Ocean Dynamics

, Volume 63, Issue 4, pp 385–397 | Cite as

A first classification scheme of flow-bed interaction for clay-laden density currents and soft substrates

  • Iris Thérèse Elise Verhagen
  • Jaco Hugo Baas
  • Ricardo Silva Jacinto
  • William Dale McCaffrey
  • Alan Geoffrey Davies
Article
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Topical Collection on the 11th International Conference on Cohesive Sediment Transport

Abstract

Many aquatic environments exhibit soft, muddy substrates, but this important property has largely been ignored in process-based models of Earth-surface flow. Novel laboratory experiments were carried out to shed light on the feedback processes that occur when particulate density currents (turbidity currents) move over a soft mud substrate. These experiments revealed multiple types of flow-bed interaction and large variations in bed deformation and bed erosion, which are interpreted to be related to the interplay between the shear forces of the current and the stabilising forces in the bed. Changes in this force balance were simulated by varying the clay concentrations in the flow and in the bed. Five different interaction types are described, and dimensional and non-dimensional phase diagrams for flow-bed interaction are presented.

Keywords

Turbidity currents Cohesive substrates Flow-substrate interaction Flume experiments Phase diagram 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was carried out as part of a PhD studentship, funded through the Turbidites Research Group by Anadarko, BG Group, BHP-Billiton, BP, ConocoPhillips, Maersk Oil, Marathon Oil, Nexen, Statoil, Tullow Oil plc and Woodside. We would like to thank Johanna Illers who collected part of the UHCM data and Gareth Keevil from the University of Leeds for supplying the header tank and UHCMs. Han Winterwerp and an anonymous reviewer are thanked for their constructive comments that helped improve the manuscript.

References

  1. Altinakar MS, Graf WH, Hopfinger EJ (1996) Flow structure in turbidity currents. J Hydraul Res 34(5):713–718CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Amy LA, Kneller BC, McCaffrey WD (2007) Facies architecture of the Grès de Peira Cava, SE France: landward stacking patterns in ponded turbiditic basins. J Geol Soc 164:143–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baas JH, Best JL (2002) Turbulence modulation in clay-rich sediment-laden flows and some implications for sediment deposition. J Sediment Res 72(3):336–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baas JH, Best JL (2008) The dynamics of turbulent, transitional and laminar clay-laden flow over a fixed current ripple. Sedimentology 55:635–666CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baas JH, Best JL, Peakall J, Wang M (2009) A phase diagram for turbulent, transitional, and laminar clay suspension flows. J Sediment Res 79:162–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baas JH, Best JL, Peakall J (2011) Depositional processes, bedform development and hybrid bed formation in rapidly decelerated cohesive (mud-sand) sediment flows. Sedimentology 58:1953–1987CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Baas JH, Davies AG, Malarkey J (2013) Bedform development in mixed sand-mud: the contrasting role of cohesive forces in flow and bed. Geomorphology 182:19–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Best JL, Kirkbridge AD, Peakall J (2001) Mean flow and turbulence structure of sediment-laden gravitiy currents: new insights using ultrasonic Doppler velocity profiling. In: McCaffrey WD, Kneller BC, Peakall J (eds) Particulate gravity currents, international association of sedimentologists, Special Publication, 31, Blackwell Science Ltd., pp 159–172Google Scholar
  9. Butler RWH, Tavarnelli E (2006) The structure and kinematics of substrate entrainment into high-concentration sandy turbidites: a field example from the Gorgoglione ‘flysch’ of southern Italy. Sedimentology 53:655–670CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chowdhury MR, Testik FY (2011) Laboratory testing of mathematical models for high-concentration fluid mud turbidity currents. Ocean Eng 38:256–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Clark JD, Stanbrook DA (2001) Formation of large-scale shear structures during deposition from high-density turbidity currents, Grès d’Annot Formation, south-east France. In: McCaffrey WD, Kneller BC, Peakall J (eds) Particulate gravity currents, international association of sedimentologists, Special Publication, 31, Blackwell Science Ltd., pp 219–232Google Scholar
  12. Coussot P (1997) Mudflow rheology and dynamics. IAHR-AIRH Monograph Series, A. A. Balkema, RotterdamGoogle Scholar
  13. Dickhudt PJ, Friedrichs CT, Sanford LP (2011) Mud matrix solids fraction and bed erodibility in the York River estuary, USA, and other muddy environments. Cont Shelf Res 31:S3–S13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Eggenhuisen JT, McCaffrey WD (2011) The vertical turbulence structure of experimental turbidity currents encountering basal obstructions: implications for vertical suspended sediment distribution in non-equilibrium currents. Sedimentology 59(3):1101–1120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Eggenhuisen JT, McCaffrey WD, Haughton PDW, Butler RWH (2010) Small-scale spatial variability in turbidity-current flow controlled by roughness resulting from substrate erosion: field evidence for a feedback mechanism. J Sediment Res 80:129–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Felix M, Peakall J (2006) Transformation of debris flows into turbidity currents: mechanisms inferred from laboratory experiments. Sedimentology 53:107–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Felix M, Sturton S, Peakall J (2005) Combined measurements of velocity and concentration in experimental turbidity currents. Sediment Geol 179(1–2):31–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Felix M, Leszczynski S, Slaczka A, Uchman A, Amy L, Peakall J (2009) Field expressions of the transformation of debris flows into turbidity currents, with examples from the Polish Carpathians and the French Maritime Alps. Mar Pet Geol 26(10):2011–2020CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hiscott RN (1994) Loss of capacity, not competence, as the fundamental process governing deposition from turbidity currents. J Sediment Res A64(2):209–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Houwing EJ, van Rijn LC (1998) In Situ Erosion Flume (ISEF): determination of bed-shear stress and erosion of a kaolinite bed. J Sea Res 39:243–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Houwing EJ, van Rijn LC (1994) In-situ determination of the critical bed-shear stress for erosion of cohesive sediments. In: Edge BL (ed) Coastal engineering, proceedings of the twenty-fourth international conference. Japan Society of Civil Engineers, Kobe, pp 2058–2069Google Scholar
  22. Hsu SK, Kuo J, Lo CL, Tsai CH, Doo WB, Ku CY, Sibuet JC (2008) Turbidity currents, submarine landslides and the 2006 Pingtung earthquake off SW Taiwan. Terr Atmos Ocean Sci 19(6):767–772CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jacobs W, Le Hir P, van Kesteren W, Cann P (2011) Erosion threshold of sand-mud mixtures. Cont Shelf Res 31:S14–S25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Khripounoff A, Vangriesheim A, Babonneau N, Crassous P, Dennielou B, Savoye B (2003) Direct observation of intense turbidity current activity in the Zaire submarine valley at 4000 m water depth. Mar Geol 194(3–4):151–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kineke GC, Sternberg RW, Trowbridge JH, Geyer WR (1996) Fluid-mud processes on the Amazon continental shelf. Cont Shelf Res 16:667–696CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kneller BC, Buckee C (2000) The structure and fluid mechanics of turbidity currents: a review of some recent studies and their geological implications. Sedimentology 47:62–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kneller BC, Bennett SJ, McCaffrey WD (1999) Velocity structure, turbulence and fluid stresses in experimental gravity currents. J Geophys Res 104(3):5381–5391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kothyari UC, Jain RK (2010) Erosion characteristics of cohesive sediment mixtures. In: Dittrich A, Aberle J, Geisenhainer P (eds) River Flow 2010, Bundesanstalt für Wasserbau, pp 815–821Google Scholar
  29. Marr JG, Harff PA, Shanmugam G, Parker G (2001) Experiments on subaquous sandy gravity flows: the role of clay and water content in flow dynamics and depositional structures. Geol Soc Am Bull 113(11):1377–1385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. McAnally WH, Friedrichs C, Hamilton D, Hayter E, Shrestha P, Rodriguez H, Sheremet A, Teeter A (2007a) Management of fluid mud in estuaries, bays, and lakes. I: present state of understanding on character and behavior. J Hydraul Eng 133(1):9–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. McAnally WH, Teeter A, Schoellhamer D, Friedrichs C, Hamilton D, Hayter E, Shrestha P, Rodriguez H, Sheremet A, Kirby R (2007b) Management of fluid mud in estuaries, bays, and lakes. II: measurement, modeling, and management. J Hydraul Eng 133(1):23–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. McCaffrey WD, Choux CMA, Baas JH, Haughton PDW (2003) Spatio-temporal evolution of velocity structure, concentration and grain-size stratification within experimental particulate gravity currents. Mar Pet Geol 20:851–860CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mehta A (1991) Understanding fluid mud in a dynamic environment. Geo-Mar Lett 11:113–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Met-Flow (2002) UVP Monitor, Model UVP-DUO with, Software Version 3, User’s Guide 5th edn. Met-Flow, SA Avenue Mon-Repos 14, CH1005 Lausanne, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  35. Middleton GV (1966) Small-scale models of turbidity currents and the critereon for auto-suspension. J Sediment Petrol 36(1):202–208Google Scholar
  36. Middleton GV (1993) Sediment deposition from turbidity currents. Annu Rev Earth Planet Sci 21:89–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Nichols MM (1984) Fluid mud accumulation processes in an estuary. Geo-Mar Lett 4(3–4):171–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Odd NVM, Cooper AJ (1989) A two-dimensional model of the movement of fluid mud in a high energy turbid estuary. J Coast Res (SI5):185–193Google Scholar
  39. Takeda Y (1991) Development of an ultrasound velocity profile monitor. Nucl Eng Des 126:277–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Takeda Y (1995) Instantaneous velocity profile measurement by ultrasonic Doppler method. Jpn Soc Mech Eng Int J 38:8–16Google Scholar
  41. Traykovski P, Geyer WR, Irish JD, Lynch JF (2000) The role of wave-induced density-driven fluid mud flows for cross-shelf transport on the Eel River continental shelf. Cont Shelf Res 20:2113–2140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wan Z (1982) Bed material movement in hyperconcentrated flow. Series Paper 31 Institute of Hydrodynamics and Hydraulic Engineering. Technical University of Denmark, LyngbyGoogle Scholar
  43. Wells JT, Coleman JM (1981) Physical processes and fine-grained sediment dynamics, coast of Surinam, South America. J Sediment Pet 51:1053–1068Google Scholar
  44. Whitehouse R, Soulsby R, Roberts W, Mitchener H (2000) Dynamics of estuarine muds. Thomas Telford Publishing, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Winterwerp JC, van Kesteren WGM (2004) Introduction to the physics of cohesive sediment in the marine environment. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  46. Xu JP, Noble MA, Rosenfeld LK (2004) In-situ measurements of velocity structure within turbidity currents. Geophys Res Lett 31(L09311). doi:10.1029/2004GL019718

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Iris Thérèse Elise Verhagen
    • 1
  • Jaco Hugo Baas
    • 1
  • Ricardo Silva Jacinto
    • 2
  • William Dale McCaffrey
    • 3
  • Alan Geoffrey Davies
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Ocean SciencesBangor UniversityIlse of AngleseyUK
  2. 2.Ifremer, Centre de Brest, Marine Geosciences UnityPlouzanéFrance
  3. 3.School of Earth and EnvironmentUniversity of LeedsLeedsUK

Personalised recommendations