ORIGINAL PAPER

Reconstruction of meandering paleo-channels using dense well data,Daqing Oil Field, Songliao Basin, China

Jing-Fu Shan1,2 • Zhi-Peng Lin1,2,3 • Le Chen4 • Bin Zhang1,2 • Shi-Xiang Fang1,2 • Xue Yan1,2 •

Wei Fang1,2 • Li-Li Xie1,2 • Bo Liu1,2 • Le Zhang1,2

Received: 22 December 2017 / Published online: 28 October 2018� The Author(s) 2018

AbstractReconstructing meandering paleo-channels is attracting global research attention. We implemented a novel method by

comprehensively integrating migration models and sedimentary structures. Firstly, the migration architectures of the

corresponding characteristics in planform and cross-sectional models were summarised as expansion, translation, expan-

sion and translation, expansion and downstream rotation, constriction and downstream rotation, and expansion and

countercurrent rotation models. Secondly, full continuous core data from 270 dense drilling wells were collected from the

Daqing Oil Field in the Songliao Basin, China, providing information on rock textures, sedimentary cycles, and boundary

information for the two layers being studied. Through a comprehensive analysis of dense drill cores and logging data, the

abandoned channels and the initial and final channel centrelines were identified. Consequently, four profiles, including one

longitudinal and three transverse sections, were constructed to reveal the cross-sectional structures and planform migration

architecture. Profile interpretation revealed the evolution from the initial channel centreline to the final centreline. Using a

method of rational interpolation, we were able to reconstruct the migration architecture of the meandering channels. The

results showed that the average ancient bankfull width (Wc) was approximately 100 m, a single meandering belt was

800 m, the radius of the curvature was 250 m, the length of the channel bend was 700 m, the average meander wavelength

was 1300 m, the sinuosity was 3.0, and the annual average discharge rate was 450 m3/s. Furthermore, we compared the

results from empirical equations, which verified that our reconstruction is both feasible and potentially widely applicable.

Keywords Songliao Basin � Reconstruction � Meandering paleo-channels � Meandering rivers � Point bar �Planform � Migration architectures

1 Introduction

Meandering rivers are ubiquitous, dynamic earth surface

systems (Seminara 2006, 2010; Abad and Garcia 2009;

Guneralp and Rhoads 2011; Abad et al. 2013; Gutierrez

and Abad 2014; Lin et al. 2017). Natural channels usually

flow in a meandering pattern instead of straight in alluvial

plains (Hooke 2003; Engel and Rhoads 2016). The process

of fluvial migration forms various river planforms (Ghi-

nassi et al. 2016; Lin et al. 2018). River dynamics are the

consequence of complex interactions between hydrology,

hydrodynamics, sediment transport, bed and planform

Edited by Jie Hao

& Jing-Fu Shan

shanjingfu2003@163.com

& Zhi-Peng Lin

linzhipeng@cugb.edu.cn

1 Key Laboratory of Exploration Technologies for Oil and Gas

Resources, Ministry of Education, Yangtze University,

Wuhan 430100, China

2 School of Geosciences, Yangtze University,

Caidian, Wuhan 430100, China

3 State Key Laboratory of Biogeology and Environmental

Geology, School of Earth Sciences and Resources, China

University of Geosciences, Beijing 100083, China

4 International Publishing and Distribution Headquarter, China

Academic Journal (CD) Electronic Publishing House CO.,

Ltd., Beijing 100083, China

123

Petroleum Science (2018) 15:722–743https://doi.org/10.1007/s12182-018-0270-x(012 3456789().,- volV)(0123456789().,-volV)

geomorphology, and other physical processes (Guneralp

et al. 2012). Previous studies have characterised mean-

dering channel migration behaviour and shape (Brice 1974;

Hickin 1974; Hooke 1984; Gutierrez and Abad 2014;

Schwendel et al. 2015; Lin et al. 2017) and predicted

meander evolution by analytical and numerical models

(Johannesson and Parker 1989; Abad and Garcia 2006;

Frascati and Lanzoni 2009; Kasvi 2015; Langendoen et al.

2016). Field-based studies using terrestrial LiDAR for bank

morphology can also help to interpret river bed and plan-

form morphology (Abad et al. 2013; Konsoer et al. 2016).

Surficial strata in meandering channels have been studied

using ground-penetrating radar (Neal 2004; Schrott and

Sass 2008; Słowik 2014, 2016). Moreover, migration pat-

terns have been recognised and analysed in modern

deposits but are seldom inferred from ancient fluvial

deposits. The different planform migration modes for

modern bends may be associated with soil properties

(Guneralp and Rhoads 2011; Motta et al. 2012a, b), veg-

etation, and riverbed material (Abad and Garcia 2009;

Abad et al. 2013), and bend migration patterns may be

associated with floodplain- rather than channel-dominated

controls (Motta et al. 2012a).

Despite the vast amount of research done in modern

environments, there has been little assessment of ancient

meandering channels. Research on ancient fluvial systems

is limited by difficulties in recognising meandering channel

migrations and transformations (Jackson 1976; Nami 1976;

Leeder and Nami 1979). The paleo-morphodynamics of

meandering bends have been primarily reconstructed with

seismic time slices (Smith et al. 2011). Modern laboratory

and field-based approaches suggest that channel bend

migrations are related to hydrodynamics, sediment trans-

port, channel adjustment, original planform shape (i.e.

sinuosity), vegetation (Perucca et al. 2007), and morpho-

logical and geological constraints (Chen and Duan 2006;

Smith et al. 2009; Motta et al. 2012a, b; Mendoza et al.

2016). The above factors are derived from modern envi-

ronments and are difficult to link directly to ancient envi-

ronments since their morphology is completely buried

(Tornqvist 1993; Donselaar and Overeem 2008; Frascati

and Lanzoni 2009; Cuevas Martınez et al. 2010; Ielpi and

Ghinassi 2014).

Although the research methods and sedimentary envi-

ronments differ between ancient and modern fluvial

deposition, the evolutionary mechanisms and characteris-

tics of river planform dynamics might follow similar

hydrodynamic and sediment transport processes (Hubbard

et al. 2011; Ielpi and Ghinassi 2014). It is important to

characterise sand bodies of subsurface meandering belts in

ancient environments to further explore for favourable

hydrocarbon reservoirs. It is difficult to analyse ancient

meandering dynamics based only on logging and seismic

data, considering that most reservoirs are buried several

thousands of metres deep. However, it can be effective

when dense drilling well data are available, as in the case

of the Daqing Oil Field in China. By integrating the

planform distribution and cross-sectional structure of a

meandering paleo-channel, this study attempted to recon-

struct the evolutionary process of a paleo-channel belt.

2 Geological background

The Songliao Basin, with an area of 2.6 9 105 km2, is the

largest and most important petroliferous basin among the

66 Mesozoic/Cainozoic basins in northeastern China (Feng

et al. 2010) (Fig. 1a). The axis direction of the basin is

north-easterly (Wang et al. 2007), and the area is approx-

imately 330–370 km2 wide and 770 km long (Du et al.

2011). The Songliao Basin is located among a combination

of discontinuous and amalgamated landmasses (Wang et al.

2013), and its tectonic evolution can be divided into four

stages: mantle upwelling and doming, rifting, post-rift

thermal subsidence, and structural inversion (Feng et al.

2010). Subsequently, the basin can be divided into four

first-order tectonic units: the northern plunge, central

depression, west slope, and southwest uplift zones (Sorokin

et al. 2013). Furthermore, the basin is an important oil-

producing basin in China, with 53 oil and 27 gas fields

(Feng et al. 2010). Among these, the Daqing Oil Field is

located in the central area of the basin (Fig. 1a).

The Songliao Basin is filled with Jurassic, Cretaceous,

Paleogene, and Neogene continental clastic sediments from

bottom to top, with a thickness of approximately 10 km.

The upper Cretaceous layer is mainly composed of Qing-

shankou (K1qn), Yaojia (K2y), and Nenjiang (K2n) For-

mations (Fig. 1a), of which the Yaojia (K2y) Formation

developed a fluvial–delta sedimentary system. According

to existing statistics (Xue 1991), reservoirs attributed to

fluvial deposits occur in a high proportion of Meso-Cain-

ozoic petroliferous basins in eastern China and are char-

acterised by multiple sandstone–mudstone interbeds,

complex heterogeneity, and lower oil recovery. The study

area is located in the northern part of the central basin

(Fig. 1b), and the study strata belong to the Coniacian-aged

Yaojia Formation (K2y1).

Petroleum Science (2018) 15:722–743 723

123

0 700 km

SongliaoBasin

N

Beijing

Xi’an

Hong Kong

Shanghai

China

Daqing

Qiqihar

Bei’an

Suihua

Harbin

Yushu

Nenjiang

JilinTongliao

m

SongliaoBasin

BeijingB

Xi’an

Hong Kong

Shanghainggg

DaqinDaqingnn

QiqiharQiqihaiiQQ r

Bei’an

ihuaSui

nHarbiHarH biii

uYushuhh

Nenjiang

nJilinTongliao

0 50 km

A B

C

D

EF

GH

I

J

Wes

tern

clin

ofor

m re

gion

Northe

rn inc

line r

egion

Nor

thea

ster

n up

lift r

egio

n

Southe

aster

n upli

ft reg

ionSouthwestern uplift region

Cent

ral d

epre

ssio

n re

gion

123

updown1-4

1-7

1-34

5-71-3

1-3

1234121234

s0

s1s1/s2mud

s2

s3

p1

G0

G1

G2

G3

G4

F1

F2F3

Age,Ma

Smalllayer

Sandgroups Lithology

79.0

89.0

94.3

Formation

Nen

jiang

(cam

pani

an)

K2n2

K2n1

83.5

Yaoj

ia(s

anto

nian

)

K2y2+3

K2y1

Yaoj

ia(c

onia

cian

)

K2qn3

K2qn2

K2qn1

Qin

gsha

nkou

(turo

nian

)

Quantou(ceno-mainian)

Series

1 2 3 4

1. Mudstone;

3. Pelitic siltstone;

2. Silty mudstone;

4. Sandstone;

55. Basin boundary;

6. Third-grade tectonic division;

7. Second-grade tectonic division;

8. Lake shoreline;

9. Channel deposits; 10. Alluvial plain; 11. Delta inner-front; 12. Delta extra-front; 13. Lacustrine deposit

6

7 8 9 10 11 12 13

A. Longhupao-Da’an terrace

B. Qijia-Gulong sag

C. Changling sag

D. Daqing paleoanticline

E. Heiyupao sag

F. Mingshui terrace

G. Sanzhao.sag

H. Chaoyanggou terrace

I. Fuyu uplift

J. Shuangtuozi terrace

4-910-13

8-10

4-10

4-10

(a)

(b)

Study strata

Study area

0 50 kmProfile 1

Profile 3

Profile 4

Profile 2

115°55′7″115°54′44″ 115°55′31″

46°2

5′41

″

46°2

5′57

″

46°2

6′14

″46

°26′

30″

0 200 m

DaqingQiqihar

Bei’an

Suihua

HarbinYushu

Changchun

Nenjiang

TongliaoJilin

Well location Well name

Deposition region

Central depression

Study profile

Study area

3940 41 42

4344 45

4647

4849

3432

3130

29282726

252423 22

1817

1615141312

9

876

5354

5556 57

58 5960

61 6263 64

656667 68

69 70

7576 77

7880

8182 83

84

8990 91

9279

9394

95 9697

9899

100101

108 109110 111

112113 114

115116 117 118

119 120 121 122123

124 125

126127

135136141142 143

144 145146 147 148

149 150151 152 153

154155

165166 167

168 169 170171 172 173

174

179180

181182

183184 185

186187

196

197

198

206207

208 209210 211

212213

214215

216

217

225226

227228 229

230231

232

233234

235236

237

238239

240 241242

243 244245

246

251252

253254 255256 257258 259 260

261262263 264

265

272273 274

276 277278 279

280 281282

286287

288289

290291

292 293294

300275

301302

303 304 305

306 307308 309 310

311

312

319320

321322 323 324

325326

327328 329

330331 332

333 334

342 343 344345

346347 348

349350

355 356 357358359

360361

362

363364 365

366367

368 369370 371

383

384 385386 387401

x15p86

319

Changchun

Upp

er c

reta

ceou

s ( K

2)Lo

wer

cre

tace

ous

( K2)

Fig. 1 a Facies, filling, and tectonic distribution of the Songliao

Basin, China. b Location of dense drilling wells (270) in the central

area of Songliao Basin. The azimuth of the transverse profiles is 120�

from west to east, and the longitudinal profile is 190� from north to

south. The four profiles are presented as red lines

724 Petroleum Science (2018) 15:722–743

123

3 Meandering channel architecturesand migration patterns

3.1 Architecture hierarchy of meanderingchannels

The descriptive sedimentological terminologies for mean-

dering channel processes in this study are mainly from

Harms et al. (1975), whereas the hierarchical descriptive

terminologies for small-scale bedding structures are

derived from Collinson et al. (1982). On this basis, the

architecture of a meandering belt was recognised along the

longitudinal meandering belt instead of the transverse,

which is an efficient way to reconstruct the subsurface

reservoir architecture (Ghinassi et al. 2014). In particular,

ancient meandering channels are more difficult to identify

because they are buried thousands of metres deep. Some

important terminologies used in this study are explained

before dissecting the sedimentary structure of the mean-

dering belt.

The architecture hierarchy of meandering channels is

characterised by both channel and overbank deposits (Wu

et al. 2008; Ielpi and Ghinassi 2014; Miall 2014). The

architecture hierarchy can be divided into nine scales

according to the newest classification by Miall (2014)

(Fig. 2a) and some architecture units need to be detailed.

When a meandering river shifts from one side to the other

along the alluvial plain over time, a series of meandering

scrolls are formed and a single channel belt appears

(Fig. 2b). As this process repeats and more channel belts

gradually develop, a complex meandering belt will ulti-

mately take shape. Different periods of a single channel

belt constitute the complex meandering belt as shown in

Fig. 2b. A point bar of a meandering river is a depositional

unit made of alluvium that accumulates on the inner bank

and is indicative of the lateral migration deposition of a

river (Figs. 2, 3). Moreover, with alluvium migration and

deposition at the point bar, lateral accretion bedding forms

in the cross section. The point bar can also be divided into

three portions: upstream, central, and downstream bars. In

modern environments, these portions can be easily identi-

fied by observing flow direction and sediment deposition.

However, for ancient meanders, the paleo-current flow

from the upstream to the downstream bar is identified by

drawing analogies to modern environments, because the

volumes of downstream bar tails are convergent, whereas

those of upstream bars are divergent.

Planform architecture elements of meandering channels

are shown in Fig. 3 (Lin et al. 2017), which demonstrates a

single meandering belt, showing the migration channels

during river evolution. Based on the primary and secondary

flows in a meandering channel, erosion (deposition) occurs

along the concave (convex) bank (Abad and Garcia 2009;

Hubbard et al. 2011; Smith et al. 2011) and is associated

with a dip change from concave to convex bank orienta-

tion. The direction of internal dip parallel to the mean-

dering loop axis is the largest and named the ‘true dip’,

whereas the direction of internal dip is away from the

meandering loop axis, which is known as the ‘apparent dip’

(true dip[ apparent dip) (Fig. 3B–B0 profile). Addition-

ally, when the internal dip sets change direction, it may

indicate that the channel pattern converts into another.

Furthermore, the riffle zone is located in the bend inflection

where one-way transverse circulation transforms into par-

allel circulation (the down-cut ability of parallel circulation

is weak), which usually carries sand and results in thin sand

body accumulation.

3.2 Channel migration patterns

River migration patterns are of great significance in guid-

ing the reconstruction of ancient channels. Migration pat-

terns determined in this study are comparable to the results

of other studies that have investigated using Google Earth

maps and outcrops (Nami 1976; Ghinassi et al. 2014; Lin

et al. 2018). These migration patterns include six planform

migration models, which have been successfully used to

reconstruct a modern fluvial system by (Shan 2017). These

characteristics are observable on Google Earth (Fig. 4).

Expansion increases bend curvature (by reducing the cur-

vature radius), flow path length, and channel sinuosity,

while the bend apex migrates transversely along the

floodplain (Fig. 4a). Translation maintains channel sinu-

osity, while the bend apex migrates parallel to the channel

belt axis in the downstream direction (Fig. 4b). Expansion

and translation combines the expansion and translation

features (Fig. 4c). Expansion and downstream rotation

produces downstream-oriented bends (Fig. 4d). Constric-

tion and downstream rotation decreases bend curvature,

sinuosity, and amplitude, while the bend apex migrates

downstream; this transformation is usually accompanied by

the cut-off process (Fig. 4e). Finally, expansion and

countercurrent rotation produces downstream-oriented

bends with the final bend becoming upstream-oriented

(Fig. 4f).

At this point, we considered what the corresponding

relationship between the planform and cross-sectional

models of meandering channels was, i.e. the corresponding

characteristics between the distribution of lateral accretion

bedding and channel morphology, which was also signifi-

cant to the reconstruction of the paleo-channel.

Ghinassi et al. (2014) and Ielpi and Ghinassi (2014)

attempted to describe the dip angle change of the lateral

accretion bedding. They concluded that the angle of lateral

accretion bedding of the upstream bar is greater than that of

Petroleum Science (2018) 15:722–743 725

123

the downstream bar, and it is therefore possible to relate

them to hydrodynamic force differences, i.e. upstream

water power is stronger than downstream water power,

resulting in a deeper incision upstream and a steeper dip

angle. Furthermore, different migration models demon-

strate different characteristics in terms of angle changes of

A

A´

B´

B C´

C

D

D´

A

A´B

B´

C´

C

D

D´

N

Suppositional drilling position

(b)

Bed

Upper layer

Width of meadering belt (Wm )

Lower layer

Width of meadering belt (Wm)

(a)

GrainsBedset

Point bar

Point bar set

Channel-fill

Levee

Crevasse splay

Overbank

Channel-fill

Channel

Levee

Floodplain (Overbank & crevasse splays)

Channelcomplex set

Channelcomplex

Channelcomplexsystems

Channelcomplexsystemset

Alluvial valleyIncised valleyAlluvial valley

Alluvial valley

Poi

nt b

ar

Upstream

Central

DownstreamO

verb

ank

Channel fill

Crevasse splay

Levee

Floodplain fines

Lateral accretion bedding

Lateral accretion bedding

1 23

4

5

6

7

8

9

Hierarchy of depositional units1

Lateral accretion bedding

Fig. 2 Hierarchy of architectural elements of meandering channels: a hierarchy of architectural scale; b relative planform and stratigraphic

signature [modified after (Ielpi and Ghinassi 2014; Miall 2014)]

726 Petroleum Science (2018) 15:722–743

123

the lateral accretion bedding, enabling the identification of

different migration models from differences in the distri-

bution of the lateral accumulation.

The different migration patterns are summarised as

follows: (1) The expansion model (Fig. 5a) shows that the

dip angle decreases parallel to the longitudinal meandering

belt axis in the downstream direction (C–C0 profile), and

the inner lateral accretion bedding has an approximate

symmetrical bell shape. On the transverse section, the dip

angle increases as the viewpoint moves away from the

meandering belt axis (D–D0 profile). (2) The translation

model (Fig. 5b) keeps the dip angle stable in the C–C0

profile, while the transverse dip angle increases away from

the meandering belt axis in the D–D0 profile. (3) The

expansion and translation model (Fig. 5c) is combined with

the above two models in the D–D0 profile where the

transverse dip angle increases when the viewpoint is distant

from the meandering belt axis, and thus the dip angles are

divided into two parts, both of which decrease in the C–C0

profile. (4) The expansion and downstream rotation model

(Fig. 5d) shows the same mode of inner dip development

as the expansion model (C–C0 and D–D0 profiles), with a

small increase away from the meandering belt axis, which

is shown in the D–D0 profile. (5) The constriction and

downstream rotation model (Fig. 5e) has an inner lateral

accretion bedding in an approximate symmetrical bowl

shape and an initially decreasing and then increasing dip

angle in the C–C0 profile, while the dip angle decreases in

Flow

Lege

nd

Channel Point bar

Centerline(LC)

Chute channel

Abandoned channel Pool Riffle

Outer bank Inter bank Thalweg Upstreambar

Centralbar

Downstream bar

Curvature circle

Curvature apex Bend apex Bend inflection

(1) Width of meandering belt, WM

(2) Width of single meandering channel, WSM

(3) Length of single meandering channel, LSM

(4) Width of single meandering loop, WML

(5) Length of single meandering loop, LML

(6) Radius of curvature, R(7) Direction of meandering belt axis, AXMB

(8) Direction of meandering loop axis, AXML

(9) Ups U

(10) Dtream deflection angle, θ

ownstream deflection angle, θD

Pool zone

Thalweg

Downtrend of interbedding dip Downtrend of interbedding dip

Riffle zone

(1)

(2)

(4)

(3)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(10) (9)

A

A´

B

B´

A A´ B B´

Fig. 3 Planform architecture elements and terminology of migration architecture for meandering rivers in an ideal setting figure modified after

Chen et al. (2017), and Lin et al. (2018)

Petroleum Science (2018) 15:722–743 727

123

the D–D0 profile. (6) The expansion and countercurrent

rotation model (Fig. 5f) shows the dip angle decreasing and

then increasing, and the angular variation is similar to the

expansion model (D–D0 profile). (7) The comprehensive

model (Fig. 5g) has the idealised pool zone migrating from

stage 1 to 4.

The expansion and translation model plays an important

role in the evolution process. The meandering bend shifted

towards the downstream direction (stages 1–2 or 3–4 in

profiles C–C0 and D–D0, Fig. 5g) complying with the dip

angle law of the profile from the translation model. In

comparison, the meandering bend shifted away from the

axis of the meandering belt (stages 1 or 2–3 in profiles C–

C0 and D–D0, Fig. 5g) complying with the dip angle law of

the profile from the expansion model.

The expansion and downstream rotation model is uni-

versal compared to other migration models in both modern

and ancient sedimentary environments and can be identi-

fied by the migration direction of the bend apex upstream

or downstream. These migration patterns are distinguished

in the following manner: Using a subsurface meandering

paleo-channel as an example, the bedding dip is important

evidence for the inner channel. When the bend rotates

upstream, a dip-paralleled profile records the transforma-

tion of the internal bedding dip angle combination (i.e. the

pool migrates away from the profile upstream; stages 2–3

in profiles D–D0 or C–C0, Fig. 5g). In contrast, in down-

stream rotation, a dip-paralleled profile records an initial

decrease in the internal bedding dip, followed by an abrupt

increase (e.g. stages 1–2 in profiles D–D0 or C–C0, Fig. 5g).

Upstream or downstream migration leads to different dip

patterns, and these rotations are generally associated with

changing hydrodynamics, e.g. alternating flood and

drought seasons. In addition, rotational mechanisms are

associated with increasing bed dips (Ielpi and Ghinassi

2014). Unstable angles are an important trigger factor, and

high flood stages improve the probability of pool migra-

tion. In fact, inconsistent variation in dip angles indicates

the rotation of point bars. Although the response charac-

teristics are obvious in an outcrop section, it is not yet

possible to accurately identify the distribution of lateral

accretion bedding under the limited conditions of subsur-

face viewpoints, and this needs further research.

4 Database and methodology

The data sets used in this study comprised dense well data

from the Daqing Oil Field in the Songliao Basin, China,

which includes full continuous core data and considerable

well-logging data from 270 dense drilling wells. The well

spacing is 80–150 m. Based on the comprehensive inter-

pretation of well and core data, the complex meandering

belts were reconstructed with a combination of migration

patterns of the meandering paleo-channels, which can only

be observed in dense wells.

0 2 kmN

(c) Paraguay River, Paraguay

Irtysh river, Russia

0 2 km

N

(b)

Nitsa river, Russia

N

(d)

Vakh river, Russia

0 2 km

(f)

N

0 2 km

Tobol river, Russia(e)

NTranslation

(b´)

Expansion +translation

(c´)

Chute channel

Expansion

(a´)

Expansion +downstreamrotation

(d´)Scavenger channel

Constriction +downstreamrotation(e´)

Expansion +countercurrentrotation

(f´)

Irtysh river,RussiaUcayali river, Peru

N

(a)

N

0 2 km 0 2 km

Fig. 4 Typical planform migration modes of modern rivers (left

images from Google Earth; right images show the sequencing to

produce complex planform migration patterns): a expansion model,

Ucayali River, Peru (-7�5402400S, -74�5705900W); b translation

model, Irtysh River, Russia (59�3202400N, 69�0300000E); c expansion

and translation model, Paraguay River, Paraguay (-20�1402400S,

-58�0600000W); d expansion and downstream rotation model, Nisa

River, Russia (57�2700000N, 64�4301200E); e constriction and down-

stream rotation model, Tobol River, Russia (57�5100000N,

67�3303600E); f expansion and countercurrent rotation model, Vakh

River, Russia (61�0300000N, 77�4901200E)

728 Petroleum Science (2018) 15:722–743

123

Expansion Translation Expansion+translation

Expansion+downstream rotation

Constriction+downstream rotation

0

1

00 0

11 1

22 2

3 34

Eroded bar

C C´ D D´

C

C´

D

D´

Eroded bar

C C´ C C´ C C´

D D´

C

C´

D

D´

0

1Pool trajectory

Bed dipping (low angle)

Bed dipping (high angle)

D D´

C

C´

D

D´

D D´

C

C´

D

D´

C C´

D D´

C´C

D

D´

C C´

D D´

C´C

D

D´

C C´

D D´

Bed dipping High

Low

High

Low

5 m100 m

Erosional stepsErosional steps Note: Indicated different channel in case of interbedding dip alteration

High

Low

High

Low

High

Low

High

Low

Bed dipping

High

Low

High

Low

High

Low

High

Low

High

Low

High

Low

High

Low

High

Low

High

Low

High

Low

Bed dipping Bed dipping Bed dipping

Bed dippingBed dippingBed dipping

Bed dipping Bed dipping Bed dipping

Bed dipping Bed dippingBed dippingBed dippingBed dipping

Initial centerline

Final centerline

Initial centerline

Final centerline

Initial centerline

Final centerline

Initial centerline

Final centerline

Initial centerline

Final centerline

Initial centerline

Final centerline

Unconformity boundary ( lithology discontinuous boundary )

Downstream bar

(a) (b) (c)

(d) (e) (f)

(g)

Expansion+countercurrent rotation

C

C´

D

D´

Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 4

Fig. 5 Corresponding relationship between the planform and cross-sectional models of migration patterns. a–f Similar to that in Fig. 4; g stages

(1–4) of pool zone migration modified after Ielpi and Ghinassi (2014)

Petroleum Science (2018) 15:722–743 729

123

With this full coverage of multiple wells, four key

profiles are illustrated, and core data were collected for

each profile. By integrating the core structure, lithological

successions, small layer correlations, and scouring surfaces

with those of previous studies, each of these profiles was

interpreted and identified as the various stages of a mean-

dering belt.

Here, we take Profile 1, belt b as an example to briefly

introduce the research ideas (Fig. 6). The reconstruction of

the meandering paleo-channel can be summarised as fol-

lows: firstly, by using comprehensive analyses of dense

well cores and logging data, the abandoned channels were

identified, as shown in Fig. 6a. The lateral accretion bed-

ding was revealed by core and log data analyses, which

could further be used to identify the early and late aban-

doned channels. Furthermore, the abandoned direction of

the river indicated the migration direction, and the initial

and final channel centrelines could subsequently be infer-

red in plan view (Fig. 6b). Due to the distance between the

wells and the underground conditions, the sedimentary

process between the initial and final centrelines could not

be identified. The evolution from the initial to the final

centreline could thus be speculated by the rational inter-

polation method (Ruiu et al. 2016). As shown in Fig. 6a, a

total of 16 evolutionary stages of channel centrelines were

reconstructed.

Moreover, the limited well spacing conditions were used

to reveal the distribution characteristics of the lateral

accretion bedding. Combined with the changes of lateral

accretion bedding and their corresponding relationship to

the planform structure as shown in Fig. 5, different

migration modes were identified in each section as shown

in Fig. 6c. After recognising the migration modes in each

profile, the migration architecture of the entire study area

was determined, and, on this basis, the evolution and

reconstruction of the course of the meandering paleo-river

could be completed.

61

4562

6380

p93

116

96

12

26

64

Expansion & downstream rotation model

Downstream rotation

Connecting-well profile

117

114

95

78

79

42

4360

Early abandoned channel

Late abandoned channel

Initial channel centreline

Final channel centreline Flow direction

Spontaneous potential logging curve

Expansion

(a)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

Evolutionary stages

Expansion Translation Expansion &translation

Expansion &downstreamrotation

Constriction &downstreamrotation

Expansion &countercurrentrotation

Point bar

Rational

interpolation

(b)

(c)

Fig. 6 Identification method of the migration models of paleo-

meandering channels: a identification of abandoned channels taking

bend b (Fig. 7c-B) as an example; b establishment of the initial and

final centrelines and the rational interpolation of evolutionary

processes; c identification of different channel bends and migration

patterns

730 Petroleum Science (2018) 15:722–743

123

5 Sedimentary elements of meanderingchannels

Although the application of the above conceptual model

has been reported in previous literature (Bridge et al. 2000;

Ghinassi et al. 2013), this method was applied to the

Daqing Oil Field, where extensive well data were avail-

able, thus enabling detailed sedimentological characteri-

sation of the ancient planform migration modes. This study

presents the relationships between lithofacies and envi-

ronmental elements. All lithofacies were coded (Table 1)

following the descriptions by Miall (1977, 1985), and

Waksmundzka (2010, 2012).

5.1 Lithological facies codes

The large scale of cross-stratified sets was difficult to

interpret due to limited viewpoints provided by core and

lithological data. For example, it was impossible to dis-

tinguish between planar cross-stratification (Sp) and trough

cross-stratification (St), and thus large-scale stratification

had an objective existence. These bedding were coded

using ‘x’ (e.g. Sx). However, this study emphasised

architecture elements of point bars rather than stratification

dimensions. These associations probably contain Sp based

on sedimentary environment analysis. In contrast, the study

of scouring boundaries in channel bottoms is more

important in identifying the different evolutionary stages of

rivers. The original lithofacies were combined, reclassified,

and coded following descriptions by Miall (1977), Waks-

mundzka (2010), and Ielpi and Ghinassi (2014), as shown

in Table 2.

5.2 Identification of key architectural elements

The complex meandering belt structure of the subsurface

network of well data was characterised by both inner

channels and overbank deposits, whose architectural ele-

ments were mainly composed of point bars and channel

fills. The classification developed for this study (using

interpretation from multiple drilling holes) agreed with that

of previous studies (e.g. Feng et al. 2010).

Table 1 Lithology and stratification code symbols, modified after Miall (1977, 1985), and Waksmundzka (2010, 2012)

Lithology code Textural feature Stratification code Structural feature

G Conglomerate m Massive structure

GS Sandy conglomerate h Horizontal lamination (stratification)

S Sandstone f Flaser lamination

SG Gravelly sandstone w Wavy lamination

SF Silty sandstone n Lenticular lamination

FS Sandy siltstone r Ripple cross-lamination

F Mudstone/claystone l Low-angle cross-stratification

R Claystone/sandstone p Planar cross-stratification (tabular and wedge-shaped)

\ \ t Trough cross-stratification

\ \ x Large-scale cross-stratification

\ \ s Scour-fill, massive or cross-stratified sandstone/conglomerate

with clasts on an erosional surface

Table 2 Lithofacies code symbols and recognised architectural elements, modified after Miall (1977), Waksmundzka (2010), and Ielpi and

Ghinassi (2014)

Environment Sedimentary element Lithofacies Shape

Channel Point bar Sr, Sp, St, Sx, Sl, Sh,

Sm, SGm, Gp, Gt

Convex, crescent-shaped with curved, centrifugal bedding; strongly

asymmetrical or missing the upstream portion in places

Channel fill Gs, GSs, Ss, SGs Irregular, concave erosional-based lithosome

Channel pool St Very large-scale St

Overbank Crevasse complex SFr, SFw, FSr, FSw, FSn Convex, sub-circular mounded lithosome, in places erosionally topped by

minor channel fills

Levee SFr, FSh, FSf, FSw Wedge thinning channel

Floodplain fine-

grained deposition

Fm, Fh Tabular lithosomes with minor top ridges and swales

Petroleum Science (2018) 15:722–743 731

123

Inner channel elements composed of point bars (derived

from all kinds of migration modes of meandering bends)

and channel fills accounted for almost 48% of planform

exposure after meandering channel sedimentation in the

Yaojia Formation. Furthermore, the lithology of the inner

channel was relatively coarser and better preserved in the

riverbed than in the overbank deposits. The overbank ele-

ments included a crevasse system, channel-levee, and fine-

grained floodplain fills. These elements accounted for

approximately 52% of the planform exposure, and there-

fore the preservation potential of overbank sediments was

limited due to reworking by rechannelling, cut-off, and

neighbouring channels. Thus, overbank elements were

relatively poorly preserved, whereas upper-layer overbanks

were better preserved.

6 Reconstruction of meandering paleo-channels

6.1 Profile interpretations

Profile 1: this profile (Fig. 7) extends from the north to

south of the study area (parallel to the axis of the longi-

tudinal meandering belt or valley). Flow direction and

erosional boundaries were obtained based on data from

well logs and cores. Because the pre-meandering belt

suffered from powerful reworking, the earlier point bar of

Layer 1 was incompletely revealed, making it difficult to

reconstruct. In addition, most exposures were late-stage

meandering belts at the end of the fluvial deposition period

in the Yaojia Formation. Therefore, the interpretation of

the meandering belt in this study focused on Layer 2 (see

Fig. 7b). Bends (A) (wells 6–28) and (B) (wells 43–116)

showed erosive boundaries that suggest the interface of two

channels with traction flow mechanisms. Based on obser-

vations in drill cores and interpretation of adjacent well

data (Fig. 7a), the initial and final channel centrelines are

sketched in Fig. 7c and show the process of centreline

migration by rational interpolation (Fig. 7c-A–F). Bend

(A) migrated from left to right and rotated upstream

(Fig. 5c-A), whereas bend (B) migrated from left to right

but rotated downstream (Fig. 7c-C). The results indicate

that bend (A) migrated upstream with expansion, while the

apex (pool zone) migrated transversely away from the

channel belt axis and developed an asymmetric shape. The

late-stage channel superposed on an earlier channel in well

60, indicating that channels of two stages were penetrated.

Bend (B) partially reworked the downstream bend (A).

Bends (C) and (D) are from wells 170–262 on the pro-

file. Numerous wells revealed the scouring surfaces, and

the channel centreline distribution mode is shown in

Fig. 7c-C. The migration of bend (C) was downwards,

whereas that of bend (D) was in the opposite direction

(Fig. 7c-D). The results indicate that bend (C) migrated

with the expansion and rotation mode, deviating away from

the meandering belt axis, whereas bend (D) migrated with

the same mode but in the opposite direction. Paralleling the

longitudinal meandering belt axis, the segment bend size

was smaller relative to other bends. Furthermore, according

to data from well 213, bend (D) superposed onto bend (C).

Bend (E) is from wells 292–367 on the profile. The

segment parallels the longitudinal meandering belt axis,

combining adjacent wells and core observation results, the

scouring surfaces were revealed due to an earlier channel

being eroded by a later one. The initial and final channel

centrelines are shown in Fig. 7c-E. The migration of bend

(E) was upwards with multi-looped expansion deviating

away from the meandering belt axis and becoming more

complicated over time.

Profile 2: this profile (Fig. 8) extends in a west–east

direction transversely across the meandering belt. Bend

(A) was characterised by a single meandering belt with

relatively large curvature, whereas bend (B) showed a

highly tortuous segment superposing upon the earlier bend

(A) (Fig. 8). Furthermore, bend (A) migrated with the

expansion mode, deviating from the meandering belt axis,

whereas bend (B) migrated by the expansion and rotation

mode, paralleling the meandering belt axis.

Bends (C) and (D) were from wells 78–70 on the profile.

This profile shows meandering channels from two periods

that were superposed on each other (Fig. 8). Bend (C) was

characterised by high curvature, whereas bend (D) was

characterised by a relatively low curvature and onlaps.

Furthermore, bend (C) migrated with the translation and

expansion mode, deviating from the meandering belt axis

downstream.

Profile 3: this profile (Fig. 9) extends from west to east

transversely across the meandering belt. Meandering

channels from two stages are superposed on each other in

Fig. 9. Bend (A) was characterised by a relatively low

curvature, whereas bend (B) showed a highly tortuous

bend, which was prone to cut-off. The initial channel

centreline of bend (A) was completely eroded whereas

bend (B) migrated with the expansion and rotation mode,

paralleling the meandering belt axis (Fig. 9).

Bends (C) and (D) were from wells 213–216. Two-stage

meandering channels with cut-off structures (i.e. light blue

line representing original channel centreline and blue line

representing the final channel centreline) were interpreted

and supported by abundant core data (Fig. 9). Bend

(C) was characterised by low curvature accompanying a

cut-off in the earlier stage of growth. The cut-off was

adjacent to bend (C), which developed before forming a

residual point bar, whereas bend (D) was characterised by

chute channel formation. This chute segment was inferred

732 Petroleum Science (2018) 15:722–743

123

1080

1085

1090

1080

1085

1090

1080

1085

1090

1080

1085

1090

1080

1085

1090

1080

1085

1090

1080

1085

1090

1080

1085

1090

1080

1085

1090

1080

1085

1090

1085

1090

1085

1090

1085

1090

1085

1090

1095

1085

1090

1095

1085

1090

1095

1085

1090

1085

1090

1095

1085

1090

1095

1085

1090

1095

Marker layer 6 14 28 43 60 95 116 148 170 184 213 238 p86 262 280 292 309 331 348 367

Up Down

1085.54 m

Boulder clay10 cm

1084.95 m1084.65 m 1087.85 m

Boulder clay

.................

..................................

................. .................

..................................

................. .................

.................

..................................

.................

.................

................. ..................................

................. .................

.................

.................

.................

.................

.................

..................................

................. .................

.................

1090.22 m1088.15 m

1094.91m1092.63 m

1087.52 m 1087.83 m1090.88 m

1091.78 m

Oiliness

1092.65 m 1092.81 m 1088.56 m

1090.25 m

......... ........

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 14

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

12 13

25

21. Erosion surface;

19. Wavy bedding;20. Deformed bedding;

17. Tabular cross-bedding;18. Lateral accretion bedding;

16. Trough cross-bedding;15. Parallel bedding;

25. Sandstone.24. Argillaceous siltstone;23. Silty mudstone;22. Mudstone;1. Well boreholes;

2. Layer 1 meander belt;3. Layer 1 cutoff point bar;4. Layer 1 oxbow lake;5. Layer 2-left meandering channel;6. Layer 2 cutoff point bar for left channel;7. Layer 2 oxbow lake; 14. Ripple cross lamination;

8. Layer 2-middle meandering channel;9. Layer 2 cutoff point bar for middle channel;10. Layer 2-right meandering channel;11. Layer 2 cutoff point bar for right channel;12. Layer 1 chute channel;13. Layer 1 abandoned channel;

Laye

r 1La

yer 2

13

15

2728

29

30

4461

16

4562

6380

p93

116

96

1226

64

Expansion Rotation

Layer 2-Expansion and countercurrent rotation

Connecting-well profile

71149

183

260

278291

281311

294282 310

332333349 369

368

329 347

362361360

346326

327306

308328

290

292293 348

331 330309

214239

240p86

238184170 213117

114

9578

79

42

4360

6

14

Layer 2-Expansion Layer 2-Expansion Layer 2-Expansion with multi-loop

Expansion

B C D EA

flow

Initial channel centrelineFinal channel centreline

(a)

(b)

(c)

SfSGs FSh

FSlSpSfSp

SGsSm

Log14 Log60Log28

Log95

Log95

Log116 Log184 Log213

Log213

Logp86

Logp86 Log309Log292

Log309 Log331Log348 Log367

6 14 28 43 60 95 116 148 170 184 213 238 p86 262 280 292 309 331 348 3SP SP SP SP SP SP SP SP SP SP SP SP SP SP SP SP SP SP SP SP

Fig. 7 Profile 1: longitudinal profile parallel to the meandering belt

axis (from north to south) in the Daqing Oil Field in the central area

of the Songliao Basin: a core data, b lithological interpretation, and

c planform interpretation (vertical scale is exaggerated for the purpose

of visualisation)

Petroleum Science (2018) 15:722–743 733

123

from an inflection in bend (C), which migrated with the

translation and expansion mode, deviating from the

meandering belt axis downstream. Conversely, bend

(D) was characterised by an exceedingly low curvature,

indicating a lower tortuous meander evolution process, and

migrated with the expansion mode, deviating away from

the meandering belt axis downstream (Fig. 9).

Profile 4: this profile segment (Fig. 10) extends from

wells 302–312. Two-stage meandering channels appending

a chute channel (light green line representing initial

channel centreline and green line representing the final

channel centreline) were interpreted with multi-stage

superpositions and supported by the core data (Fig. 10).

Bend (a) was characterised by medium curvature accom-

panying a cut-off at the earlier growth stage (Fig. 10c-A).

The chute channel was superposed on bend (B), which

developed later. Furthermore, bend (A) migrated with the

expansion and rotation mode, deviating from the mean-

dering belt axis upstream and creating a chute channel with

the translation mode at an earlier stage. Lastly, bend

(B) was characterised by lower curvature with the expan-

sion and rotation mode upstream (Fig. 10c-B).

1080

1085

1090

1080

1085

1090

1080

1085

1090

1080

1085

1090

1080

1085

1090

1080

1085

1090

1080

1085

1090

1080

1085

1090

1080

1085

1090

1080

1085

1090

1080

1085

1090

1080

1085

1090

1080

1085

1080

1085

89 91 92 93 77 78 79 80 81 65 67 69 7090

Up DownLog90

Log91

Log91 Log91

Log92

Log93 Log93

Log93 Log78

Log79

Log79 Log80

Log80 Log65

Log67

Log69 Log69

1084.95 m

Pelitic strip

1084.95 m

1084.45m 1087.12m

1085.73 m

1084.65mGravel

1086.11m

Boulder clay

1087.81 m

Plant debris

1082.50 m

1083.21 m

1087.43 m

1087.88 m

1084.92 m 1088.50 m

1087.76 m

1086.21 m1088.86 m

11 12 13 1410

17 18 20 21 22 23

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

17. Wavy bedding;18. Deformed bedding;

15. Tabular cross-bedding;16. Lateral accretion bedding;

14. Trough cross-bedding;13. Parallel bedding; 19. Erosion surface;

23. Sandstone.22. Argillaceous siltstone;21. Silty mudstone;20. Mudstone;

1. Well boreholes;2. Layer 1 meander belt;3. Layer 1 cutoff point bar;4. Layer 2-left meandering channel;5. Layer 2 cutoff point bar for left channel;6. Layer 2 oxbow lake;

7. Layer 2-middle meandering channel;8. Layer 2 cutoff point bar for middle channel;9. Layer 2-right meandering channel;

12. Ripple cross lamination;

10. Layer 1 chute channel;11. Layer 1 abandoned channel;

Inferred formation of a newbend by chute cutoff

231

232

197209

208

196 181168

182169

109110

8990 91

759276

112

113135136

111

144167

947793

595857 41

25244055

5653

143

Connecting-well profile

Expansion

Expansion+rotation

9478

6043

616245

63799596114

115116 117119

118 988180

97

120150151152

121

172185

171

122

173153 124

125126127101

84704968

6983100

8267

664746

6564 48

34

123

99

Cutoff bar

Expansion+rotation

Expansion+translation

B

CD

A

Initial channel centrelineFinal channel centreline

Flow

Initial channel centrelineFinal channel centreline

Marker layer 8989 9191 9292 9393 7777 7878 7979 8080 8181 6565 6767 6969 70709090

(a)

(b)

(c)

SP SP SP SP SP SP SP SP SP SP SP SP SP SP

Laye

r 1La

yer 2

10 cm

15 16 19

Fig. 8 Profile 2: profile map of comprehensive analysis including the

evolution model of the meandering belt, based on multiple-well data

collected from the Daqing Oil Field. Profile parallels the transverse

axis of the meandering belt, with exaggerated vertical scale: a core

data, b lithological interpretation, and c planform interpretation

734 Petroleum Science (2018) 15:722–743

123

6.2 Reconstruction of meandering paleo beltarchitecture

Based on the detailed results and analysis shown in Fig. 11,

the upper layer of the meandering belt was reconstructed

with overlapping fine-grained sediments, leading to the

preservation of Layer 2. In contrast, the preservation of

Layer 1 was inferior because it was destroyed by a late-

stage meandering channel with powerful undercutting

behaviour. The complex meandering belt revealed that the

ancient meandering channel easily changed its course,

creating a chute channel and cut-off bends. Additionally, a

large number of factors affect the formation and evolution

of the meandering belt by influencing various variables.

These factors include climate, sediment load, resistance of

banks, and bed to movement by flowing water. Among

these variables, the high-frequency cut-off is one of the

predominant controlling factors in the formation of the

complex meandering belt.

Figure 11 shows an approach to the reconstruction of

the ancient meandering belt by combining preliminary

results of ancient and current flow analyses. The single

meandering belt (blue line) was assembled from different

profile portions in the final stage, and the entire channel

had a downstream north–south direction. However, in

general, the ancient flow of the cut-off bend appeared

1321 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12

14 15 16 17 18 19 21 22 23 2420

1085

1090

1085

1090

1085

1090

1085

1090

1085

1090

1085

1090

1085

1090

1085

1090

1085

1090

1085

1090

206 207 208 209 211 213 214 215 216 217

Burrow pore

Log213

Log213

1094.91 m

Up Down

Log207

10cm

Gravel

Boulder clay1087.02 m

1088

.95

mBoulder clay

Log208Log208

Log208

1084.91 m

Log209

1090.35 m

1090.28 m

Log209

1086.23 m

Log208

1092.53 m

Log209

1093.16 m

Log211

1091.10 m

1092.48 m

Log214

1088.57 m

Log214

Log215

1089.13 m

Log214

1090.24 m

Log216Log216

1088.26 m1082.10 m

89

109110 111

9190 92

144167 168

169182

183197209

210232

231

208

181196

207229

230228

165142 143

166180

75

210232

Former point bar lobe

Expansion+rotation

Connecting-well profile

233235

236212

234

211184

213237

x15238 239214

240p86 243

262279261

260

278277258259

245 246244

216242215 198

187186185

172

Stage2 cutoff bar

Expansion

flow

6

20. Erosion surface;19. Deformed bedding;

18. Wavy bedding;

16. Tabular cross-bedding;17. Lateral accretion bedding;

15. Trough cross-bedding;14. Parallel bedding;

24. Sandstone.23. Argillaceous siltstone;22.Silty mudstone;21. Mudstone;

1. Well boreholes;2. Layer 1 meander belt;3. Layer 1 cutoff point bar;4. Layer 1 oxbow lake;5. Layer 2-left meandering channel;6. Layer 2 cutoff point bar for left channel;

7. Layer 2 oxbow lake; 13. Ripple cross lamination;8. Layer 2-middle meandering channel;9. Layer 2 cutoff point bar for middle channel;10. Layer 2-right meandering channel;11. Layer 1 chute channel;12. Layer 1 abandoned channel;

B

C

D

A

Initial channel centrelineFinal channel centreline

flow

Initial channel centrelineFinal channel centrelineInitial channel centrelineFinal channel centreline

Marker layer

06 207 208 09 211 213 214 215 216 217

Laye

r 1La

yer 2

(a)

(b)

(c)

SP SP SP SP SP SP SP SP SP SP

Fig. 9 Profile 3: profile map of comprehensive analysis including

evolution model of meandering belt based on multiple-well data

collected from the Daqing Oil Field. The profile parallels the

transverse axis of the meandering belt, with exaggerated vertical

scale: a core data, b lithological interpretation, and c planform

interpretation

Petroleum Science (2018) 15:722–743 735

123

discontinuous and frequently developed on the apex of the

channel towards the concave bank. The assembly from

different profile segments must be reasonable and obey

meandering fluid dynamics. To some extent, this assembly

method had a multiplicity of solutions and some uncer-

tainty consequently remains.

Additionally, multi-stage chute channels intensified pre-

meandering sediment complexity, and chute behaviour was

prone to inducing abandoned channels. For example, in

1085

1090

1085

1090

1085

1090

1095

1085

1090

1085

1090

1085

1090

1085

1090

1085

1090

1095

1085

1090

1095

1085

1090

1095

1085

1090

1085

1090

300 301 302 303 304 305 306 308 309 310 312 314

Log302

1091.38 m

Up Down

Log303

Imbricated gravel

Log301

1088.16 m

Log301

1088.32 m

Log302

Log303

1092.46 m

1090.13 m

1087.82 m

1092.41 m

Log304 Log309

Log304

1092.17 m

Log305

1091.08 m

Log305

1092.32 m

1090.01 m

lt

Log308

Log308

1091.78 m

1090.88 m

Log309

Log310

1091.02 m

1090.08 m

Log310

1091.32 m

346328

347 330348

349

333

331332

310312

294311293

282266283

265281

292

280279

260259258

278

291

307308

309329

327

306325

326

324323

322

303304

276 277288302

257

305290

Connecting-well profile

Expansion + rotation Expansion + rotation + deformation

La

yer 2

B

A

Flow

SP SP SP SP SP SP SP SP SP SP SP SP

(a)

(b)

(c)

Markerlayer

Laye

r 1

Layer 2 middle meandering channel

Reactive hannel and tanslation + rotation

Burrow pore

Directionalalignmentgravel

Burrow pore

Directionalalignmentgravel Directional

alignmentgravel

10 cm

13 14 15

16

1121 4 6 8 9 10 12

17 18 19 21 22 23 2420

3 5 7

1. Well boreholes;2. Layer 1 meander belt;3. Layer 1 cutoff point bar;4. Layer 1 oxbow lake;5. Layer 2-left meandering channel;6. Layer 2 cutoff point bar for left channel;

7. Layer 2 oxbow lake;8. Layer 2-middle meandering channel;9. Layer 2 cutoff point bar for middle channel;10. Layer 2-right meandering channel;11. Layer 1 chute channel;12. Layer 1 abandoned channel;

13. Ripple cross lamination;14. Parallel bedding;15. Trough cross-bedding;16. Tabular cross-bedding;17. Lateral accretion bedding;18. Wavy bedding;

19. Deformed bedding;20. Erosion surface;21. Mudstone;22. Silty mudstone;23. Argillaceous siltstone;24. Sandstone.

Initial channel centrelineFinal channel centreline

Initial channel centrelineFinal channel centrelineInitial channel centreline

Final channel centreline

Layer 2 left meandering channel

300 301 302 303 304 305 306 308 309 310 312 3

Fig. 10 Profile 4: profile map of comprehensive analysis including

evolution model of meandering belt based on multiple-well data from

the Daqing Oil Field. The profile parallels the transverse axis of the

meandering belt, with exaggerated vertical scale: a core data,

b lithological interpretation, and c planform interpretation

736 Petroleum Science (2018) 15:722–743

123

well 308, a small abandoned channel formed after chute

behaviour (Fig. 11); the pale green dotted line presents the

initial centreline and deep green presents the final channel

centreline. After the comprehensive reconstruction of the

migration models in each profile, the reconstruction of the

complex meandering belt of the study area was ultimately

completed as shown in Fig. 12.

7 Discussion

A series of 2D, connected well profiles of fluvial deposits

demonstrated depositional behaviour and vertical hetero-

geneity of lithofacies within the meander belt. Although

the dense well pattern improved the accuracy of the

interpretation, there were still some areas without data,

which created uncertainty in the interpretation of the

structure. Furthermore, complex channelised reworking

increased uncertainty (Eschard et al. 1991; Miall 1994;

Miall and Jones 2003; Ielpi and Ghinassi 2014), and the

isochronism of chronostratigraphic correction influenced

the results.

7.1 Expansion, translation, rotation,and aggradation

Meandering bend expansion (Figs. 4a, 12c) increases cur-

vature, flow path length, and sinuosity, and the bend apex

migrates away from the meandering belt axis (Jackson

1976; Ghinassi et al. 2013). Meandering bend translation

(Figs. 4b, 12b) was characterised by a bend apex parallel to

the meandering belt axis without an obvious change in

sinuosity aside from the translation and expansion mode.

On the other hand, meandering bend rotation (Figs. 4d–f,

12a) was characterised by increasing bend asymmetry, an

apex shifting away from the meandering belt axis, and a

nonlinear migration path. The upstream point bar crawled

on or was intercalated with the downstream point bar,

which indicated strong expansion of the meandering belt

(Fig. 12c). Furthermore, more upstream point bar deposits

from the meandering belt axis were well-preserved during

Inferred formation of a newbend by chute cutoff

Expansion Cutoff bar

Expansion + rotation

Expansion + translationExpansion + rotation

Cutoff bar

Former point bar lobe

Expansion + rotation

Stage 2 cutoff bar

Stage 2 cutoff bar

Latest stage meandering channelExpansion + translation

Expansion

Expansion

Translation

Reactive channel and translation + rotationStory 2 left meandering channel

Story 2 middle meandering channel

Expansion + rotationExpansion + rotation + deformation

TranslationRotation

8990 91

92 93 7778 79

8081

65 67 69 70

614

2843

60

95

116

148

170

184

213

238p86

262280292

309331

348

367

300301

302303304 305

306308 309 310 312

314

207208 209 211 213

214215

216217

0 200 m

Fig. 11 Ancient planform migration models in the central area of the Songliao Basin

Petroleum Science (2018) 15:722–743 737

123

continuous expansion (Fig. 12d). During meandering

channel transport and deposition, almost all of the upstream

bar suffered from partial erosion, leading to thalweg tra-

jectories of the expansion mode migrating downstream. In

contrast, those of the translation mode migrated upstream,

indicating the paleo-current direction (Fig. 12). The

continuous expansion and rotation mode could have led to

higher frequency cut-offs because the expansion mode

tended to form cut-offs. Moreover, the rotation mode was

more prone to form chute channels, which may form a

branch channel within a certain period of time.

39

4041

4243

4445

4647

48

49

34

3231

302928

2726

252423 22

1817

161514

1312

9

876

5354

55

56 5758 59

6061 62

63 6465

66

67 68

69 70

75

7677

78

8081

8283

84

8990 91

9279

93

9495

9697

9899

100101

108 109110 111

112

113 114

115

116117 118

119 120 121 122123

124125

126127

135

136141

142 143144

145146 147

148149

150151 152

153154155

165166

167168

169170

171172 173

174

179180

181182

183

184 185186

187

196

197

198

206207

208209

210211

212213

214215

216

217

225

226

227

228229

230

231

232

233234

235236

237

238239

240 241

242

243244

245 246

251

252253

254 255256 257

258259 260

261262

263264

265

272273 274

276 277278

279280 281

282

286287

288289

290291

292293

294

300

275

301302

303304 305

306 307

308309 310

311

312

319

320

321

322 323 324

325

326

327

328 329

330

331332

333 334

342 343 344

345

346

347348

349350

355 356 357358

359360

361362

363

364 365366

367

368369

370 371

383

384385

386 387401

x15

p86

Profile 1

Profile 3

Profile 4

Profile 2

1 2 3 4

1. Well location;2. Layer-1 meander belt;3. Layer 1 cutoff point bar;4. Layer 1 oxbow lake;5. Layer 2-left meandering channel;

5 6 7 8

6. Layer 2 cutoff point bar for left channel;7. Layer 2 oxbow lake;8. Layer 2-middle meandering channel;9. Layer 2 cutoff point bar for middle channel;10. Layer 2-right meandering channel;

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

9 10 11 12 13

11. Layer 2 cutoff point bar for right channel;12. Layer 2 abandoned channel;13. Boundary of complex meander belt.

bend1

bend 2

bend 3

bend 4

bend 5

115°55′7″115°54′44″ 115°55′31″

46°2

5′41

″

46°2

5′57

″

46°2

6′14

″

46°2

6′30

″

0 200 m

Fig. 12 Reconstruction of the complex meandering belt based on the

dense network of well data: a rotation mode, b translation mode,

c expansion mode, and d expansion mode. Bends 1–5: five bend units

that were used by empirical equations to calculate and compare with

the actual scale

738 Petroleum Science (2018) 15:722–743

123

Channel aggradation was a more important depositional

pattern, and its rate was derived from the direction of

thalweg trajectory migration. The denser and steeper the

trajectory was, the higher the rate of aggradation became,

and the easier it was for the meandering belt to form. In

general, a high rate of aggradation indicates that the back

bar is prone to roll on, even erasing the front bar, thereby

making it difficult for chute channels or cut-offs to form. A

higher aggradation rate is closely related to strong hydro-

dynamic conditions. Conversely, a lower aggradation rate

with gentle or straight thalweg trajectories indicates that

erosion occurs with a higher frequency. In addition, high

aggradation rates are prone to form accretion bedding,

whereas lower aggradation rates form lateral bedding.

7.2 Cause and control factors of meanderingchannel formation

The capacity for sediment transportation and bank material

composition are important factors that influence the river

planform. Planform formation is also related to its own

adjustments to achieve sediment transport equilibrium

(Qian 1985), and consequently, sinuosity gradually

increases. However, this equilibrium is relative; throughout

the evolution history of a meandering channel, it is con-

tinually adjusting before eventually stabilising (Gutierrez

and Abad 2014). In addition, the meandering channel can

be divided into high and low sinuosity at the critical value

of 1.7, which is derived from a large number of meandering

channels (Schumm and Lichty 1963; Leeder 1973).

Furthermore, sediments of high and low sinuosity

meandering channels are different from each other (Ghi-

nassi et al. 2016). Under relative strong hydrodynamic

conditions, the coarse sediments carried by the channel

generally exhibit weak lateral accretion, while those fine

sediments exhibit strong lateral accretion.

The identification of a single bend from a complex

compound meandering belt contains uncertainty due to the

complexity of generations among the bends, and therefore

estimation and reconstruction of a subsurface meandering

belt are difficult. For extremely complex cases, the mean-

dering belt is unrecoverable. Hence, this is a huge sys-

tematic project that can be improved continuously by

increasing well density.

7.3 Comparison of results from empiricalequations and actual reconstruction

The real channel depth may be influenced by a great

variety of factors, such as compaction, erosion, and inter-

actions between different channels of different stages.

However, the study strata of Layer 2 are in the late evo-

lutionary stage at the end of the fluvial deposition period in

the Yaojia Formation, thus attention can be paid predom-

inately to the interpretation of compaction. The meander-

ing belt studied here was characterised by channels with a

mean depth of 5 m from the channel interpretations of the

profiles above. This should be considered a minimum

thickness to account for post-depositional compaction.

Furthermore, the original bankfull depth (Gibling 2006)

should be considered for recovery. Sediment volume is

gradually reduced through loss of interparticle porosity

(Feng et al. 2010), and, therefore, when results based on

research on modern channels are used to estimate quanti-

tative parameters, the ancient sedimentary thickness should

be restored to pre-surface levels through a decompaction

correction. Thus, a quantitative correction between modern

and ancient sediments was established to acquire the geo-

metric and hydraulic parameters using an empirical equa-

tion based on modern sediments. Magara (1973) presented

an equation for burial depth and porosity based on clay

analysis:

u ¼ u0e�CZ ð1Þ

where u0 is the initial surface porosity, u is the buried

porosity, and C is the compaction coefficient (m-1).

Hegarty et al. (1988) generalised this equation for appli-

cation to all types of sandstone and mudstone and obtained

another compaction coefficient C. Therefore, the thickness

(sandstone and mudstone)–burial depth equation is as

follows:Zð0!H0Þð1�u0e�CZÞdz¼

Zð0!zþHÞð1�u0e�CZÞdz

ð2Þ

where u0 (%) is the initial surface porosity, C is the

compaction coefficient, H0 (m) is the initial surface

thickness, z (m) is the burial depth, and H (m) is the burial

Buried depth, m

Thic

knes

s of

san

dbod

y, m

00

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1000 2000 3000 4000

9080

7060

50403020

Fig. 13 Sandstone thickness variation with increasing burial depth,

sandstone materials from Feng et al. (2010)

Petroleum Science (2018) 15:722–743 739

123

thickness. The initial porosity of sandstone is 45% and its

empirical C is 0.00025. Thickness after post-depositional

compaction was calculated using these initial thickness

data before compaction (20 m, 30 m, 40 m, …, 90 m), and

the results are shown in Fig. 13. Based on the above-

mentioned empirical relationship, compaction rates are

summarised in Table 3. Using the rates in Table 3, the

5-m-thick channel sandstone from a depth of 1100 m was

restored to its original thickness of approximately 5.8 m.

The equations used in this study are presented in

Table 4. Equation 1 is from Leeder (1973), Eqs. 2–5 are

from Williams (1986) (Table 2, Eq. 30–33), Eq. 6 was

compiled by the authors, but based on Leeder (1973) and

Williams (1986) (Table 2, Eq. 40), and Eq. 7 is from

Carlston (1965), albeit slightly modified. D is the mean

bankfull depth, Rb is the channel bend radius of curvature,

Lm is the meander wavelength, S is channel sinuosity, Lb is

the along channel bend length, Wc is the mean bankfull

channel width, Q is the annual average discharge rate, and

Wm is the meandering belt width.

Using the above-mentioned restored paleo-channel

thickness values, other relevant parameters could be esti-

mated by using the empirical equations compiled by Wil-

liams (1986) and based on instances of modern sediments

with sinuosities of C 1.2, combined with the hydrody-

namic equation of Carlston (1965) (Table 4).

The results showed that the reconstruction parameters

were in accordance with the estimates from the seven

empirical equation in Table 4, except for bend 2, which

was slightly larger (Table 5). In comparison, the larger

geometric parameter values from the equations (Table 4,

Eqs. 1–7) indicated that these statistical estimates were

highly approximate or were due to an equation derived

from the uncompacted modern sediment samples, and the

thickness therefore seems exaggerated. Bend 2 (Fig. 10)

was characterised by a translation migration mode

(Fig. 4b), whereas bend 3 experienced expansion (Fig. 4a).

Contrasting with the results shown in Table 5, bend 2

showed a stronger hydrodynamic force, and this kind of

bend is prone to downstream migration with an erosional

upstream bar and overlapped downstream bar under strong

hydrodynamic conditions.

8 Conclusions

1. An investigation based on Google Earth images

(Fig. 4) showed that meandering channel migration

patterns are characterised by expansion, translation,

rotation, expansion and translation, expansion and

downstream rotation, constriction and downstream

rotation, and expansion and countercurrent rotation

modes, but the meandering channel migration patterns

were mainly composed of the above-mentioned

migration models under natural conditions. The

expansion mode was prone to cut-offs because of

continuously increasing sinuosity when the path length

reached a certain critical value. The neck of the bend

was cut and formed an abandoned channel. Further-

more, the rotation pattern more easily formed chute

channels because of continuously increasing sinuosity

combined with strong hydrodynamic forces and

increased the probability of a crevasse and chute

channel.

2. From estimations made using empirical equations, the

ancient mean bankfull width (Wc) was approximately

Table 3 Sandstone compaction rates at different burial depths

Burial depth z, m 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500

Compaction rate

n

1 1.08 1.16 1.23 1.32 1.35 1.40 1.45

Table 4 Empirical equations for estimating quantitative parameters of meandering channels

Reference number Equation Unit Standard deviation of residuals, % Correlation coefficient

? -

1 Wc = 6.8D1.54 m / / /

2 Wm = 4.3Wc1.12 m 74 42 0.96

3 Lb = 5.1Wc1.12 m 65 39 0.97

4 Lm = 7.5Wc1.12 m 65 39 0.96

5 Rb = 1.5Wc1.12 m 55 35 0.97

6 S = 14e0.42D-0.31 / / / /

7 Q ¼ 0:004e1:61 ln Lm m3/s / / /

740 Petroleum Science (2018) 15:722–743

123

100 m, the single meandering belt mean width was

approximately 800 m, the mean channel bend radius of

curvature was approximately 250 m, the mean along

channel bend length was approximately 700 m, the

mean meander wavelength was approximately 1300 m,

the channel average sinuosity was approximately

almost 3.0 (S[ 1.7 was high sinuosity), and the

annual mean discharge rate was approximately

450 m3/s. For multi-layer fluvial successions, the lower

portion was more easily eroded, and therefore it was

difficult to completely preserve the bottom meandering

belt. On a geological timescale, the meandering

channel was more prone to reworking. During mean-

dering channel evolution, the direction of diverging

thalweg trajectories indicated that the upstream bar

was subjected to powerful erosion, whereas the

downstream bar experienced expansion, translation,

or rotation.

3. The results from seven empirical equations and the

actual reconstruction agreed, indicating that ancient

sedimentary thickness should be restored to original

surface levels through decompaction correction to

acquire the real geometric parameters of the meander-

ing channel. Otherwise, the results would be smaller

than the actual values.

4. The structure of ancient meandering channels is

exceedingly complex and, in terms of geological time,

tends to have continuous cut-offs that contribute to

meandering belt formation.

Acknowledgements This research was also supported by the National

Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 41372125) and National

Science and Technology Major Project (No. 2016ZX05063002-006).

We thank also Accdon for linguistic assistance during the preparation

of this manuscript. We deeply appreciate Associate Editor Dr.

Chenglin Gong and the two anonymous reviewers for their insightful

comments and suggestions.

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative

Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creative

commons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, dis-

tribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give

appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a

link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were

made.

References

Abad JD, Frias CE, Buscaglia GC, et al. Modulation of the flow

structure by progressive bedforms in the Kinoshita meandering

channel. Earth Surf Proc Landf. 2013;38(13):1612–22. https://

doi.org/10.1002/esp.3460.

Abad JD, Garcia MH. RVR Meander: a toolbox for re-meandering of

channelized streams. Comput Geosci. 2006;32(1):92–101.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cageo.2005.05.006.

Table5

Co

mp

aris

on

of

resu

lts

fro

mem

pir

ical

equ

atio

ns

and

actu

alre

con

stru

ctio

n

Ben

du

nit

sM

eth

od

sP

ost

-co

mp

acte

d

thic

kn

ess,

m

Pre

-co

mp

acte

d

thic

kn

ess,

m

Lm

,m

Lb,

mW

c,

mW

m,

mR

b,

mS

Q,

m3/s

Par

tial

rev

eale

dw

ells

Ben

d1

Eq

uat

ion

5.1

5.9

13

71

.09

32

.31

04

.67

86

.02

74

.22

.41

44

9.5

60

,8

9,

and

79

Act

ual

val

ue

15

00

.08

00

.01

00

.07

60

.01

80

2.2

/

Ben

d2

Eq

uat

ion

5.3

6.2

14

93

.41

01

5.5

11

2.9

85

6.2

42

98

.72

.37

51

5.8

38

1,

98

,an

d1

21

Act

ual

val

ue

10

50

.06

00

.01

05

.06

40

.01

50

3.8

/

Ben

d3

Eq

uat

ion

4.8

5.6

12

53

.08

52

.09

6.5

71

8.4

25

0.6

2.4

43

88

.82

23

8,

23

9,

and

24

0

Act

ual

val

ue

11

50

.06

50

.01

00

.03

60

.02

00

1.2

/

Ben

d4

Eq

uat

ion

5.0

5.8

13

31

.29

05

.21

01

.97

63

.22

66

.22

.42

42

8.6

23

29

,3

46

,an

d3

48

Act

ual

val

ue

14

50

.08

50

.09

5.0

85

0.0

38

04

.5/

Ben

d5

Eq

uat

ion

5.2

6.0

14

11

.39

59

.71

07

.48

09

.22

82

.32

.40

47

0.9

33

56

,3

57

,an

d3

86

Act

ual

val

ue

12

50

.07

00

.01

00

.08

00

.02

70

2.5

/

Petroleum Science (2018) 15:722–743 741

123

Abad JD, Garcia MH. Experiments in a high-amplitude Kinoshita

meandering channel: 2. Implications of bend orientation on bed

morphodynamics. Water Resour Res. 2009;45(2):W02402.

https://doi.org/10.1029/2008wr007016.

Brice JC. Evolution of meander loops. Geol Soc Am Bull.

1974;85(4):581–6. https://doi.org/10.1130/0016-

7606(1974)85%3c581:EOML%3e2.0.CO;2.

Bridge JS, Jalfin GA, Georgieff SM. Geometry, lithofacies, and

spatial distribution of Cretaceous fluvial sandstone bodies, San

Jorge Basin, Argentina: outcrop analog for the hydrocarbon-

bearing Chubut Group. J Sediment Res. 2000;70(2):341–59.

https://doi.org/10.1306/2DC40915-0E47-11D7-

8643000102C1865D.

Carlston CW. The relation of free meander geometry to stream

discharge and its geomorphic implications. Am J Sci.

1965;263(10):864–85. https://doi.org/10.2475/ajs.263.10.864.

Chen D, Duan JD. Simulating sine-generated meandering channel

evolution with an analytical model. J Hydraul Res.

2006;44(3):363–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221686.2006.

9521688.

Chen L, Lin Z, Yin T, et al. Meandering process and migration

architecture: based on the Nowitna River. Earth Sci Res.

2017;6(2):76–90. https://doi.org/10.5539/esr.v6n2p76.

Collinson JD, Collinson D, Thompson DB. Sedimentary structures.

Toledo, OH: HarperCollins; 1982.

Cuevas Martınez JL, Cabrera Perez L, Marcuello A, et al. Exhumed

channel sandstone networks within fluvial fan deposits from the

Oligo-Miocene Caspe Formation, South-east Ebro Basin (North-

east Spain). Sedimentology. 2010;57(1):162–89. https://doi.org/

10.1111/j.1365-3091.2009.01096.x.

Donselaar ME, Overeem I. Connectivity of fluvial point-bar deposits:

an example from the Miocene Huesca fluvial fan, Ebro Basin,

Spain. AAPG Bull. 2008;92(9):1109–29. https://doi.org/10.1306/

04180807079.

Du X, Xie X, Lu Y, et al. Distribution of continental red paleosols and

their forming mechanisms in the Late Cretaceous Yaojia

Formation of the Songliao Basin, NE China. Cretac Res.

2011;32(2):244–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cretres.2010.12.

010.

Engel FL, Rhoads BL. Three-dimensional flow structure and patterns

of bed shear stress in an evolving compound meander bend.

Earth Surf Proc Landf. 2016;41(9):1211–26. https://doi.org/10.

1002/esp.3895.

Eschard R, Ravenne C, Houel P, et al. Three-dimensional reservoir

architecture of a valley-fill sequence and a deltaic aggradational

sequence: influences of minor relative sea-level variations

(Scalby Formation, England). In: Miall AD, Tyler A, editors.

The three-dimensional facies architecture of terrigenous clastic

sediments and its implications for hydrocarbon discovery and

recovery. SEPM. Concepts in sedimentology and paleontology,

vol 3, p. 133–47; 1991. https://doi.org/10.2110/csp.91.03.

Feng Z, Jia C, Xie X, et al. Tectonostratigraphic units and

stratigraphic sequences of the nonmarine Songliao Basin,

northeast China. Basin Res. 2010;22(1):79–95. https://doi.org/

10.1111/j.1365-2117.2009.00445.x.

Frascati A, Lanzoni S. Morphodynamic regime and long-term

evolution of meandering rivers. J Geophys Res Earth Surf.

2009. https://doi.org/10.1029/2008jf001101.

Ghinassi M, Billi P, Libsekal Y, et al. Inferring fluvial morphody-

namics and overbank flow control from 3D outcrop sections of a

Pleistocene point bar, Dandiero Basin, Eritrea. J Sediment Res.

2013;83(12):1066–84. https://doi.org/10.2110/jsr.2013.80.

Ghinassi M, Ielpi A, Aldinucci M, et al. Downstream-migrating

fluvial point bars in the rock record. Sediment Geol.

2016;334:66–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sedgeo.2016.01.005.

Ghinassi M, Nemec W, Aldinucci M, et al. Plan-form evolution of

ancient meandering rivers reconstructed from longitudinal

outcrop sections. Sedimentology. 2014;61(4):952–77. https://

doi.org/10.1111/sed.12081.

Gibling MR. Width and thickness of fluvial channel bodies and valley

fills in the geological record: a literature compilation and

classification. J Sediment Res. 2006;76(5):731–70. https://doi.

org/10.2110/jsr.2006.060.

Guneralp I, Abad JD, Zolezzi G, et al. Advances and challenges in

meandering channels research. Geomorphology.

2012;163–164:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2012.04.

011.

Guneralp I, Rhoads BL. Influence of floodplain erosional hetero-

geneity on planform complexity of meandering rivers. Geophys

Res Lett. 2011;38(14):L14401. https://doi.org/10.1029/

2011GL048134.

Gutierrez RR, Abad JD. On the analysis of the medium term planform

dynamics of meandering rivers. Water Resour Res.

2014;50(5):3714–33. https://doi.org/10.1002/2012WR013358.

Harms JC, Southard JB, et al. Depositional environments as

interpreted from primary sedimentary structures and stratifica-

tion sequences. SEPM Short Course. 1975;2:5–43.

Hegarty KA, Weissel JK, Mutter JC. Subsidence history of

Australia’s southern margin: constraints on basin models. AAPG

Bull. 1988;72(5):615–33.

Hickin EJ. The development of meanders in natural river-channels.

Am J Sci. 1974;274(4):414–42. https://doi.org/10.2475/ajs.274.

4.414.

Hooke J. Changes in river meanders: a review of techniques and

results of analyses. Prog Phys Geog. 1984;8(4):473–508. https://

doi.org/10.1177/030913338400800401.

Hooke J. River meander behaviour and instability: a framework for

analysis. Trans Inst Br Geogr. 2003;28(2):238–53. https://doi.

org/10.1111/1475-5661.00089.

Hubbard SM, Smith DG, Nielsen H, et al. Seismic geomorphology

and sedimentology of a tidally influenced river deposit, Lower

Cretaceous Athabasca oil sands, Alberta, Canada. AAPG Bull.

2011;95(7):1123–45. https://doi.org/10.1306/12131010111.

Ielpi A, Ghinassi M. Planform architecture, stratigraphic signature

and morphodynamics of an exhumed Jurassic meander plain

(Scalby Formation, Yorkshire, UK). Sedimentology.

2014;61(7):1923–60. https://doi.org/10.1111/sed.12122.

Jackson RG. Depositional model of point bars in the lower Wabash

River. J Sediment Res. 1976;46(3):579–94. https://doi.org/10.

1306/212f6ff5-2b24-11d7-8648000102c1865d.

Johannesson H, Parker G. Linear theory of river meanders. In: Ikeda

S, Parker G, editors. River meandering. New York, NY: Wiley;

1989. p. 181–213.

Kasvi E. Fluvio-morphological processes of meander bends-combin-

ing conventional field measurements, close-range remote sensing

and computational modelling. Turku: University of Turku; 2015.

Konsoer KM, Rhoads BL, Langendoen EJ, et al. Spatial variability in

bank resistance to erosion on a large meandering, mixed

bedrock-alluvial river. Geomorphology. 2016;252:80–97.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2015.08.002.

Langendoen EJ, Mendoza A, Abad JD, et al. Improved numerical

modeling of morphodynamics of rivers with steep banks. Adv

Water Resour. 2016;93(Part A):4–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.

advwatres.2015.04.002.

Leeder MR. Fluviatile fining-upwards cycles and the magnitude of

palaeochannels. Geol Mag. 1973;110(03):265–76. https://doi.

org/10.1017/S0016756800036098.

Leeder MR, Nami M. Sedimentary models for the non-marine Scalby

Formation (Middle Jurassic) and evidence for late Bajocian/

Bathonian uplift of the Yorkshire Basin. Proc Yorks Geol Soc.

1979;42:461–82. https://doi.org/10.1144/pygs.42.3.461.

742 Petroleum Science (2018) 15:722–743

123

Lin Z, Shan J, Chen L. Geomorphology processes of channel

planform migration on meandering rivers. Acta Geogr Sin (Engl

Ed). 2017;91:134–5. https://doi.org/10.1111/1755-6724.13223.

Lin Z, Shan J, Chen L. Geomorphology processes of channel

planform migration on modern meandering rivers. Acta Sedi-

mentol Sin. 2018;36(6):427–45. https://doi.org/10.14027/j.issn.

1000-0550.2018.045 (in Chinese).Magara K. Compaction and fluid migration in Cretaceous shales of

western Canada. Paper 72-18, vol 111, issue 4. Ottawa:

Geological Survey of Canada; 1973. p. 360. https://doi.org/10.

1017/s0016756800038851.

Mendoza A, Abad JD, Frias CE, et al. Planform dynamics of the

Iquitos anabranching structure in the Peruvian Upper Amazon

River. Earth Surf Proc Landf. 2016;41(7):961–70. https://doi.

org/10.1017/S0016756800038851.

Miall AD. Lithofacies types and vertical profile models in braided

river deposits: a summary. In: Miall AD, editor. Fluvial

sedimentology, vol. 5. Calgary: Canadian Society of Petroleum

Geologists: Memoir; 1977. p. 597–604.

Miall AD. Architectural-element analysis: a new method of facies

analysis applied to fluvial deposits. Earth Sci Rev.

1985;22(4):261–308. https://doi.org/10.1016/0012-

8252(85)90001-7.

Miall AD. Reconstructing fluvial macroform architecture from two-

dimensional outcrops: examples from the Castlegate Sandstone,

Book Cliffs, Utah. J Sediment Res. 1994;64(2):146–58. https://

doi.org/10.1306/D4267F78-2B26-11D7-8648000102C1865D.

Miall AD. Fluvial depositional systems. New York, NY: Springer;

2014.

Miall AD, Jones BG. Fluvial architecture of the Hawkesbury

sandstone (Triassic), near Sydney, Australia. J Sediment Res.

2003;73(4):531–45. https://doi.org/10.1306/111502730531.

Motta D, Abad JD, Langendoen EJ, et al. A simplified 2D model for

meander migration with physically-based bank evolution. Geo-

morphology. 2012a;163–164:10–25.

Motta D, Abad JD, Langendoen EJ, et al. The effects of floodplain

soil heterogeneity on meander planform shape. Water Resour

Res. 2012b;48(9):W09518. https://doi.org/10.1029/

2011WR01160.

Nami M. An exhumed Jurassic meander belt from Yorkshire,

England. Geol Mag. 1976;113(1):47–52. https://doi.org/10.

1017/S0016756800043004.

Neal A. Ground-penetrating radar and its use in sedimentology: principles,

problems and progress. Earth Sci Rev. 2004;66(3):261–330. https://

doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2004.01.004.

Perucca E, Camporeale C, Ridolfi L. Significance of the riparian

vegetation dynamics on meandering river morphodynamics.

Water Resour Res. 2007;43(3):W03430. https://doi.org/10.1029/

2006WR005234.

Qian N. On the classification and causes of formation of different

channel patterns. Acta Geogr Sin. 1985;40(1):1–10. https://doi.

org/10.11821/xb198501001 (in Chinese).Ruiu J, Caumon G, Viseur S. Modeling channel forms and related

sedimentary objects using a boundary representation based on

non-uniform rational B-splines. Math Geosci.

2016;48(3):259–84. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11004-015-9629-3.

Schrott L, Sass O. Application of field geophysics in geomorphology:

advances and limitations exemplified by case studies. Geomor-

phology. 2008;93(1):55–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.

2006.12.024.

Schumm SA, Lichty RW. Channel widening and flood-plain

construction along Cimarron River in southwestern Kansas.

Prof. Paper 352-D. Alexandria, VA: USGS; 1963.

Schwendel AC, Nicholas AP, Aalto RE, et al. Interaction between

meander dynamics and floodplain heterogeneity in a large

tropical sand-bed river: the Rio Beni, Bolivian Amazon. Earth

Surf Proc Landf. 2015;40(15):2026–40. https://doi.org/10.1002/

esp.3777.

Seminara G. Meanders. J Fluid Mech. 2006;554:271–97. https://doi.

org/10.1017/S0022112006008925.

Seminara G. Fluvial sedimentary patterns. Annu Rev Fluid Mech.

2010;42:43–66. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-fluid-121108-

145612.

Shan JF. Architectural element method for fluvial reservoir. Beijing:

Science Press; 2017.

Słowik M. Holocene evolution of meander bends in lowland river

valley formed in complex geological conditions (the Obra River,

Poland). Geogr Ann A. 2014;96(1):61–81. https://doi.org/10.

1111/geoa.12029.

Słowik M. The influence of meander bend evolution on the formation

of multiple cutoffs: findings inferred from floodplain architecture

and bend geometry. Earth Surf Proc Landf. 2016;41(5):626–41.

https://doi.org/10.1002/esp.3851.

Smith DG, Hubbard SM, Lavigne JR, et al. Stratigraphy of counter-

point bar and eddy-accretion deposits in low energy meander

belts of the Peace–Athabasca delta, northeast Alberta, Canada.

In: From river to rock record: the preservation of fluvial

sediments and their subsequent interpretation, vol 97. SEPM

Special Publication; 2011. p. 143–52. https://doi.org/10.2110/

sepmsp.097.143.

Smith DG, Hubbard SM, Leckie DA, et al. Counter point bar deposits:

lithofacies and reservoir significance in the meandering modern

Peace River and ancient McMurray Formation, Alberta, Canada.

Sedimentology. 2009;56(6):1655–69. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.

1365-3091.2009.01050.x.

Sorokin AP, Malyshev YF, Kaplun VB, et al. Evolution and deep

structure of the Zeya-Bureya and Songliao sedimentary basins

(East Asia). Russ J Pac Geol. 2013;7(2):77–91. https://doi.org/

10.1134/S1819714013020085.

Tornqvist TE. Holocene alternation of meandering and anastomosing

fluvial systems in the Rhine-Meuse delta (central Netherlands)

controlled by sea-level rise and subsoil erodibility. J Sediment

Res. 1993;63(4):683–93. https://doi.org/10.1306/D4267BB8-

2B26-11D7-8648000102C1865D.

Waksmundzka MI. Sequence stratigraphy of Carboniferous paralic

deposits in the Lublin Basin (SE Poland). Acta Geol Pol.

2010;60(4):557–97.

Waksmundzka MI. Braided-river and hyperconcentrated-flow depos-

its from the Carboniferous of the Lublin Basin (SE Poland)—a

sedimentological study of core data. Geologos.

2012;18(3):135–61. https://doi.org/10.2478/v10118-012-0008-y.

Wang C, Feng Z, Zhang L, et al. Cretaceous paleogeography and

paleoclimate and the setting of SKI borehole sites in Songliao

Basin, northeast China. Palaeogeogr Palaeoclimatol Palaeoecol.

2013;385:17–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.palaeo.2012.01.030.

Wang P, Xie X, Mattern F, et al. The Cretaceous Songliao Basin:

volcanogenic succession, sedimentary sequence and tectonic evolu-

tion, NE China. Acta Geologica Sinica (Engl Ed).

2007;81(6):1002–11. https://doi.org/10.3321/j.issn:1000-9515.2007.

06.014.

Williams GP. River meanders and channel size. J Hydrol.

1986;88(1–2):147–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-

1694(86)90202-7.

Willis B. Interpretation of bedding geometry within ancient point-bar

deposits. In: Marzo M, Puigdefabregas C, editors. Alluvial

sedimentation, special publication 17. International Association

of Sedimentologists. Hoboken, NJ: Blackwell; 2009. p. 101–14.

Wu S, Yue D, Liu J, et al. Hierarchy modeling of subsurface

palaeochannel reservoir architecture. Sci China Ser D.

2008;51(2):126–37. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11430-008-0624-0.

Xue P. An introduction to reservoir models of point bar facies.

Beijing: Petroleum Industry Press; 1991. p. 55–63 (in Chinese).

Petroleum Science (2018) 15:722–743 743

123