Controls on particle settling velocity and bed erodibilty in the presence of muddy flocs and pellets as inferred by ADVs, York River estuary, Virginia,

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Hydrodynamics and Sediment Transport Modelling Ramiro Neves
Advertisements

Dual Use of a Sediment Mixing Tank for Calibrating Acoustic Backscatter and Direct Doppler Measurement of Settling Velocity (and Related Field Motivation.
Irene Seco Manuel Gómez Alma Schellart Simon Tait Erosion resistance and behaviour of highly organic in-sewer sediment 7th International Conference on.
G. M. Cartwright, C. T. Friedrichs, and L. P. Sanford.
LANDSAT Aug 31, 2011 Sediment transport and deposition: salinity fronts and storm events David Ralston, Rocky Geyer, John Warner, Gary Wall Hudson River.
Abstract We quantified turbulent dissipation in the Raritan river using both conventional methods and a novel technique, the structure function method.
Suspended particle property variation in Gaoping Submarine Canyon Ray T. Hsu and James T. Liu Institute of Marine Geology and Chemistry, National Sun Yat-sen.
Useful texts: Mann & Lazier, The Dynamics of Marine Ecosystems, Blackwell Science. Simpson, In: The Sea, vol 10, chapter 5. Simpson, In: The Sea, vol 11,
Particle Settling Velocity Put particle in a still fluid… what happens? Speed at which particle settles depends on: particle properties: D, ρ s, shape.
Examples of secondary flows and lateral variability.
Outline of Presentation: Richardson number control of saturated suspension Under-saturated (weakly stratified) sediment suspensions Critically saturated.
15. Physics of Sediment Transport William Wilcock (based in part on lectures by Jeff Parsons) OCEAN/ESS
(Geyer & Traykovski, 2001) Modeling of Clinoforms Created By Wave/Current Supported Gravity Flows: Carl Friedrichs, Virginia Institute of Marine Science,
Scaling Up Marine Sediment Transport Patricia Wiberg University of Virginia The challenge: How to go from local, event-scale marine sediment transport.
Predictability of Seabed Change due to Underwater Sand Mining in Coastal Waters of Korea Predictability of Seabed Change due to Underwater Sand Mining.
Conference Call Summary Three solids classes –Clay settles at 5 m/d –Silt settles at 50 m/d –Sand settles at 1000 m/d Major recommendation was use formulae.
Annapolis: July 18, 2006 Outline of talk: Objective: Improve BBL in 3D model. Estimates of shear stress. Evaluate bottom boundary layer.
RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN ERODIBILITY AND FINE-GRAINED SEABED PROPERTIES ON TIDAL TO SEASONAL TIME-SCALES, YORK RIVER ESTUARY, VA Lindsey M Kraatz, Carl T.
Outline Recent Field Observations of Cohesive and Mixed Sediment Particle Properties in Estuarine and Coastal Environments Carl Friedrichs, Virginia Institute.
Suspended Load Above certain critical shear stress conditions, sediment particles are maintained in suspension by the exchange of momentum from the fluid.
Controls on Suspended Particle Properties and Water Clarity along a Partially-Mixed Estuary, York River Estuary, Virginia, USA Kelsey A. Fall 1, Carl T.
Wind waves and sediments Calm Stephen Monismith Jeremy Bricker, Satoshi Inagaki, and Nicole Jones Stanford University Windy Supported by UPS Foundation.
Evaluating Scour Potential in Stormwater Catchbasin Sumps Using a Full-Scale Physical Model and CFD Modeling Humberto Avila Universidad del Norte, Department.
What Controls Bed Erodibility in Muddy, Partially-Mixed Tidal Estuaries? Carl Friedrichs, Grace Cartwright, Bob Diaz, Pat Dickhudt, Kelsey Fall, Lindsey.
Reynolds Number (Re) Re = R = A/P V = mean velocity  /  =  (which is kinematic viscosity) Re = VR(  /  ), where Driving Forces Resisting Force Re.
Virginia Institute of Marine Science
OPTICS, ACOUSTICS, AND STRESS IN A NEARSHORE BOTTOM NEPHLOID LAYER The role of in situ particle size distribution Paul Hill 1, Timothy Milligan 2, and.
Controls on particle settling velocity and bed erodibilty in the presence of muddy flocs and pellets as inferred by ADVs, York River estuary, Virginia,
LECTURE 8 LAYER-AVERAGED GOVERNING EQUATIONS FOR TURBIDITY CURRENTS
Conclusions References Acknowledgments Sensitivity Tests Cohesive Sediment Model Modeling System Future Work Including Cohesive Sediment Processes in the.
Modelling 1: Basic Introduction. What constitutes a “model”? Why do we use models? Calibration and validation. The basic concept of numerical integration.
Sediment Yield and Channel Processes. Definitions Suspend Sediment – sediment (orgranic or inorganic) which remains in suspension in water for a considerable.
Spring-neap Variation in Fecal Pellet Properties within Surficial Sediment of the York River Estuary Emily Wei VIMS REU Prospectus Presentation Mentor:
Factors affecting sedimentation rates of a tidally influenced salt marsh in Plum Island Sound, MA McDonald Lee Advisor: Dr. Carl Friedrichs Graduate Assistant:
Evaluating the Capabilities of the Second Generation PICS Settling Column Floc Camera in a Muddy Tidal Estuary, York River, Virginia, USA Grace M. Cartwright,
Flow Energy PE + KE = constant between any two points  PE (loss) =  KE (gain) Rivers are non-conservative; some energy is lost from the system and can.
Formation of Estuarine Turbidity Maxima in partially mixed estuaries H.M. Schuttelaars 1,2, C.T. Friedrichs 3 and H.E. de Swart 1 1: Institute for Marine.
Waves and resuspension on the shoals of San Francisco Bay Jessie Lacy USGS-CMG.
Sediment trap data. Constraining the seasonal particle flux in the eastern North Atlantic with Thorium isotopes M. Roy-Barman (1), R. El Hayek (1), I.
S.A. Talke, H.E. de Swart, H.M. Schuttelaars Feedback between residual circulations and sediment distribution in highly turbid estuaries: an analytical.
Controls on particle settling velocity and bed erodibilty in the presence of muddy flocs and biologically packaged pellets: Modeling study utilizing the.
15. Physics of Sediment Transport William Wilcock (based in part on lectures by Jeff Parsons) OCEAN/ESS 410.
Controls on Suspended Particle Properties and Water Clarity along a Partially-Mixed Estuary, York River Estuary, Virginia Kelsey A. Fall 1, Carl T. Friedrichs.
Outline of Presentation: Tidal sediment transport due to spatial vs. flood/ebb asymmetries (1) Minimizing spatial asymmetry → predicts channel convergence.
Outline of Presentation: Richardson number influence on coastal/estuarine mixing Derivation of stratified “overlap” layer structure Under-saturated (weakly.
Controls on particle settling velocity and bed erodibility in the presence of muddy flocs and pellets as inferred by ADVs, York River estuary, Virginia,
OPTICS, ACOUSTICS, AND STRESS IN A NEARSHORE BOTTOM NEPHLOID LAYER (2005) The role of in situ particle size distribution Paul Hill 1, Timothy Milligan.
7. Bedforms in coarse-grained channels Step-pool units Cluster bedforms Riffle-pool sequences.
Fine sediment transport. Fines Till derived soils (e.g., Clarion) ~ 45-70% fines Alluvial soils (e.g., Coland) 65-80% fines Loess-derived soils ~ > 80%
Controls on sediment availability on the continental shelf and implications for rates of morphologic evolution Patricia Wiberg University of Virginia with.
Sedimentology Flow and Sediment Transport (1) Reading Assignment: Boggs, Chapter 2.
ETM: The Estuarine Turbidity Maximum
An introduction to cohesive sediment transport processes
An introduction to cohesive sediment transport modelling
Channel Processes and Hjulstrom’s Curve
Controls on Suspended Particle Properties and Water Clarity along a Partially-Mixed Estuary, York River Estuary, Virginia Kelsey A. Fall 1, Carl T. Friedrichs.
Influence of Suspended Particle Properties on Optical Properties and Resultant Water Clarity along a Partially-Mixed Estuary, York River, Virginia, USA.
Flocs of increasing size Suspended Sediment Size Distribution in a Numerical Sediment Transport Model for a Partially-Mixed Estuary Danielle R.N. Tarpley,
L. Donelson Wright1, Arthur C. Trembanis1, Malcolm O. Green2, Terry M
Controls on Suspended Particle Properties and Water Clarity along a Partially-Mixed Estuary, York River Estuary, Virginia Kelsey A. Fall1, Carl T. Friedrichs1,
Comparison of modeled and observed bed erodibility in the York River estuary, Virginia, over varying time scales Danielle Tarpley, Courtney K. Harris,
Sediment Transport Mechanics
Consolidation and stratification within a Muddy, Partially Mixed Estuary: A Comparison between Idealized and Realistic Models for Sediment Transport in.
4 channel types defined at reach scale, based on 3 features
4 channel types defined at reach scale, based on 3 features
Exercise 1: Fenton River Floodplain Exercise
Title and Outline VIMS Coastal Hydrodynamics and Sediment Dynamics Lab
OCEAN/ESS Physics of Sediment Transport William Wilcock (based in part on lectures by Jeff Parsons)
“Characteristics of Suspended Sediment and Flow in Downstream of Mekong River, Southern Vietnam” 5/22/2019 Duong Thai Bang (M2) (Supervised by Prof. Maki.
Presentation transcript:

Controls on particle settling velocity and bed erodibilty in the presence of muddy flocs and pellets as inferred by ADVs, York River estuary, Virginia, USA Kelsey Fall*, Carl Friedrichs, and Grace Cartwright Virginia Institute of Marine Science

Controls on particle settling velocity and bed erodibilty in the presence of muddy flocs and pellets as inferred by ADVs, York River estuary, Virginia, USA Kelsey Fall*, Carl Friedrichs, and Grace Cartwright Virginia Institute of Marine Science

Motivation: Determine fundamental controls on sediment settling velocity and bed erodibility in muddy estuaries Study Site: York River Estuary,VA (MUDBED Long-term Observing System) -- NSF MUDBED project benthic ADV tripods (1) and monthly bed sampling cruises (2) provide long-term observations within a strong physical-biological gradient. Schaffner et al., 2001 Physical-biological gradient found along the York estuary : -- Upper York Physically Dominated Site: Dominated by physical processes (ETM) --Mid York Intermediate site: Seasonal STM --Lower York Biological site: Biological Influences Dominate (No ETM)

ADV at deployment -- ADVs provide continual long-term estimates of: Suspended mass concentration(c) from acoustic backscatter when calibrated by pump samples Bed Stress (τ b ): τ b =ρ* Bulk Settling Velocity (W sBULK ): W sBULK = /c Erodibility (ε): ε = τ b /M(where M is depth-integrated c) Drag Coefficient (C d ):C d = /(u 2 ) ADV after retrieval Observations provided by an Acoustic Doppler Velocimeter Sensing volume ~ 35 cmab (Photos by C. Cartwright) Fugate and Friedrichs,2002; Friedrichs et al., 2009; Cartwright, et al and Dickhudt et al., /9

ADV Observed Settling Velocity (W sBULK ) and Bed Erodibility (ε) ( ) Cartwright et al., Spatial variability in W sBULK and bed ε between Biological Site and Intermediate Site. -- Little seasonal variability in W sBULK and ε at the Biological Site. -- Two distinct regimes linked to seasonal variability in W sBULK and ε at the Intermediate Site. 3/9

ADV Observed Settling Velocity (W sBULK ) and Bed Erodibility (ε) ( ) Cartwright et al., Spatial variability in W sBULK and bed ε between Biological Site and Intermediate Site. -- Little seasonal variability in W sBULK and ε at the Biological Site. -- Two distinct regimes linked to seasonal variability in W sBULK and ε at the Intermediate Site. 3/9 Regime 1:Low w s, High ε

ADV Observed Settling Velocity (W sBULK ) and Bed Erodibility (ε) ( ) Cartwright et al., Spatial variability in W sBULK and bed ε between Biological Site and Intermediate Site. -- Little seasonal variability in W sBULK and ε at the Biological Site. -- Two distinct regimes linked to seasonal variability in W sBULK and ε at the Intermediate Site. 3/9 Regime 2: High w s, Low ε

Cartwright et al., 2009 Objective: Use tidal phase analysis on ADV data to investigate what is happening at the Intermediate site when Regime 1(Low w s, High ε)  Regime 2 (High w s, Low ε). Tidal Phase Average Analysis (Fall, 2012): Average ADV data (settling velocity, current speed, concentration, bed stress, and drag coefficient) over the tidal phases with the strongest bed stresses for each regime to obtain representative values of each parameter throughout a tidal phase. 3/9

W sBULK = / (mm/s) (a) Sediment Bulk Settling Velocity, W sBULK Regime 1 Regime 2 Increasing |u| and τ b Tidal Velocity Phase (  ) Similar W sBULK at the beginning of tidal phase suggest presence of flocs during both regimes (Note that Bulk Settling Velocity, w sBULK = /c set is considered reliable for mud only during accelerating half of tidal cycle.) Phase-averaged W sBULK for two regimes suggest different particles in are suspended during Regime 1 (Low w s, High ε) than Regime 2 (High w s, Low ε). 4/9

W sBULK = / (mm/s) (a) Sediment Bulk Settling Velocity, W sBULK Regime 1 Regime 2 Increasing |u| and τ b Tidal Velocity Phase (  ) Similar W sBULK at the beginning of tidal phase suggest presence of flocs during both regimes Regime 1: Flocs -Lower observed W sBULK at peak |u| and τ b (<0.8 mm/s) Regime 2: Pellets+Flocs -Higher observed W sBULK at peak |u| and τ b (~1.2 mm/s) -Influence of pellets on W sBULK (Note that Bulk Settling Velocity, w sBULK = /c set is considered reliable for mud only during accelerating half of tidal cycle.) 4/9 Phase-averaged W sBULK for two regimes suggest different particles in are suspended during Regime 1 (Low w s, High ε) than Regime 2 (High w s, Low ε).

(a) Tidal Current Speed (cm/s) Tidal Velocity Phase (θ/π) Increasing IuI Decreasing IuI (b) Bed Stress (Pa) (c) Concentration (mg/L) (d) Drag Coefficient C WASH Regime 1 Velocity Tidal Phase Averaged Analysis (Current Speed (a), Bed Stress (b), Concentration(c)and Drag Coeff. (d)) Tidal Velocity Phase (θ/π) Increasing IuI Decreasing IuI 5/9 Regime 2 Regime 1(Low w s, High ε) Regime 2 (High w s, Low ε) Regime 1:Flocs/Fines Regime 2:Pellets+Flocs

(a) Tidal Current Speed (cm/s) Tidal Velocity Phase (θ/π) Increasing IuI Decreasing IuI (b) Bed Stress (Pa) (c) Concentration (mg/L) (d) Drag Coefficient C WASH Regime 1 Tidal Velocity Phase (θ/π) Increasing IuI Decreasing IuI 5/9 Regime 2 Velocity Tidal Phase Averaged Analysis (Current Speed (a), Bed Stress (b), Concentration(c)and Drag Coeff. (d)) Regime 1(Low w s, High ε) Regime 2 (High w s, Low ε) Regime 1: Flocs/Fines - Lower τ b despite similar current speeds -High C at relatively low τ b -More stratified WC: Lower ADV derived C d plus ΔS about 3 ppt (VECOS) Regime 2: Pellets+Flocs -Lower C at high τ b -Less stratified WC: Higher ADV derived C d plus ΔS about 1 ppt (VECOS)

(a) Tidal Current Speed (cm/s) Tidal Velocity Phase (θ/π) Increasing IuI Decreasing IuI (b) Bed Stress (Pa) (c) Concentration (mg/L) (d) Drag Coefficient C WASH Regime 1 Tidal Velocity Phase (θ/π) Increasing IuI Decreasing IuI Regime 1: Flocs/Fines -High C at relatively low τ b - Lower τ b despite similar current speeds -More stratified WC: Lower ADV derived C d plus ΔS about 3 ppt (VECOS) -Trapping of fines (STM) 5/9 Regime 2: Pellets+Flocs -Lower C at high τ b -Less stratified WC: Higher ADV derived C d plus ΔS about 1 ppt (VECOS) -Dispersal of fines, pellets suspended (No STM) Regime 2 Velocity Tidal Phase Averaged Analysis (Current Speed (a), Bed Stress (b), Concentration(c)and Drag Coeff. (d)) Regime 1(Low w s, High ε) Regime 2 (High w s, Low ε)

Phase- Averaged Erosion and Deposition for Two Regimes -- Once  b increases past a critical stress for initiation (  cINIT ), C continually increases for both Regime 1 and for Regime 2 Erosion Concentration (mg/L) Washload (~20%) Bed Stress (Pa) Concentration (mg/L) τ cINT = ~ 0.05 Pa τ cINT = ~ 0.02 Pa Regime 2 (Pellets + Flocs) Hysteresis plots of C vs.  b for the top 20 % of tidal cycles with the strongest  b for (a) Regime 1 and (b) Regime 2. 6/9 Regime 1 (Flocs)

Phase- Averaged Erosion and Deposition for Two Regimes Washload (~20%) Bed Stress (Pa) Concentration (mg/L) τ cINT = ~ 0.05 Pa τ cINT = ~ 0.02 Pa Concentration (mg/L) -- As  b decreases for Regime 1, C does not fall off quickly until  b ≤ 0.08 Pa, suggests that over individual tidal cycles, cohesion of settling flocs to the surface of the seabed is inhibited for τ b larger than ~ 0.08 Pa. -- As  b decreases for Regime 2, C decreases more continually, suggesting pellets without as clear a  cDEP. But the decline in C accelerates for  b ≤ ~ 0.08 Pa, suggesting (i) a transition to floc deposition and (ii) that settling C component is ~ 3/8 pellets, ~ 5/8 flocs. Depositio n τ cDEP flocs = ~ 0.08 Pa Hysteresis plots of C vs.  b for the top 20 % of tidal cycles with the strongest  b for (a) Regime 1 and (b) Regime 2. 6/9 Regime 2 (Pellets + Flocs) Regime 1 (Flocs)

Phase- Averaged Erosion and Deposition for Two Regimes Washload (~20%) Flocs (~80%) Washload (~20%) Flocs (~50%) Pellets (~30%) Bed Stress (Pa) Concentration (mg/L) τ cINT = ~ 0.05 Pa τ cINT = ~ 0.02 Pa Concentration (mg/L) -- As  b decreases for Regime 1, C does not fall off quickly until  b ≤ 0.08 Pa, suggests that over individual tidal cycles, cohesion of settling flocs to the surface of the seabed is inhibited for τ b larger than ~ 0.08 Pa. -- As  b decreases for Regime 2, C decreases more continually, suggesting pellets without as clear a  cDEP. But the decline in C accelerates for  b ≤ ~ 0.08 Pa, suggesting (i) a transition to floc deposition and (ii) that settling C component is ~ 3/8 pellets, ~ 5/8 flocs. Depositio n τ cDEP flocs = ~ 0.08 Pa Hysteresis plots of C vs.  b for the top 20 % of tidal cycles with the strongest  b for (a) Regime 1 and (b) Regime 2. 6/9 Regime 2 (Pellets + Flocs) Regime 1 (Flocs)

W sBULK = / (mm/s) (a) Sediment Bulk Settling Velocity, W sBULK Phase-Averaged W sBULK for Two Regimes Regime 1 Regime 2 Increasing |u| and τ b Tidal Velocity Phase (  ) Similar W sBULK at the beginning of tidal phase suggest presence of flocs during both regimes Regime 1: Flocs -Lower observed W sBULK at peak |u| and τ b (<0.8 mm/s) Regime 2: Pellets+Flocs -Lower observed W sBULK at peak |u| and τ b (~1.2 mm/s) -Influence of pellets on W sBULK (Note that Bulk Settling Velocity, w sBULK = /c set is considered reliable for mud only during accelerating half of tidal cycle.) 7/9

W sBULK = / (mm/s) W sDEP = (c/(c-c wash ))*W sBULK (mm/s) Analysis of W sBULK by removing C WASH and solving for settling velocity of the depositing component (W sDEP ) during increasing  b allows separate estimates for settling velocities of flocs (W sFLOCS ) and pellets (W sPELLETS ). (a) Sediment Bulk Settling Velocity, W sBULK (b) Remove c wash Regime 1 Regime 2 Tidal Velocity Phase (  ) Regime 1 (Flocs) Regime 2 (Pellets +Flocs) (b) Depositing component of Settling Velocity, W sDEP Increasing |u| and τ b Recall: peak τ b ~ 0.15 Pa for Regime 1, and peak τ b ~ 0.22 Pa for Regime 2 Phase-Averaged W sBULK for Two Regimes 8/9

W sBULK = / (mm/s) W sDEP = (c/(c-c wash ))*W sBULK (mm/s) (a) Sediment Bulk Settling Velocity, W sBULK (b) Remove c wash Regime 1 Regime 2 Tidal Velocity Phase (  ) (b) Depositing component of Settling Velocity, W sDEP Increasing |u| and τ b W sFLOC = ~ 0.85 mm/s Implies floc size is limited by settling-induced shear rather than  b. W sDEP = W sFLOCS Recall: peak τ b ~ 0.15 Pa for Regime 1, and peak τ b ~ 0.22 Pa for Regime 2 Analysis of W sBULK by removing C WASH and solving for settling velocity of the depositing component (W sDEP ) during increasing  b allows separate estimates for settling velocities of flocs (W sFLOCS ) and pellets (W sPELLETS ). Phase-Averaged W sBULK for Two Regimes 8/9 Regime 1 (Flocs) Regime 2 (Pellets +Flocs)

W sBULK = / (mm/s) W sDEP = (c/(c-c wash ))*W sBULK (mm/s) (a) Sediment Bulk Settling Velocity, W sBULK (b) Remove c wash Regime 1 Regime 2 Tidal Velocity Phase (  ) (b) Depositing component of Settling Velocity, W sDEP Increasing |u| and τ b W sDEP = W sFLOCS W sDEP = f F W sFLOCS + f F W sPELLETS = ~ 1.43 mm/s at peak  b Assume: f F = 5/8, f P = 3/8 This gives: W sPELLETS = ~ 2.4 mm/s W sFLOC = ~ 0.85 mm/s Implies floc size is limited by settling-induced shear rather than  b. Recall: peak τ b ~ 0.15 Pa for Regime 1, and peak τ b ~ 0.22 Pa for Regime 2 Analysis of W sBULK by removing C WASH and solving for settling velocity of the depositing component (W sDEP ) during increasing  b allows separate estimates for settling velocities of flocs (W sFLOCS ) and pellets (W sPELLETS ). Phase-Averaged W sBULK for Two Regimes 8/9 Regime 1 (Flocs) Regime 2 (Pellets +Flocs)

York River sediment settling velocity (W s ) and erodibility (ε) are described by two contrasting regimes: (i) Regime 1: a period dominated by muddy flocs [lower W s, higher ε]. (ii) Regime 2: a period characterized by pellets mixed with flocs [higher W s, lower ε]. Tidal phase-averaging of ADV records for the strongest 20% of tides for June to August 2007 reveals: The presence and departure of the STM (changes in water column stratification) may control transition from Regime 1 to Regime 2 Deposition patterns allow for a rough estimate of the proportions of the three main particle types (washload, flocs, pellets) in suspension during Regime 1 and Regime 2 Subtraction of C WASH from W SBULK for Regime 1 results in a stable floc settling velocity of W sFLOC ≈ 0.85 mm/s. The constant floc settling velocity implies that at lower beds stresses floc size is limited by settling-induced shear rather than turbulence associated with bed stress. Separation of W sFLOC and C WASH from W SBULK for Regime 2 finally yields W SPELLET ≈ 2.4 mm/s. Future work will include (i) vertically stacked ADVs and (ii) deployment of a high-definition particle settling video camera. Summary and Future Work: 9/9

10/10 Acknowledgements Marjy Friedrichs Tim Gass Wayne Reisner Funding: Julia Moriarity Carissa Wilkerson

Motivation: Determine fundamental controls on sediment settling velocity and bed erodibility in muddy estuaries Physical-biological gradient found along the York estuary : -- Physically Dominated Site-Upper Estuary : Dominated by physical processes (ETM) -- Intermediate Site-Mid-estuary: Mixed Physical and Biological Influences (Seasonal STM) -- Biological Site-Lower Estuary: Biological Influences Dominate Study site: York River Estuary, VA (MUDBED Long-term Observing System) Dickhudt et al., 2009 ;Schaffner et al., /9

/01 07/01 08/01 09/01 Pamunkey River Discharge (m 3 /s) Salinity 0.5 mab (ppt) June 12- August 31, 2007

York River sediment settling velocity (W s ) and erodibility (ε) are described by two contrasting regimes: (i) Regime 1: a period dominated by muddy flocs [lower W s, higher ε]. (ii) Regime 2: a period characterized by pellets mixed with flocs [higher W s, lower ε]. Tidal phase-averaging of ADV records for the strongest 20% of tides for June to August 2007 reveals: A non-settling wash load (C WASH ) is always present during both Regimes. Once stress (τ b ) exceeds an initial critical value (τ cINIT ) of ~ 0.02 to 0.05 Pa, sediment concentration (C) continually increases with τ b for both Regimes. As τ b decreases, cohesion of settling flocs to the surface of the seabed is inhibited for τ b larger than ~ 0.08 Pa for both Regimes. Subtraction of C WASH from W SBULK for Regime 1 results in a stable floc settling velocity of W sFLOC ≈ 0.85 mm/s. The constant floc settling velocity implies that at lower beds stresses floc size is limited by settling-induced shear rather than turbulence associated with bed stress. Separation of W sFLOC and C WASH from W SBULK for Regime 2 finally yields W SPELLET ≈ 2.4 mm/s. During Regime 1, ε increases with  b averaged over the previous 5 days, consistent with cohesive bed evolution; while for Regime 2, ε decreases with daily  b, perhaps consistent with bed armoring. Future work will include (i) vertically stacked ADVs and (ii) deployment of a high-definition particle settling video camera. Summary and Future Work: 10/10

Influence of Stress History on Bed Erodibility for Regime 1 and Regime 2 25 Hour Averaged Bed Stress (Pa) 25 Hour Averaged Erodibility, (kg/m 2 /Pa) 120 Hour Averaged Bed Stress (Pa) 25 Hour Averaged Erodibility, (kg/m 2 /Pa) Reveals two distinct relationships between ε and  b. 9/10 b. Daily-averaged ε vs. 5-day-averaged  b a. Daily-averaged ε vs. daily averaged  b

Regime 1: Erodibility ( ε ) increases proportional to the average stress over the last 5 days, consistent with cohesive bed evolution dominated by the consolidation state of flocs. 25 Hour Averaged Bed Stress (Pa) 25 Hour Averaged Erodibility, (kg/m 2 /Pa) 120 Hour Averaged Bed Stress (Pa) 25 Hour Averaged Erodibility, (kg/m 2 /Pa) R= R= Influence of Stress History on Bed Erodibility for Regime 1 and Regime 2 Reveals two distinct relationships between ε and  b. 9/10 b. Daily-averaged ε vs. 5-day-averaged  b a. Daily-averaged ε vs. daily averaged  b

Regime 1: Erodibility ( ε ) increases proportional to the average stress over the last 5 days, consistent with cohesive bed evolution dominated by the consolidation state of flocs. Regime 2: Erodibility ( ε ) decreases with greater stress, possibly associated with the effects of bed armoring by the pellet component. 25 Hour Averaged Bed Stress (Pa) 25 Hour Averaged Erodibility, (kg/m 2 /Pa) 120 Hour Averaged Bed Stress (Pa) 25 Hour Averaged Erodibility, (kg/m 2 /Pa) R= R= R= R= Influence of Stress History on Bed Erodibility for Regime 1 and Regime 2 Reveals two distinct relationships between ε and  b. 9/10 b. Daily-averaged ε vs. 5-day-averaged  b a. Daily-averaged ε vs. daily averaged  b