The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Integrated seismic and borehole geophysical study of the Sudbury Igneous Complex
Abstract
Reflection seismic and borehole geophysical data place important constraints on the subsurface geometry of the Sudbury Structure, which is the site of the world's largest Ni‐Cu camp. Seismic reflections can be traced from outcrop within the Sudbury North Range to about 4.5 km depth beneath the center of the Sudbury Basin, where the layer thickens abruptly from 1 to 3 km. Further south the North Range norite can be followed to about 10 km depth beneath the South Range. Borehole studies show systematic variations of p‐ and s‐wave velocity, Poisson's ratio and density within the Igneous Complex. Quartz‐rich granophyre is distinguished from the norite and footwall rocks by relatively low Poisson's ratios (0.20–0.23 versus 0.23–0.25). These changes in physical rock properties define an important subdivision of the Igneous Complex, compatible with a simple model involving differentiation of melted crustal rock into dominantly felsic and mafic components. This study documents the importance of interlayering to the seismic reflection response of the crystalline crust.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The most obvious current expression of the center of the Sudbury structure is the elliptical ~30 × 60 km Sudbury Basin bounded by the folded SIC, which dips ~30° to the south in the North Range and is subject to relatively high-angle reverse faulting (South Range Shear Zone) in the South Range.
“The net result is that the most obvious current expression of the center of the structure is the elliptical ~30 × 60 km Sudbury Basin bounded by the folded SIC, which dips ~30° to the south in the so-called North Range and is subject to relatively high-angle reverse faulting (South Range Shear Zone) in the so-called South Range (Fig. 5; Milkereit et al. 1992Milkereit et al. , 1994)).”
From Observations and interpretations at Vredefort, Sudbury, and Chicxulub: Towards an empirical model of terrestrial impact basin formation (2008) · cites this paper as Milkereit et al. 1994
Citations
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
GRIEVE, R. A. F., REIMOLD, W. U., MORGAN, J., RILLER, U., & PILKINGTON, M. (2008) · Meteoritics & Planetary Science · doi:10.1111/j.1945-5100.2008.tb01086.x · Cited by 90
Metadata
- Authors
- Milkereit, B., Green, A., Wu, J., White, D., & Adam, E.
- Venue
- Geophysical Research Letters
- Publisher
- American Geophysical Union (AGU)
- Published
- 1994-05-15
- Volume
- 21
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 931-934
- ISSN
- 0094-8276
- 1944-8007
- Cited by
- 33
- References
- 0
- Language
- en
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
