Changes in Streambank Erodibility and Critical Shear Stress Due to Subaerial Processes

Henderson, Marc; Wynn, T. M.; Vaughan, D. H.

doi:10.13031/2013.20724

Cited by 4 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 47 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The test duration for Hanson and Simon's study was 120 min with a 10 min sampling interval, compared to a 45 min test duration for this study, with scour readings taken every 5 min. Because the soils on the streambank surface are exposed to weathering, they tend to be more erodible (Wynn and Mostaghimi, 2006b;Henderson et al, 2006); thus, shorter test times may result in higher k d estimates because the more resistant soils deeper in the streambank are not reached during the shorter test duration. Field validation of these methods over a wide range of soil types is recommended to further develop methods of estimating k d for streambank soils.…”

Section: Comparison Of Soil Erodibility Estimatesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Methods for Determining Streambank Critical Shear Stress and Soil Erodibility: Implications for Erosion Rate Predictions

Clark¹,

Wynn²

2007

Transactions of the ASABE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

According to the U.S. EPA, excess sediment is a significant cause of water quality impairment for rivers. The goal of this study was to compare different methods of determining two parameters used to estimate streambank erosion, soil critical shear stress (t c) and soil erodibility (k d) and to determine the impact of those differences on predictions of streambank erosion. At 25 field sites, bank erosion tests were conducted using a submerged jet test device, and soil samples were collected. Critical shear stress was measured using a multi-angle submerged jet test device (JT) and estimated based on Shields' diagram (SD) and empirical relations based on the soil parameters, percent clay (P c), plasticity index (I w), particle size (D 50) and percent silt-clay (SC). Additionally, using a single set of t c values, the k d measured by the jet test was compared to predictions from two empirical k d relations. Using these parameter values, streambank erosion rates were predicted for a local stream. The jet t c estimates were as much as four orders of magnitude greater than the SD, P c , and D 50 estimates, indicating the SD and empirical methods underestimate t c. The two empirical k d equations produced similar k d values that were generally two orders of magnitude less than the values from the jet test measurements. Erosion predictions followed the same trend as the k d data, with the jet test measurements resulting in higher predictions. Field validation of these methods over a wide range of soil types is recommended to develop methods of estimating k d and t c for fine-grained streambank soils.

show abstract

Section: Comparison Of Soil Erodibility Estimatesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Methods for Determining Streambank Critical Shear Stress and Soil Erodibility: Implications for Erosion Rate Predictions

Clark¹,

Wynn²

2007

Transactions of the ASABE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…where Z 0 is the erodibility parameter of the dimensionless excess shear stress model (mm/h). However, it is difficult to predict the values of erodibility parameters due to the erodibility parameters (Z 0 and τ c ) changing with the season [8,9]. Wilson (1993aWilson ( , 1993b proposed a mechanistic detachment model to provide a general framework for studying soil and fluid characteristics [10,11].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Study on Parameters of Two Widely Used Cohesive Soils Erosion Models

Wang

Zhou

Fan

et al. 2021

Water

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The erosion rate of cohesive soils was typically modeled with the excess shear stress model and the Wilson model. Several kinds of research have been conducted to determine the erodibility parameters of the two models, but few attempts have been made hitherto to investigate the general trends and range of the erodibility parameter values obtained by the commonly used Erosion Function apparatus. This paper collected a database of 177 erosion function apparatus tests to indicate the variability of all erodibility parameters; the range of erodibility parameters is determined by data statistics and parameter theoretical value derivation. The critical shear stress (τc) and erodibility coefficient (Z0) in the over-shear stress model have a positive proportional relationship when the data samples are sufficient. However, there is no such relationship between the erodibility coefficient (b0) and erodibility coefficient (b1) in the Wilson model. It is necessary to express the soil erosion resistance by considering all erosion parameters in the erosion model. Equations relating erodibility parameters to water content, plasticity index, and median particle size were developed by regression analysis.

show abstract

Modeling Channel Erosion at the Watershed Scale: A Comparison of GWLF, SWAT, and AGNPS/CONCEPTS.

Staley¹

2006

2006 Portland, Oregon, July 9-12, 2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Changes in Streambank Erodibility and Critical Shear Stress Due to Subaerial Processes

Cited by 4 publications

References 47 publications

Methods for Determining Streambank Critical Shear Stress and Soil Erodibility: Implications for Erosion Rate Predictions

Methods for Determining Streambank Critical Shear Stress and Soil Erodibility: Implications for Erosion Rate Predictions

Study on Parameters of Two Widely Used Cohesive Soils Erosion Models

Modeling Channel Erosion at the Watershed Scale: A Comparison of GWLF, SWAT, and AGNPS/CONCEPTS.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About