,
and clayey sands each plot in the mS field. In many situations, it is useful
to specify the dominance or relative order of clay or silt, and to estimate
FIG. 10.Ternary diagram, revised after Folk (1980), that has sand (S), silt (Z), and clay (C) as end members. Parts A through E (to scale) show sources of line
segments for revised the ternary diagram depicted in Part F. Note that the four textural fields that include total mud (M
T
) from Figures 7 and 8 (i.e., M, (s)M, sM,
and mS) are reused here with more specific definitions. A) Three perpendicular bisectors mark 1:1 ratios for Z:C, S:Z, and S:C. B) The 50% line separates sand
(above) from the total mud fraction (below); total mud (M
T
) is divisible into clay and silt along the vertical bisector (1:1 5 Z:C). C) Gray area marks a centralized
region of undifferentiated mud where 1:2 , Z:C , 2:1; in this area, the Z and C fractions are difficult to separate visually. D) The 5% lines demarcate slightly
impure end members. E) Line segments from A to D are combined to produce textural fields in the revised S:Z:C diagram. F) Revised ternary diagram shows the
range of textural classes if silt and clay-rich end members are separated from the centralized undifferentiated mud zone; slightly impure end members (5% or less) are
not shown. Six new textural classes include silty clayey sand (zcS), clayey silty sand (czS), clayey sandy silt (csZ), sandy clayey silt (scZ), silty sandy clay (zsC), and
sandy silty clay (szC).
STANDARDIZING TEXTURE 371 J S R
FIG. 11.Logic chart for assigning textural
codes for fine-grained sediments that lack gravel,
where silt and clay percentages are specified.
FIG. 12.Universal lithofacies codes that are based on the revised ternary diagram for classifying texture of clastic sediment. A) Texture codes, B) examples of
attribute codes, and C) examples of lithofacies codes for homogeneous and heterolithic strata.
372 K.M. FARRELL ET AL. J S R
percentages of each. To further classify mud, a complementary ternary
diagram with sand (S), silt (Z), and clay (C) as end members is included
here (Fig. 10). This is directly based on Folks (1980) previous diagram
(Figs. 4) but for mathematical consistency it incorporates concepts
established for the diagrams in Figure 7.
The Revised Ternary Diagram for S:Z:C
The revised ternary diagram with sand (S), silt (Z), and clay (C) as end
members (Fig. 10) is drawn to scale, and it preserves Folks (1980) main
concepts (Fig. 4) but expands his terminology to include additional
textural fields. Similarly to the G:S:M diagrams (Fig. 7), the line segments
that define textural fields are also based on the three perpendicular
bisectors (Fig. 10A). Each bisector defines a 1:1 ratio between two
respective end membersZ:C, S:C, and S:Z. The 50% sand line separates
sands (above) from total mud (M
T
) below (Fig. 10B). A segment of the
vertical bisector below the 50% line separates Z and C fields (Fig. 10B).
Two lines are defined where the Z:C ratios are 1:2 and 2:1 (respectively).
The shaded zone between these lines (1:2 , Z:C , 2:1) marks the area
where (Z + C) remains assigned to the textural class mud (M). The 5%
lines define fields that mark slightly (5% or less) impure end members
(Fig. 10D). Figure 10E combines AD to show the bases for the textural
fields in Figure 10F. Figure 10F (to scale) defines textural classes for any
combination of % S:Z:C. A ternary diagram with expanded corners (as in
Fig. 7G) is not included here, but nomenclature for all potential textural
fields based on % S:Z:C is deduced using the logic chart (Fig. 11).
Discussion of the Revised S:Z:C Ternary Diagram
Like Folks diagram for S:Z:C (Fig. 4), Figure 10F is based on the 50%
cutoff for sand and the Z:C ratio. Pure end members in Figure 10F,
however, are defined at 95% rather than Folks 90%. Figure 10F also
includes new textural fields that are defined by segments of the alternate
bisectors, S:C 5 1:1 and S:Z 5 1:1, that were not used by Folk (1954,
1980). The six new textural fields are zcS, czS, zsC, szC, csZ, and scZ.
These use percentages for all three end members (S:Z:C) and their relative
order to name a textural field. Both Figures 4 and 10F use the Z:C ratio
as a practical method of separating definable silt and clay end members
from intermediate mixtures of Z and Cmud. If the total mud (M
T
) is
. 2/3 Z, silt dominates; if the total mud (M
T
) is . 2/3 C, clay dominates.
Intermediate mixtures of Z and C (where 1:2 , Z:C , 2:1) remain
classified as mud.
The specificity in the revised S:Z:C textural fields accommodates the
established nomenclature for unconsolidated and consolidated equiva-
lentsmud/mudstone, silt/siltstone, and clay/claystone (Fig. 5). The new
ternary diagram (Fig. 10F) provides bases for specifying silt or clay
dominance as well as the order of abundance of the three end members S,
Z, and C. Although the corners of the triangle in Figure 10F are not
FIG. 13.Supplementary lithofacies coding for composition, cementation, and
fabric. A) Composition code for siliciclastic, bioclastic, and mixed assemblages of
grains. B) Prefix code to indicate unconsolidated or cemented sediment. C) Fabric
code to differentiate matrix- and clast-supported facies.
FIG. 14.Transitioning from lithofacies to hydrofacies codes and establishing a conceptual model for permeability fabric. X 5 lithofacies code,
Y 5 hydrofacies code.
STANDARDIZING TEXTURE 373 J S R
374 K.M. FARRELL ET AL. J S R
expanded, all potential textural classes can be deduced using Figure 11.
Analytical results of S:Z:C that sum to 100% convert easily to a textural
class. Even if gravel is present in sediment, the S:Z:C ternary diagram is
useful in evaluating its finer-grained matrix. Note that the dual use of the
term mud to indicate both the total mud (M
T
5 C + Z) and a subset of
the total mud (where 1:2 , Z:C , 2:1) remains a terminology
ambiguity.
Simplifying the Classification of Sand, Silt, and Clay (S:Z:C)
Figure 11 simplifies the classification of S:Z:C mixtures. After
establishing if sand (S $ 50%) or total mud (S , 50%) dominates,
assess the Z:C ratio. If Z:C . 2:1, then silt dominates. If Z:C , 1:2,
then clay dominates. If Z and C conform to the expression 1:2 , Z:C
, 2:1, then mud (M) dominates. Once the principal grain-size category is
established (S, Z, M, or C), choose the appropriate descriptors (0, 1, or 2)
based on relative percentages of S, Z, and C, as modifiers to assign a
textural class. The classification requires recognizing: (1) the 50% cutoff
for sand, (2) the Z:C ratio, (3) 5% cutoffs to demarcate slightly
descriptor, and (4) the order of relative abundance (% by volume) of the
main descriptor classes, listing the least abundant first. Figure 11
provides examples.
UNIVERSAL FACIES CODES
An outcome of standardizing the classification of texture for clastic
sediment is that facies codes can also be standardized. Again, it was
Bouma (1962) who first utilized codes for facies and promoted the idea of
universal lithofacies codes. Here, universally applicable lithofacies codes,
also based on texture and other attributes, are proposed. The following
sections explain the use of lithofacies codes to define texture and major
attributes, with optional prefixes to define composition and cementation,
and a suffix to define fabric. An example is also provided that uses
lithofacies codes to derive hydrofacies or permeability codes in an attempt
to standardize descriptors for primary porosity.
LithofaciesTexture and Attribute Codes
The revised ternary diagram (Fig. 7G) provides a complete array of
textural classes (Fig. 8) for all possible combinations of percent gravel,
sand, and mud. Lithofacies codes (see Miall 1985) typically combine a
code for a textural field (Fig. 8) with one or two attribute codes. The
textural code for sandy gravel, for example, is sG. Figure 12 summarizes
texture and attribute codes and provides examples of combining these
into lithofacies codes. Cross bedded sandy gravel is sG
x
. Burrowed to
laminated muddy sand is mS
b-lam
. The codes accommodate both simple
(relatively homogeneous) and complex (heterolithic) strata. Hetero-
lithicinterlayered or interbeddedlithologies, for example, are depicted
with a slash (/) separating two textural codes: wavy-bedded sand and mud
is S/M
w
, with the dominant texture listed first. Attribute tables are easily
edited to conform to unique settings. Swanson (1981) lists widely used
attributes with abbreviations. Some are utilized in Figure 12.
Figure 12 also includes other useful categories for coding facies, such as
silt (Z) and clay (C), that are differentiated using the Z:C ratio within the
total M fraction (M
T
), and peat, an anomalous facies, that does not
always permit identification of primary texture (% G-, S-, and M-size
clasts). A shortcoming of the coding is that if grain size is not discernible,
textural codes do not readily apply. In some instances, a unique
modification will accommodate an unusual but significant facies, such
as peat (see Fig. 12).
Composition Code
Sediment composition is described independently from texture.
Depending on end-member compositions in the stratigraphic system,
composition indices and codes may be appropriate to describe, for
example, siliciclastic, bioclastic (dominated by fossils and other clasts, but
not detrital plant debris), glauco-phosphatic, and peat/lignite/coal suites.
It is important to define separate codes for each compositional suite. An
example is provided (Fig. 13A) for assemblages that include siliciclastic
and bioclastic grain populations.
The composition index, S:B, is a comparator between the relative
percentage by volume of siliciclastic (S) and bioclastic (B) constituents.
These sum to 100%. Siliciclastic constituents include quartz, feldspar,
rock fragments, heavy and accessory minerals, and siliciclastic mud, and,
for this example, includes phosphate and glauconite clasts. As defined
here, bioclasts include both gravel- and sand-size carbonate allochems
(mostly fossils) and carbonate mud. In some cases, bioclasts might be
defined to include obviously phosphatized or glauconitized fossil
fragments or siliceous fossils. Woody debris and plant fragments are
excluded from the bioclast category; these are defined and coded
separately within an organic-plant-debris (org) or lignitic (lig) composi-
tional suite. As defined here, the code org excludes non-plant-derived
fossil fragments.
Using bioclast content, strata are divided into siliciclastic (, 30%
bioclasts), mixed (3070% bioclasts), and bioclastic (. 70% bioclasts)
facies (Fig. 13A). Prefixes to the lithofacies code are proposed to
differentiate these sediments. A lithofacies code with no prefix, such as
sG
x
, a cross bedded sandy gravel, is siliciclastic. A prefix of mxd, e.g.,
r
FIG. 15.Photographs showing examples of coding compositionally variable sediment. A) Traditional gravel (G) composed of cobble-size, variegated rock fragments:
channel bar at low waterColumbia River Basin, Washington State, U.S.A. B) Gravel (G) composed of cobbles of rounded wood chips: channel marginBlack Creek
River, Elyria, Ohio, U.S.A. C) Gravel bars deposited in chute channels during catastrophic flooding after Hurricane Irene (2011) are constructed from gravel-size nuts,
twigs, and wood fragments (map view). Little Contentnea Creek, North Carolina, U.S.A. DG) Holocene channel fill in vibracores through wetland flats that border
small channels (Little Contentnea Creek Watershed, North Carolina, U.S.A.); sediment composition is mostly quartz and plant debris. D) Rhythmically interlayered sand
and organic-rich sandy gravel 5 S/sG
org
; gravel and coarser sand fraction is plant debris. E) Poorly stratified organic-rich sandy gravel (sG
org
) that includes a small log
in cross section. F) Massive, matrix-supported, organic-rich, gravelly sand to sandy gravel (gS to sG
m-org
m) with sections through branches and chunks of wood. G)
Rhythmically interbedded sand and organic-rich sandy gravel (S/sG
org
or S/org sG). H) Core showing Plio-Pleistocene siliciclastic marine shelf muds (Lizzie Research
Station, North Carolina, U.S.A.) that are punctuated by bioclastic gravels. I) Close-up of Part D showing clast-supported storm-bed sandy gravels composed of valves of
the surf clam Mulinia congesta (bio sGc); the background sandy mud (sM) is also a sandy clayey siltscZ (S:Z:C 5 10:65:25). The unit is coded as sM/bio sGc. J)
Contact separating Cretaceous from overlying Plio-Pleistocene mixed muddy sandy gravels (mxd msG) (Little Contentnea Creek Watershed, North Carolina, U.S.A.).
Above the contact, the basal gravel includes large bivalves (Mercenaria), fossil fragments, phosphate and quartz pebbles, and plant debris (cobble size): P, phosphate; L,
wood; SH, shell hash. The sand fraction is similar in composition. K) An unconformity separates the Cretaceous Rocky Point Member of the Peedee Formation from the
overlying New Hanover Member of the Eocene Castle Hayne Formation (North Carolina, U.S.A.). Below it is cemented, mixed to bioclastic, muddy sandy gravel (cem
mxdbio msG). Above it is cemented sandy gravel (cem sG). Gravel includes phosphate, glauconite and variegated rock fragments; the sand includes quartz, glauconite,
and shell hash. L) Oligocene moldic limestone that is defined here as a clast-supported, cemented, bioclastic to mixed, moldic sandy gravel (cem bio-mxd sG
mld
c)
(North Carolina, U.S.A.).
STANDARDIZING TEXTURE 375 J S R
mxd sG
x
, is the same gravel, but with a mixed assemblage of bioclastic
and siliciclastic grains (3070% bioclasts). A prefix of bio (short for
bioclastic, e.g., bio sG
x
) is the same but includes more than 70%
bioclasts.
Optional Cementation Code
Cementation should also be described independently from texture. To
differentiate unconsolidated sediment from solid rock, the attribute
cemented is added as a prefix to the lithofacies code (Fig. 13B). The
abbreviation for cemented is cem. Thus a cemented, bioclastic, cross
bedded sandy gravel, has the code: cem bio sG
x
. This is also a grainstone
(after Dunham 1962), with gravel-size clasts. An uncemented analog
would be a bioclastic cross bedded sandy gravel, which makes sense from
a textural perspective; since it is not consolidated, it is not a grainstone.
Use of dual classification schemes (e.g., Dunham 1962) is encouraged in
order to clarify rock associations.
Optional Fabric Code
For a process-based approach, a fabric code should be applied to
sediment, especially if it includes mixtures of gravel, sand, and mud size
populations of grains. Fabric includes four categories (Fig. 13C): clast-
supported (c), matrix-supported (m), clast/matrix-supported (c/m), and
not applicable (none). The c/m fabric is transitional between clast- and
matrix-supported and is commonly generated via bioturbation of a clast-
supported fabric. Fabric is applied as a code suffix. As an example, a
mixed bioclastic and siliciclastic, burrowed, matrix-supported, gravelly
muddy sand (G:S:M 5 20:50:30) has the code: mxd gmS
b
2 m. In this
case, sediment consisted of a siliciclastic mS matrix, with suspended shell
clast gravel.
Hydrofacies or Permeability Codes
As an example of a conceptual model for predicting permeability,
Figure 14 shows derivation of hydrofacies from the textural field of
lithofacies codes. Proposed hydrofacies codes are based on assumptions
that primary porosity initially dominates but is secondarily occluded
(cemented) or enhanced (subject to dissolution) during diagenesis.
Primary porosity defines six basic hydrofacies codes for fairly homoge-
neous strata. These include the end members, G, S, and M, and a series of
codes for muddy strata. M/S/G refers to mixtures of the three end
members. Heterolithic facies are further defined as shown (e.g., S/M). The
attributes, cemented (cem) and dissolution fabric (df), respectively define
occluded and enhanced primary porosity.
Obviously, the end-member hydrofacies, S and G, potentially function
as high-permeability, high-quality aquifers or reservoirs. Hydrofacies end
member, M, functions as a low-permeability confining unit or seal.
Intermediate hydrofacies, M/S/G, mS, sM, and mG, are texturally mixed,
and presumably function in a variety of permeability and reservoir-
quality settings depending on geometry, architecture, and connectivity. In
some successions, heterolithic strata (S/M, M/S, etc.) may be important
permeability predictors, depending on scale of heterogeneities, especially
for lithofacies with tidal bedding (wavy, flaser, lenticular bedding).
Generally, cement reduces permeability and reservoir quality, but
dissolution enhances quality.
EXAMPLES
Figure 15 (AL) provides examples of compositionally variable
sediment and the application of texture and other codes to describe
them. Variations in composition include mixtures of siliciclastic,
bioclastic, glauco-phosphatic, and organic (detrital plant debris) grain
assemblages. Of particular interest is the classification of clastic deposits
containing detrital plant debris. These traditionally are the peats, lignites,
and coals. Mixed (3070% bioclasts) and bioclastic facies are also
included. Examples exhibit varying degrees of cementation and dissolu-
tion.
Figure 15 (AC) shows rounded or oval-shaped gravel-size clasts.
Figure 15A is a traditional gravel (G) on a midstream channel bar that
consists of rounded cobbles composed of variegated rock fragments.
Rounded cobbles (G) composed of wood fragments also occur along
stream channels (Fig. 15B). Although wood cobbles have different
densities and fall velocities than siliciclastic rock fragments, there is no
reason not to classify both compositional variants as gravel-size clasts.
Naturally round plant debris such as the hickory nuts in Figure 15C also
are of gravel-size. These clasts were transported by a catastrophic flood
event (Hurricane Irene in North Carolina, 2011) and deposited along with
broken logs, twigs, sticks, and branches onto barforms (dunes) in a chute
channel. These are not peats; these are gravel (G) bars constructed from
plant debris.
The term peat (and the lignitecoal series) are here considered as
lacking a primary sedimentary framework that is readily observable.
A shortcoming of the textural coding is that if grain size is not
discernible, textural codes do not readily apply. On the Atlantic
Coastal Plain, peats and lignites form rare units of compressed plant
debris for which it is not always possible to measure clast size. In cases
such as this, peat is considered an extraordinary facies, and is given a
facies code that is independent from texturee.g., P for peat, or sP for
a sandy peat that includes admixed quartz sand. Normally, if clast size
is discernible, detrital organic material is logged by its grain size
(G:S:M), the same as other constituents, and composition is logged as
% plant debris. Adding an attribute code such as lignitic (lig) or
organic plant debris (org) to the textural code, G, provides a facies
code of G
org
or G
lig.
The composition of organic-rich sediment can
also be specified with a prefix of org or lig so that lig G, for example, is
a lignitic gravel.
Vibracores through channel fill beneath Holocene wetland flats
(eastern North Carolina Coastal Plain) also show siliciclastic sands
admixed with detrital plant debris (Fig. 15 DG). These are not peats
either and because clast size is discernible, G:S:M is evaluated according
to Figure 7. Cores (Fig. 15 D, G) show rhythmically interbedded
siliciclastic (quartz) sand and organic-rich sandy gravel (S/sG
rh-org
), with
the gravel and some of sand fraction consisting of detrital plant debris.
Plant debris in the vibracores ranges from clast- (Fig. 15G) to matrix-
(Fig. 15E, F) supported. Figure 15E includes a cobble-size cross section
through a log, and other poorly bedded plant debris. Figure 15F shows
slightly silty sandy gravel to slightly silty gravelly sand that is massive
with matrix-supported clasts that consist of wood chunks, branches, and
twigs (organic-rich). The lithofacies codes for this interval are: org (z)sG
m
to (z)gS
m
2 m.
Figure 15H shows a marine siliciclastic, laminated to burrowed sandy
mud (sM
lam-b
) that is punctuated by storm beds of unconsolidated
bioclastic sandy gravel (bio sG). The close up (Fig. 15I) shows the clast-
supported fabric of one storm bed, and that the pebble-size bioclasts are
mostly valves of Mulinia congesta, a surf clam. The stratigraphic interval
is described as sM
lam-b
/bio sGc, with the slash indicating the
interbedding of the two lithologies. The dominant lithofacies code is
listed first. The basal unconformity of the same unit is shown in
Figure 15J. It is overlain by mixed muddy sandy gravel which is clast/
matrix supported, and includes inclined mollusk fragments suggesting
cross bedding. The gravel fraction includes large bivalve fragments
(Merceneria), mollusk hash, quartz and phosphate pebbles, and wood
fragments. The sand fraction consists of quartz, shell hash, phosphate,
glauconite, plant debris, and other constituents. It is approximately 50%
bioclastic, hence the mxd prefix. The lithofacies coding for this interval is:
mxd msG
x
c/m.
376 K.M. FARRELL ET AL. J S R
Figures 15K and L provide examples of cemented, lime-rich sedimen-
tary rocks. In Figure 15K, an unconformity (the K/T boundary)
separates the Cretaceous Rocky Point Member of the Peedee Formation
from the overlying New Hanover Member of the Eocene Castle Hayne
Formation. Below the unconformity is cemented, mixed to bioclastic,
muddy sandy gravel (cem mxdbio msG). Above it is cemented sandy
gravel (cem sG); here the gravel consists of phosphate, glauconite, and
variegated rock fragments; the sand matrix includes quartz, glauconite,
and shell hash. In the Oligocene moldic limestone (Fig. 15L), primary
fabric and texture is readily identified in spite of its secondary moldic
dissolution porosity. The depicted rock is defined here as a clast-
supported, cemented, bioclastic to mixed, moldic sandy gravel (cem bio-
mxd sG
mld
c). Here the gravel consists of fossil bivalves, but the matrix
is mixed quartz, glauconite, and fossil fragments.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
This paper demonstrates a systematic, mathematically based approach
to classifying texture that applies universally to all clastic sediment. The
term texture is restricted slightly in that it refers primarily to attributes
that define grain size, which in turn control the derivative attributes
sorting, primary porosity, and fabric; attributes of individual grains
(e.g., roundness and shape) are not considered in the textural
classification. Because the proposed method was derived from Folks
(1980) pre-existing classification of sediment based on grain size, it is not
new in concept. The revised ternary diagrams for classifying clastic
sediment simply reflect a broader definition of the term clastic to be
independent from composition, and a more complete array of textural
fields or classes that are based on a strict adherence to volumetric
percentages of gravel, sand, and mud populations, which by definition
must sum to 100%. The new classification ensures that descriptors are
applied consistently to all end-member textures according to several
rules, and that none of the end members (G, S, and M) are ignored when
applying nomenclature for textural fields. This resolves problems in
classification for poorly sorted, coarse-grained clastic deposits, such as
diamictites.
Our classification of clastic sediment that is based on % G, S, and M
provides an easy method of applying textural nomenclature directly to
either hand samples or to the results of mechanical or electronic grain-size
analysis. Textural fields and their codes (Figs. 7, 8, 10, 11) are vehicles for
standardizing analytical results between data sets that include statistical
compilations of grain-size attributes. For example, textural data acquired
for the Bureau of Land Managements baseline study of the Atlantic Shelf
(Boesch 1979) could be compared or combined with other data, if a
standardized textural field could serve as the common attribute. An
attribute such as textural field, for example, is useful as a standard map
unit or facies code on sediment distribution maps, especially if used in
time-series analysis.
Applying a standard textural class or lithofacies code (texture +
attribute) to a sample, a facies unit, or a stratigraphic interval potentially
defines attributes of primary porosity, but it does not differentiate
compositionally defined suites. Additional codes for composition
differentiate these. A prefix on a lithofacies code is useful to identify
the degree of mixing between two compositionally pure end members,
such as the carbonate and siliciclastic families of grains. Absence of a
composition code infers a siliciclastic deposit, so that a term such as
sandstone, left unspecified, retains its cultural identify. A prefix of
mxd indicates considerable mixing between bioclastic and siliciclastic
deposits or any other specified end-member compositions. Bioclastic, as
a prefix, refers to the classical limestone suite, although including up to
30% noncarbonate grains. An unconsolidated grainstone (Dunham
1962) is better described as bioclastic sand. A bioclastic sandstone, by
definition, consists of consolidated or cemented, sand-size grains
composed of . 70% bioclasts; if necessary, this could also be classified
as a grainstone (Dunham 1962), with unspecified grain size, and
assuming that potential impurities (, 30%) were acceptable. Lime
mudstones are readily accepted by all. Bioclastic muddy sandy
conglomerate, which by definition is . 70% bioclasts, could possibly
also be classified as a hard rock packstone or wackstone (Dunham
1962) with gravel-size allochems. Specifying a fabric code could
differentiate packstones from wackstones. All of these facies exist in
the rock record, and more often than not are compositionally mixed.
Dual use of classification systems is encouraged to clarify ambiguity, but
we do not redefine Dunham (1962).
Our goal is not to create chaos in sedimentary-rock terminology but to
provide a method of standardizing texture and classification of clastic
deposits that is based on grain size and is independent from composition,
cementation, geologic environment, and other factors. The new
classification is not perfect, but it works well to standardize the
description and vertical display of textural trends for all clastic sediment,
whether consolidated or unconsolidated, regardless of composition. A
systematic classification of texture according to the mathematical
guidelines established here provides bases for standardizing logging
practices so that the principles of process sedimentology can be
consistently applied to compositionally variable rock sequences (see
Farrell et al. in review). Hence the proposed classification supports
process-based interpretations of stratigraphic sequences. The lithofacies
codes derived from the new textural fields apply to clastic sediment
generated in any coastal-plain or paralic depositional settingfluvial,
estuarine, deltaic, back barrier, barrier-island, shoreface, and shelf
deposits, but also to the extreme ends of the source-to-sink system
glacial terranes, alluvial fans and landslide deposits, and submarine
canyon and fan systems. Mixed carbonatesiliciclastic ramp systems
benefit greatly from this method.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We thank James D. Simons, State Geologist, and Dr. Kenneth B. Taylor,
Assistant State Geologist and Chief of the North Carolina Geological Survey,
for supporting interdisciplinary, interagency research. Research was funded
by several Nonpoint Source Section 319(h) Cooperative Agreement Awards
(C9-999465701-0, C9-99465703-0), and C9-99465708-0) between the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency and NC Department of Environment and
Natural Resources. Other support came from U.S. Geological Survey
cooperative agreement awards 02ERAG0044, 02ERAG0050, 02ERAG0015,
and 06ERAG0027. We gratefully acknowledge this support, and respectfully
honor the late Dr. H.E. (Ted) Mew, Jr., of the NC Division of Water Quality,
who initiated this integrated research in his quest to understand dynamic
stratigraphy and its control on the shallow aquifer system. Robert L. Folk,
Marc Hendrix, Kathleen Bennison, Gregory S. Gohn, and Wilma Aleman
Gonzalez provided critical reviews of the manuscript.
REFERENCES
BOESCH, D.F., 1979, Bottom sediments and sedimentary framework, Chapter 5, in
Middle Atlantic outer continental shelf environmental studies: Volume II. Chemical
and biological benchmark studies: Contract AA550-CT6-62 with the Bureau of Land
Management, Virginia Institute of Marine Science, Special Report in Applied Marine
Science and Coastal Engineering, SRAMSOE No. 193.
BOUMA, A.H., 1962, Sedimentology of Some Flysch Deposits; A Graphic Approach to
Facies Interpretation: Amsterdam, Elsevier, 168 p.
BOUMA, A.H., AND NOTA, D.J.G., 1961, Detailed graphic logs of sedimentary
formations, in Sorgenfrei, T., ed., Reports International Geological Congress, 21st
Session, in collaboration with the International Association of Sedimentologists, p.
5274.
CATUNEANU, O., 2006, Principles of Sequence Stratigraphy: Oxford, U.K., Elsevier,
375 p.
CULVER, S.J., GRAND PRE, C.A., MALLINSON, D.J., RIGGS, S.R., CORBETT, D.R., FOLEY,
J., HALE, M., METGER, L., RICARDO, J., ROSENBERGER, J., SMITH, D.G., SMITH, C.W.,
SNYDER, S.W., TWAMLEY, D., FARRELL, K., AND HORTON, B.P., 2007, Late Holocene
barrier island collapse: Outer Banks, North Carolina, U.S.A.: The Sedimentary
Record, v. 5, no. 4, p. 48.
STANDARDIZING TEXTURE 377 J S R
CULVER, S.J., FARRELL, K.M., MALLINSON, D.J., HORTON, B.P., WILLARD, D.A.,
THIELER, E.R., RIGGS, S.R., SNDYER, S.W., WEHMILLER, J.F., BERNHARDT, C.E., AND
HILLIER, C., 2008, Micropaleontologic record of late Pliocene and Quaternary
paleoenvironments in the northern Albemarle Embayment, North Carolina, U.S.A.:
Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, v. 254, p. 5477.
CULVER, S.J., FARRELL, K.M., MALLINSON, D.J., HORTON, B.P., WILLARD, D.A., RIGGS,
S.R., THIELER, E.R., WEHMILLER, J.F., PARHAM, P.R., SNDYER, S.W., AND HILLIER, C.,
2011, Micropaleontologic record of Quaternary paleoenvironments in the Central
Albemarle Embayment, North Carolina, U.S.A.: Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatol-
ogy, Palaeoecology, v. 305, p. 227249.
KLEIN, G.D., 1963, Analysis and review of sandstone classifications in the North
American geological literature, 19401960: Geological Society of America, Bulletin,
v. 74, p. 555576.
DOYLE, L.J., AND ROBERTS, H.H., 1988, CarbonateClastic Transitions: Amsterdam,
Elsevier, Developments in Sedimentology 42, 304 p.
DUNHAM, R.J., 1962, Classification of carbonate rocks according to depositional
texture, in Ham, W.E., ed., Classification of Carbonate Rocks: American Association
of Petroleum Geologists, Memoir 1, p. 108122.
EMBRY, A.F., AND KLOVAN, J.E., 1971, A late Devonian reef tract on north-eastern
Banks Island, N.W.T.: Bulletin of Canadian Petroleum Geology, v. 19, p. 730781.
EYLES, N., EYLES, C.H., AND MIALL, A.D., 1983, Lithofacies types and vertical profile
models: an alternative approach to the description and environmental interpretation
of glacial diamict and diamictite sequences: Sedimentology, v. 30, p. 393310.
FARRELL, K.M., HARRIS, W.B., MALLINSON, D., CULVER, S.J., RIGGS, S.R., WEHMILLER,
J.F., PIERSON, J., SELF-TRAIL, J.M., AND LAUTIER, J.C., in review, A method of graphic
logging for interpreting process-generated stratigraphic sequences: with analog shelf
examples from the Atlantic Coastal Plain Province, U.S.A.: Journal of Sedimentary
Research.
FOLK, R.L., 1954, The distinction between grain size and mineral composition in
sedimentary rock nomenclature: Journal of Geology, v. 62, p. 344359.
FOLK, R.L., 1956, The role of texture and composition in sandstone classification:
Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, v. 26, p. 166171.
FOLK, R.L., 1959, Practical petrographic classification of limestones: American
Association of Petroleum Geologists, Bulletin, v. 43, p. 138.
FOLK, R.L., 1962, Spectral subdivision of limestone types, in Ham, W.E., ed.,
Classification of Carbonate RocksA Symposium: American Association of
Petroleum Geologists, Memoir 1, p. 6284.
FOLK, R.L., 1980, Petrology of Sedimentary Rocks: Austin, Texas, Hemphill Publishing
Company, 182 p.
FRIEDMAN, G.M., SANDERS, J.E., AND KOPASKA-MERKEL, D.C., 1992, Principles of
Sedimentary Deposits: Stratigraphy and Sedimentology: New York, McMillan
Publishing Co., 717 p.
GANI, M.R., 2004, From turbid to lucid: a straightforward approach to sediment gravity
flows and their deposits: The Sedimentary Record, v. 2, p. 48.
HARLAND, W.B., HEROD, K.N., AND KRINSLEY, D.H., 1966, The definition and
identification of tills and tillites: Earth-Science Reviews, v. 2, p. 225256.
HAUGHTON, P., DAVIS, C., MCCAFFREY, W., AND BARKER, S., 2009, Hybrid sediment
gravity flow depositsclassification, origin and significance: Marine and Petroleum
Geology, v. 26, p. 19001918.
HOFFMAN, P.F., 2011, Strange bedfellows: glacial diamictite and cap carbonate from the
Marinoan (635 Ma) glaciation in Namibia: Sedimentology, v. 58, p. 57119.
KEARNS, F.L., AND DAVISON, A.T., 1983, Field classification system of organic-rich
sediments, in Raymond, R, Jr, and Andrejko, M.J., eds., Mineral Matter in Peat: Its
Occurrence, Form and Distribution: Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos,
New Mexico, p. 147157.
MALLINSON, D.J., CULVER, S.J., RIGGS, S.R., THIELER, E.R., FOSTER, D., WEHMILLER,
J.F., FARRELL, K.M., AND PIERSON, J., 2010, Regional seismic stratigraphy and
controls on the Quaternary evolution of the Cape Hatteras region of the Atlantic
continental margin, U.S.A.: Marine Geology, v. 268, p. 1633.
MIALL, A.D., 1985, Architectural-element analysis: a new method of facies analysis
applied to fluvial deposits: Earth-Science Reviews, v. 22, p. 123.
MONCRIEFF, A.C.M., 1989, Classification of poorly sorted sedimentary rocks:
Sedimentary Geology, v. 65, p. 191194.
MOUNT, J., 1985, Mixed siliciclastic and carbonate sediments: a proposed first-order
textural and compositional classification: Sedimentology, v. 32, p. 435442.
PETTIJOHN, F.J., 1983, Sedimentary Rocks, Third Edition: New York, Harper and Row,
628 p.
PETTIJOHN, F.J., POTTER, P.E., AND SIEVER, R., 1987, Sand and Sandstone, Second
Edition: New York, Springer-Verlag, 553 p.
POSAMENTIER, H.W., AND ALLEN, G.P., 1999, Siliciclastic Sequence Stratigraphy;
Concepts and Applications: SEPM, Concepts in Sedimentology and Paleontology,
no. 7, 210 p.
SHANMUGAM, G., 2006, Deep Water Processes and Facies Models: Implications for
Sandstone Petroleum Reservoirs: Amsterdam, Elsevier, 476 p.
SMME, T.O., HELLAND-HANSEN, W., MARTINSEN, O.J., AND THURMOND, J.B., 2009,
Relationships between morphological and sedimentological parameters in source-to-
sink systems: a basis for predicting semi-quantitative characteristics in subsurface
systems: Basin Research, v. 21, p. 361387.
SUNDELL, K.A., AND FISHER, R.V., 1985, Very coarse grained fragmental rocks:
a proposed size classification: Geology, v. 13, p. 692695.
SWANSON, R., 1981, Sample Examination Manual: American Association of Petroleum
Geologists, Methods in Exploration, no. 1, 117 p.
TRAPPE, J., 2001, A nomenclature system for granular phosphate rocks according to
depositional texture: Sedimentary Geology, v. 145, p. 135150.
UDDEN, J.A., 1898, Mechanical composition of wind deposits: Augustana Library
Publication 1, p. 169.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (USDA), 1951, Soil Conservation Service, Soil
Survey Staff, Soil Survey Manual, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Handbook 18:
Washington, D.C., U.S. Government Printing Office, 503 p.
VAN WAGONER, J.C., MITCHUM, R.M., CAMPION, K.M., AND RAHMANIAN, V.D., 1990,
Siliciclastic Sequence Stratigraphy in Well Logs, Cores, and Outcrops: American
Association of Petroleum Geologists, Geological Methods in Exploration, no. 7, 55 p.
WENTWORTH, C.K., 1922, A scale of grade and class terms for clastic sediments: Journal
of Geology, v. 30, p. 377392.
Received 5 April 2011; accepted 15 December 2011.
378 K.M. FARRELL ET AL. J S R