Alternative methods for calculating compaction in sedimentary basins

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
Información del item - Informació de l'item - Item information
Title: Alternative methods for calculating compaction in sedimentary basins
Authors: Martín-Martín, Manuel | Robles Marín, Pedro
Research Group/s: Evolución Geodinámica de la Cordillera Bética Oriental y de la Plataforma Marina de Alicante | Ingeniería del Terreno y sus Estructuras (InTerEs)
Center, Department or Service: Universidad de Alicante. Departamento de Ciencias de la Tierra y del Medio Ambiente | Universidad de Alicante. Departamento de Ingeniería Civil
Keywords: Sediments compaction calculating | Physical calculation | Use of geotechnics-engeenering software | Basin analysis | Sierra Espuña succession
Knowledge Area: Geodinámica Interna | Ingeniería del Terreno
Issue Date: Mar-2020
Publisher: Elsevier
Citation: Marine and Petroleum Geology. 2020, 113: 104132. doi:10.1016/j.marpetgeo.2019.104132
Abstract: Subsidence analysis is an important technique in the study of sedimentary basins but the effects of compaction must be “backstripped”. The compaction of sediments is also of importance for petroleum and water reservoir research with very important economic derivations. Most methods for calculating compaction are based on empirically derived porosity-depth relationships from a variety of known sediment types. The challenge of this paper is to apply alternative methods for calculating compaction in sedimentary basins based on: physical calculation with elastic by Steinbrenner, oedometric and change of the specific weight of the sediment methods; and use of Loadcap software. The Triassic to Lower Miocene 3025 m thick succession of Sierra Espuña (SE Spain) is used as case study for the calculations. In this succession former mineralogical studies and apatite fission-track suggested an original thickness between 4 and 6 km. The validity of each one of the proposed methods is discussed, as well as, compared for the whole succession compaction but also separately for hard vs soft sediments and for thick vs thin beds. The compaction values obtained with the alternative methods are similar to those resulting with the lower-limit curves of the porosity-depth change method. The new methods have provided values slightly higher than 4 km for the whole original thickness using the geotechnical software and the change of the sediments specific weigh methods; meanwhile values below 4 km for other methods. So, in our opinion, the geotechnical software and the change of the specific weight of the sediment methods are compatible with mineralogical constraints and also, the input data are usually better known and easier to determinate. Otherwise, the elastic method seems only accurate for soft sediments; meanwhile the oedometric method is highly influenced by the thickness of the considered beds.
Sponsor: Research supported by: CGL2016-75679-P research project (Spanish Ministry of Education and Science); Research Groups and projects of the Generalitat Valenciana from Alicante University (CTMA-IGA).
ISSN: 0264-8172 (Print) | 1873-4073 (Online)
DOI: 10.1016/j.marpetgeo.2019.104132
Language: eng
Type: info:eu-repo/semantics/article
Rights: © 2019 Elsevier Ltd.
Peer Review: si
Publisher version:
Appears in Collections:INV - GEODIN - Artículos de Revistas
INV - INTERES - Artículos de Revistas

Files in This Item:
Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
Thumbnail2020_Martin_Robles_MarinePetroleumGeology_final.pdfVersión final (acceso restringido)2,22 MBAdobe PDFOpen    Request a copy
Thumbnail2020_Martin_Robles_MarinePetroleumGeology_accepted.pdfAccepted Manuscript (acceso abierto)2,51 MBAdobe PDFOpen Preview

Items in RUA are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.