4.3 Article

Outcrop analysis and facies model of an Upper Permian tidally influenced fluvio-deltaic system: Northern Sydney Basin, SE Australia

期刊

GEOLOGICAL MAGAZINE
卷 156, 期 10, 页码 1715-1741

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S0016756818000973

关键词

deltas; facies analysis; Late Permian; Northern Sydney Basin; sequence stratigraphy; tidal reworking

资金

  1. Geological Survey of New South Wales (GSNSW)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

An integrated study of sedimentological, sequence-stratigraphic and palaeodispersal analysis was applied to the Upper-Permian clastic sedimentary succession in the Northern Sydney Basin, Australia. The succession is subdivided into fifteen facies and three facies associations. The facies associations are further subdivided into eight sub-facies associations. The sedimentary evolution involves progradation from delta-front to delta-plain to fluvial depositional environments, with a significant increase in sediment grain size across the unconformable contact that separates the deltaic from the overlying fluvial system. In contrast to the delta front that is wave/storm- and/or river-influenced, the delta plain is significantly affected by tides, with the impact of tidal currents decreasing up-sequence in the delta plain. The general lack of wave-influenced sedimentary structures suggests low wave energy in the delta plain. The abrupt termination of the tidal impact in the fluvial realm relates to the steep topographic gradients and high sediment supply, which accompanied the uplift of the New England Orogen. The sequence-stratigraphic framework includes highstand (deltaic forest and topset) and lowstand (fluvial topset) systems tracts, separated by a subaerial unconformity. In contrast to most of the mud-rich modern counterparts, this is an example of a sand-rich tidally influenced deltaic system, developed adjacent to the source region. This investigation presents a depositional model for tidal successions in regions of tectonic uplift and confinement.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据