See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/339414997

Soil Properties Affecting the Onset of Erosion in Cohesive Soils

Conference Paper · February 2020

DOI: 10.1061/9780784482780.073

CITATION READS
1 216

2 authors, including:

Md Zahidul Karim
Kansas State University
7 PUBLICATIONS   40 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Md Zahidul Karim on 09 March 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Soil Properties Affecting the Onset of Erosion in Cohesive Soils
Md Zahidul Karim, S.M.ASCE1, Stacey E. Kulesza, Ph.D., P.E., M.ASCE2,
1
Graduate Student, Department of Civil Engineering, Kansas State University, 1701 C Platt St,
Fiedler 2118, Manhattan, KS-66506. Email: mdzahidulkarim@ksu.edu
2
Associate Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Kansas State University, 1701 C Platt St,
Fiedler 2118, Manhattan, KS-66506. Email: sekulesza@ksu.edu
ABSTRACT
Since its establishment in 1991, Hydraulic Engineering Circular (HEC-18) has been the primary
tool for United States transportation agencies to evaluate bridge scour. The empirical relationships
in HEC-18 are based on cohesionless soils and have been proven to be overly conservative
cohesive soils. To incorporate the scour behavior of cohesive soils in the design manual, the
Federal Highway Administration recently developed a scour prediction model for cohesive soil.
However, the new model is valid for a very narrow range of cohesive soils, focusing mainly low
plastic silts and clays. The objective of this study was to determine significant soil properties that
affect the critical shear stress (exerted by the flowing water on soils) for the onset of erosion using
a broader spectrum of cohesive soils. A total of 71 soil samples from 27 bridge sites were used for
this study. Erosion testing was performed in the Erosion Function Apparatus and soil properties
were measured in the field and laboratory for obtaining different variables. Among the various soil
properties, percent fines, liquid limit, and electrical resistivity were found to be statistically
significant variables for predicting the critical shear stress. For the 71 samples used in this study,
liquid limit varied between 26 to 80, plasticity index between 3 to 52, and percent fines between
11 to 100. Therefore, the variables that were found statistically significant in this study can be
utilized to build a comprehensive model for critical shear stress, applicable for a broader range of
cohesive soils.
INTRODUCTION
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) defines scour as the result of erosive action of
flowing water, which excavates and carries material away from the bed and banks of streams and
from around the piers and abutments of bridges (Calappi et al. 2010). Currently, Hydraulic
Engineering Circular 18 (HEC-18) is the primary tool for evaluating scour at transportation
infrastructure. Over the years, researchers have observed that HEC-18 scour equations tend to over
predict scour depths for many geologic and hydraulic conditions because these equations were
developed based on the laboratory testing of cohesionless soils (Schuring et al. 2010). For example,
the equation to calculate critical velocity (i.e., the threshold water velocity for scour) for
contraction scour presented in HEC-18 allows for a minimum median particle size (𝑑50 ) of 0.2
mm (Arneson et al. 2012); however, 𝑑50 is below 0.075 mm for most cohesive soils. In cohesive
soils, interparticle forces provide the primary resistance against scour. Although median grain size
is often listed as a variable that influences cohesive soil erodibility, other physical, biological, and
geochemical properties also contribute (Grabowski et al. 2011).
The threshold of applied hydraulic shear stress at which erosion initiates is the critical shear stress
(Partheniades 1965; Hanson et al. 1999; Utley and Wynn 2008; Bernhardt et al. 2011). The excess
shear stress equation is the common equation relating erosion rate and critical shear stress such
that

–1–
 𝐸̇ = 𝑘𝑑 (𝜏 − 𝜏𝑐 ) (1)
where 𝐸̇ is the erosion rate (mm/hr), 𝑘𝑑 = erodibility coefficient, 𝜏 is the hydraulic shear stress
(Pa) and 𝜏𝑐 is the critical shear stress (Pa) (Partheniades 1965; Hanson et al. 1999). Equations to
calculate the ultimate scour depth using critical shear stress as a variable for cohesive soils was
included in the latest edition of HEC-18 (Arneson et al. 2012). Site specific erosion testing was
recommended to get critical stress (i.e., there is no equation to predict based on soil properties) for
this case. However, conducting site specific erosion testing is cost prohibitive. To address this, the
FHWA recently developed an empirical equation for critical shear stress in cohesive soils (Shan
et al. 2015). The independent variables in this equation are natural water content, percent fines
(percentage of particles smaller than 0.075 mm), plasticity index, and unconfined compressive
strength. However, this empirical equation was based upon laboratory prepared soils with
plasticity index ranging from 4 to 25, liquid limit between 15 to 50, and percent fines ranging from
10 to 90. Additionally, the equation is applicable for hydraulic shear stresses within the range of 3
to 15 Pa. Therefore, the equation is primarily appropriate for low plastic cohesive soils. Again, the
authors conducted a bridge scour study across eastern Kansas and found that most soil properties
and applied hydraulic shear stresses were outside of the limits of the new model (Karim and
Tucker-Kulesza 2018). Therefore, although this FHWA equation provides an improved
methodology for predicting critical shear stress, there is still a need to develop an empirical
equation of critical shear stress in cohesive soils covering a wider range of soil properties and soil
types.
The objective of this study was to identify which measurable soil properties are the most valuable
for predicting critical shear stress in cohesive soils. This introduction is followed by a methodology
section where the field work and laboratory testing are briefly described. The results and analysis
section include the description of different soil properties and the statistical analysis to select
significant variables for predicting critical shear stress. The paper ends with a discussion of the
findings and conclusions.
METHODOLOGY
A total of 71 soil samples from 27 sites were used in this study. Among them, 67 samples were
collected from 23 sites across eastern Kansas. These sites were selected by Kansas Department of
Transportation based on their scour vulnerability. The remaining four samples were collected from
Michigan, Ohio, Nebraska, and Colorado by the FHWA for a separate study. Each of the 71
samples was collected in a 610 mm long Shelby tube following ASTM D1587 (ASTM 2015a),
and transported and preserved following ASTM D4220 (ASTM 2014a) until the erosion testing
commenced. Electrical Resistivity Tomography (ERT) was conducted at all Kansas sites the same
day of soil sampling to obtain the electrical resistivity (ER) corresponding to each sample. ER was
measured in the laboratory using a four-electrode soil box for the samples collected outside of
Kansas. Note that Karim et al. (2019) showed that laboratory ER measurements provide
statistically similar ER values as in situ ERT.
Erosion testing was conducted in an erosion function apparatus (EFA) which is a flume-style
erosion testing apparatus. In an EFA test, the erosion rate (mm/hr) at different water velocities
(m/s) was obtained. The corresponding shear stress applied by the flowing water on the eroding
soil surface was calculated as
1
𝜏 = 8 𝑓𝜌𝑣 2 (2)
2
where, 𝜏 is the shear stress (N/m ), 𝑓 is the friction factor [obtained from the Moody chart (1944)],
𝜌 is the density of water (kg/m3), and 𝑣 is the average water velocity (m/s) (Briaud et al. 2001).

–2–
As suggested by Briaud (2017), the critical shear stress (the dependent variable) was estimated as
the shear stress corresponding to an erosion rate of 0.1 mm/hr from the erosion rate versus shear
stress plot for each sample. A more detailed description of the sampling, ERT surveys, and erosion
testing can be found in Karim and Tucker-Kulesza (2018) and Karim et al. (2019). Each sample
was first used for EFA testing and the remaining soil in the Shelby tube was then used to measure
various soil properties, including water content (ASTM D2216 2019), Atterberg limits (ASTM
D4318 2017a), and grain size distribution (ASTM D7928 2017b, ASTM C117 2017c, and ASTM
C136 2014b). An additional sample was collected at each site for triaxial unconsolidated undrained
shear strength (ASTM D2850 2015b) determination. Dry density, void ratio, porosity, and degree
of saturation were calculated based on these measured properties.
RESULTS AND ANALYSIS
Soil samples were classified according to the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) (ASTM
D2487 2017d); 45 classified as low plastic clays (CL), 17 as high plastic clays (CH), four as low
plastic silts (ML), one as high plastic silts (MH), three as clayey sands (SC), and one as well graded
clayey sands (SW-SC). All of the 71 samples had more than 5-10% fines, which is the criteria for
cohesive soils (Mitchell and Soga 2005, and Raudkivi 1990), and were included in the analysis.
The results of erosion testing are shown in Figure 1 which is a graph of erosion rate versus shear
stress. The graph is divided into various zones of erodibility based on the soil type and provides a
rough estimate of the critical shear stress as suggested by HEC-18 (Arneson et al. 2012).

Figure 1. Erosion rate versus shear stress with USCS classification for the 71 samples; star
symbols represent critical shear stress
The measured critical shear stress varied between 0.4 to 109.1 Pa for the 71 samples and are shown
using star symbols along the 0.1 mm/hr erosion rate line in Figure 1. As shown in Figure 1, the
samples in this study ranged across four out of the six erodibility divisions of all geologic materials
as suggested by HEC-18. According to HEC-18, CH is the most erosion resistant soil after rock.
It suggested critical shear stress should roughly vary between 9 to 70 Pa for CH and 1.5 to 9 Pa

–3–
for CL and MH soils. However, in this study, CL was found to be the most erosion resistant soil
type with the highest critical shear stress of 109.1 Pa as shown in Figure 1. To determine the most
influential factors affecting critical shear stress in cohesive soils, 13 engineering soil properties
were measured following the guidelines of National Cooperative Highway Research Program
(Briaud et al. 2004). Electrical resistivity of each sample was also measured as many geochemical
properties such as ionic concentration, cation exchange capacity, sodium absorption ratio are
common factors of both erosion and electrical resistivity (Grabowski et al. 2011, Friedman 2005).
A summary of the measured soil properties in this study are presented in Table 1.
Table 1. Description of the measured soil properties
Variable Range Min. Max. Mean Std. Dev.
Critical shear stress, 𝜏𝑐 (Pa) 108.7 0.4 109.1 24.52 22.84
Electrical resistivity, 𝜌 (Ω-m) 321.7 6.0 327.7 28.80 54.51
Water content, 𝑤 (%) 29 11 40 26.61 4.89
Percent fines, 𝑓 (%) 89 11 100 90.10 19.15
Median grain size, 𝑑50 (mm) 1.9188 0.0012 1.9200 0.09 0.36
Liquid limit, 𝐿𝐿 (%) 54 26 80 42.56 10.27
Plastic limit, 𝑃𝐿 (%) 24 10 34 20.50 4.16
Plasticity index, 𝑃𝐼 (%) 49 3 52 22.06 10.01
Void ratio, 𝑒 (dimensionless) 0.90 0.28 1.18 0.77 0.19
Porosity, 𝑛 (dimensionless) 0.32 0.22 0.54 0.43 0.06
Degree of saturation, 𝑆 (%) 33 67 100 91.03 6.57
Bulk density, 𝐷𝑏 (g/cm3) 0.58 1.75 2.32 1.93 0.11
Dry density, 𝐷𝑑 (g/cm3) 0.86 1.25 2.11 1.54 0.17
Undrained strength, 𝑆𝑢 (kPa) 225.5 13.9 239.4 97.47 47.17
Description of the soil properties. The combined results from dry sieving, wet sieving, and
hydrometer analysis were used to prepare the gradation curve of each sample. In this study, percent
fines varied between 11% to 100% and critical shear stress increased with increasing percent fines.
Percent fines was also included as a significant variable for predicting critical shear stress in other
studies, such as Shan et al. (2015) and Mahalder et al. (2018). The median grain size ranged from
0.0012 mm to 1.92 mm and critical shear stress decreased with increasing median grain size in this
study. This trend was opposite to the trend showed by cohesionless soils (Briaud et al. 2001).
Smerdon and Beasley (1961) developed one of the earliest relations between critical shear stress
and median grain size of cohesive soils which showed that critical shear stress decreased with
increasing median grain size similar to this study. Among recent studies, Kimiaghalam et al. (2015)
did not find strong correlation between these two variables.
Measurements of Atterberg limits provided three variables, namely liquid limit (ranged from 26
to 80), plastic limit (ranged from 10 to 34), and plasticity index (ranged from 3 to 52). Critical
shear stress increased with the increase in both liquid limit and plasticity index up to certain values
(around 𝐿𝐿 = 50, 𝑃𝐼 = 30) and the change in critical shear stress were negligible beyond those
values; hence, a quadratic function could best describe this relationship. The quadratic function
was also used for the plasticity index in the permissible shear stress equation developed by the
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) for the purposes of evaluating channel lining
stability (USDA 1987).

–4–
Critical shear stress increased with the increase in water content (varied between 11% to 40%) in
this study. Water content has been shown to influence cohesive soil erodibility by Shan et al. 2015
and Mahalder et al. 2018, but it was not found to be significant in other studies (e.g., Kimiaghalam
et al. 2015). Similarly, the general trend in this study showed that critical shear stress increased
with increasing degree of saturation. The degree of saturation ranged from 67% to 100%, with a
mean value of 91%, indicating limited variation. This was somewhat expected because these
samples were collected from bridge sites. The proximity to a nearby stream and high water table
likely attributed to this high saturation across the sites.
As a geoelectrical property of soil, electrical resistivity was measured in this study which varied
between 6.0 to 327.7 Ωm with a mean value of 28.8 Ωm. The resistivity values were relatively low
in this study because the samples were predominantly fine grained (Everett 2013) and the degree
of saturation was high (Kouchaki et al. 2018, Abu-Hassanein et al. 1996). Electrical resistivity
has been shown to be a binary classifier to identify high erodibility at bridge sites (Karim et al.
2019; Karim and Tucker-Kulesza 2018). Based on this classifier, the subsurface condition at a site
in terms of erodibility can be obtained. For example, for one of the sites located on US-24 highway,
the subsurface resistivity distribution shown in Figure 2 indicates that the top 2 m surficial layer
with resistivity above 50 Ωm (green to red zone) is more erodible than the deeper layers (dark blue
to purple zone) with comparatively low resistivity (Karim and Tucker-Kulesza 2018). Therefore,
resistivity was evaluated as a geoelectrical property for predicting critical shear stress. The location
of sampling for erosion testing at this site was shown using a dotted rectangle at 12.5 m along the
horizontal axis. When plotted, critical shear stress decreased with the increase in resistivity for the
71 samples of this study. Resistivity measurements are greatly affected by cation exchange
capacity, ionic strength, and sodium absorption ratio (Friedman 2005). Although researchers
(Arulanandan 1975, Kimiaghalam et al. 2015) attempted to correlate the onset of erosion using
these geochemical properties; no evidence of predicting critical shear stress using resistivity was
found in the literature.

Figure 2. Subsurface resistivity distribution at US-24 site; the dashed rectangle represents
the sample collected from this site
Several studies can be found to correlate critical shear stress with shear strength of cohesive soils.
For example, Kimiaghalam et al. (2015) found correlation between critical shear stress and
cohesion parameter of soils using direct shear tests. On the other hand, Reddi and Bonala (1997)
found a correlation with the friction angle parameter. Leonard and Richard (2004) found a linear
correlation between critical shear stress and vane shear strength. Shan et al. (2015) performed
unconfined compression tests and found the shear strength as a significant variable for critical
shear stress. In this study unconsolidated undrained tests were performed at 1% strain rate using
in-situ confinement pressures for each sample. The undrained shear strength varied between 13.9
kPa and 239.4 kPa for the 71 samples in this study. Although critical shear stress increased with

–5–
increasing undrained shear strength as a general trend, some samples with high undrained shear
strength eroded faster than expected.
Critical shear stress was found to increase with the increase in dry density by Owen (1975).
However, Amos et al. (1997) found the opposite relationship using bulk density. In this study,
bulk density varied between 1.75 g/cm3 to 2.32 g/cm3 and dry density varied between 1.25 g/cm3
to 2.11 g/cm3, and critical shear stress increased with the increase in both of these variables. The
void ratio and porosity varied between 0.28 to 1.18 and 0.22 to 0.54 respectively for the 71 samples
of this study. Critical shear stress decreased with the increase in both of these variables.
Multicollinearity among soil properties. Some of the soil properties (independent variables) may
be correlated with each other, providing repetitive information for prediction of critical shear stress
(dependent variable). This phenomenon is termed as multicollinearity (Mendenhall and Sincich
2012) and it ultimately results misleading prediction for the dependent variable. Multicollinearity
is measured by coefficient of correlation, 𝑟 such that
∑𝑖(𝑥1𝑖 −𝑥̅ 1 )(𝑥2𝑖 −𝑥̅ 2 )
𝑟= (3)
√∑𝑖(𝑥1𝑖 −𝑥̅ 1 )2 ∑𝑖(𝑥2𝑖 −𝑥̅ 2 )2
where, -1≤ 𝑟 ≤1; 𝑥1𝑖 and 𝑥2𝑖 are the two variables between which 𝑟 is being measured for the 𝑖-
th observation. A positive 𝑟 denotes that the pair of variables are positively related (increasing one
increases the other) and vice versa. The closer the value of |𝑟| is to 1, the stronger is the
relationship (multicollinearity) between two variables and one of these two variables should be
excluded from further consideration.
Firstly, dry density and bulk density exhibited 𝑟 = 0.97; which was expected because both
variables denote mass per unit volume of soil. Again, void ratio and porosity were highly correlated
(𝑟 = 0.99), as they both identify the relative volume of voids in a sample. Both void ratio and
porosity were also highly correlated with dry density (|𝑟| > 0.90). Among these four variables, only
dry density was kept for further consideration as all these four variables contain similar
information of how densely the soil particles are packed.
The percent fines and median grain size were highly correlated (|𝑟| = 0.89). Because both of these
variables were obtained from the gradation curve, keeping both would induce repetitive
information and ultimately have an adverse effect on the prediction of critical shear stress. Note
that median grain size is a good indicator of critical shear stress in clean sand and gravel
(cohesionless soils) where gravity forces control the erosion threshold (Briaud et al. 2001). In
cohesive soils, the erosion is not controlled by the size of particles but rather the total amount of
cohesive particles or the percent fines. Therefore, percent fines was considered for predicting
critical shear stress and median grain size was dropped to avoid multicollinearity. This was also
done because percent fines is more routinely determined than median grain size in cohesive soils,
which requires a time consuming hydrometer analysis.
Among the variables from Atterberg limit tests, plasticity index and liquid limit showed very high
correlation with 𝑟 = 0.91. To avoid repetitive effect, plasticity index was left out, and plastic limit
and liquid limit were kept for further consideration in the next step of variable selection. Therefore,
after removing five independent variables considering the multicollinearity, eight variables were
left for the final stage of variable selection.
Variable screening. The backward elimination technique was utilized to select the optimum
number of variables from the pool of eight available variables to predict critical shear stress. In the
first iteration, this technique included all eight variables for predicting critical shear stress. The t-

–6–
statistic (Mendenhall and Sincich 2012) of each variable was calculated and compared with the
critical t-value. In successive iterations, the variables not showing a t-value greater than the critical
value at a certain significance level, were eliminated. After the final iteration, variables 𝐿𝑜𝑔(𝑓),
𝐿𝐿2 , 𝐿𝐿, 𝐿𝑜𝑔(𝜌), and 𝐷𝑑 were selected as significant dependent variables for predicting 𝜏𝑐 and,
𝑃𝐿, 𝑤, 𝑆, 𝑆𝑢 were eliminated for a significance level, 𝛼 = 0.1. Note that, logarithmic functions
were used to reduce the skewness in the distribution of percent fines (𝑓), and resistivity (𝜌).
An additional variable selection algorithm (Pedregosa et al. 2011) was also used to cross check the
findings of the backward elimination technique. In this method, variables are ranked based on their
F scores such that 𝐹 = 𝑟 2 (𝑛 − 2)/(1 − 𝑟 2 ); where 𝑟 is the correlation coefficient for a certain
variable with critical shear stress and 𝑛 is the number of observations. The higher the 𝐹 score of a
soil property, the more it is correlated to critical shear stress. The 𝐹 scores for all nine variables
are shown in Table 2. Note that there were eight available variables and 𝐿𝐿 was used as a quadratic
function (𝐿𝐿2 , 𝐿𝐿), adding an extra variable.
Table 2. 𝐹 scores of the available variables for predicting critical shear stress
Variable 𝐿𝑜𝑔(𝑓) 𝐿𝐿2 𝐿𝐿 𝑃𝐿 𝐿𝑜𝑔(𝜌) 𝑤 𝑆 𝐷𝑑 𝑆𝑢
𝐹 score 54.5 15.9 25.5 0.4 62.7 3.5 2.1 0.1 0.8
As shown in Table 2, 𝐹 scores of 𝐿𝑜𝑔(𝑓), 𝐿𝐿2 , 𝐿𝐿, and 𝐿𝑜𝑔(𝜌) were clearly higher than rest of
the variables. Unlike backward elimination, this method did not find dry density (𝐷𝑑 ) as an
influential variable for predicting critical shear stress. This result was also in agreement with the
plot of critical shear stress versus dry density which exhibited an 𝑅 2 value of only 0.002. Hence,
including 𝐷𝑑 may induce more bias in the model, meaning, the model might not work well outside
the dataset of this model. Therefore, percent fines (𝑓), liquid limit (𝐿𝐿), and electrical (𝜌) are the
three most influential variables when predicting critical shear stress (𝜏𝑐 ) based on the dataset of
this study.
DISCUSSION
The primary goal in this study was to identify the most influential measurable soil properties on
cohesive soil erosion. The long-term goal of this research is to develop a model to predict critical
shear stress for erosion that would cover a broader spectrum of cohesive soils. Recent scour models
by Shan et al. (2015), Kimiaghalam et al. (2015), Mahalder et al. (2018) have been valuable
contributions for better understanding the influence of various factors on cohesive soil erosion.
Among these models, Shan et al. (2015) addressed FHWA’s initiative to incorporate the scour
behavior of cohesive soils in the context of the HEC-18 framework. All the four variables that
Shan et al. (2015) included in the model, namely, percent fines, plasticity index, water content and
unconfined compressive strength are routinely measured by transportation agencies. Therefore,
the model will allow the calculation of scour depths without performing site-specific erosion
testing. Note that percent fines and liquid limit (equivalent to plasticity index) were also found
statistically significant variables for predicting critical shear stress in this study. From the
similarity between this study and Shan et al. (2015), it is evident that the amount of fines and the
Atterberg limits of cohesive soils are important measurable properties for predicting the onset of
erosion. Although water content and shear strength were not found statistically significant,
resistivity was found statistically significant for predicting critical shear stress in this study.
Resistivity, being a bulk soil response, is greatly affected by water content (Kibria and Hossain
2012, Kouchaki et al. 2018), and Chen et al. (2018) recently showed that shear strength of soil and
resistivity were correlated. Therefore, resistivity might have a similar effect on critical shear stress,

–7–
as the combination of water content and unconfined compressive strength had in Shan et al. (2015)
model. Furthermore, many geochemical factors that affect resistivity such as sodium absorption
ratio, cation exchange capacity (Friedman 2005), were found as significant factors affecting the
onset of erosion by Kimiaghalam et al. (2015), Mahalder et al. (2018). The future model based
upon the variables found in this study, will also be versatile in the fact that all these variables are
readily measurable irrespective of the geological condition. For example, the dataset was first
analyzed for the 67 Kansas samples, and the result did not change when samples from four
different states were included. Regarding adaptability, the sampling method was also identical to
most of the transportation agencies nationwide, and the erosion testing apparatus of this study was
the same apparatus used to develop equations for ultimate scour in the latest edition of HEC-18
(Arneson et al.2018).
CONCLUSIONS
Statistically significant soil properties with most influence on the critical shear stress in cohesive
soils, were determined in this study. For this purpose, 13 different soil properties were measured
using 71 soil samples. Among these soil properties, percent fines, liquid limit, and electrical
resistivity were found as significant independent variables for predicting critical shear stress in
cohesive soils. Aimed at nationwide implementation, the main advantage of this study was that
soil samples were collected from 27 sites, incorporating a broader spectrum of cohesive soils.
Erosion test results showed that critical shear stress varied from 0.4 Pa to as high as 109.1 Pa. The
critical shear stresses observed in this study covered four (out of six) erodibility categories of
geologic materials presented in HEC-18. Soil samples varied across a wide range of soil properties.
Percent fines varied between 11 to 100, liquid limit between 26 to 80, and plasticity index between
3 to 52. The unique contribution of this study was to find electrical resistivity as a significant
variable to describe the erosion behavior in cohesive soils. This is significant because the use of
electrical resistivity imaging for site characterization has been increasing by transportation
agencies, and serves as a cost effective way to characterize potentially erosive soils. The authors
are currently conducting an on-going study to develop a model for critical shear stress using these
variables upon validation and determine a factor of safety for design implementation.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This research was funded by the Kansas Department of Transportation. The authors would like to
thank Bradford Rognlie, Michael Orth, James Brennan, Michael Noguera, and others with the
Kansas Department of Transportation for supporting the project, providing feedback, selecting a
variety of bridge sites, and collecting soil samples. Out of state samples were collected by the
FHWA for a separate study. The authors would like to thank the FHWA for granting permission
for use of these data in this study.
REFERENCES
Abu-Hassanein, Z., Benson, C., and Blotz, L. (1996). “Electrical resistivity of compacted clays.”
J. Geotech. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1996)122:5(397), 397–406.
Amos, C. L., Feeney, T., Sutherland, T. F., and Luternauer, J. L. (1997). “The stability of fine-
grained sediment from the Frase River Delta.” Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 45,
507–524.
Arulanandan, K. (1975). “Fundamental aspects of erosion of cohesive soils.” Journal of
Hydraulics Engineering, ASCE, 101(No. 5),635–639.
Arneson, L. A., Zevenbergen, L. W., Lagasse, P. F., and Clopper, P. E. (2012). “Evaluating scour
at bridges.” Rep. No. FHWA-HIF-12-003, U.S. Dept. of Transportation, Washington, DC.

–8–
ASTM. (2014a). “Standard practices for preserving and transporting soil samples.” ASTM
D4220/D4220M-14, West Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM. (2014b). “Standard test method for sieve analysis of fine and coarse aggregates.” ASTM
C136/C136M-14, West Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM. (2015a). “Standard practice for thin-walled tube sampling of finegrained soils for
geotechnical purposes.” ASTM D1587/D1587M–15, West Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM. (2015b). “Standard Test Method for Unconsolidated-Undrained Triaxial Compression
Test on Cohesive Soils.” ASTM D2850-15, West Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM. (2017a). “Standard Test Methods for Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, and Plasticity Index of
Soils.” ASTM D4318-17e1, West Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM. (2017b). “Standard Test Method for Particle-Size Distribution (Gradation) of Fine-
Grained Soils Using the Sedimentation (Hydrometer) Analysis.” ASTM D7928-17, West
Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM. (2017c). “Standard Test Method for Materials Finer than 75-μm (No. 200) Sieve in
Mineral Aggregates by Washing.” ASTM C117-17, West Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM. (2017d). “Standard Practice for Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes (Unified
Soil Classification System).” ASTM D2487-17, West Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM. (2019). “Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Determination of Water (Moisture)
Content of Soil and Rock by Mass.” ASTM D2216 - 19, West Conshohocken, PA.
Bernhardt, M. et al. (2011). “Mississippi river levee failure: June 2008 flood.” Int. J. Geoeng. Case
Hist., 2(3), 127–162.
Briaud, J., Ting, F., Chen, H., Cao, Y., Han, S., and Kwak, K. (2001). “Erosion function apparatus
for scour rate predictions.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-
0241(2001)127:2(105), 105–113.
Briaud, J.L., Li, Y., Chen, H.C., Nurtjahyo, P., and Wang, J. (2004). NCHRP Report 516: Pier
and Contraction Scour in Cohesive Soils, Transportation Research Board of the National
Academies, Washington D.C.
Briaud, J. L., Govindasamy, A. V., and Shafii, I. (2017). “Erosion charts for selected
geomaterials.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001771,
04017072.
Calappi, T., Miller, C., and Carpenter, D. (2010). “Revisiting the HEC-18 scour equation.” Scour
and Erosion, ASCE, Reston, VA, 1102–1109.
Chen, Y., Wei, Z., Irfan, M., Xu, J., and Yang, Y. (2018). “Laboratory investigation of the
relationship between electrical resistivity and geotechnical properties of phosphate
tailings.” Measurement, 126, 289-298.
Everett, M. E. (2013). “Electrical resistivity method.” Chapter 4, Near-surface applied geophysics,
Cambridge University Press, New York, 70–102.
Friedman, S. P. (2005). “Soil properties influencing apparent electrical conductivity: a review.”
Computers and electronics in agriculture, 46(1-3), 45-70.
Grabowski, R. C., Droppo, I. G., and Wharton, G. (2011). “Erodibility of cohesive sediment: The
importance of sediment properties.” Earth Sci. Rev., 105(3), 101–120.
Hanson, G. J., Cook, K. R., and Simon, A. (1999). “Determining erosion resistance of cohesive
materials.” Proc., ASCE Int. Water Resources Engineering Conf., ASCE, Reston, VA.
Karim, M. Z., and Tucker-Kulesza, S. E. (2018). “Predicting soil erodibility using electrical
resistivity tomography.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-
5606.0001857, 04018012.

–9–
 Karim, M. Z., Tucker-Kulesza, S. E., and Bernhardt-Barry, M. (2019). “Electrical resistivity as a
binary classifier for bridge scour evaluation.” Transportation Geotechnics, 19, 146–157.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trgeo.2019.03.002.
Kibria, G., and Hossain, M. S. (2012). “Investigation of geotechnical parameters affecting
electrical resistivity of compacted clays.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.,
10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000722, 1520–1529.
Kimiaghalam, N., Clark, S. P., and Ahmari, H. (2015). “An experimental study on the effects of
physical, mechanical, and electrochemical properties of natural cohesive soils on critical
shear stress and erosion rate.” Int. J. Sediment Res., 31(1), 1–15.
Kouchaki, B., Bernhardt-Barry, M. L., Wood, C. M., and Moody, T. (2018). “A laboratory
investigation of factors influencing the resistivity of different soil types”, ASTM
Geotechnical Testing Journal, 42(4), 829-853.
Léonard, J., and Richard, G. (2004). “Estimation of runoff critical shear stress for soil erosion from
soil shear strength.” Catena, 57(3), 233-249.
Mahalder, B., Schwartz, J. S., Palomino, A. M., and Zirkle, J. (2018). “Relationships between
physical‐geochemical soil properties and erodibility of streambanks among different
physiographic provinces of Tennessee, USA.” Earth Surface Processes and
Landforms, 43(2), 401-416.
Mendenhall, W., and Sincich, T. (2012). A second course in statistics: Regression analysis (7th
ed.), Prentice Hall, Boston, MA.
Mitchell, J. K., and Soga, K. (2005). Fundamentals of soil behavior, 3rd edn., John Wiley & Sons,
Inc., Hoboken, NJ.
Moody, L. F. (1944). “Friction factors for pipe flow.” Trans. Am. Soc. Mech. Eng., 66(8), 671–
684.
Owen, M. W. (1975). “Erosion of Avonmouth mud.” Rep. No. INT 150, Hydraulics Research
Station, Wallingford, U.K.
Partheniades, E. (1965). “Erosion and deposition of cohesive soils.” J. Hydraul. Div., 91(1), 105–
139.
Pedregosa, F. et al. (2011). “Scikit-learn: Machine learning in Python.” Journal of machine
learning research, 12(Oct), 2825-2830.
Raudkivi, A. J. (1990). Loose Boundary Hydraulics, 3rd edn., Pergamon Press, New York, NY.
Reddi, L. N., and Bonala, M. V. (1997). “Critical shear stress and its relationship with cohesion
for sand. kaolinite mixtures.” Canadian geotechnical journal, 34(1), 26-33.
Shan, H., Shen, J., Kilgore, R., and Kerenyi, K. (2015). “Scour in cohesive soils.” Rep. No. FHWA-
HRT-15-033, Federal Highway Administration, McLean, VA.
Schuring, J. R., et al. (2010). “Review of bridge scour practice in the US.” Scour and Erosion,
ASCE, Reston, VA, 1110–1119.
Smerdon, E. T., and Beasley, R. P. (1961). “Critical tractive forces in cohesive soils.” Agric. Eng.,
42(1), 26–29.
USDA. (1987). “Stability Design of Grassed-lined Open Channels.” Agricultural Handbook
Number 667, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.
http://rpitt.eng.ua.edu/Class/Erosioncontrol/Module5/contents.pdf.
Utley, B. C., and Wynn, T. M. (2008). “Cohesive soil erosion: Theory and practice.” World
Environmental and Water Resources Congress 2008: Ahupua’A, ASCE, Reston, VA, 1–
10.

– 10 –

View publication stats