Title: EROSION
1EROSION SEDIMENT CONTROL
- Historical Perspective
- Erosion and Sediment Modeling
2GEOLOGIC EROSION vs ACCELERATED EROSION
3EARLY WORK
4What is SCS?
- Soil Erosion Service
- Soil Conservation Service
- Natural Resource Conservation Service
5The Universal Soil Loss EquationARKLSCP
- Massive data base assembled (1950s 1970)
- Standard plots established throughout the US
- 72.6 ft long
- 13.3 ft wide
- 9 slope
- Fallow for two years
- Up and downhill tillage
(Wischmeier and Smith, 1965 and 1978)
6The Coshocton Wheel Samplerand H-flume
7PREDICTING EROSION USLE/RUSLE
A statistically-based model
Some things we can control Some things we cannot
control
8Rainfall Energy
R-factor
- We cannot control R factor
- Mobile, AL R 650
- Oklahoma R 80 300
- OKC R 200
9Soil Erodibility K-factor
- We have little control of K factor
- Silt loam soil K .32
- Loamy fine sand K .17
- Affected by soil amendments
10Length-Slope
LS-factor
- We have limited control on LS factor
- 9 slope, 72.6 ft LS 1.0
- 10 slope, 200 ft LS 2.41
- 15 slope, 200 ft LS 4.3
- 20 slope, 200 ft LS 11.31
Terraces, diversions, grade control
11Cover Factor - C
0.5 tons/ac straw C0.3 2.0 tons/ac
straw C0.09 4.0 tons/ac woodchips C0.42
We can have a big impact on C-factor
12Cover Factor
Geotextiles C ???
13Cover Management
- Location of cover relative to receiving stream is
important
14EXAMPLE 1
- Typical R 200
- Darnell K 0.32
- Slope Length 300 ft
- Slope 5
- Mature Forest C 0.001
- Practice Factor P 1
gt LS 1.0
A 0.064 tons/ac-yr
15EXAMPLE 2
- Typical R 200
- Darnell K 0.32
- Slope Length 300 ft
- Slope 5
- Bare Soil (bulldozed) C 1
- Practice Factor P 1
gt LS 1.0
A 64 tons/ac-yr
16Ratio of Sediment ProductionChanged Land
Use/Undisturbed Forest
17EROSION vs. SEDIMENT YIELD
GULLY
CHANNEL
18Event-based erosion estimationModified
USLE(MUSLE)
- Q Storm runoff
- qp Peak discharge
- KLSCP USLE parameters
WILLIAMS (1975)
19Statistically Based Erosion Models
- Not process based
- Strong interactions between parameters,
particularly with steep slopes characteristic of
many urban sites - Requires a lot of data to project from one
situation to another without massive data base
20RECENT WORK
- Extensive use of rainfall simulators and
instrumented plots - Process based models
- Incorporation into watershed models of hydrology
and sedimentology - Include the impact of BMPs and channel erosion
21RAINFALL SIMULATORS
- Earliest version of rainfall simulator
- Simulation became a powerful tool in erosion
research
22MODERN SIMULATORS
23MODERN EROSION PLOTS
24Characteristics of Recent Models 1990s
- Process based
- Divided into rill and inter-rill erosion
- Consider concentrated flow erosion separate from
rill and inter-rill - Deposition and detachment based on transport
capacity and detachment potential.
25Rill Interrill Erosion
- Interrill erosion due to rainfall impact
- Rill erosion due to shearing forces of
runoff
26RILL EROSION POTENTIALWEPP Model
- Drc Rill detachment potential
- Kr Rill erodibility
- Channel shear gRS
- tc Critical tractive force
- Fa Correction factor for soil
- type, cover, and freeze thaw
27ACTUAL RILL EROSIONWEPP Model
- Drc Rill detachment potential
- Dr Actual detachment
- qs Sediment load
- Tc Transport capacity
28(No Transcript)
29TYPES OF EROSION Concentrated Flow or Ephemeral
Gully
- Location is due to macrorelief
- Shearing forces of runoff causes erosion
30Concentrated Flow Erosion Foster-Lane Model
31Concentrated Flow Erosion Foster-Lane
ModelAssumes Constant Flow Rate
Included in CREAMS and WEPP Models
32Concentrated Flow Erosion KY DYRT Model
- Allows varying flow rates
- Allows layers of varying density
- Allows deposition
- Included in SEDIMOT III
33DETACHMENT LIMITED AND TRANSPORT LIMITED FLOW
34SEDIMENT SIZE DISTRIBUTION
- Eroded size distribution needed to predict
transport and BMP effectiveness - Methods available
- CREAMS based model
- Empirical study
35OTHER WATERSHED MODELSWith Erosion Components
- CREAMS
- SEDIMOT II
- SEDCAD
- SEDIMOT III
- AGNPS
- SWAT