NORTHFIELD/TORRY ACADEMY

Exemplar N5 Assignment
River Study:
Does the water velocity and channel cross-sections
increase and bedload size and angularity decrease as the
Carron Water progresses downstream? I.e. does it follow
the Bradshaw model?

Image: Arcmel.com

Important: This report is an exemplar and it should be acknowledged that the marking shown is not
endorsed by the SQA. This report is purely an exemplar to highlight where marks may be awarded.

Nat 5 Assignment Exemplar Report

Research Topic Aims/Hypotheses:

Aim: Does the water velocity and channel cross-sections increase and bedload size and angularity
decrease as the Carron Water progresses downstream? I.e. does it follow the Bradshaw model?

Research Methods:

6 marks

Describe (and explain) two research methods you used to collect information about your topic
or issue. [Remember only talk about two methods! More methods are discussed here as an
exemplar]
Three suitable sites were selected for their access and to represent the upper, middle and lower
sections of the Carron Water, which eventually flows through Stonehaven (1). At each site a
number of measurements were taken to identify the rivers width, depth, and velocity and
bedload size. Equipment and methods used are as follows:
A metre stick was used to measure the depth of the river at each site (1). A ranging pole was
placed at each bank of the river. A rope, marked at half metre intervals, was tied between them
(see figs 1, 2 and 3) (1). From the left bank and at each half metre a measurement was taken of
the depth of the water using the meter stick (1). This was noted down in the data collection sheet
for that site. Once the river had been measured across its entire width in this way, the above
information was used to develop a scale diagram of the profile of the river at each site (see figs 1,
2 and 3) (1).
A tape measure was used to make an initial measurement of the width of the river (1) and also to
identify a 10 metre section of the river in order to find out the velocity of the river at each site (1).
For velocity a tennis ball was used to identify the speed of flow at the left, middle and right hand
side of the river. Each section was repeated three times in order to increase data reliability (1).
Ten meters were measured alongside the river bank and then the tennis ball was dropped into the
water, the stop watch started at this point and then stopped when it had travelled 10 metres (1).
The time was then noted on the data collection sheet for each site, in metres per second, m/s, for
later analysis at school.
To find out the angle of slope adjacent to the river, ranging poles along with a clinometer were
used (1). One ranging pole was placed at the river bank whilst the other was placed further up the
bank approximately 2 metres away from the river in order to get the angle of slope parallel to the
river course (1). The clinometer was sighted from the intersection between white and the red
sections on the lower ranging pole to the same position on the upper ranging pole to identify the
angle of slope (1). This data was also added to the data collection sheet for later analysis.
A quadrat was used to collect random samples of bedload at each site (1). A quadrat avoids
selectivity and reduces bias in the data collecting process.(1) The method adopted was to drop
the quadrat randomly into the water at each site and select twelve samples, measuring the long
1

axis, which provides the size of the bedload particles (1) and angularity, which indicates whether
erosional processes are increasing as we travel downstream (1). In order to analyse the angularity
of the boulders each stone was given a numerical figure as this would enable the production of
graphs more easily (see figures 4,5 & 6) (1).
Research findings:

8 marks

Describe and explain, in detail, the main findings of your research. You must include reference
to the processed information you have brought into the assessment.
Velocity
The surface velocity of the river at site 1 could not be investigated by taking measurements left
middle and right within the river as we had done further downstream due to the small amount of
water flowing at this site and the boulders which prevented continued flow of the tennis ball. This
may have been because there is less water nearer the source (less tributaries have joined) to add
to the velocity which would lessen the erosive power (1E). The rocks are therefore very large due
to minimal erosional activity (1E). Instead, in order to obtain data, three measurements were
taken in the middle of the river and a mean was calculated. The velocity was 36.6 s/ 10m for the
tennis ball to travel 10 metres, equalling 3.66s/m. There were a few large boulders would could be
affecting (slowing down) the river flow due to friction, and these could have been deposited in the
river location during a storm event (1E).
At site 2. The average speed of flow at the middle course was 11.4 s/10m, which is faster than the
surface velocity in the upper course (1D). This could be explained by less friction from the smaller
bedload enabling the water to travel faster (1E). The land is still relatively steep at this site, helping
the water to move faster due to gravity (1E). Velocity at the left-hand side was 8.6 s/10m, the
middle was 9.3 s/10m and the right side of the river was 15.3 s/10m. The finding is likely to be due
to a number of factors a greater volume of water (see figure 2 left bank), which creates less
friction and enables a faster flow (1E). Due to the greater volume of water more erosion at the
left bank can occur via hydraulic action, corrosion and attrition. These processes have deepened
the river channel and fit the Bradshaw model.
At site 3, the average surface velocity of the lower course was 24.8 s/10m. This means the tennis
ball travelled 13.4 seconds slower than it did the middle course (1D). However, this does not fit
the Bradshaw model. This difference could be attributed to less steep land flatter land gives
water less momentum to travel at fast speeds (1E). Velocity at the left-hand side was 33.3 s/10m,
middle was 20 s/10m and right-hand side 21 s/10m. The left hand side of the river is the deepest
part at 27cm (see figure 2). Similarly to site 2, the deepest point of the river is the fastest flow
again, this is likely to be due to the reasons stated above.
Cross Section
Site 1 shows that there are vertical banks on either side of the river, rising to 70 cms on the left
bank and 61 cms on the right bank (fig.1) (1D). This can be explained by vertical erosion via
freeze-thaw weathering - the break-up of rocks on the river bank which then enter the river,
adding to the bedload. This bedload is an aid to erosion and contributes towards abrasion and
attrition (1E). In addition it is possible that the site has been affected by a new bridge being built
just north of the site. The bedload may have been altered during the construction of the bridge
2

and this could distort the data collected from site 1 (1E). At site 1 the width is 2.4 metres wide and
the river cross-section also shows it was very shallow - the deepest point was 8 cms (see fig 1)
(1D). Both the narrow width and shallow depth could be explained by the low volume of water
found in the upper course to erode the bed and banks of the river volume of water in the river
will increase as tributaries join downstream in addition to through-flow and overland flow of
water from the surrounding land (1E).
Site 2, shown in fig. 2, can be seen to have banks either side that have levelled out and only rise to
a 25O angle at the left bank and 10O on the right bank (looking up stream) (1D). This has levelled
out considerably and would indicate that during storm events the water will rise well above the
rivers wetted perimeter (1E). This is backed up by the amount of stones deposited on the right
bank and remaining above normal flow level, (see fig. 2) (1E). At Site 2, the Carron Water has
increased in width from 2.4m to 4.37m. This could be explained by the greater velocity from the
water joining the river from various tributaries and throughflow/overland flow of water from the
draining basin. (1E) The deepest point of the river is located near the left bank and is 27 cm deep
19cm deeper than site 1. The difference in depth is likely to be due to more erosion taking place
(hydraulic action, corrosion, solution) due to the bigger volume of water at this stage (1E).
At site 3, shown in fig 3, the banks at either side rise to a 42 O angle and a 34O angle. This could
probably be attributed to human intervention for further protection from flood events and to
protect houses close by (1). It may also be explained by the fact that land naturally becomes less
steep as the river moves towards the mouth (1E). Figure 3 shows that there are vertical banks on
either side of the river, which rise dramatically, compared to the middle course (site 2) to 1m on
both sides. This is arguably unnatural and this could be explained by man-made structures put in
place to reduce flooding in the area (1E). The width of the river has increased slightly from 4.37m
to 5m. The deepest point in this section of the river is 31cm at the middle, which is an increase of
4cm. The further increase in width and depth can be explained by an increased volume of water
and therefore more effective erosion at this stage via hydraulic action. Erosion will also be more
effective in terms of attrition and abrasion with smaller, lighter bedload particles (see figure 5)
(1E).
Bedload
Figure 5 shows that the average bedload size in the upper course (site 1) was 8.5cm, in the lower
course the average size reduced by 2.5cm to 6cm and at site 3, the lower course, the average
bedload size further reduced in size to 4.6cm. There is a clear pattern which highlights that
bedload size decreases at each stage in the river towards the river mouth (1D). This can be
explained by processes of erosion such as attrition - this happens when the water is transporting
material, the water forces the bedload to bang off each other which means that the rocks and
stones gradually get smaller and smaller (1E).
The average bedload shape at site 1 was 3.5, indicating most samples were between sub-rounded
to sub-angular (see Table 2 and fig. 4) (1D). This is what would be expected in the upper course as
there is less erosive power due to less energy in the river at this point (fig.1) (1E). At site 2 bedload
shape samples averaged out at 2.5, suggesting the samples were mostly rounded to sub-rounded,
(1D) this would be due to transformational and erosional processes. For example, traction the
transportation of materials by rolling along the river bed, would help to take sharp edges off the
rock, and abrasion which wears the rock away when the bedload is forced to scrape against the
river banks and sides (1E). At site 3 bedload shape averages out at 3 indicating the sample is
3

mostly sub-rounded. Following the Bradshaw model, we should expect to see rounded bedload
rather than subrounded at this point. This finding could be explained by the lack of erosion
because of a lower velocity caused by a gentle gradient. This means the river would have less
power to erode the bedload.

Conclusion:

6 marks

What conclusion have you reached about your topic or issue?

Velocity did not conform to the Bradshaw model as the lower section of the river slowed down,
this not supposed to happen in relation to the middle section. The above findings indicate that
the river slows down at the lower course while the Bradshaw model suggests average velocity
should increase (1D). It is important to remember that the Bradshaw model is just a theory and
many factors can influence a river. In this case the velocity data could be explained by the near
level gradient at this site and the recent dry spell of weather reducing the amount of discharge in
the river (1E).
Regarding the cross section, the Carron water becomes wider and deeper as it progresses
downstream which fits the Bradshaw model of river characteristics (1D). Discharge also increases
which conforms to the above model (1D). On the other hand, bedload shape (which is not in the
Bradshaw model) was expected to show a progressive move from angular to well rounded, it did
not. In fact bedload shape did conform to that expectation as the samples progressed from subangular to rounded at site 1 and 2. But then the samples collected at site 3 were mostly subrounded. The expectation was that increased erosion would provide well rounded samples at site
3. Perhaps the development of the flood defences have affected the erosive power of the river at
site 3.
Finally, bedload size fitted Bradshaw model exactly as the average size of bedload particles did
decrease downstream (see fig. 5) (1D).
This investigation has enabled me to learn about gathering and processing techniques in addition
to gaining experience analysing data collected in the field. To improve my project I would make
sure my measurements were more precise, especially making sure the rope stretched across the
river was tight so as to make accurate readings of river width and depth (1D). At each site I would
also measure a section of the river to identify the gradient of the river bed to have a better insight
into how gradient affects velocity (1D). I would make sure the batteries in my camera were fully
charged so they dont run out of power while conducting the fieldwork (1D). I would also make
sure my writing is clear when recording data as I had difficulty reading my writing when back at
school (1D).

Processed Information
Site 1 River Profile
Site 1

Figure 1
Scale
Depth 1cm=0.5m
Width 1cm=0.5m

Site 2 River Profile

Site 2
Figure 2
Scale
Depth 1cm=0.5m
Width 1cm=0.5m

Site 3 River Profile

Site 3

Figure 3
Scale
Depth 1cm=0.5m
Width 1cm=0.5m

Figure 4

Figure 5

Figure 6
Scale used for Rock Angularity Analysis
Well-rounded = 1
Rounded= 2
Sub-rounded= 3
Sub-rounded= 4
Sub-angular= 5
Angular= 6
Very Angular= 7

Figure 7
Fact box: Bradshaw Model
The Bradshaw model is a theoretical model that
helps describe the changes we would expect as
a river travels from its source regions in its
upper course with increasing distance
downstream towards its mouth. It is depicted to
the left as a series of triangles. If the triangle
gets wider towards the downstream section it
means that on average that variable increases
with increasing distance downstream. If the
triangle decreases in size it means that on
average the variable decreases with increasing
distance towards the mouth.