A unified erosion formulation for fine sediments

Sanford, Lawrence P.; Maa, Jerome P.‐Y.

doi:10.1016/s0025-3227(01)00201-8

Cited by 286 publications

(291 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

274

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The numbers re ported in this study and that of Cromey et al (2002a,b) are similar to other published values for floc erosion (Amos et al 1997, Thomsen & Gust 2000, Law et al 2008). More consolidated cohesive sea beds have higher τ crit values, ranging from 0.03 to 0.08 Pa (Sanford & Maa 2001, Stevens et al 2007, Dickhudt et al 2010, Wiberg et al 2013. In the present study, material first eroded at 0.01 Pa, but the bulk of waste material mass resuspended at the subsequent erosion stress step of 0.08 Pa (Fig.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 46%

“…4 represents the CME for salmon waste material eroded as a function of increasing shear stress. Other studies of sediment transport have presented their results in this manner to look at changing erosion patterns with increasing shear (Sanford & Maa 2001, Stevens et al 2007, Dickhudt et al 2010, Wiberg et al 2013. The difference between this study and those mentioned above, which primarily looked at the erosion of cohesive seabeds, is that at > 0.32 Pa shear in this study, there was no longer the increase in the erosion of bottom material that was found in the other studies (Fig.…”

Section: Substrate Typementioning

confidence: 61%

“…In addition, a DEPOMOD prediction is included based on elapsed time and an erodibility parameter of 7.0 × 10 −7 kg m −2 s −1 (Cromey et al 2002a,b). The dark blue line describes the actual data of Maa et al (1998) which is described in detail in Sanford & Maa (2001) and is included for comparison to this study seabed. The values of M ranged over an order of magnitude from ~1.3 × 10 −6 kg m −2 s −1 for the mud substrate to 4.5 × 10 −8 kg m −2 s −1 for the cobble substrate for the erosion of salmon waste material (Table 1).…”

Section: Erodibility Parameter (M)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The values of M ranged over an order of magnitude from ~1.3 × 10 −6 kg m −2 s −1 for the mud substrate to 4.5 × 10 −8 kg m −2 s −1 for the cobble substrate for the erosion of salmon waste material (Table 1). M ranged from 2−8 × 10 −6 kg m −2 s −1 in the study of Sanford & Maa (2001), which is a re-analysis of Maa et al (1998), to 1.4 × 10 −6 kg m −2 s −1 in the study of Sanford et al (1991), to 7.0 × 10 −7 kg m −2 s −1 in the DEPOMOD study of Cromey et al (2002a). The erosion studies of Maa et al (1998) and Sanford & Maa (2001) were generally performed on muddy cohesive seabeds while the study of Cromey et al (2002b) used synthetic tracer beds of similar size and settling velocity to represent aquaculture fecal material.…”

Section: Erodibility Parameter (M)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Wave and current stress exerted on the seabed provide the work necessary to erode particles from the seabed, whereas particle size and mass, bed roughness, cohesion, porosity, consolidation, and biological activity control the erosion resistance of the seabed (Amos et al 1992, 1997, Maa et al 1998, Sanford & Maa 2001, Wiberg et al 2013. Overall understanding of cohesive sediment resuspension is incomplete because it is governed by not only hydrodynamic forces and the force of gravity, but also by cohesion, which depends on biological and electrochemical variables (Black et al 2002, Droppo et al 2007).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Erodibility of aquaculture waste from different bottom substrates

Law¹,

Hill²,

Milligan³

et al. 2016

Aquacult. Environ. Interact.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A laboratory study was carried out to examine the effect of bed sediment texture on the erodibility of salmon aquaculture waste fecal material and salmon feed pellets. Erodibility measurements of this material were made using a Gust microcosm erosion chamber and artificially composed substrates of mud, sand, sand and gravel, sand and cobble, and cobble. Results show that cumulative mass eroded (CME) and erodibility constant (M) can vary by up to an order of magnitude depending on substrate composition, with a mud substrate having higher CME and M values than those of substrates composed of sand, gravel and cobble. Findings from this study suggest that bottom sediment texture plays a major role in aquaculture waste resuspension and subsequent transport and that predictive models of the transport of aquaculture waste should include the erosion dynamics of bottom texture.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 46%

Section: Substrate Typementioning

confidence: 61%

Section: Erodibility Parameter (M)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Erodibility Parameter (M)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Erodibility of aquaculture waste from different bottom substrates

Law¹,

Hill²,

Milligan³

et al. 2016

Aquacult. Environ. Interact.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Analysis and modeling of gully headcut dynamics, North American high plains

Rengers

Tucker

2014

J. Geophys. Res. Earth Surf.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Gullies are dynamic fluvial features that can be the primary driver for landscape dissection and sediment production in many settings. This research exploits a well-constrained field area near West Bijou Creek, Colorado, U.S., in order to develop a natural experiment in which we explore gully headcut erosion rates, the controls on gully headcut height, and the morphology of gully longitudinal profiles. Analysis of headcut retreat using aerial photography and airborne lidar imagery indicates that headcut retreat rates correlate with the square root of drainage area approximately. We investigate how a drainage area control on headcut retreat translates into the longitudinal profile morphology over time using a simple numerical model. The model combines fluvial erosion, deposition, and headcut retreat to identify the necessary and sufficient conditions needed to reproduce longitudinal profiles observed in the field. Field profiles are typically concave-upward, predominantly aggradational channel profiles with retreating headcuts whose height varies with catchment position. Systematic variation of environmental parameters in the model showed that the most successful model was achieved when highly resistant vegetation is applied throughout the channel, excluding a bare soil zone downstream of the headcut. This model scenario maintained an abrupt headcut over hundreds of model years and produced a realistic longitudinal profile that aggrades downstream of the headcut over time. The vegetation pattern used in the best model fit is observed at the field site, where easily erodible, sparsely vegetated soil downstream of the headcut grades into a more resistant grassy channel downstream.

show abstract

Formation of fine sediment deposit from a flash flood river in the Mediterranean Sea

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We identify the mechanisms controlling fine deposits on the inner-shelf in front of the Besos River, in the northwestern Mediterranean Sea. This river is characterized by a flash flood regime discharging large amounts of water (more than 20 times the mean water discharge) and sediment in very short periods lasting from hours to few days. Numerical model output was compared with bottom sediment observations and used to characterize the multiple spatial and temporal scales involved in offshore sediment deposit formation. A high-resolution (50 m grid size) coupled hydrodynamic-wave-sediment transport model was applied to the initial stages of the sediment dispersal after a storm-related flood event. After the flood, sediment accumulation was predominantly confined to an area near the coastline as a result of preferential deposition during the final stage of the storm. Subsequent reworking occurred due to wave-induced bottom shear stress that resuspended fine materials, with seaward flow exporting them toward the midshelf. Wave characteristics, sediment availability, and shelf circulation determined the transport after the reworking and the final sediment deposition location. One year simulations of the regional area revealed a prevalent southwestward average flow with increased intensity downstream. The circulation pattern was consistent with the observed fine deposit depocenter being shifted southward from the river mouth. At the southern edge, bathymetry controlled the fine deposition by inducing near-bottom flow convergence enhancing bottom shear stress. According to the shortterm and long-term analyses, a seasonal pattern in the fine deposit formation is expected.

show abstract

A unified erosion formulation for fine sediments

Cited by 286 publications

References 38 publications

Erodibility of aquaculture waste from different bottom substrates

Erodibility of aquaculture waste from different bottom substrates

Analysis and modeling of gully headcut dynamics, North American high plains

Formation of fine sediment deposit from a flash flood river in the Mediterranean Sea

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About