the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Thrust fault reflections on wide-angle seismics: Modeling by a new approach and implications to Neoproterozoic collision
Abstract. Collisional events contemporaneous to the global Grenvillian (~1.1 Ga) and the East African (~550 Ma) orogens created a major fold and thrust belt system in the south Indian shield. The Cuddapah basin Eastern Boundary Thrust (CEBT), a significant part of this system, is believed to have evolved by fragmentation and amalgamation of continental blocks in this region. The Cuddapah basin in the eastern Dharwar craton of south India has a long Paleo-Neoproterozoic geological history. Deep seismic near-vertical reflection profiling is the most successful geophysical technique utilized to delineate such complex crustal structures of the orogens. Here we utilize observations on a refraction /wide-angle reflection profile for the first time, to delineate the structure of the CEBT. We developed a novel modeling approach for this purpose utilizing the 'localized phantom horizons' consistent with the limited-extent discrete reflector segments of the continental crust in the region. A detailed velocity model and geometry of the structure inferred here, by synthetic seismograms modeling of unequivocal seismic reflections, provide clues on the evolution of the CEBT. Another thrust, the Eastern Ghats Thrust (EGT), related to the Eastern Ghats orogen, contemporaneous with the Columbia supercontinent is also identified. Integrating these modeling results, inferred velocity structure, observed steep gradient bipolar gravity anomaly and other geological data, we interpret the CEBT as a collisional suture juxtaposing the Cuddapah basin and the Eastern Ghats mobile belt.
- Preprint
(1720 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: closed
-
CEC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-791', Michal Malinowski, 08 Jul 2025
-
AC1: 'Reply on CEC1', Gopala Krishna Velamakanni, 08 Jul 2025
Dear sir/Madam,
It is certainly disappointing to see the comments of CEC1. We however feel that the time targeted nature of the special volume under processing could have resulted in the present outcome. We sincerely think that allowing further time for potential reviews may do justice for our submission.
We thus hope you may kindly consider for its possible publication in the SE journal as a regular submission.
With Best regards
Dr.GopalaKrishna V.
Â
Â
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-791-AC1
-
AC1: 'Reply on CEC1', Gopala Krishna Velamakanni, 08 Jul 2025
Status: closed
-
CEC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-791', Michal Malinowski, 08 Jul 2025
Dear Authors,
I'm afraid we have to terminate the discussion phase for your manuscript at this stage. After initial screening of your manuscript, the guest editors and I were concerned about the quality and novelty of your submission. We decided, nonetheless, to proceed with the peer-review process, which was a mistake, causing unnecessary delay in handling your manuscript. It took a considerable effort by the Handling Editor to solicit reviewers and in the end, no reviewer was interested in performing the review. Unfortunately, in the next step, we will recommend rejection of your submission. I’m sorry for the disappointing news and I apologise for the long process leading to this decision.
Best regards,
Editor
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-791-CEC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on CEC1', Gopala Krishna Velamakanni, 08 Jul 2025
Dear sir/Madam,
It is certainly disappointing to see the comments of CEC1. We however feel that the time targeted nature of the special volume under processing could have resulted in the present outcome. We sincerely think that allowing further time for potential reviews may do justice for our submission.
We thus hope you may kindly consider for its possible publication in the SE journal as a regular submission.
With Best regards
Dr.GopalaKrishna V.
Â
Â
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-791-AC1
-
AC1: 'Reply on CEC1', Gopala Krishna Velamakanni, 08 Jul 2025
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
218 | 46 | 10 | 274 | 20 | 39 |
- HTML: 218
- PDF: 46
- XML: 10
- Total: 274
- BibTeX: 20
- EndNote: 39
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1
Dear Authors,
I'm afraid we have to terminate the discussion phase for your manuscript at this stage. After initial screening of your manuscript, the guest editors and I were concerned about the quality and novelty of your submission. We decided, nonetheless, to proceed with the peer-review process, which was a mistake, causing unnecessary delay in handling your manuscript. It took a considerable effort by the Handling Editor to solicit reviewers and in the end, no reviewer was interested in performing the review. Unfortunately, in the next step, we will recommend rejection of your submission. I’m sorry for the disappointing news and I apologise for the long process leading to this decision.
Best regards,
Editor