The complexity of flow and wide variety of depositional processes operating in subaqueous density flows, combined with post-depositional consolidation and soft-sediment deformation, often make it difficult to interpret the characteristics of the original flow from the sedimentary record. This has led to considerable confusion of nomenclature in the literature. This paper attempts to clarify this situation by presenting a simple classification of sedimentary density flows, based on physical flow properties and grain-support mechanisms, and briefly discusses the likely characteristics of the deposited sediments. Cohesive flows are commonly referred to as debris flows and mud flows and defined on the basis of sediment characteristics. The boundary between cohesive and non-cohesive density flows (frictional flows) is poorly constrained, but dimensionless numbers may be of use to define flow thresholds. Frictional flows include a continuous series from sediment slides to turbidity currents. Subdivision of these flows is made on the basis of the dominant particle-support mechanisms, which include matrix strength (in cohesive flows), buoyancy, pore pressure, grain-to-grain interaction (causing dispersive pressure), Reynolds stresses (turbulence) and bed support (particles moved on the stationary bed). The dominant particle-support mechanism depends upon flow conditions, particle concentration, grain-size distribution and particle type. In hyperconcentrated density flows, very high sediment concentrations (>25 volume%) make particle interactions of major importance. The difference between hyperconcentrated density flows and cohesive flows is that the former are friction dominated. With decreasing sediment concentration, vertical particle sorting can result from differential settling, and flows in which this can occur are termed concentrated density flows. The boundary between hyperconcentrated and concentrated density flows is defined by a change in particle behaviour, such that denser or larger grains are no longer fully supported by grain interaction, thus allowing coarse-grain tail (or dense-grain tail) normal grading. The concentration at which this change occurs depends on particle size, sorting, composition and relative density, so that a single threshold concentration cannot be defined. Concentrated density flows may be highly erosive and subsequently deposit complete or incomplete Lowe and Bouma sequences. Conversely, hydroplaning at the base of debris flows, and possibly also in some hyperconcentrated flows, may reduce the fluid drag, thus allowing high flow velocities while preventing large-scale erosion. Flows with concentrations <9% by volume are true turbidity flows (sensuBagnold, 1962), in which fluid turbulence is the main particle-support mechanism. Turbidity flows and concentrated density flows can be subdivided on the basis of flow duration into instantaneous surges, longer duration surge-like flows and quasi-steady currents. Flow duration is shown to control the nature of the resulting deposits. Surge-like turbidity currents tend to produce classical Bouma sequences, whose nature at any one site depends on factors such as flow size, sediment type and proximity to source. In contrast, quasi-steady turbidity currents, generated by hyperpycnal river effluent, can deposit coarsening-up units capped by fining-up units (because of waxing and waning conditions respectively) and may also include thick units of uniform character (resulting from prolonged periods of near-steady conditions). Any flow type may progressively change character along the transport path, with transformation primarily resulting from reductions in sediment concentration through progressive entrainment of surrounding fluid and/or sediment deposition. The rate of fluid entrainment, and consequently flow transformation, is dependent on factors including slope gradient, lateral confinement, bed roughness, flow thickness and water depth. Flows with high and low sediment concentrations may co-exist in one transport event because of downflow transformations, flow stratification or shear layer development of the mixing interface with the overlying water (mixing cloud formation). Deposits of an individual flow event at one site may therefore form from a succession of different flow types, and this introduces considerable complexity into classifying the flow event or component flow types from the deposits.

The physical character of subaqueous sedimentary density flows and their deposits

http://basin.earth.ncu.edu.tw/download/courses/seminar_MSc/2012/1018_1_1.pdf

Marine hyperpycnal flows: initiation, behavior and related deposits. A review

Submarine sediment density flows are one of the most important processes for moving sediment across our planet, yet they are extremely difficult to monitor directly. The speed of long run-out submarine density flows has been measured directly in just five locations worldwide and their sediment concentration has never been measured directly. The only record of most density flows is their sediment deposit. This article summarizes the processes by which density flows deposit sediment and proposes a new single classification for the resulting types of deposit. Colloidal properties of fine cohesive mud ensure that mud deposition is complex, and large volumes of mud can sometimes pond or drain-back for long distances into basinal lows. Deposition of ungraded mud (TE-3) most probably finally results from en masse consolidation in relatively thin and dense flows, although initial size sorting of mud indicates earlier stages of dilute and expanded flow. Graded mud (TE-2) and finely laminated mud (TE-1) most probably result from floc settling at lower mud concentrations. Grain-size breaks beneath mud intervals are commonplace, and record bypass of intermediate grain sizes due to colloidal mud behaviour. Planar-laminated (TD) and ripple cross-laminated (TC) non-cohesive silt or fine sand is deposited by dilute flow, and the external deposit shape is consistent with previous models of spatial decelerating (dissipative) dilute flow. A grain-size break beneath the ripple cross-laminated (TC) interval is common, and records a period of sediment reworking (sometimes into dunes) or bypass. Finely planar-laminated sand can be deposited by low-amplitude bed waves in dilute flow (TB-1), but it is most likely to be deposited mainly by high-concentration near-bed layers beneath high-density flows (TB-2). More widely spaced planar lamination (TB-3) occurs beneath massive clean sand (TA), and is also formed by high-density turbidity currents. High-density turbidite deposits (TA, TB-2 and TB-3) have a tabular shape consistent with hindered settling, and are typically overlain by a more extensive drape of low-density turbidite (TD and TC,). This core and drape shape suggests that events sometimes comprise two distinct flow components. Massive clean sand is less commonly deposited en masse by liquefied debris flow (DCS), in which case the clean sand is ungraded or has a patchy grain-size texture. Clean-sand debrites can extend for several tens of kilometres before pinching out abruptly. Up-current transitions suggest that clean-sand debris flows sometimes form via transformation from high-density turbidity currents. Cohesive debris flows can deposit three types of ungraded muddy sand that may contain clasts. Thick cohesive debrites tend to occur in more proximal settings and extend from an initial slope failure. Thinner and highly mobile low-strength cohesive debris flows produce extensive deposits restricted to distal areas. These low-strength debris flows may contain clasts and travel long distances (DM-2), or result from more local flow transformation due to turbulence damping by cohesive mud (DM-1). Mapping of individual flow deposits (beds) emphasizes how a single event can contain several flow types, with transformations between flow types. Flow transformation may be from dilute to dense flow, as well as from dense to dilute flow. Flow state, deposit type and flow transformation are strongly dependent on the volume fraction of cohesive fine mud within a flow. Recent field observations show significant deviations from previous widely cited models, and many hypotheses linking flow type to deposit type are poorly tested. There is much still to learn about these remarkable flows.

Subaqueous sediment density flows: Depositional processes and deposit types

Summary
The literature on the structure and behaviour of gravity currents is reviewed, with emphasis on some recent studies, and with particular attention to turbidity currents, though reference is also made to comparable behaviour in pyroclastic flows. Questions of definition are discussed, in particular the distinction between dense currents, which may deposit en masse, and more dilute currents. High-density dispersions may exist as a discrete, independently moving layer beneath a more dilute flow, as the basal part of a continuous density distribution or possibly as a transient depositional layer. Existing theory appears inadequate to explain the behaviour of some high-density dispersions. Surge-type currents are contrasted with quasi-steady currents, which may be generated by a variety of mechanisms including direct feed by rivers in flood. Such fluvially generated currents provide one means of generating currents with reversing buoyancy. Geologically significant turbidity currents are impractical for direct study owing to their large scale and (often) destructive nature. Small-scale laboratory currents offer a wealth of insights into turbidity current behaviour. This paper summarizes recent experimental studies that focus on the physical structure of gravity currents, with emphasis on the velocity and turbulence structure, the vertical density distribution and the stability of stratification. Preliminary quantification of the turbulence structure (including controls on turbulent entrainment, turbulent kinetic energy, Reynolds stresses and turbulence production) has been facilitated by recent technological developments that have allowed the measurement of instantaneous fluctuations in both velocity and concentration. Laboratory models, however, generally involve substantial simplification, and require compromises in some parameters to achieve adequate scaling of the parameters of most interest. Mathematical modelling also provides important insights into turbidity current behaviour. We discuss various approaches to modelling, ranging from simple hydraulic equations to systems of partial differential equations that explicitly treat conservation of momentum, fluid and sediment mass, and turbulent kinetic energy. The application for which the model is designed (i.e. to calculate mean head velocity or to create an instantaneous two-dimensional contour plot of downstream velocity in a current) determines the complexity of the mathematical model required. The behaviour of suspension currents around topography is complex and depends upon the relative height of the topography, and upon the density and velocity structure of the current. Many interactions with topography are well described by the internal Froude number, Fri. Both reflection and deflection of currents may occur on the upstream side of topography, depending upon Fri. On the downstream side of topography, flow separation, lee waves or hydraulic jumps may occur.

The structure and fluid mechanics of turbidity currents: a review of some recent studies and their geological implications

The article surveys the current state of our understanding of turbidity currents, with an emphasis on their fluid mechanics. It highlights the significant role these currents play within the global sediment cycle, and their importance in environmental processes and in the formation of hydrocarbon reservoirs. Events and mechanisms governing the initiation of turbidity currents are reviewed, along with experimental observations and findings from field studies regarding their internal velocity and density structure. As turbidity currents propagate over the seafloor, they can trigger the evolution of a host of topographical features through the processes of deposition and erosion, such as channels, levees, and sediment waves. Potential linear instability mechanisms are discussed that may determine the spatial scales of these features. Finally, the hierarchy of available theoretical models for analyzing the dynamics of turbidity currents is outlined, ranging from dimensional analysis and integral models to both depth-averaged and depth-resolving simulation approaches.

Turbidity Currents and Their Deposits

Approximate layer-averaged equations describing the mechanics of turbid underflows are derived. Closure of the equations describing the balance of fluid mass, sediment mass, and mean flow momentum provides for the delineation of a three-equation model. A description of sediment exchange with the bed allows for the possibility of a self-accelerating turbidity current in which sediment entrainment from the bed is linked to flow velocity. A consideration of the balance of the mean energy of the turbulence yields a constraint on physically realistic solutions to the three-equation model. It is shown that the self-acceleration predicted by the three-equation model is so strong that the energy constraint fails to be satisfied. In particular, the turbulent energy consumed in entraining new bed sediment exceeds the supply of energy to the turbulence, so that the turbulence, and thus the turbidity current, must die. The problem is rectified by the formulation of a four-equation model, in which an explicit accounting is made of the mean energy of the turbulence. Sediment entrainment from the bed is linked to the level of turbulence in the four-equation model. Self-acceleration is again predicted, although it is somewhat subdued compared with that predicted by the three-equation model. The predictions of both models are summarized over a wide range of conditions.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/S0022112086001404

Henry M. Pantin

Papers

Self-accelerating turbidity currents