Sedimentary Geology 374 (2018) 98–114

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Sedimentary Geology

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/sedgeo

Shell concentration dynamics driven by wave motion in flume

experiments: Insights for coquina facies from lake-margin settings
Cristiano Fick a,⁎, Elírio Ernestino Toldo Jr a,b
, Eduardo Puhl c
a
Programa de Pós-Graduação em Geociências: Marine Geology, PPGGEO/IGEO, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS), Ave. Bento Gonçalves, 9500 Porto Alegre, Brazil
b
Centro de Estudos de Geologia Marinha e Costeira, CECO/IGEO, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS), Ave. Bento Gonçalves, 9500 Porto Alegre, Brazil
c
Instituto de Pesquisas Hidráulicas, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (IPH - UFRGS), Ave. Bento Gonçalves, 9500 Porto Alegre, Brazil

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Coquinas are important carbonate oil reservoirs in the sin-rift sequence of the Brazilian marginal basins, mainly in
Received 24 April 2018 Campos and Santos basins. They are generated from shell accumulations in lake-margin environments in which
Received in revised form 30 July 2018 waves and bottom currents, at storm conditions, were the main hydrodynamic agents of transport and
Accepted 1 August 2018
reworking. In order to investigate the role of wave transformation processes in shallow waters – swash, breaking
Available online 4 August 2018
and wave shoaling – in shell concentrations, a physical modelling of the coastal environment was performed in
Editor: Dr. B. Jones laboratory. The experimental setup consisted of a 2D flume, a wave generator, and a sedimentary bottom com-
posed by quartz sand and shells (bivalves, gastropods, and fragments). An underwater camera, wave gauges
Keywords: and an ADV were used to record the sedimentary processes and to perform a quantitative analysis of the hydro-
Shell accumulation dynamics dynamics. The experimental scenario reproduced a rift-lake margin. A coastal sector of Lake Tanganyika,
Lake-margin coquina facies Tanzania, Africa, was used to set the model boundary conditions (in a 1/20 scale) as well as the coastal gradient
Wave transformation processes and wave conditions. From 54 h of wave experiments which alternated from fair-weather to storm wave condi-
Wave flume experiments tions, three shell concentration dynamics were observed: reworking, winnowing, and dynamic bypassing. The
Shell orientation
reworking (erosion) was characterized by traction, rolling, and saltation of bioclasts, together with the traction
and suspension of sand. The occurrence of the latter was restricted to the breaking and swash zone in both
fair-weather and storm conditions. The winnowing (erosion) was featured by sand suspension and the gentle
traction and rotation of the bioclasts on the bottom. The winnowing occurred at the proximal area of the shoaling
zone, just behind the first wave-breaking point in storm wave conditions. The dynamic bypassing (omission) was
identified by the ripples migration over static shells on the bottom of the distal shoaling zone, which produced
alternated burial and exhumation of bioclasts. The quantitative analysis of the oscillatory flow indicated higher
velocities at the breaking zone (reworking domain) than at the shoaling zone (winnowing domain) mainly dur-
ing storm conditions. This study provided new and more accurate insights to depositional models of lake-margin
coquinas, suggesting that each wave transformation process control a specific dynamic of shell concentration.
Also, the limit between the breaking zone and the shoaling zone in storm conditions (1st wave-breaking
point), was identified as a better criterion to bound the reworking domain, where fragmented coquinas are
produced, from the winnowing and dynamic bypassing domains, where non-fragmented coquinas occur, in
contrast to the fair-weather wave base criterion.
© 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction 2015). In the Pre-Salt sequence of Campos Basin, Brazil (Coqueiros

Coquina is a generic term used to denote sedimentary rocks consti-
tuted by the skeletal grains generated from dense fossil hardpart
concentrations in subaqueous environments. Some continental margin
basins of Brazil (Campos and Santos) and West Africa (Congo and
Cabinda) have coquina packages that are hundreds of meters thick,
which represent important hydrocarbon reservoirs (Thompson et al.,
⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: cristiano.fick@ufrgs.br (C. Fick), toldo@ufrgs.br (E.E. Toldo),
eduardo.puhl@ufrgs.br (E. Puhl).
Formation - Early Cretaceous), the coquina packages are composed by
rudstones, grainstones and packstones, which mainly consist of bivalve
and gastropods shells and that sometimes show mechanical reworking
and a siliciclastic matrix (Bertani and Carozzi, 1985; Dias et al., 1988;
Abrahão and Warme, 1990; Carvalho et al., 2000; Terra et al., 2010;
Muniz, 2013).
The depositional models for the Pre-Salt (sin-rift/non marine)
sequence of Campos Basin suggest that large shell concentrations
were mainly deposited in ramp-type (or platform) lake margins
under the action of storm waves and currents, in which the matrix
winnowing and the bioclast reworking were the dominant dynamics

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sedgeo.2018.08.002
0037-0738/© 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
 C. Fick et al. / Sedimentary Geology 374 (2018) 98–114
of the skeletal grain concentrations (Bertani and Carozzi, 1985; Dias
et al., 1988; Abrahão and Warme, 1990; Carvalho et al., 2000; Muniz,
2013). In a tectonic context, that ancient rift-lake environment was sim-
ilar to the great modern lakes of East Africa – Lake Tanganyika and Lake
Malawi –, which are considered as good analogues in terms of morphol-
ogy and hydraulic process (Thompson et al., 2015), despite the fact that
these lakes do not currently have thick shell concentrations.
Studies on coquina analogues, either in modern coastal shell
deposits or in outcrops of ancient carbonate rocks, have improved the
understanding of bioclastic accumulation processes. From the results
of Jahnert et al. (2012), who studied the Holocene coquina barrier of
Shark Bay, Australia, the authors suggested that large shell deposits on
backshore zones are generated in periods of strong storms and surges
with concomitant base level fall, in addition to great supply of mollusc
skeletons in the environment. Furthermore, outcrop analyses made by
Tavares et al. (2015) and Chinelatto et al. (2018) in the Morro do Chaves
Formation, a Barremian-Aptian coquina package, have pointed out that
fragmented coquinas are deposited in high-energy conditions above the
fair-weather wave base (FWWB) and non-fragmented coquinas with
fine matrix are accumulated in low-energy conditions between the
FWWB and the storm wave base (SWB).
Dynamics and types of shell concentrations in subaqueous environ-
ments were studied and classified by Kidwell (1986) and Kidwell et al.
(1986) into three types: sedimentologic, biogenic, and diagenetic.
Sedimentologic concentrations (allochthonous/parautochthonous)
result from hydraulic processes of accumulation in which the shells
represent the sedimentary particles and the non-bioclastic matrix either
is removed or does not settling. Biogenic concentrations are in situ accu-
mulations (autochthonous) that originate from the high productivity of
gregarious organisms. Diagenetic concentrations are generated after the
burial of shells by physical and chemical processes such as the compac-
tion and the later matrix dissolution. In terms of coastal environments
Fig. 1. A) Schematic longitudinal profile of a wave-dominated coast and areas of wave processes (Modified from Walker and Plint, 1992 and Short, 1999), highlighting the typical zones of
the genetic types of shell concentrations according to what was presented by Kidwell et al. (1986). B) Sedimentary dynamics according to the R-sediment model of Kidwell (1986).
99
(Fig. 1A), the sedimentological concentrations are typical from the
shoreline to the storm wave base (from the backshore/foreshore to
the inferior shoreface), while the biogenic accumulations are dominant
in back-barrier lagoons and in areas deeper than the storm wave base
(offshore).
Focusing in the sedimentologic concentrations of shells, Kidwell
(1986) presented a heuristic model (R-Sediment) of dynamics and
types of shell beds based on the rates of net sedimentation (non-
bioclastic sediment) from field observations (Fig. 1B). In this model,
five ways of representing bioclastic concentrations were established by
separating them into two erosive dynamics, in which the rate of net sed-
imentation is negative, and three omissive dynamics, when the rate of
net sedimentation is zero. The erosive dynamics are: (I) winnowing,
which is characterized by the selective removal of the fine matrix; and
(II) reworking, which results from shell sorting from the matrix. On the
other hand, the omissive dynamics are: (III) total passing, in which the
suspended sediment remains in the water column; (IV) dynamic
bypassing, which is characterized by the bedform migration; and
(V) sediment starvation, which is when the sediment supply is absent.
In addition to these zero and negative R-sediment dynamics, other
pivotal factor to generate shell beds is the positive R-hardpart, that is,
the input of skeletons in the system. Regarding the environmental con-
trols, this author suggested that the erosive dynamics are more linked
to high-energy environments such as shorelines and offshore bars, and
the omissive dynamics linked to low-energy shorelines and distal
deposits.
Although the above-cited depositional models for the coquina
packages of the Pre-Salt sequence provide much information on ancient
lake environments and their sedimentological mechanisms, they lack
discussions on how the wave processes – shoaling, breaking and
swash – affect the sedimentary processes of coquina facies, once they
control the sediment transport in wave-dominated settings. The
100 C. Fick et al. / Sedimentary Geology 374 (2018) 98–114
shoaling is the first transformation that waves suffer when approaching
the coast, increasing their steepness on the water surface from the point
that the orbital flow touches the bottom (wave base level) until the first
wave-breaking point. The breaking processes occur when the wave
steepness exceeds its limit of stabilization and collapses, producing
intense agitation in the water column and on the bottom from the
first breaking point until the shoreline (surf zone). Swash is the process
that happens in the shoreline (Short, 1999) and is characterized by a
bidirectional, thin flow that goes up and down on the beach face
(foreshore). Although widely used by the scientific community as a
fossil concentration model, the dynamics of Kidwell (1986) does not
explain in detail (or does not link) how those wave processes may
control the shell concentration dynamics along the coastal profile.
To improve the knowledge of coquina deposition in lake-margin
environments, this work aims to investigate the role of wave shoaling,
breaking and swash in shell concentration dynamics and their deposi-
tional products. From physical modeling of a coastal environment in a
reduced scale, a lake-margin scenario with bioclastic and siliciclastic
bottom sediments was reproduced under alternating energy conditions
(fair-weather and storm waves).
2. Materials and methods
This item presents all steps of the experiments conducted in the
laboratory as the choice of the prototype environment, adjustments of
spatial and temporal scales, and the preparation of the experimental
scenario. Furthermore, the wave flume geometry, wave generation
equipments and how the wave parameters were measured are shown.
2.1. Prototype environment
In order to reproduce a wave-dominated lake-margin scenario, Lake
Tanganyika (Fig. 2A and B) was chosen to represent the prototype
environment since it is considered as a good analogue to the ancient
rift lakes from Early Cretaceous of Western Gondwana (Thompson
Fig. 2. Prototype environment. A) Localization of the African Great Lakes, at the southeast region of Africa. B) Detail of the Lakes Tanganyika and Malawi. C) Zoom on Lake Tanganyika,
highlighting the shoreline sector of the lake (yellow rectangle) used to set the morphology and the wave parameters in the physical model. Images from Google Earth (Landsat/Copernicus,
Data SIO, NOAA, U.S. Navy, NGA, GEBCO).
et al., 2015). The relief gradient and the wave parameters of a shoreline
sector from Lake Tanganyika were used to set up the experimental
scenario (Fig. 2C).
The shoreline sector between Kigoma and Lagosa (~130 km),
Tanzania, on the east margin of Lake Tanganyika, was chosen due to
two reasons. Firstly, it is because this sector is placed on a hanging-
wall margin of the lake (Cohen, 1990) that features a ramp-type
(platform) margin where carbonate deposits tend to be expressive
(Platt and Wright, 1991) and because it is similar to the setting where
the Pre-Salt coquinas were supposedly generated (Muniz, 2013;
Tavares et al., 2015). Secondly, modern coquina deposits (gastropod
shells) with tens of kilometers of lateral extension and width can be
found on the nearshore zone (Cohen and Thouin, 1987; McGlue et al.,
2010). These deposits are the most expressive modern shell concentra-
tions known in Lake Tanganyika.
The relief gradient of the Kigoma southern margin was calculated
from a bathymetric map of the lake (Capart, 1952) and from a profile
of the coastal zone presented by McGlue et al. (2010). In both cases,
the gradient reached values very close to 1° dip. The fair-weather
wave parameters of the prototype were as well calculated since no
measured data was found in the literature. In order to estimate wave
height (H) and period (T), wind data modeled for Lake Tanganyica
and presented by Docquier et al. (2016) was used. From the annual
wind speed average (WS10m = 4.5 m/s) and the fetch dimension of
the Kigoma southern margin (middle sector ~ 100 km), the wave pa-
rameters were calculated through the Shore Protection Manual formu-
lation (Coastal Engineering Research Center, 1984) for deep-water
and fully developed wave conditions. The calculated fair-weather H
and T were, respectively, 0.51 m and 3.7 s.
2.2. Wave flume and sediments
The wave flume used in the experiments is located at the hydraulic
laboratory of the Instituto de Pesquisas Hidráulicas of Universidade
Federal do Rio Grande do Sul. It has a 2D geometry that is 40.0 m long,
 C. Fick et al. / Sedimentary Geology 374 (2018) 98–114 101

1.0 m wide and has a depth ranging from 1.03 to 0.56 m at the most dis-
tal and proximal (corresponding to a platform) sectors, respectively
(Fig. 3A and B). At the distal extremity, a flat-type wave generator
(Fig. 3C) consists of an electric motor coupled to a mechanical system
that moves a beater (a metal plate) fixed at the bottom. The frequency
of the waves generated by this system is related to the motor rotation
frequency which limits the generation to regular (single-frequency)
waves. Besides that, the lateral displacements (amplitude) of the beater
are adjustable, allowing the control of T and H of the generated waves.
The maximum H generated in this flume is around 14 cm and T can be
produced between 1.17 and 2.20 s (Clemente, 2013). H and T of the
waves generated in the experiments were measured by a capacitive
wave gauge (DHI 201) that recorded voltage variations with a 40-Hz
frequency acquisition that depends on water oscillations during the
propagation of waves. In order to measure the orbital velocities along
the water column, a 25-Hz Acoustic Doppler Velocimeter (ADV) posi-
tioned at different depths was used. The bottom morphology analysis
of the simulated coastal profile was performed through a bathymetric
surveying using a limnimetric ruler placed over the horizontal walls of
the flume. Two cameras recorded images and videos: a digital video
for subaerial scenes and an underwater one for subaqueous scenes.
Two types of sediments were used in the lake-margin model:
silisiclastics and bioclastics. The siliciclastic grains were represented by
quartz fine sand (D50 = 200 μm) moderately well sorted in a total
volume of 2 m3. The bioclastic grains were constituted by 45 kg of
whole and/or fragmented mollusc shells of bivalves (disarticulated)
and gastropods with a median sieved diameter (Dsv-50) that is around
3 mm. The length of the long axis of the shells reached a maximum of
2.0 cm. Bivalves were by two main species, Anomalocardia brasiliana
(Fig. 4A) and Diplodonta punctata (Fig. 4B), while gastropods were
classified as Cerithium eburneum (Fig. 4C) and Olivella sp. (Fig. 4D).
The background proportions of the bioclastic material according to its
weight between whole and fragmented skeletal grains were 5% and
95%, respectively. Among the whole shells, the number of bivalve and
gastropod individuals represented 90% and 10% of the population,
respectively. These shells were obtained from the coastal plain of
Santa Catarina, Brazil, in dense bioclastic deposits from the Holocene
package (Fornari et al., 2012).

Fig. 3. A) Longitudinal geometry of the flume built with brickwork walls and a concrete bottom. B) Superior view showing the proximal sector (above the platform). C) Wave generator
engine: I – metal plate (beater), II - course control, III - inertial flywheel, IV - rotation reducer, V – electric motor.
102 C. Fick et al. / Sedimentary Geology 374 (2018) 98–114

used in the two modelling wave-energy conditions, the storm waves

in a deep-water setting was set with a HM four times higher than the
fair-weather waves.
After keeping the same horizontal and vertical geometric scales and
following Froude's criterion to set the geometric and time scales, it can
be considered that the hydrodynamic similitude of these physical
modelling experiments was satisfactory (Hughes, 1993). However, as
it was established for the grain size scale, a limitation was assumed
15because the bioclastic grains were not small like the geometric
scale. This difficulty is typical for physical modelling of coastal environ-
ments and does not disqualify the obtained results (Kamphuis, 1985;
Hughes, 1993).

2.4. Experimental setup

Fig. 4. Bioclasts used in the lake-margin model. A) Anomalocardia brasiliana (Gmelin,
1791; apud Fornari et al., 2012). B) Diplodonta punctata (Fornari et al., 2012).
C) Cerithium eburneum (Bruguiere, 1792; apud Fornari et al., 2012). D) Olivella sp.
(Fornari et al., 2012).
2.3. Geometric and time scales
The geometric scale of the physical model was set by the fair-
weather H of the prototype and by a minimum effective value of H
produced in the physical model, suitable to a pre-established range of
H values (varying from few millimeters to 14 cm) that can be provided
by the wave generator. According to Hughes (1993) and following the
Froude number criterion, this relationship between the wave heights
from the prototype and model is an efficient way to set geometric and
dynamic scales in the physical models of coastal environments. The
geometric scale is expressed by Eq. (1):
HP
NL ¼ NH ¼
HM
where NL is the geometric scale, NH is the wave height scale, HP is the
wave height in the prototype and HM is the wave height in the model.
The relationship expressed in Eq. (1) is only valid to undistorted models
where the vertical and horizontal scales are the same (Hughes, 1993), as
it was the case of this physical model. From the calculated HP (item 2.1)
and the applied HM (Table 1), a pre-observed effective NL (a minimum
value necessary to surpass the scale effects caused by the water surface
tension) representing fair-weather waves in the flume was equal to 20.
In order to set the time scale (NT), the NL relation was used, by follow-
ing the Froude criterion as well (Eq. (2)), according Hughes (1993)
recommendations. Applying Eq. (2), NT was 4.47. Therefore, from the
calculated T of the prototype (TP), a modeled T (TM) of 0.83 s was
found. However, it was not possible to apply an ideal TM due to a fre-
quency limitation of the wave generator motor (minimum T is 1,17 s).
Consequently, an error margin for NT was assumed (Table 1).
pffiffiffiffiffiffi
NT ¼ NL
For storm wave conditions, the ideal setup of geometric and time
scales was applied with no error (Table 2). HM and TM were set accord-
ing to the maximum HM possible (high-energy waves) reached for the
desired TM once the setup of these two wave parameters in the flume
are dependent on each other (Clemente, 2013). From the HM values
The experimental setup aimed to simulate a coastal-lake profile
scenario, focusing on the generation of shell concentrations as well as
on their concentration dynamics by wave propagation processes
under fair-weather and storm wave conditions. The initial coastal pro-
file was built inside the wave flume (Fig. 5A) with fine quartz sand
that was 16.5 m long and 1° dip starting from the most proximal
point. The water level in the flume was variable and higher in storm
experiments than in the fair-weather ones in order to simulate surges
and water level increases that typically occur during storm events.
The entire experiment consisted of alternated fair-weather and storm
conditions summing up a total of 54 h of wave generation. Four fair-
weather experiments – FWE – (Fig. 5B) with 9 h of duration (3 sessions
of 3 h) were alternated with three storm wave experiments – SWE –
(Fig. 5C) of 6 h of duration (2 sessions of 3 h). The FWE were longer
than the SWE in order to follow the premise that fair-weather conditions
are continuous in the nature (more persistent), while storms are episodic
ð1Þ
events. The FWE duration was set by the time that the simulated coastal
profile spent to reach morphological stability. Therefore, from the first
FWE experiment, it was verified that profile stability took around 9 h
to be reached and, thus, this time was used as reference. On the other
hand, the SWE duration was set in order to simulate an event lasting
around one day (24 h) similarly to what happens in the nature (short-
term event). Then, taking into account the experimental time scale
(item 2.3), an experiment duration of around 6 h was found. The
sequence of the experiments and their respective boundary conditions
are presented in Table 2.
At the end of each fair-weather condition experiment, a bioclastic
input of 15 kg was added to the bed load (Fig. 5D and E), in order to
meet the premise of positive R-hardpart to shell beds generation. The
shells were homogeneously distributed over the sandy bottom from
the FWWB to the end of the profile (distal point). The positioning of
this bioclastic distribution aimed at obeying the same position where
benthic molluscs live – according to their natural habitat at the littoral
zones – in order to reproduce autochthonous and parautochthonous
ð2Þ communities (Kidwell et al., 1986; Gierlowski-Kordesch, 2010). The
FWWB was defined after the first fair-weather condition experiment
from the point where wave ripples were not generated (~12 cm
depth) to the end of the profile, which is the zone where there was an
insignificant sediment transport.
3. Experimental results

3.1. Morphological evolution of the simulated coastal profile

Table 1
The wave parameters applied in the experiments and representative values in the proto-
type environment. The morphology of the simulated coastal profile had a very dynamic
behaviour along the experiments, alternating erosion and deposition in
Wave Model Prototype
limited sectors of the profile which was directly associated with the
Applied HM Applied TM Ideal TM NT error HP TP
wave condition. In a general way, during the fair-weather wave experi-
(m) (s) (s) (%) (m) (s)
ments (FWE), deposition prevailed at the swash zone and sometimes at
Fair-weather 0.025 1.17 0.83 41 0.51 5.2 the breaking zone and erosion was dominant at the shoaling zone
Storm 0.10 1.50 1.50 0 2.00 6.7
(Fig. 6A, C, E and G). On the other hand, in storm wave experiments
 C. Fick et al. / Sedimentary Geology 374 (2018) 98–114 103

Table 2
Experiment sequence and the behavior of the wave parameters along them.

Exp. Wave condition Session Initial time (h) Final time (h) Duration (h) Water level (m) H (m) T (s) L (m)

E1 Fair-weather A 0 3 3 0.20 0.025 1.17 1.4

B 3 6 3 0.20 0.025 1.17 1.4
C 6 9 3 0.20 0.025 1.17 1.4
Input of shells — 15 kg
E2 Storm D 9 12 3 0.25 0.1 1.5 2.0
E 12 15 3 0.25 0.1 1.5 2.0
E3 Fair-weather F 15 18 3 0.20 0.025 1.17 1.4
G 18 21 3 0.20 0.025 1.17 1.4
H 21 24 3 0.20 0.025 1.17 1.4
Input of shells — 15 kg
E4 Storm I 24 27 3 0.25 0.1 1.5 2.0
J 27 30 3 0.25 0.1 1.5 2.0
E5 Fair-weather K 30 33 3 0.20 0.025 1.17 1.4
L 33 36 3 0.20 0.025 1.17 1.4
M 36 39 3 0.20 0.025 1.17 1.4
Input of shells — 15 kg
E6 Storm N 39 42 3 0.25 0.1 1.5 2.0
O 42 45 3 0.25 0.1 1.5 2.0
E7 Fair-weather P 45 48 3 0.20 0.025 1.17 1.4
Q 48 51 3 0.20 0.025 1.17 1.4
R 51 54 3 0.20 0.025 1.17 1.4

(SWE), erosion occurred at the breaking zone and deposition took place
at the swash and shoaling zones (Fig. 6B, D and F).
As a result of these erosive and depositional behaviors along the
profile, a set of bed morphological changes were observed during the
experiments. These features were named applying the typical nomen-
clature for the coastal environment morphology (Short, 1999), identi-
fied as follows: the berm, the bar, the storm bar, and the storm shoal
(Fig. 6H). The berm was generated on the subaerial beach at the
maximum point of wave swash in the FWE, and this deposit was eroded
during the SWE. The bar was formed exactly at the wave-breaking point
in both the FWE (first point) and SWE (second point). The storm bar
and the storm shoal were generated during SWEs at the first wave
breakpoint and at the shoaling zone, respectively.
From the bottom morphology and wave parameters, the sub-
environments of a wave-dominated coastal setting were identified in
the simulated profile according to the classification of Walker and
Plint (1992). In consequence, the backshore, foreshore, upper and
lower shoreface and offshore sectors were delimited along the profile
(Fig. 6H). The backshore was attributed to the subaerial sector during
the FWE from the beginning of the profile (at 0.0 m) to the point of
maximum wave swash at 4.4 m, which corresponds to the berm
crest. The foreshore comprised the entire wave-swash zone (4.4 to
5.0 m) in the FWE and was characterized by a smooth bottom. The
upper shoreface was delimited from the point of maximum wave-
swash retreat (at 5.0 m) to the first wave-breaking point in FEW
(spilling-break at 7.0 m), which was marked by the presence of the
bar on the entire area of wave- breaking. On the bottom, the upper
shoreface was characterized by the occurrences of asymmetrical
ripples that migrated to onshore. The lower shoreface extended from
the first wave-breaking point (at 7.0 m) to the fair-weather wave
base (FWWB at 13.0 m), which was marked by the storm bar,
comprising the zones of wave-shoaling and breaking processes during
the FWE and SWE, respectively. Moreover, this sub-environment
was featured by asymmetrical to symmetrical ripples on the bottom.
The offshore was delimited between the FWWB (13.0 m) and
the most distal point of the profile (19.0 m) by the storm shoal.
This zone was only dominated by the wave-shoaling in SWE that
produced symmetrical ripples on the bottom. The delimitation of
these sub-environments was necessary for a better understanding of
the simulated profile behavior and a more robust presentation of the
next results and later discussions.
3.2. Shell concentration dynamics
The shell concentration processes were identified from in loco obser-
vations and video analysis of subaerial and subaqueous views during
the experiments along the entire profile, providing a very detailed
description of the bioclastic and siliciclastic particle interaction on the
bottom and in the water column. The concentration dynamics was
produced by the comparison between the particle transport mecha-
nisms observed in the physical model with the sedimentary dynamics
described in the model by Kidwell (1986). Thus, three concentration
modifiers were observed in the experiments: winnowing, reworking,
and dynamic bypassing. Their areas of occurrence were delimited and
the wave condition was established (Fig. 7A and B).
The winnowing was featured by the continuous removal of the
siliciclastic grains from the bottom and by the very small movement of
bioclasts. The removal of sand occurred through grain suspension from
the bottom to the water column and redeposited at an adjacent sector
(Fig. 8A, B and C), endorsing the erosive process. On the other hand, the
displacement of the shells on the bottom did not occur, but they have
reoriented themselves. The winnowing dynamic predominated in the
profile sector between the storm bar and the storm shoal (13.5 to
16.5 m), right behind the first wave-breaking point during SWE towards
the offshore zone. The wave-shoaling process (Fig. 7B) mainly drove the
latter dynamics during the SWEs, i.e. in higher energy wave conditions.
The reworking was characterized by the intense movement of
siliciclastic and bioclastic grains on the bottom and in the water column.
Traction and saltation were the dominant mechanisms of transport and
motion over the sand and shells. Moreover, the suspension of sand and
the rolling of gastropods were observed (Fig. 8D, E and F). Although
there was movement of shells, large displacements of these particles
did not occur along the profile. Except the gastropods, which were
transported from the zone of bioclastic input (offshore) to the
backshore/foreshore, the rest of the shells (bivalves and fragments)
stayed in their original place or had a gentle displacement towards the
onshore. When bivalves and some fragments reach the concave-down
position in a more hydrodynamic state (Brenchley and Newall, 1970),
they became more fixed on the bottom and thus it is hard to put them
in movement again. However, the reworked sand showed movement
that was indicated by the migration of ripples and suspension towards
the offshore zone (erosive character), later being accumulated at the
storm bar. The reworking dynamic occurred from the backshore
104 C. Fick et al. / Sedimentary Geology 374 (2018) 98–114

Fig. 5. A) Dimensions of the coastal profile and water levels for the experimental fair-weather and storm conditions as well of the zone of bioclastic input. B) Experiment of fair-weather
conditions. C) Experiment of storm conditions. D) Shell bed at the zone of bioclastic input. E) Shell bed in detail. Note the higher wave height and the larger wave-breaking zone in the
storm condition compared to the fair-weather condition.

(2.0 m) to the storm bar (13.0 m - lower shoreface), under the influence
of swash and wave-breaking processes during the SWEs (Fig. 7B).
During the FWEs characterized by waves with lower energy (lower
H), the reworking took place only between the berm and the bar into
the foreshore and upper shoreface (Fig. 7A).
The diagnostic feature of the dynamic bypassing was the slow
migration of sandy wave ripples over the shell bed, showing no indica-
tions of bioclastic movement (only re-orientation) and sand suspension
(Fig. 8G, H and I). This omissive dynamic occurred into the lower
shoreface (7.0 to 13.0 m) during the FWEs (Fig. 7A) and at the
offshore-area over the storm shoal during the SWEs (Fig. 7B). In both
cases, shoaling was the active wave process.
3.3. Description of the shell concentrations generated in the experiments
Four different types of shell concentrations (called SA, MSsh, GS, and
MSof) were observed along the simulated lake-coastal profile (Fig. 9).
These concentrations were described from in loco and image observa-
tions as well as from sedimentological analysis. Some aspects recom-
mended by Kidwell et al. (1986) to describe shell beds were followed
in this study, such as the biofabric: bioclast percentage by weight
(associated with the sandy matrix), position and orientation of the
shells, geometry, and taxonomic composition. However, the description
made here had the objective of pointing out only the aspects with hy-
drodynamic significance disregarding the ecological aspects since the
set scenario for this physical modelling simulation focused mainly on
the fossil concentrations from sedimentological processes.
The SA (sparse accumulation) shell concentration was featured by a
sparse monotypic accumulation of whole gastropods (Fig. 10A, B and C)
over the surface of the backshore, foreshore and upper shoreface zones
(Fig. 9). Shells did not stack, so it was neither possible to quantify the
bioclast percentage nor the bed thickness; however, its 2D geometry
was classified as stringer. In plane view, the long axis of gastropods
was mainly oriented perpendicular to the wave crest or shoreline
 C. Fick et al. / Sedimentary Geology 374 (2018) 98–114
Fig. 6. Morphological evolution of the simulated coastal profile. A, C, E and G) Fair-weather
experiments (FWE). B, D and F) Storm wave experiments (SWE). H) Simulated coastal
profile at the end of the experiments, morphological features, and sub-environments.
direction, being 58% of the shell aperture oriented to the N–S quadrants
(Fig. 10D); however, the rose diagram shows a polimodal behavior.
Concerning the cross-section orientation of the skeletons, their long
axis were all parallel to the bottom. The bioclasts of the SA concentra-
tion were exclusively gastropods sized from 0.7 to 1.5 cm (long axis),
both Olivella sp. (majority) and Cerithium eburneum (few individuals).
The MSsh (shoreface matrix-supported) shell concentration was
characterized by a dispersed packed deposit (Fig. 10E and F), sandy
105
matrix-supported, polytypic with bivalves (65%) and gastropods
(35%), as well as shell fragments, placed on the lower shoreface
(Fig. 9). The shells and fragments had sizes between 0.25 and 2.0 cm.
The body of the MSsh concentration presented wedge geometry
(Fig. 9) that was 3.5 m long (11.0 m to 14.5 m) and 3.0 cm thick
(maximum) at its central portion. The content of bioclasts varied from
5% to 30%. At the surface of the MSsh bed, there were asymmetric
sandy ripples where shells and fragments were trapped in the trough
at an oblique or concordant cross-section orientation that was rarely
perpendicular (Fig. 10F). The long-axis orientation, in plane view, of
bivalves (perpendicular to umbo orientation) and gastropods (same
orientation to aperture orientation) was mainly parallel to the direction
of wave crests, being 66% and 57% the respective percentages in the rose
diagram W–E quadrants (Fig. 10G). Moreover, the umbo orientation of
bivalves was unimodal to onshore (N quadrant) and bimodal for the
gastropod apertures to W and E quadrants.
The GS (grain-supported) shell concentration had a densely packed
fabric (Fig. 10H and I), grain-supported, polytypic, with bivalves (92%)
and few gastropods (8%), as well as shell fragments, placed on the
bottom of the proximal offshore (Fig. 9). The shells and fragments had
sizes (long axis) that varied from 0.25 to 2.0 cm. It was classified as a
bed geometry body 1.5 m long (15.0 m to 16.5 m — between the
storm bar and storm shoal) and from 1.0 to 2.5 cm thick. The content
of bioclasts varied between 50% and 75%. The cross-section orientation
of the shells was mainly concordant and minority oblique. The long-
axis preferential orientation of bivalves, in plane, was slightly parallel
to the direction of wave crests, being 52% oriented W–E in the rose
diagram (Fig. 10J), having a unimodal umbo orientation towards the
offshore (S quadrant).
The MSof (offshore matrix-supported) shell concentration was
featured by a dispersed packed bed (Fig. 10K and L), sandy matrix-
supported, polytypic, with bivalves (96%) and few gastropods (4%), as
well as shell fragments, placed on the bottom of the offshore, constitut-
ing the storm shoal body (Fig. 9). The shells and fragments has sized
varying from 0.25 to 2.0 cm. It was classified as bed geometry that
was 2.5 m long (16.5 m to 19.0) and from 0.5 to 2.5 cm thick. The
content of bioclasts varied between 10% and 30%. The cross-section ori-
entation of the shells was mainly concordant and less oblique when
they were trapped in the trough of the symmetrical sandy ripples at
the top of the bed (Fig. 10L). The in plane long-axis orientation of
bivalves did not have a clear preferential tendency, being 50% oriented
parallel (W–E) and 50% perpendicular (N–S) to the direction of wave
crests and, also, showed a polimodal umbo orientation (Fig. 10M).
3.4. Oscillatory flow velocities
The oscillatory flow velocities were measured with an ADV at two
sections for each experimental wave condition to quantitatively analyze
the hydrodynamic behaviour of the model. The measurements were
made at the shoaling and breaking zones at 12.0 m and 7.5 m for the
FWEs and at 14.5 m and 12.0 m for the SWEs, respectively. At each
section, a series of measurements were performed vertically from the
bottom (z), resulting in velocity vertical profiles. The number of mea-
surement points and the spacing between them were not the same for
each profile due to the depth difference between the zones and an
ADV technical issue. Due to this technical feature, in which the velocity
measures are obtained at 5 cm away from the sensor, limiting the
velocity profile amplitude in shallow sections. In order to analyze the
flow, the longitudinal (u) and vertical (w) components of velocity
were taken into account, where the positive values represent, onshore
and upward directions, respectively, and the negative values represent
offshore and downward directions, respectively. Each measurement
had a 5-minute duration at a 20-Hz acquisition frequency, generating
velocity time series. From the data sets, the mean velocities of the
time series (Stokes drift) and the average of positive and negative
peaks (Eq. (3)) were analyzed. The peak values were obtained from a
106 C. Fick et al. / Sedimentary Geology 374 (2018) 98–114
Fig. 7. Zones of shell concentration dynamics in the experiments. A) Zonation for the FWE. B) Zonation for the SWE.
statistic filtering to eliminate some noise effects, where the highest (u99
and w99) and the lowest (u1 and w1) 99% values of the sample repre-
sented the positive and the negative peaks, respectively.
 − 
Uþ  
max þ U max
U max ðu; wÞ ¼
2
where, U max is the average of the positive and negative peak velocities,
−
U+max is the positive peak velocity, and Umax is the negative peak velocity.
Table 3 presents the calculated Umax, Umax, U−
+ −
max and the mean u and w
velocities of each measurement.
For the FWEs, the mean u and w were very close to zero along the
vertical profile (Fig. 11A and B) both at the breaking and shoaling
zones. However, it is important to highlight that the slightly negative
mean of the u component at the shoaling zone (Fig. 11A) along the
entire profile suggests a small drift in the water column towards the
offshore area. On the other hand, the u average peaks at the breaking
zone were slightly higher than at the shoaling zone (Fig. 11A), while
the w peaks had similar values at both zones (Fig. 11B).
In the SWEs, the mean u velocities had different behaviors for the
breaking and shoaling zones. The breaking zone (Fig. 11C) presented
significant negative means along the entire vertical profile but mainly
close to the bottom, which suggests the presence of a well-developed
drift of water towards the offshore area. On the other hand, the means
ð3Þ were negative in almost the entire water column at the shoaling zone,
except at the deepest measurement point (z = 2 cm) that had a slight
positive mean, suggesting a near-bottom water motion to onshore and
to offshore in the rest of the water column. Regarding the average
peaks, the breaking zone (Fig. 11C and D) showed higher values than
the shoaling zone for both u (Fig. 11C) and mainly for w (Fig. 11D),
which suggests the occurrence of an oscillatory flow with more energy
at the breaking zone than at the shoaling zone, a behaviour already
expected for a wave-dominated coast (Komar and Gaughan, 1972;
Fredsoe and Deigaard, 1995).
Comparing the peak vertical profiles of the FWEs and SWEs, it was
observed that u and w in the FWEs presented small variations from
the wave-breaking zone to the shoaling zone. On the other hand, during
the SWEs, the peak velocities showed large variations between these
zones mainly for w, also showing peak velocities that were significantly
 C. Fick et al. / Sedimentary Geology 374 (2018) 98–114 107

Fig. 8. Snapshots of the underwater camera showing the mechanism of sedimentary dynamics of shell concentrations. A, B and C) winnowing dynamic at 15.0 m. D, E and F) reworking
dynamic at 12.0 m. G, H and I) dynamic bypassing at 12.5 m.

higher than in the FWEs mainly for u. These results agree with what is
expected in the nature, where storm waves have more energy to drive
sediment motion due to their higher wave heights and periods when
compared to fair-weather waves (Komar and Gaughan, 1972).
4. Discussion
4.1. The control of the wave processes on the shell concentration dynamics
From the zoning of the shell accumulation dynamics along the
simulated coastal profile, it was verified that they were controlled
directly by the active wave processes — swash, breaking and shoaling —
as well as by the wave energy condition — fair-weather and storm. The
reworking dynamics (erosive) always occurred in the most proximal
(and shallow) zone of the profile (Fig. 7A and B), restricted to the
swash and wave-breaking processes. These processes produce more
energetic interactions with the bottom and generate intense sediment
motion in the water column and on the bed of the upper and lower
shoreface and foreshore (Komar and Gaughan, 1972; Fredsoe and
Deigaard, 1995). Furthermore, this was also demonstrated by the higher
near-bottom velocities (u and w) at the breaking zone than at the
shoaling zone (Fig. 11A–D) mainly observed for w in the SWE

Fig. 9. Position of the shell concentration types on the simulated coastal profile.
108 C. Fick et al. / Sedimentary Geology 374 (2018) 98–114

Fig. 10. Images of the shell concentrations. SA — General (A) and detailed (B and C) plan views and rose diagram of shell orientations (D). MSsh — General plan view (E), longitudinal view
(F) and rose diagram (G). GS — General (H) and detailed (I) plan views and rose diagram (J). MSof — General plan view (K), longitudinal view (L) and rose diagram (M). The rose diagrams
that show the shell orientation behaviors are graduated every 10° and the numbers over the circles represent the absolute frequency. The percentages were calculated take in account the
rose diagram quadrants, being N (315°–45°), E (45°–135°), S (135°–225°) and W (225°–315°). For a better understanding, the onshore direction was represented by the N point (0° or
360°).

(Fig. 11D). Regarding the control of the wave conditions over the
reworking dynamics, the results suggested which energy intensity, dis-
tance and depth of activity were higher in the SWEs (episodic event)
than in the FWEs (continuous condition). The more intense motion
and transport of sediments that occurred in the SWEs agree to what is
expected in natural coastal processes under storm conditions (Aigner,
1985; Walker and Plint, 1992). In the SWEs at the breaking zone, the u
and w components were around twice as high as in the FWEs, which
provided a reworking characterized by intense saltation, traction and
rolling of bioclasts (Fig. 7B), as well as sand suspension and transport.
In addition, the intense water drift on the bottom towards to offshore,
observed at the breaking zone during SWEs (Fig. 11C — mean profiles),
may have contributed to intensify the reworking dynamic, acting as a
bottom current that put shells and sand in motion. These bottom
currents, which are induced by the strong stacking of water in the
shore zones at storms (Komar, 1976; Allen, 1982, 1984; Aigner, 1985;
Pepper and Stone, 2004; Warner et al., 2012), have been widely men-
tioned in the literature as one of the factors that promote reworking
and winnowing of coastal shell beds (Aigner, 1985; Fürsich and
Oschmann, 1986; Fürsich, 1995; Dattilo et al., 2008; Bressan and
Palma, 2010). However, in the experiments it was observed that near-
bed water drift (current) during storms acted mainly at the breaking
zone (shoreface), in order to rework and transport sediments. In its
turn, at the shoaling zone (offshore), where occurred de winnowing
dynamic, the near-bottom drift was weak and towards to onshore
(Fig. 11C), so that it did not winnow the sand. On the other hand, during
the FWEs, the reworking only induced rolling and an incipient saltation
of gastropods at the upper shoreface. Moreover, the maximum depth in
which there was reworking was around 3 times deeper in the SWEs
than in the FWEs, which caused an increase of around 4.5 times in the
longitudinal extension of the reworking dynamic activity in a simulated
lake margin of 1° dip, extending from the backshore to the lower
shoreface (Fig. 7B).
The winnowing dynamics was restricted to the zone of wave-
shoaling processes and only occurred during the SWEs, taking place at
the beginning of the offshore area (below the FWWB) at an intermedi-
ate zone between reworking and dynamic bypassing activities. This
activity suggests that the winnowing occurred at an intermediate condi-
tion of energy within an energetic range (Fig. 12) varying from a maxi-
mum extreme at the breaking zone – where reworking took place – to
a minimum extreme at the distal offshore area – where there was
dynamic bypassing activity. This range of energy can be demonstrated
by the variance of velocities and the mechanisms of sediment motion.
Reworking, the most energetic dynamic in which was represented here
by the highest velocities, produced traction, rolling and saltation of
bioclasts as well as sand suspension. On the other hand, winnowing gen-
erated an incipient traction and rolling of bioclasts (only gastropods),
and sand suspension driven by the lowest near-bed velocities of the
oscillatory flow at the shoaling zone (Fig. 11C). Here, the overlying
water drift (Fig. 11C), towards to offshore, was a factor that secondarily
assisted the winnowing dynamic, in order to transport the suspension
sand. In contrast, the omissive dynamic bypassing featured the lowest
 C. Fick et al. / Sedimentary Geology 374 (2018) 98–114 109

Table 3
Velocity values for both u and w components from each measurement point according to its wave condition and associated process.

Condition/process z (cm) U+
max U−
max U max Mean

u component (m/s)
Fair-weather/breaking 0.5 0.15 −0.11 0.13 −0.007
1 0.16 −0.10 0.13 0.002
Fair-weather/shoaling 1 0.12 −0.11 0.12 −0.008
2 0.11 −0.11 0.11 −0.008
3 0.10 −0.11 0.11 −0.009
4 0.11 −0.11 0.11 −0.005
Storm/breaking 2 0.25 −0.26 0.25 −0.075
3 0.23 −0.26 0.25 −0.084
4 0.26 −0.26 0.26 −0.070
5 0.29 −0.25 0.27 −0.040
6 0.29 −0.25 0.27 −0.044
Storm/shoaling 2 0.26 −0.22 0.24 0.002
4.5 0.24 −0.25 0.24 −0.013
7 0.23 −0.27 0.25 −0.023
9.5 0.24 −0.30 0.27 −0.031
12 0.25 −0.32 0.28 −0.037

w component (m/s)
Fair-weather/breaking 0.5 0.01 −0.02 0.02 −0.003
1 0.02 −0.02 0.02 −0.003
Fair-weather/shoaling 1 0.02 −0.03 0.02 −0.005
2 0.02 −0.02 0.02 −0.002
3 0.02 −0.02 0.02 −0.004
4 0.02 −0.03 0.02 −0.002
Storm/breaking 2 0.04 −0.07 0.05 −0.010
3 0.05 −0.07 0.06 −0.007
4 0.07 −0.09 0.08 −0.006
5 0.08 −0.11 0.09 −0.004
6 0.10 −0.12 0.11 −0.007
Storm/shoaling 2 0.02 −0.02 0.02 −0.001
4.5 0.03 −0.05 0.04 −0.001
7 0.06 −0.07 0.06 0.000
9.5 0.07 −0.09 0.08 0.000
12 0.09 −0.12 0.10 −0.001

energetic condition, only producing sand traction on the bottom (ripples
formation) and no motion of bioclasts.
In the FWEs, the dynamic bypassing took place from a distal adjacent
zone (lower shoreface) to the reworking zone (upper shoreface),
having no winnowing between them (Fig. 7A). Here, reworking only
generated rolling of bioclasts and traction of sand, while the dynamic
bypassing produced a very incipient sand traction that resulted in
ripples of smaller length than those generated at the offshore area
under storm conditions. As well as in the SWEs, the dynamic bypass
was also restricted to the zone of wave-shoaling processes during the
FWEs. The position of the shell concentration in the simulated coastal
profile presented a consistent behavior to what is expected for natural
wave-dominated settings. According to Kidwell (1986), the erosive
dynamics are most likely to happen near shoreline zones with higher

Fig. 11. Vertical profiles of mean velocities and average peaks. A) Component u in the FWEs (B) Component w in the FWEs (C). Component u in the SWEs (D) Component w in the SWEs.
110 C. Fick et al. / Sedimentary Geology 374 (2018) 98–114
Fig. 12. Energy distribution on the simulated lake-margin profile in a storm condition. The dimension of the blue ellipses represents, qualitatively, the difference of energy between the
breaking and shoaling zones. Numbers around the blue ellipses indicate the u and w velocities (in m/s) from the near-bottom measurements.
energy, whereas the omissive type tends to occur at distal zones with
lower energy, as it was observed in the experiments.
4.2. The shell concentration dynamics and the deposit types
The shell concentration dynamics are discussed here regarding their
depositional products as well as the accumulation types generated in
the simulations. The experimental results suggest that each sedimento-
logical mechanism or the combination of two, according to their
intensity energy, produced different depositional features.
The SA concentration was characterized by the sparse accumulation
of gastropods along the backshore, foreshore, and upper-shoreface
(Fig. 9), mainly generated by the swash-controlled reworking and,
secondarily, by wave-breaking (just at the upper-shoreface). The trans-
port of the gastropods from the offshore/lower shoreface zone towards
the onshore only occurred in the SWEs, where the saltation and rolling
were the mechanisms of bioclastic motion, which characterizes it as an
allochthonous accumulation. During the FWEs, reworking was identi-
fied by a weak rolling of the gastropods which were previously
transported and deposited at the upper shoreface in the SWEs, gener-
ating an incipient motion of these shells towards the onshore and a
later deposition at the backshore. Furthermore, there was dynamic
bypassing activity in the FWEs resulting in some burial of shells at
the lower shoreface. Gastropods from the SA concentration (Fig. 10D)
presented a preferential long-axis orientation most perpendicular to
the shoreline or to the direction of wave crests, in agreement with
the results found by Nagle (1967), in which the authors suggested
that the swash process, a bidirectional shallow flow, induces this
shell orientation behavior at shoreline zones. Moreover, the polimodal
rose diagram of the gastropods aperture directions, which had its
modals in the N–S quadrants (onshore–offshore directions), suggests
that bidirectional swash movements (“coming and going”) similarly
produce the bidirectional aperture orientation of gastropods since the
apertures tend to orientate in the same direction of the flow
(Futterer, 1982).
The MSsh concentration featured by a dispersed packed accumula-
tion of fragments, bivalves, and gastropods at the lower shoreface, was
generated by the breaking-controlled reworking during the SWEs and
by the shoaling-controlled dynamic bypassing in the FWEs. The product
of the intense and chaotic rolling, saltation, and traction of bioclasts as
well the suspension, saltation, and traction of sand was an aggradational
deposit of sand and shells (whole and fragments) which formed the
storm bar body. Although this concentration showed reworking
activity, there was no erosion as it is expected for erosive dynamics
(Kidwell, 1986). The aggradational behavior of the MSsh concentration
occurred because there was no resultant motion of bioclasts at that
zone (parautochthonous accumulation), except for the gastropods
which were transported towards onshore and by the constant sand
supply coming from the lower shoreface during the SWEs, generating
a matrix-supported shell concentration (around 70% sand). The sand
supply to the lower shoreface was induced by the strong offshore drift
(current) existing in the entire water column at the breaking zone
(Fig. 13 – red arrows). Combining this drift with the onshore near-
bottom motion of the shoaling zone (Fig. 13 – blue arrow), it was
produced a convergence zone of two vectors of water motion at the
offshore/lower-shoreface boundary (1st wave-breaking point), which
generated sand accumulation and, consequently, the storm bar forma-
tion at that point (Fig. 13). Regarding the shell orientations, the MSsh
concentration showed a gentle preferential long-axis orientation
(perpendicular to the umbo orientation for bivalves) that was parallel
to the wave crests for both bivalves and gastropods (Fig. 10G), as it is
expected in wave-breaking zones according Nagle (1967).
The GS concentration, a densely packed accumulation mainly
consisted of fragments and bivalve shells (grain-supported), was gener-
ated by the shoaling-controlled winnowing at the beginning of the off-
shore area, a zone slightly behind the first wave-breaking point in the
SWEs. From the constant erosion of sand grains, which were put in sus-
pension in the water column and later transported and deposited in the
adjacent distal zone (forming the storm shoal), the GS concentration
was matrix cleaned, generating a bed-shaped deposit consisting of
between 50% and 75% of bioclasts (by weight). The transport of the
suspended sand from the beginning of the offshore area to the distal off-
shore zone can be explained by the drift (current) existing in the
overlying water column at that point (Fig. 11C). This erosive character
of the GS deposit agrees with the Kidwell (1986) prediction for shell
concentrations produced by winnowing dynamics. With exception of
gastropods, the transport of bioclasts did not occur at that zone, only
presenting re-orientations and very small movements of bivalves and
fragments (parautochthonous/autochthonous accumulation) that
were controlled by the lowest velocities from the offshore area. At the
lower-shoreface zone, the shell motion controlled by the lowest veloci-
ties was more intense. The long-axis orientation of bivalves in the GS
deposit was gentle parallel to the direction of wave crests (Fig. 10J),
the same behaviour observed in the MSsh concentration, although it
had a preferential umbo orientation towards offshore, in agreement
with Nagle (1967) concerns as well.
 C. Fick et al. / Sedimentary Geology 374 (2018) 98–114
Fig. 13. Vertical profiles of mean velocities (u in m/s) within the breaking and shoaling zones indicating the water drift in storm wave conditions (SWE). The basin-ward near-bottom
motion at the shoreface (breaking zone – red arrows) combined with the near-bottom motion towards the onshore at the offshore area (shoaling zone – blue arrow) have produced
the sand deposition (yellow ellipse) at the shoreface/offshore interface, generating the storm bar with aggradational behavior.
Finally, the MSof concentration was influenced by the shoaling-
controlled dynamic bypassing at the offshore area, producing a
dispersed packed accumulation mainly consisted of fragments, bivalve
shells, and a matrix-supported. Moreover, together with the bioclastic
supply that occurred in each FWE–SWE cycle, an aggradational deposit
was formed represented by the storm shoal body. The dynamic
bypassing was featured in the MSof concentration by the alternating
buried and exhumed shells at top of the deposit. Despite the fact that
these shells did not present any displacements along the experiments
(autochthonous accumulation), they had a gentle re-orientation that
was shown by the polimodal rose diagram of umbo orientations
(Fig. 10M), although the modals being placed at the N–S quadrants indi-
cates a preferential long-axis orientation parallel to the wave crest
direction.
Analysing the general context of the concentration types, their
different quantities of gastropods can be highlighted as an important
indicator of the influence of shell shapes on the bioclastic transport
along the simulated coastal profile. The exclusive presence of gastro-
pods in the SA concentration (100%) and the 35% gastropod content
(among the whole shells) of the MSsh concentration, in contrast with
the quantities lower than the gastropod supply background (Fig. 14)
of the GS and MSof concentrations, indicate an increase of the percent-
age of gastropods to the onshore direction. Hence, this result suggests
that gastropods were easier to be transported than the fragments and
whole bivalves. The rounded shape of gastropods was an aspect that
facilitated the rolling and saltation mechanics of bioclasts, being
transported to larger distances and sorted apart from the fragments
and bivalves of planar shape. That suggests then that shell shapes
were a determinant factor in the bioclastic transport accordingly to
what has been reported in the literature for fossil hardparts in coastal
environments (Frostick and Reid, 1983; Aires and Lopes, 2012; Cruz
et al., 2016). Furthermore, the location of gastropod accumulation at
the backshore/foreshore zones of the simulated lake-margin scenario
was similar to the gastropod concentrations found in Lake Tanganyika
along the southern Kigoma shoreline sector (McGlue et al., 2010).
4.3. The implication of the experimental results on the coquina facies
models from the Brazilian marginal basins
The experimental results are discussed here in order to contextual-
ize the zonation of the shell concentration dynamics in a simulated
lake-coastal environment into the depositional models of coquina facies
applied to lacustrine packages from the sin-rift sequence (Barremian/
111
Aptian) in the Brazilian marginal basins. The depositional models used
for this discussion are the most recent works in the literature that de-
scribed and interpreted in detail ancient facies of rudstones or coquinas
(shell concentrations) from Campos and Sergipe-Alagoas Basins.
Muniz (2013) studied the lacustrine carbonate rocks from the
Coqueiros Formation (Lagoa Feia Group of Campos Basin – Brazil)
where four facies of rudstones (grain-supported coquina) can be
highlighted: the Rmb facies, composed by articulated/desarticulated
whole shells of bivalves and with low content of matrix; the Rcb facies,
composed by desarticulated and broken shells of bivalves and with low
content of terrigenous matrix; the Rtb facies composed generally by
unbroken bivalves and with high content of terrigenous matrix; and
Rgb facies featured by the dominant presence of gastropods. These
facies were interpreted as being from a wave-dominated lake-margin
setting (Fig. 15A), where the Rmb and Rtb facies belonged to the coastal
zone below the FWWB, a lower energy zone that generated few
reworking and left fragmented shells. On the other hand, the Rcb facies
belonged to the subaqueous zone above the FWWB, a higher energy
zone that produced intense reworking, fragmenting and disarticulating
the shells. Furthermore, Tavares et al. (2015) and Chinelatto et al.
(2018) described outcrops of the coquina package of Morro do Chaves
Formation (Barremian/Aptian) from the Sergipe-Alagoas Basin, Brazil,
which is considered as a good ancient analogue to the Pre-salt coquinas.
Fig. 14. Graphic of gastropod content (among the whole shells) in shell concentrations.
Note that the gastropod percentage increases from the distal to proximal areas. The SA
and MSsh concentrations showed a gastropod enrichment compared to the background
content, whereas the GS and MSof concentrations presented depletion.
112 C. Fick et al. / Sedimentary Geology 374 (2018) 98–114

Fig. 15. A) Facies model of lake-margin coquinas according to Muniz (2013), Tavares et al. (2015) and Chinelatto et al. (2018), separating the proximal fragmented and disarticulated
coquinas (Rcb, Cfi and T3) from the distal non-fragmented and articulated coquinas/grain-supported concentrations (Rmb, Cm and T4) and non-fragmented/matrix-supported facies
(Rtb, Cmi and T5/T6) following the FWWB criterion. B) Facies model for lake-margin coquinas suggested from the experimental results, where the limit between the breaking and
shoaling zones in storm conditions more accurately delimits the highly reworked shell concentrations with high content of matrix (MSsh – Rcb, Cfi and T3) from the poor reworked
and winnowed concentrations (GS – Rmb, Cm and T4), and more distal low fragmentation and matrix-supported facies (MSof – Rtb, Cmi and T5/T6). SA concentration was compared
with Rgb facies (Muniz, 2013) due the high content of gastropods of both.

Tavares et al. (2015) described and interpreted several facies of coquinas
(rudstones), grouping them into fragmented coquinas – Cf and Cfi (ter-
rigenous matrix) – and non-fragmented coquinas – Cm and Cmi (terrig-
enous matrix). In its turn, Chinelatto et al. (2018) described 6 facies
(taphofacies) – T1, T2, T3, T4, T5 and T6 – based in several parameters,
as the matrix content (increase from T1 to T6), shell fragmentation
(decreases from T1 to T6), among others. As well as in Muniz (2013),
this carbonate package was interpreted as a lake-margin environment
where fragmented coquinas (broken shells) belonged to the subaque-
ous zone above the FWWB with more intense reworking, while the
non-fragmented coquinas have been generated at the zone bellow the
FWWB, with poor or no reworking (Fig. 15A).
Comparing the facies models of Muniz (2013), Tavares et al. (2015)
and Chinelatto et al. (2018) with the shell concentration types and their
respective active accumulation dynamics observed in this experimental
work, it were verified similarities among them (Table 4). Facies Rcb, Cfi
and T3 were better compared with the MSsh concentration, whereas
Rmb and Cm facies showed similarities with the GS. The MSsh concen-
tration was the deposit that suffered the most intense reworking, with
traction, rolling and saltation of bioclasts of diverse sizes during storm
conditions. Thus, it has then characteristics similar to those from the
Rcb, Cfi facies and T3 despite the fact that the fragmentation of shells
was not observed during the experiments probably due to the scale
limitation of the experimental setup. In addition, they have high content

Table 4
Similar parameters among coquina facies of Brazilian marginal basins (Cretaceo) and the shell accumulations generated in this experimental study.

This study — Muniz (2013) — Coqueiros Tavares et al. (2015) — Chinelatto et al. (2018) — Similar parameters
experimental Formation, Campos Basin Morro do Chaves Formation, Morro do Chaves Formation,
Sergipe-Alagoas Basin Sergipe-Alagoas Basin

SA Rgb – – High content of gastropods

MSsh Rcba Cfi T3 High fragmentation (high energy);
matrix-supported or high terrigenous
matrix content
GS Rmb Cm T4 Low fragmentation (low energy);
grain-supported or low terrigenous
matrix content
MSof Rtb Cmi T5, T6 Low fragmentation (low energy);
matrix-supported or high terrigenous
matrix content
a
obs: Rcb facies is clean of terrigenous matrix, but have moderate content of bioclastic fine matrix.
 C. Fick et al. / Sedimentary Geology 374 (2018) 98–114
of terrigenous matrix, except Rcb facies that presents moderate content
of bioclastic matrix. Other simulated shell accumulation may be
anologue to coquina facies is the GS (grain-supported) concentration.
It was produced by winnowing, characterized by the lower energy
that induced the small motion of bioclasts and where the fragmentation
of shells would not be expected and therefore, showing a larger similar-
ity with the Rmb, Cm and T4 facies. Also, this facies group is grain-
supported or have low-content of terrigenous matrix. In its turn, it
may highlight the similarities among the Rtb, Cmi and T5/T6 facies
with the MSof concentration, which was dominated by the dynamic
bypassing at most distal region, once the low shell fragmentation (low
energy) and the high terrigenous matrix content are common features
of these bioclastic accumulations. Finally, it is important to mention
the similarity between the Rgb facies of Coqueiros Formation, described
by Muniz (2013), and the SA concentration, once both were constituted
most by gastropod skeletons. This sorting by specie may suggest the
occurrence of a selective hydraulic process due the rounded shape of
these shells (discussed in the Section 4.2), which facilitate their move-
ment on the bottom.
However, there are differences in the zones that control these higher
or lower capacities of reworking along the wave-dominated coastal
profile. The experimental results suggested that the sector of more
intense reworking occurred at the zones of wave-breaking and swash
processes extending from the first breaking point to the onshore in
both fair-weather and storm conditions. On the other hand, the
winnowing and dynamic bypassing always took place at the zone of
wave-shoaling processes in both wave conditions as well (Fig. 15B).
Therefore, in the experiments, the dynamics of shell concentrations
were controlled by the type of wave process and not by a local control –
whose boundary between the zones of strong and poor reworking
(winnowing) is the FWWB – as the models of coquina facies of Muniz
(2013), Tavares et al. (2015) and Chinelatto et al. (2018) suggested.
The FWWB indicates the depth (wave base level) in which the oscilla-
tory flow of the waves start to induce a gentle sediment motion on
the bottom in fair-weather conditions. Then, in storm conditions, the
processes intensify and the depth of the breaking zone, which is charac-
terized by an intense reworking, can reach deeper or perhaps shallower
regions than the FWWB according to the magnitude of the storm (wave
height) and the bottom morphology. Hence, this present work suggests
that the zoning of the shell concentration dynamics following the
criterion of wave processes is a more accurate way to interpret the
lake-margin coquina facies. The interface of the breaking and shoaling
zones should be defined as the boundary that separates the environ-
ment of high reworking domain (facies with fragmented shells) from
the one of winnowing and dynamic bypassing domains (facies with
non-fragmented shells), in which the storm wave base represents the
distal limit (Fig. 15B).
5. Conclusions
The results of this experimental study led to the following
conclusions:
• The shell concentration dynamics (sensu Kidwell, 1986) were directly
controlled by the wave processes under whatever energy conditions.
The erosive dynamics always occurred at more proximal and
energetic zones from the simulated lake-margin setting. At these
zones, reworking (the most energetic dynamic) was controlled by
the swash and breaking processes, while winnowing was activated
by the wave shoaling (intermediate energy condition). On the other
hand, the omissive dynamics occurred at more distal and less
energetic zones, where the dynamic bypassing (the lowest energetic
dynamic) was also controlled by the shoaling process. Regarding the
role of wave conditions, it was concluded that the shell concentration
dynamics occurred with less intensity and had a lower extension
along the coastal profile in fair-weather conditions (FWE). In those
113
conditions, reworking was restricted to the foreshore and upper
shoreface and the dynamic bypassing was limited to the lower
shoreface. During storm conditions (SWE), which presented a wave
height 4 times higher than in FWE, the dynamics were more intense
and had a broader extension. Reworking activity could be observed
from the shoreline to the lower shoreface, while winnowing and
dynamic bypassing occurred at the offshore area. Moreover, it was
demonstrated that winnowing had an effective activity only in
storm conditions and was not observed in FWE may be due to a limi-
tation of the simulation conditions at a smaller scale.
• Each shell concentration dynamic produced bioclastic accumulation
with specific features. It can be highlighted that reworking and
dynamic bypassing or the combination of those two were more likely
to generate matrix-supported deposits (MSsh and MSof types),
whereas winnowing tended to produce grain-supported concentra-
tions (GS type).
• The interface of the breaking and shoaling zones in storm conditions
proved to be an accurate boundary to separate the region of intense
shell motion (strong reworking) from the region of low shell motion
(winnowing), in contrast with the depositional models for coquinas
facies (Kidwell et al., 1986; Muniz, 2013; Tavares et al., 2015;
Chinelatto et al., 2018) that used FWWB as a boundary. The former
region is marked by traction, rolling and saltation of bioclasts, while
the latter is marked by a gentle traction and rotation. As well demon-
strated in the experiments, the wave breaking process also occurred
below the FWWB (offshore) during storm conditions since the exten-
sion of the breaking zone was controlled by the storm wave height
and the bottom morphology as it occurs in natural coastal environ-
ments. The shape of the shells was a factor with pivotal importance
on their transport along the coastal profile. Rounded shells, as of the
gastropods, were transported for longer distances than the flat and
irregular bivalve shells and fragments. The large transport of gastro-
pods, which took place from the offshore (zone of bioclastic input)
to the backshore, was facilitated by their rounded shape that induced
rolling and saltation and made their burial difficult along the course.
On the other hand, bivalves and shell fragments had a null or very
small motion that only reached the lower shoreface as their flat
shape does not facilitate rolling, but suffers a gentle saltation and
traction in order to promote a quick burial by sand deposition (ripples
migration).
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to Instituto de Pesquisas Hidráulicas (IPH) and Núcleo
de Estudos de Correntes de Densidade (NECOD) from Universidade
Federal do Rio Grande do Sul for the provided infrastructure and human
resources in order to perform the experiments. In addition, we would
like to thank Dr. Adriano Roessler Viana for instigating the scientific
curiosity, as well as the manuscript reviewer, geologist Guilherme Furlan
Chinelatto, who provided important suggestions that improved the
scientific quality of this work. Furthermore, the first author would like
to thank Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico
(CNPq) from the Brazilian government for the financial support.
References
Abrahão, D., Warme, J.E., 1990. Lacustrine and associed deposits in a rifted continental
margin — Lower Cretaceous Lagoa feia Formation, Campos Basin, offshore Brazil. In:
Katz, B.J. (Ed.), Lacustrine Basin Exploration Case Studies and Modern Analogs.
American Association of Petroleum Geologists Memoir vol. 50, pp. 287–305.
Aigner, T., 1985. Storm depositional systems: dynamic stratigraphy in modern and
ancient shallow-marine sequences. In: Friedman, G.M., Neugebauer, H.J., Seilacher,
A. (Eds.), Lecture Notes in Earth Sciences. Springer, Berlin (174 pp.).
Aires, A.S.S., Lopes, R.P., 2012. Representativity of Quaternary mammals from the south-
ern Brazilian continental shelf. Revista Brasileira de Paleontologia 15, 57–66.
Allen, J.R.L., 1982. Sedimentary Structures: their Character and Physical Basis. Develop-
ments in Sedimentology 30 (A–B). Elsevier, Amsterdam (A: 593 pp, B: 663 pp.).
114 C. Fick et al. / Sedimentary Geology 374 (2018) 98–114
Allen, J.R.L., 1984. Some general physical implications of storms and their relevance to
problems of storm sedimentation. British Sedimentary Research Group Meeting.
Storm Sedimentation, Cardiff, Abstract: 3.
Bertani, R.T., Carozzi, A.V., 1985. Lagoa Feia Formation (Lower Cretaceous), Campos Basin,
offshore Brazil: Rift Valley Stage lacustrine carbonate reservoirs – (I). Journal of Petro-
leum Geology 8 (1), 37–58.
Brenchley, P.J., Newall, G., 1970. Flume experiments on the orientation and transport of
models and shell valves. Paleogeography, Paleoclimatology and Paleoecology 7,
185–220.
Bressan, G.S., Palma, R.M., 2010. Taphonomic analysis of fossil concentrations from La
Manga Formation (Oxfordian), Neuquén Basin, Mendoza Province, Argentina. Journal
of Iberian Geology 36 (1), 55–71.
Capart, A., 1952. Geography and geophysics. Scientific results of the hydrobiological
survey of Lake Tanganyika (1946–1947). Royal Belgian Institute of National Sciences
1, 1–28.
Carvalho, M.D., Praça, U.M., Silva-Telles, A.C., Jahnert, R.J., Dias, J.L., 2000. Bioclastic carbon-
ate lacustrine fácies models in the Campos Basin (Lower Cretaceous), Brazil.
American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Studies in Geology 46, 245–256.
Chinelatto, G.F., Vidal, A.C., Kuroda, M.C., Basilici, G., 2018. A taphofacies model for co-
quina sedimentation in lakes (Lower Cretaceous, Morro do Chaves Formation, NE
Brazil). Cretaceous Research 85, 1–19.
Clemente, D.S., 2013. Energia de ondas: metodologia de ensaios em modelos reduzidos.
Itajubá. (Masters Dissertation). Programa de Pós Graduação em Engenharia de
Energia, Universidade Federal de Itajubá, Itajubá (123 pp.).
Coastal Engineering Research Center, 1984. Shore Protection Manual. 4th Ed. vol. 1. US
Army, Vicksburg, MS (329 pp.).
Cohen, A.S., 1990. Tectono-stratigraphic model for sedimentation in Lake Tanganyika,
Africa. In: Katz, B.J. (Ed.), Lacustrine Basin Exploration Case Studies and Modern An-
alogs. American Association of Petroleum Geologists Memoir vol. 50, pp. 137–150.
Cohen, A.S., Thouin, C., 1987. Nearshore carbonate deposits in Lake Tanganyika. Geology
15, 414–418.
Cruz, E.A., Dillenburg, S.R., Buchmann, F.S., 2016. Description and controls on distribution
of Pleistocene vertebrate fossils from the central and southern sectors of the coastal
plain of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil. Revista Brasileira de Paleontologia 19 (3), 425–438.
Dattilo, B.F., Brett, C., Tsijita, C., Fairhurst, R., 2008. Sediment supply versus storm
winnowing in the development of muddy and shelly interbeds from the Upper
Ordovician of the Cincinnati region, USA. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences 45,
243–265.
Dias, J.L., Oliveira, J.Q., Vieira, J.C., 1988. Sedimentological and stratigraphyc analysis of the
Lagoa Feia Formation, Rift Phase of Campos Basin, offshore Brazil. Revista Brasileira de
Geociencias 18 (3), 252–260.
Docquier, D., Thiery, W., Lhermitte, S., van Lipzig, N., 2016. Multi-year Wind
dynamicsaround Lake Tanganyika. Climate Dynamics 47, 3191–3202.
Fornari, M., Giannini, P.C.F., Nascimento, D.R., 2012. Facies associations and controls on
the evolution from a coastal bay to a lagoon system, Santa Catarina Coast, Brazil.
Marine Geology 323-325, 56–68.
Fredsoe, J., Deigaard, R., 1995. Mechanics of Coastal Sediment Transport. Advanced Series
on Ocean Engineering. vol. 3. World Scientific Publishing, London (369 pp.).
Frostick, L., Reid, I., 1983. Taphonomic significance of sub-aerial transport of vetebrate fos-
sils on steep semi-arid slopes. Lethaia 16, 157–164.
Fürsich, F.T., 1995. Shell concentrations. Eclogae Geologicae Helvetiae 88 (3), 643–655.
Fürsich, F.T., Oschmann, W., 1986. Storm shell beds of Nanogyra virgula in the Upper Ju-
rassic of France. Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie, Abhandlungen 172,
141–161.
Futterer, E., 1982. Experiments on the distinction of wave and current influenced shell ac-
cumulations. In: Einsele, G., Seilacher, A. (Eds.), Ciclic and Event Stratification 536.
Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp. 175–179.
Gierlowski-Kordesch, E.H., 2010. Lacustrine carbonates. In: Alonzo-Zarza, A.M., Tanner,
L.H. (Eds.), Cabonates in Continental Settings: Facies, Environments and Processes.
Developments in Sedimentology 61. Elsevier, Amsterdam (101 pp.).
Hughes, S.A., 1993. Physical Models and Laboratory Techniques in Coastal Engineering.
World Scientific Publishing, London (568 pp.).
Jahnert, R., Paula, O., Collins, L., Strobach, E., Pevzner, R., 2012. Evolution of a coquina
barrier in Shark Bay, Australia by GPR imaging: architeture of a Holocene reservoir
analog. Sedimentary Geology 281, 59–74.
Kamphuis, J.W., 1985. On understanding scale effect in coastal mobile bed models. In:
Dalrymple, R.A. (Ed.), Physical modelling in coastal engeenering. A. A. Balkema,
Rotterdam, pp. 141–162.
Kidwell, S.M., 1986. Models for fossil concentrations: paleobiologic implications. Paleobi-
ology 12 (1), 6–24.
Kidwell, S.M., Fursich, F.T., Aigner, T., 1986. Conceptual framework for the analysis and
classification of fossil concentration. PALAIOS 1, 228–238.
Komar, P.D., 1976. Beach Processes and Sedimentation. Prentice Hall, New Jersey
(429 pp.).
Komar, P.D., Gaughan, M.K., 1972. Airy wave theory and breaker height prediction. 13th
Coastal Engineering Conference, Vancouver, pp. 405–418.
McGlue, M.M., Soreghan, M.J., Michel, E., Todd, J.A., Cohen, A.S., Mischler, J., O'Connell, C.S.,
Castañeda, O.S., Hartwell, R.J., Lezzar, K.E., Nkotagu, H.H., 2010. Environmental con-
trols on shell-rich facies in tropical lacustrine rifts: a view from Lake Tanganyika's lit-
toral. PALAIOS 25 (7), 426–438.
Muniz, M.C., 2013. Tectono-Stratigraphic evolution of the Barremian-Aptian Continental
Rift Carbonates in southern Campos Basin, Brazil. (PhD Thesis). Royal Holloway Uni-
versity of London, London (301 pp.).
Nagle, J.S., 1967. Wave and current orientation of shells. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology
37 (4), 1124–1138.
Pepper, D.A., Stone, G.W., 2004. Hydrodynamic and sedimentary responses to two
contrasting winter storms on the inner shelf of the northen Gulf of Mexico. Marine
Geology 210, 43–62.
Platt, N.H., Wright, V.P., 1991. Lacustrine carbonates: facies models, facies distributions
and hydrocarbon aspects. In: Anadón, P., Cabrera, L., Kelts, K. (Eds.), Lacustrine Facies
Analalysis. Special Publication International Association of Sedimentologists 13,
pp. 57–74.
Short, A., 1999. Handbook of Beach and Shoreface Morphodynamics. John Wiley,
Chichester (379 pp.).
Tavares, A.C., Borghi, L., Corbett, P., Nobre-Lopes, J., Câmara, R., 2015. Facies and
depositional environments for the coquinas of the Morro do Chaves Formation,
Sergipe-Alagoas Basin, defined by taphonomic and compositional criteria. Brazilian
Journal of Geology 45 (3), 415–429.
Terra, G.J.S., Spadini, A.R., França, A.B., Sombra, C.L., Zambonato, E.E., Juschaks, L.C.S.,
Arienti, L.M., Erthal, M.M., Blauth, M., Franco, M.P., Matsuda, N.S., Silva, N.G.C.,
Moreti-Junior, P.A., D'Avila, R.S.F., Souza, R.S., Tonietto, S.N., Anjos, S.M.C.,
Campinho, V.S., Winter, W.R., 2010. Classificação das rochas carbonáticas aplicável
às bacias sedimentares brasileiras. Boletim de Geociências da Petrobras 18 (1), 9–29.
Thompson, D.L., Stilwell, J.D., Hall, M., 2015. Lacustrine carbonate reservoirs from Early
Cretaceous rift lakes of Western Gondwana: Pre-Salt coquinas of Brazil and West
Africa. Gondwana Research 28, 26–51.
Walker, M.R., Plint, A.G., 1992. Wave and storm dominated shallow marine systems. In:
Walker, M.R., James, N.P. (Eds.), Facies Models: Response to Sea Level Change.
Geological Society of Canada, Ontario, pp. 219–238.
Warner, J.C., Armstrong, B., Sylvester, C.S., Voulgaris, G., Nelson, T., Schwab, W.C., Denny,
J.F., 2012. Storm-induced inner-continental shelf circulation and sediment transport:
Long Bay, South Carolina. Continental Shelf Research 42, 51–63.