KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / Manas Journal of Engineering / 2021 / Cilt: 9 - Sayı: 2

Sedimentological and mineralogical-petrographic characteristics of Miocene evaporitic deposits (SW Erzincan)

Pelin GÜNGÖR YEŞİLOVA
Şeyma YAVUZ
Sayfa
169–183
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

In addition to these, it was understood that gypsum lithofacies were exposed to diagenetic processes under the influence of a hot-humid and semi-arid climate, organic matter activity, meteoric/underground-water and hydrothermal solution factors, and were subjected to high temperature, pressure, salinity and pH conditions.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:This study aimed to find the depositional environment and formation conditions of the gypsum-dominated Miocene succession alternated and intercalated with clastics and carbonates in the southwestern part of the Erzincan Basin.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:As a result of sedimentological, mineralogical-petrographic investigations, it was determined that the gypsum in this sequence was formed as primary and secondary.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:In addition to these, it was understood that gypsum lithofacies were exposed to diagenetic processes under the influence of a hot-humid and semi-arid climate, organic matter activity, meteoric/underground-water and hydrothermal solution factors, and were subjected to high temperature, pressure, salinity and pH conditions.
🔬Tür:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:evaporite · lagoon · playa lake

Abstract

This study aimed to find the depositional environment and formation conditions of the gypsum-dominated Miocene succession alternated and intercalated with clastics and carbonates in the southwestern part of the Erzincan Basin. As a result of sedimentological, mineralogical-petrographic investigations, it was determined that the gypsum in this sequence was formed as primary and secondary. Primary lithofacies; nodular anhydrite, selenitic, discoidal, gypsum arenitic secondary lithofacies; It is divided into massive, laminated, banded, nodular, brecciated, satin-spar. The facies repetitions and folds, fractures, cracks and faulting in the sequence showed the effect of tectonism with the water level fluctuations in the basin. In addition, these investigations revealed sedimentary structures such as cross-bedding, ripple undulations, chicken-wire, enterolithic and bacterial-algal structures, parallel laminations in gypsum lithofacies. In addition to these, it was understood that gypsum lithofacies were exposed to diagenetic processes under the influence of a hot-humid and semi-arid climate, organic matter activity, meteoric/underground-water and hydrothermal solution factors, and were subjected to high temperature, pressure, salinity and pH conditions.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

YEŞİLOVA, P. G., YAVUZ, Ş. (2021). Sedimentological and mineralogical-petrographic characteristics of Miocene evaporitic deposits (SW Erzincan). Manas Journal of Engineering, Cilt: 9 - Sayı: 2, 169–183. https://ajindex.com/articles/415214

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (15)

  1. Brinkmann, R., “Geology of Turkey”, Elsevier, Amsterdam, (1976), 158. Açlan, M., Altun, Y., “Syn-collisional I-type Esenköy Pluton (Eastern Anatolia-Turkey): an indication for collision between Arabian and Eurasian plates”, J. African Ear. Sci., 142, (2018), 1–11.
  2. Oyan, V., “Ar-Ar dating and petrogenesis of the Early Miocene Taşkapı-Mecitli (Erciş-Van) granitoid, Eastern Anatolia Collisional Zone, Turkey”, Journal of Asian Earth Sciences, 158, (2018), 210-226.
  3. Şengör, A. M. C., Yılmaz, Y., “Tethyan evolution of Turkey: a plate tectonic approach” Tectonophysics, 75, (1981), 181–241.
  4. Hall, R., “Ophiolite emplacement and the evolution of the Taurus Suture Zone, southeastern Turkey”, Bull. Geol. Soc. Am., 87, (1976), 1078-1088.
  5. Kurtman, F., Akkuş, M. F., Gedik, A., “The geology and oil potential of the Muş-Van region”, Miner. Res. Explor. Inst., 169, (1978), 124-133.
  6. Koşun, E., Çiner, A., “Zara güneyi (Sivas havzası) karasal-sığ denizel Miyosen çökellerinin litostratigrafisi ve fasiyes özellikleri”, MTA Dergisi, 125, (2002), 65-88.
  7. Tüysüz, O., “Erzincan çevresinin jeolojisi ve tektonik evrimi”, 2nd National Earthquake Engineering Conference, Union of Chambers of Turkish Engineers and Architects Chambers of Civil Engineers, (1993), 271–280.
  8. Çiner, A., Koşun, E., “Hafik güneyindeki (Sivas Havzası) Oligo-Miyosen yaşlı çökellerin stratigrafisi ve sedimantolojisi” TPJD Bült., 8 (1966a), 16-34.
  9. Kurtman, F., “Sivas-Hafik-Zara ve imranlı bölgesinin jeolojik ve tektonik yapısı” MTA Derg., 80 (1973), 1-32.
  10. Tatar, Y., “Kuzey Anadolu Fay zonunun Erzincan-Refahiye arasındaki bölümü üzerinde tektonik incelemeler” Yerbilimleri Derg., 4 (1978), 201-236.
  11. Poisson, A. M., Guezou, J. C., Öztürk, A., İnan, S., Temiz, H., Gürsoy, H., Kavak, K., Özden, S., “Tectonic setting and evolution of the Sivas Basin, Central Anatolia, Turkey”, Int. Geol. Rev., 38 (1996), 838-853.
  12. Koçyiğit, A., Özkan, S., Rojay, B., “Examples from the forearc basin remnants at the active margin of northern Neo-Tethys: development and emplacement ages of the Anatolian Nappes, Turkey”, Metu Journal of Pure And Applied Sciences, 21 (1988), 183-210.
  13. Yılmaz, A., “Çarpışma sonrası bir çanak örneği: Sivas Havzası, Türkiye”, Türkiye 10. Petrol Kongresi ve Sergisi Bildirileri, (1994), 21-33.
  14. Kavak, K.S., İnan, S., “Savcun ve Karacaören (Ulaş-Sivas) yörelerinde Sivas havzası güney kenarındaki tektonostratigrafik özellikleri”, Yerbilimleri, 23 (2001), 113-127.
  15. Rojay, B., Karaca, A., “Post-Miocene deformation in the south