Constraining the efficiency of turbidity current generation from submarine debris flows and slides using laboratory experiments

Abstract Results from a small set of laboratory experiments are presented here that help further constrain the processes governing the production of turbidity currents from impulsive failures of continental shelf and slope deposits. Three mechanisms by which sediment can be transferred from a parent debris flow to a less-dense turbidity current were observed and quantified. These mechanisms are grain-by-grain erosion of sediment from the leading edge of the parent flow, detachment of thin layers of shearing material from the head of the parent flow, and turbulent mixing at the head of the parent flow. Which transfer process dominates an experimental run depends on whether the large dynamic stresses focused on the head of the debris flow are sufficient to overcome a effective yield strength for the parent sediment+water mixture and on whether the dynamic stresses are sufficient to induce the turbulent flow of the parent mixture. Analysis of data from Marr et al. [Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. 113 (2001) 1377] and Mohrig et al. [Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. 110 (1998) 387] support the use of a shear strength to dynamic stress ratio in constraining necessary critical values for occurrence of the different production mechanisms. Direct sampling of turbidity currents using racks of vertically stacked siphons was used to measure both the quantity of sediment eroded from the heads of non-mixing parent flows and the distribution of particle sizes transported by the developing turbidity currents. Acoustic backscatter imaging was used to better resolve the internal boundary separating any turbulent mixing zone near the front of a flow from unmodified parent material.

[1]  R. V. Fisher Flow transformations in sediment gravity flows , 1983 .

[2]  J. Syvitski,et al.  Turbidity Currents Generated at River Mouths during Exceptional Discharges to the World Oceans , 1995, The Journal of Geology.

[3]  Y. Sohn Depositional Processes of Submarine Debris Flows in the Miocene Fan Deltas, Pohang Basin, SE Korea with Special Reference to Flow Transformation , 2000 .

[4]  J. Major,et al.  Debris-flow deposition: Effects of pore-fluid pressure and friction concentrated at flow margins , 1999 .

[5]  Chiang C. Mei,et al.  Approximate equations for the slow spreading of a thin sheet of Bingham plastic fluid , 1990 .

[6]  C. Kranenburg,et al.  GRAVITY CURRENT OF FLUID MUD ON SLOPING BED , 1996 .

[7]  Richard W. Hanks The laminar-turbulent transition for fluids with a yield stress , 1963 .

[8]  Y. Sohn Rapid development of gravelly high‐density turbidity currents in marine Gilbert‐type fan deltas, Loreto Basin, Baja California Sur, Mexico , 1998 .

[9]  N R Morgenstern,et al.  Submarine slumping and the initiation of turbidity currents , 1967 .

[10]  Submarine Landslides , 1929, Science.

[11]  Gary Parker,et al.  Experiments on the relative mobility of muddy subaqueous and subaerial debris flows, and their capacity to remobilize antecedent deposits , 1999 .

[12]  Kelin X. Whipple,et al.  Experimental Study of the Grain‐Flow, Fluid‐Mud Transition in Debris Flows , 2001, The Journal of Geology.

[13]  D. Masson,et al.  Catastrophic collapse of the volcanic island of Hierro 15 ka ago and the history of landslides in the Canary Islands , 1996 .

[14]  Jeffrey G. Marr,et al.  Experiments on subaqueous sandy gravity flows: The role of clay and water content in flow dynamics and depositional structures , 2001 .

[15]  P. Souquet,et al.  Facies sequences in large-volume debris- and turbidity-flow deposits from the Pyrenees (Cretaceous; France, Spain) , 1987 .

[16]  R. Iverson,et al.  U. S. Geological Survey , 1967, Radiocarbon.

[17]  H. Norem,et al.  An approach to the physics and the modeling of submarine flowslides , 1990 .

[18]  Dick R. Mastbergen,et al.  The importance of breaching as a mechanism of subaqueous slope failure in fine sand , 2002 .

[19]  Herbert E. Huppert,et al.  Entrainment in turbulent gravity currents , 1993, Nature.

[20]  G. Shanmugam 50 years of the turbidite paradigm (1950s—1990s): deep-water processes and facies models—a critical perspective , 2000 .

[21]  M. Hampton,et al.  The Role of Subaqueous Debris Flow in Generating Turbidity Currents , 1972 .

[22]  Johan C. Winterwerp,et al.  Research on erosive properties of cohesive sediments , 1989 .

[23]  Kelin X. Whipple,et al.  Hydroplaning of subaqueous debris flows , 1995 .

[24]  W. Nemec,et al.  Large floating clasts in turbidites: a mechanism for their emplacement , 1988 .

[25]  D. Piper,et al.  Initiation Processes and Flow Evolution of Turbidity Currents: Implications for the Depositional Record , 1991, From Shoreline to Abyss: Contributions in Marine Geology in Honor of Francis Parker Shepard.

[26]  J. Wagoner,et al.  Siliciclastic sequence stratigraphy in well logs, cores, and outcrops , 1990 .

[27]  W. Graf Hydraulics of Sediment Transport , 1984 .

[28]  J. R. Allen Mixing at Turbidity Current Heads, and Its Geological Implications , 1971 .

[29]  David G. Thomas Transport characteristics of suspension: VIII. A note on the viscosity of Newtonian suspensions of uniform spherical particles , 1965 .