See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/237368975

Methods for Determining Streambank Critical Shear Stress and Erodibility:

Implications for Erosion Rate Predictions

Article · May 2006

DOI: 10.13031/2013.19885

CITATIONS READS

0 422

2 authors, including:

T. M. Wynn Thompson
Virginia Tech (Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University)
45 PUBLICATIONS 1,565 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by T. M. Wynn Thompson on 24 June 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 METHODS FOR DETERMINING STREAMBANK CRITICAL
SHEAR STRESS AND SOIL ERODIBILITY :
IMPLICATIONS FOR EROSION RATE PREDICTIONS
L. A. Clark, T. M. Wynn

ABSTRACT. 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 (tc ) and soil erodibility (kd ) 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 (Pc ), plasticity index (Iw ), particle size (D50 ) and
percent silt-clay (SC). Additionally, using a single set of tc values, the kd measured by the jet test was compared to predictions
from two empirical kd relations. Using these parameter values, streambank erosion rates were predicted for a local stream.
The jet tc estimates were as much as four orders of magnitude greater than the SD, Pc , and D50 estimates, indicating the SD
and empirical methods underestimate tc . The two empirical kd equations produced similar kd 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
kd 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 kd and tc for fine-grained streambank soils.
Keywords. Channel erosion, Critical shear stress, Erodibility, Streambank erosion, Stream restoration.

A
ccording to Osterkamp et al. (1998), the physical, watershed management, as required by the U.S. Clean Water
chemical, and biological damage due to water Act.
pollution by sediment costs an estimated $16 bil- Streambank retreat typically occurs by a combination of
lion annually in North America. Second only to three processes: subaerial processes and erosion, fluvial
bacteria, sediment is a common pollutant in streams, causing erosion, and bank failure (Lawler, 1995). Subaerial processes
the impairment of 31% of assessed stream miles (USEPA, are climate-related phenomena that reduce soil strength,
2002). While considerable effort has been directed toward re- inducing direct erosion and making the bank more suscepti-
ducing erosion from agricultural and urban lands, a major ble to fluvial erosion (e.g., frost heave, desiccation cracking;
source of sediment, stream channel degradation, has largely Thorne, 1982). Fluvial erosion is the direct removal of soil
been ignored. Studies have shown that sediment from stream- particles or aggregates from the stream bed or bank by stream
banks can account for as much as 85% of watershed sediment flow (hereafter called “erosion”), while the collapse of
yields, and bank retreat rates as high as 1.5 to 1100 m/year streambanks due to slope instability is referred to as bank
have been documented (Trimble, 1997; Wallbrink et al., failure (Lawler, 1995). Streambank retreat is typically a
1998; Prosser et al., 2000; Simon et al., 2000). In addition to cyclic process, initiated by the fluvial erosion of the channel
water quality impairment, streambank retreat impacts flood- bed and/or bank toe, which creates a geotechnically unstable
plain residents, riparian ecosystems, bridges, and other streambank. This instability results in failure of the stream-
stream-side structures (ASCE, 1998). Improvements in chan- bank and deposition of failed material at the bank toe.
nel retreat predictions are necessary for sediment total maxi- Subsequent floods remove the failed material and the bank
mum daily load (TMDL) determinations and improved retreat cycle is repeated until the channel widens enough to
reduce the boundary shear stress to nonerosive levels
(Thorne, 1982).
One key to maintaining or restoring channel stability is to
prevent the incision of the channel bed and erosion of the
Submitted for review in August 2006 as manuscript number SW 6621; streambanks. While the stream bed elevation is determined
approved for publication by the Soil & Water Division of ASABE in by the balance between sediment supply and sediment
November 2006. Presented at the 2005 ASAE Annual Meeting as Paper No.
052019. transport capacity, streambank stability requires that the
The authors are Leslie A. Clark, ASABE Member Engineer, Graduate applied shear stress remain below erosive levels. These
Assistant, and Theresa M. Wynn, ASABE Member Engineer, Assistant erosive levels are quantified by the soil critical shear stress.
Professor, Department of Biological Systems Engineering, Virginia Tech, The critical shear stress (
c ) is defined as the stress at which
Blacksburg, Virginia. Corresponding author: Leslie A. Clark, Biological
Systems Engineering, Virginia Tech, 200 Seitz Hall, Blacksburg, VA
soil detachment begins or the condition that initiates soil
24061-0303; phone: 540-231-0695; fax: 540-231-3199; e-mail: lclark3@ detachment. If the critical stress is higher than the effective
vt.edu. stress, the erosion rate is considered zero (Osman and

Transactions of the ASABE

Vol. 50(1): 95−106 E 2007 American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers ISSN 0001−2351 95
Thorne, 1988; Nearing et al., 1989; Hanson, 1990a; Hanson flow test with soil forming the bed. The critical stress is then
et al., 2002). Theoretically, maintenance of the channel determined visually or graphically. Visually,
c is determined
boundary shear stress below
c is a requirement for stream- by measuring the shear stress at failure. Unfortunately, the
bank stability. Determination of
c is also required to point of failure is difficult to define, and most definitions are
correctly model and understand streambank retreat (Owoputi subjective (Hanson et al., 1999). In a flume study, Kamphuis
and Stolte, 1995). and Hall (1983) stated that the critical value was reached at
The erosion rate of fine-grained soils due to overland flow “pitting of the surface,” while Dunn (1959) determined that
or stream channel scour is commonly predicted by the excess the critical value was reached as “the water became cloudy.”
shear stress equation (Partheniades, 1965; Hanson and Cook, Smerdon and Beasley (1961) reported the critical value when
1997; Hanson, 1990a, 1990b): “general movement of the soil composing the channel bed
was observed.” To avoid this subjectivity,
c can be defined
ε = k d ( τ a − τc ) a (1) graphically by plotting the erosion rate versus the shear stress
where with a best-fit straight line. The point where the line crosses
 = erosion rate (m/s) the x-axis represents the stress at no erosion, or the critical
kd = erodibility coefficient (m3/N·s) stress (Hanson and Cook, 1997).
a = exponent typically assumed to be 1 Smerdon and Beasley (1961) conducted a flume study on

a = applied shear stress on the soil boundary (Pa) eleven cohesive Missouri soils to relate basic soil properties

c = critical shear stress (Pa). (plasticity index, dispersion ratio, mean particle size, and
The excess shear stress equation is used to predict channel percent clay) to the critical shear stress. Soil samples were
erosion in models such as HEC−6, CONCEPTS, SWAT, and leveled after placement in the flume but not compacted. As
HSPF; however, application of the equation has limitations the soil was observed under increasing flow rates, the shear
(USACE, 1993; Allen et al., 1997; Bicknell et al., 1997; stress corresponding to bed failure was considered
c . The
Langendoen, 2000). While the effective shear stress can be empirical relations developed between the soil properties and
related to flow hydraulics, the soil parameters (
c and kd ) are
c are shown by equations 2 through 5:
difficult to estimate or measure for fine-grained soils. Many
τc = 0.16( I w )0.84 (2)
factors, such as soil moisture content, clay content and type,
and soil structure, influence the erosion of fine-grained
sediment, making
c and kd difficult to quantify (Grissinger, τc = 10.2( Dr ) −0.63 (3)
1982). The goal of this study was to compare different
methods of estimating the soil parameters (
c and kd ) to in situ τc = 3.54 × 10 −28.1D50 (4)
field measurements and to determine the effects of differ-
ences in parameter estimates on streambank erosion esti-
mates. τc = 0.493 × 10 0.0182 Pc (5)
where

c = critical shear stress (Pa)
ESTIMATING SOIL CRITICAL SHEAR Iw = plasticity index
STRESS Dr = dispersion ratio
There are several approaches for determining
c . Critical D50 = mean particle size (m)
shear stress can be determined in flume studies, estimated Pc = percent clay by weight (%).
based on soil parameters such as particle size and soil specific The relations with Iw and Dr were considered the most
gravity, measured in situ with a submerged jet test device, or reliable in the study because the two parameters are directly
assumed zero. For noncohesive soils, Shields’ diagram related to cohesion properties of the soil.
provides estimates of critical shear stress based on particle Neill (1967) presented experimental data on the incipient
size using a representative particle diameter and assuming no motion of six sizes of graded gravels, two sizes of uniform
interaction among the sediment particles (Shields, 1936; glass balls, and cellulose acetate balls ranging in diameter
Vanoni, 1977; Hann et al., 1994). This diagram was from 6 to 30 mm for wide channel, uniform flow over a flat
developed using data from studies of uniform, noncohesive bed. Neill presented an equation relating mean velocity to
particles for which fluvial entrainment is a function of gravity grain size, specific gravity, and flow depth:
and hydraulic lift and drag forces. Because there are few 2 −0.20
methods available to estimate
c and Shields’ diagram has ρVmc  Dg 
= 2.50 
 (6)
been extended to include smaller diameter particles, the γ′s Dg  d 
diagram has been used to estimate
c of fine-grained soils
(Temple and Hanson, 1994). Considering that the extension where
of the diagram is not based on actual laboratory or field data, Vmc = competent mean velocity for first displacement of
and the effects of interparticle forces outweigh the influence bed material
of gravity in the resistance of cohesive soils to erosion, use Dg = effective diameter of bed grains
of Shields’ diagram to predict the
c of fine-grained soils will d = depth of flow
likely result in significant underestimation, resulting in 4s = g(ρs − ρ)
overprediction of erosion rates (Hanson and Simon, 2001). g = acceleration due to gravity
The most widely used erosion measurement technique, ρ = fluid mass density
particularly for cohesive soils, involves an open-channel ρs = bed-material mass density.

96 TRANSACTIONS OF THE ASABE

 A form of Neill’s equation relating specific gravity, flume without disturbance (Hanson et al., 1999; Hanson and
median particle diameter, and water depth to incipient shear Cook, 2004). Many factors, such as soil structure, texture,
stress can be used to estimate
c (Neill, 1973; Fairfax County, and chemistry, as well as eroding fluid chemistry, influence
2004): soil erosion (Grissinger, 1982). Because of these many
factors, in situ measurements of kd and
c are preferred.
τc = 0.76090 γ (S g − 1)D50
2 / 3 1/ 3
d (7) Hanson (1990b) designed a submerged jet test device that
where provides portability and convenience for in situ testing and

c = incipient shear stress (Pa) allows the freedom to test the impact of different soil and
 = specific weight of water (N/m3) environmental conditions on kd and
c
Sg = specific gravity of soil The submerged jet test device produces a circular jet at a
D50 = median particles diameter (m) uniform velocity that impinges on the soil bed at right angles
d = depth of flow (m). (fig. 1). The jet test device consists of a 30.5 cm diameter
Because Neill’s equation involves depth of flow in the steel base ring that is pounded into the soil to a depth of
evaluation,
c cannot be considered a soil property exclusive- 7.6 cm to prevent piping of water under the ring. Water is
ly. The determination of
c depends both on soil properties pumped from the stream to a head tank, into the outer jet tube,
and on flow conditions, making it difficult to compare the through the nozzle, and into the tank. The velocity of the jet
Neill method to other estimation methods. remains constant and maintains a maximum velocity along
Julian and Torres (2006) estimated critical shear stress the jet centerline. Following impact with the soil surface, the
based on the percentage of silt and clay (SC) from results jet diffuses radially, producing a shear stress along the bank.
presented by Dunn (1959) and Vanoni (1977). A third-order A point gage is used to measure scour depths at regular
polynomial was presented in which silt-clay content was intervals throughout the test. The jet scours the soil until the
defined as particle sizes less than 0.063 mm: maximum scour depth is reached, and the rate of scour equals
zero. At this equilibrium, the critical shear stress can be
τc = 0.1 + 0.1779(SC ) + 0.0028( SC ) 2 computed. Unfortunately, reaching equilibrium can take
anywhere from hours to days (Hanson and Cook, 1997). Due
− 2.34 E − 5( SC )3 (8) to this limitation, maximum scour depth and the critical shear
stress are estimated by fitting a hyperbolic logarithmic
The study also accounted for vegetation effects; the
c equation to the scour data, as described by Blaisdell et al.
values were multiplied by a vegetation coefficient (ranging (1981). The soil erodibility parameter (kd ) is then determined
from 1 to 19.20) to account for increasing critical shear by fitting the jet test scour data to the excess shear stress
stresses due to vegetation (Julian and Torres, 2006). This equation using a least squares method.
approach differed from previous studies that accounted for Lavelle and Mofjeld (1987) discussed the theoretical
vegetation effects in the applied shear stress parameter using merit of a critical shear stress. Because of the turbulent nature
shear stress partitioning (Temple, 1980, 1985; Samani and of the flow, there are limitations to defining the point of
Kouwen, 2002; Thompson et al., 2004). incipient motion; instantaneous fluctuations in the effective
While flume studies allow a controlled testing environ- shear stress higher than the average shear stress are likely re-
ment, it is difficult to place stream bed or bank material in the sponsible for erosion (Lavelle and Mofjeld, 1987; Chang,

Figure 1. Picture and schematic of the multi-angle submerged jet test device.

Vol. 50(1): 95−106 97

2002). In addition, because the point of incipient motion is Additionally, using a single set of
c values, the kd values
difficult to define,
c is often considered insignificant and set predicted by the two empirical methods were compared to the
to zero (Foster et al., 1977; Hanson, 1990b; Temple 1992; predictions of the jet test device (Osman and Thorne, 1988;
Hanson et al., 1999) or given a constant value based on soil Hanson and Cook, 1997; Hanson and Simon, 2001). Using
properties (Temple, 1980, 1983, 1985). these estimated parameters, streambank erosion rates were
predicted for a historic storm event on a local stream to
evaluate the effect of differences in the estimated parameter
values on erosion predictions.
ESTIMATING SOIL ERODIBILITY
Although simple relations between kd and soil properties IN SITU MEASUREMENTS WITH THE JET TEST DEVICE
are not available (Hanson and Temple, 2002), two empirical Twenty-five field sites near the town of Blacksburg in
methods exist for estimating kd if
c is known. Hanson and southwest Virginia (37° 154 N, 80° 254 W; fig. 2) were tested.
Simon (2001) conducted 83 jet tests to determine
c and kd for The sites are in the Appalachian Mountains with elevations
stream beds of highly erodible loess in the midwestern U.S. ranging from 350 to 900 m NGVD29. The climate is typical
The beds were typically 50% to 80% silt-sized material with of temperate mountain regions. The average annual rainfall
a
c range of 0.0 to 400 Pa and a kd range of 0.001 to 3.75 is about 1100 mm and has a relatively even distribution
cm3/N·s. The study found wide variation in the resistance throughout the year (Wynn et al., 2004). The sites consisted
parameters from the jet test results, but detected an inverse of a reach of 30 stream-meters along one bank; the streams
relation between
c and kd , where kd could be estimated as a ranged from 2nd to 4th order with drainage areas of 9 to
function of
c (Pa): 322 km2. Baseflow water depths varied from 20 to 50 cm
with baseflow channel widths of 3 to 24 m. Bank exposure
k d = 0.2τc −0.5 (9)
and bank angles ranged from 65 to 225 cm and 30° to 90°,
where kd is the erodibility coefficient (cm3/N·s). respectively. Bed and bank materials varied from sand to
Osman and Thorne (1988) presented a form of the excess boulders and from clay loam to loamy sand, respectively
shear stress equation to estimate the lateral erosion rate for (Wynn, 2004).
soils with
c greater than 0.6 Pa. The method was based on In situ jet tests were conducted on both the upper and
flume experiments conducted at the Waterways Experiment lower banks at each site using a multi-angle submerged jet
Station in Vicksburg, Mississippi, and used undisturbed test device (Hanson and Cook, 1997; ASTM, 1999a; Hanson
cohesive bank soil samples from 42 streams in the U.S. and Cook, 2004). The tests were conducted for 45 min, with
(Arulanandan et al., 1980). Soil erodibility was calculated as scour depth and pressure differential readings taken at 5 min
the initial lateral bank erosion (dB) divided by
c . An initial intervals. Using scour and shear stress data from the jet test,
lateral bank erosion rate was defined by a relation linking
c
c and kd were determined using methods developed by
to dB, as shown in the following equation: Hanson and Cook (1997). A total of 142 individual jet test
runs were conducted from May through August 2003. Three
223 × 10 −4 τc e −0.13τ c tests were typically run on both the upper and lower banks at
dB = (10) each site (six tests per site), except where crayfish burrows or
γ
highly erodible soil limited testing.
where
dB = initial lateral bank erosion rate (m/min per unit area) SOIL TESTING

c = critical shear stress (dynes/cm2) To estimate
c using Shields’ diagram (Vanoni, 1977), the
 = soil unit weight (kN/m3). Smerdon and Beasley (1961) empirical relations (eqs. 2
The erosion rate was then estimated with a form of the excess through 5), and the Julian and Torres (2006) empirical
shear stress equation: relation (eq. 8), soil samples of approximately 250 cm3 were
taken adjacent to the jet test tank for each jet test run. The soil
(τ − τ c )
dW = dB (11) samples were air-dried prior to analysis for soil particle size
τc distribution, specific gravity, and Atterberg limits. Because
where the data used in this study were originally developed for an
dW = actual erosion rate (m/min) alternate study (Wynn, 2004) that did not consider the
dispersion ratio, this soil parameter was not determined. In
dB = initial lateral bank erosion rate (m/min per unit area)

= flow shear stress (dynes/cm2). addition, due to a limitation in the number of soil samples,
If the predicted erosion rate was unrealistic, the authors only 93 tests were used in this study.
To determine the particle size distribution, approximately
suggested the application of a calibration factor (Osman and
Thorne, 1988). 50 g of soil were passed through a No. 10 sieve (2 mm mesh)
and analyzed following methods outlined by the USDA
(1996). The median particle diameter (D50) was calculated
for each jet test and used as the representative diameter for
METHODOLOGY the soil.
This study compared five methods for estimating
c , Specific gravity is the ratio of the mass of a unit volume of
including Shields’ diagram and four empirical equations soil to the mass of an equivalent volume of deionized water. Soil
using soil percent clay, plasticity index, mean particle size, particles with high specific gravity settle quickly and are less
and percent silt-clay, to field measurements using a sub- likely to be entrained than particles with low specific gravity.
merged jet test device (Smerdon and Beasley, 1961; Blaisdell The specific gravity of the bank soils was evaluated according
et al., 1981; Hann et al., 1994; Julian and Torres, 2006). to ASTM standard D854-98 (ASTM, 1999b).

98 TRANSACTIONS OF THE ASABE

 Figure 2. Locations of 25 field sites near the town of Blacksburg in southwest Virginia.

Soil Atterberg limits are the liquid limit, the plastic limit, COMPARISON OF EMPIRICAL METHODS
and the plasticity index. The liquid limit is the lowest Two empirical methods of estimating kd were compared
moisture content at which viscous flow will occur, while the to field measurements from the jet test device. The jet test
c
plastic limit is the lowest moisture content at which a data set was used because the Osman and Thorne (1988)
3.175 mm diameter soil thread will remain intact during approximation is valid only for
c greater than 0.6 Pa and the
rolling. The difference between these two parameters is the
c values measured with the jet test device were higher than
plasticity index, which defines the range of moisture contents the
c values predicted using the empirical relations.
over which a soil exhibits plastic behavior. The plasticity Removing values less than 0.6 Pa from the jet test
c data
index is dependent on the amount and type of clay and is a resulted in a data set of 62
c values.
useful indicator of the character of fine-grained soils (Lambe The reduced jet test
c data set was used to estimate kd by
and Whitman, 1969; Holtz and Kovacs, 1981). Soil Atterberg three methods. First, kd was determined by analysis of the jet
limits were evaluated for air-dry samples according to ASTM test field data. Because solving for two unknowns rarely
standard D4318-98 (ASTM, 1999c). produced a stable solution, Hanson and Cook (1997)
Because both soil bulk density and root density influence determined
c first and then evaluated kd using a least squares
soil erosion (Wynn and Mostaghimi, 2006a), both parameters fit of the scour data to the excess shear stress equation. An
were measured for the study soils. Soil bulk density was Excel spreadsheet developed by Hanson and Cook (1997)
determined by taking a single undisturbed soil core in a 5 × was used for the analysis of the jet test data. Soil erodibility
5 cm aluminum cylinder with a slide hammer. The samples was also predicted by the Hanson and Simon (2001; eq. 9) and
were weighed and dried at 105°C within 8 h of collection the Osman and Thorne (1988; eqs. 10 and 11) models.
following procedures outlined in the USDA soil manual
(USDA, 1996). EROSION PREDICTION
Root samples were taken using a 7 cm diameter, 15 cm Stream geometry and discharge from a local stream gage
long, soil corer. To determine root density, the soil cores were were used to evaluate the impact of differences in kd on
soaked in a bucket of water and washed over a No. 35 sieve streambank erosion predictions. These example calculations
(0.5 mm mesh). The soil and roots retained on the sieve were assumed that the streambanks were homogeneous and
then placed in a white plastic pan, and the live roots were composed of the soils tested by Wynn and Mostaghimi
removed by hand and stored in a refrigerator at 4°C until (2006a). Daily stage heights from an existing U.S. Geologi-
scanning. Root length and root volume were measured using cal Survey gage station (USGS 2055100) for Tinker’s Creek
a Régent Instruments STD 1600+ scanner and WinRHIZO near Daleville, Virginia (37° 254 03″ N, 79° 564 08″ W) from
analysis software (Régent Instruments, Inc., Quebec, Cana- 7 to 9 January 1998 were used. The storm event that occurred
da). during this time period reached a maximum stage of 0.98 m
and had a return interval of 1.1 years (Keaton et al., 2005).
This 2nd order stream has a drainage area of 30.3 km2

Vol. 50(1): 95−106 99

 Erosion rates were calculated daily for each section of the
streambank by a form of the excess shear stress equation:
ε = k d ( τ a − τ c )h (13)
where
 = erosion rate (cm3/s per unit length of streambank)

c = soil critical shear stress (Pa)
kd = erodibility coefficient (cm3/N·s)
h = height of inundated section (m).
The erosion rate was multiplied by 1 m to determine
erosion over a unit length of streambank. Total erosion
volumes were calculated for each day and summed to get a
Figure 3. Cross-section of Tinker’s Creek used in erosion calculations total erosion volume for the storm event. The erosion
(Keaton et al., 2005). volumes were then divided by 1.1 m2 to determine an average
total erosion depth in meters for the three-day period. The
(11.7 mi2) and a channel gradient of 0.005 at the gage. The estimated storm erosion depth was calculated using the
c
bed material at the gage site is gravel with some cobbles and measured with the jet test device and the kd values measured
bedrock, and the streambanks are forested with a mixture of in the field and estimated using the Hanson and Simon (2001)
understory shrubs and groundcover. The streambanks are and the Osman and Thorne (1988) models, resulting in three
generally stable, with isolated areas of bank erosion. The cal- erosion predictions for each soil tested.
culations assumed a rectangular, homogeneous, wide cross-
section with a 1.1 m depth (fig. 3; Keaton et al., 2005). While STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
erosion measurements were not made for this storm event, Because the data did not follow a Gaussian distribution,
personal observation indicates scour depths are typically no a Mann-Whitney U test was used to evaluate differences
greater than 10 cm for bankfull storm events on stable among
c , kd , and the erosion estimates (Neave and
streams in this area. This site was selected as an example be- Worthington, 1988). The Wilcoxon signed rank test was used
cause headwater streams such as Tinker’s Creek are particu- to determine if the calculated
c values were significantly
larly susceptible to degradation by changes in riparian different from zero and to determine if pairwise differences
vegetation and/or urban development and are a primary focus between the methods were significantly greater than zero
of stream restoration efforts in the mid-Atlantic U.S. (Daniel, 1990). A significance level of  = 0.05 was assumed.
Average streambank erosion was estimated by applying
the excess shear stress equation (eq. 1) to a unit length of
streambank on one side of the stream. The 1.1 m high bank RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
was split into three sections (fig. 4). If a section was not fully The streambank soils ranged from a clay loam to a sandy
inundated, erosion was only calculated for the area covered loam, with D50 values of 0.01 to 0.26 mm and specific
with water, and an alternate midpoint was used. For each gravities of 2.19 to 2.70. The soils generally had low
section, the average applied shear stress was calculated at the plasticity; 33 samples were nonplastic, while the remaining
section midpoint by equation 12: 60 samples had plasticity indexes of 4 to 26. As discussed in
Grissinger et al. (1981), these fine-grained soils with low
τ a = ρgdS (12) plasticity exhibit properties between cohesive and noncohe-
where sive soils that are not dependent exclusively on particle mass

a = average applied shear stress at the section midpoint or interparticle electrochemical interactions. Based on
(Pa) Hanson’s (1991) definition of cohesive soils (plasticity index
ρ = density of water (kg/m3) >10), 42 samples were considered cohesive and 51 samples
g = acceleration due to gravity (m/s2) were considered noncohesive. Bulk densities varied from
d = height of water above midpoint (m) 0.38 g/cm3 for a recently deposited saturated sandy loam to
S = slope of the energy grade line (approximated by 1.59 g/cm3 for a silt loam, with a median value of 1.22 g/cm3.
channel slope). Root length densities and root volume ratios ranged from 0.1
to 22.6 cm/cm3 and from 0.0004 to 0.1300 cm3/cm 3,
respectively.

COMPARISON OF CRITICAL SHEAR STRESS ESTIMATION

METHODS
Critical shear stresses measured in situ with the jet test
device and estimated using Shields’ diagram (SD), soil
percent clay (Pc ), median particle size (D50), plasticity index
(Iw ; eqs. 2, 4, and 5), and percent silt-clay (SC; eq. 8) had
median values of 2.2, 0.1, 0.84, 0.05, 1.25, and 11.81 Pa,
respectively (table 1). Because not all of the soils exhibited
plastic behavior, the sample size (n) for equation 2 was 60, as
compared to n = 93 for the other analyses. The median
c
Figure 4. Discretization of streambank for applied shear stress and ero- estimates for all methods were statistically greater than the
sion calculations; midpoint of the top section fluctuated with stage height. zero ( = 0.05).

100 TRANSACTIONS OF THE ASABE

 Table 1. Median and range for the jet test, Shields’ diagram (SD), correlation between the bank characteristics and percent
percent clay (Pc ), median particle size (D50), percent silt-clay differences, suggesting that the error associated with the
(SC), and plasticity index (Iw ) estimates of the
streambank critical shear stress tc). empirical methods was not associated with soil bulk density,
τc (Pa) root density, or plasticity index.
Hanson and Simon (2001) tested cohesive stream beds in
Method n Median Minimum Maximum
the loess areas of the midwestern U.S. and determined that
Jet test 93 2.22 0 21.91
the measured critical shear stresses of the clay stream beds
SD 93 0.1 0.02 0.19
were equivalent to noncohesive clasts with diameters on the
Pc 93 0.84 0.58 1.74
order of 1 to 100 mm. This study confirmed that using
D50 93 0.05 0 1.69
Shields’ diagram to estimate the
c of fine-grained soils may
SC 93 11.81 3.57 21.53
result in significant underestimation.
Iw 60 1.25 0.55 2.51
When comparing the pairwise differences between the jet
test measurements and the methods presented by Smerdon
Comparing estimates for individual sites, the
c measured and Beasley (1961), the Smerdon and Beasley equations
with the jet test device was as much as four orders of generally underestimated
c (p < 0.001), likely because these
magnitude greater than the SD, Pc , and D50 estimates at some three methods were based on laboratory tests of relatively
study sites (fig. 5). While statistically greater than zero (p < uniform remolded soils. Sediment structure was likely
0.0001),
c values from the Shields’ diagram were all less reduced during sampling, and placement in the flume due to
than 0.2 Pa; from a practical standpoint, Shields’
c estimates leveling, hydrating, and drying, reducing the shear stress at
for these fine-grained soils were essentially equivalent to a which sediment detachment occurred. In addition, these
value of zero. Developed for noncohesive bed sediments, three methods depended only on a single soil parameter
Shields’ diagram assumes no interaction between the soil (percent clay, median particle size, or plasticity index). The
particles; thus, Shields’ diagram is based on median particle soils tested in this study had small ranges of D50, specific
size and specific gravity. The soils in this study were fine gravity, and percent clay, which limited the possible
c
grained, and 55% of the soils were cohesive, indicating that estimates. In contrast, in situ scour tests using the jet test
interparticle forces, rather than gravity, influenced their device had greater variability, as they were conducted in the
erosion. field and likely reflected natural variability in soil structure
To evaluate if other streambank characteristics, such as and physical and chemical properties. The jet test device
the soil bulk density, root density (RLD and RVR), or measured the cumulative effects of soil texture, clay type,
plasticity index influenced the differences between the jet specific gravity, moisture content and cohesion, as well as
test measurements and the predicted values, correlation other factors shown to influence soil erosion, such as root
between the percent difference (%diff) between the predicted reinforcement and soil/eroding fluid chemical interactions

c and the jet test
c and the bank properties was investigated (Grissinger, 1982; Kamyab, 1991; Wynn and Mostaghimi,
by calculating the Pearson correlation coefficient in Minitab 2006a).
for all
c estimation techniques (Minitab, Inc., State College, Critical shear-stress estimates based on the SC method
Pa.). Because the percent difference values were highly (Julian and Torres, 2006) were statistically higher than those
skewed and contained some negative values, the data were of all other methods (p < 0.001; fig. 5), resulting in
c values
transformed using log10(n + %diff) prior to analysis, for as much as four orders of magnitude greater than the
which n ranged from 2 to 1000. The analysis did not reveal

Figure 5. Pairwise differences in critical shear stress (tc ) values measured using the submerged jet test device (JT) and estimated using Shields’ diagram
(SD), and empirical equations based on percent clay (Pc ), mean particle size (D50), plasticity index (Iw ), and percent silt-clay (SC); n = 93 for SD, Pc ,
SC, and D50; n = 60 for Iw.

Vol. 50(1): 95−106 101

empirical methods. While SC content for this study (16% to higher than the other two methods. The maximum difference
88%) fell within the range of the soils used in the regression between the two empirical methods was one order of
development (5% to 95%), the
c values measured by the jet magnitude.
test were statistically smaller than the SC estimates. The high To evaluate if streambank soil bulk density, root density
estimates can be attributed to the data used to develop the SC (root length density and root volume ratio,), or plasticity
relation (Dunn, 1959). Although Dunn (1959) also measured index (Iw ) influenced the differences between the jet test

c using a submerged jet test, the samples were reconstructed measurements and empirical methods, correlation among the
before measurement by sieving, drying, and consolidating. percent difference (%diff) between the empirical kd values
These methods likely increased soil strength, resulting in and the jet test kd and the bank properties was investigated by
high
c estimates. After incorporating a vegetation coeffi- calculating the Pearson correlation coefficient in Minitab
cient (ranging from 1 to 19.2), the SC method resulted in
c (Minitab, Inc., State College, Pa.). Because the percent
values as much as five orders of magnitude greater than the difference values were highly skewed and contained negative
empirical methods. It should be noted that the Julian and values, the data were transformed using log10(2 + %diff)
Torres model incorporates both the physical reinforcement prior to analysis. The correlation analysis did not reveal
provided by the roots and the reduction in hydraulic shear correlation between the bank characteristics and percent
stress into a single multiplier of
c . A more physically based differences ( = 0.05), suggesting that the error associated
model would represent the impact of vegetation on stream with the two empirical methods was not related to bulk
hydraulics by reducing the applied shear stress (
a ). density, root density, or plasticity index.
The range of the kd values for the Hanson and Simon
COMPARISON OF SOIL ERODIBILITY ESTIMATES (2001) method was smaller than that for the other two
To compare two empirical methods of estimating kd with methods because the empirical equation was only dependent
the in situ jet test measurements, jet test
c values were used on
c . The Osman and Thorne (1988) method depended on
to estimate kd based on the procedures outlined by Hanson both
c and soil unit weight. Hanson and Simon (2001)
and Simon (2001) and Osman and Thorne (1988). Because conducted 83 jet test measurements to determine an empiri-
the Osman and Thorne method is only valid for
c greater than cal relation for kd based on
c (eq. 9). Their study reported
c
0.6 Pa, some of the lower jet test
c values were omitted, values ranging from 0.0 to 400 Pa and kd values ranging from
resulting in 62 samples with a median
c of 3.66 Pa and a 0.001 to 3.75 cm3/N·s. Because their empirical equation was
range of 0.72 to 21.9 Pa. based on jet test results and the
c values used in this study fell
The kd estimates for the Hanson and Simon (2001) and within the range used to develop the equation, the kd values
Osman and Thorne (1988) empirical methods were similar, estimated by the Hanson and Simon (2001) empirical
with median values of 0.10 and 0.13 cm3/N·s and ranges of equation and the jet test kd measurements theoretically
0.04 to 1.07 cm3/N·s and 0 to 6.08 cm3/N·s, respectively. should have been similar. In actuality, the jet test measure-
Evaluating the pairwise differences for individual soils ments from this study were significantly higher than those
(fig. 6), the measurements using the jet test device were predicted by the Hanson and Simon equation (p < 0.001).
significantly higher than kd estimates by the empirical Because in situ testing incorporates multiple factors that
methods (p < 0.001), and the Osman and Thorne kd estimates influence erosion, such as soil texture, specific gravity,
were significantly larger than the Hanson and Simon values moisture content, cohesion, root reinforcement, and soil/
(p = 0.002). There were several outliers: the jet test eroding fluid chemical interactions, empirical relations de-
measurements of kd were as much as two orders of magnitude veloped for one region may not be applicable in other

Figure 6. Pairwise differences in soil erodibility (kd ) values determined from submerged jet test measurements and two empirical methods (n = 62; OT =
Osman and Thorne, 1988; HS = Hanson and Simon, 2001).

102 TRANSACTIONS OF THE ASABE

areas. Additionally, Hanson and Simon tested stream beds, kd and erosion rates for soils with low
c values. The small
while this study focused on streambanks. It is possible that range of the Hanson and Simon kd values influenced the
stream beds may be more resistant to erosion because they are erosion calculations, keeping the range of erosion estimates
frequently submerged and therefore not exposed to subaerial lower than that predicted by the Osman and Thorne method
processes. Differences between the measured kd and those es- or the jet test measurements. These lower streambank erosion
timated by the Hanson and Simon (2001) equation also may estimates reflected the lower kd values predicted by the two
reflect differences in the jet testing procedure. The test dura- empirical methods.
tion for Hanson and Simon’s study was 120 min with a 10 min For individual soils, erosion predictions based on the jet
sampling interval, compared to a 45 min test duration for this test measurements were significantly higher (p < 0.001) than
study, with scour readings taken every 5 min. Because the estimates based on the Osman and Thorne (1988) or Hanson
soils on the streambank surface are exposed to weathering, and Simon (2001) equations; median differences were 1.07
they tend to be more erodible (Wynn and Mostaghimi, 2006b; and 1.81 m, respectively. Both the jet test measurements and
Henderson et al, 2006); thus, shorter test times may result in the Osman and Thorne equation resulted in some erosion
higher kd estimates because the more resistant soils deeper in predictions that were as much as two orders of magnitude
the streambank are not reached during the shorter test dura- higher than the erosion estimated using the Hanson and
tion. Field validation of these methods over a wide range of Simon relation (fig. 7).
soil types is recommended to further develop methods of esti- While the erosion predictions based on the Hanson and
mating kd for streambank soils. Simon parameters were more realistic than predictions based
on the jet test measurements or the Osman and Thorne
COMPARISON OF STREAMBANK EROSION ESTIMATES equation, these calculations do not take into account the
The effect of differences in the kd values on streambank influence of bed and bank roughness on the applied shear
erosion predictions was also evaluated. Using the
a values stresses. More realistic erosion rates would likely have been
calculated for the example storm, the average streambank obtained if the applied shear stresses had been estimated
erosion depths were predicted for each of the kd estimates. To using shear stress partitioning to account for the coarse bed
estimate streambank erosion, the applied shear stress (
a ) was material and woody bank vegetation at the gage site. Osman
calculated using equation 12. For the inundated streambank and Thorne (1988) recognized that vegetation impacts
sections,
a ranged from 2.9 to 36.1 Pa. Because the erosion streambank stability and noted a limitation in their erosion
predictions were directly related to the soil erodibility (eq. 1), prediction process because it did not consider the influence
the predicted erosion rates showed a similar trend as the kd of vegetation. Thompson et al. (2004) evaluated spatial and
values. With a median value of 2.02 m and a range of 0.09 to temporal variations in particle shear for idealized, non-sub-
20.4 m, the overall erosion estimated by the measured jet test merged rigid vegetal elements. Particle shear and vegetal
erosion parameters was significantly greater than the erosion shear were determined for vegetated densities ranging from
predicted by the empirical parameters (p < 0.001). The 0.03 to 0.09 m2/m2. Their study showed that particle shear
median streambank erosion depths predicted by the Hanson was reduced to a range of 13% to 89% of total shear due to
and Simon (2001) and Osman and Thorne (1988) equations vegetation cover. After reducing
a to 50% of the original
were statistically similar (p = 0.56), with values of 0.20 and value, erosion depths were recalculated. The reduction in
a
0.24 m, respectively. While the median erosion estimates decreased median erosion depths to 0.7 m, 0.09 m, and
were similar, the Osman and Thorne equation predicted high 0.075 m for the jet test, Osman and Thorne, and Hanson and

Figure 7. Pairwise differences in streambank erosion predictions based on parameters obtained using two empirical methods (OT = Osman and Thorne,
1988; HS = Hanson and Simon, 2001) and field measurements using the submerged jet test device (n = 62; Hanson and Cook, 1997).

Vol. 50(1): 95−106 103

Simon kd values, respectively. This difference accounted for soils, the jet test measurements resulted in
c values as much
a reduction of 62% to 65% in median values; maximum ero- as four orders of magnitude greater than the Shields’ dia-
sion values were decreased by 52% to 62%. Because vegeta- gram, Pc , and D50 estimates. The Shields’ diagram
c esti-
tion is likely to reduce streambank erosion, Julian and Torres mates resulted in
c values less than 0.2 Pa, confirming
(2006) incorporated a vegetation coefficient as a multiplica- previous findings that using Shields’ diagram to estimate the
tion factor for
c to account for vegetation effects. The vege-
c of fine-grained soils will likely result in underestimation
tation coefficients were 5.40 and 19.20 for sparse and dense of
c (Hanson and Simon, 2001). The jet test measurements
trees, respectively. If a coefficient was included in this study, incorporated the effects of several factors shown to influence
the
c values would be closer to the
a values, resulting in soil erosion, such as soil texture, specific gravity, moisture
more reasonable erosion predictions. One drawback to this content and cohesion, root reinforcement, and soil/eroding
multiplication factor is that it lumps soil reinforcement and fluid chemical interactions. Shields’ diagram, Smerdon and
particle shear stress reduction from bank vegetation into one Beasley (1961), and Julian and Torres (2006) estimates are
parameter, which does not allow a process-based evaluation only dependent on one or two soil parameters. With the ex-
of the influence of vegetation on bank retreat. ception of the SC analysis, the jet test measurements had a
Of the two methods used to account for the influence of greater range than the other
c estimation methods. The nar-
riparian vegetation on streambank erosion (reducing
a or row range of estimated
c values was likely due to the small
increasing
c ), the former has more theoretical merit. range in measured soil parameters. Considering previous re-
Research by Mamo and Bubenzer (2001a, 2001b) and Wynn search findings (Arulanandan et al., 1980; Wynn and Mostag-
and Mostaghimi (2006a) indicated no correlation between
c himi, 2006a), the results suggest that critical shear stress is
and root density. Riparian vegetation influences the applied influenced by multiple soil properties and may not be mod-
soil shear stress by reducing near-bank velocities and eled by a single dependent parameter. Other variables, such
dampening near-bank turbulent fluctuations (ASCE, 1998). as clay mineralogy, chemistry of the eroding fluid, and ante-
When examining drag from two types of vegetation (simu- cedent water content, influence
c, but these variables are sel-
lated flexible rods and rods with foliage) in a flume study, dom measured (Wynn and Mostaghimi, 2006a).
Wilson et al. (2003) determined that the drag exerted by Measured kd values were much higher than those pre-
plants reduced the mean velocity within vegetated regions dicted by the empirical equations, suggesting that kd is also
and decreased shear-generated turbulence by reducing site-specific and should be measured in situ. The median kd
momentum exchange. produced by the jet test measurements was significantly
This analysis showed that if erosion predictions are the greater than that produced by the two empirical methods,
ultimate goal for erosive streambanks under high applied while the kd estimates for the Hanson and Simon (2001) and
shear stresses, then the selected kd estimation method Osman and Thorne (1988) empirical methods were statisti-
significantly influences erosion predictions. Because the cally similar. For individual soils, the jet test resulted in
soils evaluated in this study were fine grained and erosive, the estimates as much as two orders of magnitude greater than the
erosion predictions were most influenced by estimations of empirical methods. Because the Hanson and Simon (2001)

a and kd ; therefore, these parameters must be correctly method was based on submerged jet test data and the
c data
estimated to predict streambank erosion accurately. fell within the range, similar results were expected. The
differences in kd estimates were attributed to differences in
jet testing procedure, location of measurements within the
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS cross-section, and geographic location.
Erosion predictions were directly related to kd data,
The goal of this study was to compare different methods
indicating that erosion rates for streams with low
c values are
of estimating the parameters used in the excess shear stress
largely controlled by kd . The parameters measured by the jet
equation for the erosion of fine-grained streambank soils.
test resulted in significantly and unrealistically high erosion
The specific objectives were to compare empirical estimates
predictions. These results also showed that
a has a large
of
c and kd to field measurements and to determine the
impact on streambank erosion calculations. Reducing the
a
effects of differences in the kd value on streambank erosion
values by 50% reduced the median erosion estimates up to
predictions. This study examined the Shields’ diagram, as
65%, indicating that shear stress partitioning that accounts
well as the Julian and Torres (2006) and Smerdon and
for riparian vegetation and bedforms may be necessary to
Beasley (1961) equations, for estimating
c . Using a single set
accurately predict streambank erosion rates. Field validation
of
c values, the kd values predicted by two empirical
of these methods over a wide range of soil types is
relations were also compared to field measurements using the
recommended to further develop methods of estimating kd
jet test device (Osman and Thorne, 1988; Hanson and Cook,
and
c for fine-grained streambank soils.
1997; Hanson and Simon, 2001). These parameter values
were then used to estimate streambank erosion for a single
storm event on a local stream. These analyses assumed that ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
the jet test measurements were accurate. Additional research The authors would like to thank Jeff Keaton and Alan
is needed to verify the accuracy and precision of the Simpson, formerly with the Water Resources Division of the
multi-angle submerged jet test device. U.S. Geological Survey, for providing the survey data for the
With the exception of the SC estimates, measured
c Tinker Creek gage. The authors also thank Dr. Greg Hanson
values were much higher than those predicted by the of the USDA-ARS Hydraulics Laboratory in Stillwater,
empirical equations, suggesting that
c is site-specific and Oklahoma, for use of the jet test device.
should be measured in situ. For the individual fine-grained

104 TRANSACTIONS OF THE ASABE

REFERENCES Hanson, G. J., and D. M. Temple. 2002. Performance of bare-earth
and vegetated steep channels under long-duration flows. Trans.
Allen, P. M., J. Arnold, and E. Jakubowski. 1997. Design and
ASAE 45(3): 695-701.
testing of a simple submerged-jet device for field determination
Hanson, G. J., K. R. Cook, and A. Simon. 1999. Determining
of soil erodibility. Environ. Eng. Geosci. 3(4): 579-584.
erosion resistance of cohesive materials. In Proc. ASCE Intl.
Arulanandan, K., E. Gillogley, and R. Tully. 1980. Development of
Water Resources Eng. Conf., CD-ROM. Seattle, Wash.: ASCE.
a quantitative method to predict critical shear stress and rate of
Hanson, G. J., A. Simon, and K. R. Cook. 2002. Non-vertical jet
erosion of natural undisturbed cohesive soils. Tech. Report
testing of cohesive streambank materials. ASAE Paper No.
GL-80-5. Vicksburg, Miss.: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
022119. St. Joseph, Mich.: ASAE.
ASCE. 1998. River width adjustment: I. Processes and mechanisms.
Henderson, M. B., T. M. Wynn, and D. H. Vaughan. 2006. Changes
J. Hydraulic Eng. 124(9): 881-902.
in streambank erodibility and critical shear stress due to subaerial
ASTM. 1999a. Standard test method for erodibility determination
processes. ASABE Paper No. 062144. St. Joseph, Mich.:
of soil in the field or in the laboratory by the jet index method.
ASABE.
No. D5852-95, 04.08: 686-690. West Conshohocken, Pa.:
Holtz, R. D., and W. D. Kovacs. 1981. An Introduction to
ASTM.
Geotechnical Engineering. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice
ASTM. 1999b. Standard test methods for specific gravity of soil
Hall.
solids by water pycnometer. No. D854-92, 4.08: 89-92. West
Julian, J. P., and R. Torres. 2006. Hydraulic erosion of cohesive
Conshohocken, Pa.: ASTM.
riverbanks. Geomorphology 76(1-2): 193-206.
ASTM. 1999c. Standard test methods for liquid limit, plastic limit,
Kamphuis, J. W., and K. R. Hall. 1983. Cohesive material erosion
and plasticity index of soils. No. D4318-98, 4.08: 526-538. West
by unidirectional current. J. Hydraulic Eng. 109(1): 49-61.
Conshohocken, Pa.: ASTM.
Kamyab, I. 1991. Streambank stability prediction for C6 stream
Bicknell, B. R., J. C. Imhoff, J. L. Kittle, Jr., A. S. Donigian, Jr., and
type reconstruction. PhD diss. Reno, Nev.: University of
R. C. Johanson. 1997. Hydrological Simulation Program −
Nevada.
Fortran, User’s Manual for Version 11. EPA/600/R-97/080.
Keaton, J. N., T. Messinger, and E. J. Doheny. 2005. Development
Washington, D.C.: EPA.
and analysis of regional curves relating bankfull channel
Blaisdell, F. W., L. A. Clayton, and G. G. Hebaus. 1981. Ultimate
geometry and discharge to drainage area for selected gaged
dimension of local scour. J. Hydraulic Div. ASCE 107(HY3):
streams in the valley and ridge physiographic province,
327-337.
Maryland, Virginia. Reston, Va.: USGS.
Chang, H. H. 2002. Fluvial Processes in River Engineering.
Lambe, T. W., and R. V. Whitman. 1969. Soil Mechanics. New
Malabar, Fla.: Krieger Publishing.
York, N.Y.: John Wiley and Sons.
Daniel, W. W. 1990. Applied Nonparametric Statistics. Boston,
Langendoen, E. J. 2000. CONCEPTS − Conservational channel
Mass.: PWS-Kent.
evolution and pollutant transport system: Stream corridor
Dunn, I. S. 1959. Tractive resistance of cohesive channels. J. Soil
version 1.0. Research Report No. 16. Oxford, Miss.:
Mech. and Foundations Div. 85(SM3): 1-24.
USDA-ARS.
Fairfax County. 2004. Outfall analysis based on incipient shear
Lavelle, J. W., and H. O. Mofjeld. 1987. Do critical stresses for
stress method. Fairfax, Va.: Fairfax County (Virginia)
incipient motion and erosion really exist? J. Hydraulic Eng.
Department of Public Works and Environmental Services,
113(3): 370-393.
Environmental and Site Review Division.
Lawler, D. M. 1995. The impact of scale on the processes of
Foster, G. R., L. D. Meyer, and C. A. Onstad. 1977. An erosion
channel-side sediment supply: A conceptual model. In Effects of
equation derived from basic erosion principles. Trans. ASAE
Scale on Interpretation and Management of Sediment and Water
20(4): 678-682.
Quality. IAHS Pub. 226. Wallingford, U.K.: International
Grissinger, E. H. 1982. Bank erosion of cohesive materials. In
Association of Hydrological Sciences.
Gravel-Bed Rivers, 273-287. R. D. Hey, J. C. Bathurst, and C. R.
Mamo, M., and G. D. Bubenzer, 2001a. Detachment rate, soil
Thorne, eds. New York, N.Y.: John Wiley and Sons.
erodibility, and soil strength as influenced by living plant roots:
Grissinger, E. H., W. C. Little, and J. B. Murphey. 1981. Erodibility
Part I. Laboratory study. Trans. ASAE 44(5): 1167-1174.
of streambank materials of low cohesion. Trans. ASAE 24(3):
Mamo, M., and G. D. Bubenzer. 2001b. Detachment rate, soil
624-630.
erodibility, and soil strength as influenced by living plant roots:
Hann, C. T., B. J. Barfield, and J. C. Hayes. 1994. Design
Part II. Field study. Trans. ASAE 44(5): 1175-1181.
Hydrology and Sedimentology for Small Catchments. San
Nearing, M. A., G. R. Foster, L. J. Lane, and S. C. Finkner. 1989. A
Diego, Cal.: Academic Press.
process-based soil erosion model for USDA water erosion
Hanson, G. J. 1990a. Surface erodibility of earthen channels at high
prediction project technology. Trans. ASAE 32(5): 1587-1593.
stresses: Part I. Open channel testing. Trans. ASAE 33(1):
Neave, H. R., and P. L. Worthington. 1988. Distribution-Free Tests.
127-131.
London, U.K.: Unwin Hyman.
Hanson, G. J. 1990b. Surface erodibility of earthen channels at high
Neill, C. R. 1967. Mean-velocity criterion for scour of coarse
stresses: Part II. Developing an in situ testing device. Trans.
uniform bed-material. Proc. Intl. Assoc. for Hydraulic Res. 3:
ASAE 33(1): 132-137.
46-54.
Hanson, G. J. 1991. Development of a jet index to characterize
Neill, C. R. 1973. Guide to Bridge Hydraulics. Toronto, Canada:
erosion resistance of soils in earthen spillways. Trans. ASAE
University of Toronto Press.
34(5): 2015-2020.
Osman, A. M., and C. R. Thorne. 1988. Riverbank stability
Hanson, G. J., and K. R. Cook. 1997. Development of excess shear
analysis: I. Theory. J. Hydraulic Eng. 114(2): 134-150.
stress parameters for circular jet testing. ASAE Paper No.
Osterkamp, W. R., P. Heilman, and L. J. Lane. 1998. Economic
972227. St. Joseph, Mich.: ASAE.
consideration of a continental sediment-monitoring program.
Hanson, G. J., and K. R. Cook. 2004. Apparatus, test procedures,
Intl. J. Sediment Res. 13(4): 12-24.
and analytical methods to measure soil erodibility in situ.
Owoputi, L. O., and W. J. Stolte. 1995. Soil detachment in the
Applied Eng. in Agric. 20(4): 455-462.
physically based soil erosion process: A review. Trans. ASAE
Hanson, G. J., and A. Simon. 2001. Erodibility of cohesive
38(4): 1099-1110.
streambeds in the loess area of the midwestern USA.
Partheniades, E. 1965. Erosion and deposition of cohesive soils. J.
Hydrological Processes 15(1) 23-38.
Hydraulics Div. ASCE 91(HY1): 105-139.

Vol. 50(1): 95−106 105

 Prosser, I. P., A. O. Hughes, and I. D. Rutherfurd. 2000. Bank Trimble, S. W. 1997. Contribution of stream channel erosion to
erosion of an incised upland channel by subaerial processes: sediment yield from an urbanizing watershed. Science
Tasmania, Australia. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 278(5342): 1442-1444.
25(10): 1085-1101. USACE. 1993. HEC-6: Scour and Deposition in Rivers and
Samani, J. M. V., and N. Kouwen. 2002. Stability and erosion in Reservoirs, User’s Manual, Version 4.1. Alexandria, Va.: U.S.
grassed channels. J. Hydraulic Eng. 128(1): 40-45. Army Corps of Engineers, Hydrologic Engineering Center.
Shields, A. 1936. Application of similarity principles and USDA. 1996. Soil Survey Laboratory Manual Methods. Soil
turbulence research to bed-load movement. Trans. by W. P. Ott Survey Investigations Report No. 42, Version 3.0. Lincoln,
and J. C. van Uchelen. Pasadena, Cal.: California Institute of Neb.: USDA-NRCS National Soil Survey Center.
Technology, SCS Co-operative Laboratory. USEPA. 2002. National Water Quality Inventory: 2000 Report.
Simon, A., A. Curini, S. E. Darby, and E. J. Langendoen, 2000. EPA 841-R-02-001. Washington, D.C.: U.S. EPA
Bank and near-bank processes in an incised channel. Vanoni, V. A. 1977. Sedimentation Engineering. New York, N.Y.:
Geomorphology 35(3-4): 193-217. ASCE.
Smerdon, E. T., and R. P. Beasley. 1961. Critical tractive forces in Wallbrink, P. J., A. S. Murray, and J. M. Olley. 1998. Determining
cohesive soils. Agric. Eng. 42(1): 26-29. sources and transit times of suspended sediment in the
Temple, D. M. 1980. Tractive force design of vegetated channels. Murrumbidgee River, New South Wales, Australia, using fallout
Trans. ASAE 23(4): 884-890. 137Cs and 210Pb. Water Resources Res. 34(4): 879-887.
Temple, D. M. 1983. Design of grass-lined open channels. Trans. Wilson, C. A. M. E., T. Stoesser, P. D. Bates, and A. B. Pinzen.
ASAE 26(4): 1064-1069. 2003. Open channel flow through different forms of submerged
Temple, D. M. 1985. Stability of grass-lined channels following flexible vegetation. J. Hydraulic Eng. 129(11): 847-853.
mowing. Trans. ASAE 28(3): 750-754. Wynn, T. 2004. The Effects of Vegetation on Streambank Erosion.
Temple, D. M. 1992. Estimating flood damage to vegetated deep PhD diss. Blacksburg, Va.: Virginia Tech, Department of
soil spillways. Applied Eng. in Agric. 8(2): 237-242. Biological Systems Engineering.
Temple, D. M., and G. J. Hanson. 1994. Headcut development in Wynn, T. M., and S. Mostaghimi. 2006a. The effects of vegetation
vegetated earth spillways. Applied Eng. in Agric. 10(5): and soil type on streambank erosion, southwestern Virginia,
677-682. USA. J. AWARA 42(1): 69-82.
Thompson, A. M., B. N. Wilson, and B. J. Hansen. 2004. Shear Wynn, T., and S. Mostaghimi. 2006b. Effects of riparian vegetation
stress partitioning for idealized vegetated surfaces. Trans. ASAE on stream bank subaerial processes in southwestern Virginia,
47(3): 701-709. USA. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 31(4): 399-413.
Thorne, C. R. 1982. Processes and mechanisms of river bank Wynn, T., S. Mostaghimi, J. Burger, A. Harpold, M. Henderson,
erosion. In Gravel-Bed Rivers, 227-259. R. D. Hey, J. C. and L. A. Henry. 2004. Variation in root density along
Bathurst, and C. R. Thorne, eds. New York, N.Y.: John Wiley streambanks. J. Environ. Quality 33(6): 2030-2039.
and Sons.

106 TRANSACTIONS OF THE ASABE

View publication stats