Abstract
An oval recycling flume with live-beds (moveable) of medium and very coarse grained sands were used to explore the process of bone burial as a precursor to fossilization. Two-dimentional computation fluid dynamics was used to visualize and interpret the flow turbulence around bones. Results show that a water mass approaching and passing a static bone (obstruction) is subjected to flow modification by flow separation, flow constriction, and flow acceleration producing complex flow patterns (turbulence). These complex patterns include an upstream high-pressure zone, down flows, and vortices (with flow reversal near the bed) causing bed shear stress that produce bed erosion. Downstream of the bone, the water mass undergoes flow deceleration, water recirculation (turbulence eddies), flow reattachment, low-pressure zone (drag), and sediment deposition. Scour plays a crucial role by undercutting bone on the upstream side and may cause the bone to settle into the bed by rotation or sliding. Scour geometry is determined by bone size and shape, approaching flow velocity and angle to flow, flow depth, bed topography, and bed friction. Drag on the downstream side of the bone causes scoured sediment deposition, but burial by migrating bed forms is the most important method of large bone burial. Bone may be repeatedly buried and exposed with renewed scour. However, each episode of scour may lower the bone deeper into the bed so that it essentially buries itself. No difference in these effects were noted between experiments using fine or coarse grain sizes. This experimental work is then used to interpret the possible history of bone burial in the Upper Jurassic Morrison Formation on the bone wall inside the Quarry Exhibit Hall at Dinosaur National Monument, Utah.
Highlights
IntroductionThe interaction of bone and moving water has been explored using laboratory flumes to investigate taphonomic bias caused by bone dispersal from sliding, rolling, and floating in moving water, and abrasion to bone by impact with sand in suspension or on the bed (Voorhies, 1969; Dodson, 1973, Boaz and Behrensmeyer, 1976; Hanson, 1980; Boaz, 1982; Frison and Todd, 1986; Coard and Dennell, 1995; Blob, 1997; Morris, 1997; Trapani, 1998; Coard, 1999; Fernandez-Jalvo and Andrews, 2003, 2016; Pante and Blumenschine, 2010; Kaufmann and others, 2011; Thompson and others, 2011; Griffith and others, 2016)
The flumes used in these studies are a form of physical hydraulic modeling, which may be predictive to obtain a specific answer to a specific problem or may be investigative to further the understanding of hydrological processes (Grayson and others, 1992; Blöschl and Sivapalan, 1995)
Cal scour around hydraulic structures, or obstructions, and flow around deflectors in stream rehabilitation. These process models are often used in conjunction with numerical modeling to understand what is observed in the physical models
Summary
The interaction of bone and moving water has been explored using laboratory flumes to investigate taphonomic bias caused by bone dispersal from sliding, rolling, and floating in moving water, and abrasion to bone by impact with sand in suspension or on the bed (Voorhies, 1969; Dodson, 1973, Boaz and Behrensmeyer, 1976; Hanson, 1980; Boaz, 1982; Frison and Todd, 1986; Coard and Dennell, 1995; Blob, 1997; Morris, 1997; Trapani, 1998; Coard, 1999; Fernandez-Jalvo and Andrews, 2003, 2016; Pante and Blumenschine, 2010; Kaufmann and others, 2011; Thompson and others, 2011; Griffith and others, 2016). K., 2020, Hydraulic modeling and computational fluid dynamics of bone burial in a sandy river channel: Geology of the Intermountain West, v. Hydraulic Modeling and Computational Fluid Dynamics of Bone Burial in a Sandy River Channel Carpenter, K. cal scour around hydraulic structures, or obstructions (e.g., bridge abutments, dikes, low walls, coastal piers), and flow around deflectors in stream rehabilitation (summarized in Hoffmans and Verheij, 1997; Ettema and others, 2000). Cal scour around hydraulic structures, or obstructions (e.g., bridge abutments, dikes, low walls, coastal piers), and flow around deflectors in stream rehabilitation (summarized in Hoffmans and Verheij, 1997; Ettema and others, 2000) These process models are often used in conjunction with numerical modeling (e.g., computational fluid dynamics) to understand what is observed in the physical models. Predictive numerical modeling has greatly improved with the integration of remote sensing data of the real world (e.g., Matgen and others, 2007; Schumann and others, 2009)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
