Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Research Online
University of Wollongong Thesis Collection University of Wollongong Thesis Collections
1994
Recommended Citation
Habibi, M., Sediment transport estimation methods in river systems, Doctor of Philosophy thesis, Department of Civil and Mining
Engineering, University of Wollongong, 1994. http://ro.uow.edu.au/theses/1263
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
from
UNIVERSITY OF WOLLONGONG
f 99 wm itm
*OL$S'r\
by
I hereby certify that the work presented in this thesis has been carried out in the
Department of Civil and Mining Engineering of the University of Wollongong and has
not been submitted for any other degree.
M. HABIBI
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The author wishes to express his sincere appreciation to Dr. M . Sivakumar, his
supervisor, for suggesting the topic and for the guidance and encouragement given
throughout this Ph. D. program.
A special note of thanks is due to Assoc. Prof. M. J. Boyd, who provided additional
encouragement and advice in the earlier stages of the program while Dr. Sivakumar was
in study leave for a short period.
The author would like to sincerely thank the two external examiners: Prof. A. J.
Sutherland, Dean Engineering Faculty, University of Canterbury, N e w Zealand, and Dr.
W . Poplawski, Water Quality Manager, Queensland Water Resources Commission,
Australia, for their constructive comments.
The author also wishes to thank Prof. G. K. Ranga Raju of the University of Roorkee,
India, for providing additional laboratory data from Samaga's work on sediment
concentration distribution.
The participation of various colleagues in day to day fruitful discussions on the dif
aspects of this research is gratefully appreciated. The assistance of Mrs. L. Middleton in
checking the linguistic aspects of this document is acknowledged.
Support for the program of graduate study was provided by the Ministries of Culture an
Higher Education, and of Construction Jihad of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Their aid is
heartily appreciated.
/
LIST OF PUBLICATIONS FROM THIS RESEARCH
//
ABSTRACT
The thesis can be divided into three parts. In the first part, technical comments and
computational procedures are provided for a number of sediment transport estimation
models. T h e models included the most popular theories of Meyer-Peter and Muller,
Einstein, Bagnold, Engelund-Hansen, Toffaleti, Ackers-White, and Yang, and the
recently developed methods of van Rijn, Wiuff, S a m a g a et al, and Celik-Rodi.
Deficiency and drawbacks of the selected theories are analysed and modified equations
are suggested for a number of theories.
Since the computation of the transport rate of sediment loads in open channel flows is
usually a complicated and laborious task, n e w computer programs have been developed
for all of the 11 selected methods as well as for the proposed transport equations. The
developed computer package ( S E D L O A D ) can be regarded as an efficient and powerful
tool for practicing alluvial hydraulic engineers. Using the advantages of regression
analysis and numerical integration techniques, analytical procedures are presented for all
graphs and tables given in the selected theories.
The selected sediment load predictors are tested against 333 sets of sediment transport
data from both laboratory flumes and natural rivers. Limitations in the applicability of the
theories are highlighted through this analysis. The test results generally show large
discrepancies between the predicted transport rates and the actual measurements from one
theory to another. N o n e of the methods were found to be adequate for all conditions.
In the second part of the thesis which is more significant, based on the fundamental
concepts of hydraulics, turbulence energy and particle motion, a n e w theory is developed
for the estimation of concentration as well as bed and suspended load transport rates of
non-uniform bed material in river systems. The proposed equations are applicable to
uniform steady sediment-laden flows. The relations are derived for bed material load and
do not include wash load. The sediment transport capacity of the flow is computed
through the proposed equations, assuming that the bed material supply is more than the
transport capacity. The proposed equations are non-dimensional and fully analytical.
///
T h e parameters involved are well-known and easily measurable. A number of other
formulae, such as depth-averaged concentration, transport concentration, and reference
concentration have been determined using the developed theory.
IV
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENT i
LIST OF PUBLICATIONS F R O M THIS RESEARCH ii
ABSTRACT iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS v
LIST OF TABLES x
LIST O F FIGURES xiii
NOTATION xvi
Chapter 1. Introduction 1
1.1. General 2
1.2. Objectives and Methodology 4
1.3. Scope of the Thesis 7
VI
4.9. V A N R U N (1984)-BED A N D S U S P E N D E D L O A D 97
4.9.1. General 97
4.9.2. Formulation of the bed load transport 97
4.9.3. Formulation of suspended load transport 99
4.9.4. Overall shear velocity according to van Rijn 102
4.9.5. Rijn simplified sediment transport equations 103
4.9.6. Advantages of Rijn sediment transport theory 103
4.9.7. Limitations of Rijn sediment transport theory 104
4.10. W I U F F ( 1 9 8 5 ) - S U S P E N D E D L O A D 105
4.10.1. General 105
4.10.2. Description of the theory 105
4.10.3. Comparison of Wiuff(1985) and Bagnold(1966) theories 108
4.10.4. Discussion of Wiuff s suspended load efficiency 108
4.10.5. Drawbacks in Wiuff s condition for non-zero sediment
transport 109
4.11. S A M A G A E T A L ( 1986)-BED A N D SUSPENDED L O A D 110
4.11.1. General 110
4.11.2. Formulation of bed load transport 110
4.11.3. Formulation of suspended load transport 113
4.11.4. Critical comments 115
4.11.5. Analytical equations for Samaga et al graphs and tables 116
4.12. C E L I K A N D R O D I (1991) - S U S P E N D E D L O A D 118
4.12.1. General 118
4.12.2. Derivation of the basic relationship 119
4.12.3. Calibration and modification of the basic formula 120
4.12.4. Discussion on the proportionality coefficient 121
4.12.5. Discussion on the ratio of Crj/Cj 122
4.12.6. Discussion on fall velocity 123
4.12.7. Comparison with the methods of Bagnold and Yang 124
4.12.8. Discussion on effective shear stress 124
4.13. S U M M A R Y 125
VII
5.2.5. Toffaleti 134
5.2.6. Ackers and White 137
5.2.7. Yang 138
5.2.8. van Rijn 138
5.2.9. Wiuff 140
5.2.10. Samagaetal 140
5.2.11. CelikandRodi 142
5.3. Development of the computer programs 142
5.3.1. Characteristics of the computer programs 143
VIII
Chapter 7. Applicability analysis of the selected theories....... 198
7.1. Some aspects of sediment transport measurement 199
7.1.1. The importance of sediment-flow data 199
7.1.2. Accuracy consideration of sediment load measurements 200
7.2. Performance of the sediment transport theories 203
7.2.1. Application to field data from Sacramento river 205
7.2.2. Application to Krammer tidal channel 212
7.2.3. Application to Scheldt Estuary tidal channels 217
7.2.4. Application to Elbow river 221
7.2.5. Application to Jordan and Meshushim rivers 226
7.2.6. Application to East Fork river 228
7.2.7. Application to Mantz laboratory flume data 233
7.2.8. Application to Brooks data 238
7.2.9. Application to Vanoni and Brooks data 242
7.2.10. Application to Nomicos data 244
7.2.11. Application to Samaga et al laboratory flume data 246
7.2.12. Application to Willis et al laboratory flume data 254
7.3. Summary and general comments 258
References 282
IX
LIST OF TABLES
Table 7.1. Suspended sediment transport data from Sacramento river at Butte City,
California (After Nakato, 1990) 206
Table 7.2. Suspended sediment transport data from Sacramento river at Colusa,
California (After Nakato, 1990) 206
Table 7.3. Bed-material size characteristics data for Sacramento river at Butte City,
California (After Nakato, 1990) 207
Table 7.4. Bed-material size characteristics data for Sacramento river at Colusa,
California (After Nakato, 1990) 207
Table 7.5. Discrepancy ratios r from application of suspended load equations to
Sacramentoriverat Butte City, California 208
Table 7.6. Discrepancy ratios r from application of suspended load equations to
Sacramento river at Colusa, California 208
X
Table 7.7. Summary of sediment transport data from Krammer tidal channel,
Netherlands (After Voogt et al, 1991) 213
Table 7.8. Discrepancy ratios r from application of sediment load equations to the
Krammer tidal channel 214
Table 7.9. Summary of sediment transport data from Eastern and Western Scheldt
estuary tidal channels, Netherlands (After Voogt et al, 1991) 218
Table 7.10. Discrepancy ratios r from application of sediment load equations to the
Eastern and Western Scheldt estuary tidal channels 219
Table 7.11. Summary of bed load transport data from Elbow river, Alberta
(Hollingshead, 1971) 223
Table 7.12. Discrepancy ratios r from application of bed load equations to the
Elbow River data 224
Table 7.13. Summary of bed load transport data from Jordon river, Israel
(Inbar and Schick, 1979) 227
Table 7.14. S u m m a r y of bed load transport data from Meshushim river, Israel
(Inbar and Schick, 1979) 227
Table 7.15. Discrepancy ratios r from application of bed load equations to the
Jordan River data 227
Table 7.16. Discrepancy ratios r from application of bed load equations to the
Meshushim River data. 227
Table 7.17. Summary of bed load transport data from East Fork river, W y o m i n g
(Leopold and Emmett, 1976) 230
Table 7.18. Discrepancy ratios r from application of bed load equations to the
East Fork River data 230
Table 7.19. Summary of Mantz (1983) laboratory flume data for silica solids with
median diameter dso = 0.123 m m 234
Table 7.20. Discrepancy ratios r from application of suspended load equations to Mantz
flume data for silica solids with median diameter dso = 0.123 m m 234
Table 7.21. Discrepancy ratios r from application of bed load equations to Mantz flume
data for silica solids with median diameter dso = 0.123 m m 235
Table 7.22. Discrepancy ratios r from application of total load equations to Mantz flume
data for silica solids with median diameter dso = 0.123 m m 235
Table 7.23. Size characteristics of bed materials used in Brooks investigation 239
Table 7.24. Summary of Brooks (1958) flume data from total sediment discharge... 239
Table 7.25. Discrepancy ratios r from application of total load equations to the
Brooks data 240
Table 7.26. Summary of Vanoni and Brooks (1956) laboratory flume data from
total sediment discharge 242
XI
Table 7.27. Discrepancy ratios r from application of total load equations to
Vanoni and Brooks (1956) laboratory flume data 242
Table 7.28. S u m m a r y of Nomicos (1956) flume data total sediment transport 244
Table 7.29. Discrepancy ratios r from application of total load equations to
Nomicos (1956) flume data 245
Table 7.30. Size characteristics of bed material in Samaga et al investigation 247
Table 7.31. Size distribution of bed material in Samaga et al investigation 247
Table 7.32. S u m m a r y of Samaga et al (1986a and b) laboratory flume data 248
Table 7.33. Discrepancy ratios r from application of suspended load equations
to Samaga et al laboratory flume data 249
Table 7.34. Discrepancy ratios r from application of bed load equations to the
Samaga et al laboratory flume data 250
Table 7.35. Discrepancy ratios r from application of total load equations to the
Samaga et al laboratory flume data 251
Table 7.36. S u m m a r y of Willis et al (1972) laboratory flume data 255
Table 7.37. Discrepancy ratios r from application of total load equations to
Willis etal (1972) laboratory flume data 256
XII
LIST OF FIGURES
XIII
Fig. 6.6b. Verification of the proposed concentration equation with
Samaga's data, R u n M 2 - 5 165
Fig. 6.6c. Verification of the proposed concentration equation with
Samaga's data, R u n M 3 - 8 165
Fig. 6.6d. Verification of the proposed concentration equation with
Samaga's data, R u n M 4 - 5 166
Fig. 6.7. Verification of the proposed concentration equation with
Vanoni and Brooks data for a=D/2 168
Fig. 6.8. Comparison of computed sediment discharges with measured
transport rates for Netherlands' tidal channels 174
Fig. 6.9. Comparison of the computed sediment discharges with measured
transport rates from Sacramento river 175
Fig. 6.10. Predicability of proposed method for laboratory flume suspended
load measurements of Samaga etal( 1986b) 176
Fig. 6.11. Calibration of the proposed bed load equation with the
laboratory measurements of Samaga et al (1986a) 186
Fig. 6.12. Verification of the proposed bed load equation with data from
Elbow river 187
Fig. 6.13. Verification of the proposed bed load equation with data from
Jordan and Meshushim rivers 189
Fig. 6.14. Application of the proposed total load formula to Brooks data 194
XIV
Fig. 7.15. Application of bed load equations to the Samaga et al flume data 253
Fig. 7.16. Application of total load equations to the Samaga et al flume data 253
Fig. 7.17. Application of total load equations to Willis et al flume data 257
XV
NOTATION
XVI
ETtot = total turbulent energy production rate per unit of mass of the fluid;
ETSUS = turbulent energy used for suspension;
Exv = total turbulence energy per unit volume of the flow;
eb = bed load transport efficiency;
es = suspended load transport efficiency;
F = concentration parameter in Rijn theory;
Fgr = dimensionless mobility number;
FL = lift force in Einstein bed load function;
Ggr = dimensionless sediment transport;
g = acceleration of the gravity;
I = a calibration coefficient in Yang's unit stream power theory;
II & 12= Einstein integrals;
J = a calibration coefficient in Yang's unit stream power theory;
KB = a function of TO/T 0 C in Samaga et al theory;
Ks = a function of To/roc in Samaga et al theory;
ks = Nikuradse sand roughness;
L = j u m p length in Einstein bed load function; length of the dune;
LB = a function of the Kramer's uniformity coefficient M ;
Ls = a function of the Kramer's uniformity coefficient M ;
LF = a logarithmic function in Einstein theory;
M = Kramer's uniformity coefficient for bed material mixture;
m = a coefficient in Ackers and White theory;
m'b = submerged mass of the bed load particles per unit bed area;
m' s = submerged mass of suspended particles;
N = spacing number in numerical integration procedures;
n = Manning roughness coefficient; a constant in Celik and Rodi theory;
n0 = universal constant in Einstein bed load function;
ns = Manning coefficient related to the grains;
p = wetted perimeter; probability of erosion of a particle from the stream
bed; total available stream power of the flow per unit length;
PE = Einstein's transport parameter;
PQ = gain in potential energy;
Pr = Einstein's transport parameter;
Pj = rate of turbulence energy production;
p = stream power per unit of bed area = T G V ;
p' = fluctuating part of the pressure;
Pi = percentage by weight of the size fraction i;
pw = stream power per unit of weight of the flow = S V ; unit stream power;
Q = flow discharge;
XVII
Qs,meas= measured discharge of the suspended load;
Qsc = calculated sediment load;
Qsm = measured sediment load;
q = flow discharge per unit width;
q'b = transport rate of bed load in submerged weight;
q's = suspended sediment transport rate in submerged weight;
qb = transport rate of bed load particles per unit width;
qbi = bed load transport rate for size fraction corresponding to dj;
qc = critical flow discharge per unit width;
qs = transport rate of the suspended particles per unit width;
Is.comp = computed suspended sediment discharge per unit width;
qs.meas = measured suspended sediment discharge per unit width;
qsi = suspended sediment transport rate per unit width for size fraction i;
q sy = point sediment discharge;
qt = total load transport per unit width;
R = hydraulic radius of the flow;
R' = hydraulic radius due to grain roughness;
R* = particle Reynolds number;
Rb = bed hydraulic radius;
R'b = bed hydraulic radius due to the grain resistance;
r = discrepancy ratio; ratio of the computed sediment discharges to the
measured values;
Rep = particle Reynolds number;
S = water surface or energy slope;
S' = energy slope due to the grain resistance;
S" = energy slope required to overcome bed form resistance;
Score = percentages of discrepancy ratios within the range 0.5-2.0;
STD = standard deviation of the discrepancy ratios;
T = flow temperature; time interval in Einstein bed load function;
dimensionless transport parameter in Rijn theory;
TDC = flow temperature in degree centigrade;
TDF = flow temperature in degree Fahrenheit;
t = a variable of integration; an indicator of time;
tana = coefficient of interangular friction of the bed material;
Ub = m e a n transport velocity of bed load particles;
Us = m e a n transport velocity of suspended solids;
u = flow velocity at depth y above the channel bed;
u* = bed shear velocity;
u* c = critical bed shear velocity;
XVIII
fluctuating part of the flow velocity;
turbulent velocity fluctuations in x direction;
turbulent velocity fluctuations in y direction;
average velocity of bed load particles;
m e a n part or time-averaged velocity;
velocity of the sediment grain;
time-averaged velocity in the x direction at level y from the channel bed;
unit stream power;
average flow velocity;
critical average velocity;
immersed weight of a sand particle under water;
the time rate of work of gravitational forces on suspended particles per
unit volume of the fluid;
characteristics distance in Einstein theory;
longitudinal direction of the flow; correction factor in the logarithmic
velocity distribution;
pressure correction factor; the ratio y/D in numerical integration of II and
12; potential energy per unit weight of water;
local flow depth measured from the channel bed;
a small distance above the channel bed where Prandtl von K a r m a n
velocity distribution equation gives a zero velocity;
suspension parameter or Rouse number;
correction factor of suspension parameter in Rijn theory;
ratio of E T S U S to E T ; a calibration factor in Celik and Rodi theory;
a calibration factor in Celik and Rodi theory;
proportionality parameter in the proposed suspended load equation; a
coefficient in Rijn theory related to the diffusion of sediment particles;
(ps/p) - 1 , relative submerged density of the sediment particles;
bed form height;
thickness of laminar sublayer = 11.6 v / u*;
saltation height;
dimensionless sediment transport parameter;
intensity of sediment transport for individual grain sizes;
dimensionless bed load transport for size fraction i;
dimensionless suspended load transport;
overall correction factor in Rijn theory;
unit weight of flowing fluid;
unit weight of sediment particles;
efficiency function of bed material transport in Wiuff theory;
XIX
modified suspended load efficiency in Wiuff theory;
void or packing factor;
von K a r m a n universal constant;
a calibration coefficient used in the proposed bed load formula;
calibration coefficients used in the proposed bed load formula;
coefficient of bed material friction;
kinematic viscosity of the flow;
mass density of the fluid;
mass density of the suspended materials;
summation symbol;
flow shear stress at depth y;
Shields dimensionless shear stress;
bed shear stress due to the grain roughness only;
dimensionless shear stress related to the grain roughness;
dimensionless effective shear stress for particle size dj;
dimensionless critical shear stress according to Shields;
critical bed shear stress at which the bed material start to move;
critical shear stress for suspension;
effective shear stress;
bed shear stress;
critical bed shear stress;
Reynolds shear stress;
hiding factor of grains in a sediment mixture;
bed load sheltering coefficient for size fraction i;
dimensionless shear stress;
corrected value of dimensionless shear stress;
intensity of shear on individual grain sizes;
geometric standard deviation of sediment mixture;
m e a n fall velocity of the bed materials; fall velocity of an spherical particle;
m e a n fall velocity of the bed load particles;
fall velocity of sediment size dj from size fraction i; and
representative fall velocity of the suspended solids.
XX
(dfaaiiptteir 11
INTRODUCTION
J
Chapter 1 Introduction, 2
Chapter 1. Introduction
1.1. General
It is well known that water flowing down a slope in channels with erodible beds may
scour the loose particles resting on the bed or banks and m o v e them downstream. This
process is referred to as "sediment transport". The mechanics of sediment transport in
open channel flows is one of the branches of m o d e m alluvial hydraulics which have been
subjected to in-depth investigation over the past few decades. In alluvial hydraulics,
sediment has been defined as rock and mineral particles such as clay, silt, sand, gravel
and boulders transported or moved by the flowing water. The main sources of sediment
production are the weathering of rocks, erosion by the flow of water over soil surfaces,
channel bed erosion, and bank caving.
Estimation of the amount of sediment material, which a specific flow can carry, is
the major issues of sedimentation research. A number of investigators such as Einstein
(1950), Colby (1964), and Engelund-Hansen (1967) have proposed analytical and
graphical procedures for the computation of sediment discharge of alluvial streams. Such
procedures can be used directly or indirectly, in the majority of hydraulic engineering
projects. These projects m a y include:
Mathematical models of alluvial hydraulics are usually used for the evaluation of
deformation and bank erosion of natural channels. However, again in most of these
models, such as H E C - 6 (U.S. A r m y Corps of Engineers, 1993, p. A 3 1 ) and Q U A S E D
(Li and Fullerton, 1987), a number of sediment load predictors have to be used for the
calculation of the transport rate of sediment material.
Chapter! .... Introduction,
The moving sediments also affect the water quality of river systems and act as a t
mechanism for materials such as pesticides, heavy metals, nutrient, decomposable
organics, and bacteria. Hence, the phenomenon of sediment transport is of great
engineering importance, and together with its related problems, governs a large number
of situations that are of major concern to the civilised man.
It has been estimated that the total annual discharge of sediment is 7,000 million
worldwide (Milliman and Meade, 1983). Examination of annual rates shows that the
main sediment discharge occurs in the Far East of the hydrosphere. The Asian rivers
carry in excess of 75 percent of the world sediment discharge. T w o thirds of that is being
carried by the H w a n g - H o (Yellow River) in China, and the Ganges and Brahmaputra in
India. The Yellow River drains an area of very easily eroded glacial loess silts. Sediment
concentration can reach 60 percent by volume during the flood events with an annual
discharge of about 1,100 million tons. Between a quarter and a third can be transported in
only two or three days of flood (Wan, 1982). This indicates the major role of exceptional
floods in the transportation of sediments.
In comparison with the other branches of science, the progress achieved in the are
sediment transport has been very low, and the proposed theories have not been able to
accurately predict the actual sediment discharges. The reason for this is that sediment
discharge is related, in a complex way, to a large number of flow and sediment
parameters, including: the depth, width, density, energy gradient, temperature, viscosity
and turbulence of the flowing water, as well as the size distribution, shape, density,
cohesiveness, and concentration of the moving particles. Introducing a mathematical
model which includes all these parameters with their wide variation in longitudinal and
lateral directions, in order to predict the amount of moving material, is a very difficult
task. D u e to this difficulty, almost all of the existing sediment load predictors have been
derived for the simple conditions of uniform and steady flows with equilibrium sediment
transport. These conditions are seldom met in natural rivers. Hence, in general a
proportion of the inaccuracies in sediment discharge estimations can be attributed to this
simplified assumption.
This research project aims to study the phenomenon of sediment transport from the
hydraulic point of view. Therefore, the m o v e m e n t of bed material, which can be
expressed as a function of the hydraulic parameters of the flow, is investigated. The
"wash load" component, which is poorly related to stream flow parameters and is mostly
a function of the hydrologic characteristics and vegetation, soil and geology of the
catchment area, is not considered. This thesis concentrates on the existing theories for the
estimation of bed material load and attempts to formulate more accurate and simpler
transport equations.
Perhaps the most important practical question in the field of sediment transport is:
m u c h sediment is carried by a river under given hydraulic conditions?". Many
investigators have tried to determine the functional relationship which should exist
between the amount of sediment load and the hydraulic and bed material characteristics of
streams. Applicability of the proposed predictors were tested against measured data from
laboratory flumes and natural rivers by various investigators. The tests have generally
shown large discrepancies between the transport rates predicted by different theoretical
methods and the corresponding measured sediment discharges. N o n e of the proposed
methods have gained universal acceptance. The transport rates estimated by almost all of
the developed theories were found to be insufficiently accurate. A s a result, investigation
towards the development of more accurate and simpler formulae is still necessary and
should be continued.
In order to achieve the first objective, after a thorough review of the present litera
eleven sediment transport predictors were selected for detailed investigation. The selected
predictors included some of the most popular theories being used in this field. They are
referred to as:
Meyer-Peter and Muller (1948, bed load transport),
Einstein (1950, bed load function),
Bagnold (1966, stream power approach),
Engelund and Hansen (1967, total load equation),
Toffaleti (1969, sand transport),
Ackers and White (1973, total sediment discharge), and
Y a n g (1973 and 1984, unit stream power),
In fact, more extensive studies are required for the recently developed methods due to
lack of information in the literature.
The problem of the calculation of the transport rate is usually complicated and labori
especially w h e n using theories which employ a large number of correction factors and
compute the sediment discharge for individual size fractions. However, with the
availability of powerful personal computers, sediment transport calculations have become
easier and more efficient. Hence, computer programs were developed in this thesis for all
of the selected theories, to m a k e the detailed computations more efficient.
Chapter! Introduction, 6
In order to assess the predicability and limitations of the selected theories and provide
guidelines for the selection of the most appropriate equations, the performance of the
selected methods w a s investigated, using 333 sets of empirical data from sediment-laden
flow measurements in natural channels and laboratory flumes. T h e developed computer
programs were used in the applicability analysis.
For the purposes of the applicability analysis, a discrepancy ratio, r, was defined a
ratio of the computed sediment discharges, Q s c , to the measured transport rates, Q s m ,
i.e.
r = Qsc / Qsm
Clearly, the closer the calculated r to one, the more accurate the predictions. The
of the application of the selected theories to the collected data are summarised in the
statistical analysis of the discrepancy ratios, including the computation of the arithmetic
average ( A V G ) , standard deviation (STD), and percentages of r values within the range
0.5-2.0 (Score).
The literature review and critical investigations were used for the development of a
sediment transport model. Here, in an attempt to establish a more practical solution to the
sediment transport problem in river systems, a simple and powerful procedure was
developed based on the generally accepted principles of turbulence and alluvial hydraulics
for the estimation of:
The new approach uses the concept of turbulence energy and, in particular, the idea t
suspended sediment concentration at any depth above a stream bed, can be related to the
total turbulent energy production of the flow at the same level. It avoids refinements that
m a y complicate the application without adding m u c h to the accuracy. The proposed
equations are simple and more suitable for engineering applications. They involve a small
number of easily measurable and well-known hydraulic and sediment parameters. A
number of other important formulae, such as: reference concentration, depth averaged
concentration, and transport concentration, can be readily derived using the developed
method.
Chapter 1 Introduction, 7
Since the usefulness of a sediment transport model depends on its applicability to natural
rivers, the n e w equations were tested against 333 sets of measured data from sediment-
laden flows in natural channels and laboratory flumes. The test results indicated that,
despite its simple structure, the newly developed method shows very good consistency
with measurements. Considering probable errors in the data, the overall correlation with
laboratory andfielddata was good.
Particularly, the results of applicability analyses were used for the following purpose
Recent investigations on sediment transport in Australian rivers and the major difficul
faced in this area, have also been discussed in the last part of this thesis. Here, again,
using the selected methods as well as the proposed transport equations, the applicability
of the available sediment load predictors for a particular Australian stream (namely
Macquarie Rivulet on the southcoast of N e w South Wales) was studied. A n attempt was
m a d e to introduce the most appropriate sediment load predictor for the special conditions
of this natural perennial stream.
Transport capacity of alluvial streams is related to a large number of flow and sedimen
parameters. However, some of the factors and concepts have more influence on the
amount of the moving material, and are c o m m o n to most of the sediment transport
theories. These important concepts, together with a n u m b e r of frequently used
definitions such as different modes of sediment motion, critical shear stress for initiation
Chapter 1 Introduction, 8
of sediment transport, and fall velocity of the suspended particles, are described in
Chapter 2.
Over past decades, the development of sediment load predictors has attracted the
contribution of a large number of investigators all over the world. M a n y theories have
appeared in the literature from D u Boys (1879) w h o published the first formula for the
prediction of bed load transport based on shear stress, to Celik and Rodi (1991) w h o
used turbulent energy concept for the calculation of suspended load capacity. A general
classification and review of a large number of the existing sediment transport estimation
theories is presented in Chapter 3.
The most popular transport theories of Meyer-Peter and Muller, Einstein, Bagnold,
Engelund and Hansen, Toffaleti, Ackers and White, Yang, and the recently developed
procedures of van Rijn, Wiuff, S a m a g a et al, and Celik and Rodi, are critically
investigated in Chapter 4.
Applicability of the proposed equations and the other selected methods is studied in
Chapter 7, using 333 sets of measured sediment transport data from both natural streams
and laboratory flumes.
Due to the shortage of time, the limited data available, and the lack of appropriate
experimental facilities, s o m e aspects of the developed theory have not been investigated
sufficiently. These aspects are recommended for further investigation and m a y need
independent experimental research. The summary, conclusion, and recommendations for
further research are given in Chapter 9.
(ClhaHptteir
GENERAL CONCEPTS
Chapter? General concepts, 10
fcrw^ * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * X * * ********
The basic mechanism responsible for sediment motion is the drag force exerted by the
fluid flow on individual grains (Henderson, 1966, p. 406). Consider a flow of water in
an alluvial channel. A s the flow passes over the erodible bed of the stream, it exerts a
tractive force or shear stress, x 0 , to the wetted perimeter in the direction of the flow (Fig.
2.1a). T h e shear stress gains its m a x i m u m value in the lower part of the bed and
becomes zero at the intersections of the water surface and the boundary (Fig. 2.1b). It is
well accepted that the average bed shear stress is related to the flow parameters by the
following equation (Henderson, 1966, p. 91):
To = p g R S (2.1)
u* = (T0/p)°-5 (2.2)
distribution of
bed shear stress
(a) (b)
The particles resting on the flow boundary have a finite weight and coefficient of friction.
Hence, the flow can not m o v e the bed material until the bed shear stress, x0, is sufficient
to overcome the resistance to motion of the particles and exceeds a critical value called
Chapter 2 General concepts, 11
"critical bed shear stress", xc. The critical bed shear stress is one of the fundamental
concepts of sediment transportation. Based on measurements m a d e at Kulturamt,
Nurenberg, the following values of critical bed shear stress have been observed for
different materials (Garde and Ranga Raju, 1985, p. 63).
At low values of shear stress above T C , the sediment particles m o v e very close to the
bottom with continuous contact with the bed. In this case, the stream carries clear-water
flow and the sediments are transported as "bed load".
When the bed load movement is well established, with further increase in the flow shear
stress and, in turn, in the intensity of turbulence, some of the finer particles loose their
contact with the bed and are swept up into the main flow. These particles constitute the
"suspended load" and m o v e with a velocity almost equal to the flow velocity.
Suspension is defined as a m o d e of sediment transport in which the particles' weight is
supported by the turbulent fluctuations of the flow (Einstein, 1964). It can also be
concluded from the various theories of the entrainment of sediment that the turbulence in
the flow is responsible for the suspension of particles (Garde and Ranga Raju, 1985, p.
197). For instance, Sutherland (1966 and 1967) by performing experimental
investigation on the mechanism of sediment entrainment in turbulent flows, clearly
showed the important role of the vertical velocity component of the turbulent eddies on
the suspension of particles. In consequence, the turbulence is the most important factor
in the suspension of sediments ( A S C E Sedimentation Committee, 1975, p. 66).
Despite considerable research performed on the determination of critical bed shear str
(see Sec. 2.3), there is no well-established criterion for the computation of the critical
shear stress at which the suspension of bed material begins. This is partly due to the
difficulty in distinguishing between the two modes of sediment motion, namely, the bed
load transport and the suspension in natural streams. A s a rough estimate, a particle
Chapter 2 General concepts, 12
m o v e s in suspended m o d e whenever the average shear velocity of the flow u* exceeds its
settling velocity co (Francis, 1973). Here, u* represents the mobility strength of the flow,
and co is an indicator of the opposing forces of the sediment particles.
2.2. Shields' critical bed shear stress for initiation of sediment motion
T* = T0/[(ps-p)gds] (2.3)
wherein the parameters ps and ds indicate the density and size of the sediment materi
respectively. Shields also attempted to find a critical value for T* through laboratory
investigation. F r o m the analysis of the laboratory results, it was noticed that another
dimensionless parameter called particle Reynolds number, R*, and is defined as
R* = u* ds / v (2.4)
Based on the analysis of a large number of flume data collected under the condition
fully developed turbulent flow, Shields (1936) introduced his well-known diagram for
the determination of dimensionless critical shear stress T* C (Fig. 2.2). In this diagram,
x* c is defined as
Although Shields' diagram has been criticised by several investigators, this procedu
remains one of the most popular criteria for the determination of the threshold condition
of sediment motion and is used widely by hydraulic engineers and sediment transport
Chapter 2 nnvwfwwwim
General concepts, 13
researchers. Rijn (1984a) and Samaga et al (1986a) are among those recent investigators
w h o used Shields' criterion in the development of their sediment transport theories.
.10
5 FI" "x
.08
f ^
.06 — ^
_ Motion
.01
1 2 4 6 8 10 20 40 60 80 100 400 1000
R*
Fig. 2.2. Shields' diagram for the determination of critical bed shear stress.
with A = (ps/p) -1 = relative immersed density of particles, and can be written as:
Using the word "load" as "the material that is being transported", two classifications of
sediment load can be distinguished. The first on the basis of mechanism of transport or
modes of sediment motion and the second based on the origin of the particles (Fig. 2.3).
From the first point of view, depending on the conditions of flow, size of sediments, and
densities of the fluid and sediment, two main types of sediment movement can be
identified in a stream:
Chapter2
Gemrdcoj^epts,!^
a) movement of particles along the stream on or very close to the bed within a few
grain diameters by saltation, rolling, sliding, and sometimes small jumps, which
is referred to as bed load transport; and
b) movement of particles transported further above the channel bed by suspension in
the moving fluid, which is called the suspended load.
From the point of view of the origin or source of the moving material, sediment loa
be further divided into two categories:
c) wash load, consisting of finer particles moving predominantly in suspension and
originating mostly from the upstream catchment area, tributaries, or caving of the
banks. It is not found in significant quantity (not more than 1 0 % according to
Einstein, 1950) in the material of channel bed.
d) bed material load, consisting of the particles originating directly from the bed with
grain sizes normally found in the stream boundary.
Wash load consists of very fine material washed into the stream during rainfall an
normally travels through the channel without redepositing. The rate of wash load
transport is poorly related to the hydraulic conditions of stream but it is largely dependent
upon the erosion condition and the availability of fine material in the upstream catchment
area. It is assumed that the transport capacity of streams is larger than the wash load
supply from the catchment ( W o o et al, 1986).
JSZ.
wash load
flow
suspended total
bed-material sediment
total bed load ->:'•-:'• load
materia!
load
^^|g$gl^^^^Sgg»^^^^^^^^^^^®^^^^^^^^^^5^M:M:M^
Fig. 2.3. Classification of sediment loads (Based on Poplawski et al, 1989).
The magnitude of the bed material load is determined by the nature of the bed sediment
and the hydraulic conditions of the flow. It is assumed that bed material supplies are
larger then the stream capacity to transport sediments. In other words, the sediment
transport capacity of streams is assumed to be larger than the bed material supply.
Hence, the transport rate of the bed material can be expressed as a function of the flow
and sediment parameters. In fact, almost all the sediment transport formulae, which are
based on the hydraulic characteristics of the flow, can only estimate the transport capacity
of the bed material without considering the wash load component.
Engineers often assume sediments with diameters smaller than 0.063 mm, which
corresponds to the silt and clay particles, as wash load (Poplawski et al, 1989); particles
larger than 0.063 m m and smaller than 2.0 m m in diameter which cover sand material, as
suspended bed material load; and gravel particles with diameter larger than 2.0 m m , as
bed load (Yang, 1984). However, due to the strong impact of the strength of flow on the
modes of sediment motion, there is no specific size separation for the different types of
loads.
As the flow velocity and energy increase, larger particles can be brought into su
by turbulence from the near-bed zone. O n the other hand, at very low discharges when
the energy of the flow is not high, bed load transport can occur with grains as small as silt
(Mantz, 1980). A s an example, due to the low values of energy slope, in the majority of
the Australian rivers particles with diameters much smaller than 2 m m m o v e as bed load.
In coarse bed streams, sand can be considered as wash load as long as the sediment
transport capacity remains larger than the availability of sediment ( W o o et al, 1986).
Hence, the m o d e of particle movement m a y change, depending on the hydraulic
conditions.
Particle size is one of the most important properties of moving sediments. It con
affects the computation of the transport rate of bed material. Solid particles moving along
the natural streams are usually not the same size. Instead, they cover a wide range of soil
types and size characteristics. Table 2.2 summarises the size classification of various
kinds of sediment material normally found in river systems. This classification is
accepted by the Sub-committee on Sediment Terminology of American Geophysical
Union, and is widely used by hydraulic engineers ( A S C E Task Committee on
Sedimentation, 1975, p. 20).
Boulders:
very large 4,096-2,048
large 2,048-1,024
medium 1,024-512
small 512-256
Cobbles:
large 256-128
small 128-64
Gravel:
very coarse 64-32
coarse 32-16
medium 16-8
fine 8-4
very fine 4-2
Sand:
very coarse 2-1
coarse 1.0-0.5
medium 0.50-0.25
fine 0.250-0.125
very fine 0.125-0.062
Silt:
coarse 0.062-0.031
medium 0.031-0.016
fine 0.016-0.008
very fine 0.008-0.004
Clay:
coarse 0.004-0.002
medium 0.002-0.001
fine 0.0010-0.0005
very fine 0.00050-0.00024
In order to estimate the transport rate of a mixture of non uniform sediment material in a
natural stream, one can:
i- analyse an adequate number of representative bed material samples to obtain the
particle size distribution,
ii- divide the sediment mixture into a number of size fractions with smaller variation
in size,
Chapter 2 General concepts, 17
- hi- determine the proportions (weight percentage) of grains in each fraction with
respect to the whole sample,
iv- introduce an average size (usually geometric mean diameter) for each fraction,
v- calculate the transport rate of each fraction individually, and then
vi- s u m the product of each fractional sediment discharge and the corresponding
weight percentage to obtain the total bed material transport rate.
This procedure, in fact, is the more rational method which has been used by several
investigators, including Einstein (1950), Toffaleti (1969), and Samaga et al (1986a and
b). However, using fractional calculation makes the computational procedure longer.
Another method is to introduce a representative particle size for the whole bed mat
sample and use this size characteristic to calculate the total bed material load in one step.
This approach simplifies the calculations but m a y result in a lack of accuracy. Engelund
and Hansen (1967), Ackers and White (1973), Rijn (1984a and b), and Celik and Rodi,
1991) have used this approach. A number of important sediment sizes are defined as
follows:
d5o - particle diameter (usually equivalent sieve diameter) for which 50%, by weigh
of the material isfiner.It is also called the median diameter.
di6, ^ 5 , d65, d84, and d9o - particle sizes with similar definitions as that for dsn.
d a - arithmetic mean diameter defined as
da = Epi.di/Ipi (2.8)
2.5.1. General
The concept of fall velocity is fundamental to any discussion of erosion and sedime
transport. In m a n y hydraulic engineering projects the fall velocity of certain materials has
to be determined. In the area of sediment transport, fall velocity has a significant role in
the movement of suspended sediments.
Chapter 2 General concepts, 18
W h e n a solid particle is falling through a fluid, due to viscosity and turbulence, forces
arise that resist settling. Since the resisting forces strengthen as velocity increases, the
particle eventually achieves a speed at which the gravitational force is balanced by the
frictional drag, and thereafter it falls at a constant or terminal velocity which is k n o w n as
its fall velocity. Experiments in still water have shown that this velocity is reached very
quickly and that the brief period of acceleration can be ignored for the purposes of
analysis. For example, the fall velocity of a particle with 0.05 m m diameter m a y be
regarded as constant after a period of 0.0003 sec (Bogardi, 1974, p. 59).
In the majority of sediment transport theories the fall velocity is required in moving
sediment-water fluid. The problem of fall velocity in sediment-laden flow is far from that
in still water due to the presence of turbulent fluctuations and concentration gradient.
Clearly, upward and downward components of turbulent velocity will affect the terminal
fall velocity of the settling particles. This effect is more significant for thefinerparticles
and is strongly related to the intensity of turbulence. In fact the relation between the size
of the turbulent eddies and the size of the settling particles is an important factor which
should be considered. If the particle is small compared to the smallest scale of
turbulence, it will tend to follow the turbulent fluctuations and m a y hardly reach a
constant d o w n w a r d velocity. Unfortunately, only a few investigations have been m a d e
on the mechanism of the effect of turbulence on fall velocity and the problem is not fully
understood as yet (Garde and Ranga Raju, 1985, p. 31, and Bogardi, 1974, p. 79).
The American geologist Rubey (1993) formulated the fall velocity of particles by
considering the effects of both turbulent and viscous forces (Eq. 2.11). It is clear that in
turbulent flows, the fall velocity should be related to the properties of turbulence as well
as to the particle characteristics. However, Rubey's formula gives the fall velocity
irrespective of the turbulence intensity of the flow. T h e importance of the magnitude of
the turbulence intensity on fall velocity was highlighted in the review study of Torobin
and Gauvin (1960). Field (1968) performed an experimental study of spherical particles
settling in an oscillating fluid and concluded that the fall velocity of the particles is
reduced. T h e open channel flow experiments of Jobson and Sayre (1969) indicated an
increase in the fall velocity of fine sediments due to the presence of turbulence. In these
studies no quantitative estimation was given for the variation of fall velocity with the
intensity of turbulence.
For the case of natural sediment-laden flows, it is generally accepted that fall veloc
reduced. This reduction can be attributed to the presence of sediment concentration as
well as to the turbulent nature of the flow. Bogardi (1974, pp. 77-78) reports on an
Chapter 2 General concepts, 19
experimental study by Schoklitsch who investigated the fall velocity of quartz parti
flowing sediment-carrying and clear water. Based on the data obtained by Schoklitsch,
only at very high sediment concentrations does the reduction in fall velocity become
significant. Bogardi (1974, p. 78) then concludes that, in view of sediment
concentrations occurring in natural alluvial streams, the reduction in fall velocity can be
safely neglected in practice. This hypothesis is used in most sediment transport theories,
especially w h e n sediment concentration is unknown.
Another simplifying hypothesis used in all the sediment transport estimation models is
assumption of a constant terminal fall velocity for the whole flow depth. T o the author's
knowledge none of the existing theories have treated the fall velocity as a function of local
flow depth. T w o reasons can be mentioned for this assumption; firstly, the brief period
of acceleration and secondly, the size of sediment particles which is comparable to the
turbulence scale in natural alluvial channels. The consideration of a depth-independent
fall velocity also simplifies the depth integration procedures which are usually used in the
formulation of concentration profiles and suspended load transport rates. For example,
depth-independent fall velocity has been used in the derivation of Rouse's (1937)
concentration equation, Einstein's (1950) formula of total load, and van Rijn's (1984b)
formulation of suspended load.
In general, the fall velocity of a sediment particle in natural alluvial streams depen
the simultaneous effects of several parameters. These parameters include: the size, shape,
specific gravity, and concentration gradient of suspended sediments, the temperature,
density, and dynamic viscosity of fluid, and the turbulence intensity and velocity
distribution of the flow. T h e fall velocity can be determined more accurately by
considering the effects of all of these factors. However, with the present knowledge,
accurate determination of the fall velocity in sediment-laden flows is not possible. Even if
it was possible, the perfect solution would lead to a complicated procedure which is not
desirable for the hydraulic engineer. Also, noting the range of uncertainties in the area of
sediment transport estimation, where a prediction with 2 0 0 % error is considered
satisfactory, a complicated solution for the fall velocity is not reasonable. A simple
procedure is presented in the following section for computing fall velocity.
The English physicist Stokes (1851) formulated the expression for the fall velocity co
spherical particle in a still fluid, w h e n only viscous forces resist the motion, as:
co = A g d s 2 / ( 1 8 v ) (2.10)
Chapter?. , _ _ „ General concepts, 20
Experiments have shown that Eq. 2.10 is valid for the particle sizes smaller than about
0.1mm in diameter.
Rubey (1933) formulated the following expression for the fall velocity of larger p
by including both turbulent and viscous forces.
Eq. 2.11 is referred to as Rubey's law and can be used for computing the fall velo
silt size and larger particles.
Zanke (1977) has proposed another relation similar to Eq. 2.11 for sand particles
range of 0.1-1.0 m m , which has shown better consistency with experimental
measurements (van Rijn, 1984b). This expression can be written as:
For sediment particles larger than 1.0mm van Rijn (1984b) has suggested the follow
simple relation:
co=l.l(Agds)0-5 (2.13)
Considering the discussion made in Sec. 2.5.1, the following combined equation is
in the present investigation and in the developed computer programs for the determination
of the fall velocity of suspended cohesionless particles.
Due to the turbulent nature of the flow and fluctuations in the vertical flow vel
will be a continuous exchange of the suspended particles in a direction perpendicular to
the assumed parallel plane. This transfer of material can be regarded as a mass diffusion
process which is proportional to the concentration gradient dC y /dy. Its net upward
component can be expressed by the product of dC y /dy with unknown sediment diffusion
coefficient D s .
Under equilibrium conditions, the sum of the rates of upward transfer due to diffu
and the downward settlement should be equal to zero, i. e.
Cy co + Ds (dCy/dy) = 0 (2.17)
Eq. 2.17 expresses the diffusion equation for the vertical distribution of the su
material under equilibrium condition. It can be also derived from a general three-
dimensional differential equation for the diffusion of sediment particles ( A S C E Task
Committee on sedimentation, 1975, p. 73; Simons and Senturk, 1977 pp. 568-569; and
Garde and Ranga Raju, 1985, pp. 198-199).
It is usually assumed that Ds is equal (or proportional) to the kinematic eddy vis
m o m e n t u m diffusion coefficient of a turbulent flow of clear water, so that it can be
defined by the following parabolic equation:
Ds = u*K(y-y2/D) (2.18)
wherein, D denotes the total flow depth and K is the von Karman constant. Using Eq
2.18 for D s and assuming fall velocity co is constant within the depth, Eq. 2.17 can be
directly integrated to result in the famous Rouse (1937) concentration equation:
Chapter 2 General concepts, 22
The following points should be considered when dealing with Rouse concentration
equation:
1- T h e equation predicts zero sediment concentration at the water surface and an
infinite concentration at the bed, neither of which occurs in nature.
2- It gives only the relative concentration C y / C a and to obtain the absolute
concentration C y , the reference concentration C a should be determined separately. The
problem of evaluation of the reference concentration is another difficult task, which
despite considerable effort, has not yet been solved.
3- Rouse equation is particularly developed for the condition of two dimensional
steady uniform flow and a single sediment size.
4- In deriving Eq. 2.19, for simplicity, the fall velocity co was assumed to be
constant within the depth and the effect of the concentration gradient on reduction of co
was ignored.
5- Probably the most critical assumption in the derivation of Rouse equation is
that the sediment diffusivity coefficient D s , in Eq. 2.18, has been determined based on the
analogy to the kinematic eddy viscosity or the m o m e n t u m diffusion coefficient of a clear
water turbulent flow. However, because of the effect of gravity on exchange of sediment
particles and existence of the density gradient, the nature of the sediment diffusion is
different from that of m o m e n t u m transfer. In fact, in an alluvial flow, the characteristics
of moving material, including concentration, and fall velocity of particles, affect the
velocity distribution, turbulent energy and other hydraulic parameters of the flow. In
such conditions, the mechanism of m o m e n t u m transfer and the quantity of m o m e n t u m
diffusion coefficient are largely affected by the existence of sediments and can not be
simply taken equal to the clear water values. A number of investigators including Vanoni
(1946) and Ismail (1952) have also highlighted the fact that under their experimental
conditions, the values of D s had been different from those of the m o m e n t u m diffusion
coefficient.
Several investigators tried to improve the accuracy and validity of Eq. 2.19 through
modification of s o m e of the assumptions upon which Rouse equation is based.
However, despite the relatively complex proposed approaches, the predictions were in
poor agreement with the experimental data and little different from those given by Rouse
(Garde and Ranga Raju, 1985, p. 206).
Chapter 2 General concepts, 23
Samaga et al (1985) tested the Rouse equation against their own measurements of
concentration profile in a laboratory flume and concluded that the predicted concentration
profiles were not in satisfactory agreement with their measurements. Using the
laboratory data of Coleman (1981) and Samaga (1984) the writer has also shown that the
Rouse equation does not provide satisfactory results (Sec. 6.3.4).
Despite the shortages and drawbacks in Rouse's procedure, in the absence of any bett
expression, the Rouse equation is still the best practical formula for the determination of
vertical distribution of suspended material. However, to obtain m o r e accurate
concentration profiles, further development is necessary. In this thesis, an attempt has
been m a d e to develop a more accurate, but not necessarily, more complicated,
concentration distribution equation which, under particular conditions, can successfully
replace the established Rouse formula.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Chapter 3 Literature[review,,25
3.1. Overview
The applicability and limitation of the existing theories, except for the recently
ones, have been tested quite extensively against measured sediment data from laboratory
flumes as well as from natural rivers by various investigators. The tests have generally
shown a large discrepancy between the predicted transport rates and the corresponding
measured sediment discharges ( A S C E Task Committee on Sedimentation, 1975; Yang,
1972; White et al, 1975; van Rijn, 1984a and b; Bechteler and Vetter, 1989; Nakato,
1990; and Yang and W a n , 1991). From all these investigations, it can be concluded that
in spite of the numerous developed theories for sediment load estimation, they are still far
from completely satisfactory predictors. At best, the existing predictors can serve as a
guide to the planning engineer w h o is forced to rely strongly on his o w n experience and
judgment ( A S C E Task Committee on Sedimentation, 1975, p. 190).
In the Fourth Hunter Rouse Hydraulic Engineering Lecture, Prof. Vanoni (1984)
summarised the achievements of fifty years of sedimentation research from 1930s to
1970s. After a wide review of the investigations and developments, Vanoni (1984) has
concluded that despite the imaginative efforts of m a n y engineers and scientists, sediment
discharge still cannot be predicted with adequate certainty. After about half a century of
research and study in the area of sediment transport, Prof. Garde believes that
considering the order of errors in the estimation of sediment transport rates it is still
necessary to improve the accuracy of total load equations (Garde, 1989). The lack of
progress in sedimentation research was also highlighted by a number of famous American
hydraulicians in the Sedimentation Panel of the 50th Anniversary of the A S C E Hydraulics
Division (Alsaffar, 1990). S o m e investigators believe that it is almost impossible to
estimate the transport rates of moving sediments with an accuracy better than 2 0 0 % (van
Rijn, 1984a).
Chapter 3 Literature review, 26
The reason for limited success in the field of sediment transport compared to other
branches of science and the lower accuracy of sediment discharge predictions is that, in
natural conditions, sediment load is related in a complex w a y to the flow and sediment
properties. Sediment transport rate at a cross section of a stream m a y depend on the
combined effects of depth, width, density, energy gradient, temperature, viscosity, and
turbulence of the flowing water, and a wide range of size, shape, density, cohesiveness,
and concentration of the particles, and on their wide variation in longitudinal and lateral
directions. D u e to this complexity, the simple assumption of uniform-steady flow with
equilibrium sediment transport, which is seldom met in natural rivers, has been used in
development of sediment load predictors. This simplified assumption can be considered
as a source of inaccuracies in sediment discharge predictions.
Almost all of the sediment researchers have concentrated their study on the estimatio
the bed-material transport capacity of rivers. It means that firstly, the developed formulae
assume that the availability of bed-material offered to the flow is unlimited and the flow
can carry as m u c h sediment as it can; and secondly, they can calculate only the bed-
material load component and do not consider washload. T o obtain the total sediment
transport rate, wash load should be analysed separately and added to the bed material
load.
Most of the existing theories use size characteristics of bed material in the calcula
bed and/or suspended load. However, the size distribution of moving sediment is
different from those of the bed material. Particularly, for suspended load, the observed
field data has shown that suspended particles are always finer than bed material grains
( A S C E Task Committee on Sedimentation, 1975, p. 181). This can be regarded as a
source of error in sediment discharge predictions .
imttapter j Literature review
Du Boys (1879) was the first to introduce the concept of bed shear stress or tracti
to the study of sediment transport and developed a model of sliding layers for the
description of the m o v e m e n t of uniform bed load particles. D u Boys assumed that bed
material particles m o v e in a number of layers of equal thickness identical to the particle
size so that the top layer is transported at the highest velocity, with the velocity decreasing
to zero at the bottom layer linearly. Assuming the shear stress at the bed as T 0 , and the
critical shear stress at which the closest layer to the bed is just about to m o v e as T C , D U
Boys presented the following transport formula:
qb = kT0(T0-Tc) (3.1)
wherein, qb is the volumetric transport rate of bed load particles per unit width o
and k is a coefficient dependent on the thickness of bed load layers and velocity increment
between the successive layers. T h e values of k and T c should be determined
experimentally. The theoretical foundation of the D u Boys model is questionable since no
separate layers exist in natural channel flows.
Chapter 3 Literature review, 28
Straub (1935) used the results of laboratory experiment in a small flume and proposed a
graph for the determination of parameters k and T C in D u Boys formula.
O'Brien and Rindlaub (1934) tried to generalise the Du Boys model. They introduced
power-law equation in the form
qb = k'(T0-Tc)m (3.2)
in which, again both values of k' and m should be determined from laboratory and fi
data.
Schoklitsch (1914) analysed the experimental data of Gilbert (1914) and showed that
because of the non-uniform nature of shear stress distribution in a channel cross section,
average shear stress in D u Boys model is a poor criterion for the determination of bed
load transport rate. Later in 1934, he suggested the unit flow discharge q and its critical
value q c as a replacement criterion should be used instead of shear stress. Schoklitsch's
(1934) modified formula can be written as
qb = 7000Sl-5(q-qc)/ds0-5 (3.3)
in which, S and ds are used for energy slope and particle diameter, respectively.
MacDougnall (1934) found that the general form of Schoklitsch's equation is more
consistent with his graded sand data. B y fitting an equation similar to Eq. 3.3 to his
collected data, MacDougnall (1934) was able to present the following general formula for
the computation of bed load transport rate, qb:
qb = ASB(q-qc) (3.4)
in which, A and B are constants dependent only upon the sediment characteristics
including specific gravity and mechanical composition. The value of A ranges from 100
to 1000 and B from 0.25 to 1.0 w h e n using English units (fps).
Again, Shields (1936) approached the bed load transport from the shear stress point
view. Based on dimensional analysis and using laboratory experimental data, Shields
proposed the following equation.
in which, ys and y represent the unit weight of sediment particles and flowing fluid,
respectively. For the calculation of critical shear stress, T C which defines the condition of
initiation of motion of bed material particles, Shields introduced a popular graphical
solution (Sec. 2.2) which w a s based on laboratory measurements.
Kalinske (1942) argued that the movement of bed load is not steady but varies in time i
accordance with turbulent velocity fluctuations. H e presented the following functional
equation for bed load discharge based on the local velocity and shear stress at the bed,
including fluctuations in these quantities due to turbulence:
qb = u* ds f(Tc/To) (3.6)
In this equation u* represents the shear velocity at the channel bed. Using field and
laboratory data from different sources, Kalinske presented a graphical solution for the
evaluation of function "f'.
Meyer-Peter and Muller (1948) developed another popular equation for bed load
transport. The equation is basically of the same form as that of D u Boys' and has been
derived from the results of extensive experimental investigation over a long period of
time. This equation will be fully dealt with in section 4.2.
qb = AqS(V-Vc)/Vc (3.7)
Yalin (1963) proposed a bed load equation based on the mechanics of the transportation
of sediment particles in bed layer. The product of the concentration of material moving
over a unit area of the bed surface times the downstream velocity of particles was set
equal to the bed load transport rate. Yalin assumed that bed load concentration is
proportional to the dimensionless excess shear stress, (T 0 -T C )/T C , and particle velocity can
be estimated from the equations of motion for a saltating particle.
Bogardi (1974, p. 244) stated that in general, the use of a critical criterion for defi
beginning of motion of bed load particles, is not well supported and m a y introduce errors
and uncertainties into the computations. This is because the critical shear stress as well as
the critical velocity and critical discharge are essentially fictitious values that do not exist
in bed load transportation.
In fact, the determination of a critical value for incipient motion depends on the init
condition which is not well defined, whether it is the movement of a single particle, the
m o v e m e n t of a few particles, or the general motion of the bed. A number of other
investigators including Einstein (1942) also believe that a distinct condition for the
beginning of the sediment movement does not exist.
Einstein (1937, 1942) introduced the stochastic and probability concepts to the
transportation of bed load particles which was n e w in comparison with the earlier theories
of D u Boys and Schoklitsch. Despite the earlier theories, Einstein did not use any critical
condition for initiation of motion in his formulation. H e assumed that the probability for
a particular bed grain to start moving within a certain period of time can be expressed as a
function of the ratio of the forces exerted by flow and of the resistance to the movement.
Einstein expressed that the number of grains per unit width that pass a given cross section
is the product of the number of grains and the probability that in any second the drag
force is big enough to set a particle in motion.
Following his earlier statistical approach, Einstein (1950) developed the well-known be
load function for the computation of transport rate of bed load particles. Einstein (1950)
also introduced one of the widely recognised methods of suspended load estimation
which w a s followed later by a number of investigators, including Brooks (1963), and
Einstein and Abdel-Aal (1972). Einstein used the depth integration of the product of
point concentration of suspended material and local flow velocities. Rouse's equation of
distribution of concentration and a logarithmic vertical velocity profile were used in the
integration. Substituting the reference concentration from his bed-load function, Einstein
developed a procedure for the calculation of suspended load transport which includes the
well-known numerical integrals of II and 12. Although Einstein (1950) has considered
Chapter 3 Literature review, 31
most of the important parameters of sediment-laden flows in the formulation, the theory
has not shown satisfactory accuracy in application to natural rivers for most engineering
purposes ( A S C E Task Committee on Sedimentation, 1975, p. 175, and Bishop et al,
1965). Einstein's (1950) approach is discussed in more detail in Section 4.3.
Colby and Hembree (1955) proposed a modified Einstein procedure to obtain the total
sediment transport (including wash load) in sampled and unsampled zones of rivers based
on the measured depth-integrated suspended sediment samples and bed material
characteristics. Shen and H u n g (1983) amended Colby and Hembree's modification to
obtain more accurate predictions of total sediment discharge. In the new procedure, the Z
exponents in Colby and Hembree's modification is determined from suspended load
samples using a least squares regression analysis between Z and the fall velocity co. Shen
and H u n g also used an optimisation technique to adjust the measured suspended load in
the sampled zone so that the difference between the calculated suspended load and its
corresponding measured value is minimised. After application to a number of large
rivers, Shen and H u n g claimed that their modified method was superior to the modified
Einstein procedure. Ingram et al (1991) proposed a procedure for the computation of
total sediment discharge based on point-sampled suspended load measurements. D u e to
its lower sampling costs and less time consumption, this procedure is recommended by
the authors to be used instead of Colby and Hembree's modification of Einstein's
procedure.
Bishop et al (1965) conducted an analysis of flume and field data of total load tran
and applied the results to Einstein's (1950) bed load function. After noting the poor
predictions of Einstein theory, they used a similar but simpler approach to extend the bed
load function so that it could predict total bed material load with better accuracy.
Chapter 3 Literature review, 32
Paintal (1971) introduced another stochastic model for the estimation of the bed load
transport rate of uniform material. Similar to Einstein's (1950) bed load function, Paintal
attempted to derive the functional relationship between the dimensionless sediment
transport rate and the dimensionless bed shear stress. For application to the non-uniform
sediments, Paintal suggested that the median diameter dsn be used in computations.
Through the introduction of an exposure correction factor for individual size fractio
bed material, Proffitt and Sutherland (1983) tried successfully to m a k e Paintal's
procedure applicable to non-uniform sediment mixtures and improve the accuracy of the
predictions. B y matching the predicted transport rates for each grain size to the measured
values, Proffitt and Sutherland modified the dimensionless bed shear stress parameter in
Paintal's theory and defined a two-step analytical equation for computation of the
fractional exposure correction factors. In their investigation, Proffitt and Sutherland used
measured data from transportation of large bed load particles in both laboratory flumes
and natural streams.
Misri et al (1984) followed the same lines of Bishop et al (1965) and conducted their
laboratory investigation to develop a relationship between dimensionless grain shear
stress and the dimensionless bed load transport rate. Although Misri et al tried to improve
the applicability of Einstein (1950) bed load function through the definition of a modified
sheltering coefficient, their work did not give satisfactory results w h e n applied to field
data, especially at higher values of the dimensionless shear stress for individual sizes
(Samaga etal, 1984a).
Indian engineers Samaga, Ranga Raju and Garde introduced a theory for the computation
of the transport rates of different size fractions of bed materials for both cases of bed and
suspended load. They conducted a set of experiments in a 30 m long laboratory tilting
flume with four different sediment mixtures(Samaga et al, 1986a and b). T h e results
were used for the modification of Misri et al (1984) formula on bed load transport of
coarse uniform particles. The modified method was applied to the transportation of non-
uniform bed and suspended sediments over a wide range of pertinent parameters.
Samaga et al (1986a and b) introduced a corrective multiplying factor for shear stress and
identified its relationship with other effective sediment parameters. The use of this factor
in conjunction with transport law for uniform bed material, enables the computation of the
transport rates of different size fractions of sediment mixtures. The theory is complicated
and uses a number of parameters to be read from several tables and graphs.
Swamee and Ojha (1991) followed the same lines of Misri et al (1984) and Samaga et al
(1986a and b) and introduced two empirical equations for the computation of bed and
ChapteZA Literature review, 33
The concept that the rate of sediment transport can be related to some aspects of
energy dissipation or turbulence energy production of the flow has been used by a large
number of alluvial hydraulic engineers in order to derive sediment transport equations.
Bagnold (1956, 1960, and 1966) specifically correlated sediment transport with stre
power, T 0 V , the product of bed shear stress and mean velocity. Although Rubey (1933)
and Knapp (1938) were thefirstto use the relationship between energy expenditure of the
stream and the quantity of the transported material, the idea of stream power was
seriously introduced to the sediment transport studies by Bagnold. Following
investigations on the transport of sand by wind, Bagnold tried to apply similar principles
to sediment transport by water. Bagnold argued that stream power, which is the time rate
of potential energy expenditure, supplies energy for the fluid flow. This energy is used
partly to transport bed and suspended load particles. Further, Bagnold tried to relate the
rate of bed and suspended load transport to the stream power. A s Bagnold's (1966)
stream power theory has been followed widely by a large number of sediment researchers
as the basis for the establishment of n e w equations, it will be discussed in more detail in
Section 4.4.
Danish hydraulic engineers Engelund and Hansen (1967) used Bagnold's (1966) theory
of shear stress transfer from the fluid to the moving sediment particles and the idea that
ChapterJ Literature review, 34
there exists a specific relationship between the rate of bed material discharge and the
energy dissipation of the flow. They introduced a n e w equation for the computation of
transport rate of total bed material. Their expression was calibrated with G u y et al (1966)
laboratory flume data.
Yang (1972 and 1973) has approached the sediment transport phenomenon from the point
of view of the rate of potential energy expenditure of the flow. Y a n g defined the unit
stream power (USP), which is the product of mean flow velocity and energy slope (VS),
as the rate of expenditure of flow potential energy per unit weight of water. From the
analysis of a massive data bank, Y a n g found that U S P is the best dominant variable
which could be related to the sediment concentration or transport rate. Yang's
investigation resulted in a set of dimensionless equations which have been used for the
prediction of transport rates of sand (Yang, 1972 and 1973) and gravel (Yang, 1984).
Yang (1973) also introduced a n e w criterion for the incipient motion of sediment particles
which is based on critical flow velocity rather than shear stress. In this method, Yang
used the advantages of dimensional analysis to recognise the most important
dimensionless groups and identify their interrelationships. The numerical values of
coefficients in Yang's equations were determined through a regression analysis with a
wide range of data from sand and gravel transport in laboratory flumes.
Further studies by Bagnold (1980 and 1986) showed that there is a strong correlation
between the rates of transport of bed load and excess stream power, which is the
difference between total stream power T 0 V and that which would be just sufficient to
cause sediment movement to take place T C V . From the analysis of laboratory flume data,
Bagnold (1986) found that at a constant stream power, the bed load transport rate varies
with (flow depth)~2/3 and (grain s i z e ) - ^ and at a constant flow depth the rate varies
with (stream power)3/2. A linear correlation was successfully obtained between the log
of excess stream power and the log of a special sediment transport function.
A simple formula, based on the concept of energy exchange in alluvial streams, was
developed by Wiuff (1985) for the estimation of transport rates of suspended bed
materials. The equation was derived from the concept that the rate of sediment transport
is directly related to the energy dissipation of the flow. This hypothesis was initially
proposed by Bagnold (1966) and later was used by Engelund and Hansen (1967), Ackers
and White (1973) and Y a n g (1972 and 1973). Using the experimental results of G u y et
al (1966), Wiuff claimed that Bagnold's (1966) suspended load efficiency factor was not
constant but varied linearly with Shields' dimensionless shear stress parameter.
Chapter 3 Literature review, 35
McDowell (1989) followed the lead given by Bagnold (1986) and introduced an empirical
formula for the estimation of the rate of transport of non-cohesive bed load particles. In
order to improve the generality of Bagnold's equation, McDowell replaced the channel
depth with some function of bed shear stress and used Rijn (1984c) formulation for the
computation of Manning's coefficient of bed friction. McDowell's formula is based on
flow shear stress, bed friction coefficient and properties of bed material. The proposed
equation is claimed to be applicable to the sediment material from fine non-cohesive silt
up to particles with median size of 3 0 0 m m in diameter. McDowell's correlation of bed
load transport has not been tested by further investigators.
One of the recent contributions to the problem of sediment transport estimation has
m a d e by Celik and Rodi in 1991. Similar to Wiuff (1984), Celik and Rodi used the
concept of the turbulence energy production of the flow and its relation with the
concentration of suspended solids, to develop a n e w transport equation. After application
to actual measured suspended sediment transport data, Celik and Rodi concluded that
only part of the total shear stress associated with the grain roughness is effective in the
production of suspended load. They proposed an empirical equation for the evaluation of
this effective shear stress. The final formula of suspended load transport was then
verified using a limited number of both flume and field data and generally good results
were claimed.
Rottner (1959) used this approach with 2500 observations of bed load transport from
laboratory flumes to establish a graphical solution for the estimation of bed loads.
Pedroli (1963) presented the following dimensionless equation for the estimation of
load transport based on dimensional analysis in which, g denotes the gravitational
acceleration and x> is the kinematic viscosity of the flow.
Barr and Herbertson (1968), Cooper and Peterson (1968), Blench (1969), and Willis and
Coleman (1969) have also used a dimensional analysis approach to establish different
functional relations between a number of dimensionless groups.
A number of alluvial hydraulic investigators have found that the calculation of sedim
transport rate is such a difficult task that can only be handled with pure regression
analysis methods based on an extensive sediment transport data. Shen and H u n g (1971)
used a regression analysis formula based on all available data to express the concentration
of total bed material load Ct as a function of a unique dimensionless parameter which
involved the fall velocity of sediment particles co, average flow velocity V , and energy
slope S. Their equation can be written as:
in which, Y = (V S0-57 / co0-32)00075 and all the numerical constants have been found
through regression analysis. Shen and Hung's expression is dimensional and its main
disadvantage is its independence of flow depth which is caused by the analysis of data
covering a limited range of depth. According to the applicability tests of L u and Li
(1986), Shen and Hung's formula has predicted m u c h lower total load concentrations
than the corresponding measured values for large rivers. However, for flume and small
scale rivers, the predictions agree well with measured concentrations.
Ackers and White (1973) used the advantages of dimensional analysis together with flo
potential energy consideration and formed the important variables of flow hydraulics and
sediment size into three dimensionless parameters. The final form of the functional
relationships a m o n g dimensionless groups were derived from energy consideration,
using 1000 data sets from laboratory flume experiments. Ackers and White started from
a theoretical study on the transportation of coarse and fine material separately, and
continued their investigations towards the establishment of transitional relationships to
consider the transportation of intermediate grain sizes. The final procedure can be used
for the estimation of total bed material load in both natural rivers and laboratory channels.
Proffitt and Sutherland (1983) tried successfully to adapt Ackers and White's procedu
to be used with non-uniform sediment mixtures. B y matching the predicted transport
rates for each grain size to the measured values, Proffitt and Sutherland modified the
dimensionless mobility parameter F g r in Ackers and White's theory and introduced an
exposure correction factor for individual size fractions of bed material. Based on the
Chapter 3 Literature review, 37
analysis of laboratory and field measurements from transportation of large bed load
particles in open channel flows, Proffitt and Sutherland were able to analytically define
the exposure correction factor for different size fractions. Using independent data and the
proposed exposure correction factor, Proffitt and Sutherland concluded that the
application of Ackers and White's procedure to individual size fractions will improve the
accuracy of predictions.
Karim and Kennedy (1981 and 1983) defined the bed load concentration as a non-linea
function of six dimensionless parameters. The bed load discharge was then calculated
from the product of bed layer thickness, the mean velocity of bed load particles and the
estimated bed load concentration. They obtained the local suspended sediment
concentration from the depth integration of convection-diffusion equation incorporating
the distribution of turbulent diffusion coefficient corresponding to the power law velocity
profile. Using the concentration distribution and the power-law velocity profile and a
depth integration procedure, Karim and Kennedy derived the general form of their
suspended load equation. Combining the transport concentration of bed and suspended
load and using a non-linear multiple regression analysis with a large body of laboratory
flume and natural river data, Karim and Kennedy (1981 and 1983) proposed the
following model for the computation of total bed material load qs per unit of channel
width:
wherein, A = (ps/p) -1, and u*c = Shields' value of critical shear velocity for ini
sediment motion. Bechteler and Vetter (1989) compared 15 methods of total load
transport using 46 sediment discharge measurements from six naturalriversand showed
that Karim and Kennedy's method gave good predictions.
Based on dimensional analysis, Lu and Li (1986) concluded that the total bed materi
concentration, C t , should be a function of Froude number V/(gD) 0 - 5 , flow Reynolds
number VD/t), particle Reynolds number codsA), and relative depth D/ds. Then, using
both physical and mathematical considerations, the following equation was suggested:
Karim and Kennedy (1990) published a m e n u of coupled velocity and sediment discharge
relations for river systems. Here, 21 dimensionless factors were defined which involved
all the important parameters of water and sediment flow. The proposed equations were
developed from non-linear multiple regression analysis of the selected dimensionless
groups with a large body of laboratory flume and naturalriverdata.
Lane and Kalinske (1941) developed a relation for the estimation of suspended load
transport rate based on depth integration of the products of concentration and velocity
profiles over the entire depth and extended that to the total load estimation.
Laursen (1958) constructed a graphical relation for the estimation of the total load a
function of flow and sediment parameters. In this development, Laursen treated the
dimensionless factor u*/co , which is the ratio of the bed shear velocity to the fall velocity
of sediment grains, as the most important dominant variable in the movement of bed load
particles.
Relying on the experimental data reported in the literature, Garde and Albertson (1961
conducted extensive studies for the estimation of the rate of bed load transport. They
introduced the following functional equation.
Garde and Albertson used Gilbert's (1914) and other researchers' experimental data and
defined the function "f' graphically.
Colby (1964) analysed a large body of data from both laboratory flume experiments and
natural streams and concluded that sediment discharge was strongly correlated with mean
flow velocity. Colby expressed the total sediment discharge as a graphical function of
average velocity, m e a n flow depth, the median size of bed material, water temperature,
and the concentration of fine sediments. Colby's method is presented in four graphs.
The first one gives the uncorrected sediment discharge knowing the values of mean
velocity, flow depth and median size of sediment particles. The second, third and fourth
graphs give the correction factors for water temperature, fine sediment concentration, and
median size respectively.
Chapter 3 Literature review, 39
Blench (1966) introduced a regime formula for the computation of total bed material l
concentration for streams with sand and gravel bed that are in equilibrium, or regime,
condition and have dune-covered bed. Inglis (1968) has also developed a dimensionally
homogeneous formula for total load based on Lacey (1929) regime formula.
In order to obtain solutions for stable channel dimensions, Parker (1978 and 1979)
studied the interrelationships between water discharge, stream width, depth, slope, and
sediment discharge of active gravel rivers. Using dimensional analysis and following the
power-law hydraulic equations of Leopold and Maddock (1953), Parker (1979) was able
to develop a set of dimensionless regime relations. The proposed equations can be used
for the calculation of hydraulic geometry of gravel channels as well as for the estimation
of sediment discharge. Parker's (1979) formula for the prediction of sediment load can
be written as:
Based on similarity analysis and using the gravel transport data of Oak Creek, Parker
(1982) characterised bed load as a function of Shields' dimensionless shear stress. The
proposed equation was not tested with independent data. O n e interesting result of Parker
et al's investigation was that only one grain size, e.g. dso, is required for the computation
of total bed load, and accuracy is not improved by calculating bed load for individual size
fractions.
Chapter 3 Literature review, 40
Dutch engineer van Rijn (1984a) derived a bed load transport equation from the product
of saltation height, representative velocity of bed load particles and concentration of
sediment materials in the bed layer. Rijn (1984b) approached the estimation of suspended
load through the depth integration of the product of vertical profiles of velocity and
sediment concentration. The proposed equations were verified with extensive field and
laboratory data. T h e theory also includes n e w relationships for reference height and
reference concentration, equivalent sand roughness of Nikuradse, and grain and form
roughness.
Widberg and Smith (1989) developed a bed load formula based on the mechanics of
sediment moving by saltation. The equation was derived from the product of bed load
concentration, the velocity of the bed load particles, and the thickness of the bed load
layer which was regarded equal to the saltation height. The heights and velocities of the
saltating grains, as well as the lengths of the trajectories, were obtained from a saltation
model based on equations of motion for a particle in a fluid flow. The bed load
concentration at any level above the channel bed, was attributed to the time a particle
spends at the same level during saltation processes. The final expression calculates the
transport rate of bed load particles as a function of boundary shear stress, grain diameter
and the density of bed material. After comparison with carefully selected measurements
from bed load transport in laboratory flumes, Widberg and Smith claimed good
agreement.
3.3. Summary
The first widely introduced bed load formula was developed by Du Boys (1879) more
than a century ago. Following D u Boys, a great number of transport theories were
proposed, out of which about 60 were briefly reviewed here. For the first few decades,
most of the investigations were concentrated on the prediction of bed load transport.
Then, from 1938 with the introduction of the concept of turbulence to thefluidmechanics
mainly by Prandtl and von Karman, more attempts were m a d e for the establishment of
suspended and total material load equations.
Tests of the existing sediment load predictors against actual measurements indicated a
large discrepancy between the predicted transport rates and the corresponding measured
values. Several investigators tried to improve the accuracy and validity of the developed
theories. However, despite the relatively complex approaches proposed, the predictions
were not radically different from those of the earlier equations. Hence, due to the
unsatisfactory state of the accuracy obtained, investigation towards development of more
accurate and simpler formulae is still continued.
Chapter? Literature review, 41
According to the fundamental concepts used in their derivation, the existing theories were
classified as methods based on critical bed shear stress or flow discharge, statistical and
probability concepts, energy exchange of the flow, and dimensional and regression
analyses. A review of the available literature has revealed to the writer that in general,
methods which are based on energy exchange concepts are more accurate, reliable and
simpler than those which are obtained from other approaches.
Du Boys, Schoklitsch, and Einstein used critical bed shear stress, critical flow disch
and stochastic and probability concepts, respectively, for the derivation of their bed load
formulae. Despite the earlier theories, Einstein did not use any critical condition for the
initiation of sediment motion. The concept that the rate of sediment transport can be
related to some aspects of flow potential energy w a s introduced by Bagnold to the
sediment transport theories and is used for the computation of both bed and suspended
loads.
Most of the sediment investigators estimated the suspended load transport rate through
depth integration of the products of concentration and velocity profiles over the flow
depth. However, Bagnold (1966), Wiuff (1985), and Celik and Rodi (1991) approached
the suspended load estimation from the view point of correlation with potential or
turbulence energy of the flow.
CRITICAL INVESTIGATION
OF THE SELECTED THEORIES
Chapter 4 Critical investigation, 43
4.1. INTRODUCTION
Meyer-Peter and Muller's bed load theory was selected as it is one of the most popu
predictors that is still being used widely. A s the oldest method of calculating bed and
suspended load for individual size fractions, Einstein's bed load function was chosen.
The stream power approach of Bagnold was discussed because of its great importance as
the first well-established energy concept method for the estimating both bed and
suspended loads. The Toffaleti's procedure was selected because it has been
recommended by A S C E Task Committee on Sedimentation (1975). The methods of
Engelund-Hansen and Ackers-White were chosen because they are generally accepted by
the hydraulic engineers and they have shown satisfactory results in application to a
number of natural rivers. The other five theories were selected as indicators of the
recently developed procedures, where there is more need for critical analysis.
4.2.1. General
Meyer-Peter and Muller (1948) developed an empirical equation for predicting bed lo
transport in open channel flows. Their theory has been one of the most widely used bed
load predictors over the last four decades. Meyer-Peter-Muller's equation is fully
analytical and dimensionally homogeneous.
Chapter 4 Critical investigation, 44
in which qb = unit bed load transport rate in kg/s.m, q = unit water discharge in m3
d s = diameter of bed material in meter, and S = slope of the channel bed. For the foot-
pound-second system of units the constants of 250 and 42.5 should be replaced by 39.25
and 9.95, respectively [ A S C E Task Committee (1975)]. These constants were
determined by fitting Eq. 4.2.1 to the measured experimental data.
Since Eq. 4.2.1 was limited to alluvial streams with relatively coarse uniform mat
and hence not applicable to the majority of alluvial streams, the experiments were
extended to include data with non-uniform and smaller sediment grains. In the
subsequent sets of experiments the variables covered the following ranges:
Using this wide range of data and the results of the prior studies, Meyer-Peter and
(1948) developed the following empirical relation for the bed load transport of non-
uniform sediments:
(ns/n)3/2 RbS/(A da) = 0.047 + 0.25 p1/3 (qb/ps)2/3 /[(Ys-y)1/3 da] (4.2.2)
V = (l/n)R b 2 / 3 S 1 / 2 (4.2.3)
2/3 1 2
V = (l/ns) R b S' ' (4.2.4)
with
n s = dgo*/6/26.0 ; dgo being expressed in meter (4.2.5)
Here V = average flow velocity, S' = energy slope due to grain resistance, and d9o =
particle size in bed material sample for which 9 0 % by weight of sediments are finer.
Equation (4.2.5) w a s initially expressed for fully developed turbulent flows with
hydraulically rough boundaries (Garde & Ranga Raju, 1985, p. 160). In dividing the
energy slope, Meyer-Peter and Muller (1948) found that the total shear stress is not
responsible for sediment transport in the case of an undulated bed; a part of the shear
stress is used up in overcoming the form resistance and the bed load transport is a
function of the remaining part. Thus, the slope S was divided as:
where S' = the part of the total energy slope required to overcome the resistance o
and cause bed load motion, and S" = the energy slope required to overcome bed form
resistance. If instead of slope, S, the hydraulic radius is divided into two parts, as it has
been done by Einstein, then an equation similar to Eq. 4.2.4 can be written for R'_ as
V = (l/ns)R'b2/3Sl/2 (4.2.7)
where R'_ = bed hydraulic radius due to grain resistance. From equating Eqs. 4.2.3 a
4.2.7
Using Eq. 4.2.8, Eq. 4.2.2 can be rewritten in the following simple form:
and
x'* = R'b S/(A da) (4.2.11)
transport parameter, O, has also been used subsequently by Einstein (1950) and Samaga
et al (1986a and b) amongst the other investigators. Equation 4.2.9 is basically of the
same form as D u Boys (1879) formula in the sense that the transport rate is related to an
effective shear stress, (x* - 0.047).
Most of the data used in the calibration of Meyer-Peter-Muller's formula were obtaine
from flows with little or no suspended load and with sediment sizes larger than 2.0 m m
in diameter. Hence, it is suggested that this procedure should be used for the similar
flow and sediment conditions.
Equation 4.2.9 gives zero bed load transport for x'* = 0.047. This implies that there
no sediment transport for x'* values less than 0.047 and the motion of the bed material
begins w h e n x'* reaches the value of 0.047. Therefore, according to Meyer-Peter and
Muller the dimensionless critical shear stress, x*c, has a constant value of 0.047 and the
quantity (x* - 0.047) is regarded as the effective or extra shear stress responsible for bed
load transport. However, Misri (1981), in his experimental studies, found that bed load
transport is not zero even for x'* < 0.047. This is due to the fact that the critical
dimensionless shear stress for smaller particles is not constant and is significantly smaller
than 0.047, as can be seen from the Shields' diagram (Fig. 2.2). The reason for Meyer-
Peter and Muller reaching a constant value of 0.047 for x*c is that in their experimental
studies they used mainly large particle sizes.
Considering the fact that the dimensionless critical shear stress is not constant and
according to Shields (1936) varies with boundary Reynolds number, Eq. 4.2.9 can be
replaced by the following general form:
The Eq. 4.2.12 should improve the accuracy of bed load computations specially for the
case of streams carrying sediment materials with diameters less than 2.0mm.
4.3.1. Introduction
Einstein (1950) used two different approaches to predict bed and suspended load. His
well k n o w n bed load function is based on physical principles and probability concepts,
Chapter 4 Critical investigation, 47
Einstein's method of bed load computation was different from the previously publishe
methods of D u Boys (1879) and Meyer-Peter & Muller (1948). The main difference is
that Einstein did not use any concept for the initiation of sediment motion. Secondly, in
Einstein theory the bed load transport was related to thefluctuationsof turbulence rather
than to the average values of the forces that flow exerts on the sediment particles.
In the "Bed Load Function", Einstein considered bed load transport as the transport
sediment particles in a thin layer of two particle diameter thickness just above the bed.
These grains m o v e by saltation as a result of thefluctuatinglift force and then perform a
jump with a longitudinal distance of about 100 particle diameters. The jump length was
related to the sediment size and was assumed to be independent of the hydraulic
conditions.
The Einstein theory is based on splitting up of the bed material mixture into vario
ranges. The transport rates of these size fractions arefirstcomputed and then the total
sediment discharge is obtained by the summation of the individual rates. Although the
method as formulated leads to complex and laborious computational procedures, the
procedures are straightforward and dimensionally homogeneous. Einstein's relations
contain all pertinent variables of water and sediment transport, however, because the data
used in the calibration was obtained only from laboratory experiments, the method has
not provided satisfactory accuracy in most practical engineering projects.
Since the Einstein theory has been described in detail in a vast number of literatu
Yalin (1977), Raudkivi (1976), Simons and Senturk (1977), Graf (1971), Garde and
Ranga Raju (1985), and A S C E Task Committee (1975)], herein only a short description
of the theoretical arguments is presented. Instead focus is m a d e on the technical
comments, numerical integration of bed load function and II and 12 integrals, and the
development of analytical relations for the involved correction factors.
Einstein (1950) argued that the movement of sediment particles in a turbulent flow
depends on the probability that at a particular time and location where the applied forces
Chapter 4 Critical investigation, 48
exceed the resisting forces. He then developed a function to describe the probability
both in space and time, of jumps occurring. Einstein basically considered a dynamic lift
force imposed upon a sand particle immersed in afluidin motion, and the resistance to
movement by the sand grain because of the gravity. If F L denotes the instantaneous lift
force and W denotes the immersed weight of a sand particle under the water, then:
where R is the hydraulic radius due to grain roughness. Using Eqs. 4.3.3 and 4.3.4 th
probability function p can be written as:
Einstein defined the dimensionless quantity Ads/(R'S) as the intensity of shear stres
v
P = Ads/(RS) (4-3.6)
fB*\|/-(l/n0) 2
p=l- e _ t dt
-B*\|f- (l/n0) (4-3-7)
In this equation x0' is the "pure friction" component interacting between the fluid a
bed grains, irrespective of whether the bed surface is plane or irregular. It should be
pointed out that the definition of *F in Einstein's method is based on grain shear stress
x0'. T h e expression for *P can be rewritten as:
where p is the probability of a grain being eroded, and T is the time consumed for th
erosion of a grain and replacement by a similar one.
The probability p may also be interpreted as the fraction of the bed on which, at any
the lift exceeds the submerged weight. Hence p can be used to calculate the distance L,
which a particle travels between consecutive places of rest. If p is very small, the
distance of travel is virtually a constant, and L=100d s . Thus, while (1-p) particles are
deposited after travelling 100ds, p particles are not deposited after travelling 100ds. Out
of these p particles, p(l-p) particles are deposited after travelling 200d s , while p 2 particles
do not deposit even within 200d s , and so on. Thus the average distance travelled by the
particles in each jump was given by
L=XJJ:Q(l-p)pn(n+l)100ds=100ds/(l-p) (4.3.11)
Chapter 4 Critical investigation, 50
The time interval T was considered proportional to ds/co, with co representing the settling
velocity of the grain calculated from Eq. 2.13. Hence,
The numerical value of 1.225 was obtained for quartz particles of diameter greater th
m m settling in water at a temperature of 16 °C.
The sediment transport rate in the bed layer (qb in weight per unit width and time) ca
given by the product of the number of grains passing per unit time N and the immersed
weight of a single grain [(TC/6) (ps-p) g d s 3 ], or
Using the values of L and T from Eqs. 4.3.11 and 4.3.12, respectively, and introduci
the following expression for the intensity of sediment transport $
0 = (l/A*)[p/(l-p)] (4.3.15)
where A* is considered as a constant. Substituting for p from Eq. 4.3.15 into Eq. 4.3.
the final relation of Einstein bed load function can be obtained as
j rB*\|/-(l/n0) 2 A*0
dt=
'"v^J-B^-a/n/ "^A^ (4-3.16)
Einstein (1950) suggested that *¥* instead of Y should be used in Eq. 4.3.16, where ¥*
is the corrected value of dimensionless shear stress and can be obtained from the
following equation.
= pressure correction factor which describes the change of the lift coefficient in mixtures
with various roughness according to the Fig. 4.3.2 (both the pressure and hiding factors
have been determined experimentally by Einstein, for bed sediment of uniform size they
are unity), P = log 10.6,
200
100
50
10
i
t
5
I
5 1 0.S 0.1
dsi/X
Fig. 4.3.1. Hiding factor x as a function of dsi/X (Einstein, 1950).
1.0 p j—j—.—|—j 1 1
.6
.4
.2
5 4 3 2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4
<*65
_____
and x = a correction factor used in the logarithmic velocity distribution given in Eq.
4.3.25. F r o m Nikuradse's experiments, with k s =d65, Einstein derived Fig. 4.3.3 for x.
Chapter 4 Critical investigation, 52
100
In the present study, using the data obtained from Figs. 4.3.1 to 4.3.3 and
analysis, analytical relationships have been developed for the correction factors of x, cj,
and Y (see Sec. 5.2.2) to make the computational procedure and computer programming
easier.
Substituting *F by *F* and using the symbol 0* for O, Eq. 4.3.16 can be rew
O * = fOF*) (4.3.21)
or
rB*\j/*-(l/n0) 2 A*<D*
e dt =
*/n -B*\|/*-(l/n0) 1+A*<X>* (4.3.22)
Chapter 4 Critical investigatio
100 f
10
10" 10 -3 t-2
10"' 10 10
•*
Fig. 4.3.4. Einstein Bed Load Function (Einstein, 1950).
For the purpose of computer programming Eq. 4.3.22 is solved numerically using a
simple numerical integration method (see Sec. 4.3.6).
Despite the stochastic characteristic of B e d Load Function, Einstein's approach for the
estimation of suspended load is purely deterministic, except in the definition of reference
concentration, C a , which is based on bed load function. The suspended load transport
rate per unit of width of the channel, qs, can be obtained from the following depth
integration:
Cv.u.dy (4.3.23)
J a
where C y and u are the concentration of suspended particles and flow velocity at depth y
above the channel bed, respectively, and D = total flow depth. According to Einstein,
due to very small sizes of turbulent eddies in comparison with particle sizes in the near
bed zone, suspension is not possible within a distance of about two grain diameters from
the channel bed. The bed load layer thickness 'a' is defined as
a = 2d s (4.3.24)
Chapter 4 Critical investigation, 54
Einstein took velocity of flow, u, from Keulegan turbulence velocity distribution, with
u'* substituted for u*, and d65 used as the representative grain size. A corr
x, defined in Fig. 4.3.3, was used to make the Keulegan equation applicable t
hydraulically rough and smooth boundaries as well as to the transition betwee
The resulting velocity formula was
= [( )( )]
S ^ I^I ' (4.3.26)
co = fall velocity of sediments, and u'* = shear velocity due to grain roughness.
Substituting Eq. 4.3.25 into Eq. 4.3.23 and integrating, the following equa
obtained for suspended load transport rate qs.
7 fl 1 1-Y z
z 1-Y Z
A ,30.2 x D N ( — ) logYdY]
q s = 5.75 u'* D C a ( — ) [lo^-j—-) (-y-) dY + A
1 A
65 JA
(4.3.28)
where A = 2ds/D and Y = y/D. Using Einstein's well known integrals II and 12
were defined as:
r*i
A Z-l
Z
1-Y
11=0.216 (4.3.29)
(1-A)' A i^f-) dY
Z-l 1-Y ^
12 = 0.216 (4.3.30)
(1-A)ZJ A (-Y-) lnYdY
A s the analytical solution of II and 12 integrals was not possible, Einstein (1950) used
the numerical integration technique to introduce a graphical solution for the computation
of II and 12 (Figs. 4.3.5 and 4.3.6).
II
A = 2ds/D
Fig. 4.3.5. Einstein 11 integral.
q b = a C a u b 2d s (4.3.33)
where 2d s is the thickness of bed load layer and a is an overall correction factor.
A = 2ds/D
Fig. 4.3.6. Einstein 12 integral.
Introducing C a from Eq. 4.3.35 into Eq. 4.3.31, the final form of suspended load
equation was obtained as
Total load transport qt was then obtained through the summation of both suspended a
bed load components.
qt = qb(PrH+I2+l) (4.3.37)
Both Eqs. 4.3.36 and 4.3.37 are dimensionally homogeneous and can be used with an
consistent sets of units. Note again that these equations give the suspended load and total
load transport rates for individual size fractions.
The Einstein theory is based on unknown values of flow velocity and depth. Hence,
these parameters were predicted from Einstein-Barbarossa's (1952) trial and error
procedure. However, in sedimentation problems the main objective is to predict sediment
discharge based on k n o w n hydraulic properties. Most investigators such as Bagnold
(1966), Engelund-Hansen (1967), Toffaleti (1969), Ackers-White (1973), and van Rijn
(1984) have used the measured values of the flow velocity in their calculations.
Therefore, there is no need to complicate the computational procedure through the
calculation of the flow velocity which introduces some errors into the sediment discharge
estimation. Furthermore, Einstein-Barbarossa's procedure has been criticised by several
investigators. B y plotting additional data, Vanoni and Brooks (1957) have shown that
Einstein-Barbarossa's procedure does not predict the flow resistance satisfactorily. In
some cases the error in the predicted velocity was of the order of 3 0 0 % .
In the present study, an attempt was made to use the Einstein method based on the a
measured velocities rather than the computed values. This has changed the traditional
hydraulic computation of Einstein method. In fact, Colby and Hembree (1955) were the
first to introduce this modification in a slightly different way to the Einstein procedure.
Based on this concept, hydraulic radius due to grains R'b, can be calculated directly from
the following Manning-S trickier equation as
where R'b and d65 are expressed in meters and V is the measured mean velocity in m/s.
This equation is obtained from the substitution of Manning's roughness coefficient ns,
given by Strickler equation for a hydraulically rough plane boundary as
Substituting u'* = (gRb'S)0-5 into the Eq. 4.3.38 and rearranging, the following well-
known form of Manning-Strickler equation will be obtained.
In particular, Einstein and Barbarossa have recommended use of Eq. 4.3.41 for
hydraulically rough surfaces. For hydraulically smooth flows Eq. 4.3.42 was used in
Einstein-Barbarossa method with the substitution of R'b with xR'b, where x is the
viscous correction factor that varies in the range of 0.7-1.6 as shown in Fig. 4.3.3.
However, Einstein and Barbarossa recommended that the correction factor x m a y not be
considered in the practical situations. B y ignoring this factor simplifies the calculation
and m a y introduce an error not greater than 2 0 % in all computational procedures, which
is not a considerable error in sediment transport predictions.
In Einstein (1950) method, II and 12 are defined as in Eqs. 4.3.29 and 4.3.30. The
analytical integration of these integrals is impossible. Hence, Einstein (1950) used the
numerical integration technique to introduce a graphical solution (Figs. 4.3.5 & 4.3.6).
Chapter 4 Critical investigation, 59
However, as for the natural streams very small values of A (i.e. 0.0001< A <0.001)
should be used in the evaluation of II and 12 and at Y = A = 0.0 the terms [(1 - Y ) / Y ] z
and [(1 - Y ) / Y ] z lnY are singular, a simple step-integration scheme does not converge
and cannot be used for an accurate evaluation of these integrals.
1
r' r*
1-Y Z
1-Y z 1-Y z
(—-) dY K+F " ) dY (4.3.43)
A
where e is a small value greater than A. The first integral on the right hand side of Eq.
4.3.43, which contains the singularity, is approximated by a series expansion
z
1-Y Y~Z[1-ZY+^=^Y2+...] dY
Y_z,(l-Y) dY =
A A
z(Z-i) fr vY2^
-z
^(Y^dY-zJV ZdY+£_£____
2 JAJA
dY+ F1 + F2+F3+...
(4.3.44)
where
Fj = - ^ ( e 1 _ Z - A 1 _ Z ) for Z*l
1-Z
= In e - In A for Z=l (4.3.45)
Z
F3=_g zll(e3-Z_A3-Z) for ^3
2(3-Z)
3(lne-lnA) for Z=3 (4.3.47)
According to Nakato (1984) a three terms expansion is adequate for practical purposes.
The second integral on the right hand side of Eq. 4.3.43 can now be calculated by simple
Chapter 4 Critical investigation, 60
numerical integration procedures. Using Eqs. 4.3.43 and 4.3.44 into Eq. 4.3.29 the
Einstein integral II can be expressed as:
A Z-l 1-Y Z
11=0.216 :[ Fi + F 2 + F 3 + (-y-> dY]
(4.3.48)
(1-A)'
f
A Z-l
12 = 0.216 .-[G1 + G2+G3+
(1-A)'
(¥)Z'"YdY1 (4.3.49)
in which
1-Z 1-Z
(In A ) for Zjtl
Giv-
= 1_z v(In—£ - x-j—=)
_z, {_z 1-Z
= I[(lne) 2 -(lnA) 2 ] for Z=l
(4.3.50)
.2-Z 2-Z
G2=^^(lne--W)-^r^OnA-^7) for Z*2
Z-2 """ 2-Z' Z-2 2-Z'
= -(lne) 2 + (lnA) 2 for Z=2 (4.3.51)
.3-Z 3-Z
_Z(Z-1^2:(lne__L)_?^H^ZQnA-^) 3-Z ;
for Z*3
U ; v
^3" 2 (3-Z) 3-Z 2(3-Z)
2
= | [(In e) -(In A) ] 2 for Z=3
(4.3.52)
Eqs. 4.3.48 and 4.3.49 are given as a subroutine to the computer program of Einstein
method with the final integral terms on the right hand side of these equations are
calculated by Simpson's rule of numerical integration (see Appendix 1).
Tables 4.3.1 and 4.3.2 represent the comparison of calculated values of II and 12 u
the Simpson method, the proposed procedure, and the graphical solution of Einstein. In
these tables:
Tables 4.3.1 and 4.3.2 particularly indicate that for the small values of A and la
of Z the estimated integrals from simple Simpson method contain extremely large errors
as is shown in column 6. This finding is confirmed by Nakato (1984). It should be
mentioned that the values of Ii g and L_g in column 5 of Tables 4.3.1 and 4.3.2 are
obtained from Figs. 4.3.5 and 4.3.6, respectively, and hence contain some reading errors
and do not represent the exact values. B y comparing columns 4 and 5 it can be
concluded that the calculated values of Ijp based on the proposed procedure are in fact the
exact values of Einstein's integrals II and 12.
Table 4.3.1. Values of II integral computed by the simple Simpson method, the proposed
combined procedure, and Einstein's graphical solution.
A z Simpson Proposed Graph Ali s g (%) Ali p g (%) Al l s p (%)
lis x J
lp ig
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)
0.2 2309.7 2326.9 2350.0 -1.71 -0.98 -0.74
0.6 44.577 42.29 43.0 3.67 -1.65 5.41
0.00001 1.0 5.192 2.2711 2.3 125.74 -1.26 128.61
3.0 3.6001 0.1080 0.11 3172.82 -1.82 3233.43
5.0 3.6000 0.0540 0.054 6566.67 0.00 6566.67
0.2 365.69 368.03 370.0 -1.16 -0.53 -0.64
0.6 16.5721 16.5116 16.5 0.44 0.07 0.37
0.0001 1.0 1.8886 1.7739 1.75 7.92 1.37 6.47
3.0 0.3678 0.1080 0.11 234.36 -1.82 240.56
5.0 0.3602 0.0540 0.054 567.04 0.00 567.04
0.2 57.7389 57.7777 58.0 -0.45 -0.38 -0.07
0.6 6.2490 | 6.3167 6.5 -3.86 -2.82 -1.07
0.001 1.0 1.2779 1.2778 1.3 -1.70 -1.71 0.Q1
3.0 0.1099 0.1077 0.11 -0.09 -2.09 2.04
5.0 0.0594 0.0539 | 0.054 10.00 -0.19 10.20
Chapter 4 Critical investigation, 62
Table 4.3.2. Values of 12 integral computed by the simple Simpson method, the proposed
combined procedure, and Einstein's graphical solution.
A z Simpson Proposed Graph
Al2sg(%> Al 2 pg(%) Al 2 sp(%)
J
-12s - 2p
(1) (2) (3) (4) (6) (7) (8)
0.2 3217.13 3201.75 3200 0.54 0.05 0.48
0.6 148.935 120.202 120 24.11 0.17 23.90
0.00001 1.0 48.7579 14.0994 14 248.27 0.71 245.82
3.0 41.4471 1.1894 1.2 3353.93 -0.88 3384.71
5.0 41.4462 0.6082 0.61 6694.46 -0.30 6714.57
0.2 505.3426 512.88 510 -0.91 0.56 -1.47
0.6 45.2854 44.544 44 2.92 1.24 1.66
0.0001 1.0 10.1182 8.947 9 12.42 -0.59 13.09
3.0 3.3723 0.9405 0.95 254.98 -1.00 258.56
5.0 3.3168 0.4838 0.49 576.90 -1.27 585.57
0.2 78.3036 78.557 78.5 -0.25 0.07 -0.32
0.6 15.1784 15.194 15.2 -0.14 -0.04 -0.10
0.001 1.0 4.9467 4.944 4.9 0.95 0.90 0.05
3.0 0.7070 0.6903 0.69 2.46 0.04 2.42
5.0 0.3988 0.3590 0.36 10.78 -0.28 11.09
•B*\|/*-(l/n0) o A*<E>*
1- e - t dt = — — - = -
(4.3.22)
v^J-B*¥*-(l/n0) 1+A*0*
In the present study, for the purpose of computer programming, Eq. 4.3.22 is solved by
numerical integration technique using Simpson's rule. A spacing number of N = 10 is
initially used and the computation is continued by increasing N by 10 at each iteration
step until the relative change between the two successive computed values of integral
becomes less than 0.1%. It was found that N = 20 generally satisfies this criterion. This
procedure was introduced as a subroutine to the computer program of Einstein method
(see Appendix 1).
I - Over the past four decades the Einstein (1950) method has been investigated by a vast
number of researchers. Amongst them, Yalin (1977) gives an extensive discussion about
Einstein bed load function. Herein a brief description of Yalin's argument is given.
Chapter 4 Critical investigation, 63
1- Einstein assumes that the average jump length, L, is constant and equal to
100ds. However, no experimental evidence or theoretical justification is given in
support of this assumption. In fact available evidence suggests that jump length
increases with increasing dimensionless shear stress T*. [Rijn (1984a) has also
shown that L/ds varies with particle size and flow shear stress.]
2- Einstein considers the time interval T proportional to ds/co, and in his statement
there appears to be no relation between T and turbulence characteristics. Yalin
shows that T, which is a property of the frequency of the jumps, must depend on
the turbulence parameters and should be proportional to dg/u*.
4.4.1. Introduction
Based on the concept of energy balance in alluvial flows, Bagnold (1966) proposed new
dimensionless equations for estimating bed and suspended load transport rates. In this
n e w procedure, Bagnold tried to simplify the result of his earlier investigation (Bagnold,
1956) and m a k e it directly applicable to open channel flows. For the calibration of
proposed model and derivation of functional relationships for bed and suspended load
efficiency coefficients, Bagnold used laboratory flume and field data.
4 Critical investigation, 64
From the physical point of view the stream power supplies energy for the fluid flow,
which is used partly in transportation of bed and suspended load particles. Fluid flow,
on the other hand, performs work on the sediment particles to keep them in movement.
This work is proportional to the available stream power. Bagnold used this concept to
relate bed and suspended load transport rates to the available stream power. Stream
power concept was also used by a number of other investigators including Ackers and
White (1973), Yang (1973 and 1984), Wiuff (1985), and Celik and Rodi (1991).
Power is the time rate of energy expenditure or, equivalently, the time rate of doin
work. If the flow is assumed uniform or gradually varied in the longitudinal direction x,
then the slope of the channel dy/dx, with y indicating the direction normal to the x-axis,
represents the vertical drop of water surface with unit distance downstream. O n the other
hand, the time rate of fall of the water dy/dt can be written as
For small channel slopes dx/dt represents the mean velocity V. of the flow, and wit
alternative expression for the channel slope, dy/dx = S, the time rate of fall of the water
can be expressed as
dy/dt = S V (4.4.2)
Since energy is force times distance, the time rate of energy expenditure per unit
the channel is the product of the time rate of fall, SV, times the weight of water per unit
length, i.e.
P = (yBD) S V (4-4.3)
in which yBD represents the weight of water per unit length of the channel with y =
weight of the water, B = mean flow width, and D = total flow depth. Here P indicates
the total available stream power of the flow per unit length. T w o additional expressions
of stream power are usually used in sediment transport theories:
x0 = YDS (4.4.5)
ii- Stream power per unit of weight of the flow or unit stream power, pw
pw = P/(yDB) = SV (4.4.6)
The theory of Bagnold (1966) is based on stream power per unit area, p, while Yang'
(1973) formulation is based on unit stream power, p w . Stream power concept is also
useful for predicting flow resistance.
In Bagnold (1966) theory stream power per unit of bed area of the flow, which is si
the product of shear stress along the bed and the average flow velocity, is regarded as the
available power supply for transporting sediment particles. Bagnold considers water as a
machine whose purpose is to transport bed material solids. The general machine relation
between the rate of doing work and the available power supply can be written as
In a uniform steady flow the available power supply is stream power. If m'b denotes
submerged mass of the bed load particles per unit bed area then
wherein (m'b g) is the normal stress, (m'b g tana) is the tangential or opposing s
the direction of motion, tana is the coefficient of inter-angular friction of the bed material,
and U b is the m e a n transport velocity of bed load particles. The term (m'b g U b )
expresses the transport rate of bed load in submerged weight, q'b or
From Eqs. 4.4.7, 4.4.9 and 4.4.11, considering eb as bed load transport efficiency,
expression for bed load transport can be written as:
Using the relationship between the immersed weight and dry weight of the solids:
and Eq. 4.4.4 for stream power p, bed load transport rate in dry weight per unit wid
flow, qb, can be written as
40
Ps~P ° tana (4.4.14)
Ps
According to Bagnold, a particle is suspended when the bed-shear velocity, u*, excee
its fall velocity co. Bagnold's derivation of suspended load is direct and simple. Bagnold
argues that in a sediment-laden flow, the suspended solids tend to settle d o w n with the
rate of their m e a n fall velocity co. However, in the natural streams with suspended load,
the centre of gravity of the suspended material as a whole does not fall relative to the bed.
Hence the fluid must be lifting the solids at the velocity co. The rate of lifting work done
by the shear turbulence of the fluid must therefore be
where m's = submerged mass of suspended particles. Multiplying the right hand side o
Eq. 4.4.15 by U s /U s , where U s equals m e a n transport velocity of suspended solids, and
rearranging results
Considering that (m's g Us) expresses the suspended sediment transport rate in
submerged weight, q's, one can write
Reducing the energy used for bed load movement, the remaining power to do the work
for transportation of suspended particles is (l-eb)p. Denoting the suspended load
efficiency with e s the power absorbed in suspended load transport is es(l-eb)p, which can
be equated to the suspended load work rate. Hence from Eq. 4.4.17
Using Eqs. 4.4.4 and 4.4.13 into Eq. 4.4.18 and solving for suspended load yields,
U£
qs=ppp-^oVes(1-eb)^ (4.4.19)
in which q s expresses the transport rate of suspended sediments in dry weight per unit of
channel width.
The total sediment transport qt can then be obtained by the summation of the two
components qb and q s from Eqs. 4.4.14 and 4.4.19, respectively, as
a _ T o V r% , e f l e0__s-,
<lt- p s -p t a n a + e s ^ b J co J
L (4.4.20)
Using Gilbert's (1914) flume data for fully developed suspension by turbulent shear
flows, and ignoring some uncertainties, Bagnold (1966) concluded that suspended load
efficiency e s has the universally constant value of about 0.015 and the quantity e s (l-e_) =
0.01, for all practical purposes. Bagnold also assumed that the suspended solids travel at
the same velocity as the fluid surrounding them and substituted the m e a n transport
velocity of suspended particles U s with the average velocity of the fluid flow V.
Introducing these values, Bagnold's equation of total load transport, Eq. 4.4.20 reduces
to
n-______r eb .nm XN
It- -p-=p 4 a n a + UAJi « ; (4.4.21)
Eq. 4.4.21 is dimensionally homogeneous and can be used for fully turbulent open
channel flows with sediment sizes not smaller than 0.015 m m . It has been shown that the
bed load efficiency eb is a weak function of m e a n flow velocity V and bed material
arithmetic mean diameter da. The value of eb decreases with the increase in V and da, and
Chapter 4
Critical investigation. 68
normally lies between 0.12 and 0.14. Chadwick and Morfett (1986) suggested the
following analytical equations to calculate eb for p s = 2650 kg/m 3 and 0.3 m/s < V < 3.0
m/s.
u* da>
G
with " V T4"p ^v~~") (4.4.24)
In Bagnold's procedure, the term co has been defined as the mean fall velocity of
suspended particles. For calculating co, Bagnold has suggested that the arithmetic mean
fall velocity of suspended load is used. However, in natural channels usually size
distribution of suspended sediments is not known, unless by direct sampling. Hence
detennining fall velocity based on the size distribution of suspended load is difficult and
in most cases impractical. In order to bring Bagnold formulation into a more practical
form, a procedure should be introduced for calculating CO from the size distribution of the
bed material.
Bagnold (1966) showed that co cannot be approximated by the fall velocity of median
diameter dso of the bed material. It is more comparable to the arithmetic mean grain size,
but in general it cannot be substituted by this parameter either. In the absence of any data
from size fractions of suspended particles, Bagnold assumed, arbitrarily, that co is equal
to one-half of the arithmetic mean fall velocity of the bed material, i.e.
where COJ indicates the m e a n fall velocity of the size fraction i of the bed material sample.
However, analyses done by Bennett (1973) and White et al (1975) indicate that this
suggestion again is an unsatisfactory procedure for the estimation of co. Bennett (1973)
argued that Bagnold's estimated value of 0.01 for efficiency factor es(l-eb) is applicable
only w h e n co is expressed as the representative fall velocity of suspended particles.
Bennett then redefined the suspended load transport efficiency e s (l-eb) and the fall
velocity CO so that the n e w efficiency factor is based on the fall velocity of the median
diameter dso of the bed material samples.
In the present study, when applying Bagnold's method to the collected sediment tran
data, co is considered as one-half of the arithmetic m e a n fall velocity of bed material
mixture. However, w h e n size distribution is not known, co is evaluated based on the
median diameter of bed material.
Based on theoretical arguments, Bagnold (1966) suggested that the overall suspended
load efficiency es(l-eb) is considered constant equal to 0.01 for all practical purposes.
According to this suggestion a constant proportion of 1 % of the available stream power,
p=r Q V, is used for transporting suspended particles. Using this suggestion, from Eq.
4.4.21, Bagnold's expression for suspended load transport rate can be rewritten as
T V2
q s = 0.01 -=2-=
fe±) co (4.4.26)
Ps
Bagnold argued that in natural streams carrying suspended load, the centre of gravi
the suspended material as a whole does not fall relative to the bed. Hence, thefluidmust
be exerting an upward stress on the solids thus supporting the suspended load against
gravity. This upward stress is attributed to the anisotropic boundary shear turbulence and
is caused by a small internal dynamic stress directed perpendicularly away from the shear
boundary. Considering the asymmetry in the normal eddy velocity components of
boundary shear turbulence, Bagnold deduced that the flux of turbulentfluidm o m e n t u m
away from the boundary must exceed that toward it. For a representative unit volume of
Kmnapier t Critical investigation, 70
fluid within the boundary region, the limiting m a x i m u m value of residual net upward
m o m e n t u m flux, f, was found to be:
f= 0.414 pv'2
in which v' is the overall mean measured eddy velocity. The quantity v' has been foun
to increase from zero at the boundary to a sharp m a x i m u m , and then to decrease
progressively with distance from the boundary (Laufer, 1954).
The propagation velocity of the flux f being f°-5/p, the supply of lifting power to t
body of the flow above the plane of v'=v' max was obtained as:
The ratio of the lifting power to the whole power supply p = x0V, was then written as
Based on Laufer's measurements the ratio (v'max/u*) varies with the Reynolds number,
Re, of the flow, it is approximately 1.0 at R e =.30,000 and 1.1 at R e = 300,000. For
normal laboratory flume experiments, this ratio m a y be put 1.03, and the ratio (V/u*)
appears to range only between 16 and 18 for high-stage flows and sand grains. Using
(V/u*)=18 and (v'max/u*)=1.03, Bagnold obtained e s = 0.015 and assumed that this
value is universally constant for fully developed suspension by turbulent shear flow.
Assuming that only two-thirds of the power supply remains available to maintain
suspended load (the rest is used for bed load transport), a round figure of 0.01 was
obtained for the overall suspended load efficiency es(l-eb), i.e.
According to Bagnold, es(l-eb) = 0.01 has made the proposed total load equation, Eq.
4.4.21, accord surprisingly well with a comprehensive range of sediment transport data.
Bagnold suggested that the value of es(l-eb) m a y not be more than 25 percent larger than
0.01. Further discussion on Bagnold's suspended load efficiency parameter will be
presented in Sec. 6.10.
Chapter 4 Critical investigation, 71
In order to bring the proposed transport formula into a form that can be used for
purposes, Bagnold substitutes the average velocity of suspended solids U s , with the
mean velocity V of the fluid flow. According to Yalin (1977) this replacement is not
correct. If u represents the local flow velocity at any distance y above the channel bed
and D is used for total flow depth, then the depth-averaged flow velocity can be obtained
from the equation:
V-_•£»<* (4.4.29)
and the suspended load discharge per unit of channel width qs can be calculated from:
fD
(4.4.30)
= j Q C y udy
qs
U
S = D " (4.4.31)
U
-iJjV-
S=TT)0v y c ud
(4-4-32)
From the comparison of Eq. 4.4.32 and Eq. 4.4.29, Yalin concludes that the substitution
U s = V is equivalent to the assumption that local concentration does not vary with depth
and has a constant value of 1.0. H e then argues that as the suspended sediment
concentration decreases with the increasing values of y, the assumption of a constant
concentration is not correct.
qs = C D U s D (4.4.33)
1 fD
c
D = nJ 0 c y d y (4-4-34)
Substituting for CD and qs from Eqs. 4.4.34 and 4.4.30, respectively, into Eq.
the following expression will be obtained:
fD fD
I C y u d y = U s J o C y dy (4.4.35)
fD i fD fD ,
J0 cyudy=iJ0 s H udy
(4-4-36)
Therefore, theoretically Bagnold's assumption of Us = V leads to Eq. 4.4.36 whic
not necessarily correct under all conditions.
4.5.1. Introduction
Engelund and Hansen's (1967) study was started from simple transport mechanism in
bed region, where sediment particles are eroded from the stream side of the dunes and
deposited on the lee side. Engelund and Hansen postulated that in the case of a dune bed,
the moving sediment is elevated to a height comparable to the dune height, h. The energy
(per unit time and width) required for elevating the whole sediment load to the height h can
be expressed as "(ps-p) g qt h", where qt denotes the volumetric transport rate of bed
material per unit width of the channel. This expression is equivalent to the gain in potential
energy of sediment material and can be equated to the work done by the drag force on the
moving particles during the same time. Using the assumption that particle velocity is
proportional to the friction or shear velocity u* = (x0/p)0-5 and the effective shear stress
which is transferred from thefluidto the moving grains is equivalent to x'-xc, Engelund
and Hansen developed the following equation:
in which
xc = critical bed shear stress at which the bed material particles start to move,
x' = bed shear stress due to the grain roughness only,
L = length of the dune,
x 0 = flow shear stress at the bed,
g = acceleration of the gravity, and
a = a dimensionless coefficient to be determined experimentally.
50 (452)
'^'^•"KPrPHs^
Here dso is used for the median diameter of the bed material mixture and f is th
factor of the bed which can be determined from the Darcy-Weisbach equation for open
channelflowsas:
f=2g(4R)S/V2 (4-5-3)
with R = hydraulic radius of the flow cross section, S = slope of the channel bed
average flow velocity. In the original report, Engelund and Hansen used Darcy-Weisbach
Chapter 4 : Critical investigation, 74
equation for pipe lines to evaluate f and hence the parameter 4R was replaced by the
diameter D. Using the definition of Shield's parameter x* = x 0 / [g (ps-p) dso] as described
in Sec. 2.2, the terms x c and x' were written in the dimensionless forms as:
Replacing for x0, xc and x' from Eqs. 2.3, 4.5.4 and 4.5.5, respectively, into Eq. 4
rearranging, the following expression was obtained:
fq t (J*-) = a ( x ' * - 0 . 0 6 ) v ^ \ / g ( ^ - l ) d 5 0 3 ( 4 5 6)
O = qt{g[(ps/p)-l]d503}-a5 (4-5-7)
fO = (x'*-0.06)vx* (4.5.8)
Engelund and Hansen also showed that the parameter h/(f L) is constant for a particu
value of x'* and
fO = const.x*5/2 (4.5.10)
Using data from four sets of experiments in a large laboratory flume, 2.4m wide and
length, reported in G u y et al (1966), Engelund and Hansen calibrated Eq. 4.5.10 and came
to theirfinalcorrelation for sediment transport estimation as
in which the definition of friction factor f is based on Eq. 4.5.3. Theoretically Eq. 4.5.10 is
valid only for sediment transport under the dune bed condition and because of the similarity
principles, its application to other ranges of bed form is questionable. However, data from
all ranges of bed form including dune bed, transition, standing wave and antidune, was
used for the calibration of Eq. 4.5.10 and the results were found in satisfactory agreement
with the measurements suggesting that Eq. 4.5.10 can be applied to all bed configurations.
A s the representative sediment size, Engelund and Hansen used the median diameter dso of
the bed material mixture.
Substituting for f, <E> and x*, from Eqs. 4.5.3, 4.5.7 and 2.3 respectively, into Eq.
and solving for total bed material load qt, the following simple expression can be obtained:
wherein A = (ps/p) - 1.
I - Engelund and Hansen's (1967) derivation is directly based on bed load transport
phenomenon. Their fundamental postulation that in the case of a dune bed, the moving
particles are elevated to a height comparable to the dune height is essentially applicable when
only bed load particles are involved. However, Engelund and Hansen used this assumption
for developing total load equation, which includes both bed and suspended loads.
Engelund and Hansen also assumed that the particle velocity, for the whole sediment
material in transport, is proportional to the bed shear velocity u*. This assumption is again
mostly applicable to the bed load particles and cannot be considered as a good description
for the velocity of suspended solids. In general the velocity of suspended particles in the
direction of the flow, is closely proportional to the velocity of the surrounding fluid. A
number of investigators including Bagnold (1966), Toffaleti (1969) and van Rijn (1985)
used the assumption that suspended particles m o v e with the same velocity as the
surrounding fluid.
In view of these facts, theory behind Engelund and Hansen's procedure is not based on
sound theoretical principle, and hence cannot properly describe the transport mechanism of
the suspended sediments. Without giving any specific reason Garde and Ranga Raju
(1985, p. 252) also stated that the mechanism conceived by Engelund and Hansen does not
describe the physical processes of suspended load transport adequately.
Chapter 4 Critical investigation, 76
n - In Eq. 4.5.6, Engelund and Hansen substituted the dimensionless critical shear
velocity, x*c, with a constant value of 0.06 which means that the critical shear stress x c for
the initiation of motion of sediment particles is only a function of sediment properties and is
independent of the hydraulic conditions of the flow. However, referring to the Shield's
diagram (Fig. 2.2), it can be seen clearly that in general x c is a function of both flow and
sediment characteristics including bed shear velocity u*, kinematic viscosity of the flow v,
flow density p, sediment density p s , and particle size ds. The value of x* c is constant only
for the large sizes of particles where boundary Reynolds number R * is approximately
greater than 100, i.e. for particles which mostly m o v e within the bed load layer (see Sec.
2.2). Hence substituting dimensionless critical shear velocity, x*c, with a constant value of
0.06 for the estimation of total load, specially w h e n a big proportion of sediment material
m o v e in suspension, is questionable.
m - Another weakness with Engelund and Hansen's development is that the effect of
viscous forces on the transportation of sediment particles was not considered. The
kinematic viscosity of the flow v, has not been introduced to the final Eqs. 4.5.11 and
4.5.12. Hence, it can be concluded that in the lower stages of sediment transport, where
the shear stress is low and the influence of the viscosity is more sinificant, Engelund and
Hansen's formula is not able to give an accurate estimation of the total load. This is in
agreement with the findings of White et al (1975), where application of Engelund and
Hansen's procedure to over 1000 flume experiments showed that at low shear stresses this
theory tends to over-estimate the sediment discharges.
In Engelund and Hansen's theory, the dimensionless critical shear velocity, x*c, is
substituted with a constant value of 0.06. However, according to Shields (1936), x* c is not
constant and is a function of different sediment-laden flow parameters. T o rectify this
drawback, the following formula is recommended by the author to be used instead of Eq.
4.5.11.
This expression is obtained from Eq. 4.5.8 through the substitution of the constant va
0.06 with x*c. The dimensionless coefficient K is introduced as a correction parameter and
its true value should be estimated from calibration with field and laboratory measurements.
Here dimensionless shear stress x* c should be calculated as a function of flow and sediment
conditions based on Shield's criterion. For estimating bed shear stress due to the grain
Chapter? Critical investigation, 77
4.6.1. Introduction
Toffaleti (1969) assumed that the actual stream for which the sediment dischar
calculated is equivalent to a two-dimensional channel of width B equal to that of the real
stream and depth D equal to the hydraulic radius of the real stream, R. For calculating
suspended load, Toffaleti used the depth-integration of the product of the velocity and
concentration profiles. The velocity profile was expressed by the following power-law
relation for the whole flow depth:
u = (l+Zv)V(y/R)zv (4.6.1)
where u = flow velocity at depth y above the channel bed, V = average flow velo
the real stream, and Z v is given by the following empirical equation.
thickness y/R = 2dj/R with di presenting the mean particle size for size fraction i; the
lower zone extending from y/R = 2dj/R to y/R = 1/11.24; the middle zone extending from
y/R = 1/11.24 to y/R = 1/2.5; and the upper zone extending from y/R = 1/2.5 to the water
surface. Then for each zone, except for the bed zone, Toffaleti defined a power relation
for the concentration distribution, Q , of the 1th size fraction as:
in which concentration is expressed in pounds per cubic feet. The exponent Zj in this
equation is given by
Zi = V c O i / ( S R C z ) (4.6.4)
where C0j = fall velocity of the sediment size di, S = slope of the real stream, and C z is
given by the empirical equation
.-*i
Middle zone Ci-C.,©'
Lower zone
Ci-c^r0™2
Let qsui, qSmi, and qsii denote the suspended load discharge in the upper, middle, and
lower zones, respectively, for the size fraction i, then from the depth integration of the
product of appropriate concentration and velocity profiles (Eqs. 4.6.1 and 4.6.3) one can
write:
q
*mi= J l i L Cmi (£) Z{ d+Zv) V (|)Zv dy
y
" 11.24 (4.6.7)
,_ R
«=Cf c iir Ei wv(|,s (4.6.8)
and
Qsi = qsui + qsmi + qsli (4.6.9)
where qsi = suspended sediment transport rate per unit width for size fraction i and is
expressed in Tons/day/ft. Eqs. 4.6.6-8 after integration can be written in the following
new forms:
„ •= Mi (__R_)°-224Zi(_R_)°-5ZirRl+Zv-1.5Zi r_Rxl+Zyl.5Zi
q
sui l+Z v -1.5z/ll.24 ; 4.5 j LK v 1_ (
" 23° ]
(4.6.10)
Mi 224Z 1+Z Z
q •= (-R-)°- i uJL) v " i _ ,__R_x 1+Zv^ii ,, , , n
q K ; {
snn l+Zv-ZjMl.24^ 2.5 ll.2A} J
(4.6.11)
q r= MMi r(_R_) l+zv~0-756Zi _ i+zv-0.756Zn
qsl1
1+Z„-0.756Z; U 11.24 J ^ai; V 1J
(4.6.12)
in which
M i = 43.2 Pi C U (1+Z V ) V ( R 0 . 7 5 6 Z r Z v ) ^ ^
Here the weight proportion of size fraction i with respect to the whole bed
mixture is denoted by pi. In these equations the parameters Cui and C m i have been
expressed in terms of Cn based on the continuous distribution of suspended sediment
concentration in natural streams. To calculate suspended sediment transport from Eqs.
4.6.9 to 4.6.13, the only unknown is C b .
0.600 p;
^sli = -
TA)5/3 ( _ _ _ _ _ i _ ) 5 / 3 (4.6.14)
k ; l
V 2 0.00058;
Chapter 4 Critical investigation, 80
in which A is a function of (105v)1/3/10u*' given in Fig. 4.6.2; u*'= shear velocity with
respect to grains in ft/sec; and T is given by
In Eq. 4.6.14, qsii is expressed in tons/day/ft, d[ in feet and the kinematic viscosity v in
ft2/sec. Note that A in Eq. 4.6.14 represents the combined effect of several correction
factors involved in Einstein (1950) theory as functions of kinematic viscosity v and shear
velocity with respect to grains u'*. Fig 4.6.2 is based on a large number of sediment
transport measurements in small to largeriversunder widely varying conditions.
Here as a computational check point, Toffaleti states that in some cases, particularly
flume studies in which rather severe flow conditions are imposed, a modification of factor
A is required. For this purpose the value of "B = [(105 v ) 1 / 3 / 10 u*'] d 6 5 S 10 5 " should
be computed. If this value is less than 0.25, no adjustment is needed, otherwise a
correction factor _4 as found from Fig. 4.6.2 is applied to A , but in no case should A be
less than 16.0. For the purpose of computer programming, based on graphs of Fig.
4.6.2, a set of analytical equations have been proposed by the author for calculating A
and k4 (see Sec. 5.2.5). B y equating Eqs. 4.6.12 and 4.6.14 the only u n k n o w n
parameter, i.e. Cu, will be obtained. Then fractional suspended load transport qsi can be
calculated from Eqs. 4.6.9 to 4.6.13. The total suspended load transport q s for the whole
bed material mixture can be obtained through the summation qs =2qsi-
B
Figure 4.6.2. Correction factors in Toffaleti's model
Chapter 4 Critical investigation, 81
Toffaleti (1969) used the simple product of the local sediment concentration and flow
velocity at the upper edge of bed load layer, i.e. at y = 2dj times the thickness of the bed
layer 2di to compute the transport rate of bed load sediments. According to this
approach, for each size fraction i
in which qbi is expressed in tons/day/ft. Here as the last computational check point
Toffaleti suggests that the computed sediment concentration at y = 2dj is controlled to
ensure that it is not unrealistically high. From Eq. 4.6.3 this concentration is
If the concentration given by Eq. 4.6.18 is greater than 100 lb/ft3 (16 kg/m3) the
concentration Q i in all equations should be arbitrarily adjusted so that this equation gives
a concentration equal to 100 lb/ft3. Hence, for (Q)y_2di > 100 lb/ft3
Amongst 600 individual sets of data used by Toffaleti in the calibration of his model
last correction has not been required except for a few cases of flume experiments. The
total bed material load for each size fraction i, q„ can be obtained through the summation
of the fractional bed and suspended load discharges qbi and qsj or
= 2di from the channel bed. Next using the bed load concentration, Toffaleti derived Eq.
4.6.16 or 4.6.17 for estimating the transport rate of bed load particles. Hence, Toffaleti
started from the suspended load computation and finished with bed load transport.
Einstein (1950), on the other hand, first determined the bed load transport from the
already developed bed load function, then used the estimated bed load discharges to
calculate reference concentration at two grain diameters above the bed. Next Einstein
integrated the product of the local suspended sediment concentration and the flow velocity
within the depth of the flow, from y = 2dj to the water surface, to calculate suspended
load transport rate. Hence, Einstein starts from bed load computation and injects the
estimated reference concentration from bed load function to the final expression of the
suspended load where the only unknown parameter is concentration at y = 2dj.
Another important departure of Toffaleti's method from Einstein theory is in the selec
of the equation for expression of vertical distribution of the flow velocity. Toffaleti uses
a power-type equation for defining the local flow velocity, while Einstein utilises the
logarithmic distribution of Keulegan. A s a result, Toffaleti's procedure for the
computation of suspended load leads to an analytical integration, while Einstein's
approach leads to complicated numerical integrals.
Also for the estimation of suspended sediment concentration, Toffaleti and Einstein hav
used two different kinds of power equations. Einstein has used Rouse concentration
equation for the whole flow depth, while Toffaleti has divided the suspension area into
three zones and used the general power type equation of 4.6.3 with different Z values for
each zone.
The last important departure which has made Toffaleti's procedure much easier than that
of Einstein, is a combination of several correction factors into one, which is designated as
A. This combination has improved the simplicity and in turn the applicability of Toffaleti
method and has also reduced the accumulated errors that are caused through the reading
of a number of correction factors from tables and graphs.
In deriving bed load equation, Toffaleti (1969) used the simple product of the sediment
concentration and flow velocity at the upper edge of bed load layer, i.e. at y = 2di, times
the thickness of bed layer 2di or
(4.6.16)
qbi = (Q) y=2 di uy=2di 2 d i
Chapter 4 Critical investigation, 83
Using this formula for the computation of bed load is equivalent to one of the three
following assumptions:
1 - Both sediment concentration and flow velocity are constant within the bed load
layer and are equal to the concentration and velocity at y = 2di,
2 - The product of concentration and velocity is constant within the bed layer and
is equal to (Ci) y _ 2di U y ^ ^ , and
3 - Both (Ci)y_2_i and uy_2_i indicate their average value throughout the bed
layer.
Considering the physics of sediment-laden flow in the vicinity of the bottom of alluvial
channels, it can be seen that none of the above assumptions are relevant. In Toffaleti's
(1969) paper neither experimental evidence nor theoretical explanation has been offered to
support the validity of Eq. 4.6.16. Also, no independent calibration or verification of the
individual bed load formula has been made. Hence it is suggested that Toffaleti's
procedure should be carefully used for predicting transport rates of bed load, specially in
those natural rivers or laboratory flumes where the flow is carrying only bed load or the
major part of the moving material is bed load, i.e. for rivers with low energy gradients.
In fact Toffaleti's model is only applicable to sand transport, i.e. particles in range
0.065mm to 2 . 0 m m which are mostly transported in suspension.
A modification of Toffaleti's bed load formula can be presented here to improve its
accuracy for application to the flows with high proportion of bed load. Assume that flow
velocity at two grain diameters from the channel bed uy=2di is proportional to the average
velocity of the bed load particles Ub, and average concentration of bed load materials Q,i
for size fraction i is proportional to (Ci)y__di> then one can write
Ub = a2 uy_2di (4.6.22)
Bed load transport rate qbi for size fraction i is equal to the product of the mean veloci
of the bed load particles U b , m e a n concentration of the bed load C b i, and the thickness of
the bed load layer 2di, i.e.
Substituting from Eqs. 4.6.21 and 4.6.22 for C b j and U b , respectively, Eq. 4.6.23 can
be written as:
+ z
qbi = a Mi (2di)l v" °-756zi (4.6.25)
4.7.1. Introduction
Ackers and White (1973) developed one of the most popular formulae of total bed
material transport. They started from theoretical work on the transportation of coarse
(bed load) and fine (suspended load) material separately. Then they continued
investigation towards establishment of transitional relationships to consider the
transportation of the intermediate grain sizes.
In the development of their new framework, Ackers and White used the advantages of
dimensional analysis together with consideration of the physical characteristics of the
sediment-laden flow. They formed the important variables of hydraulics of the flow and
sediment size into three dimensionless parameters, namely dimensionless grain diameter
Dgr, dimensionless mobility number Fgr, and dimensionless sediment transport Ggr.
Ackers and White's method is based on almost 1000 flume experiments, which were
carried out under steady state with uniform or near uniform sediments and depth of flow
up to 0.4 m . Comparison with flow data collected by Hydraulic Research Station,
Wallingford, showed that Ackers and White's procedure has a real practical value, and
Chapter 4
Critical investigation, 85
can be used for predicting sediment discharge in natural rivers as well as experimental
flumes. Based on these applications the authors recommended to use d 3 5 for graded
sediments as the representative particle size. Ackers and White's method is applicable to
sand sizes in excess of 0.04 m m .
Based on dimensional analysis, stream power concept and physical arguments, Ackers
and White derived three dimensionless functions D g r , Fgr, and Ggr, as representatives of
different flow and sediment parameters. Dimensionless grain diameter D g r , expresses the
ratio of the immersed weight of the grains to the viscous forces of the flow, and can be
shown by equation
The dimensionless mobility number Fgr, is defined as the square root of the ratio of b
shear stress x Q , to the resisting force for a unit area of grains. The shear stress x 0 acts on
a single layer of grains and is responsible for the initiation of motion. The resistance to
sliding or rolling of this layer is a result of the immersed weight of the grains and a
coefficient of fraction, it. The resistance of a unit area of particles with diameter d s can be
written as
resistance = <p \i p g A ds
in which 9 is a void or packing factor. The square root of the ratio of bed shear str
to this resistance force is called F gr , i.e.
where the product 9 p,which can be taken as constant for typically shaped sediments,
omitted from the formulation. Comparison of Fgr with Shields' parameter x* from Eq.
2.3 indicates that the real mobility parameter, i.e. Fgr2, is same as x* or
Chapter 4 Critical investigation, 86
F g r = X*°-5 (4.7.3)
Ackers and White used two different expressions for effective shear stress responsi
mobility of particles for the two cases of fine and coarse sediments. For the fine
sediments which mostly travel in suspension, the turbulence intensity provides the motive
power and is a function of total shear stress on the bed. Thus using x Q = p g D S and u*=
(x0/p)°-5, Eq. 4.7.2 for fine sediments can be written as:
For the coarse sediments which move very close to the bed, Ackers and White assumed
that only that part of the shear stress which acts on the grains is causing the motion of
particles. This effective shear stress was assumed to bear a similar relationship to mean
flow velocity as in the case of a plane granular bed at rest. For a rough turbulent flow,
according to Keulegan equation (Eq. 4.3.42), the mean flow velocity V can be related to
the flow shear stress x 0 by the following expression:
V
u »_.-/3i_=
^32 1 o g ( ^ ) (4-7.5)
d
s
in which D denotes the total flow depth. Substituting for X D from Eq. 4.7.5 into Eq.
4.7.2 the expression for mobility number of coarse sediments can be obtained as
l V
F„=
r
S -yFAd7^2log(ifiD) (4.7.6)
a
s
^r-v^Ad7Wlog(iP)J <4-7-7>
a
s
In this equation the exponent n does have a physical significance, since its magni
related to dimensionless grain diameter D gr . For coarse sediments (n=0) the expression
Chapter 4 Critical investigation, 87
reduces to Eq. 4.7.6. For fine sediments (n=l) Eq. 4.7.4 will be obtained. For
intermediate or transitional sizes, n m a y take a value between 0 to 1 (according to Eq.
4.7.11). The critical value of Fgr represents the criterion for incipient motion of sediment
particles and is denoted by A in Eq. 4.7.11.
Ggr=Fgr271 (4.7.8)
r _ qt D ,u*\n .. _ _.
G
gr ~ T d_" ( V } (4-7-9)
where qt = total sediment transport in volumetric rate per unit width of the channe
is the unit water discharge.
The general form of the relationship between Fgr, Dgr and Ggr was found through the
analysis of sediment transport data from various sources. The functional form was
initially derived for coarse sediments and then corrected for sand sizes within the
transitional zone. The resulting formula was
F m
G ~ = c (•£-!) (4-7.10)
where c, A and m are coefficients varying with Dgr. Using an optimisation technique
applied to the 1000 sets of experimental sediment transport data collected from the works
of 14 investigators, the values of these coefficients together with exponent n were
obtained in a manner that gives the m i n i m u m scatter in plots of F g r versus G g r .
According to Ackers and White:
For coarse sediments where Dgr > 60.0 (or approximately ds > 2.5mm):
n = 0.0, m = 1.5, A = 0.17, and c = 0.025
Chapter* Critical investigation, 88
For 1.0 < Dgr < 60.0 (or approximately 0.04 < d s ( m m ) < 2.5):
n = 1 - 0.56 log Dgr
m = 1.34+ (9.66/D gr )
A = 0.14 + (0.23 /VDgr)
log c = 2.86 log Dgr - (log Dgr) 2 - 3.53
(4.7.11)
The lower limit Dgr =1.0 is very close to the point at which sediment particles exh
cohesive properties. Thus the Ackers and White's procedure is not applicable for Dgr <
1.0, which is corresponding to the sand in water at 15°C with diameter of about 0.04
m m . Also for Dgr > 100.0 (equivalent to d s = 4.0mm) Ackers and White method cannot
be used without uncertainty.
The coefficient A represents the critical value of Fgr for the initiation of motion
material. For coarse sediments this critical criterion agrees well with Shields' approach,
whereas for fine particles it gives results less than those of Shields.
I - By equating Eq. 4.7.9 and 4.7.10 one can get a general formula for estimating t
bed material discharge based on Ackers and White procedure:
n 1 m (4 7 12)
H<£> =«¥- > -'
II - Ackers and White (1973) verified their proposed approach with a limited amount
field data and claimed satisfactory results. However, White et al (1975) tested Ackers
and White theory as well as seven other sediment load predictors against over 1000 flume
experiments and 260 field measurements. The comparison showed that in general Ackers
and White theory is superior to the other methods. According to this analysis about 6 8 %
of sediment discharges predicted by the Ackers and White theory fell in the range 0.5-2.0
times of the measured bed material transport rates, which indicates a satisfactory
accuracy.
m - When applying their method to the non-uniform bed material mixtures, Ackers and
White found that, for a number of data sets from large rivers, the computation of
sediment transport based on d35 gives better agreement with the measured discharges.
However, in a more comprehensive analysis, Yang and W a n (1991) applied Ackers-
Chapter 4 Critical investigation
4.8.1. Introduction
Yang (1972) investigated the correlations between sediment transport rate and
independent variables such as water discharge, average flow velocity, energy slope, and
shear stress. After a thorough study of available data he concluded that the generality of
the equations similar to D u B o y s ' (1879) formula, which are based on the existence of a
unique relationship between the sediment discharge and one of the pre-mentioned
dominant variables, is questionable. O n the other hand, the unit stream power (USP)
was found to be the best dominant variable for correlation with sediment concentration or
transport rate.
Yang (1984) attempted to recalibrate the fundamental equation of unit stream power an
make it applicable to the particle sizes greater than 2.0mm, i.e. to the gravel and coarser
bed materials which usually m o v e as bed load. D u e to the lack of reliable measured data
from bed load transport in the field, Y a n g used only a small number of gravel transport
data from experimental flumes to evaluate the numerical values of the involved
coefficients. The final equation was not verified by independent data and hence its true
apphcabihty needs further investigation.
From the analysis of a massive data bank, Yang (1972) found the USP as the best
dominant variable to be related to the sediment concentration or transport rate. Y a n g
defined U S P as the time rate of expenditure of flow potential energy per unit weight of
the flow, which can be expressed by the product of average flow velocity V and energy
Chapter 4 Critical investigation, 91
slope S. The general concept of stream power has been already discussed in Sec 4.4.2.
From Eqs. 4.4.1, 4.4.2, and 4.4.6, U S P can be expressed as:
in which y = the elevation above the datum which also represents the potential energ
unit weight of water, x = longitudinal distance, and t = time.
In a steady uniform flow of water and sediment, the change in kinetic energy is zero.
water flows downstream a continuous loss of potential energy takes place. If there is
neither scour nor deposition and if the bed configuration is fully developed, a part of
potential energy is spent in transporting sediments. Hence it is reasonable to assume that
the rate of sediment transport or total sediment concentration is directly related to the time
rate of loss of potential energy per unit weight of flow. After a thorough study of the
available field and laboratory measurements, Y a n g (1972) found that the following
relation provides the best correlation between total sediment concentration Ct and unit
stream power (VS)
This is the basic equation of USP approach. Here Ai and Bi are coefficients to be
determined from laboratory andfielddata. In order to introduce the condition of incipient
motion to Eq. 4.8.2, Yang suggested the following expression:
in which Vc denotes the critical average flow velocity and the product (VCS) indicate
critical U S P required to start the movement of sediment particles. Eq. 4.8.3 has two
drawbacks, it is not dimensionally homogeneous and the critical U S P is not defined. In
1973 Yang tried to rectify these drawbacks.
From the generally accepted principles of fluid mechanics and boundary layer theory,
particularly from the balance of forces acting on a spherical sediment particle at the
bottom of an open channel flow, Y a n g (1973) introduced the following criterion for
incipient motion.
—c- = 2 05
03
for 70.0 < (u*ds/v)
(4.8.4)
where (u*ds/v) is the boundary or particle Reynolds number, co is the terminal velocity of
particle, d s is the particle diameter, and v is the kinematic viscosity of flow. In Eq.
4.8.4, the lower value of 1.2 is used to avoid an infinite evaluation for Vc/co (Yang and
Stall, 1976). The numerical values in Eq. 4.8.4 were obtained based on calibration with
153 sets of reliable data independently collected by eight different investigators, which
covered the hydraulically smooth, transition and completely rough regimes. For mean
flow velocities below the critical average velocity, the flow is not sufficiently strong to
transport bed material and hence
YS VCS u* cods
c
t = ^>f(~o5 co~)' "co"' ~v~~J (4.8.6)
From the analysis of 1093 sets of laboratory data and 65 sets of field data it was fo
that the equation
VS vrsN
logCt = I_ +J_ log(^f--&-) ( 4. 8 . 7)
provides the best correlation between total sediment concentration Q and dimensionl
effective unit stream power (VS/co) - (VcS/co). Further from multiple regression analysis
with 463 sets of laboratory data from uniform flows, the following equations were
obtained for Ii and Ji parameters
code u*
I_ = 5.435 - 0.286 logC-^r 1 ) - 0.457 logC-gg-) (4 8 8 )
co d n*
J t = 1.799-0.409 logC-^r 1 )-0.314 logC-jg-) (4 8 9 )
Chapter 4 Critical investigation, 93
Eqs. 4.8.4, 4.8.7, 4.8.8 and 4.8.9 were proposed by Yang (1973) for the prediction of
total sediment concentration Q in parts per million by weight for the particles in the sand
size range with ds = dso = median sieve diameter of bed material.
Yang and Stall (1976) used a total of 156 sets of field data collected from f
rivers to verify the applicability of U S P approach in natural streams and claimed very
good agreement with the measurements despite the diversified flow and sediment
conditions. In another verification analysis, van Rijn (1984b) used 783 sets offlumeand
field data of sediment transport to test the accuracy of four sediment transport theories
including Yang (1973). According to Rijn's study, Yang theory has shown excellent
results for flume data and the small-scale rivers, but very poor results for large-scale
rivers (flow depth larger than 1.0 meter). From this investigation, Rijn concluded that
the method of Yang must have serious systematic errors for large flow depths. In Rijn's
analysis, U S P approach usually under-estimated the sediment transport rates.
Ct = EPiCi (4.8.10)
Neglecting the critical USP in Eq. 4.8.7 , Yang (1979) proposed the following
equations:
co d u*
I 2 = 5.165-0.153 l o g ( ^ ) -0.297 l o g ^ ) (4 8 1 2 )
cod0 u*
J 2 = 1.78-0.36 l o g H v 1 ) "0-48 l o g ^ ) (4>8>13)
Chapter 4 _ Critical investigation, 94
From the application of Eqs. 4.8.7 and 4.8.11 to about 1300 sets of laboratory and fie
data, Y a n g (1979) concluded that these two equations are equally accurate in predicting
total sediment concentration in sand size range. This means that the introduction of
incipient motion criterion to the unit stream power approach has not improved the
accuracy of the predictions. According to this analysis 9 4 % and 9 2 % of predicted
transport rates by Eqs. 4.8.7 and 4.8.11, respectively, have fallen within the range 0.5-
2.0 times of measured values. This is a very good predicability for a sediment transport
theory. However, in the investigation of Bechteler and Vetter (1989), where 15 theories
of sediment transport were tested against a small number of data from natural rivers,
Yang's (1979 and 1973) equations showed the scores of 5 3 % and 5 0 % , respectively,
which are not considered to be very satisfactory.
Since the earlier USP procedure was applicable only to sand transport, Yang (1984) tr
to recalibrate Eq. 4.8.7 for applying to the particle sizes greater than 2.0mm, i.e. to
gravel and coarser bed material that usually m o v e as bed load. D u e to the lack of reliable
measured data from bed load transport in the field, Y a n g only used 167 sets of gravel
transport data from experimental flumes to evaluate the numerical values of the involved
parameters. After a multiple regression analysis the n e w correlations of I and J factors
were found as,
co d u*
I 3 = 6.681 - 0.633 logt-v-^) ~4 - 816 log(-_r) (4.8.14)
co d u*
J 3 = 2.784 - 0.305 log(-v^) - 0.282 l o g ^ ) (4.8.15)
These equations together with Eqs. 4.8.7 and 4.8.4 can be used for calculating total
concentration in parts per million by weight. The proposed relations are applicable to the
sediment mixtures with 2.0mm < dso < 10.0mm. Yang's formulation of gravel transport
was not tested by additional measurements and therefore further investigation is
necessary to test its applicability.
Eq. 4.8.4 was introduced by Yang (1973) as a new criterion for the threshold condition
of initiation of motion of sediment materials in alluvial channels. In this equation, the
mean flow velocity V was used as the dominant variable rather than the bed shear stress
Chapter 4 Critical investigation, 95
x 0 which was already used by Shields (1936). There are two drawbacks in Yang's
threshold criterion.
I - According to Eq. 4.8.4 for [log(u*ds/v) - 0.06 = 0.0] or (u*ds/v) = 1.148 the
dimensionless critical m e a n flow velocity Vc/co becomes infinite. This means that
sediments with diameter as small as 0.1mm never start to m o v e and will behave as a
nonerodible fixed boundary, which is not true. Therefore, Yang's criterion is not valid
for sand particles with diameter less than about 0.1mm.
II - Eq. 4.8.4 gives a constant value of dimensionless critical mean flow velocity
(Vc/co)=2.05 for particle Reynolds number (u*ds/v) > 70.0. This would imply that a
given particle size at a given shear velocity has the same threshold condition irrespective
of the flow depth, which is not generally correct.
Starting from turbulent energy production rate per unit weight of the flow, using a
distribution for shear stress, a logarithmic velocity distribution, and Rouse concentration
distribution, Yang and Molinas (1982) attempted tofinda theoretical support for the U S P
approach. F r o m Y a n g and Molinas' investigation, the following expression for the
computation of total sediment concentration in uniform flows can be obtained:
where Z = CO/(KU*) is the Rouse number, and A2 is a complex function of other hydraul
and sediment parameters. Eq. 4.8.16 is similar to Eq. 4.8.2 with the difference that here
Bi, which is corresponded to the parameter Ji in Eq. 4.8.7, has been replaced by the
Rouse number Z. The comparison of Eqs. 4.8.16 and 4.8.2 suggests the following
simpler U S P equation
It should be noticed that in Eqs 4.8.16 and 4.8.17 the basic parameter Q actually refers
to the depth-averaged concentration, because it is obtained from the depth-integration of
Rouse equation, whereas in Eq. 4.8.7, Ct denotes the transport-concentration. It has
been shown that the depth-averaged concentration is different from the transport-
concentration (see Sec 6.7). Furthermore, in Eq. 4.8.17 the term co refers to the mean
fall velocity of suspended sediments, while in Eq. 4.8.7 it indicates the average fall
velocity of bed material mixture.
One major question with the results of Yang's contribution is that from the two c
of unit stream power (USP) = V S , and dimensionless unit stream power ( D U S P ) =
(VS/co), which one can be regarded as the best dominant variable to be related to the
concentration of bed material. In Eq. 4.8.2, which is the fundamental formula of U S P
theory, the product (VS) was used as the dominant variable. However, based on
dimensional analysis Y a n g (1973) expressed the following functional form for the
computation of Ct
which directly shows that Q should be related to (VS/co) rather than VS. By the a
of about 1200 data sets from experimental flumes and natural rivers, Yang (1973)
confirmed the general form of Eq.' 4.8.18. In 1979, when Yang tried to introduce a
simplified form of U S P approach, again D U S P was used as the dominant variable.
W h e n comparing his proposed concept with Bagnold's stream power, x 0 V, and shear
stress x 0 , as the dominant variables for correlation with measured concentration, Yang
(1984) again used D U S P and showed that (VS/co) is the best parameter to be used for
calculating sediment discharge.
In the author's theory, which is based on turbulence energy concept, it has been s
that local concentration, depth-averaged concentration, and transport-concentration can all
be related to the D U S P (see Chapter 6). Theoretically D U S P is more general than U S P ,
Chapter 4
Critical investigation. 97
it contains the particle characteristics including size, shape and density through fall
velocity co, as well as the flow parameters V and S. This gives D U S P a better capability
for correlation with sediment concentration.
4.9.1. General
After several years of experimental, theoretical and mathematical research in the are
sediment transport at Delft Hydraulics Laboratory, Netherlands, van Rijn (1984)
introduced a n e w approach for predicting transport rate of bed and suspended loads.
Rijn (1984a, b and c) also proposed n e w expressions for the computation of reference
concentration, reference height, equivalent sand roughness of Nikuradse, grain and form
roughness, etc.
Rijn (1984a) derived his bed load equation from the product of the saltation height,
representative velocity of bed load particles, and concentration of sediment material in the
bed layer. Rijn (1984b) approached the estimation of suspended load through the depth-
integration of the product of the vertical profiles of flow velocity and sediment
concentration. Rijn (1984c) proposed a simplified procedure for computing sediment
loads. Rijn's equations are largely based on modification of existing equations using
numerical and regression analysis techniques with a large number of field and lab data.
According to van Rijn (1984a) bed load consists of particles which move along the bed
of alluvial channels by rolling and saltating. The transport rate of bed load per unit width
q b can be defined as the product of the bed-layer particles velocity u b , the saltation height
5 b which can be regarded as the bed-layer thickness, and the average bed load
concentration C b , i.e.
qb = Cbub6b (4.9.1)
u b = (A g d 5 0 ) 0 - 5 1.5T0-6 (4.9.3)
Chapter 4
Critical investigation, 98
T = (x7xc)-1 (4.9.5)
where x' is the bed shear stress related to grains and xc is the critical bed shear s
according to Shields. Using the definition of shear velocity u*=(x/p)0-5, Eq. 4.9.5 can
be written as
From Eq. 4.9.5 it is clear that for T < 0.0 or x' < xc no sediment transport would ha
The critical shear velocity u* c can be obtained from u* c = (g A dso x* c ) 0 - 5 as discussed in
Sec. 2.2. T o compute bed shear velocity related to grains u*', Rijn used Chezy formula
and defined u*' as:
where V is the average flow velocity and c' = Chezy coefficient related to grains. Ri
proposed the following expression for c'
c'=181og[12Rb/(3d9o)] (4.9.8)
in which Rb = hydraulic radius related to the bed and 3d9o = effective roughness heig
of a moveable "plane" bed surface (see Sec. 4.9.4 for derivation of overall Chezy
coefficient).
Rijn (1984a) assumed that bed load transport can be described accurately as a functi
two dimensionless parameters d* and T. The parameters d* and T were already
introduced to the sediment transport study by Ackers and White (1973) and Yalin (1977),
respectively. F r o m analysis of 130 sets of measured bed load transport in laboratory
flumes, with particle diameters ranging from 0 . 2 m m - 2.0mm, Rijn showed that the bed
load concentration C b can be determined through
Chapter 4 Critical investigation, 99
C b / C o = 0.18T/d* (4.9.9)
This equation is dimensionally homogeneous and gives the bed load transport rate q
unit of channel width in volumetric ratio. Rijn (1984a) verified Eq. 4.9.10 with 580 sets
of data from bed load transport in experimental flumes and natural rivers carrying sand
particles as the sediment material. The results showed that about 7 7 % of predicted bed
load discharges are within 0.5 - 2.0 times of the measured transport rates.
Rijn's (1984b) expression for the estimation of suspended load qs is based on depth
integration of the product of the vertical profiles of the flow velocity and sediment
concentration, i.e.,
Ca = 0 for T<0.0
C a = 0.015(d 5 o/a)Tl-5/d*0- 3 for T > 0.0 (4.9.12)
with a = 0.01D for a < 0.01D. Here Ab = bed form height and can be obtained from th
following equation (Rijn, 1984c):
Eqs. 4.9.14 and 4.9.15 are based on regression analysis of a vast number of data f
flume experiments and natural streams. In Eq. 4.9.15, k s is the sum of grain and form
roughness.
For vertical velocity distribution of a uniform turbulent flow, Rijn used the well-
established logarithmic equation of Prandtl (1925-26), i.e.
For the vertical distribution of suspended sediments, Rijn used the well-established
Rouse concentration equation in the following form
cZ = (
D^i)Ze~4Z(D"~°'5) for
y/0^0-5 (4-9-17)
a
Introducing Eqs. 4.9.16 and 4.9.17 to the Eq. 4.9.11 and simplifying the results of
integration, Rijn (1984b) arrived at
qs = FVDCa (4.9.19)
in which qs indicates suspended load transport rate per unit width in volumetric ratio
C a is defined by Eq. 4.9.12. The concentration parameter F can be determined from:
Here <)) denotes overall correction factor representing all the additional correction
and is given by
For the calculation of mean fall velocity of suspended solids cos, Rijn (1984b) introd
the representative particle size of suspended sediment d s as:
where o"s is the geometric standard deviation of sediment mixture and is calculated fr
Note that ds is always less than or equal to dso- The representative fall velocity cos
then be obtained from Eq. 2.14 using ds as the particle diameter.
In the verification analysis, Rijn (1984b) used 783 sets of flume and field data and
concluded that 7 6 % of the predicted suspended loads fall in the range 0.5-2.0 times of
the measured values. However, in the investigation of Bechteler and Vetter (1989),
where 15 theories of total load transport were tested against a small number of data from
.Chapter* __™_____™______ m __ Critical investigation, 102
natural rivers, Rijn's model showed a score of 40%. In this study the best scor
obtained by Bagnold (1966) with a value of 69%.
u* = (gO-5/c)V (4.9.25)
c=181og(12Rb/ks) (4.9.26)
with ks = equivalent roughness (sum of the grain and form roughness) defined in
4.9.15 and R b = bed hydraulic radius. The variables in both Eqs. 4.9.25 and 4.9.26 are
expressed in metric units. Here it is shown that the general form of Eq. 4.9.26 can be
obtained from the comparison of Eq. 4.9.25 with Keulegan's equation of average
velocity for rough boundaries. Based on the well known Prandtl-von Karman
logarithmic velocity distribution for turbulent flow passing a rough boundary
where u is local flow velocity at level y above the channel bed. Keulegan inte
4.9.27 over the depth and obtained
v ,— 12.27 Rh
b
± = JyI\og( k ) (4.9.28)
From the comparison of Eqs. 4.9.25 and 4.9.28 the following expression for Chezy
coefficient c can be obtained
c __ 12.27 Ru
-fg = ft2 log( k °) (4.9.29)
Rijn (1984c) proposed the following simplified equations to compute transport rat
both bed and suspended loads:
where A = (ps/p) -1 and V c = critical mean flow velocity. For sediment diameters in the
range of 0.1mm - 2.0mm and based on Shields' criterion, Rijn proposed the following
relationships for the computation of critical meanflowvelocity:
i^12Rb^
V c = 0.19 d 5 0.0.1
° - log(-3^—) f0r o. 1 < d50(mm) < 0.5
*90
(4.9.32)
V c = 8.5 d 5 0 u0.6w___J__V
-° l o g ( ^ - ^ ) for 0 .5 < d50(mm) < 2.0
3d90
(4.9.33)
According to Rijn's (1984c) verification analysis, the accuracy of the simplified method
is somewhat less than the original theory. However, this accuracy was claimed to be
considerably better than those of Engelund-Hansen (1967) and Ackers-White (1973).
II - Rijn has largely utilised mathematical modelling and numerical and regression
analysis techniques together with extensive data from sediment transport in natural
streams and laboratory flumes to improve the accuracy and predicability of the proposed
equations.
EI - Another advantage of Rijn's theory is that the energy (or water surface) slope w
eliminated from the sediment discharge computations. Water surface or energy slope is
one of the most important variables which affects all the physical characteristics of open
channel flows. However, its measurement, specially for naturalriversduring the flood,
is very difficult. It is very sensitive to small changes in water surface elevation, which
are not easily determined. The uncertainties in the evaluated energy slope m a y inject
errors into the computations. Rijn calculated water surface slope S from the following
form of Chezy formula
in which c is the overall Chezy coefficient and can be obtained from Eq. 4.9.26. The
replacement of energy slope through Chezy formula seems reasonable for large-scale
natural rivers. However, for experimental flumes and small-scale streams, where the
conditions are controlled and measurement of the water surface slope is not difficult, this
replacement is irrelevant and m a y produce more errors.
I - Rijn (1984a) suggested that the proposed expressions of bed load concentration an
transport rate, i.e. Eqs. 4.9.9 and 4.9.10, are applicable to the sand grains with diameter
between 0 . 2 m m and 2 . 0 m m However, in natural streams with high energy slope, bed
loads mostly include gravel particles, which are greater than 2.0mm in diameter.
ranges of natural streams where the bed shear stresses are big enough to lift sand
particles with diameter larger than 0.5mm into the suspension mode.
Ill - The incipient motion criterion used in Rijn's theory is questionable for the ini
of suspended load transport. Based on Eq. 4.9.5, for the values of bed shear stress
related to grains (x') less than Shields critical shear stress (x c ), no suspended load is
predicted. However, because turbulentfluctuationsare responsible for suspension, and
bed forms are also effective in the generation of turbulence, use of overall shear stress,
which is defined as the s u m of shear stresses due to bed form and grain roughness, is
more rational in the computation of suspended load. Brooks (1958), Colby (1964) and
Ackers and White (1973) have also used overall shear stress.
4.10.1. General
The proposed model is dimensionally homogeneous and applicable to the uniform steady
transport of non-cohesive material. It expresses the suspended load as a function of
water discharge, energy or channel bed slope, relative density of sediment particles, and
representative particle diameter of bed material.
Similar to Bagnold (1966), Wiuff (1985) considers the flow of water as a machine
whose aim is the transportation of suspended sediments. The input power is the
available turbulent energy per unit time, which is almost equal to the loss of flow
potential energy. T h e work done is the transportation of suspended particles, and its
energy is equivalent to the potential energy gained by the suspended solids to counteract
the influence of settling. Considering rj as the efficiency and using the general law of
Chapter 4 Critical investigation, 106
machines, gain in potential energy P G can be related to the rate of turbulence energy
production P j as
PG = TIPT (4.10.1)
Wiuff has given the following relationships for transport of moderate concentrations
non-cohesive material in steady and uniform conditions:
PG = pgAcosDCD (4.10.3)
In these equations A = (ps/p) -1, p = mass density of the fluid, ps = mass density of
sediments, V = average flow velocity, D = total flow depth, S = water surface or channel
bed slope, cos = mean fall velocity of suspended particles, g = acceleration of the gravity,
x 0 = bed shear stress, and C D is the depth-averaged concentration of suspended material
which is defined as
C
D=DTll Cydy (4-10.4)
Here the volumetric concentration of suspended particles at any depth y above the
channel bed is given by C y , and 'a' is the thickness of a very thin layer over the channel
bed where suspension is impossible. It is shown in Sec. 6.2.1 that Eq. 4.10.2 can be
derived independently from the depth-integration of the local turbulence energy
production of the flow. B y substituting Eqs. 4.10.2 and 4.10.3 into Eq. 4.10.1 and
solving for rj, one can get:
T1=_L£D___s (4.10.5)
This expression is the key equation in Wiuff s investigation, which is derived here in a
simpler way. Both cos and C D are dependent on the size distribution of suspended
material, which cannot be determined unless with direct sampling of the suspended load.
Hence, it is more practical if mean settling velocity of bed material, co, is used instead of
cos, and transport or flux-averaged concentration O p is used instead of C D - The transport
concentration C j is defined as
Chapter 4 Critical investigation, 107
qs 1 fD
CT=
-q"=VDi ^ ^ (4-10.6)
in which qs = suspended load transport rate per unit width, q = unit water discharge, and
u = flow velocity at depth y above the channel bed. Using the definitions of co and C T ,
Wiuff modified the efficiency function T) as
(4107)
ns = ^F
Unlike Bagnold, Wiuff argued that the use of a constant value for modified suspended
load efficiency r|s is not sufficient. Wiuff used 82 sets of Guy et al (1966) experimental
data, carried out in a 8 feet wide flume, and showed a large variation for % ranging from
0.002-0.060. Hence he decided to relate the efficiency function r|s to one of the
independent parameters of Reynolds number, Froude number, Rouse number, or Shields
parameter. Using a linear regression analysis, Wiuff concluded that Shields parameter x*
is the best dominant variable. The correlation obtained was
wherein x* is expressed by
x* = x0/[(ps-p)gds] (4-10.9)
CT = 0.016^^- (4.10.10)
Azdsco
Using Eqs. 4.10.6 and 4.10.10, suspended load transport per unit time and unit widt
volumetric ratio can be written as:
2
nm,(VDS)
qs = 0.016 v 2 (4.10.11)
Azdsco
ChapterJ ___^ Critical investigation, 108
C = e
T = -Cf s(1-eb)(Ps_p)gCoD (4.10.12)
Substituting for xG from xQ = p g D S and solving for es(l- eb), the following express
can be obtained:
A CT co
e
s(1-eb) = " ^ - (4.10.13)
Comparison of this equation with Wiuff s Eq. 4.10.7 indicates that the two expression
are basically the same. The only difference is in symbols es(l-eb) and rjs for suspended
load efficiency. Based on theoretical arguments, Bagnold concluded that the term e s (1-
eb) can be regarded constant equal to 0.01 for normal applications. However, Wiuff
argued that the efficiency varies with sediment-flow parameters according to the
following equation:
I - In calibration of efficiency function, Eq. 4.10.7, Wiuff used very limited sedime
transport data, all from laboratory flumes with a lirnited particle size in the range 0.19mm
~ 0.93mm. Equation 4.10.7 was not verified with independent and additional
measurements. In addition, not m a n y investigators have tested Wiuff s procedure.
Therefore, further research is necessary for the justification of Wiuff s efficiency
function.
Chapter 4 Critical investigation, 109
II - In the determination of suspended load efficiency r\s, Wiuff only used a simple linear
regression analysis of the type
IV- According to the present study (see Chapter 7), under special hydraulic and sedime
conditions, the application of Wiuff theory to natural streams indicates suspended load
transport rates as large as 10 times of the measured values. For these cases, Wiuff s
suspended load efficiency indicates a value m u c h larger than 1.0, which is not feasible.
Wiuff s theory basically predicts suspended load transport for all the sediment-laden
conditions irrespective of the stream energy and shear stress. Instead of inserting an
incipient motion criterion into the proposed relationships, Wiuff suggested that for x* <
0.06, qs = 0 and C T = 0. This suggestion can be criticised from the following point of
views:
• The constant value of 0.06 for critical Shields' parameter x*c is corresponding to
the values of boundary Reynolds number R*=u*d s /v larger than about 100. For
water and sediment flows under normal conditions the value of R*>100 generally
corresponds to sediment particles larger than 2 . 0 m m in diameter, which are
classified as gravel and usually m o v e as bed load. Noting that Wiuff s theory has
been developed for suspended load and tested for sediment particles in the range
0.19mm ~ 0.93mm, it seems that using x* c = const. = 0.06 is not applicable.
• According to the Shields' diagram, Fig. 2.2, critical dimensionless shear stress is
not constant but is a function of total flow depth, energy slope, sediment size,
Chapter 4 _ Critical investigation, UO
and kinematic viscosity of the flow. Hence consideration of a constant value for
all ranges of flow rates and particle sizes is questionable and is not supported by
the basic principles of alluvial hydraulics.
• The critical shear stress based on Shields' diagram indicates the condition at
which bed load particles start to move. Hence this criterion cannot be used
directly for the initiation of motion of suspended material. The critical shear
stress for suspension is somewhat higher than that of bed load transport. Settling
velocity of the suspended solids is an important factor in determination of the
critical condition for initiation of suspension.
4.11.1. General
Indian scientists Belle R. Samaga, Kittur G. Ranga Raju, and Ramchandra J. Garde
introduced a n e w method for calculating bed and suspended load transport rates of
different size fractions of bed materials. Samaga et al used the results of their o w n
experiments together with laboratory andriverdata from other sources to modify Misri et
al (1984) bed load transport model and to make it applicable to the non-uniform sediment
mixtures as well as to the transportation of suspended particles. In the proposed
procedure, S a m a g a et al introduced a sheltering coefficient, which is a corrective
multiplying factor for shear stress, and identified its relationship with other effective
sediment parameters. Use of this factor in conjunction with transport law for uniform
bed material enables the computation of transport rates of individual size fractions of non-
uniform sediments.
Samaga et al (1986a) used the bed load transport law of x'* - Ob for uniform material,
proposed by Misri et al (1984), as the basic relation for the study of the effect of non-
uniformity on the transport rate of bed materials. For any individual size fraction i, the
bed load relation was written in a general form as
where Oft is dimensionless bed load transport for size fraction i defined as
Chapter 4 Critical investigation. 111
and x'*i is dimensionless effective shear stress for grain diameter di corresponding to the
size fraction i and is given by
T' -P Rbs
T
*i-SBi"^rr (4.11.3)
The dimensionless shear stress parameter x'*i is very similar to the Shields' parameter x*
with a minor modification. Other parameters in Eqs. 4.11.1, 4.11.2, and 4.11.3 are
defined as:
qbi = bed load transport rate in mass per unit width for size fraction i,
Pi = weight proportion of size fraction i in the bed material mixture,
A = (Ps/p) - 1» with p = unit mass offluidand p s = unit mass of sediments,
g = acceleration due to gravity,
S = water surface or channel bed slope,
R'b = bed hydraulic radius related to the grain roughness which can be obtained
from Manning-Strickler relation, Eq. 4.3.38, or
where R'b and d65 are expressed in meters and mean flow velocity V in
m/s, and
^Bi = bed load sheltering coefficient for size fraction i which is used to show the
effect of larger size particles on the effective shear stress responsible for
motion of smaller size dj.
Following Misri et al (1984) and based on analysis of a large volume of laboratory data
andfieldmeasurements from Snake river, East fork river, and Bear river, S a m a g a et al
established a graphical procedure for the computation of sheltering coefficient cjsi- In
this procedure cJBi was defined by the following function:
in which x'0 = p g R'b S = bed shear stress related to grains, (Ays) = (ps - p) g, xoc =
critical bed shear stress based on Shields' (1936) criterion corresponding to the arithmetic
m e a n diameter d a , i.e.
Chapter 4 Critical investigation, 112
X o c = g A p d a X*c (4.11.6)
where x* c and d a can be obtained from Eqs. 2.7 and 2.8, respectively, and
M = Kramer's uniformity coefficient for bed material mixture defined as
Based on Eq. 4.11.5, Samaga et al (1986a) proposed Table 4.11.1 and Figs. 4.11.1 and
4.11.2 for the evaluation of cJBi (see computational procedure in Sec. 5.2.10). The
coefficient L B in Table 4.11.1 is a function of M and its value is needed for the
computation of ^Bi- Knowing the value of cjsi, shear stress parameter x'*i can then be
determined from Eq. 4.11.3.
100
F^r
1-0
The author has developed analytical expressions for Table 4.11.1 and Figs. 4.11.
4.11.2 to make computations more convenient and adaptable to computer programming
(see Sec. 4.11.5).
Chapter 4 Critical investigation, 113
Fig. 4.11.2. Variation of z'c/[(Ays) di] with LBKB^BI (After Samaga et al, 1986a).
The only remaining parameter to be determined for estimating bed load transport qbi
the function f in Eq. 4.11.1. Through analysis of a large number of data from laboratory
flumes and naturalrivers,Samaga et al suggested the following relationships to be used
for computation of Oft (Mittal et al, 1989):
Knowing the value of x'*i and using Eq. 4.11.8, the dimensionless bed load transport
Oft can be calculated for size fraction i. The bed load transport of fraction i in mass per
unit time and unit width, qbj, can then be determined from Eq. 4.11.2.
O s = 28 x* 6 (4.11.9)
wherein
Chapter 4 Critical investigation, 114
S (4.11.10)
Psda Agd.
______
x* = A d
0 (4.11.11)
q s = suspended load transport rate in mass per unit width, and R = hydraulic radius of
the flow cross section. Further from the analysis of collected data, Samaga et al
concluded that for non-uniform sediment mixtures also O s i is related to x*j according to
O s i = 28x*i6 (4.11.12)
wherein
O cs;l = qSi d A
(4.11.13)
"PiPs iV gdi
x RS (4.11.14)
*i - ^si
si A d i
qsi = suspended load transport rate in mass per unit width for size fraction corresponding
to di, and t\si denotes the sheltering correction factor for size fraction i of suspended load.
Here again Samaga et al established a graphical procedure for computing sheltering factor
£si as a function of Kramer's uniformity coefficient M , Shields parameter Xo/[(Ays) d_J,
u
0
£si = G
(x?Z' (Ays) dj ,M) (4.11.15)
oc
-I 1 1 1——T-
w.o
vo
Fig. 4.11.3. Variation ofKs with XQ/XQC (After Samaga etal, 1986b).
Chapter 4
Critical investigation, 115
• • - • • — i i
Ks Ls £s
_1 1 1 1 I ___L J 1 i I i — i.
(T./_r_.|)
Fig. 4.11.4. Variation ofTo/[(Ays) df] andLsKst,si (After Samaga etal, 1986b).
Knowing the value of cjsj, shear stress parameter x*j can be obtained from Eq. 4.
and using Eq. 4.11.12, the dimensionless suspended load transport O s j can be
calculated. The suspended load transport rate qsi for size fraction i can then be
determined from Eq. 4.11.13.
I - Samaga et al (1986a and b) did not verify the proposed procedure with additional data,
however, in the calibration study, better predictions were claimed compared to the results
of Einstein (1950), Proffitt and Sutherland (1983), Holtroff (1983), and Misri et al
(1984). The Samaga et al procedure has not been checked by many investigators. In
Mittal et al (1989) study, the Samaga et al theory has not produced satisfactory results
when applied to the Einstein's laboratory data. It was suggested that the relations for K B
and K s should be modified by introducing additional parameters.
III - Although Samaga et al relate the transport rate of bed load particles to bed shear
stress due to grain roughness, suspended load transport is related to the overall bed shear
stress. This is consistent with natural conditions, where both the grain and bed form
roughness are effective in production of turbulence which is responsible for suspension.
IV - In general the Samaga et al method lacks simplicity and uses several para
correction factors to be read from a number of tables and graphs. This not only makes
computations difficult but reduces the accuracy of calculations at each stage. Such a
procedure is very time consuming for engineering applications.
One of the disadvantages of the Samaga et al (1986a and b) theory is that seve
and tables were introduced for the determination of involved parameters. This has made
the computational procedures long and cumbersome. Here, for the purpose of computer
programming, analytical relations are developed for all the proposed tables and graphs.
4.12.1. General
One of the recent contributions to the problem of sediment transport has been m
Ismial Celik and Wolfgang Rodi (1991) w h o introduced a simple formula to compute the
suspended load transport capacity of open channel flows under equilibrium condition.
Celik and Rodi defined the suspended sediment transport capacity of a certainflowas the
maximum amount of sediment carried in suspension when the flow is uniform. Similar
to Wiuff (1985), Celik and Rodi used the concept of turbulence energy production of the
flow and its relation with the concentration of suspended solids.
Celik and Rodi argued that only that portion of the total shear stress which is
with the grain roughness is effective in the production of suspended load and proposed
an empirical equation for the evaluation of this particular portion. Thefinalformula of
suspended load transport was then calibrated with a limited number of both flume and
field data and generally good results were claimed. However, more research is needed to
justify the applicability of this new equation under various sediment and flow conditions.
Chapter 4 Critical investigation, 119
Celik and Rodi (1991) started from the differential equation of distribution of time-
averaged suspended sediment concentration and expression for upward turbulent
diffusion flux of sediment particles. However, for formulating suspended sediment
transport capacity, Celik and Rodi concentrated on the budget equation for the turbulent
kinetic energy, i.e. k-equation in Rodi (1980). Celik and Rodi expressed the rate of
work done by the buoyancy forces on suspended solids per unit volume of theflow,as
where x0V/ D = total turbulent energy production rate per unit of fluid volume (see Se
6.2.2 for further derivation), x 0 = p g D S is the overall bed shear stress, V is the m e a n
flow velocity, D is the total flow depth and S denotes the energy or water surface slope.
In Eq. 4.12.2 the proportionality coefficient cci is used to represent Celik and Rodi's
assumption that a constant portion of total turbulent energy is used to keep suspended
particles in suspension.
In Eq. 4.12.2, CD denotes the depth-averaged concentration and cannot be used directly
in estimation of the transport rate of suspended materials. However, Celik and Rodi
assumed that the ratio of depth-averaged concentration C D to transport-concentration C T
is fairly constant and is equal to 1.13, using C D = 1.13C T in Eq. 4.12.2 and solving for
C T , the following equation was obtained
Chapter 4 Critical investigation, 120
CT=a
(Ps-p°)gD^ (4-12-3)
This equation is the fundamental formula of Celik and Rodi's (1991) procedure for
calculating suspended sediment concentration, which is derived here in a w a y somewhat
different from the original paper. Here a is a calibration factor denoting the combined
effects of proportionality coefficient oci and errors in numerical value 1.13, and C T
represents volumetric transport-concentration of suspended solids defined by
CT = ^ (4-12.4)
with qs and q representing unit suspended sediment and flow discharges, respectively.
Substituting C T from Eq. 4.12.3 into Eq. 4.12.4 and solving for q s leads to
qs-^X (4-12.5)
Application of Eq. 4.12.3 to the available field data showed fairly large scatter,
particularly for the channels with relatively large bed roughness and those with smooth
beds. Celik and Rodi (1991) concluded that w h e n relatively large roughness elements
are present, only part of the overall shear stress is effective in moving particles in
suspension. T h e other part which is associated with form drag is not so effective for
suspension. T o consider the roughness effect, Celik and Rodi defined an entirely
empirical relation for the evaluation of effective shear stress, x e as
xe=[l-(ks/D)n]x0 (4-12.6)
with K = van Karman constant, and u* denoting the bed shear velocity. Celik and Rodi
(1991) also suggested the following criterion for determining the critical shear stress for
initiation of suspension x cs
Chapter 4 Critical investigation,
x
cs .0.15
(p s -p)gd s R* for R* < 0.6
CS _ r\ 7C
(Ps-P)gds" for R* > 0.6
(4.12.8)
CT = a[l-(fen]T-^V (4_mo)
D J (p s ~P)gD <°
: n x V
qs = a [ 1 - ( T__)
3 ^ 17 r T^ooVl F ^ (4-12.11)
D > J (ps-p)g
Here x 0 is substituted from Eq. 4.12.6 and coefficients a and n have to be evaluated
from calibration with actual measurements.
For calibration of Eqs. 4.12.10 and 4.12.11 Celik and Rodi (1991) used both flume and
field data available from the literature. However, data from the alluvial channels with
large bed forms, i.e. dunes and antidunes, were not used in the calibration. Nevertheless
the selected data only covered particle sizes in the range 0.005mm < d s < 0.6mm, that is
from fine silt to coarse sand. The best agreement between the final formula, Eq.
4.12.10, and the measured transport concentrations was obtained with a = 0.034 and n
= 0.06.
Celik and Rodi (1991) also verified the proposed formula with five independent data
and claimed generally good agreement with actual measurements. N o further test on the
proposed theory has been published by additional investigators. A n applicability study
of Celik and Rodi's suspended load equation is given in Chapter 7.
One of the critical assumptions in Celik and Rodi's (1991) theory is the considerati
a constant proportionality coefficient. This coefficient was defined as the ratio of
turbulent energy used for keeping particles in suspension to total turbulent energy
production of the flow and denoted by a in Eq. 4.12.3 . After calibration of their final
Chapter 4 Critical investigation,
expression with flume and field data, a constant value of 0.034 was obtained for the
proportionality ratio a. This indicates that a constant part of about 3 % of the total
production of turbulent kinetic energy is used to keep particles in suspension.
Comparison of Celik and Rodi's fundamental expression, Eq. 4.12.5, with Bagnold's
(1966) equation of suspension, Eq. 4.4.26, indicates that proportionality ratio a has the
same meaning and applicability as suspended load efficiency es(l-eb) in Bagnold's
formulation. Based on theoretical arguments, Bagnold (1966) concluded an overall
constant value of 1 % for es(l-eb). This means that Celik and Rodi's estimated value of
3 % is about three times larger than that of Bagnold. Bagnold's suggestion of
"suspended load efficiency = 0.01" is confirmed by the applicability analysis of the
author's suspended load equation. However, a number of investigators including
Bennett (1973) and Wiuff (1985) were of the opinion that suspended load efficiency or
proportionality ratio a is not constant but is a function of hydraulic and sediment size
characteristics of the flow (see Sees. 4.4.5 and 6.10).
In the formulation of suspended load, Celik and Rodi (1991) used a constant value of
1.13 for the ratio of depth-averaged concentration C D to transport-concentration C T -
However, this ratio m a y not be constant but a function of sediment and flow parameters.
Wiuff (1985) proposed the following equation for the ratio C D / C T :
CD ln(3QP-) -1
CT = l n ( 3 0 D ) + li (4-12-12)
According to Eq. 4.12.12 the ratio CD/CT is a function of flow depth D, bed layer
thickness 'a', and Einstein's (1950) integrals Ii and P_ as introduced in Eqs. 4.3.29 and
4.3.30 respectively. Considering that Ii and I2 are functions of D/a and Rouse number
Z=CO/(KU*), Eq. 4.12.12 can be rewritten as
5___f(£ Z) (4.12.13)
CT
From the laboratory flume data of G u y et al (1966), Wiuff (1985) showed that in some
cases the ratio of C D / C T could rise up to a value of 2.1.
Chapter 4 Critical investigation, 12
Beginning from a n e w expression for local sediment concentration, the author has shown
that the ratio C D / C T is a function of bed shear velocity u*, mean flow velocity V and von
Karman constant K (see Sec. 6.7). According to the author's investigation
2
CT i u*
C^=2[1+(1_V)] (6-40)
Since u*«V for natural channels, Eq. 6.40 indicates that transport-concentration C
always smaller than depth-averaged concentration C D which is physically reasonable.
Thus, the estimated constant value of C D / C T =1.13 proposed by Celik and Rodi needs
more justification and m a y be replaced by one of the above functional forms.
In the basic relation of Celik and Rodi (1991), i.e. Eq. 4.12.2, the term co is defined
the m e a n fall velocity of the suspended particles. This means that in evaluation of co only
that part of the whole bed material which m o v e s in suspension should be used. A s the
size distributions of sediments in suspension and bed materials are not generally
identical, settling velocity of suspended particles differs from that of the bed material
sample. However, Celik and Rodi did not discuss sufficiently about the definition of fall
velocity co in their final Eqs. 4.12.10 and 11. In calibration of Eq. 4.12.10 by
application to flume and field data, the authors did not mention whether they used fall
velocity of suspended particles or that of the whole bed material mixture.
in which cos = fall velocity of suspended particles and co = fall velocity of bed materia
mixture. A s an example, Bagnold (1966) assumed, arbitrarily, that cos has one-half the
arithmetic m e a n fall velocity of the bed material.
Chapter 4
Critical investigation. 124
Celik and Rodi (1991) also did not explain which sediment size characteristics should be
used as d s in Eq. 4.12.8 to estimate the critical shear stress for suspension. It is not
specified if ds is median diameter dso or arithmetic mean diameter d a of suspended
particles, or it is a characteristic of bed materials.
In general all the three methods of Celik and Rodi (1991), Bagnold (1966), and Yan
(1973) are based on energy exchange in alluvial streams. Celik and Rodi's theory is
derived from correlation of sediment concentration with turbulence energy, while the
other two theories use stream power concept. It has been shown that total turbulent
energy can be expressed in terms of stream power (see Sec. 6.2.1).
Comparison of Celik and Rodi's Eq. 4.12.5 with Bagnold's equation of suspended loa
Eq. 4.4.26, indicates clearly that considering cc=0.01 both formulae are the same. Hence
Celik and Rodi's procedure of suspended load estimation can be regarded as a
modification of Bagnold's (1966) stream power with two main changes:
1- definition of an effective shear stress responsible for suspension instead of
overall shear stress as used in Bagnold's theory, and
2- evaluation of 0.034 for suspended load efficiency a instead of Bagnold's
concluded value of 0.01.
Yang (1973) introduced the dimensionless unit stream power, VS/co, as independent
variable in correlation with sediment concentration. This is probably the most valuable
finding of Yang over two decades of investigation about sediment transport. Celik and
Rodi's final formula of suspended load can be also written as a function of VS/co.
Substituting x Q = p g D S into Eq. 4.12.10 and simplifying leads to
CT = a[l-(^)n]Ip^y^ (4.12.15)
Celik and Rodi (1991) assumed that only a portion of the overall shear stress is
in moving particles in suspension and that part which is associated with form drag is not
so effective. However, according to the discussion made in Sec. 4.9.7 the whole part of
the overall shear stress is effective in the suspension.
Chapter 4 Critical investigation, 125
In chapter 7 when all the selected sediment transport predictors were tested against 333
sets of laboratory flume and field measurements, Celik and Rodi's model always under-
predicted the transport rates. This indicates that the proposed empirical relation for the
evaluation of effective shear stress for suspension under-estimates the actual values. In
some cases such as transportation offineand m e d i u m sands in Mantz and Samaga et al
flume data, Celik and Rodi's criterion for the initiation of suspension resulted in zero
suspended load discharge which was not in agreement with the measurements.
4.13. SUMMARY
It should be emphasised that all of the selected sediment load predictors estimate the
material transport capacity" of the flows. Therefore, the chosen theories are only
applicable to the conditions where the sediment supply is greater than the flow capacity.
Furthermore, the bed-material load can be calculated through these equations and the
washload component is not included. T o obtain total load, wash load should be analysed
separately and added to the bed material load.
Due to the special conditions of the data used in the calibration of Meyer-Peter and
Muller's formula, it was suggested that this procedure should be applied to flows with
little or no suspended load and with sediment sizes not smaller than 2 . 0 m m in diameter.
It was also discussed that, in contrary to Meyer-Peter and Muller's suggestion, the
dimensionless critical shear stress is not constant and varies with boundary Reynolds
number. This concept was used to suggest a more general form of Meyer-Peter-Muller's
formula which can be applied to the sediment sizes smaller than 2 . 0 m m in diameter.
In his theoretical development, Einstein did not use any concept for the initiation of
sediment motion. Instead, he related the bed load transport to the fluctuations of
turbulence through probability and stochastic concepts. A minor modification was
introduced to Einstein's method to improve the accuracy of the predictions. It was
suggested that the actual measured velocities, rather than the computed values, to be used
in the computational procedures. Based on this concept, hydraulic radius due to grains
was calculated directly from the Manning-Strickler equation. A special technique was
ChSPjer4 .. Critical investigation, 126
used for the accurate evaluation of Einstein's II and 12 integrals. The well known
Einstein bed load function w a s also determined by numerical integration method.
Drawbacks of the Toffaleti's bed load formula were discussed. It was concluded that
Toffaleti's procedure should be carefully used for predicting transport rate of bed loads,
especially for those natural rivers where the major part of sediments m o v e as bed load,
i^nuDitr t Critical investigation, 128
.."...VT*...". .....--——• .-w—-—-_~-~_——-• - „-...-—, ~..w,w~_ ^——.„^„......„._„-...„ — —
i.e. for rivers with low energy gradient. A modification of Toffaleti's bed load formula
was proposed to m a k e it applicable to flows with high proportion of bed load.
Ackers and White assumed that the transitional exponent "n" is just a function of the
sediment properties. It w a s discussed that theoretically n is related to the m o d e of
particles transportation and the m o d e of transport is related to the two main parameters,
firstly, the size and density of the transported material and secondly, the intensity of shear
stress on alluvial boundaries. Hence, it was suggested that n is a function of both flow
shear stress x 0 and dimensionless sediment size D ^ .
Yang showed that dimensionless unit stream power (DUSP) is the best parameter to be
correlated with the total sediment concentration. This is probably the most valuable
finding of Y a n g over two decades of investigation. Theoretically D U S P contains the
particle characteristics including size, shape and density, as well as the flow parameters
including m e a n velocity and energy slope. Based on the theoretical approach of Yang
and Molinas, a simpler D U S P equation w a s suggested in which only one variable is
unknown.
Rijn proposed new or modified relationships for almost all the parameters involved in
sediment transport phenomenon. Rijn utilised mathematical modelling and numerical and
regression analysis techniques together with extensive sediment transport data to improve
the accuracy of the proposed equations. However, it was shown that Rijn's proposed
procedure for the computation of bed and suspended loads covers a limited range of
natural streams. It was also discussed that the incipient motion criterion used in Rijn's
theory is questionable for the initiation of suspension.
The Samaga et al procedures for the computation of bed and suspended loads lack
simplicity and use several parameters and correction factors to be read from a number of
tables and graphs. The author suggested a set of analytical relations for all the tables and
graphs of Samaga et al.
From the analysis of limited field data, Celik and Rodi concluded that only a portion o
the overall shear stress is effective in moving particles in suspension and the part which
is associated with form drag is not so effective. It was discussed that since turbulent
fluctuations are responsible for suspension, and bed forms are also involved in the
generation of turbulence, the whole part of the overall shear stress is effective in
suspension. Therefore, the incipient suspension criterion used by Celik and Rodi is
questionable.
DEVELOPMENT OF
COMPUTER PROGRAMS
Tzr:,ji, Computer programs, 130
5.1. Introduction
It was indicated in Chapter 4 that the calculation of transport rate of moving par
usually a complicated and laborious task. Especially for theories of Einstein (1950),
Toffaleti (1969), and Samaga et al (1986), which use a large number of correction factors
and compute the sediment discharge for individual size fractions, the computational
procedures are long and need m u c h more time. Furthermore, when a large number of
sediment transport calculations are needed, for various hydraulic conditions of a particular
stream, using even a simple procedure like Engelund-Hansen (1967) m a y lead to a large
number of computations. Use of powerful personal computers, which are nowadays
available in any engineering office, makes sediment transport calculations easier, more
efficient and reduces labour time.
Here, in order to test the selected sediment transport theories against a large nu
data from natural streams and laboratory flumes, computer programs were developed for
the 11 selected methods as well as the proposed equations in Chapter 6. The developed
computer package (called S E D L O A D ) can be regarded as an efficient and powerful tool
for all practising hydraulic engineers. T o m a k e a rational basis for the development of
computer programs, a detailed and step by step computational procedure is provided. The
developed computer programs are based on the computational procedures written for the
manual calculations. Therefore, it is suggested that any individual using these programs
should thoroughly understand the computational procedures and be able to compute
sediment transport rates by manual methods.
• Output: qb or Q b
Computational procedure:
2- Compute bed hydraulic radius due to the grain roughness Rb' from Eq. 4.2.7.
3- Calculate dimensionless shear stress x*' from Eq. 4.2.11.
4- Determine dimensionless sediment transport parameter <J> from Eq. 4.2.9.
5- Compute bed load transport per unit width qb from Eq. 4.2.10.
6- Compute total bed load transport from Q b = qb • B.
• Output: Q s and Q b
Computational procedure:
Steps 1-9 are c o m m o n to all size fractions.
1- Compute bed hydraulic radius due to the grain roughness Rb' from Eq. 4.3.38.
2- Calculate u*' from u*' = (gRb'S)0-5.
3- Determine the thickness of laminar sub layer 8 from 8 = 11.6 v / u*'.
4- Compute correction factor in the logarithmic vertical velocity distribution x = f(ks/8),
using Fig. 4.3.3 or the following equation (developed by the author based on least square
regression analysis of the data from Fig. 4.3.3):
10- Calculate hiding factor, c^ = f(dj/X), using Fig. 4.3.1 or the following analytica
equation (developed by the author based on least square regression analysis of the data
from Fig. 4.3.1):
¥*i=£i.Y.LF.A.di/(DS)
14- Determine the ratio of bed layer thickness to water depth, Aj = 2dj / D.
15- Compute exponent Zj for concentration distribution from
16- Calculate the integration parameters In = f(Ai, Zj) and I_ji = f(Ai, Z[) using Fig
4.3.5 and 4.3.6 or numerical integration as discussed in Sec. 4.3.5.
17- Compute suspended load for individual size fractions, qsi, in mass per unit time and
unit width.
Chapter 5 Development of computer programs. 133
18- Compute total bed and suspended load transport rates from
qb = Sqbi and Qb = qb . B
q s = Sqsi and Q s = qs. B
• Output: Q s and Qb
Computational procedure:
1- Compute bed shear stress x0 from Eq. 4.4.5 and shear velocity u* from u*=(Xo/p)0-
2- Calculate G parameter from Eq. 4.4.24.
3- Detenriine tana from Eq. 4.4.23, where a is the angle of dynamic solid friction.
4- Compute bed load transport efficiency eb from Eq. 4.4.22.
5- Calculate bed load transport rate qb from Eq. 4.4.14.
6-Detennine fall velocity co from the following formula
co = 0.5_:picoi/Epi (4.4.34)
where C0i is the fall velocity of sediment size c\ computed from Eq. 2.14 for each
fraction i in the bed material sample.
7- Calculate suspended load transport rate qs from Eq. 4.4.26.
• Output: Q t
Computational procedure:
1- Compute total bed material transport rate in mass per unit time from the followi
simple equation.
• Output: Q s and Qb
Note: This computational procedure is valid for fps system of units.
Computational procedure:
Steps 1 to 3 are c o m m o n to all size fractions.
YA = D/11.24
Y B = D/2.5
C z = 260.67 - 0.667 T D F
(SI) = S D C z
Z v = 0.1198 + 0.00048 T D F
T = 1.1 ( 0.051 + 0.00009 T D F )
2- Determine hydraulic radius of bed due to grain roughness, Rb', from Manning-
Strickler equation, i.e. Eq. 4.3.38, and then calculate shear velocity with respect to grains
u*' from u*'= (gRb'S)0-5.
3- Evaluation of factor A:
i- Compute PAM = (105v)1/3/10u*' and use Fig. 4.6.2 to determine A, or use the
following analytical relations developed by the author:
iii- Use corrected A as the maximum value of (k4 A) or 16 in the rest of the
computations.
4- Compute fall velocity (Oj for each particle size dj from Eq. 2.14.
5- Compute exponent Z in the concentration distribution equations:
Z™ =VcOi/(SI)
F L L=Z_i - Z v
Fa = Zmi " Zv
F3l = Zuj - Z v
F 4 = 1- Fii
F 5 i = 1 - F2i
F 6 i = l - F3i
7- Calculate GFj in tons per day per 1-ft width in lower zone.
8- Determine Xj from
Chapter 5 Development of computer programs, 136
9- Compute Q from
Ci = BPiXi
10- Calculate bed load transport in tons per day for fraction i from
Qbi = q (2di)F4i
Check point: The concentration of sand moving as bed load in lb/ft3, considering a
composed entirely of the sand fraction under consideration, is computed as follows:
ii- Evaluate UBL, the concentration of the sand moving as bed load in lb/ft3 from
If UBLj > 100 lb/ft3 (=16 kg/m3) then Q'bi = (100/UBLi) Qbi and C\ = Q'bi / (2di)F4i
Use Q'bi and C'i as Qbi and Q respectively.
11- Determine suspended load transport rate for fraction i and lower zone, Qsu in
day from
Qsli=(Ci/F4i)[YAF4i-(2di)F4i]
12- Determine suspended load transport rate for fraction i and middle zone, Qsmi
per day from
13- Determine suspended load transport rate for fraction i and upper zone, Qsui i
per day from
14- Determine suspended load transport rate for fraction i and whole cross section, Q s i in
tons per day from
16- Compute total bed load transport Qb in tons per day for the whole sample from
Qb=£Qbi
17- Compute total suspended load transport Qs in tons per day for the whole sample
Qs=£QSi
• Output: Q t
Computational procedure:
1- Compute dimensionless particle size Dgr from Eq. 4.7.1 using d35=ds.
2- Determine the values of transition exponent n, and coefficients m and c, and sediment
mobility number at nominal initial motion A from Eq. 4.7.11.
3- Compute the value of overall shear velocity u*, based on depth-slope relation from:
u* = (g D S)°-5
4- Determine the value of sediment mobility number Fgr from Eq. 4.7.7.
5- Calculate the value of dimensionless sediment transport Ggr from Eq. 4.7.10.
6- Compute total sediment transport rate Qt in mass per unit time from:
Qt = V B d 3 5 G g r p s ( u * / V ) - "
Chapter 5 Development of computer programs, 138
• Output: Q t
Computational procedure:
Ct = J[(VS/co)-(VcS/co)]K
8- Detennine the total sediment transport rate Qt in mass per unit time from:
Qt=10-6pQQ
Computational procedure:
u* = (g0.5 /C) v
where
c = 18 log[12D / (ks)] = overall Chezy coefficient, k s = 3 d 9 0 + 1.1 Ab (1 - e'25^) =
equivalent roughness (sum of the grain and form roughness), y = A\f(73D) = bed-form
steepness, and Ab should be obtained from Step 5 with Ab = 0 for T >25.
Z = C0s/((3 K u*)
Z' = Z + <|>
Qs = qs B p s
Chapter 5 Development of computer programs, 140
Cs = FCa
16- Calculate bed load discharge per unit width qb in volumetric ratio from Eq. 4.
17- Compute bed load transport rate Qb in mass per unit time and average concentration
of bed load Q , in volumetric ratio from:
Qb = qb B ps
C b = 0.117 T / d *
• Output: C s , qs
Computational procedure:
1- Calculate fall velocity of the bed material co from Eq. 2.14. for ds = dsn.
2- Compute average concentration of suspended material C s in volumetric ratio from the
following equation.
3- Determine suspended load transport in mass per unit time and unit width qs from:
qs = Cs q ps
• Output: qs, qb
Computational procedure:
1- Compute Kramer's uniformity coefficient of the bed material, M from Eq. 4.11.7.
2- Calculate the critical shear stress x o c corresponding to the arithmetic mean diameter d a
based on Shields' criterion from:
Chapter 5 Development of computer programs, 141
X o c = g A p d a X* c
6- Calculate the ratio iJig (ps - p) di] and read the value of coefficient LsKs£si fr
4.11.5 orEq. 4.11.21.
7- Knowing the values of L s , K s and L s K s ^ s i calculate the value of h,s\.
8- Compute the ratio x^i = £sj xG/[g (ps - p) dj] and obtain dimensionless sediment
transport parameter O s i from Eq. 4.11.12.
9- Determine the suspended load transport of fraction i in mass per unit time and unit
width qsi from Eq. 4.11.13.
10- Repeat Steps 6-9 for other size fractions.
11- Determine the total suspended load transport in mass per unit time and unit width qs
qs = £qsi
Steps 1 and 2 are the same as for the computational procedure of suspended load.
3- Compute the grain shear stress x'0 from x'G = (p g Rb'S) where bed hydraulic radius
due to the grain roughness Rb' can be obtained from Manning-Strickler Eq. 4.3.38.
4- Calculate the ratio x'o/x0c and read the value of coefficient K B from Fig. 4.11.1 or Eq.
4.11.18.
5- Read the value of L B related to the k n o w n value of M from Table 4.11.1 or Eq.
4.11.16.
6- Calculate the ratio x'o/[g (ps - p) dj] and read the value of coefficient LBKB^Bi
Fig. 4.11.2 or Eq. 4.11.20.
Chapter 5
Development of computer programs. 142
qb = Eqbi
• Output: C s , qs
Computational procedure:
1- Compute bed shear stress x0 and bed shear velocity u* from x0=gpDS and
u*=(gDS) 0 - 5 .
2- If the value of equivalent sand roughness ks is not known, calculate its value from Eq.
4.12.7.
3- Determine effective shear stress x e from Eq. 4.12.6 with n=0.06.
4- Determine boundary Reynolds number R* from R* = u* dso / v.
5- Evaluate the critical shear stress for suspension x cs from Eq. 4.12.8.
6- If x e < x cs then C s = 0 and qs = 0, otherwise go to the next step.
7- Calculate fall velocity of the bed material co from Eq. 2.14. for ds = dsn.
8- Compute transport concentration of suspended material C s in volumetric ratio from
9- Obtain transport capacity of suspended sediments qs in mass per unit time and wi
qs = CsVDps
Based on the computational procedures given in the previous section, all 11 selecte
methods as well as the proposed bed and suspended load equations in Chapter 6 have
Chapter 5 Development of computer programs. 143
been computerised to m a k e all the detailed computations faster and more efficient. The
Basic language was used in the computer programming with the advantages of Quick-
Basic package because of its simple nature and greater compatibility with graphic and
colour outputs.
The theories that are used to compute total sediment discharges for the whole bed mat
sample in a single procedure without calculating for different size fractions have been put
into one computer program called "Sed.Bas". Hence, "Sed.Bas" includes the methods of
Meyer-Peter-Muller, Bagnold, Engelund-Hansen, Ackers-White, Yang, van Rijn, Wiuff,
Celik-Rodi, and the proposed equations. The theories of Einstein, Toffaleti, and Samaga
et al that are more complicated and laborious and calculate transport rates for individual
size fractions have been put into individual computer programs named "Ein.Bas",
"Tof.Bas", and "Sam.Bas", respectively. These four programs are linked together
through a batch file to form the package " S E D L O A D " . A schematic diagram of the
developed programs is shown in Fig. 5.1. The complete list of the programs is given in
Appendix 1.
1- A simple data file is prepared to introduce the input data to the computer
programs. O n e advantage of the proposed data file is that the same file can be used for
sediment transport computation with all the selected methods. For computing by a
particular method, that information which is not needed can be replaced by an arbitrary
value of "0.0", if the true values are not available. A sample data file is shown in Fig.
5.2.
2- The results of the computations are written in an output file as well as on the
screen. A sample output file is shown in Fig. 5.3.
3- A list of input data can be provided at the beginning of the output file for the
purpose of further corrections and applications.
4- The programs have been written in a general format to allow the future operator
to insert the input parameters with any desired format.
INPUT DATA
HYDRAULIC & SEDIMENT
PARAMETERS
I
SELECTION OF METHOD
Meyer-Peter and Muller, Einstein, Bagnold, Engelund &
Hansen, Toffaleti, Ackers & White, Yang, van Rijn,
Samaga et al, Wiuff, Celik and Rodi, Habibi & Sivakumar
OUTPUT
RESULTS
i- HYDRAULIC DATA
No. Q(m"3/s) AREA(mA2) WET P. (m) WIDTH(m) SLOPE T(oC) vise (nT2/
Fig. 5.2. Sample input file for the laboratory flume data of Vanoni and Brooks.
7- When the slope of the channel bed is unknown or unreliable, the computer
programs are able to evaluate the channel bed slope from Chezy equation.
The method of calculation of slope was presented in Sec. 4.9.6 under the discussion of
Rijn's theory. Although water surface or energy slope is one of the most important
variables affecting all the physical characteristics of open channel flows, its
measurement, especially for natural rivers, is very difficult. The slope is very sensitive
to small changes in water surface elevation, which are not easily determined during
floods w h e n sediments are being transported. The uncertainties in the estimated energy
Chapter 5 Development of computer programs, 146
slopes will inject errors into the transport computations. In particular, the replacement of
energy slope using Chezy formula seems reasonable for large natural rivers, where the
flow and sediment properties are subjected to large variations. For laboratory flumes,
however, this replacement seems irrelevant and m a y result in additional errors.
*********************************************************
U N I V E R S I T Y OF W O L L O N G O N G *
TOFFALETI METHOD
8 .03864 .11969
9 .05236 .01478
10 .06244 .05979
11 .07420 .09944
12 .10752 .19466
Fig. 5.3. Sample outputfilefrom application of the computer programs to the laboratory
flume data of Vanoni and Brooks (1956).
DEVELOPMENT OF
NEW EQUATIONS
Chapter 6. Development of new equations
Theoretical support for the existence of a direct relationship between the sediment
concentration and turbulent energy can be obtained from the definition of suspension. In
fact, suspension is defined as a m o d e of sediment transport in which the particle weight is
supported by the turbulence fluctuations of the flow (Einstein, 1964). It can also be
concluded from the various theories of the entrainment of sediments that the turbulence in
the flow is responsible for the suspension of particles (Garde and Ranga Raju, 1985, p.
197). For instance, Sutherland (1966 and 1967) by performing experimental
investigation on the mechanism of sediment entrainment in turbulent flows, has clearly
shown the important role of the vertical velocity component of the turbulent eddies on the
suspension of particles. Also in chapter 1, pi 1, it has been identified that turbulence is
the most important factor in the suspension of sediment.
Chapter 6
New development, 149
__Z Flow
Direction $
Turbulence
Energy
Production
fl
__z
Heat
From another point of view, suspended particles continuously settle in the surrounding
fluid due to their heavier weight. Therefore, a continuous and balanced suspension is
possible only if the flow provides a countermotion which raises the particles. This
upward motion is provided by the turbulence velocity fluctuations. In m m , the intensity
of turbulence can be indicated by the turbulence energy production of the flow.
In view of the above facts, it is hypothesised that a portion of the turbulent energy
production of the flow is used to keep the particles in suspension. This portion is
assumed to be equivalent to the work done (by the upward fluctuations of the flow
velocity) in overcoming gravitational settling of the particles. Using these two
assumptions, it is s h o w n that in turbulent flows, the concentration of suspended
sediments at any level y above the channel bed, can be expressed as a direct function of
total turbulence energy of the flow at that level. N e w expressions for predicting vertical
distribution of sediment concentration, and transport rates of both bed and suspended
loads, have resulted from this concept. The proposed transport equations have been
Chapter o New development, 150
compared with a range of sediment transport data from natural channels and laboratory
flumes. T h e results are generally in good agreement with the measurements and are more
accurate than those from other methods (see Chapter 7).
The new formulae are applicable to open channels with uniform-steady sediment-laden
flow. T h e equations are derived for bed material load and do not include wash load. The
capacity of streams to transport sediment particles is computed assuming that the available
bed material is greater than the transport capacity. All the proposed relationships are
simple, purely analytical, and dimensionally homogeneous. They are particularly suitable
for engineering application. T h e involved hydraulic and sediment parameters are well-
known and can be readily obtained. These parameters include the flow velocity, depth,
width, temperature and slope, and the density and median diameter of the bed-material.
d r<iv_jL l7^rr_E_UTUr!___
dT ( T ) -^x7 U i ( P^ + 2) UlU
J3x7
-v 5^T du'; 3_'. cm'; du';
Hinze has described Eq. 6.1 as: Change in the kinetic energy of turbulence per unit mass
of the fluid = Convective diffusion by the turbulence of the total turbulence energy + The
energy transferred from the m e a n motion through the turbulence shear stresses or the
production of turbulence energy + T h e work done per unit of mass and time by the
viscous shear stresses of the turbulent motion + T h e dissipation per unit of mass by
turbulent motion.
Chapter 6 New development, 151
The second term on the right hand side of Eq. 6.1, indicating the production of turbu
energy, is of special interest in the present study. F r o m Eq. 6.1, the total turbulent
energy production rate, E T M , per unit mass of the fluid at depth y can be expressed as:
dUj
'TM = - u i u J 3 x T (6.2)
For a uniform turbulent flow in a straight channel, Eq. 6.2 can be written as:
duv
E T M = - U 'xu'y^r (6 3)
-
wherein x = longitudinal direction of the flow, y = flow depth above channel bed, u x =
time-averaged velocity in x direction, and u'x and u'y = fluctuating components of the
velocity in x and y directions, respectively.
Based on experimental evidence, for a turbulent flow the viscous forces are many ord
of magnitude weaker than the internal forces and hence shear stresses due to the viscosity
are negligible. The only remaining parts of the shear stresses are those related to the
turbulence (Bogardi, 1974, pp. 366-367). Therefore, the shear stress of the flow for the
assumed conditions can be approximated by
T
xy = T = - P u x u y (6.4)
The turbulence shear stress, rxy, in Eq. 6.4 is called Reynolds turbulent stress (aft
Reynolds, 1883). In natural channels turbulent flow occurs with high Reynolds number
and the viscous stresses are weak and negligible compared to the turbulence stresses.
Hence in these conditions the turbulent shear stress, r xy , can be regarded as equivalent to
the total shear stress, x. Using Eqs. 6.4 and 6.3, the turbulence energy production per
unit mass at level y above the channel bed m a y be written as
p _ T dux (6.5)
E
TM-p-dy- ^ '
The vertical distribution of the shear stress, x, for a two dimensional steady unifo
is described by a linear relationship (Bogardi, 1974, p. 367; A S C E Sedimentation
Committee, 1975, p.75; and Simons and Senturk, 1977, p. 550), as given below
x = pg(D-y)S (6.6)
Chapter 6 New development, 152
where g = acceleration due to gravity, D = total flow depth, and S = energy slope.
The velocity gradient, dux/dy, in Eq. 6.5 is another parameter which should be
determined (for convenience u x will be shown by u). For a uniform turbulent flow of
clear water, Prandtl (1925-26) proposed the following well-established logarithmic
equation (Chow, 1959, p. 201):
where u* = flow shear velocity, K = von Karman constant, and y0 = a small distance
above the channel bed where Eq. 6.7 gives a zero velocity. However, for the flow in an
alluvial channel, the presence of sediments and bed forms complicate the behaviour of the
fluid. Presently, there is no generally accepted theory for the velocity profile of water and
sediment flow over an erodible boundary (Simons and Senturk, 1977, p. 137, and Garde
and Ranga Raju, 1985, p. 144).
Using the laboratory flume data of Coleman (1986), it can be shown that for a flow of
water and suspended sands, the velocity profile can be approximated by the clear water
velocity distribution. Coleman performed a set of flume experiments in which local flow
velocities were measured at different levels above the channel bed for both clear water and
sediment-laden flow under the same hydraulic conditions.
Figures 6.2 and 6.3 represent the comparison of measured velocity profiles for the two
cases of clear water and sediment-laden flow with particle sizes of 0.105 m m and 0.210
m m , respectively. With respect to the range of differences in the velocity profiles, in
view of uncertainties in the field of sediment transport, and the fact that the near bed zone
is not entered into the suspended load computations, it seems reasonable that, for the
purpose of application to suspended load models, the sediment-laden flow velocity profile
is approximated by that of the clear water.
It is interesting to note that according to Figs. 6.2 and 6.3, the velocity gradient d
tends to be negative towards the free surface. This phenomenon is observed regularly in
open channels with clear water and sediment-laden flows. So far, no significant attempt
has been m a d e to formulate this negative trend and hence none of the well-accepted
available velocity profile equations are able to predict this phenomenon. A reason for this
could be the negligible depth of the negative trend zone compared to the entire flow depth.
Also, formulating such a phenomenon m a y complicate velocity profile computations. In
Chapter 6 New development, 153
view of these facts, and to avoid complexity and unnecessary refinements, no attempt has
been made in the present research to consider the negative trend phenomenon.
200 T
£ _•
S ••
_•
100 • •
a
a
-a
o
• _
u
i j_
Fig. 6.2. Comparison of the velocity profiles for clear water and sediment-laden flows
(Coleman, 1986, ds=0.105mm).
Based on the laboratory flume data of Barton and Lin (1955), and Vanoni and Brooks
(1957), Rijn (1984b) has also shown that the velocity profile for lightly laden sediment
flows, can be calculated by the Prandtl logarithmic velocity distribution. Therefore the
velocity gradient, du/dy, can be obtained from Eq. 6.7 as:
Substituting x and du/dy from Eqs. 6.6 and 6.8, respectively, into Eq. 6.5, the final
expression for the local rate of total turbulence energy production per unit volume of the
flow, E T , can be derived as:
E T = (pgu*S/K).(D-y)/y (6.9)
Chapter 6
New development, 154
200
H
water & sediment
• clear water •a
s «_
•e
s
100 -
OH
• «
O
• •
Fig. 6.3. Comparison of the velocity profiles for clear water and sediment-laden flows
(Coleman, 1986, ds=0.210mm).
It can be shown that the stream power per unit volume of the flow (xQV/D), as defin
Sec. 4.4.2, is equivalent to the depth integration of the turbulence energy. If Ey
the total average turbulence energy per unit volume of the flow, then from Eq. 6.9:
p g u* S f D n-y
(-rrOdy (6.10)
y
y0
f y u*
Ev = VpgDS/D
New development,
Since x 0 = p g D S , the total average turbulence energy production per unit volume of the
flow can be expressed as
Ev = x0V/D (6.11)
Eq. 6.11 indicates a close relationship between turbulence energy and stream power. The
similarity between the proposed equations in this research and the stream power theories
of Bagnold and Y a n g is also discussed in Sees. 6.6 and 6.7, respectively.
C n_ -®-
^-KVxBhM™* C.19)
where reference concentration Ca was defined as the concentration of suspended material
at a reference height 'a' from the channel bed. Substituting (D-y)/y from Eq. 6.9 into Eq.
2.19 and solving for C y yields to:
(—)
C =C E T ( T : — ) ( ku* (6-12)
*~y ^a D-a gpu s _
Eq. 6.12 indicates that, according to Rouse, local suspended sediment concentration in an
open channel flow is direcdy related to the local rate of turbulence energy production ET-
This can be regarded as further analytical support for the idea that the local sediment
concentration m a y be related to the local turbulence energy production.
6.3.1. Background
The estimation of the local concentration of suspended material is one of the major
research areas of alluvial hydraulics. It is of special importance in the computation of
suspended load as well as in water quality studies. Quite a number of investigators,
including Einstein (1950), Toffaleti (1969) and van Rijn (1984), have used the depth-
integration of the product of the concentration profile and local flow velocity to calculate
the transport rate of suspended particles.
Chapter 6 New development, 156
Perhaps the most popular equation of suspended sediment concentration is the one
introduced by Hunter Rouse in 1937. However, this expression has two main
drawbacks. Firstly, because of its power form, it can not be integrated analytically for
determining depth-averaged concentration and discharge of suspended sediments.
Therefore, w h e n the Rouse equation was used by Einstein (1950) for formulating
suspended load, two complicated integrals resulted (II and 12 integrals). These limit the
practical application of the Rouse equation for m a n y hydraulic engineering projects.
Secondly, the Rouse formula does not predict the absolute concentration of suspended
solids and only gives the relative values based on an unknown reference concentration.
T o date, no well-accepted definition has been introduced for computing reference
concentration. T h e other limitations of the Rouse equation were discussed in Sec. 2.6
based on Vetter's (1985) investigation.
Several attempts have been made to improve the accuracy and applicability of the Rous
equation through modification and revision of the assumptions and basic relationships.
However, these efforts resulted in more complicated equations with no significant
improvement in the accuracy of the predicted concentrations (Garde and Ranga Raju,
1985, pp. 206-207). This research is an attempt to introduce a simpler and more practical
concentration equation based on the turbulence energy concept.
Turbulence velocity fluctuations perform work on suspended solids to prevent them fro
settling. The rate of this work is equal to the product of the submerged weights of
suspended sediments and their mean fall velocity. If C y is the volumetric concentration of
suspended material, at level y, above the channel bed and co is the mean fall velocity, the
rate of work of gravitational forces, W & per unit volume of the fluid can be written as:
WG = Cycog(ps-p) (6-13)
where ps denotes the mass density of suspended materials. Using the basic assumption
that the work, W G from Eq. 6.13, is equivalent to the turbulent energy used for
suspension, E T S U S (See Sec. 6.1) yields to:
ETsus = WG (6-14)
Based on the other assumption that turbulent energy used for suspension is proportion
to the total turbulent energy production of the flow, E T , then
Chapter 6 New development, 157
ETsus = O C E T (6.15)
S u* D_v
Cy = ct- (-^-)
y
A KCO y (6.16)
where A = (ps/p) -1- Equation 6.16 is dimensionally homogeneous and expresses the
volumetric concentration of suspended particles C y at depth y above the channel bed as a
function of energy slope S, total flow depth D, local depth y, mass density of the fluid p,
von Karman constant K, shear velocity u*, mean fall velocity of suspended particles co,
and mass density of sediments ps.
The following points are relevant to the proposed concentration formula, Eq. 6.16:
1- Almost all the important hydraulic parameters of the flow and bed material
characteristics are taken into account in this equation.
2- The proposed expression is not valid for a very thin layer close to the bed (bed lo
layer) where suspension is impossible due to the small size of turbulence eddies in
comparison with particle sizes.
A = ccSu* / (AKCO)
0.8
• A=0.0001
0.6 O A-0.0002
----0-— A=0.0003
0.4 _ A=0.0004
- - -_- - - A=0.0005
0.2
oo__
' • • •••••• • •
4- Eq. 6.16 is much simpler than the Rouse equation. The proposed equation does not
contain any exponent and hence its integration for formulating depth-averaged
concentration and suspended load transport rate can be done analytically. Assuming that
a is not a function of y, Eq. 6.16 can be written as the Rouse equation with an exponent
(or so called Rouse number) of 1.0.
6- Similar to the Rouse equation, the proposed Eq. 6.16 has the drawback of giving
concentration at the water surface.
The von Karman constant K is one of the important parameters of the proposed
concentration equation, Eq. 6.16. Although this equation is obtained from a clear water
velocity profile, the coefficient K can be adjusted to help account for the presence of
sediment.
One of the earliest comprehensive laboratory studies on the von Karman constant K w
performed by Vanoni (1946). F r o m the measurements of sediment and velocity
distributions in a laboratory flume, Vanoni (1946) concluded that (1) the value of K
Chapter 6
New development, 159
decreases as the concentration is increased, (2) the reducing effect of coarse sediment (ds
= 0.16 m m ) on K is less than that of the finer sediment, and (3) the value of K varies
systematically with shear stress u*. However, Vanoni was not able to suggest a specific
relationship between these factors. Also, the obtained values of K for similar flows in the
two series of experiments indicated some inconsistencies. For example, for series 1 the
average K for clear water was 0.372, whereas for series 2 under similar conditions, it was
0.394. Following the finding of Vanoni, a value of K = 0.35 was used by a number of
engineers in the analysis of sediment-laden flows.
Coleman (1981 and 1986) used the latest concept of the wake region velocity
augmentation function resulting from the boundary layer theory in the analysis of
measured velocity profiles. In Coleman's laboratory experiments, the von Karman
coefficient remained essentially constant from clear water to capacity sediment suspension
flows regardless of the degree of suspension. Coleman discussed that the historical idea
that K decreases with increasing sediment concentration was the result of indirect analysis
of velocity profiles, the poor knowledge of boundary layer theory, and ignorance of the
existence of the w a k e flow region. Coleman (1981) re-examined the data of Vanoni
(1946) based on a defect plot of velocity profiles, and showed that Vanoni's finding that
K varied inversely with sediment concentration was not correct. Re-evaluation of a
number of other well-collected data, together with the results of the n e w experiments,
showed that the von K a r m a n coefficient is essentially independent of sediment
concentration. In Coleman's experiments the average value of K was 0.433 and the
standard deviation was 0.031.
Considering the above discussion, a constant value of K = 0.4 is used in the applicabi
analysis of the proposed model. It should be noted that, due to the special format of this
model, the adoption of K = 0.35 does not change the final results of the analysis, but
leads to a minor correction of the calibration coefficient a (as well as P and X introduced
in the following sections).
measured at a vertical located on the flume centreline 12 m downstream from the entrance.
The velocity measuring instrument was a 10 m m diameter Pitot-static tube which could be
connected to a vacuum p u m p for withdrawing isokinetic samples of the sediment-water
mixture to determine local suspended sediment concentration.
The measured concentration profiles in run numbers 20, 31 and 37, considered as havi
full capacity suspension, are used to justify the applicability and accuracy of the proposed
concentration equation. These measured profiles are given in Table 6.2. Table 6.1
shows the measured and calculated flow parameters for the three selected experimental
runs. Based on Column 8 of Table 6.1, Rouse N o . Z = CO/(KU*) varies between 0.565
and 3.82 for the selected sediment concentration data.
Y Cy Cy Cy
(mm) (Run 20) (Run 31) (Run 37)
(D (2) (3) (4)
In applying Eq. 6.16 to Coleman's data, the proportionality coefficient a was evaluated
for each run based on the measured concentration at the lowest measuring level (y = 6
m m ) , and then it was assumed constant for the whole depth. The calculated values of a
for this level are presented in column 7 of Table 6.1 and indicate a variation between 3 %
Chapter 6 New development, 161
and 10%. The predicted concentration profiles for runs 20, 31 and 37 together with the
measured concentrations are shown in Figure 6.5.
1 1 1 1 1 II i i i i u i ii i i i 111111 i i i 11111
T
160 a. a o. Run 20 "
\ D o
%
120 Q • 9
• Measured
£ O • O -O Rouse
\ •.
80 i \
\ • •O Proposed
b nb
» •
40 * •
on b
• • ••••! • •••••••! 1—i i i mil
• 1^
S *• * o Rouse
*• »
S 80 *• »
-o— Proposed
"<> on
b40 on
*• *
**• *
b to
J ' '—i mini i 11 mil i in""
Volumetric Concentration
Fig. 6.5b. Verification of the proposed concentration equation with Colem
No. 31.
Kmnapiero New development, 162
160 - Run37
% •
•
Q •
120 r b • -
«• • Measured
E • 1
>
E
•
_ \
\
on
* "O"— Rouse
80 » -
....Q.... Proposed
: K o.. \
•
On
*
40 -
•
%
% l-u
•J 1...1
1E-08 1E-07 1E-06 1E-05 0.0001 0.001 0.01
Volumetric Concentration
Fig. 65c. Verification of the proposed concentration equation with Coleman's data, Run
No. 37.
To compare the applicability of the new formula, the Rouse equation has also been
applied to the same data. For each run, the measured concentration at the lowest level
was used as the reference concentration. The computed concentration profiles using the
Rouse approach are given in Figure 6.5. The Rouse equation shows better predictions
for the smaller sediment sizes and smaller values of Z. The results of this analysis
confirm the findings of Vetter (1985) on the limitations of Rouse equation as discussed in
Sec. 2.6.
Despite the wide variation of Rouse No. Z, the measurements of Coleman did not follow
the Rouse equation with the theoritical value of Z. In fact, it is necessary to determine a
proper value of Z based on the experimental results to better fit the measured
concentration profiles. The better predictions of the proposed model indicate that a
constant value of Z=1.0, which is the exponent of the proposed concentration formula
assuming a independent of y, is a good approximation of Rouse number for the data sets
examined.
Comparison to to the Rouse formula, the proposed equation has predicted concentration
profiles which are more closer to the measurements taken at three separate runs.
Generally better predictions are for points near to the stream bed but deviate more from
the measurements near the water surface. The deviation near the water surface can be
attributed to the limitation of the proposed model of giving zero concentration at the water
\miuipier o
New development,163
surface. The evaluation of a at the lowest measuring height could be the reason for better
predictions close to the stream bed.
In applying Eq. 6.16 to Samaga's data, the proportionality coefficient a was obtained
the lowest measuring level (y = 7.5 m m ) based on the measured concentration, and then it
was assumed constant for the whole depth. The calculated values of a for this level
changed between 2.8% and 5 % (Table 6.3, Column 9). The Rouse equation was also
applied to the same data, with the measured concentration at the lowest level taken as the
reference concentration. For these data sets, Rouse N o . Z = CO/(KU*) varied from 2.3 to
4.0 (Table 6.3, Column 10). The arithmetic mean diameter, reported by Samaga, was
used for calculating fall velocity. The predicted and measured concentration profiles for
the selected runs are shown in Figure 6.6.
Ml-9 0.01464 0.1006 0.005047 0.0498 0.0020 0.578 0.0799 0.0345 4.009 17
M2-5 0.01157 0.0827 0.006048 0.0518 0.0031 0.550 0.0755 0.0496 3.643 14
M3-8 0.00626 0.0562 0.006097 0.0464 0.0013 0.420 0.0639 0.0289 3.447 25
M4-5 0.0085 0.0677 0.004487 0.0421 0.0018 0.256 0.0388 0.0299 2.300 26
Note: Q = flow discharge, Width = 0.2 m, a = 7.5 mm, and a is
calculated at y=a.
KmMlpier u New development, 164
From Fig 6.6, it can be seen that the predictions by the proposed method are significandy
better than the predictions made by the commonly used Rouse equation. The agreement
is generally better for the smaller values of y but is not so good close to the water surface.
Here again the measurements of Samaga did not follow the Rouse equation with the
theoretical value of Z. In fact, a constant value of Z=1.0, which results from the
proposed model with the assumption of a independent of y, has produced better
predictions. The findings of Vetter (1985) on the limitations of Rouse equation (see Sec.
2.6) are again confirmed by the analysis of Samaga data.
9 n 9
n *0
1
40 - \ -
i
i
nb n Measured
30 \
S
X nb* i
• o Rouse
20 - "o.. n 6 o Proposed
*
• '*o.*** *
'cq.b
. Run Ml-9
60
"""I ' '"
50 n P
"o. n *
40 0
X • b* H Measured
| 30 'o... i
i
d? O Rouse
20 x. n>
O Proposed
10
"'0 *'©.. CD
Run M2-5 '"""^ -
0
1E-08 1E-07 1E-06 1E-05 0.0001 0.001 0.01
Volumetric Concentration
Fig. 6.6b. Verification of the proposed concentration equation with Samaga's data, R
M2-5.
50 - CD
40 - 'O. •b
t H Measured
i
g 30 h o. nb ••O Rouse
%
- O Proposed
20 -
o. nb
X d?
"'©... CB
10 - -©CD
Run M3-8
n
0 i ninj •••"••! • • •••••! i 111 in J — I 11 m i l
Volumetric Concentration
Fig. 6.6c. Verification of the proposed concentration equation with Samaga's data, R
M3-8.
From the results, it appears that the proposed theory represents the physics of s
laden flow phenomenon adequately for the experiments of Coleman and Samaga. The
satisfactory results of the proposed model confirm the general assumption that a can be
regarded as being independent of flow depth (at least for the purpose of estimating
sediment transport rate, where the estimates vary widely). However, there is indeed
room for more investigation on a in order to improve the accuracy of the proposed
procedure.
^naptero New development,166
60 • Q
50
*•_ «
ES 40 o. no n Measured
\
E 30
X QQ ©• Rouse
20
o. nb — 0-— Proposed
10 \nb
Run M4-5 '--rh
0
1E-08 1E-07 1E-06 1E-05 0.0001 0.001 0.01
Volumetric Concentration
Fig. 6.6d. Verification of the proposed concentration equation with Samaga's data, Run
M4-5.
Vanoni and Brooks (1957) presented a comprehensive report on the laboratory studies of
the roughness and suspended load of alluvial streams. In this investigation, Vanoni and
Brooks generally measured the total sediment discharge without measuring concentration
profiles. However, four measured concentration profiles (taken from the Ph. D. thesis of
Nomicos, 1956) were given in the section of special studies, where the effect of moving
sediment was studied on the friction factor of streams with stabilized bed. The test of the
proposed transport rate equations (introduced in the following sections), as well as the
selected sediment load predictors against a number of total load measurements of Vanoni
and Brooks (1957) and Nomicos (1956), are presented in Chapter 7. Herein only the
concentration profiles are discussed.
The experiments of Nomicos (1956) were carried out in a closed-circuit tilting flum
having a length of 40 ft (12.192 m ) and a width of 10.5 inch (0.2669 m ) . For the
selected runs 1, 3, 5 and 7, two different sizes of quartz sands, with mean diameters of
0.105 m m and 0.161 m m , were used. The measured and calculated flow parameters are
given in Table 6.5.
Kmifxcrprc?^*^r—** New development, 167
Tafr/e 6.5. Vanoni and Brooks (1957) sediment-water flow laboratory data.
Run Q Depth Slope ds 0) a Ca a Z
No. 3 (m)
(m /s) (m/s) (mm) (m/s) (mm) (m3/m3)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11)
The proportionality coefficient a in Eq. 6.16 was basically defined as the ratio of ETSUS to
E T at level y above the channel bed and hence it might be a function of y. In the test
against data of Coleman and Samaga, the parameter a was determined at distances
(reference heights, a) very close to the bed based on the measured concentrations
(reference concentrations, C a ) at these levels. In order to make these calculated values of
a comparable with those resulted from Vanoni and Brooks data the parameter a has to be
calculated under similar conditions. Reading the highest values of (D-y)/y
(corresponding to the lowest y) from Vanoni and Brooks' (1957) Fig. 35 shown in
appendix 2 and solving for y=a, the values of 'a' are obtained for the four selected runs
and quoted in Table 6.5. The corresponding values of C a in Table 6.5 are determined
from
C a (m3/ m 3) = (1/2650) C(grams/litre)
with C(grams/litre) obtained from Vanoni and Brooks' Fig. 35. The calculated values of
a for the data of Table 6.5 are quoted in Column 10 of this table and indicate a variation
between 1.8% and 5.3%. The range of variation of a is close to that obtained for the data
of Coleman and Samaga.
In Vanoni and Brooks' report, the measured concentration profiles are given in a
graphical format without providing the numerical values. Vanoni and Brooks claim that
the measured profiles closely follow the Rouse equation and the exponent Z determined
from the measurements agrees with that calculated from the theory. In these experiments,
the values of Z, determined from the measurements, change between 0.5 and 1.5 (Table
6.5, C o l u m n 11). Unfortunately, the details of the measuring procedure for
concentration profiles are not reported by Vanoni and Brooks and hence, the accuracy of
the measured profiles is not clear. It is also difficult for the author to ensure that the
amount of loose sand covering the bottom of the flume is sufficient for allowing capacity
concentration of suspended sediments.
Chapter 6
New development, 168
Assuming that a is not a function of y, Eq. 6.16 can be written as the Rouse equation
with an exponent of Z=1.0. Furthermore by using a/(D-a)=l which implies a=D/2, Eq.
6.16 can be directly compared with the measured concentration profiles approximated by
the Rouse equation with Z determined from the measurements. This procedure enables
the presentation of the proposed concentration equation, Eq. 6.16, in one single graph as
shown in Fig. 6.7 without reading the values of 'a' and C a from Vanoni and Brooks'
figure. Clearly, for Runs 3 and 5, in which the calculated Z values are close to 1.0, Eq.
6.16 predicts acceptable concentration profiles, but for Runs 1 and 7, this equation, with
a constant a, cannot produce reasonable predictions (see Fig. 6.7). Obviously, the
values of C a and oc corresponding to the values of a=D/2 in Fig. 6.7 are different from
those quoted in Table 6.5. The values of C a and a corresponding to a=D/2 are given in
Table 6.6.
100
Q — A — Run 5, Z-1.13
1 :
- - -a- -Run
- 7, Z-1.53
y/f
0.1
y </j i i iiml • — i i i '•"'
— • eg1 " / - P — H J *'—"-
0.01 0.1 10 100
C/C £
Fig. 6.7. Verification of the proposed concentration equation with Vanoni and Brooks
data for a = D/2.
Chapter 6 New development, 169
In view of the good performance of Eq. 6.16 for most of the examined profiles (9 out of
11), the author believes that keeping the general form of Eq. 6.16 and developing an
appropriate functional form for a would lead to better estimations of local concentrations.
Such development needs independent experimental research, and more comprehensive
flume and field data collected under a wide range of hydraulic and sediment conditions.
Unfortunately, adequate laboratory facilities and such extensive data were not available to
the author during the course of this research to allow for further investigation of a.
where 'a' is the thickness of a very thin layer over the channel bed where suspension of
the particles becomes impossible (a > y 0 ). Replacing C y from Eq. 6.16 into Eq. 6.17,
and assuming that a is not a function of local depth y, the following expression will be
obtained:
n - Su* l
f\______^H
CD a C ) Y
- AK~o3(D-a)Ja y (6.18)
In derivation of Eq. 6.18, the fall velocity OD has been considered constant t
depth as discussed earlier in Sec. 2.5 and will be explained more in Sec 6.9. The integral
term in Eq. 6.18 can be solved analytically to give:
Note should be taken that the lower integration limit of a = 0.0 cannot be adopted because
the term 'In a' becomes undefined. To evaluate the Integral term of Eq. 6.19, the Prandtl
turbulent velocity profile, Eq. 6.7, is used. Integrating Eq. 6.7 through the depth to
obtain the depth-averaged flow velocity V yields:
Chapter 6 New development, 170
U* 1
V = K— D-y In (-£-) dy (6.20)
0 JO
y0
Taking "In (y/y0) = In y - In y0" and "Jin y dy = y In y - y", Eq. 6.20 can
5fe 1
V =— ( D l n D - D l n y 0 - D + y0)
v J J
K D-y0 ° ° (6.21)
Assuming the thickness of bed layer 'a' equal to y0, and using Eq. 6.21, the
Eq. 6.19 can be evaluated as:
fD D _y VK(D-y0)
Ja ( " T - ) d y= * < 6 - 22)
Substimtion from Eq. 6.22 into Eq. 6.18 leads to:
CD=a^- (6.23)
D
Aco
Eq. 6.23 for depth-averaged concentration is comparable with Yang's (1973) transport
concentration in a way that both use dimensionless unit stream power (SV/co) as the
dominant variable.
The idea to take the lower limit of integration equal to yG was previously
(1963) and Harrison and Lidicker (1963). They had three different suggestions for lower
limit of integration (Grade and Ranga Raju, 1985, p. 215). In Prandtl's velocity profile,
y 0 is defined as the distance above the bed at which the flow velocity is zero. For
hydraulically smooth channels y 0 can be computed from:
y 0 = 0.11 v / u* (6.24)
Experiments have shown that if equivalent sand roughness, ks, is less than the laminar
sub-layer thickness 8 = 11.6 v / u*, the laminar flow zone near the bed is not significantly
disturbed, and the flow is called hydraulically smooth. If ks is grater than 5, then the
flow is hydraulically rough, the laminar sub-layer effectively disappears and a fully
turbulent flow profile occurs at all levels above the roughness elements. For
hydraulically rough flows y 0 is computed from:
Chapter 6 New development, 171
y 0 = 0.033 k s (6.25)
Considering Eq. 6.7 and assuming y0 « D, Eq. 6.21 can be simplified to:
Based on this equation, y0 can be expressed as a function of mean flow velocity, shea
velocity, flow depth, and von Karman constant as follows:
yo_De-[(KV/u*)+l] (627)
Equation 6.23 for the depth-averaged concentration can be used to solve a practical
measurement problem. M u c h of the science of sediment transport depends on the
measurement of sediment concentration at selected river cross sections. In order to
determine the average concentration at each vertical profile, w e take advantage of the fact
that at a certain level the actual concentration, C y , is equal to the depth-averaged
concentration, C D - T O find out this particular level, Eq. 6.16 can be equated to the Eq.
6.23 and solved for y to yield:
y = D / [(VK/U*) + 1] (6.28)
(630)
CD=(KV/U*)CD/2
Hence, to evaluate CD, one can just measure the concentration of suspended particles
y=D/2 and use Eq. 6.30.
Cffiffifty1 .. New development, 172
Sediment discharge at a given point, qsy, can be expressed as the product of local
sediment concentration C y and local flow velocity u, i.e.
Using Eqs. 6.16 and 6.7 for sediment concentration and velocity distribution
respectively, Eq. 6.31 can be written as:
Su*2 D-v v
qsy= <* — 5 -r- Mf~) (6.32)
Area ^ yo
The transport rate of suspended particles per unit of channel width, qs, can be obtain
from the depth-integration of the point sediment discharge, qsy, as:
where 'a' represents a very thin layer close to the bed where suspension is impossible.
Substituting q sy from Eq. 6.32 into Eq. 6.33 and integrating the result yields:
C n*2 -i r> 2 r\
qs= P - ^ V " D4[ln(f4] - [ln(—)-l]} (6.34)
2 2
AK G) ^o yo
Replacing for ln(D/y0) from Eq. 6.26, Eq. 6.34 leads to:
c n v^ u*
[ 1 + ] (6 35)
^=PS W -
wherein qs denotes the volumetric transport rate of suspended material per unit of ch
width. Here, the coefficient a is replaced by p to account for the inaccuracies introduced
to the computations by using the Prandtl logarithmic velocity distribution. Since the
Prandd formula was initially developed for clear water, (3 is different from a and should
be obtained separately from the calibration of Eq. 6.35 with suspended sediment transport
data. Eq. 6.35 is dimensionally homogeneous and can be used with any consistent set of
units. In this equation, co refers to the mean fall velocity of suspended particles and is
discussed in more detail in Sec. 6.9. In developing Eq. 6.35, the parameter P was
Chapter 6 New development, 173
Eq. 6.35 can be compared with Bagnold's (1966) formulation for sediment transport.
Introducing T Q = p g D S into Eq. 4.4.19 and assuming V = U S , Bagnold's suspended load
equation can be written as:
SDV2
q^e^l-e^-^- (6.36)
A comparison of Eqs. 6.35 and 6.36 demonstrates that although the proposed approach i
based on depth-integration of the product of concentration and velocity profiles, and is
completely different from Bagnold's approach, the resulting formulae are very similar.
This is partly due to the similarity between stream power and turbulence energy
production as discussed in Sec. 6.2.1, and the fact that both equations are based on
energy concepts. F r o m this comparison, the coefficient P would be equal to two times
the suspended transport efficiency, e s (1-et,), defined by Bagnold, i.e.
P « 2 es(l-eb) (6-37)
Based on theoretical arguments and using the results of laboratory investigation, Bag
concluded that es(l-eb) has a constant value of 1 % (see Sec. 4.4.5). This results in a
rough estimate of 2 % for p (see Sec. 6.10 for more discussion on p). The main
difference between the Bagnold equation and the n e w correlation is the factor [1+
( U * / K V ) 2 ] . This factor overcomes some of the drawbacks of the Bagnold method,
especially the one related to the substitution of the average velocity of suspended solids
with the mean flow velocity (see Sec. 4.4.6).
The new suspended load equation is also comparable with Yang's (1973) formula in that
both use dimensionless unit stream power (SV/co) as the dominant variable (see Sec 6.7).
Five independent sets of data from sediment transport in a number of natural channels
laboratory flumes have been used to test the applicability and accuracy of the proposed
expression of suspended load transport with an adopted value of p = 2 % . The data
include 175 individual measurements covering a wide range of flow velocity (V from
0.49m/s to 2.28m/s) and sediment size (d 50 from 0.20mm to 6.30mm). M o r e analysis
on the applicability of the proposed suspended load equation is presented in Chapter 7.
Chapter 6 New development, 174
For the purpose of analysis, a discrepancy ratio is defined as the ratio of computed
sediment discharge to the measured value, i.e. r = Q s c / Q s m . Clearly, the closer the
predicted r values to one, the more accurate the predictions. It should be noted that due to
the complex nature of sediment transport and inaccuracy in measurements, particularly for
naturalrivers,sediment discharges in general cannot be predicted precisely. In this area,
an equation which is able to predict 6 0 % of sediment transport rates to within a range of
between half and double actual values is considered to be reasonable.
Recently, Voogt et al (1991) collected 120 sets of data from a number of tidal chann
the Netherlands, namely the K r a m m e r tidal channel and Eastern and Western Scheldt
Estuary tidal channels. The measurements represent transportation of fine sediments (dso
about 0.25 m m ) under high velocity (V up to 2.28m/s) conditions (see Sees. 7.2.2 and
7.2.3 for the full detail). Because of the very small sizes of bed material and high flow
velocities, it is assumed that sediments mostly travel in suspension and the bed load
component is negligible. This assumption is supported through the comparison of
computed values of bed and suspended load transport rates using a number of existing
theories. Hence, the measured total sediment discharges can be directly compared with
the predicted transport rates of suspended material. Using the proposed expression, the
transport rates of suspended material were predicted, and discrepancy ratios were
calculated. The graphical comparison of r values are presented in Fig. 6.8. The line r=l
represents a perfect agreement between calculated and measured sediment discharges.
10.00
Data No.
Fig. 6.8. Comparison of computed sediment discharges with measured transport rates
from Netherlands' tidal channels.
Chanter 6 New development, 175
Based on the calculated discrepancy ratios, about 9 7 % and 8 2 % of the predicted transport
rates fall in the range of 0.5-2.0 times the measured sediment discharges for Krammer
and Scheldt Estuary tidal channels, respectively. This indicates very good predicability
for the new theory in application to streams carrying fine sands with high velocity.
10
E
CO • Butte City
o
Q
o Colusa
w
O
II
0.1 • «- -i 1 1- -• 1 ' ' F _i _
6 9 12 15
Data point No.
Samaga et al (1986 a and b) reported 33 sets of laboratory experiments on the bed and
suspended load transportation of four sediment mixtures in a 30 meter long tilting flume.
Chapter^- New development, 176
Both velocity and concentration profiles were measured, and then by a depth-integration
procedure, suspended loads were calculated.
Using Eq. 6.35, suspended load discharges were estimated. The results are plotted in
Fig. 6.10. Based on the calculated discrepancy ratios, about 8 4 % of the estimated
transport rates fall within 0.5-2.0 times the measured values, which is again a satisfactory
prediction. In the statistical analysis of r values, thefirsttwo runs (Mi-1 and Mi-2) of
Samaga et al data were excluded (see Sec. 7.2.11). For these two runs almost all the
applied methods resulted in very high sediment transport rates compared to the reported
values.
10.00
E
o
• •
a 1.00
a
II
0.10 I ' ' ' I ' ' ' I ' ' ' I ' ' ' \ ' ' ' I ' ' ' I ' ' ' | ' ' ' 1 '
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32
Data No.
Fig. 6.10. Predicability ofproposed method for flume suspended load measurements of
Samaga et al, 1986b.
Table 6.7. Statistical analysis of the test results on suspended load equation.
Discrepancy ratio r
CT=qs/q (6-38)
Substituting qs from Eq. 6.35 and taking q = VD, Eq. 6.38 can be simplified a
[1+ 2] (639)
^=^ 0
Comparing Eqs. 6.39 and 6.23, the following relationship can be obtained:
2
CT l u*
CT2[1+ W ] (6 40)
-
Since u*<V for natural rivers, Eq. 6.40 indicates that transport concentrati
always smaller than depth-averaged concentration CD-
Celik and Rodi (1991) assumed a constant ratio of CD/CT = 1.13; however, accor
Eq. 6.40 this ratio is not constant and is a function of the hydraulic characteristics of the
flow. Wiuff (1985) also introduced the following expression for the ratio of C D / C T
r In (——•) - 1
__I = _____________ (6.41)
C D , ,30D. 12
ln( )+
— H
Chapter 6
New development, 178
wherein II and 12 are Einstein's integrals (see Sec. 4.3). Wiuff showed that for some
cases in G u y et al (1966) flume data, the ratio of C D / C T can rise up to a value of 2.0.
Another interesting point about the new development is the comparison of the transp
concentration from Eq. 6.39 with that of Yang. Based on comprehensive studies on
sediment transport during 1972-1991, Yang found that dimensionless unit stream power
= (VS/co) is the most convenient independent variable which can be correlated with the
sediment concentration of the rivers. Yang's proposed formula can be written in the
following general form:
CT=ai(VS/co)a2 (6.42)
where parameters cci and Ct2 are defined as functions of the hydraulic and sediment
characteristics of the flow. In the proposed Eq. 6.39, again dimensionless unit stream
power is the main dominant variable in evaluating Cr/.
Reference concentration Ca, the sediment concentration at a distance 'a' above the c
bed, is one of the parameters of the Rouse concentration equation, Eq. 2.19. Usually, 'a'
is considered as the thickness of the bed load layer, where the particles m o v e in
continuous contact with the movable bed. A knowledge of C a is necessary to calculate
local concentration C y . Also, in computing the suspended load transport rate through
depth integration of the product of local concentration and flow velocity, when C y is
taken from the Rouse equation, the value of C a needs to be estimated separately.
Ca=Kqb/(u*a) (6.43)
where qb = bed load transport rate per unit of width, 'a' = bed load layer thickness
ds = sediment diameter, and K is an empirical coefficient which has been determined from
laboratory flume experiments as equal to 1/11.6. Rijn (1984b) introduced another
formula for computing C a which is more complicated and is based on 580 sets of
laboratory flume and field measurements (see Sec. 4.9). Other investigators have also
suggested different procedures; however, despite the great efforts undertaken, none of the
proposed equations have been widely accepted (Garde and Ranga Raju, 1985).
Chapter 6
New development, 179
Su* n-a.
^tL~CLA^(rT) (6-44)
where 'a' is the reference height and a is the energy ratio parameter at level y = a (
approximately from 0.03 to 0.10 for the data of Coleman, 1981). The true value of a
should be determined from calibration of Eq. 6.44 with extensive data. With the
reasonable assumption D » a, Eq. 6.44 could be simplified to the following expression:
S u* D
Ca = a -
AKCO a (645)
The term fall velocity, co, in Eq. 6.16 is defined as the mean fall velocity of suspen
particles. A general discussion on the fall velocity was presented earlier in Sec. 2.5.
Only special aspects of co relating to the proposed model are discussed here.
1- In Eq. 6.16, co refers to the fall velocity at level y above the channel bed, where
local concentration is defined, and hence is a function of y. However, for the purpose of
integration, in the proposed approach the fall velocity is regarded as constant and equal to
the terminal velocity (see discussion in Sec. 2.5).
2- In evaluating co, only that part of the whole bed material which moves in suspensio
should be used. In other words, for calculating co, the size distribution of suspended
particles should be available. However, in actual sediment transport projects, usually
individual information on the suspended load as distinct from the bed load is not
available, while the bed material information is easily obtainable. It is m u c h simpler to
take a sample from the stream bed than to take samples from the sediment-laden flow.
For flood conditions especially, sediment flow sampling is m u c h more difficult and
expensive and needs more accurate and advanced measurement equipment.
3- When particles are uniform, CO is simply the fall velocity of any individual grain.
However, for non-uniform sediments, a representative particle size has to be selected.
Bagnold (1966) has shown that neither the median diameter dso, nor the arithmetic mean
diameter d a , can be used for the true evaluation of the fall velocity. H e then
recommended that co can be approximated by one-half the arithmetic mean fall velocity of
Chapter 6
New development, 180
In order to make the new approach more practical, it is suggested that, in the absen
size gradation of suspended particles, the size distribution of bed material (particularly the
median diameter dso) be used in calculating co. T h e errors introduced by this
approximation should be considered in the calibration of the parameters a and p. The
advantage of using dso in the calculations is that this parameter can be obtained on the
basis of samples from the stream bed and has been reported in almost all the available
sediment transport data. Engineering judgement should be used in selecting an
appropriate representative size of suspended load if the size distribution of bed-material is
far from that of suspended load (see Sec. 6.10).
In Sec. 6.6, it was shown that p can be related to the Bagnold's suspended load
efficiency es(l-et,), i.e.
P = 2es(l-eb) (6.37)
Bennett (1973) defined Bagnold's suspended load efficiency es(l-e_.) based on the fall
velocity of the median diameter of bed material. From the experimental data of G u y et al
(1966) and unpublished data, Bennett introduced the following equation:
where a = 0.057, b = 0.656, and c = 0.718. Here x0 is the bed shear stress in N/m2 and
V is the mean flow velocity in m/sec. The median diameter dso is expressed in m m . The
Bennett equation has not been evaluated by other investigators. In a limited verification
by Bennett, only 5 6 % of the computed sediment discharges were within the range 0.5-
2.0 times the measured transport rates. Hence, Bennett's modification did not improve
the suspended load predictions significantly.
where t* is defined by Eq. 2.3. This expression is again based on the fall velocity o
of bed material. Application of Wiuff s theory to the suspended load transport data from
natural streams indicates that the Wiuff expression, for the suspended load efficiency, is
not accurate enough and in some cases leads to values m u c h greater than 1.0 (see Chapter
7) which are not feasible.
Recently Celik and Rodi (1991) suggested a constant value of 3.4% for the suspended
load efficiency based on their o w n analysis of the concentration of suspended particles in
open channel flows (see Sec. 4.12). In this analysis a specific portion of overall bed
shear stress (so called effective shear stress for suspension) was used in the calibration
procedures. Celik and Rodi's model has not been verified by other investigators. In the
applicability analysis of Chapter 7, this model always under-predicted the suspended load
transport rates.
^haptef^- N m tfeygfoprcg-j, 182
It should be noted, however, that most of the data used in the applicability analysis
Sec. 6.6.1 and Chapter 7 were collected from sediment-laden flows transporting fine and
medium sands with a high proportion of suspended load and small amount of bed load.
For these data sets, size distributions of suspended loads were very close to those of bed-
material samples, and hence, the median diameters of bed-materials were good indicators
of size gradations of suspended particles. A s a result, the estimation of fall velocity based
on dso of bed material provided very good predictions for these data sets. Such
conditions m a y not occur forriverswith coarse bed-material.
For example, in gravel rivers with a bi-modal distribution of bed-material, the coars
fractions are rarely suspended, and the size distributions of suspended particles are far
from those of bed-material. Here, bed load plays an important role and m a y constitute a
considerable proportion of total load. W h e n applying the proposed suspended load
equation to this kind of stream, the fall velocity estimates should be based on the size
distribution of those fractions which constitute suspended load. If the size distribution of
suspended material is not available, then engineering judgement should be used in
selecting an appropriate representative size of suspended loads. A s a rough guide, the
values of d35 and d ^ are more appropriate to be used for these situations.
Another important point about the coefficient P (and thus a) is that this coefficient
absorbs all the unknown effects of fall velocity as well as velocity profile and von
Karman constant on suspended load transport rate (and concentration).
Generally a flow imposes shear stress on the boundary of a waterway. In a stream with
an erodible bed, whenever the shear stress exceeds a certain value, particles resting on the
bed start to move. The movement of bed-material along the stream bed, on, or very
close, to the bottom, by rolling, sliding, saltation, and sometimes small jumps, is called
bed load transport.
i2S-_53_ New development, m
The estimation of the transport rate of bed load has been a subject of study during the last
several decades due to its importance in river regulation, and design and operation of
reservoirs and canal systems. Several investigators including D u Boys (1879), Meyer-
Peter and Muller (1948), Einstein (1950), Bagnold (1966 and 1980), Rijn (1984a), and
Samaga et al (1986a) attempted to find the functional relationship which must exist
between the bed load transport rate and sediment-laden flow parameters. However,
despite the efforts undertaken, the bed load estimates made by the various predictors vary
widely. Furthermore, some of the approaches are complicated to apply by practising
engineers. The need for development of more accurate, yet simpler, procedures for
estimating bed load is highlighted by almost all the investigators w h o compared the
results of the existing equations with the measured data ( A S C E Task Committee on
Sedimentation, 1975; Hean andNanson, 1987; and Nakato, 1990).
In the current research, an attempt has been made to establish a bed load equation base
on the proposed sediment concentration formula, Eq. 6.16, and physical characteristics of
the bed layer. The resultant bed load equation is a dimensionless function of well-
known, easily obtainable hydraulic and bed material parameters. It is shown that the
proposed formula gives reasonably good predictions for the published bed load
measurements from laboratory flumes and natural streams (see Chapter 7). This equation
is particularly suitable for in-situ calibration and application in engineering projects.
Denoting the thickness of bed load layer by 'a', average transport velocity of bed load
particles by u b , and average volumetric concentration of bed load by C b , the bed load
transport rate in volumetric ratio per unit of channel width, qb, can be simply written as:
qb=Q>uba (6.48)
Cb = Xi Ca (6.49)
where Cais the reference concentration of sediments at depth 'a* above the channel bed.
Chapter 6 New development, 184
It can be also assumed that transport velocity of the bed load particles, u b , is proportional
to shear velocity u*, or
ub = X2 u* (6.50)
If the average velocity of the bed load particles is approximated by the flow veloci
distance equal to one grain diameter above the bottom, i.e. at y = ds, and also the
equivalent sand roughness coefficient k s is substituted by the particle size ds, then from
Eq. 6.51 for a rough turbulent flow it can be written:
Furthermore, if ub is approximated by the flow velocity at the edge of laminar sub lay
when the channel boundary is smooth, then
ub=11.6u* (6.53)
Eqs. 6.52 and 6.53 justify the more general assumption of Eq. 6.50. Similar assumptio
were m a d e by Einstein (1950), Bagnold (1966), and Engelund-Hansen (1967).
qb = ^lA,2Cau*a (6-54)
Using Ca from the new expression Eq. 6.45 and substituting into Eq. 6.54 results in:
Chapter 6 New development, 185
- » ,*2
S D u*
where cob represents the fall velocity of sediment particles at y = 'a'. It is possible to
individually determine the values of three coefficients, a, X\ and X2, from calibration
with laboratory flume and field data. However, the field measurements of bed load
transport are laborious, difficult, expensive, inaccurate and very few in number. Even
for laboratory flumes, it is almost impossible to measure the bed load concentration with
complete accuracy (see Sec. 7.1.2). Hence, for practical purposes, it was decided that
the combined effects of the three parameters, a, X\ and X2, be considered in the
calibration process. Combining these parameters into one, Eq. 6.55 can be expressed as:
, SDu*2
™ AKCOU.
^ (6.56)
The discrepancy ratio r (which is defined as the ratio of computed sediment discharge
the measured transport rate, r = Qsc / Q s m ) is used in the calibration and verification
analyses. Results of the application of Eq. 6.56 to the collected data are summarised in
the statistical analysis of the discrepancy ratios and include the arithmetic average
( A V G ) , the standard deviation (STD), and the percentages of r values within the range
0.5-2.0 (Score). It should be emphasised that due to the complexity of the sediment
transport process and difficulties in the measurements, particularly for naturalrivers,bed
load transport rates in general cannot be precisely predicted.
Chapter 6 New development, 186
E 10.00
'•••••
o 1.00 ____MB_-_|B".ral_i_—rBi-
• • _•
OCfl
u • •• •[ '• •• [• " •[ '• " I 1 " '| " •' I 1 "
0.10
0 5 10 15 20253035
Individual data point
Fig. 6.11. Calibration of the proposed bed load equation with laboratory fl
Samaga et al.
The applicability of a number of other existing bed load predictors were also studied,
based on Samaga et al measurements. The statistical analysis of the test results is given
in Table 6.8. The best predictions were obtained from the models of Rijn (1984b) and
Einstein (1950) with scores of 93 and 81, respectively. The established equations of
Meyer-Peter and Muller (1948) and Bagnold (1966) under-predicted the bed load
Cfmfipiiil L New development, 187
10.00-E-
0.10
0 5 10 15 20 25
Data No.
Fig. 6.12. Verification of the proposed bed load predictor with data from Elbow r
Due to the large bed material sizes of Elbow River (d50 = 25mm), all the bed
predictors except Eq. 6.56 have failed to give acceptable predictions. This is because
these theories are largely dependent on the empirical coefficients which have not been
-jn_^__£_w_&
\ylUXPitl O New development, 188
calibrated for such large particle sizes. However, the proposed bed load predictor has
encouragingly shown a satisfactory score of 61 with the average discrepancy ratio of
2.27.
Inbar and Schick (1979) published seven sets of data collected for the upper reache
both the Jordan and Meshushim Rivers which usually transport cobbles and boulders .
The reported data indicated two steep channels with slopes of 0.03 - 0.035, flow
discharges of 57.5m^/s - 300m3/s, channel widths of 1 9 m - 43m, flow depths of 1.1m -
2.0m, and bed load discharges of 32kg/s - 341kg/s. T h e median diameter dso varied
from 80 to 3 0 0 m m but the values of dc^o were not reported (see Sec. 7.2.5 for the full
details of data). The results of the application of the proposed equation and others to the
Inbar and Schick data are given in Tables 6.9 and 6.10 and Figure 6.13. In Fig. 6.13,
thefirstfivepoints represent Jordan river and the last two are related to the Meshushim
river.
For the Jordanriver,all the bed load predictors failed to give acceptable predictions. The
better results were produced by the Bagnold model and the proposed equation. For the
Meshushim river, again no acceptable prediction was obtained. However, the better
results were obtained by the Meyer-Peter and Muller formula and the proposed equation.
The poor accuracy obtained can be attributed to the very large bed material sizes and
probable errors in the measurements.
Some of the errors in the predicted transport rates of the proposed equation can be
attributed to the use of dso instead of d9o- However, there is a possibility that due to the
indirect measurement procedure used, the reported rates of transport of cobbles and
boulders had been smaller than the actual discharges. This has m a d e the mean value of
calculated discrepancy ratios for most of the equations m u c h larger than unity (e.g. for
Jordan River, based on Einstein method, A V G was found equal to 483.71).
100-g 1
E
w
:
•
a - • • •
o 10-= - -
w • •
a
n
1 -| ' 1 ' 1 ' 1 '
0 2 4 6 8
Data No.
Fig. 6.13. Verification of the proposed bed load predictor with data from Jordan and
Meshushim rivers.
The proposed bed load equation, with X = 1.32, has produced reasonably good results
when applied to natural rivers where, due to the large size of sediment particles or small
values of bed shear stresses, the majority of bed material m o v e d as bed load. However,
using a constant value for X m a y not produce satisfactory results for all flow conditions.
With hydraulic parameters of the flow kept constant, it is expected that a decrease in
size of sediments increases the bed load transport rate. The proposed bed load equation
fulfils this expectation. However, with a further decrease in the size of bed material,
some of thefinerparticles m a y lose their contact with the bed and are swept up into the
main flow. The number of particles which m o v e up into the suspension zone can be
related to the intensity of flow shear stress (or shear velocity) as well as to the particle size
(or fall velocity). Therefore, the general expectation of an increase in the bed load
1/ mtfjwi y New development,190
transport with decreasing particle size (or increasing flow shear stress) is only applicable
until bed load particles reach the critical condition of initiation of suspension. Thereafter,
further decrease in the sediment size (or increase in the flow shear stress) increases the
discharge of suspended sediments but m a y not necessarily result in any increase in the
bed load transport rate. T h e constant value of X = 1.32 is applicable to those sediment-
laden flows in which the majority of bed-material particles have not reached the critical
condition of suspension and hence bed load constitutes the major part of total load.
In order to apply Eq. 6.56 to a set of data, it should first be determined whether the
majority of bed material has reached the condition of initiation of suspension or not.
Despite the considerable amount of research performed on determining the critical
condition for the initiation of bed load transport (see Sec. 2.3), there is no well-
established criterion for computing critical shear stress at which the suspension of the bed
material begins. This is partly due to the difficulty in distinguishing between the two
modes of bed load transport and suspension in natural streams. A s a rough estimation, a
particle moves in suspended m o d e whenever the average shear velocity of the flow u*
exceeds its settling velocity co (Francis, 1973; Bagnold, 1966; and Engelund-Hansen,
1967). Here, u* represents the mobility strength of the flow and co is an indicator of the
opposing forces of particles. It seems that a knowledge of the ratio u*/co for the whole
bed material can indicate the proportion of bed sediments which m o v e as bed or as
suspended load. Hence, determination of the mean fall velocity, co, should be based on
the size gradation of bed material and be compared with the overall shear velocity, u*, of
the flow. If the size gradation of bed material mixture is not available, it is suggested that
the median diameter dso *s use0^ f° r tne computation of co.
In view of the above discussion, the coefficient X cannot be considered constant for
sediment-laden flows with high bed shear velocity andfineparticle sizes where the ratio
u*/co is m u c h greater than unity and most of the bed materials travel in suspension. In
fact, for these conditions, Eq. 6.56 with X=132 predicts bed load transport rates much
greater than the actual values.
As an example, the proposed bed load formula was applied to the 60 sets of Voogt et al
(1991) data collected from K r a m m e r tidal channel in Netherlands (see Sec. 7.2.2 for the
full detail of data). For these data sets, due to the small size of bed material and high flow
velocity, the sediments mostly travel in suspension and the bed load component is
negligible. Here, the average shear velocity, u*, is about four times the mean fall velocity
of sediment particles, co (Table 6.12). W h e n Eq. 6.56, with 1=1.32, was applied to
Voogt et al data, bed load discharges resulted that were, on average three times greater
is r ***fs*j£*nri^n New development,191
than the calculated suspended loads (Table 6.12). This, of course, was not in agreement
with the physical conditions of the flow.
To make the proposed bed load predictor applicable to streams having a high proportion
of suspended load, the coefficient X should be calibrated with appropriate measurements.
Unfortunately, almost all of the bed load data which has been available to the author,
does not represent transportation offinematerial as bed load. The measurements which
do represent transportation of fine sands, such as data from the Netherlands tidal
channels (Sees. 7.2.2 and 7.2.3), Brooks (Sec. 7.2.8), Vanoni-Brooks (Sec. 7.2.9),
Nomicos (Sec. 7.2.10), and Willis et al (Sec. 7.2.12), only indicate total sediment
discharge and do not give individual rates of suspended and bed loads.
Due to the lack of appropriate data, an accurate calibration of the proposed bed load
formula for application to flows with high suspended load has not been possible. T o
obtain a rough calibration, Eqs. 6.35 and 6.56 were applied to a large number of total
load measurements with suspended load constituting the major component (Chapter 7).
From the comparison of the resulting bed and suspended loads with measured total
loads, it was generally concluded that the coefficient X is inversely proportional to the
ratio u*/co. The proportionality ratio was roughly found to have a value of 0.4.
By considering the values of u*/co given in Chapter 7 for the collected data, it is ge
suggested that X = 0.4 co/u* should be used for flows with u*/co greater than about 1.8.
The numerical value of 1.8 is obtained from data by Samaga et al, in which bed loads
were about three times bigger than suspended loads, and for most instances the value of
u*/co was smaller than 1.8 (Table 7.32). For these data sets a calibration factor of X =
1.32 produced very satisfactory results (Sec. 6.12.1). In summary, using the equation:
enabled the proposed bed load predictor to be applied to sediment-laden flows with bot
large and fine particles, and produced bed load transport rates which were in general
agreement with the measurements and physical conditions of the flow. In Eq. 6.57, the
term co should be based on the size distribution or median diameter of bed material.
Chapter 6 New development, 192
Table 6.12. Application of proposed bed load formula to Krammer tidal channel.
Data No. Qbed (kg/s m) m
<3susp. (kg/s m) Qbed (kg/s ) u*/CD
1=0.4(0/11* 1=1.32
(1) (2) (4)
(3) i (5)
For instance, when Eq. 6.56 with A,=0.4co/u* was tested against data by Voogt et al, the
resulting bed load discharges were found to be about six times smaller than the calculated
suspended loads (Table 6.12) and hence, the predictions were in general agreement with
the physics of the flow. Similar results were obtained from the application of Eq. 6.35
and Eq. 6.56 with X=0.4 co/u* to the data of Brooks (Sec. 7.2.8), Vanoni-Brooks (Sec.
7.2.9), Nomicos (Sec. 7.2.10), and Willis et al (Sec. 7.2.12), where flows with high
suspended loads were studied.
For the above-mentioned data sets, due to the unknown proportions of bed and
suspended loads and the low amount of bed load, the results of the applicability analysis
were mostly attributed to the proposed suspended load equation. Therefore, the
importance of the numerical value of 0.4 in Eq. 6.57 could not be investigated. For such
conditions, since suspended load is m u c h greater than bed load, values smaller than 0.4
do not change the results significantly. However, the performance of the proposed
method is certainly changed if values m u c h greater than 0.4 are used. For example, a
value of X= 2.5co/u* for the K r a m m e r Tidal Channel (Table 6.12) results in an average
bed load transport rate greater than suspended load which is not feasible for the observed
flow conditions.
The words "generally", "about" and "roughly" were used several times in this section
indicate that, due to the lack of appropriate data, the obtained values are not accurate.
Further investigation is, in fact, warranted into the proposed bed load predictor and the
coefficient X using more extensive and reliable data with individual measurements of bed
and suspended loads.
The total bed material load can be obtained by combining the suspended load Eq. 6.35
and bed load Eq. 6.56:
cnv2 u* 2
S D u*
1' =0 0 2 ^ [ 1 +( ^ V ) 1 + X ^ V (6-58)
Chapter 6 New development, 194
The performance of the above expression will be presented with more details in Chapter
7, herein as a preliminary investigation Eq. 6.58 is tested against laboratory flume data of
Brooks (1958).
E
(A • • •
•
o 1- •
•
•
III 1 1
• • • • •
u • • • • •
(fl
1
O
1
n
, J ' ' ' r
1 m 1 1 1
—1- 1 1 T
-H- ..I -f- 1 I
0 5 10 15 20
Data point N o
Fig. 6.14. Application of the proposed total load equation to the laboratory flume data
Brooks (1958).
The proposed total load formula, i.e. Eq. 6.58 with X from Eq. 6.57, was applied
Brooks data and the results are summarised in Fig. 6.14. Based on this applicability test,
all the predicted total load transport rates fall within the range of two times greater or
smaller than the measured sediment discharges. The proposed total load equation has
given the best predictions when compared with results obtained from other total load
predictors (see Sec 7.2.8).
Considering the analytical structure of Eqs. 6.16, 6.35 and 6.56, the variation o
sediment concentration, and suspended and bed load transport with mean flow velocity V
(or shear velocity u*), energy slope S, flow depth D, and average fall velocity co (or
The variation of average flow velocity, V , strongly affects bed shear stress and the
intensity of turbulence, hence it is well-accepted that the concentration and transport rate
of sediments will increase with an increase in V . Considering that V is directly
proportional to u* according to Eq. 6.7, it can be seen that in the proposed theory,
transport rates are proportional to the fourth power of the flow velocity (V 4 ), and
concentration is proportional to the product of V and energy slope S. Hence, the
suggested model indicates a strong tendency for increasing bed-material transport rates as
well as concentration with increasing flow velocities.
All the three proposed equations are directly proportional to the energy slope S. The
transport rates are proportional to S 2 , while the concentration is proportional to S1-5.
Theoretically, keeping the flow depth constant, an increase in S will result in an increase
in the velocity, shear stress and turbulence energy of the flow which are responsible for
the m o v e m e n t of bed materials. Hence, it is expected that sediment discharge and
concentration be increased with increasing S.
Keeping the flow velocity constant, an increase in the water depth will result in an
increase in the flow discharge and bed shear stress and hence, it is expected to increase
the bed-material transport rates and concentration. All the three proposed equations are
directly proportional to the flow depth D and follow this expectation. However, for a
constant flow discharge, an increase in the water depth will result in a decrease in the
flow velocity and in turn a decrease in the transport rates and concentration of sediments.
Considering the order values of D and V(or u*) in the proposed transport rate predictors,
this expectation is also met.
The results of this study agree with the sensitivity analysis of five bed material load
predictors including Engelund-Hansen, Ackers-White, and van Rijn m a d e by Poplawski
et al (1989). Since the proposed relationships are simple, the sensitivity of the model to
hydraulic and sediment parameters is mathematically clear and no graphical analysis is
necessary.
i^naptero New development, 196
.J_JlJULJumAlll»¥<MWW¥¥-WVinrTIf ••••!-- ' ' • «IIIIWIIWI«WIIIW»IW»WWIIW^^ • •• •• nmmmrmmrmmmmmmmmmmmmmmvmmmmmnmmrmmmmm^^
The theoretical basis for, and fundamental equations of, a new sediment transport model
were introduced in this chapter. The model is based on the turbulence energy concept and
assumes that the concentration of suspended sediments at any level above the channel bed
can be related to the total turbulence energy production of the flow at the same level. B y
equating a proportion of the turbulent energy production to the work done in overcoming
gravitational settling of the particles, a concentration profile was immediately obtained.
The n e w approach w a s simpler than that of Rouse, in which transport rates due to
gravitational settling was equated to those due to diffusion. Based on the n e w approach,
a number of fully analytical and dimensionally homogeneous formulae were developed
for estimating concentration profiles and transport rates of both bed and suspended loads.
The application of the proposed equations to a number of natural channels and laboratory
flumes showed consistently satisfactory results. Compared to other methods, the n e w
model showed better predictions, particularly for fine sand.
Although the new equations have generally shown satisfactory predictions, further
investigation should be carried out using extensive data to determine the coefficients a,
P, and X. It is also possible that the values of a, P and X be determined for each
particular case study. This in-situ calibration will improve the accuracy of the
predictions.
In the new development, co refers to the mean fall velocity of the suspended particles. I
order to avoid the practical difficulties of suspended load sampling, it is suggested that co
be calculated based on the median diameter of bed material. The error introduced by this
approximation should be considered in the calibration of a, p and X.
Chapter 6 New development, 197
APPLICABILITY ANALYSIS
OF THE
SELECTED THEORIES
Chapter 7 Applicability analysis, 199
The results of the applicability analysis of the proposed transport equations as well a
other selected theories are outlined in this chapter using a wide range of data from
laboratory flumes and natural rivers.
The fluvial processes in water-sediment flows are extremely complicated and involve a
large number of hydraulic and sediment variables. Therefore, measured data are
necessary for most sediment research activities. This data can be used for:
Particularly, in the present research, field and laboratory data from transport rates o
and suspended loads as well as the sediment concentration are needed for the following
purposes:
A complete program for the collection of sediment transport data should include
simultaneously major hydraulic and sediment parameters affecting the m o v e m e n t of
sediment particles. Excellent sediment-transport data can be rendered nearly useless by
inadequate or incomplete flow data w h e n calibration or verification of the transport
theories is required. The collection of reliable sediment-laden flow data is a difficult and
costly operation.
Under ideal conditions, the following data should be measured: water discharge (average
flow velocity), flow depth, m e a n flow width (cross sectional information), vertical
ZzaaiZZLj. Applicability analysis, 200
distribution of the flow velocity, energy (water surface) slope, flow temperature, size
distribution and density of sediment material, vertical profile of sediment concentration,
suspended load transport rate (mean concentration of suspended particles), and bed load
transport rate.
Generally, the measurements of sediment loads in natural rivers are very difficult, costly
and time consuming. This results in a limited accuracy for the sediment-laden flow data
collected in thefield.For example, a detailed error analysis of the recently collected data
of Voogt et al (1991), in which modern measuring equipment w a s used, showed an
overall error of about 3 0 % in the suspended load transport due to the temporal and spatial
variations of sediment concentrations.
On the other hand, more investigations on the transportation of sediment particles have
been conducted in laboratory flumes than natural streams. D u e to the controlled
conditions of the water-sediment flow, the laboratory measurements are usually more
accurate and reliable than thefielddata. O n e disadvantage with the laboratory study is
Hmitation in the selection of the practical quantities of hydraulic and sediment parameters
which do not allow the researcher to simulate a large range of flows. Another important
drawback of experiments with laboratory flumes is that they are mainly carried out under
steady flow conditions, whereas this is not the case in natural streams.
Because of the difficulty in access to the whole cross section of natural streams,
especially in a flood situation, only a limited number of samples are taken at selected
points of the cross section. These samples m a y not be truly representative of the whole
flow. Considering the large variation of concentration and transport rate of both bed and
suspended loads with respect to time and space, correct measurement of sediment
properties requires educated decisions regarding the location of sampling cross sections,
positions of sampling verticals and points, and frequency of sampling. The accuracy will
€haptc*7 Applicability analysis, 201
be increased by increasing the number of sampling verticals and points in a cross sec
Also, since the transport rate changes rapidly during floods, frequent sampling is required
and the sampling period should be sufficient to represent an accurate value of the average
sediment discharges.
The rate of bed load transport is usually measured by the direct determination of the
weight of sediments passing a cross section of the flow in a particular time. This is done
by bed load traps permanently embedded in the channel (slot samplers) or by means of
portable bed load samplers. According to Prof. Paul Novak - 1987, IEAust eminent
speaker (presentation in Brisbane) - different bed load samplers m a y give results differing
by 5 0 % and more.
Several slot samplers which have been used to date include: the vortex-tube trap
(Hayward and Sutherland, 1974); the conveyor-belt trap (Leopold and Emmett, 1976);
and the fixed gravel-accumulating slot (Reid et al, 1980). Unfortunately, practical
limitations with respect to length and width of slot samplers reduce the applicability of
these measuring devices. The slot samplers are only suited to relatively narrow channels
and their reliability in measuring gravel particles with widespread hopping along the bed
is questionable.
There are also different kinds of portable samplers including box or basket type sampl
tray or pan type samplers, and pressure difference samplers (Hubbell, 1964). The best
known pressure difference sampler is the so-called Helley-Smith sampler (after Helley
and Smith, 1971). The presence of any of these bed load samplers in the vicinity of the
bed disturbs the flow and reduces the actual rate of bed load transport (Ashida, 1980).
Hence, a percentage of the true bed load is caught by the samplers, ranging from 4 0 % for
earlier samplers to greater then 1 0 0 % for Helley-Smith sampler. However, for the range
of particle sizes between 0.5 m m and 16 m m , an efficiency of close to 1 0 0 % can be
adopted where the velocity is less than 3 m/s ( W o n g et al, 1992, p. 55). It is necessary to
k n o w the sampler efficiency to compute the true bed load discharges. The efficiency is
defined as the ratio of the trapped sediments to that actually moved as bed load, and is
usually obtained by calibration and tests with laboratory scale models. T o date, no
reliable information has been presented for the trapping efficiency of particles coarser than
Applicability analysis, 2 0 2
16 m m (Carson and Griffiths, 1987). Laboratory calibrations have shown that the
efficiencies of all tested portable samplers vary somewhat with transport rate and particle
size (Hubbell, 1987). Further sources of error in bed load sampling m a y be the result of
the sampler not sitting immediately on the bed, over-filling of the sampler volume,
irregularities of bed forms, and unknown thickness of bed load layer (Graf, 1971, p.
360).
On the other hand, sediment transport rates in the process of bed load movement are
subjected to extreme temporal and spatial variations. Hence, the number of lateral
sampling traverses and frequency of sampling have serious effects on the probable
percentage errors of bed load measurements (Hubbell, 1987). Considering all these
facts, a number of investigators believe that the bed load samplers (at least those
developed before 1969) are unreliable to the extent that empirical estimates are often
preferable to direct measurement (Australian Water Resources Council, 1969, p. 1).
According to Nordin (1980), there are four requirements for the correct sampling of
suspended sediments: (1) the sampler should be streamlined to minimise flow
disturbance, (2) the intake velocity of the sampler nozzle should be the same as the stream
Chapter/ Applicability analysis, 203
velocity so particle segregation does not occur during the sampling procedure, (3) the
sampling time should be long enough to average the temporal concentration fluctuations,
and (4) spatial coverage should be sufficient in any cross section to permit accurate spatial
integration. There are also limitations on the depth through which samples m a y be taken,
the vertical transit rates of the samplers, and the quantity of the samples to be taken with
respect to the total sampling volume of the samplers (Interagency Committee, 1963). In
order to reduce probable errors these Hmitations should be met.
Automatic pumping samplers are also used to determine the concentration of sediment
particles at regular intervals and selected points in streams by gulp sampling. In general,
these samplers do not meet the requirements of an ideal sampler. The velocity in the
intake is not equal to the flow velocity and the intake does not point into the approaching
flow. However, the pumping sampler can be calibrated by comparing m e a n
concentrations determined with it to m e a n concentrations determined using standard
depth- or point-integrating samplers ( A S C E Task Committee on Sedimentation, 1975, p.
333). The calibrated sampler can produce a continuous record of sediment concentration
with sufficient accuracy.
Because of the limitation in sampling equipment, there is always an unsampled flow zone
close to the channel bed which contains some unmeasured suspended load. The
unmeasured load is usually computed by a semi-empirical method, such as Colby and
Hembree (1955), based on the measured data. This in turn m a y insert some errors into
the total load calculations.
Many laboratory and field measurements have been carried out over past decades in an
attempt to relate the discharge and concentration of sediments to the hydraulic parameters
of the flow and bed material characteristics. Unfortunately, most of the published data is
not available to the author. The natural channel and laboratory flume data, which are used
in this chapter, are taken from those published material which were accessible.
To compute bed and total load transport rates based on the proposed theory, Eqs. 6.56
and 6.58 are used. The calibration coefficient X is obtained from Eq. 6.57. Here, almost
all of the collected total load measurements represent the transportation offineor medium
sands with suspended load constituting the major component of total sediment discharge.
For the application of the proposed suspended load formula (Eq. 6.35) the proportionality
coefficient p is assumed to be equal to 0.02 as discussed in Chapter 6.
Lttupwi') Applicability analysis, 204
In the following applicability analysis, a discrepancy ratio r, which is defined as the ratio
of computed sediment discharge to measured transport rate, is used.
Clearly, for each individual set of data, the closer the calculated r to one, the mo
accurate the predictions. T h e results of the application of the selected models to the
collected data are summarised in the statistical analysis of the discrepancy ratios,
including the arithmetic average(AVG), standard deviation(STD), and percentages of r
values within the range 0.5-2.0 (Score). Obviously, for an ideal model the parameters
A V G , S T D , and Score should have the values of 1.0, 0.0, and 100, respectively.
However, it should be emphasised that due to the complexity of sediment transport
processes and inaccuracies in the measurements, particularly for natural rivers, sediment
discharges in general can not be predicted precisely. In sediment transport theories, an
equation which is able to predict the transport rates with a Score of 6 0 % or more is
considered reasonably good.
The applicability analysis of existing sediment transport theories has been made ma
times previously by White et al (1973 and 1975), A S C E Task Committee on
Sedimentation (1975), Yang and Stall (1976), Yang and Molinas (1982), Shen and Hung
(1983), van Rijn (1984a and b), Lau and Krishnappan (1985), Hean and Nanson (1987),
Nakato (1987 and 1990), Bechteler and Vetter (1989), and Yang and W a n (1991).
However, White et al (1975) and Y a n g and W a n (1991) have m a d e the most
comprehensive analysis.
White et al (1975) examined 8 methods of sediment transport with over 1000 flume dat
and 260fieldmeasurements. The methods examined included 6 of the selected theories
in this thesis, i.e. Meyer-Peter-Muller (1948), Einstein (1950), Bagnold (1966),
Engelund-Hansen (1967), Toffaleti (1968), and Ackers-White (1973). White et al
classified their results according to the dimensionless grain size (d* in Eq. 2.6), and
evaluated the selected theories by plotting the calculated discrepancy ratio against d*. The
mean, m a x i m u m and m i n i m u m discrepancy ratios for each set of data and each theory
were indicated on the plots. Based on this analysis the best accuracy was obtained for the
theories of Ackers-White and Engelund-Hansen with the scores of 68 and 63,
respectively.
Yang and Wan (1991) tested 7 methods of sediment transport against 1119 sets of flum
data and 319 sets offieldmeasurements. Yang and W a n classified the collected data
according to the measured values of bed-material concentration, Froude number and slope
y/rftfei.,; Applicability analysis, 2 0 5
and showed that the accuracy of a theory may depend on these parameters. Five of the
selected theories by Yang and W a n including Einstein (1950), Engelund-Hansen (1967),
Toffaleti (1968), Ackers-White (1973), and Yang (1973) are also selected in the current
research. The results of the analysis for each theory were given in terms of A V G , S T D ,
and Score of the discrepancy ratios. Based on this study the best accuracy was obtained
for the theories of Yang (score within the range 0.5-1.5 = 83), Ackers-White (72), and
Engelund-Hansen (69) for the laboratory data, and for the theories of Yang (60), Colby
1964 (60), and Ackers-White (55) for the river data.
None of these comprehensive analyses tried to classify the accuracy of sediment tran
theories based on the data from individualrivers.Although such classification is less
informative, it allows for the selection of methods best suited for a givenriver.O n the
other hand, most of the selected methods in this thesis have already been analysed
according to the dimensionless grain size, measured concentration, Froude number, and
slope by White et al and Yang-Wan. Hence, it was decided to study the applicability of
the selected theories based on individual laboratory flumes and naturalrivers.This may
provide additional information to the available performance analyses.
Nakato (1990) published 29 sets of field data from suspended sediment transport in th
Sacramento river, California. The data was collected by the United States Geological
Survey between 1977 to 1979 from two standard gauging stations along theriver,one in
Butte City and the other near Colusa. The reported data cover a wide range of water
discharges (142m3/s to 2243m 3 /s) and mean flow velocities (0.52m/s to 1.79m/s). The
appropriate hydraulic and sediment data are summarised in Tables 7.1 and 7.2. The very
close values of wetted perimeter (Column 6, Tables 7.1 and 7.2) and water surface width
(Column 7, Tables 7.1 and 7.2) indicate that the Sacramento river is a wide shallow
channel with the flow width much greater than the depth. The bankfull water discharge
along the study reach of the river is about 2270 m 3 /s, and the m a x i m u m water discharge
is about 4810 m 3 /s.
Table 7.1. Suspended sediment transport data from Sacramento river at Butte
City, California (After Nakato, 1990).
Data Date Q Qs A P B S T d
50 u*/C0
No. irr/s kg/s m2 m m „104 °C mm
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)' (7) (9) (10)
(8) (11)
1 12-12-77 632.8 57.0 566.5 151.1 149.5 2.25 10.0 0.47 1.44
2 04-01-78 294.0 5.0 358.1 145.5 144.6 2.04 9.5 0.39 1.34
3 11-01-78 2024.0 168.0 1144.2 162.6 154.0 2.82 10.0 0.43 2.46
4 12-01-78 918.4 157.0 712.6 152.7 149.5 2.24 11.0 0.43 1.74
5 17-01-78 2242.8 233.0 1293.0 165.7 160.1 2.88 11.0 0.43 2.56
6 20-04-78 470.4 10.0 492.1 149.1 147.3 1.83 13.0 3.80 0.28
7 01-06-78 218.96 1.0 351.6 146.3 145.5 1.11 18.5 6.00 0.15
8 05-07-78 228.76 1.1 348.8 146.1 145.2 1.25 18.5 5.70 0.16
9 08-11-78 178.08 0.4 314.4 145.8 145.2 1.06 13.5 6.30 0.14
06-12-78 205.24 0.8 328.4 145.3 144.6 1.22 8.0 0.33 1.23
10 16-01-79 1052.8 250.0 768.4 153.3 149.8 2.45 7.5 0.40 2.11
08-02-79 150.1 0.3 289.3 144.6 144.0 0.99 10.0 0.40 0.82
11 15-02-79 1170.4 166.0 863.3 155.8 151.9 2.22 9.0 0.40 2.08
12 08-03-79 319.2 3.8 406.5 146.6 145.2 1.46 13.5 3.15 0.25
13 05-04-79 262.4 1.9 368.4 145.2 144.0 1.35 13.5 0.41 1.01
14 16-05-79 245.3 1.3 350.7 145.2 144.3 1.40 18.0 5.10 0.18
Note: Q = Water discharge; Q s = Suspended sediment transport rate; A = Area of flow cross section; P =
Wetted perimeter; B = Water surface width; S = Water surface slope; T = R o w temperature and dso
= Median diameter of bed material.
Table 7.2. Suspended sediment transport data from Sacramento river at Colusa,
California (After Nakato, 1990).
Data Date Q Qs A P B S T d
50 u*/C0
No. m^/s kg/s ™2 in m *io 4
°C mm
(1) (2) (3) (4) m
(5) (6) (7) (9) (10) (11)
(8)
1 23-02-77 164.9 2.6 235.3 82.5 81.4 1.60 11.0 0.45 1.09
2 13-05-77 257.3 22.0 311.6 86.4 85.1 1.83 14.5 0.38 1.51
3 04-11-77 142.0 3.1 213.0 81.5 80.5 1.64 14.5 0.39 1.18
4 17-12-77 380.2 27.3 434.4 92.1 89.7 1.44 9.5 0.42 1.46
5 19-01-78 1122.9 74.5 910.7 117.0 112.8 1.78 10.5 0.62 1.46
6 08-02-78 1079.7 162.0 887.5 116.1 111.6 1.78 10.0 0.60 1.49
7 07-03-78 1117.2 90.5 910.7 117.0 112.8 1.78 11.5 0.88 1.12
11-04-78 616.0 43.4 609.3 98.0 94.5 1.47 14.0 2.00 0.49
8 09-01-79 206.9 11.3 261.4 82.6 81.4 1.80 9.0 0.35 1.64
9 17-01-79 686.0 56.6 634.4 102.6 99.4 1.69 7.5 0.40 1.96
10 15-02-79 1038.8 12.6 856.8 109.9 104.9 1.72 9.0 0.48 1.82
11 06-03-79 340.8 11.8 398.2 87.9 85.4 1.21 11.5 0.38 1.43
06-04-79 280.0 60.6 360.0 86.8 84.8 1.35 14.5 0.37 1.44
Note: Q = Water discharge; Q s = Suspended sediment transport rate; A = Area of flow cross section; P =
Wetted perimeter; B = Water surface width; S = Water surface slope; T = Flow temperature and dso
= Median diameter of bed material.
Chapter 7 Applicability analysis, 207
Table 7.3. Bed-material size characteristics data for Sacramento river at Butte
City, California (After Nakato, 1990).
Date d
16 d
35 d
50 d
65 d
84 d
90
mm mm mm mm mm mm
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)
d35 d d d d
Date d
16 50 65 84 90
mm mm mm mm mm mm
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)
Data Propo- Rijn Wiuff Einstein Toffal- Samaga Celik & Bagnold
No. sed eti Rodi
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
Data Propo- Rijn Wiuff Einstein Toffal- Samaga Celik & Bagnold
No. s ed eti Rodi
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
1 1. 959 3.677 1.888 3.976 0.504 2.096 0.638 3.704
2 0 .561 1.607 0.928 1.005 0.220 0.616 0.174 1.059
3 1.546 1.858 1.613 3.676 0.490 1.690 0.481 2.918
4 0.525 0.683 0.822 0.953 0.182 0.468 0.178 0.995
5 0 . 689 1.550 1.500 0.695 0.178 1.210 0.224 1.303
6 0.31 1.103 0.687 0.005 0.142 0.547 0.099 0.586
7 0 .433 0.723 0.663 0.022 0.094 0.521 0.139 0.818
8 0.962 2.231 1.496 1.925 0.467 0.787 0.321 1.822
9 0 .714 1.666 1.813 0.676 0.334 1.090 0.239 1.353
10 0. 5 1.140 1.247 0.332 0.181 0.772 0.146 0.858
11 0.815 1.639 1.138 1.721 0.312 0.736 0.271 1.542
100
10 •
Proposed
E
co 1
D Rijn
O 0.1
o
• Wiuff
co 0.01
O
II 0.001 O Einstein
0001 |—i—•—i
5 10 15
Data point No.
10
o m*
oD 9 D
ooo n
: •
Toffaleti
E 1 •
• M
! r_ • » •
•
to • • * • •
•
• D Samaga et al
ao o.i
1
fc*
w I • Q •
Celik-Rodi
m •
a
•- 0.01 D O Bagnold
0.001 • l_ -+•
_i_ -D-O- •
-+- 1 ____ l _ -n—
5 10 15
Data point No.
Fig. 7.1. Discrepancy ratios rfrom application of suspended load equations to Sacramento river at Butte
City, California.
For collecting the depth-integrated sediment-laden flow samples, the USGS' P-61
suspended load sampler was used at five EDI's of flow. This equipment can not sample
near the river bed because the intake nozzle is about 0.10 m above the sampler bottom.
Hence, the reported transport rates in Tables 7.1 and 7.2 refer to the measured suspended
loads without considering the unmeasured suspended load. Since no bed material finer
than 0.062 m m was found in the bed-material samples, suspended-sediment discharges
for those finer than 0.062 m m were considered to be wash load. The wash load
component is not included in the data of Tables 7.1 and 7.2. In order to avoid complexity
and the injection of probable errors, Nakato (1990) made no attempt to account for the
unmeasured loads.
The high-flow events at Butte City seem to coincide with a pronounced node in the sand
range bed material, particularly in the 0.25-0.50 m m size class, as can be seen in Tables
7.1 and 7.3. The low-flow events subsequent to the high-flow events tend to wash out
imiuipier i Applicability analysis, 210
7.1 and 7.3. The low-flow events subsequent to the high-flow events tend to wash out
the finer bed materials, resulting in extremely coarse median sizes (dso -bout 6.0mm), as
exemplified by Data Nos. 6 to 9 (see Tables 7.1 and 7.3).
From the engineering point of view, it is reasonable to assume that the large values
are irrelevant for the suspended transport calculations. Such coarse particles can be
hardly brought into the suspension and do not represent the main proportion of the
suspended material. However, in order to follow the classical computations of the
selected theories, which are mostly based on the size characteristics of the bed material
rather than suspended load itself, an arbitrary selection of median diameter was avoided.
Furthermore, a number of theories (e.g. Einstein, 1950 and van Rijn, 1984b) use other
particle sizes such as di6, d35, des, d84, and d9o of the bed material samples as well as
dso and consider the effect of finer particle sizes. Nakato (1990) also used the actual bed
material size gradation in tests of selected sediment transport formulae. It should be noted
that despite the large values of dso for Data Nos. 6 to 9 of Table 7.1, the values of di6
and d35 are m u c h smaller than the median size (see Table 7.3).
Using the computer programs developed in Chapter 5, transport rates of suspended bed
materials have been predicted. Tables 7.5 and 7.6 show the computed discrepancy ratios
and their statistical analysis. S o m e data (those without Data No. in Tables 7.1 and 7.2)
have been rejected and not used in the analysis because of the probable errors and
inconsistency with the other data sets. The graphical comparison of the calculated
sediment discharges with the measured values is given in Figs. 7.1 and 7.2, where the
calculated discrepancy ratios are shown. The line r=l represents the line of perfect
agreement.
It is interesting to note that in Sacramento river, the bed material covers a wide ra
particle sizes, and still for all the cases, even for dso = 6.30mm, suspended load
transport is reported. A possible reason m a y be that in the size distribution of bed
material (Tables 7.3 and 7.4) there is always a proportion of particles (at least 1 6 % )
which are m u c h finer than the median size and hence can be easily brought into the
suspension.
In application to Sacramento river at Butte City, almost all of the theories except th
proposed model have failed to present an acceptable prediction, especially for the data
sets with median diameters larger than 2.0mm (Table 7.5). This is because most of these
methods have been developed based on the concept of median diameter in defining their
critical conditions for suspension. In normal conditions for most rivers, sediment
particles greater than 2.0 m m in diameter are seldom brought into suspension. However,
since the bed material mixtures are not log-normally distributed and the sizes of a
£i_t~£ Applicability analysis, 211
considerable portion of the particles are m u c h less than the median diameter, it m a y be
reasonable to assume that a proportion of the bed material moves in suspension. For
such sediment mixtures the median diameter is not a good parameter for the definition of
incipient motion. In general, depending on the size distribution of bed material, sediment
sizes smaller than dso (e.g. d35 and di6) are better indicators for the initiation of motion
of suspended sediments.
The theories of Rijn, Wiuff, Einstein, Toffaleti, and Samaga et al failed to calculate th
suspended loads for Data Nos. 6 to 9 (Table 7.5), where the median diameter is about
6.0 m m . For these instances, it seems that engineering judgement should be used for the
selection of an appropriate sediment size which more accurately indicates the suspended
load size gradation. However, the proposed suspended load equation and Bagnold's
formula were able to give very satisfactory predictions for these critical instances as well
as for the other data sets.
1 0-p
;
•
Proposed
E : & O
CO v a g !7 9 D Rijn
a n A •
—v~
o
co
1 •
§ O
m
•
• •
o
•
Wiuff
a O Einstein
u 0.1 ,. J i
—i— -1 1 L —\~
I I I !
4 8 12
10
• Toffaleti
E ____•« . * . O O
CO
1 -r
ID T-s-fr D Samaga et al
ao0.1 -t
: •
co • Celik-Rodi
a- 0.01
II O Bagnold
0.001 j i_ H—i—'—M_i-P—'—"-
4 8 12
Data point No.
The calculated transport rates in Tables 7.5 and 7.6 indicate total suspended loads.
However, data in Tables 7.1 and 7.2 do not include the unmeasured suspended loads. A
part of the over-prediction of the selected equations can be attributed to this fact.
In application to the Sacramento river at Colusa, the four theories of Wiuff, van Rijn
Samaga et al, and Bagnold as well as the proposed equation have shown satisfactory
predictions. In these theories 100, 82, 82, 82 and 82 percent of estimated transport rates
have fallen within the range 0.5-2.0 times of the measured sediment discharges,
respectively (Table 7.6).
Despite the poor performance of Wiuff theory for Butte City station, here with a score
1 0 0 % Wiuff has indicated the best predicability. This suggests that Wiuff procedure is
applicable only to the sediment particles in the sand size range, i.e. median diameter not
greater than 2.0mm.
Celik and Rodi's model has under-predicted the transport rates. In the best case, 43%
the estimated values from this theory fall within the range 0.5-2 times the measured
sediment discharge (Table 7.5). This m a y indicate that Celik and Rodi's empirical
relation for the evaluation of effective shear stress for suspension under-estimates the
actual shear stress used in moving suspended particles. Celik and Rodi have stated that
their method is not applicable to sediment sizes greater than 0 . 6 m m in diameter. This
m a y be the reason for the weak performance on Butte City station. However, for Colusa
station, where most of the median diameters are less than 0.6mm, the score is only 1 %
which is m u c h worse than the predictions for Butte City.
The under-estimation of Celik and Rodi's model and the satisfactory predictions of the
proposed equation m a y support the following general statement: "The overall shear stress
is effective in suspension rather than the proportion which is associated with grain
roughness", as it is used in Celik and Rodi's development.
Table 7.7. Summary of sediment transport data from Krammer tidal channel,
Netherlands (After Voogt et al, 1991).
Data Date V <3s depth T d
50 d
90 u*/C0
No. (m/s) (kg/sm) (m) (°C) (mm) (mm)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
1 01-04-87 1.35 1.73 10.8 5 0.275 0.370 4.00
2 01-04-87 1.43 2.96 10.8 | 5 0.275 0.370 4.27
3 01-04-87 1.45 3.03 10.4 5 0.275 0.370 4.29
4 01-04-87 1.47 3.05 10.2 5 0.275 0.370 4.33
5 01-04-87 1.52 1.87 | 10.0 5 0.275 0.370 4.48
6 01-04-87 1.54 1.56 9.6 5 0.275 0.370 4.48
7 01-04-87 1.59 1.76 9.5 \ 5 0.275 0.370 4.62
8 01-04-87 1.48 1.83 9.6 5 0.275 ! 0.370 | 4.31
9 01-04-87 1.46 2.35 9.5 5 0.275 0.370 4.24
10 01-04-87 1.38 1.42 9.5 5 0.275 0.370 3.98
11 01-04-87 1.30 1.60 9.3 5 0.275 i 0.370 3.76
12 01-04-87 1.27 1.23 9.3 5 0.275 0.370 3.67
13 08-04-87 1.41 1.12 7.0 7 0.345 0.470 2.90
14 08-04-87 1.48 2.27 6.5 7 0.345 0.470 3.00
15 08-04-87 1.59 2.72 6.4 7 0.345 0.470 3.21
16 08-04-87 1.63 2.97 5.9 7 0.345 ! 0.470 3.23
17 08-04-87 1.75 4.50 6.8 7 0.345 0.470 3.57
18 08-04-87 1.76 4.82 6.4 7 0.345 0.470 3.55
19 08-04-87 1.73 7.18 7.7 7 0.345 0.470 3.63
20 08-04-87 1.81 5.23 | 7.2 7 0.345 0.470 3.74
1 1.19 0.53 5.72 2.21 3.85 1.04 0.71 0.96 1.43 2.20 0.31
2 0.88 0.43 4.90 1.77 3.09 0.85 0.47 0.73 0.92 1.64 0.24
3 0.89 0.45 5.02 1.83 3.16 0.88 0 .47 0 .74 0.94 1.66 0 .24
4 0.92 0.49 5.31 1.93 3.33 0.93 0.48 0.77 1.01 1.72 0.26
5 1.73 0.97 10.68 3 .77 6.48 1.82 0.85 1 .52 2.13 3.22 0.49
6 2.00 1.22 12.97 4.65 7 .91 2.25 1.05 2.05 2.55 3 .92 0.60
7 2.00 1.28 13 .79 4.80 8.17 2.34 1.00 2 .71 2.80 3.91 0.61
8 1.53 0.85 8.71 3.27 5.52 1.57 0.82 1.30 1.61 2.87 0.44
9 1.13 0.62 6.19 2.38 3.99 1.13 0.62 0.95 1.11 2.11 0.32
10 1.45 0.73 6.93 2.84 4.77 1.33 0.91 1.20 1.72 2.71 0.41
11 1.05 0.51 4.44 1.96 3.24 0.90 0.74 0.86 1.27 1.97 0.30
12 1.25 0.59 5.02 2.27 3.75 1.04 0.93 1.02 1.48 2.34 0.35
13 1.52 1.17 5.62 2.28 5.49 1.76 1.18 0.93 2.16 2.88 0.42
14 0.86 0.74 3.47 1.38 3.29 1.08 0.61 0.86 1.24 1.65 0.25
15 0.94 0.87 4 .39 1.57 3.90 1.27 0.56 1.17 1.29 1.80 0.28
16 0.91 0.91 4.34 1.59 3.84 1.28 0.53 1.17 1.20 1.75 0.28
17 0.84 0.80 4.98 1.46 3.95 1.26 0.38 1.15 1.23 1.62 0 .25
18 0.78 0.77 4.55 1.38 3.65 1.18 0.36 1.08 1.09 1.50 0 .24
19 0.54 0.46 3 .27 0.89 2.53 0.78 0.23 0.71 0.86 1.03 0.15
20 0.85 0.78 5.53 1.46 4.17 1.30 0.35 1.18 1.46 1.63 0.25
21 0.79 0.73 4 .86 1.35 3.76 1.18 0.34 1.08 1.25 1.51 0.23
22 0.83 0 .74' 5.21 1.40 3.98 1.24 0.35 1.13 1.37 1.59 0 .24
23 0.66 0.54 3.65 1.05 2.93 0.91 0.31 0.83 0.91 1.25 0 .18
24 0.89 0.75 4 .75 1.44 3.90 1.22 0.45 1.12 1.13 1.70 0 .25
25 0.72 0.59 3 .31 1.13 2.91 0.93 0.42 0.86 1.02 1.36 0 .20
26 0.61 0.48 2.58 0.93 2.35 0.75 0.39 0.60 0.90 1.15 0 .17
27 0.72 0.50 2.75 1.03 2.61 0.81 0.54 0.40 1.08 1.36 0 .19
28 0.70 0.62 2.88 1.44 2.51 0.82 0.52 0.73 j 0.80 1.36 0 .26
29 0.65 0.58 2.91 1.36 2.43 0.79 0.44 0.89 0.76 1.26 0 .24
30 0.61 0.54 3 .03 1.29 2.39 0.76 0.37 0.99 0.69 1.18 0 .22
1.02 6.35 3.09 4.51 1.42 0.85 1.52 1.29 2 .44 0.47
41 1.27
42 1.15 0.93 6.42 2.88 4.31 1.34 0.70 1.87 1.04 2 .21 0 .42
43 1.19 0.96 6.61 2.97 4.44 1.38 0.73 1.93 1.07 2 .28 0 . 43
44 1.10 0 .89 7.66 2.87 4.57 1.38 0.56 2.21 1.42 2 .10 0.38
45 0.92 0.78 6.69 2.48 3.93 1.19 0.47 1.90 1.25 1.76 0 .32
46 1.45 1.34 11.3 4.10 6.45 1.98 0.75 3.11 2.09 2 .78 0 . 52
47 1.10 0 .91 8 .12 2.93 4.71 1.41 0.55 2.25 1.53 2 .11 0.38
48 1.05 0.83 7.93 2.76 4.52 1.34 0.50 2.12 1.53 2 .01 0.35
49 1.10 0.81 7.41 2.75 4.46 1.31 0.55 2 .14 1.39 2 .09 0 .37
50 0.99 0.65 5 .71 2.28 3.68 1.07 0.54 1.08 0 . 98 1.88 0.32
1 78
90 0 52 3 95 57 90 6 8 8
Score 100
Chapter 7 Applicability analysis, 215
•
van Rijn
E
(0
o Proposed
O
o
(0
•
Bagnold
O
ll o Ackers-White
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Data point No.
10T ••
• L.•fcJilr_ P _"«
• Engelund-Hansen
E •••• yv
CO ° Yang
O 1
O
s -tor*** © * Einstein
II
*
O Toffaleti
0.1 • 111111 • 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Data point No.
100
• Samaga etal
w 1 o-,—C&r-r
o n Wiuff
° 1 • Celik-Rodi
II '
0.1
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Data point No.
Using an Acoustic Sand Transport Meter (ASTM), flow velocities and sand
concentrations were measured on the top of a submerged sill (width in
= 300m) at elevations 0.2m and 1.0m above the bed, at mid depth, and 2
Chapter 7
Applicability analysis, 216
water surface. T h e concentrations were also measured at levels 0.05, 0.1 and 0.2m
above the bed using a p u m p system. The flow velocities at these locations were obtained
through the extrapolation of the A S T M velocity measurements. The suspended sediment
samples collected by the p u m p system were analysed in a sedimentation tube to obtain the
particle fall velocity. F r o m the depth integration of the product of the velocity and
concentration profiles sediment discharges were computed. According to Voogt et al
(1991), a detailed error analysis has shown an overall error of about 3 0 % in the
calculated sediment transport rates.
The size gradation of bed-material was obtained by the sieve analysis of samples col
by a grab sampler. Table 7.7 represents sixty field data collected in April 1987 from the
K r a m m e r tidal channel in the Eastern Scheldt estuary in the South Western part of the
Netherlands.
Another interesting point with respect to the Dutch tidal channels is the method of t
determination of the energy slope. D u e to the non-steady nature of the tidal flow the
direct measurement of the slope was rather difficult and would easily lead to large errors.
Hence, the slope was evaluated based on Chezy formula and an empirical relationship
between bed-form dimensions and effective bed roughness. Equations 4.9.34, 4.9.26,
and 4.9.15, as discussed in Sec. 4.9 in the presentation of Rijn's (1984a, b and c)
theory, were used in the computation of slope. Echo-sounding profiles of the bed were
made to determine the average bed-form length and height at the measuring locations.
Voogt et al data indicates the transportation of total bed material load. However, d
the small particle sizes and the high values of flow velocities it can be assumed that
sediment materials mostly travel in suspension and the bed load component is negligible.
This assumption is supported through the computation of bed and suspended load
transport rates by a number of existing theories.
Using the reported data and the developed computer programs, the transport rates of
suspended bed material and total loads were predicted. The discrepancy ratios were then
Chapter 7
Applicability analysis, 111
calculated and given in Table 7.8. The graphical comparison of the calculated
discrepancy ratios is shown in Fig. 7.3. In application to the K r a m m e r tidal channel, the
proposed total load equation and the methods of Yang, van Rijn, and Samaga et al have
indicated very satisfactory predictions with scores of 100, 95, 90 and 90, respectively
(Table 7.8).
A portion of the poor performance of some of equations can be related to the errors
produced by the method of computation of the energy slope and the adopted empirical
relationship. Particularly in the absence of the measured values of slope, the developed
computer programs use the calculated values of the bed-form dimensions to estimate the
energy slope. This in turn m a y reduce the accuracy of the sediment discharge
predictions, especially for those theories which are more sensitive to the slope such as
Engelund-Hansen.
Using the same procedure as described for the Krammer tidal channel, Voogt et al (1991
collected another sixty sets of data from the other tidal channels of the Eastern and
Western Scheldt estuaries in the south western part of the Netherlands. The collected data
are presented in Table 7.9.
Here again due to the small particle sizes (d50 from 0.18-0.25 mm) and high flow
velocities, bed load component can be neglected. Hence, all the selected equations except
Meyer-Peter and Muller can be applied to the reported data. Using the developed
computer programs, the transport rates of suspended bed material and total loads were
estimated. The calculated discrepancy ratios and the statistical analysis are given in Table
7.10. Fig. 7.4 shows the graphical comparison.
Chapter 7 Applicability analysis,
1 2.00 1.07 10.70 7.75 5.29 1.62 2.49 3.33 1.44 3.49 0.83
2 1.54 1.04 10.87 7.53 4.67 1.51 2.29 2.54 1.24 2.69 0.64
3 1.55 1.31 13 .31 8.96 5.23 1.75 2.75 4.45 1.53 2 .74 0.66
4 1.33 1.31 13.07 8.52 4.81 1.63 2.62 4.56 1.68 2.35 0.57
5 1.37 1.53 14.97 9.50 5.23 1.79 2.92 4.72 2 .21 2.44 0.59
6 1.39 1.56 15.36 9.82 5.35 1.85 3 .05 4.85 2 .28 2.47 0.60
7 1.40 1.56 15.96 10.30 5.51 1.94 3.26 5.00 2.41 2.51 0.62
8 1.31 1.44 15.03 9.66 5.16 1.82 3 .05 4.65 2.29 2.34 0.58
9 1.09 1.26 11.56 7.59 4.12 1.45 2.41 3.89 1.61 1.94 0.48
10 1.07 1.22 11.23 7.37 4.03 1.40 2.33 3.81 1.54 1.91 0.47
11 1.05 1.16 10.55 7.03 3.87 1.35 2.24 3.73 1.36 1.87 0.46
12 1.00 1.04 9.57 6.45 I 3 .59 1.25 2.06 3.51 1.16 1.78 0 .44
13 0.82 0.50 5.41 3 .74 2.40 0.75 1.12 1.35 0.60 1.43 0.34
14 0.96 0.59 6.57 4.46 2.85 0.89 1.31 1.56 0.75 1.67 0.39
15 1.07 0.60 6.55 4.55 3.00 0.92 1.36 1.74 0.69 1.85 0.43
16 1.60 1.96 16.35 11.37 6.00 2.21 3.82 5.96 2.09 2.86 0.74
17 1.50 1.82 15.52 10.57 5.65 2.04 3.48 5.52 2.03 2.69 0.69
18 1.62 1.59 12.40 9.35 5.26 1.92 3.28 5.17 1.34 2.88 0.76
19 1.35 1.17 10.74 7.59 4.41 1.52 2.46 3.56 1.22 2.38 0.59
20 0.72 0.48 4.80 3.42 2.13 0.69 1.07 1.20 0.52 1.26 0.30
21 0.78 0.56 5.79 3.99 2.43 0.80 1.22 1.29 0.67 1.36 0.33
22 0.55 0.33 3.51 2.46 1.58 0.50 0.75 0.90 0.38 0.95 0.23
23 0.97 0.69 . 7.62 5.10 3.11 1.00 1.51 1.62 0.90 1.71 0.40
24 0.91 0.53 5.85 4.04 2.62 0.81 1.20 1.49 0.64 1.58 0.37
25 1.54 0.87 8.80 6.31 4.18 1.30 1.98 2.53 0.99 2.66 0.63
26 1.24 0.57 6.72 4.57 3.23 0.93 1.33 1.97 0.89 2.12 0.47
27 1.27 1.21 12.18 7.99 4.53 1.53 2.45 4.34 1.51 2 .25 0 .54
28 0.99 0.56 6.54 4.38 2.87 0.87 1.25 1.60 0 .74 1.72 0.39
29 0.56 0.34 4.40 2.78 1 .77 0.54 0.75 0.89 0.54 0.98 0.22
30 1.22 1.33 12.30 8.14 4.49 1.56 2.57 4.30 1.61 2.17 0.53
31 0.55 0.29 3 .59 2.38 1.58 0.47 0.66 0.89 0 .40 0.96 0.21
32 1.41 1.17 10.57 7.60 4 .47 1.54 2.49 3.03 1.18 2.48 0.62
33 0.98 0.54 5.58 3.98 2.66 0.82 1.24 1.62 0.65 1.70 0.40
34 0.90 0.49 5.14 3 .62 2.43 0 .74 1.11 1.47 0.58 1.55 0.36
35 1.90 1.20 13.65 9.14 5 .77 1.81 2.65 3 .08 1.60 3 .30 0.76
36 1.32 0.66 7 .48 5.15 3.53 1.05 1.52 2.12 0.88 2.26 0.52
37 1.41 1.08 5.67 5.54 3 .28 1.31 2.98 2.33 0.78 2.49 0.74
38 1.34 1.19 6.15 6.07 3.34 1 .40 3.16 2.25 0.79 2.38 0.72
39 4.14 4.79 28.14 25.51 12.59 5.36 11.25 14.30 2.52 7.44 2.19
40 6.02 6.84 48.91 40.06 19.82 7.90 15.74 20.43 4.92 10.80 2.99
41 1.64 1.29 9.46 8.12 4.51 1.70 3.39 2.65 0.92 2.90 0.80
42 1.84 2.07 9.75 7.10 5.88 2.25 2.10 4.18 1.31 3 .21 0.91
43 1.32 1.17 5.03 4.05 3.55 1.30 1.39 1.67 0.89 2 .26 0.64
44 0.54 0.36 2.02 1.33 1.49 0.48 0.39 0.58 0.45 0.90 0.22
45 1.39 0.97 5.26 3.48 3 .86 1.25 1.01 1.50 1.15 2.30 0.56
46 0.97 0.70 4.00 2.55 2.82 0.92 0.69 1.06 0.86 1.61 0.39
47 1.07 0.81 5.64 3.14 3.51 1.13 0.70 1.19 0.94 1.80 0 .42
48 3.01 3.55 17.27 19.37 7.98 3.85 11.49 8.45 1 .40 5.45 1.76
49 3.26 4.82 33.36 33.72 11.58 5.61 14.57 13.62 3 .18 5.99 1.87
50 2.00 2.97 22.42 21.87 7.54 3.54 9.11 8.53 2.36 3 .80 1.16
51 1.47 2.21 13.57 13.15 4.91 2.19 5.91 5.71 1.17 2.69 0.80
52 0.69 0.51 3 .63 3.58 1.72 0.68 1.90 1.22 0 .39 1.24 0.36
53 2.71 1.91 12.21 11.79 6.42 2.46 6.16 4.63 1.59 4 . 81 1.41
54 4.87 6.56 45.85 39.36 16.78 6.87 16.01 17 .73 4 .40 8.82 2 .50
55 2.13 0.95 12.27 14.29 4.51 1.60 10.19 4.20 0 .99 3 .83 1.03
56 0.72 0.67 3.56 2.15 2.38 0.74 0.44 1.09 0 .60 1.23 0.33
57 0.68 0.59 3 .30 1.96 2.22 0.67 0.40 1.03 0 .58 1.16 0.30
58 0.90 0 .67 3 .39 2.35 2.51 0.81 0.67 1.07 0 .69 1.51 0.39
59 0.73 0.59 3.81 2.22 2.39 0.76 0.49 0.89 0 .62 1.24 0.31
10
° ?—
E •
(fl van Rijn
O
o Ii • Proposed
W
O •
Samaga et al
il (a)
0.1 i i
0 Bagnold
20 40 60
Data point No.
100
•
Toffaleti
D Einstein
•
Celik & Rodi
O Wiuff
20 40 60
Data point No.
100 -F
Yang
0 20 40 60
Data point No.
Fig. 7.4. Application of sediment load equations to the Eastern and Western
Scheldt estuary tidal channels.
At Scheldt estuary tidal channels the flow velocities, and water depths are similar to
of the K r a m m e r tidal channel and the bed material particles are finer and more uniform.
However, because the data are collected from a number of different channels, there is
more inconsistency in the collected data. In general, in comparison with the data from the
K r a m m e r tidal channel, the accuracy of the reported data is some what less. Especially
for Data N o . 39 to Data N o . 55, where most of the predictors have given large
Chapter 7 Applicability analysis, 221
discrepancies (see Fig 7.4 and Table 7.10), the reported data includes some systematic
measurement errors.
Due to the reduced accuracy of the data, the predicability of all the applied sediment
transport theories (except Celik and Rodi's method) are reduced by up to 2 6 % . Again the
proposed total load equation and the methods of Yang, van Rijn, and Samaga et al have
shown the best predictions with scores of 88, 78, 75 and 74, respectively (Table 7.10).
Comparison of the predicted total loads of Ackers-White formula with the measured data
of Tables 7.7 and 7.9 shows a m u c h larger prediction for the data of Table 7.9. For
these data sets the Ackers-White formula has predicted transport rates that are
significantly too high for fine sands (d 50 < 0.2 m m ) . The score from this formula is only
3 % within a factor of two of the measured values.
The theories of Wiuff and Engelund-Hansen have also over-predicted and failed to
present acceptable results. Celik and Rodi's procedure has produced better results, but
still under-estimates the transport rates. The better score of Celik and Rodi's equation is
related to the systematic errors of the data and not to the capability of the theory.
Tests against the Dutch tidal channels indicated that most of the selected theories ar
rather sensitive to the computed values of the energy slope. The variation of the bed-
form length and height with the tidal flow velocity, and in turn variation in the effective
bed roughness (ks), have significant effects on the predicability of these theories. For
example, using k s values that are a factor of two lower and higher corresponds to
changes of a factor of three to four in the transport rates of the Ackers-White and
Engelund-Hansen formulae (Voogt et al, 1991).
Based on the applicability analysis of the Netherlands tidal channels, the proposed to
load equation has shown the best predicability and is hence recommended for application
to the cases of movement of fine sands with high flow velocity.
Hollingshead (1971) published 24 sets of measured data from bed load transport in the
Elbow River, Alberta. The data was collected during 1966 - 67. The Elbow River is a
steep-slope medium-sized stream draining the east slope of the Rocky Mountains in
western Canada. The bed of the Elbow is normally armoured and has a median particle
size of 76 m m . The gravel particles below the armour layer represent the actual bed
material available for transport. The long term size distribution of the bed load was found
Chapter 7 Applicability analysis,
to be very close to these particles. Thus, the actual bed material consisted of gravel with
dso = 25 m m , dgo = 100 m m , and specific gravity = 2.64. Despite the obvious care taken
for the measurements, only one value of bed-material size gradation was given for the
complete data sets in the published results (Hollingshead's Fig. 7, Graph 'a').
For the determination of the hydraulic geometry of the river, Hollingshead surveyed
twenty cross sections within a river length of 1036 m . T h e shapes of these cross sections
indicate a composite channel with width m u c h greater than depth. The velocity-depth
measurements were taken by a Gurley current meter. From this study a set of equations
was given to relate the flow width, depth, and velocity to the water discharge. After
continuous water level recording, an average value of the water surface slope (S =
0.00745) was reported for the whole set of data.
The total flow discharge, average depth, and water surface width in the Elbow River
range between 35-109 m 3 /s, 0.64-0.86 m , and 38-49 m , respectively. It was noticed that
the bed load transport occurs only over 3 0 % of the river width. The width of active bed
movement strips w a s detected by a directional crystal transducer which was used as a
hydrophone.
Bed load was measured by means of two sizes of Basket samplers. As another
measurement the accumulation of bed load particles within river bed excavations was
measured by successive surveys during the period of filling. However, only the results
of the large Basket sampler were directly reported in Hollingshead's (1971) paper. A
summary of the measured water and sediment discharges is presented in Table 7.11.
Hollingshead (1971) tested the bed load theories of Meyer-Peter and Muller (1948),
Einstein (1950), and Colby and Hubbell (1961) against his collected data. The hydraulic
geometry of the whole channel, rather than that of active bed movement strips, was used
in the computations. T h e test results indicated a wide discrepancy between the predicted
bed loads and the measured values. The difference between the m a x i m u m and minimum
predictions was estimated to be 300 times. A part of this discrepancy can be related to the
fact that the shear stress over the active bed movement strips might be m u c h greater than
the average shear stress. T h e high local shear stresses m a y cause sediment transport
while the average shear stress m a y indicate no transport. Hence, applying an average
shear stress to the entirerivercross section is not realistic. It is more logical to use the
hydraulic properties of that portion of theriverwhich actually contributes to the bed load
transport in the tests of the bed load equations. Hollingshead used this argument to
propose a method for the estimation of bed load transport rates based on active width of
Chapter 7 Applicability analysis, 223
Table 7.11. Summary of bed load transport data from Elbow river, Alberta.
Data Date Q Va Wa Da U
*/C0 Qb
No. m 3 /s m/s m m kg/s
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)
Note: Q = Flow discharge over the whole cross section; W a = Width of active bed movement; V a = Mean
flow velocity over the active width; D a = M e a n flow depth over the active width; Q b = Total bed
load transport rate; Slope = 0.00745; dso = 25 m m ; d9Q = 100 m m ; and water temperature is
assumed to be 20 °C.
The selected bed load equations are applied to the data of Table 7.11 and the calcula
discrepancy ratios are given in Table 7.12. Figure 7.5 indicates the graphical comparison
of the calculated discrepancy ratios.
Chapter 7 Applicability analysis.
Table 7.12. Discrepancy ratios r from application of bed load equations to the
Elbow River data.
Data No. Proposed Rijn Bagnold MPM Einstein Toffaleti Samaga
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)
1 1.89 1.95 7.84 6.59. 50.65 0.01 1.74
2 1.96 2.37 9.15 7.19 53.90 0.02 0.68
3 1 . 92 3.14 10.80 7.20 49.29 0.06 0.21
4 4.90 9.00 29.42 17.84 117.99 0.99 0.40
5 2 . 14 4.27 13.21 7.94 50.24 0.00 0.17
6 2.18 4.18 13.58 7.45 49.76 0.00 0.14
7 210 . 61 441.05 1400.84 632.61 4344.22 0.00 10.37
8 2 . 05 4.37 12.99 7.65 46.92 0.00 0.15
9 8.39 16.21 53.11 27.55 187.20 0.00 0.47
10 5 . 44 9.99 34.47 16.62 119.88 0.00 0.26
Data N o . 7 in Table 7.11 has been rejected from the applicability analysis due to its
inconsistency with the other data sets. Compared to the other data, a very low value of
the bed load transport is reported for Data N o . 7 for no significant change in the flow
properties. For this data set, all of the selected equations have calculated bed load
discharges which are m u c h greater than the reported value (see Table 7.12).
Due to the large bed material sizes of Elbow River, dso = 25 mm and doo = 100 mm, all
the bed load predictors except the proposed equation have failed to present acceptable
predictions. T h e proposed bed load predictor has shown a score of 61 with an average
value of 2.27 for the calculated discrepancy ratios. The theories of Meyer-Peter and
Muller, Einstein, and Bagnold have consistently over-predicted the transport rates for all
of the instances, while the theories of Toffaleti and S a m a g a et al have under-estimated.
The bed load predictor of Rijn has shown reasonable estimations for about half of the data
sets and has produced a score of 48.
The main proportion of the inaccuracies in the predicted bed load discharges can be
attributed to the use of only one bed material size distribution for the complete data sets.
Chapter 7 Applicability analysis, 22
In natural conditions, the composition of bed material is not constant and changes with
different values of flow discharges (Garde and Ranga Raju, 1985, p. 292). From Table
7.12 and Fig. 7.5 it can be seen that the reported size gradation of bed material
corresponds to Data Nos. 11 to 20, where most of the predictors have shown more
reasonable transport rates.
100-B
E • Rijn
• • •
O 10 • * • • " r * •
o • •a - ° , *•• • • -a D
Proposed
CO nfla an • . fl5
O 1s -flrrfl-^^r^O- * Bagnold
n
0.1 J i i i | i I_I __| i L_J i |_i—i i—J | i . i i i_
5 10 15 20 25
Data point No.
1000
E 100 _D_ • MPM
w TTET
;nDn DD n •.nn n
nnnan DD
O D a
u 10
Einstein
• • • •
w
O 1 : •
* Samaga
n • •
_ _l l_ I I I I—1—1-
0.1 I I I _
I '
5 10 15 20 25
Data point No.
Fig. 7.5. Application of bed load equations to the field measurements of Elbow
river.
Another part of the obtained inaccuracies can be related to the empirical coefficient
in the selected equations. These equations are largely dependent upon the empirical
values which have not been calibrated for large particle sizes (doo = 100 m m ) . For
example, Rijn has recommended that his bed load formula not be used for particle sizes
greater than 2.0mm in diameter.
For the majority of the data sets, the calculation of bed load transport rates based on the
active bed movement strip has improved the accuracy of the predictions m a d e by Meyer-
Peter-Muller and Einstein. This can be seen from the comparison of the results of Table
7.12 with those of Hollingshead's (1971) Figure 10.
Chapter 7 Applicability analysis, 226
The satisfactory predictions of the proposed bed load equation can be related to the simple
approach used in the derivation of this equation and probably its closeness to the physics
of bed load transport.
Inbar and Schick (1979) published seven sets of data from the transportation of co
and boulders in the upper reaches of two mountain streams. The rivers were Jordan and
Meshushim in the northern part of Israel which drained an area of 1590 k m 2 and 160
k m 2 , respectively, into lake Kinneret. M e a n annual rainfall for Jordan river basin ranged
between 400 m m and 1600 m m . The entire amount fell in winter. The annual runoff-
rainfall ratio was 4 0 % for Jordan river. One-third of total runoff came in floods caused
by rainstorms. The approximate mean annual peak flow was 100 m 3 /s. The highest flow
during the 43 years of recording reached 214 m 3 /s.
Suspended sediments during flood reached concentrations of 8000 to 10000 ppm. Its
annual yield was about 50 tons/km 2 (1 ton = 1000 kg). The total sediment yield
including solute matter was 170 tons/km2 per year. Bed load transport amounted 1-2%
of the total sediment yield and occurred mainly during flows that exceed 60 m 3 /s.
During the flood of January 1969, which was generated by a rainstorm with a frequen
of once in 100 years, cobbles and boulders up to 1700 m m in size were transported in
theserivers.Here the median diameter dso varied from 80 to 300 m m but the values of
d9o were not published.
As there was no facility for the direct measurement of the transport rates of such
particles, Inbar and Schick used a combination of hydrologic and geomorphic methods to
measure the bed load discharges indirectly. The determination of sediment mass
deposited downstream of a reference section near the outlet to the lake was used for the
estimation of the transport rates of bed load particles. Field and photographic
measurements and surveying of the rivers boundary before and after the flood were also
used for the complementary measurement of bed load.
The summary of the hydraulic parameters and indirectly measured bed load transport
are presented in Tables 7.13 and 7.14. Tables 7.15 and 7.16 and Figure 7.6 indicate the
calculated discrepacy ratios resulting from the application of selected bed load predictors
to Jordan and Meshushim rivers.
CI
BE}er.Z Applicability analysis, 227
Table 7.13. Summary of bed load transport data from Jordan river, Israel
(Inbar and Schick, 1979) .
Note: Q = Water discharge, Q b = Bed load transport rate, and water temperature is assumed to be 20 °C.
Table 7.14. Summary of bed load transport data from Meshushim river, Israel
(Inbar and Schick, 1979) .
Note: Q = Water discharge, Q b = Bed load transport rate, and water temperature is assumed to be 20 °C.
Table 7.15. Discrepancy ratios r from application of bed load equations to the
Jordan River data.
Data No. Proposed Rijn Bagnold MPM Samaga Toffaleti Einstein
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)
Table 7.16. Discrepancy ratios r from application of bed load equations to the
Meshushim River data.
Data N o . Proposed Rijn Bagnold MPM Samaga Toffaleti Einstein
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)
100
= o o o o
• Bagnold
E ! <> o-
W 10 u
p
Proposed = fl n n 1=1
a 1 [
o
fl—fr
* Samaga
to
etal I
0.1 _____
" •
a 0.01
!
:
•
•
^ Einstein
• • • «
; •
0.001
0 2 4 6 8
Data poin No.
Fig. 7.6. Application of bed load equations to the Jordan and Meshushim
Rivers data.
When applied to the Meshushim River, where the bed material consist of boulde
= 200~300mm, almost all of the bed load predictors except Meyer-Peter and Muller have
failed to present acceptable predictions. The proposed equation and Bagnold's formula
have also shown higher predictions for these very large bed material sizes. For the case
of Jordan River (d50 = 80~300mm), however, none of the equations have responded
satisfactorily. The best results have resulted by using the proposed equation and
Bagnold's model with the average values of r equal to 29.43 and 26.16, respectively. It
is possible that for theses rivers, due to the indirect measurement, the reported bed load
discharges do not represent the actual values. This has made the mean values of r for
most of the equations much larger than unity (e.g. for Einstein method, the mean value of
r = 484).
From the results of Tables 7.15 and 7.16 it is clear that due to the size lim
the selected bed load predictors are not applicable to the Israeli rivers.
A comprehensive measurement of bed load transport has been made by Leopold and
Emmett (1976) in East Fork River, Wyoming, during 1973-1975. A bed load trap,
'SF7 Applicability analysis, 229
W W W W M M * ......-r-i-i-rrfrifrtVvwyuif»if»uiAr<&LAftji.rui.L- i
consisting of a concrete open slot (0.4m wide and 0.6m deep) spanning the entire river
bed orthogonal to the flow direction, was used for collecting the bed load samples. A n y
sediment particle which m o v e d near or on the channel bed would fall into the concrete
slot. The bed load entering the trap was conveyed to the bank on a series of moving belts
and into a hopper where its accumulated weight was recorded continuously. The size
distributions of the trapped bed load particles were then determined and recorded. Hence,
the size gradation reported by Leopold and Emmett was related to the bed load particles
rather than to the bed material of the stream. The median size of the bed load ranged
between 0.5 m m and 1.63 m m .
The drainage area of the East Fork River at the measuring station is 466 km2. About ha
of this basin area lies within the W i n d River Mountains that rise to an elevation of 4300m.
The other half is provided by a major tributary, M u d d y Creek, that drains an upland of
rolling hills underlain by lower Tertiary sandstone and shale. The M u d d y Creek basin
provides most of the debris load, but the majority of the water during high flow comes
from melting snow from the mountain area. Most of the bed load movement occurs
during the high-flow season which is late M a y to mid June. The bankfull discharge of
the channel is 20 m 3 /s which, in the annual series, has a recurrence interval of about 1.5
years. The water surface slope averaged over 1.5 k m of the river length, is .0007
(Leopold and Emmett, 1976). .
A summary of the appropriate flow and sediment transport data is presented in Table
7.17. The selected bed load equations are applied to these data and the resultant
discrepancy ratios are indicated in Table 7.18 and Figure 7.7.
In the absence of the bed material size distribution, the median size of bed load is
the proposed bed load formula (Eq. 6.56). This appears to be a better representation of
the fall velocity of the bed load particles compared to that of d90 of the bed material.
Also, despite the fact that the calculated ratios of u*/co in Table 7.17 are smaller than 1.0,
X=1.32 is used instead of k=0.4co/u* in the computation of bed load. This is because,
the calculation of the parameter co in Table 7.17 is based on dso of bed load particles, and
hence indicates the m e a n fall velocity of bed load. However, in Eq. 6.57 the term co
represents the fall velocity of total load and is obtained based on dso of bed materials.
Since the median size of bed material is much smaller than that of bed load, it is expected
that the actual ratios of u*/co are m u c h greater than the calculated values in Table 7.17.
Chapter 7 Applicability analysis, 2
Table 7.17. Summary of bed load transport data from East Fork river, Wyoming
(Leopold and Emmett, 1976) .
Date Qb Depth d
50
m 3 /s kg/s m mm
(2) (3) (4) (5)
Table 7.18. Discrepancy ratios r from application of bed load equations to the
East Fork River data.
23 0 i 3 3' 10 36 0
Score 31
100-e
_ •— -
E • _
&: • van Rijn
(A 10-D ____L__fi__L ,•__ _h____!_
'-a- •-•• • ^ — - • • - _ ! •
o n
o
C
_ •_" •••• * D P ObrC _P* Proposed
CO cd_e __ac_L.W EL
O •a * Bagnold
n
0.1 -I—I—- -h-• i i I_I i i i _
10 20 30 40
Data point No.
1000
o^ C »O—-O- •
MPM
E ioo> »%»»
D Samaga et al
* Toffaleti
O Einstein
• ••
10 20 30 40
Data point No.
Fig. 7.7. Application of bed load equations to the East Fork River data.
All the equations, except Toffaleti model, consistently over-predicted the bed load
transport rates of East Fork River (e.g. Einstein gave the mean value of r = 99). The best
results were produced by Toffaleti, Meyer-Peter and Muller, and the proposed method,
with scores of 36, 33, and 31, respectively.
By looking at Fig. 7.7, one can see that the 39 data sets of Table 7.18 can be
two distinct bands, one with discrepancy ratios close to one (e.g. Data Nos. 2-5 and 15-
21), and the other with much higher discrepancy ratios (e.g. Data Nos. 8-14 and 30-34).
Apparently, the higher discrepancy ratios are the result of the limitation in the availability
of the bed material which is caused by the initial spring rise of river stage. The measured
bed loads for these instances are lower than the transport capacity of theriver.Also, the
median size of bed load particles is smaller at the beginning than at the end of the runoff
season as stated by Leopold and Emmett (1976). Hence, it is unreasonable to expect any
formula to reproduce the whole 39 sets of data. The calculated results of the proposed
Chapter 7
Applicability analysis, 233
equation agree quite well with those data sets which truly represent the transport capacity
of the river.
In the investigation of Proffitt and Sutherland (1983), where bed load transport of E
Fork River was estimated using the methods of Paintal (1971) and Ackers and White
(1973) based on computation for different size fractions, the estimated bed loads were
about 10 times greater than the reported measured values. Nordin (1980) has also found
a large scatter between the estimated bed loads from a number of equations and the
measured transport rates of East Fork River. Nordin attributed the poor results obtained
to the availability of bed material and concluded that it is generally impossible to predict
transport rates of sand-gravel streams using a simple method.
Each grade was first laid as a thick sediment bed in the flume. The flow depth and
discharge were then set to desired values, and maintained until the conditions of dynamic
equilibrium were monitored for which the sediment, flow and generated bed-form
variables were constant. T h e water chemistry was controlled so that the sediment
behaved as if cohesionless. The flow temperature was uncontrolled during experiments,
and was allowed to reach a m a x i m u m of about 27 ° C for all runs (Mantz, 1983).
The flow variables measured during each run were flow discharge, average water surfac
slope, average flow depth and temperature. The sediment variables measured were
suspended solids concentration, bed solids discharge, and their associated size
distributions. A s almost all the sediment transport predictors are not applicable to the
particle sizes smaller than fine sand, Mantz sediment transport measurements for d50 =
0.123mm is used in the applicability analysis.
Chapter 7 Applicability analysis, 2
A summary of the experimental data recorded near the termination of each equilibrium m n
is given in Table 7.19. In column two the numeric values (3, 6 and 9) refer to the table
number in the original source (Mantz, 1983) and the alphabetic letters (A, B , C, D , E and
F) refer to the experimental runs.
Table 7.19. Summary of Mantz (1983) laboratory flume data for silica solids
with median diameter dso — 0.123mm.
Data Run No. Q Qs Qb Depth S „ 103 T u*/a>
No. nr/s kg/s kg/hr m °C
(1) (2) (3 (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
The selected sediment load estimation methods were applied to the Mantz data and the
resultant discrepancy ratios are indicated in Tables 7.20 to 7.22 and Figs. 7.8 to 7.10.
Chapter 7 Applicability analysis, 236
: •
•
• •
u n • • D D •
van Rijn
1 . D •
0 n g
E • •
(0 u •
& O • • D Proposed
O • •
0 1 -
o o
CO 0 0 0 •
Bagnold
- 0
O 0 (11 - •
•
V
n o O Samaga et al
0.001 - 1 1 1
-+- J i •
-+- i i i i
4 8 12
Data point No.
100
•
Toffaleti
E • •
v> 1o D Einstein
•
o * a • * •
• • • •
(0 Wiuff
a
II O Celik & Rodi
_i i
0.1 _—1—+
4 8 12
Fig. 7.8. Application of suspended load equations to Mantz flume data for silica
solids with median diameter d^o = 0.123mm.
Mantz laboratory flume measurements indicate the transportation of fine sand wit
0.123mm, as both bed and suspended load materials. In natural streams such fine
particles m a y be difficult to m o v e as bed load and are also very difficult to measure
accurately. Even under laboratory conditions, the accurate measurement of the bed load
transport of such fine particles is difficult.
From the results of the application of suspended load equations to the laborator
data of Mantz (Table 7.20), it is clear that the developed sediment transport model has
presented the best predicability with a score of 64. The other equations have shown
scores less than 36. The better accuracy of the proposed suspended load equation
indicates its good compatibility with the transportation of fine suspended solids.
Chapter 7 Applicability analysis, 23
1u -
* van Rijn
E K i_ ii
1- D Proposed
a • _l • a
O • a ©
o - •
•
'•
o o
W 0 ••
rv
•
Bagnold
an
0.1 -
.
_> • o B •
S O
•
O Samaga et al
_
• i • J i 1 _1 — , —
4-
• i
0.01 - •
—\-
0 4 8 12
Data point No.
100
• Toffaleti
£ 10 TT
«j
•
O • Einstein
o 1
CO : • •
• • •
O • MPM
2. 0.1
_i i — 1 _
0.01 J I 1 L. H—'—i—'—•—h
4 8 12
Data point No.
Fig. 7.9. Application of bed load equations to Mantz flume data for silica solids
with median diameter dso = 0.123mm.
10-i
Fig. 7.10. Application of total load equations to Mantz flume data for silica
solids with median diameter d$o = 0.123mm.
Chapter 7 Applicability analysis, 238
Celik and Rodi's model has predicted zero suspended load discharges for all data poin
This can be related to the initiation of suspension criterion used in their procedure. Based
on this criterion the strength of the flow is not sufficient enough to m o v e the particles into
the suspension m o d e . S a m a g a et al procedure always tends to under-estimate the
sediment discharges. This theory has calculated suspended loads which are on the
average about 12 times smaller than actual discharges.
When bed load equations were applied to the Mantz data, the best predictions resulted
Bagnold's model, the proposed formula, and Einstein bed load function (Table 7.21).
The bed load equations of Meyer-Peter and Muller, and van Rijn, both with scores of 9,
have failed to produce a satisfactory prediction. These two equations are not applicable to
particles smaller than 0 . 4 m m and 0 . 2 m m in diameter, respectively. All the predictors,
except that of Einstein which usually over-predicts, have consistently under-predicted bed
load discharges. This suggests that the actual transport rates of bed load particles might be
smaller than the reported values. This finding is supported by the fact that despite the
bigger values of bed shear velocity in comparison with the mean fall velocity of particles,
the reported bed loads for such fine particles are about two times greater than the reported
suspended loads.
In application of the three total load equations of Yang, Engelund-Hansen, and Ackers
White (Table 7.22), the best predicability was shown by Yang's theory with a score of
73. This indicates that Yang's total load equation and his criterion for initiation of
sediment motion is successfully applicable to fine sands.
Brooks' primary aim was to study the various parameters governing the equilibrium rat
of transport of fine sand in suspension. Hence, each run represented a stable uniform
flow in equilibrium with its movable sand bed. Table 7.24 shows the most important
measured quantities for each experimental run. According to Brooks (1958), the second
series of experiments (runs 21 to 30) are more reliable because of improvement in
Cha te
P L?.. Applicability analysis, 23
experimental techniques due to experience with the earlier runs. All the selected total load
equations were applied to the Brooks data. The results are s h o w n in Table 7.25 and Fig.
7.11.
For Brooks data, the better predictions resulted from the proposed total load formula,
Y a n g unit stream power equation, and Ackers-White procedure with scores of 100, 100,
and 91, respectively (Table 7.25). T h e theories of Toffaleti and Bagnold also produced
satisfactory predictions with scores greater than 60.
Table 7.23. Size characteristics of bed materials used in Brooks (1958) investigation.
d d dg o
*16 *35 5 0 <*65 8 4
mm mm mm mm mm mm
S a n d No. 1
0.135 0.140 0.145 i 0.151 0.165 0.170
S a n d No. 2
0.075 0:084 0.088 j 0.094 0.104 0.108
S a n d No. 3
0.118 0.130 0.145 | 0.159 0.193 0.205
S a n d No. 4
0.098 0.123 0.137 { 0.155 0.193 0.205
S a n d No. 5
0.090 0.123 0.152 | 0.191 0.285 0.325
Table 7.24. Summary of Brooks (1958) laboratory flume data from total sediment
discharge.
Table 7.25. Discrepancy ratios r from application of total load equations to the
Brooks data.
Data Propo Rijn Samaga Toffal- Einste- Bagno- A-W E-H Yang
No. - s ed et al eti in ld
;
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)
AVG 1.00 0.63 0.16 1.70 10.69 1.83 1.37 0.51 1.46
STD 0.40 0.47 0.15 0.81 2.72 0.61 0.36 0.19 0.28
The established Einstein bed load function has failed to produce a satisfactory prediction
and again has estimated transport rates on the average 10 times greater than the measured
total loads. This indicates that Einstein procedure is not accurately calibrated for
application to particles smaller than 0.145 m m in diameter.
In application to the experimental runs with d5n = 0.088 mm (Data Nos. 11 to 19), Rijn
theory has always under-predicted the transport rates. This confirms Rijn's suggestion
that his suspended load equation is not applicable to sediment particles smaller than
0 . 1 m m in diameter. S a m a g a et al procedure also tends to under-estimate the sediment
discharges, especially in application to d 5 0 = 0.088 m m this theory has calculated the total
loads which are for s o m e instances up to 25 times smaller than the actual discharges.
Chapter 7 Applicability analysis,
1 0-p
E - a
D • van Rijn
CO 0
^ggan a a °
a • •
m
•
• n
Proposed
o
co 0.1 • . • •
• Samaga etal
a • • • • • • • •
II
0.01 i i i • i • i i • 1 • • i 1 • • i i l i • i •
4 8 12 16 20
Data point No.
uu -
E n D n D
D • Toffaleti
CO 1 0-rO- • -o-n- n nu n u n D
n • U u n n
a • • • • •
• n
Einstein
o - .• '• »
« <• • * • • • • • • '• •
H
(fl 1" u
=
m _ • Bagnold
o
II
1
0.1 - " J i—H- • • i i | i i i — i — | — i —1
•1 • •' •
4 8 12 16 20
Data point No.
1 O-c
E Ackers-White
CO
• •> 5 * * •
a 1 - !_•_
M * ^ _
— ? • . —
* •
• Engelund-Hansen
-•TT*
o a D • •
CO
a D -
O • a • a DDDDD DD • Yang
II
i i I i i i i
0.1 • ••• I i • • i I i i i i | i
0 4 8 12 16 20
Data point No.
Fig. 7.11. Application of total load equations to the Brooks laboratory flume
data.
Chapter 7 Applicability analysis, 24
In order to investigate the findings of Brooks, Vanoni and Brooks (1957) conducted
further laboratory research using a wider gradation of bed material and a wider and longer
experimental flume [33.5 inch (0.85 m ) wide and 6 0 ft (18.3 m ) long]. A s u m m a r y of
the measured data is reported in Table 7.26. T h e size distribution of sand N o . 4, which
was used in this experimental study, is given in Table 7.23.
Table 7.26. Summary of Vanoni and Brooks (1957) laboratory flume data from
total sediment discharge.
Data Run No. Q t 10 3 Qt A P S , 103 T u*/C0
No. 3. kg/s m2 m oc
(1) (2) nr/s (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
(3)
Data Prop- Rijn A-W E-H ! Yang Bagn- Samaga Toffa- Einst-
No. osed old leti ein
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) ; (8) (9) (10)
: (a)
E - D • van Rijn
CO •
O • • •
1 D ,•, • n
Proposed
I -
o [7 D
II 1 1 1
• t_ • •
CO _i
• • • Ackers & White
1
O • •
1
n •
1
• •
0.1 - • 1 1 1
—H _l 1 I 1
—h- 1 J 1 1—1 J
4 8 12
Data point No.
IU -
=
•
• •
_
E .• • • • Engelund & Hansen
• •
(A
• • K
D
a a • n . n
o 1 r-i I_ n Yang
-TIT III
O D a
(A
O Bagnold
II ]
_
(b)
,
0.1 - i
—H • • • i
—r- J 1 1 |_X
4 8 12
Data point No.
100
• Samaga etal
I 10
O • a Toffaleti
o D i_g a ° p.-.
CO
• Einstein
a 1
n (c)
J I 1 ^ 1-
0.1
4 8 12
Data point No.
Fig. 7.12. Application of total load equations to Vanoni and Brooks (1957)
laboratory flume data.
The laboratory flume data of Vanoni and Brooks indicate total load measurements of fine
sand with d50 = 0.137mm. Hence, those selected methods which are able to calculate th
Chapter 7
Applicability analysis, 244
total load were applied to this data. The calculated discrepancy ratios are given in Table
7.27 and Fig. 7.12.
Based on the results of the applicability analysis, the proposed model, Toffaleti theo
and Yang's unit stream power approach have indicated the best results with score of 92
for all the three methods. Ackers and White procedure with a score of 83 has also shown
a satisfactory prediction. Other equations have shown scores less than 58. Einstein bed
load function again over-predicted the total load discharges. This confirms the earlier
conclusion that Einstein's theory should not be applied to sediment material with dso
smaller than 0.145mm. The unsatisfactory predictions (Score = 3 3 % ) of Rijn's theory
can be related to the limitation of the suggested bed load formula. According to Rijn
(1984a), his bed load formula is not applicable to sediment with dso smaller than 2.0mm.
Nomicos (1956) also performed a set of experimental runs in the same flume as used by
Brooks. The distribution of sieve sizes for the three n e w sediment mixtures (Sand N o . 3
to 5) used in the investigation are given in Table 7.23. The values listed in Table 7.28 are
the appropriate measured hydraulic and sediment characteristics.
Table 7.28. Summary of Nomicos (1956) laboratory flume data from total
sediment load.
Data Run No. Q * 10 3 Qt A P S t 103 T u*/co
No. 3, kg/s m2 m °C
(1) (2) m/s (4) (5) (6) (8) (9)
(7)
(3)
Sand No. 5
1 2b 0.00476 0.00143 0.01962 0.41388 2.00 26.0 1.65
2 2 0.00540 0.00445 0.01962 0.41388 2.40 25.5 1.82
3 3a 0.00580 0.00664 0.01962 0.41388 2.60 25.0 1.91
4 3 0.00613 0.01132 0.01962 0.41388 2.75 25.0 1.97
5 4 0.00708 0.01812 0.01962 0.41388 2.70 25.0 1.95
6 5 0.00818 0.02869 0.01962 0.41388 2.40 25.0 1.84
7 6 0.00916 0.02642 0.01962 0.41388 2.25 25.0 1.78
8 7 0.01002 0.03322 0.01962 0.41388 2.10 25.0 1.72
9 8 0.01084 0.03548 0.01962 0.41388 2.00 25.0 1.68
10 1 0.01218 0.04228 0.01962 0.41388 2.25 25.0 1.78
11 9 0.01571 0.09060 0.01962 0.41388 3.90 25.0 2.34
Sand No. 3
12 A 0.01218 0.02265 0.01962 0.41388 2.10 25.0 1.86
13 B 0.00753 0.00906 0.01970 0.41450 2.70 25.0 2.11
14 C 0.00540 0.00128 0.01962 0.41388 2.10 25.0 1.86
Sand No. 4
15 H-2 0.01221 0.02869 0.01897 0.40900 2.50 24.3 2.25
16 H-3 0.01084 0.03548 0.01815 0.40290 2.25 24.0 2.10
Note: Q = Water discharge; Qt = Total sediment transport rate; A = Area of flow cross section; P = Wetted
perimeter; S = Water surface slope; and T = Flow temperature.
Chapter 7
Applicability analysis, 245
Similar to Brooks and Vanoni-Brooks, Nomicos also used three different bed material
mixtures all consisting of fine sand with median diameters d 5 0 changing from 0.137mm
to 0.152mm. Here again only the total sediment load was measured.
When total load equations were applied to the Nomicos data, the five theories of Ya
Ackers and White, Bagnold, Proposed procedure, and Toffaleti responded satisfactorily
with scores ranging from 75 to 62 (Table 7.29 and Fig. 7.13). The established theory of
Einstein estimated transport rates which were on the average 14 times greater than the
measured total loads. Rijn and Samaga et al procedures under-estimated the total load
discharges.
Data Prop - Rijn A-W E-H Yang Bagn- Samaga Toffa- Einst-
No. os ed old leti ein
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)
AVG 1.23 0.68 0.94 0.5 0.94 1.93 0.17 0.72 14.2
STD 1.29 0.59 0.63 0.37 0.51 1.73 0.09 0.43 17.78
Score 69 44 75 31 75 75 0 62 0
Chapter 7
Applicability analysis, 246
10
E • (a)
co • van Rijn
O n _, 5
•
• • M
u 1 -= D
Proposed
TT T_—
CO • • • • 5 • •
O u n
• s n n
u • Ackers & White
0.1 -I I l _ _ _
I •• _—I—I—I
8 12 16
Data point No.
10 -p
i—i i mn
•
•
.• ° Yang
o 1 —u—
i i TTIIH
1=1
n * • • • fi
CO •
" ° *D • n o . •
a • • . • "
• • Bagnold
H •
0.1 1
1 • •• 1
l • • •• -M1—1 ' ' 1•
0 4 8 12 16
Data point No.
100
• .(c)
E 10 • Samaga etal
(0 • • •
O n D n
o 1 TT ° Toffaleti
(0
:5 o 9 g a ° aa
a • • • •
• • • Einstein
i 0.1
0.01 | I I I I • • i,. i i i i i i i i i i i i i
8 12 16
Data point No.
Samaga (1984) conducted 33 sets of laboratory experiments on the alluvial beds of fou
sand mixtures in a recirculating tilting flume. The flume was located in the Hydrauli
laboratory of the University of Roorkee, India and was 30m long, 0.2m wide and 0.5m
K^IIUUICI / Applicability analysis, 2
_£
deep. T h e size distributions of the four sand mixtures used as bed material are given in
Tables 7.30 and 7.31.
For each experimental run a 0.15 m thick layer sediments was laid on the flume bed. T h e
flume w a s then set to the desired slope and water, at a predetermined rate, was gradually
allowed into the flume. The water-sediment mixture was circulated until the conditions of
uniform flow were observed. After the establishment of equilibrium conditions, velocity
distribution w a s measured by a Prandtl tube at width centreline, at a distance of 1 5 m from
the entrance to the flume. Using a pitot tube at the same location, sediment concentration
profiles were also determined through the analysis of the samples of sediment-water
mixtures collected at different elevations. K n o w i n g the flow velocity and sediment
concentration distributions, suspended sediment discharges were calculated by the depth
integration of the product of the velocity and concentration profiles from the water surface
to a height of two grain diameters from the local bed.
The total load concentration was measured with the help of a width-integrating sampler
which w a s installed at the downstream end of the flume to sample the entire depth of the
flow. T h e total load sampler w a s simply a vertical slot extending over the depth and
m o v e d across the width at a uniform speed to collect the sediment-water mixtures over the
entire cross section of the channel. Knowledge of the total and suspended load transport
rates enabled the computation of bed load for each experimental run.
Chapter 7
Applicability analysis, 248
In summary for each experimental run, bed and suspended load transport rates, flow
discharge, flow depth, water temperature, bed slope, and the vertical profiles of flow
velocity and sediment concentration were determined. Table 7.32 represents those
collected data which are needed for application to the sediment transport theories.
In application to the suspended load data of Samaga et al (see Table 7.33 and Fig. 7.14),
the proposed equation indicated the best predicability with a score of 84. Bagnold theory
with a score of 68 also gave satisfactory results. The other equations, including Samaga
et al, showed scores less than 48. Here again according to the Celik and Rodi's criterion
^•_.K.w , Applicability analysis, 249
for the initiation of suspension, the flow strength is not sufficiently high to move t
particles into the suspension and hence zero suspended load is predicted for all the data
points. Calibration of S a m a g a et al procedure is based on their o w n data, under-
estimated the suspended loads and resulted in a score of 35. The three theories of Rijn,
Toffaleti and Einstein estimated m u c h larger transport rates and failed to present
satisfactory scores.
Table 7.34. Discrepancy ratios r from application of bed load equations to the
Samaga et al laboratory flume data.
Score | 100 93 35 0 81 3 3
Chapter 7 Applicability analysis, 251
Table 7.35. Discrepancy ratios r from application of total load equations to the
Samaga et al laboratory flume data.
Score 100 . 3 90
Chapter 7
Applicability analysis, 2 5 2
10 0--
•
van Rijn
E
w a Proposed
a
o •
Samaga et al
(0
O o Toffaleti
II
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32
Data point No.
100
£ • Einstein
a
o a Bagnold
(fl
o • Wiuff
II
0.1
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32
Data point No.
W h e n bed load equations were applied to the Samaga et al data, the best predictions
resulted from the models of Rijn and Einstein with scores of 93 and 81, respectively
(Table 7.34 and Fig. 7.15). Other than Einstein procedure, which usually over-
estimates, all the other predictors including the established equations of Meyer-Peter and
Muller, Toffaleti and Bagnold consistently under-predicted the bed load discharges. Even
Samaga et al procedure estimated the bed load transport rates which are more than two
times smaller than the reported values.
The very satisfactory predictions of the proposed bed load formula (with a score of 100)
can not be considered as an independent verification because Samaga et al data were
already used in the calibration of this equation.
Chapter 7 Applicability analysis, 2
10
E • van Rijn
O a
cPi_i_r_
c: • *M* • "DQaniJ n
QO i:j I Proposed
" 1 -or i_n^ Dn \iy_n^
> n
5 % 13?• - • •"?D * •-.•" • Samaga etal
11 • • • • • •
11 - • «
0.1 i 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 i.;-f •-
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32
Data point No.
10-p
E • Einstein
w
O n Bagnold
o 1
(0
a : g ° g *V°^V^^ rf ^ Kg • MPM
n
• •• I • • • [ 1 • 1 | 1 1 1 | 1 1 1 | 1 1 1 | 1 1 1 | 1 1 1
0.1
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32
Data point No.
10-p
A m o n g the three total load equations of Yang, Engelund and Hansen, and Ackers and
White, the best accuracy was obtained by Ackers and White's theory with a score of 100
(Table 7.35 and Fig. 7.16). Yang's total load equation also produced satisfactory
predictions with a score of 90. Engelund and Hansen procedure under-estimated the total
loads with a factor of 3 times smaller on the average.
Total sediment concentration, flow discharge, water depth, water surface slope and f
temperature were measured for each experimental run. Flow discharge was measured by
a venturi-meter installed within the flow return pipeline. The concentration of total
sediment load was determined from sediment samples collected within the flume return
pipe system. Other instruments used in the measurement of the flow and sediment
variables included point gauges, ultrasonic depth sounder, total head tubes, point
sampling tabes, and a manometer board connected to ten piezometer taps located under
the sand bed along the flume centreline.
The bed materials used in Willis et al investigation were sand particles of almost e
size with a median diameter of about 0.1 m m and a specific gravity of 2.65.
For each experimental run, after ensuring that all equipment was calibrated and oper
properly, the flume was filled to the desired still water level, the p u m p was started and the
speed increased to give the desired flow rate. The flume was allowed to run for at least 8
hours to establish equilibrium slope, flow, and transport. The measurements were then
begun and total load sampler was allowed to collect samples.
Since all the experimental runs of Willis et al were performed under similar hydraul
sediment conditions, only the first 30 runs will be used in the applicability analysis. A
summary of the measured variables for these runs is given in Table 7.36.
Chapter 7 Applicability analysis, 25
Data Run No. Q (m3/s) Qt(kg/s) A (m2) P (m) S * 103 T (°C) u*/C0
No.
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
Data Prop- Rijn A-W E-H Yang Bagn- Samaga Toffa- Einst-
No. os ed old leti ein
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)
16 0.35 2.07 4.82 0.28 0.91 0.71 0.01 4.55 ' 6.03
AVG 0.88 0.85 3.52 0.48 0.99 1.72 0.04 3.15 18.01
Score 77 57 47 30 90 80 0 20 0
Similar to Brooks, Vanoni-Brooks, and Nomicos, Willis et al used fine sand (dso =
0.1mm) as bed material and only measured the total sediment load. W h e n the selected
equations were applied to the Willis et al data, the best predictions resulted using the
methods of Y a n g and Bagnold and the proposed model, with scores of 90, 80, and 77,
respectively (Table 7.37 and Fig. 7.17). The established theories of Einstein, Toffaleti
and Ackers-White over-predicted the transport rates and the theories of Engelund-Hansen
and Samaga et al under-estimated.
Chapter 7 Applicability analysis, 2
10 -IT
*
• •
E
(A
• • * D •* • van Rijn
o • • .* .'. U -
• p •• '• • _ • n
o 1 _ _ - " • • • — "
-D_—. Proposed
(0 n n D o fln__Q _, • •
O
• • D • Ackers & White
u
•• (a) "
0.1 I l l l I I I I I I • I • ' •
II •• • •• 'I •1 • • I ' • 1—1—1
0 8 12 16 20 24 28
10 -p
100
*
(c) • •
• •
• • • • • •
10 --, * ^ _ • - • - _ _ s- Samaga etal
E
n
w annn nnnn|_Dnn
O ° Toffaleti
u
(0
O • Einstein
0.1 --
n
0 0 1 4 H — * - m I ' ' ' I ' ' ' I ' ' ' *-1-m-m | • ' ' | ' ' ' I '
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28
The results of testing the proposed sediment transport equations and 11 existing theorie
against 333 sets of data from both laboratory flumes and natural streams are outlined in
this chapter. T h e results were clearly presented and indicated that the proposed equations
perform better than the others in most instances.
The tests generally indicated a large discrepancy between the predicted transport rates
the corresponding measured values. It w a s shown that the true applicability of the
selected sediment transport equations are more or less limited over a finite range of
hydraulic and particle size conditions. A method which is able to give satisfactory results
for one river, m a y provide unsatisfactory results in other cases. T h e predicted transport
rates from different theories often differ drastically from each other and from the observed
sediment discharges. N o n e of the theories are adequate for all conditions. However, the
proposed bed, suspended, and total load equations have shown better consistency with
both laboratory and field measurements.
In application to the suspended load data from Sacramento river at Butte City, in which
bed material covered a wide range of median diameter from 0 . 3 3 m m to 6.30mm, almost
all theories, except the proposed model, failed to present acceptable estimations. This is
because most of the selected theories have defined their critical conditions for suspension
based on the median diameter of the sediment mixture. However, for those non-uniform
bed materials, in which a considerable portion of the particles are m u c h finer than dso
(such as Data Nos. 6-9 in Tables 7.1 and 7.3), this parameter is not a good criterion for
the definition of incipient motion. In these cases, depending on the size distribution of
bed material, sediment sizes smaller than dso (such as d35 and di6) are better indicators
for the initiation of motion of suspended solids.
In application to the large bed materials of Elbow River (dso = 25 mm), all the bed load
predictors except the proposed equation failed to present acceptable predictions. These
predictors are largely dependent upon empirical coefficients which are not calibrated for
such large particle sizes. In application to East Fork River (0.5 m m < dso < 2 n ™ 1 ) m e
Chapter 7 Applicability analysis, 259
best results were produced by the proposed equation, Meyer-Peter-Muller formula, and
Toffaleti method.
When total load equations were applied to the Brooks, Vanoni-Brooks, Nomicos, and
Willis et al experimental data, where six different bed material mixtures all consisting of
fine sand (0.088 m m < dso < 0.152 m m ) were used in the investigations, the best
predictions were m a d e consistently by the proposed total load formula and Y a n g unit
stream power equation.
In application to the suspended load data of Samaga et al (0.2 mm < dso < 0-35 mm),
proposed suspended load equation indicated the best predicability with a score of 84.
Here, the proposed bed load equation produced a very satisfactory score of 100.
However, this equation was already calibrated with Samaga et al data and the good
accuracy obtained can not be considered as an independent verification.
Yang's unit stream power equation produced satisfactory predictions for almost all
collected total load data. This theory is especially suitable for application to the
transportation of fine sand.
Celik and Rodi's model always under-predicted the transport rates even for the cases
where the sediment particles were in the acceptable range of 0.005mm to 0.6mm in
diameter. This indicates that Celik and Rodi's empirical relation for the evaluation of
effective shear stress for suspension under-estimates the actual shear stresses. Their
proposed formula m a y need recalibration based on more extensive data. In some cases,
such as transportation of fine sand in Mantz and Samaga et al flume experiments, Celik
and Rodi's model has predicted zero suspended load discharges. This can be related to
the critical criterion for initiation of suspension used in the development. Based on this
Chapter? Applicability analysis, 260
criterion the strength of the flow is not sufficiently high to move particles into the
suspension mode.
In almost all the applied cases, Wiuff theory over-predicted the transport rates, especia
for the case of Netherlands tidal channels where small particles m o v e with high velocity.
This makes Wiuff s linear relation for suspended load efficiency questionable for high
velocity conditions. For these conditions, Wiuff s expression over-estimates the actual
suspended load transport efficiency.
The over-prediction of Engelund-Hansen theory will also limit the application of this
equation to special cases of movement of small particles under high velocity conditions.
However, in application to Samaga et at laboratory data, Engelund-Hansen procedure
under-estimated the total loads with a factor 3 times smaller than the average. Depending
on the hydraulic conditions, this theory has produced very variable scores.
Despite the complicated procedure and using a large number of correction factors, the
established Einstein bed load function failed to produce satisfactory predictions in most of
the applied cases and always over-estimated the transport rates. In particular, Einstein
procedure is not accurately calibrated for application to particles smaller than 0.15 m m in
diameter.
Considering the results of applicability analyses for all the collected data including b
suspended and total load measurements with the wide range of hydraulic conditions and
sediment sizes involved, the proposed theory was the only one which consistently gave
satisfactory predictions. In comparison to the other theories, the developed equations
were always one of the most accurate procedures. The proposed model showed better
predicability especially for the transportation of fine sand under high velocity conditions.
In application to the bed load data, the proposed model was able to give reasonably good
estimations for bed materials covering a wide range of sizes from 0.123 m m to 300 m m
in diameter. T h e proposed model also indicated very good capability for in-situ
calibration. The reasonably accurate results obtained can be related to the simple structure
of the proposed equations and probably their close relation with the physics of the
sediment transport phenomenon.
Chapter 7 Applicability analysis, 261
This study has supported the general concept that the overall shear stress is effectiv
the production of the suspended load rather than the portion associated with the grain
roughness.
Considering the wide range of variation of hydraulic and sediment parameters in differ
rivers and the variety of sediment transport theories, practicing engineers are
recommended to look at the several methods and select the one which shows better
consistency with the flow and sediment conditions of their special project.
Chaipteir .
AUSTRALIAN RIVERS
AND SEDIMENT
TRANSPORT RESEARCH
Chapter 8 Australian rivers, 263
8.1. Introduction
Australian rivers have certain unique features. The low suspended sediment
concentration, and very fine grain sizes are the main characteristics of the major inland
rivers of this country (Olive and Walker, 1982). A s a whole sedimentation rates in
Australia are not as high as the extremes in some other parts of the world. However,
there are areas where rates of erosion are serious. In Australia, the sediment problems are
characterised by their widespread distribution and by existence in areas which are
regarded as relatively stable (Australian Water Resources Council, 1969, p. 1). W a s h
load is more significant in Australia than in any other place. In some cases it constitutes
the major part of the total sediment yield (Poplawski and Gourlay, 1987).
To find out which sediment transport estimation method is more adaptable to Australia
rivers, the available theories should be tested against field observations. T o date there has
been a very limited number of studies conducted on the applicability of existing sediment
discharge equations for Australian conditions. This is mainly due to the lack of sediment
transport data available from the rivers and streams of this country. The very little data
collected in Australia and the reasons for the collection of data on sediment in streams and
reservoirs are discussed in a report by Australian Water Resources Council, 1969.
In this chapter, based on limited hydraulic and bed material data from an Australian
rivulet, an attempt is m a d e to show the difficulty involved in selecting one or more of the
m a n y existing transport predictors without having sufficient measured data. Field
measurements are in fact necessary to control the accuracy of the calculated sediment
discharges and to justify the applicability of any particular theory.
Only a few investigators have tried to study the applicability of the available bed
load equations to Australian rivers in recent years, amongst them are Hean and Nanson
(1987) and Poplawski et al (1989).
Hean and Nanson (1987) used eight well-known theories of bed load transport to
calculate the bed material discharges of 11 gauging stations in the four coastal rivers of
N e w South Wales, namely Manning, Karuah, Shoalhaven and Clyde rivers. Although
-r""; - Australian rivers, 26
H e a n and Nanson (1987) used eight well-known theories of bed load transport to
calculate the bed material discharges of 11 gauging stations in the four coastal rivers of
N e w South Wales, namely Manning, Karuah, Shoalhaven and Clyde rivers. Although
the selected equations covered the popular models of Meyer-Peter-Muller (1948), Einstein
(1950), Engelund-Hansen (1967), and Bagnold (1980), the comparison of the predicted
transport rates showed an enormous discrepancy and inconsistency. From continuity
considerations and comparison of the predicted results, Hean and Nanson concluded that
there is no justification for the application of selected bed load equations to gravel rivers
in coastal N S W . N o bed load discharge data was reported by Hean and Nanson.
Poplawski et al (1989) used five formulae to estimate the annual sediment yields of
Flinders River at Glendower in north Queensland. A s a result, the predicted values
ranged between 44,000 and 161,000 tonnes/annum, indicating a large discrepancy
between the estimated sediment yields from different theories. With the limited data from
suspended load measurements, Poplawski et al were not able to recommend any
particular method for estimating bed material loads for the Flinders River. They
suggested that engineering judgement should always be applied when making sediment
transport predictions.
Hean and Nanson (1987) stated that there are no published measurements of bed load
transport in Australia. Poplawski et al (1989) also used only a limited number of data
from suspended load that were collected by themselves with great difficulty. Rieger and
Olive (1988) suggested that with a comprehensive data collection program all aspects of
sediment transport research should be improved as compared with its present sorry state
where load data are similar to that generated by random numbers.
The lack of measured data for Australian rivers has also been addressed by the
Department of Primary Industries (DPI), Water Resources Commission in Queensland
( W o n g et al, 1992). This Department is currently establishing a co-ordinated sediment
n
rtrvwriAnrvwvvinmvvvvvvvvvvwvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv'ffnnnnnrfvmrtfwvvvv*nff**wvv*fl
The lack of sediment transport studies in Australia can be partly attributed to the low rate
of sedimentation and the insignificant loss of storage capacity of the majority of existing
reservoirs. D u e to the small slope of main inland rivers and the selection of best sites for
reservoirs, few problems on sediment deposition have been recorded. However,
considering a few cases of total siltation of dams, it is likely that sediment deposition of
storages constructed at the remaining sites and in the areas where the rates of erosion are
serious will be a problem in the future. Fortunately, in recent years, sediment transport
has been considered a serious problem by the water authorities of Australia.
The validity of any of the theories of sediment transport developed overseas needs to
checked for the Australian river system with measured data. Until such time, engineering
judgement becomes indispensable in the selection, calculation and interpretation of the
predicted sediment loads.
Macquarie Rivulet is a perennial stream which is located on the southcoast of New Sou
Wales about twenty kilometres south of Wollongong. The rivulet originates from the
Illawarra escarpment and flows through steep forested area on the upstream and rural
areas with mild slopes on the downstream. It drains an area of 105.2 k m 2 at the Princess
Highway Bridge, and a subcatchment area of 35 k m 2 at Sunnybank gauging station.
This rivulet is the main stream flowing into Lake Illawarra which is a shallow salt water
lake. The lake is a popular recreation area and sedimentation of the lake from Macquarie
Rivulet can be significant during extreme storm events. The sediments coming from this
rivulet also give rise to water quality problems such as turbidity, resuspension of fine
sediments which minimises light penetration, and growth of algae and weeds.
Tables 8.1, 8.2 and 8.3 show a summary of the hydraulic and bed material data from
Macquarie Rivulet at Sunny Bank station. The hydraulic data of Table 8.1 has been
derived from the available stage-discharge, stage-cross section, stage-wetted perimeter
and stage-surface width curves (Syed Yusoff, 1990). It was assumed that the flow has a
constant kinematic viscosity corresponding to the flow temperature of 20 °C. The slope
of the channel bed has been evaluated to be about 0.00625 within a reach of 2 k m
downstream and upstream of the gauging station, which indicates a steep channel unique
to mountain areas. The size characteristics of the bed material were determined through
sieve analysis of several samples from the channel bed. The sediment density obtained
was 2630 kg/m 3 .
Australian rivers, 266
Table 8.1. Hydraulic data from Macquarie Rivulet, NSW (Syed Yusoff, 1990).
Stage Water Flow Cross Wetted Surface
No. Discharge Section Perimeter Width
(m 3 /s) (m 2 ) (m) (m)
Table 8.2. Size distribution of bed material from Macquarie Rivulet, NSW.
g.
Lower Upper "5
diameter diameter of fraction
(mm) (mm) by weight
Using the data of Tables 8.1, 8.2 and 8.3, the transport rates of bed material were
calculated for each of the selected theories as well as for the proposed equations. The
calculated suspended, bed, and total load discharges are shown respectively in Tables 8.4
to 8.6 and Figs. 8.1 to 8.3.
£_H_iSLg ^traljan rivers<267
Note: All the numerical values, except column 1, are sediment transport rates in kg/s.
•
1000000 Van Rijn
• Proposed
•
Samaga et al
_c
o Toffaleti
tf>
3
tf)
o O ° A Einstein
a 9 9 " '
A o o o A Bagnold
' » • • • • •
• Wiuff
100 200 300 400
O Celik & Rodi
Q (m3/s)
From Tables 8.4, 8.5 and 8.6 and Figs. 8.1, 8.2 and 8.3 it can be seen that although the
slope (S = 0.6%) denotes a steep channel with high velocity conditions, the consistency
between the variation in water discharge and sediment loads is good. However, the
obtained results show a wide discrepancy among the calculated transport rates from
theory to theory. This indicates that unless there is measured bed material discharges to
\_-*n*iy»_.* %j Australian rivers, 269
check the accuracy and applicability of the methods, it is very difficult to m a k e an accurate
decision on the selection and recommendation of any particular procedure.
In the calculation of suspended load, the highest values are produced by the theories of
S a m a g a et al and Wiuff and the lowest values are given by the theories of Toffaleti,
Einstein and Celik and Rodi (Fig. 8.1). In Chapter 7, it w a s seen that W i u f f s model
usually over-predicted suspended load transport rates while Celik and Rodi's model
under-estimated. Hence, it can be concluded that the theories of Rijn, Bagnold and the
proposed suspended load equation, that have predicted within the range of Wiuff s and
Celik-Rodi's estimations (Fig. 8.1), are more suitable for application to the special
condition of Macquarie Rivulet
Rijn's procedure has given the highest bed load transport rates while the lowest values
predicted b y the theory of Toffaleti (Fig. 8.2). Toffaleti's predictions are not feasible
because the predicted bed loads are almost constant for all the stages and do not increase
with increasing flow discharges. T h e proposed bed load equation has shown predictions
very close to those of the established Meyer-Peter and Muller bed load formula. These
two procedures have produced intermediate and more reasonable bed load discharges.
10000
• • • D Proposed
1
°°°= .-"AAA A A
A AA AA • van Rijn
n
D Proposed van Rijn • Samaga et
al.
(
* Ackers- o Engelund- X Yang j
White Hansen
1000000
100000 -r
10000 —
• o X
_k
o X 2 "
• O X
Ul
CO X "
? n ____
* 1000 -_• o V fi
"
o ' °•5 x »x" _
9 . &
o
A
•x.n .
100 -r,
x o<>
10 -S
l—J I — I — I — I — I — j - J I -
In the computation of total load, the highest values are produced by Samaga et al and
Engelund-Hansen, and the lowest values are given by Toffaleti and Einstein (Fig. 8.3).
The very high predictions of Samaga et al indicate that this procedure is not valid for the
Macquarie Rivulet condition. For example a water-sediment flow with a discharge of
355,000 kg/s has to carry a sediment load of 326,000 kg/s (Table 8.6). This amount of
sediment discharge is unrealistic unless there is debris or m u d flows which is not the case
in the Macquarie Rivulet This also indicates that Samaga et al theory is very sensitive to
the channel slope. Theories of Yang, van Rijn, Bagnold, Ackers-White and the proposed
equation have predicted intermediate and more reasonable values. Rijn's procedure has
indicated the least sensitivity to the slope. This is because computational procedures in
this theory are not based on the direct use of the channel bed slope. This theory utilises a
modified version of Chezy formula for the estimation of energy slope.
By looking at Fig. 8.3 and Table 8.6, one would eliminate the methods of Samaga et
and Engelund-Hansen for being too steep, Toffaleti and Einstein for being too flat and
recommend that the other five be used. A best estimate of the total load would be the
average of these five procedures.
8.4 Summary
Using the selected methods of sediment transport estimation as well as the proposed
predictors, and limited data from Macquarie Rivulet in N S W , it w a s shown that
considerable discrepancy exists between predicted sediment yields from theory to theory.
It was concluded that no final decision can be m a d e on the selection and recommendation
of any particular equation for Australian river conditions unless its accuracy and
predicability has been tested against the actual measured data from sediment loads.
Chapter 9
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION
AND RECOMMENDATION
FOR FURTHER RESEARCH
vxizi..z
VtlUl/lCf 7
.. Summary and Conclusion , 273
9.1. Summary
Simple and powerful equations were developed for the estimation of vertical
distribution of suspended sediment concentration (Eq. 6.16), transport rate of suspended
bed material (Eq. 6.35), and transport rate of bed load (Eq. 6.56) in alluvial channels.
Turbulence energy concepts introduced by Bagnold and used by others, and the
generally accepted principles of alluvial hydraulics formed the basis of the new
development. Figure 6.1 illustrated the general idea. B y equating a proportion of the
turbulent energy production to the work done in overcoming gravitational settling of the
particles a concentration profile was immediately obtained. This was in contrast to the
Rouse development which equates transport rates due to gravitational settling with
those due to diffusion and leads to a first order differential equation for the
concentration.
S u* D-v
C y = oc-r (—L)
y
AKOJ y (6.16)
SDV2 u* 2
1- P TA^ [ 1 + W ] (6.35)
„ SDu*2
1b = ^ (6.56)
™ AKG)b
In the new development, those refinements that may complicate the application withou
adding much to the accuracy were avoided. The proposed formulae are applicable to
the uniform steady sediment-laden flows. The relations are derived for the bed material
load and do not include wash load. The sediment transport capacity of the flow is
computed through the proposed equations, assuming that the bed material supply is
more than the transport capacity.
In summary, the following basic assumptions, which are in agreement with the physics
of particle suspension, were m a d e in the n e w derivations:
I- At any level above the channel bed, a portion of the total turbulent energy
production of the flow is used to keep particles in suspension.
II- T h e amount of turbulent energy used for suspension is equivalent to the work
which has to be performed on the suspended materials to support their immersed
weights and to counteract the gravitational forces responsible for the settlement.
A number of other formulae, such as: depth averaged concentration (Eq. 6.23), transp
concentration (Eq. 6.39), and reference concentration (Eq. 6.45) resulted from the
developed concentration distribution equation can be listed as:
CD=cc^ (6.23)
A co
VS u* 2
T T ^ n[1
CT=P
2Aco + ( ^ v ) 1 (6-39)
Su* D
C a = cc- (6.45)
a
AKCO a
For each method, a brief description, critical discussions, technical comments, and a
detailed computational procedure were presented. Based on analytical considerations,
general modifications were suggested for the theories of Meyer-Peter-Muller, Einstein,
Engelund-Hansen, Toffaleti (bed load transport), Ackers-White, and Yang.
The selected transport rate predictors were tested against 333 sets of sediment tran
data collected from both natural rivers and laboratory flumes. The applicability analysis
indicated a large discrepancy between the predicted transport rates and the
corresponding measured sediment discharges. The predicted transport rates from
different theories often differed drastically from each other. It was shown that the true
applicability of the selected equations are limited to a finite range of hydraulic and
particle size conditions. N o n e of the theories were found to be adequate for all
conditions.
9.2. Conclusion
Overall conclusions
I - For those non uniform bed materials, in which a considerable proportion of particle
are m u c h finer than dso (such as Data Nos. 6-9 in Tables 7.1 and 7.3), the median size is
not a good criterion for the definition of incipient suspension. In such cases sediment
sizes smaller than dso s u c n as d35 and di6 are better indicators for the initiation of
motion of suspended solids.
II - The present study supports the concept that the overall shear stress is effective
producing suspended load rather than the portion associated with the grain roughness.
HI - Different predictors have been developed for both: different hydraulic conditions
and different particle size. These are limitations of their applicability. It has been
confirmed in the current study that the appropriate predictors should be selected so to
best comply with local conditions. It should be noted that a method which produces
satisfactory results for one river, m a y provide unsatisfactory results for the others, and
that no theory is adequate for all conditions.
IV - The reason for the low rate of success in sedimentation studies is that sediment
discharge is related, in a complex way, to a large number of flow and sediment
parameters. These parameter include: the depth, width, density, energy gradient,
temperature, viscosity, and turbulence of the flowing water, as well as the size
distribution, shape, density, cohesiveness, and concentration of the moving particles.
Introducing a mathematical model which includes all these parameters with their wide
variation in longitudinal and lateral directions, in order to predict the amount of moving
material, is a very difficult task. D u e to this difficulty, almost all existing sediment load
predictors have been derived for the simple conditions of uniform and steady flows
Ullimki 9 Summary and Conclusion , 277
with equilibrium sediment transport. These conditions are seldom met in natural
channels.
An applicability analysis was made using 333 data sets, which included bed, suspende
and total loads with wide range of hydraulic conditions and sediment sizes. The results
indicated that the proposed theory was the only procedure which consistently produced
satisfactory predictions. Compared to the other theories, the developed equations
always proved to be one of the most accurate.
The proposed model especially indicated better predicability for transporting fine b
material. In application to the bed load data, the proposed theory was able to give
reasonably good estimations for a wide range of particles from 0.123mm to 3 0 0 m m in
diameter. It indicated very good capability for in-situ calibration. The satisfactory
results obtained can be attributed to the simple structure of the proposed equations and
probably their close relationship with the physics of the sediment transport
phenomenon.
results obtained, the proposed method was found to be the best in comparison with the
other existing sediment transport predictors.
fl - For estimating the transport rate of large bed material, dso = 25mm to 300mm, the
proposed bed load equation and Bagnold's procedure are suggested.
HI - In almost all the applied cases Wiuff theory over-predicted the transport rates,
especially for Netherlands tidal channels where small particles m o v e d with high
velocity. This indicates that Wiuff s linear relation for the suspended load efficiency
over-estimates the actual efficiency and hence is questionable for application to high
velocity conditions.
IV - Celik and Rodi's recently developed model always under-predicted the transport
rates. It seems that the empirical relation used for evaluating effective shear stress for
suspension under-estimates the actual values. T h e criterion that Celik and Rodi
introduced for the initiation of suspension in some cases, such as transportation of fine
and m e d i u m sands in Mantz and Samaga et al flume experiments, resulted in zero
suspended load discharge which is not in agreement with the measurements. This m a y
be the reason for the unsatisfactory predictions of Celik and Rodi's model for a number
of data sets.
VI - Despite the complicated procedure and large number of correction factors adopted,
the established theory of Einstein failed to produce satisfactory predictions in most of
the applied cases and always over-estimated the transport rates. In particular, Einstein's
Summary and Conclusion,
Vm - Toffaleti's procedure should not be used for predicting bed load, especially when
the flow is carrying only bed load or the major part of the moving sediment is bed load.
In fact Toffaleti's model is only applicable to sand transport, i.e. particles in the range
0.065mm to 2 . 0 m m which are mostly transported in suspension.
X - In general the total load theory of Ackers and White produced acceptable results,
especially for the transportation of fine to medium sands. However, in application to
high velocity conditions, Ackers and White's equation over-predicted the transport rates
and resulted in unsatisfactory scores. The low accuracy obtained can be attributed to
ignoring the effect of flow strength in calibrating transitional exponent n (see Sec.
4.7.4).
XI - Rijn's expression for bed load transport is valid only for the sediment particle
the range of 0 . 2 m m - 2.0mm, which covers transportation of sand grains. However, in
natural streams with high energy slope, bed loads mostly include gravel particles,
which are greater than 2 . 0 m m in diameter. For these conditions Rijn's theory is not
applicable. O n the other hand, Rijn's expression for suspended load is applicable only
to sand particles in the range of 0.1mm - 0.5mm. Again this equation does not cover
those ranges of natural streams where the bed shear stresses are large enough to lift
sand particles with diameters larger than 0.5mm into the suspension mode.
KmMmf9 Summary and Conclusion , 280
Due to the availability of limited data, and the lack of appropriate experimental
facilities, some aspects of this research have not been investigated sufficiently. These
aspects are recommended for further research and m a y need independent experimental
study. A number of these research needs are listed below:
II - For estimating velocity profile in uniform turbulent flows of clear water the Pra
logarithmic equation is commonly used. However, for flow in alluvial channels, where
the presence of sediments and bed forms complicate the behaviour of the fluid, there is
no generally accepted velocity profile equation in the current literature. The modern
measurement techniques and the more accurate laboratory equipment developed during
the last few decades, such as laser doppler velocimetry ( L D V ) and particle image
velocimetry (PIV), m a y be used for further investigation and development in this area.
V - Using the new development, a practical formula, Eq. 6.30, was suggested for
determining depth-averaged concentration based on concentration measurement at the
mid-depth of the flow. Such a formula m a y save a large amount of labour and time.
However, the accuracy of this expression should be checked with field and laboratory
measurements. A calibration procedure m a y also be needed.
Ashida, K. (1980). "Field Data Collection and Analysis for Sediment Yield an
Transport," In "Application of Stochastic Processes in Sediment Transport" (Shen,
H. W., and Kikkawa, H., Editors), Water Resources Publications, Colorado,
U S A , pp. 1-1:1-19.
Aziz, Nadim M., Bhattacharya, S., and Patterson, P. (1990). "A Hybrid Model
Sediment Concentration Profiles," Proc. 1990 National Conf., California, July 30-
August 3, 1990, A S C E , Chang, H. H., and Hill, J. C. (editors), Vol. 1, pp. 145-
150.
Bagnold, R.A. (1966). "An Approach to the Sediment Transport Problem from Ge
Physics," U.S. Geol. Survey, Prof. Paper 422-1, 37 p.
Chang, H. H. (1988). Fluvial Processes in River Engineering, John Wiley and Sons,
Inc.
Chow, Ven Te (1959). Open Channel Hydraulics, McGraw Hill, New York.
Garg, S. P., Agarwal, A. K., and Singh, P. R. (1971). "Bed Load Transportati
Alluvial Channels," J. Hydr. Engrg., A S C E , Vol. 97, No. H Y 5 , May.
Graf, Walter Hans (1971). Hydraulics of Sediment Transport, McGraw Hill, New
Hey, R. D., Bathurst, J. C. and Thome, C. D. (1982). Gravel Bed Rivers Fluv
Processes, Engineering and Management, John Wiley.
Hubbell D. W., and Sayre, W. W. (1964). "Sand Transport Studies with Radioa
Tracers," J. Hydr. Engrg., A S C E , Vol. 90, No. H Y 3 .
Inbar, M., and Schick, A. P. (1979). "Bed Load Transport Associated with Hi
Power, Jordan River, Israel," Proc. Natn. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., Vol. 76, pp. 2515-
2517.
Itakura, T. and Kishi, T. (1980). "Open Channel Flow with Suspended Sediments," J.
Hydr. Engrg., A S C E , Vol. 106, No. H Y 8 , August, pp. 1325-1343.
Jansen, P. Ph., Bendegom, L. van, Berg, J. van den, and Zanen, A. (1979). Pri
of River Engineering, the Non-Tidal Alluvial river. Pitman.
Karim, M. F., and Kennedy, J. F. (1990). "Menu of Coupled Velocity and Sedimen
Discharge Relations for Rivers," J. Hydr. Engrg., A S C E , Vol. 116, No. 8, pp.
978-996.
Lau, Y. L., and Krishnappan, B. G. (1985). "Sediment Transport Under Ice Cove
Hydr. Engrg., A S C E , Vol. Ill, No. 6, pp. 934-950.
Laursen, E. M. (1958). "The Total Load of Streams," J. Hydr. Div., ASCE, Vol.
No. H Y 1 , pp. 1530/1-1530/36
Leopold, L. B., and Emmett, W. W. (1976). "Bed Load Measurements, East Fork
River, Wyoming," Proc. Natn. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., Vol. 73, pp. 1000-1004.
Leopold, L. B., and Emmett, W. W. (1977). "1976 Bed Load Measurements, East Fo
River, Wyoming," Proc. Natn. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., Vol. 74, pp. 2644-2648.
Leopold, L. B., and Maddock, T. Jr. (1953). "The Hydraulic Geometry of Stream
Channels and some Physiographic Implications," U.S. Geological Survey
Professional Paper 252.
References, 289
Mehta, Ashish J., Hayter, Earl J., and Parker, W. R. (1989). "Cohesiv
Transport. I: Process Description," J. Hydr. Engrg., ASCE, Vol. 115, No 8, p
1076-1093.
Mehta, Ashish J., McNally, W. H., Hayter, Earl J., Teeter, A. M., Sc
Heltzel, S. B., and Carey, W . P. (1989). "Cohesive Sediment Transport. II:
Application," J. Hydr. Engrg., ASCE, Vol. 115, No 8, pp. 1094-1113.
Misri, R. L., Garde, R. J., and Ranga Raju, K. G. (1984). "Bed Load T
Coarse Nonuniform Sediment," J. Hydr. Engrg., ASCE, Vol. 110, No. 3, March.
Mittal, M. K., Porey, P. D., Garde, R. J., and Ranga Raju, K. G. (198
Non-Uniformity of Bed Material on Sediment Transport," Proc. Third Int.
References, 290
Morse, Brian, and Townsend, R. (1989). " Modeling Mixed Sediment Suspended Lo
Profiles," J. Hydr. Engrg., A S C E , Vol. 115, No. 6, pp. 766-780.
Ni, Jin R., and Wang, G. Q. (1991). "Vertical Sediment Distribution," J. Hydr
A S C E , Vol. 117, No. 9, pp. 1184-1194.
Nomicos, G. N. (1956). Effects of Sediment Load on the Velocity Field and Fri
Factor of Turbulent Flow in an Open Channel, Ph. D. Thesis, Calif. Inst, of
Technology, Pasadena, California.
Nordin, C. F., and Beverage, J. P. (1965). "Sediment Transport in the Rio Gra
N e w Mexico," U. S. Geological Survey, Professional Paper 462-F.
Nordin, C. F., and Rundonist, L. A. (1973). "Flume Studies with Fine and Coar
Sand, a Preliminary Analysis," Proc. IAHR, Int. Symp. on River Mechanics, 9-12
Jan. 1973, Bangkok, Thailand, pp. 501-511.
Park, I., and Subhash, J. C. (1986). "River Bed Profiles with Imposed Sedimen
Loads," J. Hydr. Engrg., A S C E , Vol. 112.
Parker G (1978). "Self-formed Rivers with Equilibrium Banks and Mobile Bed:
The Gravel River," Journal of Fluid Mechanics, Vol. 89, No. 1, pp. 127-148.
Rodi, W . (1980). Turbulence Models and their Application in Hydraulics, IAHR, Delft,
The Netherlands.
Rottner, J. (1959). "A Formula for Bed Load Transportation," Houille Blanche
No. 3, pp. 301-307.
Samaga, R. B., Ranga Raju, G. K, and Garde, J. R. (1986a). "Bed Load Transp
Sediment Mixtures," J. Hydr. Engrg., A S C E , Vol. 112, No. 11, pp. 1003-1018.
Sato, S., Kikkawa, H., and Ashido K. (1958). "Research on the Bed Load
Transportation," Journal of Research, Public Works Research Institute(Japan),
Vol. 28.
Shen, H. W., and Hung, C. S. (1971). "An Engineering Approach to total Bed M
Load," J. Hydr. Engrg., A S C E , Vol. 109, No. 4, pp. 565-578.
Shen, H. W., and Hung, C. S. (1983). "Remodified Einstein Procedure for Sed
'Load by Regression Analysis," Proc. Sedimentation Symp., Berkeley.
Shen, H. W., and Todorovic, P. (1971). "A General Stochastic Model for the T
of Sediment Bed Material," Int Symp. on Stochastic Hydraulics, University of
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, M a y 31- June 2.
Stein, R. A. (1965). "Laboratory Studies of Total Load and Apparent Bed Loa
Geophisical Research, Vol. 70, No. 8, pp. 1831-1842.
Stevens, H. H. Jr., and Yang, CT. (1989). "Summary of Use of Selected Fluvi
Sediment Discharge Formulas," U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources
Investigations, Report No. 89-4026.
Swamee, P. K., and Ojha, C. S. P. (1991). "Bed Load and Suspended Load Tran
of Nonuniform Sediments," J. Hydr. Engrg., A S C E , Vol. 117, No. 6, pp. 774-
787.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (1993). HEC-6: Scour and Deposition in Rivers
Reservoirs - User's Manual, U S A C E , Hydrologic Engineering Centre, August.
Voogt, L., Rijn, L. C. van, and Den Berg, J. H. van (1991). "Sediment Transp
Fine Sands at High Velocities," J. Hydr. Engrg., A S C E , Vol. 117, No. 7, pp.
869-891.
White, W. R., Milli, H., and Crabbe, A. D. (1975). "Sediment Transport Theori
Review," Proc. Inst, of Civil Engineers, London, England, Part 2, Vol. 59, pp.
265-292.
Widberg, P. L., and Smith, J. D. (1989). "Model for Calculation Bed Load Tra
Sediment," J. Hydr. Engrg., A S C E , Vol. 115, No. 1, pp. 101-123.
Williams, D. T., and Juiien, P. Y. (1989). "Applicability Index for Sand Tra
Equations," J. Hydr. Engrg., A S C E , Vol. 115, No. 11, pp. 1578-1581.
Wong, W. T., Alexander, D., and Eades, G. (1992). "Sediment Sampling Worksho
20 Oct. 1992," Internal Report 000830.PR/1, Water Resources Commission,
Queensland.
Woo, Hyoseop S., Juiien, Pierre Y., and Richardson, E. V. (1986). "Wash Load
Fine Sediment Load," J. Hydr. Engrg., ASCE,Vol. 112, No. 6, pp. 541-545.
Woo, H., Yoo, K., and Seoh, B. (1990). "Performance Test of Some Selected Se
Transport Formulas," Proc. 1990 National Conf., California, July 30-August 3,
1990, A S C E , Chang, H. H., and Hill, J. C. (editors), Vol. 1, pp. 694-699.
176 NEXT J
178 INPUT #1, COM$: PRINT #5, COM$
180 INPUT #1, COM$: PRINT #5, COM$
182 INPUT #1, COM$: PRINT #5, COM$
184 INPUT #1, COM$: PRINT #5, COM$
186 INPUT #1, NB: PRINT #5>, NB
188 INPUT #1, COM$ : PRINT #5, COMS
190 INPUT #1, COM$: PRINT #5, COM$
192 INPUT #1, COM$: PRINT #5, COM$
193 IF NB > 1 GOTO 267
194 INPUT #1, KK, D16(l), D35(l), D50{1) D65{1)
D84(l), D90(l ), DA(1)
195 PRINT #5, KK, D16(l), D35(l), D50(l) D65(l)
D84(l), D90(l ), DA(1)
198 FOR J = 2 TO NO
250 D16(J) = D16(l) D35(J) = D35(l) D50(J) = D50(l): D65(J) =
D65(l)
262 D84(J) = D84(l) D90(J) = D90(l) DA(J) = DA(1)
264 NEXT J
265 GOTO 272
267 FOR J = 1 TO NO
268 INPUT #1, KK, D16(J), D35(J), D50(J) , D65(J D84(J), D90(J), DA(J)
269 PRINT #5, J, D16(J), D35(J), D50(J), D65(J) D84(J), D90(J), DA(J)
271 NEXT J
272 INPUT #1, COM$: PRINT #5, COM$
273 INPUT #1, COM$: PRINT #5, COM$
274 INPUT #1, ROS, k
275 PRINT #5, ROS, k
276 COLOR 10: LOCATE 20, 3
277 PRINT "-Do you want to use different size fractions?(y/n)
278 ANS$ = INPUT$(1)
280 IF ANS$ = "Y" OR ANS$ = "y" THEN 286
282 FOR J = 1 TO NO
283 NF(J) = 1 FWP(J, 1) = 100: DF(J, 1) = D50(J) / 1000
284 NEXT J
285 GOTO 337
286 INPUT #1, COM$: PRINT #5, COM$
287 INPUT #1, COM$: PRINT #5, COM$
288 INPUT #1, COM$: PRINT #5, COM$
290 INPUT #1, COM$: PRINT #5, COM$
292 IF NB > 1 GOTO 317
294 INPUT #1, NF(1): PRINT #5, NF(1)
295 INPUT #1, COM$: PRINT #5, COM$
296 INPUT #1, COM$: PRINT #5, COM$
297 INPUT #1, COM$: PRINT #5, COM$
298 FOR 1 = 1 TO NF(1)
299 INPUT #1, FWP(1, I ) , DF(1, I)
300 PRINT #5, FWP(1, I ) , DF(1, I)
3 02 DF(1, I) DF(1, I) / 1000
304 FOR J = 2 TO NO
306 FWP(J, I) = FWP(1 DF(J, I) = DF(1, I)
308 NEXT J
310 NEXT I
312 FOR J = 2 TO NO
314 NF(J) = NF(1)
315 NEXT J
316 GOTO 337
317 FOR J = 1 TO NO
320 INPUT #1, NF(J): PRINT #5 , NF(J)
321 INPUT #1, COM$: PRINT #5, COM$
322 INPUT #1, COM$: PRINT #5, COM$
323 INPUT #1, COM$: PRINT #5, COM$
324 FOR 1 = 1 TO NF(J)
325 INPUT #1, FWP(J, I ) , DF(J,. D
32 6 PRINT #5, FWP(J, I ) , DF(J,• I )
327 DF(J, I) : DF(J, I) / 1000
328 NEXT I
330 INPUT #1, COM$: PRINT #5, COM$
332 INPUT #1, COM$: PRINT #5, COM$
33 5 NEXT J
337 CLOSE #1
340 COLOR 14: LOCATE 22, 3
Appendix 1 List of computer programs, 299
342 PRINT "-Would you like to calculate SLOPE from Chezy Formula?(y/n)"
344 ME$ = INPUT$(1)
346 IF ME$ = "N" OR ME$ = "n" THEN 358
348 '
349 ' ============ SLOPE COMPUTATION FROM CHEZY FORMULA
350 '
3 52 FOR J = 1 TO NO
354 CHEZY = 18 * (LOG(12 * DM(J) / 3 * (D90(J) / 1000)) / LOG(IO))
356 S(J) = (Q(J) / A(J)) ~ 2 / (CHEZY ~ 2 * DM(J))
357 NEXT J
358 PRINT #5, : PRINT #5,
360 GOSUB 401
364 LOCATE 23, 27: COLOR 9
366 PRINT "Hit Any Key To Continue"
368 A$ = INKEY$: IF A$ = "" THEN 364
370 CLS : COLOR 10: LOCATE 15, 3
372 CLOSE #5: CLOSE #1
374 PRINT "-Would you like to calculate sediment transport for another Data?(y/n)"
376 METH$ = INPUT$(1)
378 IF METH$ = "Y" OR METH$ = "y" THEN 70
380 END
400 '
401 '#################### SUBROUTINE EINSTEIN #########################
402 '
403 CLS
405 SSED = ROS / 1000
408 FOR J = 1 TO NO
410 '
412 '=========== COMPUTATION OF BED SHEAR VELOCITY RELATED TO GRAINS,USHE
414 '
416 D65(J) = D65(J) / 1000
418 RGB = (Q(J) / A(J)) ~ 1.5 * D65(J) ~ .25 / (117.57 * S(J) " .75)
420 USHE = (9.81 * RGB * S(J)) ~ .5
424 '
426 •============== COMPUTATION OF LAMINAR SUBLAYER THICKNESS,DELTA
430 '
450 DEL = 11.6 * NU(J) / USHE
470 *
480 ' ============ COMPUTATION OF CORRECTION FACOR,X
490 '
580 RATIO = D65(J) / DEL
690 GOSUB 8860
695 '
700 ' =========== COMPUTATION OF APPARENT ROUGHNESS DIAMETER,DELTA
710 '
730 DELTA = D65(J) / X
830 '
840 ' ============ COMPUTATION OF PRESSURE CORRECTION FACOR,Y
850 '
1000 GOSUB 8960
1120 '
1130 ' ========== COMPUTATION OF CHARACTERISTIC DISTANCE,EX
1140 '
1160 DET = DELTA / DEL
1170 IF DET > 1.8 THEN EX = .77 * DELTA: GOTO 1190
1180 EX = 1.398 * DELTA
1190 '
1 2 oo • =========== COMPUTATION OF LOGARITHMIC FUNCTION ,LF
1210 '
1220 BETAX = LOG(10.6 * EX / DELTA) / LOG(10)
1230 LF = ((LOG(10.6) / LOG(10)) / BETAX) A 2
1240 '
1 2 5Q ' =========== COMPUTATION OF EINSTEIN'S TRANSPORT PARAMETER,PE
1260 '
1262 PE = 2.303 * LOGO0.2 * DM(J) / DELTA) / LOG(10)
1265 '
1266 ' ========== COMPUTATIONS DUE TO INDIVIDUAL GRAIN SIZES ==============
1267 '
1280 QS = 0: QB = 0
Appendix 1 List of computer programs, 300
A
2438 QBI = (FWP(J, I) / 100) * PHI * ROS * (9.81 * DF(J, I) 3 * (SSED - 1))
2900
2910 '========= COMPUTATION OF FALL VELOCITY,WS
2920
2930 DS = DF(J, I)
2940 GOSUB 8040
2960
2970 > ======== COMPUTATION OF PARAMETER A, RATIO OF BED LAYER THICKNESS TO
2980 WATER DEPTH FOR EACH INDIVIDUAL FRACTION
2990
3000 AE = 2 * DF(J, I) / DM(J)
3010
3020 ' ========== COMPUTATION OF EXPONENT Z, IN CONCENTRATION DISTRIBUTION
3030 l
3040 Z = WS / (k * USHE)
3050
3060 ' =========== DETERMINATION OF INTEGRATION PARAMETERS, II & 12
3070 'PRINT J, Z, AE: INPUT KK
3110 GOSUB 83 90
3130
3140 SUSPENDED LOAD COMPUTATION FOR INDIVIDUAL FRACTIONS
3150
3155 'PRINT II, 12: INPUT KK
3160 QSI = QBI * (PE * II + 12)
3920
3930 SUMATION OF SEDIMENT LOADS FOR ALL FRACTIONS
3940
3970 QB = QB + QBI
3980 QS = QS + QSI
4000 NEXT I
4010 QBT(J) = QB * B(J)
4015 QBT(J) = INT(QBT(J) * 100000) / 100000
4020 QST(J) = QS * B(J)
4025 QST(J) = INT(QST(J) * 100000) / 100000
4030 NEXT J
4040 >
4045 <================== PRINTING OF OUTPUTS
4050 i
4070 CLS
4080 LOCATE 3, 3: PRINT "STAGE"
4090 LOCATE 3, 15: PRINT "Q"
4100 LOCATE 3, 30: PRINT "SUSPENDED LOAD"
4105 LOCATE 3, 55: PRINT "BED LOAD"
4120 LOCATE 4, 13: PRINT "m~3/s"
4130 LOCATE 4, 36: PRINT "kg/s"
4135 LOCATE 4, 58: PRINT "kg/s": COLOR 10
4140 FOR J = 1 TO NO
4150 'LOCATE 5 + J, 4: PRINT J
4160 'LOCATE 5 + J, 12 PRINT Q(J)
4170 'LOCATE 5 + J, 3 0 PRINT QST(J)
4175 'LOCATE 5 + J, 56 PRINT QBT(J)
Appendix 1 List of computer programs, 301
4177 NEXT J
4179 PRINT #5, EINSTEIN METHOD"
4180 PRINT #5,
4181 PRINT #5,
4182 PRINT #5, STAGE WATER DISCHARGE SUSPENDED LOAD BED LOAD"
4184 PRINT #5, (m~3/s) (kg/s) (kg/s)"
4186 PRINT #5,
4187 FOR J = 1 TO NO
4188 PRINT #5, "; J; " "; Q(J); " "; QST(J); QBT(J)
4189 NEXT J
4190 PRINT #5,
4192 PRINT #5,
4193 PRINT #5, END OF OUTPUT FILE."
4195 RETURN
8038
8040 '########### SUBROUTINE TERMINAL FALL VELOCITY #####################
8050
8080 IF DS < .0001 THEN WS = (1 / 18) * (SSED - 1) * 9.81 * DS " 2 / NU(J): GOTO
8130
8090 IF DS > .001 THEN WS = 1.1 * ((SSED - 1) * 9.81 * DS) ~ .5: GOTO 8130
A
8100 WS = 10 * NU(J) / DS * ((1 + .01 * (SSED - 1) * 9.81 * DS " 3 / NU(J) 2) ' .5
1)
8130 RETURN
8150
8170 ############## SUBROUTINE PHI-* #########################
8180 THIS SUBROUTINE COMPUTES THE PHI-* VALUES IN EINSTEIN BED LOAD
8190 FUNCTION USING SIMPSON'S RULE FOR NUMERICAL INTEGRATION
8200
8210 DEF FNT (T) = 2.7183 ~ (-1 * T " 2)
8215 IF SI < .8 THEN PHI = 10: GOTO 8380
8217 IF SI > 27 THEN PHI = .0001: GOTO 8380
8220 JJ = 0: SUM = 0
8230 JJ = JJ + 1
8240 M = 10 * JJ
8250 H = .286 * SI / M
8260 TO = -.143 * SI - 2
8270 SUM1 = SUM
8280 TM = TO + M * H: TBM = TM - H
8290 SUM = (H / 3) * (FNT(TO) + 4 * FNT(TBM) + FNT(TM))
8310 FOR II = 1 TO M - 2 STEP 2
8320 Tl = TO + II * H: T2 = TO + (II + 1) * H
8330 SUM = SUM + (H / 3) * (4 * FNT(Tl) + 2 * FNT(T2))
8340 NEXT II
8350 IF ABS((SUM - SUM1) / SUM) > .001 GOTO 8230
8360 LHS = 1 - (SUM / 3.1416 ~ .5)
8370 PHI = LHS / ((1 - LHS) * 43.5)
8380 RETURN
8385
8390 ############## SUBROUTINE EINSTEIN'S INTEGRALS ###################
8395 THIS SUBROUTINE COMPUTES II & 12 INTEGRALS IN EINSTEIN METHOD
8400 USING SIMPSON'S RULE FOR NUMERICAL INTEGRATION & A SPECIAL METHOD FOR
8401 ISOLATION OF SINGULAR POINTS, WHICH IMPROVES THE DEGREE OF ACCURACY
8402
8403 DEFDBL F-G, I, S
8404 DEF FNI1 (T) = ( 1 / T - l ) ~ Z
8405 DEF FNI2 (T) = ((1 - T) / T) " Z * LOG(T)
8408 A = AE
8409 FA = .216 * A A (Z - 1) / (1 - A) ~ Z
8410 EPS = 0: AE = A
8412 ING = FNI1(AE)
8414 IF ABS(ING) <= 100 GOTO 8420
8416 EPS = EPS + .01: AE = AE + EPS
8418 GOTO 8412
8420 JJ = 0: SUM = 0
8430 JJ = JJ + 1
8440 M = 50 * JJ
8442 PRINT "M="; M
8445 IF M > 2000 GOTO 8551
8450 H = (1 - AE) / M
Appendix 1 List of computer programs, 302
8930 IF RATIO >= .7 AND RATIO < 1 THEN X = LOG(40.937 * RATIO ~ .331) / DD: GOTO
8950
8935 IF RATIO >= 1 AND RATIO < 4 THEN X = LOG(43.894 / RATIO * .911) / DD: GOTO 8950
8938 IF RATIO >= 4 AND RATIO < 8 THEN X = LOG(18.315 / RATIO ~ .288) / DD: GOTO 8950
8940 X = 1
8950 IF X < .5 THEN X = .5
8952 RETURN
8955 '
8960 ' ############## SUBROUTINE CORRECTION FACTOR,Y ###################
8970 ' THIS SUBROUTINE COMPUTES PRESSURE CORRECTION FACTOR,Y, IN EINSTEIN
8975 ' METHOD, USING THE EQUATIONS OF 5 STRIAGHT LINES FITTED TO THE
8980 ' RELATED GRAPH,WITH LEAST SQUARE ANALYSIS
8990 '
9000 IF RATIO < .7 THEN Y = .995 * RATIO ~ 1.239: GOTO 9050
9010 IF RATIO >= .7 AND RATIO < 1 THEN Y = .843 * RATIO " .717: GOTO 9050
9020 IF RATIO >= 1 AND RATIO < 1.2 THEN Y = .82: GOTO 9050
9030 IF RATIO >= 1.2 AND RATIO < 3 THEN Y = .912 / RATIO " .533: GOTO 9050
9040 Y = .52
9050 RETURN
Appendix 1
List of computer programs, 304
56 '
60 DIMS(IOO), Q(100), A(100), P(100), B(100), V(100), R(100), TE(IOO), NU(IOO)
61 DIMD16(100), D35(100), D50(100), D65(100), D84(100), D 9 0 U 0 0 ) , DA(IOO), NF(IOO)
67 DIM QSTOT(IOO) , QBTOT(IOO), FWPdOO, 10), DF(100, 10)
69
70 LOCATE 2 0, 3: COLOR 9: INPUT -Enter the name of output file NAM$
71 OPEN NAM$ FOR OUTPUT AS #5
72
73 SEDIMENT LOAD SELECTION
74
75 CLS : COLOR 12
76 LOCATE 8, 30: PRINT 'SEDIMENT LOAD SELECTION"
78 LOCATE 9, 30: PRINT "
80 LOCATE 12 10 COLOR 14: PRINT "(S) -uspended load"
82 LOCATE 14 10 PRINT "(B)-ed load"
84 LOCATE 16 10 PRINT "(T)-Both suspended & bed load"
86 LOCATE 14 40 PRINT "(Q)-uit"
88 LOCATE 22 3: COLOR 9: PRINT "-Which part of load ?"
90 METH$ INPUT$(1)
92 IF METH$ = "Q" OR METH$ = "q" THEN 700
94
100 PRINT #5, *********************************************************
101 PRINT #5, * U N I V E R S I T Y OF W O L L O N G O N G *
102 PRINT #5,
103 PRINT #5, * Dept. of Civil and Mining Engineering *
104 PRINT #5, * *
105 PRINT #5, * SEDLOAD *
110 PRINT #5, * *
117 PRINT #5, * By M. Habibi and M. Sivakumar *
118 PRINT #5, * 1991-92 *
119 PRINT #5, *********************************************************
120 PRINT #5,
121 PRINT #5,
122 PRINT #5, OUTPUT RESULTS"
123 PRINT #5,
125
126 DATA PROCESSING
127
130 CLS
132 LOCATE 14, 3: COLOR 10: INPUT "-Enter the name of data file NAM$
134 OPEN NAM$ FOR INPUT AS #1
141 INPUT #1, COM$: PRINT #5, COM$
143 INPUT #1, COM$: PRINT #5, COM$
151 INPUT #1, COM$: PRINT #5, COM$
157 INPUT #1, COM$: PRINT #5, COM$
161 INPUT #1, NO: PRINT #5, NO
163 INPUT #1, COM$: PRINT #5, COM$
165 INPUT #1, COM$: PRINT #5, COM$
Appendix 1 List of computer programs, 305
4490
4630 RATIO = TA / TOC
4640 GOSUB 9500
4650 QS = 0
4660 FOR I = 1 TO NF(J)
4810
4812 COMPUTATION OF COEFFICIENT XIs
4814
4900 RATIO = TA / (9.81 * DF(J, I) * (ROS - 1000))
4910 GOSUB 9620
5100 XIS = KSLSXS / (LS * KS)
5122
5124 '======= COMPUTATION OF DIMENSIONLESS SUSPENDED LOAD TRANSPORT PARAMETER
5126
5230 TRANS = XIS * RATIO
5290 PHIS = 28 * TRANS A 6
5300
5390
5392
5394 COMPUTATION OF SUSPENDED LOAD TRANSPORT RATE
5396
5400
5410
5430
5450 QSI = PHIS * (FWP(J, I) / 100) * ROS * DF(J, I) " 1.5 * ((SSED - 1) * 9.81)
.5
5460 QS = QS + QSI
5465 NEXT I
5470 QSTOT(J) = QS * B(J)
5485 QSTOT(J) = INT(QSTOT(J) * 100000) / 100000
5490 NEXT J
5492
5494 '=========== PRINTING OF RESULTS
5496
5500 CLS
5510 LOCATE 3, 3: PRINT "STAGE "
5520 LOCATE 3, 2 0: PRINT "Q"
5530 LOCATE 3, 40: PRINT "SUSPENDED LOAD"
5540 LOCATE 4, 5: PRINT ""
5550 LOCATE 4, 18: PRINT "m~3/s"
5560 LOCATE 4, 46: PRINT "kg/s": COLOR 9
5570 FOR J = 1 TO NO
5580 LOCATE 5 + J, 4: PRINT J
5590 LOCATE 5 + J, 17: PRINT Q(J)
5600 LOCATE 5 + J, 40: PRINT QSTOT(J)
5610 NEXT J
5611 PRINT #5, " SAMAGA METHOD'
5612 PRINT #5,
5613 PRINT #5,
5614 PRINT #5, " STAGE WATER DISCHARGE SUSPENDED LOAD
5615 PRINT #5, " (m~3/s) (kg/s)
5616 PRINT #5, " --" "- -• ------ "
5617 FOR J = 1 TO NO
5618 P R I N T #5, » "; J; " "; Q(J); " "' Q S T O T ( J )
5619 NEXT J
5620 IF METH$ = "T" OR METH$ = "t" THEN GOSUB 8000
5622 PRINT #5,
5624 PRINT #5,
5626 PRINT #5, " END OF OUTPUT FILE."
5635 RETURN
5730 I
5800 NEXT I
5804 IF SZDL = 0 THEN MC = .6: GOTO 5820
5810 MC = SZDS / SZDL
5820 RETURN
7720
7730 '#### SUBROUTINE CRITICAL SHEAR STRESS ACCORDING TO SHIELDS ######
7735 i
7740 CLS
7750 DSTAR = DA(J) * (9.81 * (SSED - 1) / NU(J) " 2) " (1 / 3)
7760 IF DSTAR <= 4 THEN TETACR = .24 / DSTAR: GOTO 7810
7770 IF DSTAR > 4 AND DSTAR <= 10 THEN TETACR = .14 / DSTAR " .64: GOTO 7810
7780 IF DSTAR > 10 AND DSTAR <= 20 THEN TETACR = .04 / DSTAR ~ .1: GOTO 7810
7790 IF DSTAR > 20 AND DSTAR <= 150 THEN TETACR = .013 * DSTAR " .29: GOTO 7810
7800 TETACR = .055
7810 TOC = (SSED - 1) * 9810 * DA(J) * TETACR
7820 RETURN
7940 l
9100
9120
9130
9140 ========= COMPUTATION OF BED LOAD TRANSPORT RATE
9150
9190 A
QBI = PHIB * (FWP(J, I) / 100) * ROS * DF(J, I) 1.5 * ((SSED - 1) * 9.81)
.5
9200 QB = QB + QBI
9205 NEXT I
9210 QBTOT(J) = QB * B(J)
9220 QBTOT(J) = INT(QBTOT(J) * 100000) / 100000
9230 NEXT J
9240
9250 PRINTING OF RESULTS
9260
9270 CLS
9280 LOCATE 3, 3: PRINT STAGE "
9290 LOCATE 3, 20: PRINT "Q"
9300 LOCATE 3, 40; PRINT "BED LOAD"
9310 LOCATE 4, 5: PRINT
9320 LOCATE 4, 18: PRINT
"m~3/s"
9330 LOCATE 4, "kg/s": COLOR 10
43: PRINT
9340 FOR J = 1 TO NO
9350 LOCATE 5 + J, 4: PRINT J
9360 LOCATE 5 + J, 17: PRINT Q(J)
9370 LOCATE 5 + J, 40: PRINT QBTOT(J)
9375 NEXT J
9376 PRINT #5, SAMAGA METHOD"
9377 PRINT #5,
9380 PRINT #5,
9382 PRINT #5, STAGE WATER DISCHARGE BED LOAD"
9384 PRINT #5, (m~3/s) (kg/s)"
9386 PRINT #5,
9387 FOR J = 1 TO NO
9388 PRINT #5, ; J; " "; Q(J) "; QBTOT(J)
9389 NEXT J
9390 PRINT #5,
9392 PRINT #5,
9393 PRINT #5, END OF OUTPUT FILE.
9400 RETURN
9500
9502 •############# SUBROUTINE KS ##################
9504
9510 IF RATIO <= 2 THEN KS = 2.2: GOTO 9610
9520 IF RATIO > 2 AND RATIO <= 3 THEN KS = -. 1 * RATIO + 2 . 4 : GOTO 9610
9530 IF RATIO > 3 AND RATIO <= 4 THEN KS = -. 15 * RATIO + 2.55: GOTO 9610
9540 IF RATIO > 4 AND RATIO <= 5 THEN KS = -, 13 * RATIO + 2.47: GOTO 9610
9550 IF RATIO > 5 AND RATIO <= 6.4 THEN KS = -.086 * RATIO + 2.25: GOTO 9610
9560 IF RATIO > 6.4 AND RATIO <= 8 THEN KS = -.094 * RATIO + 2.3: GOTO 9610
9570 IF RATIO > 8 AND RATIO <= 10 THEN KS = - .095 * RATIO + 2.31: GOTO 9610
9580 IF RATIO > 10 AND RATIO <= 14 THEN KS = -.065 * RATIO + 2.01: GOTO 9610
9590 IF RATIO > 14 AND RATIO <= 18 THEN KS = -.025 * RATIO + 1.45: GOTO 9610
9600 KS = 1
9610 RETURN
9615
9620 •############### SUBROUTINE KSLSXS ##############
9624
9626 IF RATIO <= .11 THEN KSLSXS = 4 . 1 : GOTO 9740
9628 IF RATIO > .11 AND RATIO <= .14 THEN KSLSXS = -33.33 * RATIO + 7.77: GOTO 9740
9630 IF RATIO > .14 AND RATIO <= .2 THEN KSLSXS = -15.83 * RATIO + 5.32: GOTO 9740
9640 IF RATIO > .2 AND RATIO <= .4 THEN KSLSXS = - 4.7 5 * RATIO + 3 . 1 : GOTO 9740
9650 IF RATIO > .4 AND RATIO <= .6 THEN KSLSXS = • 1.6 * RATIO + 1.84: GOTO 9740
9660 IF RATIO > .6 AND RATIO <= .8 THEN KSLSXS = • .8 * RATIO + 1.36: GOTO 9740
9670 IF RATIO > .8 AND RATIO <= 1! THEN KSLSXS = • .5 * RATIO + 1.12: GOTO 9740
9680 IF RATIO > 1! AND RATIO <= 2! THEN KSLSXS = • .2 * RATIO + .82: GOTO 9740
9690 IF RATIO > 2! AND RATIO <= 4! THEN KSLSXS = • •.07 * RATIO + .56: GOTO 9740
9700 IF RATIO > 4! AND RATIO <= 6! THEN KSLSXS = -.023 * RATIO + .37: GOTO 9740
9710 IF RATIO > 6! AND RATIO <= 8! THEN KSLSXS = • •.009 * RATIO + .286: GOTO 9740
9720 IF RATIO > 8! AND RATIO <= 10! THEN KSLSXS = -.007 * RATIO + .27: GOTO 9740
Appendix 1 List of computer programs, 310
36 PRINT
38 PRINT , Q(100), A(100), P(100), B(100), V(100), DM(100), R(100), TE(100),
40 DIM S(100)
NU(100) 0), D35(100), D50(100), D65(100), D84(100), D90(100), DA(100), NF(100)
61 DIM D16(10 0), QBT'(IOO), FWP(100, 10), DF(100, 10)
67 DIM QST(10
50 ' , 3: COLOR 12: INPUT "-Enter the name of output file :", NAM$
90 LOCATE 16 FOR OUTPUT AS #5
95 OPEN NAM$ n * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
3560 ZU = 1.5 * ZM
3570 Fl = ZL - ZV
3580 F2 = ZM - ZV
3590 F3 = ZU - ZV
3600 F4 = 1 - Fl
3610 F5 = 1 - F2
3620 F6 = 1 - F3
3780 GF = .6 / (TT * AF * DF(J, I) / (.00058 * V(J) ^ 2 ) ) " ( 5 / 3 )
3785 XJI = F4 * GF / (YA ~ F4 - (2 * DF(J, I)) ~ F4)
3790 CJI = (FWP(J, I) / 100) * B(J) * XJI
3800
3810 BED LOAD COMPUTATION FOR EACH FRACTION
3820
3825 QBI = CJI * (2 * DF(J, I)) ~ F4
3830 UD = (1 + ZV) * V(J) * (2 * DF(J, I) / DM(J) ZV
3835 UBL = X / (43.2 * UD * (2 * DF(J, I)) " Fl)
3845 IF UBL > 100 THEN QBI = (100 / UBL) * QBI
3850 CJI = QBI / (2 * DF(J, I)) ~ F4
3852
3855 SUSPENDED LOAD COMPUTATION FOR EACH FRACTION
3858
3860 QSL = (CJI / F4) * (YA ~ F4 - (2 * DF(J, I)) A F4)
3870 QSM = (CJI / F5) * YA * (F2 - Fl) * (YB ~ F5 - YA ~ F5)
3880 QSU = (CJI / F6) * YA ^ (F2 - Fl) * YB ^ (F3 - F2) * (DM(J) ~ F6 - YB ~ F6)
3920
3930 SUMATION OF SEDIMENT LOADS FOR ALL FRACTIONS
3940
3970 QB = QB + QBI
3980 QS = QS + QSL + QSM + QSU
4000 NEXT I
4010 QBT(J) = QB * .0105
4017 QBT(J) = INT(QBT(J) * 100000) / 100000
4020 QST(J) = QS * .0105
4027 QST(J) = INT(QST(J) * 100000) / 100000
4030 NEXT J
4040
4045 '================== PRINTING OF OUTPUTS
4050
4070 CLS
4080 LOCATE 3, 3: PRINT "STAGE"
4090 LOCATE 3, 15: PRINT "Q"
4100 LOCATE 3, 30: PRINT "SUSPENDED LOAD"
4105 LOCATE 3, 55: PRINT "BED LOAD"
4120 LOCATE 4, 13: PRINT "m~3/s"
4130 LOCATE 4, 36: PRINT "kg/s"
4135 LOCATE 4, 58: PRINT "kg/s": COLOR 9
4140 FOR J = 1 TO NO
4150 LOCATE 5 + J, 4: PRINT J
4160 LOCATE 5 + J, 12: PRINT Q(J)
4170 LOCATE 5 + J, 30: PRINT QST(J)
4175 LOCATE 5 + J, 56: PRINT QBT(J)
4177 NEXT J
4179 PRINT #5, TOFFALETI METHOD"
4180 PRINT #5,
4181 PRINT #5,
4182 PRINT #5, STAGET WATER DISCHARGE SUSPENDED LOAD BED LOAD"
4184 PRINT #5, (m"3/s) (kg/s) (kg/s)"
4186 PRINT #5,
4187 FOR J = 1 TO NO
4188 PRINT #5, "; J; " "; Q(J); " "; QST(J); "; QBT(J)
4189 NEXT J
4190 PRINT #5,
4192 PRINT #5,
4193 PRINT #5, END OF OUTPUT FILE."
4195 RETURN
4200
7950 •########### SUBROUTINE SHEAR VELOCITY RELATED TO GRAINS
7960 <=========== ACCORDING TO MANNING-STRICKLER EQUATION
7965
Appendix 1 List of computer programs, 315
Appendix 2.
Velocity, fps
20.0
s
y *
10.0 -/ -^
8.0
/ / —
6.0 /
4.0
-•
/
/ 3 *
/
c
•
S
^o L? "V / 1
-v «• *> s
/
O'
y <; 1
^
5^
1.0 ,cf
0.8 y \y
0.6
s / >/ yr
<f / //
o >^
0.4
0.^
0 / T _^^
0.2 Runs 1,3 8 5= 0.10 m m sand
/ \
/ / Run 7- 0.16mm sand
/ ; \ / Si
0.1 fi S \ •
/
r
2 4 €8 #•
<.
\ € 8 *•
> i.\ 5
(.81 c\ A• e5 8 A
1.0, Run I 1.0, Run 3 1.0, Run 5 1.0, Run 7
c, Concentration, grams/liter