CATENA vol. 16, p.

59-71 Cremlingen 1989 ]

SOIL S H E A R S T R E N G T H :
ITS M E A S U R E M E N T A N D SOIL D E T A C H A B I L I T Y

F. Brunori, M.C. Penzo & D. Torri, Firenze

Summary seems to determine a surface of shear

close to that of a sphere circumscribed
Recent research on soil erosion me- to the vane. The pocket vane apparatus,
chanics has pointed out that the con- instead, is characterized by a cylindrical
dition at which rill flow becomes ero- surface of shear.
sive is controlled by soil surface shear
Those results seem to explain the main
strength (TORRI et al. 1987a, RAUWS
differences in soil detachment. In par-
& GOVERS 1988). Also splash detach-
ticular, incipient rilling conditions are
ment processes are strictly linked to soil
clearly reduced to a single relation be-
shear strength as shown by N E A R I N G
tween critical shear velocity and soil
& B R A D F O R D (1985), T O R R I et al.
shear strength. It can consequently
(1987b). A comparison of the proposed
be concluded that soil detachability is
threshold conditions for incipient rilling
strictly linked to soil shear strength.
immediately shows that they differ in the
two quoted papers. The same situation
characterizes the relations proposed be- 1 Introduction
tween splash detachment and soil shear
strength. Those differences may depend Soil erodibility is usually determined em-
on the different instruments used for pirically (e.g., measuring soil erosion
measuring soil shear strength: a Geonor in controlled plots) or calculated using
model g-200 laboratory cone penetration the nomograph proposed by WISCH-
apparatus, a laboratory vane tester and M E I E R et al. (1971) or modification
a pocket vane tester. Those instruments of it. Recently research on soil erosion
differ in shape (pocket and laboratory mechanics has pointed out that the soil
vane testers) or in the physics involved in condition at which rill flow becomes ero-
their functioning (vane tester and drop- sive is controlled by soil surface shear
cone penetrometer). strength (TORRI et al. 1987a, RAUWS
The experimental results show that the & GOVERS 1988). Also splash detach-
drop-cone penetrometer is characterized ment processes are strictly linked to soil
by a low repeatability. Moreover, it is shear strength as shown by AL DUR-
sensitive to small variations in soil tex- RAH & B R A D F O R D (1982), NEAR-
ture. The laboratory vane apparatus ING & B R A D F O R D (1985), T O R R I
et al. (1987b). Consequently surface soil
ISSN 0341-8162
(~1989 by CATENA VERLAG, shear strength can be proposed as a mea-
D-3302 Cremlingen-Destedt,W. Germany sure of soil resistence to erosion, i.e. as
0341-8162/89/5011851/US$ 2.00 + 0.25 the reciprocal of soil erodibility (TORRI

CATENA An Interdisciplinary Journal of SOIL SCIENCE H Y D RO L O G Y GEOMORPHOLOGY

60
1987).
Unfortunately, a comparison of the
proposed threshold conditions for in-
cipient rilling immediately shows that
they differ in the two quoted papers.
This seems to meet an observation made
by R A U D K I V I (1976) while discussing
threshold conditions for erosion in cohe-
sive channels: threshold values proposed
by different authors scatter so widely that
serious doubts can be cast over soil shear
strength as a useful parameter.
Similar conclusions can be drawn from
the relations proposed between soil de-
tachment and soil shear strength by
AL D U R R A H & B R A D F O R D (1982),
N E A R I N G & B R A D F O R D (1985) and
T O R R I et al. (1987b). While NEAR-
ING & B R A D F O R D (1985) introduced
soil internal friction angle in order to
get a single relation independent from
other soil characteristics, T O R R I et al.
(1987b) introduced a coefficient depen-
dent on clay content of soils. Those
differences point in the same direction as
the previously discussed differences for
rilling.
In reality those differences may lie in
the way in which the experiments have
been conducted. RAUWS & GOVERS
(1988) defined incipient rilling as the
moment in which a proto-channel be-
comes permanent and a rill at least a
few decimeters long appears. T O R R I et
al. (1987a) defined incipient rilling as the
passage between an unrilled soil surface
and a surface with, at least, one rill 5 cm
long, 0.5 cm deep and 1 2 cm wide.
The experimental apparatuses and
procedures used by AL D U R R A H &
B R A D F O R D (1982) and T O R R I et al.
(1987b) differ much more: the former
authors used a single raindrop falling
on a soil surface kept at -0.1, -1, -2, -
3.9 kPa of matric potential. T O R R I et
CATENA An Interdisciplinary Journal of SOIL SCIENCE
Brunori, Penzo & Torri
al. (1987b) collected soil splash during
simulated rain on 2 m long soil plots
in laboratory. Soil shear strength was
substantially constant for each soil type
tested. A set of exponential curves re-
lating splash detachment rate (mass of
soil detached per unit of mass of rain)
to runoff depth was obtained. A relation
among the extrapolated splash detach-
ment rate to zero-depth of runoff, soil
shear strength and clay content (fig. 3, p.
154 of the quoted paper) was eventually
obtained.
Another possible source of the ob-
served differences may lie in differences
due to instrumentation for measuring
soil shear strength. AL D U R R A H &
B R A D F O R D (1982) and N E A R I N G
& B R A D F O R D (1985) collected soil
splash and measured soil shear strength
using a Geonor model g-200 laboratory
cone penetration apparatus and used ta-
bles presented by HANSBO (1957) in
order to transform penetration depth in
undrained shear strength. T O R R I et
al. (1987a, b) used a laboratory vane
tester. RAUWS & GOVERS (1988) used
a pocket vane tester. Those instruments
differ in shape (pocket and laboratory
vane testers) or in the physics involved in
their functioning (vane testers and drop-
cone penetrometer).
Of course, only part of those differ-
ences in experimental procedures and ap-
paratuses can be checked in order to see
how different the proposed relations re-
ally are. In particular, differences intro-
duced by different soil shear instruments
can be controlled. This paper aims to
investigate to what extent the observed
differences may be attributed to differ-
ences due to instruments.
H Y D R O [ OGY (~FA~/MORPHOLOGY
Soil Shear Strength
2 Experimental set-up
Measurements of soil shear strength us-
ing a drop-cone penetrometer are made
as follows: the apex of the cone is put
in contact with the soil surface, then the
cone is released and penetrates into the
soil. The penetration depth is linked to
soil shear strength through the following
formula (see list of symbols for explana-
tion):
z,, = K Q the blades is 0.5 cm in height and 2.54 in
~ztan2 (fl / 2 ) h 2
In these experiments fl always equals
30 °, while the weight Q of the cone
usually is 80 g. The constant K de-
pends on soil characteristics. H A N S B O
(1957) proposed a table in order to
obtain undrained shear strength while
T O W N E R (1973) proposed a set of
K-values for different textures. Here
Hansbo's table will be used because AL
D U R R A H & B R A D F O R D (1982) and
N E A R I N G & B R A D F O R D (1985) did
SO.
Shear vane testers measure resistence
against an applied torque. This force is
applied to the soil by some blades. The
way in which the blades are arranged,
their dimensions and the shape of the
surface of shear intervene in determining
soil shear strength. Usually the surface
of shear is supposed to be cylindrical
( D U N N et al. 1980, 162-163). Under
this approximation soil shear strength
is given by the following formula (valid
only if the upper side of the blades is at
the soil surface level):
M ments reported in T O R R I et al. (1987b).
~/12(6H + q~)q~2
The laboratory vane apparatus is char-
acterized by two blades inscribed in a
CATENA An Interdisciplinary Journal of SOIL SCIENCE
61
cylinder of 1.27 cm of height and 1.27 cm
of diameter. The blades are inserted into
the soil until their upper side is at the
soil surface level. Torsion is applied to
the spring by an electrical engine at an
angular speed of 0.3 rad/sec.
The pocket vane tester can be used
with a scale 0-100 kPa or with a scale
0-20 kPa. The scale changes by adding
an adaptor which enlarge the diameter
of the cylinder: without the adaptor the
dimension of the cylinder determined by
(1) diameter; with it dimensions are 0.5 cm
in height and 4.8 cm in diameter.
The soil samples were prepared as fol-
lows: soil was collected in the Ap hori-
zon, air dried, and crushed in order to
make it finer than 2 mm. This material
was put into cylindrical containers 5 cm
in height and 12.8 cm in diameter. Soil
samples were saturated and then left free
to drain and evaporate in order to ob-
tain different soil shear strength for the
same material. In tab.1 the main soil
characteristics are given.
3 Experimental results and
discussion
3.1 Drop-Cone Penetrometer (DCP)
The repeatability of the shear stress mea-
sures was tested using the soil GS, with
a cone weight Q = 80 g, obtaining z =
16.6 kPa with a standard deviation of
5.92 kPa on 15 observations. This result
agrees with observations already done by
Del Sette, Sfalanga and Torri (unpub-
lished data) during some of the experi-
(2) They used 5 different weights of the cone
(Q = 47, 80, 130, 180, 230 g) for 2 of the
soil types described in the two quoted
papers (namely, soil SP and GB) obtain-
H Y D RO L O G Y GEOMORPHOLOGY
62 Brunori, Penzo & Torri

Text. distr. (USDA)

Soil symbol Subgroup Family Series sand silt clay
% % %

GA* Vertic fine clay Petraglia

Eutrochrepts mixed mesic 9.3 52.3 39.4

GL* Typic fine silt Chiusuraccia

Udorthens mixed 20.3 65.9 13.8
calcareous

GS*' Dystric
Eutrochrepts 47.4 38.0 14.6

SG* Ultic fine clay Gabbianello

Hapludalfs mixed mesic 34.3 40.1 25.6

FC'** Typic fine clay Crocioni

Udorthens smectitic 3.5 40.5 56.0
calcareous
mesic

DIMASE (1983)
** SANESI (1977)
*'" J A N N O N E et al. (1984)

Tab. 1 : Soil characteristics.

sample text. No. of

Subgroup class. (USDA) observations b
Typic loam* 2 2
Paleudalfs*** 7 1

Ultic silty loam" 3 I 2

Hapludalfs*** 8 I 1.1

Typic sandy loam" 4 2.8

Udorthens 5 2
4 1.1
Fluventic sandy loam'*
Dystrochrepts 9 1.2

Vertic
Eutrochrepts clay" 7 1.5

undisturbed soil sample [I

"* remoulded soil sample (soil SP & GB respectively in TORRI et al. 1987a, b~
*** after DIMASE (1983)

T a b . 2: Observed mean values of the exponent ( b ) of h, eq. (1).

CATENA An Interdisciplinary Journal of SOIl. S C I E N ( E HYDROLOGY GLOMORI)HOLO(]Y

 Soil Shear Strength
ing coefficients of variation ranging from
20% to 45% on 6 to 9 observations, for
each cone weight and for each soil type.
Also B R U N O R I (1987) observed a still
larger scatter on undisturbed soil sam-
ples (see tab.2, soil characteristics for the
undisturbed soil samples; cone weight Q
= 80, 180, 280 g): the observed variation
coefficient grew to 150% but on three
repetitions per cone weight only. No ex-
periments have been planned in order to
identify the reasons for such a scarce re-
peatability. Errors due to the positioning
of the cone apex or to dial readings af-
fect penetration depth estimates less than
0.01-0.03 cm. This error is important at
small penetration depths, which means
large soil shear strength values. Low val-
ues of repeatability, however, are also
observed at large penetration depths (h
> 10 cm). This excludes instrumental
errors. Some tentative explanations may
lie in the fact that if the cone apex hits a
grain and transports it, or centres an ag-
gregate, then resistence increases; on the
contrary, if the cone apex moves between
aggregates, then resistence is lower.
The DCP presents also another
problem: B R A D F O R D & GROSS-
M A N (1982) observed that soil shear
strength, measured following eq. (1), still
shows a residual dependence on depth.
O'SULLIVAN & BALL (1982) found
that soil shear strength should have been
inversely proportional to depth rather
than to its square. The already men-
tioned data, namely those collected by
Del Sette, Sfalanga and Torri, and those
collected by B R U N O R I (1987), show the
trends summarized in tab.2. The different
exponents for the penetration depth are
not easy to explain. Probably, the low re-
peatability, together with successions of
microlayers of different shear resistence,
determines this large range of exponent
CATENA An Interdisciplinary Journal of SOIL SCIENCE
63
values.
3.2 Laboratory vane apparatus (LVA)
The LVA is provided of four calibrated
springs. Their calibration curves have
been carefully recontrolled obtaining a
good agreement with the curves given
by the firm. A set of experiments has
been conducted using soil G L giving
the following results: the use of differ-
ent springs does not affect soil shear
strength values; the repeatability is fairly
high (coefficient of variation smaller than
10% also on only 6 observations).
During the experiments it has been
observed that the geometry of the soil
mass sticking on the blades when lifting
the LVA, is usually far from the expected
cylindrical shape; it is often bulb shaped,
especially on cohesive soil. It resembles
a sphere circumscribed to the vanes.
3.3 Pocket vane apparatus (PVA)
In order to check the repeatability of the
hand PVA, the variation introduced by
different operators must also be taken
into account. A simple experiment has
been conducted using 2 soil samples (soil
GL; each sample 5 cm deep, with a us-
able soil surface of 765 cm2). In tab.3
the results of the analysis are given. The
variance within the samples is very low,
indicating that the PVA is a good instru-
ment. Also adding the deviation due to
the operators to the residual one, stan-
dard deviation remains low.
Some data have been collected in pair
both with and without the adaptor. No
significant differences have been detected
between the two sets of data (15 mea-
surements in the range 7 16 kPa).
HYDROLOGY GEOMORPHOIoOGY
64 Brunori, Penzo & Torri

Source of variance d.f. ss ms F-Fischer

operators 1 1.250 !.250 28.4

samples l 0.098 0.098 2.23

w. s a m p l e s 17 0.075 0.044

d.f. = degrees o f f r e e d o m ; ss = s u m o f s q u a r e d d e v i a t i o n s ;
Tab. 3: Pocket vane appara-
ms = variance
tus • analysis o f variance.

rl
- - = - - SP
/
/ --as
o/ GL
/
/
/ *
I

9.O-
"alll /
I
I /

III / x x,,
/° / ,,";
I0--

5--

X Fig. 1" Drop-cone ver-

0 sus laboratory vane shear
0 51 iio lift 2b
strength f o r three soil types.

CATENA An Interdisciplinary Journal of SOIL SCIENCE HYDROLOGY GEOMORPHOLOGY

Soil Shear Strength 65

D e t a c h m e n t vs. z~ D e t a c h m e n t vs. r~

Soil series USDA sample original e q u a t i o n modified e q u a t i o n

text. class.

Auburn loam D = 62.1 + 3.78 D = 3 ~ + 3.78

Dickinson loam D = 45.7

~ + 0.32 D= 282 + 0 . 3 2
r]

Alford silt l o a m D = 34.6 q_ 1.76 D = 3o.9 + 1.76

Zc rl

Zipp silt l o a m D = 21.2 - 0 . 1 4 D= 18.9_0.14

57 rl

" D is in mg/(No, of drops), re, rl in kPa

Tab. 4: Relations between soil detachment and rc after N E A R I N G & B R A D F O R D

(1984).

3.4 Drop-cone penetrometer (DCP) found by T O R R I et al. (1987b). In fact

versus lab. vane apparatus (LVA)
In order to compare soil shear strength
estimates made with D C P and LVA two
soil types were selected, i.e. G L and
GS. On each sample one measurement of
LVA shear strength was made together
with 3-5 measurements of D C P shear
strength. To this set of data a third
one, collected by Del Sette, Sfalanga and
Torri was added (soil SP, T O R R I et al.
1987 a, b). In fig.1 one alignment is
shown for each soil type. This is in agree-
ment with the findings of T O W N E R
(1973), i.e., the constant K of eq. (1)
varies with soil texture.
Forcing the best fitting equation
through the origin, the following rela-
tions were found:
zc = (1.12_ 0.09)zt (silt loam, n=9) (3)
vc = (1.62 +_ 0.22)Zl (loam, n=12)
r,. = (4.22_+0.81)zt (sandy loam, n=9)(5)
Those equations allow a comparison
between the relations found by N E A R -
I N G & B R A D F O R D (1985) and the one
we can now rewrite their relation (tab.4)
in terms of ~1 and check if they come
closer.
The zc of Auburn and Dickinson can
be replaced by rl using equation (4) be-
cause they are loam soils. On the other
hand, equation (3) can be used for A1-
ford and Zipp. This gives rise to the
equations reported in tab.4. Here it is
already evident that the four relations
come closer. This is made more evident
in fig.2. Particularly the equations for
Dickinson and Alford overlap. They can
be approximately described by the fol-
lowing one:
30
D = -- (6)
-c1
T O R R I et al. (1987b) found that:
rlAo = f(e) (7)
(4)
where Ao is the detachment in Kg of
soil mass per Kg of rain and c is the
clay content. In eq. (6), instead, D is the
mass of soil (mg) detached by one drop
of 0.097 g. In order to compare eq. (6) to
eq. (7) the former must be transformed

(~ATENA An Interdisciplinary Journal of SOIL SCIENCE HYDROLOGY GEOMORPHOLOGY

 66 Brunori, Penzo & Torri

4o-- /
/
, i//

//
//

30-- /
/

c)

I0--

o I I
0 O,5

4/'Ce (~: p,~")

Fig. 2: Splash detachment-soil shear strength relations (after NEARING & BRAD-
FORD 1985) modified using laboratory vane shear strength values instead of drop-cone
shear strength values.

into the same units than the latter. This
means that eq. (6) must be expressed in
Kg of soil mass and that both sides must
be divided by the mass of the drop (Kg).
This results in:
r~D = 0.31
In fig.3 eq. (8) and (7) are compared.
The new point, corresponding to eq. (8)
(with clay fraction c ~ 0.20), agrees with
the general trend proposed by T O R R I
et al. (1987b). This indicates that the
relations found by AL D U R R A H &
B R A D F O R D (1982) and N E A R I N G &
B R A D F O R D (1985) and the one pro-
posed by TORRI et al. (1987b) are in
close agreement and that the main dif-
ferences are due to differences between
DCP and LVA.
(8)
3.5 Laboratory vane (LVA) versus
pocket vane apparatus (PVA)
The trend shown by the experimental
data is drawn in fig.4. The best fitting
equation (forced through the origin, 64
observations) is:

CATENA An Interdisciplinary Journal of'SOIL SCIENCE HYDROIO(IY GEOMORPHOLOGY

 Soil Shear Strength 67

t.5-

T
EQU4TtONo.l
(8)(198~6) i
0.5 ~_

Z~

o I I ols I
0 0.I 0.2. 0.-4,
CI..A~ ~'RAC T/oH

Fig. 3: Relation between splash detachment rate (A o) times soil shear strength ( zl )
and clay fraction (c).

CATENA An Interdisciplinary Journal of SOIL SCIENCE HYDROLOGY~EOMORPHOLOGY

 68 Brunori, Penzo & Torri

~0-
ai.~G~.
o GA
1~CUi;:)A
I O
A Gl-
/
/j ....
Q
//

//
20-
12 J
0jj

I0-
0~ ° 0

O ~ A
+

o ~to .zlo 3b 4b

Fig. 4: Pocket vane versus laboratory vane shear strength.

~p = (0.63 +_ 0.14)rl (9) 3.6 Incipient rilling condition

The coefficient of eq. (9) seems to
confirm that the LVA does not pro-
duce a cylindrical surface of shear. A
shear strength value calculated assum-
ing a cylindrical surface of shear can be
transformed into a shear strength value
for a spherical surface of shear multi-
plying the former by a constant. This
constant equals 0.621 for the LVA used
in this experiments. As this value is very
close to the coefficient of eq. (9) it sug-
gests that the surface of shear for the
LVA may in fact be closer to a sphere.
In order to compare the threshold equa-
tion proposed by T O R R I et al. (1987a)
with the one proposed by R A U W S &
GOVERS (1988) the PVA (built by
C O N T R O L S - Milan) used in these ex-
periments has been compared with the
PVA the latter used (Soil Test).
The test has been conducted at the
Hulderberg experimental field site near
Leuven (Belgium) by one of the authors
and by Dr. J. Poesen. The data are in
fairly good agreement (fig.5). The devia-
tion from the 1:1 straight line is probably

CATENA An Interdisciplinary Journal of SOIL S(.IENCE HYDROLOGY GEOMORPHOLOGY

Soil Shear Strength
C
Fig. 5: Soil shear strength measured with a pocket vane built by Soil Test (zpL) and
one built by Controls (zp ).
due to the fact that the Leuven PVA is
older so the spring may have lost some
of its strength. The best fitting equation
(forced through the origin, on 33 data)
is as follows:
zpL = (0.93 _+ 0.045)zp
Now the data of critical shear stress
found by T O R R I et al. (1987a) can
be transformed into critical shear veloc-
ity (dividing it by the fluid density and
squarerooting the result) while, using in
succession eq. (9) and (10), LVA shear
strength can be transformed into zPL.
Data plot as shown in fig.6. The agree-
ment is already fairly good.
4 Conclusions
The following conclusions can be drawn
from the experiments described above:
CAI ENA An interdisciplinary Journal of SOIL SCIENCE
69
• /
• /
/
1. The drop-cone penetrometer is sen-
sitive to small variations in soil tex-
ture. Its repeatability is low due
to many factors (large particles that
can simulate an apex angle larger
than the real one, aggregates, local
(10)
changes in soil texture).
. Vane apparatuses are repeatable. In
particular, the pocket vane appara-
tus is easy to handle and the ge-
ometry of the surface of shear is
controlled. The Authors consider
it as the most appropriate among
the tested instruments for soil de-
tachability measurements. All the
discussed relations both for splash
and rill erosion should be rewrit-
ten in terms of pocket vane shear
strength.
HYDROLOGY ~GEOMORPHOLOGY
 70 Brunor~. Penzo & Torri

'°l
-e~ co~=c~o"C'-eosmou

/i I/
J
7"
0 j~
j/"

J
5--

o~q~ ° ~ v ~ ~ •

Is i~o
Fig. 6:Critical shear velocity for rilling versus soil shear strength (see text .for
explanation of original and corrected z-positions).

. The m a i n differences in splash de- Acknowledgements

t a c h m e n t relations seem to d e p e n d
on differences in shear strength mea-
surements due to instruments. A n y -
way, a closer c o m p a r i s o n t h a n the
one presented here is needed.
. Incipient rilling c o n d i t i o n s are
clearly r e d u c e d to a single relation
between critical shear velocity a n d
soil shear strength.
5. Soil d e t a c h a b i l i t y is strictly linked to
soil shear strength. Its m e a s u r e m e n t
m a y substitute o t h e r m o r e empirical
estimates o f soil erodibility, at least
to a certain extent.
The A u t h o r s are i n d e b t e d to M. Del
Sette, J. Poesen a n d M. Sfalanga for
some m e a s u r e m e n t s ; to E. Busoni, G.
R a u w s a n d J. Poesen for useful discus-
sions; a n d to M. Del Sette for the pic-
tures.
List of Symbols
Ao splash detachment (mass of rain per mass
of soil).
D mass of soil detached by a rain drop.
H height of the vane blades.
h drop-cone penetration depth.
K constant of proportionality.
M torque.

CAIENA An [nterdisciplinar~ Journal o[ SOIL SCIENCE H'~DROLOGY (IEOMORPHOLOGY

 Soil Shear Strength
Q drop-cone weight.
u, ccritical shear velocity.
fi drop-cone apex angle.
~b diameter of the vane.
z shear strength measured with a vane apparatus.
z,. shear strength measured with a drop-cone
penetrometer.
zl shear strength measured with the laboratory
vane apparatus.
zp, r p c shear strength measured with a pocket
vane apparatus.
References
AL DURRAH, M.M. & BRADFORD, J.M.
(1982): Parameters for describing soil detach-
ment due to single waterdrop impact. Soil Sci.
Soc. Am. J., 46, 836~840.
BRADFORD, J.M. & GROSSMAN, R.B.
(1982): In-situ measurements of near-surface
soil shear strength by the fail-cone device. Soil
Sci. Soc. Am. J., 46, 685-688.
BRUNORI, F. (1987): Metodologie di valu-
tazione dell'erodibilit~, e delle possibilitA di la-
vorazione dei suoli. Prime esperienze di ap-
plicazione nei suoli del Mugello. Unpublished
thesis, Univ. degli Studi, Firenze.
DIMASE, A.C. (1983): I1 rilevamento dei saoli
dell'azienda agricola "I1 Monte". Un esempio
di cartografia di dettaglio per il reperimento di
dati per ricerche di valutazione a scopi agricoli.
In: Risultati sperimentali per la valutazione dei
suoli agricoli e forestali in Toscana. (Busoni et
al. eds.). CNR-Centro Studio Genesi, Classifi-
cazione e Cartografia del Suolo, Firenze, 61 101.
D U N N , I.S., ANDERSON, L.R. & KIEFER,
F.W. (1980): Fundamentals of geotechnical
analysis. J. Wiley & Sons, New York.
HANSBO, S. (1957): A new approach to the de-
termination of the shear strength of clay by the
fall-cone test. Proc. of Royal Swedish Geotech-
nical Institute, 14.
J A N N O N E , R., FERRARI, G.A. & RODOLFI,
G. (1984): Applicazione del metodo N.U.L.M.
(nine units landsurface model) alla cartografla
di dettaglio dei suoli del Centro Sperimentale
di Fagna (Mugello, Firenze). Annali Istituto
Sperimentale Studio e Difesa Suolo, XV, 53-80.
NEARING, M.A. & BRADFORD, J.M. (1985):
Single waterdrop splash detachment and me-
chanical properties of soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Am.
J., 49, 547 552.
CAI'ENA An Interdisciplinary Journal of SOIL SCIENCE
71
O'SULLIVAN, M.F. & BALL, B.C. 0982): A
comparison of five instruments for measuring
soil strength in cultivated and uncultivated ce-
real seed-beds. Journal of Soil Science, 33, 597-
608.
RAUDKIVI, A.J. (1976): Loose boundary hy-
draulics. Pergamon Press, Oxford.
RAUWS, G. & GOVERS, G. (1988): Hydraulic
and soil mechanical aspects of rill generation
on agricultural soils. Journal of Soil Science, 39,
111 124.
SANESI, G. (1977): I suoli del bacino dei torrenti
Diaterna e lineamenti pedologici del Mugello a
dell'alta valle del Santerno (Firenze).
TORRI, D. (1987): A theoretical study of soil
detachability. CATENA S U P P L E M E N T 10,
15-20.
TORRI, D., SFALANGA, M. & CHISCI, G.
(1987): Threshold conditions for incipient
rilling. CATENA S U P P L E M E N T 8, 97 105.
TORRI, D., SFALANGA, M. & DEL SETTE,
M. (1987): Splash detachment: runoff depth
and soil cohesion. CATENA, 14, 149-155.
TOWNER, G.D. (1973): An examination of the
fall-cone method for the determination of some
strength properties of remoulded agricultural
soils. Journal of Soil Science, 24 (4), 470~479.
W1SCHMEIER, W.H., J O H N S O N , C.B. &
CROSS, B.V. (1971): A soil erodibility nomo-
graph for farmland and construction sites. Jour-
nal of Soil and Water Conservation, 26, 189-193.
Address of authors:
F. Brunori, M.C. Penzo, D. Torri
Centro di Studio per la Genesi, Classificazione e
Cartografia del Suolo
Ele delle Cascine 15
1-50144 Firenze
Italy
HYDROLO(~Y GEOMORPHOLOGY