This article was downloaded by: [University of Kent]

On: 23 November 2014, At: 11:13

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954
Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,
UK

ISH Journal of Hydraulic

Engineering
Publication details, including instructions for
authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tish20

COHESIVE SEDIMENT EROSION

THRESHOLD: A REVIEW
a b c
Koustuv Debnath M.ISH & Susanta Chaudhuri
a
Department of Applied Mechanics , Bengal
Engineering and Science University , Shibpur,
Howrah , 711103 , West Bengal , India E-mail:
b
Department of Science and Technology, Govt. of
India
c
Bengal Engineering and Science University ,
Shibpur, Howrah , 711103 , West Bengal , India E-
mail:
Published online: 07 Jun 2012.

To cite this article: Koustuv Debnath M.ISH & Susanta Chaudhuri (2010) COHESIVE
SEDIMENT EROSION THRESHOLD: A REVIEW, ISH Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, 16:1,
36-56, DOI: 10.1080/09715010.2010.10514987

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09715010.2010.10514987

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the
information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.
However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,
or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views
expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the
Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with
primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any
losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,
and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the
Content.
 This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.
Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,
sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is
expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Downloaded by [University of Kent] at 11:13 23 November 2014
 (36) VOL. 16, (No. I)

THE INDIAN SOCIETY FOR HYDRAULICS

JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING

COHESIVE SEDIMENT EROSION THRESHOLD : A REVIEW

by
Koustuv Debnath 1*, M.ISH and Susanta ChaudhurF
ABSTRACT
Not much progress has yet been made in understanding cohesive sediment erosion
Downloaded by [University of Kent] at 11:13 23 November 2014

threshold due to the inherent physical, chemical and biological I microbiological

complexity of natural cohesive sediments. Further the debate of existence or non-
existence of cohesive sediment erosion threshold, and different definitions of threshold
has resulted in complexity in use, interpretations and comparison of cohesive sediment
threshold data. The paper presents a review on existing methodologies and definitions
used for estimation of cohesive sediment erosion threshold; summarizes range of
threshold shear stress obtained by different investigators based on field and laboratory
experiments; and attempts to address the controversy regarding the existence of
cohesive sediment erosion threshold. Further, the study also reports the dependence
of cohesive sediment erosion threshold on cohesive sediment properties.
KEYWORDS : Threshold, Cohesive sediment, Field data, Sediment transport.

INTRODUCTION
Sediment threshold refers to the flow condition such that the sediment particles of
a given characteristic just start moving. This condition is known as critical motion or
the condition of incipient motion or sediment threshold of sedimentary particles. When
the material comprising the sediment bed is coarse and non-cohesive, it is mainly the
submerged weight of the sediment particles that resist motion. Muddy or cohesive
nature of sediments results from presence of fine clay particles ranging in size from 1
lm to 4lm. Only about 10% clay in the clay-silt-sand matrix is sufficient to control the
sediment erodibility characteristics (Mitchener and Torfs, 1996; Debnath et al., 2007a)
of cohesive sediments. Under the influence of attractive physio-chemical forces, fine

Assistant Professor, Department of Applied Mechanics, Bengal Engineering and Science

University, Shibpur, Howrah 711103, West Bengal, India.
email: debnath_koustuv @yahoo.com
* Corresponding Author
2 Project Research Fellow, Department of Science and Technology, Govt. of India and
Doctoral Student, Bengal Engineering and Science University, Shibpur, Howrah 711103,
West Bengal, India, email: susantachaudhuri2003@yahoo.co.in
Note :Written discussion of this paper will be open until 30th June 2010.

ISH JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING. VOL. 16, 2010, NO. 1

 VOL. 16, (No. I) COHESIVE SEDIMENT EROSION THRESHOLD : A REVIEW (37)

particles coming together in suspension or after deposition have a tendency to stick

together and form agglomerations known as floes and this process is known as
flocculation. When the sediment comprises of silt and clay particles, cohesive forces
are predominant, in which, floes or group of floes (called floc aggregate) or individual
particles move as a unit. Entrainment of particles of cohesive sediment beds occurs
when due to flow induced shear, all the interp:rrticle bonds connecting an aggregate in
its neighbourhood are ruptured. Figure I shows a conceptual model showing forces
on a cohesive sediment particle. In addition to the standard forces on a non-cohesive
sediment particle i.e., the drag force (F 0 ), the lift force (FL) and submerged weight of
the particle (W), the addition force (Fe) due to cohesion acts on the cohesive sediment
particle.
Downloaded by [University of Kent] at 11:13 23 November 2014

COHESIVE SEDIMENT EROSION THRESHOLD: DOES IT EXIST OR NOT?

At present two different schools of thought exist regarding erosion threshold for
cohesive sediments. The first advocates that erosion threshold does not exist for
cohesive sediments and some particles erode at any value of bed shear stress (e.g.,
Lavelle et al., 1984; Parchure and Mehta, 1985). The erosion rate formulation
supporting the no-threshold concept (Lavelle et al., 1984) is given as
(1)

where E = erosion rate; = 't applied bed shear stress; and a, and n 1 = empirical
constants. The second theory derives the erosion rate formulation taking into account
that cohesive sediment erosion threshold exist as is of the form (e.g., Maa et al., 1998)
given by

FIG. 1 FORCES ON A COHESIVE SEDIMENT PARTICLE

ISH JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING, VOL. 16, 2010, NO. I

 (38) COHESNE SEDIMENT EROSION THRESHOLD : A REVIEW VOL. 16, (No. I)

(2)

where -r c = critical shear stress for erosion; z = depth of erosion; and a 2 and n 2 =
empirical constants. Erosion rate formulation proposed by Parchure and Mehta ( 1985),
Mehta (1988), Mehta (1991) incorporates the threshold shear stress and is given by

E=e 1 exp{a 3 [-r--rc(z}]n 3 ) (3)

where E 1 =floc erosion rate; -r c =critical shear stress for erosion; z =depth of erosion;
and a 3 and n3 =empirical constants. The floc erosion rate defined by Parchure and
Downloaded by [University of Kent] at 11:13 23 November 2014

Mehta ( 1985), Mehta ( 1988) is the value of erosion when , -r- -r c =0 , i.e., when no
mean flow dependent surface erosion occurs. This suggests that Parchure :md Mehta
(1985), Mehta (1988) observes some erosion to even occur at any value of bed shear
stress which rather indirectly supports the no threshold concept.
The debate of existence and non-existence threshold and different definitions of
threshold has resulted in complexity in use, interpretations and comparison of cohesive
sediment threshold data.

DEFINITIONS OF COHESIVE SEDIMENT EROSION THRESHOLD

Broadly five different threshold definitions were used to estimate the critical
threshold shear stress ( rc) for cohesive erosion: (a) the stress at which initiation of
motion first occurs (e.g., Young and Southard, 1978); (b) stress at which significant
erosion first occurs (e.g., Dunn, 1959; Gust and Morris, 1989; Maa and Lee, 1997;
Maa et al., 1998; Ansari et al., 2007); (c) stress obtained by extrapolating erosion rate
versus velocity/stress back to zero erosion (e.g., Ravend and Gschwend, 1999; Tolhurst
et al., 2000); (d) depth sequence of increasing critical shear stress (e.g., Parchure and
Mehta, 1985; Mehta, 1988; Kuijper, 1989; Amos et al., 1992a, b; Zreik et al., 1998);
and (e) burst of sediment motion as defined by Vanoni ( 1964), Panagiotopoulos et al.
( 1997). Shaikh et al. ( 1988) found out the critical shear stress of unsaturated compacted
sodium and calcium montmorillonite clays by measuring the velocity distribution of
the flow and using the Prandtl-von Karman equation. Ghebreiyessus et al. (1994)
studied the detachment by concentrated flow of silt loam (mixture of sand-silt-clay)
compacted to two different bulk densities. They defined the critical shear stress of
cohesive sediments as the shear stress corresponding to zero rate of detachment. Sanford
and Maa (2001) noticed that the critical shear stress of sediment bed surface is weak
and it increases with the depth of sediment bed. Thus they defined threshold of cohesive
sediments as function of depth. Further, Righetti and Lucarelli (2007), described erosion
process of cohesive sediments as a multi-step entrainment phenomenon, for which

ISH JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING. VOL. 16. 2010, NO. I

 VOL. 16, (No. I) COHESIVE SEDIMENT EROSION THRESHOLD : A REVIEW (39)

different stages of sediment motion could be recognized. For low velocities they
observed a sporadic, discontinuous motion of aggregates having a relatively small
size, mainly primary particles I or particle aggregates weakly bound to floc surface,
as also observed by Krone (1984 ). For increasing flow velocities, a more intensive
flux of primary particle aggregates was attained. coupled with sporadic entrainment
of larger size aggregates. Further, enhancement of flow velocity produced a gradual
enhancement of floes entrainment, until an abrupt change in the erosive process took
place: a sudden change not only in the quantity of eroded floes takes place but also in
their size was noticed. Kothyari and Jain (2008) pointed out that there can be several
modes of initiation of motion depending on clay percentage, water content and applied
bed shear stress.
Downloaded by [University of Kent] at 11:13 23 November 2014

FIELD AND LABORATORY ASSESSMENT OF COHESIVE SEDIMENT

EROSION THRESHOLD
Both laboratory flume based studies (e.g., Mehta and Partheniades, 1982; Parchure
and Mehta, 1985; Samad et al., 1995; Mitchener and Torfs, 1996; Ansari et al., 2007)
as well as in-situ flume studies (e.g., Amos et al., 1992a, b; Maa et al., 1993; Widdows
et al., 1998; Houwing, 1999; Young and Southard, 1978; Ravens and Gschwend,
1999; Young, 1977; Gust and Morris, 1989) report cohesive sediment erosion threshold
data. However, in-situ field data are more realistic because the complex compositional
structure of natural cohesive sediments may not be accurately simulated in laboratory
(Paterson and Black, 1999). Using field sediment samples in laboratory flumes does
not much improve the situation as during transportation from the field to the laboratory
their properties may change significantly (Black and Paterson, 1997) resulting in
misleading estimate of erosion threshold shear stress. Nevertheless, laboratory
determination of erosion threshold is a must where experiments can be conducted
under controlled conditions. Both in-situ and laboratory measurements of cohesive
sediment erosion threshold in general follow an experimental protocol in which
constant levels of step-wise bed shear stress are applied over fixed time intervals
(e.g., 10 to 20 min, Parchure and Mehta, 1985; Amos et al., 1992b; Maa et al., 1998;
Houwing, 1999; Ravens and Gschwend, 1999; Aberle et al., 2006; Debnath et al.,
2007a, b). In the estimations of cohesive sediment erosion threshold, erosion rate (E)
is usually calculated using measured changes in fluxes of suspended sediment
concentration (SSC) within the flume erosion channel, i.e., explicitly or implicitly
assuming that the total erosion rate E is equivalent to there-suspension rate. However
in reality, the erosion rate (E) consists of two components, re-suspension rate (ER) and
bed load component (Eb) i.e., E = ER + Eb (Debnath et al., 2007a, b); and rcR refers to
critical threshold shear stress for total erosion andrcR refers to critical threshold shear
stress for re-suspension. The total surface erosion rate E defined as mass of sediment
eroded per unit bed area per unit time is equivalent to the time rate of change in bed

ISH JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING. VOL. 16. 2010. NO. I

 Downloaded by [University of Kent] at 11:13 23 November 2014

~
..9
TABLE-I
COHESIVE SEDIMENT RE-SUSPENSION THRESHOLD FROM
FIELD EXPERIMENTS
Author rc dso mud Clay Sand ph Water Organic Remarks
c:n (Field /Laboratory) content content
::c
(Pa) (JUD) (%) (%) (%) (kg/m 3) (%) (%) n
8
~ Young and Southard, 0.01-0.7 80-98 2-20 - 53-64 Sea bed ~
~ <
0 1978 (Field) tT1
'Tl
::c "'tT1
-< Gust and Morris, 0.21 Inner shelf,
~ 1989 (Field) 0.02-0.077 10-58 51-90 51-90 10-49 - - 0.085-1.2 I
§ consolidated Inner shelf, fluffy
n
~
0
~ Amos et al. 1992, 0.2-2.2 50-80 10-20 30-40 1820 30-40 2-3 Mudflat, for upper z
(Field) 4.1 50-80 10-20 30-40 1820 30-40 unconsolidated layers :i!
Mudflat for rn
iz
p ::c
consolidated beds 0
<:
0 b
;-
Maa et al., 1993 0.5 Sandy sea floor ;!>
~
0.26 26 12 74
N (Fteld) 0.11-0.19 Inner shelf, sandy,
0 ~
p biological activity
z ~
p appreciable
0.058 92 31 8 6 estuarine
Schunemann and 0.2-0.74 Exposed 0
<
Kuhl, 1993 (Field) consolidated tidal r
?'
mud flat with diatoms
z!='
::::::
 Downloaded by [University of Kent] at 11:13 23 November 2014

<
Author rc dso mud Clay Sand ph Water Organic Remarks 0
r
(Field I content content
9'
Laboratory) (Pa) (JUD) (%) (%) (%) (kglm·') (%) (%) z9
Amos et al., 1997 0.15-0.35 0.8 - 61- 15-26 787- 36.7- 0--4.9 Foreshore mud flat
(Field) 3.1 96 1273 79.5
<n
:t
Black, 1997 0.13 1570 Tidal flat with diatoms n
0
0c::
(Field) 0.03 1350 Tidal flat without :t
~ tT1
(/l
;!> diatoms
r <
tT1
.,0 (/l
Maa et al., 1998 0.05 100 60-70 0 Inner harbour, fluffy tT1
:t 0
-<
0 (Field) 0.1 100 60--70 0 layer 3::
, tT1
>
c:: Inner harbour, ~
r tT1
;<l
n consolidated bed 0
tT1 (/l
z 0
Cl Widdows et al., 0.5 Tidal flat with air z
z
~ 1998 (Field) 0.18 exposed mud ,~
C! tT1
(/l
z Tidal flat with standing :t
p 0
< water r
0 0
r-
Houwing, 1999 0.1-0. 18 4- 35 4-39 1470- 40-92 4-8 Intertidal mud flat >
?' ;<l
tT1
0
'" (Field) 1822 <
p Fii
z ::E
9
Ravens and 0.1 30-60 63-89 12-27 11- 37 76-82 3-4.5 Harbour
Gschwend, 1999 0.03 50 75 II 25 78 3 Harbour, presence of
(Field) pinnate diatoms
Re-analyzing 0.012-0.39 8.7- 35.6- 3.4- 3.6- 1257- 29.9- 1.9- Data from rivers,
Debnath et al., 108.4 96.6 24.3 64.4 1771 66.5 11.5 estuaries and streams in
2007a data (Field) tidal regions,
~
......
unconsolidated
 Downloaded by [University of Kent] at 11:13 23 November 2014

TABLE-2 ~
~

COHESIVE SEDIMENT RE-SUSPENSION THRESHOLD FROM LABORATORY EXPERIMENTS

Author r(' Mean mud Clay Sand p, Water Organic Remarks
particle content content
Vi size
:r
(Pa) (JHD) (%) (%) (%) (kglm·') (%) (%)
0c:
;;o
8
Laflen and 0.6to2.7 1.7- Loosely compacted ~
z)> 14- "'
r <
Beasley (1960) 20.3 61.2 - compacted material tTl
0
"M
:r "'0tTl
-<
0
Sanford et al. 0.016 82-94 25-32 5-17 1320- 54-62 Disposed dredged §:
;;o tTl
)> (1991) 1410 sediments from bay
c: ~
r tTl
;;o
n Williamson and 0.3-1 0-50 Mixtures with of sand 0
tTl
z
C) Ockenden (1992) = !50 ~-tm and mud "'0
z
z
tTl from estuary
tTl
:i!;;o
;;o
z
p
rn:r
Torfs ( 1994) 0.35-2.6 0-30 Mixtures with d 50 of 0
<
0 b
sand =230 ~-tm and )>
'
9' cohesive sediments
N
0
;:; such as kaolinite,
z montmorillonite and
~
p
mud from estuary

Mitchener and 0.1 89- 0-11 Mixtures with d 50 of <

~
Torfs ( 1996) 100 sand= 230 ~-tm and ?'
mud from Harbour z9
0.2 < 80 >20 .:::;;
 Downloaded by [University of Kent] at 11:13 23 November 2014

<
0
Author 'l'c Mean mud Clay Sand ph Water Organic Remarks
particle content content
r-
9'
size
(Pa) (f.UD) (%) (%) (%) (kg/m 3) (%) (%)
z?
:::::
Panagiotopoulos 0.094- 0-50 d 50 of sand= 152.5 ~-tm
<n et al. ( 1997) 0.144
:I:
0.074- 0-50 d 50 of sand= 215 ~-tm
0c:: 8
;>:l
0.142
z;p ~
r Ansari et al. 0.15-0.91 217- 5-20 d 50 of sand = 270 ~-tm "'<
0 m
'T1 (2007) 257 d 50 of clay= 5.3 ~-tm
:I: "'!2m
~ Wide range of water
0 s:
;>:l contents were tested m
;p
c:: ~
r m
(') Righetti and 0.094-0.21 6 1042- 7.7- Benthic lake sediments ;>:l
m 0
z Lucarelli (2007) 1157 14.4 tested in laboratory. "'
Cl ~
zm 0.051-0.023 6 1025- 9.9- 17 Mean floc sizes ranged
m
;>:l
1132 from 581 ~-tm to 890 ~
m
z
p ~-tm :I:
"'0
< 0.063-0.094 7 1035- 16.4- The bed shear stress r
0 0
!"" 1057 20.1 reported are for p
?' 0.054-0.08 6 1028- 21.4- entrainment of
N ~
0 1045 25.2 individual clay <
.o
z particles ~
9 0.039-0.059 6 1032- 22.1- tofloc aggregates.
1051 23.9
0.068-0.127 5 1135- 8.1 - 10
1175
0.044-0.051 4 1016- 22.3-
1022 24.1
~
~
 (44) COHESIVE SEDIMENT EROSION THRESHOLD : A REVIEW VOL. 16, (No. I)

elevation, dz/ dt, as E =-p d (z)dz/ dt, where z = bed surface elevation with an
arbitrary origin (positive upwards); t = time; and p d (z) = dry bulk density of bed
material (Debnath et al., 2007a, b). Specifically designed National Institute of Water
and Atmospheric Research (NIWA), New Zealand in-situ flume (field flume) reported
in Debnath et al. (2007a, b) could measure and estimate both re-suspension rate (ER)
and total erosion rate. The latter component is not taken into account in most cohesive
sediment studies, in estimation of cohesive sediment erosion threshold although in
principle, threshold shear stress of E and ER may differ. Re-analyzing data from field
deployments reported in Debnath et al. 2007a, and by extrapolating re-suspension
rate I total erosion rate versus velocity/stress back to zero re-suspension rate we obtained
Downloaded by [University of Kent] at 11:13 23 November 2014

values in the range 0.012- 0.39 Pa for ER. However, the threshold for total erosion
was not very clear. Rather it appeared that the total erosion threshold does not exist as
also observed by Lavelle et al., 1984 while sediment re-s us pension required a minimum
threshold shear stress to occur. Thus, it may be inferred that probably the bed load
component of total erosion is prevalent at any value of bed shear stress while re-
suspension starts only after sediment re-suspen~ion threshold is reached. This may
possibly explain the contradiction of the existence of threshold and the no threshold
concept for cohesive sediments. Parthenaides ( 1972), also observed erosion to be
going on below the threshold shear stress by the method of extrapolation. Thorn and
Parsons ( 1980) also found non-zero rates of erosion below critical threshold shear
stress. Parchure and Mehta (1985) reported that floes are entrained even at threshold
due to stochastic nature of bed shear stress and bed shear strength. Many researchers
(e.g., Ravens and Gschwend, 1999) also noted erosion below the calculated critical
shear stress. Probably, the stochastic nature of turbulence, in which even relatively
slow flows have occasionally high energy eddies are partly responsible for the bed
load movement. Further, for non-cohesive sediments, the Shields diagram assumes

FIG. 2 SAND-CLAY NETWORK STRUCTURE

ISH JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING. VOL. 16. 2010. NO. I

 VOL. 16. (No. I) COHESIVE SEDIMENT EROSION THRESHOLD : A REVIEW (45)

that the bed is well-sorted, however, for cohesive beds comprising clay-sand mixtures
(e.g., Fig. 2) where clay floes of different sizes, individual clay, silt, sand particles
forms in general a poorly sorted bed.

The dependency of threshold shear stress, on D/ K, implies that different sized grains
in a population may experience different transport thresholds, where D = grain size;
and Ks =physical roughness scale of bed. This is because the larger grains I sediment
floes ( D Ks > 1) are more likely to protrude into the flow; they tend to experience
lower thresholds for transport than if they were on a well-sorted bed. Likewise, the
finer-grained sediments (D I K, < 1) can hide within pores created by larger grains;
and they require higher critical shear stresses for movement than if they were on a
Downloaded by [University of Kent] at 11:13 23 November 2014

well-sorted bed. Therefore, even at low positive values of shear stress sediment floes
or sand particles in clay-sand mixture will roll, hop or saltate along the bed which we
designate as bed load component of total erosion. As flow intensity continues to
increase, turbulent fluctuations in the velocity field intensify, and eventually they
become energetic enough to carry sediment far from the bed into suspension (re-
suspension).
Summary of the re-suspension threshold as observed by different researchers and
the corresponding bed material properties are presented in Table 1 (experiments under
field conditions) and Table 2 (experiments under laboratory conditions). It can be
seen from Tables 1 and 2 that different researchers obtained a wide range of values of
threshold shear stress. Two distinct categories of sedimentary beds are evident from
Table 1 and 2, consolidated beds and fluffy layer, i.e., the beds that undergo regular
re-suspension and deposition. Consolidated beds have much higher value of re-
suspension threshold compared to fluffy layers. For e.g., Schunemann and Kuhl ( 1993),
and Torfs (1994) observed a even higher threshold value than our range probably
because of more consolidated beds or stronger biological activity.

EFFECT OF PHYSICAL FACTORS ON COHESIVE SEDIMENT EROSION

Early pioneering work of Dunn ( 1959) related threshold shear stress to vane shear
strength and found that the vane shear strength, plasticity index and clay-silt fraction
to affect the tractive resistance of cohesive channel beds. The interdependence of
different parameters makes the characterization of erosion I re-suspension threshold
difficult in terms of sediment parameters. Raudkivi ( 1990) provides a detailed account
on the different parameters on which cohesive sediment erosion depend (for e.g.,
grain size, dispersion ratio, clay content, water content, plasticity index, shear and
tensile strength, salt content, temperature, ion/cation exchange capacity, sodium
adsorption ratio). Berlamont et a!. (1993) proposed a list of 28 parameters for the
characterization of cohesive sediments.
The importance of the bulk density and water content in cohesive sediment erosion

ISH JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING, VOL. 16, 2010. NO. I

 (46) COHESIVE SEDIMENT EROSION THRESHOLD : A REVIEW VOL. 16, (No. I)

process has been highlighted in several studies. Fukuda and Lick ( 1980) reported an
effect of decreasing erosion rate with decreasing water content, which is equivalent to
the effect of increasing bulk density. Jepsen et al. (1997) and Roberts et al. (1998)
also found that erosion rates for homogeneous beds decrease with increasing bulk
density. Lower values of the erosion rate in beds with larger bulk densities can be
explained by a larger resistance against erosion for such beds, as observed by
Ghebreiyessus et al. ( 1994), Amos et al. ( 1997) and Torfs ( 1997). Debnath et al.
(2007a) re-analysed data, Black (1997) and Houwing (1999) observed that
r cR increases with increase of bulk density. Different investigators proposed
relationships of rcR as a function of bulk density [e.g., rcR = O.OOlpb -1 'Mehta (1988);
Downloaded by [University of Kent] at 11:13 23 November 2014

rcR =0.0!5(pb -1000)073 ' Mitchener and Torfs (1996); rcR = 0.0007pb -0.47' Amos et al.
(1997)]. However, using different relationships the r cR estimates may vary by few
orders of magnitude. Probably this is due to the discrepancy in the definition of r cR
used in its estimation from experimental data. Ockenden and Delo ( 1988) also observed
that rcR increases with increase in dry density. Thus it can be concluded that
consolidation of the cohesive sediment bed plays a distinct role in the cohesive sediment
process. Data from Amos et al. ( 1997), Houwing ( 1999) and Ravens and Gschwend
(1999) do not show any clear relationship between water content and rcR· Postma
(1976), Debnath et al. (2007a) observed inverse dependence of water content on rcR"
With increasing water content the distance between the particles (mud /sand) increases
and contact between the particles decreases and thereby becomes loosely packed and
prone to re-suspension. With increase of water content beyond a critical value the
sediment tends to become fluid-mud and starts behaving similar to fluid.
Bulk density does not explicitly include the bed material composition. Grissinger
( 1966) reported that increased concentrations of clay minerals generally induced greater
resistance to erosion. Increased bulk densities, however, had little influence on
erodibility. The influence of clay particle orientation and antecedent water content
(water content at the start of the test) was not consistent but varied depending upon
the clay mineral mixture. Erodibility increased with increased antecedent water for
the Grenada silt loam and for illitic, montmoril-lonitic, and oriented kaolinitic samples.
Stability decreased with increased antecedent water content. Kamphuis and Hall
(1983) reported that resistance to erosion of cohesive soil increases with clay content
and plasticity index.
For sediment beds composed of larger particles, erosion rate is independent of
bulk density and is a function of grain size only (Roberts et al., 1998). For beds
composed of mud/sand mixtures, the composition of the bed material plays an important
role in addition to the bulk/dry density (Mitchener and Torfs, 1996; Houwing, 1999).
Aberle et al. (2004), Debnath et al. (2007b) and Roberts et al. (1998) found, in

ISH JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING. VOL. 16. 2010. NO. I

 VOL. !6, (No. I) COHESIVE SEDIMENT EROSION THRESHOLD : A REVIEW (47)

experiments with fixed dry bulk densities and varying grain sizes, that re-suspension
rate ER increased rapidly for the smaller particles, reached a maximum, and then
decreased rapidly for the larger particles. Julian and Torres (2006) by re-analyzing
the data of Dunn ( 1959) have indicated the critical shear stress to be a function of silt-
clay percentage. Cohesive sediments exist as a network structure of clay-silt and sand.
Erosional properties of combined mud and sand is a direct function of relative
proportions of sand and mud (Debnath et al., 2007a, b). Adding sand to mud or vice
versa, increases the erosion resistance and reduces erosion rate. Also the mode of
erosion changes from cohesionless to cohesive at low mud contents added to sand
with the transition occurring in the region 3% to 15% mud by weight depending on
different compaction levels and clay mineral type (Mitchener and Torfs, 1996). Krone
Downloaded by [University of Kent] at 11:13 23 November 2014

(1999) on the basis of re-analysis of the data of Roberts et al. ( 1998) and Zreik et al.
( 1998) showed the resistance to erosion increased as the sediment bed structure became
denser due to an increase in density of the bed material as the depth increased. Further
it was showed that the resistance of a cohesive sediment bed to erosion increases
linearly with an increase in the depth of sediment or the overburden. The strength of
network structure for clay-silt-sand mixture depends on relative proportions of each
component (Mitchener and Torfs, 1996). Figure 2 shows a conceptual model that
shows that sand particles are pushed apart on addition of clay particles. The increase
in aggregation of particles from smaller classes to larger classes perhaps occurs with
increase in the clay content by getting more contact points for network formation.
Debnath et al. (2007a, b) found that there-suspension component decreases (or bed
load component increases) with increase in clay content. A possible explanation of
this effect may relate to the clay-silt-sand network structure (Van Ledden et al., 2004):
with increase in the clay content larger sediment floes/aggregates are formed which
are then detached and transported as bed load. For loosely packed sand, 40% mud by
volume is the limiting condition before sand particles are pushed apart by further
addition of mud particles and are held within the mud matrix causing incipient adhesion
condition. McAnally and Mehta (2002) described fine sediment matrix as a continuous
spectrum of particle sizes ranging from single grains to floes/aggregates containing
millions of grains. These relatively large aggregates of fine particles, along with free
sand sized particles, have tendency to move as bed load, resulting in a decreased re-
suspension rate at the increased clay content. At larger sizes, mechanisms of non-
cohesive sediment transport become increasingly important. An increase in ER with
increase in sand content may be explained by the same network structure theory (Van
Ledden et al., 2004). Cohesion within the clay-silt-sand matrix decreases with increase
in sand content that results in smaller sized sediment aggregates leading to increased
re-suspension rate and decreased bed load component of erosion. Debnath et al. (2007a)
also observed that with increase in velocity, the bed load component of total erosion
decreases. This effect is consistent with hierarchical structure of sediment aggregates
and their networks. Indeed, it is possible that an increase in re-suspension component

ISH JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING. VOL. 16. 2010. NO. I

 (48) COHESIVE SEDIMENT EROSION THRESHOLD : A REVIEW VOL. 16. (No. I)

(or decrease in bed load component) occurs as a result of network/aggregate break-up

due to increased bed shear stresses. Kothyari et al. (2006) gave a relationship for
computation the critical shear stress of cohesive sediments consisting of clay-sand
mixtures, as a function of plasticity index, antecedent moisture content, moisture
content at saturation and void ratio. Further Kothyari eta!. (2008) reported experimental
results on the incipient motion characteristics of cohesive sediment mixtures containing
gravel. Three modes of initiation of motion of cohesive sediment mixtures were
reported, namely, pothole erosion, line erosion, and mass erosion. The modes of
initiation of motion changed mainly with clay percentages in the mixture, its antecedent
moisture characteristics, and the applied shear stress. Analysis of the experimental
data from the present study and the literature revealed that depending upon the flow
Downloaded by [University of Kent] at 11:13 23 November 2014

and sediment characteristics, the critical shear stress of the incipient motion condition
in cohesive sediment mixtures can be up to 50 times larger than the critical shear
stress of cohesionless sediments having similar arithmetic mean size as the cohesive
sediments. On the basis of dimensional considerations, they proposed a relationship
for the determination of critical shear stress of the incipient motion condition in
cohesive sediment mixtures containing gravel. Mostafa et al. (2008) based on surface
erodibility tests performed with undisturbed and remolded samples of cohesive soils
reported that erosion occurs in two distinctive modes: particle erosion and mass erosion.
Erosion resistance is defined as the applied bed shear stress at which incipient erosion
occurs. The ratio of mass erosion to particle erosion resistance ranged from 3.7 to 5.4
for the undisturbed samples. The erosion resistance increased with increase of moist
bulk density, and an increase of water content to a certain level and the decrease of the
mean sediment size. An erosion model was proposed that can be used to estimate the
particle and mass erosion resistance from the measured water content, plasticity index,
and the moist bulk density of a cohesive soil sample. Amos et al. ( 1997), Ravens and
Gschwend ( 1999), Debnath et al. (2007a re-analyzed data) observed that with increase
in mud content the threshold shear stress decreases. However, laboratory experiments
carried out on mud-sand mixed sediments by Panagiotopoulos et al. ( 1997) report a
completely different trend. Houwing ( 1999) data does not show any clear relationship
of mud content and r cR •
Ostubo and Muraoka ( 1988) categorized mud into two groups and their behavior
has been predicted based on the absorbed cation. They also defined two critical shear
stress: the first when a few mud particles began to dislodge, and the second at the
condition when the sediment bed started being destroyed Mirstkhoulava ( 1991)
proposed a relationship between scouring velocities of cohesive sediment and their
physicochemical properties. In general erosion rate decreases with increase in salinity.
The decrease of erosion rate with increase in conductivity is expected because salinity
increases electrochemical bond strength between clay minerals. According to Parchure
and Mehta ( 1985), salinity has a major influence on resistance to erosion and for

ISH JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING, VOL. 16, 2010, NO. I

 VOL. 16, (No. I) COHESIVE SEDIMENT EROSION THRESHOLD : A REVIEW (49)

higher salinity, a higher resistance to erosion can be expected. Mehta and Parchure
(2000) found that the influence of salt concentration on the erosion rate and bed stability
also depends on the composition of the sediment. Aberle et al. (2004) observed that
erosion rates at saltwater sites were reduced up to five times compared to the freshwater
sites. Further Grissinger (1966) reported that greater erosion rates occurred as the
temperature of the eroding water was increased.
Ravisangar et al. (2005) reported that natural cohesive sediments consist principally
of mineral particles and organic debris as well as microorganism and their secretions.
Studies on natural sediments (Grant et al., 1986; Grant and Gust, 1987; Holland et al.,
1974; Dade et al., 1996; Paterson, 1997) indicate that these sediments are biologically
stabilized due to the secretion of extracellular polymeric substances from micro-
Downloaded by [University of Kent] at 11:13 23 November 2014

organisms like bacteria and microphytobenthos (e.g., benthic diatoms, euglenids,

cyanobacteria, etc.) which form film on the sediment surface. On the contrary, benthic
fauna (e.g., snails, bivalves, polychaetes, etc.) cause bioturbation (Grant et al., 1982;
Rhoads and Boyer, 1982; Nowell et al., 1981; Widdows et al., 1998) which have
effects like changed bed roughness, loosening of bed structure, etc., increasing the
erosion rate. In addition, the behaviour of these benthic organisms in the benthic
boundary layer depends on availability of light and temperature (Paterson, 1997),
presence of nutrient source (Miller et al., 1984; Wildish and Kristmanson, 1984; Jumars
and Nowell, 1984), seasonal variations (Rhoads et al. 1978) and other parameters as
determined by the ecologists. Regarding, the effect of vegetation debris on erosion
resistance, we can only speculate on this issue since the fibrous materials or root
systems yet has not been properly quantified. Data from Aberle et al., 2004; Debnath
et al., 2007a, b in general suggest that resistance to erosion for such beds should
increase. This issue is still unclear, as in Houwing ( 1999), and needs to be specially
addressed.
The organic content of a cohesive bed which is quantified by loss on ignition
(LOI) in general has been found to increase erosion threshold and decrease erosion
rates (Aberle et al., 2006; Debnath et al., 2007a). Organic materials in general increase
cohesive strength to sediments. However, LOI alone cannot characterize the structural
arrangement of the organic fibrous components and, therefore, cannot be used
unambiguously for quantifying resistance to erosion.
CONCLUSION
The paper presents a review on existing methodologies and definitions used for
estimation of cohesive sediment erosion threshold; summarizes range of threshold
shear stress obtained by different investigators; and attempts to address the controversy
regarding the cohesive sediment erosion threshold. Further, the study also reports the
dependence of cohesive sediment properties on cohesive sediment re-suspension
threshold.

ISH JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING, VOL. 16, 2010, NO. I

 (50) COHESIVE SEDIMENT EROSION THRESHOLD : A REVIEW VOL. 16, (No. I)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The research has been completely funded by Department of Science and
Technology, contract No. SR/S3/MERC/36/2006 dated 11.12.2006. The authors are
grateful to Professor Vladimir Nikora, University of Aberdeen for useful suggestions.

REFERENCES
Aberle, J., Nikora, V. and Walters, R. (2004). Effects of Bed Material Properties on
Cohesive Sediment Erosion. Marine Geology, Vol. 207, pp. 83-93.
Aberle, J., Nikora, V. and Walters, R. (2006). Data Interpretation for In-situ
Measurements of Cohesive Sediments. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, ASCE,
Downloaded by [University of Kent] at 11:13 23 November 2014

Vol. 132, No. 6, pp. 581-588.

Amos, C. L., Grant, J., Daborn, G. R. and Black, K. (1992a). Sea Carousel- a Benthic,
Annular Flume. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, Vol. 34, pp. 557-577.
Amos, C. L., Daborn, G. R., Christian, H. A., Atkinson, A. and Robertson, A. (1992b).
In-situ Erosion Measurements on Fine-grained Sediments from the Bay of Fundy.
Marine Geology, Vol. 108, pp. 175-196.
Amos, C. L., Feeney, T., Sutherland, T. F. and Lutemauer, J. L. (1997). The Stability
of Fine-grained Sediments from the Fraser River Delta. Estuarine, Coastal and
Shelf Science, Vol. 45, pp. 507-524.
Ansari, S., Kothyari, U. C. and Ranga Raju, K. G. (2007). Incipient Motion
Characteristics of Cohesive Sediments. ISH Journal of Hydraulic Engineering,
Vol. 13, No.2, pp. 108-121.
Berlamont, J. E., Ockenden, M. C., Toorman, E. A. and Winterwerp, J. C. (1993).
The Characterisation of Cohesive Sediment Properties. Coastal Engineering, Vol.
21, pp. 105-128.
Black, K. S. ( 1997). Microbiological Factors Contributing to Erosion Resistance in
Natural Cohesive Sediments. Cohesive Sediments, N. Butt, R. Parker, and J. Watts,
eds., John Wiley & Sons Ltd., Chichester, pp. 231-244.
Black, K. S. and Paterson, D. M. (1997). Measurement of the Erosion Potential of
Cohesive Marine Sediments: A Review of Current In-situ Technology. Journal of
Marine Environment Engineering, Vol. 4, pp. 43-83.
Dade, W. B., Self, R. L., Pellerin, N. B., Moffet, A., Jumars, P. A. and Nowell, A. R.
M. ( 1996). The Effects of Bacteria on the Flow Behaviour of Clay-Seawater
Suspensions. Journal of Sediment Research, Vol. 66, No. 1, pp. 39-42.

ISH JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING. VOL. 16, 2010, NO. 1

 VOL. 16, (No. I) COHESIVE SEDIMENT EROSION THRESHOLD : A REVIEW (51)

Debnath, K., Aberle, J., Nikora, V., Westrich, B. and Muste, M. (2007a). Erosion of
Cohesive Sediments: Re-Suspension, Bed Load, and Erosion Patterns from Field
Experiments. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, ASCE, Vol.33, No. 5, pp. 508-520.
Debnath, K., Nikora, V. and Elliott, A. H. (2007b ). Stream Bank Erosion: In-situ
Flume Tests. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 33, No.
3, pp. 256-264.
Dunn, I. S. (1959). Tractive Resistance of Cohesive Channels. Journal of Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Division, ASCE, Vol. 85, No. 3, pp. 1-24.
Fukuda, M. K. and Lick, W. ( 1980). The Entrainment of Cohesive Sediments in
Freshwater. Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 85, No. C5, pp. 2813-2824.
Downloaded by [University of Kent] at 11:13 23 November 2014

Ghebreiyessus, Y. T., Gantzer, G. J., Alberts, E. E. and Lentz, R.W. (1994). Soil
Erosion by Concentrated Flow: Shear strength and Bulk Density. Transaction of
American Society of Agricultural Engineers., Vol. 37, No. 6, pp. 1791-1797.
Grant, W. D., Boyer, L. F. and Sanford, L. P. (1982). The Effects of Bioturbation on
the Initiation of Motion of Intertidal Sands. Journal of Marine Research, Vol. 40,
No.3, pp. 659-677.
Grant, J., Bathmann, U. V. and Mills, E. L. (1986). The Interaction between Benthic
Diatom Films and Sediment Transport. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, Vol.
23, No. 2, pp. 225-238.
Grant, J. and Gust, G. (1987). Prediction of Coastal Sediment Stability from
Photopigment Contents of Mats of Purple Sulpher Bacteria. Nature, Vol. 330, pp.
244-246.
Grissinger, E. H. (1966). Resistance of Selected Clay Systems to Erosion by Water.
Water Resources Research, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 131-138.
Gust, G. and Morris, M. J. (1989). Erosion Thresholds and Entrainment Rates of
Undisturbed In-situ Sediments. Journal of Coastal Research, Vol. 5, pp. 87-99.
Holland, A. F., Zingmark, R. G. and Dean, J. M. (1974). Quantitative Evidence
Concerning the Stabilization of Sediments by Marine Benthic Diatoms. Marine
Biology, Vol. 27, pp. 191-196.
Houwing, E. J. (1999). Determination of Critical Erosion Threshold of Cohesive
Sediments on Intertidal Mudflats along the Dutch Wadden Sea Coast. Estuarine,
Coastal and Shelf Science, Vol. 49, pp. 545-555.
Jepsen, R., Roberts, J ., Lick, W. ( 1997). Effects of Sediment Bulk Density on Sediment
Erosion Rates. Water Air Soil Pollution, Vol. 99, pp. 21-37.

ISH JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING, VOL. 16. 2010. NO. I

 (52) COHESIVE SEDIMENT EROSION THRESHOLD : A REVIEW VOL. !6, (No. I)

Julian, J. P. and Torres, R. (2006). Hydraulic Erosion of Cohesive Riverbanks.

Geomorphology, Vol. 76, pp. 193-206.
Jumars, P. A. and Nowell, A. R. M. ( 1984). Effects of Benthos on Sediment Transport:
Difficulties with Functional Grouping. Continental Shelf Research, Vol. 3, No. 2,
pp. 115-130.
Kamphuis, J. W. and Hall, K. R. ( 1983). Cohesive Material Erosion by Unidirectional
Current. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 109, No. 1, pp. 49-61.
Kothyari, U. C., Ansari, S. A. and Ranga Raju, K. G. (2006). Influence of Cohesion
on Incipient Motion of Fine Sediments. Proceedings of 15th Congress of ADP-
IAHR, liT Madras, Chennai, India, Aug 7-10, pp. 277-284.
Downloaded by [University of Kent] at 11:13 23 November 2014

Kothyari, U. C. and Jain, R. K. (2008). Influence of Cohesion on Incipient Motion

Condition of Sediment Mixtures. Water Resources Research, Vol. 44, pp. 1-15.
Krone, R. B. ( 1984 ). The Significance ofAggregate Properties to Transport Processes.
In Estuarine Cohesive Sediment Dynamics, Lecture Notes on Coastal and Estuarine
Studies, edited by A. J. Metha, Springer, New York.
Krone, R. B. (1999). Effects of Bed Structure on Erosion of Cohesive Sediments.
Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, ASCE., Vol. 125, No. 12, pp. 1297-1301.
Kuijper, C., Cornelisse, J. M. and Wintererp, J. C. (1989). Research on Erosive
Properties of Cohesive Sediments. Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 94, No.
C10, pp. 14,341-14,350.
Lavelle, J. W., Mofjeld, H. 0. and Baker, E. T. (1984 ). An In-situ Erosion Rate for
Fine Grained Marine Sediments. Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 89, No.
c4, pp. 6,543-6,552.
Maa, J.P.- Y., Wright, L. D., Lee, C.-H. and Shannon, T. W. (1993). VIMS Sea Carousel:
A Field Instrument for Studying Sediment Transport. Marine Geology, Vol. 115,
pp. 271-287.
Maa, J.P.-Y. and Lee, C.-H. (1997). Variation of the Resuspension Coefficients in the
Lower Chesapeake Bay. Journal of Coastal Research, Vol. SI25, pp. 63-74.
Maa, J. P.-Y., Sanford, L. and Halka, J. P. (1998). Sediment Resuspension
Characteristics in Baltimore Harbor, Maryland. Marine Geology., Vol. 146, pp.
137-145.
McAnally, W. H. and Mehta, A. J. (2002). Significance of Aggregation of Fine
Sediment Particles in their Deposition. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, Vol.
54, pp. 643-653.

ISH JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING. VOL. 16, 2010, NO. 1

 VOL. 16, (No. I) COHESIVE SEDIMENT EROSION THRESHOLD : A REVIEW (53)

Mehta, A. J. and Partheniades, E. (1982). Resuspension Of Deposited Cohesive

Sediment Beds. Proceedings of the Eighteenth Coastal Engineering Conference.,
ASCE, Vol. II, Cape Town, South Africa, pp. 1569-1588.
Mehta, A. J. (1988). Laboratory Studies on Cohesive Sediment Deposition and
Erosion. Physical Processes in Estuaries, Dronhers and Van Leusen, eds., Springer-
Verlag, pp. 427-445.
Mehta, A. J. (1991). Review Notes on Cohesive Sediment Erosion. Coastal Sediments,
Vol. I, N. C. Krauss et al., eds., pp. 44-53.
Mehta, A. J. and Parchure, T. M. (2000). Suiface Erosion of Fine-Grained Sediment
Revisited. In: Flemming, B.W., Delafontaine, M.T., Liebezeit, G. (Eds.), Muddy
Downloaded by [University of Kent] at 11:13 23 November 2014

Coast Dynamics and Resource Management. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 55-74.

Miller, D. C., Jumars, P. A. and Nowell, A. R. M. (1984). Ejffcts ofSediment Transport
on Deposit Feeding: Scaling Arguments. Limnology Oceanography, Vol. 29, pp.
1209-1217.
Mirstkhoulava, T. E. (1991 ). Scouring by Flowing Water of Cohesive and Non-
Cohesive Beds. Journal of Hydraulic Research, IAHR, Vol. 29, No. 3, pp. 341-
354.
Mitchener, H. J. and Torfs, H. (1996). Erosion of Mud/Sand Mixtures. Coastal
Engineering, Vol. 29, pp. 1-25.
Mostafa, T. S., Imran, J., Chaudhry, M. H. and Khan, I. B. (2008). Erosion Resistance
of Cohesive Soils. Journal of Hydraulic Research, IAHR, Vol. 46, No. 6, pp. 777-
787.
Nowell, A. R. M., Jumars, P. A. and Eckman, J. E. (1981 ). Effects of Biological
Activity on the Entrainment of Marine Sediments. Marine Geology Vol. 42, Vol.
(1/4), pp. 133-153.
Ockenden, M. C. and Delo, E. A. ( 1988). Consolidation and Erosion of Estuarine
Mud and Sand Mixtures- An Experimental Study. Tech. Rep. SR 149, HR
Wallingford.
Ostubo, K. and Muraoka, K. ( 1988). Critical Shear Stress of Cohesive Bottom
Sediment. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 114, No. 10, pp. 1241-
1256.
Panagiotopoulos, 1., Voulgaris, G. and Collins, M. B. (1997). The Influence of Clay
on the Threshold of Movement of Fine Sandy Beds. Coastal Engineering, Vol. 32,
pp. 19-43.
Parchure, T. M. and Mehta, A. J. (1985). Erosion of Soft Cohesive Sediment Deposits.
Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, ASCE, Vol. Ill, No. 10, pp. 1308-1326.

ISH JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING. VOL. 16. 2010, NO. I

 (54) COHESIVE SEDIMENT EROSION THRESHOLD : A REVIEW VOL. 16, (No. I)

Partheniades, E. ( 1972). Results of Recent Investigation on Erosion and Deposition

of Cohesive Sediments. Sedimentation, H. W. Shen, ed., Fort Collins, Colo., 20/1
- 20/38.
Paterson, D. M. (1997). Biological Mediation of Sediment Erodibility, Ecology and
Physical Dynamics. InN. Burt, R. Parker & J. Watts (Eds.), Cohesive Sediments
Wallingford, U.K: John Wiley and Sons, pp. 215-229.
Paterson, D. M. and Black, K. S. ( 1999). Water Flow, Sediment Dynamics and Benthic
Biology. Advances in Ecological Research, Vol. 29, pp. 155-193.
Postma, H. ( 1967). Sediment Transport and Sedimentation in the Estuarine
Environment. Estuaries, G. H. Lauff, ed., American Association for the
Downloaded by [University of Kent] at 11:13 23 November 2014

Advancement of Science, Washington, pp. 158-179.

Raudikivi, A. J. (1990). Loose Boundary Hydraulics. 3rd Edition, Pergamon Press,
Chap. 9, New York, USA, pp. 237-299.
Ravisangar, V., Sturm, T. W. and Amritharajah, A. (2005). Influence of Sediment
Structure on Erosional Strength and Density of Kaolinite Sediment Beds. Journal
of Hydraulic Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 131, No.5, pp. 356-365.
Ravens, T. M. and Gschwend, P. M. ( 1999). Flume Measurements of Sediment
Erodibility in Boston Harbor. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 125,
No. 10, pp. 998-1005.
Rhoads, D. C., Yingst, J. Y. and Ullman, W. J. (1978). Seafloor Stability in Central
Long Island Sound: Part I, Temporal Changes in Erodibility of Fine Grained
Sediment. In M. L. Wiley (Eds.), Estuarine Interactions. New York: Academic
Press.
Rhoads, D. C. and Boyer, L. F. (1982). The Effects of Marine Benthos on Physical
Properties of Sediments- A Successional Perspective. Chapter I In: P. I. McCall,
& M. J. S. Tevesz (Eds.), Animal-Sediment Relations. New York: Plenum Press.
Righetti, M. and Lucarelli, C. (2007). May the Shields Theory be Extended to Cohesive
and Adhesive Benthic Sediments? Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 112, No.
C05039, pp. 1-14.
Roberts, J., Jepsen, R., Gotthard, D. and Lick, W. (1998). Effects of Particle Size and
Bulk Density on Erosion of Quartz Materials. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering,
ASCE, Vol. 124 (12), 1261-1267.
Sanford, L. P. and Maa, J. P. Y. (2001). A Unified Erosion Formulation for Fine
Sediments. Marine Geology, Vol. 179, pp. 9-23.

ISH JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING. VOL. 16, 2010. NO. I

 VOL. 16, (No. I) COHESIVE SEDIMENT EROSION THRESHOLD : A REVIEW (55)

Samad, M.A., Baird, D. C., Vermeyan, T. B. and Meforra, W. M. (1995). Erosion

Characteristics of Cohesive Sediments. Proceeding of 1st International Conference
on Water Resources Engineering, ASCE, San Antonio, Texas, Aug. 14-18.
Schiinemann, M. and Kuhl, H. (1993). Experimental Investigations ofthe Erosional
Behaviour ofNaturally Formed Mud From the Elbe Estuary and Adjacent Wadden
Sea, Germany. Nearshore and Estuarine Cohesive Sediment Transport, A. J. Mehta,
ed., Coastal and Estuarine Studies, Vol. 42, pp. 314-330.
Shaikh, A., Ruff, J. and Abt, S. ( 1988). Erosion Rate of Dispersive and Non-dispersive
Clays. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 114, No. 5, pp. 589-600.
Thorn, M. F. C. and Parsons, J. G. (1980). Erosion of Cohesive Sediments In Estuaries:
Downloaded by [University of Kent] at 11:13 23 November 2014

An Engineering Guide. Third International Symposium On Dredging Technology,

British Hydromechanical Research Association, Cranfield, England, pp. 349-358.
Tolhurst, T. J., Black, K. S., Shayler, S. A., Mather, S., Black, I., Baker, K. and
Paterson, D. M. ( 1999). Measuring the Erosion Shear Stress ofIntertidal Sediments
with Cohesive Strength Meter (CSM). Estuarine Coastal and Shelf Science, Vol.
49, pp. 281-294.
Tolhurst, T. J., Black, K. S., Paterson, D. M., Mitchener, H. J., Termaat, G. R. and
Shayler, S. A. (2000). A Comparison and Measurement Standardisation of Four
In-situ Devices for Determining the Erosion Shear Stress of Intertidal Sediments.
Continental Shelf Research, Vol. 20, pp. 1397-1418.
Torfs, H. (1994). Erosion of Layered Sand-Mud Beds in Uniform Flow. Proceedings
of the 24th International Conference on Coastal Engineering, 23-28, October,
Kobe, Japan, pp. 3360-3368.
Torfs, H. (1997). Erosion of Mixed Cohesive I Non-Cohesive Sediments in Uniform
Flow. Cohesive Sediments, N. Burt, R. Parker and J. Watts, eds., John Wiley &
Sons Ltd, pp. 245-252.
Van Ledden, M., Van Kesteren, W. G. M. and Winterwerp, J. C. (2004). A Conceptual
Framework for Erosion Behaviour of Sand-Mud Mixtures. Continental Shelf
Research, Vol. 24, pp. 1-11.
Vanoni, V. A. (1964). Measurements of Critical Shear Stress for Entraining Fine
Sediments in a Boundary Layer. Rep. No. KH-R-7, W.M. Keck Laboratory for
Hydraulics and Water Resources, California Institute of Technology, USA.
Widdows, J., Brinsley, M.D., Bowley, N. and Barret, C. (1998). A Benthic Annular
Flume for In-situ Measurement of Suspension Feeding/Biodeposition Rates and
Erosion Potential of Intertidal Cohesive Sediments. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf
Science, Vol. 46, pp. 27-38.

ISH JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING. VOL. 16. 2010, NO. I

 (56) COHESIVE SEDIMENT EROSION THRESHOLD : A REVIEW VOL. 16, (No. I)

Wildish, D. J. and Kristmanson, D. D. (1984). Importance of the Mussels of the

Benthic Boundary Layer. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science Vol.
41, pp. 1618-1625.
Young, R. A. (1977). Seaflume: A Device For In-Situ Studies of Threshold Erosion
Velocity and Erosional Behaviour of Undisturbed Marine Muds. Marine Geology,
Vol. 23, pp. 11-18.
Young, R.N. and Southard, J. B. ( 1978). Erosion of Fine-Grained Marine Sediments:
Sea Floor and Laboratory Experiments. Geol. Soc. Am.Bull., Vol. 89, No. 5, pp.
663-672.
Zerik, D. A., Krishnappan, B. G., Germaine, J. T., Madsen, 0. S. and Ladd, C. C.
Downloaded by [University of Kent] at 11:13 23 November 2014

(1998). Erosional and Mechanical Strengths of Deposited Cohesive Sediments.

Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 124, No. 11, pp. 1076-1085.

ISH JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING. VOL. 16, 2010. NO. I