ELSEVIER

Marine Geology 154 (1999) 117129

Experiments on the relative mobility of muddy subaqueous and subaerial debris ows, and their capacity to remobilize antecedent deposits
David Mohrig a,1 , Anders Elverhi b , Gary Parker a,*
a

St. Anthony Falls Laboratory, University of Minnesota, Mississippi River at 3rd Avenue, Minneapolis S.E., MN 55414, USA b Department of Geology, University of Oslo, P.O. Box 1047, Blindern N-0316, Oslo, Norway Received 4 March 1997; accepted 6 November 1997

Abstract Subaqueous debris ows share many similarities with their subaerial counterparts, but also differ in striking ways. The present treatment is devoted to an experimental comparison of paired subaqueous and subaerial debris ows. The debris slurry consisted of 39% water, 25% kaolin, 24% silt and 12% sand by weight. The debris ows ran down a rectangular channel with a length of 10 m and a width of 0.20 m. In some of the runs, the channel bottom was hard (i.e., a xed, rough inerodible surface) and in others it was soft (i.e., an antecedent debris-ow deposit over which the debris ow was allowed to run). On the hard bottom, the subaqueous debris ows ran farther downslope than their subaerial counterparts with the same rheology. Their deposits also displayed extensional features not seen in the subaerial case, and were much thinner than that which would be expected based on yield strength. On the soft bottom, the subaerial debris ows extensively remobilized antecedent debris-ow deposits, whereas the corresponding subaqueous debris ows ran over antecedent debris-ow deposits with no detectable remobilization. The reason for these differences is hypothesized to be the incorporation of a thin layer of ambient water underneath a subaqueous debris ow as its head hydroplanes slightly above the bed. The lubricating layer appears to prevent the transmission of shear stress between the two layers. 1999 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved. Keywords: debris ows; hydroplaning; modeling

1. Introduction The development of acoustic techniques for mapping the sea oor and imaging the subsurface has led to a dramatically expanded view of the seascape. In particular, it has led to the identication of nu1 Present address: Exxon Production Research Co., P.O. Box 2189, Houston, TX 77252-2189, USA. Corresponding author. E-mail: parke002@tc.umn.edu

merous deposits of debris slides and ows in submarine environments such as the continental slope. The volume of debris comprising the deposit of an individual submarine slide or ow ranges up to thousands of cubic km (Hampton et al., 1996). In the case of the Amazon Fan, signicant amounts of sediment may be deposited by massive, infrequent debris ows (Damuth et al., 1988). In the case of high-latitude deep-sea fans such as the Bear Island Trough Mouth Fan between Norway and Svalbard, smaller but more

0025-3227/99/$ see front matter 1999 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved. PII: S 0 0 2 5 - 3 2 2 7 ( 9 8 ) 0 0 1 0 7 - 8

118

D. Mohrig et al. / Marine Geology 154 (1999) 117129

frequent ows have created fans that are built almost entirely from stacked debris lobes (Laberg and Vorren, 1995). Submarine debris ows likely play an important role in determining the limiting slope of the leading edge of clinoforms, as well as the morphology of the continental slope itself (Steckler et al., 1999). Interpretation of submarine debris-ow deposits resulting from slope failures is hampered by the paucity of information concerning their dynamics. The events themselves are almost impossible to measure directly in the eld (e.g., Norem et al., 1990), and until recently there have been very few studies of them under controlled conditions in the laboratory (Hampton, 1972). This lack of information hinders the development and evaluation of the physically based predictive numerical models necessary to understand submarine debris-ow deposits. The experimental research on paired subaqueous and subaerial debris ows reported here is intended to help ll this gap. Insofar as subaerial debris ows have been subjected to relatively intense laboratory and eld investigation (e.g., Takahashi, 1991), they serve as a familiar baseline from which to evaluate the subaqueous case. The dynamics of subaerial debris ows moving over a dry, rough bed are controlled almost entirely by the downslope pull of gravity and the rheology of the debris slurry, with the ambient uid (air) playing a negligible role. In the subaqueous case, however, the ambient uid is water, which has a density of the same order of magnitude as the debris slurry. This allows a richer and more interesting range of behavior (Mohrig et al., 1998). In particular, as the head of the debris ow pushes water out of its path, it generates a dynamic pressure at its leading edge. If this dynamic pressure is sufcient, it causes the head to hydroplane, i.e., uplift and detach slightly from the bed. This permits the intrusion of a thin layer of lubricating water between the debris slurry and the bed. This in turn can cause a dramatic reduction in resistance to ow near the head, leading to higher head velocities and=or longer run-out distances. Some of the differences between the dynamics of the head of subaqueous and subaerial debris ows can be seen in Fig. 1. While results for both subaqueous and subaerial debris ows are reported in Mohrig et al. (1998), the two cases are not systematically paired. Such paired experiments were used in the present study

Fig. 1. Head of a subaerial (a) and subaqueous (b) debris ow. The subaerial ow lls the crenelations of the bed up to the leading edge, indicating that it is not hydroplaning. The subaqueous head is clearly hydroplaning; the large black particles are neutrally buoyant markers for particle imaging velocimetry.

to examine the differences in run-out dynamics and deposit architecture associated with the two ow congurations. The experimental results can be used to develop and test methods for the numerical simulation of debris ows (Huang and Garcia, 1999) that can then be applied to the eld.

2. Experimental design The experiments were conducted in the Fish Tank, a glass-walled tank 10 m long, 3 m high and 0.6 m wide. Suspended within the tank is a rectangular channel with an inner width of 0.2 m and transparent vertical walls. The channel is segmented with a break in slope, the upper and lower slope angles being 6 and 1, respectively. The slope break was located 5.7 m downslope of the head-tank gate from which the debris slurry was released. The bed of the channel was roughened to prevent basal slippage of the debris ows. In the subaqueous conguration, the tank was lled with fresh water before commencing a run, leaving a very short subaerial reach (<0.2 m) between the gate of the head tank and the water surface.

D. Mohrig et al. / Marine Geology 154 (1999) 117129 Table 1 Data for experimental debris ows Run 1a 2a 3a 4a 5a 6a 1w 2w 3w 4w 5w Bed type hard hard hard hard soft soft hard hard hard soft soft d (t=m3 ) 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 s (kg m 0.035 0.035 0.023 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.035 0.035 0.023 0.035 0.019
1

119

s 1)

y (Pa) 49 49 36 33 33 33 49 39 36 49 33

V (l) 34.5 31.6 30.6 36.8 33.8 34.4 33.7 32.0 29.1 21 32

Qd (l=s)
*

td (s)
*

xh (m) 4.94 5.07 6.29 7.61 8.70C 8.70C 7.46 7.36 7.72 7.27 7.40

h6 (mm) 35 31 23 21 25* 24* 18 18 16 6.5* *16

8.0 9.1 8.5 8.9 8.0

*

4.0 3.5 4.5 4.0 4.5

*

9.1 9.1
*

3.5 3.5
*

6.1

5.0

Notes. An asterisk marks runs in which a debris ow overran an antecedent deposit. The listed values of h 6 for those runs are equal to the nal thickness minus the antecedent thickness. For Runs 4w and 5w, these are good estimates of the thickness of the overriding deposit due to the absence of remobilization. Listed values for Runs 5a and 6a are considerable underestimates of the thickness of the deposit formed by the overriding run due to extensive remobilization.

In each experiment, approximately 30 l of debris slurry was placed in the head tank. The head gate was opened suddenly to form a slot with a height of 20 mm and width of 170 mm from which the slurry owed. The volume discharge of slurry into the channel was measured with a sonic proler that recorded the time variation of the free surface of the debris in the head tank. The total volume of debris V released, the average peak volume discharge of slurry Qd , and the total length of time td for the head tank to drain are given in Table 1 for each of the 11 runs. The motion of each debris ow was recorded by eight xed video cameras, each mounted in front of one of the eight panels of glass comprising the front side of the Fish Tank. In the earliest runs, a single video camera attached to a moving carriage was used instead. Videotaping continued until after the ow had come to rest and formed a deposit. Analysis of the tapes allowed the determination of such parameters as head velocity, head and body ow thickness and deposit thickness. Deposit thickness was also measured by inserting a meter stick into the deposit. Subaerial and subaqueous debris ows were released into the channel under two different bottom conditions. The hard bottom consisted of the rough, inerodible rubber matting on the bottom of the channel. The soft bottom consisted of the deposit of an antecedent debris ow resting on top of the rubber matting. The antecedent deposit was generated in all

cases by a subaerial debris ow. Before running a subaqueous debris ow over an antecedent subaerial deposit, the tank was lled with water sufciently slowly as to prevent any disturbance of the deposit. These two congurations allowed for a characterization of ow dynamics over a rigid bed versus those over a deformable bed. The latter case specically addressed the question as to whether or not a debris ow can increase its mass by mobilizing an antecedent deposit. These two bed types have markedly different surface textures. The rubber matting that provides the basal boundary for the hard-bed cases is crenelated into rectangular ridges and grooves. The width of each ridge or groove is 6.4 mm, and the elevation difference between them is 3.2 mm. In the soft-bed cases, the surface of the antecedent subaerial debris ow was smooth. The antecedent deposit was not allowed to consolidate or segregate to any substantial degree. In the soft-bed cases, a freeze-coring device was used to determine the extent to which the antecedent deposit was remobilized by the overriding debris ow. A water-soluble dye was added to the slurry of the overriding event in order to render the two deposits distinct in the cores. The corer consisted of a wedgeshaped hollow aluminum container, which was lled with a mixture of methanol and solid CO2 (dry ice) and inserted into the deposit from above. The corer was held in place for approximately 2 min in order to

120

D. Mohrig et al. / Marine Geology 154 (1999) 117129

freeze the debris to its sidewalls (Wright, 1991). The inevitable smearing of the deposit at the debris=corer interface was easily removed, revealing an essentially undisturbed record of deposit stratigraphy.

3. Debris properties All results presented here are for ows of a single slurry type. The grain-size distribution, water content and mineralogy of this debris slurry were selected to approximate the composition of debris-ow deposits from both the Bear Island Trough Mouth Fan and the North Sea Fan in the North Atlantic Ocean (Laberg and Vorren, 1995; King et al., 1996). These well-dated submarine fans are constructed predominantly from a multitude of stacked debris-ow deposits. In both cases, the primary source for the debris ows has been identied as deformation till delivered by continental glaciers extending to the shelf break during periods of maximum glaciation and low stand in sea level. 39% of the weight of the slurry used in the experiments consisted of water, the rest was sediment. The sediment itself consisted of 40% kaolin, 40% silt and 20% sand by dry weight. The resulting slurry had a density of 1.6 t=m3 . The kaolin had a reported median size of 13 m. A grain-size analysis of the mix of sand and silt revealed the following respective grain sizes in m for D5 , D10 , D16 , D50 , D84 , D90 and D95 : 7, 12, 18, 57, 350, 500 and 700. The silt and sand grains were quartz. The hydraulic conductivity K of the sediment mixture was estimated from tables given in Freeze and Cherry (1979) summarizing measured values for natural soils. The value of K was inferred to be near 1 10 4 mm=s. The associated measure for permeability k is 10 8 mm2 . In lieu of a more rigorous analysis (e.g., Iverson, 1997), the rheological properties of the debris slurry are described using a simple viscoplastic (Bingham) model. That is, the two parameters describing the rheology are taken to be a yield strength y and a Newtonian viscosity s . Estimates of y and s were calculated by means of experiments on slurry ow in half-pipe channels using a method suggested by Johnson (1970), and outlined in more detail in Appendix A. This channel had a length of 5 m and an inner diameter of 41 mm, and had the same

roughness as that of the channel in the Fish Tank. Estimates for y were also determined using the thickness of subaerial deposits on the segment of channel with a slope of 6. The small amounts of dye needed to distinguish the degree of remobilization of an antecedent deposit unfortunately had a noticeable effect on debris rheology. Dye-free slurry was comparatively sticky, yielding values for y and s of 49 Pa and 0.035 kg m 1 s 1 . The addition of the least amount of dye used in the experiments gave the more runny values for y and s of 36 Pa and 0.023 kg m 1 s 1 ; the corresponding values for a larger amount of dye were yet more runny (i.e., 33 Pa and 0.019 kg m 1 s 1 ). The calculated values of y and s for the slurry used in each experiment are given in Table 1. Here, the above three slurries are referred to as the sticky slurry, the medium slurry and the runny slurry, respectively, in order to distinguish their rheologies. It should be noted that all experiments were conducted using fresh rather than sea water. The difference between the two can have a noticeable effect on clay rheology, especially in the case of active clays. Kaolin, on the other hand, is a relatively inactive clay.

4. Experimental results: hard runs Eleven experiments were conducted, each in one of four congurations. Four (1a, 2a, 3a and 4a) were hard-bed subaerial experiments; two (5a and 6a) were soft-bed subaerial; three (1w, 2w and 3w) were hard-bed subaqueous; and two (4w and 5w) were soft-bed subaqueous. Within each conguration, all the experiments were repeats of each other except for the inadvertent variation of slurry rheology due to the dye. Measured parameters listed in Table 1 include the volume V of slurry released, the average peak slurry discharge Qd , the duration of release td , the run-out distance measured from the gate of the head tank to the leading edge xh of the head deposit, and the average deposit thickness h 6 on the reach with a slope of 6. As might be expected, the run-out distance for the four hard subaerial runs correlated inversely with the stickiness of slurry rheology, with the sticky slurry (highest values of y and s ) running out the

D. Mohrig et al. / Marine Geology 154 (1999) 117129

121

Fig. 2. Elevation proles of the deposits for the paired hard-bed runs. The proles are for, in order from top to bottom, Runs 1a and 1w, 2a and 2w, and 3a and 3w. In the diagram, x denotes a streamwise coordinate and y denotes elevation relative to an arbitrarily chosen datum for each run.

shortest distance (Figs. 2 and 3; Table 1). Subaerial Runs 1a and 2a, which used the sticky rheology, ran out 4.94 and 5.07 m, respectively. These values indicate a considerable degree of repeatability. The average thickness of debris h 6 on the 6 slope was 35 and 31 mm, respectively. Subaerial Run 3a used the medium rheology, yielding a longer run-out distance xh of 6.29 m and a lower h 6 value of 23 mm. Subaerial Run 4a used the runny rheology; the values of xh and ht were 7.61 m and 21 mm, respectively. Of the four hard subaerial runs, the rst two did not propagate beyond the break in slope from 6 to 1 at the point located 5.7 m downstream of the head gate. The three hard subaqueous runs showed a different behavior that was rheology-independent to rst order. Runs 1w and 2w were repeats using the same sticky rheology; the respective values for xh of 7.46 and 7.36 m and the values h 6 of 18 mm for both cases indicate excellent repeatability. In the case of Run 3w, which used the medium rheology, xh increased only slightly to 7.72 m, and h 6 decreased only slightly to 16 mm. The runs were conducted as subaerial subaqueous pairs with the same rheology, the pairs being Runs 1a and 1w, Runs 2a and 2w and Runs 3a and 3w. The rst two pairs used the sticky rheology, and the last pair used the medium rheology. The

subaerial Run 4a using the runny rheology, which had the longest run-out distance of any of the hard runs, has no subaqueous counterpart in Table 1. The deposit shapes of the paired runs are shown in Fig. 2, where they are given as elevation proles, and in Fig. 3, where they are given as deposit-thickness proles. It can be seen in each pair that the subaqueous run propagated well beyond the break in slope, whereas the subaerial run either did not reach it or propagated only slightly beyond it. Evidently some mechanism was acting to increase the mobility of the subaqueous debris ows as compared with their subaerial counterparts with the same rheology. The nature of that mechanism can be at least partially inferred from Figs. 2 and 3. The deposits of the subaqueous hard runs differ markedly from those of their subaerial counterparts. In every subaqueous case, there was a zone of necking, or very thin deposit, between the thicker head and upslope deposits, as the head ran out ahead of the body. In the case of Run 2w, the head actually detached from the body. Further evidence of this tendency was provided by the observation of tension cracks in the deposits of the subaqueous hard runs in the vicinity of the necking, a feature never observed in the subaerial hard runs. The evidence for the subaqueous hard runs is consistent with hydroplaning of the head, as described in Mohrig et al. (1998). This hydroplaning was clearly observed in the videotapes of the subaqueous runs, but was not observed in the subaerial runs.

5. Experimental results: soft runs All the antecedent deposits for the soft runs were generated subaerially using the sticky rheology. Both subaerial soft Runs 5a and 6a used the runny rheology. Both runs behaved similarly, bulking by remobilizing large amounts of antecedent material from below. This allowed the generation of high head velocities and long run-out distances. As noted in Table 1, the run-out distances xh were in excess of 8.7 m (i.e., the highest values of all the runs reported here). An example of the behavior of a subaerial soft run, Run 6a, is given in Fig. 4. The thickness prole

122

D. Mohrig et al. / Marine Geology 154 (1999) 117129

Fig. 3. (a) Deposit-thickness proles for Runs 1a and 1w. (b) Deposit-thickness proles for Runs 2a and 2w. (c) Deposit-thickness proles for Runs 3a and 3w.

of the antecedent deposit is shown in the gure as Deposit 1. The thickness prole of the deposit resulting after Run 6a is shown as Deposits 1 C 2. Cores of the nal deposit were taken at the ve locations marked with vertical lines in the gure. The length of the vertical line denotes the extent of the deposit with the color of the overriding material, measured at the channel centerline. It can be seen that at least some overriding material worked its way nearly to the hard bed over the rst 4 m of deposit, indicating extensive remobilization of the antecedent

material. Even downslope of the slope break, it can be seen that large amounts of antecedent material were displaced. This behavior can be seen more dramatically in the images of the cores in Fig. 5, which were taken 1.79 m, 4.88 m and 7.71 m downstream of the head gate. The darker material is the overriding material and the lighter material is the antecedent material. Not only is extensive remobilization of the antecedent material apparent, but in addition some mixing of the two is evident.

D. Mohrig et al. / Marine Geology 154 (1999) 117129

123

Fig. 4. Deposit-thickness proles for the antecedent (Deposit 1) and antecedent-plus-overriding (Deposits 1 C 2) deposits of Run 6a. The vertical bars represent the extent of the overriding material at the centerline of each of ve cores.

The two subaqueous soft Runs 4w and 5w followed the same protocol as the subaerial soft runs, with the Run 4w having the sticky rheology and Run 5w having the runny rheology. The proles of deposit thickness for Run 5w are shown in Fig. 6, with Deposit 1 denoting the antecedent deposit and Deposits 1 C 2 denoting the nal deposit after the overriding run. The six vertical lines denote the position of six cores; their extent denotes the portion consisting of overriding material along the

channel centerline. In all cases but one, the bottom of the vertical line is nearly ush with the position of the top of the antecedent deposit, suggesting that the overriding deposit draped itself over the antecedent deposit with no mixing, remobilization, or deformation due to loading. Three of the cores for this case are shown in Fig. 7; they are located 1.67 m, 5.04 m and 7.48 m downstream of the head gate. The interface between the lighter-colored antecedent material and darker-

Fig. 5. A view of three of the cores from Run 6a. Extensive remobilization of the antecedent deposit is apparent.

124

D. Mohrig et al. / Marine Geology 154 (1999) 117129

Fig. 6. Deposit-thickness proles for the antecedent (Deposit 1) and overriding (Deposits 1 C 2) deposits of Run 5w. The vertical bars represent the extent of the overriding material at the centerline of each of six cores.

colored overriding material is quite sharp; the slight blurring was observed to be caused by molecular diffusion of the dye. The cores argue strongly for an almost complete lack of remobilization of the antecedent deposit. This conclusion was conrmed by an analysis of videotapes taken during the runs. The

videotapes showed that the overriding head did remobilize small amounts of antecedent material over the very short subaerial reach between the gate and the water surface in the Fish Tank, but once submerged, simply passed over the antecedent deposit without mobilizing it.

Fig. 7. A view of three of the cores from Run 5w. No remobilization of the antecedent deposit is evident.

D. Mohrig et al. / Marine Geology 154 (1999) 117129

125

Fig. 8. (a) Front velocity as a function of distance downslope for Runs 2a6a. Velocity data for Run 5a are incomplete because the ow outran the video camera. (b) Front velocity as a function of distance downslope for Runs 1w5w.

6. Interpretation of run-out in terms of hydroplaning The difference in behavior between the subaerial and subaqueous runs reected in the deposit shapes of Figs. 2 and 3 is also evident in the measured head velocities. Head velocity vh is given as a function of distance from the head gate for the subaerial hard Runs 2a, 3a and 4a and subaerial soft Runs 5a and 6a in Fig. 8a. (Velocity data were not taken for

Run 1a.) In the case of the three subaerial hard runs therein, head velocity over the region with the 6 slope is seen to increase monotonically as the rheology progresses from sticky (Run 2a) to runny (Run 4a). Values of head velocity vh at a point halfway down the region with the 6 slope (i.e., 2.85 m downstream of the head gate) are given in Table 2. The indicated values of vh are 0.69 m=s for Run 2a, 0.93 m=s for Run 3a, and 1.23 m=s for Run 4a. This same pattern is reected in the run-out distances. In

126

D. Mohrig et al. / Marine Geology 154 (1999) 117129

Table 2 Parameters for evaluating debris ow mobility Run 1a 2a 3a 4a 1w 2w 3w 4w 5w a (t=m3 ) 0.001225 0.001225 0.001225 0.001225 1 1 1 1 1 vh (m=s)
*

h6 (mm) 35 31 23 21 18 18 16 6.5 16

Frd
*

hy (mm) 30 30 22 20 80 80 59 63 54

0.687 0.926 1.231 0.616 0.645 0.605 0.481 0.625

0.035 0.054 0.075 1.90 1.99 1.98 2.47 2.04

Notes. The values of h 6 for Runs 4w and 5w refer only to the overriding deposit. An asterisk denotes a case for which the information was not collected or could not be computed.

the cases of the two subaerial soft runs, the effect of bulking due to remobilization leads to values of head velocity near 1.5 m=s over the 6 slope. The head velocities of the subaqueous runs, on the other hand, show much less dependence on rheology, as illustrated in Fig. 8b. All the hard and soft subaqueous runs are shown therein. Head velocities equilibrate near 0.50.7 m=s by a point 2 m downstream of the head gate, and maintain these values until about 1 m beyond the slope break. While the diagram reveals some dependence of vh on rheology, its role is clearly secondary in comparison with the subaerial runs. These velocity patterns are consistent with the hypothesis that the subaqueous runs had hydroplaning heads, whereas the subaerial runs did not. Further evidence for this can be found using an appropriate criterion for hydroplaning. Mohrig et al. (1998) have found that debris-ow heads show evidence of hydroplaning for a densimetric Froude number Frd in excess of about 0.3, where vh (1) Frd D s d 1 gh cos a and d is the density of the debris slurry, a is the density of the ambient uid, h is the thickness of slurry in the body behind the head and denotes the slope angle. In order to evaluate these parameters, vh was computed at a point halfway down the 6 slope, h was approximated by h 6 (i.e., the average

thickness of the deposit over the zone with a 6 slope), and a was estimated using standard values for air and water. These values are given in Table 2 for the subaerial hard Runs 2a, 3a and 4a and all the subaqueous runs. The soft subaerial runs were excluded because remobilization of the antecedent substrate made it difcult to estimate h. As seen in Table 2, the subaqueous runs display values of Frd within a narrow band between 1.9 and 2.5 (i.e., well in excess of the value of 0.3 previously found necessary for incipient hydroplaning of the head). All three hard subaerial runs, on the other hand, are well below the condition for hydroplaning. Using clay-free slurries with a different rheology than those of the present work, Mohrig et al. (1998) observed debris ows with hydroplaning heads that attained higher head velocities than non-hydroplaning ows. The same was not observed in the present case; as can be seen from Table 2 and Fig. 8, the subaerial ows consistently attained higher head velocities on the 6 slope than the subaqueous ows. This notwithstanding, all of the paired hard subaqueous runs ran out farther than their hard subaerial counterparts, as shown in Figs. 2 and 3. Fig. 8 and the concept of hydroplaning allow for an interpretation of this seeming contradiction. The hard subaerial runs were all strongly decelerating, even on the 6 slope. Had this slope continued beyond the 5.7 m point the ows would clearly have come to rest within a few more meters. The heads of the subaqueous debris ows, on the other hand, attained nearly constant head velocities as a result of hydroplaning on the 6 slope, and evidently could have continued much farther down a 6 slope. The implication is that hydroplaning can result in longer run-out distances by suppressing deceleration of the debris ow.

7. Effect of hydroplaning on the capacity to remobilize antecedent deposits It is evident from Fig. 8b and Table 2 that the heads of the soft subaqueous debris ows hydroplaned in the same way as the hard subaqueous runs. This provides a key as to why the subaqueous debris ows were unable to mobilize antecedent deposits, in contradistinction to the subaerial ows.

D. Mohrig et al. / Marine Geology 154 (1999) 117129

127

Here a simple Bingham rheology is again assumed for the sake of argument. The pattern of deposition for the subaerial debris ows indicated that the thickness of deposition was largely controlled by the yield strength y . According to this hypothesis, then, the deposit thickness should correspond to the yield thickness hy , where: hy D .d y a /g sin (2)

(e.g., Schwab et al., 1996). The values of hy predicted from Eq. 2 on the 6 slope are compared with the observed average values of h 6 for the subaerial and subaqueous hard runs in Fig. 9. Whereas the observed values of deposit thickness are quite close to the predicted ones in the case of the subaerial runs, they are well below the predicted values for the subaqueous runs. The subaqueous debris ows evidently formed deposit thicknesses that were much less than those associated with the yield strength. Comparing Fig. 9 with Figs. 2 and 3, it is seen that the hydroplaning heads of the subaqueous runs tended to run out ahead of their bodies, in one case

even detaching from it. That is, hydroplaning of the head can extend the body behind it and result in a marked decrease in the thickness of deposit below the value dictated by the yield strength. This observation allows for the identication of one reason for the difference between the soft subaerial and subaqueous runs. If a deposit is resting at its yield strength, the placement of more material on top should immediately mobilize it. The antecedent subaerial debris deposits of Runs 5a and 6a would thus have been remobilized even by static loading as a soft subaerial run passed over it. The antecedent deposits of the soft subaqueous Runs 4w and 5w were deposited subaerially, and were thus likely close to subaerial yield conditions. Once submerged in water, however, these same deposit thicknesses would have been rendered less than 40% of the yield thickness due to the buoyancy resulting from immersion. As can be seen from Figs. 6 and 9, in the case of Run 5w even the static loading associated with the second (overriding) deposit resulted in a total deposit thickness that was still below the immersed yield thickness.

Fig. 9. Deposit thickness hy on the 6 slope predicted from Eq. 2 compared with observed average thickness h 6 for the subaerial hard Runs 1a4a and the subaqueous hard Runs 1w3w. Runs 1w and 2w plot on top of each other.

128

D. Mohrig et al. / Marine Geology 154 (1999) 117129

The observation that the deposits of debris ows associated with hydroplaning heads should have thicknesses that are considerably less than the yield thickness provides part of the explanation as to why no remobilization was realized in the soft subaqueous runs. There is, however, another, more compelling reason. The passage of the head of a moving debris ow over an antecedent deposit should generate a marked transient dynamic component to the interfacial shear stress that would be effective in remobilizing even a deposit below the yield thickness. In the case of the subaqueous soft runs, however, hydroplaning would strongly suppress this by sandwiching a thin layer of low-viscosity ambient uid between two layers with higher viscosity. The difference in viscosity would strongly damp the transmission of shear stress from the base of the overpassing debris ow to the top of the antecedent deposit, according to the classic mechanism of lubrication (e.g., White, 1994).

strate that the considerably greater run-outs typically observed in the eld for subaqueous as compared to subaerial debris ows (e.g., g. 19 of Hampton et al., 1996) are due to hydroplaning. By the same token, they do not rule out the possibility that subaqueous debris ows in both the laboratory and the eld can in some cases remobilize antecedent deposits. These reservations notwithstanding, hydroplaning offers a rheology-independent mechanism for both greater run-out distance and suppression of remobilization in the subaqueous environment that is both physically well founded and appealing in its simplicity. In addition, the experimental evidence that subaqueous debris ows can leave deposits that are much thinner than that associated with their yield strength opens room for reinterpretation of the emplacement mechanism of some eld deposits.

Acknowledgements This research was funded as part of the Marine Geology and Geophysics program (STRATAFORM project N=N00014-93-1-0300) of the U.S. Ofce of Naval Research. Additional funding was provided by the Research Council of Norway (European Mast III project ENAM II). The method to determine debris rheology using two half-channels was introduced to the authors by K.X. Whipple.

8. Discussion and conclusions The experiments reported here indicate that hydroplaning of the head can cause subaqueous debris ows to run out farther over an inerodible bed than otherwise identical subaerial debris ows. The effect of hydroplaning, when it occurs, strongly mutes the role of debris rheology, and causes the head to run out ahead of the body. This in turn results in a thickness of deposit that is well below that associated with the yield strength. The same mechanism of hydroplaning acts to suppress the remobilization of an antecedent debris deposit by an overpassing subaqueous debris ow. Because the thickness of an antecedent deposit is likely to be well below the value associated with the yield strength, the addition of a deposit on top may be insufcient to mobilize it statically. In addition, dynamic mobilization due to strong transient shear stresses associated with the passage of the head is suppressed due to the incorporation of a lubricating layer of water between the overpassing and antecedent debris. This lubricating layer inhibits the transmission of shear stress between the two debris layers. Neither the results reported here nor the earlier results of Mohrig et al. (1998) conclusively demon-

Appendix A
This appendix is devoted to a brief description of the use of a half-channel to determine debris slurry rheology. Consider the steady, equilibrium subaerial ow of debris slurry down a half-channel of circular cross-section with radius R, a horizontal free surface, and a streamwise slope angle . The inside wall is roughened to prevent sliding at the boundary. The boundary shear stress b associated with equilibrium slurry ow is given by: b D
1 2

Rd g sin

(A1)

A fairly general expression for non-Newtonian rheology of the debris slurry can be written as: 1 @u @u @u D y sgn C (A2) @y @y @y where denotes shear stress, y denotes yield strength, u denotes ow velocity, y denotes normal distance from the boundary, is a coefcient and is an exponent. For the case of a Bingham

D. Mohrig et al. / Marine Geology 154 (1999) 117129 uid, for example, is equal to unity and is the uid viscosity. In general, the steady, equilibrium ow satisfying the above rheology possesses a plug zone of uniform velocity Up for r < ry , where r D R y denotes radial distance from the channel center and ry is given by: y ry D R (A3) b A shear zone prevails over the layer ry < r < R, where the ow velocity u.r/ varies from Up to 0. Plug velocity Up is given by the relation: 1= ry .1C/= d Rg sin Up D R (A4) 1 2 1C R and the velocity variation in the shear layer is given by: r ry .1C/= u.r/ D1 Up R ry

129

References
Damuth, J.E., Flood, R.D., Kowsmann, R.O., Belderoon, R.H., Gorini, M.A., 1988. Anatomy and growth pattern of Amazon deep-sea fan as revealed by long-range side-scan sonar (GLORIA) and high-resolution seismic studies. Am. Assoc. Pet. Geol. Bull. 72, 885911. Freeze, R., Cherry, J.A., 1979. Groundwater. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 664 pp. Hampton, M.A., 1972. The role of subaqueous debris ows in generating turbidity currents. J. Sediment. Petrol. 42, 775 793. Hampton, M.A., Lee, H.J., Locat, J., 1996. Submarine landslides. Rev. Geophys. 34, 3359. Huang, X., Garcia, M.H., 1999. Modeling of non-hydroplaning mudows on continental slopes. Mar. Geol. 154, 131142. Iverson, R.M., 1997. The physics of debris ows. Rev. Geophys. 35, 245296. Johnson, A.M., 1970. Physical Processes in Geology. Freeman, Cooper, San Francisco, CA, 577 pp. King, E.L., Sejup, H.P., Haidason, H., Elverhi, A., Aarseth, I., 1996. Quaternary seismic stratigraphy of the North Sea Fan: glacially-fed gravity ow aprons, hemipelagic sediments and large submarine slides. Mar. Geol. 130, 293315. Laberg, J.S., Vorren, T.O., 1995. Late Weichselian submarine debris ow deposits on the Bear Island Trough Mouth Fan. Mar. Geol. 127, 4572. Mohrig, D., Whipple, K.X., Hondzo, M., Ellis, C., Parker, G., 1998. Hydroplaning of subaqueous debris ows. Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. 110, 387394. Norem, H., Locat, J., Schieldrop, B., 1990. An approach to the physics and modeling of submarine owslides. Mar. Geotechnol. 9, 93111. Schwab, W.C., Lee, H.J., Twitchell, H.J., Locat, J., Nelson, C.H., McArthur, W.G., Kenyon, N.H., 1996. Sediment mass-ow processes on a depositional lobe, Outer Mississippi Fan. J. Sediment. Res. 66, 916927. Steckler, M.S., Mountain, G.S., Miller, K.G., Christie-Blick, N., 1999. Reconstruction of Tertiary progradation and clinoform development on the New Jersey passive margin by 2-D backstripping. Mar. Geol. 135, 399417. Takahashi, T., 1991. Debris Flows. Balkema, Rotterdam, 165 pp. White, F.M., 1994. Fluid Mechanics. McGraw Hill, New York, 736 pp. Wright Jr., H.E., 1991. Coring tips. J. Paleolimnol. 6, 3749.

(A5)

The ow discharge through the half-channel is given by: 1 Q 1=2 D R 2Up .1 ry /Oy O r .1 ry /2 O 2 1 C 2 1 C 3 (A6) where ry D ry =R. O The experiments are best performed with two half-channels. The value of ry , and thus y from Eq. A1 and Eq. A3, is determined photographically with the larger of the two channels. This value can be checked against the value obtained for a at, sloping surface. Once the yield stress has been estimated, the determination of a value of Q 1=2 for each of the two channels species two constraints on the two remaining unknowns and using Eq. A6 reduced with Eq. A4. The larger the difference in diameter the more accurately the two parameters can be discriminated. The analysis can also be performed with a single channel, in which case Up is also determined photographically and and are evaluated from Eqs. A4 and A6. Here a simplied version of the single-channel method was employed, according to which Up and ry are evaluated photographically and is set equal to unity (assumed Bingham rheology). This allows for the estimation of via Eq. A6 reduced with Eq. A4. The above methodology is predicated on the assumption that there is minimal vertical segregation of the material during a ow event. The effect of vertical segregation can be evaluated as follows. The surface velocity prole is determined photographically using markers, and then integrated to determine the discharge Q1=2 that would result if the ow reected this same prole everywhere without vertical segregation. If vertical segregation is negligible, the value so determined should be equal to the one determined by Eq. A6.