A platform for research: civil engineering, architecture and urbanism
A platform for research: civil engineering, architecture and urbanism
Comparison of Erodibility Parameters for Cohesive Streambank Soils between In Situ Jet Test Device and Laboratory Conduit Flume
Several methods have been developed to estimate critical shear stress and the erodibility coefficient for cohesive stream banks/beds. This research compares estimates of these parameters between an in situ minijet device and a laboratory pressurized conduit flume. Estimates for between the two devices for the same soils were in general agreement compared with , especially for shear magnitudes greater than 5 Pa and consolidated soil with moisture contents greater than 20%. However, erodibility estimates between devices were significantly different. Operation of the minijet device applied a unique multiple-pressure setting (MPS) procedure that accounts for the change in soil properties with depth from the bank face. Both the minijet MPS approach and a conduit flume appeared to reduce the effect of surface subaerial process on erodibility parameter measurements, where and estimates were more similar compared with single-pressure test estimates using the Blaisdell, iterative solution, and scour depth solution computational procedures. Findings suggest and estimates are dependent on the device hydraulics, computational method, and soil properties.
Comparison of Erodibility Parameters for Cohesive Streambank Soils between In Situ Jet Test Device and Laboratory Conduit Flume
Several methods have been developed to estimate critical shear stress and the erodibility coefficient for cohesive stream banks/beds. This research compares estimates of these parameters between an in situ minijet device and a laboratory pressurized conduit flume. Estimates for between the two devices for the same soils were in general agreement compared with , especially for shear magnitudes greater than 5 Pa and consolidated soil with moisture contents greater than 20%. However, erodibility estimates between devices were significantly different. Operation of the minijet device applied a unique multiple-pressure setting (MPS) procedure that accounts for the change in soil properties with depth from the bank face. Both the minijet MPS approach and a conduit flume appeared to reduce the effect of surface subaerial process on erodibility parameter measurements, where and estimates were more similar compared with single-pressure test estimates using the Blaisdell, iterative solution, and scour depth solution computational procedures. Findings suggest and estimates are dependent on the device hydraulics, computational method, and soil properties.
Comparison of Erodibility Parameters for Cohesive Streambank Soils between In Situ Jet Test Device and Laboratory Conduit Flume
Mahalder, Badal (author) / Schwartz, John S. (author) / Wynn-Thompson, Theresa M. (author) / Palomino, Angelica M. (author) / Zirkle, Jon (author)
2021-11-09
Article (Journal)
Electronic Resource
Unknown
Measurement of Cohesive Sediment Erodibility in a Laboratory Flume
| British Library Conference Proceedings | 1997
| British Library Conference Proceedings | 2013
Landscape-Scale Streambank Erodibility Videomapping
| British Library Conference Proceedings | 2012
Flume Test Section Length and Sediment Erodibility
| British Library Online Contents | 2008