YaBeSH Engineering and Technology Library

    • Journals
    • PaperQuest
    • YSE Standards
    • YaBeSH
    • Login
    View Item 
    •   YE&T Library
    • ASCE
    • Journal of Hydraulic Engineering
    • View Item
    •   YE&T Library
    • ASCE
    • Journal of Hydraulic Engineering
    • View Item
    • All Fields
    • Source Title
    • Year
    • Publisher
    • Title
    • Subject
    • Author
    • DOI
    • ISBN
    Advanced Search
    JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

    Archive

    Comparison of Linear and Nonlinear Models for Cohesive Sediment Detachment: Rill Erosion, Hole Erosion Test, and Streambank Erosion Studies

    Source: Journal of Hydraulic Engineering:;2016:;Volume ( 142 ):;issue: 009
    Author:
    A. Khanal
    ,
    K. R. Klavon
    ,
    G. A. Fox
    ,
    E. R. Daly
    DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)HY.1943-7900.0001147
    Publisher: American Society of Civil Engineers
    Abstract: Cohesive sediment detachment is typically modeled for channels, levees, spillways, earthen dams, and internal erosion by using a linear excess shear stress approach. However, mechanistic nonlinear detachment models, such as the Wilson model, have recently been proposed in the literature. Questions exist as to the appropriateness of nonlinear relationships between applied shear stress and the erosion rate. Therefore, the objective of this research was to test the appropriateness of linear and nonlinear detachment models for cohesive sediment detachment using three data sets: (1) rill erodibility studies across a limited range of applied shear stress (0.9–21.4 Pa), (2) hole erosion tests (HETs) across a wide range of applied shear stress (12.6–62.0 Pa), and (3) streambank erodibility as quantified by jet erosion tests (JETs) for the linear excess shear stress equation and the nonlinear Wilson model across a small range of shear stress (1–4 Pa). The Wilson model was also incorporated into the bank stability and toe erosion model (BSTEM) as an option for simulating fluvial erosion and used to simulate bank retreat in the streambank erodibility study. The Wilson model was shown to be an appropriate particle detachment rate model from previously published data on rill erodibility, HETs, and JETs. Using a nonlinear detachment model also alleviated questions about the most appropriate solution technique for deriving erodibility parameters from JETs. In situ and laboratory tests sometimes use a limited range of applied shear stress, and therefore users of these measurement techniques should be aware of the potential nonlinear behavior of cohesive sediment detachment especially at higher shear stress. The results suggest advantages for the nonlinear Wilson detachment model and also identify the need for additional research to evaluate the various detachment models for laboratory HETs and in situ JETs across a wider range of soil types and additional reach-scale streambank erosion studies.
    • Download: (1.300Mb)
    • Show Full MetaData Hide Full MetaData
    • Get RIS
    • Item Order
    • Go To Publisher
    • Price: 5000 Rial
    • Statistics

      Comparison of Linear and Nonlinear Models for Cohesive Sediment Detachment: Rill Erosion, Hole Erosion Test, and Streambank Erosion Studies

    URI
    http://yetl.yabesh.ir/yetl1/handle/yetl/4239132
    Collections
    • Journal of Hydraulic Engineering

    Show full item record

    contributor authorA. Khanal
    contributor authorK. R. Klavon
    contributor authorG. A. Fox
    contributor authorE. R. Daly
    date accessioned2017-12-16T09:08:38Z
    date available2017-12-16T09:08:38Z
    date issued2016
    identifier other%28ASCE%29HY.1943-7900.0001147.pdf
    identifier urihttp://138.201.223.254:8080/yetl1/handle/yetl/4239132
    description abstractCohesive sediment detachment is typically modeled for channels, levees, spillways, earthen dams, and internal erosion by using a linear excess shear stress approach. However, mechanistic nonlinear detachment models, such as the Wilson model, have recently been proposed in the literature. Questions exist as to the appropriateness of nonlinear relationships between applied shear stress and the erosion rate. Therefore, the objective of this research was to test the appropriateness of linear and nonlinear detachment models for cohesive sediment detachment using three data sets: (1) rill erodibility studies across a limited range of applied shear stress (0.9–21.4 Pa), (2) hole erosion tests (HETs) across a wide range of applied shear stress (12.6–62.0 Pa), and (3) streambank erodibility as quantified by jet erosion tests (JETs) for the linear excess shear stress equation and the nonlinear Wilson model across a small range of shear stress (1–4 Pa). The Wilson model was also incorporated into the bank stability and toe erosion model (BSTEM) as an option for simulating fluvial erosion and used to simulate bank retreat in the streambank erodibility study. The Wilson model was shown to be an appropriate particle detachment rate model from previously published data on rill erodibility, HETs, and JETs. Using a nonlinear detachment model also alleviated questions about the most appropriate solution technique for deriving erodibility parameters from JETs. In situ and laboratory tests sometimes use a limited range of applied shear stress, and therefore users of these measurement techniques should be aware of the potential nonlinear behavior of cohesive sediment detachment especially at higher shear stress. The results suggest advantages for the nonlinear Wilson detachment model and also identify the need for additional research to evaluate the various detachment models for laboratory HETs and in situ JETs across a wider range of soil types and additional reach-scale streambank erosion studies.
    publisherAmerican Society of Civil Engineers
    titleComparison of Linear and Nonlinear Models for Cohesive Sediment Detachment: Rill Erosion, Hole Erosion Test, and Streambank Erosion Studies
    typeJournal Paper
    journal volume142
    journal issue9
    journal titleJournal of Hydraulic Engineering
    identifier doi10.1061/(ASCE)HY.1943-7900.0001147
    treeJournal of Hydraulic Engineering:;2016:;Volume ( 142 ):;issue: 009
    contenttypeFulltext
    DSpace software copyright © 2002-2015  DuraSpace
    نرم افزار کتابخانه دیجیتال "دی اسپیس" فارسی شده توسط یابش برای کتابخانه های ایرانی | تماس با یابش
    yabeshDSpacePersian
     
    DSpace software copyright © 2002-2015  DuraSpace
    نرم افزار کتابخانه دیجیتال "دی اسپیس" فارسی شده توسط یابش برای کتابخانه های ایرانی | تماس با یابش
    yabeshDSpacePersian