4.5 Article

Soil properties controlling seepage erosion contributions to streambank failure

Journal

EARTH SURFACE PROCESSES AND LANDFORMS
Volume 32, Issue 3, Pages 447-459

Publisher

JOHN WILEY & SONS LTD
DOI: 10.1002/esp.1405

Keywords

sapping; seepage erosion; streambank failure; undercutting; subsurface flow

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The majority of sediment leaving catchments may be from streambank failure. Seepage erosion of unconsolidated sand above a restrictive layer is an important erosion process in incised streams that leads to streambank failure by undercutting banks. The objective of this study was to determine the impact of soil properties on seepage erosion and the resulting streambank failure. Seepage flow and sediment concentrations were measured in situ at eight locations along the banks of a deeply incised stream in northern Mississippi. Using field observations as a guide, the soil profile conditions of a shallow (45 cm) streambank, consisting of 30 cm of topsoil, a 10 cm conductive layer, and a 5 cm restrictive layer, were mimicked in laboratory lysimeter experiments to quantify the hydrologic properties controlling seepage erosion and bank failure under a 40 cm head. The time to flow initiation and the flow rate were linearly related to the slope of the restrictive layer. Seepage erosion began within minutes of flow initiation and resulted in substantial (3 to 34 cm) undercutting of the bank. Sediment concentrations of seeps were as high as 660 g l(-1) in situ and 4500 g l(-1) in the lysimeters. Sediment concentrations were related to the layer slope, thereby indicating the importance of detailed site characterization. The USDA-ARS Streambank Stability model demonstrated the increase in instability of banks due to undercutting by seepage erosion, but failed to account for the sediment loss due to sapping for stable banks and overestimated the sediment loads for failed banks. Published in 2006 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available