4.6 Article

Deposystem architectures and lithofacies of a submarine fan-dominated deep sea succession in an orogen: A case study from the Upper Triassic Langjiexue Group of southern Tibet

Journal

JOURNAL OF ASIAN EARTH SCIENCES
Volume 111, Issue -, Pages 222-243

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jseaes.2015.07.013

Keywords

Fades analysis; Deposystem; Submarine fan; Langjiexue Group; Upper Triassic; Southern Tibet

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [NSFC 41072075]
  2. Chinese Bureau of Geological Survey [12120113034800]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Over thirty stratigraphic sections of the Himalaya orogen Upper Triassic Langjiexue Group in southern Tibet, China, were studied to interpret the environments and lithofacies. The facies associations channel (A), lobe (B), levee-interchannel (C), and basin plain (D) with nine facies (A1-3, B1-3, and C1-3) were distinguished. They form six architectural elements: channel-interchannel, overbank-levee, crevasse-splay, outer fan-lobe, fan-fringe, and basin plain. Taking into account the facies analysis, (sub-) deposystem correlation, paleocurrent dispersal pattern, and restoration of primary stratal width, the Langjiexue Group displays the architecture of a coalescing submarine fan-dominated deep sea deposystem, measuring about 400-500 km x 600-700 km in size or even more, one of the largest pre-Cenozoic submarine fans ever reported. Subdivisionally, four fans, lacking inner fans, could have coalesced laterally within the submarine fan deposystem, and at least six submarine fan developments were vertically succeeded by mid-to outer-fan deposits with progradational to retrogradational successions. According to the range of 30-70% of sandstone content, the fan deposystem is mud- and sand-rich, suggesting a medium-far (over 400-600 km) transport of sediment from the source area. (c) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available