EARTH SURFACE PROCESSES AND LANDFORMS

Earth Surf. Process. Landforms 34, 18581866 (2009)

Copyright 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Published online in Wiley InterScience
(www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/esp.1869

Mechanisms of ephemeral gully erosion caused

by constant ow through a continuous soil-pipe
G. V. Wilson*
USDA-ARS National Sedimentation Laboratory, Oxford, MS, USA

Received 18 June 2008; Accepted 6 November 2008

*Correspondence to: G. V. Wilson, USDA-ARS National Sedimentation Laboratory, 598 McElroy Dr. Oxford, MS, USA. E-mail: Glenn.Wilson@ars.usda.gov

This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the U.S.A.

ABSTRACT: Ephemeral gully erosion is considered to be driven by convergent surface ow while the role of subsurface ow
is often overlooked. This study sought to characterize and quantify the soil erosion mechanisms associated with ephemeral gully
erosion by pipe ow. A soil pipe (1 cm o.d.) was formed in a 10 cm soil bed immediately above a 5 cm water restricting layer.
Flow into the soil pipe was established at steady-state rates of 190 and 284 l h1. Experiments were performed for pipe ow alone
and with rainfall. Despite a constant ow rate into soil pipes, pipe ow was highly unstable due to internal mass wasting clogging
soil pipes until pressure increases forced the debris plug out of the pipe. Short (1020 Seconds) periods of negligible ow were
followed by surges in ow with high sediment concentrations that included a high proportion of aggregates. Increases in soil
water pressures associated with these debris ows were observed but were likely not representative of the pressures inside the
soil pipes due to hydraulic non-equilibrium between the soil pipe and soil matrix. Hydraulic non-equilibrium resulted in hydraulic
gradients in the opposite direction of ow through the soil pipe during early stages of pipe ow. Pipe ow rates and sediment
concentrations during debris ow periods were likely more extreme than observed due to integration over the three minute sample
collection interval. The Slot Erosion Test (SET) was extended to conditions of constant ow rate through an internal soil pipe that
was observed at the front face of a soil bed. The modied SET provided estimates of shear stress between 22 to 53 kg m1 s2,
however, the technique did not prove effective for estimation of the soil erodibility coefcient. Published in 2009 by John Wiley
& Sons, Ltd.

KEYWORDS: ephemeral gully; internal erosion; soil pipe; preferential ow; shear stress

Introduction contributes to gully erosion by seepage ow (Huang and

Wilson et al. (2008a) estimated that 54% of the sediment yield
from a 11 000 ha watershed in Mississippi was from gully
erosion. This is consistent with ndings by the USDA-Natural
Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) (1997) for 17 States in
the USA of ephemeral gully erosion accounting for 35% on
average of the total erosion. Poesen et al. (2003) did an exten-
sive review on the contribution of gully erosion worldwide
and found it to range from 10% to 94% with a median value
of 44% for all conditions, whereas Capra and Scicolone
(2002) found a range of 19% to 80% for agricultural water-
sheds. The large range in contribution was explained in part
due to the scale-effect with the role of gully erosion increasing
as the size of the study area increases. Concentrated ow is
generally considered the controlling process and subsurface
ow is often overlooked. However, subsurface ow contrib-
utes indirectly through the relationship of soil water pressure
increase on soil cohesion decrease and can also directly result
in gully erosion independent of the impact on cohesion
(Chu-Agor et al., 2008; Fox et al., 2008). Subsurface ow
Laen, 1996; Darboux and Huang, 2005) and/or by preferen-
tial ow through soil pipes (Wilson et al., 2008b). The term
piping sometimes refers collectively to both mechanisms of
subsurface ow erosion (Dunne, 1990; Bryan and Jones,
1997), but these processes are distinguished in this paper by
referring to piping as strictly erosion resulting from ow
through a discrete macropore or soil pipe.
Macropore ow has been an important topic of soil physics
research for almost 40 years following the, at that time, con-
troversial work of Thomas and Phillips (1979). Jarvis (2007)
noted in his review paper on macropore research that interest
has increased exponentially with over 50 papers currently
published per year on the subject. Despite the wealth of
research on preferential ow and transport of solutes and
microorganisms/colloids associated with macropores, apart
from the recognition of the importance of macropore ow to
transport of particulate bound solutes, research on the role of
macropores in erosion is negligible.
Flow through macropores or soil pipes has been recognized
as an important gully erosion mechanism (Faulkner, 2006) but
 EROSION BY FLOW THROUGH SOIL-PIPES
has received less attention in the Unied States where it is often
assumed that gully erosion is exclusively a convergent surface
ow process (Foster, 2005). Pipe ow has been attributed to
about 60% of the gully erosion under agronomic conditions
in European elds (Bocco, 1991). Internal erosion by prefer-
ential ow through soil pipes or cracks is considered the
leading cause of failure of hydraulic works such as dams and
dykes (Bonelli et al., 2006). Faulkner (2006) noted that internal
erosion of soil pipes may be occurring undetected at the
surface until the soil above can no longer be supported and
tunnel collapse results in a sudden development of a gully at
an advanced stage of development. In agronomic settings,
such a gully would be lled in by tillage and the soil pipe
initiating the gully would be cut-off at the head of the previous
gully. Wilson et al. (2008b) studied the impact of discontinu-
ous soil pipes on gully erosion through a series of soil-bed
experiments with pipe ow under different constant heads
with and without rainfall on the surface. They found that ow
through the soil pipe alone resulted in negligible erosion,
however, pipe-ow with rainfall produced a synergistic effect
that resulted in rapid re-establishment of gullies with large soil
losses. This work partly explains why ephemeral gullies re-
establish in the same locations despite attempts to rell the
gullies and many times even redirect the surface ow such
that convergent ow does not occur at that location. Poesen
et al. (2003) noted that gully growth rates decline exponen-
tially after formation, however, ephemeral gullies are by de-
nition lled in and re-established thereby producing an
intermittent step increase in erosion (Gordon et al., 2008).
Ephemeral gullies typically erode down to an erosion resis-
tant layer such as an argillic horizon, plow pan, fragipan,
petrocalcic horizon or bedrock (Poesen et al., 2003). Such
horizons may also be restrictive to root penetration and/or
water percolation and result in a lateral spreading of roots and
perched water above the interface. Botschek et al. (2002)
noted that such duplex soils are conducive to pipe-ow and
Wilson et al. (2006) reported observations of ow out of a
3 cm diameter soil pipe at the head of an ephemeral gully that
formed down to the depth of a fragipan.
Poesen et al. (2003) noted that the interactions of gully
development and the hydrologic processes, such as seepage
forces producing pipe erosion, need further research. Even less
work has been done on the development of models to describe
these processes (Bonelli et al., 2006). Before models can be
developed for pipe erosion, the concepts behind the mecha-
nisms driving this process need to be quantied yet experi-
mental work is seriously lacking. Two simple methods, the
Slot Erosion Test (SET) and the Hole Erosion Test (HET), have
been used to quantify the soils erodibility associated with
pipe erosion (Wan and Fell, 2004). The SET involves a 100 cm
long soil bed with 15 cm depth of soil packed in lifts to a
desired bulk density. One side of the soil bed has a 10 mm
by 22 mm preformed slot in contact with the transparent side
of the test ume. The upstream end has a 25 m head and the
downstream side has a 03 m head. The growth of the slot
width is monitored with time by video imaging and related to
the hydraulic shear stress. The HET uses a cylinder (115 cm
long and 105 cm diameter) compacted to a desired bulk
density with a 6 mm diameter hole drilled through the center.
The cylinder is oriented horizontally and a constant head
established on the inow and outow ends. Growth of the
internal diameter of the pipe is not measurable so the ow
rate is used as an indirect estimate of the pipe diameter. Wan
and Fell (2004) found a close correlation in the erosion rate
indices between the two methods but recommended that the
HET be used for characterizing soil properties because it is
easier and less expensive, whereas, the SET is preferable for
Published in 2009 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
1859
observing pipe erosion processes. Neither method has been
used sufciently to describe ephemeral gully erosion.
Wilson et al. (2008b) simulated the effect of ow under a
constant head through a non-erosive (i.e. no internal erosion)
3 cm diameter soil pipe that had been cut off at the head of
a gully and made discontinuous by tillage inlling the gully.
That work did not address the role of ow through a continu-
ous soil pipe on ephemeral gully erosion. The objectives of
this study were to simulate the conditions under which soil
pipes that are continuous along a soil slope contribute to the
development of an ephemeral gully by internal erosion. The
purpose was to gain a better understanding of the controlling
mechanisms and evaluate the application of SET and HET
techniques to the characterization of the soil erosion proper-
ties associated with pipe erosion for ephemeral gully condi-
tions. In contrast to the study of Wilson et al. (2008b), this
study involved steady-state ow though an continuous, ini-
tially 1 cm diameter, soil pipe that is allowed to enlarge by
internal erosion.
The difculty with this type of research is deciding what the
most realistic boundary condition is to apply to a soil pipe for
ephemeral gully erosion. In natural settings of ow through a
macropore, if the pore is stable, i.e. no internal erosion, and
the pore is water-lled and in equilibrium with the water pres-
sure in the adjacent soil then a constant head will be appropri-
ate for the limited period in which the perched water table is
stable. However, perched water tables are highly dynamic,
rising during early stages of a storm event and quickly dissipat-
ing after rain cessation (Wilson et al., 1990; Wilson et al.,
1991). For erosive soil with shallow soil pipes fed by a perched
water table, which is the case that this paper addresses, the
macropore would enlarge as preferential ow occurs and the
water table would not remain stable for any signicant time.
The rate of ow convergence from matrix pores into the mac-
ropore would control the ow rate. In this paper it was
assumed that as the macropore enlarges into a soil pipe, the
ow into the pipe would remain stable at a rate fed by the
adjacent pores. Application of a constant head may be appro-
priate for soil piping associated with levees or dams since the
water reservoir is directly connected to the pipe and provides
essentially an innite source with minor drop in head as the
pipe enlarges. However, for shallow soil pipes associated with
ephemeral gully erosion a constant ow rate was deemed
more appropriate.
Materials and Methods
Experiments were conducted on soil beds in a 100 cm wide
by 150 cm long ume (Figure 1) at a 15% slope. Bulk soil was
collected from a depth of 0 to 10 cm from a Providence silt
loam (ne-silty, mixed, active, thermic Oxyaquic Fragiudalfs)
soil on the Holly Springs Experiment Station (HSES) in north
Mississippi. The soil contains 15%, 69%, and 16% sand, silt,
and clay, respectively. Soil was sieved to less than 2 cm and
maintained in eld-moist conditions for packing in 25 cm
lifts. The bottom 5 cm of the soil bed mimicked a water restric-
tive layer by packing silty clay loam material to the average
bulk density (157 g cm3) of fragipans in this area (Rhoton and
Tyler, 1990). Providence soil was packed above the restrictive
layer to a bulk density of 13 g cm3, typical of surface condi-
tions. The upper end of the ume had a port for hydraulic
connection of a water reservoir to the articial soil-pipe
created immediately above the water-restrictive layer. Prior to
soil packing, a 1 cm o.d. rod that extended the length of the
soil bed was connected to the port on the upper side. After
Earth Surf. Process. Landforms, Vol. 34, 18581866 (2009)
DOI: 10.1002/esp
1860 G. V. WILSON
Flow Rate
Control
25 cm
50 cm
10 cm 75 cm
5 cm
Runoff
collection flume
Figure 1. Illustration of the 10 cm thick soil bed in a 100 cm wide by 150 cm long ume at a 15% slope with a 150 cm long soil-pipe extend-
ing from the upper end to the open face lower end just above the 5 cm thick water restrictive layer. Tensiometer locations are indicated by solid
circles at distances of 25, 50, and 75 cm from the upper end. A pump maintains a steady-state ow rate through the soil-pipe. This gure is
available in colour online at www.interscience.wiley.com/journal/espl
packing, the rod was removed from the lower end thereby
creating a 1 cm i.d. soil pipe.
Tensiometers were inserted vertically into the soil bed
(Figure 1) at three distances along the soil pipe. Each location
included four tensiometers with their porous cups for two
tensiometers positioned 1 cm above the water restrictive layer
and 6 cm on either side of the soil pipe center, and two
directly above the soil pipe at distances of 2 and 6 cm (i.e. 2
and 6 cm depth) from the top of the soil pipe. Tensiometers
were monitored on one minute cycles by a data logger.
A rainfall simulator consistent with the design by Meyer and
Harmon (1979) was located 3 m above the soil surface. It
consisted of two overlapping Veejet nozzles (80150). Nozzles
oscillated back and forth across the soil bed in order to apply
uniform rainfall at a rate of 65 mm h1 with an impact energy
of 211 kJ ha1 mm1. Rainfall was applied for one hour dura-
tion, followed 05 hour later by a 05 hour duration rainfall,
and 05 hour later by a nal 05 hour duration rainfall.
The pressure head in situ on soil pipes is controlled by their
depth as pieziometric observations on these soils commonly
indicate perched water tables that reach the soil surface
during high precipitation events. Soil pipes typically develop
immediately above the water-restrictive layer, thus the depth
to the fragipan governs the pressure head. Fragipan depths
on the loess soils in this region vary due to past erosion but
typically range from 15 to 112 cm at the HSES (Rhoton and
Tyler, 1990). Therefore, Wilson et al. (2008b) used subsurface
ow at constant head pressures of 15 and 30 cm in the study
of discontinuous soil pipes for this same soil. For this study
on soil pipes that are continuous through the soil bed, a
constant head approach was deemed inappropriate due to
pore enlargement by internal erosion would lead to ow rates
that would not be supplied under natural conditions by con-
vergent ow from matrix pores into the soil pipe. To facilitate
future modeling and be consistent with the SET method, the
Published in 2009 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Tensiometers
8 cm
4 cm
12cm
simple boundary condition of steady-state ow was chosen
to simulate the pipe erosion process using ow rates equiva-
lent to the pressure heads used by Wilson et al. (2008b) but
for a soil pipe at its initial 1 cm diameter condition prior to
enlargement. Constant heads of 15 and 30 cm were estab-
lished on a 1 cm i.d. PVC pipe and the steady state ow rates
determined. From these measurements, steady-state ow rates
of 190 and 284 l h1, respectively, were used on the pre-
formed soil pipe.
Experiments included combinations of pipe-ow with and
without rainfall and each treatment combination was con-
ducted in duplicate experiments. A total of 10 experiments are
reported here but additional exploratory experiments were
also conducted. The following four treatments were con-
ducted in which the antecedent soil water content was near
eld capacity (20% gravimetric water content): pipe ow
alone under steady-state ow rate of 190 l h1, pipe ow alone
at steady-state rate of 284 l h1, pipe ow at steady-state ow
rate of 190 l h1 simultaneous with rainfall, and pipe ow at
284 l h1 simultaneous with rainfall. An additional treatment
consisted of pipe ow under 284 l h1 simultaneous with rain-
fall but with the soil bed pre-wet by simulated rainfall to near
saturation prior to the experiment.
Total runoff volume was collected over three minute inter-
vals and a sample taken for sediment analysis. Sediment
content was determined by decanting excess water and then
evaporating to oven-dryness (105 C). If mass wasting occurred,
the slumped material was collected manually by cleaning out
the weir section of the ume immediately after mass failure.
Care was taken to only remove the slumped material in the
weir section while leaving soil deposited from internal erosion
that was not yet sampled. The slumped material was weighed,
and sampled to determine water content. The dry mass of
sediment loss by mass wasting was calculated after correcting
for the water content.
Earth Surf. Process. Landforms, Vol. 34, 18581866 (2009)
DOI: 10.1002/esp
 EROSION BY FLOW THROUGH SOIL-PIPES
Technical Approach
SETs and HETs are typically performed to characterize the
susceptibility of embankments, e.g. dams and levees, to soil
piping. When a soil pipe develops that extends through an
embankment, the ow rate will increase as internal erosion
enlarges the pipe. According to Poiseuilles Law, the ow rate
will be proportional to the fourth power of the pipe radius.
Despite the potentially enormous ow rates, the soil pipe will
have essentially an invariant head for conditions of an embank-
ment. However, for ephemeral gully erosion conditions, ow
through the soil pipe does not have a semi-innite water
source. The preferential ow rate through the soil pipe is
controlled by the rate of convergent ow into the pipe. While
the soil pipe may enlarge by internal erosion, the ow rate
does not necessarily increase. Thus, to simulate ephemeral
gully erosion processes the experiments were performed
under a constant ow rate that was equivalent to a constant
head established on a 1 cm diameter soil pipe.
The analytical methods used to describe erosion by pipe
ow for HET and SET methods (Wan and Fell, 2004) were
modied to describe pipe ow for ephemeral gully erosion as
simulated in these experiments. That is for conditions of ow
through a soil pipe in the center of a soil bed, immediately
above a water restricting layer, under steady-state inow, with
the erosion of the soil pipe observed at the exposed outow
face, Figure 1. For these conditions, the internal erosion within
soil pipes has been described by the same excess shear stress
equations as commonly applied to open channels:
qs = K ( c )
where the sediment ux, qs (in kg s1 m2), is related to the soil
erodibility coefcient, K (s m1), and the hydraulic shear stress,
(in kg m1 s2) above a critical shear stress, c (in kg m1 s2),
necessary for initiation of erosion with the assumption that the
exponent, , is unity. The hydraulic shear stress on the surface
of the soil pipe at time t, t is
t = w g ( h L ) ( Ap Cw )
t the erodibility determined from Equation 1 as the slope of the
where w is the density of the uid (in kg m3), g is the accel-
eration constant (98 m s2), h is the hydraulic head differ-
ence across the soil pipe (in meters), L is the length of the soil
pipe (in meters), and (Ap/Cw)t is the ratio of the cross-sectional
area of the pipe, Ap, and the wetted circumference, Cw, around
the pipe at time t.
The sediment ux can be calculated by
qs = (1 Aw ) Mt t
where Aw is the wetted area which equals CwL, if the mass of
soil loss, M (in kilograms), during time interval t is measured.
Equation 3 assumes that the soil pipe has a uniform cross-
sectional area along its length that is represented by the
change in cross-sectional area observed at the open face. Due
to the water restricting horizon below the soil pipe, it was
assumed that internal erosion will produce an elliptical soil-
pipe in which the major axis width of the soil-pipe, a, is larger
than the minor axis height, b (Figure 2). The dimensions of the
soil pipe are estimated from digital images at the bed face at
each sampling time.
Assuming that the shear stress along the pipe length is con-
stant, Equations 2 and 3 can relate t to changes in the pipe
dimensions observed at the front face (Figure 2). For a circular
soil-pipe of diameter, Dt, at time t,
Published in 2009 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
1861
Soil bed
at
bt Area
Di
eroded
Restrictive layer
Figure 2. Circular soil-pipe with initial diameter, Di, of 1 cm in the
soil bed immediately above the water restrictive layer. At time t, the
soil-pipe eroded into half ellipse with dimension of major axis at and
minor axis bt.
t = w g ( h L )( Dt 4 ) (4)
For an elliptical soil pipe, the area of the pipe, Ap, is simply
the product ab and the wetted circumference, Cw, can be
approximated by
(1) { (
Cw = ( a + b ) 1+ 3r 10 ( 4 3r ) 2
1
)} (5)
where the dimensionless shape parameter, r, is
r = ( a b ) ( a + b )
2
(6)
Based upon knowledge of the mass of soil loss, ow rate and
pipe dimensions (D for circular or a and b for elliptical) at
selected times, the shear stress can be calculated. The shear
stress can be plotted as a function of the sediment ux, qs, and
(2)
linear regression. Additionally, the critical shear stress can be
estimated from the intercept, although Wan and Fell (2004)
suggested that a more appropriate method for the critical shear
stress would be to conduct successive HET runs at different
heads in which a minimum shear stress is determined from
the minimum head at which pipe erosion is initiated.
(3)
Results and Discussion
Differences among treatments
The ow rates into the continuous soil pipe (PF) at the equiva-
lent head of 15 cm (190 l h1) were signicantly lower than
the rates associated with the 30 cm head (284 l h1) (Table I).
These PF rates were also about two-orders of magnitude
higher than observed by Wilson et al. (2008b) for 15 and
30 cm constant heads maintained on discontinuous soil pipes
of 3 cm diameter that were blocked by lling of the ephemeral
gully.
For tests with pipe ow alone (no rainfall), advective transfer
through the periphery of the pipe into the soil matrix resulted
in the runoff rate (Ro) being lower than the PF inow rate. For
tests with rainfall, runoff from rainfall was in addition to the
soil pipe runoff and thus runoff rates were higher than PF rates.
Despite these factors, the differences between treatments
Earth Surf. Process. Landforms, Vol. 34, 18581866 (2009)
DOI: 10.1002/esp
1862 G. V. WILSON

Table I. Mean response to ow through a continuous soil pipe, at ow rates of 190 and
284 l h1, which are equivalent to constant heads of 15 and 30 cm, respectively, on a 1 cm
diameter soil pipe, with and without rainfal

Head (cm) Rain ASW Ro (l/h1) PF (l/h1) SC (g/l1) SL (kg) MW (kg) TSL (kg)

15 No FC 1563a 1883a 450a 210a 230ab 440a

30 No FC 2665b 2843b 418a 342a 000a 342a
15 Yes FC 2164a 1890a 643a 454ab 293ab 747ab
30 Yes FC 3105b 2840b 843a 817bc 712b 1530b
30 Yes Sat 3260b 2841b 717a 746bc 667b 1413b

Note: Mean values for runoff rate (Ro), pipe-ow (PF) rate, sediment concentration (SC), soil
loss (SL) by internal pipe and/or sheet erosion, mass wasting (MW), and total soil loss (TSL).
The antecedent soil water condition (ASW) was either at eld capacity (FC) or pre-wet to near
saturation (Sat).
Values within a column separated by letters indicate signicant differences at 005 level.

(Table I) were the same for Ro rate and PF rate in that the
190 l h1 rates were signicantly lower than the 284 l h1 Ro
rates. A
For pipe ow alone, internal erosion resulted in sediment
concentrations ranging from 01 to 45 g l1 in the runoff but
mass wasting of the face generally did not occur. This is in
contrast to the sediment concentrations observed by Wilson
et al. (2008b) for discontinuous soil pipes which were essen-
tially zero but similar in that pipe ow alone rarely caused
mass wasting. The sediment concentrations were higher than
observed in situ for a continuous soil pipe exposed at a gully
face (Wilson et al., 2006) in which concentrations ranged from
02 to 85 g l1. The sediment concentrations for pipe ow
alone were the result of internal erosion within the soil pipe
caused by the high pore-water velocity exceeding the critical
shear stress of the pipe walls. When rainfall was combined,
sediment concentrations ranged from 03 to 77 g l1 and mass
wasting at the bed face always occurred. Wilson et al. (2008b)
observed sediment concentrations for rainfall alone under the
B
same rainfall regimes and soil conditions of this study to
average 225 g l1 for a 5% slope. The sediment concentra-
tions for pipe ow with rainfall were a result of internal erosion
of the pipe plus sheet erosion, i.e. soil detachment by raindrop
impact and surface ow exceeding the soil surfaces critical
shear stress. Sediment concentrations were generally 45% to
100% higher for the pipe ow plus rainfall test than the pipe
ow alone conditions, however, differences were not signi-
cant (Table I). There were signicant differences in soil loss
by internal erosion and/or sheet erosion, Table I. The soil loss
for the 190 l h1 test increased 100% when rainfall was
involved, however differences were not signicant. In con-
trast, soil losses were signicantly higher for the 284 l h1 test
when rainfall was included.
Wilson et al. (2008b) found for discontinuous soil pipes that Figure 3. (A) The soil bed prior to establishment of pipe ow.
pipe ow alone did not result in re-establishment of ephem- (B) The soil bed after pipe ow at 190 l h1 ow rate. The wetting of
eral gullies but that it was the synergistic combination of the soil along the pipe ow path is evident along with mass wasting
at the bed face.
rainfall with pipe ow that resulted in mass wasting that served
to re-establish ephemeral gullies. For continuous soil pipes,
only one of the four pipe ow alone runs resulted in measur-
able mass wasting, Figure 3. That occurred for the rst run
tested, a 190 l h1 run, in which the water restricting clay loam tinuous soil pipes but the mechanisms and amounts were
layer below the soil pipe eroded at the front face. This resulted considerably different. Wilson et al. (2008b) found mass
in the front face being undercut which led to sudden mass wasting of 162 to 629 kg for the 15 and 30 cm head tests on
wasting of the front face. This is probably not representative discontinuous soil pipes, respectively, whereas for continuous
of the natural response to pipe ow alone. The six tests with soil pipes the mass wasting was only 29 and 71 kg for steady-
rainfall combined with pipe ow all resulted in mass wasting. state ow rates associated with these respective heads. The
For two of these tests the mass wasting exceeded the soil loss discontinuous soil pipes exhibited sudden pop-out failures of
by internal erosion and/or sheet erosion. The increased pro- large blocks of soil while mass wasting for the continuous soil
pensity for failure with pipe ow combined with rainfall for pipes occurred as sloughing of the bed face around the soil
continuous soil pipes may be similar to the nding for discon- pipe.

Published in 2009 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earth Surf. Process. Landforms, Vol. 34, 18581866 (2009)
DOI: 10.1002/esp
 EROSION BY FLOW THROUGH SOIL-PIPES 1863

Ro rate T2 T6 T10 Ro rate T2 T6 T10

168 0 270 0

SW Pressure (cm)
162 -15 240 -15

SW Pressure (cm)
DF
Ro Rate (L h )

Ro Rate (L h )
-1

-1
A DF
156 -30 210 -30
A
150 -45 180 -45

144 -60 150 -60

15 cm Head, Pipe flow only DF
138 -75 15 cm Head, with rainfall
120 -75
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 0 30 60 90 120 150 180
Time (min) Time (min)
Ro rate T2 T6 T10
Ro rate T2 T6 T10
300 0
410 15

SW Pressure (cm)
288 -15 375 0
Ro Rate (L h )

SW Pressure (cm)
-1

Ro Rate (L h )
-1
276 -30 340 -15

305 -30
264 -45
DF
B DF
270 -45
252 -60
30 cm Head, Pipe flow only 235 DF DF -60
240 -75 30 cm Head, with rainfall
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 200 -75
0 30 60 90 120 150 180
Time (min)
Time (min)
Figure 4. Temporal response of soil water pressure and runoff rate
Figure 5. Temporal response of soil water pressure and runoff rate
to steady ow into a soil pipe at (A) 190 l h1 rate and (B) 284 l h1
to steady ow into a soil pipe at (A) 190 l h1 rate and (B) 284 l h1
rate. Tensiometers were 2 cm directly above the soil pipe at distances
rate simultaneous with three intermittent rainfall applications.
from the upper end of 25 cm (T2), 75 cm (T6) and 125 cm (T10). The
Tensiometers were 2 cm directly above the soil pipe at distances from
arrows indicate periods of debris ow (DF) surges.
the upper end of 25 cm (T2), 75 cm (T6) and 125 cm (T10). The
arrows indicate periods of debris ow (DF) surges.

Soil pipes were observed to enlarge signicantly from the

initial 1 cm i.d. to over 5 cm. However, in no case tested did
internal erosion from pipe ow result in tunnel collapse of the
bed surface as previously reported in the literature (Faulkner,
2006). An additional treatment was included to foster tunnel
collapse by pre-wetting the soil bed to near saturated anteced-
ent soil water conditions. This was accomplished by raining
on the soil bed multiple times over a 24 hour prior to the test.
Despite the higher antecedent soil water pressures (35 cm),
the two tests behaved almost identical to the tests at eld
capacity (75 cm) for the same hydrologic controls (284 l h1
pipe ow with rainfall).
Pipe ow hydrodynamics
Typical tensiometer responses are shown for the tensiometers
positioned 2 cm directly above the soil pipe at distances of
25 cm (T2), 75 cm (T6), and 125 cm (T10) from the upper
inlet for the test with pipe ow alone (Figure 4) and pipe ow
combined with intermittent rainfall (Figure 5). Soil water pres-
sures exhibited an initial stage (<60 minutes) of hydraulic
non-equilibrium in response to pipe ow before an equilib-
rium soil water pressure was reached. While the 284 l h1
provided quicker tensiometric response than the 190 l h1
ow rate for all positions and tests, there was not a consistent
response pattern with slope position. There were instances in
which the downslope position responded quicker than an
upslope position. This is clearly seen by comparing responses
for tensiometers T6 versus T2 in Figure 4(A), T10 versus T2
and T6 in Figure 4(B), T10 versus T2 and T6 in Figure 5(A)
and 5(B). Each of these instances exhibit periods with hydrau-
lic gradients in the opposite direction of ow through the soil
pipe. Thus, lateral gradients during the stages of hydraulic
non-equilibrium can give erroneous hydraulic gradients
and directions of ow. De Vries and Chow (1978) observed
hydraulic gradients in the opposite direction of ow on for-
ested hillslopes due to preferential ow through macropores.
Simon and Wells (2006) observed seepage from streambanks
while tensiometers suggested hydraulic gradients away from
the bank face. They reasoned that tensiometers measured
tension in the soil matrix instead of the macropores and that
macropore ow resulted in the edge of the headcut to wet up
faster than indicated by tensiometers further back from the
headcut. Thus, hydraulic gradients were in the opposite direc-
tion of the measured seepage. Wilson et al. (1997) used the
modeling results of Gwo et al. (1996) on hydraulic and physi-
cal non-equilibrium during preferential ow through macro-
pores to demonstrate how heterogeneity in the advective
transfer coefcient, which controls the exchange between the
soil pipe and soil matrix, can result in hydraulic gradients
being observed by tensiometers in the soil matrix not being
representative of water pressures in a macropore or soil pipe.
Soil water pressures required up to 60 minutes to reach a
semi-equilibrium condition. Once reached, tensiometers
2 cm above the soil pipe generally did not exhibit positive soil
water pressures despite hydraulic heads on the pipe in excess
of the 2 cm distance. However, tensiometers immediately
above the water restricting layer on either side of the soil pipe
(not shown) did exhibit positive soil water pressures of up to
6 cm of water. The exception was the rainfall tests at tensiom-
eter T2, and for a short time T6 at the end of one of the two

Published in 2009 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earth Surf. Process. Landforms, Vol. 34, 18581866 (2009)
DOI: 10.1002/esp
1864 G. V. WILSON

284 l h1 tests, in which pressures up to 5 cm of water were 0.6

temporarily observed. y = -0.14x + 0.84

-2
A

Erosion rate kg s m
Interestingly, the T2 tensiometer showed the marked R2 = 0.95

-1
increase in pressure during the period of no rain in which it 0.4
would be expected that pressures would decrease. An increase
in pressure during the period between rainfalls was also
observed for the 190 l h1 with rainfall test at position T6 but 0.2
the pressures did not reach positive values. The reason for the
unexpected rises in pressures is likely related to the observa-
tion of non-steady ow through the soil pipes. While the ow 0
rate into the soil pipe was controlled at a steady rate, ow out 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
of the soil pipe would commonly exhibit periods of blockage -1 -2
Shear stress, kg m s
that would temporarily stop the ow until sufcient pressures
built up to clear the debris plug. These debris ows would 0.6
subsequently exhibit surges with high sediment concentra-

Erosion rate kg s -1 m-2

B y = 0.12x - 0.47
tions. While the size distribution of the sediment was not R2 = 0.31
measured, these surges clearly had a high proportion of aggre- 0.4
gated material suggesting that this was caused by internal mass
wasting. During these short periods of pipe blockage, soil
water pressures for some tensiometers were seen to increase.
0.2
The actual increase was likely more dramatic than observed
due to the fact that tensiometer readings were integrated over
a one minute period.
0
Surges from negligible ow to very high ow typically
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
occurred over reciprocating intervals of 1020 seconds. These Shear stress kg m -1 s-2
surges in ow can be seen in the unstable ow rates in Figure
4 and, despite the pipe ow being combined with the surface Figure 6. Erosion rate as a function of shear stress for two of the
ow during rainfall periods, surges can be seen in Figure 5. 284 l h1 rate with rainfall tests. The slope of the linear regression
However, due to the ow sampling occurring over three equals the erodibility coefcient.
minute intervals, the measured runoff rates do not fully reect
the unstable nature of the pipe erosion regardless of whether
there was surface ow from rainfall excess. In fact, while the
Shear Stress Erodibility
runoff rate at time 110 minutes in Figure 4(B) and time 57 6 0.12
minutes in Figure 5(B) indicate jumps in runoff rate, these tests

Erodibility Coefficient (s m -1)

Shear Stress (kg m -1s-2)

each had eight or more other periods of debris ow surges 5 0.10

that do not show up because the runoff rate was integrated 4

y = 7.47x + 3.84
0.08
over a three minute sampling period. Despite the internal mass R2 = 0.21

wasting that produced these debris ow surges, tunnel col- 3 0.06

lapse was not observed. 2 0.04

1 0.02

Shear stress calculations 0 0.00

Internal erosion of the soil pipe was uniform around the cir-
cumference until pipe enlargement reached the water restric-
tive layer. After this point, the erosion elongated the pipe at
the base and produced a semi-elliptical pipe. Thus, for early
times (less than six minutes) the shear stress was computed
with Equation 4 and for later times using Ap = ab and Cw
being half of Equation 5. Computing shear stress based upon
dimensions of the soil pipe observed at the front face is depen-
dent upon the accuracy of the interpretation of the video
images for the values of a and b. This analysis became prob-
lematic after around 21 minutes due to irregular erosion at the
pipe face. Therefore values of shear stress were only computed
for less than 30 minutes into the tests. Additionally, Wan and
Fell (2004) recommended that the early period of sampling
shortly after ow initiation (less than six minutes) not be
included in the analysis due to loose materials being eroded
around the pipe that are not reective of erosion due to excess
shear stress.
The shear stress is proportional to the mean ow velocity
for laminar ow and to the velocity squared for turbulent ow.
Because these tests were for steady-state ow into a soil pipe
and not a constant head in which the pipe ow rate would
increase as the pipe enlarged, the ow rate out of the soil pipe
typically approached a near steady-state rate rapidly. The
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
Sediment flux (kg s-1m -2)
Figure 7. Mean shear stress and erodibility coefcient from the 10
experiments as a function of the sediment ux and the best t linear
regression for shear stress relationship.
early measurements in these tests did exhibit the highest soil
losses however soil losses tended to continue to decline for
long periods into the experiments which combined with fairly
stable pipe ow rates resulted in declining sediment uxes
with time. As a result, the calculated shear stress for eight of
the 10 experiments showed a negative trend (Figure 6A)
between erosion rate and shear stress, i.e. unrealistic erod-
ibility coefcients. Only two of the experiments showed a
positive relationship (Figure 6B) and thus an estimate of the
erodibility. This is likely a result of the ow rate not being
allowed to increase as the soil pipe enlarged by internal
erosion as would be realistic for soil pipe through an embank-
ment that is supplied by a semi-innite reservoir.
The mean value of shear stress for each test did show a
correlation to the mean sediment ux, Figure 7. However, the
shear stress values cover a narrow range in ow velocities and
thus had a narrow range from 30 to 55 kg m1 s2.

Published in 2009 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earth Surf. Process. Landforms, Vol. 34, 18581866 (2009)
DOI: 10.1002/esp
 EROSION BY FLOW THROUGH SOIL-PIPES
Conclusions
Pipe erosion experiments were conducted on a soil bed with
a preformed soil pipe that exited the bed face in which a
steady-state ow rate of either 190 or 284 l h1 was estab-
lished into the pipe. These ow rates were determined to
represent preferential ow through a 1 cm diameter soil pipe
under 15 and 30 cm pressure heads, respectively. The runoff
rates, i.e. ow out of the pipe when no rainfall was applied,
quickly reached a near steady-state ow rate. Soil water pres-
sures were slower to reach an equilibrium condition and until
they did, hydraulic gradients were occasionally observed to
be in the opposite direction of the pipe ow.
Sediment concentrations for pipe ow alone were fairly
high and were in the range observed in situ by Wilson et al.
(2006) for a naturally occurring 3 cm diameter pipe. While
differences in sediment concentrations were not signicantly
different between pipe ow alone and pipe ow with rainfall,
total soil losses were signicantly higher with rainfall. Internal
erosion of soil pipes increased the diameter of pipes from 1
to 5 cm; however, ow rates did not increase as a result of
pipe enlargement due to the imposed boundary condition of
a constant ow rate into the pipe. However, ow through the
soil pipes were not constant due to internal mass wasting
resulting in stoppage of ow followed by surges in ow with
high sediment concentrations. These debris ow periods of
negligible to high ows and high sediment concentrations
occurred over 1020 second intervals. Occasionally, soil
water pressures were observed to increase due to the pipe
blockage. Despite this unstable internal erosion, continuous
soil pipes, under the conditions tested of constant ow rate,
did not exhibit sudden development of mature ephemeral
gullies by tunnel collapse as suggested by Faulkner (2006).
Given these constant ow conditions, the shear stress values
computed for eight of the 10 tests produced erroneous values
of soil erodibility when plotted against sediment ux.
These results provide valuable insight into the soil pipe
erosion processes. However, the application of SET and HET
methods for internal erosion of soil pipes under a constant
ow rate had limited success. Better methods of measuring
enlargement of the internal dimensions of the soil pipe with
time are needed to accurately compute the shear stress and
erodibility. While providing an innite water supply for a
constant head was questioned as an appropriate boundary
condition for soil pipe ow related to ephemeral gully erosion,
such a condition may be necessary to accurately estimate the
soil erodibility.
AcknowledgementsThe author wishes to express sincere apprecia-
tion to Mr Alan Hudspeth and Mr Allen Gregory for there dedicated
technical assistance that made this work possible. The use of the Mis-
sissippi Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station facilities at Holly
Springs was also appreciated.
References
Bocco G. 1991. Gully erosion, processes, and models. Progress in
Physical Geography 15: 392406.
Bonelli S, Brivois O, Borghi R, Banahmed N. 2006. On the modeling
of piping erosion. Science Direct. C.R. Mecanique 334: 555559.
DOI.10.1016/j.crme.2006.07.003
Botschek J, Krause S, Abel T, Skowronek A. 2002. Hydrological
parameterization of piping in loess-rich soils in the Bergisches Land,
Nordrhein-Westfalen, Germany. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil
Science 165: 506510.
Bryan RB, Jones JAA. 1997. The signicance of soil piping processes:
inventory and prospect. Geomorphology 20: 209218.
Published in 2009 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
1865
Capra A, Scicolone B. 2002. Ephemeral gully erosion in a wheat-
cultivated area in Sicily (Italy). Biosystems Engineering 83:
119126.
Chu-Agor ML, Wilson GV, Fox GA. 2008. Numerical modeling of
bank instability by seepage erosion. Journal of Hydrologic Engineer-
ing 13: 11331145.
Darboux F, Huang C. 2005. Does soil surface roughness increase or
decrease water and particle transfer. Soil Science Society of America
Journal 69: 748756.
De Vries J, Chow TL. 1978. Hydrologic behavior of a forested moun-
tain soil in Coastal British Columbia. Water Resource Research 14:
935942.
Dunne T. 1990. Hydrology, mechanics, and geomorphic implications
or erosion by subsurface ow. In Groundwater Geomorphology:
The Role of Subsurface Water in Earth-surface Processes and Land-
forms, Higgins CG, Coates DR (eds), Geological Society of America
Special Paper 252. Gelogical Society of America: Boulder, CO.
Faulkner H. 2006. Piping hazard on collapsible and dispersive soils
in Europe. In Soil Erosion in Europe, Boardman J, Poesen J (eds).
John Wiley & Sons: Chichester.
Foster, GR. 2005. Modeling ephemeral gully erosion for conservation
planning. International Journal Sediment Research 20(3):
157175.
Fox GA, Chu-Agor M, Wilson GV. 2008. Erosion of noncohesive
sediment by groundwater seepage: lysimeter experiments and mod-
eling. Soil Science Society of America Journal 71(6): 18221830.
Gordon LM, Bennett SJ, Alonso CV, Bingner RL. 2008. Modeling
long-term soil losses on agricultural elds due to ephemeral gully
erosion. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 63(4): 173181.
Gwo JP, Jardine PM, Wilson GV, Yeh GT. 1996. Using a multiregion
model to study the effects of advective and diffusive mass transfer
on local physical nonequilibrium and solute mobility in a structured
soil. Water Resource Research 32: 561570.
Huang CH, Laen JM. 1996. Seepage and soil erosion for a clay loam
soil. Soil Science Society of America Journal 60: 408416.
Jarvis NJ. 2007. A review of non-equilibrium water ow and solute
transport in soil macropores: principles, controlling factors and
consequences for water quality. European Journal of Soil Science
58: 523546.
Meyer LD, Harmon WC. 1979. Multiple-intensity rainfall simulator
for erosion research on row sideslopes. Transactions of ASAE 22(1):
100103.
Poesen J, Nachtergaele J, Verstraeten G, Valentin C. 2003. Gully
erosion and environmental change: importance and research needs.
Catena 50: 91133.
Rhoton FE, Tyler DD. 1990. Erosion-induced changes in the properties
of a fragipan soil. Soil Science Society of America Journal 54:
223228.
Simon A, Wells RR. 2006. Study of the effects of lateral seepage forces
on tension crack development, bank failure dimensions and
migration of edge-of-eld gullies. In Proceeding of the 8th Federal
Interagency Sedimentation Conference, 26, April, Reno, Nevada.
Conference proceedings on CD.
Thomas GW, Phillips RE. 1979. Consequences of water movement in
macropores. Journal of Environment Quality 8: 149152.
USDA-NRCS. 1997. Americas Private Land: A Geography of Hope.
USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service Washington, DC,
http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/news/pub/GHopeHit.html
Wan CF, Fell R. 2004. Laboratory test on the rate of piping erosion
of soils in embankment dams. Geotechnical Testing Journal 27(3):
295303.
Wilson GV, Jardine PM, Luxmoore RJ, Jones JR. 1990. Hydrology of
a forested hillslope during storm events. Geoderma 46: 119138.
Wilson GV, Jardine PM, Luxmoore RJ, Zelazny LW, Lietzke DA, Todd
DE. 1991. Hydrogeochemical processes controlling subsurface
transport from an upper subcatchment of Walker Branch Watershed
during storm events: 1. Hydrologic transport process. Journal of
Hydrology 123: 297316.
Wilson GV, Gwo JP, Jardine PM, Luxmoore RJ. 1997. Hydraulic and
physical nonequilibrium effects on multiregion ow and transport.
In Physical Nonequilibrium in Soils: Modeling and Application,
Selim HM, Ma L (ed.). Ann Arbor Press: Ann Arbor, M chapter 1,
3759.
Earth Surf. Process. Landforms, Vol. 34, 18581866 (2009)
DOI: 10.1002/esp
1866 G. V. WILSON

Wilson GV, Cullum RF, Romkens MJM. 2006. Pipe ow impacts on
ephemeral gully erosion. In Proceeding of the 8th Federal Inter-
agency Sedimentation Conference, 26 April, Reno, Nevada.
Wilson GV, Reid-Rhoades P, Bingner RL, DiCarlo DA, Dabney SM.
2008a. Conservation Practices in Little Topashaw Creek CEAP
Watershed, Mississippi. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 63:
420429.
Wilson GV, Cullum RF, Rmkens MJM. 2008b. Preferential ow
through a discontinuous soil-pipe results in mass wasting and rees-
tablishment of ephemeral gullies. Catena in press.

Published in 2009 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earth Surf. Process. Landforms, Vol. 34, 18581866 (2009)
DOI: 10.1002/esp