Laurentian Fan, Atlantic Ocean

Piper, David J. W.; Stow, Dorrik; Normark, William R.

doi:10.1007/978-1-4612-5114-9_20

Cited by 8 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Observations from the Grand Banks (Newfoundland, Canada) current are used to examine the current velocity, as well as the deposit thickness. The turbidity current was generated by a magnitude 7·2 earthquake west of Grand Banks, with its epicentre on the continental slope above the Laurentian Fan (Piper et al ., 1985). Instantaneous breaks of telephone cables on the continental slope within a radius of 100 km from the epicentre were interpreted by Heezen & Ewing (1952) to result from failure of sediment on the slope.…”

Section: Grand Banks 1929 Turbidity Currentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This turbidity current flowed southwards down the Laurentian Fan onto the Sohm Abyssal Plain and caused sequential breaking of another 11 cables, up to 13 h after the earthquake. Velocities deduced from the timing of the cable breaks indicate values from 41 to 73 km h −1 (Piper et al ., 1985). The turbidity current travelled ≈1700 km from the epicentre, of which about 1300 km was on the nearly horizontal abyssal plain (Horn et al ., 1971).…”

Section: Grand Banks 1929 Turbidity Currentmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Flow structure of turbidity currents

Felix¹

2002

Sedimentology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A two‐dimensional numerical model is used to describe the flow structure of turbidity currents in a vertical plane. To test the accuracy of the model, it is applied to historical flows in Bute Inlet and the Grand Banks flow. The two‐dimensional spatial and temporal distributions of velocity and sediment concentration and non‐dimensionalized vertical profiles of velocity, turbulent kinetic energy and sediment concentration are discussed for several simple computational currents. The flows show a clear interaction between velocity, turbulence and sediment distribution. The results of the numerical tests show that flows with fine‐grained sediment have low vertical and high horizontal gradients of velocity and sediment concentration, show little increase in flow thickness and decelerate slowly. Steadiness and uniformity in these flows are comparable for velocity and concentration. In contrast, flows with coarse‐grained sediment have high vertical and low horizontal velocity gradients and high horizontal concentration gradients. These flows grow considerably in thickness and decelerate rapidly. Steadiness and uniformity in flows with coarse‐grained sediment are different for velocity and concentration. The results show the influence of spatial and temporal flow structure on flow duration and sediment transport.

show abstract

Section: Grand Banks 1929 Turbidity Currentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Grand Banks 1929 Turbidity Currentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Flow structure of turbidity currents

Felix¹

2002

Sedimentology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…1; Piper et al, 1985). During low stands of sea level, sediment reached the fan through the Laurentian Channel, an 80-km-wide glacial trough that is incised 300 m deeper than the regional shelf depth; the shelf break at the end of the Laurentian Channel is about 400 m deep.…”

Section: Laurentian Channel and Fanmentioning

confidence: 98%

Giant submarine canyons: Is size any clue to their importance in the rock record?

Normark¹,

Carlson²

2003

Extreme Depositional Environments: Mega End Members in Geologic Time

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

INTRODUCTIONSubmarine canyons continued to be a major area of interest for Francis P. Shepard throughout his career. His Submarine Geology textbooks, which were revised over the years, devoted substantial space to a review of the world's canyons that were known at the time; these reviews were a standard resource for several decades of marine geologists (e.g., Shepard, 1973). Shepard and his coworkers observed that canyon size was not directly related to the size of the rivers that fed them. In fact, many major canyons were not fed directly from rivers but fed from littoral drift transport of beach sediment, for example, the La Jolla Canyon (Shepard, 1973;Shepard and Dill, 1966). As our ability to map the deep-sea floor has improved since Shepard's pioneering work, it has become clear that the size of submarine canyons also shows no simple relation to the size of the turbidite systemssubmarine fans, abyssal plains, slope basin deposits, etc.-fed through the canyons. ABSTRACTSubmarine canyons are the most important conduits for funneling sediment from continents to oceans. Submarine canyons, however, are zones of sediment bypassing, and little sediment accumulates in the canyon until it ceases to be an active conduit. To understand the potential importance in the rock record of any given submarine canyon, it is necessary to understand sediment-transport processes in, as well as knowledge of, deep-sea turbidite and related deposits that moved through the canyons. There is no straightforward correlation between the final volume of the sedimentary deposits and size of the associated submarine canyons. Comparison of selected modern submarine canyons together with their deposits emphasizes the wide range of scale differences between canyons and their impact on the rock record.Three of the largest submarine canyons in the world are incised into the Beringian (North American) margin of the Bering Sea. Zhemchug Canyon has the largest cross-section at the shelf break and greatest volume of incision of slope and shelf. The Bering Canyon, which is farther south in the Bering Sea, is first in length and total area. In contrast, the largest submarine fans-e.g., Bengal, Indus, and Amazon-have substantially smaller, delta-front submarine canyons that feed them; their submarine drainage areas are one-third to less than one-tenth the area of Bering Canyon. Some very large deep-sea channels and turbidite deposits are not even associated with a significant submarine canyon; examples include Horizon Channel in the northeast Pacific and Laurentian Fan Valley in the North Atlantic. Available data suggest that the size of turbidity currents (as determined by volume of sediment transported to the basins) is also not a reliable indicator of submarine canyon size.

show abstract

Northwest African Continental Rise: Effects of Near-Bottom Processes Inferred from High-Resolution Seismic Data

Jacobi¹,

Hayes²

1992

Geologic Evolution of Atlantic Continental Rises

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Laurentian Fan, Atlantic Ocean

Cited by 8 publications

References 5 publications

Flow structure of turbidity currents

Flow structure of turbidity currents

Giant submarine canyons: Is size any clue to their importance in the rock record?

Northwest African Continental Rise: Effects of Near-Bottom Processes Inferred from High-Resolution Seismic Data

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About