2015
DOI: 10.1144/jgs2014-150
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Interpreting syndepositional sediment remobilization and deformation beneath submarine gravity flows; a kinematic boundary layer approach

Abstract: Turbidite sandstones and related deposits commonly contain deformation structures and remobilized sediment that might have resulted from post-depositional modification such as downslope creep (e.g. slumping) or density-driven loading by overlying deposits. However, we consider that deformation can occur during the passage of turbidity currents that exerted shear stress on their substrates (whether entirely pre-existing strata, sediment deposited by earlier parts of the flow itself or some combination of these)… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

2
15
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 31 publications
(18 citation statements)
references
References 41 publications
2
15
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Indeed, the lack of mixing between the soft superficial sediment (F1) and the upper layer (F3) implies that the upper sediment layer was highly cohesive. Similar deformation structures can be found at the base of hyperpycnal flows such as turbidites, when the underlying superficial sediment is very fine and cohesive 49,50 . The higher terrestrial signature of these layers suggests a strong land-to-sea hyperpycnal flow coming from the inundated area into the bay.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 61%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Indeed, the lack of mixing between the soft superficial sediment (F1) and the upper layer (F3) implies that the upper sediment layer was highly cohesive. Similar deformation structures can be found at the base of hyperpycnal flows such as turbidites, when the underlying superficial sediment is very fine and cohesive 49,50 . The higher terrestrial signature of these layers suggests a strong land-to-sea hyperpycnal flow coming from the inundated area into the bay.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 61%
“…The layer boundaries show asymmetric flame structures with rip-up clasts (F1, buckling) at the base of both layer 46,47 . These observed structures indicate syn-depositional reworking with shearing of superficial soft and cohesive sediment beneath a dense and cohesive gravity flow 48,49 . Indeed, the lack of mixing between the soft superficial sediment (F1) and the upper layer (F3) implies that the upper sediment layer was highly cohesive.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 93%
“…The studied MTC is dominated by low‐amplitude, chaotic seismic reflections, with a high‐amplitude, semi‐continuous basal reflection that caps a sequence of older‐MTCs and polygonally faulted mudstones (Figure ). The high‐amplitude basal reflection is interpreted as a basal shear surface, representing a kinematic boundary layer (sensu Butler, Eggenhuisen, Haughton, & McCaffrey, ) or zone, upon which the MTC was translated and ultimately deposited (Martinsen, ; Varnes, ). The basal shear surface connects updip to a headwall scarp and downdip to a frontal ramp, which define the limit of the extensional and contractional domains, respectively.…”
Section: Seismic Characterisation Of the Mtcmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We interpret SF10 to represent mass-transport complexes (MTCs) emplaced by debris, slump or slide processes during shelf-margin failure (Dott 1963;Nardin 1979;Nemec 1990). The highamplitude basal surfaces likely represent kinematic boundary zones upon which the MTCs were transported (sensu Butler et al 2016). The frontal ramps (Fig.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%