Sedimentology and Petrography of the

Ghayathi Formation (Quaternary, Abu

Dhabi)

Khaled Abdulkarim Murad Mohamad

MSc. Thesis

May 2020

A thesis submitted to Khalifa University of Science and Technology in accordance with the
requirements of the degree of MSc. in Petroleum Geosciences in the Department of Earth
Sciences.
 Sedimentology and Petrography of the
Ghayathi Formation (Quaternary, Abu Dhabi)
by

Khaled Abdulkarim Murad Mohamad

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the

requirements for the degree of

MSc. in Petroleum Geosciences

at

Khalifa University

Thesis Committee

Prof. Thomas Steuber (Supervisor), Dr. Andrea Ceriani (Committee Member),

Khalifa University Khalifa University
Dr. Mohammad Alsuwaidi (Co- Advisor),
Khalifa University

May 2020
Abstract
Khaled Abdulkarim Murad Mohamad, “Sedimentology and Petrography of the Ghayathi
Formation (Quaternary, Abu Dhabi)”, MSc. Thesis, MSc in Petroleum Geoscience,
Department of Earth Science, Khalifa University of Science and Technology, United Arab
Emirates, May, 2020.

In the central and western UAE, Quaternary outcrops of loose or moderately to well-cemented,
carbonate-dominated palaeodune sandstones occur as isolated areas draping older Miocene or
Madinat Zayed Formation bedrock. These deposits have been named Ghayathi Formation, after
a type section at Jabal Marban, near Ghayathi in Abu Dhabi Emirate.
The Ghayathi Formation consists of aeolianites deposited before and after the last interglacial
period. The shallow marine Fuwayrit Formation and recent aeolianites overlie the Ghayathi
Formation. The Quaternary deposits in UAE provide information of the sea-level change since
LGM (the last glacial maximum), and the understanding of the relationship between the
Ghayathi and Fuwayrit formations will contribute to establish accurate relative dates of these
formations.
Most of the previous studies on Quaternary sediments do not include detailed research of the
sedimentology of the Ghayathi Formation even though it was indicated in several locations in
the UAE, Oman, Saudi Arabia, and India.
A comprehensive review of the available numerical ages for the Ghayathi Formation using
radiocarbon and optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) resulted in several age groups from
160 ka to 9 ka. The Fuwayrit Formation ranges from 87 to 130.4 ka in some articles while
others dated it to more recent ages. Age dating for both formations went through a long debate
and many factors potentially affected the uncertainty in the age dating of the Ghayathi
Formation such as the water content and cosmic dose history of the samples.
The paleogeography of the Arabian Gulf is important for the genesis of the Ghayathi Formation
as exposed Arabian Gulf seafloor was the source of sediments deflated by shamal wind in
interglacial periods.
The main objective of this research is to investigate and better understand the composition and
sedimentation processes for the Ghayathi aeolianite, and its relationship with the Fuwayrit
Formation through logging, sampling of several sections of the Ghayathi and Fuwayrit
formations and chemical analysis. Forty-nine samples from 18 locations, all located in Abu

i
Dhabi emirate, have been collected. Thin sections have been prepared and all samples were
analyzed by XRF for their bulk chemical composition.
The lithology of the Ghayathi Formation shows alternation of siliciclastic and carbonate-rich
laminae; with a pattern of increasing carbonate content and grain size as heading from the land
to the shore.
The Ghayathi Formation shows various types of lamination and crosses bedding, and these
structures are absent in the Fuwayrit Formation. The shallow marine Fuwayrit Formation is
characterized by sedimentary structures such as bioturbation and the presence of intraclasts.
The Ghayathi Formation was strongly affected by meteoric diagenesis. Nevertheless, meniscus
cement as indicated in previous studies was not found. The petrographic analysis illustrates a
high porosity, enhanced by the diagenetic dissolution of aragonite grains. Micritization and
isopachous cement had a crucial role in keeping the original shape of originally aragonite
bioclastic grains after deposition and during diagenesis. The cementation pattern is variable
with generally stronger cementation closer to the shore.
The geochemical data are broadly consistent with the petrographic interpretations and show
that Si and Ca concentrations from XRF are consistent with percentages of siliciclastics and
calcite estimated from the thin sections. The XRF analysis illustrates different relationships
between different elements, as shown in scatter plots. By quantifying the correlation
coefficient, it shows trends and positive patterns between siliciclastic elements and negative
correlation with calcite.
An inland outcrop of very weakly cemented aeolianites is proposed to represent an older period
of deposition and cementations, as its composition and diagenesis do not match with other
outcrops of the Ghayathi Formation.
Indexing Terms: Sedimentology, Ghayathi Formation, , Fuwayrit Formation, Diagenesis.

ii
Acknowledgement
I would like to thank my supervisor Professor Thomas Steuber for support, valuable
discussions and feedback. Warren Gache Marilag prepared the thin sections and Prasanth
Thiyagarajan provided technical support with the analytical methods used. Their help was
greatly appreciated. In addition, I would like to give thanks to all my colleagues, family and
close friends for their unconditional support. Completing this would not have been possible
without those incredible people.

iii
Declaration and Copyright

Declaration

I declare that the work in this thesis was carried out in accordance with the regulations of
Khalifa University of Science and Technology. The work is entirely my own except where
indicated by special reference in the text. Any views expressed in the thesis are those of the
author and in no way represent those of Khalifa University of Science and Technology. No part
of the thesis has been presented to any other university for any degree.

Khaled Abdulkarim Murad Mohamad

Author Name: _____________________________________________________

Author Signature: __________________________________________________

07/05/2020
Date: _________________________________

Copyright ©

No part of this thesis may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any
form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning or otherwise,
without prior written permission of the author. The thesis may be made available for
consultation in Khalifa University of Science and Technology Library and for inter-library
lending for use in another library and may be copied in full or in part for any bona fide library
or research worker, on the understanding that users are made aware of their obligations under
copyright, i.e. that no quotation and no information derived from it may be published without
the author's prior consent.

iv
 Contents
Abstract ....................................................................................................................................... i
Acknowledgement ................................................................................................................... iii
Declaration and Copyright ........................................................................................................ iv
Contents .............................................................................................................................. ivvii
List of Figures ..........................................................................................................................vii
List of Appendix’s .................................................................................................................... xi
List of Tables ............................................................................................................................ xi
1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 12
2. Literature Review................................................................................................................. 13
2.1 Geological Background ................................................................................................. 13
2.2 Pleistocene history of the Arabian Gulf and Abu Dhabi ............................................... 15
2.3 Paleogeography of the Arabian Gulf during deposition of the Ghayathi Formation ..... 17
2.4 Sedimentology, petrography and diagenesis of the Ghayathi Formation ...................... 19
2.5 Comparison with Ghayathi Formation deposits elsewhere ........................................... 26
2.6 Compilation of available numerical ages for the Ghayathi Formation, and evaluation of
their reliability...................................................................................................................... 32
2.7 Fuwayrit Formation ....................................................................................................... 37
3. Methodology ........................................................................................................................ 39
3.1 Field examination........................................................................................................... 39
3.2 Thin section analysis ...................................................................................................... 44
3.3 Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) .......................................................................... 44
3.4 XRF ................................................................................................................................ 45
4. Results .................................................................................................................................. 46
4.1 Field examination........................................................................................................... 46
4.1.1 Location 1 Near Al Dhafra airbase: ........................................................................ 46
4.1.2 Location 2 Near Al Razeen road:............................................................................ 46
4.1.3 Location 3 Near Hamem road 1: ............................................................................. 46
4.1.4 Location 4 Near Hamem road 2: ............................................................................. 47
4.1.5 Locations 5-7: Near Abu Dhabi - Dubai border ..................................................... 51
4.1.6 Location 14: Sweihan - Al Hayer road: .................................................................. 58
4.2. Thin section analysis ..................................................................................................... 60
4.2.1 Composition ............................................................................................................ 60
4.2.1 Carbonate petrography ............................................................................................ 60
4.2.2 Siliciclastic petrography.......................................................................................... 67
4.2.3 Diagenesis ............................................................................................................... 68

v
 4.2.4 Sedimentary structures: ........................................................................................... 69
4.3 SEM ............................................................................................................................... 70
4.4 XRF ................................................................................................................................ 74
5. Discussion ............................................................................................................................ 79
5.1 Comparison of compositional estimates from thin sections and XRF analysis ............. 79
5.2 Ghayathi Formation ....................................................................................................... 82
5.2.1 Lamination .............................................................................................................. 85
5.3 Fuwayrit Formation ....................................................................................................... 87
5.4 Diagenesis, regional cementation patterns ..................................................................... 91
5.5 Ghayathi Formation at location 2 (Razeen road) ........................................................... 96
6. Conclusion ........................................................................................................................... 98
7. References ............................................................................................................................ 99

vi
List of Figures
Figure Page number
The geographic location of the United Arab Emirates and Abu
1 12
Dhabi coastline (modified after Court et al., 2017).
Surface geology of the UAE, dunes, and present-day wind
2 13
patterns. Modified after (Farrant et al.,2015)
Recent adjustments to the geological time- scale have led to the
Pleistocene being sub-divided into four distinct periods. The
3 subdivision is based on principal global chronostratigraphic, 14
paleomagnetism, and the oxygen isotopic composition of
benthic foraminifera. (Farrant et al., 2012).
Allocation of the main formations deposited during the
4 Holocene – Miocene in Abu Dhabi Emirate. (Farrant et al., 15
2012)
Late Pleistocene paleographic maps of the Arabian Gulf
5 16
(Strohmenger and Jameson, 2015)
The fluctuation of sea level and paleoclimate in the region of
the Arabian Gulf from MIS 4 to MIS 1 (Rose, 2010), recorded
6 17
Ghayathi Formation dates illustrated in red from Farrant et al.,
2012&2015.
Purple color is showing the occurrence of the Ghayathi
7 19
Formation in the UAE. Modified after Farrant et al., (2015).
A cross-section showing the generalized stratigraphic
8 relationship of the Ghayathi Formation and surrounding rocks 20
in the northern Rub' al- Khali (Farrant and Ellison, 2014).
Schematic cross-section of the Ghayathi and Fuwayrit
9 formations in Abu Dhabi showing the stratigraphy for the 21
zeugen (modified after Evans, 2011).
Cross-bedded carbonate-rich sandstone of the Ghayathi
10 22
Formation (Farrant et al., 2012).
Well cemented cross-bedded Ghayathi Formation (Farrant et
11 23
al., 2012).
Paleo-wind vectors deduced from aeolian dune cross-bedding
12 24
in the Ghayathi Formation (Farrant et al., 2012).
Wahiba desert illustrated by the black arrow. (Glennie and
13 26
Singhvi, 2002)
Various allochems cemented by low-Mg sparry calcite cement
14 27
in miliolite, the bar scale indicates 350 microns (Biswas, 1971).
Miliolite Formation in the south and southwest of Saurashtra
15 28
state, India (Bhatt, 2003).
16 Miliolite deposit in Kutch, India (Bhatt, 2003). 29
17 Dammam aeolianite location (Hussain, 2006). 30
18 Dammam aeolianite outcrop (Hussain, 2006). 31

vii
 OSL age of available data from Farrant et al., (2012, 2015) for
19 the Ghayathi Formation modified after (Farrant et al., 2015). 34

Late Middle Pleistocene to Holocene (180 ka to present)

temporal evolution of the UAE with various paleo-climatic
20 35
proxy indicators and Ghayathi OSL dates. Modified after
Farrant et al., (2012).
Section at the top part of the Fuwayrit Formation showing
21 cross-bedded carbonate grainstone, Abu Al Abyadh Island 36
(Farrant et al., 2012).
An outcrop of the Ghayathi Formation capped by Fuwayrit
22 37
Formation on Futaysi Island, Stevens et al., 2014.
Satellite image of study area. Numbers indicate the locations
23 40
studied (Appendix 1).
24 Locations sampled (see Appendix 1 for details). 41
Spectacular outcrops in location 1, near Al Dhafra airbase,
25 46
Ghayathi Fm.
Ghayathi Formation at Location 2- Razeen road; outcrop height
26 47
is 5.5 m.
Two colours of lamination recognized with gray lamination
27 indicating more quartz-rich and white laminae more carbonate- 48
rich layers, Ghayathi Fm. location 2.
Location 3 Near Hamim road; outcrop height is estimated to be
28 49
7 meters. Ghayathi Fm.
Location 4 Near Hamim road 2; outcrop height is estimated to
29 50
be 1.5 meters. Ghayathi Fm.
A: the outcrop in location 5: the boundary Between Ghayathi
and Fuwayrit formations at 1.8 m, but there is no sharp contact
30 between the formations. B- An outcrop in location 6 of the 53
Fuwayrit Fm., C: an outcrop in location 7, the boundary
between Ghayathi and Fuwayrit formations is at 1.5 m.
Bioturbation in the Fuwayrit Formation (location 6). The
31 contact between Fuwayrit and Ghayathi formations is not 54
visible.
Erosional contact between the Ghayathi Formation (laminated)
32 and Fuwayrit Formation (bioturbated, no lamination) at 55
location 7, the contact showed by blue arrow.
Large intraclasts ranging from 1 cm to 10 cm in the Fuwayrit
Formation at location 5. The boundary between Ghayathi and
33 56
Fuwayrit Formations is not visible here. Gypsum on fractures
is indicated by yellow arrow
A: Relatively small burrow in Fuwayrit Formation location 7.
34 B: Recent vugs (yellow arrows) likely formed by insects, 57
Fuwayrit Formation location 7.

viii
 Location 14 - Al Faya Truck Road 1 outcrop; white dots are the
35 58
sampling intervals from bottom to top K34-K37. Ghayathi Fm.
Pie charts of composition of representative samples from the
36 61
locations studied.
An example of an inland high-siliciclastic sample, Ghayathi
37 61
Fm., location 4, K7, PPL.
Marine Fuwayrit Formation with grains up to 1 mm, poor to
38 62
moderate sorted; sample K11, PPL
39 Bioclasts in Ghayathi Formation sample K27. PPL 63
Grain types of the Ghayathi Formation A: sample number K3;
40 63
B: sample number K26. PPL
Coated grains occur as spherical, occasionally collapsed,
41 medium sand-sized particles, with an abundance of 1-5 %, K27, 64
PPL. Ghayathi Fm., location 9.
P: peloid, U: unidentified grains, H: hollow (leached) grains,
42 64
K31, PPL. Ghayathi Fm.
Comparison between representative samples in terms of grain
65
43 size, sorting, cementation and porosity, the scale bars (yellow
dash) are 200 microns, PPL
Red arrow, some quartz grains have straight extinction
optical property. Yellow arrow, detrital feldspars (inclined
44 66
extinction) occur in quantities rarely exceeding 1%. K27,
XPL. Ghayathi Fm.
Quartz with undulose extinction (green arrow) observed in,
45 67
K27, XPL Ghayathi Fm..
A low cemented sample from K4 sample, Ghayathi Fm., B:
46 high cementation in K9 near shore sample, b: Equant calcite 68
cement, Isopachous cement, m: micritic rim, Ghayathi Fm.
Very low cementation in A: location 4 sample K7; Ghayathi
47 68
Fm., B: location 2 sample K3; Ghayathi Fm.
Thin section shows alternation of mostly medium size
48 carbonate and fine-grained siliciclastic grains, K7. Ghayathi 69
Fm.
Comparison between a weakly (A; K1, Ghayathi Fm., far
49 inland) and strongly (B; K48, Ghayathi Fm., near the shore) 70
cemented sample
Increase in calcite crystal size with degree of cementation in the
50 71
Ghayathi Formation (A, K29; B, K1).
A; Thin isopachous microcrystalline calcite cement (red
arrows) is developed around grains (K33, Ghayathi Fm.). B;
Interparticle pores are filled with drusy blocky cement (K37,
51 72
Ghayathi Fm.). C; fine, possible microbial calcified filaments,
possibly an indication of micritization (K23, Fuwayrit Fm.). D;
calcified, possibly microbial structure (K21a, Fuwayrit Fm.).

ix
52 A comparison between cementation degree. 73
53 Ca vs Si in samples of the different categories. 74
Significant negative relations between Ca/Si and distance from
54 75
the shore with correlation coefficient r = -0.31
Ca/Al vs distance from the shore reveals significant negative
55 76
relation with correlation coefficient r= -0.55, p=0.001.
56 The relationship between calcium and strontium. 77
The relationship between Silicon and Sr/Ca ratio.
57 Ghayathi inland weakly cemented samples is showing negative 77
relation with correlation coefficient r = -0.45.
58 The relationship between Mn and Fe (r=0.60). 78
Variation in calcium percentage from XRF with distance from
59 79
the shore.
The relationship between calcite percentage estimated from
60 79
thin sections with distance from the shore.
Variation in grain size with distance from the shore the margin
61 of error is representing the difference of grain size within the 80
sample r= -0.5.
Significant positive relation between calcite estimated from
62 thin sections and calcium from XRF. The correlation 80
coefficient r= 0.84 (p=0.00001).
Variation in grain size in outcrop location 4. A: lamination in
63 thin-section in Ghayathi Fm., K7, B: lamination is not clearly 82
visible and, medium grain size found in location, K8.
Variation in cementation rate in a single outcrop in Location 2.
64 82
Ghayathi Fm., A: K1, B: K3
Estimated grain sphericity from the Ghayathi and Fuwayrit
65 83
formations. Detailed data in appendix 3.
A comparison between 2 samples showing average grain
sphericity in Sample A (Ghayathi Fm., K31, inland) is higher
66 83
than in sample B (Ghayathi Fm., K10 nearshore). Also, the
variation in grain size is evident.
A: pinstripe lamination in location 2 near Razeen, Ghayathi
67 Fm. B: horizontal lamination in location 10, Ghayathi Fm. C: 85
Cross lamination occurred in location 2, Ghayathi Fm.,
68 Grain flow lamination, Ghayathi Fm., Location 1 86
Eroded and infilled transgressive surface on top of the Ghayathi
69 88
Formation, location number 7.
Possible microbial filaments and high degree of cementation in
70 88
Fuwayrit Formation K 21b
A comparison between 2 samples showing, average grain
71 sphericity in Sample A (Ghayathi Fm. K31 form inland) is 89
more than the sample, B (Fuwayrit Fm. K11 nearshore).

x
 The figure illustrates a slightly higher average Hollow grain
72 89
abundance in Fuwayrit Formation.
SEM and Thin section image showing diagenetic features of
the Fuwayrit Formation, Location 7. h: hollow grain and
73 90
micritic mud, b: Blocky calcite cement, I: isopachous calcite
cement, m: micritic rim. A: K23, B: K22.
74 Formation and diagenesis of hollow grains 92
Thin-section and SEM micrographs of hollow grains, K37,
75 92
Ghayathi Formation.
Figure 76: SEM and thin section micrographs illustrating the
cementation degree in Ghayathi Formation. A: weakly
cemented sample K3 showing small crystal of blocky cements,
76 B: inland moderately cemented sample K29 showing 94
isopachous cements around the grains, C: highly cemented near
shore sample K48 showing isopachous calcite growing around
grains.
Cements crystal found to be distantly dispersed on the grain
77 96
surface; sample K1- Ghayathi Fm.

List of Appendix’s
Appendix Page number

1 Location and coordinates of study area 103

2 Estimated samples composition in the thin sections 105

List of Tables
Table Page number
1 Available numerical ages for the Ghayathi Formation 32
Summary of samples taken, and methods applied. Thin section
2 analysis and XRF have been conducted on all samples; * 42
denotes data taken from Al Naqbi (2019).
Correlation (r) coefficients between selected elements.
3 Correlations that are statistically significant (p < 0.05) are 74
underlined.

xi
1. Introduction

This research is concerned with the Ghayathi, and Fuwayrit formations in the UAE and
investigates the relationship between paleo-sea level change and paleo-climate and their
deposition. The Ghayathi Formation was deposited through deflation of the floor of the
Arabian Gulf during and following sea level fall. In contrast, the Fuwayrit Formation was
deposited during sea-level high stand.
The Ghayathi Formation formed due to cementation of paleo-dunes located in the western
and central part of the United Arab Emirates, Dubai, Ras Al-Khaimah, and especially in Abu
Dhabi Emirate. It dates to the late Quaternary period, and is composed of varying percentages
of carbonates and siliciclastics.
The United Arab Emirates (UAE) is situated in Arabian Peninsula specifically on the eastern
part, where the central platform of the Arabian shelf happens in the subsurface (Figure 1).
Geographically, it is confined to the west and south by the border with Saudi Arabia, the
north by the Arabian Gulf and to the southeast by the border with Oman. Geologically, it is
constrained in the northwest by the Qatar-South Fars Arch, and on the northeast and east by
the foreland basin of the Arabian Gulf and adjacent foreland fold belt (Alsharhan and
Kendall, 2003). The exposed geology of the UAE is composed mostly of sedimentary,
igneous and metamorphic rocks in RAK (Purser and Seibold, 1973; Alsharhan and Kendall,
2003).
The UAE is located in the southeastern part of the Arabian Peninsula with all its coasts
situated along the Arabian and Oman Gulf. The Arabian Gulf is an epi-continental basin,
which formed in the Late Cenozoic in front of the rising Zagros Fold-Thrust Belt (Orang et
al., 2018). The southeastern boundary of the basin runs parallel to the Oman Mountains.
Although large areas of the country are covered by Quaternary sediments, the bedrock
geology is well exposed in the Hajar Mountains and the Musandam Peninsula of the eastern
UAE, and along the southern side of the Arabian Gulf west of Abu Dhabi (Farrant et al.,
2012).

12
Figure 1: The geographic location of the United Arab Emirates and Abu Dhabi coastline
(modified after Court et al., 2017).
The study of the Ghayathi Formation and its relationship with the Fuwayrit Formation will
provide a better identification and detailed understanding of those formations; it will generate
sedimentological and geochemical data that are useful in the identification of rock
components, their origin and diagenesis.
The main objectives of this thesis are to:
- Provide a petrographic study (composition and diagenesis) since there is no such detailed
study about this formation.
- Provide a comprehensive geochemical study.
- Investigate the relationship of Ghayathi Formation with the Fuwayrit Formation.
Most of the previous studies of the Ghayathi Formation have been limited to a small number
of exposures. Therefore, a more detailed study of the Ghayathi Formation is needed.

2. Literature Review
2.1 Geological Background

The UAE region is well known for holding extensive aeolian deposits (Evans, 1966;
Kirkham, 1998). The geologic map of the study area shows that desert sands and coastal

13
marine sediments characterize the surface geology of the western and central part of the
country (Figure 2). However, in the northeast, ophiolite and sedimentary rocks of the Hajar
group extend from Al Fujairah to Ras Al Khaimah and are also exposed in the eastern
provinces of Abu Dhabi. In the coastal areas adjacent to the Arabian Gulf, a carbonate-
evaporate complex exists, while the coastal regions of the Gulf of Oman are described as
siliciclastic, with minor carbonate sands, and local Sabkha (Alsharhan and Kendall, 2003).

Figure 2: Surface geology of the UAE, dunes, and present-day wind patterns. Modified after
Farrant et al. (2015).

In large areas of Abu Dhabi, fluviatile gravels form a plain onto which banks of aeolian sand
have been transported by the prevailing wind (Alsharhan and Kendall, 2003). Cretaceous –
Neogene tectonics determined the morphology of the UAE. The arid climate controls the
distribution of the recent sediments with respect to northwesterly Shamal winds (Figure 2,
Wagner and Van der Togt, 1973).

14
2.2 Pleistocene history of the Arabian Gulf
and Abu Dhabi

The Pleistocene epoch started 2.558 Ma and ended

11.7 ka (following the Pliocene epoch), and its
duration ends at the boundary with the Holocene
which is 11.7 ka (both grouped in the Quaternary
period (Gibbard and Kolfschoten, 2005; Figure 3).
The Pleistocene is coinciding with the first
evolutionary appearance of the genus Homo (modern
humans descended from it). It is also a period of
substantial climatic and environmental change that
concluded in the establishment of northern
hemisphere glaciations (Farrant et al., 2012).
In general, the Arabian Gulf during the Pleistocene
experienced quite steady tectonic conditions, with a
repeated interglacial-glacial drop of 110–125m in
sea-level and the exposure of the entire sea bed of the
Arabian Gulf during the last glacial maximum
(Kassler, 1973; Lambeck, 1996).
During the Pleistocene, the following formations
were deposited in Abu Dhabi Emirate (Farrant et al.,
2015), specified as Pleistocene paleo-dunes, and
fluvial sediments illustrated in in Figure 4 as:
1- Hili Formation, composed of fluvial outwash
deposits from the Hajar Mountain deposits, Figure 3: Recent adjustments to the geological
overlain by Ghayathi Formation. time- scale have led to the Pleistocene being sub-
divided into four distinct periods. The subdivision
2- Madinat Zayed Formation, which contains a thick
is based on principal global chronostratigraphy,
sequence of siliciclastic paleo-dunes. that crop out paleo-magnetism, and the oxygen isotopic
composition of benthic foraminifera (Farrant et
al., 2012).

15
 across much of central and southern Abu Dhabi Emirate.
3- Ghayathi Formation (Miliolite): carbonate aeolianite which is the topic of this study.
4- Sabkha Mati Gravel Formation which comprises a thin surface gravel veneer developed
on top of a sequence of poorly-sorted sands up to a few meters in thickness.
Secondly, Pleistocene marine sediments:
5- Marawah Formation, described as carbonate algal limestone and carbonate breccia.
6- Fuwayrit Formation, represented as shelly marine calcarenite caps of the Ghayathi
Formation.

Figure 4: Allocation of the main formations deposited during the Holocene to Miocene in
Abu Dhabi Emirate (Farrant et al., 2012).

16
2.3 Paleogeography of the Arabian Gulf during deposition of the Ghayathi
Formation

In order to understand the sedimentary conditions, a paleo-geographic map of the Arabian

Gulf is shown to provide a conceptual view of the sources of the aeolian deposits. Figure 5
is showing the physical landscape of the Arabian Gulf from 18 ka until 6 ka (Strohmenger
and Jameson, 2015).

Figure 5: Late Pleistocene paleographic maps of the Arabian Gulf (Strohmenger and
Jameson, 2015)
Additionally, by using Figure 6, we can estimate eustatic sea level change as following (Rose,
2010):
 75 ka: -80 meters
 63 ka: -100 meters
 43 ka: -100 meters

17
 18 ka: -120 meters
 14 ka: -40 meters
 9 ka: -8 meters
 6 ka: + 4 meters
Thus, it is obvious that between 75 ka to 14 ka the floor of the Arabian gulf was exposed,
which supports the theory of Hadley et al. (1998) that the source of the Ghayathi Formation
are deflated components of the exposed Arabian Gulf sea floor.

18
Figure 6: The fluctuation of sea level and paleoclimate in the region of the Arabian Gulf from
MIS 4 to MIS 1 (Rose, 2010), recorded Ghayathi Formation dates illustrated in red from
Farrant et al., 2012&2015.

The flooding history of the Arabian Gulf demonstrates a large-scale sea-level change
controlled by glacial eustacy, where the relative sea level was higher than today at c. 6 ka. In
the LGM (last glacial maximum at 18 ka) the sea level was 120 meter below current sea level.
The Arabian Gulf was dry until 12 ka, then started to be flooded, and sea level sustained
transgressing steadily until reaching today’s level (Stevens et al., 2014). During the
deposition of the Ghayathi Formation before and after the last interglacial periods, the
Arabian Gulf was dry, and Shamal wind transported the deposits into the land of Abu Dhabi
to be deposited as the Ghayathi Formation. Note that the post-glacial Holocene sea-level
transgression reached its highstand about 2 to 4 meters above present-day sea level at about
6 ka, then falling to reach the level of today (Strohmenger and Jameson, 2015). However,
this highstand could correspond to the deposition of the Fuwayrit Formation so that the
Fuwayrit and Ghayathi formations ages considered to be critical for their use as an indicator
of the sea-level.

2.4 Sedimentology, petrography and diagenesis of the Ghayathi Formation

The Ghayathi Formation is a carbonate-cemented aeolianite overlying Miocene rocks with a

variable thickness, pinching and swelling in some areas. Many authors such as Bhatt, (2003)
named the Ghayathi Formation as “Miliolite” because many allochems were assumed to be
miliolid foraminifera. Close to the modern coast, the carbonate materials are reported to be
mostly ooids, rounded skeletal fragments and peloids, yet, inside the land, the percentage of
quartz grains (fine, medium and coarse) is rising (Farrant et al., 2012).
Many hypotheses for the deposition of the Ghayathi Formation were published. Hadley et al.
(1998), as discussed earlier, suggested that the carbonate grains of the Ghayathi Formation
were derived from the deflation of carbonate sediments on the floor of the Arabian Gulf
during periods of low global sea-level. Yet, Farrant et al., (2018) illustrated that the deflation
of sediments deposited by the Tigris-Euphrates River system were the main reason of the

19
carbonate palaeodunes along the Gulf coast. Nevertheless, others suggested the carbonate
rocks within the Zagros Mountains of Iraq and Iran may be an alternative source area (Ahmed
et al., 1998; Alsharhan et al., 1998; Garzanti et al., 2003; Buckler, 2008), with quartz and
other siliciclastic components derived from mountain areas of Oman (Ahmed et al., 1998),
Saudi Arabia (Alsharhan et al., 1998). However, Farrant et al., (2018) showed that most
Quaternary sediments in the United Arab Emirate were from the Precambrian Arabian Shield.
He also demonstrates that the exposed siliciclastic palaeodunes along the Arabian Gulf were
reworked by the deflation of Miocene sandstones.
The occurrence of the Ghayathi Formation in the UAE is the north and north-east of Abu
Dhabi. Also, it occurs in Dubai and Ras Al Khaimah as illustrated in Figure 7.

20
Figure 7: Purple color is showing the occurrence of the Ghayathi Formation in the UAE.
Modified after Farrant et al., (2015).

It overlays Pleistocene Hili, Madinat Zayed, and Miocene Gachsaran formations and is
overlain by the Fuwayrit Formation and Holocene dunes as Figures 7 and 8 are showing.

Figure 8: A cross-section showing the generalized stratigraphic relationship of the Ghayathi

Formation and surrounding rocks in the northern Rub' al- Khali (Farrant and Ellison, 2014).

21
Figure 9: Schematic cross-section of the Ghayathi and Fuwayrit formations in Abu Dhabi
showing the stratigraphy for the zeugen (modified after Evans, 2011).

The lithology of the Ghayathi Formation is limestone with fine- to medium-grained,

moderately sorted, slightly sandy bio-clastic grainstone and it is changing southwestwards

22
from carbonate-dominated to quartz dominated rocks. Cross-bedding and well-developed
pinstripe lamination (Figure 10) are the main sedimentary features.

Figure 10: Cross-bedded carbonate-rich sandstone of the Ghayathi Formation (Farrant et al.,
2012).

23
Figure 11: Well cemented cross-bedded Ghayathi Formation (Farrant et al., 2012).

The paleo-wind direction can be inferred from the dip direction of aeolian dune foresets,
which was determined to be northeast to the east by Farrant et al. (2012; Figures 11, 12).
Where a good section or outcrop of the Ghayathi Formation was available, at least ten cross-

24
bedding foresets measurements were taken by Farrant et al. (2012).

Figure 12: Paleo-wind vectors deduced from aeolian dune cross-bedding in the Ghayathi
Formation (Farrant et al., 2012).

The paleo-dunes of the Ghayathi Formation show variations in the degree of cementation,
according to lithology and location, from rigid (broken only by the hammer) to easily broken
by hand. The more rigid dunes (Figure 9) are a result of the cementation caused by a higher
carbonate content, thus we find them near the coast, while a higher siliciclastic content results
in less well indurated aeolianites (Farrant et al., 2012).
Farrant et al., (2012) reported the overall occurrences of the Ghayathi Formation along the
coast and adjoining interior. However, it becomes increasingly less carbonate-rich toward
the south and east and becomes difficult to distinguish from the unconsolidated dune sands
east of Umm al Qaiwain, Sweihan, and Al Khatim (Farrant et al., 2015).
25
The lithology of Ghayathi Formation is limestone with quartz grains (calcarenite). Farrant et
al., (2012) shows that the dominant components of the Ghayathi Formation are peloids and
detrital well-rounded grains with bioclasts. Al Naqbi (2019) reported that the finer-grained
clasts are well-rounded in shape including broken, fractured grains. The sandy appearance in
thin sections of Ghayathi Formation is a result of the presence of dispersed, typically angular,
detrital quartz grains (Farrant et al., 2012).
Farrant et al. (2015) reported that the Ghayathi Formation only went through early carbonate
diagenesis. Palaeodunes of the Ghayathi Formation cemented in wet periods due to the
leaching of aragonite unstable grains, precipitated as meniscus vadose cement, along with
gypsum, confirmed by Optically-Stimulated Luminescence dating (Farrant et al., 2012). This
cementation shows that the most recent phase of carbonate dune deposition, cementation,
and stabilization occurred during the early Holocene.

2.5 Comparison with Ghayathi Formation deposits elsewhere

In the eastern part of the Arabian Peninsula, specifically in Oman, similar deposits are found
as cemented carbonate sands referred to as Miliolite; they were deposited from 20 ka to 230
ka and they underlie the Wahiba Sands in the south (Figure 13; Glennie and Singhvi, 2002).
The bedding patterns of the formation indicate deposition by winds that, as of today’s
southwest Monsoon, blew mostly to the north or north-northwest. This formation was
cemented into hard rock and has been exposed long enough to form a series of almost
northern–southern yardangs up to 1m high and is overlain by friable sand dunes (Glennie and
Singhvi, 2002).

26
Figure 13: Wahiba desert illustrated by the black arrow. (Glennie and Singhvi, 2002).

Furthermore, in the west of India, bioclastic carbonate was deposited in the coastal area of
Saurashtra (Gujarat State) and occurs as coastal ridges, which consist of limestone and
calcareous sandstone with miliolid foraminifers (Figure 14). This Miliolite was interpreted
to have been deposited under shallow water as indicated by the presence of oyster shells
(Mishra, 2019). t occurs in southern and southwest of Saurashtra state (Figure 15) being
aeolian in origin, as a continuous belt in the coastal plain. In Kutch (Figure16), the thickness

27
ranges from a few meters to 9 meters. Both are comprising of marine foraminifers in an
arenaceous limestone. Inland rocks of Kutch are carbonate siliciclastic comprising of pellets
and foraminifers. It is characterized by a high degree of sorting, roundness, and uniform grain
size. Cross bedding and lamination are common. (Biswas, 1971).

Figure 14: Various allochems cemented by low-Mg sparry calcite cement in miliolite, the bar
scale indicates 350 microns (Biswas, 1971).

28
Figure 15: Miliolite Formation in the south and southwest of Saurashtra state, India (Bhatt,
2003).

29
Figure 16: Miliolite deposit in Kutch, India (Bhatt, 2003).

Hussain, (2006) pointed out the existence of miliolite in eastern Saudi Arabia along the Gulf
coast covering crossways the Dammam - Khobar Highway at the south-eastern edge of
Dammam (Figures 17-18). He illustrated outcrops studied in the form a north west-southeast
trending linear ridge. Similar characters as observed in the Ghayathi Formation exist in this
outcrop. The composition of Dammam aeolianite is carbonate and quartz grains, the average
grain size is 350 microns with very good to excellent sorting and well-rounded grains
(Hussain, 2006).

30
.
Figure 17: Dammam aeolianite location (Hussain, 2006).

31
Figure 18: Dammam aeolianite outcrop (Hussain, 2006).

2.6 Compilation of available numerical ages for the Ghayathi Formation, and
evaluation of their reliability

In general, the Ghayathi Formation was deposited during the Late Pleistocene and Early
Holocene (Farrant et al., 2012). Numerical ages were determined by optical stimulating
luminescence (OSL). This technique was used to date the last time quartz grains within the
aeolianites were exposed to light. OSL dates of the Ghayathi Formation ages are available in
many publications and we will mention them later. However, the dates we used (Table 1) are
only from Farrant et al., (2012) and Farrant et al., (2015). The study by Farrant et al. (2012)
for samples taken from 12 locations illustrates date ranges from 8.7 ± 0.7 to >131.0 ± 11.0
ka. The study of Farrant et al., (2015) is including samples from 9 localities, with ages ranges
from 9.85± 0.81 to 87.7±16.1 ka.

32
Previous attempts of age-dating of the Sample Number of Age Study source
aliquots
Ghayathi Formation resulted in quite
UAE 7845 36 13.0 ± 0.8 Farrant et al,.2015
different ages as a result of the different
UAE 7901 10 47.6 ± 6.9 Farrant et al,.2015
techniques used.
UAE 7903 13 77.5 ± 11.6 Farrant et al,.2015

First, Hadley et al. (1998) used isotopic UAE 7906 23 87.7 ± 16.1 Farrant et al,.2015

and radiometric dating based on UAE 7910 16 71.9 ± 8.1 Farrant et al,.2015

uranium-thorium, strontium UAE 7973 9 71.6 ± 8.4 Farrant et al,.2015

UAE 7976 22 7.78 ± 0.65 Farrant et al,.2015
(87Sr/86Sr), and radiocarbon (14C)
UAE 7984 15 9.85 ± 0.81 Farrant et al,.2015
and concluded that an older sequence of
UAE 8008 12 85.7 ± 6.3 Farrant et al,.2015
the Ghayathi Formation was deposited
UAE 8026 22 54.8 ± 6.1 Farrant et al,.2015
before 160ka.
UAE 6355 24 11.0 ± 0.8 Farrant et al,.2012
UAE 6357 24 0.99 ± 0.15 Farrant et al,.2012
Then, Glennie and Singhvi (2002) used
UAE 6375 19 59.2 ± 6.3 Farrant et al,.2012
luminescence dating and high-
UAE 6442 19 131 ± 11 Farrant et al,.2012
precision thermal ionization mass
UAE 6443 21 >125 Farrant et al,.2012
spectrometric data on U-Th series
UAE 6505 15 60.9 ± 7.2 Farrant et al,.2012
disequilibrium. It showed Shamal- UAE 6537 15 83.3 ± 8.0 Farrant et al,.2012
related enhanced dune building activity UAE 6567 7 9.6 ± 1.0 Farrant et al,.2012
periods which occurred 160–130 ka, UAE 6569 16 74.3 ± 8.9 Farrant et al,.2012
110 ka, 60–50 ka and 15–12 ka. UAE 6915 24 116 ± 8.4 Farrant et al,.2012
UAE 6916 21 10.0 ± 0.7 Farrant et al,.2012
Moreover, Williams and Walkden UAE 7102 15 10.0 ± 1.2 Farrant et al,.2012
(2002) dated Ghayathi Formation using UAE 7317 15 8.7 ± 0.7 Farrant et al,.2012
radiometric, isotopic, and optically
Table 1: Available numerical ages for the Ghayathi Formation.
stimulated luminescence (OSL)
analyses and showed ages of 126–119
ka, and 145 ka –130 ka.

33
The accepted ages we used in this research are from Farrant et al. (2015) and Farrant et al.
(2012) because the method used is OSL dating with implementing SAR (Single -aliquot
regenerative-dose) protocol, the most robust approach currently available for dating of quartz
samples.
Farrant et al., (2015) mentioned that uncertainty may appear over the water content and
cosmic dose history of the samples, due to uncertainty over burial depth and the extent to
which samples have been retained below sea level. Several techniques were used to reduce
uncertainty such as using conservative 30% uncertainty values on cosmic rates and assigning
50% uncertainty to water content used and final dose rate. Correspondingly, incomplete
bleaching, and low-sensitivity quartz was considered to be problematic for obtaining actual
and precise dates (Murray et al., 2012). Incomplete bleaching can result in age
overestimation, and at the time of deposition the residual signal. This effect was minimized
by selecting suitable and representative sediment facies. Low quartz sensitivity gives higher
uncertainties in the estimated dose (Farrant et al., 2015).
Data proposed from Farrant et al. (2015) were only used if they passed acceptance criteria
which were: Infra-red optically stimulated luminescence depletion ratio test, recycling test
and whether the signal got from the test dose exceeded 3 times the standard deviation of the
background (Duller, 2003).
As an illustration, assessed dates show one sample in Farrant et al., (2015) for which only 7
out of 24 aliquots passed the rejection criteria. All other samples yielded between 15 and 24
aliquots passing the rejection criteria. This implies that the quartz in some sample is not well
suited to the SAR (single-aliquot regenerative dose procedure). Farrant et al., (2012)
conclude that the reason for the difference in the behavior of this sample is not clear but may
imply that the sediment source is different from the older materials.

34
Data from radiocarbon age-dating are excluded in this research because of significant
uncertainty issues related to contamination with older grains and the effects of diagenesis
(Murray et al., 2012).

Figure19: OSL age of available data from Farrant et al., (2012, 2015) for the Ghayathi
Formation modified after (Farrant et al. 2015).

As Table 1 and Figure 19 are showing, the age data for the Ghayathi Formation considered
to be reliable consists of several generations of aeolian deposits. They formed during one or
more dry periods during the Quaternary and subsequently became cemented and consolidated
in the following humid periods (Figure 20; Farrant et al., 2015).
Farrant et al., (2012) determined at least four periods of Ghayathi Formation deposition and
cementation:
1- MIS 5e at 120 ka, with successive phases of dune formation.
2- MIS 5a at 70–80 ka, stabilization occurring during MIS 5a (70–80 ka).
3- End of MIS 4 at 60–65 ka.
4- Most recently, at 10–11 ka.

35
As an illustration, a quarry in the Ghayathi Formation near Baniyas shows two phases of
deposition of Ghayathi Formation paleo-dunes, dated to 116 ka ± 8.4 ka and at 10.0 ka ± 0.7
ka. Moreover, another section located near Mafraq, Abu Dhabi, showed high cemented
Ghayathi Formation overlying lose quartzose sand dated to 22.7 ± 1.8 ka (Farrant et al.,
2015).

Figure 20: Late Middle Pleistocene to Holocene (180 ka to present) temporal evolution of
the UAE with various paleo-climatic proxy indicators and Ghayathi OSL dates. Modified
after Farrant et al., (2012).

As Figure 19 and 20 show, there are no OSL dates between c. 15-40 ka (Preusser, 2009),
possibly as the period experienced lower monsoon activity and Shamal dust influx, possibly
resulting in lower preservation potential of sediments. Moreover, the lack of OSL dates
between 70-30 ka reflects the cutting off of the sediment supply following the stabilization
of the Arabian Gulf basin (Preusser, 2009). In contrast, Farrant et al., (2015) refer to it as the
low preservation potential of actively migrating transverse and barchans dune formed in an
arid climate, as a result of extensive dune recycling. Though, the Ghayathi Formation are

36
vulnerable paleo-climate indicators, as shown by the short duration of reconstitution and
rapid cementation rates. Farrant et al., (2015) also indicated that the Ghayathi Formation
around Dubai is older than in Ras Al Khaimah and Al Shuwaib.

2.7 Fuwayrit Formation

The Fuwayrit Formation is a shallow marine carbonate deposit, described as resistant cap
rocks on isolated zeugen of the Ghayathi Formation. It extends up to 700 m along Al Dabiya
Island, and as a single ridge 3.2 km long in the center of Marawah Island, and other localities
in Abu Dhabi, deposited in the penultimate interglacial (Farrant et al., 2012). It is overlaying
the Ghayathi aeolianite except for Marawah island.

Figure 21: Section at the top part of the Fuwayrit Formation showing cross-bedded carbonate
grainstone, Abu Al Abyadh Island (Farrant et al., 2012).

37
The maximum thickness of the formation is up to 3 meters (Figure 21). It holds burrows
reaching up to 10 cm into the Ghayathi Formation and lies from 1 and 6 meters above sea
level (Figure 22; Stevens et al., 2014).

Figure 22: An outcrop of the Ghayathi Formation capped by Fuwayrit Formation on Futaysi
Island, Stevens et al., 2014.

The age of the Fuwayrit Formation was determined by OSL and radiocarbon dating. Very
few dates were published for the Fuwayrit Formation. Evans et al. (2002) refer to problems
with diagenesis and a scarcity of quartz grains that lead to limit usage of OSL dating since it
depends on quartz grains in the rock for dating.
The age of the Fuwayrit Formation urged an argument. Initially, the deposits were thought
to date from the last interglacial sea-level high-stand (135- 115 ka) (Williams and Walkden,
2002), at around 120 ka. This is suggesting that relative sea level was higher in the Gulf
during that time than today.
Whitehouse and Bradley (2013) refer the deposition to the penultimate sea-level rise (ca. 125
ka) as a cause for deposition of the Fuwayrit Formation above the Ghayathi Formation. Still,

38
this age needs confirmation, as the underlying Ghayathi Formation was dated at less than 120
ka.
Wood et al. (2006) used OSL dating on some samples from an isolated outcrop in the western
part of Abu Dhabi and reported a peak last interglacial age which lasted from about 128 ka
to 73 ka.
Recent OSL and radiocarbon dating suggest ages between 17.2 and 30.3 ka (Farrant et al.,
2012). However according to Rose (2010) sea level at 30.3- 17.2 ka was not less than 80 m
lower than the present level, and such ages considering the current elevation of the formation
(+ 6 m) appear geologically inconsistent.
Williams and Walkden (2002) reported radiocarbon dates from red algae, coral +and
barnacles in the Fuwayrit Formation of 29.3–33.4 ka.
Since the Fuwayrit Formation was deposited at the top of the Ghayathi Formation it should
be younger than the Ghayathi Formation, which has been dated from 8 ka to 125 ka (Farrant
et al., 2015).
The diagenesis of the Fuwayrit Formation according to Farrant et al. (2015) includes shallow
marine and meteoric diagenesis such as micritic rims and localized dissolution where grains
are in contact. Stevens et al., (2014), described cementation by isopachous fringes of equant
low-Mg calcite and poikilotopic (micro-nodular) gypsum from three samples from the
Fuwayrit Formation. Quartz grains are very few and constitute 5% of the bulk rock volume.

3. Methodology

3.1 Field examination

The Ghayathi Formation, as well as the Fuwayrit Formation, were logged and representative
samples of the formations were collected (Table 2). Nineteen locations were visited and
mapped (Figures 23, 24), and a total of 49 samples was collected.
We classified the locations and the samples based upon the proximity to the present coastline
and the degree of cementation Figure 23:
1- Marine deposits (Fuwayrit Formation).

39
 2- Close to the shore (aeolian; from 0.01 to 18 km sea proximity).
3- Inland, weakly cemented (aeolian; >18 km sea proximity).
4- Inland, moderately to well cemented (aeolian; >18 km sea proximity).
The stratigraphy, sedimentary structures, texture, composition, grain size and facies of the
formations have been recorded in detail from the following locations:
 Location 1, near Al Dhafra airbase.
 Location 2, near Al Razeen road.
 Location 3-4 near Hamem road.
 Location 5,6,7, near Abu Dhabi- Dubai border.
 Location 14, near Al Faya truck road.
Single samples were collected at smaller outcrops of the remaining locations that did not
allow for the sampling of stratigraphical sections. The geographical locations of samples are
listed in Appendix 1.

40
Figure 23: Satellite image of study area. Numbers indicate the locations studied (Appendix
1).

41
Figure 24: Locations sampled (see Appendix 1 for details).

42
Location Location Total Samples
Logging SEM Classification
number name sample number

1 Near Al Dhafra Airbase* 0 ✓

2 Near Razeen Road 3 K1-K3 ✓ K1, K3 Inland Weakly cemented

3 Near Hamem Road 1 3 K4-K6 ✓ K6 Inland Weakly cemented

4 Near Hamem Road 2 2 K7-K8 Inland Weakly cemented

Seih Shuwib-1, near Abu
5 5 K9-K13 ✓ Near shore, Marine
Dhabi border
Seih Shuwib-2, near Abu K14-
6 4 ✓ Near shore, Marine
Dhabi border K17
K19,
Seih Shuwib-3, near Abu K18-
7 6 ✓ K21, Near shore, Marine
Dhabi border K23
K23
Near Al Layya 3, Saih Shiab K24-
8 2 Near shore
road K25
K26- Inland moderately to well
9 Al Haffar Road 1 2
K27 cemented
K28- Inland moderately to well
10 Al Haffar Road 2 2 K29
K29 cemented
Al Haffar Road, near Inland moderately to well
11 1 K30
roundabout cemented
K31- Inland moderately to well
12 Sweihan - Al Hayer road 1 2
K32 cemented
Inland moderately to well
13 Sweihan - Al Hayer road 2 1 k33 K33
cemented
Seih Shuwib - Al Fayah K34- K36- Inland moderately to well
14 4 ✓
Truck Road 1 K37 K37 cemented
Seih Shuwib - Al Fayah K38b - Inland moderately to well
15 2
Truck Road 2 K39 cemented
Seih Sheib - Al Fayah Truck K40- Inland moderately to well
16 2 K42
Road 3 K42 cemented

43
 Seih Shuwib - Al Fayah
K43- Inland moderately to well
17 Truck Road near round 3
K45 cemented
about
K46-
18 Behind ENOC station 2 Near shore
K47
Ghadeer Al Tayr - Abu K48-
19 2 K48 Near shore
Dhabi K49
Table 2: Summary of samples taken, and methods applied. Thin section analysis and XRF
have been conducted on all samples; * denotes data taken from Al Naqbi (2019).

3.2 Thin section analysis

Thin sections have been analyzed to study the composition, sedimentary structures, grain
size, grain sorting and diagenesis. All thin sections were studied under plane polarized light
(PPL) and cross polarized light (XPL). For each thin section, the percentage of the following
components was estimated using Bacelle charts for comparison:
1- Siliciclastic grains.
2- Bioclasts.
3- Peloids.
4- Hollow grains (leached, with micritic rim).
5- Coated grains.
6- Unidentified carbonate grains.

3.3 Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM)

The scanning electron microscope (SEM; Quanta 250 FEG, FEI Company) uses electrons
rather than light to produce images of high magnification.
Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) was used to obtain detailed information about different
types of cement, dissolution of grains, pore space, cement morphology, and grain types.

44
The sample preparation started with taking small fragments (< 1 cm) of fresh samples and
fixing them with non-conductive, double-side sticky tape. Then, the samples were mounted
firmly on a small stage. Sample preparation was challenging as some weakly cemented
samples tended to disintegrate during preparation. Samples were coated with a high-
conductivity material, an ultra-thin coating of gold/palladium alloy, deposited on the sample
by sputter coating (SPI Supplies, metal sputter coater). SEM analysis was performed on 11
samples: K1, K3, K6, K19, K21b, K23, K29, K33, 36, K37, K42, and K48. (Table 2).

3.4 XRF

The chemical composition was analyzed by X-ray fluorescence (XRF) to determine the
concentrations of major and minor elements, aiming at a comparison with the results of
petrographic analyses and to identify regional and stratigraphic patterns.
XRF was executed on planar surfaces of samples using a Philips X-OLYMPUS hand-held
XRF spectrometer, mounted to a stable desktop stand. Four standards were run every 10
samples to monitor repeatability of results and evaluate corrections of reported
concentrations. The standards used are pure calcite (in house), SiO2, NIST2711a, and
NIST2710a.
The initial results were corrected in the following steps: Mean values of analyses of standard
materials were compared with certified values for each element, and corrections applied if
needed. The standard deviation of multiple measurements of sample materials for each
element was used to determine the reproducibility of XRF analyses. This was done for the
following elements: aluminum, potassium, silica, calcium, titanium, manganese, iron,
strontium, and zirconium. No correction was applied to sulfur because sulfur concentrations
were not certified in any of the standards used. It was noticed that reported concentrations of
magnesium were problematic, because magnesium yielded up to 2 % in the pure calcite
standard that should contain only trace amounts of Mg. Therefore, the magnesium
concentration was not considered.

45
4. Results

4.1 Field examination

4.1.1 Location 1 Near Al Dhafra airbase:

The Ghayathi Formation in this area shows a series of outcrops with thicknesses ranging
from 10 cm to 1.5 meters. It exhibits spectacular outcrops because of deflation of the strongly
cemented aeolianite, exposing cross-bedding and laminations (Figure 25). Lamination is
formed by alternating gray and white colored intervals. The white color is an indication of
the predominance of carbonate grains while grey laminae are dominated by siliciclastic,
which can be identified with the hand lens. Siliciclastic minerals are subangular to rounded
while carbonate grains are rounded to sub-rounded.
The grain size is fine to medium sand and grains are moderately to well-sorted.

4.1.2 Location 2 Near Al Razeen road:

The Ghayathi Formation in this area shows a single outcrop with 5.5-meter thickness (Figure
26). The grains are well rounded, rounded, subangular and medium to well sorted. Here, the
formation contains more siliciclastic than location 1, it is less rigid, and samples can be
completely disintegrated by hand due weak cementation. The amount of siliciclastic grains
is estimated to reach 50 %. The outcrop exposes cross bedding, a uniform texture and color
and the degree of cementation slightly increases towards the top of the outcrop. Lamination
is recognized with gray laminae indicating dominance of quartz and white laminae the
dominance of carbonate grains (Figure 27). There is difference in rounding between
siliciclastic and carbonate grains which will be mentioned later in the chapter on thin section
analysis.

4.1.3 Location 3 Near Hamem road 1:

This outcrop represents the thickest section of the Ghayathi Formation we logged, with a
thickness of 7 m (Figure 28). As in location 2, the grain size ranges from fine to medium

46
sand, grains are well rounded, rounded, subangular and medium to well sorted. The outcrop
exposes a uniform, cross bedded sequence of gray/white laminated aeolianite. It is
moderately to weakly cemented, but more rigid than the aeolianite near the Razeen location
2. The cementation degree is increasing upwards.

4.1.4 Location 4 Near Hamem road 2:

Here the outcrop represents a thickness of 1.5 m (Figure 29). It is within a distance of 2 km
to the south from Location 3 and has the same characteristics as location 3. The outcrop is
laminated and uniformly cross-bedded. The grains are well rounded, rounded, subangular
and medium to well sorted. In contrast to location 3, the formation is less rigid, and samples
can be completely disintegrated by hand due to weak cementation. The amount of siliciclastic
grains is estimated to reach 50 %. The grain size ranges from fine to medium sand and
medium to well sorted. The cementation degree is increasing upwards.

Figure 25: Spectacular outcrops in location 1, near Al Dhafra airbase, Ghayathi Fm.

47
Figure 26: Ghayathi Formation at Location 2- Razeen road; outcrop height is 5.5 m.

48
Figure 27: Two colours of lamination recognized with gray lamination indicating quartz-rich
and white laminae carbonate-rich layers, Ghayathi Fm., location 2.

49
Figure 28: Location 3 Near Hamem road; outcrop height is estimated to be 7 meters, Ghayathi
Fm.

50
Figure 29: Location 4 Near Hamem road 2; outcrop height is estimated to be 1.5 meters,
Ghayathi Fm.

4.1.5 Locations 5-7: Near Abu Dhabi - Dubai border

Locations 5-7 are within 2 km distance to each other and described here together. These
locations are near the Abu Dhabi - Dubai border and represent the nearshore and marine
classified locations (table 2), i.e. aeolianites of the Ghayathi Formation overlain by marine
deposits of the Fuwayrit Formation.

51
Ghayathi Formation

The Ghayathi Formation is made of highly to very highly cemented grains with grainstone
texture. The carbonate percentage is estimated to be much higher than in the inland outcrops.
The low siliciclastic percentages are one of the main characteristics of the Ghayathi
Formation in this area.
The grain size is medium to coarse sand, moderately to well sorted. Lamination is present in
the Ghayathi Formation and absent in the overlying Fuwayrit Formation. The thickness of
the outcrop in location 5 estimated to be 2.3 meters, 1.7 m for the Ghayathi Formation and
0.5 meter for the Fuwayrit Formations (Figure 30). Location 6 has an outcrop of 1.7 meters
and did not show the boundary between the formations. Location 7 has a thickness of 2.5
meters, with a thickness of 1.5 meters for the Ghayathi Formation and 1 meter for the
Fuwayrit Formation.

Fuwayrit Formation

The Fuwayrit Formation follows over the Ghayathi Formation with a thickness of up to 1
meter. It has a uniform texture and color in the three logged locations (location 5-7; Figure
30). The degree of cementation is slightly higher than in the underlying Ghayathi Formation.
Siliciclastic grains in the Fuwayrit Formation are estimated to be less than 15%. The grains
are rounded, moderate to poorly sorted, and grain size ranges from fine to coarse sand.
Sedimentary structures found in the Fuwayrit Formation are bioturbation (Figure 31),
lamination is absent. Also, the particles show mixing within unconsolidated sediments. There
are reworked intraclasts at the base of the Fuwayrit Formation ranging in size from 1 cm to
10 cm in location 5 (Figure 33).
The Fuwayrit Formation is highly bioturbated, containing a range of relatively small burrows
(Figure 34 A), and recent vugs likely formed by insects (Figure 34 B).
The bioturbation type is Thalassinoides, similar to that shown by Kirkham et al. (2008) from
the Fuwayrit Formation in Dabb’iya Island.

52
Gypsum observed in Ghayathi and Fuwayrit formations in location 5-7 is filling fractures
and was not found as a cement between grains in thin sections (Figure 33). The existence of
the gypsum in arid and semi-arid climate is most probably the result of groundwater
capillarity and evaporation.

53
Figure 30; A: the outcrop in location 5: the boundary between Ghayathi and Fuwayrit formations at 1.8 m, but there is no sharp
contact between the formations. B: An outcrop in location 6 of the Fuwayrit Fm. C: an outcrop in location 7, the boundary between
Ghayathi and Fuwayrit formations is at 1.5 m.

54
Figure 31: Bioturbation in the Fuwayrit Formation (location 6). The contact between
Fuwayrit and Ghayathi formations is not visible.

55
Figure 32: Erosional contact between the Ghayathi Formation (laminated) and Fuwayrit
Formation (bioturbated, no lamination) at location 7, the contact showed by blue arrow.

56
Figure 33: Large intraclasts (red arrow) ranging from 1 cm to 10 cm in the Fuwayrit
Formation at location 5. The boundary between Ghayathi and Fuwayrit Formations is not
visible here. Gypsum on fractures is indicated by yellow arrow.

57
Figure 34: A: Relatively small burrow in Fuwayrit Formation in location 7. B: Recent vugs
(yellow arrows) likely formed by insects, Fuwayrit Formation in location 7.

4.1.6 Location 14: Sweihan - Al Hayer road:

This outcrop of the Ghayathi Formation is 3.2 meters high (Figure 35). It exposes cross-
bedded laminated aeolianites with carbonate-laminae (light-colored) alternating with
siliciclastic-rich (gray-colored) laminae. Grain size is fine to medium sand, with coarse grains
not exceeding 500 microns found at the top of the outcrop. Grains are well sorted.
The outcrop exposes intervals of different grades of carbonate cementation: moderately
cemented at the bottom, less cemented in the middle, and strongly cemented in the upper part
of the section.

58
Figure 35: Location 14 - Al Faya Truck Road 1 outcrop; white dots are the sampling intervals from bottom to top, K34-K37,
Ghayathi Fm.
59
4.2. Thin section analysis

4.2.1 Composition

The composition of the rocks studied is a mixture of carbonate and siliciclastic grains.
Overall, the percentage of carbonate grains ranges from 52 % to 84% and that of siliciclastic
grains from 48% to 16 % of the detrital components of the rocks (Appendix 2, Figures 36,
37).
The inland weakly cemented, inland moderately to well cemented and near-shore samples of
the Ghayathi Formation have grains that generally range in size from 125 microns up to 500
microns and are moderately to well sorted Figure 43. However, samples of the marine
Fuwayrit Formation have grains of up to 1 mm in size and poor to moderately sorted Figure
38.

4.2.1 Carbonate petrography

The dominant mineralogy of carbonate grains is low-Mg calcite, and grains have been
classified as follows:

1- bioclasts
These are complete or fragmented skeletons with sizes ranging from fine to medium sand.
They can be identified as being derived from miliolid foraminifera, red algae skeletal
fragments, echinoid fragments, corals fragments, and bivalve shell fragments (Figures-39-
40). They comprise 5-15% of grains in the thin sections studied.

2- coated grains
These have concentric or radial internal structures around a nucleus of quartz or carbonate
particles. Many of the coated grains are ooids, but this category also includes carbonate grains
with micritic rims. They are typically of medium sand grain-size and comprise 1-5 % of
grains in the thin sections studied (Figures 40-41).

60
3- peloids
Spherical grains of uniform microcrystalline calcite of medium to fine sand size, ranging
from 5-15% of total grains (Figures 40,42).

4- hollow grains
These are interpreted to be derived from previously aragonite grains which developed calcitic
micritic envelopes that were preserved while the aragonite grains were dissolved. The
micrite envelope defines them, as the original grain is dissolved (Figure 42). They contribute
1-15% of grains in the thin sections studied.

5- unidentified carbonate grains

This group comprises all carbonate grain that do not belong to any of the other categories
and include intra-clasts and recrystallized grains. In the thin sections studied, these are 10-
20% of all grains (Figure 40, 42).
As an example, figure 36 represents Inland weakly cemented samples from Ghayathi
Formation such as sample K 1 from location 2 and sample K 7 from location 4, they had a
high percentage of siliciclastics as 48% and 44% consecutively and low hollow grains as 2
% for both samples. In contrast, Ghayathi Formation sample K 20 from location 7 and sample
K 47 from location 18 had a lower percentage of siliciclastics as 16 % for both, and high
hollow grain percentage as 18% for both samples.

61
Figure 36: Pie charts of composition of representative samples from the locations studied.

Figure 37: An example of an inland high-siliciclastic sample, Ghayathi Fm., location 4, K7;
PPL.

62
Figure 38: Marine Fuwayrit Formation with grains up to 1 mm, poor to moderate sorted;
sample K11; PPL.

63
Figure 39: Bioclasts in Ghayathi Formation sample K27; PPL

Figure 40: Grain types of the Ghayathi Formation A: sample number K3; B: sample number
K26; PPL.

64
Figure 41: Coated grains occur as spherical, occasionally collapsed, medium sand-sized
particles, with an abundance of 1-5 %, K27, PPL, Ghayathi Fm., location 9.

Figure 42: P: peloid, U: unidentified grains, H: hollow (leached) grains, K31, PPL, Ghayathi
Fm.

65
Figure 43: Comparison between representative samples in terms of grain size, sorting, cementation and porosity, the scale bars
(yellow dash) are 200 microns, PPL.

66
4.2.2 Siliciclastic petrography

Among the siliciclastic minerals, quartz and feldspar are recognized in the thin sections and
no heavy minerals have been detected in the thin section studied.
Quartz: Quartz is the most abundant siliciclastic mineral found in the samples, ranging from
14-48 % of grains in the Ghayathi Formation. The grains are usually rounded to sub-rounded
(Figures 37,48), and rarely angular to sub-angular. The quartz type is monocrystalline. It has
straight extinction optical property (Figure 44) or undulose extinction as observed in some
thin sections. Undulose extinction is thought to result from strain, which may modify crystal
orientation slightly suggesting a metamorphic origin for such quartz grains (David. et al.,
1984; Figure 45).
Feldspars: Detrital feldspars occur in quantities rarely exceeding 1% of the detrital suite, and
are present in all the samples studied (Figure 44). They are characterized by inclined
extinction under cross polarized light (Nesse, 2012). Feldspar is mechanically weaker than
quartz because of its cleavage and is preferentially removed from sediment by abrasion
during sediment transport (David e al., 1984).

Figure 44: Red arrow, some quartz grains have straight extinction optical property. Yellow
arrow, detrital feldspars (inclined extinction) occur in quantities rarely exceeding 1%. K27,
XPL, Ghayathi Fm.

67
Figure 45: Quartz with undulose extinction (green arrow) observed in, K27, XPL, Ghayathi
Fm.

4.2.3 Diagenesis

The petrographic analysis of the Ghayathi Formation thin sections illustrates a considerable
amount of pore space representing high porosity ranging from 25-40% (Figure 43). Some
porosity may have been artificially created by losing material as a result of thin section
preparation.
The diagenetic features and cement types found in the Ghayathi Formation are as follows:
1. Isopachous calcite cementation as symmetrical surrounding grains with single or multiple
rims with equal thickness growing around the grains (Figure 46).
2. Equant calcite cement precipitated in the meteoric environment; pore filling calcite crystals
increasing in size towards the center of interparticle pores probably representing phreatic
diagenesis (Figure 46).
3. Dissolution of unstable grains and the formation of hollow grains.
Location 2 near Razeen and 4 location Near Hamem samples illustrated very low cementation
and did not show blocky nor isopachous cement (Figure 47).

68
Figure 46: A low cemented sample from K4 sample, Ghayathi Fm. B: high cementation in
K9 near shore sample, b: Equant calcite cement, isopachous cement, m: micritic rim,
Ghayathi Fm.

Figure 47: Very low cementation in A: location 4 sample K7; Ghayathi Fm., B: location 2
sample K3; Ghayathi Fm.

4.2.4 Sedimentary structures:

The main sedimentary structure observed in the Ghayathi Formation is lamination. This
structure is absent in the marine Fuwayrit Formation. Thickness of laminae varies from 1

69
mm to 3 mm, and is more clearly seen in inland samples. In thin section, lamination can be
usually recognized as an alternation of mostly medium sand-size carbonate grains with more
fine grain sizes with a higher percentage of siliciclastics (Figure 48).
Bioturbation was observed during field work only in the Fuwayrit Formation. In thin section,
it is reflected in poor to moderate sorted textures (Figure 38.(

Figure 48: Thin section shows alternation of mostly medium size carbonate and fine-grained
siliciclastic grains, K7, Ghayathi Fm.

4.3 SEM

SEM showed that the rock is made up of fairly rounded siliciclastic and carbonate grains with
sizes ranging from 125 to 500 microns. The inland weakly cemented samples from locations
2 (showed very little cement, concentrated at the grain contacts, while the nearshore samples
showed a higher amount of cement; i.e. Figure 49B is showing dissolution of a grain
producing hollow grain and the blocky cement around the grains in different sizes. In

70
contrast, a weakly cemented sample from location 2 showed very low amounts of
microcrystalline calcite cement (Figure 49A).
Meniscus cement as reported by Farrant et al. (2012), and considered to be indicative of
vadose diagenesis, has not been observed during the SEM studies.
The examination of 11 samples (Table 2) shows that the size of cement crystals increases
with increasing cement quantity (Figure 50). Thin isopachous microcrystalline calcite cement
(Figure 51A, red arrows) developed around the bioclasts and other unidentified grains.
Equant calcite cement with variable thickness filled the interparticle pores (Figure 51B).
Evidence of micritization showing calcified filaments probably produced by bacteria
penetrating the grain from outside is only found in Fuwayrit Formation. Micritization is
believed to have converted aragonite to calcite; then the aragonite grain was dissolved while
its micritic rim was preserved (Figure 51C; Scholle et al., 2003).
The calcite crystal size ranges for the 11 samples from 1 – 20 microns (Figure 50).

Figure 49: Comparison between a weakly (A; K1, Ghayathi Fm., far inland) and strongly (B;
K48, Ghayathi Fm., near the shore) cemented sample.

71
Figure 50: Increase in calcite crystal size with degree of cementation in the Ghayathi
Formation (A, K29; B, K1).

72
Figure 51: A; Thin isopachous microcrystalline calcite cement (red arrows) is developed
around grains (K33, Ghayathi Fm.). B; Interparticle pores are filled with drusy blocky cement
(K37, Ghayathi Fm.). C; fine, possible microbial calcified filaments, possibly an indication
of micritization (K23, Fuwayrit Fm.). D; calcified, possibly microbial structure (K21a,
Fuwayrit Fm.).

73
Figure 52: A comparison between cementation degree.

4.4 XRF

The amount of calcium measured by XRF is considered to be indicative of the amount of

calcite, as no gypsum was found in samples. On another hand, the siliciclastic percentage
should be the remaining percentage as the rock’s components are either carbonate or
siliciclastics, and no other minerals have been found.
Calcite ranges from 44 % to 81 % and siliciclastics consequently from % 56 to 19%. SiO2
(Quartz) was calculated from Si concentrations and ranges from 38% - 5%.
The XRF analysis illustrates different relationships between different elements, as shown in
scatter plots and quantified by correlation coefficient to show trends and patterns (Table 3).

74
 Si Ca Ti Fe Al

Si 1
Ca -0.78 1
Ti 0.62 -0.38 1
Fe 0.43 -0.39 0.60 1
Al 0.76 -0.54 0.64 0.71 1

Table 3: Correlation (r) coefficients between selected elements. Correlations that are
statistically significant (p < 0.05) are underlined.

Ca vs Si

Calcium (Ca) and Silica (Si) concentrations show a significant negative trend with a
correlation coefficient (r) of -0.78 Figure 53. This negative relationship is illustrating the
proximity from the sea where inland samples have a higher content of silica and lower content
of calcium yet the samples near the sea have a lower amount of silica and higher amount of
calcium (Figure 54).

40
Marine
35
30
Near the shore
25
Ca%

20
Al Naqbi, 2019
15
10 Inland weakly
5 cemeted

0
0 5 10 Si % 15 20 25

Figure 53: Ca vs Si in samples of the different categories, r = -0.78.

75
 16
14
12
10
Ca/Si

8
6
4
2
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Distance to the shore km

Figure 54: Significant negative relations between Ca/Si and distance from the shore with
correlation coefficient r = -0.31

The correlations between elements characteristic for siliciclastic minerals (Ti, Si, Al and Fe)
and Ca is shown in Table 3 and is generally negative.
The correlation of Ti vs Fe, Si and Al is significant positive relation with a correlation
coefficient of 0.60, 0.62, 0.64 respectively. The correlation between Si and Fe is likewise
showing a positive significant relation with a correlation coefficient of 0.43. The correlation
of Ca vs Fe, Ti and Al is significant negative relation with r= -0.39, r= -0.38, and r= -0.54
respectively.

Si vs Al

Silica (Si) and Aluminum (Al) concentrations are significant highly positively correlated
(r=0. 76), and both elements increase in concentration landwards. This correlation suggests
the co-occurrence in feldspar, as clay minerals have not been observed in thin section.
However, samples of the Ghayathi Formation have only a minor amount of feldspar as Al
concentrations are not exceeding 1%. Moreover, there is a trend of decreasing Ca/Al going
landwards (r= -0.55; Figure 55).

76
 160

140

120

100
Ca/ Al

80

60

40

20

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Distance from the shore

Figure 55: Ca/Al vs distance from the shore reveals significant negative relation with
correlation coefficient r= -0.55, p=0.001.

Sr vs Ca

The correlation between strontium and calcium (Figure 56) from the Fuwayrit and Ghayathi
formations is significant positive relation with correlation coefficient of 0.36, similar to
observations made by Al Naqbi (2019). Though, strontium is showing a relationship with sea
proximity. The amount of Sr depends on diagenetic and/or weathering processes, as Sr is
mainly found in marine aragonite grains, which have been dissolved during diagenesis of the
Fuwayrit and Ghayathi formations. The relationship between Sr and Si is negative with a
correlation coefficient r= -0.21. Also, the relationship between silicon (representing quartz)
and Sr/Ca ratio for Ghayathi inland weakly cemented samples is showing a negative relation
with correlation coefficient r = -0.45 (Figure 57).

77
 40
35
30
25
Ca %

20
15
10
5
Inland moderate to well cemeted Marine Near the shore Al Naqbi Inland weakly cemented
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
Sr %

Figure 56: The relationship between calcium and strontium.

20
Marine
Inland weakly cemented
15
Inland moderate to well cemented
Al Naqbi, 2019
Near the shore
Si %

10
Linear (Marine )
Linear (Inland weakly cemented )
Linear (Inland moderate to well cemented )
5

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Sr*1000/Ca

Figure 57: The relationship between Silicon and Sr/Ca ratio. Ghayathi inland weakly
cemented samples are showing negative relation with correlation coefficient r = -0.45.

78
Mn vs Fe

Manganese (Mn) and iron (Fe) show a positive correlation (Figure 58), with a correlation
coefficient of r=0.60. This indicates a similar chemical behavior of both elements related to
the redox conditions of the depositional environment and diagenesis processes. No
distinction between the different sample categories is evident.

0.03
Marine
0.025
Inland
0.02 Weakly
cemented
Mn %

Near the
0.015 shore

Inland weakly
0.01 to moderate
cemented
0.005

0
0.0055 0.1055 0.2055 0.3055 0.4055 0.5055 0.6055 0.7055 0.8055
Fe %

Figure 58: The relationship between Mn and Fe (r=0.60).

5. Discussion

5.1 Comparison of compositional estimates from thin sections and XRF analysis

The geochemical data are broadly consistent with the petrographic interpretations. The
relationship between the Si and Ca from XRF is consistent with percentages of siliciclastics
and calcite estimated from the thin sections (Figures 59-60). Also Figures 61 and 62 show
that variation in grain size with distance from the shore, Ca from XRF and calcite percentages
from thin section estimates are very similar.

79
Differences may result from the fact that samples are not homogenous, and XRF
measurements may have been taken from carbonate-rich or siliciclastic-rich laminae. This is
exemplified when more than one XRF measurement was taken from the surface of one
sample, e.g. the calcite percentage in sample K10 gave 80% and 75% when pointing gun
either at a lamina which has more calcite or a gray lamina with a higher siliciclastics content,
respectively. Thus, a variation of at least 5 % should be considered when measuring different
aeolianite.

35
30
25
Ca% XRF

20
15
10
5 Ghayathi Formation Fuwayrit Formation Ghayathi Formation, location 3
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Distance from the shore km

Figure 59: Variation in calcium percentage from XRF with distance from the shore.

100

80
Calcite% TS

60

40

20
Ghayathi Formation Fuwayrit Formation Ghayathi Formation, location 3
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Distance from the Shore Km

Figure 60: The relationship between calcite percentage estimated from thin-sections with distance

80
from the shore.

700

Ghayathi Formation Fuwayrit Formation Ghayathi Formation, Location 3

600
Avrage grain size (microns)

500

400

300

200

100

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Distance from the shore km

Figure 61: Variation in grain size with distance from the shore the margin of error is
representing the difference of grain size within the sample (r= -0.5, p=0.0002).

35

30

25
Ca % XRF

20

15

10

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Calcite % TS

Figure 62: Significant positive relation between calcite estimated from thin sections and
calcium from XRF. The correlation coefficient r= 0.84 (p=0.00001).

81
5.2 Ghayathi Formation

In the field, logging of the Ghayathi Formation was challenging as there are few outcrops
that expose the formation in significant thickness.
The Ghayathi Formation demonstrated a rather uniform composition (carbonate and
siliciclastic percentage variation) over large areas and have vertical variations in some of the
outcrops studied (grain size, cementation degree), e.g. Figures 63-64. This may result from
changing factors during the time of deposition such as wind intensity; humidity and global
sea level that may have exposed different types of sediment to deflation (Williams et al,
2001). Form the thin section analysis and XRF the main Siliciclastic component found in
Ghayathi Formation is quartz with the rare occurrence of feldspars. Feldspars is mechanically
weaker than quartz because of its cleavage and is preferentially removed from sediment by
abrasion during sediment transportat (David et al., 1984).
In the Ghayathi Formation, grains are generally smaller (Figure 43) and there is a trend of
higher sphericity in inland samples than in nearshore samples (Figures 65, 66), because of
abrasion of grains during transport (Geological Society, 1956), increasing sphericity and
decreasing grain size. This supports that the rounded grains traveled for longer distances to
become more spherical, therefore, supporting the theory of deflation of sediment from the
exposed floor of the Arabian Gulf (Hadley et al., 1988). We compared the grains sizes
depending on their locations and found that generally the grains at inland locations are
commonly smaller than those at coastal locations (Figure 61).
In field examination Farrant et al. (2012) reported carbonate grains of the Ghayathi
Formation close to the coast to be mostly ooids, and an increase in the amount of quartz
grains further inland. However, in the present study, ooids were found to be exceptionally
rare, occurring with not more than 2 % in the coastal outcrops of the Ghayathi Formation,
while the majority of carbonate grains are rounded skeletal fragments, unidentified carbonate
grains, and peloids (Figure 36). Furthermore, the quartz grains found inland are fine to
medium, and not coarse sand. Location 2 near Razeen and 4 location Near Hamem samples
illustrated very low cementation and high siliciclastics content. This could be as a result that

82
location 2 - 4 were closer to Madinat Zayed Formation than other Ghayathi Formation
investigated locations.

Figure 63: Variation in grain size in outcrop location 4. A: lamination in thin-section in

Ghayathi Fm., K7, B: lamination is not clearly visible and, medium grain size found in
location, K8.

Figure 64: Variation in degree of cementation in a single outcrop in Location 2. Ghayathi

Fm., A: K1, B: K3

83
 3.5

2.5
Grain sphericity

1.5

0.5

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Distance from the shore (km)

Figure 65: Estimated grain sphericity from the Ghayathi and Fuwayrit formations. Detailed
data in appendix 2.

Figure 66: A comparison between 2 samples showing average grain sphericity in Sample A
(Ghayathi Fm., K31, inland) is higher than in sample B (Ghayathi Fm., K10 nearshore). Also,
the variation in grain size is evident.

84
5.2.1 Lamination

Lamination exists only in the Ghayathi Formation as small-scale alternations of fine-grained

siliciclastic and larger carbonate grains. The finer grained laminae contain a slightly higher
modal proportion (up to c. 10%) of monocrystalline quartz (Farrant et al.,2012). Laminations
thus represents the separation between grains of different sizes and types (Figure 63A) caused
by wind energy variation (Hunter, 1977). Lamination thickness varied in the outcrop itself as
well as among outcrops of the Ghayathi Formation.
The lamination types can be distinguished as pinstripe, horizontal, cross lamination, and grain
flow lamination.
The pinstripe lamination (Figure 67A) is frequently due to variation in cementation degree
of the laminas (siliciclastic and carbonate intervals). As a result, different resistance to
weathering occurs.
Horizontal lamination Figure (67B) has a planar bounding surface (with a small degrees of
inclination) when originally deposited, and more or less parallel bounding surfaces, although
laminae may vary in thickness laterally (Bridge et al., 2003).
Cross lamination occurred as a result of large fluctuations in wind energy and direction which
affected depositional surfaces (Fryberger et al., 1988). This high contrast promoted the cross
lamination that occurred in location 2 near Razeen (Figure 67C).
Grain-flow (or sand flow) and grain fall layers created by sand grains flowing down a slope
produces grain-flow lamination after deposition (Figure 68; Hunter, 1977).

85
Figure 67: A: pinstripe lamination in location 2 near Razeen, Ghayathi Fm. B: horizontal lamination in location 10, Ghayathi Fm.
C: Cross lamination in location 2, Ghayathi Fm.

86
Figure 68: Grain flow lamination, Ghayathi Fm., Location 1.

5.3 Fuwayrit Formation

In the outcrops close to the coast (locations 5-7), an abrupt shift in lithofacies above the
Ghayathi Formation indicates a relative sea-level rise, which resulted in the transgressive
deposition of the shallow marine Fuwayrit Formation.
The Fuwayrit Formation has almost the same composition of carbonate grains as well as
siliciclastics than the Ghayathi Formation. However, the following features assisted to
recognize the formation:

87
 1- Grain size: In the Fuwayrit Formation, grains size ranges from fine to coarse sand,
and grains reach up to 1 mm (Figures 38, 43).
2- Sorting: the Fuwayrit Formation is poorly to moderately sorted (Figure 38).
3- Sedimentary structures: bioturbation caused by dwelling organisms, and the absence
of lamination, which is characteristic for the Ghayathi Formation. Also, intraclasts of
the reworked Ghayathi Formation at the base of the Fuwayrit Formation indicate
erosion during marine transgression (Figure 69). The various burrows often extend
into the underlying Ghayathi formation and give an indication that Ghayathi
Formation was not cemented at the time of burrowing (Figure 69). Calcified, possibly
microbial tubes and filaments are only found in the Fuwayrit and not in the Ghayathi
Formation (Figure 51D, 70).
4- Sphericity of sand grains: Eolian abrasion can greatly increase sphericity after fairly
short transportation distances. Grains of the Fuwayrit Formations have been found to
be less spherical than in the inland samples of the Ghayathi Formation (Figure 71).
5- Lamination exists only in Ghayathi Formation.

The diagenesis of the Fuwayrit Formation illustrated early and meteoric diagenesis. First, the
formation of micritic rims around the grains and subsequent dissolution of unstable aragonitic
grains and skeletons lead to hollow grains and increasing porosity. Hollow grains in the
Fuwayrit Formation are on average slightly more abundant compared with the Ghayathi
Formation and range in the Fuwayrit Formation from 5-15% (Figure 72). Also, the growth
of sparry, isopachous calcite and microcrystalline (micritic mud) filling inside hollow grains
and interparticle pores occurs in the Fuwayrit Formation (Figure 73).
Stevens et al. (2014) described cementation by poikilotopic (micro-nodular) gypsum.
However, this was not found in our samples of the Fuwayrit Formation in locations 5-7. The
Fuwayrit Formation is intensely cemented (Figure 73) and porosity is lower than in the
Ghayathi Formation due to connected intergranular cements and lower degree of sorting.

88
Figure 69: Eroded and infilled transgressive surface on top of the Ghayathi Formation,
location number 7.

Figure 70: Possible microbial filaments and high degree of cementation in Fuwayrit
Formation, K 21b.

89
Figure 71: A comparison between 2 samples showing average grain sphericity in Sample A
(Ghayathi Fm., K31, inland) is more than in sample B (Fuwayrit Fm., K11 nearshore).

16
14
12
Hollow grain %

10
8
6
4
2 Ghayathi Formation Fuwayrit Formation
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Distance from the shore

Figure 72: The figure illustrates a slightly higher abundance of hollow grains in the Fuwayrit
Formation.

90
Figure 73: SEM and thin section image showing diagenetic features of the Fuwayrit
Formation, Location 7. h: hollow grains and micritic mud, b: blocky calcite cement, I:
isopachous calcite cement, m: micritic rim. A: K23, B: K22.

5.4 Diagenesis, regional cementation patterns

The diagenesis of the Ghayathi Formation was almost the same among the outcrops classified
with variations in cementation degree.
The history of the genesis and early diagenesis of the Ghayathi Formation started with
deposition shallow-marine carbonate sediments with syn-depositional marine diagenesis
(Kevin et al., 1988) followed by exposure of the weakly solidified carbonate sediment and
deflation. After that the transportation and dune accumulation from transported particles
occurred. The aeolian sediments then underwent meteoric diagenesis resulting in the
alteration and leaching of unstable detrital grains, precipitation of stable carbonate cement,
and formation of hollow grains. Dissolved grains were originally composed of aragonite,
while low-Mg calcite grains survived. Cementation during meteoric diagenesis was linked to
humid periods after dune formation (Farrant et al., 2015). In thin section analysis, the pores
are filled with blocky calcite cement in intergranular and intraskeletal pores. This suggest
that the Mg/Ca ratio is low in the solution that made the cement.

91
During early meteoric diagenesis, micritization and isopachous cement had a crucial role in
keeping the original shape of originally aragonitic bioclastic grains. Hollow grains were
produced by the preservation of a stable micrite envelope around skeletal grains. The
paragenetic sequence is interpreted as follows:
1- The skeletal grains were deposited on the sea floor (Figure 74A).
2- Micritic envelopes develop from the lime‐ mud infillings of circumferential
perforations made in skeletal particles by bacteria (Figure 74 B; Friedman et al.,
1971). Then, the bacteria decay (74C). Micritized surfaces of grains commonly
survive dissolution and provide a surface for later precipitation of cements.
3- Grains are exposed to fresh water (meteoric diagenesis). The aragonite grains dissolve
but the calcitic envelope remains intact protecting an internal mould (Figures 74 D,
75).
4- Subsequently, the moulds are partially filled with blocky calcite, and isopachous
calcite grows on the micritic rim (Figure 74 E, F).

92
Figure 74: Formation and diagenesis of hollow grains

Figure 75: Thin-section and SEM micrographs of hollow grains, K37, Ghayathi Formation.

93
In a previous study of the Ghayathi Formation (Al Naqbi, 2019), it was reported that high-
Mg calcite fibrous cement was recorded, however, this was not found in our samples.
The size of cement crystals rises with increasing cement quantity (Figure 50), suggesting that
the duration of meteoric diagenesis of well-cemented samples was longer to allow the cement
crystals to grow. Thus, it indicates that the degree the diagenesis is mainly a function of the
relationship between the location of dunes and the water table (Williams et al., 2002).
Meniscus cement mentioned in Farrant et al. (2012) and pendant cement were not recognized
in our samples, so the meteoric diagenesis was not vadose, but phreatic.

Cementation patterns varied depending on the proximity of the sea and calcite percentage in
the samples (i.e. Figure 76). A high degree of cementation resulted from dissolving unstable
grains after deposition in humid episodes, and the dissolved carbonate reprecipitated as
calcite cement around and between the grains (Farrant et al, 2015).
Three diagenetic facies were identified in the Ghayathi Formation as a function of the degree
of cementation:

1- Weakly cemented facies that have high siliciclastics content in locations 2-4 (Figure 76A).
2- Partially cemented facies with isopachous and or equant calcite cement occurs at
moderately to well-cemented inland locations 8-16 (Figure 76B).
3- Massively cemented facies along with bioclastic layers with isopachous cement and equant
calcite cement occurs in nearshore locations 5-7, 18, 19. Cementation was intense (Figure
76C).
Figures 59 and 60 show variations in calcium percentages (XRF) with distance from the
shore, reflecting increasing diagenesis with calcium increasing toward the shore. However,
at about 45km from the coast, we found Ca concentrations that are still high and this probably
due to paleo-shore during last glacial period.

94
Figure 76: SEM and thin section micrographs illustrating the cementation degree in Ghayathi
Formation. A: weakly cemented sample K3 showing small crystal of blocky cements, B:

95
inland moderately cemented sample K29 showing isopachous cements around the grains, C:
highly cemented near shore sample K48 showing isopachous calcite growing around grains.

5.5 Ghayathi Formation at location 2 (Razeen road)

In location 2, compared with other outcrops of the Ghayathi Formation, cementation is very
low. In SEM and thin sections, cement crystals are found to be distantly dispersed on the
grains surface (Figure 77) with calcite crystal sizes of 1-2 microns, only. Estimated porosity
is higher than in other locations with 35-40 %. Also, the other Ghayathi Formation outcrops
developed secondary porosity within the coarser-grained laminae, which formed due to the
dissolution of the more unstable carbonate components (Farrant, et al, 2012). However, in
location 2, secondary porosity is rare as the low amount of carbonate grains resulted in less
impact of meteoric dissolution, and reprecipitation in the rocks as cement. Location 2
recorded the highest amount of siliciclastics, estimated in thin-section as 48 %, and XRF Si
concentrations of 17%. The high percentage of siliciclastics may resulted from reworked
siliciclastics, probably from Madinat Zayed sandstone Formation which is near to Ghayathi
Formation location 2 outcrop (Farrant et. al., 2018).
Also, high sphericity of carbonate grains indicates a larger distance from the area of deflation.
Quartz grains are larger compared with other locations of the Ghayathi Formation. However,
it showed generally smaller grain size as some of the Ghayathi Formation outcrops (Figure
61).
These differences may indicate a different period of deposition of the Ghayathi Formation
exposed at the Razeen road. Farrant et al. (2015) indicated variations in ages of the Ghayathi
Formation and that the formation consists of more than one generation of aeolian deposits.
As indicated by the smaller grain size and the larger percentage of siliciclastics, these deposits
may have formed when the source of deflated sediments was further away, e.g. during a time
episode of lower sea level of the Arabian Gulf.

96
Figure 77: Cements crystal found to be distantly dispersed on the grain surface; sample K1,
location 2, Ghayathi Fm.

97
6. Conclusion

The following conclusions have been reached from this study:

1. The Ghayathi Formation was comprised mainly from carbonate grains (84% to 52%)
and siliciclastics (16% to 48%).
2. As proposed by Hadley et al., (1998), the exposed sea floor of the Arabian Gulf was
the source of carbonate grains of the Ghayathi Formation.
3. The Ghayathi Formation near the sea is more strongly cemented, has a larger grain
size and is less well sorted than in inland samples of the formation.
4. Aeolian transport caused the grain size variation in the Ghayathi Formation, with an
increase of carbonate grain size from land to the shore whereas the siliciclastics grains
decrease in grain size.
5. In outcrops close to the modern shoreline, the formation above the Ghayathi
Formation was confirmed to be the shallow marine Fuwayrit Formation. Thin section
examination and SEM analysis were important for the differentiation. Bioturbation,
the absence of lamination, moderate to poor sorting, a larger grain size and the
presence of intraclasts are all indicative of the Fuwayrit Formation.
6. The Ghayathi Formation was strongly affected by meteoric diagenesis, and leaching
of aragonite grains was common. Nevertheless, meniscus cement as an indicator of
vadose diagenesis was not observed, although it was mentioned but not figured in
Farrant et al. (2012).
Further research is needed to investigate Ghayathi Formation in the offshore outcrops
and present a relationship with inland outcrops.

98
7. References

1. Ahmed, E.A., Soliman, M.A., Alsharhan, A.S., and Tamer, S., 1998. Mineralogical
characteristics of the Quaternary sand dunes in the eastern province of Abu Dhabi,
United Arab Emirates. 85-90 in Quaternary deserts and climatic change.
2. Al Naqbi, A., 2019. Sedimentology and Petrography of the Ghayathi Formation in
Abu Dhabi. Senior project report, Khalifa University.
3. Alsharhan, A.S., and Kendall, C.G.S.C., 2003. Holocene coastal carbonates and
evaporates of the southern Arabian Gulf and their ancient analogues. Earth-Science
Reviews, 61, 191-243.
4. Bathurst, R.G.C., 1966. Boring algae, micritic envelopes, and lithification of
molluscan biosparites, Geol. J.5/1, 15–32, 3 Taf., Liverpool.
5. Bhatt, N., 2003. The Late Quaternary bioclastic carbonate deposits of Saurashtra and
Kahchh, Gujarat, western India: A review. Proc Indian Natn Sci Acad, 69, A, No. 2
pp.137-150.
6. Biswas, S.K., 1971. The miliolite rocks of Kutch and Kathiwar, Western India.
Sedimentary Geology, Volume 5, Issue 2, Pages 147-164.
7. Bridge, J.S., Middleton, G.V., Church, M.J., Coniglio, M., Hardie, L.A., and
Longstaffe, F.J., 2003. Planar and parallel lamination. Encyclopedia of Sediments
and Sedimentary Rocks, pages 534-537.
8. David, A.M., and Ronald, C.S., 1984. Clastic Diagenesis. American Association of
Petroleum Geologists. Volume 37.
9. Duller, G.A.T., 2003. Distinguishing quartz and feldspar in single grain luminescence
measurements. Radiation Measurements 37, 161-165.
10. Farrant, A.R., Duller, G.A.T., Parker, A.G., Roberts, H.M., Parton, A., Knox,
R.W.O., and Bide, T., 2015. Developing a framework of Quaternary dune
accumulation in the northern Rub' al-Khali, Arabia. Quaternary International 132-
144.
11. Farrant, A.R., Ellison, R.A., Thomas, R.J., Pharaoh, T.C., Newell, A.J., Goodenough,
K.M., Lee, J.R., and Knox, R., 2012. The Geology and Geophysics of the United

99
 Arab Emirates. Vol. 6. British Geological Survey, 336 pp. The Geology and
Geophysics of the United Arab Emirates.
12. Farrant. A.R., Mounteney, I., Burton, A., Thomas, R.J., Roberts, N.M.W., Robert
W.O. Knox, R.W.O., and Bide, T., 2018. Gone with the wind: dune provenance and
sediment recycling in the northern Rub’ al-Khali, United Arab Emirates. Journal of
the Geological Society, 176 (2). 269-283.
13. Friedman, G.M., Gebelein, C.D. and Sanders, and J.E., 1971. Micritic envelopes of
carbonate grains are not exclusively of photosynthesis algal origin. Sedimentology,
16: 89-96.
14. Fryberger, S.G., and Schenk, C.J., 1988. Pin stripe lamination: A distinctive feature
of modern and ancient eolian sediments, Sedimentary Geology, Volume 55, Issues
1–2, Pages 1-15.
15. Garzanti, E., Ando, S., Vezzoli, G., and Dell’era, D., 2003. From rifted margins to
foreland basins: Investigating provenance and sediment dispersal across desert
Arabia (Oman, UAE). Journal of Sedimentary Research, Vol. 73, 572-588.
16. Geological Society of America and Biodiversity Heritage Library, 1956. Origin of
the Chuska Sandstone, Arizona-New Mexico: A Structural and Petrographic study of
a Tertiary eolian sediment. Bulletin of the Geological Society of America, Volume
67.
17. Gibbard, P., and Kolfschoten, T., 2005. The Pleistocene and Holocene Epochs. A
Geologic Time Scale 2004. 441-452. 10.1017/CBO9780511536045.023.
18. Glennie, K.W., 1998. The desert of southeast Arabia: A product of Quaternary
climatic change. Quaternary Deserts and Climatic Change, 279-291.
19. Glennie, K.W., and Kendall, C.G.St.C., 1998. The desert of southeast Arabia: a
product of Quaternary climate change. In: Alsharan, A.S., Glennie, K.W., and
Whittle, G.L. (Eds.), Quaternary Deserts, and Climatic Change. Balkema, Rotterdam,
pp. 279–291.
20. Glennie, K.W., and Singhvi, A.K., 2002. Event stratigraphy, paleoenvironment, and
chronology of SE Arabian deserts. Quaternary Science Reviews 21, 853–869.

100
21. Godwin, H., Suggate, R.P., and Willis, H., 1958. Radiocarbon dating of the eustatic
rise in ocean-level. Nature 181, 1518–1519.
22. Hadley, D.G., Brouwers, E.M., and Brown, T.M., 1998. Quaternary palaeodunes,
Arabian Gulf coast: Age and paleoenvironmental evolution. In: Alsharan, A.S.,
Glennie, K.W., Whittle, G.L., and Kendall, C.G.St.C. (Eds.), Quaternary Deserts and
Climatic Change. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 123-141.
23. Hunter, R.E., 1977. Terminology of cross-stratified sedimentary layers and climbing-
ripple structures. Journal of Sedimentary Research. Vol. 47, No. 2, P. 697-706.
24. Hussain, M., 2006. Recognizing attributes and oomoldic porosity development in
aeolianite in an arid setting: An example from the Quaternary eolianite from the
Arabian Gulf coastline, Saudi Arabia. Earth Sciences Department, King Fahd
University of Petroleum and Minerals, Dhahran 31261, Saudi Arabia.
25. Kassler, P., 1973. The structural and geomorphological evolution of the Persian Gulf.
In: Purser, B.H. (Ed.), The Persian Gulf, Holocene Carbonate Sedimentation in a
Shallow Epicontinental Sea. Springer, New York, pp. 11-32.
26. Kirkham, A., 1998. A Quaternary proximal foreland ramp and its continental fringe,
Arabian Gulf, UAE. Geological Society of London, Special Publication, 149, 15-41.
27. Kirkham, A., and Evans, G., 2008. Giant burrows in the Quaternary limestones of
Futaysi island and Al Dabb'iya, Abu Dhabi Emirate. Palaeogeogr. Palaeclimatol.
Palaeocol., 270, 324-331.
28. Lambeck, K., 1996. Shoreline reconstructions for the Persian Gulf since the last
glacial maximum. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 142, 43-57.
29. Le Guern, P., and Davaud, E., 2005. Recognition of ancient carbonate wind deposits:
Lessons from a modern analogue, Chrissi Island, Crete. Sedimentology. Volum 52.
30. Longman, M.W., 1980. Carbonate diagenetic textures from near surface diagenetic
environments: AAPG Bulletin, vol. 64, no. 4, p. 461–487.
31. Marathe, A.R., Rajagru, S.N., and Lele, V.S., 1977. On the problem of the origin and
age of the miliolite rocks of the Hiran valley, Saurashtra, Western India. Deccan
College Post-graduate and Research Institute, Pune (India) and Central Water and
Power Research Station, Pune (India).

101
32. Mishra, R., 2019. Climate change not new. India water portal. Retrieved 5th Sep.
2019. https://www.indiawaterportal.org/articles/climate-change-not-new
33. Murray, A.S., and Alexanderson, H., 2012. Problems and potential of OSL dating
Weichselian and Holocene sediments in Sweden. Quaternary Science Reviews. V.
44.
34. Nesse, W.D., 2012. Plagioclase in introduction to Mineralogy. Oxford University
Press, New York. p. 245-250.
35. Orang, K., Motamedi, H., Azadikhah, A., and Royatvand, M., 2018. Structural
framework and tectono-stratigraphic evolution of the eastern Persian Gulf, offshore
Iran. Marine and Petroleum Geology, 91, 89-107.
36. Oxford, 2008. Oxford dictionary of earth science, 2020-03-12. Retrieved, 7th Mar.
2020,https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780199211944.001.00
01/acref-9780199211944.
37. Parker, A.G., Eckersley, L., Smith, M.M., Goudie, A.S., Stokes, S., Ward, S., White,
K.W., and Hodson, M.J., 2004. Holocene vegetation dynamics in the northeastern
Rub' al- Khali desert, Arabian Peninsula: a phytolith, pollen, and carbon isotope
study. Journal of Quaternary Science 19, 665e676.
38. Preusser, F., 2009. Chronology of the impact of Quaternary climate change on
continental environments in the Arabian Peninsula. Comptes Rendus Geo- science
341, 621e632.
39. Purser, B.H., and Seibold, E., 1973. The principal environmental factors influencing
Holocene sedimentation and diagenesis. In: Purser, B.H. (Ed.), The Persian Gulf
Holocene carbonate sedimentation and diagenesis in a shallow epicontinental sea.
Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp. 19.18.
40. Rose, J.I., 2010. New light on human prehistory in the Arabo-Persian Gulf oasis.
Current Anthropology, Vol. 51, No. 6.
41. Scholle, P.A., and Ulmer-Scholle, D., 2005. A Color Guide to the Petrography of
Carbonate Rocks: Grains, Textures, Porosity, Diagenesis. AAPG Memoir. 77. 1-486.

102
 42. Fryberger, S.G., and Schenk, C.J., 1988. Pin stripe lamination: A distinctive feature
of modern and ancient eolian sediments, Sedimentary Geology, Volume 55, Issues
1–2, Pages 1-15.
43. Stevens, M., Jestico, M. J., Evans, G., and Kirkham, A., 2014. Eustatic control of late
Quaternary sea-level change in the Arabian/Persian Gulf. Quaternary Research (82)
P175–184.
44. Strohmenger, C.J., and Jameson, J., 2015. Modern coastal systems of Qatar as
analogues for arid climate carbonate reservoirs: improving geological and reservoir
modelling. first, break volume 33 page 44-50.
45. Wagner, C.W., and Van der Togt, C., 1973. Holocene sediment types and their
distribution in the southern Persian Gulf. In: Purser, B.H. (Ed.), The Persian Gulf.
Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp. 123-156.
46. Whitehouse, P.L., and Bradley, S.L., 2013. Eustatic sea-level changes since the last
glacial maximum, In: Elias, S.A. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Quaternary Science, Second
edition. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 439–451.
47. Williams, A.H., and Walkden, G.M., 2002. Late Quaternary high stand deposits of
the southern Arabian Gulf: a record of sea-level and climate change. In: Clift, P.D.,
Kroon, D., Craig, C., Craig, J. (Eds.), The Tectonic and Climatic Evolution of the
Arabian Sea Region. Special Publication of the Geological Society of London, 195,
pp. 371–386.
48. Wood, W.W., Stokes, S., Brandt, D., Kraemer, T.F., and Imes, J.L., 2006. Rapid rise
(−3 mm/yr) of coastal Abu Dhabi. Geological Society of America Annual Meeting
and exposition. Abstracts with Programs, 38, p. 328.

Appen
103
Appendix 1: Location and coordinates of study area

Site
Location Latitude Longitude
Number
1 Near Al Dhafra Airbase* 24.221437 54.613976
2 Near Hamem Road 1 23.964017 54.410921
3 Near Razeen Road 24.125853 54.810292
4 Near Hamem Road 2 23.919219 54.408986
5 Seih Shuwib-1, near Abu Dhabi border 24.905819 54.907292
6 Seih Shuwib-2, near Abu Dhabi border 24.901425 54.906852
7 Seih Shuwib-3, near Abu Dhabi border 24.905582 54.891608
8 Near Al Layya 3, Saih Shiab road 24.873889 54.976139
9 Al Haffar Road 1 24.31791 54.836802
10 Al Haffar Road 2 24.378247 54.83945
11 Al Haffar Road, near roundabout 24.430895 54.841707
12 Sweihan - Al Hayer road 1 24.431301 54.959377
13 Sweihan - Al Hayer road 2 24.408523 55.064443
14 Seih Shuwib - Al Fayah Truck Road 1 24.424849 55.030878
15 Seih Shuwib - Al Fayah Truck Road 2 24.455197 55.049411
16 Seih Sheib - Al Fayah Truck Road 3 24.455288 55.050352
Seih Shuwib - Al Fayah Truck Road near
17 24.60875 55.133993
round about

104
18 Behind ENOC station 25.06443 55.351608
19 Ghadeer Al Tayr - Abu Dhabi 25.085428 54.878648

105
 Appendix 2: Estimated samples composition in thin sections.

Total Micritic Siliciclastic

Sample Bioclasts Coated Hollow Unidentified Carbonate Formation
porosity clasts- percentage
number % grains % grains % carbonates % percentage % name
% Peloids % %
K 1 Base 40 5 5 1 1 15 51.92% 48.08% Ghayathi
K 2 middle 40 5 10 1 2 10 52.83% 47.17% Ghayathi
K 3 top 35 5 10 1 1 10 57.45% 42.55% Ghayathi
K 3 top
35 5 10 1 1 10 51.92% 48.08% Ghayathi
surface
K 4 base 35 5 10 1 5 10 55.36% 44.64% Ghayathi
K 5 middle 30 5 10 1 5 10 55.36% 44.64% Ghayathi
K 6 top 30 5 10 1 10 10 59.02% 40.98% Ghayathi
K 7 bottom 40 1 10 1 10 10 56.14% 43.86% Ghayathi
K 8 top 30 1 10 1 5 10 51.92% 48.08% Ghayathi
K9 30 5 5 1 15 20 82.14% 17.86% Ghayathi
K 10 30 5 10 1 15 20 83.61% 16.39% Ghayathi
K 11 25 10 10 1 15 20 84.85% 15.15% Fuwayrit
K 12 30 10 15 1 5 15 82.14% 17.86% Fuwayrit
K 13 25 10 15 1 10 20 84.85% 15.15% Fuwayrit
K 14 35 5 10 1 10 20 82.14% 17.86% Ghayathi
K 15 30 10 5 1 5 20 80.39% 19.61% Fuwayrit
K 16 35 10 5 1 10 10 78.26% 21.74% Fuwayrit
K 17 35 10 5 1 15 20 83.61% 16.39% Fuwayrit
K 18 30 10 10 1 10 15 82.14% 17.86% Ghayathi
K 19 30 10 10 1 5 15 80.39% 19.61% Ghayathi
K 20 35 15 10 1 10 15 83.61% 16.39% Ghayathi
K 21a 35 10 15 1 5 15 82.14% 17.86% Fuwayrit
K 21b 35 10 15 1 5 15 82.14% 17.86% Fuwayrit
K 22 30 10 10 1 10 15 82.14% 17.86% Fuwayrit

106
K 23 35 10 15 1 15 20 85.92% 14.08% Fuwayrit
K 24 30 15 15 5 5 10 83.33% 16.67% Ghayathi
K 25 30 15 15 1 15 10 84.85% 15.15% Ghayathi
K 26 30 15 10 1 10 10 75.41% 24.59% Ghayathi
K 27 35 15 10 1 10 10 75.41% 24.59% Ghayathi
K 28 35 15 5 1 5 15 73.21% 26.79% Ghayathi
K 29 35 10 5 1 5 15 70.59% 29.41% Ghayathi
K 30 30 10 20 1 5 20 78.87% 21.13% Ghayathi
K 31 30 10 20 1 5 20 78.87% 21.13% Ghayathi
K 32 35 10 15 5 10 10 76.92% 23.08% Ghayathi
K 33 30 15 15 1 10 10 77.27% 22.73% Ghayathi
K 34 35 10 15 1 5 10 73.21% 26.79% Ghayathi
K 35 35 10 15 1 5 15 69.70% 30.30% Ghayathi
K 36 30 10 15 1 1 15 67.74% 32.26% Ghayathi
K 37 30 15 10 1 5 20 77.27% 22.73% Ghayathi
K 38 30 10 10 1 10 15 69.70% 30.30% Ghayathi
K 39 30 10 10 1 10 15 75.41% 24.59% Ghayathi
K 40 30 10 10 1 5 15 73.21% 26.79% Ghayathi
K 41 30 10 10 1 10 15 75.41% 24.59% Ghayathi
K 42 30 10 10 1 10 15 75.41% 24.59% Ghayathi
K 43 30 10 10 1 10 20 83.61% 16.39% Ghayathi
K 44 30 10 10 1 15 15 83.61% 16.39% Ghayathi
K 45 30 10 10 1 10 20 83.61% 16.39% Ghayathi
K 46 25 10 10 1 15 15 83.61% 16.39% Ghayathi
K 47 30 10 10 1 15 15 83.61% 16.39% Ghayathi
K 48 25 10 10 1 15 15 83.61% 16.39% Ghayathi
K 49 25 10 10 0 10 15 81.82% 18.18% Ghayathi

107