_

ELSEVIER

Journal
of

Hydrology
Journal of Hydrology 178 (1996) 351-367

Unsteady soil erosion model, analytical solutions and

comparison with experimental results
G.C. Sander a'*, P.B. Hairsine b, C.W. Rose c, D. Cassidy a, J.-Y. Parlange d,
W.L. Hogarth c, I.G. L i s l e c
aFaculty of Science and Technology, Griffith University, Nathan, Qld. 4111, Australia
bCSIRO Division of Soils, P.O. Box 639, Canberra ACT, Australia
CFaculty of Environmental Sciences, Griffith University, Nathan, Qld. 4111, Australia
dDepartment of Agricultural and Biological Engineering, Cornell University, Ithaca, N Y 14853, USA
Received 9 March 1995; accepted 31 March 1995

Abstract
Hairsine and Rose developed a soil erosion model which described the erosion transport of
the multiparticle sizes in sediment for rain-impacted flows in the absence of entrainment in
overland flow. In this paper we extend their steady-state solutions to account for the time
variation of suspended sediment concentration during an erosion event. A very simple approximate analytical solution is found which agrees extremely well with experimental data obtained
from nine experiments. We are able to reproduce the rapid initial increase to a peak in the total
sediment concentration, which occurs about 3-5 min after the commencement of rainfall, as
well as the subsequent declining exponential tail towards steady-state conditions. We are also
able to show that the fraction of shielding of the original soil bed resulting from depositing
sediment reaches its equilibrium value on about the same time-scale as the total peak suspended
sediment concentration. Interestingly, we find that the masses of the individual particles which
form this deposited layer are far from equilibrium, and that there is a great deal of continuous
reworking and sorting of this material during the erosion event. Finally, our solution shows
that the initial peak in the total sediment concentration is due to the enrichment of this sediment
by the finer size classes and that as the event continues their percentage contribution diminishes.

1. Introduction
I n a recent p a p e r b y H a i r s i n e a n d R o s e (1991) a soil e r o s i o n m o d e l h a s been
d e v e l o p e d to d e s c r i b e the e r o s i o n a n d t r a n s p o r t o f s e d i m e n t in r a i n - i m p a c t e d flows
* Corresponding author.
0022-1694/96/$15.00 1996 - Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved
SSDI 0022-1694(95)02810-2

352

G.C. Sander et al. / Journal of Hydrology 178 (1996) 351-367

in the absence of entrainment by shallow overland flow. Soils are naturally composed
of a range of particle sizes and aggregates, and in the past, soil erosion models have
tended to lump or average over all size classes, resulting in a single conservation
equation for the total suspended sediment concentration, c, as a function of distance
x and time t (Govindaraju and Kavvas, 1991; Laguna and Giraldez, 1993). In
contrast, the approach of Hairsine and Rose (1991) is to consider the contributions
of the individual size classes to the total suspended sediment concentration separately.
This leads to separate coupled conservation equations for the suspended sediment
concentration ci(x, t) for each particle size class i. While this does increase the number
of equations and complicates their solution, there are sound physical grounds for
justifying this approach.
Once particles have become suspended, they will naturally begin to settle back
towards the soil surface owing to their immersed weight. The fine particles, having
relatively small settling velocities, can be carried significant distances in the direction
of the surface water flow before depositing back to the soil surface. The larger
particles however, will return very quickly to the soil surface from suspension and
would make their way to the end of the plane by saltation. Therefore, at the beginning
of an erosion event, most of the contribution to the total suspended sediment
concentration c will be coming from the finer particles, but, as time increases and
most of the finer material has been removed, the larger particles will begin to increase
their contribution to c.
Prediction of size distributions of eroded particles then enables estimates to be
made of quantities of sorbed pollutants, (e.g. Palis et al., 1990). An understanding
of the dynamics of the suspended sediment concentrations ci of the individual
particles, as well as the overall total concentration c, therefore has significant
implications on the understanding of the supply of non-point source pollutants to
waterways.
In this paper we will only be considering erosion from situations where raindrop
impact is the only erosive agent. Under these conditions the role of overland flow is
simply to transport the sediment eroded under the action of raindrops. The fluid flow
velocity is low enough so that no sediment is entrained into the fluid by the shear
stresses acting between the soil surface and the fluid. This allows us to compare the
predictions of the model with the experimental results of Proffitt et al. (1991) and
considerably simplifies the mathematical solutions. As the development of the model
is discussed in detail in Hairsine and Rose (1991) and Hairsine et al. (1995) we will
only give a brief description of it here.

2. Theory
Once sediment has become suspended in the overland flow, this sediment will begin
to settle or deposit back towards the soil surface. The rate of deposition di is directly
dependent on the size of the sediment and can vary by orders of magnitude from fine
sediment to large aggregates. The deposition rate di of a given sediment size class i is

G.C. Sander et aL / Journal of Hydrology 178 (1996) 351-367

353

then given by
d i = vic i

i = 1,2, ..., I

(1)

where vi is the settling velocity, ci is the sediment concentration in size class i and I is
the total number of classes. The settling velocity classes vi are chosen so that there is
an equal mass of soil in each class. Since deposition returns sediment to the soil bed,
then at any given time some fraction H of the original soil surface is shielded by
deposited sediment. Since this deposited layer will be weaker than the original soil, we
must distinguish between this layer and the original soil when determining the
amount of sediment being detached (or lifted) from the soil surface through raindrop
impact.
Assuming that the rate of rainfall detachment per unit area of the original soil to be
non-selective with respect to size class i, then Rose (1960, 1961) shows that e i = a P / I
where a is the rainfall detachability of bare soil and P is the rainfall rate. Since the
deposited layer shields a portion H of the surface from the action of raindrops, then to
determine the rate of detachment of the original soil surface, e; must be weighted by a
factor of (1 - H). Thus during the erosion event, ei is given by
ei = - aP
i - [1 - H ( x , t)]

i = 1,2, ..., I

(2)

It is assumed that at the commencement of rainfall (t = 0) no deposited layer has

formed thus H ( x , t = 0) = 0 and ei = a P / I .
The distribution of particles that form the deposited layer is size class dependent
owing to Eq. (1), thus let Mdi be the mass per unit area in this layer of sediment in size
class i. The total mass Mdt of sediment in this layer is therefore given by
I

Mdt(X, t) = E

Mdi(X, t)

(3)

i=1

Then assuming that the redetachment rate of size class i, edi , by rainfall of sediment in
the deposited layer will be proportional to the fraction of particles of that size in the
layer, and the fractional shielding of that layer, we have
~gd/

edi = a d r Md---~~-I i = 1,2,..,, I

(4)

The deposited layer is expected to have different strength characteristics compared to

the original soil surface so the detachability of the deposited layer ad in Eq. (4) wil! be
greater than a in Eq. (2).
The change in space and time of the fraction of shielding H, must depend on the
total mass of sediment per unit area Mdt in the deposited layer. Thus if we define M~t
as the mass per unit area of sediment necessary for complete effective shielding (i.e.
H = 1), H is given as (Hairsine et al., 1995)
H ( x , t) = Mdt(x, t)

(5)

For a plane land element of uniform slope under a spatially uniform excess rainfall

G.C. Sander et al. / Journal of Hydrology 178 (1996) 351-367

354

R(t), conservation o f mass of sediment of size class i requires that

O(Dci) O(qci)
~ ----ei+edi--di
i=1,2,...,I
(6)
Ot
ax
where D(x, t) and q(x, t) are the depth o f flow and the volumetric flux per unit width
o f plane, respectively. In the case of shallow kinematic overland flow, D and q are
related by

01)0t ~--~xOq= R( t)

(7)

q = KD m

(8)

and

where K and m are constants depending on the flow regime and R(t) is the rainfall
excess. In particular K = sl/2/n where s is the surface slope, n is a measure of the
surface roughness and m is approximately 5/3 for turbulent flow and 3 for laminar
flow. With D and q known Eqs. (6) and (7) can also be combined to give

Oci q Oci
1
Ot + D Ox - 1) (ei + edi - di - Rci)

i = 1,2, ..., I

(9)

Finally, we need a conservation equation which governs the variation o f Mdi in the
deposited layer. The only processes which effect the deposited layer are di and edi, thus
the change in mass Mdi in the deposited layer from the commencement of rainfall
detachment is simply the difference between di and edi or
OMdi

--=di-edi
Ot

i---- 1,2,...,I

(10)

Therefore Eqs. (9) and (10) form a system of N ( N -- 21) partial differential equations
for determining the N unknowns ci(x, t) and Mdi(X, t).

3. Approximate analytical solution

In this section we seek an approximate analytical solution to Eqs. (9) and (10) with
a view to reproducing the experimental data ofProffitt et al. (1991). Their experiments
were performed for constant rainfall rates P, low slopes ( ~< 1%), three shallow mean
flow depths o f 2, 5 and 10 mm, a n d no losses o f rainfall by infiltration, hence
R(t) = P = constant. For Proffitt et al. (1991) to be able to maintain these mean
flow depths for t/> 0 throughout their experiments " . . . a barrier was temporarily
installed at the end of the flume and clear water introduced gently so that there was no
turbulence. Once the correct mean depth o f ponding had been achieved, rainfall was
started and the barrier removed simultaneously. Transient unsteady [water] flow
occurring prior to achieving a steady-state appeared to be negligible after approximately one minute." If we are prepared to ignore the initial transient hydrological
effects on ci, we can therefore simplify Eq. (9) by replacing D and q with their
averaged quantities which are independent of x and t, without introducing any

G.C. Sander et al. / Journal o f Hydrology 178 (1996) 351-367

355

significant errors. So, for the experimental conditions of Proffitt et al. (1991) the
following dimensionless variables can be defined

Pt

T = -=D

(lla)

z = -

(1 lb)

ci
Ci = - -

(llc)

mdi -~

Mdi

(1 ld)

aD

mdr

-- gdt

aye)

--

Emdi

(lle)

i=1

and dimensionless parameters

vi

ui = ~

(1 lf)

e = --

(llg)

PL

o~ --

adZ)

- -

(1

lh)

and
= -ada

(1 li)

where L is length of the flow domain. Combining Eqs. (1), (2), (4), (5), (9), (10) and
(11) gives

OCi~_eOCi 1 (
a
)
Or
Oz = I 1 - ~ m d ~ +amdi--(l+ui)Ci

i=1,2,...,I

(12)

and
Omdi
O'F ~- v i C i -- a m d i

i=

1,2,...,I

(13)

Even though Eqs. (12) and (13) form a system of linear partial differential equations
there is no exact analytical solution available. Consequently we seek a simplified
approximate analytical solution which will still capture the underlying physics of
the erosion processes. Experimental data (field or laboratory) are typically collected
at the end of the field slope e.g. Hudson (1981), or at the end of the t i m e , e.g. Proffitt
et al. (1991). So in order to compare with this data we only need solutions of Eqs. (12)
and (13) at z = L. For low slopes and low water flow velocities it is reasonable to

G.C. Sander et aL / Journal of Hydrology 178 (1996) 351-367

356

assume that t h e sediment concentration d o e s not vary greatly with z near z = L,

certainly for early times in an erosion event the greatest changes in Ci near z = L
are time dependent. Now if we assume that this is true for all time i.e.
OCi/t~'F > > E(OCi/OZ)z=l., then the solution for Ci(L , 7-) can be approximated through
the much simpler set of linear autonomous ordinary differential equations
dr =

1--~md.r

+amdi--(l+vi)Ci

i=1,2,...,I

(14)

and
dmdi

= l/iCi - amdi

i = 1,2,...,I

(15)

subject to the initial conditions

7- = 0,

C i -~ 0,

mdi = 0

i = 1,2, ...,I

(16)

Eqs. (14) and (15) are now easily solved by standard techniques. First write Eqs. (14)
and (15) in vector notation as
dw
dr

(17)

Aw + b

where
W = ( C l , C 2 , ..., e l , m d l , md2, ..., r o d / ) T

(18)

b=

(19)

(}ll

,j,...?,o,o,...,ao

)T

and A is a block (N x N) square matrix

A=

[ DIS
]
D2 D3

(20)

The matrices D1, DE and D3 are diagonal (I x I) matrices and Sis a symmetric (I x I)
matrix. D1 has diagonal elements - ( 1 + vi), i = 1,2, ...,I, 1)2 has diagonal elements
vi, i = 1,2, ..., I, and D3 has diagonal elements a, i = 1,2, ..., I. The matrix S is full,
with diagonal elements [a - a / ( t ~ I ) ] , i = 1,2,..., I and all the off-diagonal elements
are given by - a / ( t ~ I ) .
The solution of Eq. (17) is then given by
W = ~l~.gl exp(--Alr) + ~2~Lg2exp(--A2r) + ... + ~N~IN exp(--ANr) + Ws

(21)

where Aj and t~j,j = 1,2, ..., N, are the eigenvalues and eigenvectors of A respectively.
The r/j,j = 1,2, ..., N are the constants of integration found from satisfying the initial
condition r = 0, w = 0, Ci = 0 and mai = 0, or from solving
En = -ws

(22)

where E i s the matrix of eigenvectors t~j with the eigenveetor t~j forming colunmj, and
Ws is the steady-state solution of Eq. (17).

G.C. Sander et aL /

Journal of Hydrology 178 (1996) 351-367

357

4. Steady-state or equilibrium solution

The steady-state or equilibrium solution of Eq. (17) is given when both dCi/d'r and

dmdi/d'r are zero or

li ( 1 - ~ md~ ) + a m d i -- (1 + v i ) C i = 0

(23)

viC i - otmdi = 0

(24)

the solution of which is given by Hairsine and Rose (1991) as

Ci =

1+

and

md~ = -

i = 1,2, ...,I

Vi[j.=~l( ~)]--1
1+

(25)

i = 1,2, . . . , I

(26)

We note at equilibrium Ci is independent of i, that is,

vary with i.

C 1 =

C2,

... , =

CI

but mdi does

5. Comparison with the experimental data of Proflitt et al. (1991)

The experiments performed by Proffitt et al. (1991) were on two bare soils of

40.00

E
30.00

20.00

cO
(..) 10.00
O
o

0.0o o

.o

6 ........

' .........

lo.oo

' .................

20.00

30.00

' .........

40.00

'

50.00

Time (mins)
Fig. 1. Sediment concentration for the Solonchak as a function of time when P = 100 m m h -1 and
D = 2 nun. Parameter values are a = 1000, ~ = 20 and a = 1233. Experimental data points given by the
stars.

358

G.C. Sander et al. /Journal of Hydrology 178 (1996) 351-367

.x- 3 0 . 0 0

E
E
"~'~20.00

c- 1 0 . 0 0
0
LD
~D
-4.--'

0
F-

0.00

i 1 , , 1 , , 1

o.oo

i 1 , 1 1 , , , , 1

lo.oo

ii,

i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

20.00

30.00

i , , , i i i i I

40.00

50.00

Time (mins)
Fig. 2. Sediment concentration for the Solonchak as a function of time when P = 100 mm h -1 and D =
5 nun. Parameter values are a = 1200, ~ = 20 and a = 718. Experimental data points given by the stars.
different type (a vertisol referred to as Black E a r t h a n d a n aridisol referred to as
S o l o n c h a k ) at slopes between 0.1 a n d 1.0%. Both sediment c o n c e n t r a t i o n a n d
settling velocity characteristics were m e a s u r e d t h r o u g h time u n d e r two different
c o n s t a n t rainfall rates o f 56 a n d 100 m m h -1 . T h e experiments were also p e r f o r m e d
for three different average c o n s t a n t depths o f water o f 2, 5 a n d 10 ram.
Figs. 1 - 3 give the e x p e r i m e n t a l c(t) (stars) for the S o l o n c h a k for depths o f 2 m m ,

10.00

E
E
t2n
5.o0

tO

0
b-

Fig. 3.

0.00

''''''I;'i''',li,,,l,1,,,l,,,l,,,,,,,,,l,,a,,,,,i

o.oo

lo.oo

20.00

30.00

Time (mins)

Sediment concentration for the Solonchak as

40.00

function of time when P

50.00

100 nun h-1 and D

I0 m m . P a r a m e t e r values are c~ = 1600, ~ = 20 and a = 412. E x p e r i m e n t a l d a t a points given by the stars.

359

G.C. Sander et al. / Journal of Hydrology 178 (1996) 351-367

5 m m and 10 mm, respectively, when P = 100 mm h -1. The solid lines in Figs. 1-3 are
the predicted solutions obtained from Eqs. (21) and (22) for ten size classes, i.e.
I = 10. The corresponding fall velocities vi, i = 1,2, ..., 10 used, were obtained from
the soil curve in Fig. 2 of Proffitt et al. (1991 ) labelled original soil (wetted plus rainfall
at 100 m m h -l for 40 min). The ten velocities were then simply read off at equal
intervals along their y-axis. The finest sediment class size is given by i = 1 (smallest
velocity) with the largest class size corresponding to i = 10 (largest velocity). The
parameter values o f c~, ~; and a are obtained by matching the predicted concentration
curve to the experimental data points.
The level o f agreement between the experimental data and our predicted curves
is excellent, well within the experimental error of +15%. The most interesting
feature of the solutions is the very rapid increase in the concentration from 0 at
t = 0, to its peak concentration which occurs around 1 rain, followed by a continuous decline towards its steady-state or equilibrium concentration. The peak
concentration predicted by the theory is not absolute in that by making slight
variations to the values of a, n and a, we can either increase or decrease the
peak predicted concentration while still maintaining the excellent agreement with
the experimental data. This is discussed in more detail in a later section. What is
needed is to obtain more measured sediment concentrations at times earlier than
1.5 min in order to fix the peak concentration. It was also found that when P = 56
m m h -] exactly the same level of agreement was obtained between theory and
experimental data as that displayed for P = 100 mm h -]. Note from now on the
bar has been dropped from the depth D though references to D will still imply
averaged depths.
Fig. 4 shows the development of the deposited layer during the erosion event. While
the sediment concentration takes quite a while to obtain equilibrium, the level of
shielding obtained by the deposited layer attains equilibrium very rapidly. The
equilibrium shielding value o f approximately 98% seems to be achieved on the
1.00

0.75

~- 0.50

0.25

0.00

0.00

IIJlllllllSlll

10.00

Jllll

Il'

j'Ll~llll*~hjl'ljl'ljlllll

20.00
30.00
TIME (mlns)

40.00

50.00

Fig. 4. Developmentof the fractionalcoverageH as a functionof time for P = 100mm h-I and D

= 5

ram.

G.C. Sander et al. / Journal of Hydrology 178 (1996) 351-367

360

0.030

i=

10

i=

E
,w.
E
.2

"-" 0.020
(/3

5
0.010
~J3
.<

0.000
0.00

10.00

20.00
30.00
TIME (mlns)

4O.uu

~u.O0

Fig. 5. Variation of the masses of the individual particle size classes making up the deposited layer as a
function oftime, P = 100 ram h -I and D = 5 ram.
same time-scale as the predicted p e a k concentrations shown in Fig. 2. While the level
o f shielding appears to be at equilibrium, Fig. 5 shows that mass o f sediment in the
various class sizes which f o r m the deposited layer is still varying significantly with
time. Even at 50 min it is obvious that the majority o f size classes have not achieved
their equilibrium values, Thus, as the erosion event proceeds there is a continuous
change in the distribution o f the individual particle sizes which m a k e up the deposited
layer. As time goes on, Fig. 5 shows that the deposited layer becomes m o r e and m o r e
d o m i n a t e d by the coarser material since the finer material is transported further
following each detachment. This is in agreement with prediction o f the steady-state
solution for mdi given by Eq. (26). True equilibrium is achieved on a time-scale o f
5.00

~, 2.00
U

.N_
"6 1.00
u
0
.)

"~.1o
0.00

,,l,,,,,,l '''''''''l'''l't=''l

0.00

10.00

'''''''''I'''''''''I

20.00
30.00
Time (mins)

40.00

50.00

Fig. 6. Variation of the suspended sediment concentration of the individual size classes with time for
P = 100 mm h -I and D = 5 mm.

361

G.C. Sander et aL / Journal of Hydrology 178 (1996) 351-367

approximately 1500-2000 min being of the order of one day. In Fig. 6 we see the
time-varying behaviour of the suspended sediment concentration for the various
class sizes corresponding to Fig. 2. This demonstrates quite clearly that early on, it
is the finer sediment which forms the major contribution to the predicted concentration peak in Fig. 2. This confirms the well-known experimental results
(Meyer et al., 1975; Alberts et al., 1980, 1983) that sediment leaving an eroded
slope is finer than the original soil. It has been noted by Rose and Dalai (1988)
that this is a key mechanism in the enrichment of soil-sorbed nutrients leaving an
eroded slope. The results in Fig. 6 can also be used to calculate settling velocity
distributions of the eroded sediment and then as input to the method of Palis et al.
(1990) for predicting losses of sorbed nutrients. Since Eq. (13) shows that at
equilibrium all the ci's are equal, then we see from Fig. 6 that steady state has
not been reached at 50 min but it is obvious that all the ci's are converging to a
single value.
In total, there were 12 different experiments performed (three different depths by
two rainfall rates by two soil types). In three experiments for the Black Earth soil
there was inflow of fresh water from the top of the flume. The parameter values for
these runs were P = 56 mm h -l, D = 5 and 10 ram, and P = 100 mm h -l with D = 10
mm. No comparisons of this experimental data with the approximate analytic
solution was performed as it was felt that the fresh water inflow at x = 0 would
violate the assumptions under which the solution was developed. However, in all
remaining nine experiments, agreement between measured and predicted c(t) was
obtained to the same level as that demonstrated in Figs. 1-3. In fact, the type of
behaviour displayed throughout Figs. 4-6 is very similar in all experiments. The
detachabilities for the original soil a and the deposited layer a d for all nine
experiments are summarised in Table 1. On physical grounds, as the depth of water
covering the soil surface increases, then this water provides greater protection to the
soil surface from rainfall. Hence, as D increases the rainfall detachability of both the
original soil and the deposited layer should decrease. This behaviour is clearly visible
in Table 1. It is also clear that for a given soil type, rainfall rate and depth of flow,
ad >> a, confirming the greater detachability of the deposited layer over the original
Ta~el
Listofparametervalues ~ v i n g b e s t a ~ m e n t w i t h t h e e x p e f i m e n t ~ d a t a
Solonchak
P
(mmh -i)

Black Earth
D
(mm)

a
(kgm -3)

ad
(kgrn -3)

M~t
(kgm -2)

56

2
5
10

1113
358
319

22260
7160
6380

0.074
0.18
0.071

100

2
5
10

1233
718
412

24660
14360
8240

0.05
0.06
0.051

P
(mmh -1)

D
(mm)

a
(kgrn -3)

ad
M~t
(kgm -3) (kgm -E)

56

3910

7429

0.15

100

2
5

3738
1950

7102
3705

0.18
0.23

G.C. Sander et al. / Journal of Hydrology 178 (1996) 351-367

362

soil. Being aware of this behaviour helps restrict the range of possible parameter
values a and t~ which yield good agreement with the experimental c(t) data.
We note that the values of the detachability a found in Table 1 are much higher
than those reported experimentally in Proffitt et al. (1991). This difference arises
because the experimental values o f a were based on an equilibrium value of
H = 0.9 obtained by visual observation. In contrast Fig. 4 shows that H should be
much closer to one, or to be precise 0.98. Since the detachability increases very rapidly
as a function of H for H near one (see Fig. 4 o f Proffitt et al., 199 I), then small errors
in estimating H near one are magnified, and cause very large errors in determining a.
Thus it is not really appropriate to compare the experimental and analytical values of
a except to note that the sign of the difference is correct. On the other hand, ad
depends only mildly on H for H near one and we find good agreement between the
experimental and analytical values. Fig. 4 of Profitt et al. (1991) gives experimental
values ofad for D = 2, 5 and 10 mm of the order of 23 000 kg m -3, 12 000 kg m -a and
7500 kg m -3, respectively, which all agree with the values reported in Table 1.
Hairsine and Rose (1991) developed theory for the general case where D is a
function o f distance x and the detachabilities are functions o f depth. They considered
expressions for a and ad of the form
a = ao

(27a)

D < Do

a = a o ( D / D o ) -b

D >.Do

(27b)

and
a d = ado

(28a)

D < Do

as = ado(Z)/no) -b

D >1Do

(28b)

In Eqs. (27) and (28) Do is usually taken to be o f the order o f two to three raindrop
diameters being about 2 mm for the experiments of Proffitt et al. (1991). Using the
data available in Table 1 we can estimate the parameters in Eq. (27) by performing a
least squares curve fit. The parameter ado in Eq. (28) then follows automatically from
Eqs. (1 li), (27) and (28) for D >~Do
a / a d = ao/ado = n

(29)

For the purposes of the least squares fit Eq. (27) can be simplified to a = w D -b where
w = aoDbo and results in
a = 1730D -'8

P = 56 mmh -1

(30a)

a = 2017D -'7

P = 100 mmh -1

(30b)

and

Taking Do as approximately 2 m m gives ao = 994 kg m -3, ado = 19880 kg m -3 for

P = 56 mm h -1 and ao = 1242 kg m -3, ado = 24840 kg m -3 for P = 100 mm h -1 . The
agreement between Eq. (5.1) and the data in Table 1, is shown in Fig. 7. The results for
P = 100 are excellent, however those for P = 56 are not as good. This is due mainly to

363

G.C. San~retal./JournalofHy~ology178(1996) 351-367

1400.0

1200.0
A

1000.0

800.0

25

600.0
Q)

400.0
A

200.0

0.O. 00 ........ 2.001......

4.00
6.00
Depth (mm)

8.00

10.00

Fig. 7. Detachability as a function of depth for different rainfall rates. Solid lines are from Eq. (27) based on
a least squares regression fit to the data points shown in Table 1.

the data point at D = 5 for P = 56 being too low. We also note that the values of b
derived from the least squares procedure are in general agreement with those found by
Proffitt et al. (1991).
Table 1 also gives the variation of M~t with D for various rainfall rates. These are
the least favourable results, since M~t represents the mass per unit area (kg m -2) of
the deposited layer which provides complete shielding, these values appear to be lower
than physically expected. There also does not appear to be any uniform relation
between M~t and depth. This could mean that the definition of H(t) given by Eq.
(7) is not quite correct and needs further development. However all other
comparisons between theory and experiment (i.e. Figs. 1-6) are very encouraging
and lead us to believe that considering the individual class sizes as opposed to just a
total concentration per se is more useful in explaining soil erosion behaviour.
Certainly it is not possible to predict the sudden peak concentration of Figs. 1-3
by using less than three particle sizes (I = 3). Even then these three size classes must
cover several orders of magnitude in their settling velocities vi or the peak will still not
appear.

5.1. Curve fitting to experimental c(t) data

To curve fit the experimental data and determine the parameter values for a, a d and
M~tt we used the solution in dimensionless form as given by Eqs. (21) and (22) since

364

G.C. Sander et al. / Journal of Hydrology 178 (1996) 351-367

only two unknown parameters a and n appear rather than three. The settling velocity
distribution vi is obtained directly from settling tube experimentals (as in Fig. 2 o f
Proffitt et al., 1991) once the number of size classes/has been set. For a given rainfall
rate experiment the vi's are then determined from Eq. (1 If) as vi = vi/P, i = 1,2, ..., I,
with Ci(r) and mdi(7-) then calculated from Eqs. (21) and (22) for a preset a and ~.
The total dimensionless concentration C(r) is then found by summing the Ci(r) for
i = 1,2,...,I.
To find the detachability a we match the experimental sediment concentration at
t = 40 min, ce(40), with the theoretical sediment concentration C at 7- = 4 0 P / D and
then use Eq. (1 lc) to give a = ce(40)/C(4OP/D). The time of 40 min was chosen since
this was the largest time for which experimental c data were available and as such this
data point would be the most reliable owing to a minimum influence of transient flow
effects. A consequence of this method for finding the detachability is that the
theoretical solution will always go through the final experimental data point. Having
a, the entire theoretical c(t) solution can be plotted and compared with all the
experimental data. If the level o f agreement is unsatisfactory then the whole process
is repeated with new values of a and n until the 'best' fit is found. With the final values
o f a, ~; and a, Eq. (1 li) gives a d and Eq. (1 lh) gives M~t.
The effect o f the parameters a and ~ on the curve fitting o f the solution is best seen
through their influence on the magnitude and timing of the peak sediment concentration. Define Cmaxas the peak or maximum concentration reached and tmax as the time
at which this peak occurs. If we rerun the model several times during which we keep
fixed while a is decreased for each additional run, then we find that both tmax and Cmax
increase, that is the peak concentration gets larger and is delayed, while the associated
values o f a and ad decrease with M~t increasing. This occurs because if the detachabilities a and ad decrease, then to maintain the supply of soil particles in order to
match the measured experimental sediment concentrations, the fraction H of shielding must decrease, In practice, this occurs through increasing nit in Eq. (5) so that
the product a(1 - H), being the source of detached material, remains constant. In
terms of the distribution o f the size classes in the eroded sediment, a fixed ~; with a
decreasing a will decrease the contribution from the larger particles.
Fixing the value of a and letting ~; decrease for each run, results in an increased
peak concentration which occurs at an earlier time. However M~t and ad will
remained fixed while the detachability a increases. Furthermore, the total mass o f
suspended sediment increases, but there is a tendency towards a reduction in the
percentage o f smaller particles contributing to this sediment. Taking the two parameters in combination, then Cmax can be reduced but kept at the same time tmax by
increasing both a and ~;, or conversely, the peak concentration can be held constant
and be made to occur earlier by increasing a and decreasing ~;, or to occur later by
decreasing a and increasing n.
We also note that when n is fixed and we vary a, the detachability only varies
slightly. This occurs because we chose to find the detachability by matching the
theoretical C to ce(40 ) which is near to the steady-state concentration. If we were
able to use the true steady-state concentration to find a by a = Ce(t ~ o o ) /
C ( r ~ c~ ) then a would remain independent of a as Eq. (25) shows that

G.C. Sander et aL / Journal of Hydrology 178 (1996) 351-367

365

C(r ~ oo ) is independent of a. Thus the small variations we see in calculating the

detachability for fixed ~ simply is due to the difference between ce(40) and
ce(t ~ oo ). Conversely when we hold a fixed and vary ~ during the curve fitting,
then large variations in the calculated detachabilities will be found which are
proportional to the changes in ~.
5.2. Sensitivity to number o f size classes
It was discussed earlier that it was possible to obtain a very good fit with the
experimental data with a range o f values for a and ~;, and therefore a, ad and M~t.
In this section we are interested in how these ranges are affected by the number of
particle size classes. Specifically, we are looking for an optimal number of particle
class sizes lp above which the suitable ranges o f values for t~ and ~ which reproduce
the experimental data are essentially independent of L This is particularly important
when seeking solutions for the spatial dependence of the concentration through time
from Eqs. (9) and (10). Any reduction in the number of particle size classes leads to a
reduction of twice that number of partial differential equations, and would therefore
have a significant impact on the computation time required to solve numerically for
c(x, t) from Eqs. (9) and (10).
F o r the purposes o f examining the sensitivity of the model t o / , the experiment on
the Black Earth soil for a 5 m m depth and a 100 mm h -l rainfall rate is used. The
results for I = 5, 10, 15 and 20 are summarised in Table 2. The parameter ranges
given in Table 2 are based on good agreement between the theoretical c(t) and the
experimental concentrations, and also on whether the settling velocity distribution
curves are acceptable. For all particle size classes it was found that ~cmust always lie in
the range 1.9 ~<tel0.0 except for I = 20 where the upper limit of n is 4 and that M~t
was independent of ~. F r o m Table 2 we see that the range of possible a values
decreases significantly both in magnitude and width as I increases. The magnitude
o f the detachability range also decreases significantly from I = 5 to I = 10 but then
stabilises. The width of the range in M~t does not seem to show any particular trend
while its magnitude appears to be increasing. Based on the results in Table 2, Ip = 15
would be an ideal number of particle size classes to use but, owing to the computation
restrictions it would place on solving Eqs. (9) and (10) for c(x, t) we feel that Ip = 10 is
more than sufficient to reproduce the underlying physics of the erosion processes and
the structure of the experimental data.

Table 2
Effect o f n u m b e r o f particle size I on parameter values
I

~-

1.9

5
10
15
20

160~a~220
6 0 ~ a ~ 120
40 ~ a ~ 80
40 ~<a ~<60

2547 ~<a
1851 ~ a
1673 ~ a
1674 ~<a

~ 2735
~ 2097
~ 1892
~< 1809

~ = 10.0

M,~t

4 8 5 ~ a ~ 500
352 ~ a ~ 4 0 0
318 ~ a ~ 361
795 ~<a <~860, ~ = 4

0.12 ~<M,~t ~ 0.15

0.17 ~ M~t ~ 0 . 2 9
0.23 ~ M~t ~<0.4
0.29 ~<M~t ~<0.4

366

G.C. Sander et al. / Journal of Hydrology 178 (1996) 351-367

6. Conclusion
I n conclusion we have presented a time-dependent solution for the soil erosion
model o f Hairsine and Rose (1991) and shown that we can reproduce the experimental data o f Proffitt et al (1991). This simple analytical solution is based on the
assumption that the spatial dependence o f the sediment concentration at x = L is
small c o m p a r e d with its time dependence. D a t a f r o m nine experiments were used to
verify the reliability o f the theoretical model with excellent agreement f o u n d for all
nine. We were able to reproduce the initial rapid increase to a peak in sediment
concentration which occurred approximately 5 rain after the c o m m e n c e m e n t o f
rainfall, as well as the tailing exponential decline f r o m this peak t o steady-state
conditions.
W e show that while the total sediment concentration and the fraction o f shielding
resulting f r o m the deposited layer appear to reach equilibrium fairly quickly, the
distribution o f particle size classes which comprise this sediment is far f r o m
equilibrium. True steady state for the Solonchak experiments was achieved between
1500 and 2000 min being on the order o f one day. Sensitivity to the n u m b e r o f particle
size classes was investigated and it was decided that ten classes were sufficient to
reproduce the structure and physics underlying the experimental data. As it is only
possible to solve for c(x, t) numerically, and that any reduction in the n u m b e r o f size
classes leads to a reduction o f twice as m a n y partial differential equations, then
k n o w i n g Ip = 10 has significant practical implications for determining the spatial
as well as the temporal dependence o f the sediment concentration. This problem is
covered in future publications.

References
Alberts, E.E., Moldenhauer, W.C. and Foster, G.R., 1980. Soil aggregates and primary particles
transported in rill and interill flow. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 44: 590-595.
Alberts, E.E., Wendt, R.C. and Priest, R.F., 1983. Physical and chemical properties of eroded soil
aggregates. Trans. ASAE, 26: 465-471.
Govindaraju, R.S. and Kavvas, M.L., 1991.Modelling the erosion process over steep slopes: approximate
analytical solutions. J. Hydrol., 127: 279-305.
Hairsine, P.B. and Rose, C.W., 1991. Rainfall detachment and deposition: sediment transport in the
absence of flow-driven processes. Soil Sci. Sot:. Am. J., 55: 320-324.
Hairsine, P.B., Sander, G.C., Rose, C.W., Parlange, J.-Y. and Hogarth, W.L., 1995. Unsteady soil erosion
due to rainfall impact: I. Theoretical considerations and practical applications. Water Resour. Res.,
submitted.
Hudson, N., 1981. Soil Conservation, 2nd edn. Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.
Laguna, A. and Giraldez, J.V., 1993. The description of soil erosion through a kinematic wave model. J.
Hydrol., 145: 65-82.
Meyer, L.D., Foster, G.R. and Romkens, M.J.M., 1975. Source of soil eroded by water from upland slopes.
In: Present and Prospective Technology for Predicting Sediment Yields and Sources, Proc. Sediment
Yield Workshop, Oxford, MS, 28-30 November 1972. USDA-ARS-40, pp. 177-189.
Palis, R.G., Okwach, G., Rose, C.W. and Saffigna, P.G., 1990. Soil erosion processes and nutrient loss. I.
The interpretation of enrichment ratio and nitrogen loss in runoff sediment. Aust. J. Soil Res., 28:
623-639.

G.C. Sander et al. / Journal of Hydrology 178 (1996) 351-367

367

Proffitt, A.P.B., Rose, C.W., and Hairsine, P.B., 1991. Rainfall detachment and deposition: experiments
with low slopes and significant water depths. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 55: 325-332.
Rose, C.W., 1960. Soil detachment caused by rainfall. Soil Sci., 89: 28-35.
Rose, C.W., 1961. Rainfall and soil structure. Soil Sci., 91: 49-54.
Rose, C.W. and Dalal, R.C., 1988. Erosion and runoff of nitrogen. In: J.R. Wilson (Editors), Advances in
Nitrogen Cycling in Agricultural Ecosystems. CAB International, Wallingford, UK, pp. 212-235.