Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Anisotropy of magnetic susceptibility (AMS) studies of Campanian–Maastrichtian sediments of Ariyalur Group, Cauvery Basin, Tamil Nadu, India: An appraisal to Paleocurrent directions

  • Published:
Journal of Earth System Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Oriented samples of sediments from Ariyalur Group, Cauvery Basin, south India, were studied for low field anisotropy of magnetic susceptibility (AMS) measurements to unravel the magnetic fabrics and paleocurrent directions. The results of AMS parameters of the sediments indicate primary depositional fabrics for Sillakkudi, Ottakovil and Kallamedu sandstone formations and secondary fabric for Kallankurichchi limestone formation. The obtained low degree of anisotropy (P j ), oblate shape AMS ellipsoid and distribution of maximum (K 1) and minimum (K 3) susceptibility axes on equal area projection confirm the primary sedimentary fabric for Sillakkudi, Ottakovil and Kallamedu Formations. In the case of ferruginous, lower arenaceous, Gryphaea limestone and upper arenaceous limestone beds of Kallankurichchi Formation have recorded more than one fabric. The observed AMS parameters like shape factor (T) (prolate to oblate), q value and random distribution of minimum (K 3) and maximum (K 1) susceptibility axes are supported for secondary fabrics in Kallankurichchi Formation as a result of post-depositional processes. Based on petrographic studies, it can be established that K 1 AMS axis of biotite mineral could represent the flow direction. The established paleocurrent direction for Sillakkudi is NW–SE direction while Ottakovil and Kallamedu Formations recorded NE–SW direction. Overall the paleoflow directions observed for Ariyalur Group is NE–SW to NW–SE.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6(i–iii).
Figure 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Agico KLY-3 User’s Guide 2009 AGICO Advanced Geoscience Instruments CO; 4. Brno, Czech Republic.

  • Baas J H, Hailwood E A, McCaffrey W D, Kay M and Jones R 2007 Directional petrological characterization of deep-marine sandstones using grain fabric and permeability anisotropy: Methodologies, theory, application and suggestions for integration; Earth Sci. Rev. 82 101– 142.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blanford H F 1862 Cretaceous and other rocks of South Arcot and Trichinopoly districts, Madras; Geol. Surv. India Memoir 4(1) 217.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borradaile G J and Henry B 1997 Tectonic application of magnetic susceptibility and its anisotropy; Earth Sci. Rev. 42 49–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cañón-Tapia E 2000 The anisotropy of magnetic susceptibility of lava flows: An experimental approach; J. Volcanol. Geotherm. Res. 98 219–233.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellwood B B 1980 Application of the anisotropy of magnetic susceptibility method as an indicator of bottom water flow direction; Mar. Geol. 34 83–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellwood B B and Crick R E 1988 Paleomagnetism of Paleozoic asphaltic deposits in southern Oklahoma, USA; Geophys. Res. Lett. 15 436–439.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ernst R E and Baragar W R A 1992 Evidence from magnetic fabric for the flow pattern of magma in the Mackenzie giant radiant dyke swarm; Nature 356 511–513.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graham J W 1954 Magnetic susceptibility anisotropy, an unexploited petrofabric element; Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. 65 1257–1258.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamid Reza Bakhtari, Dominique F Le, Charles Aubourg and Jamshid Hassanzadeh 1998 Magnetic fabrics of Tertiary sandstones from the Arc of Fars (Eastern Zagros, Iran); Tectonophys. 284 299–316.

  • Hamilton N and Rees A I 1970 The use of magnetic fabric in palaeocurrent estimation; In: Palaeogeophysics (ed.) Runcorn S K (London; Academic Press), pp. 445– 464.

  • Hounslow M W 1985 Magnetic fabric arising from paramagnetic phyllosilicate minerals in mud rocks; J. Geol. Soc. London 142 995–1006.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hrouda F 1982 Magnetic anisotropy of rocks and its application in geology and geophysics; Geophys. Surv. 5 37–82.

  • Ising G 1942 On the magnetic properties of varved clay. Ark. Mat; Astr. Phys. 29 1–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson M J 1991 Anisotropy of magnetic remanence – a brief review of mineralogical sources, physical origins and geological applications, and comparison with susceptibility anisotropy; Pure Appl. Geophys. 136 1–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jelinek V 1978 Statistical processing of anisotropy of magnetic susceptibility measured on groups of specimens; Studia Geo-physica et Geodetica 22 50–62.

  • Jelinek V 1981 Characterization of the magnetic fabric of rocks; Tectonophys. 79 63–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knight M D and Walker G P L 1988 Magma flow directions in Dikes of the Koolau Complex, Oahu, determined from magnetic fabric studies; J. Geophys. Res. 93 (B5) 4301–4319.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu B, Saito Y, Yamazaki T, Abdeldayem A, Oda H, Hori K and Zhao Q 2001 Paleocurrent analysis for late Pleistocene–Holocene incised-valley fill of the Yangtze delta, China by using anisotropy of magnetic susceptibility data; Mar. Geol. 176 175–189.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lowrie W and Heller E 1982 Magnetic properties of marine limestones; Rev. Geophys. Space Phys. 20 171–192.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lowrie W and Hirt A M 1987 Anisotropy of magnetic susceptibility in the Scaglia Rossa pelagic limestone; Earth Planet Sci. Lett. 82 349–356.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nagata T 1961 Rock magnetism, 2nd edn, Maruzen, Tokyo, 350p.

  • Nagendra R, Sarvanan N, Kamala Kannan B V and Gargi Sen 2003 Petrophysical characterization of sandstone of Sillakkudi Formation, Ariyalur Group, Tamil Nadu; Indian J. Petrol. Geol. 10 49–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parés J M, Hassold N J C, Rea D K and van der Pluijm B A 2007 Paleocurrent directions from paleomagnetic reorientation of magnetic fabrics in deep-sea sediments at the Antarctic peninsula Pacific margin (ODP Sites 1095, 1101); Mar. Geol. 242 261–269.

    Google Scholar 

  • Park C K, Doh S J, Suk D W, and Kim K H 2000 Sedimentary fabric on deep-sea sediments from KODOS area in the Eastern pacific; Mar. Geol. 171 115–126.

    Google Scholar 

  • Piper J D A, Elliot M T and Kneller B C 1996 Anisotropy of magnetic susceptibility in a Paleozoic Flysch basin: the Windermere Supergroup, northern England; Sedim. Geol. 106 235–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramasamy S, Ramachandran A, Velmurugan K, David Lalhmingliana Chawngthu, Bhuvaneswari S and Suresh Gandhi, M 2012 Sedimentological studies of Kallamedu Formation in Ariyalur area, Tamil nadu, India; Int. J. Geol. Earth Environ. Sci. 2 218–234.

  • Ramkumar M 2001 Sedimentary structures and depositional conditions of the Kallankurichchi Formation (Lower Maastrichtian), South Indian Cretaceous sequence; J. Indian Assoc. Sediment. 20 85–96.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramkumar M 2004 Lithology, petrography, microfacies, environmental history and hydrocarbon prospects of the Kallankurichchi Formation (Upper Cretaceous, Ariyalur Group, south India); Palaeont. Stratigr. Facies. 12 77–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rangaraju M K, Agarwal A and Prabhakar K N 1993 Tectonostratigraphy, structural style, evolutionary model and hydrocarbon prospects of the Cauvery Palar basins of India; Indian Petrol. Publishers, Dehradun, 1 371–398.

  • Rathi G, Sangode S J, Rohtash Kumar and Sumit K Ghosh 2007 Magnetic fabrics under high-energy fluvial regime of the Himalayan Foreland Basin, NW Himalaya; Curr. Sci. 92(7) 933–944.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rees A I 1961 The effect of water current in the magnetic remanence and anisotropy of susceptibility of some sediments; Geophys. J. 5 235–251.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rees A I 1965 The use of anisotropy of magnetic susceptibility in the estimation of sedimentary fabric; Sedimentology 4 257–271.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rochette P and Filliong G 1988 Identification of multicomponent anisotropies in rocks using various field and temperature values in a cryogenic magnetometers; Phys. Earth Planet. Int. 51 379–386.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rochette P, Jackson M and Aubourg C 1992 Rock magnetism and the interpretation of anisotropy of magnetic susceptibility; Rev. Geophys. 30 209–226.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sangode S J 2001 Application of magnetic fabric studies in an ancient fluvial sequence of NW Himalaya; Curr. Sci. 81(1) 66–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schieber J and Ellwood B B 1993 Determination of basin wide paleocurrent patterns in a shale succession from anisotropy of magnetic susceptibility (AMS): A case study of the Mid-Proterozoic Newland Formation, Montana; J. Sedim. Petrol. 63 878–880.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sundaram R, Henderson R A, Ayyasami K and Stilwell J D 2001 A lithostratigraphic revision and paleoenvironmental assessment of the Cretaceous System exposed in the onshore Cauvery basin, southern India; Cretaceous Res. 22 743–762.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taira A 1989 Magnetic fabric and depositional processes in Sedimentary facies in the Active Plate Margin, Tokyo; Terra Scientific Publishing, pp. 44–77.

  • Tarling D H and Hrouda F 1993 The Magnetic Anisotropy of Rocks; Chapman and Hall, London, 213p.

  • Tewari A, Malcom B, Hart and Watkinson M P 1996 A revised lithostratigraphy classification of the Cretaceous rocks of the Trichinopoly district, Cauvery basin, southeast India; Contrs XV Indian Colloq. Micropal. Strat., Dehradun, pp. 789–800.

  • Veloso E E, Anma R, Ota T, Komiya T, Kahashuma S and Yamazaki T 2007 Paleocurrent patterns of the sedimentary sequence of the aitao ophiolite constrained by anisotropy of magnetic susceptibility and paleomagnetic analysis; Sedim. Geol. 201 446– 460.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors are thankful to the Director, CSIR-NGRI for necessary permission for publishing this paper. Authors thank Dr S Misra and an anonymous reviewer for their valuable and constructive suggestions. Authors thank the Department of Science and Technology, New Delhi for the financial assistance (No. SR/S4/ES-271/2007). One of the authors (GP) is benefitted by Rajiv Gandhi National Fellowship (No. F 14-2(ST) 2010 (SA-III)/2011).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. CSIR – National Geophysical Research Institute, Hyderabad, 500 007, India

    G PAPANNA, M VENKATESHWARLU & V PERIASAMY

  2. Department of Geology, Anna University, Chennai, 600 025, India

    R NAGENDRA

Authors
  1. G PAPANNA
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. M VENKATESHWARLU
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. V PERIASAMY
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. R NAGENDRA
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M VENKATESHWARLU.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

PAPANNA, G., VENKATESHWARLU, M., PERIASAMY, V. et al. Anisotropy of magnetic susceptibility (AMS) studies of Campanian–Maastrichtian sediments of Ariyalur Group, Cauvery Basin, Tamil Nadu, India: An appraisal to Paleocurrent directions. J Earth Syst Sci 123, 351–364 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12040-013-0400-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12040-013-0400-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation