Armor coats, inverse grading, and streambed scour in selected streams of Southern Ontario and Western New York /

Surface size analyses of Twenty and Sixteen Mile Creeks, the Grand and Genesee Rivers and Cazenovia Creek show three distinct types of bed-surface sediment: 1) a "continuous" armor coat which has a mean size of -6.5 phi and coarser, 2) a "discontinuous" armor coat which has a mean size of approximately -6.0 phi and 3) a bed with no armor coat which has a mean surface size of -5.0 phi and finer. The continuous armor coat completely covers and protects the subsurface from the flow. The discontinuous armor coat is composed of intermittently-spaced surface clasts, which provide the subsurface with only limited protection from the flow. The bed with no armor coat allows complete exposure of the subsurface to the flow. The subsurface beneath the continuous armor coats of Twenty and Sixteen Mile Creeks is possibly modified by a "vertical winnowing" process when the armor coat is p«natrat«d. This process results in a welld «v«loped inversely graded sediment sequence.vertical winnowing is reduced beneath the discontinuous armor coats of the Grand and Genesee Rivers. The reduction of vertical winnowing results in a more poorly-developed inverse grading than that found in Twenty and sixteen Mile Creeks. The streambed of Cazenovia Creek normally is not armored resulting in a homogeneous subsurface which shows no modification by vertical winnowing. This streambed forms during waning or moderate flows, suggesting it does not represent the maximum competence of the stream. Each population of grains in the subsurface layers of Twenty and sixteen Mile Creeks has been modified by vertical winnowing and does not represent a mode of transport. Each population in the subsurface layers beneath a discontinuous armor coat may partially reflect a transport mode. These layers are still inversely graded suggesting that each population is affected to some degree by vertical winnowing. The populations for sediment beneath a surface which is not armored are probably indicative of transport modes because such sediment has not been modified by vertical winnowing. Bed photographs taken in each of the five streams before and after the 1982-83 snow-melt show that the probability of movement for the surface clasts is a function of grain size. The greatest probability of of clast movement and scour depth of this study were recorded on Cazenovia Creek in areas where no armor coat is present. The scour depth in the armored beds of Twenty and Sixteen Mile Creeks is related to the probability of movement for a given mean surface size.

Armourstone revetments : will standard design criteria prevent failure? /

Bank stabilization structures are used to prevent the loss of valuable land within the urban environment and the decision for the type of structure used depends on the properties of the stream. In the urban areas of Southern Ontario there is a preference for the use of armourstone blocks as bank stabilization. The armourstone revetment is a free standing stone structure with large blocks of stone layered vertically and offset from one another. During fieldwork at Forty Mile Creek in Grimsby, Ontario armourstone failure was identified by the removal of two stones within one column from the wall. Since the footer stones were still in place, toe scour was eliminated as a cause of failure. Through theoretical, field, and experimental work the process of suction has been identified as a mode of failure for the armourstone wall and the process of suction works similarly to quarrying large blocks of rock off bedrock streambeds. The theory of lateral suction has previously not been taken into consideration for the design of these walls. The physical and hydraulic evidence found in the field and studied during experimental work indicate that the armourstone wall is vulnerable to the process of suction. The forces exerted by the flow and the resistance of the block determine the stability of the armourstone block within the wall. The design of the armourstone wall, high surface velocities, and short pulses of faster flowing water within the profile could contribute to armourstone failure by providing the forces needed for suction to occur, therefore adjustments to the design of the wall should be made in order to limit the effect.