This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier.

The attached
copy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial research
and education use, including for instruction at the authors institution
and sharing with colleagues.
Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or
licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party
websites are prohibited.
In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of the
article (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website or
institutional repository. Authors requiring further information
regarding Elsevier’s archiving and manuscript policies are
encouraged to visit:
http://www.elsevier.com/copyright
 Author's personal copy

Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors 214 (2013) 1–13

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors

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

Role of spherical particles on magnetic field recording in sediments:

Experimental and numerical results
Dario Bilardello a,⇑, Josef Jezek b, Stuart A. Gilder a
a
Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, LMU, Theresienstrasse 41, 80333 Munich, Germany
b
Institute of Applied Mathematics and Information Technologies, Faculty of Science, Charles University in Prague, Albertov 6, 128 43 Praha 2, Czech Republic

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

Article history: We report deposition experiments using spherical glass beads that possess remanent magnetizations
Received 15 May 2012 stemming from iron impurities. 15 g of glass beads with a well-characterized size distribution were
Received in revised form 5 September 2012 loaded in two different sets of tubes with diameters of 2.0 and 3.6 cm. Each tube contains identical col-
Accepted 31 October 2012
umn heights of de-ionized water, thereby allowing us to assess the effect of sediment concentration on
Available online 9 November 2012
Edited by Chris Jones
the results (352 versus 90 kg/m3 [g/l], respectively). The tubes were placed in magnetic fields of variable
inclination and intensity in a temperature-controlled environment. The full vector magnetization and
sediment accumulation rates were measured upon deposition times ranging from 10 min to 10 days.
Keywords:
Paleomagnetism
Experiments were run in triplicate to evaluate data reproducibility. Together with the lack of magnetic
Inclination shallowing interaction and the absence of clumping, the experiments elucidate an end-member scenario of how sed-
Deposition experiments iments acquire remanent magnetizations in the absence of flocculation. Our results show that inclination
Numerical models shallowing, in the range of 7–20° for field inclinations of 30° and 60°, is indeed possible with solely spher-
ical particles. More importantly, we observe a field dependence on the inclination error. Field dependence
on the moment acquisition and inclination error both exhibit non-linearity, which may complicate inter-
pretations of relative paleointensity data in paleomagnetic records. A newly developed numerical model,
whereby particle collision during settling combined with both rolling and slipping (translation) on the
substrate, is consistent with the experimental results.
Ó 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction which is known as a post-depositional remanent magnetization

Acquisition of remanent magnetization in sediments, called a
depositional remanent magnetization (DRM), is typically described
by spherical magnetic particles falling through a stagnant water
column (Rees, 1961; Collinson, 1965; King and Rees, 1966; Stacey,
1972; Tauxe and Kent, 1984; Shive, 1985; von Dobeneck, 1996;
Katari et al., 2000). Viewed in this way, the particle is subject to
balanced inertial, viscous and magnetic torques, and spherical
magnetic particles attain perfect alignment with the ambient field
within seconds (Nagata, 1961; Collinson, 1965). The situation is
much more complicated in nature, where the sedimentation pro-
cess spans a vast parameter space regarding particle size and shape
distributions, viscosity, pH and Eh of the fluid, etc. (Verosub, 1977).
Contact forces between particles and Brownian motion also play a
role. Eventually the particles encounter the substrate, leading to
mechanical interaction and possibly experiencing shear from
bottom currents. Within the sediment column, bioturbation, dewa-
tering, diagenesis and compaction can modify the magnetization,
⇑ Corresponding author. Current address: Instituto de Geociências, University of
São Paulo, Rua do Lago 562, 05508-080 São Paulo, Brazil.
E-mail address: dario.bilardello@gmail.com (D. Bilardello).
(pDRM) (see Tarling and Turner, 1999 and references therein).
Laboratory redeposition experiments reveal that the magneti-
zation intensity of sediments grows in proportion to the strength
of the applied field and that the net magnetization is orders of
magnitude lower than the saturation remanence (i.e., if all the par-
ticle moments were parallel) (e.g., Barton et al., 1980; Tauxe and
Kent, 1984). Several experiments demonstrate that the net effect
of a depositional remanent magnetization is to shallow the rema-
nent inclination in the rock (IR) with respect to the applied field
inclination (IB) such that tan(IR) = f  tan(IB), where f is the flatten-
ing factor (King, 1955; Løvlie and Torsvik, 1984; Tauxe and Kent,
1984). Misalignment of declination is negligible. Two basic models
are used to explain inclination shallowing. In that of King (1955),
sediments are composed of spherical and platy particles: shallow-
ing depends on the relative contribution of the latter. Griffiths et al.
(1960) explained inclination shallowing by equal-sized spherical
particles rolling into depressions between grains lying on the sed-
imentation plane. On the other hand, however, instances of natural
sediments yielding inclinations compatible with those predicted
from apparent polar wander paths and possessing the same incli-
nations as lava flows, which are mostly immune to inclination
shallowing have also been reported (e.g., Opdyke, 1961).

0031-9201/$ - see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pepi.2012.10.014
 Author's personal copy
2 D. Bilardello et al. / Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors 214 (2013) 1–13
Several experimental and theoretical studies on DRM acquisi-
tion have focused on particle aggregation (flocculation) during set-
tling, which affects the magnetic intensity and inclination recorded
by sediments based on the clay content, clay mineralogy and fluid
conductivity (Ellwood, 1979; Shcherbakov and Shcherbakova,
1983; Lu et al., 1990; Deamer and Kodama, 1990; Sun and Kodama,
1992). For example, Sun and Kodama (1992) found that magnetic
grains attach to clay minerals by either electrostatic or van der
Waals forces. The magnetic grains become incorporated into the
clay fabric of the sedimentary rock and rotate with the clay parti-
cles during post-depositional compaction (Arason and Levi, 1990;
Katari and Bloxhamm, 2001). Van Vreumingen, 1993a,b) showed
that flocculation varies as a function of salinity of the sediment
suspension, and Tauxe et al. (2006) found a non-linear field depen-
dence on remanence for certain floc sizes. Mitra and Tauxe (2009)
explored remanence acquisition as a function of applied field and
floc size distributions. Their work helped explain discrepancies in
relative paleointensity and inclination data, highlighting the com-
plex nature of DRM acquisition with respect to different sedimen-
tary environments (variable salinity, mineralogy, organic matter
content, etc. (see also Katari and Tauxe, 2000). Shcherbakov and
Sycheva (2008, 2010) recognized that more than seven parameters
are needed to describe the magnetization acquisition of sediments.
This multi-parametric control on DRM hinders relative paleofield
intensity estimates by redeposition methods since laboratory con-
ditions do not reproduce the natural environment.
Other workers have addressed the question of lock-in depth of
the magnetic signal in sediments (Kent, 1973; Tucker, 1980; Bleil
and von Dobeneck, 1999; Roberts and Winklhofer, 2004). For
example, Løvlie (1974, 1976) attributed the lag between changes
in ambient field and lock-in of the magnetization to post-deposi-
tional alignment of the magnetic grains, with consolidation-rate
significantly influencing a sediment’s magnetic intensity. Irving
and Major (1964) showed that sediments first deposited in a null
field, and then subjected to an applied field, accurately recorded
the field direction. While post-depositional effects seem to play a
role in influencing the final orientation of the magnetic vector,
other laboratory experiments and numerical models find a limited
influence (Verosub et al., 1979; Shcherbakov and Shcherbakova,
1987; Katari et al., 2000).
Despite significant efforts to understand the genesis of a detrital
remanent magnetization, complete knowledge of the underlying
principles are still lacking. We thus initiated a series of experi-
ments to focus on a particular aspect of the problem—namely the
contribution of solely spherical grains in the absence of floccula-
tion. Our experiments do not intend to simulate a natural detrital
remanent magnetization acquisition, rather to unravel one specific
factor that contributes to it. Hence, we carried out deposition
experiments with synthetic spherical magnetic particles whose
Fig. 1. (A) SEM image of the glass beads used in the deposition experiments highlighting the size distribution and the predominantly spherical shape of the particles. (B)
Grain-size distribution of the particles measured with a laser counter (no de-flocculants or ultrasound used). The grain-size bins sum to 100%.
size distribution is well known. Numerical simulations are devel-
oped to explain the results. We are particularly interested whether
spherical particles can produce inclination shallowing by rolling on
the substrate when they settle. This necessitates a re-evaluation of
the classical rolling spheres model of Griffiths et al. (1960). Our
experimental results and numerical models contradict the idea of
King (1955) that spherical particles accurately record the ambient
field direction,
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Glass beads
Fig. 1a shows a scanning electron microscope image of the solid
glass spheres (Potters Europe, spheriglass 5000) used in this study.
The image attests that almost all the particles are spherical in
shape. Laser particle analysis (Coulter) was used to measure the
grain-size spectra of the beads (Fig. 1b). Five independent runs,
made without using dispersing agents or ultrasound, are highly
reproducible and reveal no evidence for clumping or clustering of
the particles. Particle radii range between a fraction of a microme-
ter to 11.4 lm, showing a sharp peak for the smallest grain sizes,
then decreases almost exponentially with increasing radii. Overall,
10% of the particles have radii <0.48 lm, 25% are <1 lm, 50% are
<3 lm, 75% are <6.8 lm and 90% are <7.7 lm. Company specifica-
tions list a median radius of 1.7–3.5 lm, with 90% of the spheres
having radii between 0.3 and 9.7 lm. We accepted the company’s
reported density of 2.5 g/cm3 without independent verification.
Experiments on the beads indicate they contain impurities that
carry a magnetic remanence. Hysteresis loops, backfield curves and
magnetization versus temperature curves were measured with a
Petersen Instruments, variable field translation balance (dwell field
30 mT, dwell time 1 s, ramp slope [heating and cooling] 40 °C/min).
The magnetic moment upon heating undergoes a change in slope
at 580 °C followed by a major drop around 770 °C, suggesting the
presence of both magnetite and iron, respectively (Fig. 2a). Mag-
netic intensities during cooling lie systematically below those of
heating, signifying a net loss of magnetic moment during heating.
Repeat heating–cooling cycles in 100 °C intervals indicate that al-
ready below 400 °C the cooling curve is lower than the heating
curve. Our interpretation is that the glass contains only pure Fe
as a remanence carrier, but that Fe partly oxidizes into magnetite
during heating. Acid rinsed, non-annealed glass beads were used
in the experiments.
Fig. 2b shows a typical hysteresis loop of the material measured
at room temperature. Hysteresis loops determined on four inde-
pendent samples exhibit a high degree of reproducibility, with hys-
teresis parameters lying within the pseudo-single domain field on
 Author's personal copy

D. Bilardello et al. / Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors 214 (2013) 1–13 3

Fig. 2. Summary of magnetic measurements conducted on the glass beads. (A) Thermo-remanent curves for the heating (red) and cooling (blue) cycle between room
temperature and 800 °C measured with a Petersen Instruments, variable field translation balance. 580 and 770 °C correspond to Curie temperatures of magnetite and pure
iron, respectively. (B) A magnetic hysteresis loop measured with a Petersen Instruments, variable field translation balance. (C) Hysteresis parameters from four independent
measurements lie within the pseudo-single domain field on a Day et al. (1977) plot, although this is not strictly valid for iron metal. (D) A first order reversal curve diagram
measured with a Princeton Instruments, vibrating sample magnetometer. The diagram is representative of interacting single domain particles (Roberts et al., 2000). (For
interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

a Day et al. (1977) plot (Fig. 2c). Such plots were specifically devel-
oped for titanomagnetite and might not be applicable for iron. The
average saturation magnetization (Ms) and remanent saturation
magnetization (Mrs) are 3.46  103 A m2/kg (8.64 A/m) and
5.05  104 A m2/kg (1.26 A/m), respectively, while the bulk coer-
cive force (Bc) and coercivity of remanence (Bcr) are 12 and
30 mT, respectively. First order reversal curves, measured with a
Princeton Instruments vibrating sample magnetometer at the
Institute for Rock Magnetism (Minneapolis) (settings: field range
300 mT, moment range 2  106 A m2, averaging time 800 
103 s, analyzed using the code of Michael Winklhofer [version
July, 2010]), indicate that the beads contain interacting single do-
main particles (Fig. 2d). In assigning a magnetic moment to the
beads, we recall that the remanence ratio (Mrs/Ms) of a random
assemblage of non-interacting single domain particles with uniax-
ial anisotropy is 0.5 (Dunlop and Özdemir, 1997). Mrs/Ms. of the
glass beads is 0.146, or 3.4 times less than the expected value,
which we attribute to magnetic interaction. Assuming that each
bead contains a proportional amount of magnetic material by vol-
ume, and that the magnetic remanence of each bead corresponds
to the saturation value, a magnetization of 8.64/3.4 = 2.5 A/m can
be assigned to each individual bead. Moreover, after immersing
the grains in water and observing them under a microscope, no
clumping or aligning of the grains was detected. Thus, magnetic
interactions revealed in Fig. 2d likely occurs within each grain
(intra-grain) and not between grains (inter-grain), further support-
ing that 2.5 A/m is the most reasonable value for the magnetization
value of the beads.
We tested for magnetic viscosity by imposing a 600 mT field on
the beads to saturate their magnetizations and then measured the
remanence of a sample over several hours after exposure.
Remanence decreased by 2% in the first 19 h, after which it
remained stable. The sample was then placed in a 50 lT field,
orthogonal to the magnetization direction. No change in moment
or direction was detected 17 h later, thus lending confidence that
the material is suitable for the deposition experiments.
2.2. Experimental set-up and procedure
Helmholtz coils, 1 m on each side, were constructed to gener-
ate a stable magnetic environment up to 100 lT in any direction
over the volume in which the experiments were performed. A
fluxgate magnetometer probe fixed within the coils constantly
monitored the field. Non-magnetic, cylindrical, flat-bottomed
borosilicate tubes with diameters of 2.0 and 3.6 cm (height =
30 cm) were made in triplicate for each tube size. Tubes of both
diameters were prepared with 15.000 ± 0.001 g of dry glass beads;
distilled water was added such that the height of the water column
was 20 cm. The sediment mass is thus identical for both tube-sizes,
yet the 2 cm diameter tubes have 3.9 times higher sediment con-
centrations than the 3.6 cm diameter tubes. In this way, the paral-
lel experiments can help identify potential wall and concentration
effects (i.e., hitting of the particles against the tube walls or mutual
hitting of the particles as they settle).
The experiments were carried out by placing the tubes in an
ultrasound bath while shaking vigorously to achieve full separation
and suspension of the sediment. The tubes were placed in the
controlled magnetic environment within the Helmholtz coils at a
specified field intensity and inclination. Temperature fluctuations
that could potentially change the moment or water viscosity were
 Author's personal copy
4 D. Bilardello et al. / Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors 214 (2013) 1–13
minimized by immersing the tubes in a temperature-controlled
water tank (32 °C) within the Helmholtz coils. For example, the
experiments reported here were carried out for over a year’s time
span where the temperature in the room fluctuated at least 10 °C.
Water viscosity decreases 20% from 18 to 28 °C (Kestin et al.,
1978), which would alter the falling time of the spheres in the
tubes depending on when the experiments were done.
After a given settling time, the tubes were removed from the
Helmholtz coils and placed into a vertical, 3-axis, 2G Enterprises,
755 cryogenic magnetometer to measure the magnetic vector.
Typical measured magnetic moments range from 7  107 to
4  106 A m2 (Table 1), which are well above the noise of the
magnetometer over the measurement time (1–3  1011 A m2).
The horizontal plane of the tubes was positioned in the magnetom-
eter such that the middle of the fully deposited sediment was at
the point of maximum signal strength on the magnetometer sen-
sors. Settling intervals under a given field inclination and intensity
were normally 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 and 60 min, then 2, 3, 4, 5, 18, 68
and 240 h. After each measurement step, the tubes were vigorously
shaken, and then placed back into the Helmholtz coils for a differ-
ent settling time. In this manner, each time interval can be consid-
ered as an independent experiment, also meaning that settling
steps may be performed in any order and repeated if necessary.
The fact that measurements for different time intervals yield rather
smooth curves attests to the uniformity of the underlying pro-
cesses and increases the reliability of the results.
Three tubes of each diameter were run contemporaneously to
examine data reproducibility. The thickness of the sedimentary
column was measured after each time step to determine the vol-
ume of deposited sediment, which could be compared to the accu-
mulated moment. This measurement also quantifies sediment
packing and monitors the consistency of the experiments.
3. Results from the deposition experiments
Figs. 3 and 4 show the results of all experiments conducted with
the 2.0 and 3.6 cm diameter tubes, respectively (data in Table 1—
figures and subsequent analyses exclude values in gray). Table 2
summarizes the results for each experiment by calculating the
mean of the last three experimental steps for each of the three
tubes, and then taking the average and single standard deviation
of those three mean values. In some cases the moments or inclina-
tions vary slightly in time until the last deposition step (Figs. 3 and
4, Table 1); however, taking only the last step instead of the aver-
age of the last three steps yields virtually identical results. In gen-
eral, the data show a relatively good degree of reproducibility for
all experiments carried out at a given applied field strength (B)
and inclination (IB). That the curves of magnetization acquisition
over time match the sedimentation rates lends credence to the re-
sults (Figs. 3 and 4); this will be explored in further detail in the
numerical modeling section below.
We calculated the slope of the average moments from the last
three time steps reported in Table 2 (not shown), and found it to
be is positive in 10 of 11 cases when considering data where the
coefficient of determination (R2) from the least squares linear fit
exceeds 0.85. This could suggest that the DRM acquisition process
is not completed after 10 days of deposition. Alternatively, the
change in slope between short (ca. <300 min) and long (ca.
>300 min) time scales could reflect a different acquisition process
with a DRM at short time scales and a pDRM over long time scales.
A similar analysis for the height data leads to a similar conclusion
as the moment data: the slope of the average heights from the last
three time steps (data from Table 2) is positive in 7 of 8 cases
where (R2) exceeds 0.85. Hence separating the data into two sepa-
rate regimes over different time scales seems unlikely, e.g., DRM
continues, albeit much slower, even after 10 days of settling time.
No systematic correlation is found between the slope of the mo-
ment acquisition and B.
Initial loading of the tubes was in July 2010. The last experi-
ments performed were at IB = 0° under B of 50 (March, 2011), 25
(April, 2011) and then 100 lT (May–June, 2011). During the exper-
iments at 25 lT, 2.0 cm tube #3 displayed much higher sediment
thicknesses and lower moments than the other two tubes (Table 1,
data in gray). In the subsequent experiments conducted at IB = 0°,
B = 100 lT, all 2.0 cm tubes began to mimic this behavior, so the
experiments at 100 lT were discontinued. We think the glass
beads started welding together, which would lower the magnetiza-
tion and increase the pore space of the deposited material, thereby
increasing the thickness of deposited sediment. This highlights the
usefulness of measuring the sediment accumulation rate as an
independent control.
Seen at a given field intensity, the magnetization acquisition
curves are compatible, independent of field inclination, and the
moments are systematically higher with greater applied fields at
a given time step. All curves show an initial steep rise in moment
before flattening out after 100 min (2.0 cm tubes) and 300 min
(3.6 cm tubes). Initial moment accumulation is thus faster in the
2.0 cm tubes, which makes sense, as the concentration is higher.
Remanent inclination (IR) is fairly constant during the entire pro-
gression of the experiments, with only one exception at IB = 60°,
B = 100 lT in the 3.6 cm tubes. This is a first-order observation
since the process leading to inclination shallowing occurs immedi-
ately in the deposition process. It is readily apparent that for IB of
30° and 60°, IR varies as a function of B. One exception is for IB of
30° in the 2.0 cm tubes where IR is 23° for B of both 50 and
100 lT; however, IR is 15° when B = 25 lT. Extrapolating more spe-
cific trends out of the data becomes speculative as certain features
are not coherent at given IB and B among both tube diameters; e.g.,
the greatest variability in IR (and sediment height) occurs when IR
is 0° in the small tubes yet higher scatter is not observed in the
large tubes.
4. Discussion
4.1. Magnetic moment
Fig. 5a plots the mean magnetic moment of the last three mea-
surement steps for each tube, averaged over the three settling
tubes, versus applied field intensity (B). To a first-order, the field-
dependence on the acquired magnetization is evident in all exper-
iments, in conformity with virtually all experiments performed to
date (e.g., King, 1955; Tauxe and Kent, 1984; Quidelleur et al.,
1995).
Tauxe and Kent (1984) performed deposition experiments from
disaggregated red beds, which contained both magnetite and
hematite. They placed approximately 10 gm of dry sediment in a
3.5 cm-diameter plastic tube and added water to make a 15 cm
high slurry. This sediment to water concentration is comparable
to our 3.6 cm diameter tubes. The tube was sealed, agitated and
then placed in a controlled field for about 5 h. Both our results
and those of Tauxe and Kent (1984) show more variability at the
highest applied field (100 lT) over the range of inclinations
(Fig. 5a), yet we find the two data sets are relatively compatible.
Tauxe and Kent (1984) inferred a linear relationship between ap-
plied field and magnetization. Fig. 5a offers an alternative interpre-
tation that the increase in moment is steeper from 25 to 50 lT than
from 50 to 100 lT, which suggests the evolution can be better de-
scribed by a non-linear (logarithmic) function. On the other hand,
the small diameter tubes with higher sediment concentrations give
more linear trends than the large diameter tubes. This could sug-
Table 1
Moment, inclination and thickness data measured in this study. Data are subdivided into three measurement tubes of 2.0 and 3.6 cm diameter with field inclinations of 60°, 30° and 0° subdivided into applied field intensities of 25, 50
and 100 lT. Data in gray were not considered for analysis (see text for details); experiments in horizontal fields of 100 lT were terminated after two time steps.

Time 2.0 cm diameter tubes 3.6 cm diameter tubes

(min)
Tube 1 Tube 2 Tube 3 Tube 1 Tube 2 Tube 3
Moment Inclination Height Moment Inclination Height Moment Inclination Height Moment Inclination Height Moment Inclination Height Moment Inclination Height
(A m2  10-6) (°) (mm) (A m2  10-6) (°) (mm) (A m2  10-6) (°) (mm) (A m2  10-6) (°) (mm) (A m2  10-6) (°) (mm) (A m2  10-6) (°) (mm)
Laboratory applied field and inclination values: 25 lT, 60°
10 0.90 42.8 7.1 0.97 38.5 8.5 1.18 43.2 10.3 0.67 37.8 3.1 0.76 38.5 3.3 0.92 35.3 4.0
20 1.22 40.5 9.8 1.19 38.9 11.3 1.38 45.7 13.6 1.16 38.9 4.6 1.23 38.4 4.8 1.28 36.1 5.2
30 1.60 42.9 15.5 1.52 38.4 16.5 1.64 41.7 18.7 1.48 37.9 5.3 1.37 41.6 5.9 1.51 38.0 6.4
60 1.92 41.6 24.8 1.77 38.7 25.0 1.84 42.6 26.7 1.90 38.3 7.5 1.80 38.5 7.6 1.85 37.3 7.8
120 2.10 40.7 31.4 1.91 37.6 31.5 2.02 37.7 32.6 2.11 39.6 8.8 1.92 39.3 8.6 2.01 38.4 9.2
180 2.22 45.1 32.8 2.08 42.1 33.2 1.99 40.9 34.2 2.08 40.2 9.2 2.04 38.9 9.3 2.14 37.6 9.6
300 2.14 41.2 34.1 2.00 39.2 34.9 2.15 41.5 35.9 2.19 38.2 9.9 1.99 39.1 10.1 2.20 38.3 10.0
1020 2.22 42.6 35.5 2.06 39.4 36.1 2.15 38.6 37.3 2.29 43.0 9.1 2.13 41.8 9.3 2.27 41.0 10.2
4080 2.23 39.3 36.5 2.05 37.7 36.6 2.13 36.7 38.3 2.26 45.3 9.2 2.14 42.6 9.2 2.26 42.0 10.2
14400 2.26 43.0 36.3 2.11 42.8 36.3 2.24 37.3 37.6 2.39 40.0 10.2 2.32 41.7 10.5 2.49 40.6 10.2
Laboratory applied field and inclination values: 50 lT, 60°
10 1.32 50.4 7.5 1.10 49.1 8.2 1.10 50.6 8.4 1.29 44.9 3.4 1.18 43.7 3.2 1.24 43.2 3.2
20 2.20 48.4 13.0 2.09 49.9 13.3 2.07 50.5 14.3 2.18 45.5 5.4 1.92 45.9 5.7 2.13 43.8 5.3
30 2.59 50.3 17.7 2.29 48.9 18.0 2.55 51.0 18.6 2.50 45.9 6.5 2.34 44.4 6.4 2.50 44.1 6.2
60 3.00 47.5 25.6 2.95 48.3 25.4 2.81 49.2 26.3 3.00 44.2 7.7 2.71 44.1 8.5 2.98 43.3 8.3
120 3.13 48.0 30.9 2.95 48.0 31.2 2.96 48.4 31.9 3.20 45.5 8.7 2.90 45.1 9.0 3.22 44.9 9.0
180 3.20 48.2 33.1 2.98 48.3 33.4 3.03 49.3 34.1 3.26 46.5 9.0 3.01 45.0 9.4 3.27 44.9 9.2
240 3.22 49.4 34.2 3.00 47.5 34.5 3.05 49.8 35.1 3.29 46.9 8.8 3.06 46.5 9.4 3.34 46.0 9.5
1020 3.26 49.5 36.7 3.01 48.1 37.3 3.09 48.9 37.5 3.35 47.7 8.7 3.17 45.9 9.8 3.45 46.2 9.9
4080 3.30 49.9 36.8 3.08 48.0 37.4 3.15 48.8 37.4 3.40 46.6 9.4 3.17 45.9 10.3 3.47 45.9 10.3
14400 3.35 47.8 36.9 3.13 47.9 37.2 3.18 49.1 37.5 3.47 47.9 9.9 3.37 45.7 10.4 3.57 47.1 10.4
Laboratory applied field and inclination values: 100 lT, 60°
10 1.38 50.1 6.8 1.06 51.1 7.0 1.30 53.1 7.2 1.33 43.6 3.5 0.98 43.1 3.1 1.15 40.0 3.2
20 2.63 52.4 12.3 2.19 53.9 12.6 2.56 55.7 13.7 1.90 42.1 5.1 1.85 45.6 5.1 1.92 42.9 5.3
30 3.20 53.5 16.9 2.92 53.2 16.6 3.04 54.9 18.2 2.78 46.3 6.5 2.25 44.0 5.8 2.88 47.2 6.4
60 3.86 52.5 25.2 3.68 52.2 25.3 3.78 52.1 26.3 3.41 49.6 7.5 3.25 48.4 8.0 3.40 48.5 7.9
120 4.24 52.4 30.8 3.90 51.7 31.0 4.04 51.5 31.8 3.74 50.6 9.0 3.54 50.2 9.3 3.74 49.6 9.4
180 4.23 52.6 32.8 3.90 51.9 32.9 4.05 51.7 33.3 3.85 50.8 9.6 3.66 50.3 9.7 3.96 49.9 10.1
Author's personal copy

300 4.29 52.2 33.7 4.03 51.1 34.5 4.19 51.5 35.1 4.20 50.5 9.9 3.86 50.7 9.8 4.31 50.1 10.2
1020 4.58 53.0 36.1 4.08 52.4 36.3 4.17 53.5 36.5 4.45 51.1 10.1 3.96 50.5 10.1 4.47 50.1 10.5
4080 4.46 52.9 36.2 4.04 51.3 36.8 4.27 51.5 36.9 4.46 51.8 10.0 4.02 51.3 10.3 4.45 50.5 10.7
14400 4.70 49.8 36.6 4.27 51.1 36.9 4.37 52.5 37.1 4.69 51.2 10.6 4.10 50.4 10.4 4.64 49.7 10.9
D. Bilardello et al. / Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors 214 (2013) 1–13

Laboratory applied field and inclination values: 25 lT, 30°

10 0.69 15.9 4.6 0.83 11.6 7.0 1.15 14.8 9.9 0.69 17.2 2.9 0.82 17.4 3.2 1.02 16.5 3.6
20 1.76 14.3 15.6 1.76 13.8 16.5 1.82 15.1 20.1 1.47 18.1 4.9 1.44 17.8 5.0 1.59 16.4 5.5
30 2.03 14.8 18.6 1.91 12.7 19.8 1.93 16.8 24.0 1.74 18.4 5.5 1.70 17.4 5.9 1.78 16.8 6.5
60 2.30 15.1 25.7 2.13 13.1 26.5 2.19 14.7 29.9 2.10 19.6 7.6 1.96 18.9 7.5 2.12 17.1 7.6
120 2.46 15.3 31.3 2.30 13.3 31.5 2.24 13.6 34.5 2.36 18.5 7.8 2.16 19.0 8.5 2.38 17.5 8.9
180 2.51 15.6 33.5 2.34 15.6 33.5 2.39 13.2 35.7 2.42 18.8 8.1 2.31 17.8 8.5 2.46 17.7 9.2
300 2.58 17.5 35.6 2.40 14.0 35.2 2.39 14.8 37.5 2.51 18.3 9.5 2.36 18.3 9.1 2.53 17.6 9.9
1020 2.60 15.9 36.3 2.43 13.7 36.8 2.47 13.6 38.9 2.43 19.1 10.6 2.45 18.1 9.9 2.56 17.8 10.7
4080 2.59 16.3 37.3 2.41 14.0 37.6 2.58 12.8 39.3 2.16 17.3 10.6 2.45 17.3 9.9 2.56 17.7 10.5
14400 2.61 21.0 36.5 2.46 17.9 36.9 2.67 17.6 37.4 2.44 17.2 10.5 2.34 16.5 10.6 2.62 17.7 10.9
Laboratory applied field and inclination values: 50 lT, 30°
10 1.12 21.3 5.9 1.34 22.2 7.5 1.78 22.2 9.0 1.51 18.9 3.7 1.06 17.9 3.3 0.86 17.1 2.6
20 2.35 22.4 11.8 2.25 22.2 13.2 2.60 23.1 15.6 2.17 19.5 5.6 1.79 18.9 5.1 1.71 19.1 4.9
30 3.03 24.0 18.6 2.84 22.8 21.3 3.09 22.0 22.8 2.34 19.9 6.3 2.25 18.5 6.7 2.40 19.0 6.5

(continued on next page)

5
 6
Table 1 (continued)

Time 2.0 cm diameter tubes 3.6 cm diameter tubes

(min)
Tube 1 Tube 2 Tube 3 Tube 1 Tube 2 Tube 3
Moment Inclination Height Moment Inclination Height Moment Inclination Height Moment Inclination Height Moment Inclination Height Moment Inclination Height
(A m2  10-6) (°) (mm) (A m2  10-6) (°) (mm) (A m2  10-6) (°) (mm) (A m2  10-6) (°) (mm) (A m2  10-6) (°) (mm) (A m2  10-6) (°) (mm)
60 3.19 22.6 23.0 2.87 21.9 23.6 3.15 21.6 25.3 2.81 19.5 7.7 2.59 18.5 7.9 2.81 19.1 8.4
120 3.46 24.7 30.2 3.14 22.2 30.7 3.39 21.3 31.4 3.06 19.8 9.0 2.78 19.7 9.2 3.03 19.7 9.1
180 3.51 23.9 32.5 3.20 22.2 32.7 3.42 20.9 33.4 3.21 20.2 9.0 2.84 19.8 9.5 3.12 19.6 9.4
240 3.51 23.1 33.9 3.20 22.3 33.9 3.46 21.6 34.0 3.05 19.6 9.7 2.86 19.0 9.9 3.19 19.4 10.1
300 3.54 24.2 34.7 3.25 22.3 34.1 3.45 22.2 35.0 3.11 19.0 9.9 2.90 18.4 10.3 3.11 18.6 10.4
1080 3.57 23.6 35.5 3.26 22.5 35.6 3.49 21.9 36.2 3.32 21.2 9.6 3.04 19.6 9.9 3.30 20.7 10.3
4080 3.66 24.2 36.2 3.34 23.9 36.4 3.61 23.8 36.8 3.49 20.6 9.7 3.23 20.3 9.8 3.57 21.0 10.7
14400 3.72 22.3 36.5 3.47 23.8 36.4 3.79 21.9 36.8 3.52 21.2 9.6 3.30 19.9 9.8 3.59 21.4 10.2
Laboratory applied field and inclination values: 100 lT, 30°
10 1.27 21.8 5.8 1.63 21.7 7.3 2.10 22.1 8.8 1.25 21.3 2.9 1.36 21.8 3.4 1.77 22.1 3.9
20 2.87 20.9 10.9 2.76 21.5 12.1 3.26 21.0 14.5 2.11 22.1 4.7 2.02 21.8 4.4 2.26 22.8 5.2
30 3.89 20.4 16.8 3.59 20.6 17.4 4.04 20.6 20.5 2.56 22.4 5.9 2.41 22.0 6.2 2.58 22.5 6.2
60 4.39 23.7 23.3 3.95 23.6 24.1 4.37 22.8 26.0 3.16 23.4 7.8 2.99 21.8 7.9 3.24 22.6 7.5
120 4.71 23.7 30.6 4.27 23.3 30.6 4.60 22.4 31.8 3.53 22.9 8.5 3.24 22.7 8.8 3.52 22.8 8.5
180 4.80 23.9 33.2 4.34 23.3 33.5 4.71 22.8 33.7 3.60 23.5 9.1 3.34 22.9 9.1 3.67 23.0 9.2
1080 4.86 23.8 35.8 4.44 23.2 35.7 4.77 22.7 36.3 3.78 23.2 9.5 3.45 23.5 10.0 3.84 23.1 10.2
4080 5.01 22.9 36.7 4.56 22.7 36.3 4.88 21.5 37.2 3.80 23.8 9.5 3.52 23.4 9.7 3.83 23.9 10.0
14400 4.98 23.8 36.2 4.53 23.0 36.5 4.81 22.4 37.1 3.88 23.5 9.6 3.54 23.1 9.7 3.92 23.5 9.9
Laboratory applied field and inclination values: 25 lT, 0°
10 0.74 2.2 5.7 0.63 0.0 8.2 0.35 1.2 89.8 0.48 2.8 2.7 0.48 1.6 2.8 0.97 1.2 3.5
20 1.72 3.0 15.0 1.11 5.7 17.9 0.44 1.1 74.1 0.97 1.6 4.2 0.93 1.0 4.3 1.48 1.0 4.9
30 1.97 1.9 18.5 1.43 5.2 21.2 0.36 0.7 62.5 1.26 0.5 5.4 1.17 0.2 5.4 1.75 0.9 5.8
60 2.22 1.9 26.9 1.85 3.2 27.9 0.41 0.2 54.5 1.43 1.4 7.3 1.56 0.0 7.2 2.13 0.9 7.7
120 2.41 2.0 31.8 1.63 5.5 33.9 0.54 0.8 48.1 2.06 2.1 8.2 1.81 1.7 7.9 2.33 0.9 9.0
180 2.36 0.7 34.0 1.23 5.1 38.3 0.37 0.1 57.2 2.30 2.1 8.3 2.14 1.6 8.3 2.41 1.3 9.1
300 2.54 0.1 36.3 1.48 7.6 39.3 0.65 0.6 50.0 2.41 1.3 8.7 2.28 0.6 8.8 2.49 0.9 9.5
1080 2.67 0.7 37.6 2.34 1.9 38.2 1.31 8.0 43.1 2.56 2.2 8.7 2.47 0.2 9.3 2.61 1.0 9.9
4080 2.70 0.7 37.7 2.45 2.7 37.6 1.98 9.7 40.9 2.55 1.0 9.5 2.40 1.5 9.7 2.70 0.1 9.9
14400 2.66 1.5 37.1 2.29 3.3 38.6 1.44 8.9 42.3 2.49 2.1 9.5 2.22 0.0 10.4 2.18 0.5 12.3
Laboratory applied field and inclination values: 50 lT, 0°
10 1.39 1.3 6.9 1.47 0.1 8.4 1.23 3.8 14.1 0.95 1.5 2.9 1.07 0.1 3.2 1.29 0.6 3.8
20 2.25 0.4 11.7 2.18 0.9 12.9 2.00 1.1 18.2 1.69 1.1 4.5 1.66 1.0 4.9 1.92 0.0 5.1
Author's personal copy

30 3.05 0.8 19.8 2.84 1.2 20.8 2.02 3.6 26.2 2.14 1.1 5.7 2.06 0.8 6.0 2.26 0.3 6.1
60 3.43 0.3 26.7 3.22 0.5 27.4 2.70 0.7 30.8 2.58 0.4 6.5 2.48 0.1 7.4 2.66 0.3 7.5
120 3.57 0.6 31.6 3.36 0.7 31.8 2.73 5.7 35.5 2.80 0.2 7.9 2.69 0.3 8.5 2.87 0.3 8.6
D. Bilardello et al. / Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors 214 (2013) 1–13

180 3.67 0.7 34.1 3.41 1.8 33.6 2.90 3.6 36.9 2.86 0.5 8.4 2.74 0.9 8.7 2.98 0.3 9.2
300 3.71 0.1 35.5 3.45 0.8 35.6 3.05 2.0 37.9 2.96 1.5 8.7 2.84 0.4 9.5 3.07 0.1 9.9
1080 3.74 0.2 36.9 3.46 0.3 36.8 2.93 2.8 40.6 3.03 1.7 9.3 2.94 0.4 9.5 3.15 0.2 10.2
4080 3.73 0.3 37.9 3.47 0.6 38.1 2.91 5.6 41.4 3.02 0.4 9.0 2.93 0.1 9.6 3.17 0.1 10.1
14400 3.46 9.1 38.7 3.50 6.4 39.3 3.22 1.5 42.0 3.07 0.7 9.4 2.92 0.8 9.5 3.22 0.4 9.7
Laboratory applied field and inclination values: 100 lT, 0°
4080 1.96 1.3 44.2 0.84 1.8 51.2 3.30 0.6 9.5 2.93 0.2 10.1 3.51 0.1 10.1
14400 4.45 0.1 39.2 3.16 5.5 41.6 0.64 2.3 65.3 3.25 0.5 9.5 3.11 0.5 9.5 3.50 0.3 10.0
 Author's personal copy

D. Bilardello et al. / Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors 214 (2013) 1–13 7

Fig. 3. Data from the deposition experiments conducted in 2.0 cm diameter tubes. Results are subdivided by total magnetic moment, recorded inclination and thickness
(height) of the sedimentary column. Experiments were carried out in three different applied field inclinations (IB) as indicated in each panel and in three different field
intensities as indicated in color. Circles, squares and triangles are data from the different tubes; thick lines are the average results from the three tubes.

Fig. 4. Data from the deposition experiments conducted in 3.6 cm diameter tubes. Results are subdivided by total magnetic moment, recorded inclination and thickness
(height) of the sedimentary column. Experiments were carried out in three different applied field inclinations (IB) as indicated in each panel and in three different field
intensities as indicated in color. Circles, squares and triangles are data from the different tubes; thick lines are the average results from the three tubes.
 Author's personal copy

8 D. Bilardello et al. / Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors 214 (2013) 1–13

Table 2 on inclination shallowing recognized that sediments composed of

Summary of the experimental and numerical results. From the data in Table 1, we ellipsoidal-shaped particles should experience more inclination
calculated the mean of the last three experimental steps for each of the three tubes,
and then took the average and single standard deviation (s.d.) of those three mean
shallowing than those composed of spheres (King, 1955; Griffiths
values. Abbreviations are: B, applied magnetic field intensity; M, magnetic moment in et al., 1960; King and Rees, 1966). Like Johnson et al. (1948) and
A m2; IR, remanent inclination (in °); IB, applied field inclination (in °). King (1955) we also observe a field dependence of the inclination
B (lT) M ± s.d. (106) IR ± s.d. IR/IB Thickness ± s.d.
error. One possibility is that this may be unique to spherical parti-
cles, for which rotation is proportional to field intensity, unlike for
2.0 cm diameter tubes
ellipsoids. Another explanation will be proposed in the following
IB 60° chapter.
25 2.16 ± 0.08 39.7 ± 2.1 0.7 37.9 ± 0.9
50 3.17 ± 0.12 48.7 ± 0.6 0.8 38.4 ± 0.4
100 4.33 ± 0.23 52.0 ± 0.5 0.9 37.8 ± 0.3 5. Comparison to numerical models
IB 30°
25 2.54 ± 0.09 15.9 ± 1.6 0.5 38.6 ± 1.0 We now assess the different phases of particle settling and DRM
50 3.55 ± 0.16 23.1 ± 0.5 0.8 37.5 ± 0.3
100 4.76 ± 0.23 22.9 ± 0.7 0.8 37.6 ± 0.4
acquisition numerically. We first estimate how fast particles settle,
and whether the measured sediment height is consistent with the
IB 0°
25 2.52 ± 0.22 1.1 ± 2.2 – 40.4 ± 2.5
numerical simulations of settling. Sediment height is a valuable
50 3.38 ± 0.32 0.9 ± 2.9 – 40.3 ± 2.0 independent control because, when comparing with the evolution
100 – – – – in magnetic moment, it confirms that a substantial fraction of
beads must fall individually, rather than in flocs. The settling rate
3.6 cm diameter tubes
also dictates how much time the particles have to orient in the field
IB 60° during their fall in the column or to be randomized by Brownian
25 2.28 ± 0.08 42.0 ± 0.8 0.7 11.2 ± 0.4
motion and mutual interactions. Through numerical simulation
50 3.38 ± 0.13 46.5 ± 0.8 0.8 11.3 ± 0.5
100 4.36 ± 0.29 50.7 ± 0.6 0.8 11.8 ± 0.3 of this process we show that the beads in the suspension are not
fully oriented by the field when they reach the substrate and that
IB 30°
25 2.45 ± 0.12 17.6 ± 0.3 0.6 11.9 ± 0.3 their inclinations can already be shallower than the field inclina-
50 3.37 ± 0.16 20.7 ± 0.6 0.7 11.4 ± 0.4 tion before hitting the bottom. Finally, using the model of Jezek
100 3.73 ± 0.20 23.4 ± 0.1 0.8 11.2 ± 0.2 et al. (2012), we establish that rolling and slipping on the substrate
IB 0° contributes significantly to inclination shallowing. Mutual magne-
25 2.46 ± 0.09 0.9 ± 0.7 – 11.3 ± 0.7 tostatic interactions of the spheres in our experiments are negligi-
50 3.05 ± 0.13 0.3 ± 0.5 – 11.0 ± 0.4 ble due to their low magnetizations and clumping plays no
100 3.27 ± 0.24 0.1 ± 0.5 – 11.2 ± 0.3
significant role in the shallowing process.
Experiments 3.6 diameter tubes Roll–Slip model
B (lT) IR f M Mrel IO f Mrel (100%)
5.1. Settling
50 (IB 60°) 46.5 0.61 3.38 0.22 48.1 0.64 0.48
50 (IB 30°) 20.7 0.65 3.37 0.22 20.4 0.64 0.60 At small Reynolds numbers, the falling velocity of spherical par-
50 (IB 0°) 00.3 – 3.05 0.20 00.4 – 0.66
ticles is given by the Stokes formula

gest that the magnetization acquisition process is concentration
dependent. The fact that the experiments of Tauxe and Kent
(1984), which had concentrations comparable to our large tubes,
yield more linear trends would suggest otherwise. However, one
must exercise caution since the hematite platelets present in their
experiments probably behave differently than spheres, and yield
different trends. Furthermore, because their experiments were
conducted for shorter durations, the magnetic moments may not
have been completely saturated.
2 ðq  qw Þgr 2
v ðrÞ ¼ ð1Þ
9 l
where q and qw are densities of the particle and water, r is particle
radius, l is viscosity and g is gravitational acceleration. The Stokes
velocity formula (Eq. (1)) should not be used for submicron particles
since they undergo Brownian motion (Stacey, 1972; Collinson,
1965; Allen, 2003), as discussed in detail below. The time needed
for a particle to fall from top to bottom of a water column of height
hT by this velocity is

tb ðrÞ ¼ hT =v ðrÞ ð2Þ

4.2. Recorded inclination
The results from our experiments unambiguously show a field
dependence on the inclination error (Fig. 5b). Like the moment
data, the change in inclination error with applied field can also
be globally described by a logarithmic-type function. Fig. 5c plots
the recorded inclination (IR) against the applied field inclination
(IB); the dashed lines correspond to different flattening factors (f)
ranging between 0.5 and 0.8. The range of sediment concentrations
(i.e., tube sizes) used in our study does not appear to systematically
influence the amount of inclination shallowing, consistent with the
findings of Blow and Hamilton (1978) and Barton et al. (1980). In
fact, the variability in the trends observed in Fig. 5 is unexpected,
yet must be considered inherent in the experiments since those
trends were reproducible in three different tubes.
Fig. 5b also plots the data of Tauxe and Kent (1984), where no
field dependence of the inclination error is observed. Early work
At tb, all particles of a given radius should be settled. Fig. 6 shows tb
as a function of particle radius (solid line). To take into account the
concentration of a sedimenting suspension, the velocity v can be
corrected by a multiplicative factor f/(t) = (1  /(t))n where /(t) is
particle volume fraction and n  5 (Richardson and Zaki, 1954;
Snabre et al., 2009):
v c ðr; tÞ ¼ v ðrÞf/ ðtÞ ð3Þ
The settling times computed using the corrected velocity vc and
initial concentration are shown in Fig. 6 for both 3.6 and 2.0 cm
tubes (dashed and dotted lines, respectively). Concentration de-
creases during settling and therefore a more realistic estimate of
the time at which all particles of a given radius are settled lies be-
tween the corrected curves (for t < 300 min) and Stokes’ curve. We
use the time tb defined by Eq. (2) as a reference value. The mea-
sured sediment height becomes nearly constant for times
 Author's personal copy

D. Bilardello et al. / Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors 214 (2013) 1–13 9

Fig. 5. Summary of the deposition results reported in Table 2. (A) Magnetic moment versus applied field intensity B (tube size and field inclination are specified). Results from
Tauxe and Kent (1984) are plotted for comparison (TK, moments scaled proportionately to this study). (B) Inclination error (IR/IB) as a function of B for experiments performed
in field inclinations (IB) of 30° and 60° (TK from Tauxe and Kent, 1984). (C) Applied field inclination (IB) versus measured field inclination (IR) for experiments carried out in 25,
50 and 100 lT. Large open and small solid symbols refer to 3.6 and 2.0 cm tubes, respectively. Dashed lines represent equal flattening factors [f = tan(IR)/tan(IB)], with f
ranging from 0.5 (more shallowing) to 0.8 (less shallowing).

V S ðtÞ
HS ðtÞ ¼ ð5Þ
Sfpack

where fpack is the packing ratio (the ratio of the volume of spheres to
the volume they occupy). Fig. 7 compares several estimates of HS(t)
obtained by numerical simulation [Eqs. (4) and (5)] with the sedi-
ment height observed experimentally. We use fpack = 0.55, which
corresponds to the porosity of random loose packing, consistent
with wet-packed porosities of synthetic sands with lognormal size
distributions (Weltje and Alberts, 2011). We assume there is negli-
gible compaction in the initial stages of sedimentation; initial pack-
ing would be lower if flocculation occurs. In Fig. 7, the curve
computed for fpack = 0.55 (Eq. (5)) almost reaches the average mea-

Fig. 6. Settling time (tb) for particles of different radii: solid line is the curve
according to Eq. (2); dashed and dotted lines correspond to the large (3.6 cm) and
small (2.0 cm) tubes, respectively, after correcting for particle concentration
(Richardson and Zaki, 1954).

>300 min, which according to Eq. (2) is approximately the time of

settling of particles having r  1.5 lm. We can thus assume that
the smallest particles never settle and remain in the column.
The total volume of settled particles increases in time as an
integral
Z t Z
V S ðtÞ ¼ S v c ðr; tÞf ðr; tÞdrdt
0 r
where S is the surface of the bottom and f(r,t) is the size distribution
of the sedimenting particles. Due to different settling velocities of
particles of different radii, the size distribution of the particles in
the column changes over time leading to a fining upward of sedi-
ment in the deposited material. Sedimenting spheres also create
pore spaces as they settle. The theoretical height of sediment in a
tube is therefore
ð4Þ
Fig. 7. Theoretical settling curves compared to experimental measurements.
Experimental data are shown by solid points (blue for large and red for small
tubes), white circles are the mean values. Thick black lines show how the
sedimentation of individual beads should proceed according to Stokes’ velocity
corrected by the instantaneous concentration and random loose packing (packing
ratio fpack = 0.55). The shaded area is defined by an interval of fpack from 0.50 to 0.55.
Dashed lines were computed by allowing spheres of radii r < 4 lm to fall in flocs of
size 5 lm. Thick solid blue or red lines correspond to shortened floc-existence
times (see text for details). (For interpretation of the references to color in this
figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
 Author's personal copy
10 D. Bilardello et al. / Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors 214 (2013) 1–13
sured heights for the 3.6 cm tubes and is visibly lower for the 2.0 cm
tubes. The area between this curve and the curve for 10% lower
packing (fpack = 0.50) includes the mean values, except for the first
time step in the 3.6 cm tubes and the first three time steps for the
2.0 cm tubes.
We also tested the possibility that particles fall in flocs that
could be inherited from imperfect disaggregation of the sediment
from the previous experiment and/or from clumping of particles
during the fall. This may particularly occur in the 2.0 cm tubes,
which possess 3.9 times higher concentrations than the 3.6 cm
tubes. If we hypothesize, for example, that all particles of radii
r < 4 lm fall in flocs of 5 lm radii (we use fpack = 0.55 and Eq. (1)
with a corresponding change of radius and density) we obtain a
curve that fits the mean heights for the initial time steps
(620 min) but overshoots the points at higher time steps (dashed
lines in Fig. 7). A better agreement can be attained by limiting
the existence of flocs to a short interval at the beginning of the
experiments. By allowing flocs to exist for 10 min, and then to set-
tle as individual particles, we obtain a very good agreement with
the average measured sedimentation heights. We also obtain a rea-
sonably good fit when we let only one-half the number of particles
of radii r < 4 lm fall in flocs for 20 min and then sediment as indi-
vidual spheres. However, further decreasing the number of parti-
cles in flocs and allowing those flocs to exist over longer times
(e.g., 1/5 of particles in aggregates for the first 60 min) yields
poorer fits. These numerical experiments show that we cannot re-
ject the possibility for the existence of flocs in our experiments,
especially in the 2.0 cm tubes. Nevertheless, a substantial fraction
of the beads must fall individually. This is supported by the fact
that the accumulation of magnetic moment in the 3.6 cm tubes
mimics well the height (and volume) accumulation curves. On
the other hand, the moment accumulates faster than the height
in the 2.0 cm tubes, which could be caused by falling flocs. This ef-
fect will be assessed below.
5.2. Magnetization in the column
Rotation of spherical particles by torque from the magnetic field
is expressed as
d# mV B 1 Davis (1992) and Zhao and Davis (2002) studied the situation
¼ sin # ¼  sin #
dt 6l sm
where # is angle between the particle’s magnetic moment and the
field direction, mV is the particle’s magnetization and B is the field
intensity (Nagata, 1961). The characteristic aligning time (sm) lasts
seconds to minutes (Nagata, 1961; Shcherbakov and Shcherbakova,
1983; Jezek and Gilder, 2006). sm corresponding to our experiments
is 18, 36 and 72 s for B of 100, 50 and 25 lT, respectively. These
characteristic times can be compared to the falling time through
the tube (tb) and to the Brownian relaxation time, sB = 3 Vl/kT (De-
bye, 1929), which indicates how fast an aligned system becomes
randomized in a zero field. When sB > sm, particle rotation into
the magnetic field direction is significantly disturbed. The transition
between Brownian and magnetic field dominated rotation occurs
with beads of r  2 lm at 100 lT and r  3 lm at 25 lT (Fig. 8). Par-
ticles have enough time to be aligned by the field when tb > sm for
all radii, except during the initial stages when the larger particles
close to the bottom have insufficient time to become fully oriented.
If we permit the presence of flocs, as indicated in the previous
discussion of settling, their orientation with the field can also be
roughly assessed by Eq. (5). For example, 5 lm-radii flocs with
about 50% porosity will take 60 min to settle (tb). If the flocs were
pre-formed due to the incomplete disaggregation of the substrate
material from the previous experiment, their magnetizations
would correspond to that observed experimentally, being about
Fig. 8. Comparison of the role of Brownian motion (characteristic time, sB), field
alignment (characteristic time sm) and settling (tb) for the conditions in this study.
Particles with radii <2 lm are influenced by Brownian motion, above 3 lm,
alignment by the magnetic field prevails.
7–16% of the magnetization of beads. The characteristic aligning
time sm for these flocs would be between 2 and 17 min, depending
on the field strength. Before reaching the bottom, such flocs may be
preferentially oriented parallel to the field direction—especially if
they were inherited since the moments of the individual grains
would be aligned. Due to their rugged surface, the flocs may either
be immobilized when they hit the surface and preserve the pre-
ferred orientation, or they may roll as a whole. This effect would
explain the faster moment accumulation and the larger variability
in inclination observed in the 2.0 cm tubes.
From the characteristic times of the individual beads, one ex-
pects that they are well oriented with the field direction when
approaching the bottom. However, the beads will interact during
their fall. Larger spheres that fall faster will collide with smaller
beads below them, and both will be deflected. A larger particle of
radius R may hit on average n number of smaller particles of radius
r per second, given as:
n ¼ pðR þ rÞ2 ðv ðRÞ  v ðrÞÞcðrÞ ð6Þ
ð5Þ when a faster sphere falls past another in low Reynolds number
fluids. They considered two cases: one of rigid body rotation where
spheres rotate together before splitting, and a second of mutual
rolling with possible slipping after the maximum friction force is
reached. The second, roll-slip, model provided a better fit to their
experimental data and will therefore be used here. In this model,
the larger (L) and smaller (S) particles rotate by different angular
velocities whose ratio is
xL b1 þ c1 minð1; cot h= cot hS Þ
¼ ð7Þ
xS b2 þ c2 minð1; cot h= cot hS Þ
where b1, b2, c1, and c2 are given by means of the two-sphere mobil-
ity functions of Jeffrey and Onishi (1984), and h is the angle between
the line of centers of the two spheres and the vertical, i.e., the
instantaneous slope. hS is a threshold angle. For angles h < hS,
spheres roll without slipping; slipping occurs when h P hS. Zhao
and Davis (2002) found that realistic values of hS are 15–30°, which
is also supported by experimental and theoretical evaluation of
spheres rolling down an inclined plane (Smart et al., 1993; Galvin
et al., 2001; Zhao et al., 2002).
A numerical model of the magnetization in the column was
constructed as follows. We consider a multi-particle system com-
posed of particles of radii r = 3, . . . , 11 lm (particles smaller than
3 lm are not considered as they are influenced by Brownian mo-
tion). The initial particle size distribution corresponds to our
 Author's personal copy

D. Bilardello et al. / Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors 214 (2013) 1–13 11

experiments, and then the size distribution evolves in time accord-
ing to Eq. (4). At each time step, particles are oriented by the mag-
netic field (Eq. (5)) and disoriented by collision. The number of hits
is given by Eq. (6). Each interaction causes both particles to rotate
around a horizontal axes. The larger particle can hit the smaller one
at any position on its upper hemisphere (determined randomly)
that in turn defines the angle h, the azimuth of the rotation axis,
and the amount of rotation (Eq. (7)). We use hS = 25° and the ratio
of slipping to rolling 0.5. This means that for h < 25° (when a larger
particle hits a small one close to its top), particles fully rotate, and
for h > 25° (when a larger particle hits a small one more to its side),
particles half rotate and half slip.
This model provides an estimate for the magnetization of the
suspension in the column before reaching the substrate. Results
of the simulations (Fig. 9) indicate that (1) the particles are not
fully oriented with the magnetic field, (2) the inclination is shal-
lower than expected, and (3) there exists a significant field depen-
dency on the magnetization and inclination. Because equation (6)
also accounts for concentration, there is a clear difference between
the two tube-sizes, with the 2.0 cm tubes showing lower moments.
It is probable that mutual interactions in the column, especially in
the 2.0 cm tubes with higher concentrations, leads to rolling and
slipping processes away from the ideal case described by the above
model. But even if rolling and slipping only partially occurs, the re-
sults from the 2.0 cm tubes will still be more influenced, yielding
lower net moments and shallower inclinations when arriving at
the substrate. This in turn should contribute to lower moments
and shallower inclinations upon final deposition. Note that, be-
cause the mutual rotation of colliding spheres proceeds around
horizontal rotation axes, the nature of inclination shallowing in
the column is similar to the Griffiths et al. (1960) model of inclina-
tion shallowing.
5.3. Rolling and slipping on the substrate
King (1955) assumed that spherical particles deposited on a
substrate will correctly record the field inclination, whereas Grif-
fiths et al. (1960) showed that spherical particles hitting the bot-
tom roll equally in all directions, thus producing inclination
shallowing. However, the model of Griffiths et al. (1960) is limited
by not-knowing a representative value of the angle of rotation –
this ambiguity persists until today; moreover, they considered only
populations of equi-dimensional spheres. To overcome these pit-
falls we constructed an algorithm that treats random sedimenta-
tion with rolling and slipping spherical particles (Jezek et al.,
2012). Here we briefly describe the model and its implications to
our experiments.
We generate spherical particles in random x, y and z coordinates
above a substrate and allow them to fall until they hit previously
deposited spheres (Fig. 10). Depending on the geometry of the
spheres on the substrate and where the descending particle
encounters the substrate, several scenarios are possible concerning

Fig. 9. Results from numerical simulations of the suspension above the substrate. Thick lines are for 3.6 cm tubes, thin lines for 2.0 cm tubes. Green, blue and red correspond
to fields 25, 50 and 100 lT, respectively. Field inclination in this case was 60°. Mr is the magnetization relative to the saturation value; IO is the observed inclination.

Fig. 10. Random sedimentation of spherical particles of variable sizes.

 Author's personal copy
12 D. Bilardello et al. / Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors 214 (2013) 1–13
how/if the particle will roll according to the geometry of the bot-
tom layer. The end result occurs when the sedimenting sphere ar-
rives at a stable position (stops moving), supported by at least
three stationary spheres, and becomes embedded into the sub-
strate. By repeatedly solving the equations of mutual contact of
two or more spheres, we track the sphere’s path and record the
magnetic vector upon cessation of motion. This is done for tens
of thousands of particles.
Not only do the particles roll, but they can also slide. As de-
scribed above we define slipping by means of the threshold angle
hS and the ratio of slipping to rolling when the angle hS is exceeded
(see Jezek et al. (2012) for a detailed description). In the simula-
tions we used hS = 25° and the ratio of slipping to rolling equals
0.5, as in Section 5.2.
Repeated simulations of this model show that a characteristic
value of the inclination shallowing factor (f) is on the order of 0.6
(simulations with equal-sized spheres produced a standard devia-
tion of 0.02). Interestingly, f  0.6 also holds valid for spherical
populations with non-equal radii, including uniform (i.e., same
number of spheres of given r) and exponential size-distributions.
The latter can be taken as an end member for our experiments.
Note that the model is sequential in that each sphere stops rolling
before another one falls. There is no influence of the sphere’s
momentum. A falling or depositing sphere on the substrate cannot
displace another sphere, cause avalanches, etc.
In the lower part of Table 2 we compare the average measured
inclination, IR, and relative moment (Mrel) in the large tubes for
IB = 60° with those predicted by the roll-slip model. In these simu-
lations all beads were perfectly oriented parallel to the field before
reaching the substrate and then subjected to rolling and slipping.
Therefore the results reflect the separate role of rolling and sliding
on the substrate. The inclinations are well predicted, but the model
yields higher relative moments than the experimental values.
However, it was shown above that particles are not fully aligned
with the field when they reach the bottom, so the moment given
in Table 2 must be lowered accordingly, which will be different
for small and large tubes. Although the moment and inclination
of the suspension above the substrate are influenced more in the
small tubes than in the large ones (Fig. 9), proportional to particle
concentration, the situation is reversed on the substrate—the high-
er concentration of the small tubes restricts rolling and sliding
more than in the large tubes. Both processes are complementary
(counteracting), which can partly explain small differences ob-
served between results from the large and small tubes.
To summarize the numerical models, we find that one factor con-
trolling the observed field dependence on both moment and inclina-
tion originates while the particles are in the water column due to
mutual interaction. An additional process is the reorientation by
magnetic torque of particles lying on the surface before they are bur-
ied by newly falling particles. During slipping, the spheres can reori-
ent to the field direction in response to the field. Furthermore, the
proportion of particles controlled by Brownian motion is also
field-dependent (Fig. 8). Finally, stable recorded moments and incli-
nations over longer time scales show that realignment of particles in
the substrate seems to be inhibited or very restricted by grain–grain
contact; pDRM effects, if present, are hardly discernible.
6. Conclusions
Our experimental set up was designed to examine the remanent
magnetization acquisition process during sedimentation of solely
spherical particles in the absence of flocculation. These experi-
ments and numerical models represent an end-member of a myr-
iad of potential natural scenarios, yet they highlight how spherical
particles, in particular, should behave in the natural environment.
The main results can be summarized as follows: (1) For two differ-
ent diameters of settling tubes, the detrital remanent magnetiza-
tion increases then plateaus at a nearly constant level as the
settling time increases. (2) With few exceptions, the measured sed-
iment inclination is shallower than the ambient field inclination
from the outset of the experiment, i.e. at the shortest settling
times. No discernible change in inclination is observed as the set-
tling time increases. Inclination shallowing is similar to what is ob-
served for natural sediments, with a flattening factor of about
f = 0.6; e.g., sediments composed entirely of spherical particles
can produce inclination shallowing, on the order observed in nat-
ure. (3) The amount of inclination shallowing generally follows
the King (1955) tangent-tangent relationship with respect to the
magnetic field inclination. Moreover, the degree of inclination
shallowing depends on the field strength, with less shallowing
for stronger magnetic fields.
Through numerical modeling, we improved upon the model of
Griffiths et al. (1960) by calculating the amount of rotation pro-
duced by mutual interaction of spherical particles in the column
and their rolling on a surface created by randomly falling particles.
A roll/slip model (Zhao and Davis, 2002) of particle interaction in
the column and on the sediment–water interface accounts for low-
er moments and inclinations than otherwise predicted in the ab-
sence of particle interaction. The importance of rolling is damped
as field intensity increases, which in turn leads to less inclination
shallowing and heightened magnetization. It is possible that the
flocculation process restricts rolling, hence limits the field depen-
dency on inclination shallowing. Compaction ill explains the
relationship between volume of accumulated material and acquisi-
tion of remanence in our experiments. On the other hand, the roll/
slip formulation predicts a difference in moment acquisition and
inclination shallowing between the two tube diameters, as the
concentration and likelihood to collide is higher in tubes with
smaller diameters. However, the concentration in the small tubes
may exceed the applicable limit of the roll/slip model as multiple
interactions restrict rotational freedom. If true, experiments using
lower concentrations (e.g., 3 g of sediment in the 3.6 cm diameter
tubes) should find higher (relative) moments and lower amounts
of inclination shallowing.
Future deposition experiments should monitor accumulation
rates and use multiple tubes to assess data reproducibility. Tem-
peratures should be held constant during the entire span of the
experiments. The relative contribution of different factors or con-
tributions from the processes involved (rolling, flocculating, hit-
ting, etc.) could be determined experimentally by varying the
concentration and the size-distribution in future experiments.
Experiments employing strictly oblate particles may become feasi-
ble in the near future with the emergence of techniques to grow
hematite grains with narrow size distributions and provide an
alternative end-member to the inclination shallowing problem.
Acknowledgements
Funding from the national science agencies of Germany and the
Czech Republic supported this project (Grants DFG GI712/3-1,
GACR 205/09/J028 and MSM0021620855). Jessica Till kindly
performed the FORC measurements at the Institute for Rock
Magnetism. We thank Ramon Egli and Michael Winklhofer for
stimulating discussions. We also thank Mark J. Dekkers and an
anonymous reviewer for comments that improved the manuscript.
References
Allen, T., 2003. Powder Sampling and Particle Size Determination. Elsevier (600pp).
Arason, P., Levi, S., 1990. Compaction and inclination shallowing in deep sea
sediments from the Pacific Ocean. J. Geophys. Res. 95, 4501–4510.
 Author's personal copy
D. Bilardello et al. / Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors 214 (2013) 1–13
Barton, C.E., McElhinny, M.W., Edwards, D.J., 1980. Laboratory studies of
depositional DRM. Geophys. J. R. Astron. Soc. 61, 355–377.
Bleil, U., von Dobeneck, T., 1999. Geomagnetic events and relative paleointensity
records – clues to high resolution paleomagnetic chronostratigraphies of late
quaternary marine sediments. In: Fischer, G., Wefer, G. (Eds.), Use of Proxies in
Paleoceanography: Examples from the South Atlantic. Springer, Berlin
Heidelberg, pp. 635–654.
Blow, R.A., Hamilton, N., 1978. Effect of compaction on the acquisition of a detrital
remanent magnetization in fine-grained sediments. Geophys. J. R. Astron. Soc.
52, 13–23.
Collinson, D.W., 1965. DRM in sediments. J. Geophys. Res. 70, 4663–4668.
Davis, R.H., 1992. Effects of surface roughness on a sphere sedimenting through a
dilute suspension neutrally buoyant spheres. Phys. Fluids A 4, 2607–2619.
Day, R., Fuller, M., Schmidt, V.A., 1977. Hysteresis properties of titanomagnetites:
Grain-size and compositional dependence. Phys. Earth Planet. Int. 13, 260–267.
Deamer, G., Kodama, K.P., 1990. Compaction-induced inclination shallowing in
synthetic and natural clay-rich sediments. J. Geophys. Res. B 95, 4511–4529.
Debye, P., 1929. Polar Molecules. Dover, 172pp.
Dunlop, D.J., Özdemir, Ö., 1997. Rock Magnetism: Fundamentals and Frontiers.
Cambridge Studies in Magnetism, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 573
pp.
Ellwood, B., 1979. Particle Flocculation: One possible control on the magnetization
of deep-sea sediments. Geophys. Res. Lett. 6, 237–240.
Galvin, K.P., Zhao, Y., Davis, R.H., 2001. Time-averaged hydrodynamic roughness of a
noncolloidal sphere in low Reynolds number motion down an inclined plane.
Phys. Fluids 13, 3108–3120.
Griffiths, D.H., King, R.F., Rees, A.I., Wright, A.E., 1960. Remanent magnetism of some
recent varved sediments. Proc. R. Soc. A 256, 359–383.
Irving, E., Major, A., 1964. Post-depositional remanent magnetization in a synthetic
sediment. Sedimentology 3, 135–143.
Jeffrey, D.J., Onishi, Y., 1984. Calculation of the resistance and mobility functions for
two unequal rigid spheres in low-Reynolds-number flow. J. Fluid Mech. 139,
261–290.
Jezek, J., Gilder, S.A., 2006. Competition of magnetic and hydrodynamic forces on
ellipsoidal particles under shear: influence of the Earth’s magnetic field on
particle alignment in viscous media. J. Geophys. Res. 111, B12S123. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1029/2006JB004541.
Jezek, J., Gilder, S.A., Bilardello, D., 2012. Numerical simulation of inclination
shallowing by rolling and slipping of spherical particles. Comput. Geosci..
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cageo.2012.06.013.
Johnson, E.A., Murphy, T., Torreson, O.W., 1948. Pre-history of the Earth’s magnetic
field. Terr. Magn. Atm. Elect. 53, 349–372.
Katari, K., Bloxhamm, J., 2001. Effects of sediment aggregate size on DRM intensity:
a new theory. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 186, 113–122.
Katari, K., Tauxe, L., 2000. Effects of pH and salinity on the intensity of
magnetization in redeposited sediments. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 181, 489–496.
Katari, K., Tauxe, L., King, J., 2000. A reassessment of post-depositional remanent
magnetism: preliminary experiments with natural sediments. Earth Planet. Sci.
Lett. 183, 147–160.
Kent, D.V., 1973. Post-depositional remanent magnetisation in deep-sea sediment.
Nature 246, 32–34.
Kestin, J., Sokolov, M., Wakeham, W.A., 1978. Viscosity of liquid water in range 8
to 150 °C. J. Phys. Chem. Ref. Data 7 (3), 941–948.
King, R.F., 1955. The remanent magnetism of artificially deposited sediments. Mon.
Notic. R. Astron. Soc. Geophys. Suppl. 7, 115–134.
King, R.F., Rees, A.I., 1966. Detrital magnetizationin sediments: an examination of
some theoretical models. J. Geophys. Res. 71, 561–571.
Løvlie, R., 1974. Post-depositional remanent magnetization in a re-deposited deep-
sea sediment. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 21, 315–320.
Løvlie, R., 1976. The intensity pattern of post-depositional remanence acquired in
some marine sediments deposited during a reversal of the external magnetic
field. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 30 (2), 209–214.
Løvlie, R., Torsvik, T., 1984. Magnetic remanence and fabric properties of laboratory-
deposited hematite-bearing red sandstone. Geophys. Res. Lett. 11, 221–224.
Lu, R., Banerjee, S., Marvin, J., 1990. Effects of clay mineralogy and the electrical
conductivity of water in the acquisition of depositional remanent magnetism in
sediments. J. Geophys. Res. B 95, 4531–4538.
Mitra, R., Tauxe, L., 2009. Full vector model for magnetization in sediments. Earth
Planet. Sci. Lett. 286, 535–545.
13
Nagata, T., 1961. Rock Magnetism. Maruzen, Tokyo (348pp).
Opdyke, N.D., 1961. The paleomagnetism of the New Jersey Triassic: A field study of
the inclination error in red sediments. J. Geophys. Res. 66, 1941–1949.
Quidelleur, X., Valet, J.P., LeGoff, M., Bouldoire, X., 1995. Field dependence on
magnetization of laboratory-redeposited deep-sea sediments: first results.
Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 133, 311–325.
Rees, A.I., 1961. The effect of water currents on the magnetic remanence and
anisotropy of susceptibility of some sediments. Geophys. J. R. Astron. Soc. 5,
235–251.
Richardson, J.F., Zaki, W.N., 1954. Sedimentation and fluidisation: part 1. Trans. Inst.
Chem. Eng. 32, 35–53.
Roberts, A., Winklhofer, M., 2004. Why are geomagnetic excursions not always
recorded in sediments? Constraints from post-depositional remanent
magnetization lock-in modeling. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 227, 345–359.
Roberts, A.P., Pike, C.R., Verosub, K.L., 2000. First-order reversal curve diagrams: a
new tool for characterizing the magnetic properties of natural samples. J.
Geophys. Res. 105 (29), 461–475.
Shcherbakov, V., Shcherbakova, V., 1983. On the theory of depositional remanent
magnetization in sedimentary rocks. Geophys. Surv. 5, 369–380.
Shcherbakov, V., Shcherbakova, V., 1987. On the physics of acquisition of post-
depositional remanent magnetization. Phys. Earth Planet. Inter. 46, 64–70.
Shcherbakov, V., Sycheva, N.K., 2008. Flocculation mechanism of the acquisition of
remanent magnetization by sedimentary rocks. Phys. Solid Earth 44, 804–815.
Shcherbakov, V., Sycheva, N.K., 2010. On the mechanism of formation of
depositional remanent magnetization. Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst. 11, 2.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2009GC002830.
Shive, P.N., 1985. Alignment of magnetic grains in fluids. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 72,
117–124.
Smart, J.R., Beimfohr, S., Leighton, D.T., 1993. Measurement of the translational and
rotational velocities of a noncolloidal sphere rolling down a smooth inclined
plane at low Reynolds number. Phys. Fluids A5, 13–24.
Snabre, P., Pouligny, B., Metayer, C., Nadal, F., 2009. Size segregation and particle
velocity fluctuations in settling concentrated suspensions. Rheol. Acta 48, 855–
870.
Stacey, F.D., 1972. On the role of Brownian motion in the control of detrital
remanent magnetization in sediments. Pure Appl. Geophys. 98, 139–145.
Sun, W.W., Kodama, K.P., 1992. Magnetic anisotropy, scanning electron microscopy,
and X-ray pole figure goniometry study of inclination shallowing in a
compacting clay-rich sediment. J. Geophys. Res. 97, 9599–9615.
Tarling, D.H., Turner, P., 1999. Palaeomagnetism and Diagnesis in Sediments, vol.
151. Geol. Soc. London, Spec. Publ., 306pp.
Tauxe, L., Kent, D.V., 1984. Properties of a detrital remanence carried by hematite
from study of modern river deposits and laboratory redeposition experiments.
Geophys. J. R. Astron. Soc. 77, 543–561.
Tauxe, L., Steindorf, J.L., Harris, A., 2006. Depositional remanent magnetization:
toward an improved theoretical and experimental foundation. Earth Planet. Sci.
Lett. 244, 515–529.
Tucker, P., 1980. A grain mobility model of post-depositional realignment. Geophys.
J. R. Astron. Soc. 63, 149–163.
Van Vreumingen, M.J., 1993a. The magnetization intensity of some artificial
suspensions while flocculating in a magnetic field. Geophys. J. Int. 114, 601–
606.
Van Vreumingen, M.J., 1993b. The influence of salinity and flocculation upon the
acquisition of remanent magnetization in some artificial sediments. Geophys. J.
Int. 114, 607–614.
Verosub, K.L., 1977. Depositional and postdepositional processes in the
magnetization of sediments. Rev. Geophys. Space Phys. 15 (2), 129–143.
Verosub, K.L., Ensley, R.A., Ulrick, J.S., 1979. The role of water content in the
magnetization of sediments. Geophys. Res. Lett. 6, 226–228.
Von Dobeneck, T., 1996. A systematic analysis of natural magnetic mineral
assemblages based on modelling hysteresis loops with coercivity-related
hyperbolic basis functions. Geophys. J. Int. 124, 675–694.
Weltje, G.J., Alberts, L.J.H., 2011. Packing states of ideal reservoir sands: Insights
from simulation of porosity reduction by grain rearrangement. Sed. Geol. 242,
52–64.
Zhao, Y., Davis, R.H., 2002. Interaction of two touching spheres in a viscous fluid.
Chem. Eng. Sci. 57, 1997–2006.
Zhao, Y., Galvin, K.P., Davis, R.H., 2002. Motion of a sphere down a rough plane in a
viscous fluid. Int. J. Multiph. Flow 28, 1787–1800.