Agricultural Research Service

en
d
Channel Width Adjustment: o
e n
n g
Importance, Mechanics 7 &
L a 0 1
Assessment
y 2
dd C P
.r E U
D P
Eddy J. Langendoen
Research Hydraulic Engineer & Lead Scientist
Watershed Physical Processes Research Unit
US Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service
Oxford, Mississippi

1
 Outline n
o e
Examples of streambank erosion
n d
Channel dynamics g e
a
How do channels adjust?n 1 7
y L
Role of streambank erosion2 0
dd C P
Streambank erosion processes & analysis
.r E U
Fluvial erosion
D
Mass failure
P

2
STREAMBANK EROSION EXAMPLES
en
o
d
e n
n g 7
L a 0 1
d y P 2
E d C
.r P U
D

3
 en
o
d
e n
n g 7
L a 0 1
d y P 2
E d C
.r P U
D

WANGMO RIVER CHINA 4

 en
o
d
e n
n g 7
L a 0 1
d y P 2
E d C
.r P U
D

INDUS BASIN PAKISTAN 5

 en
o
d
e n
n g 7
L a 0 1
d y P 2
E d C
.r P U
D

INDUS BASIN PAKISTAN 6

 en
o
d
e n
n g 7
L a 0 1
d y P 2
E d C
.r P U
D

RO RMAC, PER 7
 en
o
d
e n
n g 7
L a 0 1
d y P 2
E d C
.r P U
D
JHIHBEN RIVER, TAIWAN
TYPHOON MORAKOT 8
 en
o
d
e n
n g 7
L a 0 1
d y P 2
E d C
.r P U
D
WEST PAPILLION CREEK,
NEBRASKA 9
 en
o
d
e n
n g 7
L a 0 1
d y P 2
E d C
.r P U
D

CANE CREEK, TENNESSEE

10
 en
o
d
e n
n g 7
L a 0 1
d y P 2
E d C
.r P U
D

CHACO CANYON, NEW MEXICO 11

 en
o
d
e n
n g 7
L a 0 1
d y P 2
E d C
.r P U
D

GULLY EROSION IN ETHIOPIA 12

CHANNEL ADJUSTMENT OVERVIEW
en
o
d
e n
n g 7
L a 0 1
d y P 2
E d C
.r P U
D

13
 Channel Adjustment
n
o e
Longitudinal
n d
g e
Long periods of time: Headwater erosion and
downstream depositiona n 1 7
y L 2 0
Short periods of time: Local scour/deposition,
dd P
degradation, and aggradation
C
.r E U
Interactions between discharge, sediment supply,
D
and slope P
Lateral, streambank erosion
Hydraulic: Fluvial erosion or entrainment
Geotechnical: Mass wasting
14
 Idealized Adjustment Trends
n
o e
For a given discharge (Q)
n d
g e
a n 1 7
y L 2 0
dd C P
.r E U
D P

16
Adjustment: Boundary Shear Stress
en
o
d
e n
n g 7
L a 0 1
d y P 2
E d C
.r P U
D

18
Adjustment: Increasing Resistance
en
o
d
e n
n g 7
L a 0 1
d y P 2
E d C
.r P U
D

19
 Idealized Adjustment Trends
n
o e
For a given discharge (Q)
n d
g e
a n 1 7
y L 2 0
dd C P
.r E U
D P

20
 Importance of Widening in Energy
Dissipation en
d o
n
Reduces flow depth (pressure head) for a given flow;
e
Increases relative roughness,n g 7
and therefore,
L a 0 1
Reduces flow velocity (kinetic energy);
d y P 2
E d
Combined with degradation
most efficient .means of U C (potential energy) is the
energy reduction because all
components D r
of E are P
reduced;
Counteracts increase in potential energy from
aggradation

21
Width/Depth Changes During
Adjustment en
d o
e n
n g 7
L a 0 1
d y P 2
E d C
.r P U
D

22
 How Much Sediment Comes from
Bank Failures?en
d o
e
Widening rates of up to 100 m/yrn
Up to 90% of the sediment n
g 7
L a 0 1
emanating from eroding
channels
Often, more than d
y
d of theP 2
a watershed . E
50%
U C sediment emanating from

r P
D along a 5-m high bank along a 100-m
One 1-m failure
reach equals 400 metric tons or about 26 dump trucks

23
Little Blue River, Kansas
en
d o
e n
n g 7
~ 631,000 tonnes eroded during 7 months

L a 0 1
About 42,000 dump trucks

d y P 2
E d C
.r P U
D

24
STREAMBANK EROSION
PROCESSESoen
n d
g e
a n 1 7
y L 2 0
dd C P
.r E U
D P

25
 Streambank Erosionn I
o e
Hydraulic processes
n d
Erosive force applied by the g e
flow exceeds the
resisting force mobilizeda n
by the 1 7
bank materials
y
Resisting forces are
L 0
different2for cohesionless and
dd
cohesive materials:
C P
E
.r grain U
Cohesionless:
D P size
Cohesive: electrochemical bonding between soil
particles

26
 Streambank Erosion n II
o e
Geotechnical processes
n d
Mass instability g e
a n 1 7
L
Gravitational force exceed
0
resisting force
Weight of soils dvs.ycohesion2
Interplay betweenE d C P and friction

r . P U
fluvial erosion and mass wasting
D
Fluvial erosion may promote mass wasting
Mass wasting may prevent fluvial erosion

27
Bank Retreat Processes
n
o e
n d
Vertical face

g e
a n 1 7
y L 2 0
dd C P
.r E U
D P

28
Bank Retreat Processes
n
o e
n d
Toe erosion

g e
steepens bank

a n 1 7
y L 2 0
dd C P
.r E U
D P

29
Bank Retreat Processes
n
o e
n d
Tension crack

g e
develops

a n 1 7
y L 2 0
dd C P
.r E U
D P

30
Bank Retreat Processes
n
o e
n d
Infiltration raises

g e
pore water pressure

a n 1 7
y L 2 0
dd C P
.r E U
D P

31
Bank Retreat Processes
n
o e
n d
Shearing starts

g e
a n 1 7
y L 2 0
dd C P
.r E U
D P

32
Bank Retreat Processes
n
o e
n d
Bank failure

g
occurse
a n 1 7
y L 2 0
dd C P
.r E U
D P

33
Bank Retreat Processes
n
o e
n d
Erosion removes

g e
the failed debris

a n 1 7
y L 2 0
dd C P
.r E U
D P

34
Bank Retreat Processes
n
o e
n d
Bank steepening

g e
starts again

a n 1 7
y L 2 0
dd C P
.r E U
D P

35
Bank Retreat Processes
n
o e
n d
Vertical face

g e
a n 1 7
y L 2 0
dd C P
.r E U
D P

36
 en
o
d
e n
n g 7
L a 0 1
d y P 2
E d C
.r P U
D

37
 Fluvial erosion n
o e
n d
g e
a n 1 7
y L 2 0
dd C P
.r E U
D P

38
 Fluvial Erosion
en
Applied force vs. resisting force
d o
n
Applied drag force: boundary shear stress
e
Near-bank flow field
n g 7
turbulence, etc. L a 0 1
Discharge, flow depth, slope, channel form, secondary flow,

Bank roughness d y P 2
E d C
Topographic variability, grain size, vegetation
.r P U
Resisting: Erosion resistance
Grain sizeD
Cohesivity
Water content
Below-ground organics
39
Near-Bank Flow Field
en
o
d
e n
n g 7
L a 0 1
d y P 2
E d C
.r P U
D

40
Near-Bank Flow Field /w Roughness
& Cover en
d o
e n
n g 7
L a 0 1
d y P 2
E d C
.r P U
D

41
 Bank Shear Stress Estimation I
en
Divided Channel Methods
o
d
e n
Vertical depth/area
n g 7
Normal depth/area
L a 0 1
y
Merged perpendicular
d P 2
method
E d C
.r U
Can have significant error
P
D
for more complex flow fields

42
Bank Shear Stress Estimation Ia
en
o
d
e n
n g 7
L a 0 1
d y P 2
E d C
.r P U
D

43
 Bank Shear Stress Estimation III
en
Simplified momentum equation Shiono
d o & Knight
method extended by Ervine
e n
n g 7
L a 0 1
d y P 2
E d C
.r P U
D

44
 Bank Shear Stress Estimation
n IV
o e
n d
g e
a n 1 7
2D models
y L 2 0
dd C P
3D models
.r E U
D P

45
 Cohesionless Bank Material
n
Resistance & Transport
e
Grain-size dependent d o
e n
Sediment transport dependent
n g 7
L
Cantelli and Parker (2004)a 0 1
d y P 2
E d C
.r P U
D

46
Cohesive Bank Material Resistance
to Erosion en
d o
e n
Transport, deposition, and erosion of cohesive
n
sediments are extremely complexg 7
Erosion resisting forces L
a 0 1
vary according to grain size
y 2
and electrochemicaldbonding between
P particles
Bonding is also E
d C
affectedUby
r . P
local history of soil
D
development and antecedent soil moisture conditions
Commonly it are aggregates that are eroded,
disintegrating rapidly once entrained

48
Cohesive Bank Material Resistance
to Erosion (cont.)
e n
Weathering, cycles of wetting d o
e n
and drying can significantly
n g 7
increase erodibility
L a 0 1
y
Vegetation can increase
d P 2
E d
erosion resistance by
C
r P U
Binding the.soil through their
D
roots introducing an added
cohesion
Reducing pore-water
pressures in the streambank
49
 Cohesive Streambank Erosion
n
o e
d
Erosion rate is given by an excess shear stress relation
n
g e
Osman & Thorne (1988)La
n 1 7
y 2 0
dd C P
. E U
Hanson & D r P
Simon (2001)

Lateral erosion distance

50
Revised Erodibility Relation
n
Thomas and Simon (2010)
e
d o
e n
n g 7
L a 0 1
d y P 2
E d C
.r P U
D

51
 Variability in and
en
o
d
e n
n g 7
L a 0 1
d y P 2
E d C
.r P U
D

Wynn et al. (2007)

52
 Mass wasting n
o e
n d
g e
a n 1 7
y L 2 0
dd C P
.r E U
D P

53
 Mass Failure n
o e
d
Weight of the bank material exceeds the shear strength
n
of the soil
g e
Often results of heighteninga nand 1 7
steepening of the bank
Channel incision y
L 2 0
Toe erosion E d d C P
.
Depends on rbank geometry
P U
D and stratigraphy, soil water
distribution, and riparian vegetation

54
 Cohesionless vs Cohesive Mass
Failures en
d o
Cohesionless e n
n
Dislodgement and avalanching
g of7
L a
Shear failure alongyshallow slip0 1 individual particles

d P 2 surfaces
Cohesive
E d C
.r failuresPU
Deep-seated
D
Block of disturbed soil sliding or toppling along a slip
surface

55
 Mass Failure Mechanisms
n I
o e
Rotational failure
n d
g e
a n 1 7
y L 2 0
dd C P
.r E U
D P

56
 Mass Failure Mechanisms
n II
o e
Planar failure
n d
g e
a n 1 7
y L 2 0
dd C P
.r E U
D P

57
 Mass Failure Mechanisms
n III
o e
Cantilever failure
n d
g e
a n 1 7
y L 2 0
dd C P
.r E U
D P

58
 Mass Failure Mechanisms
n IV
o e
Seepage or sapping failure
n d
g e
a n 1 7
y L 2 0
dd C P
.r E U
D P

59
 Planar Failure Analysis
en
Stability charts
o
d
n
Early models, such as Osman & Thorne (1988), Simon et al.
e
n g
(1991), Darby and Thorne (1996), had limited capabilities
7
Simplified bank profile
L a 0 1
y
Homogeneous bank material
d P 2
E d
Slip surface angle prescribed
C
r .
Evaluation of pore-water
P U
effects
Enhancements D made in late 1990s and early 2000s (e.g., Rinaldi
& Casagli, 1999; Simon et al., 2000)
Matric suction
Heterogeneous bank material
60
 Streambank Stability Analysis
en
Stability is analyzed
d o
using limit equilibrium
e n
methods => FOS
Based upon static n g 7
equilibriums of L a 0 1
forces and/or
d y P 2
moments
E d C
.r
Method of slices to
P U
D
account for:
heterogeneous
bank material Fw = confining force (N/m)
N = normal force (N/m)

Pore and confining S = mobilized shear force (N/m)

W = weight of composite soil (N/m)
= angle of slip surface
pressures
61
 Streambank Stability Analysis
n
Inclination of Failure Surface
e
d o
The inclination of the failure
e n
n g
plane is that for which the factor
7
of safety is a minimum
L a 0 1
d y P 2
E d C
CONCEPTSruses P U
. a search
method to D
find smallest FOS
Factor of safety is evaluated at
Ne number of points along the
bank profile
64
 Cantilever Failure Analysis
n
o e
Shear failure
n d
g e
a n 1 7
Beam failure
y L 2 0
dd C P
. E U
D r
Tensile failure P

Thorne & Tovey (1981)

65
 Fate of Failure Block Material
n
o e
Failed bank material may
n d
temporally protect the bank
g e
from further eroding
a n 1 7
Depends on:
y L 2 0
Failure type
dd C P
.r E
Soil properties U
D P
Vegetation presence
Hydraulics & hydrology

67
 Failure Type Effects on Failure
Block Fate en
d o
Failure mode: e n
n g 7
Sliding
L a 0 1
Toppling
d y P 2
Falling
E d C
.r P U
Location ofDfailed material

68
 Vegetation Effects
n
o e
n d
g e
a n 1 7
y L 2 0
dd C P
.r E U
D P

70
 Vegetation Effects on Streambank
Erosion e n
d o
Reduced erosion/width:
e n
n g
Smith (1976): 20,000 times more resistance to erosion of
7
vegetated soils
L a 0 1
y 2
Beeson and Doyle (1995): erosion 30 times more prevalent
d P
E d
on non-vegetated bends
C
larger .r P U
Burckhardt and Todd (1998): unforested migration rate 3x

D
Increased erosion/width:
Davies-Colley (1997): increasing width from pasture to
native to forested riparian zones.
Trimble (1997): grassed reaches narrower than forested
reaches 71
 Vegetation Effects on Streambank
Erosion (cont.)en
d o
Resistance to surface erosion
e n
Resistance to failure
n g 7

L a 1
Above ground biomass (stems and leaves)
0

y
Below ground biomass (roots)
d P 2
E d
Vegetation affects erosion through:
C
Raindrop interception
.r P U
Increased infiltration and infiltration capacity
D
Soil water transpiration
Increased surface roughness
Soil aggregate stability
Soil reinforcement
72
 Vegetation Effects on Streambank
Stability e n
d o
e n
Shear strength equation
n g 7
L a 0 1
d y P 2
pore-water pressure
cohesion

E d
Shear strength increases C
with increasing cohesion and
.r
decreasing pore-water P U
pressure
D
Vegetation affects both cohesion (i.e., soil bonding)
and soil water content

73
 Vegetation Effects on Streambank
Stability (cont.)en
d o
e n
Stabilizing
Mechanical

n g 7
Increased strength due to roots
Hydrologic
Transpiration and canopy interception
Destabilizing Surcharge
L a 0 1 Increased infiltration rate and capacity

d y P 2
E d C
.r P U
D

74
 Mechanical Effects of Vegetation
en
Root cohesion
o
d
e n
n g 7
Two parameters:
L a 0 1
y
Root tensile strength
d P 2
E
Root-Area-Ratio d C
r .
Species-dependent P U
D
Root tensile
strength tester
75
Root-Strength: Species Comparison
en
d o
n
Tensile strength, in MPa

g e
a n 1 7
y L 2 0
dd C P
.r E U
D P

Diameter, in mm 76
 Root Distribution
e n
d
Trencho around suitable
e n
riparian trees, and date
n g tree
7
using
L a 0 1
dendochronology
d y P 2
E d C
.r P U
D
Map roots on frame
and measure
diameter with
calipers
77
Number of Roots vs Depth
en
Black Willow

d o
River birch

e n
n g 7
L a 0 1
d y P 2
E d C
.rSweetgum

P U Sycamore

D
Root size, mm

78
Root Area Ratio vs Depth
en
Black Willow
d o
River birch

e n
n g 7
L a 0 1
d y P 2
E d C
.r P
Sweetgum U Sycamore

D Root size, mm

79
Cohesion Due to Roots vs Depth
en
Black Willow

d o River birch

e n
n g 7
L a 0 1
d y P 2
E d C
Cohesion due to roots, kPa Cohesion due to roots, kPa

.r
Sweetgum

P U Sycamore

D Root size, mm

Cohesion due to roots, kPa Cohesion due to roots, kPa 80

 Mechanical Findings
n
o e
d
Trees add 5-20 kPa cohesion to soil, over about 0-100
n
g e
cm depth (black willow least effective)
Clump grasses add 10-40aKPa n cohesion
1 7
y L
Lots of small roots potentially 2 0
d
than a few big rootsd C P
provide greater strength
E U from trees actually
.r of thePstrength
However most
comes fromDlarge sized roots small roots make up too
little area
Significant strength achieved over 5-10 years growth

81
 Quantifying the Hydrologic
n
Effects of Vegetation
e
Beneficial Effects: d o
e n
Increase in strength due
n g 7
to matric suction and
reduced pore-water L a 0 1
pressure d y P 2
E d
Rainfall Interception C
.r P U
D
Transpiration
Detrimental Effects:
Enhanced infiltration
Enhanced
permeability 82
Monitoring the Hydrologic Effects of
Vegetation en
d o
e n
n g 7
Rainfall, stemflow and a 1
throughfall monitored y
L 2 0
d d
spatially and in real-time
C P
.r E U
Pore-water pressure
below plotsDmonitored
P
using tensiometers

83
 Hydrology Findings
n
o e
d
2% of rain is intercepted by riparian strip canopy (high
n
g e
intensity events, low canopy cover during winter/spring)
a n 7
Trees increase infiltration capacity, concentrating more
1
y L 2 0
water in upper 30-100 cm soil than on bare or grass-
covered banks
dd C P
.r E U
Trees maintain suction at depth (200-300 cm) into
spring
D P
High matric suction at depth indicates deeper roots
than found in survey (?)

84
Vegetation Effects on Streambank
Stability (cont.)en
d o
e n
n g 7
L a 0 1
d y P 2
E d C
.r P U
D
From
Simon and
Collison,
ESPL, 2002

85
 Assessment Toolsn
o e
Single bank
n d
BSTEM
g e
1D models a n 1 7
CONCEPTS y L 2 0
HEC-RAS dd C P
.r E U
2D models
SRH-2D D P
Telemac2D/Sisyphe
RVR-Meander
DATA NEEDS AND COLLECTION
n
o e
n d
g e
a n 1 7
y L 2 0
dd C P
.r E U
D P

87
 Streambank Erosion Input Data
Requirements en
d o
e n
Bank material properties
n g 7
Composition L a 0 1
Unit weight d y P 2
Erodibility E
d C
.r P U
D
Shear strength
Bank roughness
Bank stability analysis options

88
 Flume Methods to Determine Critical
Shear Stress en
d o
e n
n g 7
Known
flow Field L a 0 1
Depth Erosion
Shear
stress
Device conditions
d
tests
y Bedload
P 2 range Armoring rate range
Annular
Yes
E
Nod C
No 0-0.2 m Yes No 0-1 Pa
flume
SEDFlume Yes .rYes
P U No 0-1 m No Yes 0-10 Pa
SEDFlume
/w trap Yes
D No Yes 0-1 m No Yes 0-10 Pa
channel
Oscillatory
Yes Yes No 0-1 m Some Yes 0-10 Pa
flume

89
In-Situ Jet Test Device to Determine
n
Critical Shear Stress
e
Developed by the Agricultural d o
e
Research Service (Hanson, 1990). n
n g
Based on knowledge of hydraulic
7
L a 0 1
characteristics of a submerged jet and
y 2
the characteristics of soil-material
d P
erodibility.
E d C
.r U
Apparatus: pump, adjustable head
P
tank, jet submergence tank, jet nozzle,
D
delivery tube, and point gage.
The stress range = 4 - 1500 Pa.
Maximum scour measurements are
taken at five to ten minute intervals
over a period of 60 to 120 minutes. 90
 Closing remarks n
o e
d
Bank erosion and channel width adjustment is common
n
Channel width adjustment can g e
be orders of magnitude
greater than channel deptha n 1
adjustment7
y L
Bank erosion is controlled 2 0
processes dd C
by fluvial
P
and gravitational
E
. PU is complex because of
Bank erosionrassessment
D in soil texture and the erosion
spatial variations
mechanics of fine-grained soils