# Dunham classification

The Dunham classification system for carbonate sedimentary rocks was originally devised by Robert J. Dunham (1924–1994) in 1962, and subsequently modified by Embry and Klovan in 1971 to include coarse-grained limestones and sediments that had been organically bound at the time of deposition. The modified Dunham Classification has subsequently become the most widely employed system for the classification of carbonate sedimentary rocks with 89% of workers currently adopting this system over the alternative Folk classification scheme

## History
### Original classification

Robert J. Dunham published his classification system for limestone in 1962. The original Dunham classification system was developed in order to provide convenient depositional-texture based class names that focus attention on the textural properties that are most significant for interpreting the depositional environment of the rocks.
The three criteria used to define the original Dunham classes were:
* the supporting fabric of the original sediment
* the presence or absence of mud (the fraction <20 μm in size)
* evidence that the sediments were organically-bound at the time of deposition
On the basis of these criteria, the following four classes were defined:

#### Mudstone

    a mud-supported carbonate rock containing <10% grains.

#### Wackestone

    a mud-supported carbonate lithology containing >10% grains.

#### Packstone

    a grain-supported fabric containing 1% or more mud-grade fraction.

#### Grainstone

    a grain-supported carbonate rock with <1% mud.
Recognising that these classes did not encompass all carbonate lithologies, Dunham defined two additional classes within his scheme:

#### Boundstone

    where there is any evidence that the carbonate sediments were bound at the time of deposition.

#### Crystalline dolomite or Crystalline limestone

    where recrystallisation has made the original depositional fabric of a carbonate rock unidentifiable.
Dunham specifically stated that, where appropriate, these six textural class names are intended to be combined with modifiers describing grains and mineralogy. The original classification can be summarized as follows:
Original Dunham classification (Dunham 1962) :
| Depositional texture recognizable | Depositional texture recognizable | Depositional texture recognizable | Depositional texture recognizable | Depositional texture recognizable | Depositional texture not recognizable |
| Original components not bound during deposition | Original components not bound during deposition | Original components not bound during deposition | Original components not bound during deposition | Original components were bound during deposition | Depositional texture not recognizable |
| Contains mud | Contains mud | Contains mud | Lacks mud and is grain-supported | Original components were bound during deposition | Depositional texture not recognizable |
| Mud-supported | Mud-supported | Grain-supported | Lacks mud and is grain-supported | Original components were bound during deposition | Depositional texture not recognizable |
| Less than 10% grains | More than 10% grains | Grain-supported | Lacks mud and is grain-supported | Original components were bound during deposition | Depositional texture not recognizable |
| Mudstone | Wackestone | Packstone | Grainstone | Boundstone | Crystalline Carbonate |

### Modification by Embry and Klovan (1971)

Following the publication of the original Dunham Classification System a number of modifications were proposed. The most widely adopted of these has been that of Embry and Klovan (1971) who recognized that the Dunham classification scheme lacked detail when it came to the description of organically-bound and coarse-grained limestones.
Embry and Klovan proposed the subdivision of the Dunham 'boundstone' category on the basis of the means by which the sediment was organically-bound, thus yielding three new classes within the Dunham boundstone class:

#### Bafflestone

    autochthonous organically- baffled sediments

#### Bindstone

    matrix-supported sediments that have been stabilized by encrustation and binding

#### Framestone

    sediments with a rigid fossil-supported framework
Recognising that the identification of these structures is problematic at the limited scale of a petrographic thin section and typically requires examination of outcrop exposures or core, Embry and Klovan stated that where the mode of binding is not identifiable then the original Dunham classification term boundstone should be retained.
To address the issue of coarse-grained allochthonous limestones (lithologies where >10% of the components are >2 mm in diameter), Embry and Klovan proposed the introduction of two further new classes:

#### Rudstones

    textures where the >2 mm grain-size fraction supports the framework

#### Floatstones

    matrix-supported textures with the >2 mm grains appearing to 'float' in a finer-grained matrix
As with the original Dunham classification, modifiers should be employed to enhance the classification. Additionally, the class names should be employed as textural modifiers to describe the matrix. Embry and Klovan also redefined 'mud matrix' as material with a diameter of <30 μm.
Following the wide adoption of the Embry and Klovan (1971) modifications, the Dunham Classification system is typically referred to as the 'modified Dunham Classification System' with both Dunham (1962) and Embry and Klovan (1971) being cited.
It can be summarized as follows:
Modified Dunham Classification (Dunham, 1962; Embry and Klovan, 1971) :
| Allochthonous Limestones - No evidence that the original components were bound together at the time of deposition | Allochthonous Limestones - No evidence that the original components were bound together at the time of deposition | Allochthonous Limestones - No evidence that the original components were bound together at the time of deposition | Allochthonous Limestones - No evidence that the original components were bound together at the time of deposition | Allochthonous Limestones - No evidence that the original components were bound together at the time of deposition | Allochthonous Limestones - No evidence that the original components were bound together at the time of deposition | Autochthonous Limestones - Original components were organically-bound during deposition | Autochthonous Limestones - Original components were organically-bound during deposition | Autochthonous Limestones - Original components were organically-bound during deposition | Autochthonous Limestones - Original components were organically-bound during deposition |
| Less than 10% of the components are > 2 mm | Less than 10% of the components are > 2 mm | Less than 10% of the components are > 2 mm | Less than 10% of the components are > 2 mm | Greater that 10% of the components are > 2 mm | Greater that 10% of the components are > 2 mm | | Autochthonous Limestones - Original components were organically-bound during deposition | Autochthonous Limestones - Original components were organically-bound during deposition | Autochthonous Limestones - Original components were organically-bound during deposition | Autochthonous Limestones - Original components were organically-bound during deposition |
| Contains lime mud (<30 μm) | Contains lime mud (<30 μm) | Contains lime mud (<30 μm) | No lime mud | Greater that 10% of the components are > 2 mm | Greater that 10% of the components are > 2 mm | Bound by organisms that act as baffles | Bound by organisms that encrust and bind - the rock is supported by the matrix | Bound by organisms that build a rigid framework - the rock is supported by the fossil framework |
| Mud-supported | Mud-supported | Grain-supported | Grain-supported | Matrix-supported | Grain-supported by the >2 mm size fraction | Bound by organisms that act as baffles | Bound by organisms that encrust and bind - the rock is supported by the matrix | Bound by organisms that build a rigid framework - the rock is supported by the fossil framework |
| Less than 10% grains (>30 μm - 2 mm) | Greater than 10% grains (>30 μm - 2 mm) | Grain-supported | Grain-supported | Matrix-supported | Grain-supported by the >2 mm size fraction | Bound by organisms that act as baffles | Bound by organisms that encrust and bind - the rock is supported by the matrix | Bound by organisms that build a rigid framework - the rock is supported by the fossil framework |
| Mudstone | Wackestone | Packstone | Grainstone | Floatstone | Rudstone | Bafflestone | Bindstone | Framestone |

## Revised classification by Wright (1992)

A revised classification was proposed by Wright (1992). It adds some diagenetic patterns and can be summarized as follows:
Revised Dunham classification (Wright 1992) :
| Depositional | Depositional | Depositional | Depositional | Biological | Biological | Biological | Diagenetic | Diagenetic | Diagenetic | Diagenetic |
| Matrix-supported (clay and silt grade) | Matrix-supported (clay and silt grade) | Grain-supported | Grain-supported | In situ organisms | In situ organisms | In situ organisms | Non-obliterative | Non-obliterative | Non-obliterative | Obliterative |
| Less than 10% grains | More than 10% grains | With matrix | No Matrix | Encrusting binding organisms | Organisms acted to baffle | Rigid organisms dominant | Main component is cement | Many grain contact as microstylolithes | Most grain contacts are microstylolithes | Crystals larger 10 micrometers |
| Calci-mudstone | Wackestone | Packstone | Grainstone | Boundstone | Bafflestone | Framestone | Cementstone | Condensed grainstone | Fitted grainstone | Sparstone |
| | Components larger 2 mm | Components larger 2 mm | Components larger 2 mm | | | | | | | Crystals smaller 10 micrometers |
| | Floatstone | Rudstone | Rudstone | | | | | | | Microsparstone |