Advertisement

Geo-Marine Letters

, Volume 11, Issue 3–4, pp 143–146 | Cite as

Rheological boundaries of mud: Where are the limits?

  • Richard W. Faas
Article

Abstract

“Mud” includes a rheological criterion that implies it exhibits a particular consistency state, the lower boundary of which can be specified through the use of the Atterberg plastic limit, but the upper boundary remains undefined. A relationship between the water content of a hindered settling suspension when its structure changes from fluid-supported to body-supported and its Atterberg liquid limit appears capable of predicting the physical conditions at the moment when the suspension acquires a rheological character sufficient to define the upper surface of mud. This relationship appears consistent and predictable within various marine and estuarine environments.

Keywords

Shear Strength Continental Shelf Liquid Limit Cohesive Sediment Fine Sediment Transport 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Been K and Sills GC, 1981. Self-weight consolidation of soft soils: An experimental and theoretical study.Geotechnique 31:519–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bennett RH, Lambert DH, and Grim PJ, 1971. Tables for determining unit weight of deep sea sediments from water content and average grain density measurements. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Technical Memorandum ERL AOML-13, 56 pp.Google Scholar
  3. Faas RW, 1985. Time and density-dependent properties of fluid mud suspensions, NE Brazilian continental shelf.Geo-Marine Letters 4:147–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Faas RW, 1988. Delineation of regional sediment resuspension potential in Chesapeake Bay, with implications for bottom sediment management. In: Lynch MP and Krome EC (Eds.), Understanding the estuary: Advances in Chesapeake Bay research. Proceedings of a Conference, 29–31 March 1988. Chesapeake Research Consortium Publication 129. 201–221.Google Scholar
  5. Faas RW and Swider K, 1983. The resuspension potential of Chesapeake Bay sediments.Estuaries 6:257.Google Scholar
  6. Faas RW and Wartel S, 1988. Resuspension potential of fluid mud and its significance to sediment transport in the Scheldt estuary, Belgium.Estuaries 8:113A.Google Scholar
  7. Gary M, McAfee R Jr., and Wolf CL, 1977. Glossary of Geology. American Geological Institute, Washington, D.C. 805 pp.Google Scholar
  8. Heltzel SB, and Teeter AM, 1987. Settling of cohesive sediments. In: Kraus NC (Ed.), Coastal sediments '87, Vol. 1. American Society of Civil Engineering, New York. 63–70.Google Scholar
  9. Kirby R and Parker WR, 1983. Distribution and behavior of fine sediment in the Severn Estuary and Inner Bristol Channel, U.K.Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 40(Supp.1):83–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Masyn S, Peirlinckx L, Van Biesen L, Faas RW, and Wartel S, 1990. Knowledge based measurement as a link between the engineering and geological aspects in the construction of a subbottom mapping device. Proceeds of the International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium (IGARRS 1990), University of Maryland, College Park, May 20–24, 1990. 671 pp.Google Scholar
  11. Michaels AS and Bolger JC, 1961. Settling rates and sediment volumes of flocculated kaolin suspensions.Industrial Engineering and Chemical Fundamentals 1:24–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Mitchell JK, 1976. Fundamentals of Soil Behavior. Wiley, New York. 442 pp.Google Scholar
  13. Parker WR, 1987. Observations on fine sediment transport phenomena in turbid coastal environments.Continental Shelf Research 7:1285–1293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Sills GC and Elder DMcG, 1985. The transition from sediment suspension to settling bed. In: Metha AJ (Ed), Estuarine cohesive sediment dynamics. Lecture notes on coastal and estuarine studies 14, Springer-Verlag, New York. 192–205.Google Scholar
  15. Swider K, 1983. Geochemical absorption capacity of bottom sediment from the mid and upper Chesapeake Bay. Unpublished Senior Honors Thesis, Lafayette College, Pennsylvania. 32 pp.Google Scholar
  16. Teeter AM, 1985. Vertical transport in fine-grained suspension and newly deposited sediment. In: Mehta AJ (Ed.), Estuarine cohesive sediment dynamics. Lecture notes on coastal and estuarine studies 14, Springer-Verlag, New York. 170–191.Google Scholar
  17. Wroth CP and Wood DM, 1978. The correlation of index properties with some basic engineering properties of soils.Canadian Geotechnical Journal 15:137–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York Inc 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Richard W. Faas
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of GeologyLafayette CollegeEastonUSA

Personalised recommendations