Subaqueous debris flow behaviour and its dependence on the sand/clay ratio: a laboratory study using particle tracking

Abstract Subaqueous debris flows were studied through a set of laboratory experiments examining the behaviour within the flow and the effects of varying the clay–sand mass fraction at a fixed water content. They confirm earlier experiments where mobility is enhanced by a lubricating layer and run-out is largely influenced by other mechanisms than the rheological properties of the debris flow itself for high clay content flows. Through particle tracking by high-speed video, a better understanding of the mobility of subaqueous debris flows has been established. For highly coherent flows, the heads of the flows were hydroplaning. In many cases, hydroplaning stretched, and eventually ruptured, the flowing mass. Fitting the observed velocity profiles to Bingham rheology and by comparing with standard rheological measurements of the pre-flow slurries demonstrates very substantial weakening and softening in the bottom shear layer, but not in the overlying plug layer. This effect is attributed to mixing with ambient water. Weakly coherent flows show an intensively fluidized front; the entire head breaks up into a turbulent flow. Behind the head, one finds a dense flow layer where sand grains drop out during the flow and form a depositional layer. The highest mobility is found for slurries with a low yield stress combined with sufficient competence to allow a moderate settlement of sand during flow. Similar mechanisms are likely to operate in natural subaqueous debris flows and may thus provide an additional explanation for the long run-out distances of those flows.

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

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

[3]  Jeffrey G. Marr,et al.  Hydroplaning of subaqueous debris flows and glide blocks: Analytical solutions and discussion , 2003 .

[4]  D. Stow,et al.  Deep-water massive sands: nature, origin and hydrocarbon implications , 2000 .

[5]  Richard M. Iverson,et al.  The debris-flow rheology myth , 2003 .

[6]  D. Lowe,et al.  Slurry‐flow deposits in the Britannia Formation (Lower Cretaceous), North Sea: a new perspective on the turbidity current and debris flow problem , 2000 .

[7]  Pierre Y. Julien,et al.  Laboratory Analysis of Mudflow Properties , 1988 .

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

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

[10]  Jeffrey G. Marr,et al.  Constraining the efficiency of turbidity current generation from submarine debris flows and slides using laboratory experiments , 2003 .

[11]  Philippe Coussot,et al.  Mudflow Rheology and Dynamics , 1997 .

[12]  Jeffrey G. Marr,et al.  On the frontal dynamics and morphology of submarine debris flows , 2004 .

[13]  G. Middleton.  Experimental studies related to problems of flysch sedimentation , 1970 .

[14]  Gerard V. Middleton,et al.  Part I. Sediment Gravity Flows: Mechanics of Flow and Deposition , 1973 .

[15]  Jacques Locat,et al.  VISCOSITY, YIELD STRESS, REMOLDED STRENGTH, AND LIQUIDITY INDEX RELATIONSHIPS FOR SENSITIVE CLAYS , 1988 .

[16]  Marcelo H. García,et al.  Modeling of non-hydroplaning mudflows on continental slopes , 1999 .

[17]  Michael J. Branney,et al.  Sustained high‐density turbidity currents and the deposition of thick massive sands , 1995 .

[18]  Jasim Imran,et al.  A numerical model of submarine debris flow with graphical user interface , 2001 .

[19]  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 .

[20]  Coussot.  Structural Similarity and Transition from Newtonian to Non-Newtonian Behavior for Clay-Water Suspensions. , 1995, Physical review letters.

[21]  D. Eckersley,et al.  Instrumented laboratory flowslides , 1990 .

[22]  Ralph O. Kehle,et al.  Physical Processes in Geology , 1972 .

[23]  S. Savage,et al.  The motion of a finite mass of granular material down a rough incline , 1989, Journal of Fluid Mechanics.

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

[25]  Richard M. Iverson,et al.  Flow of variably fluidized granular masses across three‐dimensional terrain: 1. Coulomb mixture theory , 2001 .

[26]  G. Schanmugam.  High-density turbidity currents : are they sandy debris flow? , 1996 .

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

[28]  D. Stow,et al.  Deep-water sedimentary systems: New models for the 21st century , 2000 .

[29]  Jeffrey G. Marr,et al.  Laboratory studies of subaqueous debris flows by measurements of pore-fluid pressure and total stress , 2004 .

[30]  M. Hampton.  Competence of Fine-grained Debris Flows , 1975 .

[31]  J. Locat,et al.  Submarine landslides: advances and challenges , 2002 .

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

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

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

[35]  Richard M. Iverson,et al.  New views of granular mass flows , 2001 .

[36]  P. Kuenen.  Properties of Turbidity Currents of High Density , 1951 .

[37]  R. Hiscott,et al.  Depositional Mechanics of Thick-Bedded Sandstones at the Base of A Submarine Slope, Tourelle Formation (Lower Ordovician), Quebec, Canada , 1979 .

[38]  Jon J. Major,et al.  Debris flow rheology: Experimental analysis of fine‐grained slurries , 1992 .