西南石油大学学报(自然科学版) ›› 2020, Vol. 42 ›› Issue (4): 22-36.DOI: 10.11885/j.issn.1674-5086.2019.01.11.04

• GEOLOGY EXPLORATION • Previous Articles     Next Articles

Formation Mechanism and Sedimentary Characteristics of Translational Point Bars

ZHAO Xiaoming1, FENG Shenglun1, TAN Chengpeng1, FENG Mochen1,2, TANG Chun1,3   

  1. 1. School of Geoscience and Technology, Southwest Petroleum University, Chengdu, Sichuan 610500, China;
    2. The Nuclear Industry Geological Survey 283 Brigade in Sichuan Province, Dazhou, Sichuan 635000, China;
    3. No. 11 Oil Plant, Changqing Oilfield Company, PetroChina, Xi'an, Shaanxi 710018, China
  • Received:2019-01-11 Online:2020-08-10 Published:2020-08-10

Abstract: Researches on translational point bars, which are the main structural units in meandering river sediment, is inadequate lagging. This paper summarizes the formation mechanism and sedimentary characteristics of translational point bars through literature analysis and modern sedimentary observation. Studies have shown that an incised valley in the lowstand period and the limiting conditions of synsedimentary faults are the basis for the development of translational point bars. According to the variations in plane shape, a translational point bar can be divided into two parts: the point bar body and the point bar tail. The point bar body is mainly composed of coarse-grained sediments, and along the direction of water flow, the sediment preservation increases while granularity gradually decreases. Two different modes of point bar tail deposition can be formed, depending on the angle at which the water flow hits the outer bank: counter-point-bar, mainly composed of fine-grained sediments, and eddyaccretion deposits, mainly composed of coarse-grained sediments. By establishing a three-dimensional (3D) lithofacies model, we further clarified the distribution range of the lateral mud interlayer and the thickness of the sand body in the translational point bar. The sand body in the point bar body was characterized by good connectivity and great thickness, whereas the sand body in the point bar tail was poorly connected and relatively thin.

Key words: meandering river, translational point bar, counter-point-bar, eddy-accretion deposits, 3D-lithofacies modeling

CLC Number: