Essay 1

Steadiness and Uniformity

Based on the Allen (1985) and Leeder (2011), steadiness is the changes of fluid particle’s velocity
(U), with regards to time on fixed point. When the velocity vector stays the same over time, it is called
steady, δu/δt = 0. Conversely, when velocity changes over time then it is called unsteady. δu/δt ≠0.

Meanwhile, uniformity is the changes of fluid particle’s velocity with regards to space (distance, in
Eulerian system), when the velocity is not changing then it is called uniform, δu/δx = 0, but when the
velocity is changing then it is called non-uniform, δu/δx ≠ 0.

The concept of sedimentary deposits in Kneller (1995) and Kneller & Branney, (1995) is also based on
fluid kinematic where two fundamental elements, solid and fluid particles, can influence behaviour of
how sedimentary influx deposited into an accommodation (e.g. basin).

But in several terms the authors made some modification or elaboration on definition of unsteady and
non-uniform. There are waxing and waning flow, which are the acceleration or deacceleration of
velocity with respect to time. While in non-uniform terms, there are accumulative (velocity’s
accelerating) and depletive (velocity’s deaccelerating) flow with respect of space. (Fig. 3) Which
outside that term there will be no deposition or erosion.
Kneller and Branney (1995) focused on massive sandstone unit of turbidite successions, which many
previous works result that it is formed by rapid dumping of sand due to flow unsteadiness in collapsing,
single surge-type, high-density turbidity currents.

They attempt to eliminate the term ‘unsteadiness’ and propose the mechanism of gradual aggradation
of sand beneath a sustained steady or ‘quasi-steady’ current, and upward- migration of depositional
flow boundary that is dominated by grain hyper-concentration and hindered settling. (Fig. 2)

They emphasize the thickness of the resulting massive sand bears no relation to the thickness of parental
current, and the vertical variation within the deposit may reveal little about the vertical structure of the
current, even during deposition.
In Kneller 1995, the author again emphasizes ‘old-believes’ that all turbidity currents in the deep marine
realm behave as simple waning flows is could be wrong. In their experiment there are at least five basic
sequence that one might expect in turbidite beds, defined by a combination of both vertical and stream-
wise grain – variations.
They are:
1. Depletive Waning Flow
Represented by familiar normally graded sequence that becomes thinner and finer-grained
down-current, with the progressive loss of lower parts of the sequence – the conventional
proximal – distal relationship of Bouma- type turbidites (e.g. Walker, 1967).

2. Uniform Waning Flow

Represented by similar graded vertical sequences, like Depletive Waning Flow, but with no
downstream fining or thinning; this is the type of sequence generated by ‘slab’ models (e.g.
Allen, 1985)

3. Depletive Steady Flow

This type flow produces beds with no vertical variation in grain size but which fine down-
current; representative deposits might include massive sands or thick sequence of climbing
ripples. May be generated during volcanic eruption and the consequent remobilization of
unconsolidated material (e.g. Lipman& Mullineaux, 1981; Kokelaar, 1992), by glacial melt
water discharge or by direct fluvial input (Normark & Piper,1991; Wright et al, 1990) either
constantly (large rivers) or at flood stage only (smaller river, e.g. Reynolds, 1987).

4. Depletive Waxing Flow

This type of flow produces coarsening – upwards beds which become finer downstream; time
lines intersect the bed downstream, and the upstream depositional limit will migrate
downstream with time. (inverse graded bedding)

5. Accumulative Waning Flow

The field accumulative waning flow is represented by normally graded beds with complex
proximal-distal relations depending upon the balance of the two acceleration terms, and upon
the stream-wise velocity profile; most likely configuration is for both base and top of the graded
sequence to be cut out downstream.

Moreover, the author conducted flume experiment on how these flows behave and deposit different
geometries on several obstacles setting, in specific surge type sediment gravity flows, (Fig. 12 and 16)
There are 9 results that illustrates different depositional geometries, which summarized into 3 obstacle
shapes, transverse, circular, and ramp plane.

1. Free obstacle, illustrating a lobe-shaped deposit similar to that produced in other studies of
sedimentation from unconfined flows (e.g. Luthi, 1980).
2. Transverse obstacle, an obstacle was placed with its centreline 303 mm from channel mouth.
Resulting in elongated lobe, diverted laterally so that deposition is shifted ‘axially’.
3. Circular Obstacle, as an analogy of diapiric feature or carbonate mound. The deposits are
formed as crescent-shaped or half-circle mounded.
4. Ramp with 30o lateral slope. The deposits are several times thicker than free obstacle model in
part of to the foot of the slope.
REFERENCES

Allen, J.R.L. (1985) Principles of Physical Sedimentology. Chapman & Hall.London. pp. 3-4
Kneller, Benjamin C. and Branney, Michael J. (1995) Sustained high-density turbidity currents and
the deposition of thick massive sands. Sedimentology. 42, pp. 607-616.
Kneller, Benjamin C. (1995) Beyond the turbidite paradigm: physical models for deposition of
turbidites and their implications for reservoir prediction. Geological Society London Special
Publications. 94, pp.31-49
Leeder, Mike (2011) Sedimentology and Sedimentary Basins: from Turbulence to Tectonics. Second
Edition. Willey - Blackwell. London. pp. 75- 76.