The pocket erodometer test (PET) is an inexpensive and expedient way to derive the erosion categories of soils.  The test involves impinging a regulated jet of water at the end of an undisturbed soil sample and measuring the depth of scoured hole after 20 jet applications.  The depth of the scoured hole provides an indication of the erosion category.  PET and companion erosion function apparatus (EFA) tests were per-formed on 33 cohesive soil samples from 5 different sites on the island of Oahu, Hawaii.  In the EFA test, water is run over a Shelby tube of soil placed at the bottom of a flume.  The rate of scour is measured under different flow velocities.  PET and EFA tests data were used to develop a plot of the PET erosion depth versus EFA erosion category which revealed that a correlation clearly exists between PET erosion depth and EFA erosion category value, the PET erosion depth that separates medium and high erodibility categories should be revised and the erodibility criteria based on soil classification is not very reliable for Hawaiian fine-grained soils

Ooi, P.

Rahimnejad, R.

HR Wallingford Ltd.: ePrints at HR Wallingford

1 INTRODUCTION Developed by Briaud et al. (2012), the pocket erodometer test (PET) is an inexpensive and expedi-ent way to derive the erosion categories for soils.  The test involves impinging a regulated jet of water at the end of an undisturbed soil sample and measur-ing the depth of scoured hole after 20 jet applica-tions.  The depth of the scoured hole provides an in-dication of the erosion category (varying from very high to high to medium to low to very low erodibil-ity) of a soil as shown in Figure 1.  The current range of PET depths of scoured hole for the erosion cate-gories of medium and high erodibility are between 1 and 15 mm and 15 and 75 mm, respectively.  Briaud et al. (2012) established these limits based on 28 da-ta points but no data was available between depths of scoured hole of 19 and 72 mm.  In Figure 1, Briaud et al. (2012) also correlated the erosion cate-gories with soil classification based on the Unified Soil Classification System. PET and companion erosion function apparatus (EFA) tests were performed on 33 cohesive soil samples from 5 different sites on the island of Oahu, Hawaii.  In the EFA test, water is run over a Shelby tube of soil placed at the bottom of a flume.  The rate of scour (i.e., the rate at which the soil is pushed upwards and washed away) is measured under dif-ferent flow velocities.  According to Briaud et al. (2012), the last two points of the EFA test provide a good estimate of the erosion category of the soil and is used as the basis for comparison to the PET-derived erodibility category.   Figure 1.  PET erosion depth ranges and the corresponding ero-sion categories (after Briaud et al. 2012).  With the aid of the PET and EFA test results, the objectives of this study are to: (1) examine the relia-bility of the PET-derived erosion categories pro-posed by Briaud et al. (2012); (2) propose changes to Modification of an erodibility category limit for the pocket erodometer  Reza Rahimnejad and Phillip S.K. Ooi University of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI, USA ABSTRACT: The pocket erodometer test (PET) is an inexpensive and expedient way to derive the erosion categories of soils.  The test involves impinging a regulated jet of water at the end of an undisturbed soil sam-ple and measuring the depth of scoured hole after 20 jet applications.  The depth of the scoured hole provides an indication of the erosion category.  PET and companion erosion function apparatus (EFA) tests were per-formed on 33 cohesive soil samples from 5 different sites on the island of Oahu, Hawaii.  In the EFA test, wa-ter is run over a Shelby tube of soil placed at the bottom of a flume.  The rate of scour is measured under dif-ferent flow velocities.  PET and EFA tests data were used to develop a plot of the PET erosion depth versus EFA erosion category which revealed that a correlation clearly exists between PET erosion depth and EFA erosion category value, the PET erosion depth that separates medium and high erodibility categories should be revised and the erodibility criteria based on soil classification is not very reliable for Hawaiian fine-grained soils.   the erosion category limits if applicable; and (3) ex-amine the reliability of the erosion categories based on soil classification as proposed by Briaud et al. (2012). 2 SOILS TESTED PET and EFA tests were conducted on 33 different cohesive soil samples collected from 5 different wa-ter crossings located on the island of Oahu, Hawaii.  A plan of the sites is shown in Figure 2.  Four of the sites lie on the south side of the island with the sam-ples retrieved from a relatively impermeable layer (termed the “caprock” which is truly a misnomer be-cause it is not a rock) overlying a basalt aquifer.  Ob-tained from northeast Oahu, the location of the fifth site was chosen for wider geographic coverage.  Per-tinent details of these soils are summarized in Ta-ble 1. Hydrometer testing was used to estimate the % finer than 2µ and the median grain size or D50.  Un-drained shear strengths were measured using uncon-solidated undrained triaxial tests performed in ac-cordance with American Society of Testing and Ma-terials Standards ASTM D2850. Prior to PET testing, the pocket erodometer was calibrated as described below. 3 CALIBRATION OF THE POCKET ERODOMETER The PET is a water pistol (Figure 3) aimed at the vertical face of a soil placed at a horizontal distance of 50 mm away (Briaud et al., 2012).  It has a nozzle diameter of approximately 0.5 mm and prior to use, it was calibrated to have a nozzle velocity of about 8 m/s in accordance with the procedure outlined by Briaud et al. (2012).  Undisturbed soil samples are subjected to 20 jet applications at a rate of 1 jet per second.  PET tests were conducted at a minimum of 3 different locations on the face of the soil sample and the PET erosion depth is taken as the average depth of penetration.       Figure 2.  Sampling location plan at the 5 water crossings on the island of Oahu, Hawaii. Table 1.  Summary of cohesive soil samples and properties subjected to PET and EFA testing. Location Sample Number Sample Depth  (m) USCS Soil Classification Water Content  (%) % Fines % < 2µ D50   (mm) Undrained Shear Strength (kPa) Waiahole Stream B-2/SH6 6.86 MH 62 63 11 0.033 29 B-2/SH8 8.38 MH 72 99 34 0.008 28 B-2/SH10 9.91 MH 68 51 10 0.007 34 B-2/SH14 12.7 MH 53 99 35 0.006 - Honouliuli Stream B-3A/SH3 2.06 MH 64 82 24 0.020 18 B-3A/SH9 7.09 MH 62 79 20 0.013 13 B-3A/SH11 8.61 ML 69 83 23 0.008 16 B-3B/SH1 2.51 MH 56 55 18 0.053 20 B-3B/SH3 5.56 MH 72 74 25 0.014 25 B-3B/SH4 7.09 MH 78 73 13 0.038 18 Moanalua Stream B-4B/SH1 3.43 CH 67 99 58 0.0011 11 B-4B/SH3 4.95 MH 89 98 53 0.0014 16 B-4B/SH5 6.48 MH 77 99 43 0.0040 16 B-4B/SH7 8.00 MH 72 97 35 0.0055 21 B-4B/SH9 9.53 MH 74 96 41 0.0045 18 B-4B/SH11 11.0 MH 66 99 31 0.0061 23 B-4B/SH13 12.6 MH 68 99 47 0.0028 21 Kaloi Drain-age Channel1 B-6/SH2 3.89 CH 26 100 68 0.0002 371 B-6/SH6 6.55 ML 23 98 30 0.0090 303 B-6/SH9 8.15 CL 24 100 32 0.0070 149 B-6/SH11 9.25 ML 22 98 36 0.0060 507 B-6/SH17 13.0 ML 22 82 11 0.0205 407 B-6/SH19 14.2 ML 36 61 15 0.0230 230 B-6/SH23 16.5 ML 23 99 33 0.0080 268 Halawa Stream B-7/SH1 4.57 MH 73 97 39 0.0036 29 B-7/SH5 8.08 MH 50 67 16 0.0270 48 B-7/SH7 9.60 MH 85 89 21 0.0110 57 B-7/SH9 11.1 MH 57 93 20 0.0090 57 B-7/SH11 12.6 MH 77 93 26 0.0080 55 B-7/SH13 14.2 MH 76 98 30 0.0100 59 B-7/SH15 15.7 MH 71 98 34 0.0095 - B-7/SH17 17.2 MH 65 98 24 0.0110 52 B-7/SH19 18.7 MH 74 99 27 0.0095 25 Note: 1.  Kaloi Drainage Channel is dry most of the time.  Hence, soil is desiccated with high shear strengths.  Undisturbed samples were retrieved using a Pitcher sampler at this location.  Shelby tubes were used at the other 4 streams.     Figure 3.  PET delivering one of 20 jet applications at a rate of 1 jet per second.  4 CALIBRATION OF THE EFA AND INTERPRETATION OF EROSION CATEGORIES Prior to EFA testing, the flowmeter was calibrated to ensure that the flow and hence flow velocities are accurate.  Each EFA test yielded between 4 and 7 da-ta points as shown in Table 2. Briaud et al. (2012) presented 4 different methods for interpreting the erosion categories of soils.  In the first method, all the points from an EFA test are plotted on a chart similar to Figure 1.  The erosion category of the soil is the one that contains the most number of data points.  In the second method, a re-gression line is drawn through the EFA data points plotted on a chart similar to Figure 1.  The erosion category is the one that contains the mid-point of the regression line.  In the third method, the first and last points of the EFA test data are plotted on a chart similar to Figure 1.  The erosion categories are esti-mated for these two points and the erosion category is taken as the average of these two values.  Their recommended method of interpretation is the fourth method, which is to use the average of the last two points of the EFA test.  They indicated that this method provides the best estimate of the erosion cat-egory because the last two points represent the high-est velocities, which are most relevant and appropri-ate for classifying the erosion categories Despite the fact that the scour mechanism is dif-ferent in the PET and EFA tests (water impinges horizontally onto a vertical soil surface in the PET whereas water flows parallel to a horizontal soil sur-face in the EFA), there is a strong correlation be-tween the PET and EFA erosion categories as dis-cussed below. 5 TEST RESULTS The measured PET erosion depths are summarized in the fifth column of Table 2.  Seventeen of the 33 tests had erosion depths between 19 and 54 mm, which were helpful for populating the gap in data missing from Briaud et al.’s (2012) study (no data was available between depths of scoured hole of 19 and 72 mm in their study). The erosion categories were also discerned using EFA test results based on Briaud et al.’s (2012) Method 4 described earlier.  These are shown on the fourth column of Table 2.  The precision of the val-ues in the fourth column was enhanced by dividing the erosion categories into 10 smaller sub-categories as shown in Figure 4.  If a dashed line drawn through the middle of each category is considered to be the number for that category, then the category limit lines (thick solid lines) drawn in figures 1 and 4 rep-resent ±0.5 of that number.  For example, a soil in Category 2 can have an erosion category value (ECV) such that 1.5 ≤ ECV < 2.5.  By plotting the average of the last two points of the EFA test in Fig-ure 4, the EFA ECV can be attained as shown in Column 4 of Table 2.  If the EFA ECV is considered the “correct” value with which the PET erosion cat-egory can be compared to, then the PET erosion cat-egory predicts the correct erodibility 24 times out of the 33 tests (73% accuracy). To study the reliability of the PET erodibility pre-diction capability, the PET erosion depth is replotted versus the EFA ECV in Figure 5.  Figure 5 reveals that: (1) a correlation (R2 = 0.75) clearly exists be-tween PET erosion depth and EFA ECV for the Ha-waii data; (2) the reliability of the method can be improved by increasing the PET erosion depth that separates the medium and high erodibility categories from 15 mm to 28 mm.  Alternatively, the category limit lines could be curved but this alternative is not explored in the interest of maintaining the original look of the charts; and (3) with this revised criterion, only one of the 33 PET tests from this research pro-vide the wrong erosion category (97% accuracy). In Figure 5, the original data used by Briaud et al. (2012) to derive the erosion categories are also plot-ted as circles.  It can be seen that there is an im-provement in the precision with their data as well as the number of errors reduced from 4 to 3 with this proposed change. Therefore, the proposed PET ero-sion depth limits for medium and high erodibility of 1 and 28 mm and 28 and 75 mm, respectively not only improves the reliability of the PET for Hawaii soils but also the reliability of the PET for the soils used in the original development of this criterion.    Figure 4.  More precise derivation of EFA erosion categories for soils from Waiahole (Boring B2). 6 DIFFERENCES BETWEEN BRIAUD ET AL.’S (2012) SOILS AND SOILS FROM THIS STUDY The two data-sets plotted in Figure 5 look different, with the tests from this study showing distinctly more erosion depth compared with Briaud et al.'s (2012) data for the same erosion category.  Also, Briaud et al.'s data look uncorrelated to erosion cate-gory.  Possible explanations may be attributed to two fundamental differences between Briaud et al.’s data and data from this study as follows:  Table 2.  Summary of PET and EFA erosion categories. Location Sample Number Number of EFA Data Points EFA Erosion Category PET Erosion Depth (mm) PET Erosion Category PET Ac-curacy USCS Erosion Category USCS Accuracy Waiahole Stream B-2/SH6 4 2.3 39 2 √ 3 x B-2/SH8 4 2.4 23 2 √ 3 x B-2/SH10 4 1.6 54 2 √ 3 x B-2/SH14 4 2.8 9 3 √ 3 √ Honouliuli Stream B-3A/SH3 5 2.5 26 2 x 3 √ B-3A/SH9 5 2.2 45 2 √ 3 x B-3A/SH11 4 2.2 28 2 √ 2 √ B-3B/SH1 4 2.7 26 2 x 3 √ B-3B/SH3 5 2.4 39 2 √ 3 x B-3B/SH4 4 2.4 35 2 √ 3 x Moanalua Stream B-4B/SH1 4 2.4 28 2 √ 4 x B-4B/SH3 4 2.7 14 3 √ 3 √ B-4B/SH5 7 2.7 15 3 √ 3 √ B-4B/SH7 5 2.6 24 2 x 3 √ B-4B/SH9 5 2.8 24 2 x 3 √ B-4B/SH11 4 2.8 9 3 √ 3 √ B-4B/SH13 4 2.7 19 2 x 3 √ Kaloi Drainage Channel1 B-6/SH2 4 2.9 7 3 √ 4 x B-6/SH6 4 2.7 6 3 √ 2 x B-6/SH9 7 2.7 6 3 √ 3 √ B-6/SH11 6 2.8 6 3 √ 2 x B-6/SH17 6 2.8 4 3 √ 2 x B-6/SH19 4 2.9 4 3 √ 2 x B-6/SH23 7 2.6 7 3 √ 2 x Halawa Stream B-7/SH1 5 2.8 9 3 √ 3 √ B-7/SH5 6 2.4 28 2 √ 3 x B-7/SH7 7 2.6 18 2 x 3 √ B-7/SH9 7 2.6 25 2 x 3 √ B-7/SH11 6 2.8 11 3 √ 3 √ B-7/SH13 7 2.8 12 3 √ 3 √ B-7/SH15 5 2.9 19 2 x 3 √ B-7/SH17 6 2.8 8 3 √ 3 √ B-7/SH19 4 2.7 20 2 x 3 √    No. Correct/Total No. 24/33  19/33    % Correct 73%  58% For data from this research (X's), EFA ECVs range from 1.6 to 2.9,and the trendline is given by:   y = -11.179x2 + 12.598x + 63.443R² = 0.7468010203040506070801.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5PET Erosion Depth (mm)EFA Erosion CategoryThis researchBriaud et al. (2012)Poly. (This research)HighErodibilityMediumErodibilityLowErodibilityVeryLowErodibility1 "O" point not in error if moderate/high limitraised from 15 mm to 28 mm1 "X" point inerror3 "O"points inerror Figure 5.  Pocket erodometer test erosion depth versus EFA erosion category value from this research (X’s in plot) and from Briaud et al. (2012) (O’s in plot).  Note if moderate/high limit is raised from 15 to 28 mm, only 1 “X” and 3 “O” points are in error.  1. The soils in this study are predominantly silts while the soils from Briaud et al.'s (2012) study were mostly clays (Figure 6).  Accord-ing to USDA (1990), clayey soils are more resistant against erosion than silts.  Also, the percent < 2µ (or percent clay according to some soil classification systems) for soils in this study average 30% and range from 10% to 68% while those from Briaud et al.'s (2012) study average 35% and range from 16% to 100%. 2. The soils in this study have higher water con-tents (average = 60% with a range varying from 22% to 89%) than those from Briaud et al.’s (2012) study (average = 26% with a range varying from 3% to 45%).  As water content increases in a saturated soil, the shear strength decreases, the critical shear stress decreases (Rahimnejad and Ooi, 2016) and the erosion rate increases. In summary, the soils from this study have larger erosion depths because they are silts rather than clays and they have higher water contents.  0%10%20%30%40%50%60%0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120%Plasticity Index (%)Liquid Limit (%)Briaud et al.'s (2012) dataThis researchA-line Figure 6.  Plasticity characteristics of soils from this study and from Briaud et al. (2012). 7 USCS CLASSIFICATION AND EFA TEST RESULTS Using Briaud et al.’s (2012) erodibility criteria based on soil classification as shown in Figure 1, of the 33 tests conducted in this research, 19 erosion catego-ries were correct (58% accuracy) when compared to the EFA ECVs (Table 2).  This suggests that the erodibility criteria based on soil classification is not very reliable for Hawaiian fine-grained soils. 8 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS PET and companion EFA tests were performed on 33 cohesive soil samples from 5 different sites on the island of Oahu, Hawaii.  The PET erosion depths were used to derive the erosion categories, which were then compared to those using the EFA.  If the EFA ECV is considered the “correct” value with which the PET erosion category can be compared to, then the PET erosion depth provides the correct erodibility 24 times out of the 33 tests (73% accura-cy). To study the reliability of the PET prediction ca-pability, the PET erosion depth was plotted versus the EFA ECV.  This plot revealed that: (1) a correla-tion (R2 = 0.75) clearly exists between PET erosion depth and EFA ECV; (2) the PET erosion depth of 15 mm that separates the medium and high erodibil-ity categories should be increased to 28 mm to in-crease the reliability of the method; and (3) with this revised criterion, only one of the 33 PET tests from this research provides the wrong erosion category (97% accuracy).  The proposed PET erosion depth limits for medium and high erodibility of 1 and 28 mm and 28 and 75 mm, respectively not only im-proves the reliability of the PET for Hawaii soils but also the reliability of the PET for the soils used in the original development of this criterion.  The rea-son why the soils from this study have larger erosion depths is because they are silts rather than clays and they have higher water contents.   When assessing the applicability of Briaud et al.’s (2012) erodibility criteria based on soil classifica-tion, of the 33 tests, 19 erosion categories were cor-rect when compared to the EFA ECVs (58% accura-cy).  This suggests that the erodibility criteria based on soil classification is not very reliable for Hawai-ian fine-grained soils. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The financial support of the State of Hawaii De-partment of Transportation (HDOT) in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is greatly appreciated and acknowledged.  The con-tents of this paper reflect the view of the authors, who are responsible for the facts and accuracy of the data presented.  The contents do not necessarily re-flect the official views or policies of HDOT or FHWA.  The contents contained herein do not con-stitute a standard, specification or regulation REFERENCES Briaud, J.L., Bernhardt, M. and Leclair, M.  (2012).  The pock-et erodometer test: Development and Preliminary Results.  Geotechnical Testing Journal, Vol. 35, No. 2, pp. 342-352. Rahimnejad, R. and Ooi, P.S.K.  (2016).  Factors affecting the critical shear stress of scour of cohesive soil beds.  Trans-portation Research Record, Journal of the Transportation Research Board. United States Department of Agriculture  (1990).  Engineering Field Handbook. United States Department of Agriculture. 

Modification of an erodibility category limit for the pocket erodometer

http://eprints.hrwallingford.co.uk/1692/1/PA_5_3-Rahimnejad-R.pdf

Modification of an erodibility category limit for the pocket erodometer

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

HR Wallingford Ltd.: ePrints at HR Wallingford