Mathematical Search Procedures in Facies Modeling in Sedimentary Rocks

  • F. Demirmen
Part of the Computer Applications in the Earth Sciences book series (CAES)


Lack of a standard or generally accepted method of mathematically defining facies from a set of attributes in sedimentary rocks makes a priori selection of a particular method difficult. It is proposed that different combinations of alternative classificatory techniques, leading to competitive classifications, be used to arrive at the first approximations of the facies model. An assessment of these models then can be made, and the “best” one selected further improved on the basis of intuitively appealing objective criteria. These search procedures relieve the investigator of the rigidity of a particular method and also place his empirical facies model on a more rational basis in retrospect, allowing more meaningful interpretations. These principles are illustrated in a facies study of Pennsylvanian carbonate rocks (from southeastern Utah) in which principal component analysis, Euclidean distance function, standardization, and weighted and unweighted pair-group methods, are among the classificatory schemes employed in facies construction.


Search Procedure Variable Variable Preliminary Model Score Matrix Left Margin 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Anderson, A. J. B., 1971, Numeric examination of multivariate soil samples: Jour. Intern. Assoc. Math. Geol., v. 3, no. 1, p. 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Chàyes, F., 1962, Numerical correlation and petrographic variation: Jour. Geology, v. 70, no. 4, p. 440–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Demirmen, F., 1969, Multivariate procedures and FORTRAN IV program for evaluation and improvement of classifications: Kansas Geol. Survey Computer Contr. 31, 51 p.Google Scholar
  4. Demirmen. F., 1971, Counting error in petrographic point-count analysis: A theoretical and experimental study: Jour. Intern. Assoc. Math. Geol., v. 3, no. 1, p. 15–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Feldhausen, P. H., 1970, Ordination of sediments from the Gape Hatteras continental margin: Jour. Intern. Assoc. Math, Geol., v. 2, no. 2, p. 113–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Herdan, G., 1953, Small particle statistics: Elsevier Publ. Co., New York, 520 p.Google Scholar
  7. Merriam, D. F., 1970, Comparison of British and American Carboniferous cyclic rock sequences: Jour. Intern. Assoc. Math. Geol., v. 2, no. 3, p. 241–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Miller, R. L., and Kahn, J. S., 1962, Statistical analysis in the geological sciences: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 483 p.Google Scholar
  9. Sokal, R. R., and Sneath, P. H. A., 1963, Principles of numerical taxonomy: W. H. Freeman and Co., San Francisco, 359 p.Google Scholar
  10. Switzer, P., 1970, Numerical classification, in Geostatistics, a colloquium: Plenum Press, New York, p. 31–43.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1972

Authors and Affiliations

  • F. Demirmen
    • 1
  1. 1.N. V. Turkse ShellTurkey

Personalised recommendations