Advertisement

Geo-Marine Letters

, Volume 39, Issue 3, pp 175–189 | Cite as

Coupled sedimentological and geotechnical data analysis of surficial sediment layer characteristics in a tidal estuary

  • Cagdas BiliciEmail author
  • Nina Stark
  • Carl T. Friedrichs
  • Grace M. Massey
Original
  • 123 Downloads

Abstract

In situ geotechnical testing of surficial sediment layers in areas of active sediment dynamics can provide essential information about physical and geotechnical variations of sediment properties, which have the potential to contribute to engineering activities in subaqueous environments. Portable free fall penetrometers have been used for the rapid geotechnical investigation of subaqueous sediment layers. However, data analysis methods and interpretation are still hampered by a lack of understanding of surficial sediment layer mechanics. Field measurements were conducted at four different locations along the York River Estuary in Virginia, USA. A portable free fall penetrometer was deployed 45 times, and complementary sediment samples were collected. The collected samples were tested and analyzed to obtain vertical profiles of bulk densities and grain size distribution through the upper seabed, X-ray images of sediment texture, and the erodibility of the sediment surfaces. The data were investigated regarding the impact of sedimentological characteristics on the in situ geotechnical behavior of surface sediments. With regard to processes and forces governing the resistance against the penetrating object at the surface of the seabed, the role of soil drag and soil buoyancy was explored. The results indicated that soil buoyancy has a limited influence on the sediment resistance, but soil drag seemed to have a significant impact, especially in the case of loose sand or soft mud top layers. The erodibility of surficial sediments appeared inversely proportional to the geotechnical sediment strength, providing empirical insight into a possible correlation of sediment strength and erodibility. In conclusion, a coupled analysis of geotechnical and sedimentological properties of surficial layers allowed insights into a potential transition from fluid-like to soil behavior of the uppermost seabed surface layers, and potential relations between sedimentological characteristics and in situ geotechnical properties.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The sediment samples were collected in collaboration with Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS) through SERDP project MR-2409. The authors would like to acknowledge the technical and logistical support by Ali Albatal, Muhammad Bilal Mumtaz, Bernardo Castellanos (Virginia Tech), Danielle Tarpley, Kelsey Fall (VIMS). The authors would also like to thank the editor and an anonymous reviewer for constructive comments benefitting this article.

Funding information

This study and the field experiments at the York River Estuary were funded by the Virginia Tech Institute for Critical Technology and Applied Science and through SERDP project MR02409 (YR2) and the National Science Foundation (OCE 1434938 and OCE 1459708).

References

  1. Akal T, Stoll RD (1995) An expendable penetrometer for rapid assessment of seafloor parameters. OCEANS 1995. MTS/IEEE, Challenges of Our Changing Global Environment. IEEE, pp 1822–1826Google Scholar
  2. Albatal A, Stark N (2017) Rapid sediment mapping and in situ geotechnical characterization in challenging aquatic areas. Limnol Oceanogr Methods 15:690–705.  https://doi.org/10.1002/lom3.10192 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aubeny C, Shi H (2006) Interpretation of impact penetration measurements in soft clays. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 132:770–777.  https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2006)132:6(770 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bilici C, Stark N (2017) Design and preliminary tests of mobile seafloor layer sampler prototypes as an add-on unit for portable free-fall penetrometers. Geotech Front.  https://doi.org/10.1061/9780784480472.040
  5. Bilici C, Stark N, Ghose-Hajra M (2018) Geotechnical characteristics of wetland waterway sediments with regard to local morphodynamics. J Waterw Port Coast Ocean Eng (in publication) 144:04018014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brooks JD, Lang TG (1958) Hydrodynamic drag of torpedoes. Naval Ordnance Test Station, NAVORD Report, pp 5842Google Scholar
  7. Chari T, Smith W, Zielinski A (1978) Use of free fall penetrometer in seafloor engineering. OCEANS ’78. IEEE, pp 686–691Google Scholar
  8. Das BM, Sivakugan N (2016) Fundamentals of geotechnical engineering. Cengage Learning, Stamford, CTGoogle Scholar
  9. Dayal U (1980) Free fall penetrometer: a performance evaluation. Appl Ocean Res 2:39–43.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0141-1187(80)90046-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dayal U, Allen JH (1975) The effect of penetration rate on the strength of remolded clay and sand samples. Can Geotech J 12(3):336–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dean RG, Dalrymple RA (1991) Water wave mechanics for engineers and scientists (Vol.2). World Scientific publishing CompanyGoogle Scholar
  12. Dickhudt PJ, Friedrichs CT, Sanford LP (2011) Mud matrix solids fraction and bed erodibility in the York River estuary, USA, and other muddy environments. Cont Shelf Res 31(10):S3–S13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dorvinen JI (2016) A method for interpreting the in-situ consolidation state of surficial seabed sediments using a free-fall penetrometer. M.Sc. Thesis. Virginia TechGoogle Scholar
  14. Foster G, Carter L (1997) Mud sedimentation on the continental shelf at an accretionary margin—Poverty Bay, New Zealand. New Zeal J Geol Geophys 40:157–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Freeman TJ, Hollister CD (1989) Modelling waste emplacement and the physical changes to the sediment barrier. In Disposal of Radioactive Waste In Seabed Sediments: Proceedings of an international conference. Society of Underwater Technology.Google Scholar
  16. Freeman TJ, Burdett JRF (1986) Deep ocean model penetrator experiments (No. EUR--10502). Commission of the European CommunitiesGoogle Scholar
  17. Friedrichs CT (2009) York River physical oceanography and sediment transport. J Coast Res 10057:17–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Friedrichs CT, Wright LD, Hepworth DA, Kim SC (2000) Bottom-boundary-layer processes associated with fine sediment accumulation in coastal seas and bays. Cont Shelf Res 20(7):807–841CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ghose-Hajra M, Mebust C (2015) Settling characteristics of fine-grained dredged sediments used in Louisiana coastal restoration and land building projects. Proc Coastal Sediments 2015:2068–2074Google Scholar
  20. Harris CK, Wiberg P (2002) Across-shelf sediment transport: interactions between suspended sediment and bed sediment. J Geophys Res 107:3008.  https://doi.org/10.1029/2000JC000634 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hickin EJ (1995) Hydraulic geometry and channel scour, Fraser River, British Columbia, Canada. In: Hickin EJ (ed) River geomorphology. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, pp 155–167Google Scholar
  22. Huzzey LM, Brubaker JM (1988) The formation of longitudinal fronts in a coastal plain estuary. J Geophys Res Oceans 93(C2):1329–1334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jeanjean P, Spikula D, Young A. 2012, September. Technical vetting of free-fall cone penetrometer. In Proceedings of 7th International Offshore Site Investigation and Geotechnics Conference: Integrated Geotechnologies–Present and Future, Society for Underwater Technology, London, pp 15–18Google Scholar
  24. Kopf A, Stegmann S, Delisle G, Panahi B, Aliyev CS, Guliyev I (2009) In situ cone penetration tests at the active Dashgil mud volcano, Azerbaijan: evidence for excess fluid pressure, updoming, and possible future violent eruption. Mar Pet Geol 26(9):1716–1723CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kuo AY, Neilson BJ (1987) Hypoxia and salinity in Virginia estuaries. Estuaries 10(4):277–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lewis DW (1984) Practical sedimentology Hutchinson Ross Publishing Company. Strousburg PA, pp 227Google Scholar
  27. Lucking G, Stark N, Lippmann T, Smyth S (2017) Variability of in situ sediment strength and pore pressure behavior of tidal estuary surface sediments. Geo-Mar Lett 37(5):441–456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lunne T (2010) The CPT in offshore soil investigations-a historic perspective. In: Mitchell et al. (eds) Proceedings of the 2nd International Symposium on Cone Penetration Testing (CPT’10). Huntington Beach, CalifGoogle Scholar
  29. Lunne T (2012) The Fourth James K. Mitchell Lecture: the CPT in offshore soil investigations-a historic perspective. Geomech Geoeng 7:75–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Massey GM, Friedrichs CT (2017) Resistivity, magnetic susceptibility and sediment characterization of the York River Estuary in support of the empirical investigation of the factors influencing marine applications of EMI (Year 2 of SERDP Project MR-2409) Final ReportGoogle Scholar
  31. Mayne PW (2006) The Second James K. Mitchell Lecture Undisturbed sand strength from seismic cone tests. Geomech Geoeng: An International Journal 1(4):239–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Moe M, Tsang LC (1973) Drag coefficients for cones and cylinders according to Schamberg’s model. AIAA J 11(3):396–399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mulukutla GK, Huff LC, Melton JS, Baldwin KC, Mayer LA (2011) Sediment identification using free fall penetrometer acceleration-time histories. Mar Geophys Res 32:397–411.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11001-011-9116-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mumtaz B, Stark N, Brizzolara S (2018) Pore pressure measurements using a portable free fall penetrometer. In proc. of Cone Penetration Testing 2018 Conference. Delft, the Netherlands. (in publication)Google Scholar
  35. Nichols MM, Kim SC, Brouwer CM (1991) Sediment characterization of the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries, Virginian Province. National estuarine inventory: supplement. NOAA Strategic Assessment Branch, pp 88Google Scholar
  36. O’Loughlin CD, Randolph MF, Richardson M (2004) Experimental and theoretical studies of deep penetrating anchors. In Offshore Technology Conference. Offshore Technology ConferenceGoogle Scholar
  37. Plumb RH Jr (1981) Procedures for handling and chemical analysis of sediment and water samples. State Univ. of New York Coll. at Buffalo Great Lakes LabGoogle Scholar
  38. Randolph M, Cassidy M, Gourvenec S, Erbrich C (2005) Challenges of offshore geotechnical engineering. Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering. AA Balkema Publishers, pp 123–176Google Scholar
  39. Schaffner LC, Dellapenna TM, Hinchey EK, Friedrichs CT, Neubauer MT, Smith ME, Kuehl SA (2001) Physical energy regimes, seabed dynamics and organism-sediment interactions along an estuarine gradient. Organism-sediment interactions, pp 159–179Google Scholar
  40. Scott RF (1970) In-place ocean soil strength by accelerometer. J Soil Mech Found Div 96:199–211Google Scholar
  41. Stark N (2011) Geotechnical investigation of sediment remobilization processes using dynamic penetrometers. PhD Thesis. University of Bremen, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  42. Stark N, Kopf A (2011) Detection and quantification of sediment remobilization processes using a dynamic penetrometer. OCEANS 2011. IEEE, pp 1–9Google Scholar
  43. Stark N, Wever TF (2009) Unraveling subtle details of expendable bottom penetrometer (XBP) deceleration profiles. Geo-Marine Lett 29:39–45.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00367-008-0119-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Stark N, Ziotopoulou K (2017) Undrained shear strength of offshore sediments from portable free fall penetrometers: theory, field observations and numerical simulations. In Offshore Site Investigation Geotechnics 8th International Conference Proceeding, Society for Underwater Technology 391(3990):391–399Google Scholar
  45. Stark N, Hanff H, Svenson C, Ernstsen VB, Lefebvre A, Winter C, Kopf A (2011) Coupled penetrometer, MBES and ADCP assessments of tidal variations in surface sediment layer characteristics along active subaqueous dunes, Danish Wadden Sea. Geo-Marine Lett 31:249–258.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00367-011-0230-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Stark N, Radosavljevic B, Quinn B, Lantuit H (2016) Application of portable free-fall penetrometer for geotechnical investigation of Arctic nearshore zone. Can Geotech J 54(1):31–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Stephan S (2015) A rugged marine impact penetrometer for sea floor assessment. PhD Thesis. University of Bremen, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  48. Stoll RD, Akal T (1999) XBP- tool for rapid assessment of seabed sediment properties. Sea Technol 40(2):47–52Google Scholar
  49. Stoll RD, Sun YF, Bitte I (2007) Seafloor properties from penetrometer tests. IEEE J Ocean Eng 32:57–63.  https://doi.org/10.1109/JOE.2007.890943 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. True DG (1976) Undrained vertical penetration into ocean bottom soils. PhD thesis, University 668 of California, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  51. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (2002) CEM: Coastal Engineering Manual 1110-2-1100. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  52. Van Rijn LC (1993) Principles of sediment transport in rivers, estuaries and coastal seas. Aqua Publications, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  53. Vandever JP (2007) Acoustic measurement and modeling of waves in estuarine and coastal environmentsGoogle Scholar
  54. White DJ, Gaudin C, Boylan N, Zhou H (2010) Interpretation of T-bar penetrometer tests at shallow embedment and in very soft soils. Can Geotech J 47(2):218–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Ziotopoulou K, O’Connell S, Stark N and Ghose-Hajra M (2017) Preliminary simulations of free-fall penetrometer behavior: toward validating against geotechnical field and laboratory observations and predicting sediment erosion and deposition in waterways in coastal Louisiana. In Geotechnical Frontiers, pp 418–427Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Civil and Environmental EngineeringVirginia Polytechnic Institute and State UniversityBlacksburgUSA
  2. 2.Virginia Institute of Marine ScienceGloucester PointUSA

Personalised recommendations