Vol. 20 No. 4 (2017) Cover Image
Vol. 20 No. 4 (2017)

Published: August 31, 2017

Pages: 959-969

Articles

Variability in Soil Erodibility Parameters of Tigris Riverbanks Using Linear and Non-Linear Models

Abdul-Sahib T. Al-Madhhachi 1
1 Department of Environmental Engineering, University of Mustansiriyah
History
  • Received: April 25, 2017
  • Available Online: August 2, 2017

Abstract

Most researches have predicted soil erosion of cohesive riverbanks using linear (excess shear stress model) and non-linear (Wilson model) models based on two soil parameters (detachment coefficient, kd, and critical shear stress, ?c) of the linear model and two soil mechanistic parameters (mechanistic detachment parameter, b0, and threshold parameter, b1) of the non-linear model. The goal of this research was to quantify the soil erodibility parameters of Tigris Riverbanks on Nu’maniyah-Kut Barrage reach using linear and non-linear models through the model parameters at three different water contents: dry side, optimum side, and wet side of water contents. Soil samples were collected from three locations south of Baghdad city on Nu’maniyah-Kut Barrage reach of Tigris Riverbanks. Six soil samples acquired from these sites were laboratory tests achieved using a miniature version of Jet Erosion Test device (“mini” JET) to determine the erodibility parameters of both linear and non-linear models. Blaisdell solution (BL) and scour depth solution (SD) were applied to determine (kd and ?c) of linear model from JETs data. Physical soil characteristics; including bulk density, particle size distribution (sand%, silt%, and clay%), average particle size (D50), and angle of repose were reported for six samples acquired from the three sites. The results showed lower value of kd of toe in compared with bank side for some specific sites as observed for both BL and SD solutions of excess shear stress model especially at wet side of water content. No general pattern of ?c related to different water content were observed. The parameters (b0 and b1) of non-linear model have the same behavior of linear model parameters (kd and ?c), but with different magnitude related to different water contents, respectively.

Keywords

References

  1. Simon, A., Curini, A., Darby, S. E., and Langendoen, E. J. (2000). Bank and near bank processes in an incised channel. Geomorphology, 35 (3-4): 193-217.
  2. Fox, G.A., and Wilson, G.V. (2010). The role of subsurface flow in hillslope and stream bank erosion: a review. Soil Sci. Soc.Am.J.,74(1),717–733. http://dx.doi.org/10.2135/sssaj2009.0319.
  3. Partheniades, E. (1965). Erosion and deposition of cohesive soils. J. Hydraul. Div., ASCE, 91(1), 105-139.
  4. Hanson, G. J. (1990). Surface erodibility of earthen channels at high stresses. II: Developing an in situ testing device. T. ASAE, 33(1): 132-137.
  5. Al-Madhhachi, A. T., Hanson, G. J., Fox, G. A., Tyagi, A. K., and Bulut, R. (2013a). Measuring soil erodibility using a laboratory “mini” JET. Trans. ASABE, 56(3), 901-910. DOI: 10.1061/41173(414) 244.
  6. Al-Madhhachi, A. T., Hanson, G. J., Fox, G. A., Tyagi, A. K., and Bulut, R. (2013b). Deriving parameters of a fundamental detachment model for cohesive soils from flume and jet erosion tests. Trans. ASABE, 56(2), 489-504. DOI: 10.13031/2013. 42669.
  7. Wilson, B. N. (1993a). Development of a fundamental based detachment model. Transaction of ASAE, 36(4): 1105-1114.
  8. Wilson, B. N. (1993b). Evaluation of a fundamental based detachment model. Transaction of ASAE, 36(4): 1115-1122.
  9. Hanson, G. J., and Hunt, S. (2007). Lessons learned using laboratory JET method to measure soil erodibility of compacted soils. Appl. Eng. Agr., 23(3), 305-312. DOI: 10.13031/2013.22686.
  10. Clark, L.A., and Wynn, T.M. (2007). Methods for determining streambank critical shear stress and soil erodibility: implications for erosion rate predictions. Transaction of ASABE, 50(1), 95–106. Doi.org/10.13031/2013.22415.
  11. Utley, B., and Wynn, T. (2008). Cohesive soil erosion: theory and practice. World Environmental and Water Resources Congress, 2008, pp.1–10.
  12. Hanson, G. J., and Simon, A. (2001). Erodibility of cohesive streambeds in the loess area of the midwestern USA. Hydrological processes, 15(1), 23-38. DOI: 10.1002/hyp.149.
  13. Simon, A., Thomas, R., and Klimetz, L. (2010). Comparison and experiences with field techniques to measure critical shear stress and erodibility of cohesive deposits. Proc., 2nd Joint Federal Interagency Conference, Las Vegas, NV.
  14. Daly, E. R., Fox, G. A., Al-Madhhachi, A. T., and Miller, R. (2013). A scour depth approach for deriving erodibility parameters from Jet Erosion Tests. Trans. ASABE, 56(6), 1343-1351. DOI: 10.13031/trans.56.10350.
  15. Daly, E. R., Fox, G. A., Al-Madhhachi, A. T., and Storm, D. E. (2015a). Variability of fluvial erodibility parameters for streambanks on a watershed scale. Geomorphology,231,281-291. DOI:10.1016/j.geomorph.2014.12.016.
  16. Daly, E., Miller, R. B., and Fox, G. A. (2015b). Modeling streambank erosion and failure along protected and unprotected composite streambanks. Advances in Water Resources, 81, 114-127.
  17. Daly, E. R., Fox, G. A., and Fox, A. K. (2016). Correlating site-scale erodibility parameters from jet erosion tests to soil physical properties. Trans. ASABE, 59(1): 115-128. DOI 10.13031/trans.59.11309.
  18. Salah, M., and Al-Madhhachi, A. T. (2016). Influence of Lead Pollution on Cohesive Soil Erodibility using Jet Erosion Tests. Environment and Natural Resources Research; Vol. 6(1): 88-98.
  19. Langendoen, E. J. (2000). CONCEPTS — conservational channel evolution and pollutant transport system, stream corridor version 1.0. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Oxford, MS.
  20. Ulrich, J. S., and Nieber, J. L. (2008). Streambank and bluff erosion modeling for the Knife River, Minnesota. ASABE Paper No. 084478. ASABE, St. Joseph, MI http://dx.doi.org/10.13031/2013.25072.
  21. Midgley, T. L., Fox, G. A., and Heeren, D. M. (2012). Evaluation of the bank stability and toe erosion model (BSTEM) for predicting lateral streambank retreat on composite streambanks. Geomorphology; 145–146:107–14.
  22. Khanal, A., Fox, G. A., and Al-Madhhachi, A. T. (2016). Variability of erodibility parameters from laboratory mini Jet Erosion Tests. Journal of Hydrologic Engineering, ASCE, ISSN 1084-0699/ 04016030-1.
  23. Abdul-Sahib, A. A. (2014). Roughness Characteristics of The Kut-Nu’maniyah reach of the Tigris River and Its Effect on Nu’maniyah Gaging Station. M.Sc. Thesis, Baghdad University, Baghdad, Iraq.
  24. ASTM Standards. (2006). Section 4: Construction. In Annual Book of ASTM Standards. Philadelphia, Pa.: ASTM.
  25. Hanson, G. J., and Cook, K. (1997). Development of excess shear stress parameters for circular jet testing. ASAE Paper, 972227. St. Joseph, Mich: ASAE.
  26. Hanson, G. J., and Cook, K. (2004). Apparatus, test procedures, and analytical methods to measure soil erodibility in situ. Appl. Eng. Agr., 20(4), 455-462. DOI: 10.13031/2013.16492.
  27. Stein, O. R., and Nett, D. D. (1997). Impinging jet calibration of excess shear sediment detachment parameters. Trans. ASAE, 40(6): 1573-1580. DOI: 10.13031/2013.21421.
  28. Blaisdell, F. W., Clayton, L. A., and Hebaus, C. G. (1981). Ultimate dimension of local scour. J. Hydraulics Division, ASCE, 107(HY3): 327-337.
  29. Layzell, A. L., and Mandel, R. D. (2014). An assessment of the erodibility of Holocene lithounits comprising streambanks in northeastern Kansas, USA. Geomorphology, 213, 116–127.