Bank Stability and Toe Erosion Model

Static Version 4.1

Bank Stability Model

The Bank Stability Model combines three limit equilibrium-method models that
calculate Factor of Safety (Fs) for multi-layer streambanks. The methods
simulated are horizontal layers (Simon et al., 2000), vertical slices with tension
crack (Morgenstern and Price, 1965) and cantilever failures (Thorne and Tovey,
1981). The model can easily be adapted to incorporate the effects of geotextiles
or other bank stabilization measures that affect soil strength.

The model accounts for the strength of up to five soil layers, the effect of pore-
water pressure (both positive and negative (matric suction)), confining pressure
due to streamflow and soil reinforcement and surcharge due to vegetation.

Input the bank coordinates (Input Geometry) and run the geometry macro to set
up the bank profile, then input your soil types, vegetation cover and water table
or pore-water pressures (Bank Model Step 2 and Bank Model Data) to find

The bank is said to be 'stable' if Fs is greater than 1.3, to provide a safety margin
for uncertain or variable data. Banks with a Fs value between 1.0 and 1.3 are
said to be 'conditionally stable', i.e. stable but with little safety margin. Slopes
with an Fs value less than 1.0 are unstable.

This version of the model assumes hydrostatic conditions below the water
table, and a linear interpolation of matric suction above the water table (unless
the user's own pore-water pressure data are used).

The model can either use estimated input data where no field data are available or as a first pas
to run using your own data. Your own data can be added to white boxes. Don't change values
output.

Bank Toe Erosion Model

The Bank Toe Erosion Model can be used as a tool for making reasonably informed estimates o
bank and bank toe by hydraulic shear stress. The model is primarily intended for use in studies
threatens bank stability. The effects of erosion protection on the bank and toe can be incorpora
erosion control measures.

The model estimates boundary shear stress from channel geometry, and considers critical shea
two separate zones with potentially different materials the bank and bank toe; the bed elevation
This is because the model assumes that erosion is not transport limited and does not incorporat
simulation of sediment transport.

Input the bank coordinates, flow parameters and channel slope (Input Geometry)
material types and erosion protection (if any) (Toe Model Step 2 and Toe Model Data)
determine how much erosion may occur during the prescribed storm event.

Disclaimer
The model has been parameterized with literature values for variables corresponding to differen
sediment types. In reality these values will change from site to site and may be different from th

Users are urged to check these values in the respective Data worksheets and, where appropria
their own or with conservative values. The USDA-ARS is not responsible for problems arising fr

The toe erosion model is a prototype that has not yet been fully tested and should hence be co
There may be some bugs in the system, and some major simplifying assumptions have had to b

More information on the model can be found in Model use and FAQ and Tech Background

This model was developed by Andrew Simon, Andrea Curini, Robert Thomas and Eddy Langen
USDA-ARS-NSLWatershed Physical Processes Research Unit, P.O. Box 1157, Oxford, MS 386
ion Model

d models that

s with tension
ne and Tovey,
s of geotextiles

ffect of pore-
ning pressure

try macro to set

nd water table
ata) to find Fs.

a safety margin
0 and 1.3 are
gin. Slopes

table (unless

a are available or as a first pass solution, or can be set

e boxes. Don't change values in yellow boxes - they are

asonably informed estimates of hydraulic erosion of the

rily intended for use in studies where bank toe erosion
bank and toe can be incorporated to show the effects of

try, and considers critical shear stress and erodibility of

nd bank toe; the bed elevation is assumed to be fixed.
mited and does not incorporate, in any way, the

nput Geometry), then input your bed, bank and toe

and Toe Model Data). Next, run the shear stress macro to

ables corresponding to different vegetation and soil /

e and may be different from those used here.

ksheets and, where appropriate, substitute them with

ponsible for problems arising from the use of either model.

ested and should hence be considered a work in progress.

ing assumptions have had to be made.

AQ and Tech Background.

bert Thomas and Eddy Langendoen

P.O. Box 1157, Oxford, MS 38655 USA.
Technical background
Sources: Simon et al. (2000); Simon and Collison (2002).
Types of streambank failure

Streambank failure can occur by several mechanisms (Figure 1), including cantilever failures of
toppling of vertically arranged slabs, rotational slumping, and wedge failures (Thorne
failure reflects the degree of undercutting (if any) by fluvial scour or other mechanisms, and the
materials.

Figure 1. Selection of failure types observed in the field.

The Bank Stability Model simulates types b) and c) and a modification of type b) where a tension
the instant of failure. All these are shear-type failures that occur when the driving force (stress)
resisting force (strength).
Streambank stability

The shear strength of saturated soil can be described by the Mohr-Coulomb criterion:
tf = c'+(s - mw) tan f'

where tf = shear stress at failure (kPa); c' =effective cohesion (kPa); s = normal stress (kPa);
pressure (kPa); and f' = effective angle of internal friction (degrees).

In incised stream channels and in arid or semi-arid regions, much of the bank may be above the
will usually experience unsaturated conditions. Matric suction (negative pore-water pressure) ab
table has the effect of increasing the apparent cohesion of a soil. Fredlund et al.
relationship describing increasing soil strength with increasing matric suction. The rate of increa
the parameter fb, which is generally between 10º and 20º, with a maximum value of
(Fredlund and Rahardjo, 1993). Apparent cohesion incorporates both electro-chemical bonding
matrix and cohesion due to surface tension on the air-water interface of the unsaturated soil:

ca = c' + (ma - mw) tan fb = c' + y tan fb

where ca = apparent cohesion (kPa); ma = pore-air pressure (kPa); and y = matric suction (kPa).

The term fb varies for all soils, and for a given soil with moisture content (Fredlund and Rahardjo
et al., 2000). Data on fb are particularly lacking for alluvial materials. However, once this param
assumed) both apparent cohesion (ca) and effective cohesion (c') can be calculated by measurin
with tensiometers or other devices and by using equation 2.
Driving forces for streambank instability are controlled by bank height and slope, the unit weight
mass of water within it, and the surcharge imposed by any objects on the bank top. The ratio of
forces is commonly expressed as the Factor of Safety (Fs), where values greater than one indic
those less than one, instability.

Streambank Stability Algorithms

1.) Horizontal Layers.
The Horizontal Layer method is a further development of the wedge failure type developed by S
(1998) and Simon et al. (2000), which in turn is a refinement of the models developed by Osman
(1988) and Simon et al. (1991). The model is a Limit Equilibrium analysis in which the Mohr-Co
criterion is used for the saturated portion of the wedge, and the Fredlund et al.
unsaturated portion. In addition to positive and negative pore-water pressure, the model incorpo
soils, changes in soil unit weight based on moisture content, and external confining pressure fro
The model divides the bank profile into up to five user definable layers with unique geotechnical
Factor of safety (Fs) is given by:
I
∑ ( c'i Li + Si tan φ bi + [W i cos β−U i + P i cos( α − β ) ] tan φ 'i )
i=1
F s= I
∑ ( W i sin β− Pi sin [ α − β ] )
i =1
 I
∑ ( c'i Li + Si tan φ bi + [W i cos β−U i + P i cos( α − β ) ] tan φ 'i )
F s = i=1 I
∑ ( W i sin β− Pi sin [ α − β ] )
i =1

where ci' = effective cohesion of ith layer (kPa); Li = length of the failure plane incorporated within
Si = force produced by matric suction on the unsaturated part of the failure surface (kN/m);
layer (kN); Ui = the hydrostatic-uplift force on the saturated portion of the failure surface (kN/m);
hydrostatic-confining force due to external water level (kN/m); b = failure-plane angle (degrees fr
bank angle (degrees from horizontal); and I = the number of layers.

2.) Vertical Slices.

The vertical slice method is an adaptation of the method employed in the CONCEPTS model (La

Figure 2. Subdivision of a failure block into slices

As for the Horizontal Layer method, the analysis is a Limit Equilibrium analysis. In addition to th
incorporated in the Horizontal Layer method, the Vertical Slice method evaluates normal and sh
segments of the failure block. The confining force due to the water in the channel is modeled by
surface vertically through the water and applying a horizontal hydrostatic force on the vertical po
surface. Figure 2 shows an assumed failure block configuration and its subdivision into slices.
is separated into vertical slices whereby there are an equal number of J slices and layers. Each
subdivided into three subslices to increase the accuracy of the Fs calculations.

The calculation of Fs is a 4-step iterative process: (1) vertical forces acting on a slice are summe
the normal force acting at the base of a slice, Nj; (2) horizontal forces acting on a slice are summ
the interslice normal force, In j; (3) the interslice shear force, Is j is computed from
Morgenstern and Price (1965); and (4) horizontal forces are summed over all slices to obtain

During the first iteration, the interslice normal and shear forces are neglected and the normal for

Wj
cos β
where Wj is the weight of the jth slice. This first iteration yields the Ordinary Fs. The interslice no
then determined from:

cos β cos β tan φ

I n =I n
j j−1
−( c 'j L j +S j tan φ bj −U j tan φ 'j )
Fs (
+ N j sin β −
Fs
and, in turn, the interslice shear forces are determined from:
πL j
I s = 0.4 I n sin
j j ( ) ∑ Lj
After the first iteration, the normal force, Nj equates to:
' b '
c j L j + S j tan φ j −U j tan φ j
W j + I s −I s −sin β
j− 1 j ( Fs )
'
tan φ j sin β
cos β +
Fs
for the jth slice out of J slices.
This completes the second iteration. Often, the calculated interslice normal forces are negative
top of the failure block. Since soil is unable to withstand large tensile stresses, a tension crack i
form at the last interslice boundary with tension.
Factor of safety is determined by the balance of forces in horizontal and vertical directions for ea
the horizontal direction for the entire failure block. Fs is given by:
J
cos β ∑ ( c'j L j + S j tan φbj + [ N j −U j ] tan φ 'j )
j=1
F s= J
sin β ∑ ( N j )−P j
j=1
The model then repeatedly iterates through equations 5 to 8 until the value of
3.) Cantilever shear failures.
The cantilever shear failure algorithm is a further development of the method employed in the C
(Langendoen, 2000). Put simply, the Fs is the ratio of the shear strength of the soil to the weigh
If the bank is submerged then the weight of the layers affected by the water are reduced to their
By this method, the vertical hydrostatic confining force is included in the calculation. The
I

∑ ( c ' i Li + Si tan φb −U i tan φ ' )

i i
F s = i=1 I

∑ ( W i−Pi )
i=1

Mechanical effects of vegetation on bank stability

Soil is generally strong in compression, but weak in tension. The fibrous roots of trees and herb
are strong in tension but weak in compression. Root-permeated soil, therefore, makes up a com
that has enhanced strength (Thorne, 1990). Numerous authors have quantified this enhanceme
of field and laboratory experiments. Endo and Tsuruta (1969) used in situ shear boxes to measu
difference between soil and soil with roots. Gray and Leiser (1982) and Wu (1984) used laborat
and quantified root strength in large shear boxes. Wu et al. (1979) developed a widely-used equ
estimates the increase in soil strength (cr) as a function of root tensile strength, areal density and
during shear:

cr = Tr (Ar/A) (cosq tanf + sinq)

where cr = cohesion due to roots (kPa); Tr = tensile strength of roots (kPa); A

by roots, per unit area (root-area ratio); q = shear distortion from vertical (degrees); and
(degrees).
In addition to stabilizing effects due to root reinforcement, vegetation can affect streambanks by
surcharge. Surcharge has both a beneficial and a detrimental effect; it increases the mass actin
failure surface and increases normal stress and, therefore, shear strength due to friction. Wheth
stabilizing or destabilizing depends on the slope of the shear surface and the effective friction an
but in most cases it will be destabilizing due to steep shear-surface slopes of streambank failure
Surcharge due to the mature riparian trees is calculated by multiplying the mass of trees by the
(number of trees per unit area). Tree volume was estimated using the De Vries method (De Vrie

V = p L (d12 + d22)
8

where V = volume of wood (m3), d1 = diameter of trunk at base (m), d2 = diameter of trunk at top
length of trunk (m). Volume was converted to mass using an average density of 0.96 g/cm 3 mea
sycamore, sweetgum and river birch trees in northern Mississippi (Shields et al.
surcharge by calculating the force per unit area, dividing the tree weight by the root plate area.
Toe Erosion model

Calculation of average boundary shear stress ( to)

The average boundary shear stress ( to) acting on each node of the bank material is calculated u

to = gw R S

where to = average boundary shear stress (Pa), gw = unit weight of water (9.81 kN/m
Radius (m) (calculated from the water depth) and S = channel slope (m/m).

f lo w s e g m e n ts u s e d t o c a l
s h e a r s tre s s o n th e th re e s o
s o il la y e r 1
s o il la y e r 2

la te r a l e r o s io n a n d b a n k
p r o file a ft e r e r o s io n
s o il la y e r 3

s h e a r s tr e s s d is tr ib u tio n

Figure 3. Segmentation of local flow areas and hydraulic radii.

The average boundary shear stress exerted by the flow on each node is determined by dividing
cross-section into segments that are affected only by the roughness of the bank or bed and then
to determine the flow area affected by the roughness of each node. The line dividing the bed- a
segments is assumed to bisect the average bank angle and the average bank toe angle (see Fig

The hydraulic radius of the flow on each segment is the area of the segment (A) divided by the w
the segment (Pn). Fluid shear stresses along the dividing lines are neglected when determining
perimeter.
Erodibility and critical shear stress
A submerged jet-test device has been developed by Hanson (1990) to conduct soil erodibility te
device has been developed based on knowledge of the hydraulic characteristics of a submerged
characteristics of soil material erodibility. Utilizing this device, Hanson and Simon (2001) develo
relation between critical shear stress ( tc) and the erodibility coefficient (k) for cohesive silts, silt-

k = 2 x 10-7 tc-0.5

This relation is very similar to observed trends reported by Arulanandan et al.

streambed material samples from across the United States. Jet-testing on bank toes suggests t
exponent is the same, the coefficient is instead 1 x 10 -7.

Erosion rates and amounts

An average erosion rate (in m/s) is computed for each node by utilizing an excess-shear stress a
(Partheniades, 1965). This rate is then integrated with respect to time to yield an average erosio
E = k Dt(t0 - tc)

where E = erosion distance (m), k = erodibility coefficient (m3/N s), Dt = timestep (s),
stress (Pa), and tc = critical shear stress (Pa).

This method is similar to that employed in the CONCEPTS model (Langendoen, 2000) except th
assumed to occur normal to the local bank angle, not horizontally.

Useful References

Abernethy B, Rutherford ID. 2001. The distribution and strength of riparian tree roots in relation t
reinforcement, Hydrological Processes 15: 63-79.

Arulanandan K, Gillogley E, Tully R. 1980. Development of a quantitative method to predict critic

rate of erosion of natural undisturbed cohesive soils. Technical Report GL-80-5. US Army Engin
Experiment Station: Vicksburg.

Collison AJC, Anderson MG. 1996. Using a combined slope hydrology and stability model to ide
conditions for landslide prevention by vegetation cover in the humid tropics,
Landforms 21: 737-747.

Coppin NJ, Richards IG. 1990. Use of Vegetation in Civil Engineering, Butterworths, London.

De Vries DG. 1974. Multi-stage line intersect sampling, Forestry Science 20(2)

Endo T, Tsuruta T. 1969. On the effect of tree roots upon the shearing strength of soil.
Hokkaido branch, Forest Place Experimental Station, Sapporo, Japan: 167-183.

Fredlund DG, Morgenstern NR, Widger RA. 1978. The shear strength of unsaturated soils,
Geotechnical Journal 15: 313-321.
Fredlund DG, Rahardjo H. 1993. Soil Mechanics of Unsaturated Soils, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.,

Gray DH. 1978. Role of woody vegetation in reinforcing soils and stabilizing slopes,
Symposium on Soil Reinforcing and Stabilizing Techniques in Engineering Practice, NSW Institu
Sydney, Australia: 253-306.

Gray DH, Leiser AJ. 1982. Biotechnical Slope Protection and Erosion Control

Greenway DR. 1987. Vegetation and slope stability, In Anderson MG, Richards KS. (Eds),
Wiley & Sons: Chichester; 187-230.

Hanson GJ. 1990. Surface erodibility of earthen channels at high stresses. Part II - Developmen
testing device. Transactions of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers

Hanson GJ, Simon A. 2001. Erodibility of cohesive streambeds in the loess area of the midwest
Hydrological Processes 15: 23-38

Langendoen EJ. 2000. CONCEPTS - CONservation Channel Evolution and Pollutant Transport
Report 16, US Department of Agriculture Agricultural Research Service National Sedimentation
MS.

Lohnes RA, Handy, RL. 1968. Slope angles in friable loess. Journal of Geology

Morgenstern NR, Price, VR. 1965. The analysis of the stability of general slip surfaces.

Osman AM, Thorne CR. 1988. Riverbank stability analysis. I: Theory, Journal of Hydraulic Engin
134-150.

Partheniades E. 1965. Erosion and deposition of cohesive soils, Journal of Hydraulic Engineerin

Shields Jr. FD, Morin N, Cooper CM. 2001. Design of large woody debris structures for channel
Proceedings of the 7th Federal Interagency Sedimentation Conference, Reno, Nevada,

Simon A, Collison AJC. 2002. Quantifying the mechanical and hydrologic effects of riparian vege
streambank stability, Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 27(5): 527-546.
Simon A, Curini A. 1998. Pore pressure and bank stability: The influence of matric suction, In Ab
Pezeshk J, Watson CC (eds.), Water Resources Engineering '98, ASCE: Reston; 358-363.
Simon A, Curini A, Darby SE, Langendoen EJ. 2000. Bank and near-bank processes in an incis
Geomorphology 35: 183-217.

Simon A, Wolfe WJ, Molinas A. 1991. Mass wasting algorithms in an alluvial channel model,
5th Federal Interagency Sedimentation Conference, Las Vegas, Nevada, 2: 8-22 to 8-29.

Thorne CR. 1990. Effects of vegetation on riverbank erosion and stability, In Thornes JB (ed.),
erosion: Processes and Environments, John Wiley & Sons: Chichester; 125-144.

Thorne CR, Tovey NK. 1981. Stability of composite river banks. Earth Surface Processes and L
484

Thorne CR, Murphey JB, Little WC. 1981. Bank Stability and Bank Material Properties in the Blu
North-west Mississippi. Appendix D, Report to the Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg District under
Program, Work Unit 7, USDA-ARS Sedimentation Laboratory, Oxford, Mississippi.

Wu TH. 1984. Effect of vegetation on slope stability, Transportation Research Record

Wu TH, McKinnell WP, Swanston DN. 1979. Strength of tree roots and landslides on Prince of W
Alaska, Canadian Geotechnical Journal 16(1): 19-33.
including cantilever failures of undercut banks,
ge failures (Thorne et al., 1981). The type of
or other mechanisms, and the nature of the bank

ation of type b) where a tension crack forms at

when the driving force (stress) exceeds the
 r-Coulomb criterion:

-1

Pa); s = normal stress (kPa); mw = pore-water

of the bank may be above the water table and

egative pore-water pressure) above the water
Fredlund et al. (1978) defined a functional
atric suction. The rate of increase is defined by
maximum value of f' under saturated conditions
both electro-chemical bonding within the soil
ace of the unsaturated soil:

+ y tan fb -2

); and y = matric suction (kPa).

content (Fredlund and Rahardjo, 1993; Simon

als. However, once this parameter is known (or
can be calculated by measuring matric suction

ight and slope, the unit weight of the soil and the
s on the bank top. The ratio of resisting to driving
e values greater than one indicate stability and

ge failure type developed by Simon and Curini

e models developed by Osman and Thorne
analysis in which the Mohr-Coulomb failure
edlund et al. (1978) criterion is used for the
er pressure, the model incorporates layered
external confining pressure from streamflow.
ayers with unique geotechnical properties.

+ P i cos( α −β ) ] tan φ 'i )

α−β ])
+ P i cos( α −β ) ] tan φ 'i )
-3
α−β ])

ailure plane incorporated within the ith layer (m);

he failure surface (kN/m); Wi = weight of the ith
n of the failure surface (kN/m); Pi = the
failure-plane angle (degrees from horizontal); a =

d in the CONCEPTS model (Langendoen, 2000).

rium analysis. In addition to the forces

ethod evaluates normal and shear forces active in
er in the channel is modeled by extending the slip
rostatic force on the vertical portion of the slip
and its subdivision into slices. The streambank
er of J slices and layers. Each slice is then
calculations.

es acting on a slice are summed to determine

ces acting on a slice are summed to determine
computed from In j using the method of
med over all slices to obtain Fs.

e neglected and the normal force, Nj equates to:

-4

Ordinary Fs. The interslice normal forces are

'
cos β cos β tan φ j
'
j ) F + N j sin β −
s
( Fs ) -5

-6

b '
L j + S j tan φ j −U j tan φ j
Fs ) -7
'
n φ sin β
j
Fs

ce normal forces are negative (tension) near the

sile stresses, a tension crack is assumed to

al and vertical directions for each subslice and in

φbj + [ N j −U j ] tan φ 'j )

-8

the value of Fs converges.

 the method employed in the CONCEPTS model
strength of the soil to the weight of the cantilever.
the water are reduced to their submerged weight.
in the calculation. The Fs is given by:

'
−U i tan φ )
i
-9
Pi )

fibrous roots of trees and herbaceous species

soil, therefore, makes up a composite material
ave quantified this enhancement using a mixture
d in situ shear boxes to measure the strength
2) and Wu (1984) used laboratory-grown plants
9) developed a widely-used equation that
nsile strength, areal density and root distortion

-10
ots (kPa); Ar/A = area of shear surface occupied
vertical (degrees); and f = friction angle of soil

ion can affect streambanks by increasing

ect; it increases the mass acting on a potential
strength due to friction. Whether the net effect is
ace and the effective friction angle ( f') of the soil,
e slopes of streambank failures.
lying the mass of trees by the stocking density
g the De Vries method (De Vries, 1974):

-11

m), d2 = diameter of trunk at top (m), and L =

rage density of 0.96 g/cm 3 measured for live
(Shields et al., 2001). Mass was converted to
weight by the root plate area.
he bank material is calculated using:

-12

of water (9.81 kN/m 3), R = local Hydraulic

pe (m/m).

o w s e g m e n ts u s e d t o c a lc u la te
a r s tr e s s o n th e th r e e s o il la y e r s

node is determined by dividing the flow area at a

ss of the bank or bed and then further subdividing
e. The line dividing the bed- and bank- affected
verage bank toe angle (see Figure 3 above).

e segment (A) divided by the wetted perimeter of

e neglected when determining the wetted
90) to conduct soil erodibility tests in situ. This
characteristics of a submerged jet and the
nson and Simon (2001) developed the following
cient (k) for cohesive silts, silt-clays and clays:

-13

andan et al. (1980) in laboratory flume testing of

esting on bank toes suggests that although the

lizing an excess-shear stress approach

time to yield an average erosion distance (in m):

-14

, Dt = timestep (s), t0 = average boundary shear

(Langendoen, 2000) except that erosion is

f riparian tree roots in relation to riverbank

ntitative method to predict critical shear stress and

eport GL-80-5. US Army Engineers Waterways

ology and stability model to identify suitable

mid tropics, Earth Surface Processes and

ring, Butterworths, London.

Science 20(2): 129-133

aring strength of soil. Annual report of the

apan: 167-183.

ngth of unsaturated soils, Canadian

Soils, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York.

stabilizing slopes, Proceedings of the

gineering Practice, NSW Institute of Technology,

sion Control, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York.

MG, Richards KS. (Eds), Slope Stability, John

stresses. Part II - Development of an in situ

al Engineers 33(1): 132-137.

the loess area of the midwestern USA.

olution and Pollutant Transport System. Research

ervice National Sedimentation Laboratory, Oxford,

nal of Geology 76(3): 247-258.

general slip surfaces. Geotechnique 15: 79-93.

ory, Journal of Hydraulic Engineering 114(2):

Journal of Hydraulic Engineering 91(1): 105-139.

y debris structures for channel rehabilitation,

rence, Reno, Nevada, 1: II-42 to II-49.

drologic effects of riparian vegetation on

(5): 527-546.
fluence of matric suction, In Abt SR, Young-
ASCE: Reston; 358-363.
ear-bank processes in an incised channel

an alluvial channel model, Proceedings of the

Nevada, 2: 8-22 to 8-29.

stability, In Thornes JB (ed.), Vegetation and

ester; 125-144.

Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 6: 469-

k Material Properties in the Bluff Line Streams of
eers, Vicksburg District under Section 32
ford, Mississippi.

on Research Record 965: 37-46.

s and landslides on Prince of Wales Island,

Bank Stability and Toe Erosion Model use

How to best use the Bank Stability and Toe Erosion Model
The Bank Stability and Toe Erosion Model is a physically-based model. It represents two distinc
namely, the failure by shearing of a soil block of variable geometry and the erosion by flow of ba
material. The effect of toe erosion, vegetative treatments or other bank and bank toe protection
illustrated by calculating the actual Factor of Safety (Fs) of the bank. To obtain a
erosion, it is recommended that you collect your own data for each site and enter these values in
boxes. However, in many field situations these data are not all available or collectable given the
investigation. In addition, the failure mechanism may not exactly match one of the models, or w
sediment loads may be so high as to reduce erosion potential. In these situations the model can
used as an approximate or relative indicator of streambank or bank toe stability in a similar wa
index-based method. To use the model in this way the user can input the bank profile and divid
stratigraphic layers based on the materials listed in the list boxes (sand, silt, clay etc.). If the use
need to be aware that both the Fs value and the erosion amounts will be approximations, since
considerable uncertainty and variability in the values selected for each material type. With regar
advised to use a safety margin when classifying banks as stable. Typical margins might be 1.3
on how critical the bank is.
To use the model, begin with Input Geometry and proceed through the sheets. The order you
is user-selectable. However, if you choose to use the Toe Erosion component, you must then u
and Toe Model Step 2 to calculate the amount of bank toe erosion. To use only the
begin with Input Geometry and then use Bank Model Data and Bank Model Step 2
bank failure profile may be viewed in Bank Model Step 2. If you have chosen to insert a tensio
make a change to any of the values on Bank Model Data or Bank Model Step 2
macro on Input Geometry. Results can be transferred back into the model for further iterations
Coordinates back into model buttons. If you choose to do this, Option A is automatically sele
Bank geometry may be inputted in two ways. Firstly, Option A allows measured slope values to
high resolution compound slopes. Alternatively, Option B generates a bank profile based upon
bank height, bank toe angle and bank toe length. If Option B is selected the bank automatically
top bank width is 1m wider than the failure block. Because of the many options this needs some
If you select Option A everything is read from the cells on the left-hand side.
If you select Option B the bank profile is generated and the shear surface base point is set at
but the angle is read from cell H29. You can of course use the shear surface calculator to get th
must enter it by hand.
If you select Option B and check the "Automatically update shear surface angle" the shear su
automatically calculated and read based on the friction angle in cell H39 and the bank angle in c
The bank profile may be viewed in Toe Model Step 2 or Bank Model Step 2
Modeling Tips and Frequently Asked Questions
The validity of model output is subject to two major constraints;
a) the model is a simplification of a complex natural system, and that simplification must be app
field situation in order for the results to be meaningful
b) the output is only as good as the input data
The bank stability component assumes that river banks fail as either wedges with planar shear s
wedges with tension cracks, or as cantilever shear-failures (see Tech Background
will give an indication of the relative stability of banks subject to other failure mechanisms, the pr
will not be correct. Additionally, the toe erosion component assumes that flow is competent to e
material from the bank face, toe and bed. i.e. antecedent sediment loads are either minimal or c
also assumes that bank, bed and toe materials are eroded at a rate controlled by excess-shear
critical shear stresses for each material type remain constant; hiding effects are ignored.
The parameter data (soil strength, cohesion due to vegetation, erodibility etc.) provided with this
to natural variability and uncertainty. Where the 'right' answer is needed (i.e. an accurate
rather than a relative ranking of banks) the user will need to collect their own data.
In addition, the user needs to be aware of certain situations that can create invalid results. Som
are outlined below.

Bank Model
Bank geometry
The bank geometry coordinates must follow the bank profile from top left to bottom right, as show
Geometry. Each point must be unique. Points that lie beyond the shear surface base are ignor
simulation. There must be sufficient distance between points A and B for the shear surface top
distance is too small (common on low angle shear surfaces) the bank geometry macro will give
Increasing the distance between points A and B will solve this problem.
Another common error is if the user uses Option A to input a profile with a horizontal toe and a
elevation equal to the toe elevation. Since shear surface emergence is defined solely by elevati
placed on a horizontal surface or there will be ambiguity. Adding a nominal amount to the eleva
solve the problem.

Choosing the appropriate shear surface

The factor of safety is very sensitive to shear surface angle. Users should vary the angle to find
or use a value that occurs in the field. An alternative is to use the angle that is the average of th
soil friction angle f'.
shear surface angle b = f' + a
2
where f' = effective friction angle and a = bank slope angle.
(Note: this feature is now added in Input Geometry. Use the weighted mean soil friction angle
making up the failing portion of the bank, and the mean bank slope angle. Typical friction angle
Bank Model Data).
Care must be taken when fixing the shear surface emergence point (point K) to ensure that the s
does not re-emerge from the slope and form two failure blocks (the model does not look for this,
easy to spot on the bank profile diagram). Care must also be taken with shear surfaces that cre
failures, a common problem with simulations that include the bank toe and the upper face. With
of a failure the pore-water pressure (whether calculated hydrostatically or taken from field instrum
bank) can be unrealistically high, creating artificially low Fs values. If a failure surface creates s
section of failure it is recommended that either a new surface be used, or that the pore-water pre
layer be set to zero to avoid artesian conditions (unless there is field evidence for such condition
failure wedge may produce a negative Fs value - if you get such a value this is the most likely ca
Soil layers
Up to five stratigraphic layers can be defined. The bank is divided by means of entering bank la
Layers below the shear surface are ignored in the bank stability simulation. The nature of the m
layer will be assigned in Toe Model Step 2 and Bank Model Step 2. Even if the bank material
is worth using several layers with identical soil properties because the bank stability components
water pressure and unsaturated soil weight as an average for the mid point of each layer and/or
top is not horizontal, the starting coordinate from which the layers are defined is Point B on the p
the Toe Erosion component, the total layer thickness should be at least equal to the given bank
may be viewed in Toe Model Step 2 and Bank Model Step 2.
Pore-water pressure
Pore-water pressure is calculated for the mid-point of each layer or slice (or read from the user's
calculated water pressures are used this is based on hydrostatic pressure below the water table

uw = gw .h

where uw = pore-water pressure (kPa), h = head of water (m) and gw = unit weight of water (9.81

Above the water table the same formula is used to estimate matric suction as negative pore-wat
Pore-water pressures are entered as positive values, while matric suction values are entered as
Water Table
Users can input a water table based on boreholes, observations of field conditons or assumed w
conditons. Be aware that on high, steep banks the water table will tend to draw down towards th
due to lateral drainage. This is accounted for within the vertical slice method but is ignored in th
method and can lead to overestimations of positive pore-water pressure at the shear surface. T
method assumes the water table is horizontal, with a position defined as a depth below point B.
Vegetation
Cohesion due to roots is added to the top meter of the bank when this option is selected.
Cohesion is taken as an average over the top 1 m of soil.
Vegetation on the whole bank can be simulated by adding cohesion to the relevant soil layers. I
other sources of cohesion (e.g. geotextiles) can be added as user inputs in the vegetation input
Surcharge due to the weight of vegetation is added to layer 1, weighted by thickness. This featu
used to add surcharge due to other loads. Surcharge is taken as an average over the top 1 m o
Considerable caution needs to be used when taking vegetation data collected in one site and ap
another - the data are provided for guidance only. Over time the NSL intends to add additional v
- check the web site for details and updates.

Toe Erosion Model

The nature of the material, in terms of erodibility, must be assigned for each stratigraphic layer in
bank and for the bank toe material. Note that in this version of the model the bed is ‘fixed’. Sho
shear stress and the erodibility coefficient of a given material be known, these may be entered in
boxes. Note that in this case, ‘Enter own data’ must be selected from the drop down list for a giv
If only the non-cohesive particle diameter is known, the critical shear stress may be calculated in
Equally, if only the critical shear stress is known, the erodibility coefficient may be calculated in
Alternatively should no data be available approximate values may be used by selecting a mate
drop down boxes. Protection may be applied to the bank and the bank toe material by selecting
type from the drop down boxes.

Revision History
Additions in Version 1.1
A routine has been added to estimate the failure angle in Step 1, and the width and volume of th
given beneath the Fs value in Step 2. Thanks to Peter Downs, John Smith and Janine Castro fo
suggestions.
Another routine has been added in Step 1 to generate a simple slope profile based on slope ang
An additional option has been added to allow the model to be run iteratively changing bank angl
stable angle.
Additions in Version 1.2
We have added an option so you can input a bank angle and height rather than draw the slope.
"Generate bank profile from height and angle" produces a simple slope. Note that you still need
surface angle as in version 1.0
We have added an additional option on the bank geometry module to make it easier to calculate
stable angle (and so the width of the unstable bank-top margin). Check the "Automatically upda
angle" box and the model automatically calculates shear surface angle from average soil friction
angle. Once you have set up the soil friction angle and the bank height you can run the model it
only bank angle and running the bank geometry macro to identify the critical bank angle. Everyt
updated automatically.
Additions in Version 2.0
Various improvements have been made to increase the robustness and ease of use of the mode
now two options to set up bank geometry. In Option A the user controls everything and enters
profile. This allows the user a high degree of resolution on compound banks.
bank height and angle, and draw a simple bank. Within Option B there are two ways of defining
angle; either as a direct input (as in Option A) or where the failure angle is not known it can be e
mean soil friction angle and mean bank angle. This option allows the user to rapidly change geo
the steepest stable bank angle, or limiting stable height.
Additions in Version 2.2
Further improvements have been made to increase the robustness and ease of use of the mode
has been simplified and spurious features have been removed. As a result, the model is now m
on disk, enabling faster download and speedier use.
Additions in Version 3.3
The first version with both the Bank Stability model and the Toe Erosion model completely integ
reductions in code complexity and removal of spurious features have created a much more com
suite. A workaround has been added to deal with negative elevations in the Toe Erosion model.
Additions in Version 4.0
Version 4.0 incorporates two additional Fs calculation routines and hence failure mechanisms: V
with tension cracks and cantilever shear failures. When the user clicks the Run Bank Geometr
geometry is set and checked for the existence of an undercut bank. Pop-up boxes appear askin
to analyze for cantilever failures, or to insert a tension crack. If a tension crack is inserted, the u
the Fs value without the tension crack.
osion Model
odel. It represents two distinct processes,
and the erosion by flow of bank and bank toe
bank and bank toe protection measures can be
k. To obtain a Fs value or to accurately model toe
site and enter these values in the appropriate
ilable or collectable given the resources of the
match one of the models, or water column
hese situations the model can be cautiously
nk toe stability in a similar way to a BEHI or other
put the bank profile and divide the bank into
and, silt, clay etc.). If the user does this they
will be approximations, since there is
ach material type. With regards to Fs, users are
Typical margins might be 1.3 or 1.5, depending

h the sheets. The order you use the components

n component, you must then use Toe Model Data
. To use only the Bank Stability component,
ank Model Step 2 to calculate Fs. The calculated
ave chosen to insert a tension crack, each time you
Model Step 2, you must rerun the Bank Geometry
he model for further iterations using the Export
Option A is automatically selected.
ows measured slope values to be entered to give
es a bank profile based upon a given bank angle,
lected the bank automatically scales so that the
many options this needs some clarification:
t-hand side.
r surface base point is set at the top of the toe,
ar surface calculator to get this value, but you

r surface angle" the shear surface angle is

l H39 and the bank angle in cell H21.
odel Step 2.
hat simplification must be appropriate to the

er wedges with planar shear surfaces, as

ch Background for more information). While it
er failure mechanisms, the precise value of Fs
es that flow is competent to erode and transport
loads are either minimal or can be ignored. It
e controlled by excess-shear stress and that
g effects are ignored.
dibility etc.) provided with this model are subject
eded (i.e. an accurate Fs or erosion amount
their own data.
n create invalid results. Some typical problems

op left to bottom right, as shown in Input

shear surface base are ignored by the
d B for the shear surface top to enter - if the
nk geometry macro will give an error message.

e with a horizontal toe and a shear surface

ce is defined solely by elevation, it must not be
nominal amount to the elevation of point K will

should vary the angle to find the lowest Fs-value

angle that is the average of the bank angle and the
 hted mean soil friction angle for the material
angle. Typical friction angles are found in

t (point K) to ensure that the shear surface

model does not look for this, but this is very
n with shear surfaces that create very thin
toe and the upper face. With very thin parts
ally or taken from field instruments in the
If a failure surface creates such a thin
ed, or that the pore-water pressures for that
d evidence for such conditions). A very thin
value this is the most likely cause.

by means of entering bank layer thickness.

mulation. The nature of the material for each
2. Even if the bank material is homogeneous it
the bank stability components calculate pore-
mid point of each layer and/or slice. If the bank
re defined is Point B on the profile. Note that for
east equal to the given bank height. The layers

slice (or read from the user's inputs). Where

essure below the water table so that;

gw = unit weight of water (9.81kN/m 3)

suction as negative pore-water pressure.

suction values are entered as negative.

field conditons or assumed worst-case

tend to draw down towards the bank edge
e method but is ignored in the horizontal slice
ssure at the shear surface. The horizontal layer
ed as a depth below point B.

his option is selected.

n to the relevant soil layers. In addition
nputs in the vegetation input box.
hted by thickness. This feature can also be
n average over the top 1 m of soil.
a collected in one site and applying them in
SL intends to add additional vegetation species

for each stratigraphic layer in the

model the bed is ‘fixed’. Should the critical
own, these may be entered into the appropriate
om the drop down list for a given layer/material.
ar stress may be calculated in Toe Model Data.
fficient may be calculated in Toe Model Data.
be used by selecting a material type from the
ank toe material by selecting the appropriate

nd the width and volume of the failed block is

hn Smith and Janine Castro for these

pe profile based on slope angle and height.

eratively changing bank angle to find the

t rather than draw the slope. Selecting

ope. Note that you still need to add the shear

to make it easier to calculate the maximum

heck the "Automatically update shear surface
ngle from average soil friction angle and bank
eight you can run the model iteratively changing
he critical bank angle. Everything else is
 and ease of use of the model. There are
ntrols everything and enters a 10-point x,y
und banks. Option B allows the user to enter
here are two ways of defining failure surface
angle is not known it can be estimated using
he user to rapidly change geometry to find

and ease of use of the model. Some code

a result, the model is now much smaller

osion model completely integrated. Further

ve created a much more compact modeling
ns in the Toe Erosion model.

hence failure mechanisms: Vertical slices

icks the Run Bank Geometry Macro button, the
. Pop-up boxes appear asking the user whether
nsion crack is inserted, the user is informed of
Input bank geometry and flow conditions
Work through all 3 sections then hit the "Run Bank Geometry Macro" button.
1) Select EITHER Option A or Option B for Bank Profile and enter the data in the relevant box- cells in the
alternative option are ignored in the simulation and may be left blank if desired.
2) Enter bank material layer thicknesses (if bank is all one material it helps to divide it into several layers).
3) If bank is submerged then select the appropriate channel flow elevation to include confining pressure
and calculate erosion amount; otherwise set to an elevation below the bank toe.
You can check to ensure bank profile is correct on either Toe Model Step 2 or Bank Model Step 2.

Option A - Draw a detailed bank Option B - Enter a bank height and angle,
profile using the boxes below the model will generate a bank profile

Option A Option B

Point Station Elevation

(m) (m) 5.0 a) Input bank height (m)

A 85.0 b) Input bank angle (o)

B 1.0 c) Input bank toe length (m)

C 25.0 d) Input bank toe angle (o)

D Either input shear surface angle;

E 57.5 Input shear surface angle
F Or check box and have the model calculate
G shear surface angle from soil friction
H angle and bank angle
I ✘ Calculate shear surface angle from soil friction

J 30.0 Input mean soil friction angle

K - shear emergence 85.0 Input mean bank angle

Shear surface angle

57.5
2. Bank layer thickness (m) Recommended shear surface angle

Elevation of
Parallel layers, starting from point B

layer base
(m)
Top Layer
Layer 1 1.00 4.00 3. Channel flow parameters
Layer 2 1.00 3.00 2.00 Input elevation of flow (m)

Layer 3 1.00 2.00 0.0035 Input slope of channel (m/m)

Layer 4 1.00 1.00 12 Input duration of flow (hrs)

Bottom
Layer 5 1.00 Layer 0.00
 Definition of points used in bank profile
A B
A - bank top: place beyond start
of shear surface
C-F
K - shear surface B - bank edge
emergence C-F - breaks of slope on bank
(if no breaks of slope place
Elevation (m)

shear G as intermediary points)

surface H G - top of bank toe
angle H - break of slope on bank toe
I
J (if no break of slope then
insert as intermediary point)
I - base of bank toe
J - end point (typically mid point
of channel)
K- elevation of point where
shear surface emerges on
Station (m) the bank (anywhere between
Bank material B and G)

Notes:
Layer 1 Shear surface must enter bank top
between points A and B.
Bank profile may overhang.
Layer 2
Point K must not be on a horizontal
a section - the elevation of this point
must be unique or an error
Layer 3 message will display.

Layer 4 Toe
c material
Layer 5
b d
Bed material

Select which component you wish to use first. You will

be automatically redirected to the relevant worksheet
after hitting the Run Bank Geometry Macro button

Toe Erosion component

 Input bank materials
Specify the erodibility of the different materials. Use the drop down boxes to select material type or select "Enter own data"
in the 'Bank Model Data' worksheet. If you select a material, the values shown in the 'Toe Model Data' worksheet will be us
are satisfied that you have completed all necessary inputs, hit the "Run Shear Stress Macro" button (Center Right of this p
Bank Material
Layer 1 Layer 2 Layer 3 Layer 4
Erodible cohesive Moderate cohesive Moderate cohesive Erodible cohesive

0.10 5.00 5.00 0.10

0.316 0.045 0.045 0.316

6.00
ELEVATION (M)

5.00

Base of layer 1

4.00 Base of layer 2

Base of layer 3
3.00 Base of layer 4

Base of layer 5
2.00 Eroded Profile

Water Surface
1.00
Initial Profile

0.00

-1.00
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00
STATION 4.00
(M) 5.00 6.00 7.00 Export Coo
material type or select "Enter own data" and add values
'Toe Model Data' worksheet will be used. Once you
s Macro" button (Center Right of this page).
Bank Toe Material Bed material
Layer 5
Fixed bed
Estimate critical shear stress tc
Moderate cohesive Enter own data

5.00 1.50 248.83 Critical shear stress used (Pa)

0.045 0.082 0.006 Erodibility Coefficient used (cm3/Ns)

Bank Protection
No protection Input bank protection

Bank Toe Protection

No protection Input toe protection

Average applied boundary shear stress 21.27 Pa

Maximum Lateral Retreat 19.36 cm
Mean Eroded Area - Bank 0.01 m2
Mean Eroded Area - Bank Toe 0.01 m2
Mean Eroded Area - Bed 0.00 m2
Mean Eroded Area - Total 0.02 m2

Export Coordinates back into model

En
Erodibility Data
These data are used when selecting the different material types. Note that changing the values here will change the
values in the drop down boxes of the Toe Erosion Model.

Bank Material Bank Toe Material

Diameter Diameter
(m) tc (Pa) k (cm3/Ns) (m)
1 Boulders (256 mm) 0.256 248.83 0.006 Boulders (256 mm) 0.256
2 Cobbles (64 mm) 0.064 62.21 0.013 Cobbles (64 mm) 0.064
3 Gravel (20 mm) 0.02 19.44 0.023 Gravel (20 mm) 0.02
4 Coarse sand (1 mm) 0.001 0.71 0.118 Coarse sand (1mm) 0.001
5 Fine sand (0.125 mm) 0.000125 0.09 0.335 Fine sand (0.125 mm) 0.000125
6 Resistant cohesive - 50.00 0.014 Resistant cohesive -
7 Moderate cohesive - 5.00 0.045 Moderate cohesive -
8 Erodible cohesive - 0.10 0.316 Erodible cohesive -

Enter own data layer 1 Enter own data

Enter own data layer 2

Enter own data layer 3 Need to know the critical shear stress (
9
Enter own data layer 4 Input non-cohesive particle
diameter (mm)
Enter own data layer 5 Critical Shear Stress

Bank protection Permissible shear Toe protection Permissible shear

stress stress
1 No protection - No protection -
2 Plant cuttings 100 Plant cuttings 100
3 Large Woody Debris 150 Large Woody Debris 150
4 Rip Rap 150 Rip Rap 150
5 Jute net 22 Jute net 22
6 Coir fiber 108 Coir fiber 108
7 Geotextile (synthetic) 144 Geotextile (synthetic) 144
8 Live fascine 100 Live fascine 100
values here will change the

Bed Material
Diameter
tc (Pa) k (cm3/Ns) (m) tc (Pa) k (cm3/Ns)
248.83 0.006 Boulders (256 mm) 0.256 248.83 0.006
62.21 0.013 Cobbles (64 mm) 0.064 62.21 0.013
19.44 0.023 Gravel (20 mm) 0.02 19.44 0.023
0.71 0.118 Coarse sand (1mm) 0.001 0.71 0.118
0.09 0.335 Fine sand (0.125 mm) 0.000125 0.09 0.335
50.00 0.014 Resistant cohesive - 50.00 0.014
5.00 0.045 Moderate cohesive - 5.00 0.045
0.10 0.316 Erodible cohesive - 0.10 0.316

1.50 0.082 Enter own data

al shear stress (tc) ? Need to know the erodibility coefficient (k) ?

Input non-cohesive particle Input critical shear stress tc (Pa)
diameter (mm)
Critical Shear Stress tc (Pa) Erodibility Coefficient (cm3/Ns)

Permissible shear
stress
Select material types, vegetation cover and water table depth below ban
(or select "own data" and add values in 'Bank Model Data' worksheet)

Layer 1 Layer 2 Layer 3 Layer 4 Layer 5

Gravel Gravel Gravel Gravel Gravel None
Angular sand Angular sand Angular sand Angular sand Angular sand
Rounded sand Rounded sand Rounded sand Rounded sand Rounded sand
Silt Silt Silt Silt Silt
Stiff clay Stiff clay Stiff clay Stiff clay Stiff clay
Soft clay Soft clay Soft clay Soft clay Soft clay
Own data Own data Own data Own data Own data
6.00
ELEVATION (M)

5.00 bank profile

base of layer 1
4.00
base of layer 2

3.00 base of layer 3

base of layer 4
2.00
failure plane

water surface
1.00
water table

0.00
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00

-1.00 STATION (M)

57.5 Shear surface angle used

Export Coordinates back into model

depth below bank top
Bank top Reach Length
vegetation cover (age) (m)
None 100
Constituent
Vegetation safety margin concentration (kg/kg)
50 0.001

Water table depth (m) below bank top

4.00 Use water table

Input own pore pressures (kPa)

Own Pore Pore Pressure

Pressures kPa From Water Table
-6.79 Layer 1 -34.34

-12.71 Layer 2 -24.53

-12.71 Layer 3 -14.72

1.56 Layer 4 -4.91

3.52 Layer 5 4.91

Factor of Safety
Conditionally
1.07 stable

Failure width 2.52 m

Failure volume 576 m3
Sediment loading 967725 kg
nto model
Constituent load 968 kg
Data shown in these tables are the default parameters used in the mo
To use your own data modify the values or add own data to the white
Note: changing these values or descriptions will change the values used when selecting the given soil type from

Bank material Friction angle Cohesion c' Saturated unit

type Description f' (kPa) weight (kN/m3)
1 Gravel 36 0 20
2 Angular sand 36 0 18
3 Rounded sand 27.0 0 18
4 Silt 25.0 5.0 18
5 Stiff clay 10.0 15.0 18
6 Soft clay 30 10 16

Own data layer 1

Own data layer 2

7 Own data layer 3

Own data layer 4

Own data layer 5

Cohesion due Surcharge

Vegetation type Description to roots Cr (kN/m3)
1 None 0 0
2 Ash - Oregon (30 yrs) 125 1.2
3 Cottonwood - eastern (4 8 0.6
4 Cottonwood - western (1 30 1.2
5 Douglas spirea (3 yrs) 6 0
6 Gamma grass (5 yrs) 6 0
7 Himalayan blackberry (5 5.5 0
8 Pine - longleaf (5 yrs) 6 0.6
9 River birch (7 yrs) 8 0.6
10 Sweetgum (10 yrs) 4 1.2
11 Switch grass - Alamo (5 18 0
12 Sycamore (7 yrs) 7 0.6
13 Willow - black (5 yrs) 2 0.6
14 Willow - sandbar (4 yrs) 3 0.6
15 _
16 _
17 _
18 _
19 _
20 _
21 _
22 _
23 _
24 _
25 _
 26 _
27 _
28 _
29 _
30 _
31 _
32 _

33 Own data

(Cohesion and surcharge averaged over 1m)

Data Sources:
Selby, MJ. 1982. Hillslope Materials and Processes, Oxford University Press, Oxford, p54.

Simon, A, Collison, AJC. 2001. Quantifying root reinforcement of streambanks for some common riparian spec
Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers Conference on Wetland Engineering and River Restora

Simon, A, Collison, AJC. 2002. Quantifying the mechanical and hydrologic effects of riparian vegetation on
streambank stability, Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 27 (5), 527-546.
 s used in the model.
data to the white boxes.
ting the given soil type from the list box in Step 2.

fb
(degrees)
5
15
15
15
15
15
me common riparian species: is willow as good as it gets?
ineering and River Restoration, Aug 27-30 2001, Reno, NV.

riparian vegetation on
Unit Converter
The model works in metric units. To convert English to metric units use the table below.

Input Value Select Units Metric Value Metric Units

1.00 pounds per square foot 0.05 kPa
e table below.