See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/251427439

Coupled simulations of fluvial erosion and mass wasting for cohesive river
banks

Article  in  Journal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres · August 2007

DOI: 10.1029/2006JF000722

CITATIONS READS
110 270

3 authors:

Stephen E. Darby Massimo Rinaldi

University of Southampton Universidad de Sevilla
49 PUBLICATIONS   2,252 CITATIONS    230 PUBLICATIONS   4,068 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Stefano Dapporto
Regione Toscana
22 PUBLICATIONS   465 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Geomorphic Change Detection View project

REFORM - REstoring rivers FOR effective catchment Management View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Massimo Rinaldi on 21 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 112, F03022, doi:10.1029/2006JF000722, 2007
Click
Here
for
Full
Article

Coupled simulations of fluvial erosion and mass wasting

for cohesive river banks
Stephen E. Darby,1 Massimo Rinaldi,2 and Stefano Dapporto3
Received 15 November 2006; revised 19 April 2007; accepted 25 May 2007; published 25 August 2007.

[1] The erosion of sediment from riverbanks affects a range of physical and ecological
issues. Bank retreat often involves combinations of fluvial erosion and mass wasting, and
in recent years, bank retreat models have been developed that combine hydraulic erosion
and limit equilibrium stability models. In related work, finite element seepage analyses
have also been used to account for the influence of pore water pressure in controlling the
onset of mass wasting. This paper builds on these previous studies by developing a
simulation modeling approach in which the hydraulic erosion, finite element seepage, and
limit equilibrium stability models are, for the first time, fully coupled. Application of the
model is demonstrated by undertaking simulations of a single flow event at a single study
site for scenarios where (1) there is no fluvial erosion and the bank geometry profile
remains constant throughout, (2) there is no fluvial erosion but the bank profile is
deformed by simulated mass wasting, and (3) the bank profile is allowed to freely deform
in response to both simulated fluvial erosion and mass wasting. The results are limited in
scope to the specific conditions encountered at the study site, but they nevertheless
demonstrate the significant role that fluvial erosion plays in steepening the bank profile or
creating overhangs, thereby triggering mass wasting. However, feedbacks between the
various processes also lead to unexpected outcomes. Specifically, fluvial erosion also
affects bank stability indirectly, as deformation of the bank profile alters the hydraulic
gradients driving infiltration into the bank, thereby modulating the evolution of the pore
water pressure field. Consequently, the frequency, magnitude, and mode of bank erosion
events in the fully coupled scenario differ from the two scenarios in which not all the
relevant bank process interactions are included.
Citation: Darby, S. E., M. Rinaldi, and S. Dapporto (2007), Coupled simulations of fluvial erosion and mass wasting for cohesive
river banks, J. Geophys. Res., 112, F03022, doi:10.1029/2006JF000722.

1. Introduction range associated with low-energy UK rivers [Walling et

[2] The erosion of sediment from riverbanks is a key
factor affecting a range of physical and ecological issues in
the fluvial environment. These include the establishment of
river and floodplain morphology and their associated habitats
[Thorne and Lewin, 1979; Darby and Thorne, 1996; Millar,
2000; Goodson et al., 2002; Eaton et al., 2004], turbidity
problems [Bull, 1997; Green et al., 1999; U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 2000], as well as nutrient and contami-
nant dynamics [Marron, 1992; Reneau et al., 2004].
Indeed, the contribution of bank-derived materials to fluvial
sediment budgets may be higher than previously thought.
Bank-derived sediments typically contribute between about
37% and 80% of the total suspended sediment yield
emanating from catchments, with the lower end of this
1
School of Geography, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
2
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Florence, Florence,
Italy.
3
Regione Toscana, Sistema Regionale di Protezione Civile, Florence,
Italy.
Copyright 2007 by the American Geophysical Union.
0148-0227/07/2006JF000722$09.00
al., 1998, 1999] and the upper end corresponding to incised
channel systems [Wasson et al., 1998; Simon and Darby,
2002; Simon and Rinaldi, 2006]. With such a significant
fraction of bank-derived material within the alluvial sedi-
mentary system, knowledge of the rates, patterns and
controls on bank erosion events is necessary for a complete
understanding of the fluvial sediment transport regime.
[3] Given the importance of bank-derived sediment
within the fluvial sediment transfer system, it is not sur-
prising that bank erosion has been the subject of much
research. A particular focus of recent work has been the
application of slope-stability modeling to quantify the role
and relative influence of the factors that control mass wast-
ing. Such studies have focused on the respective roles of bank
shape [Osman and Thorne, 1988; Darby et al., 2000],
riparian vegetation [Abernethy and Rutherfurd, 2000; Simon
and Collison, 2002], as well as bank and channel hydrology
[Rinaldi and Casagli, 1999; Casagli et al., 1999; Simon et al.,
1999; Rinaldi et al., 2004]. Although fewer studies have been
concerned with the process of fluvial erosion (i.e., the
removal of bank sediments by the direct action of the flow),
notable recent contributions have started to address the issue

F03022 1 of 15
F03022 DARBY ET AL.: COUPLED BANK EROSION SIMULATIONS
Figure 1. Logic diagram showing the computational
sequence used to couple the finite element seepage, bank
stability, and fluvial erosion analyses.
of quantifying entrainment thresholds and process rates
[Lawler et al., 1997a; Simon et al., 2000; Dapporto, 2001;
Lawler, 2004, 2005].
[4] Nevertheless, predictions of bank erosion rates remain
poor [Darby et al., 1998; Mosselman, 1998], with two key
issues standing out as likely limiting factors. First, existing
studies utilize data collected at relatively coarse timescales,
understandably so given the problems of working during
floods, but preevent versus postevent studies cannot resolve
process thresholds, timing and rates [Lawler, 2004, 2005].
Second, previous research tends to view individual processes
in isolation, but bank retreat is the net result of interacting
processes [Wolman, 1959; Thorne, 1982; Lawler et al.,
1997b]. Although the adoption of approaches that break
systems down into manageable components is a logical first
step, interactions and feedbacks between processes in non-
linear systems can lead to outcomes that are not always
predictable a priori. In short, viewing bank processes in
isolation is unrealistic, introducing the possibility that the
conclusions derived from such studies may be biased. This
limitation is starting to be addressed by modeling, with a
particular focus on coupling fluvial erosion and mass
wasting models [Darby and Thorne, 1996; Darby et al.,
1998; Langendoen, 2000; Simon et al., 2006]. However, as
yet no study has coupled fluvial erosion, seepage and
stability submodels in a fully integrated analysis.
[5] To address this gap, we herein develop a new simu-
lation approach that seeks to couple hydraulic and geotech-
nical simulations in a way that facilitates analysis of the
2 of 15
F03022
influence of dynamically interacting processes on the ero-
sion of bank sediments. This is achieved by coupling a
hydraulic erosion model with a finite element seepage
analysis and limit equilibrium stability methods to address
transient mass wasting triggered by bank profile deformation
and/or variations in bank pore water pressures [Dapporto,
2003; Dapporto and Rinaldi, 2003]. The new method
requires the finite element mesh used in the seepage
analysis to be adapted to the deforming bank profile,
thereby allowing for the possibility of feedbacks to occur
between simulated bank stability, fluvial erosion and pore
water pressure fields. Having outlined the simulations, we
go on to analyze the results to explore the consequences of
some of these key feedbacks.
2. Methods
[6] In this paper we seek to develop insight into the
dynamics of bank erosion by developing simulations that
couple a fluvial erosion model with a finite element seepage
analysis and limit equilibrium methods for evaluating bank
stability. The approach involves applying these three sub-
models at each of a series of discrete time steps throughout a
flow event hydrograph (Figure 1). This study therefore
builds on previous models [Darby and Thorne, 1996;
Langendoen, 2000; Simon et al., 2006] which consider
the combined effects of fluvial erosion and mass wasting,
but differs in that a finite element seepage analysis is also
included to account for the influence of pore water pressure
in controlling the onset of mass wasting. Some previous
studies [Rinaldi and Casagli, 1999; Casagli et al., 1999;
Simon et al., 1999; Rinaldi et al., 2004] have analyzed this
latter effect, but only in the context of river banks that are
not deformed by fluvial erosion. To our knowledge, ours is
therefore the first study to fully couple all three relevant
process submodels, though one study [Simon et al., 2006]
has combined measured pore water pressure data with
fluvial erosion and bank stability models. This section
details the submodels and their parameterization, focusing
on how the finite element seepage and bank stability
analyses are applied in a form that can accommodate the
effects of fluvial erosion.
2.1. Study Site Description
[7] The study site investigated herein, the Sieve River, is
located within the mountain belt of the Northern Apennines
(Figure 2a), and has been described in previous papers [e.g.,
Rinaldi et al., 2004]. The Sieve River (840 km2) is the main
tributary of the Arno (Tuscany, Central Italy) and at the
study site presents a single-thread, sinuous pattern, with bed
sediments predominantly composed of gravel, and a chan-
nel gradient of 0.0030. Mean daily discharge at the study
reach, which is located close to the basin outlet (830 km2),
is 15 m3 s
1, while the 2-year return period peak flow (Q2)
is 410 m3 s
1. The eroding banks have an average height
ranging between 5.00 and 5.50 m and are layered, with the
bank material stratigraphy (defined by grain size analyses
combined with the results of one static and six dynamic
penetration tests) arranged as shown in Figure 2b. Thus the
bank in question comprises a cohesive upper part overlying
a gravel toe as is commonly the case in upland and
piedmont zones in Europe and elsewhere, but it is distinct
F03022 DARBY ET AL.: COUPLED BANK EROSION SIMULATIONS F03022

Figure 2. Sieve River study reach showing (a) location of the reach within the Sieve basin (area 1 is
lacustrine, fluvio-lacustrine, and alluvial deposits of the Upper Pliocene and Quaternary; area 2 is
arenaceous-marly and calcaleous flysch formations of the Cretaceous and Miocene) and (b) arrangement
of the bank materials observed within the study reach.
from the fine-grained bank settings that are more usually
associated with lowland environments and which have been
the subject of related research [e.g., Simon et al., 1999,
2000; Simon and Collison, 2002].
[8] Of numerous cross sections surveyed along the reach,
a representative section was selected for further analysis by
choosing the profile with the rate of bank retreat that was
closest to the mean rate of bank retreat observed along the
reach as a whole. On the basis of the Q2 discharge values
referred to above, the reach has a rather high value of stream
power per unit bed area (350 W/m2). Mean rates of bank
erosion for most flows are nevertheless only moderate
(0.40 m/yr during February 1996 to February 2000), since
the study site is located in an almost straight reach, with
fluvial erosion, and shear and cantilever-type failures all
contributing to the observed retreat. The availability of data,
the presence of a range of interacting bank processes, and its
location within a straight reach (which simplifies the re-
quired hydraulic computations) makes the Sieve study site
ideal for this research.
2.2. Fluvial Erosion Model
[9] Fluvial bank erosion rates can be quantified using an
excess shear stress formula such as [Partheniades, 1965;
Arulanandan et al., 1980]
e ¼ kd ðt b
t c Þa ð1Þ
where e (m/s) is the fluvial bank erosion rate per unit time and
unit bank area, t b (Pa) is the boundary shear stress applied by
the flow, kd (m3/Ns) and t c (Pa) are erodibility parameters
(erodibility coefficient, kd, and critical shear stress, t c) and a
(dimensionless) is an empirically derived exponent, gener-
ally assumed to equal 1.0. Although equation (1) appears
simple, in practice it is necessary to define the erodibility
parameters and boundary shear stress. These are all highly
variable, helping to explain why observed rates of fluvial
erosion range over several orders of magnitude [Hooke,
1980]. Consequently fluvial erosion is predictable only to the
extent that the parameter values can be estimated accurately.
[10] For granular (noncohesive) sediments, critical shear
stress can be estimated by applying the same methods that
are used to predict the entrainment of bed material, albeit
with modifications to take into account the effect of bank
angle on the downslope component of the particle weight
[Lane, 1955] and the influence of packing and cementing
[e.g., Millar and Quick, 1993; Millar, 2000]. However,
there are no theoretical or empirical methods to determine
kd for granular sediments. Theoretical determination of
critical shear stress for cohesive materials is even more
complex, given that it is widely recognized that it depends
on several factors, including (amongst others) clay and
organic content, and the composition of interstitial fluids
[Arulanandan et al., 1980; Grissinger, 1982]. However,
recent studies have deployed in situ jet-testing devices [e.g.,
Hanson, 1990; Hanson and Simon, 2001] to obtain direct
measurements of both bank erodibility parameters [e.g.,
Dapporto, 2001]. Bearing these difficulties in mind, we
estimated the values of the erodibility parameters (kd and t c)
in equation (1) as follows:
[11] 1. Loose gravel. At the Sieve River study site a wedge
of loose gravel is located at the bank toe prior to a flow
event. We estimated the critical shear stress (t c = 27.9 Pa, see
Table 1) for this material using Lane [1955]. We assumed
that after this critical shear stress was exceeded, the material
was removed from the toe exposing the basal packed gravel
(layer 2) to the direct action of the flow.
[12] 2. Packed gravel. For this material, it is not possible to
apply the Lane [1955] equation because it is restricted to
conditions (not met for this layer) in which the bank angle is
less than the friction angle of the material. We therefore
estimated the critical shear stress (t c = 32.5 Pa, see Table 1)
using [Millar, 2000]
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
tc sin2 q
¼ 0:048 tan f0 1
2 0 ð2Þ
g ðs
1ÞD50bank sin f

3 of 15
F03022 DARBY ET AL.: COUPLED BANK EROSION SIMULATIONS
Table 1. Geotechnical and Hydraulic Characteristics of the Bank Materialsa
Sediment Layers
Parameter 1 2
Effective cohesion, c0, kPa n/a n/a
Effective friction angle, f0, deg n/a n/a
Matric suction angle, fb, deg n/a n/a
Unit weight, g, kN/m3 n/a n/a
Porosity, n, % 35.0 35.0
Saturated hydraulic conductivity, ksat, m/s 6.0  10
4 1.0  10
4 1.4  10
6 ± 7.8  10
7
Critical shear stress, t c, Pa 27.9 32.5

6
3
Erodibility coefficient, kd, m /Ns n/a 1.3  10
a
The positions and thicknesses of the sediment layers 1, 2, and 3 are illustrated in Figure 3; n/a means not applicable.
where D50bank (0.0187 m) is the median grain size of the
bank material, f0 (82°) is an equivalent friction angle of
material, estimated from the steepest angle that the bank
forms at the bankfull waterline [Millar, 2000], q (70°) is
the bank angle, g is the unit weight of water, assumed here
to be 9810 N/m3, and s is the specific gravity of the
sediment, assumed here to be 2.65. The erodibility coef-
ficient (kd = 1.3  10
6, see Table 1) was then determined
via model calibration (i.e., by forcing best agreement
between calculated and measured bank toe retreat).
[13] 3. Cohesive portion of the bank. For these materials,
both erodibility parameters were estimated by averaging the
results from a series of four jet tests (Table 1). As is commonly
the case [e.g., Hanson and Simon, 2001; Dapporto, 2001]
error estimates (Table 1) indicate a substantial degree (±39%
for tc and ±48% for kd) of natural variability. However, since
the primary purpose of this paper is to develop and demon-
strate the fully coupled approach, for reasons of simplicity we
ignore this source of uncertainty and conduct a single set of
simulations using only the mean parameter values.
[14] To characterize the near-bank shear stresses exerted
on the river banks during the simulated event we adopted
the following approach. It is important to note that shear
stress and therefore lateral erosion was computed for each
time step of the discretized hydrographs, following the
procedure shown in Figures 1 and 3a. Boundary shear stress
was initially estimated using t mean = gRS, where t mean =
mean boundary shear stress (Pa), g = unit weight of the
water (N/m3), R = hydraulic radius (m), and S = energy
slope (m/m). To transform t mean to the near-bank shear
stress, we selected a function describing the distribution of
boundary shear stress around the wetted perimeter. Numer-
ous experimental studies have attempted to derive such a
function, but most have been conducted in trapezoidal
flumes with gentle bank slopes. In this study we therefore
used a function (Figure 3a) obtained from laboratory flume
experiments [Leutheusser, 1963] within straight, rectangu-
lar, channels with vertical banks, which provides a closer
analogy to the near-vertical bank encountered at the Sieve
River. The Leutheusser distribution function (Figure 3a)
was applied at each of 32 computational nodes spaced apart
up the bank profile at a uniform vertical distance of 0.15 m.
F03022
3 Notes
2.0 Data based on a single triaxial test
35 Data based on a single triaxial test
15 – 35 See text for explanation
15.1 – 19.3 Data based on a single soil sample removed from
layer 3 during dry (low value) and saturated
(high value) conditions, respectively
39.5 Data based on single samples removed from
each layer
Values for layer 3 are the mean and standard
deviation (quoted range) of 9 Amoozemeter tests
and 3 open single ring infiltrometer tests. See text
for details concerning layers 1 and 2
1.8 ± 0.7 Values for layer 3 are the mean and standard
deviation (quoted range) of 4 jet tests
5.4  10
6 ± 2.6  10
6 Values for layer 3 are the mean and standard
deviation (quoted range) of 4 jet tests
This procedure is clearly an idealization of the actual near-
bank shear stress distribution, but was used simply to
demonstrate the methodological approach required to com-
bine the fluvial erosion and mass-wasting process models.
Having obtained the near-bank shear stress, the bank profile
was deformed by fluvial shear erosion estimated using
equation (1).
2.3. Modeling Saturated and Unsaturated Flow
[15] Changes in pore water content and pressures are
recognized as one of the most important factors controlling
the onset and timing of bank collapse [Thorne, 1982;
Springer et al., 1985]. Pore water has at least four main
effects: (1) reducing shear strength (under conditions of
positive pore water pressure), (2) increasing the unit weight
of the bank material, (3) providing an additional destabiliz-
ing force due to the presence of water in tension cracks, and
(4) providing additional (stabilizing or destabilizing) seep-
age forces. A crucial point when accounting for pore water
pressures is their transient character, driven as they are by
dynamic hydrological variables (rainfall, as well as the
varying level of the water in the river). The actual mecha-
nisms and timing of bank failures induced by pore water
pressure effects are therefore difficult to predict if their
temporal changes are not accounted for [Rinaldi and Casagli,
1999; Casagli et al., 1999; Simon et al., 2000, 2006]. For
this reason, bank stability response during flow events
requires knowledge of the dynamics of saturated and
unsaturated seepage flows. Herein we follow previous
studies [e.g., Dapporto et al., 2001; Dapporto, 2003;
Rinaldi et al., 2001, 2004] that have modeled pore water
pressure distributions in riverbanks using the software
SEEP/W [Geo-Slope International, 2001a]. The software
performs a two-dimensional, finite element seepage analysis
using the governing equations of motion (Darcy’s law) and
mass conservation, the latter expressed here in a form
extended to unsaturated conditions [Richards, 1931;
Fredlund and Rahardjo, 1993] as
   
@ @H @ @H @q
kx þ ky þQ¼ ð3Þ
@x @x @y @y @t
4 of 15
F03022 DARBY ET AL.: COUPLED BANK EROSION SIMULATIONS F03022

Figure 3. Overview of the coupled bank erosion analysis for the Sieve River study site: (a) method of
estimating fluvial erosion; (b) geometry of the finite element seepage analysis, indicating the different
types of assigned boundary conditions (bank profile and bank top boundaries are represented by solid and
open circles, respectively; all the other boundary nodes are zero flux boundaries) and sediment horizons;
and (c) slide- and cantilever-failure mass wasting analyses applied to the upper cohesive part of the river
bank (sediment layer 3). Terms are defined as follows: C*, effective cohesion; CT, total cohesion; f0,
effective friction angle; fb, friction angle in terms of matric suction; g, bulk unit weight; L, length of the
failure surface for the cantilever failure block; A, area of the layer i of the cantilever failure block; t c,
critical shear stress to entrain the bank material; kd, erodibility coefficient; LE, lateral erosion increment
simulated in the time step; e, bank erosion rate; Dt, time step; t b, shear stress exerted on the river bank;
t mean, mean boundary shear stress.

5 of 15
F03022 DARBY ET AL.: COUPLED BANK EROSION SIMULATIONS F03022

Figure 4. Bank material characteristics at the Sieve River study site showing (a) grain size distributions
of each layer (1, 2, and 3, as illustrated in Figure 3) of bank sediment, based on bulk samples collected
from each layer; (b) soil water characteristic curves; and (c) hydraulic conductivity functions for each of
the bank sediments. Terms are defined as follows: d, grain size; ua, pore air pressure; u, pore water
pressure; q, volumetric water content; k, hydraulic conductivity.

where H = total head (m), kx = hydraulic conductivity in
the x direction (m/s), ky = hydraulic conductivity in the
y direction (m/s), Q = unit flux passing in or out of an
elementary cube (in this case an elementary square, given
that the equation is in two dimensions) (m2/m2s), q =
volumetric water content (m3/m3), and t = time (s).Critical
to the success of the modeling is accurate parameterization of
the hydraulic and physical properties of the bank sediments. It
is also necessary to appropriately set the initial and boundary
conditions, and to discretize (Figure 3b) equation (3). Each of
these aspects is now considered.
[16] Parameterization of the hydraulic and physical prop-
erties of the bank sediments (Figure 4 and Table 1)
primarily involves defining the relations between hydraulic
conductivity (k) and pore water pressure (u), and between
volumetric moisture content (q) and pore water pressure for
each layer of sediment. Accurate parameterization of these
relations, referred to here as the conductivity (k-u) and soil
characteristic (q-u) curves, respectively, is important be-
cause simulated pore pressures are highly sensitive to these
hydraulic functions [Rinaldi et al., 2004]. The soil charac-
teristic (q-u) curves (Figure 4b) were constructed via direct
measurements of pore water pressure (by deployment of
tensiometer arrays) and water content values (by removal of
soil samples for standard laboratory analysis) over a sea-
sonal cycle. The k-u curves (Figure 4c) were estimated
following procedures described in Rinaldi et al. [2004]. In
summary, a range of empirical relationships [Green and
Corey, 1971; Van Genuchten, 1980; Fredlund et al., 1994]
was used to model possible forms of the k-u relations, based
on measured grain size distributions as determined from
bulk samples extracted from each horizon (Figure 4a). For
the cohesive layer 3 that is central to the stability analyses
undertaken herein, the resulting k-u relations were then
constrained (by displacing the curves vertically) to match
measured values of saturated hydraulic conductivity
(Table 1) obtained in situ using a series of 9 Amoozemeter
[Amoozegar, 1989] and 3 open single ring infiltrometer
[Daniel, 1987] tests. Consistent with the rationale adopted
in section 2.2, we undertook a single set of simulations
based on the median k-u relations (Figure 4c) from the
resulting range. As noted above, model results are sensitive
to the k-u relation, but we have confidence in the parame-
terization as the range of modeled k-u curves was found to
be small and sensitivity tests indicate that the results
reported below are not materially affected.
[17] Having defined the bank sediment properties, finite
element seepage analyses were performed by discretizing
the river banks into a series of finite elements, and assigning
k-u and q-u functions to each defined layer of bank material.
For this study we used a mesh comprising 1600 quadrilateral
and triangular finite elements (Figure 3b). This mesh is
considerably finer in resolution than the 517 element mesh
used at the Sieve River study site in an earlier study [Rinaldi
et al., 2004] in which a constant bank profile was assumed,
but the increased computational requirements are not prob-
lematic with modern desktop computers. We return to the
significance of the mesh resolution in the next section.
[18] Regarding the boundary conditions employed along
the borders of the finite element grid, for bank profile nodes
(indicated as closed circles on Figure 3b) a total head versus
time function was used to represent the flow hydrograph of
the simulated event, the latter being defined using 15-min
resolution time series data obtained from pressure trans-
ducers installed in the channel adjacent to the bank. To
simulate the effects of infiltrating rainfall, a rainfall intensity
versus time function was used along the bank top nodes
(indicated as open circles on Figure 3b), using 15-min
resolution time series data obtained from an automated rain
gauge installed at the study site. Zero flux boundary con-
ditions were assigned along the remaining vertical and
horizontal boundaries of the finite element grid. This
approach follows Rinaldi et al. [2004], who argued that
the zero flux assumption has little affect on simulated pore
pressures in the area of interest, namely the cohesive upper
part of the bank. Initial conditions were defined using the
groundwater level measured before the start of the flow
event using piezometers installed in the banks (Figure 3b).
[19] The seepage analysis is performed by discretizing a
specific flow event hydrograph into a series of time steps. For
this study we selected a single peak flow event (Q = 790 m3/s),
that occurred during 18–20 November 1999. This event

6 of 15
F03022 DARBY ET AL.: COUPLED BANK EROSION SIMULATIONS F03022

Figure 5. Flow hydrograph and rainfall time series for the investigated flow event (18 – 20 November
1999) on the Sieve River.

represents a large magnitude (16-year RI) flood, providing a
case study wherein high rates of fluvial erosion induce mass
failures. The flow hydrograph and rainfall inputs for this
period were discretized into 25 time steps, with shorter time
steps during phases of rapidly varying flow (Figure 5).
2.4. Mesh Adaptation
[20] The seepage analysis described above is identical to
previous studies [Dapporto et al., 2001; Dapporto, 2003;
Rinaldi et al., 2001, 2004] that maintain a constant bank
profile. However, in this study bank profiles are deformed
to accord with fluvial erosion and/or mass wasting (see
below) simulated at the end of each discrete time step.
Accordingly, special attention must be paid to the manner in
which the finite element mesh is adapted to the new bank
geometry. Finite element mesh adaptation was achieved in
this study using two manual procedures (Figure 6):
[21] 1. If the magnitude of the simulated fluvial erosion
(FE) is less than the width of the boundary cell (CW), the
boundary node is shifted horizontally inward by an amount
equal to the simulated fluvial erosion (Figure 6b). This
scheme has the advantage that the shifted node retains its
status as a bank profile, so that the associated boundary
condition does not change, but it necessitates manual
remeshing at the end of each time step. Furthermore, as
finite elements in the seepage model cannot be destroyed,
this scheme cannot be applied if the increment of simulated
fluvial erosion is greater than the thickness of the boundary
cell.
[22] 2. For the second case (FE  CW), the change in grid
geometry is simulated artificially by adjusting (again, man-
ually) the hydraulic conductivity and volumetric water
content of eroded cell(s) to replicate the conductivity and
saturated state of subaqueous in-channel cells (Figure 6c).
This was achieved by assigning k-u and q-u functions
appropriate for a (hypothetical) coarse sediment, so that
the behavior of the cells is that of a very permeable material
(in practical terms, the water level within this material is
equal to the river stage). Elements exposed by fluvial
erosion are then updated with new bank profile (total head
versus time) boundary conditions. This scheme contrasts
with the first in that the status and associated boundary
conditions of the adjusted nodes must be updated manually,

Figure 6. Illustration of the two possible schemes used to adapt the finite element mesh to an increment
(FE) of simulated fluvial erosion: (a) unmodified near-bank cells prior to fluvial erosion; (b) scheme 1, in
which the bank profile nodes (indicated by the large solid circles) are displaced inward by an amount
equal to the simulated fluvial erosion; and (c) scheme 2, in which the geometry of the original mesh
remains unchanged but the physical properties of the ‘‘eroded’’ cells are updated and boundary conditions
are assigned to the newly exposed bank profile nodes (indicated by the large solid circles).

7 of 15
F03022 DARBY ET AL.: COUPLED BANK EROSION SIMULATIONS
albeit without the need to remesh at the end of each time
step.
[23] That both schemes involve manually updating the
mesh and/or boundary conditions is a clear disadvantage in
that the procedures require significant investments of oper-
ator time. However, manual remeshing is a necessary
consequence of employing SEEP/W, as users cannot access
the source code and implement customized, automated,
mesh generation algorithms. Which of the two meshing
schemes is adopted depends on the relative scales of the
boundary cells and simulated fluvial erosion in a discrete
time step. Thus coarse (CW  FE) elements on the bank
profile cause the first scheme (Figure 6b) to be adopted,
whereas the second scheme (Figure 6c) is associated with
fine resolution elements and/or high fluvial erosion rates
(CW < FE). The second scheme is advantageous in the
sense that manually updating the element properties and
boundary conditions is much simpler than manually
remeshing, but it requires the use of much higher resolution
finite element grids than those used in past studies. This
constraint can, to some extent, be relaxed in the first
scheme, but it is more labor intensive than the second in
that manual updating of the mesh is required at the end of
each time step during which fluvial erosion and/or mass
wasting is predicted to occur. Note that in the fully coupled
simulations reported below (scenario 3 in section 3, below)
the bank profile is deformed after 15 of the 25 time steps.
For this reason we found it significantly easier to utilize the
high-resolution mesh as this enabled us to manually update
the boundary conditions (scheme 2) rather than the mesh
itself, making the task manageable.
2.5. Riverbank Stability Analyses
[24] The pore water pressure distributions obtained by the
seepage analysis in each time step are used as input data for
the bank stability analyses, thus providing one of the two
key factors that force a transient response in bank stability
through the flow event. The second forcing factor is, of
course, the deformation of the bank profile by fluvial
erosion, details of which were provided in subsection 2.2.
[25] Two specific mechanisms of bank failure were mod-
eled in this study (Figure 3c). First, the software SLOPE/W
[Geo-Slope International, 2001b] was used for the applica-
tion of limit equilibrium methods to determine stability with
respect to slide-type failures. The factor of safety was, in all
cases reported herein, computed by the Morgenstern-Price
method, with the Mohr-Coloumb criterion in terms of
effective stress used for portions of the bank with positive
pore water pressures, while the Fredlund et al. [1978]
criterion was used for parts of the bank with negative pore
water pressures, the latter being expressed as
t ¼ c0 þ ðs
ua Þ tan f0 þ ðua
uÞ tan fb ð4Þ
where t = shear strength (kPa), c0 = effective cohesion
(kPa), s = normal stress (kPa), ua = pore air pressure (kPa),
f0 = effective friction angle (°), u = pore water pressure
(kPa) and fb = angle (°) expressing the rate of increase in
strength relative to the matric suction (ua
u).
[26] Second, the analysis of Thorne and Tovey [1981] was
used to determine bank stability with respect to cantilever-
type failures. We analyzed only one of the three possible
8 of 15
F03022
cantilever failure mechanisms defined by Thorne and Tovey
[1981], namely the shear-type failure, primarily for reasons
of simplicity (the other two mechanisms, toppling and
tensile failures, respectively, are more complex to model
for the unsaturated conditions of interest here). This is not a
major limitation as shear-type failures appear to be the most
common observed at the study site, though it is admittedly
sometimes difficult to discriminate between shear versus
toppling failures in the field. What is clear is that tensile
failures are rarely observed. For shear-type cantilever fail-
ures (Figure 3c) the factor of safety can be written as
P
Li CTi
i
Fs ¼ P ð5Þ
g i Ai
where Li is the vertical length (layer i) of the cantilever
block (m), CTi is the total cohesion (layer i) of the
cantilever block (kPa), g i is the unit weight (layer i) of
the cantilever block (kN/m3), and Ai is the cross-sectional
area (layer i) of the cantilever block (m2). Note that the total
cohesion is the sum of the effective and apparent cohesion,
the latter being calculated from the third term on the right
hand side of equation (4) according to the pore water
pressure distribution in the cantilever block.
[27] Both stability analyses were performed for the cohe-
sive part of the bank that is subject to mass failure (Figure 3c).
A single set of sediment samples were removed from this
horizon to estimate the soil density and shear strength
(Table 1) used in the stability analyses. The latter was
defined using a triaxial shear test to estimate the effective
cohesion and effective friction angle components of shear
strength. Unlike the finite element seepage analysis, the
bank stability model requires no computational grid and in
each time step computations were simply performed with a
bank profile shape updated in accordance with the pattern of
fluvial erosion simulated in that time step, together with the
specified geotechnical properties of the soils and the pore
water pressure field imported from the SEEP/W output in
the corresponding time step. It should be noted that the bank
stability analysis also includes the stabilizing hydrostatic
confining pressures exerted by the water in the river
channel. However, the variation of unit weight with chang-
ing soil moisture content during an event, and the variability
of the parameter fb, also require consideration. For each
time step and sediment layer of the simulation, the unit
weight was updated using
g ¼ g d þ 9:81q ð6Þ
where g is the unit weight of the soil during the time step
(kN/m3), g d is the unit weight of soil under completely dry
conditions (kN/m3), and q is the volumetric water content
(m3/m3) during the time step, which is estimated from the
soil water characteristic curve using the simulated pore
water pressure in that time step. In contrast, a function
relating fb to the matric suction was defined on the basis of
the soil water characteristic curves, which has the effect of
varying fb from a minimum value of 15° to a maximum
value equal to f0 (35°) when the soil approaches saturation.
This was achieved by dividing the failure envelope into a
series of linear segments with varying fb angles and
F03022 DARBY ET AL.: COUPLED BANK EROSION SIMULATIONS
Figure 7. Simulated fluvial erosion for the investigated flow event (18 – 20 November 1999) on the
Sieve River.
different intercepts (c*), each segment corresponding to a
range of matric suction [Fredlund and Rahardjo, 1993].
[28] Both stability analyses were performed at the end of
each time step, with the most likely failure mechanism
being discriminated by the method that provides the lowest
simulated factor of safety. For time steps in which the
simulated minimum factor of safety was less than the
critical value of 1, the bank is unstable and the bank profile
was updated in accordance with the geometry of the
simulated failure (Figure 1). In doing so it was assumed
that failed material is completely and instantaneously re-
moved by the flow. This is reasonable for the Sieve study
site because field observations indicate that failed debris
stored at the bank toe has very low effective cohesion and a
high degree of saturation, so the material is quickly disag-
gregated and removed by the flow.
3. Results
[29] In this section we present simulations of bank
response during and after the flow event of 18– 20 November
1999. Simulations are undertaken for three scenarios:
[30] 1. There is no fluvial erosion and the bank profile
remains constant throughout. This scenario emulates the
approach adopted in many previous studies.
[31] 2. There is no fluvial erosion but the bank profile is
deformed by simulated mass wasting.
[32] 3. The bank profile is allowed to freely deform in
response to both simulated fluvial erosion and mass wasting.
[33] Comparing simulation results from these scenarios
enables the effects of feedbacks between fluvial erosion,
mass wasting and the evolving pore water pressure field to
be isolated.
3.1. Simulated Fluvial Erosion
[34] Simulated fluvial erosion (Figure 7), which is
common to scenarios 2 and 3, commences at time step 5
(t = 7.5 hours), when the boundary shear stress exceeds
the critical conditions for incipient motion of the loose
9 of 15
F03022
gravel and the wedge of loose sediment at the bank toe is
therefore removed. Subsequently, the packed gravel at the
toe is directly exposed to fluvial action and, by time step 7
(t = 8.5 hours), boundary shear stress exceeds the critical
value for incipient motion of this material. At the same
time, the river stage just exceeds the contact between the
gravel and the upper cohesive part of the bank, and the
boundary shear stress is sufficient to trigger erosion of
the cohesive sediment. Consequently, the fluvial erosion
rate of both layers rapidly increases, in phase with in-
creasing stage (Figure 7). The rate of fluvial erosion of the
basal packed gravel is higher than for the cohesive layer,
promoting the generation of an overhanging bank profile,
and reaches a maximum during time step 12 (t = 12 hours),
the peak flow stage. Most (about 60%) of the simulated
fluvial erosion occurs during the peak flow phase, between
time steps 12 and 14 (t = 12 to 15 hours). As stage recedes,
fluvial erosion of the upper cohesive part is terminated by
t = 17.5 hours, with fluvial erosion of the packed gravel at the
toe continuing until t = 20.5 hours. Overall, the flow event
induces a mean retreat along the bank profile of 0.90 m.
3.2. Pore Water Pressure
[35] Changes in riverbank pore water pressures are usually
considered to be controlled by rainfall and river stage
variations. However, as shown here bank profile deformation
due to fluvial erosion and mass wasting may also play a role
in the transient evolution of bank pore water pressures. For
reasons of clarity, in this section we focus attention on the
differences between the two ‘‘extreme’’ scenarios 1 (where
the bank profile is constant throughout the simulation), and 3
(where the bank is deformed by both fluvial erosion and mass
wasting).
[36] The pore water pressures simulated within the cohe-
sive layer of the Sieve river bank are presented in Figure 8.
In both scenarios, at the beginning of the simulation (from
time step 0 to 6, t = 0 to 8 hours) changes in soil moisture
content are caused by rainfall infiltration into the soil,
leading to an initial reduction of matric suction. The wetting
F03022 DARBY ET AL.: COUPLED BANK EROSION SIMULATIONS F03022

Figure 8. Simulated bank pore water pressure distributions for selected time steps of the Sieve River
simulation for scenarios 1 (no bank deformation), 2 (bank profile deformed only by simulated mass
wasting), and 3 (bank profile deformed by both simulated fluvial erosion and mass wasting). Locations
and associated factor of safety values for the simulated slide and cantilever failure surfaces are also
illustrated, as are the positions of the groundwater surface. For scenarios 2 and 3, the initial bank profile is
also indicated.

front is partially saturated, with a mean suction of about
2 kPa (Figure 8, time step 6).
[37] As the flow stage rises (from time steps 6 to 12,
t = 8 to 12 hours) and eventually exceeds the contact
between the packed gravel at the toe and the cohesive part
of the bank, a steep wetting front develops at the contact
between the river and the bank profile, inducing a rise in the
groundwater level. From this moment the pore water
pressure distribution is characterized by a minimum in the
central part of the cohesive layer and by higher values in the
upper right and lower regions, due to the infiltration of both
rainfall and river flow induced wetting fronts. However,
subsequently the two scenarios diverge (see Figure 8, time
steps 17 and 20). In scenario 3, the river flow induced
wetting front and bank retreat have comparable rates of
motion: As a consequence, the bank profile retreats into
relatively dry areas of the bank, inducing lower pore water
pressures along the bank profile. In terms of the effect of
this on bank stability, the destabilizing effect of bank pore
water pressure is reduced in scenario 3; however, as
described in the following section, bank steepening due to
fluvial erosion outweighs this effect and still promotes a net
decrease in bank stability.
[38] During the hydrograph’s falling limb the groundwater
level and pore water pressure distribution lower progres-
sively, with notable differences between the two scenarios.
In scenario 1, the groundwater level initially recedes at a
slower rate than the hydrograph, reaching a new equilibrium
with river stage only by time step 20 (t = 18.5 hours). In
contrast, in scenario 3 the groundwater level remains in
equilibrium with the river stage during the whole drawdown
phase (Figure 8, time steps 17 and 20).
[39] To highlight differences in pore water pressures
arising between the two scenarios we extracted time series
of pore water pressure along the sliding surface (excluding
the part occupied by the tension crack) and computed the
integral of the simulated values (shaded areas in the sketch
of Figure 9). As a proxy for the stress exerted by pore
water along the sliding surface, this index (Pw) has
significance in the assessment of bank stability conditions.
Figure 9a shows the trend of integral values computed
only on the saturated portion of the sliding surface (Pw(+),
highlighted as the dark grey area in the sketch) for both
scenarios, while time series of the integral value across the
entire sliding surfaces (Pw, sum of the light and dark grey
areas) are shown in Figure 9b.
[40] In interpreting these time series it should be noted
that in both scenarios the geometry of the sliding surface
varies throughout the simulation. However, positive pore
water pressures develop in a limited part of the bank close to
the river, so changes in sliding surface geometry only have
minor effects on the computation of the Pw(+) values.
Values of Pw(+) in scenario 1 are always higher than the
values computed in scenario 3 (Figure 9a). The importance
of Pw(+) as a measure of pore water pressure effects on bank
stability is apparent in the computation of the factor of
safety, where the ‘‘weight’’ of positive pore water pressures
is higher than that of negative pressures, the former being
multiplied by tanf0 (0.70 in this study, see Table 1), the
latter by tanfb (0.47 to 0.70 in this study, see Table 1).

10 of 15
F03022 DARBY ET AL.: COUPLED BANK EROSION SIMULATIONS F03022

Figure 9. Evolution of average pore water pressure values integrated along the failure surface in the
Sieve River simulation for scenarios 1 (no bank deformation) and 3 (bank profile deformed by fluvial
erosion and mass wasting): (a) pore water pressure integral along the saturated portion of the failure
surface and (b) pore water pressure integral along the entire failure surface (excluding tension cracks).

[41] Pore water pressure integrals computed along the
whole failure surface (Pw) exhibit a less regular trend
(Figure 9b), the curve for the deforming bank profile
(scenario 3) alternating in position above and below the
curve for the constant bank profile (scenario 1). During the
initial drawdown phase, the former is characterized by
lower Pw values; this is not surprising considering the
differences in pore water pressure distributions already
described. However, at time step 17 (t = 16.5 hours) Pw
suddenly increases and approximates the value of the
constant bank profile line. This apparently abnormal trend
is due to a change in the geometry of the computed sliding
surface, which has a shorter length and a deeper tension
crack line than in the previous time steps.
3.3. Bank Stability and Sediment Entrainment
[42] Time series of factor of safety with respect to the
slide and cantilever failure mechanisms, and associated
volumes of sediment entrained by each process, are shown
in Figure 10. Factor of safety values in scenario 1 are purely
hypothetical because the two failure mechanisms are mod-
eled independently (so there is no consequence if one of the
factor of safety curves falls below the critical value of
unity), but they present a reference for comparison with
the other scenarios. In scenario 1 (Figure 10a) the trend of
factor of safety with respect to slide failure follows the
hydrograph shape, due to the stabilizing influence of the
hydrostatic confining pressure exerted by water in the river
[see also Simon et al., 1999, Figure 6.6b, p.137]. As flow
stage increases, the factor of safety rises from 1.25 initially
to a maximum of 5.31 at the event peak, prior to falling on
the recession limb. The factor of safety (0.98) at the end of
the event (t = 40 hours) is lower than at the start because
of the decreased extent of negative, and increased extent of
positive, pore water pressures, caused by the infiltration of
rainfall- and river flow – induced wetting fronts into the
bank. The onset of instability with respect to slide failure
occurs on the falling limb of the hydrograph (t = 16.5 hours),
similar to other studies [Casagli et al., 1999; Simon et al.,
1999; Simon and Collison, 2002; Rinaldi et al., 2004] that
have modeled bank stability variations without considering
the effects of fluvial erosion.
[43] In contrast, factor of safety with respect to cantilever
failure declines on the hydrograph’s rising limb, falling
from 2.23 initially to a value denoting instability (0.99) at
the event peak (t = 12 hours). This is caused by a rapid rise
in pore water pressure along the failure surface, due to the
cantilever failure surface’s location closer to the advancing
wetting front. After the hydrograph peak the flow recedes,
but pore pressures remain elevated. Hence there is a period
in which the downward trend in stability continues until the
factor of safety minimizes (0.51) during t = 13 to 15.5 hours.
The factor of safety subsequently recovers, but stability is
not regained until t = 29 hours, when the rate of flow
recession slows sufficiently for the slowly equilibrating pore
pressure field to restabilize the bank (see Figures 8 and 9).
[44] Scenario 1 is thus characterized by phases of bank
instability at the peak of the event and on the falling limb of
the hydrograph for cantilever and slide-type failures, re-
spectively. Although the results for this scenario are biased
in the sense that the bank profile shape is not updated in
accordance with these predicted failures, they show how
stability fluctuations for each failure mechanism are driven
by the evolving pore water and hydrostatic confining
pressure fields. In particular, the distinctive response of
each failure type is conditioned by the positions of the
respective failure surfaces relative to the advancing wetting
fronts. The shallow-seated cantilever failure surface is
located close to the advancing wetting fronts, so bank
response is more sensitive to pore water pressure. In
contrast the deep-seated slide failure surface is relatively
distant from the wetting front, causing a lag in the failure
response to pore water pressure changes induced by varia-
tions in river stage.
[45] Factor of safety time series in scenario 2 (bank
profile deformed by mass wasting only) are identical to
those simulated in scenario 1 until time step 12 (t = 12 hours),
when a cantilever failure is triggered (Figure 10c). In this
scenario the cantilever failure results in the collapse and
removal of the overhanging upper, cohesive, part of the
bank. The absence of fluvial erosion, however, prevents the

11 of 15
F03022 DARBY ET AL.: COUPLED BANK EROSION SIMULATIONS F03022

Figure 10. Simulated (left) bank stability and (right) sediment entrainment responses for the 18 –
20 November 1999 flow event on the Sieve River: (a, b) scenario 1 with the bank profile constant
throughout the simulation; (c, d) scenario 2 with the bank profile deformed by mass wasting; and (e, f )
scenario 3 with the bank profile deformed by both fluvial erosion and mass wasting. The event
hydrograph is also shown (solid lines). The dotted horizontal lines indicate the critical factor of safety
value of unity (Fs < 1 implies bank collapse), with the arrows indicating the onset of simulated failure
episodes. Note that factor of safety data for the cantilever failures are plotted only for those points in time
when a cantilevered (overhanging) bank profile is actually present. Also note that since the bank
geometry in scenario 1 is not updated, either in response to mass wasting or fluvial erosion, there is no
corresponding sediment entrainment time series (see inset in Figure 10b).

overhang from reforming, so that (unlike scenario 1) the
time series of factor of safety with respect to cantilever
failure is terminated at this point. In this scenario the change
in bank geometry also has an effect on the simulated factor
of safety with respect to the slide failure mechanism,
resulting in a substantial increase in stability (e.g., the factor
of safety at the peak of the flow event is 9.99 in scenario 2,
compared to a value of 5.31 in scenario 1). This increased
stability with respect to the slide failure in scenario 2 versus 1
is maintained throughout the recession limb of the hydro-
graph. Indeed, unlike scenario 1 the factor of safety with
respect to the slide failure mechanism does not fall below

12 of 15
F03022 DARBY ET AL.: COUPLED BANK EROSION SIMULATIONS
the critical value of unity, a minimum value of 1.25 instead
being attained by t = 18.5 hours.
[46] In the fully coupled scenario 3 (Figure 10e), the
factor of safety with respect to cantilever failure is initially
(t 8 hours) identical to that in scenarios 1 and 2, but
subsequently declines more rapidly, falling below the
critical value at t = 10.5 hours, before the corresponding
failure at the peak of the hydrograph (t = 12 hours) in
scenarios 1 and 2 (Figures 10a and 10c). Since the simulated
pore water pressures in scenario 3 are lower than in
scenarios 1 (see Figure 9a) and 2, this variation must be
caused by the rapid increase in bank shear stress and fluvial
erosion that is predicted to accompany the rise in stage (see
Figure 7). Subsequently, the bank remains unstable with
respect to cantilever failures until t = 16.5 hours as multiple
small-scale cantilevers form and fail. Recovery to a stable
condition (with respect to cantilever failure) also occurs
earlier than in scenario 1, a consequence of updating the
bank profile shape. Thus in scenario 3, multiple cantilever
failures are generated by the repeated collapse and refor-
mation (by fluvial erosion) of overhanging bank profiles.
[47] It is not possible, however, to compare the cantilever
factor of safety time series for the different scenarios
throughout the entire recessional limb because the analysis
is terminated at t = 16.5 hours by the onset of a slide failure
that reshapes the bank profile, removing the potential for
fluvial erosion to generate overhangs. Indeed, the onset of a
major slide failure in this scenario is distinct from scenario 2
(where fluvial erosion is absent, Figure 10c). It seems that
fluvial erosion, which is predicted to occur throughout the
flow event in scenario 3, deforms the bank profile suffi-
ciently to significantly reduce the factor of safety with
respect to the slide failure mechanism (e.g., a value of
4.08 at the peak of the hydrograph, compared to 5.31 and
9.99 in scenarios 1 and 2, respectively). This reduction is
‘‘significant’’ in the sense that by t = 16.5 hours, only
4.5 hours after the peak of the event, the combination of
reduced confining pressure, elevated pore pressures, and
fluvial erosion of the bank profile is sufficient to initiate a
major slide failure (Figure 10e), where no such failure
occurred previously (Figures 10a and 10c). This is very
similar to results published by Simon et al. [2006] for the
Upper Truckee River, California, in which measured pore
water pressure distributions were combined with simulated
bank toe erosion and bank stability analyses.
[48] Differences in the unit volumes of bank material
entrained in scenarios 2 and 3 are summarized in the
annotated insets in the figures (Figures 10d and 10f). These
show that the combined effects of fluvial erosion and mass
wasting in scenario 3 provide a total eroded sediment
volume (11.65 m3/m) some 33 times greater than the
scenario 2 simulations in which fluvial erosion is absent.
Clearly, most (9.18 m3/m) of this additional material is
eroded directly by hydraulic action, but significant addi-
tional (by a factor of about 7) volumes are also contributed
by mass wasting, of which about two thirds and one third
are attributable to the slide and cantilever failure mecha-
nisms, respectively. That high rates of fluvial erosion cause
an increase in the magnitude of bank erosion, both directly
and, via its influence on mass wasting, indirectly is not
surprising. However, the interaction of pore water pressure,
fluvial erosion and mass failure dynamics in the fully
13 of 15
F03022
coupled analysis (scenario 3, Figure 10f) is seen to provide
modified frequencies, timings and modes of erosion relative
to scenario 2 (Figure 10d). The significance of this point is
now discussed.
4. Concluding Discussion
[49] Our results (Figure 10) indicate that when bank
response models include feedbacks between fluvial ero-
sion, bank pore water pressure and mass wasting (scenario 3),
predictions of the modes (cantilever versus slide failures),
frequencies, magnitudes, and timings of bank erosion epi-
sodes are distinct from predictions made by neglecting such
effects (scenarios 1 and 2). It must be emphasized that the
scope of our simulations are, of course, limited to the
sedimentary conditions encountered at the Sieve River bank
study site, which comprises a cohesive upper layer overly-
ing a gravel toe. This arrangement is common in upland and
piedmont zones in Europe and elsewhere, but is distinct
from the fine-grained bank settings that are more usually
associated with lowland environments. The scope of the
present work is further restricted by our focus on a single,
exemplar, event hydrograph. This means that our key
findings might best be presented as tentative hypotheses
that require testing in a wider range of environments.
Nevertheless, if our findings are more widely transferable
then there are a number of implications with respect to
understanding the mechanisms by which bank materials
may be contributed to an alluvial stream, and in this section
we discuss these issues.
[50] Notwithstanding the preceding caveats, it can be
noted that some of our findings are consistent with previous
research [Rinaldi and Casagli, 1999; Casagli et al., 1999;
Simon et al., 1999; Simon and Collison, 2002; Rinaldi et al.,
2004] in that hydrologically driven variations in bank pore
water and hydrostatic confining pressures are key controls
on the transient response of mass wasting. Our simulations
also highlight the significant role that fluvial erosion can
have as a triggering mechanism for mass failure [Darby and
Thorne, 1996; Langendoen, 2000; Simon et al., 2006], with
significant additional volumes of mass wasted sediment
contributed as a result of a bank profile being destabilized
by fluvial erosion (Figure 10). However, the simulation data
also reveal a previously undocumented effect wherein the
evolving pore water pressure field in the near-stream region
of the bank is modulated by deformation of the bank profile.
Specifically, (positive) pore water pressure values in the
near-stream region are decreased below what they would be
in the absence of bank deformation because bank failure
and/or fluvial erosion expose interior regions with higher
values of matric suction. The magnitude of this effect is, in
these simulations, insufficient to cause a delay in the onset
of mass failure.
[51] The limited number of simulations in this study
makes it difficult to discriminate quantitatively the condi-
tions under which this modulating effect may be a more
significant control affecting the onset of bank instability.
However, in circumstances where fluvial erosion
(1) removes bank materials that are saturated or at least
partially saturated and (2) proceeds at a rate greater than
the advance of the wetting front induced by the presence of
flow within the channel, the effect is to remove regions of the
F03022 DARBY ET AL.: COUPLED BANK EROSION SIMULATIONS
bank face with relatively high pore pressures, ‘‘replacing’’
them with drier regions of reduced (or negative) pore
water pressure within the bank interior. In terms of bank
environments where such conditions might be favored,
flashy stream environments and/or banks composed of
erodible materials of low hydraulic conductivity are impor-
tant. In such cases the bank face would be prone to periods
of wetting that are sufficiently short in duration to maintain
a relatively dry bank interior. However, even in such cases if
the effect is to be significant (in the sense of being
sufficiently large to influence mass wasting; that is, the
factor of safety is modified in such a way that its value
crosses the critical value of unity) an additional necessary
condition is still required, namely that antecedent stability
conditions must be marginal (i.e., Fs
1). These constraints anism of erosion episodes in relation to the capacity of the
suggest that the circumstances under which fluvial erosion
acts to delay the onset of mass wasting may be restricted to
very specific bank settings or times.
[52] What is clear is that our fully coupled simulations
predict transient mass wasting responses that differ from
those studies that suggest that mass failure is essentially a
quasi-catastrophic event that occurs on the falling limb of
event hydrographs [e.g., Thorne, 1982; Huang, 1983;
Abam, 1997; Darby et al., 1998]. In this study mass wasting
instead occurs as a series of failure episodes, with progres-
sive fluvial erosion undermining the bank, modulating the
evolving pore water pressure field, and triggering failures
prior to, at, and subsequent to event peaks. What is not clear
from this preliminary investigation is whether this is gen-
eral, or whether our findings are specific to the hydrologic
and sedimentary setting of this study. Nevertheless, a focus
on the timing of mass wasting events, and specifically their
phasing in relation to the event hydrograph, is a generically
important aspect of bank erosion dynamics as it has a direct
bearing on the capacity of the flow to remove the coarse
fraction of the failed debris, with the potential for removal
significantly decreased if failure occurs late on the recession
limb [Rinaldi and Darby, 2007].
[53] The broader significance of these findings in relation
to the delivery of bank-derived material to the alluvial
sedimentary system can be explained with reference to the
concept of basal endpoint control [Carson and Kirkby,
1972; Thorne, 1982]. The basal endpoint concept empha-
sizes that the residence time of bank-derived material stored
in the basal zone is a critical factor controlling long-term
bank retreat rates. Neglecting the complicating effects of
variations in the caliber of the failed bank material [Wood et
al., 2001], basal storage of eroded sediment is favored for
riverbanks prone to large-scale slide failure(s), that deliver
large volumes of sediment, timed during the recession limb
of the hydrograph (when the erosivity of the flow is
declining). In contrast, bank environments favoring multiple
small-scale cantilever failures occurring before or at the
peak of the event would likely substantially reduce the
residence time of eroded bank material stored at the toe of
the bank.
[54] It can also be noted that fluvial erosion has the effect of
increasing the volume of sediment derived from mass wast-
ing (Figure 10), so it can be expected that the basal endpoint
status of riverbanks analyzed in this way (Figures 10e and
10f as well as studies by Darby and Thorne [1996],
Langendoen [2000], Simon et al. [2006], amongst others)
14 of 15
F03022
would be distinct from riverbanks represented using an
uncoupled approach (Figures 10a and 10c). However,
whether the additional material delivered to the toe by
fluvially triggered bank failures can be supplied to the in-
channel sediment transfer system will again depend on the
basal residence time of that material. Thus a fruitful avenue
for future research would be to quantify these residence
times. If this could be achieved it would provide the means
to explain how some rivers are able to both erode and
transmit bank sediments effectively enough to produce the
high sediment yields described in the introduction to this
paper. We suggest that the development of conceptual
sediment delivery models, which focus on characterizing
transient bank response (especially the phasing and mech-
flow to remove eroded material), would represent an ad-
vance toward this goal.
[55] Acknowledgments. This research was supported by the Royal
Society (Joint Project Grant 15077). We would also like to thank Rob
Millar and Andrew Simon for their constructive reviews.
References
Abam, T. K. S. (1997), Aspects of alluvial river bank recession: Some
examples from the Niger delta, Environ. Geol., 31, 211 – 220.
Abernethy, B., and I. D. Rutherfurd (2000), The effect of riparian tree roots
on the mass-stability of riverbanks, Earth Surf. Processes Landforms, 25,
921 – 937.
Amoozegar, A. (1989), A compact constant-head permeameter for measur-
ing saturated hydraulic conductivity of the vadose zone, J. Soil Sci. Soc.
Am., 53, 1356 – 1361.
Arulanandan, K., E. Gillogley, and R. Tully (1980), Development of a
quantitative method to predict critical shear stress and rate of erosion
of natural undisturbed cohesive soils, Rep. GL-80-5, U.S. Army Corps
of Eng., Waterways Exp. Station, Vicksburg, Miss.
Bull, L. J. (1997), Magnitude and variation in the contribution of bank
erosion to the suspended sediment load of the River Severn, UK, Earth
Surf. Processes Landforms, 22, 1109 – 1124.
Carson, M. A., and M. J. Kirkby (1972), Hillslope Form and Process,
Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, U. K.
Casagli, N., M. Rinaldi, A. Gargini, and A. Curini (1999), Pore water
pressure and streambank stability: Results from a monitoring site on
the Sieve River, Italy, Earth Surf. Processes Landforms, 24, 1095 – 1114.
Daniel, D. E. (1987), Hydraulic conductivity tests for clay liners, in
Geotechnical and Geohydrological Aspects of Waste Management, edited
by A. Van Zyl, pp. 825 – 844, Lewis, Chelsea, Minn.
Dapporto, S. (2001), Non-vertical jet testing of cohesive streambank toe
material, Sch. of Geogr., Univ. of Nottingham, Nottingham, U. K.
Dapporto, S. (2003), Processi di erosione e meccanismi di instabilità di
sponde fluviali: Monitoraggio, modellazione e analisi, Ph.D. thesis, Univ.
of Florence, Florence, Italy.
Dapporto, S., and M. Rinaldi (2003), Modelling of river bank retreat by
combining fluvial erosion, seepage and mass failure, Geophys. Res.
Abstr., 5, 03,425.
Dapporto, S., M. Rinaldi, and N. Casagli (2001), Mechanisms of failure and
pore water pressure conditions: Analysis of a riverbank along the Arno
River (central Italy), Eng. Geol., 61, 221 – 242.
Darby, S. E., and C. R. Thorne (1996), Numerical simulation of bed
topography and channel widening in straight sand-bed rivers. I: Model
development, J. Hydraul. Eng., 122, 184 – 193.
Darby, S. E., et al. (1998), River width adjustment II: Modeling. Final
report of the ASCE Task Committee on Hydraulics, Bank Mechanics
and Modeling of River Width Adjustment, J. Hydraul. Eng., 124,
903 – 917.
Darby, S. E., D. Gessler, and C. R. Thorne (2000), A computer program for
stability analysis of steep, cohesive riverbanks, Earth Surf. Processes
Landforms, 25, 175 – 190.
Eaton, B. C., M. Church, and R. G. Millar (2004), Rational regime model of
alluvial channel morphology and response, Earth Surf. Processes Land-
forms, 29, 511 – 529.
Fredlund, D. G., and H. Rahardjo (1993), Soil Mechanics for Unsaturated
Soils, John Wiley, New York.
Fredlund, D. G., N. R. Morgenstern, and R. A. Widger (1978), The shear
strength of unsaturated soils, Can. Geotech. J., 15, 312 – 321.
F03022 DARBY ET AL.: COUPLED BANK EROSION SIMULATIONS
Fredlund, D. G., A. Xing, and S. Huang (1994), Predicting the permeability
function for unsaturated soils using the soil-water characteristic curve,
Can. Geotech. J., 31, 533 – 546.
Geo-Slope International (2001a), SEEP/W for finite element seepage ana-
lysis, version 5, user manual, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Geo-Slope International (2001b), SLOPE/W for slope stability analysis,
version 5, user manual, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Goodson, J. M., A. M. Gurnell, P. G. Angold, and I. P. Morrissey (2002),
Riparian seed banks along the lower River Dove UK, Geomorphology,
47, 45 – 60.
Green, R. E., and J. C. Corey (1971), Calculation of hydraulic conductivity:
A further evaluation of some predictive methods, Proc. Soil Sci. Soc.
Am., 35, 3 – 8.
Green, T. R., S. G. Beavis, C. R. Dietrich, and A. J. Jakeman (1999),
Relating stream bank erosion to in-stream transport of suspended sedi-
ment, Hydrol. Processes, 13, 777 – 787.
Grissinger, E. H. (1982), Bank erosion of cohesive materials, in Gravel-Bed
Rivers, edited by R. D. Hey et al., pp. 273 – 287, John Wiley, Chichester,
U. K.
Hanson, G. J. (1990), Surface erodibility of earthen channels at high stres-
ses. part II—Developing an in situ testing device, Trans. ASAE, 33(1),
132 – 137.
Hanson, G. J., and A. Simon (2001), Erodibility of coesive streambeds in
the loess area of the midwestern USA, Hydrol. Processes, 15, 23 – 38.
Hooke, J. M. (1980), Magnitude and distribution of rates of river bank
erosion, Earth Surf. Processes Landforms, 5, 143 – 157.
Huang, Y. H. (1983), Stability Analysis of Earth Slopes, Van Nostrand
Reinhold, New York.
Lane, E. W. (1955), Design of stable channels, Trans. Am. Soc. Civ. Eng.,
120, 1234 – 1260.
Langendoen, E. J. (2000), CONCEPTS—Conservational Channel Evolu-
tion and Pollutant Transport System, Res. Rep. 16, Natl. Sediment. Lab.,
U.S. Dep. of Agric., Oxford, Miss.
Lawler, D. M. (2004), The importance of high-resolution monitoring in
erosion and deposition dynamics studies: Examples from estuarine and
fluvial systems, Geomorphology, 64, 1 – 23.
Lawler, D. M. (2005), Defining the moment of erosion: The principle of
thermal consonance timing, Earth Surf. Processes Landforms, 30, 1597 –
1615.
Lawler, D. M., L. Bull, and N. M. Harris (1997a), Bank erosion events and
processes in the Upper Severn, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 1, 523 – 534.
Lawler, D. M., C. R. Thorne, and J. M. Hooke (1997b), Bank erosion and
instability, in Applied Fluvial Geomorphology for River Engineering and
Management, edited by C. R. Thorne et al., pp. 137 – 172, John Wiley,
Chichester, U. K.
Leutheusser, H. J. (1963), Turbulent flow in rectangular ducts, J. Hydraul.
Div. Am. Soc. Civ. Eng., 89, 1 – 19.
Marron, D. C. (1992), Floodplain storage of mine tailings in the Belle
Fourche River, Earth Surf. Processes Landforms, 17, 675 – 685.
Millar, R. G. (2000), Influence of bank vegetation on alluvial channel
patterns, Water Resour. Res., 36, 1109 – 1118.
Millar, R. G., and M. C. Quick (1993), Effect of bank stability on geometry
of gravel rivers, J. Hydraul. Eng., 119, 1343 – 1363.
Mosselman, E. (1998), Morphological modeling of rivers with erodible
banks, Hydrol. Processes, 12, 1357 – 1370.
Osman, A. M., and C. R. Thorne (1988), Riverbank stability analysis.
I: Theory, J. Hydraul. Eng., 114, 134 – 150.
Partheniades, E. (1965), Erosion and deposition of cohesive soils, J. Hydraul.
Div. Am. Soc. Civ. Eng., 91, 105 – 139.
Reneau, S. L., P. G. Drakos, D. Katzman, D. V. Malmon, E. V. McDonald,
and R. T. Ryti (2004), Geomorphic controls on contaminant distribution
along an ephemeral stream, Earth Surf. Processes Landforms, 29, 1209 –
1223.
Richards, L. A. (1931), Capillary conduction of liquid through porous
medium, J. Phys., 1, 318 – 333.
Rinaldi, M., and N. Casagli (1999), Stability of streambanks formed in
partially saturated soils and effects of negative pore water pressures:
The Sieve River (Italy), Geomorphology, 26, 253 – 277.
Rinaldi, M., and S. E. Darby (2007), Modelling river bank erosion pro-
cesses and mass failure mechanisms: Progress towards fully-coupled
simulations, in Gravel-Bed Rivers 6—From Process Understanding to
15 of 15
F03022
the River Restoration, Dev. Earth Surf. Processes, vol. 11, edited by H.
Habersack, H. Piégay, and M. Rinaldi, pp. 217 – 243, Elsevier, Dordrecht,
Netherlands.
Rinaldi, M., S. Dapporto, and N. Casagli (2001), Monitoring and modeling
of unsaturated flow and mechanisms of riverbank failure in gravel bed
rivers, in Gravel Bed Rivers 2000 [CD-ROM], special publication, edited
by T. Noland and C. R. Thorne, N. Z., Hydrol. Soc., Wellington.
Rinaldi, M., N. Casagli, S. Dapporto, and A. Gargini (2004), Monitoring
and modeling of pore water pressure changes and riverbank stability
during flow events, Earth Surf. Processes Landforms, 29, 237 – 254.
Simon, A., and A. J. Collison (2002), Quantifying the mechanical and
hydrological effects of vegetation on streambank stability, Earth Surf.
Processes Landforms, 27, 527 – 546.
Simon, A., and S. E. Darby (2002), Effectiveness of grade-control struc-
tures in reducing erosion along incised river channels: The case of Ho-
tophia Creek, Mississippi, Geomorphology, 42, 229 – 254.
Simon, A., and M. Rinaldi (2006), Disturbance, stream incision, and chan-
nel evolution: The roles of excess transport capacity and boundary ma-
terials in controlling channel response, Geomorphology, 79, 361 – 383.
Simon, A., A. Curini, S. E. Darby, and E. J. Langendoen (1999), Stream-
bank mechanics and the role of bank and near-bank processes in incised
channels, in Incised River Channels, edited by S. E. Darby and A. Simon,
pp. 123 – 152, John Wiley, Chichester, U. K.
Simon, A., A. Curini, S. E. Darby, and E. J. Langendoen (2000), Bank and
near-bank processes in an incised channel, Geomorphology, 35, 193 –
218.
Simon, A., N. L. Pollen, and E. J. Langendoen (2006), Influence of two
woody riparian species on critical conditions for streambank stability:
Upper Truckee River, California, J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc., 41, 99 –
113.
Springer, F. M., C. R. Ullrich, and D. J. Hagerty (1985), An analysis of
streambank stability, J. Geotech. Eng., 111(5), 624 – 640.
Thorne, C. R. (1982), Processes and mechanisms of river bank erosion, in
Gravel-Bed Rivers, edited by R. D. Hey et al., pp. 227 – 271, John Wiley,
Chichester, U. K.
Thorne, C. R., and J. Lewin (1979), Bank processes, bed-material move-
ment and planform development in a meandering river, in Adjustment of
the Fluvial System, edited by D. D. Rhodes and G. P. Williams, pp. 117 –
137, Kendall Hunt, Dubuque, Iowa.
Thorne, C. R., and N. K. Tovey (1981), Stability of composite river banks,
Earth Surf. Processes Landforms, 6, 469 – 484.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2000), Quality of the Nation’s
Rivers and Streams, Washington, D. C.
Van Genuchten, M. T. (1980), A closed-form equation for predicting the
hydraulic conductivity of unsaturated soils, J. Soil. Sci. Soc. Am., 44,
892 – 898.
Walling, D. E., P. N. Owens, and G. J. L. Leeks (1998), The role of channel
and floodplain storage in the suspended sediment budget of the River
Ouse, Yorkshire, UK, Geomorphology, 22, 225 – 242.
Walling, D. E., P. N. Owens, and G. J. L. Leeks (1999), Fingerprinting
suspended sediment sources in the catchment of the River Ouse, Yorkshire,
UK, Hydrol. Processes, 13, 955 – 975.
Wasson, R. J., R. K. Mazari, B. Starr, and G. Clifton (1998), The recent
history of erosion and sedimentation on the Southern Tablelands of SE
Australia: Sediment flux dominated by channel incision, Geomorphology,
24, 291 – 308.
Wolman, M. G. (1959), Factors influencing the erosion of cohesive river
banks, Am. J. Sci., 257, 204 – 216.
Wood, A., A. Simon, P. W. Downs, and C. R. Thorne (2001), Bank-toe
processes in incised channels: The role of apparent cohesion in the en-
trainment of failed bank materials, Hydrol. Processes, 15, 39 – 61.























S. Dapporto, Regione Toscana, Sistema Regionale di Protezione Civile,
Via Val di Pesa 3, Firenze I-50126, Italy. (stefano.dapporto@regione.
toscana.it)
S. E. Darby, School of Geography, University of Southampton,
Highfield, Southampton SO17 1BJ, UK. (s.e.darby@soton.ac.uk)
M. Rinaldi, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Florence, Via
S. Marta 3, Firenze I-50139, Italy. (mrinaldi@dicea.unifi.it)