geotechnical assessment of soil in erosion prone zone

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 227 [email protected]

International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET) Volume 7, Issue 6, November-December 2016, pp. 227–240, Article ID: IJCIET_07_06_025

Available online at http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/issues.asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=7&IType=6

ISSN Print: 0976-6308 and ISSN Online: 0976-6316

© IAEME Publication

GEOTECHNICAL ASSESSMENT OF SOIL IN EROSION

PRONE ZONE

Thanappan Subash

PhD Scholar in Department of Civil Engineering

Noorul Islam University, Kanyakumari (DT), Tamilnadu, India.

P. Vincent

Senior Professor in Department of Civil Engineering

Mepco Schlenk Engineering College, Sivakasi, Virudunagar (DT), Tamilnadu, India.

N. Nalanth

Professor and Head in Department of Civil Engineering

Francis Xavier Engineering College, Tirunelveli, Tamilnadu, India.

ABSTRACT

One of the major threats to land use pattern of mountainous environment is soil erosion. It is a

natural process which affects all the land forms. In general soil erosion refers to the wearing of the

soil especially top soil due to various forces like water wind and tillage. Soil detachment,

movement and deposition are the key components of soil erosion. In the current study, and

exclusive investigation has been carried out to access the Geotechnical properties of soil in an area

prone to soil erosion. The location selected for the current study is Thekkumalai mountain foot,

Kanyakumari District in Tamilnadu. Soil samples from the study area have been subjected to

various physical tests in a view of identifying the parameters which influences soil erodibility so

that suitable soil stabilization could be ascertained.

Key words: Bermuda grass, Consistency limit, Plasticity index, Riprap, Sweet gum ball.

Cite this Article: Thanappan Subash, P. Vincent and N. Nalanth, Geotechnical Assessment of Soil

in Erosion Prone Zone. International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology, 7(6), 2016,

pp.227–240.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/issues.asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=7&IType=6

1. INTRODUCTION

Next to air and water, soil is the valuable component in an ecosystem. Soil which is derived from the rocks

cover the earth’s surface and it takes millions of years to form. The rate of soil formation is usually one

centimeter for every hundred to four hundred years on the earth surface. Hence soil is a non renewable

resource and a precious gift of nature. Soil erosion is one of the most serious environmental and public

health problems facing human society (David Pimentel, 2006) [1]. Modern accelerated soil erosion

problems have been linked to irrational land exploration resulting from human activities (Yang Aimin et

al., 2002) [2]. One of the problems threatening both developed and developing countries is run off induced

soil erosion. Due to increasing population, cultivation has been expanded to steep sloping lands in many

Thanappan Subash, P. Vincent and N. Nalanth


developing countries in the world, which causes major types of environmental degradation with direct

consequences in terms of soil fertility decrease and water availability (T.X. Zhua et. Al., 2014) [3].The top

layer of soil is the most fertile one because it contains the organic nutrients. When a raindrop hits soil that

is not protected by a cover of vegetation and where there are no roots to bind the soil, it has the impact of a

bullet. Hence, in modern days soil erosion is one of the most important environmental hazards (M. Kartic

Kumar et al., 2014) [4]. Siltation of reservoirs due to soil erosion minimizes the life of the project and

affects the hydroelectric power generation. Flora and fauna on the earth surface is also affected (Jasmin

Ismayil and Ravichandran, 2008) [5]. Farmer’s practices over the irrigational fields in tropical and semi-

arid areas, leads to soil fertility loss and hence brings on negative impacts to environment (V.

Prasannakumar, 2012) [6]. Soil erosion is regarded as one of the major cause of land degradation, and as

such poses severe limitations to sustainable agricultural land use (L. RecatalaA et al., 2011) [7]. Soil

erosion tragically affects the quality and quantity of soil, water and hence its productivity (V.O. Chude,

2005) [8]. On sloping land, erosion is active which disturbs the soil physical factors by removing the top

soil layer (D.W.Sanders, 2006) [9]. Erosion from sloping lands cause serious problems downstream, silting

of dams and streams, frequent flooding, damage to irrigation and hydro-electric schemes etc (Ijaz Ali,

2006) [10]. Therefore, Analysis on the physical soil properties are the most important factor that

determines soil erodibility (G.M. Pierzynski, 2005, Nwoke, H.U., 2016) [11, 12].

2. STUDY AREA

The area selected for the present study is situated at Thekkumalai West RF, on the upstream bank of

Thovalai channel (Figure 1) in Kanyakumari District, Tamilnadu, India. The study area covers two union

taluks, namely, Thovalai taluk and Agesteeswarm taluk. In the study area there is a hill, locally named

Thekkumalai. The total height of the hill is 335.73 meters from mean sea level. The average wind speed in

the study area is 3.67 m /sec at 257.50.The general climate of the study area is moderate..

3. MATERIALS AND METHODS

Expert opinions, land users’ opinions, field monitoring, observations and measurement are the most

common methods used to assess land degradation (Taimi Sofia Kapalanga, 2008) [13]. Soil quality

indicator is the main tool in the geotechnical assessment of physical properties of soil. Soil quality

indicators are used for maintaining and improving the soil condition and also to evaluate the soil

management practices and techniques (Hamid Kheyrodin, 2014) [14]. The periodical rainfall intensity was

recorded through rain gauge (Thanappan Subash, 2016) [15] in the study area and the data were collected

from the Office of Assistant Engineer, PWD (Irrigation).Fine sands and silts are susceptible to soil erosion

as its particle size falls below 0.1mm which tend to transport them. In order to examine the physical

characteristics of soil, soil samples were collected from 13 trail pits in different locations, within the study

area (Martins Okey Isikwe, et al., 2012) [16].

Geotechnical Assessment of Soil in Erosion Prone Zone


Figure 1 Digital Base Map for the study Area

The study area was divided into 3 parts namely, North, Middle and South. This was to ensure that soil

samples will give a fair representation of the soil type within the area where it was collected. The trial pits

were dug at 2m to 3m for geotechnical analysis in the field. Each soil sample collected was observed

physically and later stored in separate polythene bags and labeled accordingly for easy identification. The

accessories used includes: Global Positioning System (GPS), topographical map, measuring tape,

recording sheet, digital camera, hand trowel, shovel, and samplers. The base map for the study area (Figure

1), the maps showing the Sand percentage (Figure 5), Silt percentage (Figure 6) and Gradation type (Figure

7) were digitally prepared using GIS as a tool.

3.1. Laboratory Analysis

The samples collected from the field were analyzed using; Gradation test, Atterberg limit test, Soil

compaction test, Specific gravity test and Natural moisture content determination. These analyses were

carried out at Civil Engineering Department laboratory of Noorl Islam University, India.

3.1.1 Sieve Analysis (Grain Size Distribution)

The texture or gradation of soil also highly affects the infiltration and runoff rates, resistance against shear

failure and aggregate stability (M. Lado et al., 1999; J. Poesen, 1993) [17, 18]. The types of soil (whether it

is cohesive or cohessionless) of a specific site play a vital role in determining the fertility status of soil and

the cropping pattern in the field (R. Pravin et al., 2013) [19]. Soil samples received from the field were

dried in an oven (1100C), and it was broken down into fine particles using a wooden mallet. The dried

sample was sieved through various set of IS sieves and the mass of soil sample retained on each sieve were

recorded against the sieve aperture size. The result of mechanical analysis is presented on a semi-log graph

known as particle size distribution curve. The particle diameters are plotted on the log scale and the

corresponding percentage finer are plotted on the arithmetic scale.

3.1.2 Consistency Test

Consistency refers to relative ease of soil. The state of deformation of soil takes place from one state to the

other. The water contents corresponding to the transition from one state to another are called Atterberg

limits or Consistency limits. These limits were determined by standardized tests. The liquid and plastic

limits were used to obtain the plasticity index which is a measure of the plasticity of the soils (A.G.

Onwuemesi, 1990) [20].



3.1.2.1 Liquid Limit Test (LL)

A small quantity of oven-dried soil sample was pulverized and sieved through 420μ IS sieve. The sieved

soil was then mixed with sufficient amount of water until it becomes plastic enough and the paste was

placed in the brass cup of the Casegrande device. The paste was smoothened and a groove cut was applied

in the middle of soil specimen and thus the specimen was splited into 2 halves. The number of blows

necessary to close groove with the standard dimension of 12 cm was noted.

3.1.2.2 Plastic limit (PL)

The PL may be defined as the moisture content in percentage in which the soil crumbles when rolled into

threads of the standard dimension of approximately 3 mm in diameter. Some amount of the pulverized soil

sample that was sieved through IS sieve of 400 μ sieve was used for plastic limit test. The soil sample was

thoroughly mixed with water and to such an extent of water content, which just allowed a thread of about

3mm to be rolled. The rolled sample was achieved on a glass plate and the process was repeated until a

thread of about 3mm in diameter began to show signs of crumbling. Some of the crumbling materials were

taken for water content determination, which when arranged, gives the plastic limit. Three of these

determinations were obtained which were averaged to give the plastic limit.

3.1.2.3 Plastic index (IP)

The difference between the liquid limit and plastic limit of any particularly disturbed sample (LL – PL) is

the plasticity index. The plasticity indices are noted corresponding to states of plasticity of soil and the

standard range of plastic limits of soil is ascertained (Prof. K.V. Sivakumar Babu, 2015; D.M. Burmister,

1949; F. Ishaque, 2010) [21, 22, and 23]. The plasticity chart was used in which the ordinate and abscissa

represent the values of plasticity index and liquid limit respectively. The Values of liquid limit and

plasticity indices obtained from the Atterberg limit tests were plotted. From the plasticity chart, all the soil

samples were identified as low to medium plasticity.

3.1.3 Specific Gravity (G)

The Pycnometer filled with water was weighed and then bottle was emptied and dried. The oven dry

samples was introduced into the bottle, the soil was stirred with a glass rod in order to allow trapped air to

be released. Sufficient air-free distilled water was added so that the soil in the bottle is just covered then

weighed. Values of the specific gravity outside the range of values given may occasionally be encountered

in soils derived from parent materials that contained either unusually heavy minerals or light minerals.

Specific gravity = (Wt. of solid particles / Wt. of an equal vol. of H2O)

3.1.4 Compaction test

Compaction tests were carried out for determining the moisture density relationships. The standard proctor

compaction test was adopted due to its availability (Umoru Charles Ile, et al., 2015) [24]. The water

content in percentage shown by the peak point of the curve is taken as the optimum moisture content

(OMC) and its corresponding dry unit weight is taken as the maximum dry unit weight of the soil under

that particular degree of compaction (Debashis Moitra, 2013) [25].



4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The result of sieve analysis carried out in the laboratory on soil sample 1 was shown (Table 1).

Table 1 Report of Sieve Analysis for Sample 1

Table 1 Amaravathivizhai Channel Upstream @ Base of the Hill

Sl.No IS Sieve used

Particle Size

(mm)

Wt.of soil

retained in gm

%

Retained

Cumulative

% retained % N

1 4.75 mm 4.75 0 0 0 100

2 2 mm 2 78 7.8 7.8 92.2

3 1 mm 1 146 14.6 22.4 77.6

4 600μ 0.6 168 16.8 39.2 60.8

5 425μ 0.425 192 19.2 58.4 41.6

6 300μ 0.3 202 20.2 78.6 21.4

7 150μ 0.15 148 14.8 93.4 6.6

8 75μ 0.075 50 5 98.4 1.6

9 Bottom Pan – 16 1.6 100 0

a Umoru Charles Ile (2015) [22]

b Debashis Moitra (2003) [ 23]

Figure 2 Particle Size Curve for Soil Sample-1

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

0 0.20.40.60.8 1 1.21.41.61.8 2 2.22.42.62.8 3 3.23.43.63.8 4 4.24.44.64.8 5

Series1



Table 2 Summaries of Sieve Analyses Result

Item D10 D30 D60 Cu Cc Classification

Sample-1 0.2 0.4 1.15 0.92 5.75 PG

Sample - 2 0.32 0.6 1.55 1.74 4.84 PG

Sample -3 0.2 0.36 1.44 0.93 7.2 PG

Sample -4 0.75 1.17 2.23 4.07 2.97 PG

Sample -5 0.44 0.55 0.96 0.66 2.18 PG

Sample -6 0.88 1.46 4.4 10.66 5 PG

Sample -7 0.22 0.44 1.4 1.23 6.36 WG

Sample -8 0.48 0.78 1.6 2.03 3.33 PG

Sample -9 0.44 0.88 1.88 3.31 4.3 PG

Sample -10 0.4 0.6 1.36 1.23 3.4 PG

Sample -11 0.68 PG

Sample-12 0.46 0.95 1.96 3.8 4.3 PG

Sample-13 1.12 4.36 PG

a Debashis Moitra (2003) [ 23]

Figure 3 Sand Percentage Figure 4 Silt Percentage Figure 5 Gradation Type

According to the IS classification system, a particle size curve (Figure 2) for % finer versus particle

size (mm) was plotted to an appropriate scale. Flattened profile shows finer sands or poorly graded soil.

Well graded sands have uniformity coefficient of Cu ≥ 6 and coefficient of gradation Cc = 1≤ Cc≤3 while

poorly graded sands have uniformity coefficient of Cu < 6 and coefficient of gradation Cc = 1 >Cc>3. A

gentle profile shows intermediate sands while steep profile shows coarser sand. The particle size graph

(Figure 2 below and that of sample 1), shows gentle to steep profile. These infer intermediate to coarser

sand. From the sieve analysis, uniformity coefficient (Cu) ranges from 0.66 to 10.66 and coefficient of

gradation (Cc) ranging from 2.18 to 6.36 (Table 2). The digital thematic maps (Figure 3, 4) shows low and

very low percentage of silt as well as high and very high percentage of sand in the study area. Moreover,

the digital map for gradation type shows the soil samples were poorly graded and highly dominated with



sand percentage (Figure 5). The absence of “fines” or silt/clay content indicates that the soils are non-

plastic.

Table 3 Liquid Limit of Soil Sample

Number of Blows: 47 33 14

Wt.of empty container: 11.8 11.61 11.69

Container+Wet soil gm 34.06 32.47 37.46

Wt. of Wet soil(gm): 22.26 20.86 25.77

Container+Dry soil(gm): 27.15 25.8 29

Wt. of Dry soil(gm): 15.35 14.19 17.31

Water content (%): 45.0 47.0 48.9

a Umoru Charle Ile (2015) [22]

Figure 6 Flow Curve

From the test results obtained from liquid limit test (Table 3), a graph of moisture content against

number of blows is plotted. The moisture content at 25 blows gives liquid Limit of soil. From the flow

curve (Figure 6), liquid limit (WL) of soil sample-1 was found to be 47.7%. From the plasticity chart

(Figure 7), all the soil samples from the various gully sites have their plots clustered within the low plastic

range hence they are cohessionless. Liquid limit, plastic limit and plasticity index for different samples

were obtained at various locations. The plasticity indices were considered corresponding to states of

plasticity (Table 4) according to Burmister (1949). The plastic limit of soil samples (Table 5) shows the

soils are slight to low in plastic. The values of the plastic index obtained in the current study also ranges

from 2.6% to 13.1% (Table 6) and this shows slight to low plasticity condition of soil..



Table 4 Plasticity Indices

S.No Plasticity index (%) State of plasticity

1 0 Non-plastic

2 1-5 Slight

3 5-10 Low

4 10-20 Medium

5 20-40 High

6 >40 Very High

a Burmister, D.M (1949)[20]

Table 5 Standard Range of Plastic limits of Soil

Plastic limit of soil Plasticity

Below 35% Low

Between 35 – 50% Intermediate

Above 50 % High

a Burmister, D.M (1949) [20]

Figure 7 Plasticity Chart

A straight line (A- line) represented by the equation, Ip = 0.73(WL –20), was drawn and the area was

divided into a number of segments. The meaning of the symbols used in the chart include: (M: Silty Soils;

C: Clayey soils; O: Organic soils; L: Low plasticity; I: Medium or intermediate plasticity; H: High

plasticity). Comparing the plasticity index value (Table 4) against the chart (Figure 7), soil sample-1 was

recorded as MI and the other soil samples were classified (Table 7). The predicted soil losses for the

selected 13 locations were determined using the Revised Universal Soil Loss (RUSLE) concept (Hudson,

N.W, 1995) [26] as shown in (Table 9). Erodibility factor (K %) was calculated as follow:

K% = (% Sand + % Silt) / (% Clay)

The classes of erodibility based on different values of erodibility factor (k) and nature of soil (F.

Mercier, 2013) [27].



Table 6 Summary of liquid limit, Plastic limit and Plastic Index

Sample no WL WP IP Degree of plasticity

1 47.7 44.3 3.4 Slight

2 56.9 51.6 5.3 Low

3 47.9 37 10.9 Medium

4 48 39.5 8.5 Low

5 68.5 61.2 7.3 Low

6 69.8 56.7 13.1 Medium

7 52 49.4 2.6 Slight

8 51.3 43.6 7.7 Low

9 34 24 10 Medium

10 19 15 4 Slight

11 45.4 38.6 6.8 Low

12 43.5 34.2 9.3 Low

13 37 29.8 7.2 Low

a Burmister, D.M (1949) [20]

b Debashis Moitra (2003) [23]

Table 7 Classification based on Plasticity Chart

Sample No. Classification

1 MI

2 MH

3 MI

4 MI

5 MH

6 MH

7 MH

8 MH

9 CL

10 CL-SL

11 MI

12 MI

13 MI


Compaction tests are carried out with the aim of determining the moisture density relationships of soils.

A graph of dry density against the water content obtained from the analyzed data is plotted for sample1

(Figure 8) to obtain the maximum dry density (MDD) and optimum moisture content (OMC). Soil

compaction graphs of samples 2 to 13 will be discussed.



Figure 8 Compaction Curve

Table 8 Summary of Specific Gravity Test Results

S-1 S-2 S-3 S-4 S-5 S-6 S-7 S-8 S-9 S-10 S-11 S-12 S-13

0.62 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.62

0.99 0.96 0.92 0.94 0.91 0.86 0.98 0.99 0.98 0.96 0.88 0.92 0.89

1.60 1.59 1.58 1.59 1.54 1.51 1.60 1.56 1.58 1.58 1.52 1.56 1.54

1.37 1.37 1.37 1.37 1.37 1.37 1.37 1.37 1.37 1.37 1.37 1.37 1.37

2.74 2.95 3.32 3.25 2.56 2.37 2.86 2.13 2.41 2.52 2.4 2.92 2.63


The specific gravity is the ratio of mass of a given volume of solid grains to the mass of an equal

volume of water. Within the range of 2.60 to 2.80, the lower values of specific gravity are typical of sands.

The soil samlple-1 was classified as “Sand type” as its specific gravity (Table 8) was found to be 2.74.

5. INITIATION FOR THE COMPARISON STUDY

To control the soil erosion in the erosion prone zones as observed through the assessment, a comparison

study was initiated in the study area with the help of Sweet gum balls (Eatedal Alqusaireen, 2012) [28],

Coconut shells, Riprap (Different sizes of stones), Bermuda grass rods and a Control. Sweet gum tree is a

shade tree (USDA NRCS, 2002) [29] and theirs fruits are one of the most hard wood [Fig. 8, 9]. To initiate

the study, five treatments were introduced in an agricultural field on a hill side of a slightly gradient

profile. The terrain of the field was cleaned, ploughed and leveled manually [Fig. 10]. Five rills of standard

size of 10 feet length, 2 feet width and 1 feet depth was created on the bank of a channel in rows [Fig. 11].

For the first treatment, Sweet gum balls are collected locally using manpower and spreaded in Rill-1

[Fig.12] above the plastic net.



Table 9 Assessment of Predicted Soil Loss

% S % Silt % C

Erodibility

factor (A)

Mean Average

Rainfall (K)

Rainfall factor

R= 0.5 H

Predicted Soil

loss =A= 2.2ARK

74 6 20 0.04 499 249.5 49.18

92 2 6 0.156 499 249.5 192.6

64 7 27 0.026 499 249.5 32.33

92 3 5 0.19 499 249.5 233.6

88 4 8 0.115 499 249.5 141.4

72 6 22 0.035 499 249.5 43.6

76 8 16 0.053 499 249.5 64.55

86 6 8 0.115 499 249.5 141.4

66 2 32 0.02 499 249.5 26.13

76 7 17 0.049 499 249.5 60.03

88 6 6 0.157 499 249.5 192.63

89 2 9 0.101 499 249.5 124.32

94 3 3 0.323 499 249.5 397.55


b Debashis Moitra (2003) [23]

After placing the sweet gum ball, the net was tied together using tied using the wooden stacks such that

the netted balls are in contact with the ground. For the second treatment, Rip raps [Fig. 13] of

approximately 10 inch size were spreaded in Rill-2. For the third treatment, ‘Bermuda grass rod’ was

spreaded in Rill-3 and the wooden stacks were used to hold the grass rod in position with the ground

[Fig.14]. For the fourth treatment, Rill-4 was filled with the ‘Coconut shells’ [Fig.15]. For the fifth

treatment, the last rill was kept as a ‘Control’. With this set up of rill arrangements (on July 12th, 2016),

‘Visual observation’ has been started to access the erosion caused by rainfall and run-off. After 8 months

period of periodical observation on rill conditions, the Sweet gum balls, Rip rap, Coconut shell and

Bermuda grass will be removed from the rills to check the changes in the rill’s bed.

Figure 9 Gum Ball Tree Figure 10 Sweet Gum Ball Figure 11 Field After Ploughing



Figure 12 Rills Creation Figure 13 Gum Balls in Rill-1 Figure 14 Rip raps in Rill-2

Figure 15 Bermuda grass Figure 16 Coconut Shell Figure 17 Untreated Control

(Rill-3) (Rill-4) (Rill-5)

6. CONCLUSION

The goal of this study was to identify the physical properties of soil which influences surface erosion and

determine the indices of erodibility such as Dispersion ratio (DR), and Erosion ratio (ER). In the current

study, it was evidently clear that most of the soil samples were predominantly of sand and clay making the

soil to be classified as Sandy clay soil. The soil has low clay except only with samples 9 and 10. Most of

the samples are cohessionless, cannot be compacted properly, and non-plastic in nature. The specific

gravity of soil samples shows lower values with typical sands in the study area. This shows that the

formation of gully erosion is highly possible in the study area. The soil samples are having low moisture

content which indicates the soil was loose in nature and cannot hold much water in the pores. Erodibility

factor (K) and annual soil losses in the study area shows that the highest value of erodibility factor of 0.323



and the highest predicted soil loss of 397.55 ton/ha/yr was found with soil sample-13. Suitable control

measures can be put in the zones that are highly susceptible to soil erosion and to counteract more soil

erodibility and thus to reduce the formation of gullies. Visual observation on the rills created with sweet

gum balls, Rip rap, Coconut shells, Bermuda grass rods and an untreated control will be continued upto

July-2017. Visual indicators’ using these treatment techniques would provide a valuable solution to reduce

the erodibility rate at the end of the experiment period in the study area.

REFERENCE

[1] David Pimentel. Soil Erosion: Food and Environmental Threat, Environment, Development and

Sustainability, Springer, 8, 2006, pp. 119-137.

[2] Yang Aimin, Wang Hao, Tang Kewang and Sun Ge. Soil Erosion Characteristics and Control Measures

in China, 12th ISCO Conference, Beijing, 2002, pp. 463-469.

[3] Zhua, T. X., and Zhub, A.X. Assessment of Soil Erosion and Conservation on Agricultural Sloping

Lands using Plot Data in the Semi-Arid Hilly Loess Region of China, Journal of Hydrology: Regional

Studies, 2, 2014, pp. 69–83.

[4] Kartic Kumar, K., Annadurai, R., and Ravichandran, P.T. International Assessment of Soil Erosion

Susceptibility in Kothagiri Taluk Using Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE) and Geo-

Spatial Technology, Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, 4 (10), 2014, ISSN 2250-3153.

[5] Jasmin Ismayil and Ravichandran. RUSLE 2 Model Application Soil Erosion Assessment using Remote

Sensing and GIS, Springer, water resource management, 22, 2008, pp. 83- 102.

[6] Prasannakumar, V., Vijith, H., Abinod, S., and Geetha, N. Estimation of Soil Erosion Risk within a

Small Mountainous Sub-watershed in Kerala, India, using Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation

(RUSLE) and Geo-information Technology, Geoscience Frontiers 3(2), 2012, pp. 209 - 215.

[7] Luis RecatalaA, Carlos AnoA, Simone VerzandvoortB, Coen Ritsema B and Juan Sanchez.

Harmonization of Risk Assessment Methods of Soil Erosion by Water in the European Union, 2011.

[8] Chude, V.O. Soil and Water Conservation Handbook for Extension Workers. Federal Department of

Agricultural Land, Resources and National Special Programme for Food Security, 2005, pp. 43.

[9] Sanders, D.W. Soil and Water Conservation on Steep Lands. In: Moldenhauer, W. C., Hudson, N., 1998.

[10] Ijaz Ali, Farmanullah Khan, and Bhatti, A. U. Some Physio-Chemical Properties of Soil as

influenced by Surface Erosion under Different Cropping Systems on Upland- Sloping Soil, Soil &

Environ. 25(1), 2006, pp. 28-34.

[11] Pierzynski, G.M., Sims, J.T., and Vance, G.F. Soils and Environmental Quality, Lewis Publishers Inc.,

Chelsea, MI, 1994, pp.336.

[12] Nwoke, H.U., Dike, B.U., Nwite, S.A., Nwakwasi, N.L., Relating Uprooting Resistance to Stem Basal

Diameters of Plants for Erosion Mitigation, International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology

(IJCIET), 7(3), 2016, pp. 129-135.

[13] Taimi Sofia Kapalanga. A Review of Land Degradation Assessment Methods, Land Restoration

Training Programme Final project, Keldnaholt, Reykjavík, Iceland, 2008, pp. 17-68.

[14] Hamid Kheyrodin. Important of Soil Quality and Soil Agriculture Indicators, Academia Journal of

Agricultural Research, 2(11), 2014, pp. 231-238.

[15] Thanappan Subash. Study on the benefits and impacts of Water Hyacinth at Pazhayar River Basin in

Kanyakumari District, Tamilnadu, India – a Case Review, International Journal of Environmental

Science and Technology, 2(1), 2016, pp. 69-74.

[16] Martins Okey, I., Calistus, A., and Sam Baba, O. Erodibility of Soils of the South West Benue State,

Nigeria, The Pacific Journal of Science and Technology, 13(2), 2012, pp. 437- 447.

[17] Lado, M., Ben-Hur, M., and Shainberg, I. Soil Wetting and Texture Effects on Aggregate Stability Seal

Formation and Erosion, Soil Science Society of America, 68(6), 2004, pp. 1992-1999.

[18] Poesen, J. Mechanisms of Overland-flow and Sediment Production on Loamy and Sandy Soils with and

without Rock Fragments in Overland Flow Hydraulics and Erosion Mechanics, A. Parsons and A.D.

Abrahams (Eds.). UCL Press Limited, University College, London, 1993, pp. 275-305.



[19] Pravin, R. C., Dodha, V.A., Vidya, D.A., and Manab, C. Soil Bulk Density as related to Soil Texture,

Organic Matter Content and Available Total Nutrients of Coimbatore, Soil International Journal of

Scientific and Research Publications, 3(2), 2013, pp. 1-8.

[20] Onwuemesi, A.G. Hydro Geophysical and Geotechnical Investigation of the Ajali Sandstone in Nsukka

and Environs with reference to Groundwater Resources and Gully Erosion Problems, Water Resources

Journal, 2(1), 1990, pp. 1-10.

[21] Prof. K.V. Sivakumar Babu, Prof. G. Bogayappa Naidu, and Prof. V. Srinivasulu, Geo=-Spatial

Technologies in Shorel ine Analysis, Variability and Erosion, International Journal of Civil Engineering

Technology (IJCIET), 6(11) 2015, pp.76-88.

[22] Burmister, D.M. Concepts in Soil Mechanics, 2nd Edition. Columbia: Department of Civil Engineering,

Columbia University Press, 1949.

[23] Ishaque, F., Hoque, M.N., and Rashid, M.A. Determination of Plastic Limit of Some Selected Soils

using Rolling Device, Progress. Agric. 21(1, 2), 2010, pp. 187-194.

[24] Umoru Charles Ile, Shuaibu, A.M., Abdullahi, I.N., and Umar, M.U. Geotechnical Assessment of Gully

Erosion at Ankpa Area, North Central Nigeria. OSR Journal of Applied Chemistry (IOSR-JAC) e-ISSN:

2278-5736, 8(12), 2015, pp. 36-48.

[25] Debashis Moitra. Problems in Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Dhanpat Rai Publications,

2003.

[26] Hudson, N.W. Soil Conservation, Lowa Statae University Press: Ames, Lowa, US, 1995.

[27] Mercier, F., Numerical Modelling of Erosion of a Cohesive Soil by a Turbulent Flow, PhD Thesis.

Fluids Mechanics [Physics. class - ph], Aix- Marseille University, 2013, pp. 1- 188.

[28] Eatedal Alqusaireen. Comparison of Three Soil Erosion Control Treatments, A Research Paper, Master

of Science in Agriculture and Natural Resources, The University of Tennessee, Martin, 2012.

[29] USDA NRCS. Plant Fact Sheet, National Plant Materials Center, Beltsville, Maryland, 2002.

Documents

geotechnical assessment of soil in erosion prone zone