Downloaded from geology.gsapubs.

org on November 17, 2014

Geology

Deposits of flows transitional between turbidity current and debris flow

Esther J. Sumner, Peter J. Talling and Lawrence A. Amy

Geology 2009;37;991-994
doi: 10.1130/G30059A.1

Email alerting services click www.gsapubs.org/cgi/alerts to receive free e-mail alerts when new
articles cite this article
Subscribe click www.gsapubs.org/subscriptions/ to subscribe to Geology
Permission request click http://www.geosociety.org/pubs/copyrt.htm#gsa to contact GSA
Copyright not claimed on content prepared wholly by U.S. government employees within scope of
their employment. Individual scientists are hereby granted permission, without fees or further
requests to GSA, to use a single figure, a single table, and/or a brief paragraph of text in subsequent
works and to make unlimited copies of items in GSA's journals for noncommercial use in classrooms
to further education and science. This file may not be posted to any Web site, but authors may post
the abstracts only of their articles on their own or their organization's Web site providing the posting
includes a reference to the article's full citation. GSA provides this and other forums for the
presentation of diverse opinions and positions by scientists worldwide, regardless of their race,
citizenship, gender, religion, or political viewpoint. Opinions presented in this publication do not reflect
official positions of the Society.

Notes

© 2009 Geological Society of America

 Downloaded from geology.gsapubs.org on November 17, 2014

Deposits of flows transitional between turbidity current and debris flow

Esther J. Sumner1*, Peter J. Talling1*, and Lawrence A. Amy2†
1
Department of Earth Science, University of Bristol, Queen’s Road, Bristol BS8 1RJ, UK
2
Institute of Petroleum Engineering, Heriot-Watt University, Riccarton Campus, Edinburgh EH14 4AS, UK

ABSTRACT 2008, for details). The flow was decelerated

The relationship between submarine sediment gravity flows and the character of their linearly over periods of between 10 s and 900
deposits is poorly understood. Annular flume experiments were used to investigate the depo- s. The onset of deposition and, where possible,
sitional dynamics and deposits of waning sediment-laden flows. Decelerating fast (>3 m/s) deposition rates were measured using a video
flows with fixed sand content (10 vol%) and variable mud content (0–17 vol%) resulted camera attached to the rotating flume. The flow
in only four deposit types. Clean sand with a mud cap that resembled a turbidity current state was measured by injecting dye into the
deposit (turbidite) formed if the flow was turbulent when deposition began, or if the muddy flow 5–10 cm above the channel floor. The flow
fluid had insufficient strength to suspend the sand. The clean sand could contain struc- was considered to be turbulent if the dye mixed
tures if mud content was low (<6%) and the deceleration period was >300 s. Ungraded within 5 s; laminar if the dye formed streaks;
muddy sand with a mud cap that resembled a debris-flow deposit (debrite) formed if the and transitional (between turbulent and lami-
flow became laminar before sand could deposit. Clean sand overlain by ungraded muddy nar) if mixing of the dye took more than 5 s.
sand and a mud cap formed either from a transitional flow or by late-stage settling of sand Samples were taken for grain-size analysis 16
from a muddy suspension. These deposits resemble enigmatic submarine flow deposits h after the end of the experiment. Grain-size
called linked debrite-turbidites. The experiments provide a basis for inferring flow type analyses were conducted using a Malvern
from deposit character for submarine sediment-laden flows. Mastersizer Micro. The details of all experi-
ments are provided in GSA Data Repository1
INTRODUCTION currents are sometimes considered to have Table DR1 and are shown in Figure 1A.
Submarine gravity flows are some of the larg- sediment volume concentrations of <~10%, as
est and most powerful sediment-laden flows on at higher sediment concentrations, grain colli- RESULTS
Earth. Individual flows can transport >100 km3 sion is more frequent (Mulder and Alexander, The experimental deposits are divided into
of sand and mud from the continental shelf into 2001; Bagnold, 1962). However, the relation- four types based on the degree of sand and mud
the deep ocean (Talling et al., 2007), sometimes ship between flow characteristics (e.g., com- segregation and the existence of sedimentary
obtaining speeds of 19 m/s on slopes of <0.25° position, concentration, rheology) and deposit structures (Fig. 1A).
(Piper et al., 1999). Direct monitoring of flows character is not well constrained by existing
is difficult; therefore much of our understand- experimental work. Past controversy over how Type I—Structured Sand Overlain by a
ing of these flows is based on the analysis of to infer flow character from a deposit reflects Mud Cap
their deposits. Laboratory experiments play an this lack of experimental data linking deposits This deposit formed from flows with <6%
important role in determining the types of flows directly to flow types. This study provides the mud that were decelerated over >300 s. The
that produce different deposits. In this study opportunity to document deposits from flows clean sand gradually aggraded, initially by the
experiments were conducted to determine the with a fixed sand content but a wide range of collapse of laminar sheared layers, which are
types of deposits that form from flows with mud concentrations that were decelerated in a thin (<5 mm), high-concentration moving sand
a fixed (10 vol%) amount of sand and a wide controlled fashion at different rates. layers (as described by Vrolijk and Southard,
range of mud fractions (0–17 vol%) and decel- 1997; Sumner et al., 2008). Planar laminae
eration rates. This included flows that were tran- METHODS formed from the reworking of laminar sheared
sitional between a fluidal and a plastic rheology. Experiments were conducted in an annular layers. As the sedimentation rate declined,
flume, a recirculating flume consisting of a there was tractional reworking of the bed,
SUBMARINE SEDIMENT GRAVITY continuous channel that is circular in plan view causing the formation of ripple cross-laminae.
FLOWS and has a radius (to the outer wall) of 0.6 m. A small amount of fine sand aggraded on top of
It is often inferred that two end-member flow The cross section of the channel is rectangular, the ripple cross-laminae after the flow stopped
types exist, turbidity currents and debris flows. with a width of 0.14 m and a depth of 0.5 m. (Fig. DR1 in the Data Repository). Suspension
Turbidity currents are typically defined as rela- The channel contained 160 L of tap water, fallout of mud particles formed a layer that
tively dilute flows in which particles are domi- silica sand (grain size = 45–250 µm; density = then consolidated.
nantly supported by fluid turbulence, whereas 2448 kg/m3), and kaolinite (mean grain size =
debris flows have relatively high sediment 12 µm; density = 2350 kg/m3). The amount of Type II—Structureless Sand Overlain by a
concentrations, and so the yield strength of the silica sand was kept constant at 10% and the Mud Cap
sediment-water mixture and/or grain interac- amount of mud and water was varied. Rotat- This deposit formed from all flows with
tions are the main particle support mechanisms ing six paddles (10 cm long) through the upper 6%–11.25% mud, and flows with <6% mud
(Middleton and Hampton, 1973). Turbidity surface of the suspension generates flow. The
base of the flume counterrotates to minimize 1
GSA Data Repository item 2009251, Table DR1
*Current address: National Oceanography Centre, secondary flow in the channel. (details of all experiments), Figure DR1 (parts 1 to 4;
University of Southampton, Waterfront Campus, Eu- A visually highly turbulent flow was gen- vertical grain-size profiles of all sampled deposits),
ropean Way, Southampton SO14 3ZH, UK. E-mails: erated, with an initial velocity of either 3 or and Figure DR2 (parts 1 to 4; growth rate of the part of
Esther.Sumner@noc.soton.ac.uk; peter.talling@noc. the deposit comprising clean sand), is available online
soton.ac.uk.
3.5 m/s. Flow velocities are based on mea- at www.geosociety.org/pubs/ft2009.htm, or on request
†
Current address: Saudi Aramco, Dharan 31311, surements made of clear-water flows using from editing@geosociety.org or Documents Secre-
Saudi Arabia neutrally buoyant particles (see Sumner et al., tary, GSA, P.O. Box 9140, Boulder, CO 80301, USA.

© 2009 Geological Society of America. For permission to copy, contact Copyright Permissions, GSA, or editing@geosociety.org.
GEOLOGY,
Geology, November
November 2009
2009; v. 37; no. 11; p. 991–994; doi: 10.1130/G30059A.1; 3 figures; Data Repository item 2009251. 991
 Downloaded from geology.gsapubs.org on November 17, 2014

A B
Experiment conducted Turbulent flow Transitional flow Laminar flow
0.28 0.18
Experiment sampled
Flow state measured
0.26 Deposit type IV 0.16 0.16
Total solids concentration Φ Τ

0.24 0.14 0.14

Deposit type III

Mud concentration ΦΜ
0.22 0.12 0.12

key
0.20 0.10 0.10

s
Mud

begin
Muddy sand
0.18 0.08 0.08

sition
Clean sand
Laminae

D epo
0.16 0.06 0.06 Ripples
Deposit type II
0.14 0.04 0.04

0.12 0.02 0.02

Deposit type I

100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 200 250 300 350 400 450
Deceleration time (s) Time from start of deceleration (s)

Figure 1. A: Graph showing deposit types that formed when mud content and deceleration rate were varied. Deposit types I and II comprise
normally graded sand overlain by mud cap. Type I contains planar laminae and may contain ripple cross-laminae, whereas type II is struc-
tureless. Deposit type III comprises clean sand overlain by ungraded muddy sand and mud cap. Deposit type IV comprises ungraded muddy
sand with mud cap. B: Graph showing how state of flow (turbulent, transitional, or laminar) varies with mud content and time from start
of deceleration, for a series of experiments decelerated in 500 s (diamonds in A). Bold line shows onset of sand deposition for flows with
different mud contents. Type I and II deposits form when flow is turbulent at onset of sand deposition. Type III deposits form when flow is
transitional at onset of deposition. Type IV deposits form if flow becomes laminar before deposition.

decelerated in <300 s. The clean sand aggraded
from slowly decelerated flows initially by the
collapse of laminar sheared layers, then by
traction, and finally from individual particle
settling. The top of the clean sand segregated
from the muddy suspension after the flow
stopped. For quickly decelerated flows, depo-
sition of clean sand always began from the
moving flow, but much deposition occurred
after the flow stopped via segregation from the
muddy suspension (Fig. DR2).
Type III—Structureless Sand Overlain by
Ungraded Muddy Sand and a Mud Cap
The deposit formed from flows with
11.25%–14.25% mud. In slowly decelerated
flows clean sand aggraded from the moving
flow via a tractional bed boundary, a small
amount of sand segregated from the muddy
suspension after the flow stopped. In quickly
decelerated flows deposition of clean sand
began from the moving flow, but most of the
deposit aggraded from sand segregating out of
suspension after the flow stopped.
Type IV—Ungraded Muddy Sand with a
Mud Cap
The deposit formed from flows with
>14.25% mud. The deposit formed entirely
from the consolidation of the muddy suspen-
sion after the flow had stopped.
Flow State
All of the flows began in a turbulent state;
as the flows slowed, turbulence diminished
and they became laminar. Figure 1B shows
how the state of the flow evolves for a series of
flows with increasing mud content (0%–17%);
they all had a sand content of 10% and were
decelerated over 500 s. The graph shows the
time from start of deceleration, when the flow
became turbulent, transitional, and laminar for
flows with increasing mud content. The graph
also shows the time from start of deceleration
when sand deposition began. Deposit type
correlates to the flow state when deposition
began. If the flow was turbulent when deposi-
tion began, the sand was able to segregate from
the mud, either during flow or after flow had
stopped, resulting in deposit type I or II. If the
flow was transitional when deposition began,
some of the sand segregated from the mud,
resulting in deposit type III. If the flow became
laminar before deposition began, a type IV
deposit formed.
DISCUSSION
Deposit Types
Despite the wide range of conditions tested,
only four types of deposit formed. The bound-
aries between deposit types are abrupt, mean-
ing that remarkably small changes in the
amount of mud in suspension can cause transi-
tion between deposit types (Fig. 1A).
Particle support in muddy flows is deter-
mined by the complex interplay of turbulent
and cohesive forces. The development of
a continuous structural network formed by
aggregation of colloidal particles gives the
flow yield strength, makes the flow viscous,
and suppresses turbulence. However, turbu-
lence can disrupt this network and reduce yield
strength and fluid viscosity (Winterwerp and
Kranenburg, 1997). Sand particles increase the
concentration of the suspension and can damp
turbulence. However, they can also increase the
distance between clay particles, making aggre-
gation more difficult, and generate turbulent
wakes that disrupt the bonds between mud par-
ticles (Elghobashi, 1994).
Baas et al. (2009) constructed a phase dia-
gram for turbulent, transitional, and laminar
clay-laden open-channel flows. A version of
their phase diagram specific to kaolin sus-
pensions is shown in Figure 2. Increasing the
amount of clay in a flow led to five different
flow types. Turbulent flow, which is turbulent
throughout its depth; turbulence-enhanced
transitional flow, which has enhanced turbu-
lence relative to a turbulent flow of the same
speed; lower transitional plug flow, comprising
a lower turbulent region and overlying lami-
nar plug; upper transitional plug flow, which

992 GEOLOGY, November 2009

 Downloaded from geology.gsapubs.org on November 17, 2014

0.18

Deposit type QLPF Quasi-laminar plug flow

0.16
IV QLPF
UTPF
0.14
Figure 2. Data from this Deposit type
study (black lines) plot- III 1 UTPF Upper transitional plug flow
0.12 LTPF

Mud concentration ΦΜ
ted on phase diagram
for kaolinite-water flows 0.10
TETF
(gray lines) (redrawn LTPF Lower transitional plug flow
from Baas et al., 2009). 0.08 Deposit type
Arrows show trajecto- I + II TF
0.06
ries, through phase dia-

al r
on a

Sa
TETF Turbulence-enhanced transitional flow

len al
iti in

tur sition

nd
ns am
gram, of different flows

de
tra L
0.04 2
that would result in a

bu
n

po
Tra

sit
linked turbidite-debrite.

ion
0.02 beg TF Turbulent flow
ins
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
Flow velocity (m/s)

has a lower turbulent region and thick overly-
ing laminar plug; and quasi-laminar plug flow,
comprising a laminar plug that moves on a thin
shear layer (Fig. 2).
If the flow types of Baas et al. (2009) are
extended to flows that also contain sand, they
explain the different types of deposit observed
here. Figure 2 shows the results from this
study plotted on Baas et al.’s (2009) phase dia-
gram for kaolinite-water suspensions. Exact
correlation between the two data sets is not
expected because of differences in composi-
tion, bed-boundary roughness, and the posi-
tion of turbulence generation in the flow. Our
experiments progress from right to left on the
diagram along lines of constant composition
(e.g., arrow 1, Fig. 2).
Type I and II deposits (clean sand with mud
cap) usually correlate with flows where depo-
sition begins in either the “turbulent” or “tur-
bulence enhanced” regimes. Sand gradually
settles from the turbulent flow as it slows and
turbulence decays. As the flow slows a laminar
plug develops that consolidates on top of the
sand. When the flows are decelerated quickly,
turbulence decays too quickly for the sand
particles to respond. Therefore much of the
deposit aggrades after the flow has stopped
because the muddy plug has insufficient yield
strength to suspend the sand.
The type III deposits (clean sand overlain by
muddy sand capped with mud) correlate with
flows where deposition begins while the flow
is in the “transitional plug” regimes. Sand par-
ticles in the lower turbulent region settle out
as the flow decelerates and turbulence decays.
However, as the flow slows the thickness of the
laminar plug extends downward, trapping sand
particles. Some sand segregates after the flow
has stopped if the yield strength of the plug
provides insufficient support. When the flows
are decelerated quickly the growth of the plug
is faster than the settling velocity of the sand
particles. All sand segregates out of the plug
after the flow has stopped because the plug has Mudstone
insufficient yield strength to suspend it. A Cross- and planar-laminated
The type IV deposits (ungraded muddy sandstone
Mud-rich sandstone
sand with a mud cap) correlate with “quasi-
Mudclasts
laminar plug flows.” The laminar plug extends
to the base of the flow and has sufficient yield
Dewatered clean sandstone
strength to prevent sand settling.
The mud cap on all of the deposits results
from turbulence generation, by the paddles, at Structureless clean sandstone
the top of the flow. The turbulence disrupts the
Mudstone
mud network sufficiently to allow sand to settle B Cross- and planar-laminated
downward.
sandstone
IMPLICATIONS FOR THE FORMATION Mud-rich sandstone
OF LINKED DEBRITE-TURBIDITE
BEDS Chaotically arranged mud clasts
and chips
Deposits containing debrite (ungraded
muddy sand) encased in turbidite (clean sand
and mud) have been called linked debrite-tur-
Clean sandstone
bidite beds. The debrite sand interval is typi-
cally relatively thin (<2 m) and may or may C Mudstone
not contain mud clasts (Fig. 3). Their origin is
enigmatic because these beds commonly occur
in distal parts of turbidite systems (Haughton
Mud-rich sandstone
et al., 2003; Talling et al., 2004, 2007), an
environment not traditionally associated with
debris-flow deposits.
Mud clasts
The architecture of linked turbidite-debrites
can vary (Fig. 3; Haughton et al., 2003; Talling Clean sandstone
et al., 2004, 2007). The clean basal sand-
stone often contains cross-laminae (Talling et Figure 3. Logs showing variability of linked
al., 2004, 2007), but can be massive (Fig. 3). turbidite-debrites in outcrop (redrawn from
In certain cases the basal sand has pervasive Haughton et al., 2003; Talling et al., 2004).
deformation due to dewatering, and it has been
suggested that this dewatering can aid debris-
flow runout (Haughton et al., 2003). However, debris flow; (2) an initial debris flow is diluted
in many cases the basal unit is undeformed and by shear with the ambient fluid, producing a
dewatering has not helped debris-flow runout subsidiary turbidity current that outruns the
(Talling et al., 2004, 2007). debris flow; (3) a turbidity current overloads
Several hypotheses exist for the origin of an unstable substrate, generating a localized
linked debrite-turbidite beds (Haughton et al., secondary debris flow (McCaffrey and Kneller,
2003; Talling et al., 2004, 2007): (1) an initial 2001); (4) an initial turbulent flow decelerates
turbidity current erodes the seafloor, causing and its turbulence diminishes, the strength of
local flow bulking and transformation into a flocculation between mud particles increases,

GEOLOGY, November 2009 993

 Downloaded from geology.gsapubs.org on November 17, 2014
and particles above a critical settling veloc-
ity settle while smaller particles remain sus-
pended; and (5) a debris flow with low yield
strength decelerates and particles above a criti-
cal size settle out, whereas smaller particles
remain suspended in the flow (Marr et al.,
2001; Talling et al., 2004).
The experiments show that as an initially
turbulent flow decelerates, gelling of mud
can lead to deposition of clean sand overlain
by ungraded muddy sand (arrow 1 in Fig. 2).
Deposition will be more prolonged if the flow
contains coarser sand that begins to be depos-
ited at higher flow velocities. Model 4 is there-
fore plausible for flows with relatively high
mud contents. Such flow transformation could
explain why linked-debrite sandstones are typ-
ically found in distal settings, and are rare or
absent in locations closer to a source. However,
the lack of debrite sandstones in proximal set-
tings can also be attributed to a second process,
i.e., bypass of highly fluidal low yield strength
debris flow across steeper slopes in proximal
areas (Schwab et al., 1996).
Our experiments also show that late-stage
settling of sand from an overlying plug can
produce a basal clean graded sand layer that is
not a turbidite sand (it doesn’t deposit from a
turbulent flow). Such flows have the same tra-
jectory through Figure 2 (arrow 1), but occur
when the flow is rapidly decelerated. There-
fore model 5 is also plausible. The basal sand
in such type III deposits will be relatively thin
and the basal clean sand will terminate at the
same location as the overlying debrite.
Many linked debrite-turbidite beds have a
relatively thick basal sand that contains cross-
laminae or parallel laminae (Fig. 2). The pres-
ence of sedimentary structures in the clean
sand suggests deposition from a turbulent flow
of low mud concentration, i.e., from a turbid-
ity current. Deposition begins from a turbulent
flow of low mud content and later from a flow
of higher mud content (arrow 2 in Fig. 2). This
change in composition could be due to longi-
tudinal stratification within an individual flow
or an increase in the mud content in the lower
part of the flow. The latter could be caused by
the flow eroding into muddy seafloor, making
model 1 plausible.
CONCLUSIONS
Decelerating flows with a fixed sand content
and variable mud content led to four types of
deposit.
1. Structured sand overlain by a mud cap.
These deposits resemble turbidites and result
from deposition from turbulent flows.
994
2. Structureless sand overlain by a mud cap.
These deposits also resemble turbidites and
either result from deposition from turbulent
flows or sand segregating from a low yield
strength muddy suspension.
3. Structureless sand overlain by ungraded
muddy sand with a mud cap. These deposits
resemble linked turbidite-debrites and result
either from deposition from a transitional flow
or late-stage settling of sand from a muddy sus-
pension of intermediate yield strength.
4. Ungraded muddy sand with a mud cap.
These deposits resemble debrites and result
from consolidation of a high yield strength
muddy suspension.
The experiments suggest that linked debrite-
turbidite beds may form by several deposi-
tional processes; this is reflected in the vari-
ety of natural deposits. Structureless clean
sands overlain by ungraded muddy sands can
be the result of deposition from a transitional
plug flow, or late-stage settling of sand from
a static plug. Structured clean sands overlain
by muddy sands result from initial deposition
from turbidity current and later deposition
from a transitional or laminar flow of higher
mud content. This change could be caused by
spatial or temporal changes in the mud content
of the flow.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Sumner is funded by Natural Environment
Research Council (NERC) Ph.D. studentship
NER/S/A/2005/13249. The annular flume was
funded by NERC Ocean Margins LINK grant NER/
T/S/2003/00110 and by ConocoPhillips, BHP Bil-
liton, and Shell UK. We thank Peter Haughton and
Jaco Baas for helpful reviews that greatly improved
the manuscript, and Baas and colleagues in particular
for providing us with a preprint of their manuscript
on phase diagrams for clay suspension flows, which
proved fundamental in helping us to understand our
own experiments.
REFERENCES CITED
Baas, J.H., Best, J.L., Peakall, J., and Wang, M.,
2009, A phase diagram for turbulent, transi-
tional and laminar clay suspension flows: Jour-
nal of Sedimentary Research, v. 79, p. 162–
183, doi: 10.2110/jsr.2009.025.
Bagnold, R., 1962, Auto-suspension of transported
sediment: Turbidity currents: Royal Society of
London Proceedings, ser. A, v. 265, p. 315–319.
Elghobashi, S., 1994, On predicting particle-laden
turbulent flows: Applied Scientific Research,
v. 52, p. 309–329, doi: 10.1007/BF00936835.
Haughton, P.D.W., Barker, S.P., and McCaffrey,
W.D., 2003, ‘Linked’ debrites in sand-rich tur-
bidite systems—Origin and significance: Sedi-
mentology, v. 50, p. 459–482, doi: 10.1046/
j.1365-3091.2003.00560.x.
Marr, J.G., Harff, A.P., Shanmugam, G., and
Parker, G., 2001, Experiments on subaqueous
sandy gravity flows: The role of clay and
water content in flow dynamics and depo-
sitional structures: Geological Society of
America Bulletin, v. 113, p. 1377–1386, doi:
10.1130/0016-7606(2001)113<1377:EOSSGF
>2.0.CO;2.
McCaffrey, W.D., and Kneller, B., 2001, Process
controls on the development of stratigraphic
trap potential on the margins of confined tur-
bidite systems and aids to reservoir evaluation:
American Association of Petroleum Geologists
Bulletin, v. 85, p. 971–988.
Middleton, G.V., and Hampton, M.A., 1973, Sedi-
ment gravity flows: Mechanics of flow and de-
position, in Middleton, G.V., and Bouma, A.H.,
eds., Turbidites and deep water sedimentation:
Pacific Section, Society of Economic Pale-
ontologists and Mineralogists Book 2, Short
Course Notes, p. 1–38.
Mulder, T., and Alexander, J., 2001, The physical
character of subaqueous sedimentary den-
sity flows and their deposits: Sedimentol-
ogy, v. 48, p. 269–299, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-
3091.2001.00360.x.
Piper, D.J.W., Cochonat, P., and Morrison, M.L.,
1999, The sequence of events around the epi-
centre of the 1929 Grand Banks earthquake:
Initiation of the debris flows and turbidity cur-
rent inferred from side scan sonar: Sedimen-
tology, v. 46, p. 79–97, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-
3091.1999.00204.x.
Schwab, W.C., Lee, H.J., Twichell, D.C., Locat, J.,
Nelson, C.H., McArthur, W.G., and Kenyon,
N.H., 1996, Sediment mass-flow processes
on a depositional lobe, outer Mississippi
fan: Journal of Sedimentary Research, v. 66,
p. 916–927.
Sumner, E., Amy, L., and Talling, P., 2008, Deposit
structure and processes of sand deposition from
decelerating sediment suspensions: Journal of
Sedimentary Research, v. 78, p. 529–547, doi:
10.2110/jsr.2008.062.
Talling, P., Amy, L., Wynn, R.B., Peakall, J., and
Robinson, M., 2004, Beds comprising deb-
rite sandwiched within co-genetic turbidite:
Origin and widespread occurrence in distal
depositional environments: Sedimentology,
v. 51, p. 163–194, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-3091
.2004.00617.x.
Talling, P., Amy, L., and Wynn, R.B., 2007, New
insight into the evolution of large-volume tur-
bidity currents: Comparison of turbidite shape
and previous modelling results: Sedimentol-
ogy, v. 54, p. 737–769, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-
3091.2007.00858.x.
Vrolijk, P.J., and Southard, J.B., 1997, Experiments
on rapid deposition of sand from high-velocity
flows: Geosciences Canada, v. 24, p. 45–54.
Winterwerp, J.C., and Kranenburg, C., 1997, Erosion
of fluid mud layers. II: Experiments and model
validation: Journal of Hydraulic Engineering,
v. 123, p. 512–519, doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-
9429(1997)123:6(512).
Manuscript received 21 January 2009
Revised manuscript received --
Manuscript accepted 15 June 2009
Printed in USA
GEOLOGY, November 2009