Thierry Mulder

Bio: Thierry Mulder is an academic researcher from University of East Anglia. The author has contributed to research in topics: Turbidite & Sediment gravity flow. The author has an hindex of 1, co-authored 1 publications receiving 1301 citations.

The physical character of subaqueous sedimentary density flows and their deposits

Abstract: 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.

Mississippian Barnett Shale: Lithofacies and depositional setting of a deep-water shale-gas succession in the Fort Worth Basin, Texas

Abstract: The Mississippian Barnett Formation of the Fort Worth Basin is a classic shale-gas system in which the rock is the source, reservoir, and seal. Barnett strata were deposited in a deeper water foreland basin that had poor circulation with the open ocean. For most of the basin's history, bottom waters were euxinic, preserving organic matter and, thus, creating a rich source rock, along with abundant framboidal pyrite. The Barnett interval comprises a variety of facies but is dominated by fine-grained (clay- to silt-size) particles. Three general lithofacies are recognized on the basis of mineralogy, fabric, biota, and texture: (1) laminated siliceous mudstone; (2) laminated argillaceous lime mudstone (marl); and (3) skeletal, argillaceous lime packstone. Each facies contains abundant pyrite and phosphate (apatite), which are especially common at hardgrounds. Carbonate concretions, a product of early diagenesis, are also common. The entire Barnett biota is composed of debris transported to the basin from the shelf or upper oxygenated slope by hemipelagic mud plumes, dilute turbidites, and debris flows. Biogenic sediment was also sourced from the shallower, better oxygenated water column. Barnett deposition is estimated to have occurred over a 25-m.y. period, and despite the variations in sublithofacies, sedimentation style remained remarkably similar throughout this span of time.

Subaqueous sediment density flows: Depositional processes and deposit types

Abstract: 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.

Submarine landslides: processes, triggers and hazard prediction

Abstract: Huge landslides, mobilizing hundreds to thousands of km3 of sediment and rock are ubiquitous in submarine settings ranging from the steepest volcanic island slopes to the gentlest muddy slopes of submarine deltas. Here, we summarize current knowledge of such landslides and the problems of assessing their hazard potential. The major hazards related to submarine landslides include destruction of seabed infrastructure, collapse of coastal areas into the sea and landslide-generated tsunamis. Most submarine slopes are inherently stable. Elevated pore pressures (leading to decreased frictional resistance to sliding) and specific weak layers within stratified sequences appear to be the key factors influencing landslide occurrence. Elevated pore pressures can result from normal depositional processes or from transient processes such as earthquake shaking; historical evidence suggests that the majority of large submarine landslides are triggered by earthquakes. Because of their tsunamigenic potential, ocean-island flank collapses and rockslides in fjords have been identified as the most dangerous of all landslide related hazards. Published models of ocean-island landslides mainly examine ‘worst-case scenarios’ that have a low probability of occurrence. Areas prone to submarine landsliding are relatively easy to identify, but we are still some way from being able to forecast individual events with precision. Monitoring of critical areas where landslides might be imminent and modelling landslide consequences so that appropriate mitigation strategies can be developed would appear to be areas where advances on current practice are possible.

Classification of offshore mass movements

Abstract: More than 100 offshore mass-movement deposits have been studied in Holocene and Pleistocene sediments. The processes can be divided into three main types: slides/slumps, plastic flows, and turbidity currents, of which 13 main varieties have been recognized. The three types are differentiated mainly by motion, architecture, and shape of failure surface. For slides, the morphology of deposits can usually be linked to a process, but for plastic flows and turbidity currents, information about the motion is mainly provided by the sedimentary record. A static classification based on these features is given, and is related to a dynamic classification system to try to underline the morphological transformation of an offshore event from initiation to deposition.