Sediment Transport Estimation Methods in River Systems

University of Wollongong
Research Online
University of Wollongong Thesis Collection University of Wollongong Thesis Collections
1994
Sediment transport estimation methods in river
systems
M. Habibi
University of Wollongong
Research Online is the open access institutional repository for the
University of Wollongong. For further information contact Manager
Repository Services: morgan@uow.edu.au.
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
SEDIMENT TRRNSPORT
ESTIMATION METHODS IN
RIUER SYSTEMS
A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the
requirements for the award of the degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
from
UNIVERSITY OF WOLLONGONG
f 99 wm itm
by
M. Habibi, B.Sc, M.Sc.
Department of Civil and Mining Engineering
1994
*OL$S'r\
MM TMIM MAMIE @IP @
A F F I R M A T I O N
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 different
aspects of this research is gratefully appreciated. The assistance of Mrs. L. Middleton in
checking the linguistic aspects of this document is acknowledged.
The patience, understanding, and assistance of my wife are gratefully acknowledged.
Without her willingness to accept more years of school, this study would not have been
possible. The author recalls the dedicated efforts of his family and particularly of his
mother for her numerous sacrifices over the years.
Support for the program of graduate study was provided by the Ministries of Culture and
Higher Education, and of Construction Jihad of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Their aid is
heartily appreciated.
/
LIST OF PUBLICATIONS FROM THIS RESEARCH
1- Habibi, M. and Sivakumar, M. (1992). "New Formulation of Suspended Sediment
Transport," 9th Congregation of Iranian Postgraduate Students, Iranian Ministry of
Culture and Higher Education, University of Ferdosi, Mashad, Iran, 25-31 July
(Winner of the award of the best paper in Civil Engineering Session).
2- Habibi, M. and Sivakumar, M. (1992). "Review of Selected Methods of Sediment
Transport Estimation," Proc. 11th Australasian Fluid Mechanics Conference, Hobart,
Tasmania, Australia, 14-18 December, pp. 553-558.
3- Habibi, M. and Sivakumar, M. (1993). "Tests on a New Method of Suspended Load
Estimation," Proc. Int. Conf. on Environmental Management, Geo-water and
Engineering Aspects, Chowdhury, R. N. and Sivakumar, M. (eds), University of
Wollongong, Wollongong, Australia, 8-11 February.
4- Sivakumar, M. and Habibi, M. (1993). "Sediment Transport Estimation Methods
Applied to an Australian Perennial Stream," Proc. Int. Conf. on Environmental
Management, Geo-water and Engineering Aspects, Chowdhury, R. N. and
Sivakumar, M. (eds), University of Wollongong, Wollongong, Australia, 8-11
February.
5- Habibi, M. and Sivakumar, M. (1994). "New Formulation of Bed Load Transport,"
1994 Conference on Hydraulics in Civil Engineering, Institution of Engineers
Australia, University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia, 15-17 February, pp.
81-86.
6- Habibi, M. and Sivakumar, M. (1994). "Computation of Sediment Concentration: A
Simple Approach Based on Turbulence Energy," Journal of Hydraulic Research
(Submitted).
7- Habibi, M. and Sivakumar, M. (1994). "Turbulence Energy and Suspended Load
Computation," J. Hydr. Engrg., A S C E (Submitted).
//
ABSTRACT
The main objectives of the present research can be summarised as:
i- Critical investigation and computer programming of the existing sediment
discharge computation methods, and
ii- Fundamental development of more accurate and simpler sediment discharge and
concentration distribution equations.
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. The 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, Samaga 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, new 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. None 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 new 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.
///
The 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.
In comparison with the well-established Rouse concentration equation, the proposed
concentration formula produced better concentration profiles when applied to a number of
published laboratory flume measurements. Applying the developed suspended load
equation to 175 sets of suspended load data resulted in a score of 9 1 % which is regarded
as an excellent accuracy in the field of sediment transport. W h e n applied to about 100
sets of bed load transport data and compared with the other existing bed load predictors,
the developed bed load formula always gave better predictions. In general, testing
against 333 sets of sediment transport data confirmed the better predicability of the
proposed transport equations compared to the other selected theories.
The recent contributions and difficulties of sediment transport research in Australian
rivers are discussed in the third part. Fine grain sizes, a high proportion of wash load,
and low values of energy slope are the main characteristics of major inland rivers in
Australia. A n attempt was made to introduce the most appropriate sediment load predictor
for the computation of bed material transport rate in a particular Australian rivulet.
However, due to the unavailability of measured sediment transport data, no conclusive
decision could be made. It is, therefore, recommended that no particular equation be
selected unless its accuracy is tested against actual measured data from sediment loads.
Review of the Australian literature indicates that the major difficulty with sediment
transport research all around Australia is the lack of published data.
IV
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENT i
LIST OF PUBLICATIONS FROM THIS RESEARCH ii
ABSTRACT iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS v
LIST OF TABLES x
LIST OF 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
Chapter 2. General concepts in sediment transport theories 9
2.1. The mechanism of sediment motion 10
2.2. Shields' critical bed shear stress for initiation of sediment motion 12
2.3. Modes of sediment transport 13
2.4. Sediment size and transport rate computation 15
2.5. Fall velocity and transport rate computation 17
2.5.1. General 17
2.5.2. Formulation of fall velocity 19
2.6. Rouse concentration equation 20
Chapter 3. Literature Review 24
3.1. Overview 25
3.2. Classification of sediment transport theories 27
3.2.1. Methods using a critical value for shear stress or discharge 27
3.2.2. Models based on statistical and probability concepts 30
3.2.3. Theories based on energy exchange 33
3.2.4. Equations based on dimensional and regression analysis 35
3.2.5. Models based on other concepts 38
3.3. Summary 40
Chapter 4. Critical investigation of the selected theories 42
4.1. INTRODUCTION 43
4.2. MEYER-PETER AND MULLER (1948) - BED LOAD 43
4.2.1. General '. 43
4.2.2. Description of the Theory 44
4.2.3. Proposed modification of Meyer-Peter and Muller Equation.... 46
V
4.3. EFNSTEIN (1950) -BED A N D SUSPENDED L O A D 46
4.3.1. Introduction 46
4.3.2. Description of the Bed Load Function 47
4.3.3. Computation of Suspended Load 53
4.3.4. A proposed modification of Einstein method 57
4.3.5. Numerical integration of II and 12 integrals 58
4.3.6. Numerical integration of Einstein bed load function 62
4.3.7. Further comments on Einstein's procedure 62
4.4. B A G N O L D (1966) - B E D A N D SUSPENDED L O A D 63
4.4.2. The concept of stream power 64
4.4.3. Derivation of the transport equations 65
4.4.4. Discussion on fall velocity 68
4.4.5. Discussion on suspended load efficiency 69
4.4.6. Discussion of Yalin 71
4.5. E N G E L U N D A N D H A N S E N (1967) - T O T A L L O A D 72
4.5.2. Description of the theory 73
4.5.3. Drawbacks of Engelund and Hansen procedure 75
4.5.4. A proposed modification to Engelund-Hansen's equation 76
4.6. TOFFALETI (1967) - B E D A N D SUSPENDED L O A D 77
4.6.2. Formulation of suspended load 77
4.6.3. Computation of bed load 81
4.6.4. Theoretical comparison of Toffaleti and Einstein methods 81
4.6.5. Drawbacks in Toffaleti's bed load formulation 82
4.7. A C K E R S and W H I T E (1973)-TOTAL L O A D 84
4.7.2. Formulation of the total bed material load 85
4.7.3. General comments 88
4.7.4. Discussion on the transition exponent n 89
4.8. Y A N G (1973 and 1984) - T O T A L L O A D 90
4.8.2. Formulation of Yang's (1973) equation 90
4.8.3. Formulation of Yang's (1979) method 93
4.8.4. Formulation of Yang's (1984) gravel transport equation 94
4.8.5. Drawbacks in Yang's (1973) criterion for incipient motion 94
4.8.6. A proposed modification to Yang's USP theory 95
4.8.7. USP or dimensionless USP 96
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 (1985)-SUSPENDEDLOAD 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 AND SUSPENDED LOAD 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. CELIK A N D RODI (1991) -SUSPENDED 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
Chapter 5. Development of computer programs 129
5.1. Introduction 130
5.2. Step by step computational procedures 130
5.2.1. Meyer-Peter and Muller 130
5.2.2. Einstein 131
5.2.3. Bagnold 133
5.2.4. Engelund and Hansen 133
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
Chapter 6. Development of new equations 147
6.1. General discussion 148
6.2. Total turbulence energy production 150
6.2.1. Turbulence energy and stream power 154
6.2.2. Turbulence energy and Rouse concentration equation 155
6.3. Vertical concentration distribution 155
6.3.1. Background 155
6.3.2. Formulation of the concentration profile 156
6.3.3. Discussion on von Karman coefficient 158
6.3.4. Verification of the proposed concentration equation 159
6.4. Depth-averaged suspended sediment concentration 169
6.5. Solution to the practical measurement of sediment concentration 171
6.6. Derivation of the suspended load equation 172
6.6.1. Tests on the suspended load equation 173
6.7. Transport concentration of suspended particles 177
6.8. Reference concentration 178
6.9. Discussion on fall velocity 179
6.10. Discussion on proportionality parameter |3 180
6.11. Formulation of the bed load transport 182
6.12. Calibration and verification of the bed load formula 185
6.12.1. Calibration with Samaga et al data 186
6.12.2. Verification with field data from Elbow river 187
6.12.3. Verification with data from Jordan and Meshushim rivers 188
6.13. Discussion on bed load calibration coefficient 189
6.14. Computation of the total sediment load 193
6.15. Variation of sediment load and concentration with flow parameters 194
6.16. Summary and general comments 196
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
Chapter 8. Australian river systems and sediment transport 262
8.1. Introduction 263
8.2. Sediment transport studies in Australian literature 263
8.3. Application of the selected theories to Macquarie Rivulet 265
8.4. Summary 271
Chapter 9. Summary and Conclusion 272
9.1. Summary 273
9.2. Conclusion 276
9.3. Recommendation for further research 280
References 282
Appendix 1. List of computer programs 296
1A. Einstein's bed load function 297
IB. Samaga et al method 304
1C. Toffaleti's sand transport procedure 311
ID. The other selected theories 316
Appendix 2. Vanoni and Brooks' data 329
IX
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1. Critical shear stress of different materials 11
Table 2.2. Classification of sediment particles 16
Table 4.3.1. Values of II integral computed by different methods 61
Table 4.3.2. Values of 12 integral computed by different methods 62
Table 4.11.1. Variation of Lfi with M (After Samaga et al, 1986a) 112
Table 4.11.2. Variation of L
s
with M (After Samaga et al, 1986b) 115
Table 4.13.1(a). Characteristics of the selected sediment transport theories 126
Table 4.13.1(b). Characteristics of the selected sediment transport theories 127
Table 6.1. Coleman's (1986) sediment-water flow laboratory data 160
Table 6.2. Measured volumetric concentrations based on Coleman's data 160
Table 6.3. Samaga's (1984) sediment-water flow laboratory data 163
Table 6.4. Measured volumetric concentrations based on Samaga's data 164
Table 6.5. Vanoni and Brooks (1957) sediment-water flow laboratory data 167
Table 6.6. Values of C
a
and a corresponding to the values of a=D/2 168
Table 6.7. Statistical analysis of the test results on suspended load equation 176
Table 6.8. Application of bed load predictors to Samaga et al data 186
Table 6.9. Application of bed load predictors to Elbow river 187
Table 6.10. Application of bed load predictors to Jordan river 188
Table 6.11. Application of bed load predictors to Meshushim river 188
Table 6.12. Application of proposed bed load formula to Krammer channel 192
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,
Table 7.3. Bed-material size characteristics data for Sacramento river at Butte City,
Table 7.4. Bed-material size characteristics data for Sacramento river at Colusa,
Table 7.5. Discrepancy ratios r from application of suspended load equations to
Sacramento river at 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. Summary of bed load transport data from Meshushim river, Israel
(Inbar and Schick, 1979) 227
Jordan River data 227
Meshushim River data. 227
Table 7.17. Summary of bed load transport data from East Fork river, Wyoming
(Leopold and Emmett, 1976) 230
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. Summary of Nomicos (1956) flume data total sediment transport 244
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. Summary 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
Samaga et al laboratory flume data 250
Samaga et al laboratory flume data 251
Table 7.36. Summary of Willis et al (1972) laboratory flume data 255
Willis etal (1972) laboratory flume data 256
Table 8.1. Hydraulic data from Macquarie Rivulet 266
Table 8.2. Size distribution of bed material for Macquarie Rivulet 266
Table 8.3. Representative grain diameters(in m m ) for Macquarie Rivulet 266
Table 8.4. Application of suspended load equations to Macquarie Rivulet 267
Table 8.5. Application of bed load equations to Macquarie Rivulet, N.S.W 267
Table 8.6. Application of total load equations to Macquarie Rivulet, N.S.W 268
XII
LIST OF FIGURES
Fig. 2.1. Bed shear stress on alluvial boundaries 10
Fig. 2.2. Shields diagram for determination of critical bed shear stress 13
Fig. 2.3. Classification of sediment loads 14
Fig. 4.3.1. Hiding factor cj as a function of d
s
j/X 51
Fig. 4.3.2. Pressure correction factor *F as a function of dgs/S 51
Fig. 4.3.3. Correction factor x in the logarithmic velocity distribution 52
Fig. 4.3.4. Einstein Bed Load Function 53
Fig. 4.3.5. Einstein II integral 55
Fig. 4.3.6. Einstein 12 integral 56
Fig. 4.6.1. Important definitions in Toffaleti's model 78
Fig. 4.6.2. Correction factors in Toffaleti's model 80
Fig. 4.11.1. Variation of K
B
with r'cAoc (
After
Samaga et al, 1986a) 112
Fig. 4.11.2. Variation of T'o/[(Ay
s
) dj] with L
B
K
B
^Bi (After Samaga et al) 113
Fig. 4.11.3. Variation of K
s
with Xo/x
oc
(After Samaga et al, 1986b) 114
Fig. 4.11.4. Variation of T
0
/[(Ay
s
) dj] and L
s
K
s
si
(After Samaga et al, 1986b) 115
Fig. 5.1. Schematic diagram of the computer programs 144
Fig. 5.2. Sample input file for the flume data of Vanoni and Brooks 145
Fig. 5.3. Sample output file from application of the computer programs to
the laboratory flume data of Vanoni and Brooks (1956) 146
Fig. 6.1. Energy exchange in uniform sediment laden flows 149
Fig. 6.2. Comparison of the velocity profiles for clear water and sediment-laden
flow (Coleman, 1986, d
s
= 0.105mm) 153
Fig. 6.3. Comparison of the velocity profiles for clear water and sediment-laden
flow (Coleman, 1986, d
s
= 0.210mm) 154
Fig. 6.4. Distribution of suspended sediment concentration 158
Fig. 6.5a. Verification of the proposed concentration equation with
Coleman's data, Run No. 20 161
Fig. 6.5b. Verification of the proposed concentration equation with
Fig. 6.5c. Verification of the proposed concentration equation with
Fig. 6.6a. Verification of the proposed concentration equation with
Samaga's data, Run Ml-9 164
XIII
Fig. 6.6b. Verification of the proposed concentration equation with
Samaga's data, Run M2-5 165
Fig. 6.6c. Verification of the proposed concentration equation with
Fig. 6.6d. Verification of the proposed concentration equation with
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
Fig. 7.1. Discrepancy ratios r from application of suspended load equations
to Sacramento river at Butte City, California 209
Fig. 7.2. Discrepancy ratios r from application of suspended load equations
to Sacramento river at Colusa, California 211
Fig. 7.3. Application of sediment load equations to the Krammer channel 215
Fig. 7.4. Application of sediment load equations to the Eastern and Western
Scheldt estuary tidal channels 220
Fig. 7.5. Application of bed load formulae to the field data of Elbow river 225
Fig. 7.6. Application of bed load formulae to Jordan and Meshushim Rivers 228
Fig. 7.7. Application of bed load formulae to the East Fork River data. 232
Fig. 7.8. Application of suspended load equations to Mantz flume data 236
Fig. 7.9. Application of bed load equations to Mantz flume data. 237
Fig. 7.10. Application of total load equations to Mantz flume data 237
Fig. 7.11. Application of total load equations to the Brooks laboratory data 241
Fig. 7.12. Application of total load equations to Vanoni and Brooks flume data..... 243
Fig. 7.13. Application of total load equations to Nomicos laboratory data 246
Fig. 7.14. Application of suspended load equations to Samaga et al flume data 252
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
Fig. 8.1. Application of suspended load equations to Macquarie Rivulet 268
Fig. 8.2. Application of bed load equations to Macquarie Rivulet 269
Fig. 8.3. Application of total load equations to Macquarie Rivulet 270
XV
NOTATION
The following symbols are used:
A = area of the flow cross section; 2d
s
/D in Numerical integration of II and
12; a correction factor in Toffaleti's model; critical value of Fgr;
A * = universal constant in Einstein bed load function;
Ai = a calibration coefficient in Yang's unit stream power theory;
A, = ratio of bed layer thickness to water depth = 2d, / D;
a = thickness of bed load layer; reference height;
A V G = average value of the computed discrepancy ratios;
B = average width of the channel; a correction factor in Toffaleti's model;
B * = universal constant in Einstein bed load function;
B i = a calibration coefficient in Yang's unit stream power theory;
C
a
= concentration of suspended material at reference height 'a';
Cb = average bed load concentration;
C D = depth-averaged concentration;
C D / 2 = mid-depth concentration;
Cj = concentration of size fraction i;
C L = lift coefficient in Einstein bed load function;
C
G
= m a x i m u m volumetric bed load concentration = 0.65;
C
s
= concentration of total suspended materials;
C T = transport concentration;
C
t
= concentration of total bed material load;
C
y
= concentration of suspended materials at depth y above the channel bed;
c = overall Chezy coefficient; a coefficient in Ackers and White theory;
c' = Chezy coefficient related to grains;
D = total flow depth;
Dgr = dimensionless grain diameter;
D
s
= sediment diffusion coefficient;
d* = dimensionless sediment diameter;
dso = particle size for which 5 0 % by weight of the sediment material are finer;
median diameter;
dj6, d35, d65, dg4, and dgn = particle sizes with similar definitions as for dso;
d
a
= arithmetic mean diameter of the bed material mixture;
d
g
= geometric mean diameter of the bed material mixture;
dj = geometric mean diameter of the size fraction i;
d
s
= sediment diameter; representative particle size of suspended sediment;
E T = turbulent energy production rate per unit volume of the flow at depth y;
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;
e
s
= suspended load transport efficiency;
F = concentration parameter in Rijn theory;
F
gr
= dimensionless mobility number;
F L = lift force in Einstein bed load function;
G
g r
= 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;
K
B
= a function of TO/T
0
C in Samaga et al theory;
K
s
= a function of To/r
oc
in Samaga et al theory;
k
s
= Nikuradse sand roughness;
L = jump length in Einstein bed load function; length of the dune;
L B = a function of the Kramer's uniformity coefficient M ;
L
s
= a function of the Kramer's uniformity coefficient M ;
L F = 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;
n
0
= universal constant in Einstein bed load function;
n
s
= 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;
P E = Einstein's transport parameter;
P Q = gain in potential energy;
P
r
= Einstein's transport parameter;
P j = 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;
p
w
= 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;
q
b
= transport rate of bed load particles per unit width;
qbi = bed load transport rate for size fraction corresponding to dj;
q
c
= critical flow discharge per unit width;
q
s
= 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;
q
s
i = suspended sediment transport rate per unit width for size fraction i;
q
sy
= point sediment discharge;
q
t =
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;
R e
p
= 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;
S T D = standard deviation of the discrepancy ratios;
T = flow temperature; time interval in Einstein bed load function;
dimensionless transport parameter in Rijn theory;
T D C = flow temperature in degree centigrade;
T D F = flow temperature in degree Fahrenheit;
t = a variable of integration; an indicator of time;
tana = coefficient of interangular friction of the bed material;
U b = mean transport velocity of bed load particles;
U
s
= mean 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;
mean 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 Karman
velocity distribution equation gives a zero velocity;
suspension parameter or Rouse number;
correction factor of suspension parameter in Rijn theory;
ratio of ETSUS 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;
(p
s
/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 Karman 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;
mean fall velocity of the bed materials; fall velocity of an spherical particle;
mean 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 move 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 one of
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 may include:
planning and design of water storage reservoirs,
river training and bed deformations,
sediment yield estimation for river basins,
design and maintenance of stable irrigation channels,
transportation of coal and ores in mining industry through pipe lines,
beach erosion and coastal sediment transport,
harbour sedimentation, and
design and dredging of harbours approaching channels.
Mathematical models of alluvial hydraulics are usually used for the evaluation of the bed
deformation and bank erosion of natural channels. However, again in most of these
models, such as HEC-6 (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1993, p. A31) 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, 3
The moving sediments also affect the water quality of river systems and act as a transport
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 tons
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 Hwang-Ho (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 area of
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. Due 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.
Another source of difficulty in the development and assessment of sediment load
predictors is the existence of uncertainty and inaccuracy in sediment transport data. This
is due to limitations in measurement equipment and the large temporal and spatial
variations of concentration and transport rates of sediment particles in natural channels.
Usually a limited number of samples are taken from the channel, which may not be truly
representative of the entire flow.
Chapter!
Introduction,4
In general, sediment particles move whenever there is an interface between a moving fluid
and an erodible bed, and the local shear stress exerted by the flow to the boundaries of the
channel is large enough to overcome the immersed weight and the friction factor of the
bed material. Depending upon the conditions of the flow, the size of particles, and the
relative densities of the fluid and the sediment, bed materials m a y move as bed or
suspended load. W a s h load, which constitutes another component of the total sediment
load, consists of finer cohesive particles. It moves predominantly in suspension and
originates mostly from the catchment area.
This research project aims to study the phenomenon of sediment transport from the
hydraulic point of view. Therefore, the movement 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: "How
much sediment is carried by a river under given hydraulic conditions?". M a n y
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. None 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. As a result, investigation
towards the development of more accurate and simpler formulae is still necessary and
should be continued.
1.2. Objectives and Methodology
The main objectives of the present research are:
critical investigation, evaluation and computer modelling of the existing
sediment discharge estimation theories, and
development of more accurate and simpler sediment transport equations.
Critical study of the existing theories can serve as a guideline for:
bS2lSLl Introduction, 5
1 - assessment and further modification of the available theories,
ii - establishment of more practical and powerful procedures, and
iii - selection of the most appropriate formula for application to a particular
channel.
In order to achieve the first objective, after a thorough review of the present literature,
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
Yang (1973 and 1984, unit stream power),
and the recently developed equations of
van Rijn (1984a and b, bed and suspended load transport),
Wiuff (1985, suspended load transport),
Samaga et al (1986 a and b, bed and suspended load procedure), and
Celik and Rodi (1991, suspended load transport).
In fact, more extensive studies are required for the recently developed methods due to
lack of information in the literature.
As a result of detailed critical investigation of the above-mentioned methods,
a brief description,
a step by step computational procedure, and
a set of critical discussions and technical comments
are presented for each of the selected methods.
The problem of the calculation of the transport rate is usually complicated and laborious,
especially when 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 make 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 was investigated, using 333 sets of empirical data from sediment-laden
flow measurements in natural channels and laboratory flumes. The developed computer
programs were used in the applicability analysis.
For the purposes of the applicability analysis, a discrepancy ratio, r, was defined as the
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 results
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 new
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:
vertical distribution of suspended sediment concentration,
transport rate of suspended bed material, and
transport rate of bed load.
The new approach uses the concept of turbulence energy and, in particular, the idea that
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
may complicate the application without adding much 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 new 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 and field data was good.
Particularly, the results of applicability analyses were used for the following purposes:
i- investigation of the validity, reliability and performance of the existing
sediment transport theories,
ii- calibration of the newly developed model, and
iii- verification of the proposed equations and comparison with other
theories.
Recent investigations on sediment transport in Australian rivers and the major difficulties
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
made to introduce the most appropriate sediment load predictor for the special conditions
of this natural perennial stream.
1.3. Scope of the Thesis
Chapter 1 briefly explains:
What are sediments?
Where is it necessary to estimate the transport rate of sediment particles?
W h y is further investigation and development in the area of sediment transport
still needed? and
What has been done in this research?
Transport capacity of alluvial streams is related to a large number of flow and sediment
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 number 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. Many theories have
appeared in the literature from D u Boys (1879) who published the first formula for the
prediction of bed load transport based on shear stress, to Celik and Rodi (1991) who
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, Samaga et al, and Celik and Rodi, are critically
investigated in Chapter 4.
Chapter 5 includes detailed computational procedures and the development of computer
programs for the selected sediment load predictors.
In Chapter 6, based on the generally accepted principles of turbulence and alluvial
hydraulics, new equations are developed for the estimation of the vertical distribution of
sediment concentration, as well as the computation of the transport rates of both bed and
suspended loads.
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.
Recent investigation on sediment transport in Australian river systems, major difficulties
of sedimentation study in this region, and the validity of the overseas-developed sediment
discharge predictors for a particular Australian rivulet, are discussed in Chapter 8.
Due to the shortage of time, the limited data available, and the lack of appropriate
experimental facilities, some aspects of the developed theory have not been investigated
sufficiently. These aspects are recommended for further investigation and may 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 * * ********
Chapter 2. General Concepts in Sediment Transport Theories
2.1. The mechanism of sediment motion
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. As 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). The 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)
wherein, g is the gravitational acceleration, p is the fluid density, R is the hydraulic
radius, and S is the slope of the channel bed. It should be noted that for most natural
streams, where (width/depth >= 40), R can be replaced by the flow depth for all practical
purposes. Another concept based on shear stress, which is more c o m m o n in alluvial
hydrauhcs, is shear velocity u* defined as:
u* = (T
0
/p)-
5
(2.2)
(a)
distribution of
bed shear stress
(b)
Fig. 2.1. Bed shear stress on alluvial boundary of streams.
The particles resting on the flow boundary have a finite weight and coefficient of friction.
Hence, the flow can not move the bed material until the bed shear stress, x
0
, is sufficient
to overcome the resistance to motion of the particles and exceeds a critical value called
Chapter 2
"critical bed shear stress", x
c
. The critical bed shear stress is one of the fundamental
concepts of sediment transportation. Based on measurements made at Kulturamt,
Nurenberg, the following values of critical bed shear stress have been observed for
different materials (Garde and Ranga Raju, 1985, p. 63).
Table 2.1. Critical shear stress of different materials.
Description of material
Ordinary quartz sand
Rough quartz gravel
Loamy soil
Coarse gravel pebbles
Size, m m
0.2 to 0.4
0.4 to 1.0
1.0 to 2.0
5.0 to 15

40 to 50
T
c
, N / m
2
1.8 to 2.0
2.5 to 3.0
4.0
12.5
10.0 to 12.0
48.0
At low values of shear stress above T
C
, the sediment particles move 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 mode 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 (ASCE Sedimentation Committee, 1975, p. 66).
Despite considerable research performed on the determination of critical bed shear stress
(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. As a rough estimate, a particle
Chapter 2
moves in suspended mode 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
Several investigators have tried to find solutions to the problem of determination of the
critical bed shear stress at which the bed material starts to move. However, the most
important contribution was made by A. Shields, in 1936. Shields was the first to
extensively study the onset of motion of sediment particles both theoretically and
experimentally. Considering the forces acting on the particles and applying the principles
of similarity and dimensional analysis, Shields first formulated the dimensionless shear
stress r*, as
T* = T
0
/[(p
s
-p)gd
s
] (2.3)
wherein the parameters p
s
and d
s
indicate the density and size of the sediment material,
respectively. Shields also attempted to find a critical value for T* through laboratory
investigation. From the analysis of the laboratory results, it was noticed that another
dimensionless parameter called particle Reynolds number, R*, and is defined as
R* = u* d
s
/ v (2.4)
is of considerable importance in the determination of critical shear stress. In Eq. 2.4, the
parameter v denotes the kinematic viscosity of the flow.
Based on the analysis of a large number of flume data collected under the condition of
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
T*
c
= f(R*) = r
c
/[( p
s
- P ) g d
s
] (2.5)
where T
c
is the critical shear stress.
Although Shields' diagram has been criticised by several investigators, this procedure
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
researchers. Rijn (1984a) and Samaga et al (1986a) are among those recent investigators
who used Shields' criterion in the development of their sediment transport theories.
.10
.08
.06
.04
.02
.01
f
5
^
^
FI" "
x
_ Motion
^____4 '
N o Motion
~~ Beginning of Motion
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.
To make his computational procedure analytical and more adaptable to computer
programming, Rijn (1984a) has presented a set of equations based on Shields' diagram
for the calculation of T*
c
. The proposed equations are functions of dimensionless
sediment diameter d* defined as:
d* = (R*2/ T*)*/3 = d
5
o (A g/ v2)l/3
(2.6)
with A = (ps/p) -1 = relative immersed density of particles, and can be written as:
T*
C
= 0.24 / d*
T*
c
= 0.14/d*0\64
T*
c
= 0.04/d*
0
-
1
T*
C
= 0.013 d*-
2
9
T*
C
= 0.055
for
for
for
for
for
d*^4
4 < d* f 10
10<d*^20
20 < d* < 150
150 < d*
(2.7)
2.3. M o d e s of sediment transport
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
Gemrdcojêpts,!^
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 load can
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 and which
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 (Woo et al, 1986).
JSZ.
flow
wash load
total bed
materia!
load
suspended
bed-material
load ->:'-:'
total
sediment
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 suspension
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). As 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 move 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 (Woo et al, 1986).
Hence, the mode of particle movement may change, depending on the hydraulic
conditions.
2.4. Sediment size and transport rate computation
Particle size is one of the most important properties of moving sediments. It considerably
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).
It is generally assumed that a particle possesses an approximately spherical form. If the
deviation from the spherical form is considerable, the diameter of the particle may be
determined as the diameter of a sphere of the same volume. For natural homogeneous
sediment material, the particle may be schematised in the form of a triaxial ellipsoid. In
this case the main dimensions a, b, and c of the particle can be measured and the
Chapter 2 General concepts, 16
corresponding diameter is determined from d
s
= (abc)
1/3
(Ibad-Zade, 1987, p. 28). T o
identify the size of non cohesive sediments, i.e. sand size and coarser, which are
normally analysed by sieving, the sieve diameter is usually used for practical purposes.
Table 2.2. Classification of sediment particles.
Type of particle
Boulders:
very large
large
medium
small
Cobbles:
large
small
Gravel:
very coarse
coarse
medium
fine
very fine
Sand:
very coarse
coarse
medium
fine
very fine
Silt:
coarse
medium
fine
very fine
Clay:
coarse
medium
fine
very fine
Size, m m
4,096-2,048
2,048-1,024
1,024-512
512-256
256-128
128-64
64-32
32-16
16-8
8-4
4-2
2-1
1.0-0.5
0.50-0.25
0.250-0.125
0.125-0.062
0.062-0.031
0.031-0.016
0.016-0.008
0.008-0.004
0.004-0.002
0.002-0.001
0.0010-0.0005
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,
- 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- sum 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 material
sample and use this size characteristic to calculate the total bed material load in one step.
This approach simplifies the calculations but may 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 weight,
of the material is finer. 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
d
a
= Epi.di/Ipi (2.8)
wherein, dj is the geometric mean diameter of the size fraction, i, and pj
represents the percentage by weight of the size fraction corresponding to dj.
d
g
- geometric mean diameter defined as
log d
g
= pi . log di / Z pi (2.9)
2.5. Fall velocity and transport rate computation
2.5.1. General
The concept of fall velocity is fundamental to any discussion of erosion and sediment
transport. In many 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
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 known 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 may 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 the finer particles
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 may hardly reach a
constant downward velocity. Unfortunately, only a few investigations have been made
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. The 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. The 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 velocity is
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
experimental study by Schoklitsch who investigated the fall velocity of quartz particles in
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 when sediment concentration is unknown.
Another simplifying hypothesis used in all the sediment transport estimation models is the
assumption of a constant terminal fall velocity for the whole flow depth. To 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 depends on
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. The 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.
2.5.2. Formulation of fall velocity
The English physicist Stokes (1851) formulated the expression for the fall velocity co of a
spherical particle in a still fluid, when 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 particles
by including both turbulent and viscous forces.
CO={[(2Agd
s
3/3) + 36v2]0.5_
6v
}/
ds (
2.n)
Eq. 2.11 is referred to as Rubey's law and can be used for computing the fall velocity of
silt size and larger particles.
Zanke (1977) has proposed another relation similar to Eq. 2.11 for sand particles in the
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:
co = (10V / d_) {[1+ (0.01 A g d
s
3 /
V
2)]0.5 _ i }
(2
.12)
For sediment particles larger than 1.0mm van Rijn (1984b) has suggested the following
simple relation:
co=l.l(Agd
s
)0-5 (2.13)
Considering the discussion made in Sec. 2.5.1, the following combined equation is used
in the present investigation and in the developed computer programs for the determination
of the fall velocity of suspended cohesionless particles.
co = Agd
s
2
/(18v) for d
s
<0.1mm
co = (lOv / dg) {[1+ (0.01 A g d
s
3 / v
2
)!
0
-
5
- 1} for 0.1mm < d
s
< 1.0mm
co = l.l(Agd
s
)
0
-
5
for 1.0mm <d_
(2.14)
2.6. Rouse concentration equation
Prediction of the vertical distribution of the concentration of suspended sediments for a
given set of flow and bed material characteristics is one of the important subjects of
alluvial hydraulics. A number of researchers have contributed to this area and among
them the equation developed by Hunter Rouse (1937) is the most popular and widely
recognised. Rouse's equation is derived by considering uniform size sediment
.m,mmlimmmm.mm. mm...mmmmmm.mmmmummmmm.mmmmm.mm.m .....v. .,,. .w- ^~^^^^^...^^JiS!!BLSSSEiM^.
transported by a steady uniform flow in a plane parallel to and of a distance y from the
channel bed. Clearly, under the influence of gravity, the particles will settle down and the
rate of this downward settlement can be easily expressed as the product of the
concentration C
y
and the fall velocity co of the suspended material at level y.
downward rate of settlement = C
y
co (2.15)
Due to the turbulent nature of the flow and fluctuations in the vertical flow velocity, there
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
.
rate of upward turbulent exchange = D
s
(dC
y
/dy) (2.16)
Under equilibrium conditions, the sum of the rates of upward transfer due to diffusion
and the downward settlement should be equal to zero, i. e.
C
y
co + D
s
(dC
y
/dy) = 0 (2.17)
Eq. 2.17 expresses the diffusion equation for the vertical distribution of the suspended
material under equilibrium condition. It can be also derived from a general three-
dimensional differential equation for the diffusion of sediment particles (ASCE 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 D
s
is equal (or proportional) to the kinematic eddy viscosity or
momentum diffusion coefficient of a turbulent flow of clear water, so that it can be
defined by the following parabolic equation:
D
s
= 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
Here C
a
is defined as the concentration of suspended material at a reference height 'a'
from the channel bed and is called reference concentration.
The following points should be considered when dealing with Rouse concentration
equation:
1- The 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 momentum 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 momentum 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 momentum transfer and the quantity of momentum
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 momentum diffusion
coefficient.
Several investigators tried to improve the accuracy and validity of Eq. 2.19 through the
modification of some 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
Vetter (1985) studied different theories of suspended sediment concentration distribution
with world-wide river measurements and concluded that:
i- The Rouse equation can be applied to fine particles (d
s
< 0.125 m m ) with
satisfactory accuracy,
ii- For coarser grains, Rouse predictions are not acceptable and the correct values
of Rouse number Z = C O / K U * should be obtained by fitting the calculated concentration
profiles to the measured vertical concentration distribution curves. In such cases, the
Rouse equation usually overpredicts the value of Z.
It is interesting to note that in Vetter's investigation the calculated values of Z ranged
between 0.5 and 5.5, while the Z values obtained from measurements varied only in the
range 0.5-1.5. This is in consistency with the author's finding in Sec. 6.3.4 where the
proposed concentration equation with a constant value of Z=1.0 predicted concentration
profiles which agreed better with the measurements compared to the results obtained by
Rouse equation.
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 better
expression, the Rouse equation is still the best practical formula for the determination of
vertical distribution of suspended material. However, to obtain more accurate
concentration profiles, further development is necessary. In this thesis, an attempt has
been made 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
Chapter 3. Literature Review
3.1. Overview
The main aim of sediment transport investigation is to find a relationship between the
quantity of the moving particles and the hydraulic parameters and bed material
characteristics of a stream. Over past decades, the development of such a procedure has
attracted the contribution of a large number of investigators all over the world. Many
theories have appeared in the literature from D u Boys (1879) who published the first
shear stress approach for the prediction of bed load transport, to Celik and Rodi (1991)
who used the concept of turbulent energy for the calculation of suspended load capacity.
The applicability and limitation of the existing theories, except for the recently published
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 (ASCE 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 who is forced to rely strongly on his own experience and
judgment (ASCE 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 many 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). Some 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
Nevertheless, some of the available procedures, such as Einstein's (1950) bed load
function and Samaga et al (1986a and b) method, lack simplicity and often make use of
various correction factors to be read from a series of tables and graphs. Such a procedure
not only makes the computation cumbersome and unsuitable for engineering application,
but may result in the loss of accuracy at each stage of the calculations.
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 way to the flow and sediment
properties. Sediment transport rate at a cross section of a stream may 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. Due 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.
predictors, is the existence of uncertainty and inaccuracy in sediment transport data. This
is due to limitations in measurement equipment and the limited number of samples taken
from sediment-laden flow, which may not be truly representative of the whole flow.
Almost all of the sediment researchers have concentrated their study on the estimation of
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 much sediment as it can; and secondly, they can calculate only the bed-
material load component and do not consider washload. To 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 calculation of
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
Due to the large number of proposed sediment transport theories scattered in various
publications all around the world, it is neither possible nor necessary to mention all of
them in a limited literature review. Therefore, an attempt has been made to give only a
brief description of a number of the important theories. The original references are
mentioned for more information. However, a detailed critical review of eleven methods
of sediment discharge estimation, which are considered as the representatives of all the
other theories, is presented in Chapter 4.
3.2. Classification of sediment transport theories
A general classification of the existing sediment discharge predictors can be made
according to the fundamental concepts used in the derivation. Hence, the theories can be
classified as the methods based on:
i- critical bed shear stress or flow discharge;
ii- statistical and probability concepts;
iii- energy exchange of the flow;
iv- dimensional and regression analyses; and
v- other concepts.
3.2.1. Methods using a critical value for shear stress or discharge
Du Boys (1879) was the first to introduce the concept of bed shear stress or tractive force
to the study of sediment transport and developed a model of sliding layers for the
description of the movement of uniform bed load particles. D u Boys assumed that bed
material particles move 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 move as T
C
, D U
Boys presented the following transport formula:
q
b
= kT
0
(T
0
-Tc) (3.1)
wherein, q
b
is the volumetric transport rate of bed load particles per unit width of the flow
and k is a coefficient dependent on the thickness of bed load layers and velocity increment
between the successive layers. The 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
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 a
power-law equation in the form
q
b
= k'(T
0
-T
c
)m (3.2)
in which, again both values of k' and m should be determined from laboratory and field
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
q
b
= 7000Sl-5(q-q
c
)/d
s
0-5 (3.3)
in which, S and d
s
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. By 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, q
b
:
q
b
= ASB(q-q
c
) (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 when using English units (fps).
Again, Shields (1936) approached the bed load transport from the shear stress point of
view. Based on dimensional analysis and using laboratory experimental data, Shields
proposed the following equation.
q
b
[(Y
s
/T)-l]/ (q S) = 10[(T
O
- T
c
)/ (y
s
- y) dJ (3.5)
Cteg. - Literature review, 29
in which, y
s
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 was based on laboratory measurements.
Kalinske (1942) argued that the movement of bed load is not steady but varies in time in
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:
q
b
= u* d
s
f(T
c
/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.
Barckyan (1962) suggested a dimensionally homogeneous bed load formula based on
average velocity V and its critical value V
c
, as:
q
b
= AqS(V-V
c
)/V
c
(3.7)
in which, A is an empirical coefficient related to the density of water and sediment.
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.
Chang, Simons and Richardson (1967) developed a semi-empirical formula based on
excess shear stress (T
0
- T
C
) for bed load transport. They also used the depth integration
of the point velocity and concentration profile to establish a suspended load equation.
Chapter 3 . Literature review, 30
Instead of Rouse concentration equation, Chang et al derived an exponential expression
for concentration distribution with a constant exponent and used it in the integration
procedure.
Bogardi (1974, p. 244) stated that in general, the use of a critical criterion for defining the
beginning of motion of bed load particles, is not well supported and may 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 initiation
condition which is not well defined, whether it is the movement of a single particle, the
movement 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.
3.2.2. Models based on statistical and probability concepts
Einstein (1937, 1942) introduced the stochastic and probability concepts to the
transportation of bed load particles which was new 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 bed-
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 was 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
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 (ASCE 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.
Einstein's stochastic model was modified by a number of sediment transport researchers
and similar equations were developed. A m o n g them, Sato et al (1958), Hubbel and
Sayre (1964), Sayre and Hubbel (1965), Sayre and Conover (1967), Yang (1968), Grigg
(1969), and Shen and Todorovic (1971) can be mentioned. Rouse, Boyer and Laursen
have also developed a modification of Einstein's (1942) formula which is known as the
Einstein-Brown relationship (Brown, 1950).
One of the most well-known modifications of Einstein's method was presented by
Toffaleti in 1969 which, due to its practical importance, will be treated in more detail in
Section 4.6.
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 Hung (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 Hung 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 Hung 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. Due 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 transport
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
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 fractions of
bed material, Proffitt and Sutherland (1983) tried successfully to make 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 own
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 when 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). The 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
suspended load transport rates of non-uniform material. Noting the limitation in previous
theories, they proposed a three-parameter equation for the determination of the size
distribution of unimodal non-uniform grains. Introducing this equation into the bed and
suspended load transport formula of Samaga et al for uniform particles, Swamee and
Ojha were able to consider the effect of non-uniformity of sediment grains on the
transportation phenomenon without computation for individual size fractions. Using
limited laboratory data, the authors claimed that their bed and total load equations
indicated a fairly good agreement with measurements.
3.2.3. Theories based on energy exchange of the flow
The concept that the rate of sediment transport can be related to some aspects of potential
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 stream
power, T
0
V , the product of bed shear stress and mean velocity. Although Rubey (1933)
and Knapp (1938) were the first to 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. As Bagnold's (1966)
stream power theory has been followed widely by a large number of sediment researchers
as the basis for the establishment of new equations, it will be discussed in more detail in
Section 4.4.
Velikanov (1954) studied, in considerable detail, the theoretical relations governing the
movement of sediment particles. In his gravitational theory, Velikanov has focused on
the energy balance of sediment transport phenomena. Although Velikanov has used
different assumptions from Bagnold (1956), his final formula was very similar to that of
Bagnold. Garg et al (1971) also approached the bed load transport rate from energy
concepts. Their relationship was derived from equating the energy available for the
motion of bed load particles, to the rate of work done on the bed material by the flow.
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
there exists a specific relationship between the rate of bed material discharge and the
energy dissipation of the flow. They introduced a new equation for the computation of
transport rate of total bed material. Their expression was calibrated with Guy 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. Yang 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, Yang 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 new 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 Yang (1972 and 1973). Using the experimental results of Guy 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
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 been
made 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 new 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.
3.2.4. Equations based on dimensional and regression analyses
A number of investigators of sediment transport in alluvial channels have applied
dimensional analysis technique to identify the most important dimensionless groups in
sediment laden flow. Using a large body of data from sediment transport in laboratory
flumes and natural rivers, functional relationships were defined among the dimensionless
parameters and analytical or graphical solutions for the estimation of sediment discharge
were derived.
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 bed
load transport based on dimensional analysis in which, g denotes the gravitational
acceleration and x> is the kinematic viscosity of the flow.
1.6 + O.069q
b
/ y
s
V = T
Q
l-6 g0.6
ds
0.2 / y
g
1.6
v
1.2 (
3
.
8
)
Chapter 3 Literature review, 36
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 sediment
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 Hung (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:
log C
t
= -107404.459 + 342214.747 Y - 326309.589 Y
2
+ 109503.872 Y
3
(3.9)
in which, Y = (V S
0
-
57
/ co
0
-
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 Lu and Li
(1986), Shen and Hung's formula has predicted much 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 flow
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 among 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 procedure
to be used with non-uniform sediment mixtures. By 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
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-linear
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 q
s
per unit of channel
width:
Iog{q
s
/ [g A d
5
o
3
]
0
-
5
} = -2.279 + 2.972 log{ V / [g A d
50
]
a5
}
+ 1.06 log{V / [g A d
5
o]-
5
} log{(u* - u*
c
) / [g A d
50
]-
5
}
+ 0.299 log(D / d
50
) log{(u* - u*
c
) / [g A d
50
]
0
-
5
} (3.10)
wherein, A = (p
s
/p) -1, and u*
c
= Shields' value of critical shear velocity for initiation of
sediment motion. Bechteler and Vetter (1989) compared 15 methods of total load
transport using 46 sediment discharge measurements from six natural rivers and showed
that Karim and Kennedy's method gave good predictions.
Based on dimensional analysis, Lu and Li (1986) concluded that the total bed material
concentration, C
t
, should be a function of Froude number V/(gD)
0
-
5
, flow Reynolds
number VD/t), particle Reynolds number cod
s
A), and relative depth D/d
s
. Then, using
both physical and mathematical considerations, the following equation was suggested:
C
t
= PI + P2 exp{P3 V/(gD)
0
-
5
} + P4 co d
s
/v + P5 D / d
s
(3.11)
in which, PI to P5 are parameters to be determined from regression analysis with flume
and field data.
Karim and Kennedy (1990) published a menu 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 natural river data.
3.2.5. Models based on other concepts
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 as 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.
q
b
/u*d
s
= f[T
0
/(y
s
-y)d
s
] (3.12)
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, mean 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.
Blench (1966) introduced a regime formula for the computation of total bed material load
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:
q
b
/ [(A g d
50
)
1/2
d
50
] = 11.2 (T* - 0.03)
4
-
5
/ T*
3
(3.13)
wherein, T* is Shields' dimensionless shear stress defined in Eq. 2.3, q
b
represents the
transport rate of gravel, and critical dimensionless shear stress is assumed equal to 0.03.
Equation 3.13 is almost identical with Einstein's (1950) bed load function. The only
difference is in the selection of representative particle size. Parker uses the dso of surface
bed material for the calculation of total bed load, while Einstein calculates bed load
transport rate for the individual size fractions of sediment mixture. Parker's bed load
formula was derived by fitting Eq. 3.13 to 278 laboratory and field data indicating flow
over rough mobile gravel-beds extracted from Peterson and Howells' (1973) work. Due
to the limited number of measured bed load transport data, and the incorporation of most
of the available data into Eq. 3.13, Parker (1979) was not able to check the applicability
of the proposed relationship with independent measurements. Subsequently, Parker et al
(1982) tested Eq. 3.13 with data collected from Oak Creek, Oregon, and concluded that,
compared to the well-known theories of Einstein (1950) and Meyer-Peter and Muller
(1948), Parker's (1979) formula shows better predictability.
Based on similarity analysis and using the gravel transport data of Oak Creek, Parker et al
(1982) characterised bed load as a function of Shields' dimensionless shear stress. The
proposed equation was not tested with independent data. One 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
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. The theory also includes new 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 the fluid mechanics
mainly by Prandtl and von Karman, more attempts were made 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?
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 discharge,
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 was introduced by Bagnold to the
sediment transport theories and is used for the computation of both bed and suspended
loads.
A number of alluvial channel investigators used dimensional analysis to identify the most
important dimensionless groups in sediment laden flows. Further, using a large amount
of data from laboratory flumes and natural rivers, functional relationships were defined
among the dimensionless parameters resulting in analytical or graphical solutions for the
estimation of sediment discharge. Some other researchers found that the calculation of
sediment transport rate was such a difficult task that could be only handled with pure
regression analysis based on extensive sediment transport data.
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
Chapter 4. Critical investigation of the selected theories
4.1. INTRODUCTION
A critical study of 11 theories of sediment transport estimation is undertaken. The
selected methods include those of Meyer-Peter-Muller (1948), Einstein (1950), Bagnold
(1966), Engelund-Hansen (1967), Toffaleti (1969), Ackers-White (1973), Yang (1973,
1979 and 1984), van Rijn (1984), Wiuff (1985), Samaga et al (1986), and Celik-Rodi
(1991). The advantages, drawbacks, and limitations of the theories are discussed. The
results can serve as guide-lines for developing more accurate procedures and modifying
available theories. It can also help the hydraulic engineers in selecting the most
appropriate method for their specific projects. For each theory, a brief description,
critical discussions, technical comments, a detailed computational procedure, and a
computer program are presented. The computational procedures and computer programs
are given in Chapter 5. Chapter 7 illustrates the results of tests of the selected theories
against 333 sets of field and laboratory data.
Meyer-Peter and Muller's bed load theory was selected as it is one of the most popular
predictors that is still being used widely. As 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. MEYER-PETER AND MULLER (1948) - BED LOAD
4.2.1. General
Meyer-Peter and Muller (1948) developed an empirical equation for predicting bed load
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
4.2.2. Description of the Theory
In 1934, based on experimental investigations, Meyer-Peter, Favre and Einstein
developed a relationship to estimate the transport rate of uniform grains of gravel. The
experiments were performed in a large tilting flume with a cross section of 2 x 2 m
2
and a
total length of 50 m. The water discharge could be varied up to about 5 m
3
/sec, and the
sediment discharge up to 4.3 kg/s.m. Only two large grain sizes of gravel with d
s
= 5.05
m m and 28.6 m m were used in the preliminary experiments [Meyer-Peter (1934)]. The
Meyer-Peter et al formula can be written as:
q
b
2
/3 = 250 q
2/
3 S - 42.5 d
s
(4.2.1)
in which q
b
= unit bed load transport rate in kg/s.m, q = unit water discharge in m
3
/s.m,
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 [ASCE 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 material
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:
Slope = 0.0004 ~ 0.02
Depth = 0.01m ~ 1.20m
Sediment Size = 0.4mm ~ 3 0 m m
Relative Density of Sediment = 1.25 ~ 4.22
Using this wide range of data and the results of the prior studies, Meyer-Peter and Muller
(1948) developed the following empirical relation for the bed load transport of non-
uniform sediments:
(n
s
/n)3/
2
R
b
S/(A d
a
) = 0.047 + 0.25 p
1/3
(q
b
/p
s
)
2/3
/[(Ys-y)
1/3
d
a
] (4.2.2)
in which A = (p_/p) - 1, R
b
= bed hydraulic radius, d
a
= arithmetic mean diameter of the
sediment particles, y = p.g = unit weight of flow, y
s
= p
s
-g = unit weight of sediment
material and n and n
s
are Manning coefficients defined as
V = (l/n)R
b
2/3
S
1/2
(4.2.3)
V = (l/n
s
) R
b
2 / 3
S'
1
'
2
(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) was 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:
S = S' + S" (4.2.6)
where S' = the part of the total energy slope required to overcome the resistance of grains
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/n
s
)R'
b
2/3
Sl/
2
(4.2.7)
where R'_ = bed hydraulic radius due to grain resistance. From equating Eqs. 4.2.3 and
4.2.7
R'
b
= (n
s
/ n)3/2 R
b
(4-2.8)
Using Eq. 4.2.8, Eq. 4.2.2 can be rewritten in the following simple form:
3> = 8 (x'* - 0.047)
3
'
2
(4-2.9)
O = (q
b
/p
s
) / (g A d
a
3)0.5 (4.2.10)
x'* = R'b S/(A d
a
) (4.2.11)
where
and
Equations 4.2.8 to 4.2.11 can be considered as Meyer-Peter-Muller (1948) relationships
for the prediction of bed load transport rate. The parameter x'*, so called dimensionless
shear stress, is similar to the Shields' parameter in Eq. 2.3. The dimensionless sediment
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 obtained
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.
4.2.3. Proposed modification of Meyer-Peter and Muller Equation
Equation 4.2.9 gives zero bed load transport for x'* = 0.047. This implies that there is
no sediment transport for x'* values less than 0.047 and the motion of the bed material
begins when 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:
O = 8 (x'* - x*
c
)3/
2
(4-2.12)
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. EINSTEIN (1950) - BED AND SUSPENDED LOAD
4.3.1. Introduction
Einstein (1950) used two different approaches to predict bed and suspended load. His
well known bed load function is based on physical principles and probability concepts,
Chapter 4
while suspended sediment transport is computed from a deterministic approach through
the depth integration of the product of local concentration and flow velocity. However,
the computation of suspended load is affected by the bed load through the injection of
reference concentration from the bed load function into the suspended sediment
integration.
Einstein's method of bed load computation was different from the previously published
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 the fluctuations of 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 of
sediment particles in a thin layer of two particle diameter thickness just above the bed.
These grains move by saltation as a result of the fluctuating lift 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 various size
ranges. The transport rates of these size fractions are first computed 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 literature [e.g.
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 made 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.
4.3.2. Description of the Bed Load Function
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
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 a fluid in 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:
F
L
= C
L
A! d
s
2
p (u
s
2
/2) (1 + n) (4.3.1)
W = g ( p
s
- p ) A
2
d
s
3 (4.3.2)
where CL is the lift coefficient, u
s
is the effective velocity of sand grain, d
s
is the sand
diameter, p
s
and p are the sediment and flow mass densities, respectively, Ai and A 2 are
two constants, and n is a random function that describes the fluctuation of the velocity
with time and is distributed according to the normal error law. The probability, p, of a
particle being eroded from the stream bed is expressed as a probability function of W'/F_,
being less than unity, i.e.
p = f{[l/(l + n)] (2/C
L
) (A2/A1) A g d
s
/ u
s
2
} < 1.0 (4.3.3)
in which A = (p_/p) - 1. If the effective velocity u
s
is approximated by the flow velocity
at the edge of the laminar sub-layer when the wall is smooth, then
u
s
~11.6u'* = 11.6 (gR'S)
0
-
5
(4.3.4)
where R is the hydraulic radius due to grain roughness. Using Eqs. 4.3.3 and 4.3.4 the
probability function p can be written as:
p = f{[l/(l + n)] (2/135QJ (A
2
/Ai) A d
s
/ (R S)} < 1.0 (4.3.5)
Einstein defined the dimensionless quantity Ad
s
/(R'S) as the intensity of shear stress:
v
P = Ad
s
/(RS) (4-3.6)
and assumed the factor (2/135C
L
) (A_/Ai) as a universal constant to be determined
experimentally. Based on the normal error law, the probability p can be given by the
following equation:
Chapter 4
p = l -
fB*\|/-(l/n
0
)
2
e
_ t
dt
-B*\|f- (l/n
0
) (4-3-7)
where B * = constant, n
G
= standard deviation of the random function n, and t is the
variable of integration. Einstein subdivided the shear stress x
0
(or the drag force) acting
on the bed into grain (or surface) and form components such that:
x
0
= x
0
' + x
0
" (4.3.8)
In this equation x
0
' is the "pure friction" component interacting between the fluid and the
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
x
0
'. The expression for *P can be rewritten as:
= g (Ps-P) d
35
/ to' (4-3.9)
Next Einstein tried to relate the probabilistic function p to a dimensionless sediment
transport parameter. Consider a unit width of the channel bed. If the jump length of
particles is indicated by L, then the number of grains which are displaced from the area L
times 1.0 per unit time by a distance not less than L, can be expressed as:
N = [L/(7t d
s
2
/4)] (p / T) (4.3.10)
where p is the probability of a grain being eroded, and T is the time consumed for the
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 time,
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 100d
s
, p particles are not deposited after travelling 100d
s
. 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)p
n
(n+l)100d
s
=100d
s
/(l-p) (4.3.11)
Chapter 4
The time interval T was considered proportional to d
s
/co, with co representing the settling
velocity of the grain calculated from Eq. 2.13. Hence,
T =1.225 [(d_ / (g A)]-S (4.3.12)
The numerical value of 1.225 was obtained for quartz particles of diameter greater than 1
m m settling in water at a temperature of 16 C.
The sediment transport rate in the bed layer (q
b
in weight per unit width and time) can be
given by the product of the number of grains passing per unit time N and the immersed
weight of a single grain [(TC/6) (p
s
-p) g d
s
3
], or
q
b
= (2/3) (p
s
-p) g d
s
(L/T) p (4.3.13)
Using the values of L and T from Eqs. 4.3.11 and 4.3.12, respectively, and introducing
the following expression for the intensity of sediment transport $
3> = (qb/Ys)/(gAd
s
3)-5 (4.3.14)
into Eq. 4.3.13 gives
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. 4.3.7,
the final relation of Einstein bed load function can be obtained as
j rB*\|/-(l/n
0
) 2 A*0
'"v^J-B^-a/n/
dt =
" ^ 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.
>F* = Y(P
2
/p
x
2
) (4-3.17)
In this equation \ = hiding factor of grains in a mixture which is in functional relation
with dsi/X, and is given in Fig. 4.3.1, d
s
j = mean sediment diameter for size fraction i, Y
Chapter 4
= 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
5
I
i
t
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
.6
.4
.2
p jj.|j 1 1
5 4 3 2
1 0.8 0.6 0.4
<*65
_____
Fig. 4.3.2. Pressure correction factor Y as a function of dfi5/8 (Einstein, 1950).
p\ = log (10.6 X x / d
6 5
) (4.3.18)
and x = a correction factor used in the logarithmic velocity distribution given in Eq.
4.3.25. From Nikuradse's experiments, with k
s
=d65, Einstein derived Fig. 4.3.3 for x.
Chapter 4
X = 0.77 d
65
/ x
X = 1.398 8
8= 11.6 v /u'*
for d
6
5/(x8) > 1.80
for d
65
/(x8) < 1.80 (4.3.19)
(4.3.20)
For uniform sediment grains, X = 1.398 8.
100
Fig. 4.3.3. Correction factor x in the logarithmic velocity distribution (Einstein, 1950).
In the present study, using the data obtained from Figs. 4.3.1 to 4.3.3 and a least square
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 rewritten as
O* = fOF*)
(4.3.21)
or
rB*\j/*-(l/n
0
) 2
e dt =
*/n
-B*\|/*-(l/n
0
)
A*<D*
1+A*<X>*
(4.3.22)
Chapter 4
where A*, B * and n
Q
are defined as universal constants to be determined from
experimental data. The value of n
0
was found to be 0.5 by El Samni (Garde & Ranga
Raju, 1985). Using the data of Gilbert (1914) and of Meyer-Peter et al (1934), A * and
B * were determined to be 43.5 = (1/0.023) and 0.143 = (1/7), respectively. Equation
4.3.22 is called Einstein Bed Load Function and is shown in Fig. 4.3.4.
100 f
10
1 I u _ i ' ' r i l i i
10"
10
-3 t-2
10"' 10
*
Fig. 4.3.4. Einstein Bed Load Function (Einstein, 1950).
10
For the purpose of computer programming Eq. 4.3.22 is solved numerically using a
simple numerical integration method (see Sec. 4.3.6).
4.3.3. Computation of Suspended Load
Despite the stochastic characteristic of Bed 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, q
s
, can be obtained from the following depth
integration:
J a
C
v
.u.dy
(4.3.23)
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
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 correction factor
x, defined in Fig. 4.3.3, was used to make the Keulegan equation applicable to both
hydraulically rough and smooth boundaries as well as to the transition between the two.
The resulting velocity formula was
u / u'* = 5.75 log(30.2 x y / d
6
s) (4.3.25)
Einstein used the well known Rouse equation to express C
y
, i.e.
S
= [(
^
)(
IÎ
)]
'
(4.3.26)
where
Z = co / (0.4u'*)
(4.3.27)
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 equation was
obtained for suspended load transport rate q
s
.
7 fl
A
z
,30.2 x D
N
q
s
= 5.75 u'* D C
a
() [ l o ^ - j - )
1 A
6
5
J
A
1-Y
Z
(-y-) dY +
1
A
1-Y
z
() logYdY]
(4.3.28)
where A = 2d
s
/D and Y = y/D. Using Einstein's well known integrals II and 12 which
were defined as:
11=0.216
A
Z-l
(1-A)'
r*i
A
1-Y
Z
i^f-) dY
(4.3.29)
Z-l
12 = 0.216
(1-A)
Z
J
A
1-Y ^
(-Y-) lnYdY
(4.3.30)
Eq. 4.3.28 was written as
qs=11.6C
a
u'*(2d
s
)(PrIl+I2)
(4.3.31)
where P
r
= 2.303 log(30.2 x D / d
6
s)
(4.3.32)
Chapter 4
As 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.
The only remaining unknown parameter in Eq. 4.3.31 is sediment concentration C
a
at
distance "a" above the channel bed. To determine C
a
, Einstein tried to relate this
parameter to the bed load transport which was already determined. Suppose the mean
concentration and average velocity of the bed load particles can be given by C
a
and u
b
,
respectively, then the bed load transport rate per unit of width q
b
can be expressed as,
Chapter 4
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.
Considering u
b
is proportional to u'* and using laboratory experiments, Einstein
proposed the final form of Eq. 4.3.33 as
q
b
= 11.6 C
a
u'*2d
s
(4.3.34)
Hence, C
a =
q
b
/ (11.6 u'* 2d
s
)
(4.3.35)
Chapter 4
Introducing C
a
from Eq. 4.3.35 into Eq. 4.3.31, the final form of suspended load
equation was obtained as
q
s
= qb(P
r
Il +12) (4.3.36)
Total load transport q
t
was then obtained through the summation of both suspended and
bed load components.
q
t
= q
b
(P
r
H+I2+l) (4.3.37)
Both Eqs. 4.3.36 and 4.3.37 are dimensionally homogeneous and can be used with any
consistent sets of units. Note again that these equations give the suspended load and total
load transport rates for individual size fractions.
4.3.4. A proposed modification of Einstein method
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 known 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. By 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 300%.
In the present study, an attempt was made to use the Einstein method based on the actual
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
Rb' = Vl-5 d65-25 / (117.57 SO-?
5
) (4.3.38)
Chapter 4
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 n
s
,
given by Strickler equation for a hydraulically rough plane boundary as
n
s
= d65^
6
/ 24.0 in SI units (4.3.39)
into the Manning equation for grain roughness
V = (l/n
s
) R
b
'2/3 S0-5
(4 3 40)
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.
V / u'* = 7.66 (Rb'/d65)
1/6
(4.3.41)
This equation is considered as a replacement for the Keulegan logarithmic relation for
flow over rough plane bed which was defined as
V / u'* = 5.75 log (12.27 Rb'/d65) (4.3.42)
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 may not be
considered in the practical situations. By ignoring this factor simplifies the calculation
and may introduce an error not greater than 2 0 % in all computational procedures, which
is not a considerable error in sediment transport predictions.
In view of above factors, Manning-Strickler equation is recommended to be used for the
estimation of R'
b
and u'* based on the measured values of velocity and slope. A similar
procedure has also been used by Samaga et al (1986a and b) for the computation of bed
hydraulic radius related to grains.
4.3.5. Numerical integration of 11 and 12 integrals
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).
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.
Herein, following the approach of Nakato (1984), first a special technique is used to
remove the singular points and then using the Simpson's rule of numerical integration the
accurate values of II and 12 are determined. The integral term in Eq. 4.3.29 is divided
into two parts as
r'
1-Y
Z
1-Y
z
(-) dY +
r*
1
A
1-Y
z
KF") dY (4.3.43)
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
A
1-Y
z
Y
_z,
(l-Y) dY =
Y~
Z
[1-ZY+^=^Y
2
+...] dY
A
^(Y^dY-zJV
z(Z-i) r
v2
-z
2 JA
Z
dY
+_____ f Y ^ d Y +
JA
where
Fj = - ^ ( e
1 _ Z
- A
1 _ Z
) for Z*l
1-Z
= In e - In A
for Z=l
F1 + F2+F3+...
(4.3.44)
(4.3.45)
F
2
= 7^-(e
2 _ Z
- A
2 _ Z
) for Z*2
= -2(lne-lnA)
for Z=2
(4.3.46)
F 3 =
_g
Z
zll(
e
3-Z_
A
3-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
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:
11=0.216
A
Z-l
(1-A)'
:[ Fi + F
2
+ F
3
+
1-Y
Z
(-y->
d Y ]
Through a similar procedure 12 integral can also be expressed by
(4.3.48)
12 = 0.216
A
Z-l
f
(1-A)'
.-[G1 + G2+G3+
(
) Z
' "
Y d Y 1
(4.3.49)
in which
1-Z
Gi =
(In - -j=)
1-Z
v
-
1
_
z
v
x
_
z
,
{
_
z
=
I[(lne)
2
-(lnA)
2
]
(In A
1-Z
) for Zjtl
for Z=l
(4.3.50)
.2-Z 2-Z
G
2
= ^ ^ ( l n e - - W ) - ^ r ^ O n A - ^
7
) for Z*2
Z-2 """ 2-Z' Z-2
= -(lne)
2
+ (lnA)
2
2-Z'
for Z=2
(4.3.51)
.3-Z 3-Z
_Z(Z-1^2:
(lne
__L
)
_?^H^Z
QnA
-^) for Z*3
^ 3 "
2
(3-Z)
U
3-Z
;
2(3-Z)
v
3-Z
;
= | [(In e)
2
-(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).
In the computerised procedure, if the value of integrands in Eqs. 4.3.29 and 4.3.30 is
smaller than 100.0, when evaluated at Y = A, then the simple Simpson's rule is used
over the entire zone of Y = A~l. If the integrand is greater than 100.0 then the proper
value of e is determined by gradually increasing its value by 0.01 at each step from the
initial value of A, until the integrand became smaller than 100, when evaluated at Y = e.
Then the analytical three terms expansion is used over Y = A ~ (A + e) and the Simpson
Chapter 4
method is used over Y = (A + e) ~ 1. For the numerical integration a spacing number of
N = 50 is initially used and the computation is continued by increasing N by 50 at each
iteration step until the relative change between the two successive computed integrals
becomes less than 1%. It was found that N = 150generally satisfies this criterion.
Tables 4.3.1 and 4.3.2 represent the comparison of calculated values of II and 12 using
the Simpson method, the proposed procedure, and the graphical solution of Einstein. In
these tables:
lis and I2s = H and 12 using Simpson's rule with N=2000,
lip and I_
p
= II and 12 using proposed procedure,
Il
g
and l2
g
= II and 12 based on the graphical solution, and
AIi
ab
= 1 0 0 (Ii
a
- Ii
b
) / I
ib
, with i = 1 and 2, a = s and p, and b = p and g.
Tables 4.3.1 and 4.3.2 particularly indicate that for the small values of A and large values
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. By comparing columns 4 and 5 it can be
concluded that the calculated values of Ij
p
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
(1)
0.00001
0.0001
0.001
z
(2)
0.2
0.6
1.0
3.0
5.0
0.2
0.6
1.0
3.0
5.0
0.2
0.6
1.0
3.0
5.0
Simpson
lis
(3)
2309.7
44.577
5.192
3.6001
3.6000
365.69
16.5721
1.8886
0.3678
0.3602
57.7389
6.2490 |
1.2779
0.1099
0.0594
Proposed
x
lp
(4)
2326.9
42.29
2.2711
0.1080
0.0540
368.03
16.5116
1.7739
0.1080
0.0540
57.7777
6.3167
1.2778
0.1077
0.0539 |
Graph
J
ig
(5)
2350.0
43.0
2.3
0.11
0.054
370.0
16.5
1.75
0.11
0.054
58.0
6.5
1.3
0.11
0.054
Ali
sg
(%)
(6)
-1.71
3.67
125.74
3172.82
6566.67
-1.16
0.44
7.92
234.36
567.04
-0.45
-3.86
-1.70
-0.09
10.00
Ali
pg
(%)
(7)
-0.98
-1.65
-1.26
-1.82
0.00
-0.53
0.07
1.37
-1.82
0.00
-0.38
-2.82
-1.71
-2.09
-0.19
Al
lsp
(%)
(8)
-0.74
5.41
128.61
3233.43
6566.67
-0.64
0.37
6.47
240.56
567.04
-0.07
-1.07
0.Q1
2.04
10.20
Chapter 4
Table 4.3.2. Values of 12 integral computed by the simple Simpson method, the proposed
combined procedure, and Einstein's graphical solution.
A
(1)
0.00001
0.0001
0.001
z
(2)
0.2
0.6
1.0
3.0
5.0
0.2
0.6
1.0
3.0
5.0
0.2
0.6
1.0
3.0
5.0
Simpson
-12s
(3)
3217.13
148.935
48.7579
41.4471
41.4462
505.3426
45.2854
10.1182
3.3723
3.3168
78.3036
15.1784
4.9467
0.7070
0.3988
Proposed
-
J
2p
(4)
3201.75
120.202
14.0994
1.1894
0.6082
512.88
44.544
8.947
0.9405
0.4838
78.557
15.194
4.944
0.6903
0.3590
Graph
3200
120
14
1.2
0.61
510
44
9
0.95
0.49
78.5
15.2
4.9
0.69
0.36
Al2sg(%>
(6)
0.54
24.11
248.27
3353.93
6694.46
-0.91
2.92
12.42
254.98
576.90
-0.25
-0.14
0.95
2.46
10.78
Al
2
pg(%)
(7)
0.05
0.17
0.71
-0.88
-0.30
0.56
1.24
-0.59
-1.00
-1.27
0.07
-0.04
0.90
0.04
-0.28
Al
2
sp(%)
(8)
0.48
23.90
245.82
3384.71
6714.57
-1.47
1.66
13.09
258.56
585.57
-0.32
-0.10
0.05
2.42
11.09
4.3.6. Numerical integration of Einstein bed load function
Einstein (1950) expressed, his now well known, bed load function as
1-
B*\|/*-(l/n
0
) o A*<E>*
e
- t
dt = - = -
v^J-B*
*-(l/n
0
) 1+A*0*
(4.3.22)
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).
4.3.7. Further comments on Einstein's procedure
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
1- Einstein assumes that the average jump length, L, is constant and equal to
100d
s
. 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/d
s
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*.
3- According to the work of Bishop et al (1965), none of the so called universal
constants A*, B * and n
0
in Einstein bed load function can be considered constant.
II - Another assumption in Einstein theory which can be subjected to criticism is the
adoption of an arbitrary value of two grain diameters for bed load layer thickness. In fact
there is no theoretical or experimental support for this concept. This is why there is no
widely accepted method to determine the bed load layer thickness or reference level 'a' in
Rouse equation. Brooks (1963), and Harrison and Lidicker (1963) have suggested three
different relationships for the estimation of bed load layer thickness (Garde and Ranga
Raju, 1985). Rijn (1984a) has also introduced a new criterion to estimate the bed layer
height which is totally different from that of Einstein.
HI - In the calculation of suspended load, Einstein recommends that shear velocity due to
grains u'* be used instead of overall shear velocity u*. However, because suspension is
caused by the turbulence fluctuations, and bed forms are also effective in the generation
of turbulence, use of u* is more rational in computing suspended load. Brooks (1958)
and Colby (1964) have also suggested that u* be used instead of u'*.
4.4. BAGNOLD (1966) - BED AND SUSPENDED LOAD
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
new procedure, Bagnold tried to simplify the result of his earlier investigation (Bagnold,
1956) and make 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).
4.4.2. The concept of stream power
Power is the time rate of energy expenditure or, equivalently, the time rate of doing
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
dy/dt = (dy/dx) (dx/dt) (4.4.1)
For small channel slopes dx/dt represents the mean velocity V. of the flow, and with the
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 length of
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 = unit
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:
i- Stream power per unit of bed area, p which is defined as
p = P/B=YDSV = T
0
V (4-4.4)
Chapter 4
where r
0
is the bed shear stress for wide channels defined by
x
0
= YDS (4.4.5)
ii- Stream power per unit of weight of the flow or unit stream power, p
w
p
w
= P/(yDB) = SV (4.4.6)
The theory of Bagnold (1966) is based on stream power per unit area, p, while Yang's
(1973) formulation is based on unit stream power, p
w
. Stream power concept is also
useful for predicting flow resistance.
4.4.3. Derivation of the transport equations
In Bagnold (1966) theory stream power per unit of bed area of the flow, which is simply
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
rate of doing work = efficiency x available power (4.4.7)
with efficiency = utilised power / available power (4.4.8)
In a uniform steady flow the available power supply is stream power. If m'
b
denotes the
submerged mass of the bed load particles per unit bed area then
bed load work rate = m'
b
g tana U
b
(4.4.9)
wherein (m'b g) is the normal stress, (m'b g tana) is the tangential or opposing stress in
the direction of motion, tana is the coefficient of inter-angular friction of the bed material,
and Ub is the mean transport velocity of bed load particles. The term (m'b g Ub)
expresses the transport rate of bed load in submerged weight, q'b or
q'b = m'bgU
b
(
4
-
4
-
10
)
Substituting this equation into Eq. 4.4.9 one can get
Chapter 4
bed load work rate = q'b tana (4.4.11)
From Eqs. 4.4.7, 4.4.9 and 4.4.11, considering eb as bed load transport efficiency, the
expression for bed load transport can be written as:
q'b tana = e
b
p (4.4.12)
Using the relationship between the immersed weight and dry weight of the solids:
m'g = m g (ps-p) / p
s
(4.4.13)
and Eq. 4.4.4 for stream power p, bed load transport rate in dry weight per unit width of
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*, exceeds
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 down with the
rate of their mean 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
suspended load work rate = m'
s
g co (4.4.15)
where m'
s
= submerged mass of suspended particles. Multiplying the right hand side of
Eq. 4.4.15 by U
s
/U
s
, where U
s
equals mean transport velocity of suspended solids, and
rearranging results
suspended load work rate = m'
s
g U
s
(co/U
S
) (4.4.16)
Considering that (m'
s
g U
s
) expresses the suspended sediment transport rate in
submerged weight, q'
s
, one can write
suspended load work rate = q'
s
(co/U
S
)
(4.4.17)
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 e
s
(l-eb)p, which can
be equated to the suspended load work rate. Hence from Eq. 4.4.17
e
s
(l-eb)p = q'
s
(co/U
s
) (4.4.18)
Using Eqs. 4.4.4 and 4.4.13 into Eq. 4.4.18 and solving for suspended load yields,
U

qs=pp
p
-ô
V e
s(
1
-
e
b)^
(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 q
t
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 e 0
_ _ s - ,
<lt- p
s
-p
L
t a n a
+ e
s ^ b J co J
(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 mean 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
e
b .nm XN
It- -p-=p 4ana
+ 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 mean flow velocity V and bed material
arithmetic mean diameter d
a
. The value of eb decreases with the increase in V and d
a
, 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.
e
b
=-0.012 log(3.28V) +0.15 for 0.015 mm < d
a
< 0.06 mm
e
b
= -0.013 log(3.28V) + 0.145 for 0.06 m m < d
a
< 0.2 m m
e
b
= -0.016 log(3.28V) + 0.139 for 0.2 m m < d
a
< 0.7 m m
e
b
= -0.028 log(3.28V) + 0.135 for 0.7 m m < d
a
(4.4.22)
The coefficient of inter-angular friction, tana, is found to be a function of shear velocity
u* and bed material arithmetic mean diameter d
a
. Its value normally varies between 0.65
and 0.75, and can be calculated by using the following analytical equations.
tan a = 0.75
tan a =-0.236 log(G
2
) +1.25
tan a = 0.374
for
for
for
G
2
< 150
150 < G
2
< 6000
6000 < G
2
(4.4.23)
u* d
a>
with
G
" V T4"p ^v~~") (4.4.24)
4.4.4. Discussion on fall velocity
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.
co = 0.5 Ep[C0i / Zpj (4.4.25)
Chapter 4
where COJ indicates the mean 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 e
s
(l-e
b
) is applicable
only when co is expressed as the representative fall velocity of suspended particles.
Bennett then redefined the suspended load transport efficiency e
s
(l-e
b
) and the fall
velocity CO so that the new 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 transport
data, co is considered as one-half of the arithmetic mean fall velocity of bed material
mixture. However, when size distribution is not known, co is evaluated based on the
median diameter of bed material.
4.4.5. Discussion on suspended load efficiency
Based on theoretical arguments, Bagnold (1966) suggested that the overall suspended
load efficiency e
s
(l-e
b
) 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 V
2
q
s
= 0.01 -=2-=
fe) co (4.4.26)
Ps
It is interesting to have a brief look at Bagnold's arguments on evaluating the numerical
value of 0.01.
Bagnold argued that in natural streams carrying 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 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 turbulent fluid momentum
away from the boundary must exceed that toward it. For a representative unit volume of
Kmnapier t
fluid within the boundary region, the limiting maximum value of residual net upward
momentum 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 found
to increase from zero at the boundary to a sharp maximum, 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 the
body of the flow above the plane of v'=v'
max
was obtained as:
f (f0.5/
p
) = 0.266 p v'
max
3
The ratio of the lifting power to the whole power supply p = x
0
V, was then written as:
e
s
= f (f0-5/p) / (XQV) = 0.266 (v'
max
/u*)3 / (V/u*) (4.4.27)
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 Re =.30,000 and 1.1 at Re = 300,000. For
normal laboratory flume experiments, this ratio may 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 e
s
(l-e
b
), i.e.
es(l-eb) = (2/3) 0.015 = 0.01 (4.4.28)
According to Bagnold, e
s
(l-e
b
) = 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 e
s
(l-e
b
) may 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
4.4.6. Discussion of Yalin on Bagnold's theory
In order to bring the proposed transport formula into a form that can be used for practical
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 q
s
can be calculated from:
fD
= j
Q
C
y
udy
(4.4.30)
where Cy is the local concentration of suspended sediments at level y. From Yalin's
discussion it can be concluded that he expresses the average velocity of suspended solids
U
s
as:
q
s
U
S = D " (4.4.31)
and replacing q
s
from Eq. 4.4.30 arrives at:
-iJjV-
U
S = T T )
0
c
v
u d
y (
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.
However, Yalin's discussion is not applicable, because there is no theoretical or
experimental support for Eq. 4.4.31 which is written independent of sediment
concentration. In fact the correct form of Eq. 4.4.31 is
q
s
= C
D
U
s
D (4.4.33)
in which CD is the depth-averaged concentration and can be derived from
1 f
D
c
D = nJ
0
c
y
d y
(
4
-
4
-
34
)
Substituting for CD and q
s
from Eqs. 4.4.34 and 4.4.30, respectively, into Eq. 4.4.33
the following expression will be obtained:
fD fD
I C
y
udy = U
s
J
o
C
y
dy (4.4.35)
If according to the Bagnold's assumption the average velocity of the suspended particles
U
s
is replaced with mean flow velocity V from Eq. 4.4.29, then Eq. 4.4.35 can be
written as:
fD i fD fD ,
J
0
c
y
ud
y
=
iJ
0
s H
udy
(
4
-
4
-
36
)
Therefore, theoretically Bagnold's assumption of U
s
= V leads to Eq. 4.4.36 which is
not necessarily correct under all conditions.
4.5. ENGELUND AND HANSEN (1967) - TOTAL LOAD
4.5.1. Introduction
Engelund and Hansen (1967) used Bagnold's assumption of existence of a specific
relationship between the rate of sediment discharge and the energy dissipation of the flow
and introduced a new approach for the prediction of transport rate of total bed material load.
Data from four sets of experiments in a large laboratory flume were used to calibrate the
proposed equation. Due to the limitation in data used for calibration, the authors did not
recommend their procedure for cases in which the median size of the bed material is less
than 0.15 m m . Engelund and Hansen equation of total load transport is simple,
straightforward and dimensionally homogeneous. It is a function of mean flow velocity,
water surface slope, hydraulic radius, median diameter of bed material mixture, and relative
density of sediment particles.
Chapter 4
4.5.2. Description of the theory
Engelund and Hansen's (1967) study was started from simple transport mechanism in dune
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 "(p
s
-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* = (x
0
/p)
0
-
5
and the effective shear stress
which is transferred from the fluid to the moving grains is equivalent to x'-x
c
, Engelund
and Hansen developed the following equation:
(p
s
-p) g qt h = a (x'-x
c
) L (Xo/p)
0
-
5
(4.5.1)
in which
x
c
= 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.
Eq. 4.5.1 can be rearranged to yield
'^'^"KPrPHs^
50 (452)
Here dso is used for the median diameter of the bed material mixture and f is the friction
factor of the bed which can be determined from the Darcy-Weisbach equation for open
channel flows as:
f=2g(4R)S/V
2
(
4
-
5
-
3
)
with R = hydraulic radius of the flow cross section, S = slope of the channel bed, and V =
average flow velocity. In the original report, Engelund and Hansen used Darcy-Weisbach
Chapter 4
:
equation for pipe lines to evaluate f and hence the parameter 4R was replaced by the pipe
diameter D. Using the definition of Shield's parameter x* = x
0
/ [g (p
s
-p) dso] as described
in Sec. 2.2, the terms x
c
and x' were written in the dimensionless forms as:
x*c = x
c
/ [g (ps-p) d
50
] = 0.06 (4.5.4)
x'* = T' / [g (ps-p) d
50
] (4.5.5)
Replacing for x
0
, x
c
and x' from Eqs. 2.3, 4.5.4 and 4.5.5, respectively, into Eq. 4.5.2 and
rearranging, the following expression was obtained:
fq
t
(J*-) = a(x'*-0.06)v^\/g(^-l)d
5 0
3
( 4 5 6)
Next by introducing the dimensionless sediment discharge parameter O from
O = qt{g[(p
s
/p)-l]d50
3
}-
a5
(
4
-
5
-
7
)
into Eq. 4.5.6, Engelund and Hansen arrived at:
fO = (x'*-0.06)vx* (4.5.8)
Engelund and Hansen also showed that the parameter h/(f L) is constant for a particular
value of x'* and
x'*- 0.06 = 0.4 x*
2
(4-5.9)
Hence Eq. 4.5.8 was written as
fO = const.x*
5/2
(4.5.10)
Using data from four sets of experiments in a large laboratory flume, 2.4m wide and 45m
length, reported in Guy et al (1966), Engelund and Hansen calibrated Eq. 4.5.10 and came
to their final correlation for sediment transport estimation as
f O = 0.4 x*
5/2
(4.5.11)
Lnapter*
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.
As 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. 4.5.11
and solving for total bed material load qt, the following simple expression can be obtained:
qt = 0.05 V
2
(RS)l-5 g-0-5
A
-2 d
50
-l (4.5.12)
wherein A = (p
s
/p) - 1.
4.5.3. Drawbacks of Engelund and Hansen procedure
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.
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 d
s
. 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 move 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 when a big proportion of sediment material
move 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.
4.5.4. A proposed modification to Engelund and Hansen's equation
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. To rectify this
drawback, the following formula is recommended by the author to be used instead of Eq.
4.5.11.
f<X> = K(x'*-x*
c
)Vx* (4.5.13)
This expression is obtained from Eq. 4.5.8 through the substitution of the constant value of
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?
roughness x', which is used in calculation of x'*, the Manning-Strickler equation as
explained in Sec. 4.3.4 can be used. In using Eq. 4.5.13, for x'* values less than x*
c
, the
transport rate of total load should be equated to zero.
4.6. TOFFALETI (1969)
4.6.1. Introduction
Fred B. Toffaleti (1969) proposed an approach to predict the transport rates of both bed and
suspended loads for individual size fractions of bed material. He tested his model with 600
sets of observed data from all types of rivers, small to large, under a full range of flow
conditions, and from flume experiments conducted under widely varying flow and sediment
size conditions, and claimed consistently satisfactory predictions. One drawback with
Toffaleti's formulation is that the relevant equations are not dimensionally homogeneous
and are developed for fps system of units.
4.6.2. Formulation of suspended load
Toffaleti (1969) assumed that the actual stream for which the sediment discharge is to be
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+Z
v
)V(y/R)
z
v
(4.6.1)
where u = flow velocity at depth y above the channel bed, V = average flow velocity of
the real stream, and Z
v
is given by the following empirical equation.
Z
v
= 0.1198 + 0.00048 TDF (4.6.2)
in which TDF = flow temperature in degree Fahrenheit, to transfer from degree
Centigrade (TDC) to Fahrenheit the following equation can be used.
TDF = 32 + (9/5) TDC
For expressing the concentration distribution of suspended material, Toffaleti divided the
hypothetical depth R into the four zones shown in Fig. 4.6.1; the bed zone of relative
Chapter 4
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 1
th
size fraction as:
Q = C
ui
(y/R)-l-5Z
i
Q = C
m i
(y/R)-Zi
Q = q. (y/R)-0.756
Zi
for upper zone
for middle zone
for lower zone
(4.6.3)
in which concentration is expressed in pounds per cubic feet. The exponent Zj in this
equation is given by
Zi = VcOi/(SRC
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
C
7
= 260.67 - 0.667 T D F (4.6.5)
Upper zone
Middle zone
Lower zone
C=C .(*)
,.-!..-,
Ci-C.,'
. - * i
Ci-c^r
0
2
Velocity,
Bed zone Concentration, C-
Figure 4.6.1. Important definitions in Toffaleti's model
Let q
su
i, q
S
mi, and q
s
ii 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
S
ui= P i C
ui
(f
L 5 Z i
(1+Z
V
) V (|)
Z
v dy
y
"2.5
(4.6.6)
Chapter4
n
... , .
c
- Critical investigation. 79
q
*mi
=
J l i L
C
mi ()
Z{
d+Z
v
) V (|)
Z
v
d
y
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 q
s
i = 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_
)
-
224Z
i
(
_R_
)
-
5Z
ir
R
l+Z
v
-1.5Z
i r
_Rxl+Zyl.5Zi
q
sui l+Z
v
-1.5z/ll.24
;
4.5
j LK v 1_
"
(
23
]
(4.6.10)
q =
M i
(-R-)-
224Z
i uJL)
1 + Z
v"
Z
i _ ,__R_x 1+Zvîi ,, , ,
n
q
snn l+Zv-ZjMl.24^
K
2.5
; {
ll.2A
} J
(4.6.11)
q r
= Mi r(_R_) l+
z
v~0-756Z
i
_ i
+
z
v
-0.756Z
n
qsl1
1+Z-0.756Z;
U
11.24
J
^
a
i
; V 1J
(4.6.12)
M
in which
Mi = 43.2
Pi
C
U
(1+Z
V
) V
(
R0.756Z
r
Z
v )
^ ^
Here the weight proportion of size fraction i with respect to the whole bed material
mixture is denoted by pi. In these equations the parameters C
u
i 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
.
Toffaleti used a similar approach to Einstein's (1950) bed load function and extended an
equivalent form of <->*-* relationship to the lower zone. Next by fitting the resulting
relation to a vast amount of river data he derived an empirical equation for suspended
sediment transport in the lower zone as:
0.600 p;
^sli = -
TA)5/3
(
_ _ _ _ _ i _ )
5 / 3
(4.6.14)
k
V
2
; l
0.00058
;
Chapter 4
in which A is a function of (10
5
v)
1/3
/10u*' given in Fig. 4.6.2; u*'= shear velocity with
respect to grains in ft/sec; and T is given by
T = 1.1 ( 0.051 + 0.00009 T D F ) (4.6.15)
In Eq. 4.6.14, q
s
ii is expressed in tons/day/ft, d[ in feet and the kinematic viscosity v in
ft
2
/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 large rivers under widely varying conditions.
Here as a computational check point, Toffaleti states that in some cases, particularly in
flume studies in which rather severe flow conditions are imposed, a modification of factor
A is required. For this purpose the value of "B = [(10
5
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 unknown
parameter, i.e. Cu, will be obtained. Then fractional suspended load transport q
s
i 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 q
s
=2q
s
i-
B
Figure 4.6.2. Correction factors in Toffaleti's model
Chapter 4
4.6.3. Computation of bed load
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
Qbi = (Q)
y
_2di V
2
di
2d
i (
4
-
6
-
16
)
or using the Eqs. 4.6.1, 4.6.3, and 4.6.13
q
b
i = Mi(2di)l+Z
v
-
a756Z
i (4.6.17)
in which q
b
i 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
(Ci)
y=
2di = Qi (2d
i
/R)"0-756Z
i (
4.
6
.1
8)
If the concentration given by Eq. 4.6.18 is greater than 100 lb/ft
3
(16 kg/m
3
) the
concentration Q i in all equations should be arbitrarily adjusted so that this equation gives
a concentration equal to 100 lb/ft
3
. Hence, for (Q)
y
_2di > 100 lb/ft
3
(Ci)corrected = Qi [100/(Ci)
y=2
di] (4-6.19)
Amongst 600 individual sets of data used by Toffaleti in the calibration of his model, this
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 q
b
i and q
s
j or
qti = qbi + qsi (4.6.20)
4.6.4. Theoretical comparison of Toffaleti and Einstein methods
Although Toffaleti's (1969) theory is basically a modification of the Einstein's (1950) bed
load function, there exists a few important departures. One of the differences is the
approach to the computation of reference concentration. Toffaleti first derived an
empirical relation for the suspended sediment transport in the lower zone. Then he used
this equation to calculate reference concentration or bed load concentration at a distance y
Chapter 4
= 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 selection
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. As 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 have
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.
4.6.5. Drawbacks in Toffaleti's bed load formulation
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
qbi = (Q)
y=2
di
u
y
=2di
2d
i
(4.6.16)
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
Uy^^, and
3 - Both (Ci)
y
_2_i and u
y
_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 2.0mm 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 u
y
=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
C
b
i = ai(Ci)
y=
2di (
4
-6-21)
U
b
= a2 u
y
_2di (4.6.22)
Bed load transport rate q
b
i for size fraction i is equal to the product of the mean velocity
of the bed load particles U
b
, mean concentration of the bed load C
b
i, and the thickness of
the bed load layer 2di, i.e.
qbi = C
b
i U
b
2di
(4.6.23)
Chapter 4
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:
qbi = (Q)
y=2di
u
y=2di
2dj (4.6.24)
or using the Eqs. 4.6.1, 4.6.3, and 4.6.13
q
bi
= a Mi (2di)l
+ z
v
" -
756z
i (4.6.25)
Here a = ai a2 is a calibration factor which should be determined through the calibration
of Eq. 4.6.25 with independent measurements of bed load transport in open channel
flows. W h e n Toffaleti's procedure was tested against bed load measurements of Elbow,
Jordan, and Meshushim rivers, and laboratory flume data of Samaga et al and Mantz (see
Chapter 7), it was clearly observed that Toffaleti's bed load formula in almost all the
cases underestimates.the actual bed load transport rates with an average factor of 15. This
suggests that the coefficient a should have a value between 10 to 20. However, the true
calibration of Eq. 4.6.25 needs additional data which is not available to the author.
4.7. ACKERS and WHITE (1973) - TOTAL LOAD
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 F
gr
, 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
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 .
4.7.2. Formulation of the total bed material load
Based on dimensional analysis, stream power concept and physical arguments, Ackers
and White derived three dimensionless functions D
gr
, Fgr, and Ggr, as representatives of
different flow and sediment parameters. Dimensionless grain diameter D
gr
, expresses the
ratio of the immersed weight of the grains to the viscous forces of the flow, and can be
shown by equation
D
gr
= d
s
(Ag/v
2
)l/
3
(4.7.1)
with A = (p
s
/p) -1 = relative immersed density of the particles, p
s
and d
s
indicating the
density and size of the sediment material, respectively, and the parameters v and p denote
the kinematic viscosity and density of the flow, respectively. This equation can be
obtained by eliminating shear velocity from the two Shields' parameters x* and R* (see
Sec. 2.2). D ^ is a general parameter and is applicable to all ranges of grain diameters
from fine to coarse sediments.
The dimensionless mobility number F
gr
, is defined as the square root of the ratio of bed
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 d
s
in which 9 is a void or packing factor. The square root of the ratio of bed shear stress x
0
,
to this resistance force is called F
gr
, i.e.
Fgr = (x
0
/p)-
5
/ (gAd
s
)0-5 (4.7.2)
where the product 9 p,which can be taken as constant for typically shaped sediments, is
omitted from the formulation. Comparison of Fgr with Shields' parameter x* from Eq.
2.3 indicates that the real mobility parameter, i.e. Fgr
2
, is same as x* or
Chapter 4
F
gr
= X*-5 (4.7.3)
Ackers and White used two different expressions for effective shear stress responsible for
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
=pgDS and u*=
(x
0
/p)-
5
, Eq. 4.7.2 for fine sediments can be written as:
Fgr = u* / (gAds)O-
5
(4.7.4)
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:
u
_.-/3i_=
V
^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
F=
l V
S
r
-yFAd7^2
l o g
(ifiD) (4.7.6)
a
s
Ackers and White continued investigation towards establishment of transitional relations
to consider the transportation of intermediate grain sizes. They used a transition exponent
n, which is a function of sediment size d
s
, to combine Eqs. 4.7.4 and 4.7.6 into the
following general form
^
r
-
v
Âd7Wlog(iP)
J
<
4
-
7
-
7
>
a
s
In this equation the exponent n does have a physical significance, since its magnitude is
related to dimensionless grain diameter D
gr
. For coarse sediments (n=0) the expression
Chapter 4
reduces to Eq. 4.7.6. For fine sediments (n=l) Eq. 4.7.4 will be obtained. For
intermediate or transitional sizes, n may 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.
Dimensionless sediment transport Ggr is defined based on Bagnold's stream power as
G
gr
=F
gr
2
7
1
(4.7.8)
where T| is a function of the efficiency of total bed material transport. Ackers and White
related the efficiency function rj to the product of mean flow velocity and the net shear
stress acting on the grains for coarse sediments. For fine sediments they assumed that
total stream power, i.e. the product of the overall shear stress and mean flow velocity, is
effective. Unlike Bagnold (1966), Ackers and White considered the efficiency factor as a
function of the mobility parameter F
gr
and introduced the following relationship for
dimensionless sediment transport Ggr,
r
_ qt D ,u*\
n
.. _ _.
G
gr ~ T d_"
(
V
}
(
4
-
7
-
9
)
where q
t
= total sediment transport in volumetric rate per unit width of the channel and q
is the unit water discharge.
The general form of the relationship between F
gr
, D
gr
and G
gr
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 D
gr
. 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 minimum scatter in plots of F
gr
versus G
gr
.
According to Ackers and White:
For coarse sediments where D
gr
> 60.0 (or approximately d
s
> 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
(mm) < 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 exhibit
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 15C 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 F
gr
for the initiation of motion of bed
material. For coarse sediments this critical criterion agrees well with Shields' approach,
whereas for fine particles it gives results less than those of Shields.
4.7.3. General Observations
I - By equating Eq. 4.7.9 and 4.7.10 one can get a general formula for estimating total
bed material discharge based on Ackers and White procedure:
H<>
n
=-
1
>
m (4
-
7
'
12)
II - Ackers and White (1973) verified their proposed approach with a limited amount of
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-
4.8. YANG (1973 and 1984) - TOTAL LOAD
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 DuBoys' (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.
In 1973 Yang carried out further investigation on the correlation of sediment
concentration with dimensionless unit stream power, and on introducing a new criterion
for the incipient motion of sediment particles. Yang's study was limited to the non-
cohesive natural sand with a mean diameter between 0.065mm to 2.0mm, a specific
gravity of 2.65, and a shape factor of about 0.7, transported in the alluvial channels
under equilibrium condition. In U S P approach, Yang used the advantages of
dimensional analysis to recognise the most important dimensionless groups and to
identify their inter-relationships. Although the numerical values of coefficients in Yang's
equations were determined through multiple regression analysis with 463 sets of data
from sand transport in laboratory flumes, application of the calibrated equations to the
natural rivers has indicated a very good predicability.
Yang (1984) attempted to recalibrate the fundamental equation of unit stream power and
make it applicable to the particle sizes greater than 2.0mm, i.e. to the gravel and coarser
bed materials which usually move as bed load. Due to the lack of reliable measured data
from bed load transport in the field, Yang 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.
4.8.2. Formulation of Yang's (1973) equation
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. Yang
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
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:
USP = dy/dt = (dy/dx). (dx/dt) = S . V (4.8.1)
in which y = the elevation above the datum which also represents the potential energy per
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. As
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, Yang (1972) found that the following
relation provides the best correlation between total sediment concentration Ct and unit
stream power (VS)
log Q = A_ + Bi log(VS) (4.8.2)
This is the basic equation of USP approach. Here Ai and Bi are coefficients to be
determined from laboratory and field data. In order to introduce the condition of incipient
motion to Eq. 4.8.2, Yang suggested the following expression:
log Q = A + B log(VS - V
C
S) (4.8.3)
in which V
c
denotes the critical average flow velocity and the product (V
C
S) indicates the
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, Yang (1973) introduced the following criterion for
incipient motion.
log(-V
i
)-0.06 for 1.2 <(u*d
s
/v)< 70.0
Chapter 4
c
- = 2 05
03
for 70.0 < (u*d
s
/v)
(4.8.4)
where (u*d
s
/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 V
c
/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
C
t
= 0.0 for V<V
C
(4.8.5)
In order to develop a dimensionless USP equation for computing total sediment
concentration, Yang (1973) used the dimensional analysis and expressed the following
functional form for Ct
YS V
C
S u* cod
s
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 found
that the equation
VS v
r
s
N
logC
t
= I_ +J_ log(^f--&-)
(
4.
8
.
7)
provides the best correlation between total sediment concentration Q and dimensionless
effective unit stream power (VS/co) - (V
c
S/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
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 d
s
= dso = median sieve diameter of bed material.
Yang and Stall (1976) used a total of 156 sets of field data collected from five different
rivers to verify the applicability of USP 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 of flume and
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, USP approach usually under-estimated the sediment transport rates.
Eq. 4.8.7 can be used directly in predicting total concentration of graded bed material
particles if the median diameter is a good indicator of the overall size gradation.
However, if size distribution is highly non-uniform, the concentration, Q, of each size
fraction i should be individually computed and then the following summation should be
used to give the total sediment concentration Ct
Ct = E
Pi
Ci (4.8.10)
wherein pi is the corresponding weight proportion of sediments available in the size
fraction i.
4.8.3. Formulation of Yang's (1979) method
Neglecting the critical USP in Eq. 4.8.7 , Yang (1979) proposed the following simplified
equations:
logC
t
= I
2
+ J
2
log(^) (4.8.11)
co d u*
I
2
= 5.165-0.153 l o g ( ^ ) -0.297 l o g ^ )
(4 8 12)
cod
0
u*
J
2
= 1.78-0.36 logHv
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 field
data, Yang (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.
4.8.4. Formulation of Yang's (1984) gravel transport equation
Since the earlier USP procedure was applicable only to sand transport, Yang (1984) tried
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 move as bed load. Due to the lack of reliable
measured data from bed load transport in the field, Yang 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 new correlations of I and J factors
were found as,
co d u*
I
3
= 6.681 - 0.633 logt-v-^) ~
4
-
816 lo
g(-_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.
4.8.5. Drawbacks in Yang's (1973) criterion for incipient motion
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
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*d
s
/v) - 0.06 = 0.0] or (u*d
s
/v) = 1.148 the
dimensionless critical mean flow velocity V
c
/co becomes infinite. This means that
sediments with diameter as small as 0.1mm never start to move 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
(V
c
/co)=2.05 for particle Reynolds number (u*d
s
/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.
4.8.6. A proposed modification to Yang's USP theory
Starting from turbulent energy production rate per unit weight of the flow, using a linear
distribution for shear stress, a logarithmic velocity distribution, and Rouse concentration
distribution, Yang and Molinas (1982) attempted to find a theoretical support for the U S P
approach. From Yang and Molinas' investigation, the following expression for the
computation of total sediment concentration in uniform flows can be obtained:
logC
t
= A
2
+ Zlog(VS) (4.8.16)
where Z = CO/(KU*) is the Rouse number, and A2 is a complex function of other hydraulic
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
vs.
a
-
^ ,VS v
c
~ KU*
C
t
= A
3
( - ^ ~
r
)
(4
.
8
.17)
in which A3 is the only calibration variable to be determined as a function of
dimensionless shear velocity u*/co and fall velocity Reynolds number cod
s
/v through
regression analysis with laboratory and field data. Although Eq. 4.8.17 is supported by
the fundamental concepts of fluid mechanics it is not clear why Yang and Molinas (1982)
and Yang (1984) did not use this modification to simplify the computational procedures.
Chapter 4
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.
4.8.7. USP or dimensionless USP
One major question with the results of Yang's contribution is that from the two concepts
of unit stream power (USP) = V S , and dimensionless unit stream power (DUSP) =
(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 Yang (1973) expressed the following functional form for the
computation of Ct
C
-crvVS u__ ____h
u
t ~ ^ co ' co ' v > (4.8.18)
which directly shows that Q should be related to (VS/co) rather than VS. By the analysis
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.
Bagnold's (1966) suspended sediment concentration is also proportional to the DUSP.
This can be shown by using q = V D and x
G
=pgDS into Eq. 4.4.26 and solving for the
weight concentration of suspended material C
s
:
C
s
= qs/(pgq) = (0.01/A) (VS/co) (4.8.19)
In the author's theory, which is based on turbulence energy concept, it has been shown
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 USP,
Chapter 4
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. VAN RIJN (1984) - BED AND SUSPENDED LOAD
4.9.1. General
After several years of experimental, theoretical and mathematical research in the area of
sediment transport at Delft Hydraulics Laboratory, Netherlands, van Rijn (1984)
introduced a new approach for predicting transport rate of bed and suspended loads.
Rijn (1984a, b and c) also proposed new 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.
4.9.2. Formulation of the bed load transport
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.
q
b
= C
b
u
b
6
b
(4.9.1)
Based on numerical solution of equation of motion for a spherical saltating particle, Rijn
presented the following relationships for evaluating 8
b
and u
b
:
5b/d50 = 0.3 d*0.7 T0-5 (4.9.2)
u
b
= (A g d
5 0
)
0
-
5
1.5T0-6
(4.9.3)
Chapter 4
Here A = (p
s
/p) -1 and d* is dimensionless particle diameter as defined by Ackers and
White (1973).
d* = ci5o[gA v
2
]
1/3
(4.9.4)
The term T is called dimensionless transport parameter and is defined as
T = (x7x
c
)-1 (4.9.5)
where x' is the bed shear stress related to grains and x
c
is the critical bed shear stress
according to Shields. Using the definition of shear velocity u*=(x/p)
0
-
5
, Eq. 4.9.5 can
be written as
T = (u*'
2
- u*
c
2
)/ u*
c
2
(4.9.6)
From Eq. 4.9.5 it is clear that for T < 0.0 or x' < x
c
no sediment transport would happen.
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. To compute bed shear velocity related to grains u*', Rijn used Chezy formula
and defined u*' as:
u*' = (g-5 Id) V (4.9.7)
where V is the average flow velocity and c' = Chezy coefficient related to grains. Rijn
proposed the following expression for c'
c'=181og[12R
b
/(3d
9
o)] (4.9.8)
in which R
b
= hydraulic radius related to the bed and 3d
9
o = effective roughness height
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 function of
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. From analysis of 130 sets of measured bed load transport in laboratory
flumes, with particle diameters ranging from 0.2mm - 2.0mm, Rijn showed that the bed
load concentration C
b
can be determined through
Chapter 4
C
b
/ C
o
= 0.18T/d* (4.9.9)
in which C
0
= maximum volumetric bed concentration = 0.65. By substituting 5
b
, u
b
and C
b
from Eqs. 4.9.2, 4.9.3 and 4.9.9, respectively, into Eq. 4.9.1 and rearranging,
Rijn (1984a) arrived at
qb / [(A g)
0
-
5
d
5
o
L5
] = 0.053 T
2
-l / d*0-
3
(4.9.10)
This equation is dimensionally homogeneous and gives the bed load transport rate qb per
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.
4.9.3. Formulation of suspended load transport
Rijn's (1984b) expression for the estimation of suspended load q
s
is based on depth
integration of the product of the vertical profiles of the flow velocity and sediment
concentration, i.e.,
q
s
=f Cy.ii.dy (4.9.11)
J a
where C
y
= concentration of suspended particles at depth y from the channel bed, u =
local flow velocity, D = total flow depth, and 'a' = bed load layer thickness or reference
height. Based on regression and dimensional analyses, Rijn expressed the reference
concentration C
a
defined at level 'a' by
C
a
= 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)
a = 0.5 A
b
for 0 < T < 25
a = k
s
for 25 < T (4.9.13)
with a = 0.01D for a < 0.01D. Here Ab = bed form height and can be obtained from the
following equation (Rijn, 1984c):
A
b
= 0.11D(d
5
o/D)0-
3
(25-T)(l-e-
0
-
5T
) for 0 < T < 2 5
A
b
= 0.0 for T < 0 or 25 < T
(4.9.14)
Rijn (1984c) expressed Nikuradse sand roughness k
s
, as:
k
s
= 3d
90
+ 1.1 A
b
(1 -
e
-
25Ab/
(
7
-
3D
)) (4.9.15)
Eqs. 4.9.14 and 4.9.15 are based on regression analysis of a vast number of data from
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.
u/u* = (1/K) In (y/y
G
) (4.9.16)
wherein u* = shear velocity , K = Prandtl-von Karman constant, and y
0
= a small
distance above the channel bed where Eq. 4.9.16 gives a zero velocity. For alluvial
channels the presence of sediments and bed forms affects the distribution of flow
velocity. However, based on laboratory flume data of Barton and Lin (1955), and
Vanoni and Brooks (1957), Rijn (1984b) showed that velocity profile for sediment-laden
flows, with not very heavy sediment loads, can be calculated from Eq. 4.9.16.
For the vertical distribution of suspended sediments, Rijn used the well-established
Rouse concentration equation in the following form
C
1
= l^J
1
) (_53l)] for y/D < 0.5
a
c
Z = (
Dî
)Ze
~
4Z(D
"~'
5) for
y/
0
^
0
-
5
(
4
-
9
-
17
)
a
where Z = CO
S
/(PKU*) = suspension parameter, u* = overall bed shear velocity, co
s
=
representative fall velocity of the suspended sediments, P = coefficient related to the
diffusion of sediment particles and is defined as
(3=1.02 for co
s
/u*<0.1
P = 1 + 2 (co
s
/u*)
2
for 0.1 < co
s
/u* < 1.0
P = 3 for 1.0<co
s
/u* (4.9.18)
Chapter 4
Critical investigation. JOJ
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
q
s
= FVDC
a
(4.9.19)
in which q
s
indicates suspended load transport rate per unit width in volumetric ratio and
C
a
is defined by Eq. 4.9.12. The concentration parameter F can be determined from:
F= [(a/D)Z' - (a/D)
1
-
2
] / [(l-a/D)
z
' (1.2 - Z')] (4.9.20)
with
Z'= (Z + (j)) < 25 (4.9.21)
Here <)) denotes overall correction factor representing all the additional corrections needed
and is given by
4> = 0.063 (C
a
/C
0
)-
4
for co
s
/u* < 0.01
4> = 2.5 (co
s
/u*)
0
-
8
(C
a
/C
0
)-
4
for 0.01 < co
s
/u* < 1.0
4 = 2.5 (C
a
/C
0
)-
4
for 1.0 < co
s
/u*
(4.9.22)
For the calculation of mean fall velocity of suspended solids co
s
, Rijn (1984b) introduced
the representative particle size of suspended sediment d
s
as:
d
s
=[l+0.011(o-s-l)(T-25)]d
5
o for T<25
d
s
= d
5 0
for T > 25
(4.9.23)
where o"
s
is the geometric standard deviation of sediment mixture and is calculated from:
rj
s
= 0.5 (d
84
/d
5
o + d
50
/di6) (4-9.24)
Note that d
s
is always less than or equal to dso- The representative fall velocity co
s
can
then be obtained from Eq. 2.14 using d
s
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 score was
obtained by Bagnold (1966) with a value of 69%.
4.9.4. Overall shear velocity
The only remaining parameter to be discussed in Rijn's suspended load procedure is the
overall bed shear velocity u*. Usually u* is computed from u* = (g R S)
0
-
5
in which R
= hydraulic radius, g = acceleration of the gravity, and S = slope of the energy fine or
water surface slope. However, Rijn (1984b and c) used Chezy formula and introduced
the following equation for evaluating u* which is independent of energy slope S
u* = (gO-5/c)V (4.9.25)
in which V = mean flow velocity and c = overall Chezy coefficient defined by
c=181og(12R
b
/k
s
) (4.9.26)
with k
s
= equivalent roughness (sum of the grain and form roughness) defined in Eq.
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
^ = ^32 1og(^) + 8.5 (4.9.27)
_>
where u is local flow velocity at level y above the channel bed. Keulegan integrated Eq.
4.9.27 over the depth and obtained
v
, 12.27 R
h
= JyI\og(
k
b
) (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)
which is the general form of Eq. 4.9.26 proposed by Rijn.
Chapter 4
4.9.5. Rijn simplified sediment transport equations
Rijn (1984c) proposed the following simplified equations to compute transport rates of
both bed and suspended loads:
Qu V-V 2-4 den 1-2
-2_L.
=
n 005 (
c
^ r-5^
V D
aUU!>(
yAid^
) (
D
}
(4.9.30)
-SJL - n 012 V-V
c
s
2
-
4
r
d
50x
d
- 0.6
V D -
a U 1 2 (
^ A 7 d ^
) (
D
) d
* (4.9.31)
where A = (p
s
/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 mean flow velocity:
.0.1 i^
1 2 R
b^
*90
V
c
= 0.19 d
5 0
- log(-3^) f
0r
o. 1 < d50(mm) < 0.5
(4.9.32)
V
c
= 8.5 d
50
u
- log(^-^)
for 0
.5 < d50(mm) < 2.0
0.6w___J__V
3d
9 0
(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).
4.9.6. Advantages of Rijn sediment transport theory
I - Rijn's (1984a, b and c) model is the most comprehensive theory of sediment transport
amongst all the recently published procedures. He has proposed new or modified
relationships for almost all the parameters involved in sediment transport phenomenon,
including:
- vertical distribution of suspended sediment concentration,
- representative diameter for non-uniform suspended particles,
- fall velocity of suspended particles,
- thickness of bed load layer or reference concentration,
- averaged bed load concentration,
Chapter 4
- bed load transport rate,
- suspended load transport rate,
- Nikuradse equivalent sand roughness,
- bed form height and length,
- Chezy coefficient related to grains and overall Chezy coefficient, and
- simplified equations for estimating bed and suspended load.
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 was
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 natural rivers during 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 may 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 may produce more errors.
4.9.7. Limitations of Rijn sediment transport theory
I - Rijn (1984a) suggested that the proposed expressions of bed load concentration and
transport rate, i.e. Eqs. 4.9.9 and 4.9.10, are applicable to the sand grains with diameter
between 0.2mm and 2.0mm However, in natural streams with high energy slope, bed
loads mostly include gravel particles, which are greater than 2.0mm in diameter.
II - Rijn's (1984b) expression of suspended load, Eq. 4.9.19, is applicable to the sand
particles in the range of 0.1mm - 0.5mm. Here again this equation does not cover those
Chapter 4
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 initiation
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 turbulent fluctuations are responsible for suspension, and
bed forms are also effective in the generation of turbulence, use of overall shear stress,
which is defined as the sum 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. WIUFF (1985) - SUSPENDED LOAD
4.10.1. General
A simple formula based on energy exchange in alluvial streams is proposed by Rasmus
Wiuff (1985) for the estimation of suspended load. Wiuff related the suspended load
discharge to a particular dimensionless efficiency function which was defined as the ratio
of the gain in potential energy of the suspended materials to the dissipation of turbulence
energy. Wiuff s efficiency function is basically same as the suspended load efficiency
factor in Bagnold's (1966) theory. Using the experimental results of Guy et al (1966),
Wiuff showed that despite Bagnold's assumption, the suspended load efficiency is not
constant but varies linearly with Shields' dimensionless shear stress parameter.
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.
4.10.2. Description of the theory
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. The 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
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 of
non-cohesive material in steady and uniform conditions:
P
T
= x
0
V = pgDSV (4.10.2)
P
G
= pgAco
s
DC
D
(4.10.3)
In these equations A = (p
s
/p) -1, p = mass density of the fluid, p
s
= mass density of
sediments, V = average flow velocity, D = total flow depth, S = water surface or channel
bed slope, co
s
= 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
C
y
dy
(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=
_LD___s (4.10.5)
This expression is the key equation in Wiuff s investigation, which is derived here in a
simpler way. Both co
s
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
co
s
, and transport or flux-averaged concentration O p is used instead of C D - The transport
concentration C j is defined as
q
s
1 f
D
C T =
- q "
=
V D i ^ ^ (4-10.6)
in which q
s
= 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
n
s
= ^F
(4107)
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
T]
s
= 0.016 x* (4.10.8)
wherein x* is expressed by
x* = x
0
/[(ps-p)gd
s
] (4-10.9)
with x
0
= p g D S and d
s
representing sediment diameter. Substituting T|
s
and x* from
Eqs. 4.10.7 and 4.10.9, respectively, into Eq. 4.10.8 and solving for C
T
, the final
expression for transport concentration of suspended sediments in volumetric ratio was
obtained as
C
T
= 0.016^^- (4.10.10)
A
z
d
s
c o
Using Eqs. 4.10.6 and 4.10.10, suspended load transport per unit time and unit width in
volumetric ratio can be written as:
nm
,(VDS)
2
q
s
= 0.016
v
2
(4.10.11)
A
z
d
s
c o
ChapterJ ___^ Critical investigation, 108
As there is no condition for the initiation of motion of sediment particles in Eqs. 4.10.10
and 4.10.11, Wiuff's theory predicts suspended load even for the flows that are not
capable of transporting sediment. In order to rectify this drawback Wiuff suggested that
for x* values less than 0.06, sediment discharge and concentration values should be
considered equal to zero.
4.10.3. Comparison of Wiuff (1985) and Bagnold (1966) theories
Wiuff (1985) theory is in fact a modification of Bagnold's (1966) equation of suspended
sediment transport. Based on Bagnold's procedure transport concentration C T can be
written as
C
T = -
C
f
= e
s(
1
-
e
b)
(Ps
_p
)
g
C
oD (4.10.12)
Substituting for x
G
from x
Q
= p g D S and solving for e
s
(l- e
b
), the following expression
can be obtained:
A CT co
e
s (
1
-
e
b ) = " ^ - (4.10.13)
Comparison of this equation with Wiuff s Eq. 4.10.7 indicates that the two expressions
are basically the same. The only difference is in symbols e
s
(l-e
b
) and rj
s
for suspended
load efficiency. Based on theoretical arguments, Bagnold concluded that the term e
s
(1-
e
b
) 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:
e
s
d-e
b
)=T
ls
= 0.016
(ps
_
T
p
)gds
(4.10.14)
4.10.4. Discussion of Wiuff's suspended load efficiency
I - In calibration of efficiency function, Eq. 4.10.7, Wiuff used very limited sediment
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 many investigators have tested Wiuff s procedure.
Therefore, further research is necessary for the justification of Wiuff s efficiency
function.
Chapter 4
II - In the determination of suspended load efficiency r\
s
, Wiuff only used a simple linear
regression analysis of the type
ri
s
= ao + aiP (4.10.15)
in which ao and ai are estimated constants, and P is an independent variable. Non-linear
and other types of regression analysis were not used in Wiuff s investigation.
in - In calibration of Eq. 4.10.15, Wiuff used only a few dimensionless parameters
including Reynolds number, Froude number, Rouse number, and Shields parameter as
the independent variable. The dependency of T|
s
on the individual flow and sediment
parameters like mean velocity V and median diameter dso, and on the other combination
of sediment-laden flow parameters such as the well known stream power x
0
V or
dimensionless unit stream power VS/co was not investigated.
IV- According to the present study (see Chapter 7), under special hydraulic and sediment
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 much larger than 1.0, which is not feasible.
4.10.5. Drawbacks in Wiuff's condition for non-zero sediment transport
Wiuff s theory basically predicts suspended load transport for all the sediment-laden flow
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, q
s
= 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 2.0mm in diameter, which are
classified as gravel and usually move 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. SAMAGA ET AL (1986) - BED AND SUSPENDED LOAD
4.11.1. General
Indian scientists Belle R. Samaga, Kittur G. Ranga Raju, and Ramchandra J. Garde
introduced a new method for calculating bed and suspended load transport rates of
different size fractions of bed materials. Samaga et al used the results of their own
experiments together with laboratory and river data 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, Samaga 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.
4.11.2. Formulation of bed load transport
Samaga et al (1986a) used the bed load transport law of x'* - O
b
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
<D
bi
= f(x'*i) (4.11.1)
where Oft is dimensionless bed load transport for size fraction i defined as
Chapter 4
bi"
Pi
p^di V A g dj (4.11.2)
and x'*i is dimensionless effective shear stress for grain diameter di corresponding to the
size fraction i and is given by
T' -P
R
b
s
T
* i - S B i " ^ r r (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:
q
b
i = 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 of fluid and 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
R
b
' = Vi-5 d
65
0
-
25
/ (117.57 SO-75) (4.11.4)
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
and field measurements from Snake river, East fork river, and Bear river, Samaga 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, (Ay
s
) = (p
s
- p) g, x
oc
=
critical bed shear stress based on Shields' (1936) criterion corresponding to the arithmetic
mean diameter d
a
, i.e.
Chapter 4
X
oc
= 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
M = [E(
Pi
di) for di<d5o]/[(pidi) for di>d
50
]
(4.11.7)
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.
Table 4.11.1. Variation of LB with M (After Samaga et al, 1986a).
Kramer's uniformity
coefficient, M
<0.25
0.30
0.35
>0.40
L
B
0.63
0.77
0.98
1.00
100
F^r
1-0
0-5
0-1
_1 I I I L _ _
J 1 1 1 I _ J -
1.0 10.0
Fig. 4.11.1. Variation of K B with x'ôc (After Samaga et al, 1986a).
The author has developed analytical expressions for Table 4.11.1 and Figs. 4.11.1 and
4.11.2 to make computations more convenient and adaptable to computer programming
(see Sec. 4.11.5).
Chapter 4
Fig. 4.11.2. Variation of z'c/[(Ay
s
) di] with LBKB^BI (Af
ter
Samaga et al, 1986a).
The only remaining parameter to be determined for estimating bed load transport q
b
i is
the function f in Eq. 4.11.1. Through analysis of a large number of data from laboratory
flumes and natural rivers, Samaga et al suggested the following relationships to be used
for computation of Oft (Mittal et al, 1989):
O
bi
= 3.62 x 10
7
(x'*i)
8
for x'*i < 0.065
O
b i
= 8.5 (x'*!)
1
-
8
/ [1+ 5.95 x 10-
6
(x'*i)" 4.7] 1.45 f
or T
-*i > 0.065
(4.11.8)
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, q
b
j, can then be determined from Eq. 4.11.2.
4.11.3. Formulation of suspended load transport
Using a similar approach as in formulation of bed load, Samaga et al (1986a) developed a
procedure for computing suspended load transport of individual size fractions of bed
material. Samaga et al noticed that for uniform sediments, the parameters O
s
and x*,
namely dimensionless suspended load transport and dimensionless bed shear stress,
respectively, are uniquely related through the relation
O
s
= 28 x*
6
(4.11.9)
wherein
S
Ps
d
a
Agd.
x* =
______
A d
0
(4.11.10)
(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
the following equation:
wherein
O
s i
= 28x*i6
O
c
; =
q
S
i
s l
" P i P s
d
i V
A
g
d
i
x
*i
-
^si
RS
si Adi
(4.11.12)
(4.11.13)
(4.11.14)
q
s
i = suspended load transport rate in mass per unit width for size fraction corresponding
to di, and t\
s
i 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/[(Ay
s
) d_J,
and dimensionless bed shear stress Xo/x
oc
as
si =
G
(x?Z'
oc
u
0
(Ay
s
) dj
,M) (4.11.15)
w.o
vo
-I 1 1 1T-
Fig. 4.11.3. Variation ofK
s
with XQ/XQC (After Samaga etal, 1986b).
Chapter 4
Table 4.11.2. Variation ofL
s
with M (After Samaga et al, 1986b).
Kramer's uniformity
coefficient, M
<0.20
0.30
0.40
>0.50
0.80
0.90
0.96
1.00
Ks Ls s
- i i
_ 1 1 1 1 I _ _ _ L
(T./_r_.|)
J 1 i I i i .
Fig. 4.11.4. Variation ofTo/[(Ay
s
) df] andL
s
K
s
t,
s
i (After Samaga etal, 1986b).
Knowing the value of cj
s
j, shear stress parameter x*j can be obtained from Eq. 4.11.14
and using Eq. 4.11.12, the dimensionless suspended load transport O
s
j can be
calculated. The suspended load transport rate q
s
i for size fraction i can then be
determined from Eq. 4.11.13.
4.11.4. Critical comments
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.
II - There is no direct criterion for incipient motion of sediment particles in the Samaga et
al method. This means that the theory predicts bed and suspended load transport for all
the flow conditions, even for the case when the flow energy is not sufficient for the
transportation of sediment particles.
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 parameters and
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.
4.11.5. Analytical equations for Samaga et al graphs and tables
One of the disadvantages of the Samaga et al (1986a and b) theory is that several graphs
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.
I - The following equations can be used for determining LB and L
s
as functions of M.
M < 0.25
0.25 < M < 0.30
0.30 < M < 0.35
0.35 < M < 0.40
M > 0.40
(4.11.16)
M < 0 . 2
0.2 < M < 0.3
0.3 < M < 0.4
0.4 < M < 0.5
M > 0 . 5
(4.11.17)
II - The following equations can be used for computing K B as a function of X'O/XQC =
c
-
K
B
= 9.0 for c<0.1
K
B
= -6.0 c + 9.6 for 0.1<c<0.2
K
B
=-11.0 c+10.6 for 0.2<c<0.4
K
B
= -5.5 c + 8.4 for 0.4 < c < 0.6
K
B
= -4.5 c + 7.8 for 0.6 < c < 0.8
K
B
=-3.5 c + 7.0 for 0.8<c<1.0
L
B
= 0.63
L
B
= 2.8 M - 0.07
L
B
= 4.2 M - 0.49
L
B
= 0.4 M + 0.84
L
B
=1.0
L
s
= 0.80
L
s
= M + 0.60
L
s
= 0.6 M + 0.72
L
s
= 0.4 M + 0.80
L
s
=1.0
for
for
for
for
for
for
for
for
for
for
Chapter 4
K
B
=-1.6 c + 5.1 for 1.0<c<2.0
K
B
= -0.4 c + 2.7 for 2.0 < c < 4.0
K
B
= -0.05 c + 1.3 for 4.0 < c < 6.0
K
B
= 1.0 for c>6.0
(4.11.18)
in - The following equations can be used for computing K
s
as a function of Xo/x
oc
= c.
K
s
=
K
s
=
K
s
=
K
s
=
K
s
=
K
s
=
K
s
=
K
s
=
K
s
=
K
s
=
2.2
-0.1 c + 2.4
-0.15 c+ 2.55
-0.13 c+ 2.47
-0.086 c + 2.25
-0.094 c + 2.3
-0.095 c+ 2.31
-0.065 c + 2.01
-0.025 c+ 1.45
1.0
for
for
for
for
for
for
for
for
for
for
c<2.0
2.0 < c < 3.0
3.0 < c < 4.0
4.0 < c < 5.0
5.0 < c < 6.4
6.4 < c < 8.0
8.0 < c < 10.0
10.0 < c < 14.0
14.0 < c < 18.0
c > 18.0
(4.11.19)
IV - The following equations can be used for computing KBLE^ as a function of
x'
0
/[(Ay
s
) d
t
] = c.
KfiLB^Bi =
KfiLB^Bi =
KBLB^Bi =
KfiLB^Bi =
KfiLB^Bi =
KBLB^BI =
K
B
L
B
^Bi =
KfiLB^Bi =
KBLB^BI =
KfiLB^Bi =
KBLB^BI =
KBLB^BI =
KBLfi^Bi =
15.0
-800 c + 23.0
-170 c+10.4
-55 c + 5.8
-27.5 c+ 4.15
-15 c+ 3.13
-3.58 c + 2.01
-0.562 c + 0.8
-0.125 c+ 0.45
-0.02 c + 0.24
-0.0075 c + 0.165
-0.001c+ 0.1
0.08
for
for
for
for
for
for
for
for
for
for
for
for
for
c<0.01
0.01 < c < 0.02
0.02 < c < 0.04
0.04 < c < 0.06
0.06 < c < 0.08
0.08 < c < 0.1
0.1 <c<0.4
0.4 < c < 0.8
0.8 < c < 2.0
2.0 < c < 6.0
6.0 < c < 10.0
10.0 < c < 20.0
c > 20.0
(4.11.20)
V - The following equations can be used for computing K
s
L
s
^si as a function of
x
0
/[(Ay
s
)di] = c.
K
s
L
s
^si=4.10
KsLsî = -33.33 c + 7.77
K
s
L
s
^si=-15.83 c + 5.32
K
s
L,
si
= -4.75 c + 3.1
K
s
L
s
^si= -l-6c +1.84
K
s
L
s
^si =-0.8 c + 1.36
K
s
L
s
î=-0.5 c+1.12
K
s
L
s
^si = -0-2 c + 0.82
K
s
L
s
^si = -0.07 c + 0.56
K
s
L
s
î = -0.0225 c + 0.37
K
s
L
s
^si = -0.0085 c + 0.286
K
s
L
s
si = -0.0065 c + 0.27
KsLsî = 0.205
4.12. CELIK AND RODI (1991) - SUSPENDED LOAD
4.12.1. General
One of the recent contributions to the problem of sediment transport has been made by
Ismial Celik and Wolfgang Rodi (1991) who 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 certain flow as 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 associated
with the grain roughness is effective in the production of suspended load and proposed
an empirical equation for the evaluation of this particular portion. The final formula 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.
for
for
for
for
for
for
for
for
for
for
for
for
for
c<0.11
0.11 <c<0.14
0.14 <c< 0.2
0.2 < c < 0.4
0.4 < c < 0.6
0.6 < c < 0.8
0.8 < c < 1.0
1.0<c<2.0
2.0 < c < 4.0
4.0 < c < 6.0
6.0 < c < 8.0
8.0 < c < 10.0
c > 10.0
(4.11.21)
Chapter 4
Celik and Rodi's method is simple and dimensionally homogeneous. It is applicable to
the sediment particles in the range of 0.005mm to 0.6mm, i.e. fine silt to coarse sand,
with concentrations less than 1 0 % by volume.
4.12.2. Derivation of the basic relationship
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 the flow, as
suspended load work rate = (p
s
-p) g CD co (4.12.1)
in which CD = depth-averaged concentration of suspended materials, p
s
and p = mass
density of sediments and fluid flow respectively, g = acceleration of the gravity, and co =
mean fall velocity of suspended solids. Celik and Rodi assumed that "suspended load
work rate" is equivalent to the work that turbulent energy has to perform on the
suspended material to keep them in suspension and hence should appear as a sink term in
the budget equation for the turbulent kinetic energy. Adding this term to the k-equation
and integrating over the depth, Celik and Rodi arrived at
cxiXoV/D = (ps-p)gC
D
co (4.12.2)
where x
0
V/ D = total turbulent energy production rate per unit of fluid volume (see Sec.
6.2.2 for further derivation), x
0
= pgDS is the overall bed shear stress, V is the mean
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
C T = 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 way 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
C
T
= ^ (4-12.4)
with q
s
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)
4.12.3. Calibration and modification of the basic formula
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 when relatively large roughness elements
are present, only part of the overall shear stress is effective in moving particles in
suspension. The other part which is associated with form drag is not so effective for
suspension. To consider the roughness effect, Celik and Rodi defined an entirely
empirical relation for the evaluation of effective shear stress, x
e
as
x
e
=[l-(ks/D)
n
]x
0
(4-12.6)
wherein n is an empirical constant and k
s
is the equivalent sand roughness. If k
s
has not
been reported it can be estimated from
k
s
/D = 30 exp(-l - KV/U*) (4.12.7)
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
x
cs .0.15
(p
s
-p)gd
s
R*
CS _ r\ 7C
(Ps-P)gd
s
"
for
for
R* < 0.6
R* > 0.6
(4.12.8)
wherein R*=u*d
s
/v = boundary Reynolds number, and d
s
denotes the suspended
sediment diameter. Hence based on this criterion
C
T
= 0.0 and q
s
= 0.0 for x
e
<Xcs (4.12.9)
otherwise CT and q
s
can be predicted from
C
T
= a[l-(fe
n
]T
-^V
(4
_
mo)
D
J
(p
s
~P)gD <
:
n
x V
__) 1
T
o
V
D >
J
(p
s
-p)g
qs =
a
[
1
- ( T 3 ^ 7 r ^ o l F ^ (4-12.11)
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 sets
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.
4.12.4. Discussion on the proportionality coefficient
One of the critical assumptions in Celik and Rodi's (1991) theory is the consideration of
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
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 e
s
(l-e
b
) in Bagnold's
formulation. Based on theoretical arguments, Bagnold (1966) concluded an overall
constant value of 1 % for e
s
(l-e
b
). 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).
4.12.5. Discussion on the ratio of CD/CJ
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 may not be constant but a function of sediment and flow parameters.
Wiuff (1985) proposed the following equation for the ratio C D / C T :
C
D
ln(3QP-) -1
CT
=
l n (
3 0 D
) +
li (4-12-12)
According to Eq. 4.12.12 the ratio C
D
/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)
C
T
From the laboratory flume data of Guy 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
Beginning from a new 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
C
T
i u*
2
C ^
=
2
[ 1 + (
1 _ V
) ]
(6-40)
Since u*V for natural channels, Eq. 6.40 indicates that transport-concentration CT is
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 may be replaced by one of the above functional forms.
4.12.6. Discussion on the fall velocity
In the basic relation of Celik and Rodi (1991), i.e. Eq. 4.12.2, the term co is defined as
the mean fall velocity of the suspended particles. This means that in evaluation of co only
that part of the whole bed material which moves in suspension should be used. As 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.
The determination of settling velocity of suspended solids is laborious and needs
suspended load sampling from the whole flow depth. Specially for the case of flood
conditions, flow sampling is very difficult and expensive and needs more accurate and
advanced measurement equipment. O n the other hand, bed material samples are easily
obtainable and usually reported. Therefore, it will be useful to calibrate Eq. 4.12.10
such that co refers to the fall velocity of the whole bed material rather than suspended
solids only. This m a y be done either by recalibration of a and n, or by introducing a fall
velocity function such that
co
s
= f(co) (4.12.14)
in which co
s
= fall velocity of suspended particles and co = fall velocity of bed material
mixture. A s an example, Bagnold (1966) assumed, arbitrarily, that co
s
has one-half the
arithmetic mean fall velocity of the bed material.
Chapter 4
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 d
s
is median diameter dso or arithmetic mean diameter d
a
of suspended
particles, or it is a characteristic of bed materials.
4.12.7. Comparison with the methods of Bagnold and Yang
In general all the three methods of Celik and Rodi (1991), Bagnold (1966), and Yang
(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 load,
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
=pgDS into Eq. 4.12.10 and simplifying leads to
C
T
= a[l-(^)
n
]
I
p^
y
^ (4.12.15)
4.12.8. Discussion about effective shear stress
Celik and Rodi (1991) assumed that only a portion of the overall shear stress is effective
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.
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 of fine and medium 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
In this chapter a detailed analysis of 11 selected theories of sediment transport was
presented. For each of the theories, a general introduction, a brief description, critical
discussions and technical comments were given. Based on theoretical arguments, general
suggestions were made for the modification of a number of predictors. The summary of
the characteristics of the selected theories are given in Table 4.13.1.
It should be emphasised that all of the selected sediment load predictors estimate the "bed-
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. To 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 2.0mm 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 2.0mm 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 was also determined by numerical integration method.
Table 4.13.1 (a). Characteristics of the selected sediment transport theories.
Author(s)
Meyer-Peter
and Muller
Einstein
Bagnold
Engelund and
Hansen
Toffaleti
Ackers and
White
Yang
Yang
Rijn
Wiuff
Samaga et al
Celik and Rodi
Year
1948
1950
1966
1967
1969
1973
1973
1984
1984
1985
v
1986
1991
Types of
load
Bed
Bed and
Suspended
Bed and
Suspended
Total
Bed and
Suspended
Total
Total
(Sand
transport)
Total
(Gravel
transport)
Bed and
Suspended
Suspended
Bed and
Suspended
Suspended
Computation
for individual
size fractions
No
Yes
No
No.
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
Comments
Simple analytical
equation, Dimensionally
homogeneous
Complex computations,
Using a large number of
graphs
Analytical equations,
Dimensionally
homogeneous
Simple analytical
equation, Dimensionally
homogeneous
Dimensionally non-
homogeneous, Using
graphs
Dimensionally
homogeneous
Analytical,
Dimensionally
homogeneous, Simple
equations
Analytical,
Dimensionally
homogeneous, Simple
equations
Dimensionally
homogeneous
Simple analytical
equation
Using a large number of
graphs and tables
Simple analytical
equation
Note: All of the theories have been derived for steady uniform open channel flows and calculate bed
material load (wash load component is not included).
Table 4.13.1 (b). Characteristics of the selected sediment transport theories.
Author(s)
Meyer-Peter
and Muller
Einstein
Bagnoid
Engelund and
Hansen
Toffaleti
Ackers and
White
Yang
Yang
Rijn
Wiuff
Samaga et al
Celik and Rodi
Applicable to
particle size
(mm)
2.0 to 30.0
> 0.065
> 0.015
> 0.015
0.065 to 2.0
Sand transport
0.04 to 2.5
0.065 to 2.0
Sand transport
2.0 to 10.0
Gravel
transport
0.2 to 2.0 for
Bed load, and
0.1 to 0.5 for
Suspended load
0.065 to 2.0
> 0.065
0.005 to 0.6
Basic concepts
used
Bed shear stress
Stochastic
Stream power
Potential energy
Modification of Einstein
bed load function
Dimensional
analysis;
energy exchange
Unit stream power;
Regression analysis
Unit stream power;
Regression analysis
Numerical modelling;
Regression analysis
Potential energy
(Modification of
Bagnold)
Modification of
Einstein bed
load function
Turbulence energy
General modification
suggested
Using x*
c
instead of a
constant value
Using measured flow
velocities instead of
calculated values
None
Using x*
c
instead of a
constant value
correction on bed load
computation
general suggestion for
the functional form of
transition exponent n
Simple form of unit
stream power equation
Simple form of unit
stream power
Use of overall shear
stress for computation of
suspended load
None
None
Use of overall shear
stress for computation of
suspended load
Note: All of the theories have been derived for steady uniform open channel flows and calculate bed
material load (wash load component is not included).
It was discussed that Engelund-Hansen's derivation is essentially based on transportation
of bed load particles and cannot describe the transport mechanism of the suspended
sediments. Engelund-Hansen used a constant value of 0.06 for the dimensionless critical
shear stress. However, it was argued that in general this parameter cannot be considered
constant. To rectify this drawback, a modified formula was proposed.
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 move 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 make 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 was discussed that theoretically n is related to the mode of
particles transportation and the mode 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 Yang 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 mean velocity and energy slope. Based on the theoretical approach of Yang
and Molinas, a simpler D U S P equation was 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 of
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
Chapter 5. Development of computer programs
5.1. Introduction
It was indicated in Chapter 4 that the calculation of transport rate of moving particles is
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 much 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) may 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 number of
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. To make 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.
5.2. Step by step computational procedures
5.2.1. Meyer-Peter and Muller (1948) - Bed load
Required data: V, S, D, p
s
, p, d9o, d
a
Output: qb or Qb
Computational procedure:
1- Estimate n
s
from Strickler's equation, Eq. 4.2.5.
Chapter 5 Development of computer programs, 131
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 Qb = qb B.
5.2.2. Einstein (1950) - Bed and suspended load
Required data: S, D, B, g, v, p, p
s
, d65, pi, dj
Output: Q
s
and Qb
Steps 1-9 are common 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(k
s
/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):
x = log[67.955(d
65
/8)
1
-
603
]
x = log[40.937(d
65
/8)
0
-
331
]
x = log[43.894(d
65
/8)-
0
-9H]
x = log[18.315(d
6
5/8)--
288
]
x = 1.0
for
for
for
for
for
d
65
/8 < 0.7
0.7<d
6
5/8< 1.0
1.0 < d65/8 < 4.0
4.0 < d
6
5/8 < 8.0
8.0 < d
6
5/S
5- Calculate apparent roughness diameter = k
s
/x = d65/x.
6- Determine characteristics distance X from Eq. 4.3.19.
7- Compute pressure correction factor, Y = ffe/S), using Fig. 4.3.2 or the following
analytical equation (developed by the author based on least square regression analysis of
the data from Fig. 4.3.2):
Y = 0.955 (d
65
/8) 1 -
239
for d
65
/5 < 0.7
Y = 0.843 (d
6
5/S)
0
-
717
for 0.7 < d
65
/8 < 1.0
Y=0.82 for 1.0<d
6
5/8<1.2
Y = 0.912 (d_5/5)- -
533
for 1 -2 < d
6
s/8 < 3.0
Y = 0.52 for 3.0 < d65/8
Chapter 5
Development of computer programs, 132
8- Compute the logarithmic function L F
LF = [ log 10.6 / log(10.6Xx/d
6
5)]
2
9- Calculate Einstein's transport parameter PE = P
r
from Eq. 4.3.32.
Steps 10-18 require a separate computation for each size fraction i.
10- Calculate hiding factor, c^ = f(dj/X), using Fig. 4.3.1 or the following analytical
equation (developed by the author based on least square regression analysis of the data
from Fig. 4.3.1):
& = 0.705 (di/X)- 2.317 for dj/X < 0.7
& = 1.144 (dj/X)- -
644
for 0.7 < dj/X < 1.3
i=1.0 for 1.3 < dj/X
11- Calculate intensity of shear on individual grain sizes, ^P*i
*i=i.Y.LF.A.di/(DS)
where A= (p
s
/p) -1.
12- Calculate intensity of sediment transport for individual grain sizes, <E>*i = fCF*_).
using Fig. 4.3.4. or numerical integration as discussed in Sec. 4.3.6.
13- Compute bed load transport for individual size fractions, qbi, in mass per unit time
and unit width.
qbi = 3>*i. Pi -p
s
(A . g - di
3
)
0
-
5
14- Determine the ratio of bed layer thickness to water depth, Aj = 2dj / D.
15- Compute exponent Zj for concentration distribution from
Zj = C0i / (0.4 u*')
16- Calculate the integration parameters In = f(Ai, Zj) and I_ji = f(Ai, Z[) using Figs.
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, q
s
i, in mass per unit time and
unit width.
Chapter 5 Development of computer programs. 133
Qsi = (PE Iii + I_i) qbi
18- Compute total bed and suspended load transport rates from
qb = Sqbi and Q
b
= qb . B
q
s
= Sq
s
i and Q
s
= q
s
. B
5.2.3. Bagnold (1966) - Bed and suspended load
Required data: V, S, D, B, g, v, p, p
s
, d
a
, pi, dj
Output: Q
s
and Qb
1- Compute bed shear stress x
0
from Eq. 4.4.5 and shear velocity u* from u*=(Xo/p)
0
-
5
.
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_:p
i
co
i
/Epi (4.4.34)
where C0i is the fall velocity of sediment size c\ computed from Eq. 2.14 for each size
fraction i in the bed material sample.
7- Calculate suspended load transport rate q
s
from Eq. 4.4.26.
5.2.4. Engelund and Hansen (1967) - Total load
Required data: V, S, B, R, g, p, p
s
, dso
Output: Q
t
1- Compute total bed material transport rate in mass per unit time from the following
simple equation.
Q
t
= 0.05 B p
s
V
2
(RS)l-5 (g) -0.5 (A) -2 (dso)"
1
Chapter 5
Development of computer programs. 134
5.2.5. Toffaleti (1969) - Bed and suspended load
Required data: V, S, D, B, R, TDF, g, v, p, p
s
, d
65
, Pi, dj
Output: Q
s
and Qb
Note: This computational procedure is valid for fps system of units.
Steps 1 to 3 are common to all size fractions.
1- Compute the following general parameters:
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 )
Note: TDF = flow temperature in degree Fahrenheit, to transfer from temperature in
degree Centigrade (TDC) to Fahrenheit use the following equation:
TDF = 32 + (9/5) TDC
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*'= (gR
b
'S)
0
-
5
.
3- Evaluation of factor A:
i- Compute PAM = (10
5
v)
1/3
/10u*' and use Fig. 4.6.2 to determine A, or use the
following analytical relations developed by the author:
A=ll(PAM)-
1
-
4
08
A = 36.268 (PAM)0-3127
A = 246.944 (PAM)
5
-
1032
A = 49.0
A = 26.432 (PAM)
2
-
7
635
for
for
for
for
for
P A M < 0.5
0.5 < P A M < 0.67
0.67 < P A M < 0.73
0.73 < P A M < 1.25
1.25 < PAM
Chapter 5
ii- Compute B = (PAM) S d65 10
5
and again use Fig. 4.6.2 to determine
correction factor k4, or use the following analytical relations developed by the
author:
_4=1.0 for B<0.25
k4 = 5.3155 B
1 2
051
for
0.25 < B < 0.35
k4 = 0.5 B-!0
4 6 5
for 0.35 < B
iii- Use corrected A as the maximum value of (k4 A) or 16 in the rest of the
computations.
Steps 4 to 17 require a separate computation for every size fraction.
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)
where Zmi = exponent Z for fraction i and middle zone.
Check point: If Zmi < 1.5 Z
v
then take Zmi = 1.5 Z
v
.
Z
H
= 0.756 Zmi
Zui =1-5 Zmi
6- Calculate the following factors:
F L
Fa
F
3l
F
4
F
5
F
6
L=Z_i - Z
v
=
Zmi " Zv
= Zuj
= 1-
i = 1 -
i = l -
- Z
v
Fii
F
2
i
F
3
i
7- Calculate GFj in tons per day per 1-ft width in lower zone.
GFi = 0.6[T A d
t
/ (0.00058 V
2
)]"
5/3
8- Determine Xj from
Chapter 5
X
i =
F
4
iGFi/[YAF
4
i-(2di)
F4i
]
9- Compute Q from
Ci = B
P
iXi
10- Calculate bed load transport in tons per day for fraction i from
Qbi = q (2di)F
4
i
Check point: The concentration of sand moving as bed load in lb/ft
3
, considering a bed
composed entirely of the sand fraction under consideration, is computed as follows:
i- Evaluate UDj, the velocity at y = 2dj from
UDi = (1 + Z
v
) V (2dj/D)
z
v
ii- Evaluate UBL, the concentration of the sand moving as bed load in lb/ft
3
from
UBLj = Xi / [43.2 UDj (2di)
Fli
]
If UBLj > 100 lb/ft
3
(=16 kg/m
3
) then Q'
bi
= (100/UBLi) Q
b
i and C\ = Q'
b
i / (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, Q
s
u in tons per
day from
Qsli=(Ci/F
4
i)[YAF
4
i-(2di)
F4
i]
12- Determine suspended load transport rate for fraction i and middle zone, Q
sm
i in tons
per day from
Qsmi = (Q /F
5i
) YAF2i - Fli
(Y
B
F
5i - YA)
13- Determine suspended load transport rate for fraction i and upper zone, Q
su
i in tons
per day from
Qsui = (Q /F
6i
) YA?2i - Fli YBP*"
p
2i (D - YB
F
5i)
Chapter 5
14- Determine suspended load transport rate for fraction i and whole cross section, Q
si
in
tons per day from
Qsi = Qsli+ Qsmi+ Qsui
15- Repeat Steps 2 to 10 for other fractions.
16- Compute total bed load transport Qb in tons per day for the whole sample from
Qb=Qbi
17- Compute total suspended load transport Q
s
in tons per day for the whole sample from
Qs=Q
S
i
5.2.6'. Ackers and White (1973) - Total load
s
, d
35
Output: Q
t
1- Compute dimensionless particle size Dgr from Eq. 4.7.1 using d35=d
s
.
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 F
gr
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 = VBd
3
5Gg
r
ps(u*/V)-"
Chapter 5
5.2.7. Yang (1973) - Total load
Required data: Q, V, S, R, g, v, p, p
s
, dso
Output: Q
t
1- Compute the value of overall shear velocity u* from u* = (g R S)
0
-
5
.
2- Calculate fall velocity of the sediment particles co from Eq. 2.14. using d
s
= dso
3- Compute critical average velocity V
c
from Eq. 4.8.4 using d
s
= 6.50.
4- Determine particle Reynolds number Re
p
from Re
p
= co dso / v.
5- Calculate the factor J from:
J = 272,000 Re
p
--
286
(u*/co)--
457
for d
50
< 2.0mm
J = 4,797,334 Re
p
--
633
(u*/co)"
4
-
816
for 2.0mm < d
50
< 10.0mm
6- Calculate the factor K from:
K = 1.799 - 0.178 In Re
p
- 0.136 ln(u*/co) for d
50
< 2.0mm
K = 2.784 - 0.132 In Re
p
- 0.122 ln(u*/co) for 2.0mm < d
50
< 10.0mm
7- Compute the total sediment concentration Q in ppm by weight from:
C
t
= J[(VS/co)-(V
c
S/co)]
K
8- Detennine the total sediment transport rate Q
t
in mass per unit time from:
Qt=10-6pQQ
5.2.8. van Rijn (1984) - Total load
s
, di6, dso, d
84
, dgo
Output: a, C
a
, C
s
, q
s
, Cb, qb
1- Compute the value of dimensionless particle size d* from Eq. 4.9.4.
Chapter 5
2- Compute critical bed shear velocity u*
c
from:
u*
c
= (g A d
50
x*
c
)
0
-
5
where x*
c
can be obtained from Eq. 2.7.
3- Compute bed shear velocity related to grains u*' from Eq. 4.9.7.
4- Determine transport stage parameter T from Eq. 4.9.6, with C
a
and q
s
= 0 for T < 0.0.
5- Calculate reference level 'a' from Eqs. 4.9.13 to 4.9.15.
6- Compute reference concentration C
a
in volumetric ratio from Eq. 4.9.12.
7- Determine representative diameter of suspended grains d
s
from Eqs. 4.9.23 and 24.
Note that d
s
< dso-
8- Calculate mean fall velocity of the suspended particles co
s
from Eq. 2.14 for d
s
.
9- Compute overall bed shear velocity u* from:
u* = (g0.5 /
C
) v
where
c = 18 log[12D / (k
s
)] = overall Chezy coefficient, k
s
= 3d
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.
10- Calculate the factor (3 from Eq. 4.9.18.
11- Calculate the factor <|> from Eq. 4.9.22.
12- Compute suspension parameters Z and Z' from:
Z = C0s/((3 K u*)
Z' = Z + <|>
where K = 0.4 = von Karman constant.
Note: Z' should always be less than or equal to 25, so if Z' > 25 then take Z' = 25.
13- Determine the concentration parameter F from Eq. 4.9.20.
14- Determine suspended load transport rate per unit width q
s
in volumetric ratio from
Eq. 4.9.19.
15- Compute suspended load transport rate Q
s
in mass per unit time and average
concentration of suspended sediment C
s
in volumetric ratio from:
Qs = qs B p
s
Chapter 5 Development of computer programs, 140
C
s
= FC
a
16- Calculate bed load discharge per unit width qb in volumetric ratio from Eq. 4.9.10.
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 p
s
C
b
= 0.117 T/d*
5.2.9. Wiuff (1985) - Suspended load
Required data: q, S, B, g, v, p, p
s
, dso
Output: C
s
, q
s
1- Calculate fall velocity of the bed material co from Eq. 2.14. for d
s
= dsn.
2- Compute average concentration of suspended material C
s
in volumetric ratio from the
following equation.
C
s
= 0.016 q S
2
(co)"
1
(A)"
2
(dso)"
1
3- Determine suspended load transport in mass per unit time and unit width q
s
from:
q
s
= C
s
q p
s
5.2.10. Samaga et al (1986) - Bed and suspended load
Required data: V, R, S, g, v, p, p
s
, dso, d65, d
a
, di, pi
Output: q
s
, qb
i- Suspended load computation
1- Compute Kramer's uniformity coefficient of the bed material, M from Eq. 4.11.7.
2- Calculate the critical shear stress x
oc
corresponding to the arithmetic mean diameter d
a
based on Shields' criterion from:
Chapter 5
X
oc
= g A p d
a
X*
c
where x*
c
can be obtained from Eq. 2.7.
3- Compute the average shear stress x
0
from x
0
= g p R S.
4- Calculate the ratio xJ%
0C
and read the value of coefficient K
s
from Fig. 4.11.4 or Eq.
4.11.19.
5- Read the value of L
s
related to the known value of M f r o m Table 4.11.2 or Eq.
4.11.17.
Steps 6-9 require separate computation for each size fraction.
6- Calculate the ratio iJig (p
s
- p) di] and read the value of coefficient L
s
K
s
s
i from Fig.
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 xî =
s
j x
G
/[g (p
s
- 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 q
s
i 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 q
s
qs = qsi
ii- Bed load computation
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/x
0
c 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 known value of M from Table 4.11.1 or Eq.
4.11.16.
Steps 6-9 require separate computations for each fraction.
6- Calculate the ratio x'o/[g (p
s
- p) dj] and read the value of coefficient L
B
KB^Bi from
Fig. 4.11.2 or Eq. 4.11.20.
Chapter 5
7- Knowing the values of L
B
, K
B
and L
B
K
B
^Bi calculate the value of
B
i-
8- Compute the ratio x'*i =
B
i T'
0
/[g (p
s
- p) dj] and obtain dimensionless bed load
transport parameter Obi from Eq. 4.11.8.
9- Determine the bed load transport of fraction i in mass per unit time and unit width q
bi
from Eq. 4.11.2.
10- Repeat Steps 6-9 for other size fractions.
11- Determine the total bed load transport in mass per unit time and unit width qb from:
qb = Eqbi
5.2.11. Celik and Rodi (1991) - Suspended load
Required data: V, S, D, g, v, p, p
s
, d
50
Output: C
s
, q
s
1- Compute bed shear stress x
0
and bed shear velocity u* from x
0
=gpDS and
u*=(gDS)
0
-
5
.
2- If the value of equivalent sand roughness k
s
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 q
s
= 0, otherwise go to the next step.
7- Calculate fall velocity of the bed material co from Eq. 2.14. for d
s
= dsn.
8- Compute transport concentration of suspended material C
s
in volumetric ratio from
C
s
= 0.034 (V/ co) x
e
/[g(p
s
-p)d
5
o]
9- Obtain transport capacity of suspended sediments q
s
in mass per unit time and width
q
s
= C
s
VDp
s
5.3. Development of the computer programs
Based on the computational procedures given in the previous section, all 11 selected
methods as well as the proposed bed and suspended load equations in Chapter 6 have
Chapter 5
been computerised to make 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 material
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.
5.3.1. Characteristics of the computer programs
1- A simple data file is prepared to introduce the input data to the computer
programs. One 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.
5- All the programs can be executed either in the Quick-Basic package or as an
independent executable file.
Chapter 5
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
Fig. 5.1. Schematic diagram of the computer programs
Chapter 5
VANONI & BROOKS FLUME DATA FOR SEDIMENTATION PROGRAM
NO. OF EXPERIMENTAL RUNS:
12
i- HYDRAULIC DATA
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Q(m"3/s)
0.01428
0.02002
0.02394
0.02604
0.028
0.03276
0.03276
0.03864
0.05236
0.06244
0.0742
0.10752
AREA(m
A
2)
0.06181
0.06233
0.06233
0.06155
0.06466
0.07843
0.05272
0.06051
0.14257
0.1392
0.14361
0.14127
WET P. (m)
0.40487
0.40609
0.40609
0.40426
0.41158
0.44391
0.38352
0.40182
0.59458
0.58665
0.59702
0.59153
WIDTH(m)
0.85146
0.85146
0.85146
0.85146
0.85146
0.85146
0.85146
0.85146
0.85146
0.85146
0.85146
0.85146
SLOPE
0.00141
0.0028
0.00278
0.00277
0.00246
0.00201
0.00276
0.00205
0.00105
0.00122
0.00102
0.00107
T(oC)
23.4
25.2
25.5
22.4
27.4
18.9
18.9
23.5
21.9
25.2
20.7
24.9
vise
9
8
8
9
8
1
1
9
9
8
9
8
(nT2/
3E-07
9E-07
8E-07
5E-07
5E-07
0E-06
0E-06
3E-07
6E-07
9E-07
9E-07
9E-07
ii-BED MATERIAL DATA
NO. OF BED MATERIAL SIZE DISTRIBUTIONS:
1
No. D16(mm) D35(mm) D50(mm) D65(mm) D84(mm) D90(mm) DA(mm)
1 0.098 0.123 0.137 0.155 0.193 0.205 0.137
SEDIMENT DENSITY(kg/m^3) VON KARMAN CONSTANT
2650 0.4
END OF INPUT FILE
Fig. 5.2. Sample input file for the laboratory flume data of Vanoni and Brooks.
6- All correction factors and parameters involved in the selected sediment
transport theories and should be read from tables and graphs, are calculated based on
analytical equations or numerical integration techniques.
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 when sediments are being transported. The uncertainties in the estimated energy
Chapter 5
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 may result in additional errors.
8- Different parts of the computational procedures are well distributed in a number
of subroutines and briefly described in the source code of the programs.
9- The developed programs enable to compute sediment loads for a number of
input files and any of the selected theories in a single run without interruption.
*********************************************************
U N I V E R S I T Y OF W O L L O N G O N G *
* Dept. of Civil and Mining Engineering *
* *
t
SEDLOAD *
* *
By M. Habibi and M. Sivakumar *
t
1991-1992 *
*********************************************************
OUTPUT RESULTS FOR VANONI & BROOKS DATA
TOFFALETI METHOD
DATA NO.
WATER DISCHARGE
(nT3/s)
SUSPENDED LOAD
(kg/s)
BED LOAD
(kg/s)
8 .03864
9 .05236
10 .06244
11 .07420
12 .10752
END OF OUTPUT FILE.
.11969
.01478
.05979
.09944
.19466
Fig. 5.3. Sample output file from 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
6.1. General discussion
It is a well-accepted fact that some of the energy of flow in alluvial channels is expended
in transporting sediment particles. Hence, the sediment transport phenomenon can be
logically related to the energy exchange, or expenditure, of the flow. In 1966, it was
proposed, for the first time, by Bagnold that the rate of sediment transport could be
expressed as a function of potential energy dissipation (so called stream power) of the
flow. A number of investigators, including Engelund-Hansen (1967), Ackers-White
(1973), Yang (1973), Wiuff (1985), and Celik-Rodi (1991) followed Bagnold's idea to
develop new equations for bed-material transport. A review of available literature
indicates that theories which are based on energy exchange concepts are, in general, more
accurate, reliable and simpler than other approaches.
In almost all of the energy-based theories, sediment discharge or concentration is
expressed as direct or indirect functions of potential or turbulence energy. However, so
far no significant attempt has been made to correlate the sediment concentration with flow
energy at various levels above the channel bed. This research is aimed at deriving an
analytical expression for predicting vertical distribution of suspended sediment
concentration using the turbulence energy concept. Based on the proposed concentration
equation, a number of formulae will then be developed for determining suspended and
bed load transport rates.
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 mode 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
A better understanding of the suspension-turbulence relationship is gained through taking
a uniform sediment-laden flow as an example. As the water-sediment mixture moves
down the stream, a continuous loss or dissipation of potential energy takes place. A
small portion of this energy loss is transformed into heat, and the rest into turbulence
energy which is called the total turbulence energy production of the flow. In turn, most
of the turbulence energy is transformed into heat, but in the presence of sediment, a small
portion of that energy is used to keep the sediment particles in suspension. A small part
of the turbulence energy may also be used for the transportation of bed load. A schematic
diagram of energy exchange in uniform sediment-laden flows is given in Fig. 6.1.
__Z
Flow
Direction
$
Turbulence
Energy
Production
fl
__z
Heat
Fig. 6.1. Energy exchange in uniform sediment laden flows.
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 shown 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. The 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. The 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. The 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.
6.2. Total turbulence energy production
Firstly, an equation is to be derived to express the total turbulence energy production of
the flow at various depths above the channel bed. Using the Navier-Stokes equation of
motion for a three-dimensional flow of an incompressible fluid with a constant viscosity,
Hinze (1959, p. 64-66) expressed the energy equation for a turbulent flow as:
d
r
<iv_jL
l
7^rr_E_
U
T
U
r!___
dT
(
T
)
-^x7
Ui(
P^
+
2
) UlU
J3x7
-v 5^T du'; 3_'. cm'; du';
+vV]<l_i*_-v<|_j
+
^>E? U-
1
-
2
-
3
<">
wherein
u'i = fluctuations of the flow velocity in the ith direction,
p' = fluctuating parts of the pressure in the ith direction,
u_ = mean or time-averaged velocity in the ith direction,
q
2
= u'i u'i, and
v = kinematic viscosity of the flow.
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 mean motion through the turbulence shear stresses or the
production of turbulence energy + The work done per unit of mass and time by the
viscous shear stresses of the turbulent motion + The 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 turbulence
energy, is of special interest in the present study. From 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:
du
v
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 orders
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, r
xy
, in Eq. 6.4 is called Reynolds turbulent stress (after
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 may be written as
p _ T
du
x (6.5)
E
TM-p-dy- ^ '
The vertical distribution of the shear stress, x, for a two dimensional steady uniform flow
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
where g = acceleration due to gravity, D = total flow depth, and S = energy slope.
The velocity gradient, du
x
/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):
u/u* = (1/K) In (y/y
0
) (6.7)
where u* = flow shear velocity, K = von Karman constant, and y
0
= 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 du/dy
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 made 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 may complicate velocity profile computations. In
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.

S
_
a
a
-a
o
200
100
0.5
T
H water & sediment
clear water
_
u
i j _
0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
_

1 .0 1 .1
Flow velocity, u(m/s)
Fig. 6.2. Comparison of the velocity profiles for clear water and sediment-laden flows
(Coleman, 1986, d
s
=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:
du/dy = u*/yx
(6.8)
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
s
s
OH
O
200
100 -
H
water & sediment
clear water
a
_
e

0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
1 .1
Flow velocity, u(m/s)
Fig. 6.3. Comparison of the velocity profiles for clear water and sediment-laden flows
(Coleman, 1986, d
s
=0.210mm).
6.2.1. Turbulence energy and stream power
It can be shown that the stream power per unit volume of the flow (x
Q
V/D), as defined in
Sec. 4.4.2, is equivalent to the depth integration of the turbulence energy. If Ey denotes
the total average turbulence energy per unit volume of the flow, then from Eq. 6.9:
p g u* S f D n-y p g u* S f
(-rrOdy
y
0
y
(6.10)
The lower limit of the integration is considered as y = y
G
because at y = 0 the integral in
Eq. 6.10 is not defined. It can be shown (see Sec. 6.4) that for y
G
D one can get:
f
y u*
Replacing the above expression into Eq. 6.10 leads to:
E
v
= VpgDS/D
New development,
Since x
0
= pgDS, the total average turbulence energy production per unit volume of the
flow can be expressed as
E
v
= x
0
V/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 Yang is also discussed in Sees. 6.6 and 6.7, respectively.
6.2.2. Turbulence energy and Rouse concentration equatio
Rouse concentration equation was presented in Sec. 2.6 as:
C n_ --
^ - K V x B h M * C.19)
where reference concentration C
a
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
*~y ^ a
E
T
(T:)(
D-a
gpu
s _
()
ku* (6-12)
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 may be related to the local turbulence energy production.
6.3. Vertical concentration distribution
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
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, when 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 many 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.
To date, no well-accepted definition has been introduced for computing reference
concentration. The 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 Rouse
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.
6.3.2. Formulation of the concentration profile
Turbulence velocity fluctuations perform work on suspended solids to prevent them from
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:
W
G
= C
y
cog(p
s
-p) (
6
-
13
)
where p
s
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:
E
T
sus = W
G
(6-14)
Based on the other assumption that turbulent energy used for suspension is proportional
to the total turbulent energy production of the flow, E T , then
E
T
sus = OCE
T
(6.15)
wherein a is a proportionality coefficient. From the works of Bagnold (1966), Mantz
(1983), and Celik and Rodi (1991) it can be concluded that the turbulent energy used for
suspension, ET
S
US>
1S a
small part of total turbulence energy, E T . Hence, the value of a
in Eq. 6.15 should be much smaller than one, i.e. a 1.0. The true value of a can be
obtained by calibration with laboratory and field data from sediment concentration in open
channels (see Sec. 6.8 for more discussion on a). Substituting E T
S U
S and E T from Eqs
6.14 and 6.9, respectively, into Eq. 6.15, a fundamental expression is derived for the
vertical distribution of the concentration of the suspended sediments as:
S u* D_
v
C
y
= c t - (-^-)
y
A K C O y (6.16)
where A = (p
s
/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 p
s
.
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 load
layer) where suspension is impossible due to the small size of turbulence eddies in
comparison with particle sizes.
3- The parameter a is basically defined as the ratio of E
Ts
us to E
T
at level y above the
channel bed, and hence, it may not be constant for the whole flow depth. Independent
laboratory investigation is needed to find out whether a is constant or a function of y and
other sediment flow parameters. Figure 6.4 shows the distribution of suspended
sediment concentrations for the different values of the parameter [CCSU*/(AKCO)] with the
assumption that a is independent of y.
Chapter 6
A=0.0001
O A-0.0002
----0- A=0.0003
_ A=0.0004
- - -_- - - A=0.0005
1E-05 0.0001 0.001 0.01
Volumetric Concentration
Fig. 6.4. Distribution of suspended sediment concentration (a is assumed constant).
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.
5- No reference concentration and reference height is involved in Eq. 6.16. This equation
can be used for calculating reference concentration.
6- Similar to the Rouse equation, the proposed Eq. 6.16 has the drawback of giving zero
concentration at the water surface.
6.3.3. Discussion on von Karman coefficient
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 was
performed by Vanoni (1946). From the measurements of sediment and velocity
distributions in a laboratory flume, Vanoni (1946) concluded that (1) the value of K
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
A = ccSu* / (AKCO)
oo__
'
Chapter 6
decreases as the concentration is increased, (2) the reducing effect of coarse sediment (d
s
= 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 wake 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 new experiments,
showed that the von Karman 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 applicability
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).
6.3.4. Verification of the proposed concentration equation
Test against data from Coleman (1986)
Coleman (1986) performed 40 experimental runs on suspended sediment transport in a
long recirculating tilting flume to study the effect of suspended material on the vertical
velocity profiles. The hydraulic parameters average velocity, energy slope, and flow
depth were kept constant, while sand particles with three different size distributions were
added to the flow. The flow velocity and the concentration of suspended particles were
Chapter 6
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 pump 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 having
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 No. Z = CO/(KU*) varies between 0.565
and 3.82 for the selected sediment concentration data.
Table 6.1. Coleman's (1986) sediment-water flow laboratory data.
Run
No.
(1)
20
31
37
Depth
(m)
(2)
0.170
0.172
0.167
Viscosity
(m
2
/s)
(3)
9.16E-07
9.16E-07
9.65E-07
d50
(mm)
(4)
0.105
0.210
0.420
CO
(m/s)
(5)
0.0092
0.0292
0.0626
C
a
(m
3
/m
3
)
(6)
0.023
0.012
0.0019
a
(at y=a)
(7)
0.0627
0.102
0.0357
Z
(8)
0.565
1.781
3.820
Note: Flow Discharge = 0.064 irH/s, Width = 0.3 56 m, Slope - 0.002, u*
= 0.041 m/s, A =1.65, and a = 6.0 mm.
Table 6.2. Measured volumetric concentrations based on Coleman's data.
Y
(mm)
(D
6
12
18
24
30
46
69
91
122
137
152
162
Cy
(Run 20)
(2)
0.023
0.012
0.0082
0.0061
0.0048
0.0033
0.0026
0.0016
0.00076
0.0004
0.0002
0.00011
Cy
(Run 31)
(3)
0.0120
0.0063
0.0040
0.0030
0.0024
0.0016
0.0012
0.00077
0.00041
0.0003
0.0002
0.00015
Cy
(Run 37)
(4)
0.00190
0.00078
0.00047
0.00036
0.00029
0.00022
0.00017
0.00011
0.00008
0.000063
0.000054
0.000043
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
and 10%. The predicted concentration profiles for runs 20, 31 and 37 together with the
measured concentrations are shown in Figure 6.5.

160
120
80
40
1 1 1 1 1 II i i i i u i ii i i i 111111 i i i 11111
T
a. a o.
\ D o
%
Q 9
Run 20 "
O O
\ .
i \
\
b nb

*
on b
1^
! ! 1i i i mil
Measured
-O Rouse
O Proposed
1E-05 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1
Fig. 6.5a. Verification of the proposed concentration equation with Coleman's data, Run
No. 20.
S
S
120
80
40
T T ^ 1 1 I II -l| 1 III III) 1 I Hill] I llllll| 1 I ' l l "
160 |-*..... Q Run 31 "
-o, q a
\ b
\ 9
D
* *
*
*
"<> o n
b on
* *
** *
b to
J ' 'i mini i 11 mil i in""
a
o
-o
Measured
Rouse
Proposed
1E-07 1E-06 1E-05 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1
Fig. 6.5b. Verification of the proposed concentration equation with Coleman's data, Run
No. 31.
Kmnapiero
Measured
"O" Rouse
....Q.... Proposed
1E-08 1E-07 1E-06 1E-05 0.0001 0.001 0.01
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
160 -
120 r
E
E
80
40 -
1
\
_ \
: K
\
J
o..
%
Run37
Q
b

>
* on

On
*

%
%
1...1
l
-u

-
-
\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.
Test against data from Samaga n9K41
Samaga (1984) conducted 33 sets of laboratory experiments in a recirculating tilting
flume. The details of Samaga's data are given in Sec. 7.2.11. In this investigation,
Samaga used four different bed material mixtures, namely M l , M 2 , M 3 , and M 4 , with
arithmetic mean diameters, d
a
, covering a range of 0.256mm to 0.578mm. For each
experimental run, after the establishment of equilibrium conditions, the velocity
distribution was measured by a Prandtl tube at the flume centreline, at a distance of 15m
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. The measured concentration
profiles in run numbers Ml-9, M2-5, M3-8, and M4-5 are used to verify the accuracy of
the proposed concentration equation. These concentration profiles are selected as being
representative of all four series of experiments and are shown in Table 6.4. The
measured and calculated flow parameters for these selected runs are given in Table 6.3.
In applying Eq. 6.16 to Samaga's data, the proportionality coefficient a was obtained at
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 No. 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.
Table 6.3. Samaga's (1984) sediment-water flow laboratory data.
Run
No.
(D
Ml-9
M2-5
M3-8
M4-5
Q
(m3/s)
(2)
0.01464
0.01157
0.00626
0.0085
Depth
(m)
(3)
0.1006
0.0827
0.0562
0.0677
Slope
(4)
0.005047
0.006048
0.006097
0.004487
(m/s)
(5)
0.0498
0.0518
0.0464
0.0421
Ca
m
3
/m
3
(6)
0.0020
0.0031
0.0013
0.0018
da
(mm)
(7)
0.578
0.550
0.420
0.256
CO
(m/s)
(8)
0.0799
0.0755
0.0639
0.0388
a
(9)
0.0345
0.0496
0.0289
0.0299
Z
(10)
4.009
3.643
3.447
2.300
T
(C)
(ID
17
14
25
26
Note: Q = flow discharge, Width = 0.2 m, a = 7.5 mm, and a is
calculated at y=a.
KmMlp
ier u
Table 6.4. Measured volumetric concentrations based on Samaga's (1984) data.
y
(mm)
(1)
7.5
10
15
20
25
30
40
45
50
60
Cy
(Run Ml-9)
(2)
0.0020
0.000828
0.000768
0.000339
0.000254
0.000213
0.000075
0.000026
*
*
Cy
(Run M2-5)
(3)
0.003128
0.001641
0.001112
0.000763
0.000566
0.000420
0.000107
0.000027
0.000012
*
Cy
(Run M3-8)
(4)
0.001256
0.000693
0.000450
0.000267
0.000124
0.000075
0.000038
*
0.000017
*
Cy
(Run M4-5)
(5)
0.001771
0.000840
0.000488
0.000279
0.000201
0.000137
0.000082
*
0.000027
0.000010
Note: * = Concentrations were not measured.
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.
S
40
30
20
9
- \
\
X
-

. Run Ml-9
n
n
"o..
'*o.
9
*
1
0
i
i
nb
*
nb
i
n 6
*
*** *
'cq.b
-

n
o
o
Measured
Rouse
Proposed
1E-07 1E-06 1E-05 0.0001 0.001 0.01
Fig. 6.6a. Verification of the proposed concentration equation with Samaga's data, Run
Ml-9.
Chapter 6
60
50
40
| 30
20
10
0
1E-08 1E-07 1E-06 1E-05 0.0001 0.001 0.01
Fig. 6.6b. Verification of the proposed concentration equation with Samaga's data, Run
M2-5.
"o.
X
Run M2-5
" " " I ' '"
n
n
'o...
x.
"'0
P
*
0
b
i
i
*
d?
n>
*'.. CD
' " " " ^ -
H Measured
O Rouse
O Proposed
60
50 -
40 - 'O.
g 30 h
20 -
10 -
III i II n tn i i IIIHI i i mill i i i n III i i nil
CD
o.
b
t
i
nb
%
o. n b
X d?
"'... CB
Run M3-8
-CD
n
i ninj "! ! i 111 in J I 11 mil
H Measured
O Rouse
- O Proposed
0
1E-08 1E-07 1E-06 1E-05 0.0001 0.001 0.01
Fig. 6.6c. Verification of the proposed concentration equation with Samaga's data, Run
M3-8.
From the results, it appears that the proposed theory represents the physics of sediment-
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
ES
E
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

""I ' '
Q
*_
o. no
\
X QQ
o. nb
\nb
Run M4-5 '--rh
n

0-
Measured
Rouse
Proposed
1E-08 1E-07 1E-06 1E-05 0.0001 0.001 0.01
Fig. 6.6d. Verification of the proposed concentration equation with Samaga's data, Run
M4-5.
Comparison with evidence provided bv Vanoni and Brooks (1957)
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 flume
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**
Tafr/e 6.5. Vanoni and Brooks (1957) sediment-water flow laboratory data.
Run
No.
(1)
1
3
5
7
Q
(m
3
/s)
(2)
0.00866
0.01226
0.01441
0.01441
Depth
(m)
(3)
0.0866
0.0744
0.0783
0.0777
Slope
(4)
0.00250
0.00200
0.00206
0.00258
(m/s)
(5)
0.0460
0.0335
0.0338
0.0411
d
s
(mm)
(6)
0.105
0.105
0.105
0.161
0)
(m/s)
(7)
0.0095
0.0095
0.0095
0.0199
a
(mm)
(8)
14
4
5
6
C
a
(m
3
/m
3
)
(9)
0.0028
0.0094
0.0087
0.0017
a
(10)
0.0294
0.0498
0.0533
0.0176
Z
(11)
0.53
0.97
1.13
1.53
Note: Q = flow discharge, width = 0.2669 m, flow temperature = 25 C,
a is defined at y-a, u* is obtained at flume centreline, and Z is
determined from the measurements.
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, Column 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
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.
Table 6.6. Values ofC
a
and a corresponding to the values ofa=D/2.
Run No.
(1)
1
3
5
7
a=D/2
(mm)
(2)
43.3
37.2
39.1
38.8
C
a
(m
3
/m
3
)
(3)
0.001700
0.000530
0.000380
0.000038
a
at y=a
(4)
0.0924
0.0495
0.0341
0.0045
100
10
I
Q
1
:
0.1
y/f
y </j
eg
1
"/-PHJ *'"-
i i i i m l i i i '"'
n
+
-o
A

- - -a- - -
Run 1, Z-0.53
Proposed, Z=1.0
Run 3, Z=0.97
Run 5, Z-1.13
Run 7, Z-1.53
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
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.
It was therefore decided to focus more on estimating sediment transport rate using Eq.
6.16, which is the main objective of this thesis. In the absence of additional information,
and for the purpose of the development of a suspended load equation, it was generally
assumed that a is a constant parameter across the flow depth.
6.4. Depth-averaged suspended sediment concentration
The depth-averaged concentration of suspended material, CD, is defined as:
-
D
-D^Ja
C
v
dy
(6.17)
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
C D
-
a
A K ~ o 3 ( D - a ) J
a
C
y
) Y
(6.18)
In derivation of Eq. 6.18, the fall velocity OD has been considered constant throughout the
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:
i
(______.) dy = Din D - D In a - D + a (6.19)
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:
U* 1
V =
In (--) dy (6.20)
JO
y
0
K D-y
0
Taking "In (y/y
0
) = In y - In y
0
" and "Jin y dy = y In y - y", Eq. 6.20 can be written as:
5fe 1
V = ( D l n D - D l n y
0
- D + y
0
)
K D - y
0
v J
J
(6.21)
Assuming the thickness of bed layer 'a' equal to y
0
, and using Eq. 6.21, the Integral in
Eq. 6.19 can be evaluated as:
fD
D
_
y
VK(D-y
0
)
Ja
(
" T -
) d y =
* <
6
-
22)
Substimtion from Eq. 6.22 into Eq. 6.18 leads to:
C
D
=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 y
G
was previously given by Brooks
(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, k
s
, 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 k
s
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
y
0
= 0.033 k
s
(6.25)
Considering Eq. 6.7 and assuming y
0
D, Eq. 6.21 can be simplified to:
V = (U*/K) [ln(D/y
0
) -1] (6.26)
Based on this equation, y
0
can be expressed as a function of mean flow velocity, shear
velocity, flow depth, and von Karman constant as follows:
yo
_
De
-[(KV/u*)
+
l]
(627)
6.5. Solution to the practical problem of concentration measurement
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, we 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)
Thus, according to Eq. 6.28, the concentration measured at a distance of D/[(VK/U*) + 1]
above the stream bed is equivalent to the average concentration in the vertical profile. A
more practical formula can be suggested for determining C D based on the concentration
measurement at mid-depth of the flow. For y = D/2, Eq. 6.16 gives C D / 2 as:
C
D
/2 = a S u* / (AKCO) (6-29)
Substituting CD/2 from Eq. 6.29 into Eq. 6.23 yields
C
D
=(KV/U*)C
D
/2
(630)
Hence, to evaluate C
D
, one can just measure the concentration of suspended particles at
y=D/2 and use Eq. 6.30.
Cffiffifty
1
.. New development, 172
6.6. Derivation of the suspended load equation
Sediment discharge at a given point, q
sy
, can be expressed as the product of local
sediment concentration C
y
and local flow velocity u, i.e.
q
sy
= C
y
u (6.31)
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, q
s
, can be obtained
from the depth-integration of the point sediment discharge, q
sy
, as:
q
s
=J
s
<lsydy = ! C
y
.u.dy (6.33)
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\
q
s
= P - ^ V " D4[ln(f4] - [ln()-l]} (6.34)
A K
2
G )
2
ô yo
Replacing for ln(D/y
0
) from Eq. 6.26, Eq. 6.34 leads to:
c n v^ u*
^ = P S
[ 1 +
W
]
(6
-
35)
wherein q
s
denotes the volumetric transport rate of suspended material per unit of channel
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
assumed to be independent of local depth y and 'a' was considered equal to y
0
as
discussed in Sees. 6.3.4 and 6.4, respectively.
Eq. 6.35 can be compared with Bagnold's (1966) formulation for sediment transport.
Introducing T
Q
= pgDS into Eq. 4.4.19 and assuming V = U
S
, Bagnold's suspended load
equation can be written as:
SDV
2
qê^l-e^-^- (6.36)
A comparison of Eqs. 6.35 and 6.36 demonstrates that although the proposed approach is
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. From 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 e
s
(l-e
b
) (6-37)
Based on theoretical arguments and using the results of laboratory investigation, Bagnold
concluded that e
s
(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 new 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).
6.6.1. Tests on the suspended load equation
Five independent sets of data from sediment transport in a number of natural channels and
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). More analysis
on the applicability of the proposed suspended load equation is presented in Chapter 7.
Chapter 6
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
natural rivers, 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.
Tests against data from tidal alluvial channels in Netherlands
Recently, Voogt et al (1991) collected 120 sets of data from a number of tidal channels in
the Netherlands, namely the Krammer 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.
Krammer
a Scheldt Estuary
Fig. 6.8. Comparison of computed sediment discharges with measured transport rates
from Netherlands' tidal channels.
Chanter 6
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.
Test against data from Sacramento river
Nakato (1990) published 29 sets of data from suspended sediment transport in
Sacramento river, California, USA. The data were collected between 1977 to 1979 from
two gauging stations along the river, one in Butte City and the other near Colusa. The
reported data (see Sec. 7.2.1 for full detail) cover a wide range of water discharges
(142m
3
/s to 2243m
3
/s), mean flow velocities (0.52m/s to 1.79m/s), and sediment sizes
(dso from 0.33mm to 6.30mm). Using Eq. 6.35 with A=1.65 and K=0.4, the transport
rates of suspended bed materials have been predicted. The graphical presentation of the
calculated discrepancy ratios is shown in Fig. 6.9. About 86% and 8 2 % of the predicted
transport rates fall in the range of 0.5-2.0 times the measured sediment discharges for
gauging stations of Butte City and Colusa, respectively. Considering the wide range of
hydraulic and sediment parameters and the difficulties of measurement in the large river of
Sacramento, the accuracy obtained is very good.
10
E
CO
o
o
w
O
II
0.1 -
-i 1 1- - 1 ' ' F
_i _
Butte City
Q
Colusa
6 9
Data point No.
12
15
Fig. 6.9. Comparison of the computed sediment discharges from the proposed suspended
load equation with measured transport rates from Sacramento river.
Tests against data from laboratory experiments hv Samara et al (1986)
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^-
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, the first two 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.
E
o
a
a
II
10.00
1.00

0.10 I ' ' ' I ' ' ' I ' ' ' I ' ' ' \ ' ' ' I ' ' ' I ' ' ' | ' ' ' 1 '
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32
Data No.
Fig. 6.10. Predicability of proposed method for flume suspended load measurements of
Samaga et al, 1986b.
Table 6.7. Statistical analysis of the test results on suspended load equation.
Data from
(1)
Sacramento river at
Butte City
Sacramento river at
Colusa
Krammer tidal
channel
Scheldt Estuary
tidal channels
Samaga et al
laboratory flume
No. of
data
(2)
14
11
60
59
31
1 = 1 7 5
Discrepancy ratio r
% within
0.5-2.0
(3)
86
82
100
88
84
r= 91
Mean
(4)
1.30
0.82
0.96
1.49
1.65
r= 1.27
Standard
deviation
(5)
0.98
0.48
0.36
1.00
0.81
r= 0.71
Chapter 6
In Chapter 7, seven other theories of sediment transport including Einstein (1950),
Bagnold (1966), Toffaleti (1969), van Rijn (1984b), Wiuff (1985), Samaga et al (1986b)
and Celik and Rodi (1991) were also applied to the same data and the best predicability
was indicated by Eq. 6.35. A summary of all the results is given in Table 6.7.
Considering the very satisfactory results achieved, in the present study where the focus is
on the applicability of the suspended load equation, P is assumed to have a constant value
of 2%. Similar ideas have been given by Bagnold (1966), Mantz (1983), and Celik and
Rodi (1991) for evaluating suspended load efficiency (see Sec. 6.10).
6.7. Transport concentration of suspended particles
Transport concentration of suspended material, CT, is defined as the ratio of suspended
load discharge to the flow discharge, i. e.
C
T
=q
s
/q (6-38)
Substituting q
s
from Eq. 6.35 and taking q = VD, Eq. 6.38 can be simplified as:
^=^
[1+
0
2] (639)
Comparing Eqs. 6.39 and 6.23, the following relationship can be obtained:
C
T
l u*
2
CT2
[1 +
W
] (6
-
40)
Since u*<V for natural rivers, Eq. 6.40 indicates that transport concentration C
T
is
always smaller than depth-averaged concentration CD-
Celik and Rodi (1991) assumed a constant ratio of C
D
/CT = 1.13; however, according to
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
wherein II and 12 are Einstein's integrals (see Sec. 4.3). Wiuff showed that for some
cases in Guy 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 transport
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:
C
T
=ai(VS/co)
a
2
(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/.
6.8. Reference concentration
Reference concentration C
a
, the sediment concentration at a distance 'a' above the channel
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 move 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.
Einstein (1950) defined the reference concentration C
a
as:
C
a
=K
qb
/(u*a) (6.43)
where q
b
= bed load transport rate per unit of width, 'a' = bed load layer thickness = 2d
s
,
d
s
= 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
Using the proposed concentration distribution equation, Eq. 6.16, a new expression is
proposed for the computation of reference concentration C
a
as-
a
Su* n-a.
^
tL
~
CL
A^
(r
T
)
(6-44)
where 'a' is the reference height and a is the energy ratio parameter at level y = a (ranging
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
C
a
= a -
AKCO a
( 6 4 5 )
6.9. Discussion on fall velocity co
The term fall velocity, co, in Eq. 6.16 is defined as the mean fall velocity of suspended
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 the
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 suspension
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 much 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 much 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
bed material. Applicability analyses performed by Bennett (1973), White et al (1975),
and the author (see Chapter 7) indicate that this is not a satisfactory procedure for the
estimation of co.
In order to make the new approach more practical, it is suggested that, in the absence of
size gradation of suspended particles, the size distribution of bed material (particularly the
median diameter dso) be used in calculating co. The 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).
6.10. Discussion on proportionality parameter P
In the proposed concentration equation, Eq. 6.16, a proportionality parameter a was used
to represent the ratio of turbulent energy used for suspension, E T
S
U S , to the total
turbulence energy, E T - Since E T
S U
S is a small part of E T , the value of a should be much
smaller than unity. In the verification analysis of Eq. 6.16, the parameter a ranged
between 1.7% to 1 0 % (see Sec. 6.3.4). W h e n developing the suspended load equation,
Eq. 6.35, the coefficient a was replaced by P to help account for the inaccuracies
introduced to the computations by using the Prandtl clear water velocity distribution for
sediment-laden flows. Hence P is different from ce and should be obtained separately
from calibrating Eq. 6.35 with suspended sediment transport data. Based on the
similarity between a and P, it is suggested that P 1.0. Discussion about P (and thus
a), as to whether it is a constant or a function of other sediment flow parameters and how
it can be investigated, is one of the interesting aspects of the new development. Due to
the lack of appropriate experimental facilities and limited data available, this aspect is only
briefly discussed in this section and is recommended for further research.
In Sec. 6.6, it was shown that p can be related to the Bagnold's suspended load
efficiency e
s
(l-et,), i.e.
P = 2e
s
(l-e
b
) (6.37)
Based on theoretical arguments and laboratory investigation, Bagnold (1966) concluded
that e
s
(l-eb) has a constant value of about 1 % (see Sec. 4.4.5). This means that the
turbulent energy used to keep sediment particles in suspension for the whole flow cross
section, is about 1 % of the total turbulence energy production of the flow. This idea was
confirmed by the laboratory measurements of Mantz (1983), who found a constant value
of 1.26% for the ratio of E T
S U
S to Ex. If p is assumed constant within the flow depth,
Eq. 6.37 leads to a rough estimation of 2 % for the parameter p.
Bennett (1973) defined Bagnold's suspended load efficiency e
s
(l-e_.) based on the fall
velocity of the median diameter of bed material. From the experimental data of Guy et al
(1966) and unpublished data, Bennett introduced the following equation:
e
s
(l-eb) = a (x
0
V)
b
d
50
-
c
(6.46)
where a = 0.057, b = 0.656, and c = 0.718. Here x
0
is the bed shear stress in N/m
2
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.
In an attempt to determine suspended load efficiency, Wiuff (1985) used 82 sets of
laboratory data and expressed suspended load efficiency for the whole cross section as a
linear function of Shields' parameter x*, i.e.
e
s
(l-e
b
) = 0.016 x* (6.47)
where t* is defined by Eq. 2.3. This expression is again based on the fall velocity of dso
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 much 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 own 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,
1 8 2
In view of the above, the original suggestion of Bagnold, founded on theoretical
arguments and confirmed by experimental investigations, seems more appropriate for use
in the proposed model. Using this idea, where the focus was on the computation of
suspended load, P was assumed to have a constant value of 2 % . Tests of the proposed
suspended load equation (with p = 2 % and fall velocity estimates based on dso of bed
material) with extensive data from laboratory flumes and natural channels, showed very
satisfactory predictions (see Sec. 6.6.1 and Chapter 7). The test results confirmed the
selection of P = 2 % .
It should be noted, however, that most of the data used in the applicability analysis of
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. As a result, the estimation of fall velocity based
on dso of bed material provided very good predictions for these data sets. Such
conditions may not occur for rivers with coarse bed-material.
For example, in gravel rivers with a bi-modal distribution of bed-material, the coarse
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 may 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. As 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).
6.11. Formulation of the bed load transport
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 who compared the
results of the existing equations with the measured data (ASCE 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 based
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, q
b
, can be simply written as:
qb=Q>u
b
a (6.48)
There is no physical discontinuity in the vertical distribution of sediment concentration in
natural conditions. Hence it can be reasonably assumed that average concentration in a
very thin layer of sediment material close to the bed, is proportional to the concentration at
the upper edge of that layer, i.e.
C
b
= Xi C
a
(6.49)
where C
a
is the reference concentration of sediments at depth 'a* above the channel bed.
Chapter 6
It can be also assumed that transport velocity of the bed load particles, u
b
, is proportional
to shear velocity u*, or
u
b
= X
2
u* (6.50)
The following discussion supports this latter assumption theoretically:
According to the Prandtl-von Karman logarithmic velocity distribution for turbulent
flows, local flow velocity u may be expressed as
u/u* = (1/K) ln(y/k
s
) + Const. (6.51)
If the average velocity of the bed load particles is approximated by the flow velocity at a
distance equal to one grain diameter above the bottom, i.e. at y = d
s
, and also the
equivalent sand roughness coefficient k
s
is substituted by the particle size d
s
, then from
Eq. 6.51 for a rough turbulent flow it can be written:
u
b
= Const, u* (6.52)
Furthermore, if u
b
is approximated by the flow velocity at the edge of laminar sub layer
when the channel boundary is smooth, then
u
b
=11.6u* (6.53)
Eqs. 6.52 and 6.53 justify the more general assumption of Eq. 6.50. Similar assumptions
were made by Einstein (1950), Bagnold (1966), and Engelund-Hansen (1967).
Hence, using the reasonable assumptions that
i- average velocity of the bed load particles u
b
, is proportional to shear velocity
u*, and
ii- average concentration of sediment material in the bed layer is proportional to
the concentration at the upper edge of this layer or reference concentration C
a
,
the bed load transport q
b
can be written as:
q
b
= ^lA,
2
C
a
u*a (6-54)
Using C
a
from the new expression Eq. 6.45 and substituting into Eq. 6.54 results in:
,*2
- S D u*
where co
b
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)
where X = a X\ X2 and A = (p
s
/p) - 1. Eq. 6.56 is dimensionally homogeneous and
gives the volumetric transport rate of bed load. For practical application of Eq. 6.56, it is
suggested that d9o be used for computing co
b
. In fact, in comparison with the median
diameter dso, the larger particle size d9o is a better indicator of the size of the particles
which move very close to, and within, the bed load layer. The parameter X should be
evaluated through calibration of Eq. 6.56 with field and laboratory data from bed load
transport under various hydraulic and sediment conditions. It is also possible that the
value of X be determined independently for each particular case study. This in-situ
calibration may improve the accuracy of the computed transport rates.
6.12. Calibration and verification of the bed load formula
The discrepancy ratio r (which is defined as the ratio of computed sediment discharge to
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 natural rivers, bed
load transport rates in general cannot be precisely predicted.
6.12.1. Calibration with Samaga et al data
Samaga et al (1986a and b) conducted 33 sets of laboratory experiments in a recirculating
tilting flume. The median particle diameter d50 of the bed materials covered a range of
0.2mm to 0.35mm. For each experimental run, the bed and suspended load transport
rates were measured. According to Samaga et al, the measured bed loads were about 3
times bigger than the reported suspended loads for almost all the experiments (see Sec.
7.2.11 for full details of data). When the proposed bed load equation, Eq. 6.56, was
applied to the Samaga et al data and calibrated with the bed load measurements, a value
of 31=1.32 produced very satisfactory predictions with Score=100, AVG=1.0 and
STD=0.24 (Figure 6.11). This result also indicates that the proposed bed load equation
can be satisfactorily calibrated with independent measurements.
E 10.00
o 1.00
Cfl
O
u
0.10
'
_ _ _ _ M
B
_ - _
| B
" . r
a l
_ i _ r
B
i -
_
[ ' [ " [ ' " I
1
" '| " ' I
1
"
0 5 10 15 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5
Individual data point
Fig. 6.11. Calibration of the proposed bed load equation with laboratory flume data of
Samaga et al.
Table 6.8. Application of bed load predictors to Samaga et al (1986a) data.
Investigator(s)
Proposed
Einstein
Bagnold
Meyer-Peter & Muller
Samaga et. al.
Rijn
AVG
1.00
1.80
0.33
0.31
0.41
0.87
STD
0.24
0.43
0.06
0.06
0.25
0.40
Score
100
81
3
3
35
93
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
discharges by a factor of 3. Even for Samaga et al procedure, in which calibration is
based on the same data, estimated the bed load transport rates are less than half the
measured values.
6.12.2. Verification with data from Elbow river
As a prehminary verification, the proposed bed load equation was applied to the bed load
measurements of Elbow river, Alberta (Hollingshead, 1971). The data were collected
during 1966 -1967. The bed material was obtained by sampler and by dredging from a
trap just downstream from the observational section. Despite the care taken during
measurements, only one value of slope (S = 0.00745) and of bed material size gradation
were given for the data sets (see Sec. 7.2.4). The results of the application of Eq. 6.56,
with X=\32, and other selected bed load formulae, to the Elbow river are shown in
Table 6.9 and Figure 6.12.
Table 6.9. Application of bed load predictors to Elbow river.
Investigator(s)
Proposed
Bagnold
Einstein
Samaga et. al.
Rijn
AVG
2.27
12.80
56.51
8.15
0.38
3.75
STD
1.91
12.14
43.42
6.40
0.33
3.70
Score
61
0
0
0
17
48
10.00-E-
0.10
20 25
0 5 10 15
Data No.
Fig. 6.12. Verification of the proposed bed load predictor with data from Elbow river.
Due to the large bed material sizes of Elbow River (d50 = 25mm), all the bed load
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
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.
6.12.3. Verification with data from Jordan and Meshushim rivers
Inbar and Schick (1979) published seven sets of data collected for the upper reaches of
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 19m - 43m, flow depths of 1.1m -
2.0m, and bed load discharges of 32kg/s - 341kg/s. The median diameter dso varied
from 80 to 3 0 0 m m but the values of dcô 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,
the first five points represent Jordan river and the last two are related to the Meshushim
river.
Table 6.10. Application of bed load predictors to Jordan River.
Investigators)
Proposed
Einstein
Bagnold
Samaga et. al.
Rijn
AVG
29.43
483.71
26.16
0
0
0
STD
10.47
217.14
5.62
0
0
0
Score
0
0
0
0
0
0
Table 6.11. Application of bed load predictors to Meshushim River.
Investigator(s)
Proposed
Einstein
Bagnold
Samaga et. al.
Rijn
AVG
7.15
100.23
11.62
0.85
0.12
0.07
STD
0.0
8.78
0.13
0.65
0.04
0.03
Score
0
0
0
50
0
0
Chapter 6
For the Jordan river, 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 made the mean value of
calculated discrepancy ratios for most of the equations much 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.
6.13. Discussion on the bed load calibration parameter
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 moved as bed load. However,
using a constant value for X may not produce satisfactory results for all flow conditions.
With hydraulic parameters of the flow kept constant, it is expected that a decrease in the
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 the finer particles may lose their contact with the bed and are swept up into the
main flow. The number of particles which move 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. The 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 mode 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 move 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 and fine particle sizes where the ratio
u*/co is much 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 Krammer 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 of fine material 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. To
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 generally
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:
X = 1.32 for u*/co < 1.8
X = 0.4 co/u* for u*/co>1.8 (6.57)
enabled the proposed bed load predictor to be applied to sediment-laden flows with both
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.
Table 6.12. Application of proposed bed load formula to Krammer tidal channel.
Data No.
(1)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Average
<3susp. (kg/s m)
(2)
503.98
650.40
674.50
705.55
812.98
824.54
932.12
703.36
662.67
509.87
412.20
375.45
397.80
465.98
616.18
655.04
930.80
925.05
944.73
1095.12
994.67
1015.03
813.80
753.07
588.95
506.32
406.49
464.34
537.95
644.91
828.62
868.55
1073.40
1101.29
951.45
892.59
718.06
488.53
370.03
403.92
595.80
715.61
715.61
1047.72
1137.09
1329.94
1157.15
1190.10
961.11
716.97
509.47
552.41
741.21
1612.28
2499.97
2264.85
3873.18
1790.44
2072.37
1942.47
927 .43
Qbed (kg/s m)
1=0.4(0/11*
(3) i
111.63
135.16
136.96
140.64
155.27
154.60
168.85
137.22
130.73
107.77
90.86
84.71
111.55
122.41
150.14
152.90
208.91
203.63
220.76
240.79 j
222.92
229.68
197.39
184.49 !
151.21
135.67
118.37
93.93
106.00
123.92
150.28
155.68
183.37
190.49
172.27
164.96
140.12
105.43
85.98
77.36
101.08
118.24
118.24
164.64
173.55
191.74
178.13
185.74
158.23
128.04
100.27
77.40
96.03
173.65
242.43
225.12
339.78
190.49
212.57
205.24
1 5 5 . 5 9
Qbed (kg/s
m
)
1=1.32
(4)
1675.24
2161.93
2203.89
2285.20
2609.75
2598.98
2924.41
2217.01
2079.03
1607.11
1281.08
1166.86
1212.14
1374.82
1805.86
1854.24
2800.52
2711.10
3002.75
3378.53
3049.78
3169.60
2586.61
2365.65 i
1816.94
1571.58
1306.94
1158.70
1360.12
1672.21
2161.73
2265.89
2817.29
2959.12
2585.69
2439.30
1962.34
1342.48
1022.41
1059.76
1516.94
1866.56
1866.56
2889.78
3102.90
3549.93
3208.47
3385.29
2733.93
2059.71
1485.00
1334.92
1780.49
3919.24
6112.71
5537.81
9579.67
4428.36
\ . 5125.66
i 4885.41
2 5 6 6 . 5 6
u*/CD
(5)
4.00
4.27
4.29
4.33
4.48
4.48
4.62
4.31
4.24
3.98
3.76
3.67
2.90
3.00
3.21
3.23
3.57
3.55
3.63
3.74
3.65
3.68
3.49
3.42
3.20
3.09
2.94
3.29
3.42
3.60
3.84
3.88
4.10
4.14
4.00
3.94
3.73
3.40
3.17
3.65
4.00
4.21
4.21
4.68
4.77
4.94
4.80
4.86
4.61
4.29
3.95
! 4.60
i 4.94
6.02
6 .72
6.56
7.52
6 .20
6.43
i 6.35
4.23
_____
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 much 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 much greater than 0.4 are used. For example, a
value of X= 2.5co/u* for the Krammer 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.
As no criterion for the incipient motion of sediment particles is utilised in the proposed
bed load equation, it is suggested that when the overall bed shear stress is less than the
corresponding Shields critical shear stress, bed load transport is equal to zero.
The words "generally", "about" and "roughly" were used several times in this section to
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.
6.14. Computation of the total sediment load
The total bed material load can be obtained by combining the suspended load Eq. 6.35
and bed load Eq. 6.56:
cnv
2
u*
2
S D u*
1' =
0 0 2
^
[ 1 + (
^ V
) 1 + X
^ V (6-58)
Chapter 6
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).
Brooks conducted an experimental investigation of the characteristics of streams flowing
over a loose bed of fine sand. T w o different sizes of quartz sands, with median
diameters of 0.088 m m and 0.145 m m , were used in the experiments (see Sec. 7.2.8).
The measured sediment discharges indicated the total transport rate. However, the sand
was so fine that the suspended load was much greater than the bed load.
E
(A
o
u
(fl
O
n
1 -
1 m
-

I
I
I

1

1

1

1

1 1 1

1-
,

1

1

T

-H-

..I

J

'

'

-f-

'

r

1

I
0 5 10 15 20
Data point No
Fig. 6.14. Application of the proposed total load equation to the laboratory flume data of
Brooks (1958).
The proposed total load formula, i.e. Eq. 6.58 with X from Eq. 6.57, was applied to the
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).
6.15. Variation of sediment load and concentration with flow parameters
Considering the analytical structure of Eqs. 6.16, 6.35 and 6.56, the variation of
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
sediment size d
s
), can be mathematically discussed.
&mptA
i- Effect of flow velocity V
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.
ii- Effect of energy slope S
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 S
1
-
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 movement of bed materials. Hence, it is expected that sediment discharge and
concentration be increased with increasing S.
iii- Effect of flow depth D
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.
iv- Effect of fall velocity at
It is expected that an increase in the particle size and in turn, in the fall velocity co, should
decrease bed-material transport rates and concentration. All three proposed equations are
inversely proportional to co and hence follow this expectation.
The results of this study agree with the sensitivity analysis of five bed material load
predictors including Engelund-Hansen, Ackers-White, and van Rijn made 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 !-- ' ' I I I I W I I W I W I I I W I W W W I I W ^ ^ nmmmrmmrmmmmmmmmmmmmmmvmmmmmnmmrmmmmm^^
6.16. Summary and general comments
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. By
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 new approach was simpler than that of Rouse, in which transport rates due to
gravitational settling was equated to those due to diffusion. Based on the new 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 new
model showed better predictions, particularly for fine sand.
In the proposed concentration equation, a proportionality parameter a is used to represent
the ratio of turbulent energy used for keeping particles in suspension, ETSUS, to the total
turbulence energy E
T
. Since E
Ts
_s is a small part of E
T
, the value of a should be much
smaller than unity. In developing the suspended load equation, the coefficient a was
replaced by p to help account for the inaccuracies introduced by using the Prandtl clear
water velocity distribution for sediment-laden flows. In the current study, where the
focus was on the suspended load equation, (3 was assumed to have a constant value of
2 % . A calibration coefficient, X, was also used in developing bed load equation. The
tests of the bed load equation indicated satisfactory predictions for transportation of large
cobbles to fine sands.
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. In
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
As no criterion for the incipient motion of sediments is used in the new method, it is
suggested that when the overall bed shear stress is less than the corresponding Shields
critical shear stress, no sediment discharge be predicted.
(C_\-ipft(Bir 1
APPLICABILITY ANALYSIS
OF THE
SELECTED THEORIES
Chapter 7
Applicability analysis, 199
Chapter 7. Applicability analysis of the selected theories
The results of the applicability analysis of the proposed transport equations as well as the
other selected theories are outlined in this chapter using a wide range of data from
laboratory flumes and natural rivers.
7.1. Some aspects of sediment transport measurement
7.1.1. The importance of sediment-flow data
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:
i - direct determination of sediment load,
ii - applicability tests and modification of the existing sediment transport
equations, and
iii - establishment of analytical or empirical sediment load predictors.
Particularly, in the present research, field and laboratory data from transport rates of bed
and suspended loads as well as the sediment concentration are needed for the following
purposes:
i - investigation into the validity, reliability and performance of the existing
theories of sediment transport,
ii - calibration and verification of the newly developed model.
A complete program for the collection of sediment transport data should include
simultaneously major hydraulic and sediment parameters affecting the movement of
sediment particles. Excellent sediment-transport data can be rendered nearly useless by
inadequate or incomplete flow data when 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, mean 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.
7.1.2. Accuracy of sediment transport measurements
Unfortunately, there is little quantitative information in the literature in this regard. In
most of the articles, even the recent ones (Wong et al, 1992, p. 79), the associated
difficulties, uncertainties, and accuracy consideration of sediment sampling procedures
have been discussed in a general manner without referring to the probable percentage
errors. Clearly, two different aspects should be considered in the discussion of the
accuracy of sediment sampling methods, the correct procedure of the measurement and
the accuracy of the measuring equipment. Other factors such as the skill of the operator
and the complexity of the flow also affect the accuracy and reliability of the collected data.
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 the field. For example, a detailed error analysis of the recently collected data
of Voogt et al (1991), in which modern measuring equipment was 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 the field data. One 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 section.
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.
In general, according to Wong et al (1992, p. 79), it is almost impossible and unrealistic
to eliminate errors in any sediment sampling exercise. Thus, an important point about the
available measured sediment transport data is the likely existence of errors.
Bed load measurement
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 may 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 samplers,
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 (Wong et al, 1992, p. 55). It is necessary to
know 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. To date, no
reliable information has been presented for the trapping efficiency of particles coarser than
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 may 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).
Suspended load measurement
The determination of suspended load discharge requires the measurement of sediment
concentration, area of cross section, and flow velocity. Thus, the accuracy of suspended
load records depends upon the accuracy of the determination of both the concentration
and the related water discharge. Generally, the measurement of suspended load in natural
streams is less difficult and more accurate than bed load. Despite the variety of sampling
devices used in different countries for bed load measurement, in the majority of today's
investigations suspended load measurement is done by means of depth- or point-
integrating samplers (Garde and Ranga Raju, 1985, p. 286).
A depth-integrating sampler collects and accumulates the sample of the sediment-water
mixture as it is lowered to the bottom of the river (very close to the bed) and raised back
to the water surface. The point-integrating sampler is used to collect suspended sediment
samples at any selected point below the water surface except within a short distance from
the channel bed. Suspended sediment concentration can then be obtained from the
laboratory analysis of the samples obtained. The most commonly used depth-integrating
samplers in Australia are U S D H 4 8 and U S D49 (Australian Water Resources Council,
1969, p. 10). The U S P61 point integrating sampler for suspended sediment is the most
common sampler employed in various countries (Wong et al, 1992, p. 54).
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 may 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 mean
concentrations determined with it to mean concentrations determined using standard
depth- or point-integrating samplers (ASCE 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 may insert some errors into
the total load calculations.
7.2. Performance of the selected sediment transport theories
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 of fine or 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')
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.
r= Qsc /Qsm (7.1)
Clearly, for each individual set of data, the closer the calculated r to one, the more
accurate the predictions. The 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 many
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 Yang and W a n (1991) have made the most
comprehensive analysis.
White et al (1975) examined 8 methods of sediment transport with over 1000 flume data
and 260 field measurements. 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, maximum and minimum 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 flume
data and 319 sets of field measurements. 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, 205
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 , STD,
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 transport
theories based on the data from individual rivers. Although such classification is less
informative, it allows for the selection of methods best suited for a given river. 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 natural rivers. This may
provide additional information to the available performance analyses.
7.2.1. Application to field data from Sacramento river (suspended load)
Nakato (1990) published 29 sets of field data from suspended sediment transport in the
Sacramento river, California. The data was collected by the United States Geological
Survey between 1977 to 1979 from two standard gauging stations along the river, one in
Butte City and the other near Colusa. The reported data cover a wide range of water
discharges (142m
3
/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 maximum water discharge
is about 4810 m
3
/s.
Bed-material samples were obtained by means of U. S. Geological Survey's (USGS)
BM-54 and B M H - 6 0 samplers at five Equal Discharge Increments (EDI) of the flow.
The bed-material sediment sizes ranged from fine sand to coarse gravel with dso between
0.33mm and 6.30mm and the geometric standard deviation between 1.40 and 9.53.
Tables 7.3 and 7.4 represent the detailed size characteristics of the bed materials for each
set of data.
Chapter /
Table 7.1. Suspended sediment transport data from Sacramento river at Butte
City, California (After Nakato, 1990).
Data
No.
(1)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Date
(2)
12-12-77
04-01-78
11-01-78
12-01-78
17-01-78
20-04-78
01-06-78
05-07-78
08-11-78
06-12-78
16-01-79
08-02-79
15-02-79
08-03-79
05-04-79
16-05-79
Q
irr/s
(3)
632.8
294.0
2024.0
918.4
2242.8
470.4
218.96
228.76
178.08
205.24
1052.8
150.1
1170.4
319.2
262.4
245.3
Qs
kg/s
(4)
57.0
5.0
168.0
157.0
233.0
10.0
1.0
1.1
0.4
0.8
250.0
0.3
166.0
3.8
1.9
1.3
A
m
2
(5)
566.5
358.1
1144.2
712.6
1293.0
492.1
351.6
348.8
314.4
328.4
768.4
289.3
863.3
406.5
368.4
350.7
P
m
(6)'
151.1
145.5
162.6
152.7
165.7
149.1
146.3
146.1
145.8
145.3
153.3
144.6
155.8
146.6
145.2
145.2
B
m
(7)
149.5
144.6
154.0
149.5
160.1
147.3
145.5
145.2
145.2
144.6
149.8
144.0
151.9
145.2
144.0
144.3
S
10
4
(8)
2.25
2.04
2.82
2.24
2.88
1.83
1.11
1.25
1.06
1.22
2.45
0.99
2.22
1.46
1.35
1.40
T
C
(9)
10.0
9.5
10.0
11.0
11.0
13.0
18.5
18.5
13.5
8.0
7.5
10.0
9.0
13.5
13.5
18.0
d
50
mm
(10)
0.47
0.39
0.43
0.43
0.43
3.80
6.00
5.70
6.30
0.33
0.40
0.40
0.40
3.15
0.41
5.10
u*/C0
(11)
1.44
1.34
2.46
1.74
2.56
0.28
0.15
0.16
0.14
1.23
2.11
0.82
2.08
0.25
1.01
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
No.
(1)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Date
(2)
23-02-77
13-05-77
04-11-77
17-12-77
19-01-78
08-02-78
07-03-78
11-04-78
09-01-79
17-01-79
15-02-79
06-03-79
06-04-79
Q
m^/s
(3)
164.9
257.3
142.0
380.2
1122.9
1079.7
1117.2
616.0
206.9
686.0
1038.8
340.8
280.0
Qs
kg/s
(4)
2.6
22.0
3.1
27.3
74.5
162.0
90.5
43.4
11.3
56.6
12.6
11.8
60.6
A
2
m
(5)
235.3
311.6
213.0
434.4
910.7
887.5
910.7
609.3
261.4
634.4
856.8
398.2
360.0
P
in
(6)
82.5
86.4
81.5
92.1
117.0
116.1
117.0
98.0
82.6
102.6
109.9
87.9
86.8
B
m
(7)
81.4
85.1
80.5
89.7
112.8
111.6
112.8
94.5
81.4
99.4
104.9
85.4
84.8
S
*io
4
(8)
1.60
1.83
1.64
1.44
1.78
1.78
1.78
1.47
1.80
1.69
1.72
1.21
1.35
T
C
(9)
11.0
14.5
14.5
9.5
10.5
10.0
11.5
14.0
9.0
7.5
9.0
11.5
14.5
d
50
mm
(10)
0.45
0.38
0.39
0.42
0.62
0.60
0.88
2.00
0.35
0.40
0.48
0.38
0.37
u*/C0
(11)
1.09
1.51
1.18
1.46
1.46
1.49
1.12
0.49
1.64
1.96
1.82
1.43
1.44
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
Table 7.3. Bed-material size characteristics data for Sacramento river at Butte
City, California (After Nakato, 1990).
Date
(1)
12-12-77
04-01-78
11-01-78
12-01-78
17-01-78
20-04-78
01-06-78
05-07-78
08-11-78
06-12-78
d
16
mm
(2)
0.20
0.28
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.29
0.31
0.31
0.28
0.23
d
35
mm
(3)
0.31
0.33
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.46
1.00
2.50
3.50
0.30
d
50
mm
(4)
0.47
0.39
0.43
0.43
0.43
3.80
6.00
5.70
6.30
0.33
d
65
mm
(5)
1.35
0.69
0.72
0.72
0.72
7.10
9.20
8.20
9.90
0.36
d
84
mm
(6)
18.00
17.00
11.30
11.30
11.30
11.30
12.10
12.20
14.10
0.45
d
90
mm
(7)
25.0
24.1
14.1
14.1
14.1
13.3
14.0
14.5
16.5
0.8
16-01-79
08-02-79
15-02-79
08-03-79
05-04-79
16-05-79
0.24
0.29
0.29
0.37
0.24
0.30'
0.32
0.36
0.37
0.81
0.34
1.90 _,
0.40
0.40
0.40
3.15
0.41
5.10
3.80
1.60
2.20
5.40
0.77
8.40
8.00
8.00
4.50
9.90
6.90
13.70
9.2
11.0
5.8
12.1
9.2
16.7
Table 7.4. Bed-material size characteristics data for Sacramento river at
Colusa, California (After Nakato, 1990).
Date
(1)
23-02-77
13-05-77
04-11-77
17-12-77
19-01-78
08-02-78
07-03-78
11-04-78
09-01-79
17-01-79
d
16
mm
(2)
0.24
0.26
0.24
0.25
0.31
0.25
0.32
0.30
0.24
0.25
d
35
mm
(3)
0.36
0.34
0.33
0.35
0.45
0.35
0.47
0.56
0.32
0.34
d
50
mm
(4)
0.45
0.38
0.39
0.42
0.62
0.60
0.88
2.00
0.35
0.40
d
65
mm
(5)
0.61
0.43
0.46
0.48
0.94
3.10
3.50
4.75
0.38
0.48
d
84
mm
(6)
0.61
0.43
0.46
0.48
0.94
3.10
3.50
4.75
0.38
0.48
d
90
mm
(7)
2.90
4.20
1.09
0.77
2.35
8.80
7.80
9.10
4.60
7.30
15-02-79
06-03-79
06-04-79
0.29
0.29
0.21
0.36
0.36
0.30
0.48
0.38
0.37
1.10
0.44
0.46
1.10
0.44
0.46
6.00
2.70
0.72
Chapter /
to Sacramento river at Butte City, California.
Data
No.
(1)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
AVG
STD
Score
Propo-
sed
(2)
0.733
3 . 159
1 . 723
0 . 5
1.372
0.504
0.739
0 . 854
1 . 276
0.5
0.664
0 . 648
3 . 855
0. 979
1.25
1.0 0
8 6
Rijn
(3)
4.622
18.436
5.600
1.992
3.895
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.003
1.362
1.798
0.000
15.90
0.001
3.83
5.76
2 1
Wiuff
(4)
1.269
3.892
7.817
1.136
7.042
0.077
0.030
0.036
0.025
1.349
1.998
0.083
3.095
0.062
1.99
2.51
2 9
Einstein
(5)
0.266
3.242
0.681
0.429
0.487
0.138
0.003
0.006
0.006
0.000
0.012
0.214
2.818
0.027
0.59
1.02
7
Toffal-
eti
(6)
0.268
1.156
1.935
0.311
1.568
0.022
0.010
0.009
0.003
0.509
0.707
0.024
1.174
0.015
0.55
0.63
43
Samaga
(7)
0.652
2.372
2.727
0.555
2.800
0.037
0.001
0.001
0.003
0.478
0.732
0.018
2.516
0.001
0.92
1.10
2 1
Celik &
Rodi
(8)
0.335
1.318
0.794
0.232
0.556
0.234
0.330
0.382
0.550
0.210
0.303
0.303
1.768
0.438
0.55
0.44
3 6
Bagnold
(9)
1.407
6.040
3.310
0.920
2.619
0.969
1.418
1.639
2.444
0.863
1.274
1.246
7.401
1.878
2.39
1.91
64
to Sacramento river at Colusa, California.
Data
No.
(1)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
AVG
STD
Score
Propo-
s ed
(2)
1. 959
0 .561
1.546
0.525
0 . 689
0.31
0 .433
0.962
0 .714
0 . 5
0.815
0.815
0.483
82
Rijn
(3)
3.677
1.607
1.858
0.683
1.550
1.103
0.723
2.231
1.666
1.140
1.639
1.625
0.789
82
Wiuff
(4)
1.888
0.928
1.613
0.822
1.500
0.687
0.663
1.496
1.813
1.247
1.138
1.254
0.420
100
Einstein
(5)
3.976
1.005
3.676
0.953
0.695
0.005
0.022
1.925
0.676
0.332
1.721
1.362
1.298
54
Toffal-
eti
(6)
0.504
0.220
0.490
0.182
0.178
0.142
0.094
0.467
0.334
0.181
0.312
0.282
0.141
1
Samaga
(7)
2.096
0.616
1.690
0.468
1.210
0.547
0.521
0.787
1.090
0.772
0.736
0.958
0.499
82
Celik &
Rodi
(8)
0.638
0.174
0.481
0.178
0.224
0.099
0.139
0.321
0.239
0.146
0.271
0.264
0.155
1
Bagnold
(9)
3.704
1.059
2.918
0.995
1.303
0.586
0.818
1.822
1.353
0.858
1.542
1.542
0.913
82
______*/'''-' * '
E
co
O
o
co
O
II
100
10
1
0.1
0.01
0.001
0001 |ii
5 10
Data point No.
15

D

O
Proposed
Rijn
Wiuff
Einstein
10
1
E
to
a
o o.i
w
a
- 0.01
0.001
:
o
! r_

1
fc*
I
o
D

9

l_
D

-+
*

m
_i_
o o

-D-O-
o

D

-+-

1

Q
___
m*
n
M
_l_

-n

D

O
Toffaleti
Samaga et al
Celik-Rodi
Bagnold
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
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 of dso
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 much 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. Some 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 range of
particle sizes, and still for all the cases, even for dso = 6.30mm, suspended load
transport is reported. A possible reason may be that in the size distribution of bed
material (Tables 7.3 and 7.4) there is always a proportion of particles (at least 16%)
which are much 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 the
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~
considerable portion of the particles are much less than the median diameter, it may 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 the
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
E
CO
a
o 1
co
a
u
0.1
;
: &
v
,. J
a
v~

O
g
i

i
!7
n
O
m
-1 1 L

9
\~
A

o
I I I !
4 8
Data point No.
1 2

D

O
Proposed
Rijn
Wiuff
Einstein
10
E
CO
a
1 -r
0.1 -t
- 0.01
0.001
o
co
a
II
ID
:
_ _ _ _
j i_
. * . O O
T-s-fr
Hi'M_i-P'"-
4 8
Data point No.

D

O
Toffaleti
Samaga et al
Celik-Rodi
Bagnold
12
Fig. 7.2. Discrepancy ratios r from application of suspended load equations to
Sacramento river at Colusa, California.
Chapter 7
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 of
100% 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% of
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 0.6mm in diameter. This
may 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 much worse than the predictions for Butte City.
The under-estimation of Celik and Rodi's model and the satisfactory predictions of the
proposed equation may 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.
7.2.2. Application to Krammer tidal channel (total load)
To investigate the predicability of selected bed-material load formulae, Voogt et al (1991)
conducted a set of field measurements in a number of tidal channels in the Netherlands.
The measurements represent transportation of fine sands (dso from 0.1-0.4mm) under
high velocity conditions (V from l-2.28m/s). Despite the tidal nature of the flow, Voogt
et al ensured that all data was collected under almost equilibrium flow conditions.
Chapter 7
Table 7.7. Summary of sediment transport data from Krammer tidal channel,
Netherlands (After Voogt et al, 1991).
Data
No.
(1)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Date
(2)
01-04-87
01-04-87
01-04-87
01-04-87
01-04-87
01-04-87
01-04-87
01-04-87
01-04-87
01-04-87
01-04-87
01-04-87
08-04-87
08-04-87
08-04-87
08-04-87
08-04-87
08-04-87
08-04-87
08-04-87
08-04-87
08-04-87
08-04-87
08-04-87
08-04-87
08-04-87
08-04-87
11-04-87
11-04-87
11-04-87
11-04-87
11-04-87
11-04-87
11-04-87
11-04-87
11-04-87
11-04-87
11-04-87
11-04-87
11-04-87
11-04-87
11-04-87
11-04-87
11-04-87
11-04-87
11-04-87
11-04-87
11-04-87
11-04-87
11-04-87
11-04-87
14-04-87
14-04-87
14-04-87
14-04-87
14-04-87
14-04-87
14-04-87
14-04-87
14-04-87
V
(m/s)
(3)
1.35
1.43
1.45
1.47
1.52
1.54
1.59
1.48
1.46
1.38
1.30
1.27
1.41
1.48
1.59
1.63
1.75
1.76
1.73
1.81
1.77
1.77
1.66
1.64
1.55
1.49
1.39
1.48
1.53
1.59
1.69
1.71
1.80
1.80
1.73
1.70
1.61
1.46
1.36
1.35
1.50
1.56
1.56
1.69
1.73
1.81
1.73
1.73
1.64
1.52
1.39
1.41
1.52
1.84
2.05
2.00
2.28
1.88
1.95
1.91
<3s
(kg/sm)
(4)
1.73
2.96
3.03
3.05
1.87 |
1.56
1.76
1.83
2.35
1.42
1.60
1.23
1.12
2.27
2.72
2.97
4.50
4.82
7.18
5.23 |
5.14
4.98
[
5.14
3.50
3.45
3.53 j
2.42
2.65
3.29
4.20
5.65
5.62
5.34
5.88
5.17
4.67
3.41
3.82
1.96
0.99
1.83
2.41
2.34
3.67
4.73
3.50
4.03
4.35
3.38
2.84
2.00
2.90
5.75
7.50
10.19
10.81
9.55
10.71
11.28
12.88
depth
(m)
(5)
10.8
10.8 |
10.4
10.2
10.0
9.6
9.5 \
9.6
9.5
9.5
9.3
9.3
7.0
6.5
6.4
5.9
6.8
6.4
7.7
7.2
7.1
7.4
7.7
7.5
7.2
7.3
7.9
6.0
6.2
6.6
6.7
6.7
6.8
7.2
7.4
7.5
7.5
7.6
7.7
7.0
6.5
6.9
6.9
7.9
7.7
7.3
8.0
8.5
8.5
8.7
9.0
6.6
6.5
6.7
6.8
6.8
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.3
T
(C)
(6)
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
d
50
(mm)
(7)
0.275
0.275
0.275
0.275
0.275
0.275
0.275
0.275 !
0.275
0.275
0.275 i
0.275
0.345
0.345
0.345
0.345 !
0.345
0.345
0.345
0.345
0.345
0.345
0.345
0.345
0.345 !
0.345
0.345 i
0.300
0.300
0.300
0.300
0.300
0.300
0.300
0.300
0.300
0.300
0.300
0.300
0.265
0.265
0.265
0.265
0.265
0.265
0.265
0.265
0.265
0.265
0.265
0.265
0.225
0.225
0.225
0.225
0.225
0.225
0.225
0.225
1 0.225
d
90
(mm)
(8)
0.370
0.370
0.370
0.370
0.370
0.370
0.370
0.370 |
0.370
0.370
0.370
0.370
0.470
0.470
0.470
0.470
0.470
0.470
0.470
0.470
0.470
0.470
0.470
0.470
0.470
0.470
0.470
0.340
0.340
0.340
0.340
0.340
0.340
0.340
0.340
0.340
0.340
0.340
0.340
0.330
0.330
0.330
0.330
0.330
0.330
0.330
0.330
0.330
0.330
0.330
0.330
0.285
0.285
0.285
0.285
; 0.285
0.285
0.285
0.285
0.285
u*/C0
(9)
4.00
4.27
4.29
4.33
4.48
4.48
4.62
4.31
4.24
3.98
3.76
3.67
2.90
3.00
3.21
3.23
3.57
3.55
3.63
3.74
3.65
3.68
3.49
3.42
3.20
3.09
2.94
3.29
3.42
3.60
3.84
3.88
4.10
4.14
4.00
3.94
3.73
3.40
3.17
3.65
4.00
4.21
4.21
4.68
4.77
4.94
4.80
4.86
4.61
4.29
3 .95
4.60
4.94
6.02
! 6.72
6.56
7 .52
6.20
6.43
6.35
Note: Mean flow width = 300 m.
Chapter 7 Applicability analysis, 214
Table 7.8. Discrepancy ratios r from application of sediment load equations to
the Krammer tidal channel.
Data
No.
(1)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
AVG
STD
Score
Prop
o s ed
(2)
1.19
0.88
0.89
0.92
1.73
2.00
2.00
1.53
1.13
1.45
1.05
1.25
1.52
0.86
0.94
0.91
0.84
0.78
0.54
0.85
0.79
0.83
0.66
0.89
0.72
0.61
0.72
0.70
0.65
0.61
0.58
0.61
0.78
0.73
0 .72
0.75
0.84
0.52
0.78
1.62
1.27
1.15
1.19
1.10
0.92
1.45
1.10
1.05
1.10
0.99
1.02
0.72
0.50
0 .79
0.90
0.77
1.47
0.62
0.68
0.56
0.96
0.36
100
Rijn
(3)
0.53
0.43
0.45
0.49
0.97
1.22
1.28
0.85
0.62
0.73
0.51
0.59
1.17
0.74
0.87
0.91
0.80
0.77
0.46
0.78
0.73
0 .74'
0.54
0.75
0.59
0.48
0.50
0.62
0.58
0.54
0.54
0 .57
0.77
0.69
0.64
0.65
0.69
0.38
0.52
1.08
1.02
0.93
0.96
0 .89
0.78
1.34
0 .91
0.83
0.81
0.65
0 .58
0.52
0.40
0.85
0.84
0.70
1.53
0.64
0.65
0.55
0.74
0.24
9 0
Wiuff
(4)
5.72
4.90
5.02
5.31
10.68
12.97
13 .79
8.71
6.19
6.93
4.44
5.02
5.62
3.47
4 .39
4.34
4.98
4.55
3 .27
5.53
4 .86
5.21
3.65
4 .75
3 .31
2.58
2.75
2.88
2.91
3 .03
3.29
3.55
5.14
4.90
4.50
4.54
4.49
2 .25
2.90
6.64
6.35
6.42
6.61
7.66
6.69
11.3
8 .12
7.93
7.41
5 .71
4.89
3 .67
2.87
7.10
10.1
8.22
21.0
5.86
6.93
5.55
5.91
3.13
0
A-W
(5)
2.21
1.77
1.83
1.93
3 .77
4.65
4.80
3.27
2.38
2.84
1.96
2.27
2.28
1.38
1.57
1.59
1.46
1.38
0.89
1.46
1.35
1.40
1.05
1.44
1.13
0.93
1.03
1.44
1.36
1.29
1.27
1.35
1.80
1.65
1.58
1.62
1.73
0.98
1.37
3.47
3.09
2.88
2.97
2.87
2.48
4.10
2.93
2.76
2.75
2.28
2.11
2.15
1.59
3.25
4.12
3.44
7.48
2.57
2.93
2.34
2.27
1.16
52
E-H
(6)
3.85
3.09
3.16
3.33
6.48
7 .91
8.17
5.52
3.99
4.77
3.24
3.75
5.49
3.29
3.90
3.84
3.95
3.65
2.53
4.17
3.76
3.98
2.93
3.90
2.91
2.35
2.61
2.51
2.43
2.39
2.43
2.59
3.55
3.34
3.16
3.23
3.37
1.86
2.56
5.14
4.51
4.31
4.44
4.57
3.93
6.45
4.71
4.52
4.46
3.68
3.41
2.27
1.65
3.34
4.26
3.55
7.86
2.67
3.04
2.46
3.82
1.38
3
Yang
(7)
1.04
0.85
0.88
0.93
1.82
2.25
2.34
1.57
1.13
1.33
0.90
1.04
1.76
1.08
1.27
1.28
1.26
1.18
0.78
1.30
1.18
1.24
0.91
1.22
0.93
0.75
0.81
0.82
0.79
0.76
0.77
0.82
1.12
1.04
0.98
1.00
1.04
0.57
0.77
1.55
1.42
1.34
1.38
1.38
1.19
1.98
1.41
1.34
1.31
1.07
0.97
0.71
0.53
1.08
1.37
1.14
2.47
0.85
0.97
0.77
1.16
0.40
95
Einst-
ein
(8)
0.71
0.47
0 .47
0.48
0.85
1.05
1.00
0.82
0.62
0.91
0.74
0.93
1.18
0.61
0.56
0.53
0.38
0.36
0.23
0.35
0.34
0.35
0.31
0.45
0.42
0.39
0.54
0.52
0.44
0.37
0.31
0.31
0.37
0.33
0.35
0.37
0.45
0.34
0.61
1.26
0.85
0.70
0.73
0.56
0.47
0.75
0.55
0.50
0.55
0.54
0.64
0.61
0.40
0.69
0.87
0 .72
. 1.60
0.53
0.61
0.48
;
0.59
0.26
57
Toffa-
leti
(9)
0.96
0.73
0 .74
0.77
1 .52
2.05
2 .71
1.30
0.95
1.20
0.86
1.02
0.93
0.86
1.17
1.17
1.15
1.08
0.71
1.18
1.08
1.13
0.83
1.12
0.86
0.60
0.40
0.73 j
0.89
0.99
0.99
1.05
1.41
1.30
1.24
1.27
1.35
0 .41
0.56
1.48
1.52
1.87
1.93
2.21
1.90
3.11
2.25
2.12
2 .14
1.08
0.91
0.95
0 .77
! 2.32
2.75
2.33
4.13
1.80
2.01
1.62
1.37
0.7.0
1
7 8
Sam-
aga
(10)
1.43
0.92
0.94
1.01
2.13
2.55
2.80
1.61
1.11
1.72
1.27
1.48
2.16
1.24
1.29
1.20
1.23
1.09
0.86
1.46
1.25
1.37
0.91
1.13
1.02
0.90
1.08
0.80
0.76
0.69
0.59
0.65
1.02
1.00
0.89
0.88
0 .88
0.64
0 .90
1.73
1.29
1.04
1.07
1.42
1.25
2.09
1.53
1.53
1.39
0 . 98
1.15
0.63
0.36
1.03
1.99
1.53
5.42
0.94
1.23
0.96
1.29
0.71
9 0
Bagn-
old
(11)
2.20
1.64
1.66
1.72
3.22
3 .92
3.91
2.87
2.11
2.71
1.97
2.34
2.88
1.65
1.80
1.75
1.62
1.50
1.03
1.63
1.51
1.59
1.25
1.70
1.36
1.15
1.36
1.36
1.26
1.18
1.11
1.17
1.52
1.41
1.39
1.45
1.61
0 .99
1.48
3 .11
2 .44
2 .21
2 .28
2 .10
1.76
2 .78
2 .11
2 .01
2 .09
1.88
1.92
1.40
0.94
1.53
1.73
1.48
2.84
! 1.19
1.30
1.07
1.84
0.67
6 8
C-R
(12)
0.31
0.24
0 .24
0.26
0.49
0.60
0.61
0.44
0.32
0.41
0.30
0.35
0.42
0.25
0.28
0.28
0 .25
0 .24
0.15
0.25
0.23
0 .24
0 .18
0 .25
0 .20
0 .17
0 .19
0 .26
0 .24
0 .22
0.21
0 .22
0.28
0 . 26
0 .25
0 . 26
0.28
0 .17
0 .25
0 . 57
0.47
0 .42
0 . 43
0.38
0 .32
0 . 52
0.38
0.35
0 .37
0.32
0.32
0.29
0 .20
0.33
0.37
0.32
0.60
0.25
0.27
0.22
0.31
0.11
8
Chapter 7
E
(0
O
o
(0
O
ll
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Data point No.
10T
E
CO
O
O
II
0.1

yv
L fc
. Jil
r
_
P
_"
s
1
-tor***

*
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

o

o
van Rijn
Proposed
Bagnold
Ackers-White
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Data point No.
Engelund-Hansen
Yang
* Einstein
O Toffaleti
100
w 1 o-,C&r-r
o
1
II '
Samaga etal
n Wiuff
Celik-Rodi
0.1
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Data point No.
Fig. 7.3. Application of sediment load equations to the Krammer tidal channel.
Using an Acoustic Sand Transport Meter (ASTM), flow velocities and sand
concentrations were measured on the top of a submerged sill (width in the flow direction
= 300m) at elevations 0.2m and 1.0m above the bed, at mid depth, and 2.0m below the
Chapter 7
water surface. The concentrations were also measured at levels 0.05, 0.1 and 0.2m
above the bed using a pump 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 pump system were analysed in a sedimentation tube to obtain the
particle fall velocity. From 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 collected
by a grab sampler. Table 7.7 represents sixty field data collected in April 1987 from the
Krammer tidal channel in the Eastern Scheldt estuary in the South Western part of the
Netherlands.
It is interesting to note that Voogt et al used a pumping sampler to determine the
concentration of sediment particles in the vicinity of the bed. Although this sampler does
not meet the requirements of ideal samplers, it can be calibrated and produce continuous
records of concentration with sufficient accuracy (see Sec 7.1.2). Noting the valuable
experiences of the collectors of the Dutch tidal channels data, especially those of van
Rijn, one can assume that the pumping sampler data has been analysed with sufficient
accuracy.
Another interesting point with respect to the Dutch tidal channels is the method of the
determination of the energy slope. Due 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, due to
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
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 Krammer 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).
The theories of Wiuff, Engelund-Hansen, and Celik-Rodi have failed to present
acceptable predictions. Wiuff theory has always over-predicted the transport rates. This
makes Wiuff s linear relation for suspended load efficiency questionable for high velocity
flows. Under these conditions, Wiuff s model over-estimates the actual transport
efficiency. The over prediction of Engelund-Hansen theory will also limit the application
of this model to the special cases of the movement of small particles under high velocity
conditions. O n the other hand, Celik and Rodi's procedure has always under-predicted
the transport rates. This confirms the earlier conclusion that Celik and Rodi's method
under-estimates the actual shear stress used in moving particles in suspension.
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 may reduce the accuracy of the sediment discharge
predictions, especially for those theories which are more sensitive to the slope such as
Engelund-Hansen.
7.2.3. Application to Scheldt Estuary tidal channels (total load)
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 (d
50
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
Table 7.9. Summary of sediment transport
Scheldt estuary tidal channels,
data from Eastern and
Netherlands (After Voogt
Western
et al, 1991).
Data
No.
(1)
Date
(2)
v
(m/s)
(3)
<Is
(kg/sm)
(4)
depth
(m)
(5)
(6)
d
50
(mm)
(7)
d
90
(mm)
(8)
u*/C0
(9)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
09-01-86
27-01-86
27-01-86
27-01-86
27-01-86
27-01-86
27-01-86
27-01-86
12-03-86
12-03-86
12-03-86
12-03-86
12-03-86
12-03-86
12-03-86
12-03-86
12-03-86
12-03-86
12-03-86
14-03-86
21-08-86
21-08-86
03-12-86
03-12-86
25-10-86
25-10-86
25-10-86
25-10-86
25-10-86
25-10-86
25-10-86
25-10-86
25-10-86
25-10-86
25-10-86
25-10-86
31-10-86
31-10-86
31-10-86
01-11-86
01-11-86
01-11-86
01-11-86
01-11-86
01-11-86
01-11-86
01-11-86
01-11-86
02-11-86
02-11-86
02-11-86
02-11-86
02-11-86
02-11-86
02-11-86
02-11-86
02-11-86
02-11-86
02-11-86
02-11-86
1.30
1.58
1.35
1.40
1.66
1.82
1.75
1.48
1.28
1.30
1.35
1.48
1.57
2.04
2.07
1.88
1.
1,
1.
1.
1
1
1
1
1
41
34
88
31
36
33
29
47
27
1.46
1.61
1.72
1.81
1.83
1.87
1.88
1.81
1.79
Note: Mean flow width = 300 m
76
72
40
42
35
82
81
59
58
43
50
1.39
1.52
1.38
1.32
1.25
1.70
1.38
1.48
1.76
1.36
1.54
1.31
1.31
1.45
1.29
1.07
1.48
0.97
0.55
0.89
71
47
11
47
01
69
29
03
79
80
4.78
3.40
0.67
.47
.16
.25
2.24
44
13
0.92
2.09
00
54
38
47
5.77
6.33
6.55
6.39
6.07
5.83
3.38
3.10
2.27
4.30
4.57
.45
08
.03
.56
,88
.93
2.90
1.41
1.52
4.54
74
59
27
72
65
15
39
71
58
3.8
4.2
4.2
3.6
4.0
4.5
4,
5.
5,
5.
5.
6.
3.
3.
3.8
4.2
4.6
4.5
5.0
S.9
5.7
6.1
5.5
6.3
7.0
7.0
6.8
6.8
6.8
6.6
6,
6.
6.
6.
6
6
7
7
7.4
5.5
5.8
5.3
6.2
6.7
6.9
7.1
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
20
20
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
0.195
0.230
0.230
0.195
0.195
0.195
0.195
0.195
0.245
0.245
0.245
0.245
0.185
0.185
0.185
0.185
0.185
0.190
0.190
0.160
0.190
0.190
0.230
0.230
0.180
0.180
0.180
0.180
0.180
0.180
0.180
0.180
0.180
0.180
0.180
0.180
0.180
0.180
0.180
0.180
0.180
0.180
0.180
0.180
0.180
0.180
0.180
0.180
0.180
0.180
0.180
0.180
0.180
0.180
0.180
0.180
0.180
0.180
0.180
0.180
0.250
0.270
0.270
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.320
0.320
0.320
0.320
0.230
0.230
0.230
0.230
0.230
0.225
0.225
0.195
0.235
0.235
0.270
0.270
0.270
0.270
0.270
0.270
0.270
0.270
0.270
0.270
0.270
0.270
0.270
0.270
0.270
0.270
0.270
0.270
0.270
0.270
0.270
0.270
0.270
0.270
0.270
0.270
0.270
0.270
0.270
0.270
0.270
0.270
0.270
0.270
0.270
0.270
0.270
0.270
5.71
6.56
7.20
7.69
8.09
8.14
8.25
8.29
7.98
7.92
7.76
7.59
6.34
6.47
6.13
7.84
7.87
80
95
38
73
27
6.89
6.27
5.93
5.79
7.60
6.34
6.90
7.79
6.30
6.75
5.90
5.93
6.62
5.92
5.09
5.43
6.55
15
.07
85
,14
92
08
57
6.42
8.51
8.75
8.08
6.15
5.54
7.91
7.69
4.29
4.25
3.89
4.54
Table 7.10. Discrepancy ratios r from application of sediment load equations
to the Eastern and Western Scheldt estuary tidal channels.
Data
No.
(1)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
AVG
STD
Score
Prop
osed
(2)
2.00
1.54
1.55
1.33
1.37
1.39
1.40
1.31
1.09
1.07
1.05
1.00
0.82
0.96
1.07
1.60
1.50
1.62
1.35
0.72
0.78
0.55
0.97
0.91
1.54
1.24
1.27
0.99
0.56
1.22
0.55
1.41
0.98
0.90
1.90
1.32
1.41
1.34
4.14
6.02
1.64
1.84
1.32
0.54
1.39
0.97
1.07
3.01
3.26
2.00
1.47
0.69
2.71
4.87
2.13
0.72
0.68
0.90
0.73
1 .49
1.00
8 8
Rijn
(3)
1.07
1.04
1.31
1.31
1.53
1.56
1.56
1.44
1.26
1.22
1.16
1.04
0.50
0.59
0.60
1.96
1.82
1.59
1.17
0.48
0.56
0.33
0.69 .
0.53
0.87
0.57
1.21
0.56
0.34
1.33
0.29
1.17
0.54
0.49
1.20
0.66
1.08
1.19
4.79
6.84
1.29
2.07
1.17
0.36
0.97
0.70
0.81
3.55
4.82
2.97
2.21
0.51
1.91
6.56
0.95
0.67
0.59
0 .67
0.59
1.40
1.35
7 5
Wiuff
(4)
10.70
10.87
13 .31
13.07
14.97
15.36
15.96
15.03
11.56
11.23
10.55
9.57
5.41
6.57
6.55
16.35
15.52
12.40
10.74
4.80
5.79
3.51
7.62
5.85
8.80
6.72
12.18
6.54
4.40
12.30
3 .59
10.57
5.58
5.14
13.65
7 .48
5.67
6.15
28.14
48.91
9.46
9.75
5.03
2.02
5.26
4.00
5.64
17.27
33.36
22.42
13.57
3 .63
12.21
45.85
12.27
3.56
3 .30
3 .39
3.81
11.10
9.00
0
A-W
(5)
7.75
7.53
8.96
8.52
9.50
9.82
10.30
9.66
7.59
7.37
7.03
6.45 I
3 .74
4.46
4.55
11.37
10.57
9.35
7.59
3.42
3.99
2.46
5.10
4.04
6.31
4.57
7.99
4.38
2.78
8.14
2.38
7.60
3.98
3 .62
9.14
5.15
5.54
6.07
25.51
40.06
8.12
7.10
4.05
1.33
3.48
2.55
3.14
19.37
33.72
21.87
13.15
3.58
11.79
39.36
14.29
2.15
1.96
2.35
2.22
8.64
8.19
3
E-H
(6)
5.29
4.67
5.23
4.81
5.23
5.35
5.51
5.16
4.12
4.03
3.87
3 .59
2.40
2.85
3.00
6.00
5.65
5.26
4.41
2.13
2.43
1.58
3.11
2.62
4.18
3.23
4.53
2.87
1 .77
4.49
1.58
4 .47
2.66
2.43
5 .77
3.53
3 .28
3.34
12.59
19.82
4.51
5.88
3.55
1.49
3 .86
2.82
3.51
7.98
11.58
7.54
4.91
1.72
6.42
16.78
4.51
2.38
2.22
2.51
2.39
4.67
3.30
6
Yang
(7)
1.62
1.51
1.75
1.63
1.79
1.85
1.94
1.82
1.45
1.40
1.35
1.25
0.75
0.89
0.92
2.21
2.04
1.92
1.52
0.69
0.80
0.50
1.00
0.81
1.30
0.93
1.53
0.87
0.54
1.56
0.47
1.54
0.82
0 .74
1.81
1.05
1.31
1 .40
5.36
7.90
1.70
2.25
1.30
0.48
1.25
0.92
1.13
3.85
5.61
3.54
2.19
0.68
2.46
6.87
1.60
0.74
0.67
0.81
0.76
1.72
1.46
7 8
Einst
-ein
(8)
2.49
2.29
2.75
2.62
2.92
3 .05
3.26
3 .05
2.41
2.33
2.24
2.06
1.12
1.31
1.36
3.82
3.48
3.28
2.46
1.07
1.22
0.75
1.51
1.20
1.98
1.33
2.45
1.25
0.75
2.57
0.66
2.49
1.24
1.11
2.65
1.52
2.98
3.16
11.25
15.74
3.39
2.10
1.39
0.39
1.01
0.69
0.70
11.49
14.57
9.11
5.91
1.90
6.16
16.01
10.19
0.44
0.40
0.67
0.49
3.29
3.72
37
Toffa
-leti
(9)
3.33
2.54
4.45
4.56
4.72
4.85
5.00
4.65
3.89
3.81
3.73
3.51
1.35
1.56
1.74
5.96
5.52
5.17
3.56
1.20
1.29
0.90
1.62
1.49
2.53
1.97
4.34
1.60
0.89
4.30
0.89
3.03
1.62
1.47
3 .08
2.12
2.33
2.25
14.30
20.43
2.65
4.18
1.67
0.58
1.50
1.06
1.19
8.45
13.62
8.53
5.71
1.22
4.63
17 .73
4.20
1.09
1.03
1.07
0.89
3.87
3.92
4 1
Sam-
aga
(10)
1.44
1.24
1.53
1.68
2 .21
2 .28
2.41
2.29
1.61
1.54
1.36
1.16
0.60
0.75
0.69
2.09
2.03
1.34
1.22
0.52
0.67
0.38
0.90
0.64
0.99
0.89
1.51
0 .74
0.54
1.61
0 .40
1.18
0.65
0.58
1.60
0.88
0.78
0.79
2.52
4.92
0.92
1.31
0.89
0.45
1.15
0.86
0.94
1 .40
3 .18
2.36
1.17
0 .39
1.59
4 .40
0 .99
0 .60
0 .58
0 .69
0 .62
1.32
0.88
74
Bagn-
old
(11)
3.49
2.69
2 .74
2.35
2.44
2.47
2.51
2.34
1.94
1.91
1.87
1.78
1.43
1.67
1.85
2.86
2.69
2.88
2.38
1.26
1.36
0.95
1.71
1.58
2.66
2.12
2 .25
1.72
0.98
2.17
0.96
2.48
1.70
1.55
3 .30
2.26
2.49
2.38
7.44
10.80
2.90
3 .21
2 .26
0.90
2.30
1.61
1.80
5.45
5.99
3 .80
2.69
1.24
4 . 81
8.82
3 .83
1.23
1.16
1.51
1.24
2.63
1.81
42
C-R
(12)
0.83
0.64
0.66
0.57
0.59
0.60
0.62
0.58
0.48
0.47
0.46
0 .44
0.34
0.39
0.43
0.74
0.69
0.76
0.59
0.30
0.33
0.23
0.40
0.37
0.63
0.47
0 .54
0.39
0.22
0.53
0.21
0.62
0.40
0.36
0.76
0.52
0.74
0.72
2.19
2.99
0.80
0.91
0.64
0.22
0.56
0.39
0 .42
1.76
1.87
1.16
0.80
0.36
1.41
2 .50
1.03
0.33
0.30
0.39
0.31
0.69
0.54
5 1
Chapter 7
10
E
(fl
O
o I i
W
O
il
?
0.1
(a)
i i
20 40
Data point No.
60

0
van Rijn
Proposed
Samaga et al
Bagnold
100
20 40
60

D

O
Toffaleti
Einstein
Celik & Rodi
Wiuff
Data point No.
100 -F
Ackers & White
E Engelund & Hansen
Yang
0 20 40
Data point No.
60
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 that
of the Krammer 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
Krammer tidal channel, the accuracy of the reported data is some what less. Especially
for Data N o . 39 to Data No. 55, where most of the predictors have given large
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 26%. 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 much 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 are
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 (k
s
), 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 total
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.
7.2.4. Application to Elbow river (bed load)
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
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. The shapes of these cross sections
indicate a composite channel with width much 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 was 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. The test results indicated a wide discrepancy between the predicted
bed loads and the measured values. The difference between the maximum 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 much greater than
the average shear stress. The high local shear stresses may cause sediment transport
while the average shear stress may indicate no transport. Hence, applying an average
shear stress to the entire river cross section is not realistic. It is more logical to use the
hydraulic properties of that portion of the river which 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
bed movement coupled with velocity measurements in the field, and on a graphical
correlation of flume data.
Following Hollingshead, in the present study, the actual channel is replaced by an active
channel whose width indicates the width of active bed movement. Similar analysis has
already been done by Leopold and Ernmett (1976) to present the bed load transport data
of East Fork River. The active widths for different total flow discharges are given in
Table 7.11 (taken from Hollingshead's Table 1). In this table the parameters D
a
and V
a
refer to the mean depth and flow velocity over the active width and are obtained from
Hollingshead's Figure.
Table 7.11. Summary of bed load transport data from Elbow river, Alberta.
Data
No.
(1)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Date
(2)
01-06-67
02-06-67
17-06-67
20-06-67
21-06-67
22-06-67
23-06-67
08-06-68
09-06-68
10-06-68
25-06-68
26-06-68
27-06-68
27-06-68
28-06-68
30-06-68
30-06-68
01-07-69
01-07-69
02-07-69
03-07-69
. 03-07-69
04-07-69
05-07-69
Q
m
3
/s
(3)
109.0
82.1
53.8
46.2
44.2
41.6
35.4
42.2
39.6
38.8
82.1
90.6
68.0
62.3
63.7
95.1
90.0
85.0
82.1
69.4
62.3
59.5
59.5
62.3
V
a
m/s
(4)
2.69
2.43
2.10
1.99
1.96
1.92
1.81
1.93
1.89
1.87
2.43
2.52
2.28
2.21
2.23
2.56
2.51
2.46
2.43
2.29
2.21
2.17
2.17
2.21
W
a
m
(5)
18.3
15.2
24.4
12.2
15.2
12.2
9.1
12.2
9.1
6.1
12.2
9.1
15.2
15.2
15.2
12.2
15.2
12.2
12.2
15.2
15.2
12.2
15.2
15.2
Da
m
(6)
1.09
0.88
0.64
0.57
0.55
0.53
0.47
0.54
0.51
0.50
0.88
0.95
0.76
0.72
0.73
0.98
0.94
0.90
0.88
0.78
0.72
0.69
0.69
0.72
U
*/C0
(7)
0.40
0.36
0.31
0.29
0.29
0.28
0.27
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.36
0.38
0.34
0.33
0.33
0.38
0.38
0.37
0.36
0.34
0.33
0.32
0.32
0.33
Qb
kg/s
(8)
23.7
12.5
10.9
1.7
4.5
3.3
0.02
3.5
0.6
0.6
23.4
21.7
26.4
13.3
18.0
23.9
37.4
23.1
33.8
13.4
11.2
4.3
5.4
3.1
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
= Mean flow depth over the active width; Qb = 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 calculated
discrepancy ratios are given in Table 7.12. Figure 7.5 indicates the graphical comparison
of the calculated discrepancy ratios.
Chapter 7 Applicability analysis. 224
Elbow River data.
Data No.
(1)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
AVG
STD
Score
Proposed
(2)
1.89
1.96
1 . 92
4.90
2 . 14
2.18
210 . 61
2 . 05
8.39
5 . 44
0.83
0.79
0.70
1.22
0.93
1 . 02
0.76
0.89
0.58
1.42
1 . 45
2.79
2.78
5.23
2.27
1 . 91
6 1
Rijn
(3)
1.95
2.37
3.14
9.00
4.27
4.18
441.05
4.37
16.21
9.99
1.06
0.87
1.00
1.83
1.36
1.14
0.86
1.09
0.73
1.98
2.17
4.46
4.43
7.84
3.75
3.70
4 8
Bagnold
(4)
7.84
9.15
10.80
29.42
13.21
13.58
1400.84
12.99
53.11
34.47
3.92
3.52
3.56
6.44
4.88
4.50
3.39
4.12
2.72
7.16
7.65
15.16
15.10
27.65
12.80
12.14
0
MPM
(5)
6.59.
7.19
7.20
17.84
7.94
7.45
632.61
7.65
27.55
16.62
3.15
2.80
2.69
4.66
3.54
3.68
2.72
3.31
2.18
5.41
5.53
10.86
10.82
19.99
8.15
6.40
0
Einstein
(6)
50.65
53.90
49.29
117.99
50.24
49.76
4344.22
46.92
187.20
119.88
22.87
21.77
18.86
32.55
25.07
27.95
20.73
24.48
15.84
38.57
38.65
73.52
73.51
139.65
56.51
43.42
0
Toffaleti
(7)
0.01
0.02
0.06
0.99
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.07
0.06
0.10
0.06
0.20
4
Samaga
(8)
1.74
0.68
0.21
0.40
0.17
0.14
10.37
0.15
0.47
0.26
0.31
0.35
0.14
0.17
0.14
0.54
0.34
0.36
0.22
0.29
0.20
0.37
0.37
0.73
0.38
0.33
17
Note: Data No. 7 is not considered in the calculation of AVG, STD, and Score.
Data No. 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 No. 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 much 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. The 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 Samaga 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
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.
1 0 0 - B
E
O
o
CO
O
n
1 0
1 s
0.1

* " r *
a - , * -a
nfla an . fl5
-flrrfl-^^rÔ-
J i i i | i I _ I __| i L _ J i | _ i i i J | i . i i i_
5 10 15 20
Data point No.
25
Rijn
D
Proposed
* Bagnold
E
w
O
u
w
O
n
_
1000
100
10
1
0.1
_D_
;nDn D D n
. n n
D
n
n n
n
a
n
D D
TTET

:
I I I _

_l l_ I I I I 1 1 -
I '
5 10 15 20
Data point No.
25
MPM
a
Einstein
* Samaga
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 coefficients used
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 made 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
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.
7.2.5. Application to Jordan and Meshushim rivers (bed load)
Inbar and Schick (1979) published seven sets of data from the transportation of cobbles
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
km
2
, respectively, into lake Kinneret. Mean 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/km
2
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 frequency
of once in 100 years, cobbles and boulders up to 1700 m m in size were transported in
these rivers. 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 large
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 rates
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) .
Data
No.
(1)
1
2
3
4
5
Date
(2)
22-01-69
21-01-74
21-01-74
10-02-75
10-02-75
Q
nr/s
(3)
197
94
94
57.5
57.5
Qb
kg/s
(4)
124.7
68
67.2
27.2
32.3
Width
m
(5)
43
40
24
34
19
Depth
m
. (6)
1.4
1.2
1.7
1.1
1.5
d
50
mm
(8)
300
100
100
80
80
Slope
(7)
0.035
0.035
0.030
0.035
0.030
u*/C0
(8)
0.28
0.45
0.47
0.48
0.49
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) .
Data
No.
(1)
1
2
Date
(2)
22-01-69
22-01-69
Q
vc? Is
(3)
300
200
Qb
kg/s
(4)
341
224
Width
m
(5)
31
26
Depth
m
(6)
2.0
1.7
^50
mm
(8)
300
200
Slope
(7)
0.030
0.030
u*/ffl
(8)
0.30
0.34
Note: Q = Water discharge, Q b = Bed load transport rate, and water temperature is assumed to be 20 C.
Jordan River data.
Data No.
(1)
1
2
3
4
5
AVG
STD
Score
Proposed
(2)
19 .42
26.22
22.11
49 . 01
30.39
29 . 43
1 0 . 4 7
0.00
Rijn
(3)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0 . 0
Bagnold
(4)
25.20
23.35
19.90
36.64
25.69
26.16
5.62
0.00
MPM
(5)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0. 00
0.00
Samaga
(6)
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
Toffaleti
(7)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0 . 0
Einstein
(8)
206.48
467.89
374.72
866.33
503.13
483.71
217.14
0.00
Meshushim River data.
Data No.
(1)
1
2
AVG
STD
Score
Proposed
(2)
7 . 14
7 . 15
7 . 15
0.00
0 . 0
Rijn
(3)
0.05
0.10
0.07
0.03
0 . 0
Bagnold
(4)
11.49
11.76
11.62
0.13
0 . 0
MPM
(5)
0.20
1.50
0.85
0.65
50
Samaga
(6)
0.08
0.16
0.12
0.04
0 . 0
Toffaleti
(7)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0 . 0
Einstein
(8)
91.45
109.02
100.23
8.78
0 . 0
Chapter 7
Bagnold
p
Proposed
* Samaga etal
^ Einstein
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 boulders of d50
= 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).
A part of the inaccuracy in the predictions of the proposed equation can be related to the
use of dso of bed material instead of d9o in Eq. 6.56, with A,=1.32. The bed material is
non-uniform and the sediment size do,o is much greater than dso- Hence, computation
based on d9o changes the associated fall velocity and reduces the amount of the predicted
bed loads.
From the results of Tables 7.15 and 7.16 it is clear that due to the size limitation, most of
the selected bed load predictors are not applicable to the Israeli rivers.
7.2.6. Application to East Fork river (bed load)
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,
E
W
a
o
to
a
100
1 0
1
0.1
0.01
0.001
= o o o o
! <> o-
= fl n
n
u
1=1
[ flfr
I _ _ _ _ _
"
!
:

;
'SF7
W W W W M M * ......-r-i-i-rrfrifrtVvwyuififuiAr<&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. Any
sediment particle which moved 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 km
2
. About half
of this basin area lies within the Wind River Mountains that rise to an elevation of 4300m.
The other half is provided by a major tributary, Muddy Creek, that drains an upland of
rolling hills underlain by lower Tertiary sandstone and shale. The Muddy 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 used in
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 mean 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 much greater than the calculated values in Table 7.17.
Chapter 7
Table 7.17. Summary of bed load transport data from East Fork river, Wyoming
(Leopold and Emmett, 1976) .
Date
(2)
m
3
/s
(3)
Qb
kg/s
(4)
Depth
m
(5)
0.
0.
1.
1.
2.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
48
74
27
60
01
68
33
38
43
59
52
47
28
24
51
70
74
78
21
40
44
38
96
.75
.02
.44
.57
.62
.30
.88
.75
.59
.58
.65
.78
.28
.90
.34
d
50
mm
25-05-74
26-05-74
27-05-74
28-05-74
29-05-74
30-05-74
31-05-74
01-06-74
02-06-74
03-06-74
04-06-74
05-06-74
27-05-75
30-05-75
02-06-75
03-06-75
04-06-75
05-06-75
06-06-75
07-06-75
08-06-75
09-06-75
10-06-75
11-06-75
13-06-75
14-06-75
15-06-75
16-06-75
17-06-75
18-06-75
19-06-75
21-06-75
22-06-75
23-06-75
24-06-75
25-06-75
26-06-75
01-07-75
08-07-75
5.34
9.92
21.5
29.8
41
32
22
24
25
29.7
27.9
26.5
2.44
2.04
5.82
9.13
10.0
10.7
20.0
24.8
25.6
24.3
14.4
10.1
15.8
25.7
29.0
30.3
22.2
.12.8
10.1
7.2
7.1
8.24
10.8
21.7
13.1
23.1
21.5
0.051
0.749
1.6
2.05
2.65
0.716
0.589
0.188
0.118
0.157
0.261
0.278
0.0190
0.015
0.441
0.720
0.740
0.885
2.84
1.89
1.58
0.763
0.317
0.10
0.252
0.843
1.08
1.08
0.725
0.097
0.088
0.029
0.043
0.056
0.177
0.763
0.361
1.97
0.289
0.
0.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
0.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
54
59
03
40
52
51
40
94
99
88
92
81
70
72
74
78
16
26
36
28
41
35
11
02
.50
.27
.05
.19
.36
.59
.73
.70
.64
.77
.98
.10
.99
.63
.91
0.60
0.59
0.63
0.49
0.78
Note: Q = Water discharge; Qb = Bed load transport rate; dso = Median diameter of bed load; Slope
0.0007 ; Effective width = 14.6 m; and water temperature is assumed to be 20 C.
East Fork River data.
Data No.
(1)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
AVG
STD
Score
Proposed
(2)
9 . 16
1.21
1. 32
1.48
1.65
4.59
3.85
12 . 79
21.56
19 . 17
10 . 73
9.56
10.81
10 . 84
1. 16
1.16 .
1. 23
1. 11
0.69
1.30
1. 63
3 . 15
4.29
9.28
5 . 94
3.05
2.73
2 . 87
3 . 02
12.25
10 . 54
22.10
14 . 52
13.28
5 . 57
2.80
3.41
1. 17
7.30
6.52
5 . 87
3 1
Rijn
(3)
18.67
2.42
1.41
0.97
0.98
2.76
2.47
15.93
24.55
25.87
13.76
14.40
15.97
19.34
2.01
1.98
1.04
0.78
0.46
1.01
1.03
2.24
3.95
. 9.39
13.01
2.34
2.78
2.41
2.04
25.26
18.88
40.86
29.63
23.11
6.45
2.67
3.71
0.56
9.36
9.40
10.15
23
Bagnold
(4)
21.79
2.99
3.70
4.83
5.48
15.70
12.43
34.74
59.72
50.63
28.93
24.37
26.98
26.67
2.84
2.88
3.58
3.34
2.18
4.05
5.28
10.07
12.33
25.53
14.02
9.44
7.74
8.62
9.61
30.49
25.75
57.36
36.98
33.00
15.26
8.07
9.32
4.06
19.48
17.44
15.12
0
MPM
(5)
8.64
1.06
1.00
1.02
1.09
3.18 1
2.72
9.62 i
15.92
13.70
7.85
6.95
7.17
7.57
1.00
0.98
0.94
0.80
0.49 !
0.95 i
1.13
2.29
3.31
7.26
4.80
2.19
1.93
2.00
2.17
10.51
9.00
19.72
13.70
11.39
4.61
2.09
2.69
0.78
5.56
5.12
4.81
i 3 3'
Samaga
(6)
20.78
2.16
2.09
2.19 j
2.17
6.84
6.39
18.20
30.86
21.53
13.40
10.78
17.78
19.54
2.82
2.45
1.94
1.49
1.15
2.08
2.57
5.15
8.16
18.44
5.99
4.72
3.71
4.00
5.06
18.33
21.12
49.88
32.87
29.23
11.76
4.48
6.52
1.47
10.97
11.05
10.88
10
Toffaleti
(7)
2.68
0.21
0.29
0.21
0.14
0.58
0.66
1.85
2.91 1
2.22 |
1.35
1.22
4.92
6.82
0.29
0.23
0.44
0.35
0.13
0.23
0.25
0.56
1.22
3.34
1.13
0.52
0.46
0.43
0.55
2.82
2.25
4.88
3.54
2.48
1.62
0.59
0.80
0.18
1.16
1.45
1.55
3 6
Einstein
(8)
169.27
21.55
18.42
20.87
22.43
67.46
58.15
166.34
281.34
226.12
132.03
113.31
221.58
209.00
17.61
18.74
20.43
18.49
10.64
18.79
23.94
46.49
67.77
152.59
69.06
43.44
34.88
37.92
45.58
205.31
158.67
323.85
295.83
213.28
90.35
39.87
53.41
18.99
97.43
98.75
89.24
0
E
(A
o
o
CO
O
n
100-e
_
10-D
0.1
____L__fi__L
_ -
&:
C
_ _"
cd_e
,__ _h____!_
'-a- - ^ - - _ !
* D P ObrC
__ac_L.W
a
- I I -
-h-
10 20 30
Data point No.
_P*
EL
i i I _ I i i i _
40
van Rijn
n
Proposed
* Bagnold
1000
E
ioo> % ^
0.1
o C
O-O-

'* ' | I I I L - | I I I I | -
' '

D
*
O
MPM
Samaga et al
Toffaleti
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 divided into
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 the river. 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
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 East
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.
Considering the unsatisfactory predictions of Toffaleti's bed load formula in application
to the other cases, the better results of this formula for bed load data of East Fork River
do not indicate a better predicability for this method.
7.2.7. Application to Mantz laboratory data (bed and suspended load)
In order to investigate the equilibrium transport of fine cohesionless sediments, Mantz
(1980) conducted a total of 54 experimental tests on the transportation of silica solids in a
10m long and 0.30m wide recirculating tilting flume. Three fine silica grades of almost
equal-sized (median diameters 0.018mm, 0.042mm and 0.123mm), which represent a
medium silt, a coarse silt and a very fine sand, were used in the experiments. Laboratory
runs were made for three flow depths, namely 0.03m, 0.06m and 0.12m, and six average
flow velocities (from 0.2 to 0.7m/s at increments of 0. lm/s).
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. The 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 maximum of about 27 C for all runs (Mantz, 1983).
The flow variables measured during each run were flow discharge, average water surface
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
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
No.
(1)
1
2
3
4
5
Run No.
(2)
3F
3B
3D
3E
6C
Q
nr/s
(3
0.0062
0.0027
0.0045
0.0054
0.0072
Qs
kg/s
(4)
0.01860
0.00324
0.01125
0.01674
0.01728
Qb
kg/hr
(5)
160.0
20.0
80.0
120.0
46.0
Depth
m
(6)
0.029
0.028
0.031
0.031
0.059
S 103
(7)
5.8
6.6
5.8
5.8
3.3
T
C
(8)
24
25
25
25
25
u*/a>
(9)
3.01
3.10
3.03
3.03
2.93
6
7
8
9
10
11
6F
3A
6E
6B
9C
9E
0.0124
0.0023
0.0108
0.0054
0.0144
0.0216
0.02108
0.00100
0.02376
0.00216
0.00792
0.01296
260.0
8.0
170.0
10.0
19.0
37.0
0.062
0.035
0.062
0.063
0.119
0.120
2.7
4.4
3.0
2.6
1.9
1.6
25
26
24
27
27
27
2.70
2.72
2.51
2.57
2.68
2.47
s
= Suspended load; Qb = Bed load; D = Flow depth; S = Water surface
slope; T = Flow temperature; and Flume width = 0.30 m.
to Mantz flume data for silica solids with median diameter d$Q = 0.123mm.
Data
No.
(1)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
AVG
STD
Score
Prop-
os ed
(2)
1. 825
2.497
1.496
1.428
0.763
1.379
3.31
0.31
2.556
1. 854
2 . 000
1.767
0.802
64
Rijn
(3)
3.662
0.364
0.847
1.407
0.172
1.735
0.01
0.014
0.171
0.271
1.349
0.909
1.049
3 6
Bagnold
(4)
3.578
4.5
2.858
2.766
1.424
2.696
5.53
0.549
4.551
3.415
3.922
3.254
1.361
18
Sama-
ga
(5)
0.026
0.259
0.061
0.041
0.028
0.009
0.26
0.006
0.093
0.037
0.012
0.076
0.09
0
Toffal-
eti
(6)
5.612
1.747
4.073
4.155
1.552
3.792
0.33
0.121
1.157
2.625
5.25
2.765
1.834
27
Einstein
(7)
20.377
25.451
15.791
15.122
6.773 1
15.425
36.3
2.12
22.847
11.635
16.85
17.154
8.798
0
Wiuff
(8)
2.373
3.278
2.026
1.96
1.093
1.779
3.36
0.412
2.94
3.044
2.968
2.294
0.903
27
Celik &
Rodi
(9)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Chapter 7
Table 7.21. Discrepancy ratios r from application of bed load equations to
Mantz flume data for silica solids with median diameter d^p = 0.123mm.
Data
No.
(1)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
AVG
STD
Score
Prop-
osed
(2)
0.081
0 . 743
0 . 18
0 . 12
0.379
0 . 054
1.441
0. 112
1.357
1.302
0.524
0 . 572
0 . 527
4 5
Rijn
(3)
0.561
0.068
0.171
0.282
0.07
0.16
0
0.001
0.022
0.099
0.477
0.174
0.182
9
Bagnold
(4)
0.243
0.994
0.358
0.284
0.571
0.139
1.431
0.114
1.573
1.592
1.016
0.756
0.557
54
Sama-
ga
(5)
0.086'
0.337
0.117
0.103
0.224
0.048
0.054
0.014
0.259
0.4
0.259
0.173
0.123
0
Toffal-
eti
(6)
0.139
0.014
0.052
0.072
0.021
0.038
0
0
0.004
0.017
0.091
0.041
0.042
0
Einstein
(7)
0.982
7.853
1.963
1.309
3.415
0.604
19.634
0.924
15.707
8.267
4.245
5.9
6.155
45
MPM
(8)
0.367
0.387
0.279
0.296
0.237
0.14
0.207
0.018
0.328
0.432
0.605
0.3
0.148
9
Mantz flume data for silica solids with median diameter d^Q = 0.123mm.
Data No.
(1)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
AVG
STD
s c o r e
Ackers &
White
(2)
1.514
0.764
0.812
1.033
0.487
0.679
0.31
0.057
0.559
1.208
2.088
0.865
0.548
64
Engelund &
Hansen
(3)
0.511
0.864
0.482
0.464
0.344
0.233
0.785
0.053
0.776
0.661
0.647
0.529
0.238
54
Yang
(4)
2.227
2.014
1.513
1.665
0.826
0.802
1.12
0.093
1.268
1.503
1.976
1.364
0.6
7 3
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
E
(0
O
o
CO
O
n
1 .
0 1 -
0 (11 -
0.001 -
:

-

u n
&
0
1 1

o
1
D
0
-+-

u

0

0
V
J i

D
O

o
-+-

D

i

n g

0
i i i

D

O
van Rijn
Proposed
Bagnold
Samaga et al
4 8
Data point No.
1 2
100
E
v> 1 o
o
(0
a
II
0.1

* a *
_1+
_i i

D

O
Toffaleti
Einstein
Wiuff
Celik & Rodi
4 8
Data point No.
1 2
Fig. 7.8. Application of suspended load equations to Mantz flume data for silica
solids with median diameter dô = 0.123mm.
Mantz laboratory flume measurements indicate the transportation of fine sand with dso =
0.123mm, as both bed and suspended load materials. In natural streams such fine
particles may be difficult to move 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 laboratory flume
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
E
a
o
W
a
n
1 u -
1 -
0.1 -
0.01 -
-
.
_

_>

_l
O

i

o

'
B
\-

a
0

S
J i
K
O
1
rv
4-
i_
o

_1
ii

i
a
o
,
*
D

O
van Rijn
Proposed
Bagnold
Samaga et al
0
4 8
Data point No.
12
100
10
j
O
o 1
CO
O
2. 0.1
0.01
TT

:

J I 1 L. H ' i ' h
4 8
Data point No.
_i i 1 _

Toffaleti
Einstein
M P M
12
Fig. 7.9. Application of bed load equations to Mantz flume data for silica solids
with median diameter dso = 0.123mm.
10-i
E
W 1 -
O
o
(0
II "
1
*
_-
0.01 -
(
_

:
D
_
)
.
-cr-" _ rj y n
a
a
p '
a
4 8 1
Data point No.
2
Ackers & White
n
Engelund & Hansen
Yang
Fig. 7.10. Application of total load equations to Mantz flume data for silica
solids with median diameter d$o = 0.123mm.
Celik and Rodi's model has predicted zero suspended load discharges for all data points.
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 move the particles into
the suspension mode. Samaga 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 by
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 0.4mm and 0.2mm 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.
7.2.8. Application to Brooks data (total load)
During 1953-1954, Brooks conducted an experimental investigation on the characteristics
of streams flowing over a loose bed of fine sand. Twenty-two runs were performed in a
closed-circuit tilting flume having a length of 40-ft (12.192m) and a width of 10.5-inch
(0.2669m). T w o different sizes of quartz sands with median diameters of 0.145mm and
0.088mm were used in the experiments (Table 7.23). The measured sediment discharges
indicated the total loads. However, the sand was so fine that suspended loads were much
greater than bed loads (Brooks, 1958).
Brooks' primary aim was to study the various parameters governing the equilibrium rate
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
P
te
L?.. Applicability analysis, 239
experimental techniques due to experience with the earlier runs. All the selected total load
equations were applied to the Brooks data. The results are shown in Table 7.25 and Fig.
7.11.
For Brooks data, the better predictions resulted from the proposed total load formula,
Yang unit stream power equation, and Ackers-White procedure with scores of 100, 100,
and 91, respectively (Table 7.25). The 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.
*16
mm
0.135
0.075
0.118
0.098
0.090
*35
mm
0.140
0:084
0.130
0.123
0.123
d
5 0
mm
<*65
mm
Sand No.
0.145 i
Sand No.
0.088 j
Sand No.
0.145 |
Sand No.
0.137 {
Sand No.
0.152 |
1
0.151
2
0.094
3
0.159
4
0.155
5
0.191
d
8 4
mm
0.165
dg o
mm
0.170
0.104 0.108
0.193 0.205
0.193 0.205
0.285 0.325
Table 7.24. Summary of Brooks (1958) laboratory flume data from total sediment
discharge.
Data
No.
(1)
Run No.
(2)
Q , 10
3
3 /
m-Vs
(3)
Qt
kg/s
(4)
A
m
2
(5)
P
m
(6)
S * 103
(7)
T
C
(8)
U*/C0
(9)
Sand No . 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
0.01218
0.01204
0.00784
0.00966
0.01218
0.01050
0.00798
0.00574
0.01036
0.00602
0.0234
0.0294
0.0151
0.0234
0.0264
0.0159
0.0091
0.0159
0.0076
0.0072
0.01978
0.01921
0.01465
0.01587
0.01978
0.01953
0.01994
0.01262
0.02442
0.01603
0.4151
0.4108
0.3767
0.3858
0.4151
0.4133
0.4163
0.3614
0.4499
0.3870
2.5
2.4
3.1
2.4
2.1
2.3
2.6
3.3
2.2
3.5
22.0
12.5
26.0
21.0
31.5
27.5
27.5
26.0
26.0
26.5
2.16
2.53
2.01
2.00
1.78
1.87
2.01
1.96
2.00
2.18
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19 j
21
21a
23
24
25
26
28
29
30
0.01218
0.01218
0.00910
0.00742
0.00560
0.00560
0.00924
0.01456
0.00742
0.0596
0.0604
0.0468
0.0302
0.0302
0.0011
0.0336
0.0506
0.0128
0.01921
0.01921
0.01540
0.01840
0.01522
0.02271
0.02312
0.02279
0.02287
' 0.4108
0.4108
0.3822
0.4047
0.3809
0.4371
0.4401
0.4377
0.4383
2.25
2.20
2.45
2.80
3.30
1.30
2.40
1.85
2.15
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.2
25.0
4.11
4.06
3.98
4.52
4.60
4.17
4.49
3.93
4.24
t
= Total sediment transport rate; A = Area of flow cross section; P = Wetted
perimeter; S = Water surface slope; T = Flow temperature and Flume width = 0.2669 m.
Brooks data.
Data
No.
(1)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
AVG
STD
Score
Propo
- s ed
(2)
1.02
0.90
1.07
0 . 75
0.68
1.01
1.40
0.72
1.93
1.80
0 . 67
0.65
0 . 65
0.76
0 . 64
1. 67
0.74
0.78
1.25
1.00
0.40
100
Rijn
(3)
1.30
0.95
1.38
1.34
1.37
1.17
0.45
0.63
0.66
0.46
0.49
0.49
0.47
0.09
0.06
0.04
0.07
0.57
0.04
0.63
0.47
47
Samaga
et al
(4)
0.14
0.11
0.26
0.14
0.12
0.26
0.40
0.26
0.49
0.50
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.05
0.04
0.09
0.04
0.04
0.06
0.16
0.15
5
Toffal-
eti
(5)
1.79
1.86
1.68
1.36
1.03
1.48
1.39
1.03 \
2.16
1.59
3.01
2.91
2.88
1.39
0.86
0.68
1.12
3.49
0.67
1.70
0.81
74
Einste-
in
(6)
9.48
11.61
10.51
9.23
6.54
9.33
11.95
8.18 \
15.15 \
14.97
10.72
10.50
10.92
8.38
6.89
16.57
7.46
13.00
11.68
10.69
2.72
0
Bagno-
ld
(7)
;
2.02
1.80
2.10
1.54
1.38
1.97
2.38
1.38
3.31
2.94
1.34
1.29
1.30
1.35
1.11
2.69
1.29
1.56
2.05
1.83
0.61
63
A-W
(8)
1.65
1.21
1.45
1.05
1.12
1.29
0.97
0.68
1.46
1.17
2.00
1.86
1.44
1.39
0.98
1.28
1.43
2.20
1.32
1.37
0.36
91
E-H
(9)
0.60
0.45
0.72
0.44
0.41
0.59
0.70
0.46
0.88
0.98
0.34
0.33
0.34
0.36
0.32
0.63
0.32
0.36
0.46
0.51
0.19
3 7
Yang
(10)
1.78
1.69
1.77
1.32
1.08
1.41
1.33
1.01
1.82
1.80
1.65
1.57
1.59
1.24
1.03
1.58
1.06
1.71
1.25
1.46
0.28
100
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 d
5
n = 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
0.1mm in diameter. Samaga 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 some instances up to 25 times smaller than the actual discharges.
1 0-p
E
CO
a
o
co
a
II
0.1
0.01
-
a
m

.
i i i i i i 1
D
0
^ g g a n a a

i 1 i i l i i
4 8 12 16 20
Data point No.
van Rijn
n
Proposed
Samaga etal
E
CO
a
o
(fl
o
II
uu -
1 0-
H
1 "
0.1 -
rO-
- .
=
"

'
J i
-o-n-
<
H-
n
n
D n
n n
n
n

U
u u

*
i i | i i i i | i
u
'
1
D
D
D
n n

u
m _
1
1 '
4 8 12 16 20
Data point No.
Toffaleti
n
Einstein
Bagnold
1 O-c
E
CO
a
o
CO
O
II
1 -
0.1
!__
> 5 * *
M * ^ _ *
? .

a
a
D
D
-
a a
-TT*
D D D
D
D D
D
I i i I i i i i | i i i I i i i i
Ackers-White
Engelund-Hansen
Yang
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
7.2.9. Application to Vanoni and Brooks data (total load)
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 60 ft (18.3 m ) long]. A summary of
the measured data is reported in Table 7.26. The size distribution of sand No. 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
No.
(1)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Run No.
(2)
2-9
2-8
2-1
2-7
2-6
2-17D
2-17F
2-2
2-10
2-11
2-13D
2-4
Q
t
10
3
3 .
nr/s
(3)
0.01428
0.02002
0.02394
0.02604
0.02800
0.03276
0.03276
0.03864
0.05236
0.06244
0.07420
0.10752
Qt
kg/s
(4)
0.0054
0.02340
0.04530
0.05738
0.04001
0.07399
0.09815
0.09815
0.01132
0.04228
0.10570
0.12457
A
m
2
(5)
0.06181
0.06233
0.06233
0.06155
0.06466
0.07843
0.05272
0.06051
0.14257
0.13920
0.14361
0.14127
P
m
(6)
0.40487
0.40609
0.40609
0.40426
0.41158
0.44391
0.38352
0.40182
0.59458
0.58665
0.59702
0.59153
S , 103
(7)
1.41
2.80
2.78
2.77
2.46
2.01
2.76
2.05
1.05
1.22
1.02
1.07
T
o
c
(8)
23.4
25.2
25.5
22.4
27.4
18.9
18.9
23.5
21.9
25.2
20.7
24.9
u*/C0
(9)
3.12
4.25
4.20
4.44
3.89
4.25
4.40
3.73
3.46
3.49
3.51
3.28
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.
Vanoni and Brooks (1957) laboratory flume data.
Data
No.
(1)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
AVG
STD
Score
Prop-
osed
(2)
1.61
1.28
0 . 83
0.78
0.99
0.56
0.75
0 . 63
2.89
1 . 14
0 . 52
0 . 82
1. 07
0 . 63
92
Rijn
(3)
0.01
0.16
0.23
0.28
0.5
0.17
1.19
1.36
0.39
0.37
0.28
1.85
0.56
0.55
3 3
A-W
(4)
0.19
0.79
0.77
0.86
1.13
0.52
1.49
1.17
1.66
1.18
0.59
2.1
1.04
0.51
8 3
E-H !
(5)
3.01
3.79
2.77
2.61
3.44
1.52
2.81
2.18
4.6
2.26
0.94
1.83
2.65
0.96
2 5
Yang
(6)
0.71
1.21
0.99
1.06
1.3
0.66
1.53
1.14
2.01
1.07
0.53
1.23
1.12
0.38
92
Bagn-
old
(7) ;
3.05
2.36
1.63
1.57
2.04
1.13
1.6
1.37
5.49
2.25
1.07
1.75
2.11
1.15
5 8
Samaga
(8)
2.41
6.12
3.23
2.56
3.31
1.49
1.3
0.82
2.8
1.56
. 0.32
0.37
2.19
1.55
3 3
Toffa-
leti
(9)
0.14
0.62
0.92
1.22
1.6
0.66
1.69
1.3
1.31
1.43
0.95
1.64
1.12
0.46
92
Einst-
ein
(10)
30.84
13.03
7.99
7.81
9.8
6.03
9.11
7.85
28.54
9.11
5.04
7.4
11.88
8.2
0
cnapter /
E
CO
O
o
CO
O
n
1
I -
0.1 -
: (a)
-

I
I

1

1

1

1

1

1

D

1 1
[7

1
t _

H
,,

_ l 1 I

1

h-
D

1

J 1

D
_i

11 J
van Rijn
n
Proposed
Ackers & White
4 8
Data point No.
12
E
(A
o
O
(A
O
II
_
IU -
1
0.1 -
=

.

a
-
T
I
T

I
I
I

D

]
(b)

r-i
i

H

a
K
D
i

I_
r -

_
D
,
n . n
a
J 1 1 | _ X
4 8
Data point No.
12
Engelund & Hansen
n Yang
Bagnold
100
I 10
O
o
CO
a 1
n
0.1

D
i_g a p.-.
(c)
J I 1 ^ 1-
4 8
Data point No.
12
Samaga etal
a Toffaleti
Einstein
Fig. 7.12. Application of total load equations to Vanoni and Brooks (1957)
The laboratory flume data of Vanoni and Brooks indicate total load measurements of fine
sand with d
50
= 0.137mm. Hence, those selected methods which are able to calculate the
Chapter 7
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 theory,
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 = 33%) 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.
7.2.10. Application to Nomicos data (total load)
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 new sediment mixtures (Sand No. 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
No.
(1)
Run No.
(2)
Q * 10
3
3 ,
m / s
(3)
Qt
kg/s
(4)
A
m
2
(5)
P
m
(6)
S
t
103
(7)
T
C
(8)
u*/co
(9)
Sand No. 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
2b
2
3a
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
9
0.00476
0.00540
0.00580
0.00613
0.00708
0.00818
0.00916
0.01002
0.01084
0.01218
0.01571
0.00143
0.00445
0.00664
0.01132
0.01812
0.02869
0.02642
0.03322
0.03548
0.04228
0.09060
0.01962
0.01962
0.01962
0.01962
0.01962
0.01962
0.01962
0.01962
0.01962
0.01962
0.01962
0.41388
0.41388
0.41388
0.41388
0.41388
0.41388
0.41388
0.41388
0.41388
0.41388
0.41388
2.00
2.40
2.60
2.75
2.70
2.40
2.25
2.10
2.00
2.25
3.90
26.0
25.5
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
1.65
1.82
1.91
1.97
1.95
1.84
1.78
1.72
1.68
1.78
2.34
Sand No. 3
12
13
14
A
B
C
0.01218
0.00753
0.00540
0.02265
0.00906
0.00128
0.01962
0.01970
0.01962
0.41388
0.41450
0.41388
2.10
2.70
2.10
25.0
25.0
25.0
1.86
2.11
1.86
Sand No. 4
15
16
H-2
H-3
0.01221
0.01084
0.02869
0.03548
0.01897
0.01815
0.40900
0.40290
2.50
2.25
24.3
24.0
2.25
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
Similar to Brooks and Vanoni-Brooks, Nomicos also used three different bed material
mixtures all consisting of fine sand with median diameters d
50
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 Yang,
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.
Nomicos (1956) laboratory flume data.
Data
No.
(1)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
AVG
STD
Score
Prop -
os ed
(2)
3 . 7
1 . 68
1. 34
0.89
0 . 63
0 . 4
0 . 5
0.39
0.39
0 . 5
0.58
0.83
1.41
5 . 12
0.89
0 . 54
1.23
1.29
69
Rijn
(3)
0.12
0.15
0.19
0.14
0.19
0.26
0.49
0.61
0.83
1.22
1.94
1.66
0.35
0.28
1.54
0.88
0.68
0.59
44
A-W
(4)
0.69
0.54
0.56
0.45
0.46
0.39
0.56
0.54
0.62
0.98
2.83
1.46
1.01
1.25
1.88
0.89
0.94
0.63
7 5
E-H
(5)
1.03
0.56
0.49
0.35
0.28
0.2
0.25
0.21
0.22
0.27
0.49
0.48
0.67
1.68
0.55
0.31
0.5
0.37
3 1
Yang
(6)
1.08
0.72
0.69
0.52
0.49
0.39
0.52
0.48
0.52
0.72
1.49
1.33
1.27
2.23
1.7
0.91
0.94
0.51
75
Bagn-
old
(7)
4.88
2.31
1.89
1.28
1
0.71
0.88
0.76
0.78
0.91
1.16
1.68
2.33
7.41
1.79
1.09
1.93
1.73
7 5
Samaga
(8)
0.17
0.19
0.19
0.15
0.15
0.14
0.16
0.13
0.12
0.08
0.07
0.14
0.31
0.46
0.12 \
0.08
0.17
0.09
0
Toffa-
leti
(9)
0.3
0.26
0.29
0.25
0.39
0.45
0.58
0.52
0.54
0.67
1.19
1.37
1.14
0.8 1
1.74
1.01
0.72
0.43
62
Einst-
ein
(10)
55.21
19.26
13.64
8.34
5.78
4.08
4.91
4.27
4.09
4.41
3.63
8.47
12.1
64.34
8.7
5.95
14.2
17.78
0
Chapter 7
10
E
co
O
u
CO
O
u
1 - =
0.1
(a)
n _,
TT

5
s
u
n n
n
5

T _

M

- I I l _ _ _
I
_ I I I
8 12
Data point No.
16
van Rijn
D
Proposed
Ackers & White
10 -p
E
(0
O
o 1
CO
a
H
0.1
i
i

i

m
n

_

i

i

T
T
I
I
H

(b)

1=1
n *
" * D

1
1

fi
n o .
. "
1
l
fl a

-M
1

.
u

1
' ' 1
0 4 8 12
Data point No.
16
100
E 10
(0
O
o
(0
a
i 0.1
1
.(c)

: 5 o 9 g
a a a

TT
n D n
Engelund & Hansen
Yang
Bagnold

0.01 | I I I I
i , . i i i i i i i i i i i i i
8 12
Data point No.
16
Samaga etal
Toffaleti
Einstein
Fig. 7.13. Application of total load equations to Nomicos (1956) laboratory
flume data.
7.2.11. Application to Samaga et al flume data (bed and suspended load)
Samaga (1984) conducted 33 sets of laboratory experiments on the alluvial beds of four
sand mixtures in a recirculating tilting flume. The flume was located in the Hydraulics
laboratory of the University of Roorkee, India and was 30m long, 0.2m wide and 0.5m
KÎIUUICI /
_
deep. The size distributions of the four sand mixtures used as bed material are given in
Tables 7.30 and 7.31.
Table 7.30. Size characteristics of bed material in Samaga et al investigation
Mixture
(1)
d
a
mm
(2)
Sg
(3)
<*35
mm
(4)
d50
mm
(5)
d
6
5
mm
(6)
d
90
mm
(7)
Ml
M
2
M
3
M
4
0.578
0.550
0.420
0.256
3.41
3.79
2.96
1.91
0.240
0.210
0.205
0.180
0.350
0.290
0.270
0.200
0.600
0.480
0.400
0.230
1.500
1.400
1.000
0.400
Table 7.31. Size distribution of bed material in Samaga et al investigation
Particle
siz.T
di
mm
0.07
0.10
0.20
0.40
0.70
1.00
2.00
3.00
Mi
1.0
2.0
20.0
54.0
68.0
82.0
95.0
100.0
% finer than dj_
M
2
0.5
1.0
26.0
61.0
75.0
85.0
96.0
100.0
in the mixture
M
3
1.0
4.0
32.0
63.0
80.0
90.0
100.0
M4
2.0
7.0
52. 0
90.0
97.0
100.0
For each experimental run a 0.15 m thick layer sediments was laid on the flume bed. The
flume was 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 was measured by a Prandtl tube at width centreline, at a distance of 15m 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. Knowing 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 was installed at the downstream end of the flume to sample the entire depth of the
flow. The total load sampler was simply a vertical slot extending over the depth and
moved 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
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.
Table 7.32. Summary of Samaga et al (1986a and b) laboratory flume data.
Data
No.
(1)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Run No.
(2)
Mi-1
Mi-2
Mi-3
Mi-4
Mi-5
Mi-6
Mi-7
Mj_-8
Mi-9
Q * 10
3
m
3
/s
(3)
6.800
10.400
13.300
8.139
10.870
13.257
5.576
11.360
14.638
<3s
N/ms
(4)
0.046
0.070
0.747
0.333
0.900
0.741
0.054
0.233
0.522
N/ms
(5)
1.510
2.473
3.006
2.372
2.880
3.846
0.894
3.347
3.655
D * 10
2
m
(6)
5.700
7.690
9.240
6.350
8.010
9.050
5.690
8.860
10.060
S , lO
3
(7)
5.760
5.760
5.760
6.870
6.870
6.870
5.047
5.047
5.047
T
C
(8)
24.5
23.0
22.0
18.5
19.5
20.2
20.5
17.5
17.0
u*/00
(9)
0.84
0.93
0.99
0.94
1.06
1.09
0.81
0.95
0.99
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
M
2
-l
M
2
-2
M
2
-3
M
2
-4
M
2
-5
M
2
-6
M
2
-7
M
2
-8
M
2
-9
7.536
10.840
12.380
8.300
11.569
14.359
9.115
11.800
14.335
0.306
0.527
0.483
0.365
1.215
0.767
0.237
0.436
0.497
1.083
2.162
3.210
2.592
3.022
5.145
3.088
4.932
5.781
7.175
8.020
9.245
6.922
8.270
9.956
7.020
8.400
9.250
4.960
4.960
4.960
6.048
6.048
6.048
6.926
6.926
6.926
16.0
16.0
14.5
14.5
14.0
15.2
14.0
16.2
16.5
1.12
1.16
1.23
1.25
1.32
1.37
1.35
1.39
1.41
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
M3-I
M3-2
M3-3
M3-4
M3-5
M3-6
M3-7
M3-8
M3-9
10.876
12.920
8.778
7.490
10.060
13.380
8.056
6.260
12.869
1.397
0.986
0.696
0.542
0.589
0.688
0.688
0.361
1.266
4.134
4.820
2.918
2.185
2.946
3.191
2.342
1.535
3.675
7.786
8.657
6.835
6.562
7.660
9.080
6.400
5.620
8.553
6.926
' 6.926
6.926
5.415
5.415
5.415
6.097
6.097
6.097
18.5
23.0
23.5
24.5
22.1
25.0
23.5
25.0
24.5
1.44
1.40
1.30
1.13
1.21
1.23
1.20
1.14
1.29
26
27
28
29
30
31
M4-I
M
4
-2
M
4
-3
M
4
-4
M
4
-5
M4-6
8.139
12.055
8.303
13.180
8.505
13.459
0.589
1.058
0.639
1.300
0.579
0.857
1.756
3.254
1.676
2.840
1.241
2.185
6.175
8.033
6.800
8.733
6.770
9.110
6.097
6.097
5.268
5.268
4.487
4.487
24.5
25.5
26.0
26.0
26.0
26.5
1.74
1.85
1.63
1.75
1.50
1.62
Note: Q = Water discharge; q
s
= Suspended sediment transport rate per unit width; qb = Bed load transport
rate per unit width; D = Flow depth; S = Water surface slope; T = Flow temperature and Flume
width = 0.20 m.
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 the
particles into the suspension and hence zero suspended load is predicted for all the data
points. Calibration of Samaga 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 much larger transport rates and failed to present
satisfactory scores.
to Samaga et al laboratory flume data.
Data No.
(1)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
AVG
STD
Score
Proposed
(2)
1 .17
1 . 95
0 . 92
1.46
4 . 14
2 . 61
1 . 7
1 ..?6
1 .42
1 . 81
1 .77
0.86
1 . 73
3 .72
2 . 77
3 .23
0 . 83
1 . 42
1 .17
0 . 88
1 .28
1 .58
0 . 93
1 .21
0 . 96
1 . 68
1 .55
1 .24
1 . 19
1 .22
1 . 52
1 . 65
0 . 81
84
Rijn
(3)
4.79
12.23
3.32
5.1
14.53
8.42
6.01
3.21
5.21
5.18
4.84
2.54
4.22
10.35
7.2
8.88
1.97
3.58
3.1
2.44
3.83
4.85
2.99
3.67
2.91
2.91
2.6
1.84
2.11
2.29
2.86
4.84
3.06
6
Samaga
(4)
0.26
0.15
0.33
0.6
0
0.21
0.19
0
0
0.1
0.13
0.08
0.26
0.62
0.56
0.59
0.98
1.79
1.27
0.27
0.5
0.78
0.5
0.54
0.7
0.33
0.42
0.15
0.23
0.08
0.11
0.41
0.39
35
Toffaleti
(5)
4.53
13.26
3.38
7.88
21.8
9.05
5.26
2.56
2.33
2.64
4.03
1.7
3.07
9.11
6.08
8.98
2.14
5.37
3.17
1.99
2.5
3.85
2.28
3.4
3.22
4.66
6.31
3.91
6.26
5.85
7.1
5.41
3.98
6
Einstein
(6)
4.33
6.65
2.44
5.91
9.31
6.22
4.04
3.81
3.9
5.57
5.45
2.79
5.9
12.25
9.28
10.85
3.61
5.57
4.6
3.05
4.74
5.73
3.35
4.19
3.54
13.26
10.52
9.73
8.19
9.95
10.81
6.44
3.02
0
Bagnold
(7)
1.38
2.36
1.09
1.72
4.54
3.16
2.07
1.28
1.4
1.73
1.61
0.81
1.66
3.52
2.7
3.16
0.95
1.64
1.34
1
1.5
1.92
1.07
1.36
1.12
2.25
2.13
1.69
1.62
1.61
2.06
1.85
0.82
68
Wiuff
(8)
1.58
1.91
1.25
2.32
2.73
3.37
2.44
1.44
1.77
2.54
2.28
1.33
3.26
5.38
5.06
6.51
1.51
2.84
1.83
1
1.75
2.64
1.21
1.36
1.67
2.83
3.52
2
2.49
1.69
2.86
2.46
1.25
4 8
Chapter 7
Samaga et al laboratory flume data.
Data No.
(1)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
AVG
STD
Score |
Proposed
(2)
0.91
0.63
1. 04
0.99
0.90
0.60
0.71
1.48
0 . 93
0.85
0.88
1.08
0.90
1.00
0.87
0.90
0 . 94
0.95
0 . 97
0.73
0 . 75
0 . 95
0 . 82
0.95
0.93
1.50
1.35
1.39
1.35
1.35
1.38
1.00
0 . 24
100
Rijn
(3)
1.42
2.67
1.21
1.16
0.88
0.57
0.85
0.86
1.29
0.73
0.68
1.02
0.59
0.83
0.64
0.79
0.62
0.72
0.72
0.58
0.73
1
0.9
0.86
1.01
0.67
0.54
0.47
0.62
0.71
0.7
0.87
0.4
9 3
Samaga
(4)
0.65
0.87
0.66
0.54
1.21
0.51
0.54
0.59
0.39
0.26
0.3
0.29
0.17
0.27
0.18
0.17
0.33
0.31
0.45
0.54
0.45
0.43
0.54
0.77
0.39
0.17
0.09
0.18
0.1
0.24
0.13
0.41
0.25 I
35
Toffaleti
(5)
0
0.04
0
0.01
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.01
0
0.01
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.01
0
0.02
0
0.02
0.04
0.02
0.01
0.01
0
Einstein
(6)
1.87
1.45
2.75
1.76
2.89
1.66
1.9
2.88
1.88
1.5
1.59
1.84
1.41
1.7
1.42
1.41
1.47
1.5
1.89
1.65
1.54
1.88
1.82
2.25
1.74
1.94
1.1
2.02
1.24
2.41
1.56
1.8
0.43
81
Bagnold
(7)
0.41
0.35
0.41
0.38
0.44
0.23
0.28
0.5
0.36
0.28
0.28
0.34
0.26
0.3
0.25
0.26
0.26
0.27
0.3
0.25
0.27
0.32
0.29
0.35
0.31
0.39
0.3
0.35
0.33
0.4
0.38
0.33 ;
0.06
3
MPM
(8)
0.38
0.52
0.36
0.33
0.33
0.23
0.3
0.36
0.41
0.26
0.26
0.34
0.22
0.3
0.23
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.29
0.25
0.27
0.34
0.31
0.35
0.32
0.36
0.27
0.29
0.29
0.4
0.34
0.31
0.06
3
Chapter 7
Samaga et al laboratory flume data.
Data No.
(1)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
AVG
STD
Score
A-W
(2)
0.91
1.12
0.81
0.92
0.61
0.59
0.85
0.77
1.06
0.86
0.71
0.99
0.9
0.98
0.9
1.15
0.81
0.96
0.78
0.52
0.75
1.11
0.73
0.69
1
1.32
1.37
0.94
1.33
1.1
1.47
0.94
0.23
100
E-H
' (3)
0.28
0.31
0.28
0.3
0.27
0.18
0.22
0.31
0.29
0.23
0.25
0.27
0.24
0.32
0.27
0.31
0.26
0.31
0.3
0.21
0.25
0.33
0.27
0.3
0.3
0.5
0.45
0.38
0.4
0.4
0.43
0.3
0.07
. 3
Yang
(4)
0.6
0.66
0.56
0.64
0.43
0.38
0.52
0.58
0.66
0.55
0.5
0.63
0.58
0.68
0.6
0.73
0.57
0.69
0.59
0.39
0.52
0.75
0.53
0.53
0.68
1.18
1.14
0.86
1.07
0.94
1.15
0.67
0.21
90
Chapter 7
10 0--
E
w
a
o
(0
O
II

a

o
van Rijn
Proposed
Samaga et al
Toffaleti
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32
Data point No.
100

a
o
(fl
o
II

a

Einstein
Bagnold
Wiuff
0.1
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32
Data point No.
Fig. 7.14. Application of suspended load equations to the Samaga et al
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
10
E
O
0.1
a
cPi_i_r_
c: * M * "DQaniJ
" 1 -or
QO
i_n^
i:j
Dn
I
\iy_n^
5
> n
% 13? - " ?
D
* -."
11
11 -

i 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 i.;-f -
van Rijn
n
Proposed
Samaga etal
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32
Data point No.
10-p
E
w
O
o 1
(0
a
n
0.1
:
g
g
*V^V^^
rf
^
Kg
I [ 1 1 | 1 1 1 | 1 1 1 | 1 1 1 | 1 1 1 | 1 1 1
Einstein
n Bagnold
MPM
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32
Data point No.
Fig. 7.15. Application of bed load equations to the Samaga et al laboratory
flume data.
10-p
E
(A
o
o
II
0.1
_ * i
_
o 1 - , . i - _
B
_ - _ _ _ .
a
- _ .
a
J 4 . _ -
r T
a ^
(0 :
_
A
- T _ * "
a
; - , * , . *
D
m, n
a
n n o
a
-
D
r_
n
n
D D
Drj_
Dn
_
D
n
D
Dn
QD
D
nDD
l t l 1 1 1 l 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 l 1 1 1 l 1 1 1 I '
Ackers & White
Engelund & Hansen
Yang
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32
Data point No.
Fig. 7.16. Application of total load equations to the Samaga et al laboratory
flume data.
Chapter 7
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.
7.2.12. Application to Willis et al laboratory flume data (total load)
In order to develop an empirical relationship for the estimation of the discharge of fine
bed materials in natural rivers, Willis et al (1972) designed a laboratory study. The
investigation was performed in a 30.48m long, 1.22m wide and 0.61m deep recirculating
flume located at the Sedimentation Laboratory of United States Department of
Agriculture.
Total sediment concentration, flow discharge, water depth, water surface slope and flow
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 equal
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 operating
properly, the flume was filled to the desired still water level, the pump 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 hydraulic and
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
Table 7.36. Summary of Willis et al (1972) laboratory flume data.
Data
No.
(1)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Run No.
(2)
1
2
3
4
5
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
Q (m
3
/s)
(3)
0.3398
0.3398
0.3398
0.3398
0.1993
0.1971
0.1971
0.1699
0.2265
0.2548
0.2832
0.3115
0.3681
0.3964
0.4247
0.4531
0.4531
0.4247
0.3964
0.3681
0.3398
0.3115
0.2832
0.2548
0.2277
0.1937
0.1416
0.1699
0.1937
0.1982
Q
t
(kg/s)
(4)
1.2047
0.6346
4.5676
0.7130
0.5387
0.3975
0.1098
0.0321
0.2754
0.4236
0.4655
0.6032
1.1960
1.9003
2.7545
3.6262
2.3710
1.6143
1.1088
0.7932
0.5160
0.3853
0.3696
0.2214
0.1259
0.0295
0.0118
0.0476
0.1368
0.1485
A (m
2
)
(5)
0.31215
0.36790
0.25641
0.37161
0.23780
0.33445
0.40877
0.40877
0.39019
0.37161
0.34560
0.34931
0.35303
0.35303
0.34188
0.33817
0.37161
0.37161
0.38648
0.37553
0.37553
0.37161
0.39019
0.44593
0.45708
0.46080
: 0.37161
0.38648
0.38276
0.38276
P (m)
(6)
1.7313
1.8227
1.6398
1.8288
1.6093
1.7678
1.8898
1.8898
1.8593
1.8288
1.7861
1.7922
1.7983
1.7983
1.7800
1.7739
1.8288
1.8288
1.8532
1.8349
1.8349
1.8288
1.8593
1.9507
1.9690
1.9751
1.8288
1.8532
1.8471
1.8471
S * 103
(7)
1.480
0.923
1.440
0.692
1.020
0.962
0.519
0.442
0.654
0.500
0.654
0.692
0.885
1.150
1.870
1.100
1.190
0.827
0.712
0.442
0.462
0.538
0.481
0.519
0.538
0.346
0.308
0.462
0.635
0.615
T (C)
(8)
30.0
30.6
30.0
28.3
28.3
21.7
20.6
22.2
23.3
22.2
22.8
24.2
23.9
23.1
25.6
26.1
22.8
25.8
25.0
24.4
25.8
26.1
25.0
26.7
26.9
27.8
26.7
26.7
25.3
i 25.8
u*/C0
(9)
5.36
4.38
4.92
4.02
4.16
5.27
4.22
3.79
4.41
3.90
4.27
4.28
4.86
5.71
6.78
5.12
5.91
4.59
4.40
3.51
3.44
3.70
3.63
3.81
3.87
3.08
2.77
3.44
4.14
3.99
Note: Flume width = 1.22 m; Average temperature = 25 C; and Relative density of sediments
= 2.65.
Willis et al (1972) laboratory flume data.
Data
No.
(1)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
AVG
STD
Score
Prop-
os ed
(2)
0 . 82
0.82
0.25
0 . 56
0 . 6
0 . 67
1. 12
2.46
0.71
0 .45
0 . 69
0 . 65
0 . 57
0.56
0 . 7
0.35
0.57
0 . 5
0.51
0 . 4
0 . 53
0.71
0 . 54
0 . 73
1.08
2 . 15
3.21
1. 64
1. 04
0 . 94
0.88
0 . 65
77
Rijn
(3)
1.76
1.2
1.54
0.97
0.92
0.16
0.17
0.23
0.2
0.32
0.77
0.96
1:18
1.15
1.75
2.07
1.6
1.59
1.14
1.21
1.22
1.08
0.51
0.23
0.19
0.29
0.41
0.26
0.2
0.21
0.85
0.58
57
A-W
(4)
10.09
5.67
3.31
2.9
2.7
2.55
1.53
1.92
1.79
0.91
2.55
3.01
4.67
7.2
15.88
4.82
9.06
4.2
3.41
1.21
1.58
2.31
1.26
1.5
1.89
1.45
1
1.48
1.92
1.72
3.52
3.22
4 7
E-H
(5)
0.81
0.65
0.25
0.37 i
0.46
0.41
0.48
0.95
0.37
0.22
0.39
0.39
0.39
0.43
0.72
0.28
0.45
0.33
0.33
0.2
0.28
0.4
0.27
0.36
0.52
0.82
1.15
0.73
0.54
0.49
0.48
0.22
3 0
Yang
(6)
2.07
1.45
0.73
0.86
1.07
0.84
0.79
1.29
0.7
0.45
0.95
0.99
1.12
1.33
2.17
0.91
1.46
0.96
0.88
0.5
0.64
0.88
0.55
0.61
0.79
0.97
1.17
0.95
0.86
0.79
0.99
0.39
90
Bagn-
old
(7)
1.65
1.65
0.51
1.15
1.21
1.27
2.12
4.58
1.37
0.91
1.39
1.31
1.15
1.12
1.4
0.71
1.15
0.97
1.04
0.82
1.09
1.45
1.1
1.41
2.02
4.05
6.19
3.11
1.96
1.79
1.72
1.21
8 0
Samaga
(8)
0.09
0.05
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.05
0.05
0.1
0.04
0.02
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.08
0.01
0.03
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.06
0.1
0.14
0.08
0.06
0.06
0.04
0.03
0
Toffa-
leti
(9)
8.18
3.96
3.25
2.89
2.96
2.07
1.49
1.72
2.48
2.15
3.52
3.41
3.16
3.61
6.98
4.55 '
6.36
3.3
2.85
2.23
2.82
3.64
2.61
2.48
1.97
1.8
1.81
1.83
2.12
2.22
3.15
1.54
2 0
Einst-
ein
(10)
10.82
13.32
3.48
12.4
11.82
13.86
29.77
51.04
16.37
14.78
19.45
16.84
12.54
10.46
8.38
6.03
10.12
10.09
12.37
13.98
16.56
19.81
15.89
15.34
19.09
36.08
48.51
31.94
20.58
18.5
18.01
10.94
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 Yang 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
10 -IT
E
(A
o
o 1
(0
O
u
0.1
*

*
D
*

p
_ _ - " "
.* .'. U -
' _
-D_.
n n
D o fln__Q _,

D
(a) "
I l l l I I I I I I I ' I I I ' 1 1 1
0
I ' 1
8 12 16 20 24 28
Data point No.
van Rijn
n
Proposed
Ackers & White
10 -p
E
(0
O
o
w
O
0 . 1 | i i i | i i i | i i ' | i i | i ' | ' ' ' | ' ' ' I '
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28
Data point No.
Engelund & Hansen
Yang
Bagnold
100
E
w
O
u
(0
O
n
10 --
0.1 --
(c)
, * ^ _ - - _ _
*

a n
n
n
n
n n
n n |
_
D n n
s- Samaga etal
Toffaleti
Einstein
001 4 H * -
m
I ' ' ' I ' ' ' I ' ' ' *-
1
-
m
-
m
| ' ' | ' ' ' I '
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28
Data point No.
Fig. 7.17. Application of total load equations to Willis et al (1972) laboratory
flume data.
cwpier / Applicability analysis, 258
7.3. Summary and general comments
The results of testing the proposed sediment transport equations and 11 existing theories
against 333 sets of data from both laboratory flumes and natural streams are outlined in
this chapter. The 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 and
the corresponding measured values. It was 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. The predicted transport
rates from different theories often differ drastically from each other and from the observed
sediment discharges. None 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 0.33mm 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 much 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 Netherlands tidal channels, in which the measurements represent
transportation of fine sand (0.1 m m < dso < 0.4 m m ) under high velocity condition, the
proposed total load equation and the methods of Yang, van Rijn, and Samaga et al
showed very satisfactory predictions. However, the proposed equation indicated the best
predicability and is hence recommended for application to similar conditions.
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
best results were produced by the proposed equation, Meyer-Peter-Muller formula, and
Toffaleti method.
In application to the suspended load measurements of Mantz, which indicates
transportation of fine sand (dso = 0.123 m m ) as bed material under laboratory conditions,
the proposed equation indicated the best predicability with a score of 64. The other
equations showed scores less than 36. The poor results of these theories can be
attributed to the use of empirical coefficients which are not calibrated for such fine
sediments. W h e n bed load equations were applied to the Mantz data, the best predictions
resulted from Bagnold model, the proposed formula, and Einstein bed load function.
The established equations of Meyer-Peter and Muller, and van Rijn failed to produce
satisfactory predictions. These two procedures are not applicable to particles smaller than
0.4mm and 0.2mm in diameter, respectively.
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 made consistently by the proposed total load formula and Yang unit
stream power equation.
In application to the suspended load data of Samaga et al (0.2 mm < dso < 0-35 mm), the
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 may 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, especially
for the case of Netherlands tidal channels where small particles move 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.
In contrast, Samaga et al procedure tends to under-estimate the sediment discharges,
especially for application to fine sand. Even in application to their own data, Samaga et al
procedure, failed to produce acceptable results and like most of the other cases under-
estimated both bed and suspended load transport rates.
Considering the results of applicability analyses for all the collected data including bed,
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. The 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.
This study has supported the general concept that the overall shear stress is effective in
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 different
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
Chapter 8. Australian rivers and sediment transport research
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). As 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). Wash
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 Australian
rivers, the available theories should be tested against field observations. To 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 made to show the difficulty involved in selecting one or more of the
many 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.
8.2. Sediment transport studies in Australian literature
Only a few investigators have tried to study the applicability of the available bed material
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""; -
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
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. As 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.
The major difficulty with sediment transport investigation in Australian rivers is the lack
of published data on bed, suspended, and total load transport. In 1969, a working group
of the Technical Committee on Surface Water of Australian Water Resources Council
highlighted the need for the continuous automatic measurement and recording of the
sediment concentration in rivers. They also suggested that, due to the small amount of
sediment data which is at present available or is likely to be available for some times, the
data available should be published every five years on a national basis (Australian Water
Resources Council, 1969, p. 2). To the author's knowledge, this suggestion has not
been implemented seriously until recent years.
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
(Wong 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. Due 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 be
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.
8.3. Application of the selected theories to Macquarie Rivulet, NSW
Macquarie Rivulet is a perennial stream which is located on the southcoast of New South
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
.
Table 8.1. Hydraulic data from Macquarie Rivulet, NSW (Syed Yusoff, 1990).
Stage
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Water
Discharge
(m
3
/s)
4.44
11.11
20.00
32.50
44.70
59.50
80.00
102.50
127.32
160.00
195.00
237.50
277.00
315.00
355.00
Flow Cross
Section
(m
2
)
4.4
6.5
10.0
14.8
18.9
24.0
29.5
36.0
43.0
49.0
56.9
64.4
71.9
79.8
89.2
Wetted
Perimeter
(m)
13.40
16.00
19.00
21.55
24.27
26.80
29.43
32.10
34.10
36.67
39.10
41.20
44.00
46.10
48.16
Surface
Width
(m)
12.00
14.40
17.40
19.33
22.40
25.00
27.40
29.90
32.10
35.42
37.68
40.35
42.40
44.50
47.43
Table 8.2. Size distribution of bed material from Macquarie Rivulet, NSW.
Lower
diameter
(mm)
0.284
0.402
0.568
0.804
1.136
1.607
Upper
diameter
(mm)
0.402
0.568
0.804
1.136
1.607
2.273
of
by
g.
"5
fraction
weight
16.4
18.3
26.3
11.0
7.2
10.4
Table 8.3. Representative grain diameters(mm) for Macquarie Rivulet, NSW.
dl6
0.346
<*35
0.500
d5 0
0.569
d65
0.767
d84
1.032
^90
1.082
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
Table 8.4. Application of suspended load equations to Macquarie Rivulet, NSW.
St.
No.
(1)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Propo-
sed
<2)
6. 6
26.2
54 . 9
98 . 6
145. 6
203. 6
298.3
401. 6
519.6
714 .1
913. 0
1191 .7
1450 .3
1690.4
1923.3
Rijn
(3)
7.1
19.1
41.4
67.3
103.4
140.1
218.0
291.1
369.3
596.8
778.8
1125.1
1423.3
1664.7
1850.9
Samaga
(4)
59.6
123.2
288.1
763.4
1390.4
2928.8
5589.3
11082.7
23104.5
35601.3
62081.7
100993.4
137674.8
202596.5
325233.4
Toffa-
leti
(5)
9.2
10.5
14.2
19.2
23.1
27.8
31.7
36.7
41.8
51.5
65.4
86.6
105.3
121.7
136.6
Eins-
tein
(6)
8.6
21.8
34.9
47.3
64.3
80.5
109.6
136.5
164.1
233.1
286.7
378.0
454.1
517.4
572.0
Bagn-
old
(7)
11.7
49.5
104.2
185.9
275.3
384.1
565.0
760.0
981.8
1360.6
1740.3
2281.0
2779.1
3238.1
3679.3
Wiuff
(8)
23.1
120.3
322.7
767.2
1252.3
1988.1
3279.3
4933.2
7089.8
10147.0
14167.9
19626.0
25406.3
31304.7
37303.7
Celik-
Rodi
(9)
1.0
8.2
18.7
29.8
46.8
62.8
99.4
131.6
164.6
271.7
350.8
502.6
628.1
726.8
801.8
Note: All the numerical values, except column 1, are sediment transport rates in kg/s.
Table 8.5. Application of bed load equations to Macquarie Rivulet, NSW.
St.
No.
(1)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Propo
-sed
(2)
7 . 0
1 1 . 5
1 9 . 8
34 . 1
45. 1
60. 8
79.2
102.2
128.1
146.4
177. 9
205.3
238.2
271. 6
307.8
Rijn
(3)
5.5
60.5
125.5
178.0
269.2
343.4
520.4
660.2
793.7
1307.1
1635.1
2326.5
2856.6
3234.8
3488.9
Samaga
(4)
4.4
7.2
9.3
10.6
13.5
15.8
19.1
22.1
24.6
29.8
33.6
40.0
44.5
48.1
51.9
Toffa-
leti
(5)
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
Eins-
tein
(6)
27.3
34.9
42.2
46.9
54.3
60.6
66.4
72.5
77.8
85.9
91.4
97.9
102.8
107.9
115.0
Bagn-
old
(7)
10.9
27.6
51.8
89.0
124.6
170.5
234.4
307.7
391.7
493.6
613.7
755.2
893.0
1029.7
1175.2
MPM
(8)
3.1
13.6
23.7
32.8
45.2
56.3
75.9
92.7
108.9
150.4
178.7
226.4
262.9
291.7
316.7
Note: All the numerical values, except column 1, are sediment transport rates in kg/s, M P M = Meyer-
Peter and Muller.
S***l \J
Table 8.6. Application
St.
NO.
(D
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Propo
-sed
(2)
13 .7
37 .7
74.7
132 . 7
190 . 7
264
377
504
648
860
1091
1397
1688
1962
2231
Rijn
(3)
12.6
79.6
166.9
245.3
372.6
483
738
951
1163
1904
2414
3452
4280
4899
5340
of total t
Samaga
(4)
63.9
130.4
297.4
774.0
1403.9
2945
5608
11105
23129
35631
62115
101033
137719
202645
325285
load equations
Toffa
-leti
(5)
9.3
10.6
14.4
19.3
23.2
27.9
31.9
36.8
41.9
51.6
65.5
86.7
105.5
121.9
136.9
Einst
-ein
(6)
35.9
56.7
77.1
94.2
118.7
141.2
176.0
209.0
241.9
319.0
378.1
475.9
556.9
625.3
687.0
to Macquarie Rivulet, NSW.
Bagn-
old
(7)
22.6
77.1
155.9
274.9
400.0
555
799
1068
1373
1854
2354
3036
3672
4268
4855
A-W
(8)
9.1
56.2
112.3
171.5
250.3
326
472
602
734
1077
1331
1770
2124
2407
2644
E-H
(9)
31.5
149.5
364.7
728.0
1181.5
1786.9
2775.0
3950.3
5468.3
8004.8
10661
14716
18039
21670
25985
Yang
(10)
18.5
86.3
181.3
318.1
467.8
645
941
1251
1594
2198
2781
3611
4371
5050
5680
Note: All the numerical values, except column 1, are sediment transport rates in kg/s, A - W = Ackers and
White, and E-H = Engelund and Hansen.
1000000
_c
tf>
3
tf)
a
o O
9 9 " '
A
o o o
'
100 200 300
Q (m3/s)
400

o
A
A

O
Van Rijn
Proposed
Samaga et al
Toffaleti
Einstein
Bagnold
Wiuff
Celik & Rodi
Fig. 8.1. Application of suspended load equations to Macquarie Rivulet, NSW.
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
check the accuracy and applicability of the methods, it is very difficult to make 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
Samaga 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 was seen that Wiuff 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 are
predicted by 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. The 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.
o
n
a
10000

A A A 1
= .-"AAA A A A A
g :::..
1 0 &*
0.01
KO O O O O
0.1 -} oooooo o o
1 1 1
I
+
__l_
+
__u
100 200 300
Q (m3/s)
400
D

O
A
A

Proposed
van Rijn
Samaga et al.
Toffaleti
Einstein
Bagnold
MPM
Fig. 8.2. Application of bed load equations to Macquarie Rivulet, NSW.
JmMZijjitt! O
D Proposed
O Toffaleti
(
* Ackers-
White
n
van Rijn
* Einstein
o Engelund-
Hansen
Samaga et
al.
A Bagnold
X Yang j
1000000
100000 -
r
o
o
10000
Ul
CO
* 1000 -_
100 -r,
o
o
O X
X "
o V "
5 x 9 . &
' x"_
fi
x.n .
A
10 -S
x o<>
X 2 "
? n __
l J I I I I I j -
100
200
300
X
_k
__
J I -
400
Q (m3/s)
Fig. 8.3. Application of total load equations to Macquarie Rivulet, NSW.
Kmnapter a Australian rivers, 271
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 al
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
A review of a selected number of previous investigations on the applicability of existing
sediment load estimation theories on Australian rivers was presented. The major
difficulty with sediment transport research in Australia is the lack of measured sediment
transport data from the major inland and coastal rivers of this country in published
format. It is recommended that the water and soil authorities of Australia prepare a
widespread and long term program of data collection from bed and suspended load
transport in rivers and streams of this country.
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 was shown that
considerable discrepancy exists between predicted sediment yields from theory to theory.
It was concluded that no final decision can be made 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 .. Summary and Conclusion , 273
VtlUl/lCf 7
9. Summary and Conclusion
9.1. Summary
Development of new equations
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. By 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.
The proposed equations are given below:
S u* D-v
C
y
= oc-r (
L
)
y
AKOJ y (6.16)
SDV
2 u
*
2
1-
P
TA^
[1 +
W
]
(6.35)
SDu*
2
1b = ^ (6.56)
A K G )
b
In the new development, those refinements that may complicate the application without
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 made in the new 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- The 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.
In comparison with the well-established Rouse concentration equation, the proposed
concentration formula produced better prediction of concentration profiles when applied
to a number of laboratory flume measurements from Samaga (1984) and Coleman
(1986). The applicability of the proposed transport equations was tested against a large
number of sediment-laden flow measurements covering a wide range of hydraulic
conditions and sediment sizes. The test results indicated that, despite their simple
structure, the developed predictors show good agreement with the actual sediment
transport rates. Considering probable errors involved in the measurement procedures,
the overall correlation of the proposed equations with laboratory and field data was very
satisfactory. In general the proposed equations were found to give better results than
those generated using other 11 selected theories.
A number of other formulae, such as: depth averaged concentration (Eq. 6.23), transport
concentration (Eq. 6.39), and reference concentration (Eq. 6.45) resulted from the
developed concentration distribution equation can be listed as:
C
D
=cc^ (6.23)
A co
VS
2Aco
Su*
[1
D
u*
2
C T = P T T ^ n + ( ^ v ) 1 (6-39)
C
a
= cc- (6.45)
a
AKCO a
Critical evaluation and applicability analyst* of selected sediment load predictors
In order to provide guide-lines for the modification of available sediment load
procedures, and development of more accurate and powerful equations, a detailed
analysis of 11 sediment transport theories was performed. The selected methods
Summary
included those of Meyer-Peter-Muller (1948), Einstein (1950), Bagnold (1966),
Engelund-Hansen (1967), Toffaleti (1969), Ackers-White (1973), Yang (1973 and
1984), van Rijn (1984), Wiuff (1985), Samaga et al (1986), and Celik-Rodi (1991).
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 transport
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. None of the theories were found to be adequate for all
conditions.
Development of computer programs
Since the computation of transport rate of sediment loads is usually a complicated and
laborious task, computer programs were developed in this thesis for all 11 selected
methods as well as for the proposed transport equations. These programs were used to
make all the detailed computations easier and more efficient and to reduce labour. The
developed computer package ( S E D L O A D ) , can be regarded as a powerful tool for all
practicing hydraulic engineers.
Australian rivers and sediment transport research
Recent investigations on sediment transport in Australian rivers and the major
difficulties faced in this area were also discussed. The lack of data from the major
inland and coastal rivers of this country was mentioned as the major difficulty facing
sediment transport research. It was recommended that the water and soil authorities of
Australia prepare a widespread and continuous program of data collection from bed and
suspended load transport in rivers and streams of this country. A n attempt was made to
introduce the most appropriate sediment load predictor for computing bed material
discharge in a particular Australian rivulet. However, because measured sediment
transport data was unavailable, an accurate decision could not be made. It was
recommended that no particular equation could be selected unless its accuracy is tested
against actual measured data. In the absence of data, engineering judgement should be
employed in choosing appropriate predictors.
9.2. Conclusion
The new developments, detailed analysis of 11 sediment transport theories, suggested
modifications, establishment of computer programs, and general results of the
applicability analysis were summarised in Sec. 9.1. The following detailed conclusions
are specifically obtained from the applicability analysis and critical evaluation of the
selected theories.
Overall conclusions
I - For those non uniform bed materials, in which a considerable proportion of particles
are much 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
sucn
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 in
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, may 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. Due 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.
predictors is the existence of uncertainty and inaccuracy in sediment transport data.
This is due to limitations in measurement equipment and large temporal and spatial
variations of concentration and transport rates.
V - Due to the complex phenomenon of sediment transport, the large number of
involved parameters and their inter-relation, and limitation in measurement facilities,
sediment discharge in general cannot be precisely predicted. A n error band of 2 0 0 % is
usual in sediment load predictions.
VI - The major difficulty of sediment transport research in Australia is the lack of
appropriate and complete data sets from the movement of bed material in major inland
and coastal rivers. Because of this, insufficient research has been made on the
applicability of sediment discharge predictors for Australian rivers and no particular
equation has been recommended.
Specific conclusions related to the developed transport equations
An applicability analysis was made using 333 data sets, which included bed, suspended
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 bed
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.
Because of the simple structure, fully analytical and dimensionally homogeneous
relationships, involving a small number of easily measurable and well-known hydraulic
and sediment parameters, good capability with in-situ calibration, and the satisfactory
^
m
P^ll... _ _ Summary and Conclusion,in
results obtained, the proposed method was found to be the best in comparison with the
other existing sediment transport predictors.
Conclusions based on applicability analyses
I - In application to the transportation of fine sand, the best predictions were
consistently obtained using the proposed total load formula and Yang's unit stream
power equation. Especially when fine sands were transported under high velocity
condition these two approaches indicated very satisfactory predictions (with scores up
to 100%) and are hence recommended for similar conditions.
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 moved 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. The criterion that Celik and Rodi
introduced for the initiation of suspension in some cases, such as transportation of fine
and medium sands in Mantz and Samaga et al flume experiments, resulted in zero
suspended load discharge which is not in agreement with the measurements. This may
be the reason for the unsatisfactory predictions of Celik and Rodi's model for a number
of data sets.
V - Depending on the hydraulic conditions, Engelund and Hansen's theory produced
very variable results, from over-prediction for the cases of movement of small particles
under high velocity conditions to under-estimation for the transportation of medium
sands in the laboratory flume studies of Samaga et al. This suggests that Engelund and
Hansen's theory should be used with caution.
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,
procedure is not recommended for application to particles smaller than 0.15mm in
diameter.
VII - The Samaga et al procedure tends to under-estimate the sediment discharges,
especially for fine bed material. Even in application to Samaga et al data, this
procedure failed to predict acceptable results and like most of the other cases under-
estimated both bed and suspended load transport rates.
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 2.0mm which are mostly transported in suspension.
DC - The Meyer-Peter-Muller's bed load equation did not produce satisfactory
predictions. This can be related to the limitation in particle size of the data used in the
calibration, and, for some data sets, to the probable errors of the sediment transport data.
Specifically Meyer-Peter-Muller's equation is not recommended for application to the
sediment-laden flows with particles smaller than 2.0mm in diameter and to flows with
little or no suspended load.
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 particles in
the range of 0.2mm - 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 2.0mm 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
9.3. Recommendation for further research
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 may need independent experimental
study. A number of these research needs are listed below:
I - In the proposed concentration equation, a proportionality parameter a was used to
represent the ratio of turbulent energy used for suspension Ejsus to the total turbulence
energy E T . Since Ex
SU
s is a small part of E T , the value of a should be much smaller
than unity. In development of the suspended load equation the coefficient a was
replaced by P to cover the inaccuracies introduced by using Prandtl logarithmic velocity
distribution for sediment-laden flows. In the current study where the focus was on the
suspended load equation, P was assumed to have a constant value of 2 % . Similar ideas
were used by Bagnold and Celik and Rodi. A calibration coefficient X was also used in
the bed load development. Tests of the proposed bed load equation with X = 1.32 and X
= (0.4co)/u* indicated satisfactory predictions for almost all the data used from coarse
cobbles and boulders to very fine sands. Compared to the other established theories, the
developed equations indicated generally better predictions. However, true justification
of the proposed model, needs additional work on the evaluation and sensitivity analysis
of the coefficients a, P, and X, and on their functional relationship with the other
hydraulic and sediment parameters. It is recommended that this aspect should be
investigated in the future and may need more extensive sediment transport data as well
as independent laboratory research.
II - For estimating velocity profile in uniform turbulent flows of clear water the Prandtl
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 (LDV) and particle image
velocimetry (PIV), may be used for further investigation and development in this area.
HI - Independently estimated value of C
a
is required to calculate concentration profile
by the Rouse equation. However, there is no generally accepted procedure for
estimating C
a
in the current literature. The proposed concentration formula, Eq. 6.44,
was suggested for the computation of reference concentration. This expression needs to
be verified with independent data.
/^ 1_ . r\
Summary and Conclusion , 281
IV - Compared to the established Rouse formula, the proposed concentration equation
predicted concentration profiles which were in better consistency with the measured
data of Samaga (1984) and Coleman (1981). However, true verification of this equation
needs additional tests using extensive data from sediment concentration in open channel
flows collected under a wide range of hydraulic and sediment conditions which is
currently lacking.
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 may 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 may also be needed.
VI - The accuracy of the proposed modifications for the theories of Meyer-Peter-
Muller, Engelund-Hansen, Toffaleti, and Yang needs further investigation.
VH - The validity of the sediment transport relationships developed overseas should be
checked for application to the Australian river system and this needs reliable data. In
order to solve the major problem of sediment transport investigation in Australia, which
currently lacks measured data, it is recommended that the water and soil authorities of
Australia prepare a wide-spread and continuous program of data collection from bed
and suspended load transport in rivers of this country.
REFERENCES:
Ackers, P. (1972). "Sediment Transport in Channels: An Alternative Approach," Report
INT 102, March, Hydraulic Reseach Station, Wallingford, England.
Ackers, P. and White, W. R. (1973). "Sediment Transport: New Approach and
Analysis," J. Hydr. Engrg., ASCE, Vol. 99, No. H Y 11, pp. 2041-2060.
Alsaffar, A. M. (1990). Editor "50th Anniversary of the Hydraulics Division 1938-
1988," ASCE, New York, 147 pp.
ASCE Task Committee on Turbulence Models in Hydraulic Computations. (1988).
"Turbulence Modeling of Surface Water Flow and Transport: Part I-V," J. Hydr.
Engrg., ASCE, Vol. 114, No. 9, pp. 970-1073.
ASCE Task Committee on Sedimentation. (1975). Sedimentation Engineering, Vanoni,
V. A. (Ed), ASCE, New York.
Ashida, K. (1980). "Field Data Collection and Analysis for Sediment Yield and
Transport," In "Application of Stochastic Processes in Sediment Transport" (Shen,
H. W., and Kikkawa, H., Editors), Water Resources Publications, Colorado,
USA, pp. 1-1:1-19.
Australian Water Resources Council (1969). "Sediment Sampling in Australia," Report of
a Working Group of the Technical Committee on Surface Water, Hydrological
Series No. 3.
Aziz, Nadim M., Bhattacharya, S., and Patterson, P. (1990). "A Hybrid Model for
Sediment Concentration Profiles," Proc. 1990 National Conf., California, July 30-
August 3, 1990, ASCE, Chang, H. H., and Hill, J. C. (editors), Vol. 1, pp. 145-
150.
Bagnold, R. A. (1956). "Flow of Cohesionless Grains in Fluids," Royal Soc.[London]
Philos. Trans., Vol. 249, pp. 235-297.
Bagnold, R. A. (1960). "Sediment Discharge and Stream Power," US Geological Survey
Circular 421, Washington, D.C.
Bagnold, R.A. (1966). "An Approach to the Sediment Transport Problem from General
Physics," U.S. Geol. Survey, Prof. Paper 422-1, 37 p.
Bagnold, R. A. (1980). "An Empirical Correlation of Bed Load Transport Rates in
Flumes and Natural Rivers," Proc. of the Royal Soc. of London, A372, pp. 453-
473.
Bagnold, R. A. (1986). "Transport of Solids by Natural Water Flows: Evidence for a
Worldwide Correlation," Proc. of the Royal Soc. of London, A405, pp. 369-374.
Barekyan, A. S. (1962). "Discharge of Channels forming Sediments and Elements of
Sand Waves," Soviet Hydrol. (American Geophy. Union), No. 2.
Barr, D. H. I., and Herbertson, J. G. (1968). "Similitude Theory Applied to Correlation
of Flume Sediment Transport," Water Resources Research, Vol. 4, NO. 2, April,
pp. 307-316.
References, 284
Barton, J. R., and Lin, P. N. (1955). A Study of Sediment Transport in Alluvial
Streams, Report No. 55 JRB2, Civil Engrg. Dept, Colorado College, Fortt
Collins, Colorado.
Bechteler, W. (1985). "Transport of Suspended Solids in Open Channels," Proc. of
Euromech 192, Mnnich, Neubiberg, 11-15. June 1985, pp. 548-553, Published by
A.A. Balkema, 1986.
Bechteler, W. and Vetter, M. (1989). "The Computation of Total Sediment Transport in
View of Changed Input Parameters," Proc. Int. Symp. on Sediment Transport
Modeling , Sam S.Y. Wang (ed), 1989, USA.
Bennett, J. P. (1973). " An Investigation of the Suspended Load Transport Efficiency in
the Bagnold Equation," Proc. of IAHR, Int. Symp. on River Mechanics, 9-12
January 1973, Bangkok, Thailand, pp. 455-463.
Bishop, A. A., Simons, D. B. and Richardson, E. V. (1965). "Total Bed Material
Transport," Proc. ASCE, Vol. 91, HY2, March, pp. 175-191.
Blench, T. (1966). Mobile-Bed Fluviology, Dept. of Technical Services, University of
Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Blench, T. (1969). "Coordination in Mobile Bed Hydraulics," J. Hydr. Div., ASCE,
Vol. 95, No. HY6, pp. 1871-1898.
Bogardi, J. (1974). Sediment Transport in Alluvial Streams, Akademiai Kiado,
Budapest.
Brooks, Norman H. (1957). "Discussion of Mechanics of Streams with Movable Beds of
Fine Sand," J. Hydr. Div., ASCE, Vol. 83, pp. 1230.3-1230.28.
Brooks, Norman H. (1958). "Mechanics of Streams with Movable Beds of Fine Sand,"
Trans. ASCE, Vol. 123, Paper No. 2931, pp. 526-594.
Brooks, Norman H. (1963). "Calculation of Suspended Load Discharge from Velocity
Concentration Parameters," Proc. Fed. Agency Sedim. Conf., U. S. Dept. Agr.
Misc. Publ. No. 970.
Brown, C. B. (1950). Engineering Hydraulics, H. Rouse (ed), John Wiley and Sons,
Inc.
Carson, M. A., and Griffiths, G. A. (1987). "Bedload Transport in Gravel Channels,"
Journal of Hydrology (New Zealand), Vol. 26, No. 1, pp. 1-151.
Celik, I. and Rodi, W. (1991). "Suspended Sediment Transport Capacity for Open
Channel Flow," J. Hydr. Engrg., ASCE, Vol. 117, No. 2, pp. 191-204.
Celik, I. and Rodi, W. (1984). "A Deposition-Entrainment Model for Suspended
Sediment Transport," Report SFB210/T/6, University of Karlsruhe, Federal
Republic of Germany.
Chadwick, A. J. and Morfett, J.C. (1986). Hydraulics in Civil Engineering, Allen and
Unwin, UK.
Chang, F. M., Simons, D. B., and Richardson, E. V. (1967). "Total Bed-material
Discharge in Alluvial Channels," Proc. 12th Congress of IAHR, Fort Collins,
Colorado, USA.
References, 285
Chang, H. H. (1988). Fluvial Processes in River Engineering, John Wiley and Sons,
Inc.
Chollet, J. P. and Cunge, J. A. (1979). "New Interpretation of Some Head Loss Flow
Velocity Relationships for Deformable Moveable Beds," J. Hydr. Res., IAHR,
Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 1-13.
Chow, Ven Te (1959). Open Channel Hydraulics, McGraw Hill, New York.
Chow, Ven Te (1964). Handbook of Applied Hydrology, McGraw Hill, New York.
Chow, Ven Te (1988). Applied Hydrology, McGraw Hill, New York.
Cioffi, F. and Gallerano, F. (1991). "Velocity and Concentration Profiles of Solid
Particles in a Channel with Moveable and Erodible Bed," J. Hydr. Res., IAHR,
Vol. 29, No. 3, pp. 387-400.
Colby, Bruce R. (1964). "Practical Computations of Bed Material Discharge," J. Hydr.
Div., ASCE, Vol. 90, No. HY2, pp. 217-246.
Colby, B. R. and Hembree, C. H. (1955). "Computations of Total Sediment Discharge
Niobrara River Near Cody, Nebraska," U.S. Geol. Survey, Water Supply Paper
1357.
Colby, B. R. and Hubbell, D. W. (1961). "Simplified Methods for Computing Total
Sediment Discharge with the Modified Einstein Procedure," U. S. Geological
Survey, Water Supply Paper 1593.
Coleman, N. L. (1981). "Velocity Profiles with Suspended Sediment," J. Hydr. Res.,
Vol. 19, No. 3, pp. 211-229.
Coleman, N. L. (1986). "Effect of Suspended Sediment on Open Channel Velocity
Distribution," Water Resources Research, Vol. 22, No. 10, pp. 1377-1384.
Cooper, R. H., and Peterson, A. W. (1968). "Analysis of Comprehensieve Bed Load
Transport Data from Flumes," ASCE Hydraulics Specialty Conference,
Cambridge, Mass., August 21-23.
Digman, S.L. (1984). Fluvial Hydrology, Published by W. H. Freeman and Company.
Du Boys, P. (1879). "Le Rhone et les Rivieres a Lit Affouillable," Annales des Ponts et
Chaussees, Series 5, Vol. 18, pp. 141-195.
Dyer, Keith R. (1986). Coastal and Estuarine Sediment Transport, Published by John
Wiley and sons.
Einstein, H. A. (1937). "Der Geschiebetrieb als Wahrscheinlichkeits Problem (Bed Load
Movement as a Probability Problem)," Verlag Rascher, Zurich, 110 p.
Einstein, H. A. (1942). "Formulae for the Transportation of Bed Load," Trans., ASCE,
Vol. 107.
Einstein, H. A. (1950). "The Bed-Load Function for Sediment Transportation in Open
Channel Flows," USDA, Tech. Bull. No. 1026, September.
Einstein, H. A. (1964). "River Sedimentation, " Section 17-11 , pp. 17.35-17.67,
Handbook of Applied Hydrology, Ven Te Chow, ed., McGraw Hill Book Co.,
Inc., New York, NY.
References, 286
Einstein, H. A. and Abdel-Aal, F. M. (1972). "Einstein Bed-load Function at High
Sediment Rates," J. Hydr. Div., ASCE, Vol. 98, HY1, Jan., pp. 137-152.
Einstein, H. A. and Barbarossa, N. L. (1952). "River Channel Roughness," Trans.
ASCE, Vol. 117.
Emmett, M. L. (1986). "Rivers, Sedimentation, and Research," Proc. Third Int. Symp.
on River Sedimentation, The University of Mississippi, March 31-April 4, Wang,
S. Y., Shen, H. W., and Ding, L. Z., editors, pp. 113-117.
Engelund, F. (1966). "Hydraulic Resistance of Alluvial Streams," J. Hydr. Div., ASCE,
Vol. 92, HY2, March.
Engelund, F. and Hansen, E. (1967). A Monograph on Sediment Transport in Alluvial
Streams, Technical University of Denmark, Hydraulic Laboratory.
Fahnestock, R. K. (1963). "Morphology and Hydrology of a Glacial Stream, White,
Mount Rainier, Washington," U.S. Geol. Survey, Prof. Paper 422-A.
Field, W. G. (1968). "Effects of Density Ratio on Sedimentary Similitude," J. Hydr.
Div., ASCE, Vol. 94, HY3, pp. 705-719. .
Francis, J. R. D. (1973). "Experiments on the Motions of Solitary Grains Along the Bed
a Water Stream," Proc. R. Soc. London, A332, pp. 443-471.
Garde, R. J. (1989). "Research needs in Fluvial Hydraulics," Proc. Third Int. Wokshop
on Alluvial River Problems, University of Roorkee, Roorkee(U. P.), India, March
2-4, pp. 3-16.
Garde, R. J. and Albertson, M. L. (1961). "Bed-load Transport in Alluvial Channels,"
Huille Blanche, No. 3, May-June.
Garde, R. J. and Ranga Raju, K. G. (1985). Mechanics of Sediment Transportation and
Alluvial Stream Problems, Wiley Eastern Limited, New Delhi, 2nd edition.
Garg, S. P., Agarwal, A. K., and Singh, P. R. (1971). "Bed Load Transportation in
Alluvial Channels," J. Hydr. Engrg., ASCE, Vol. 97, No. HY5, May.
Gilbert, K. G. (1914). "The Transportation of Debris by Running Water," U.S.
Geol.Survey, Prof. Paper 86.
Graf, Walter Hans (1971). Hydraulics of Sediment Transport, McGraw Hill, New York.
Grigg, N. S. (1969). "Motion of Single Particles in Sand Channels," U. S. Geological
Survey, Water Resources Div., Open File Report, Fort Collins, Colorado.
Guy, H. P., Rathbun, R. E. and Richardson, E. V. (1967). "Recirculation and Sand
Feed Type Flume Experiments," Proc. ASCE, Vol. 93, HY5, Sept.
Guy, H. P., Simons, D. B. and Richardson, E. V. (1966). "Summary of Alluvial Data
From Flume Experiments, 1956-1961," U.S. Geol. Survey, Prof. Paper 462-1.
Hayward, J. A., and Sutherland, A. J. (1974). "The Torlesse Stream Vortex-Tube
Sediment Trap," Journal of Hydrology (New Zealand), Vol. 13, pp. 41-53.
References, 287
Hean, D. S. and Nanson, G. C. (1987). "Serious Problems in Using Equations to
Estimate Bed Load Yields for Coastal Rivers in N.S.W.," Australian Geographer,
Vol. 18, No. 2, pp. 114-124.
Helley, E. J., and Smith, W. (1971). "Development and Calibration of a Pressure
Difference Bed Load Sampler," U. S. Geological Survey, Open-File Report, Menlo
Park, Calif., 18pp.
Henderson, F. M. (1966). Open Channel Flow, MacMillan, New York.
Hey, R. D., Bathurst, J. C. and Thome, C. D. (1982). Gravel Bed Rivers Fluvial
Processes, Engineering and Management, John Wiley.
Hinze, J. O. (1959). Turbulence: An Introduction to its Mechanism and Theory, McGraw
Hill, New York.
Hollingshead, A. P. (1971). "Sediment Transport Measurements in Gravel River," J.
Hydr. Engrg., ASCE, Vol. 97, No. HY11, pp. 1817-1834.
Holtroff, G. (1983). "Steady Bed Material Transport in Alluvial Channels," J. Hydr.
Engrg., ASCE, HY3, March.
Hubbell, D. W. (1964). "Apparatus and Techniques for Measuring Bedload," U. S.
Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 1748, Washington, DC, 74pp.
Hubbell, D. W. (1987). "Bed Load Sampling and Analysis," In "Sediment Transport in
Gravel-Rivers" (Thome, C. R., Bathurst, J. C , and Hey, R. D., Editors), John
Wiley & Sons, pp. 89-118.
Hubbell D. W., and Sayre, W. W. (1964). "Sand Transport Studies with Radioactive
Tracers," J. Hydr. Engrg., ASCE, Vol. 90, No. HY3.
Hydraulic Research Station Wollingford (1973). "Sediment Transport: An Appraisal of
Available Methods," Int. 119, Wollingford, England.
Ibad-Zade, Y. A. (1987). Movements of Sediments in Open Channels. Russian
Translation Series, 1974, A. A. Balkema, Rotterdom.
Inbar, M., and Schick, A. P. (1979). "Bed Load Transport Associated with High Stream
Power, Jordan River, Israel," Proc. Natn. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., Vol. 76, pp. 2515-
2517.
Inglis, C. C. (1968) Discussion of "Systematic Evaluation of River Regime," by Charles
R. Niel and Victor J. Galey, J. Waterways and Harbors Division, ASCE, Vol. 94,
No. WWl,pp. 109-114.
Ingram, J. J., Steven, A. T. R., and Richardson, E. V. (1991). "Sediment Discharge
Computation Using Point-Sampled Suspended Sediment Data," J. Hydr. Engrg.,
ASCE, Vol. 117, No. 6, pp. 758-773.
Interagency Committee (1963). "Determination of Fluvial Sediment Discharge," Report
No 14, Subcommittee on Sedimentation, Interagency Committee on Water
Resources, St. Anthony Falls Hydraulic Laboratory, Minneapolis, Minn., 151 pp.
Ismail, H. M. (1952). "Turbulent Transfer Mechanism and Suspended Sediment in
Closed Channels," Trans. ASCE, Vol. 117.
References, 288
Itakura, T. and Kishi, T. (1980). "Open Channel Flow with Suspended Sediments," J.
Hydr. Engrg., ASCE, Vol. 106, No. HY8, August, pp. 1325-1343.
Jansen, P. Ph., Bendegom, L. van, Berg, J. van den, and Zanen, A. (1979). Principles
of River Engineering, the Non-Tidal Alluvial river. Pitman.
Jobson, H. E., and Sayre, W. W. (1969). "An Experimental Investigation of the Vertical
Mass Transfer of Suspended Sediments," Proc. of XIJJ Congress of IAHR, Vol.
2, Kyoto, Japan.
Kalinske, A. A. (1942). "Criteria for determining Sand-Transport by Surface-Creep and
Saltation," Trans., American Geophy. Union, Vol. 23, Pt. 2.
Karim, M. F., and Kennedy, J. F. (1981). "Computer-based Predictors for Sediment
Discharge and Friction Factors of Alluvial Streams," Report No. 242, Iowa Inst, of
Hydr. Res., The University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa.
Karim, M. F., and Kennedy, J. F. (1983). "Computer-based Predictors for Sediment
Discharge and Friction Factors of Alluvial Streams," Proc. 2nd Int. Symp. on
River Sedimentation, Nanjing, China, Water Resources and Electric Power Press,
Beijing, China.
Karim, M. F., and Kennedy, J. F. (1987). "Velocity and Sediment Concentration
Profiles in River Flows," J. Hydr. Engrg., ASCE, Vol. 113, No. 2, pp. 159-177.
Karim, M. F., and Kennedy, J. F. (1990). "Menu of Coupled Velocity and Sediment-
Discharge Relations for Rivers," J. Hydr. Engrg., ASCE, Vol. 116, No. 8, pp.
978-996.
Knapp, R. T. (1938). "Energy Balance in Stream Flows Varrying Suspended Load,"
Trans., American Geophy. Union, pp. 501-505.
Lacey, G. (1929). "Stable Channels in Alluvium," Proc. Institution of Civil Engineers,
Vol. 229, Part I, London, England, pp. 259-292.
Lane, E. W., and Kalinske, A. A. (1941). "Engineering Calculation of Suspended
Sediment," Trans. American Geophy. Union, Vol. 20, Pt. 3, pp. 603-607.
Lau, Y. L., and Krishnappan, B. G. (1985). "Sediment Transport Under Ice Cover," J.
Hydr. Engrg., ASCE, Vol. Ill, No. 6, pp. 934-950.
Laufer, J. (1954). "The Structure of Turbulence in Fully Developed Pipe Flow," Natl.
Advisory Comm. for Aeronautics, Report 1174.
Laursen, E. M. (1958). "The Total Load of Streams," J. Hydr. Div., ASCE, Vol. 84,
No. HY1, 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 Fork
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
Li, R. M., and Fullerton, W. T. (1987). "Investigation of Sediment Routing by Size
Fractions in a Gravel Bed River," Sediment Transport in Gravel-Bed Rivers,
Thome, C. R., Home, J. C, and Bathurst, R.D. (eds), John Wiley.
Lovera, F., Kennedy, J. F. (1969). "Friction Factors for Flat Bed Flows in Sand
Channels," J. Hydr. Div., ASCE, Vol. 95, No. HY4, July.
Lu, J. Y., and Li, R. M. (1986). "Computation of Sediment Discharge," Proc. Third Int.
Symp. on River Sedimentation, The University of Mississippi, March 31-April 4,
Wang, S. Y., Shen, H. W., and Ding, L. Z., editors, pp. 704-713.
Lyn, Dennis A. (1987). "Unsteady Sediment Transport Modeling," J. Hydr. Engrg.,
ASCE, Vol. 113, No. 1, pp. 1-15.
MacDougall, C. H. (1934). "Bed Sediment Transportation in Open Channels," Trans.,
American Geophy. Union.
McDowell, D. M. (1989). "A General Formula for Estimation of the Rate of Transport of
Non-cohesive Bed Load," Journal of Hydraulic Research, IAHR, Vol. 27, No. 3,
pp. 355-361.
Maddock, T. Jr. (1968). "Discussion on Recirculation and Sand Feed Type Flume
Experiments," Proc. ASCE, Vol. 94, HY4, July.
Mantz, P. A. (1980). "Laboratory Flume Experiments on the Transport of Cohesionless
Silica Silts by Water Streams," Proc. Inst, of Civil Engineers, Part 2, Vol. 69, pp
977-994, London, England.
Mantz, P. A. (1983). "Semi-Empirical Correlations for Fine and Coarse Cohesionless
Sediment Transport," Proc. Inst, of Civil Engineers, Part 2, Vol. 75, pp. 1-33,
London, England.
Mehta, Ashish J., Hayter, Earl J., and Parker, W. R. (1989). "Cohesive Sediment
Transport. I: Process Description," J. Hydr. Engrg., ASCE, Vol. 115, No 8, pp.
1076-1093.
Mehta, Ashish J., McNally, W. H., Hayter, Earl J., Teeter, A. M., Schoellhamer, D.,
Heltzel, S. B., and Carey, W. P. (1989). "Cohesive Sediment Transport. II:
Application," J. Hydr. Engrg., ASCE, Vol. 115, No 8, pp. 1094-1113.
Meyer-Peter, E. ; Favre, H. & Einstein, A. (1934). "Neuere Versuchsresuitate uber den
Geschiebetrieb," Schweiz. Bauzeitung, Vol. 103, No. 13.
Meyer-Peter, E. and Muller, R. (1948). "Formulas for Bed Load Transport," Proc. third
Meeting of IAHR, Stockholm, pp. 39-64.
Milliman, J. D., and Meade, R. H. (1983). "World Wide Delivery of River Sediment to
the Oceans," J. Geol., Vol. 91, pp. 1-21.
Misri, R. L. (1981). Partial Bed Load Transport of Coarse Nonuniform Sediment. Ph D
Thesis, University of Roorkee.
Misri, R. L., Garde, R. J., and Ranga Raju, K. G. (1984). "Bed Load Transport of
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. (1989). "Effect of
Non-Uniformity of Bed Material on Sediment Transport," Proc. Third Int.
References, 290
Wokshop on Alluvial River Problems, University of Roorkee, Roorkee(U. P.),
India, March 2-4, pp. 137-146.
Morse, Brian, and Townsend, R. (1989). " Modeling Mixed Sediment Suspended Load
Profiles," J. Hydr. Engrg., ASCE, Vol. 115, No. 6, pp. 766-780.
Nakato, T. (1984). "Numerical Integrations of Einstein's Integrals II and 12," J. Hydr.
Nakato, T. (1990). "Tests of Selected Sediment Transport Formulas," J. Hydr. Engrg.,
ASCE, Vol. 116, No. 3, pp. 362-379.
Ni, Jin R., and Wang, G. Q. (1991). "Vertical Sediment Distribution," J. Hydr. Engrg.,
ASCE, Vol. 117, No. 9, pp. 1184-1194.
Nicholson, J., and O'Connor, B. (1986). "Cohesive Sediment Transport Model," J.
Hydr. Engrg., ASCE, Vol. 112, No 7, pp. 621-640.
Nomicos, G. N. (1956). Effects of Sediment Load on the Velocity Field and Friction
Factor of Turbulent Flow in an Open Channel, Ph. D. Thesis, Calif. Inst, of
Technology, Pasadena, California.
Nordin, C. F. (1963a). "Vertical Distribution of Velocity and Suspended Sediment,
Middle Rio Grande, New Mexico," U. S. Geological Survey, Professional Paper
462-B.
Nordin, C. F. (1963b). "A Priliminary Study of Sediment Transport Parameters, Rio
Puerco , New Mexico," U. S. Geological Survey, Professional Paper 462-C.
Nordin, C. F. (1980). "Data Collection and Analysis," In "Application of Stochastic
Processes in Sediment Transport" (Shen, H. W., and Kikkawa, H., Editors),
Water Resources Publications, Colorado, USA, pp. 2-1:2-25.
Nordin, C. F., and Beverage, J. P. (1965). "Sediment Transport in the Rio Grande,
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 Coarse
Sand, a Preliminary Analysis," Proc. IAHR, Int. Symp. on River Mechanics, 9-12
Jan. 1973, Bangkok, Thailand, pp. 501-511.
O'Brien, M. P., and Rindlaub, B. D. (1934). "The Transportation of Bed Load by
Streams," Trans., American Geophy. Union.
Olive L J and Walker, P.H. (1982). "Processes in Overland Flow-Erosion and
Production of Suspended Material," Proc. of a Symp. on the Prediction in Water
Quality, Canberra, Australian Academy of Science, pp. 87-119.
Paintal, A. S. (1971). "A Stochastic model of bed-load transport," J. Hyd. Res., IAHR,
Vol. 9, No. 4, pp. 527-554.
Park, I., and Subhash, J. C. (1986). "River Bed Profiles with Imposed Sediment
Loads," J. Hydr. Engrg., ASCE, Vol. 112.
Parker G (1978). "Self-formed Rivers with Equilibrium Banks and Mobile Bed: Part II,
The Gravel River," Journal of Fluid Mechanics, Vol. 89, No. 1, pp. 127-148.
Parker, G. (1979). "Hydraulic Geometry of Active Gravel Rivers," J. Hydr. Engrg.,
ASCE, Vol. 105, No. HY9, pp. 1185-1201.
References, 291
Parker, G., Khngeman, P. C, and McLean, D. G. (1982). "Bedload and Size
Distribution in Paved Gravel-Bed Streams," J. Hydr. Engrg., ASCE, Vol. 108,
No. HY4, pp. 544-571.
Pedroli, R. (1963). "Trasporto di Materiale Solido in Canali a Fondo Fisso e Liscio,"
Communicazione dell, Vfficio Federale dell, Economia delle acque, No. 43.
Peterson, A. W., and Howells, R. F. (1973). "A Compendium of Solids Transport Data
for Mobile Boundary Channels," Report No. HY-1973-ST3, Dept. of Civil Eng.,
University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Poplawski, W. A. and Gourlay, M. R. (1987). "Wash Load Estimation for Rivers in
North Queensland," Proc. Conf. on Hydraulics in Civil Engineering, Melbourne,
12-14 Oct, pp. 169-170.
Poplawski, W. A., Piorewicz, J. and Gourlay, M. R. (1989). "Sediment Transport in an
Inland River in North Queensland," Hydrobiologia 176/177, pp. 77-92, Kluwer
Academic Publisher.
Prandtl, L. (1925-26). "Uber die Ausgebildete Turbulentz," ZAMM, 5,136 and Proc. of
II Inter. Congress of Applied Mech., Zurich (1926).
Proffitt, G. J., and Sutherland, A. J. (1983). "Transport of Non-uniform Sediment," J.
Hydr. Res., IAHR, Vol. 21, No. 1, pp. 33-43.
Raudkivi, A. J. (1976). Loose Boundary Hydraulics, 2nd Edition, Pergamon Press,
London.
Reid, I., Layman, J. T., and Frostick, L. E. (1980). "The Continuous Measurement of
Bed Load Discharge," Jounal of Hydraulic Research, Vol. 18, No. 3.
Rieger, W. A. and Olive, L. J. (1988). "Channel Sediment Loads: Comparison and
Estimation," Fluvial Geomorphology of Australia, pp. 69-85, R. F. Warner(ed.),
Dept. of Geography, University of Sydney.
Rijn, L. C. van (1984a). "Sediment Transport, Part I: Bed Load Transport," J. Hydr.
Rijn, L. C. van (1984b). "Sediment Transport, Part II: Suspended Load Transport," J.
Hydr. Engrg., ASCE, Vol. 110, No. 11, pp. 1613-1641.
Rijn, L. C. van (1984c). "Sediment Transport , Part III: Bed Forms and Alluvial
Roughness," J. Hydr. Engrg., ASCE, Vol. 110, No. 12, pp. 1733-1754.
Rijn, L. C. van (1985). "Two Dimensional Vertical Mathematical Model for Suspended
Sediment Transport by Currents and Waves, Sutrench Model, Delft Hydraulics
Laboratory, Netherlands.
Rijn, L. C. van (1986). "Mathematical Modeling of Suspended Sediment in Nonuniform
Flows," J. Hydr. Engrg., ASCE, Vol. 112.
Rijn, L. C. van (1989a). "The State of the Art in Sediment Transport Modeling," Proc.
Int. Symp. on Sediment Transport Modeling, ASCE Hydraulic Division, New
Orleans, Louisiana, August 14-18.
Rijn, L. C. van (1989b). Handbook, Sediment Transport by Currents and Waves, Delft
Hydraulics Laboratory, Netherlands.
References, 292
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, Vol. 4,
No. 3, pp. 301-307.
Rouse, H. (1937). "Modern Conceptions of Mechanics of Fluid Turbulence," Trans.
ASCE, Vol. 102, PP. 463-543.
Rubey, W. W. (1933). "Equilibrium-conditions in Debris-laden Streams," Trans.,
American Geophy. Union.
Samaga, R. B. (1984). Total Load Transport of Sediment Mixtures, Ph. D. Thesis,
University of Roorkee, Roorkee, India.
Samaga, R. B., Ranga Raju, G. K., and Garde, J. R. (1985). "Concentration
Distribution of Sediment Mixtures in Open Channel Flow," J. Hydr. Res., IAHR,
Vol. 23, No. 5, pp. 467-483.
Samaga, R. B., Ranga Raju, G. K, and Garde, J. R. (1986a). "Bed Load Transport of
Sediment Mixtures," J. Hydr. Engrg., ASCE, Vol. 112, No. 11, pp. 1003-1018.
Samaga, R. B., Ranga Raju, G. K, and Garde, J. R. (1986b). "Suspended Load
Transport of Sediment Mixtures," J. Hydr. Engrg., ASCE, Vol. 112, No. 11, pp.
1019-1035.
Sato, S., Kikkawa, H., and Ashido K. (1958). "Research on the Bed Load
Transportation," Journal of Research, Public Works Research Institute(Japan),
Vol. 28.
Sayre, W. W., and Conover, W. J. (1967). "General Two Dimensional Stochastic Model
for the Transport and Dispersion of Bed Material Sediment Particles," Proc. 12th
Congress of IAHR, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA.
Sayre, W. W., and Hubbell, D. W. (1965). "Transport and Dispersion of Labeled Bed
Material ~ North Loup River, Nebrasks," U. S. Geological Survey, Prof. Paper
433-C.
Schoklitsch, A. (1914). Handbuch des Wasserbaues, Springer Vienna, English
Translation 1937 by S. Shulits.
Schoklitsch, A. (1934). "Geschiebetrieb und die Geschiebefracht," Wasserkraft and
Wasserwirtsch, Jgg. 39, Heft 4.
Shen, H. W., and Hung, C. S. (1971). "An Engineering Approach to total Bed Material
Load," J. Hydr. Engrg., ASCE, Vol. 109, No. 4, pp. 565-578.
Shen, H. W., and Hung, C. S. (1983). "Remodified Einstein Procedure for Sediment
'Load by Regression Analysis," Proc. Sedimentation Symp., Berkeley.
Shen, H. W., and Todorovic, P. (1971). "A General Stochastic Model for the Transport
of Sediment Bed Material," Int Symp. on Stochastic Hydraulics, University of
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, May 31- June 2.
Shields, A. (1936). "Anwendung der Aehnlichkeits Mechanik undder
Turbulenzforschung auf die Geschiebebewegung," Mitteilungen der Pruessischen
Versuchsanstalt fur Wasser, Erd. Schiffsbau, Berlin, No. 26.
Simons, Daryl B., and Senturk, F. (1977). Sediment Transport Technology, Water
Resources Publications.
Stein, R. A. (1965). "Laboratory Studies of Total Load and Apparent Bed Load," J.
Geophisical Research, Vol. 70, No. 8, pp. 1831-1842.
Stevens, H. H. Jr., and Yang, CT. (1989). "Summary of Use of Selected Fluvial
Sediment Discharge Formulas," U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources
Investigations, Report No. 89-4026.
Straub, L. G. (1935). "Missouri River Report," In House Document 238, 73rd
Congress, 2nd Session, U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C.
Sutherland, A. J. (1966). Entrainment of Fine Sediments by Turbulent Flows, California
Instimte of Technology, Pasadena, No. KH-R-13.
Sutherland, A. J. (1967). "Proposed Mechanism for Sediment Entrainment by Turbulent
Flows," Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 72, No. 24, pp. 6183-6194.
Swamee, P. K., and Ojha, C. S. P. (1991). "Bed Load and Suspended Load Transport
of Nonuniform Sediments," J. Hydr. Engrg., ASCE, Vol. 117, No. 6, pp. 774-
787.
Syed Yusoff, S. I. (1990). Suspended Load Estimation in River Systems, BE Thesis,
Dept. of Civil and Mining Engrg., The University of Wollongong.
Toffaleti, F. B. (1969). "Definitive Computation of Sand Discharge in Rivers," J. Hydr.
Engrg., ASCE, Vol. 95, No. HY1, pp. 225-248.
Torobin, L. B., and Gauvin, W. H. (1960). "Fundamental Aspects of Solid-Gas Flow,
pt. V," Canad. J. Chem. Eng., Vol. 38.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (1993). HEC-6: Scour and Deposition in Rivers and
Reservoirs - User's Manual, US ACE, Hydrologic Engineering Centre, August.
Umeyama, M. (1992). "Vertical Distribution of Suspended Sediment in Uniform Open
Channel Flow," J. Hydr. Engrg., ASCE, Vol. 118, No. 6, pp. 936-941.
Umeyama, M. and Gerritsen, F. (1992). "Velocity Distribution in Uniform Sediment
Laden Flow," J. Hydr. Engrg., ASCE, Vol. 118, No. 2, pp. 229-245.
Vanoni, V. A. (1946). "Transportation of Suspended Sediment by Water," ASCE
Transactions, Vol. Ill, Paper No. 2267, pp. 67-133.
Vanoni, V. A. (1984). "Fifty Years of Sedimentation," J. Hydr. Engrg., ASCE, Vol.
110, No. 8, pp. 1021-1057.
Vanoni, V. A., and Brooks, N. H. (1957). Laboratory Studies of the Roughness and
Suspended Load of Alluvial Streams, Sedimentation Laboratory, California
Institute of Technology, M.R.D. Sediment Series No. 11, Pasadena, California,
121 p.
Vanoni V. A., and Nomicos, G. N. (1960). "Resistance Properties of Sediment-Laden
Streams," Transactions, ASCE, Vol. 125, Paper No. 3055, pp. 1140-1167.
Velikanov, M. A. (1954)."Principle of the Gravitational Theory of the Movement of
Sediments," Acad, of Sci. Bull., USSR, Geophy. Series, No. 4, pp. 349-359.
References, 294
Vetter, M. (1985). "Comparison of Different Theories for the Vertical Distribution of
Suspended Sediment Concentration with Measurements," Proc. Euromech 192,
Transport of Suspended Solids in Open Channels, Bechteler, W.(edtor), 11-15
June, Munich/Neubibery, pp. 75-79.
Vetter, M. (1986). "Velocity Distribution and von-Karman Constant in Open Channel
Flows with Sediment Transport," Proc. Third Int. Symp. on River Sedimentation,
The University of Mississippi, March 31-April 4, Wang, S. Y., Shen, H. W., and
Ding, L. Z., editors, pp. 814-823.
Voogt, L., Rijn, L. C. van, and Den Berg, J. H. van (1991). "Sediment Transport of
Fine Sands at High Velocities," J. Hydr. Engrg., ASCE, Vol. 117, No. 7, pp.
869-891.
Wan, Z. (1982). "Bed Material Movement in Hyperconcentrated Flow," Inst. Hydrod.
and Hydraul. Eng., Tech. Univ. Denmark, Series Pap., No. 31.
White, W. R., Milli, H., and Crabbe, A. D. (1973). "Sediment Transport: An Appraisal
of Available Methods," Int. 119, Nov., Hydraulic Research Station Wollingford,
Wollingford, England.
White, W. R., Milli, H., and Crabbe, A. D. (1975). "Sediment Transport Theories: a
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 Transport of
Sediment," J. Hydr. Engrg., ASCE, Vol. 115, No. 1, pp. 101-123.
Williams, D. T., and Juiien, P. Y. (1989). "Applicability Index for Sand Transport
Equations," J. Hydr. Engrg., ASCE, Vol. 115, No. 11, pp. 1578-1581.
Willis, J. C, Coleman, N. L. (1969). "Coordination of Data on Sediment Transport in
Flumes by Similitude Principles," Water Resources Research, Vol. 5, No. 6, pp
1330-1336.
Willis, J. C, Coleman, N. L., and Ellis, W. M. (1972). "Laboratory Study of Transport
of Fine Sand," J. Hydr. Div., ASCE, Vol. 98, No. HY3, pp 489-501.
Wiuff, R. (1985). "Transport of Suspended Materials in Open Submerged Streams," J.
Hydr. Engrg., ASCE, Vol. Ill, No. 5, pp. 774-792.
Wong, W. T., Alexander, D., and Eades, G. (1992). "Sediment Sampling Workshop -
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 and
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 Sediment
Transport Formulas," Proc. 1990 National Conf., California, July 30-August 3,
1990, ASCE, Chang, H. H., and Hill, J. C. (editors), Vol. 1, pp. 694-699.
Yalin, M. S. (1963). "An Expression for Bed Load Transportation," J. Hydr. Engrg.,
ASCE, Vol. 89, No. HY3, pp. 221-250.
Yalin, M. S. (1977). Mechanics of Sediment Transport (2nd edition), Pergamon Press.
References, 295
Yalin, M. S., and Karaham, E. (1979). "Incipient of Sediment Transport," J. Hydr.
Engrg., ASCE, Vol. 105, No. HY11, pp. 1433-1443.
Yang, C. T. (1968). "Sand Dispersion in a Laboratory Flume," Ph. D. Dissertation,
Dept. of Civil Engrg, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado.
Yang, C. T. (1972). "Unit Stream Power and Sediment Transport," J. Hydr. Engrg .,
ASCE, Vol. 98, No. HY10, pp. 1805-1826.
Yang, C. T. (1973). "Incipient Motion and Sediment Transport," J. Hydr. Engrg .,
ASCE, Vol. 99, No. HY10, pp. 1679-1704.
Yang, C. T. (1976). Discussion of "Sediment Transport Theories: a Review" by White et
al., Proc. Inst, of Civil Engineers, London, England, Part 2, Vol. 61, pp. 803-
810.
Yang, C. T. (1979). "Unit Stream Power Equation for Total Load," J. of Hydrology ,
Vol. 40, No. 1/2, pp. 123-138.
Yang, C. T. (1984). "Unit Stream Power Equation for Gravel," J. Hydr. Engrg .,
ASCE, Vol. 110, No. 12, pp. 1783-1797.
Yang, C. T. and Kong, X. (1991). "Energy Dissipation Rate and Sediment Transport,"
J. Hydr., Res., IAHR, Vol. 29, No. 4, pp. 457-474.
Yang, C. T. and Molinas, A. (1982). "Sediment Transport and Unit Stream Power
Equation," J. Hydr., Engrg., ASCE, Vol. 108, No. HY6, pp. 774-793.
Yang, C. T., and Stall, B. J. (1976). "Applicability of Unit Stream Power Equation," J.
Hydr. Engrg., ASCE, Vol. 102, No. HY5, pp. 559-568.
Yang, C. T., and Stall, B. J. (1978). Closure of "Applicability of Unit Stream Power
Equation," J. Hydr. Engrg., ASCE, Vol. 104, No. H Y 7, pp 1095-1103.
Yang, C. T., and Wan, S. (1991). "Comparison of Selected Bed Material Formulas," J.
Hydr. Engrg., ASCE, Vol. 117, No. 8, pp. 973-989.
Zanke, U. (1977). "Berechnung der Sinkgeschwindigkeiten von Sedimenten," Mitt, des
Franzius-Instituts fur Wasserbau, Heft 46, Seite 243, Technical University,
Hannover, West Deutschland.
LIST OF COMPUTER
PROGRAMS
Appendix 1
List of computer programs, 297
Appendix 1. List of computer programs
1A. Einstein's bed load function
Dept. of Civil and Mining Engineering
SEDIMENT LOAD(PART I):
1- EINSTEIN METHOD
i- SUSPENDED LOAD DISCHARGE
ii-BED LOAD DISCHARGE
10 SCREEN 0, 0, 0: CLS : COLOR 10
W PRINT " *********************************************************
12 PRINT " * U N I V E R S I T Y OF W O L L O N G O N G *
14 PRINT
16 PRINT
18 PRINT
20 PRINT
22 PRINT
24 PRINT
26 PRINT
28 PRINT
30 PRINT
32 PRINT
34 PRINT
36 PRINT
38 PRINT
40 DIMS(100), Q(100), DM(100), A(100), B(100), TE(100), NU(100)
61 DIMD16(100), D35(100), D50(100), D65(100), D84(100), D90(100), DA(100), NF(100)
67 DIMQST(IOO), QBT(100), FWP(100, 10), DF(100, 10)
69 DEFDBL I
70 '
90 LOCATE 16, 3: COLOR 9: INPUT "-Enter the name of output file :", NAM$
95 OPEN NAM$ FOR OUTPUT AS #5
* By M. Habibi and M. Sivakumar *
* 1991-92 *
*********************************************************
100 PRINT #5, "
101 PRINT #5, "
102 PRINT #5, "
103 PRINT #5, "
104 PRINT #5, "
105 PRINT #5, "
110 PRINT #5, "
117 PRINT #5, "
118 PRINT #5, "
119 PRINT #5, "
12 0 PRINT #5,
121 PRINT #5,
122 PRINT #5, "
123 PRINT #5, "
125 '
126 '===========
127 '
132 LOCATE 18
134 OPEN NAM$
141 INPUT #1,
143 INPUT #1,
151 INPUT #1,
157 INPUT #1,
161 INPUT #1,
163 INPUT #1,
165 INPUT #1,
166 INPUT #1,
167 INPUT #1,
168 INPUT #1,
169 INPUT #1,
170 FOR J = 1
172 INPUT #1,
174 PRINT #5,
175 DM(J) = A
*********************************************************
* U N I V E R S I T Y OF W O L L O N G O N G *
* *
* *
* SEDLOAD *
* 1991-92 *
*********************************************************
O U T P U T R E S U L T S "
DATA PROCESSING
, 3: COLOR 12: INPUT
FOR INPUT AS #1
COM$: PRINT #5, COM$
NO: PRINT #5, NO
TO NO
KK, Q(J), A(J), P, B(J)
J, Q(J), A(J), P, B(J), S(J
(J) / B(J)
Enter the name of input file NAM$
S(J), TE(J), NU(J)
TE(J), NU(J)
Appendix 1
List of computer
176 NEXT J
178 INPUT #1,
180 INPUT #1,
182 INPUT #1,
184 INPUT #1,
186 INPUT #1,
188 INPUT #1,
190 INPUT #1,
192 INPUT #1,
193 IF NB > 1
194 INPUT #1,
195 PRINT #5,
COM$:
COM$:
COM$:
COM$:
PRINT
PRINT
PRINT
PRINT
NB: PRINT #5
COM$ :
COM$:
COM$:
PRINT
PRINT
PRINT
#5,
#5,
#5,
#5,
COM$
COM$
COM$
COM$
>, NB
#5,
#5,
#5,
COMS
COM$
COM$
D65{1)
D65(l)
D84(l), D90(l
D84(l), D90(l
D35(J) = D35(l)
D90(J) = D90(l)
D50(J) = D50(l): D65(J) =
DA(J) = DA(1)
GOTO 267
KK, D16(l), D35(l), D50{1)
KK, D16(l), D35(l), D50(l)
198 FOR J = 2 TO NO
250 D16(J) = D16(l)
262 D84(J) = D84(l)
264 NEXT J
265 GOTO 272
267 FOR J = 1
268 INPUT #1,
269 PRINT #5,
271 NEXT J
272 INPUT #1,
273 INPUT #1,
274 INPUT #1,
275 PRINT #5,
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
TO NO
FWP(J, 1) = 100: DF(J, 1) = D50(J) / 1000
), DA(1)
), DA(1)
D65(l)
TO NO
KK, D16(J), D35(J), D50(J)
J, D16(J), D35(J), D50(J),
ROS, k
ROS, k
, D65(J
D65(J)
D84(J), D90(J), DA(J)
D84(J), D90(J), DA(J)
282 FOR J = 1
283 NF(J) = 1
284 NEXT J
285 GOTO 337
286 INPUT #1,
287 INPUT #1,
288 INPUT #1, COM$: PRINT #5, COM$
292 IF NB > 1 GOTO 317
294 INPUT #1, NF(1): PRINT #5, NF(1)
TO NF(1)
FWP(1, I), DF(1, I)
FWP(1, I), DF(1, I)
DF(1, I) / 1000
296 INPUT #1,
297 INPUT #1,
298 FOR 1 = 1
299 INPUT #1,
300 PRINT #5,
3 02 DF(1, I)
304 FOR J = 2 TO NO
306 FWP(J, I) = FWP(1
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
320 INPUT #1,
321 INPUT #1,
322 INPUT #1,
323 INPUT #1,
324 FOR 1 = 1
325 INPUT #1,
32 6 PRINT #5,
327 DF(J, I)
328 NEXT I
330 INPUT #1,
332 INPUT #1,
33 5 NEXT J
337 CLOSE #1
340 COLOR 14:
DF(J, I) = DF(1, I)
TO NO
NF(J): PRINT #5
COM$: PRINT #5,
COM$: PRINT #5,
COM$: PRINT #5,
TO NF(J)
FWP(J, I), DF(J,
FWP(J, I), DF(J,
, NF(J)
COM$
COM$
COM$
. D
I)
: DF(J, I) / 1000
COM$: PRINT #5,
COM$: PRINT #5,
LOCATE 22, 3
COM$
COM$
Appendix 1
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 '
12
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 '
12
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
1290
1294
1296
1298
1990
2030
2160
2170
2180
2210
2220
2250
2260
2270
2310
2432
2434
2436
2438
2900
2910
2920
2930
2940
2960
2970
2980
2990
3000
3010
3020
3030
3040
3050
3060
3070
3110
3130
3140
3150
3155
3160
3920
3930
3940
3970
3980
4000
4010
4015
4020
4025
4030
4040
4045
4050
4070
4080
4090
4100
4105
4120
4130
4135
4140
4150
4160
4170
4175
FOR I = 1 TO NF(J)
= DETERMINATION OF HIDING FACTOR ,KISI
DIX = DF(J, I) / EX
GOSUB 8750
COMPUTATION OF SHEAR INTENSITY ON INDIVIDUAL GRAIN SIZES,SI
FACT = (SSED - 1) * DF(J, I) / (DM(J) * S(J))
SI = KISI * Y * LF * FACT
'=== DETERMINATION OF TRANSPORT INTENSITY FOR INDIVIDUAL GRAIN SIZES,PHI
GOSUB 8170
1
===== === = = = = BED LOAD COMPUTATION FOR INDIVIDUAL FRACTIONS
i
QBI = (FWP(J, I) / 100) * PHI * ROS * (9.81 * DF(J, I)
A
3 * (SSED - 1))
'========= COMPUTATION OF FALL VELOCITY,WS
DS = DF(J, I)
GOSUB 8040
> ======== COMPUTATION OF PARAMETER A, RATIO OF BED LAYER THICKNESS TO
WATER DEPTH FOR EACH INDIVIDUAL FRACTION
AE = 2 * DF(J, I) / DM(J)
' ========== COMPUTATION OF EXPONENT Z, IN CONCENTRATION DISTRIBUTION
l
Z = WS / (k * USHE)
' =========== DETERMINATION OF INTEGRATION PARAMETERS, II & 12
'PRINT J, Z, AE: INPUT KK
GOSUB 83 90
SUSPENDED LOAD COMPUTATION FOR INDIVIDUAL FRACTIONS
'PRINT II, 12: INPUT KK
QSI = QBI * (PE * II + 12)
SUMATION OF SEDIMENT LOADS FOR ALL FRACTIONS
QB = QB + QBI
QS = QS + QSI
NEXT I
QBT(J) = QB * B(J)
QBT(J) = INT(QBT(J) * 100000) / 100000
QST(J) = QS * B(J)
QST(J) = INT(QST(J) * 100000) / 100000
NEXT J
>
<================== PRINTING OF OUTPUTS
i
CLS
LOCATE 3, 3: PRINT "STAGE"
LOCATE 3, 15: PRINT "Q"
LOCATE 3, 30: PRINT "SUSPENDED LOAD"
LOCATE 3, 55: PRINT "BED LOAD"
LOCATE 4, 13: PRINT "m~3/s"
LOCATE 4, 36: PRINT "kg/s"
LOCATE 4, 58: PRINT "kg/s": COLOR 10
FOR J = 1 TO NO
'LOCATE 5 + J, 4: PRINT J
'LOCATE 5 + J, 12
'LOCATE 5 + J, 3 0
'LOCATE 5 + J, 56
PRINT Q(J)
PRINT QST(J)
PRINT QBT(J)
Appendix 1
4177
4179
4180
4181
4182
4184
4186
4187
4188
4189
4190
4192
4193
4195
8038
8040
8050
8080
8130
8090
8100
1)
8130
8150
8170
8180
8190
8200
8210
8215
8217
8220
8230
8240
8250
8260
8270
8280
8290
8310
8320
8330
8340
8350
8360
8370
8380
8385
8390
8395
8400
8401
8402
8403
8404
8405
8408
8409
8410
8412
8414
8416
8418
8420
8430
8440
8442
8445
8450
PRINT #5,
PRINT #5,
PRINT #5,
PRINT #5,
PRINT #5,
PRINT #5,
PRINT #5,
PRINT #5,
PRINT #5,
PRINT #5,
RETURN
NEXT J
EINSTEIN METHOD"
STAGE WATER DISCHARGE
(m~3/s)
FOR J = 1 TO NO
"; J; " "; Q(J); "
NEXT J
END OF OUTPUT FILE."
SUSPENDED LOAD
(kg/s)
"; QST(J);
BED LOAD"
(kg/s)"
QBT(J)
'########### SUBROUTINE TERMINAL FALL VELOCITY #####################
IF DS < .0001 THEN WS = (1 / 18) * (SSED - 1) * 9.81 * DS " 2 / NU(J): GOTO
IF DS > .001 THEN WS = 1.1 * ((SSED - 1) * 9.81 * DS) ~ .5: GOTO 8130
WS = 10 * NU(J) / DS * ((1 + .01 * (SSED - 1) * 9.81 * DS " 3 / NU(J)
A
2) '
RETURN
############## SUBROUTINE PHI-* #########################
THIS SUBROUTINE COMPUTES THE PHI-* VALUES IN EINSTEIN BED LOAD
FUNCTION USING SIMPSON'S RULE FOR NUMERICAL INTEGRATION
DEF FNT (T) = 2.7183 ~ (-1 * T " 2)
IF SI < .8 THEN PHI = 10: GOTO 8380
IF SI > 27 THEN PHI = .0001: GOTO 8380
JJ = 0: SUM = 0
JJ = JJ + 1
M = 10 * JJ
H = .286 * SI / M
TO = -.143 * SI - 2
SUM1 = SUM
TM = TO + M * H: TBM = TM - H
SUM = (H / 3) * (FNT(TO) + 4 * FNT(TBM) + FNT(TM))
FOR II = 1 TO M - 2 STEP 2
Tl = TO + II * H: T2 = TO + (II + 1) * H
SUM = SUM + (H / 3) * (4 * FNT(Tl) + 2 * FNT(T2))
NEXT II
IF ABS((SUM - SUM1) / SUM) > .001 GOTO 8230
LHS = 1 - (SUM / 3.1416 ~ .5)
PHI = LHS / ((1 - LHS) * 43.5)
RETURN
############## SUBROUTINE EINSTEIN'S INTEGRALS ###################
THIS SUBROUTINE COMPUTES II & 12 INTEGRALS IN EINSTEIN METHOD
USING SIMPSON'S RULE FOR NUMERICAL INTEGRATION & A SPECIAL METHOD FOR
ISOLATION OF SINGULAR POINTS, WHICH IMPROVES THE DEGREE OF ACCURACY
DEFDBL F-G, I, S
DEF FNI1 (T) = ( 1 / T - l ) ~ Z
DEF FNI2 (T) = ((1 - T) / T) " Z * LOG(T)
A = AE
FA = .216 * A
A
(Z - 1) / (1 - A) ~ Z
EPS = 0: AE = A
ING = FNI1(AE)
IF ABS(ING) <= 100 GOTO 8420
EPS = EPS + .01: AE = AE + EPS
GOTO 8412
JJ = 0: SUM = 0
JJ = JJ + 1
M = 50 * JJ
PRINT "M="; M
IF M > 2000 GOTO 8551
H = (1 - AE) / M
.5
Appendix 1
847 0 SUM1 = SUM
8490 SUM = (H / 3) * (FNI1(AE) + 4 * FNIlfl - H) + FNIl(l))
8510 FOR II = 1 TO M - 2 STEP 2
8520 Tl = AE + II * H: T2 = AE + (II + 1) * H
8530 SUM = SUM + (H / 3) * (4 * FNIl(Tl) + 2 * FNI1(T2))
8540 NEXT II
8550 IF ABS((SUM - SUM1) / SUM) > .01 GOTO 8430.
8551 IF EPS = 0 GOTO 8570
8552 IF Z = 1 THEN Fl = LOG(AE) - LOG(A): GOTO 8554
8553 Fl = ( 1 - Z ) ~ -1 * (AE * ( 1 - Z ) - A * (1-Z))
8554 IF Z = 2 THEN F2 = -2 * (LOG(AE) - LOG(A)): GOTO 8556
8555 F2 = (Z / (Z-2)) * (AE " ( 2 - Z ) - A * (2-Z))
8556 IF Z = 3 THEN F3 = 3 * (LOG(AE) - LOG(A)): GOTO 8558
8557 F3 = (Z * ( Z - l ) / (2 * (3-Z))) * (AE " ( 3 - Z ) - A ~ (3 - Z) )
8558 SUM = SUM + Fl + F2 + F3
8570 II = FA * SUM
8575 PRINT "Il="; II, "M="; M
8577 PRINT A, AE
8578 EPS = 0: AE = A
8580 ING = FNI2(AE)
8582 IF ABS(ING) <= 100 GOTO 8588
8584 EPS = EPS + .01: AE = AE + EPS
8586 GOTO 8580
8588 JJ = 0: SUM = 0
8590 JJ = JJ + 1
8600 M = 50 * JJ
8610 IF M > 2000 GOTO 8691
8620 H = (1 - AE) / M
8630 SUM1 = SUM
8640 SUM = (H / 3) * (FNI2(AE) + 4 * FNI2(1 - H) + FNI2(1))
8650 FOR II = 1 TO M - 2 STEP 2
8660 Tl = AE + II * H: T2 = AE + (II + 1) * H
8670 SUM = SUM + (H / 3) * (4 * FNI2(T1) + 2 * FNI2(T2))
8680 NEXT II
8690 IF ABS((SUM - SUM1) / SUM) > .01 GOTO 8590
8691 IF EPS = 0 GOTO 8700
8692 IF Z = 1 THEN Gl = .5 * (LOG(AE) ~ 2 - LOG(A) " 2): GOTO 8694
8693 Gl = (AE " (1 - Z) / (1 - Z)) * (LOG(AE) - (1 / (1 - Z))) - (A " (1 - Z) / (1 -
)) * (LOG(A) - (1 / (1-Z)))
8694 IF Z = 2 THEN G2 = -LOG(AE)
A
2 + LOG(A)
A
2: GOTO 8696
8695 G2 = (Z * AE " (2 - Z) / (Z - 2)) * (LOG(AE) - (1 / (2-Z))) - (Z * A ~ (2 -
Z) (Z-2)) * (LOG(A) - (1 / (2-Z)))
8696 IF Z = 3 THEN G3 = 1.5 * (LOG(AE) " 2 - LOG(A) ~ 2): GOTO 8698
8697 G3 = (Z * ( Z - l ) * AE ~ ( 3 - Z ) / (2 * (3-Z))) * (LOG(AE) - (1 / (3-Z))) -
Z * (Z - 1) * A " (3 - Z) / (2 * (3 - Z))) * (LOG(A) - (1 / (3-Z)))
8698 SUM = SUM + Gl + G2 + G3
8700 12 = FA * SUM
8710 PRINT J, "I2="; 12, "M="; M
8715 PRINT A, AE
8720 RETURN
8750 '
8760 ' ############## SUBROUTINE EINSTEIN'S HIDING FACTOR ###################
8770 ' THIS SUBROUTINE COMPUTES HIDING FACTOR KISI IN EINSTEIN METHOD
8780 ' USING THE EQUATIONS OF 3 STRIAGHT LINES FITTED TO THE RELATED GRAPH
8790 ' WITH LEAST SQUARE ANALYSIS
8800 '
8820 IF DIX < .7 THEN KISI = .705 * DIX " (-2.317): GOTO 8850
8830 IF DIX >= .7 AND DIX < 1.3 THEN KISI = 1.144 * DIX ~ (-.644): GOTO 8850
8840 KISI = 1
8850 RETURN
8855 '
8860 ' ############## SUBROUTINE CORRECTION FACTOR,X ###################
8870 ' THIS SUBROUTINE COMPUTES LOGARITHMIC VELOCITY DISTRIBUTION
8878 ' CORRECTION FACTOR,X, IN EINSTEIN METHOD, USING THE EQUATIONS OF 5
8880 ' STRIAGHT LINES FITTED TO THE RELATED GRAPH,WITH LEAST SQUARE ANALYSIS
8890 '
8910 DD = LOG(10)
8920 IF RATIO < .7 THEN X = LOG(67.955 * RATIO " 1.603) / DD: GOTO 8950
Appendix 1
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
IB. Samaga et al theory
I T * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
DIMS(IOO), Q(100), A(100), P(100), B(100), V(100), R(100), TE(IOO), NU(IOO)
DIMD16(100), D35(100), D50(100), D65(100), D84(100), D90U00), DA(IOO), NF(IOO)
DIM QSTOT(IOO) , QBTOT(IOO), FWPdOO, 10), DF(100, 10)
LOCATE 2 0, 3: COLOR 9: INPUT
OPEN NAM$ FOR OUTPUT AS #5
CLS : COLOR 12
LOCATE 8, 30: PRINT
11 PRINT
12 PRINT
14 PRINT
16 PRINT
18 PRINT
20 PRINT
22 PRINT
24 PRINT
26 PRINT
28 PRINT
30 PRINT
32 PRINT
34 PRINT
36 PRINT
56 '
60
61
67
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
78
80
82
84
86
88
90
92
94
100
101
102
103
104
105
110
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
125
126
127
130
132
134
141
143
151
157
161
163
165
H * t H t * * * t H * * t * * m * * 4 t t H M H t * * * * * t :
,************!
U N I V E R S I T Y OF W O L L O N G O N G
SEDIMENT LOAD(PART II):
2- SAMAGA ET AL METHOD
By M. Habibi and M. Sivakumar
1991-92
-Enter the name of output file NAM$
SEDIMENT LOAD SELECTION
'SEDIMENT LOAD SELECTION"
LOCATE 9,
LOCATE 12
LOCATE 14
LOCATE 16
LOCATE 14
LOCATE 22
METH$
30:
10
10
10
40
3: COLOR 9:
INPUT$(1)
PRINT "
COLOR 14:
PRINT
PRINT
PRINT
-uspended load"
PRINT "(S)
"(B)-ed load"
"(T)-Both suspended & bed load"
"(Q)-uit"
PRINT "-Which part of load ?"
IF METH$ = "Q" OR METH$ = "q" THEN 700
PRINT #5,
PRINT #5,
PRINT #5,
PRINT #5,
PRINT #5,
PRINT #5,
PRINT #5,
PRINT #5,
PRINT #5,
PRINT #5,
PRINT #5,
PRINT #5,
PRINT #5,
PRINT #5,
*********************************************************
* *
* SEDLOAD *
* *
* 1991-92 *
*********************************************************
OUTPUT RESULTS"
DATA PROCESSING
CLS
LOCATE 14, 3: COLOR 10: INPUT "-Enter the name of data file
OPEN NAM$ FOR INPUT AS #1
INPUT #1, COM$: PRINT #5, COM$
INPUT #1, NO: PRINT #5, NO
NAM$
Appendix 1
170 FOR J = 1 TO NO
172 INPUT #1, KK, Q(J), A(J), P(J), B(J), S(J), TE(J), NU(J)
174 PRINT #5, J, Q(J), A(J), P(J), B(J), S(J), TE(J), NU(J)
176 NEXT J
186 INPUT #1, NB: PRINT #5, NB
193 IF NB > 1 GOTO 2 67
194 INPUT #1, KK, D16(l), D35(l), D50(l), D65(l), D84(l), D90(l), DA(1)
195 PRINT #5, KK, D16(l), D35(l), D50(l), D65(l), D84(l), D90(l), DA(1)
196 DA(1) = DA(1) / 1000
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)
260 DA(J) = DA(J) / 1000
271 NEXT J
274 INPUT #1, ROS, K
275 PRINT #5, ROS, K
277 PRINT "-Do you want to use different size fractions?(y/n)"
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
292 IF NB > 1 GOTO 317
294 INPUT #1, NF(1): PRINT #5, NF(1)
298 FOR I = 1 TO NF(1)
299 INPUT #1, FWP(1, I), DF(1, I)
300 PRINT #5, FWPtl, I), DF(1, I)
302 DF(1, I) = DF(1, I) / 1000
304 FOR J = 2 TO NO
306 FWP(J, I) = FWP(1, I): 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)
324 FOR I = 1 TO NF(J)
Appendix 1
325 INPUT #1, FWP(J, I), DF(J, I)
326 PRINT #5, FWP(J, I), DF(J, I)
327 DF(J, I) = DF(J, I) / 1000
328 NEXT I
33 0 INPUT #1, COM$: PRINT #5, COM$
335 NEXT J
337 CLOSE #1
340 PRINT #5, : PRINT #5,
355 GOSUB 1055
374 IF METH$ = S" OR METH$ = "s" THEN GOSUB 4200
376 IF METH$ = "B" OR METH$ = "b" THEN GOSUB 8000
378 IF METH$ = "T". OR METH$ = "t" THEN GOSUB 4200
474 LOCATE 23, 27: COLOR 12
478 A$ = INKEY$: IF A$ = "" THEN 474
482 CLOSE #5: CLOSE #1
585 PRINT "-Would you like to calculate sediment transport for another Data'(y/i
700 END
1054 '
1055 '#################### SUBROUTINE HYDRAULIC CALCULATIONS ################
1058 '
1060 FOR J = 1 TO NO
1070 V(J) = Q(J) / A(J): R(J) = A(J) / P(J)
1080 NEXT J
1590 REP$ = INPUT$(1)
1600 IF REP$ = "N" OR REP$ = "n" THEN 2083
1941 '
1943 '
1960 CHEZY = 18 * (LOG(12 * (A(J) / B(J)) / 3 * (D90(J) / 1000)) / LOG(10))
1965 S(J) = V(J) " 2 / (CHEZY " 2 * A(J) / B(J))
1970 NEXT J
2083 RETURN
4190
4200 '################### SUBROUTINE SAMAGA; SUSPENDED LOAD #################
4202 '
4252 '
4254 '============== COMPUTATION OF KRAMER'S UNIFORMITY COEFFICIENT,MC
4256 '
4260 GOSUB 5740
4375 '
4376 '======== COMPUTATION OF CRITICAL SHEAR STRESS ACCORDING TO SHIELDS,TOC
4377
4380 SSED = ROS / 1000
4381 GOSUB 7730
4382 '
4384 '=========== COMPUTATION OF COEFFICIENT Ls
4386 '
4388 IF MC <= .2 THEN LS = .8: GOTO 4420
43 90 IF MC > .2 AND MC <= .3 THEN LS = MC + .6: GOTO 442 0
4392 IF MC > .3 AND MC <= .4 THEN LS = .6 * MC + .72: GOTO 4420
43 94 IF MC > .4 AND MC <= .5 THEN LS = .4 * MC + .8: GOTO 442 0
4396 LS = 1
4420 ' FOR I = 1 TO NF(J)
4436 '
4437 '============ COMPUTATION OF AVERAGE SHEAR STRESS,TA
4438 '
4440 '
4450 TA = 9810 * R(J) * S(J)
4470 '
4480 '=========== COMPUTATION OF COEFFICIENT Ks
Appendix 1
4490
4630
4640
4650
4660
4810
4812
4814
4900
4910
5100
5122
5124
5126
5230
5290
5300
5390
5392
5394
5396
5400
5410
5430
5450
.5
5460
5465
5470
5485
5490
5492
5494
5496
5500
5510
5520
5530
5540
5550
5560
5570
5580
5590
5600
5610
5611
5612
5613
5614
5615
5616
5617
5618
5619
5620
5622
5624
5626
5635
5730
5740
5750
5755
5760
5770
5780
5800
5790
RATIO = TA / TOC
GOSUB 9500
QS = 0
FOR I = 1 TO NF(J)
COMPUTATION OF COEFFICIENT XIs
RATIO = TA / (9.81 * DF(J, I) * (ROS - 1000))
GOSUB 9620
XIS = KSLSXS / (LS * KS)
'======= COMPUTATION OF DIMENSIONLESS SUSPENDED LOAD TRANSPORT PARAMETER
TRANS = XIS * RATIO
PHIS = 28 * TRANS
A
6
COMPUTATION OF SUSPENDED LOAD TRANSPORT RATE
QSI = PHIS * (FWP(J, I) / 100) * ROS * DF(J, I) " 1.5 * ((SSED - 1) * 9.81)
QS = QS + QSI
NEXT I
QSTOT(J) = QS * B(J)
QSTOT(J) = INT(QSTOT(J) * 100000) / 100000
NEXT J
'=========== PRINTING OF RESULTS
CLS
LOCATE 3, 3: PRINT "STAGE "
LOCATE 3, 2 0: PRINT "Q"
LOCATE 4, 5: PRINT ""
FOR J = 1 TO NO
LOCATE 5 + J, 4: PRINT J
LOCATE 5 + J, 17: PRINT Q(J)
LOCATE 5 + J, 40: PRINT QSTOT(J)
NEXT J
SAMAGA METHOD'
STAGE
WATER DISCHARGE
(m~3/s)
SUSPENDED LOAD
(kg/s)
PRINT #5, "
PRINT #5,
PRINT #5,
PRINT #5, "
PRINT #5, "
PRINT #5, " --" "- - ------ "
FOR J = 1 TO NO
PRINT #5, "; J; " "; Q(J); " "' QSTOT(J)
NEXT J
IF METH$ = "T" OR METH$ = "t" THEN GOSUB 8000
PRINT #5,
PRINT #5,
PRINT #5, " END OF OUTPUT FILE."
RETURN
I
.############## SUBROUTINE KRAMER'S UNIFORMITY COEFFICIENT,MC #########
I
IF NF(J) = 1 THEN MC = 1: GOTO 5820
SZDS = 0: SZDL = 0
FOR I = 1 TO NF(J)
IF DF(J, I) < (D50(J) / 1000) THEN SZDS = SZDS + DF(J, I) * FWP(J, I): GOTO
SZDL = SZDL + DF(J, I) * FWP(J, I)
Appendix 1 List of computer programs, 308
5800
5804
5810
5820
7720
7730
7735
7740
7750
7760
7770
7780
7790
7800
7810
7820
7940
7950
7960
7965
7970
7980
7982
7990
7995
8000
8010
8060
8070
8080
8090
8092
8094
8096
8098
8099
8100
8101
8102
8105
8110
8115
8120
8125
8130
8132
8136
8138
8139
8140
8150
8160
8200
8210
8220
8230
8240
8470
8480
8490
8590
8640
8790
8820
8830
8840
8930
8940
9000
NEXT I
IF SZDL = 0 THEN MC = .6: GOTO 5820
MC = SZDS / SZDL
RETURN
'#### SUBROUTINE CRITICAL SHEAR STRESS ACCORDING TO SHIELDS ######
i
CLS
DSTAR = DA(J) * (9.81 * (SSED - 1) / NU(J) " 2) " (1 / 3)
IF DSTAR <= 4 THEN TETACR = .24 / DSTAR: GOTO 7810
IF DSTAR > 4 AND DSTAR <= 10 THEN TETACR = .14 / DSTAR " .64: GOTO 7810
IF DSTAR > 10 AND DSTAR <= 20 THEN TETACR = .04 / DSTAR ~ .1: GOTO 7810
IF DSTAR > 20 AND DSTAR <= 150 THEN TETACR = .013 * DSTAR " .29: GOTO 7810
TETACR = .055
TOC = (SSED - 1) * 9810 * DA(J) * TETACR
RETURN
l
########### SUBROUTINE SHEAR STRESS RELATED TO GRAINS ################
'=========== ACCORDING TO MANNING-STRICKLER EQUATION
PARAM = .2172 * (9.81 * S(J) * D65(J) / 1000) " .125
USHEA = PARAM * V(J)
A
.75
TGR = 1000 * USHEA ~ 2
RETURN
################### SUBROUTINE SAMAGA; BED LOAD #######################
FOR J = 1 TO NO
============== COMPUTATION OF KRAMER'S UNIFORMITY COEFFICIENT,MC
GOSUB 5740
COMPUTATION OF CRITICAL SHEAR STRESS ACCORDING TO SHIELDS,TOC
SSED = ROS / 1000
GOSUB 7730
COMPUTATION OF GRAIN SHEAR STRESS,TGR
GOSUB 7950
COMPUTATION OF COEFFICIENT LB
IF MC <= .25 THEN LB = .63: GOTO 8139
IF MC > .25 AND MC <= .3 THEN LB = 2.8 * MC - .07: GOTO 8139
IF MC > .3 AND MC <= .35 THEN LB = 4.2 * MC - .49: GOTO 8139
IF MC > .35 AND MC <= .4 THEN LB = .4 * MC + .84: GOTO 8139
LB = 1
FOR I = 1 TO NF(J)
========== COMPUTATION OF COEFFICIENT KB
RATIO = TGR / TOC
GOSUB 9750
QB = 0
FOR I = 1 TO NF(J)
COMPUTATION OF COEFFICIENT XIB
RATIO = TGR / (9.810001 * DF(J, I) * (ROS - 1000))
GOSUB 9880
XIB = KBLBXB / (LB * KB)
'======= COMPUTATION OF DIMENSIONLESS BED LOAD TRANSPORT PARAMETER
TRANB = XIB * RATIO
IF TRANB <= .065 THEN PHIB = 36200000 * TRANB ~ 8: GOTO 9100
PHIB = 8.5 * TRANB " 1.8 / (1 + .00000595# * TRANB " (-4.7)) ~ 1.45
Appendix 1
9100
9120
9130
9140
9150
9190
.5
9200
9205
9210
9220
9230
9240
9250
9260
9270
9280
9290
9300
9310
9320
9330
9340
9350
9360
9370
9375
9376
9377
9380
9382
9384
9386
9387
9388
9389
9390
9392
9393
9400
9500
9502
9504
9510
9520
9530
9540
9550
9560
9570
9580
9590
9600
9610
9615
9620
9624
9626
9628
9630
9640
9650
9660
9670
9680
9690
9700
9710
9720
========= COMPUTATION OF BED LOAD TRANSPORT RATE
QBI = PHIB * (FWP(J, I) / 100) * ROS * DF(J, I)
A
1.5 * ((SSED - 1) * 9.81)
QB = QB + QBI
NEXT I
QBTOT(J) = QB * B(J)
QBTOT(J) = INT(QBTOT(J) * 100000) / 100000
NEXT J
CLS
LOCATE 3,
LOCATE 3,
LOCATE 3,
LOCATE 4,
LOCATE 4,
LOCATE 4,
PRINTING OF RESULTS
LOCATE 5
LOCATE 5
LOCATE 5
PRINT #5,
PRINT #5,
PRINT #5,
PRINT #5,
PRINT #5,
PRINT #5,
PRINT #5,
PRINT #5,
PRINT #5,
PRINT #5,
RETURN
3:
20:
40;
5:
18:
43:
+ J,
+ J,
+ J,
PRINT
PRINT
PRINT
PRINT
PRINT
PRINT
STAGE "
"Q"
"BED LOAD"
"m~3/s"
"kg/s": COLOR 10
FOR J = 1 TO NO
4: PRINT J
17: PRINT Q(J)
40: PRINT QBTOT(J)
NEXT J
SAMAGA METHOD"
(m~3/s)
FOR J = 1 TO NO
; J; " "; Q(J)
NEXT J
END OF OUTPUT FILE.
BED LOAD"
(kg/s)"
"; QBTOT(J)
############# SUBROUTINE KS ##################
IF RATIO
IF RATIO
IF RATIO
IF RATIO
IF RATIO
IF RATIO
IF RATIO
IF RATIO
IF RATIO
KS = 1
RETURN
<= 2 THEN KS = 2.2: GOTO 9610
> 2 AND RATIO <= 3 THEN KS = -.
> 3 AND RATIO <= 4 THEN KS = -.
> 4 AND RATIO <= 5 THEN KS = -,
> 5 AND RATIO <= 6.4 THEN KS =
> 6.4 AND RATIO <= 8 THEN KS =
> 8 AND RATIO <= 10 THEN KS = -
> 10 AND RATIO <= 14 THEN KS =
> 14 AND RATIO <= 18 THEN KS =
1 * RATIO +2.4: GOTO 9610
15 * RATIO + 2.55: GOTO 9610
13 * RATIO + 2.47: GOTO 9610
-.086 * RATIO + 2.25: GOTO 9610
-.094 * RATIO + 2.3: GOTO 9610
.095 * RATIO + 2.31: GOTO 9610
-.065 * RATIO + 2.01: GOTO 9610
-.025 * RATIO + 1.45: GOTO 9610
############### SUBROUTINE KSLSXS ##############
IF RATIO <= .11 THEN KSLSXS
IF RATIO > .11 AND RATIO <=
IF RATIO > 1! AND RATIO <=
=4.1: GOTO 9740
.14 THEN KSLSXS =
.2 THEN KSLSXS =
.4 THEN KSLSXS = -
.6 THEN KSLSXS =
.8 THEN KSLSXS =
1! THEN KSLSXS =
2! THEN KSLSXS =
4! THEN KSLSXS =
6! THEN KSLSXS =
8! THEN KSLSXS =
10! THEN KSLSXS =
GOTO 9740
GOTO 9740
GOTO 9740
-33.33 * RATIO + 7.77: GOTO 9740
-15.83 * RATIO + 5.32: GOTO 9740
4.7 5 * RATIO +3.1:
1.6 * RATIO + 1.84:
.8 * RATIO + 1.36:
.5 * RATIO + 1.12: GOTO 9740
.2 * RATIO + .82: GOTO 9740
.07 * RATIO + .56: GOTO 9740
-.023 * RATIO + .37: GOTO 9740
.009 * RATIO + .286: GOTO 9740
-.007 * RATIO + .27: GOTO 9740
Appendix 1
9730
9740
9745
9750
9754
9760
9770
9780
9790
9800
9810
9820
9830
9840
9850
9860
9870
9880
9884
9890
9900
9905
9910
9915
9920
9930
9940
9950
9955
9960
9970
9980
9990
KSLSXS = .205
RETURN
'############### SUBROUTINE KB ##############
IF RATIO <
IF RATIO >
IF RATIO
IF RATIO
IF RATIO
IF RATIO
IF RATIO
IF RATIO
IF RATIO
KB = 1 !
RETURN
= .1 THEN KB =
.1 AND RATIO
.2 AND RATIO
.4 AND RATIO
.6 AND RATIO
.8 AND RATIO
1! AND RATIO
2! AND RATIO
4! AND RATIO
9!: GOTO 9860
<= .2 THEN KB
<= .4 THEN KB
<= .6 THEN KB
<= .8 THEN KB
<= 1! THEN KB
<= 2! THEN KB
<= 4 ! THEN KB
<= 6! THEN KB
= -6.* RATIO +9.6: GOTO 9860
-11 "
-5.5
-4.5
-3.5
-1.6
-.4 '
-.05
RATIO + 10.6:
* RATIO + 8.4:
* RATIO +7.8:
GOTO 9860
GOTO 9860
GOTO 9860
* RATIO + 7!: GOTO 9860
* RATIO + 5.1: GOTO 9860
RATIO + 2.7: GOTO 9860
* RATIO +1.3: GOTO 9860
'############### SUBROUTINE KBLBXB ##############
IF RATIO
IF RATIO
IF RATIO
IF RATIO
IF RATIO
IF RATIO
IF RATIO
IF RATIO
IF RATIO
IF RATIO
IF RATIO
IF RATIO
KBLBXB =
RETURN
.01 THEN KBLBXB =
01 AND RATIO <=
02 AND RATIO <=
04 AND RATIO <=
06 AND RATIO <=
08 AND RATIO <=
1 AND RATIO <=
4 AND RATIO <=
8 AND RATIO <=
AND RATIO <=
AND RATIO <=
2
6
10! AND RATIO <= 2
15!: GOTO 9990
02 THEN KBLBXB =
04 THEN KBLBXB =
06 THEN KBLBXB =
08 THEN KBLBXB =
1 THEN KBLBXB =
THEN KBLBXB = -
THEN KBLBXB = -
THEN KBLBXB = -
THEN KBLBXB = -
! THEN KBLBXB =
0! THEN KBLBXB =
-800 * RATIO + 23
-170 * RATIO + 10
-55 * RATIO +5.8
-27.5 * RATIO + 4
-15 * RATIO +3.15
3.58 * RATIO +2.0
.5625 * RATIO + .8
.125 * RATIO + .45
.02 * RATIO + .24:
-.0075 * RATIO + .
-.001 * RATIO + .
: GOTO 9990
.4: GOTO 9990
: GOTO 9990
.15: GOTO 9990
: GOTO 9990
1: GOTO 9990
: GOTO 9990
: GOTO 9990
GOTO 9990
165: GOTO 9990
1: GOTO 9990
Appendix 1
1C. Toffaleti's theory
10 SCREEN 0,
11 PRINT
12 PRINT
14 PRINT
16 PRINT
18 PRINT
20 PRINT
22 PRINT
24 PRINT
26 PRINT
28 PRINT
30 PRINT
32 PRINT
34 PRINT
36 PRINT
38 PRINT
40 DIM S(100)
NU(100)
61 DIM D16(10
67 DIM QST(10
50 '
90 LOCATE 16
95 OPEN NAM$
100 PRINT #5,
101 PRINT #5,
102 PRINT #5,
103 PRINT #5,
104 PRINT #5,
105 PRINT #5,
110 PRINT #5,
117 PRINT #5,
118 PRINT #5,
119 PRINT #5,
120 PRINT #5,
121 PRINT #5,
122 PRINT #5,
123 PRINT #5,
125 '
126 '========
127 '
132 LOCATE 18
134 OPEN NAM$
141 INPUT #1,
143 INPUT #1,
151 INPUT #1,
157 INPUT #1,
161 INPUT #1,
163 INPUT #1,
165 INPUT #1,
166 INPUT #1,
167 INPUT #1,
168 INPUT #1,
169 INPUT #1,
170 FOR J = 1
172 INPUT #1,
174 PRINT #5,
176 NEXT J
178 INPUT #1,
180 INPUT #1,
182 INPUT #1,
184 INPUT #1,
186 INPUT #1, 188 INPUT #1,
0, 0: CLS : COLOR 10
H * * H * t * t n H * t t * * t t H t t H n t * H * n t * * 4 * l t * t * , 4 * .
U N I V E R S I T Y OF W O L L O N G O N G *"
* *..
Dept. of Civil and Mining Engineering *"
* *..
* SEDIMENT LOAD(PART III): *
TOFFALETI METHOD
* By M. Habibi and M. Sivakumar *"
* 1991-92 *"
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * n
, Q(100), A(100), P(100), B(100), V(100), DM(100), R(100), TE(100),
0), D35(100), D50(100), D65(100), D84(100), D90(100), DA(100), NF(100)
0), QBT'(IOO), FWP(100, 10), DF(100, 10)
, 3: COLOR 12: INPUT "-Enter the name of output file :", NAM$
FOR OUTPUT AS #5
n * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* *
* SEDLOAD *
* *
* 1991-92 *
*********************************************************
DATA PROCESSING
3: COLOR 14: INPUT "
FOR INPUT AS #1
NO: PRINT #5, NO
TO NO
KK, Q(J), A(J), P(J),
J, Q(J), A(J), P(J),
NB: PRINT #5, NB
'-Enter the name of input file :", NAM$
B(J), S(J), TE(J), NU(J)
B(J), S(J), TE(J), NU(J)
Appendix 1
190 INPUT #1,
192 INPUT #1,
193 IF NB > 1
194 INPUT #1,
195 PRINT #5,
198 FOR J = 2
GOTO 2 67
KK, D16(l), D35(l), D50(l), D65(l), D84(l)
KK, D16(l), D35(l), D50(l), D65(l), D84(l)
TO NO
, D90(l)
, D90(l)
250 D16(J) = D16(l): D35(J) = D35(l): D50(J) = D50(l): D65(J) =
262 D84(J) = D84(l): D90(J) = D90(l): DA(J) = DA(1)
2 64 NEXT J
265 GOTO 272
267 FOR J = 1
268 INPUT #1,
269 PRINT #5,
271 NEXT J
272 INPUT #1,
273 INPUT #1,
274 INPUT #1,
275 PRINT #5,
276 COLOR 10:
TO NO
KK, D16(J), D35(J), D50(J), D65(J), D84(J)
J, D16(J), D35(J), D50(J), D65(J), D84(J),
ROS, K
ROS, K
LOCATE 20, 3
277 PRINT "-Do you want to use different size fractions?
280 IF ANS$ =
282 FOR J = 1
283 NF(J) = 1
284 NEXT J
285 GOTO 337
286 INPUT #1,
287 INPUT #1,
288 INPUT #1,
290 INPUT #1,
292 IF NB > 1
294 INPUT #1,
295 INPUT #1,
296 INPUT #1,
297 INPUT #1,
298 FOR 1 = 1
299 INPUT #1,
300 PRINT #5,
304 FOR J = 2
306 FWP(J, I)
308 NEXT J
310 NEXT I
312 FOR J = 2
"Y" OR ANS$ = "y" THEN 286
TO NO
: FWP(J, 1) = 100: DF(J, 1) = D50(J)
COM$
COM$
COM$
COM$
PRINT #5, COM$
PRINT #5, COM$
PRINT #5, COM$
PRINT #5, COM$
GOTO 317
NF(1): PRINT #5, NF(1)
TO NF(1)
FWP(1, I), DF(1, I)
FWP(1, I), DF(1, I)
TO NO
= FWP(1, I): DF(J, I) = DF(1, I)
TO NO
314 NF(J) = NF(1)
315 NEXT J
316 GOTO 337
317 FOR J = 1
32 0 INPUT #1,
321 INPUT #1,
322 INPUT #1,
323 INPUT #1,
324 FOR 1 = 1
32 5 INPUT #1,
32 6 PRINT #5,
328 NEXT I
33 0 INPUT #1,
332 INPUT #1,
335 NEXT J
337 CLOSE #1
350 PRINT #5,
TO NO
NF(J): PRINT #5, NF(J)
TO NF(J)
FWP(J, I), DF(J, I)
FWP(J, I), DF(J, I)
: PRINT #5,
355 GOSUB 1055
375 GOSUB 3070
474 LOCATE 23
, 27: COLOR 12
478 A$ = INKEY$: IF A$ = "" THEN 474
482 CLOSE #5:
CLOSE #1
, D90(J)
D90(J),
(y/n)"
585 PRINT "-Would you like to calculate sediment transport for
590 METH$ = INPUT$ (1)
, DA(1)
, DA(1)
D65(l)
, DA(J)
DA(J)
another
Appendix 1
680 END
1054 '
1055 #################### SUBROUTINE HYDRAULIC CALCULATIONS ################
1058 '
1070 V(J) = Q(J) / A(J): DM(J) = A(J) / B(J)
1080 NEXT J
1590 ME$ = INPUT$(1)
1600 IF ME$ = "N" OR ME$ = "n" THEN 2083
1941 '
1943 '
1960 CHEZY = 18 * (LOG(12 * DM(J) / 3 * (D90(J) / 1000)) / LOG(10))
1965 S(J) = V(J)
A
2 / (CHEZY ~ 2 * DM(J))
1970 NEXT J
2083 RETURN
2090 '
3070 '#################### SUBROUTINE TOFFALETTI #########################
3130 '
3160 ZV = .1352 + .00086 * TE(J)
3170 CZ = 239.33 - 1.2 * TE(J)
3180 TT = .059 + .00018 * TE(J)
3182 SSED = ROS / 1000
3185 '
3190 '================ COMPUTATION OF SHEAR VELOCITY RELATED TO GRAINS
3195 '
3200 GOSUB 7950
3270 USHEA = 3.28 * USHEA
3280 V(J) = 3.28 * V(J)
3290 DM(J) = 3.28 * DM(J)
3300 YA = DM(J) / 11.24
3310 YB = DM(J) / 2.5
3320 B(J) = 3.28 * B(J)
3345 NUF = 10.76 * NU(J)
3350 '
3360 '============ COMPUTATION OF FACTOR "A"
3365 '
3380 PAM = (100000 * NUF) " (1 / 3) / (10 * USHEA)
3390 IF PAM <= .5 THEN AF = 11 / PAM ~ 1.408: GOTO 3430
3400 IF PAM > .5 AND PAM <= .67 THEN AF = 36.268 * PAM ~ .3127: GOTO 3430
3405 IF PAM > .67 AND PAM <= .73 THEN AF = 246.944 * PAM " 5.1032: GOTO 3430
3410 IF PAM > .73 AND PAM <= 1.25 THEN AF = 49: GOTO 3430
3420 AF = 26.432 * PAM " 2.7635
3430 FAC = PAM * 100000 * S(J) * D65(J) * .00328
3440 IF FAC <= .25 THEN K4 = 1: GOTO 3470
3450 IF FAC > .25 AND FAC <= .35 THEN K4 = 5.3155 * FAC ~ 1.2051: GOTO 3470
3460 K4 = .5 / FAC ~ 1.0465
3470 AF = AF * K4
3480 IF AF < 16 THEN AF = 16
3485 QS = 0: QB = 0
3490 FOR I = 1 TO NF(J)
3495 '
3 5 0 0
<================ COMPUTATION OF FALL VELOCITY
3502 '
3504 DS = DF(J, I) / 1000
3508 GOSUB 8040
3510 WIF = 3.28 * WS
3512 DF(J, I) = .00328 * DF(J, I)
3514 '
3516 '========== COMUTATION OF PARAMETERS OF CONCENTRATION RELATIONS
3518 '
3540 ZM = WIF * V(J) / (CZ * DM(J) * S(J))
3545 IF ZM < 1.5 * ZV THEN ZM = 1.5 * ZV
3550 ZL = .756 * ZM
Appendix 1
3560
3570
3580
3590
3600
3610
3620
3780
3785
3790
3800
3810
3820
3825
3830
3835
3845
3850
3852
3855
3858
3860
3870
3880
3920
3930
3940
3970
3980
4000
4010
4017
4020
4027
4030
4040
4045
4050
4070
4080
4090
4100
4105
4120
4130
4135
4140
4150
4160
4170
4175
4177
4179
4180
4181
4182
4184
4186
4187
4188
4189
4190
4192
4193
4195
4200
7950
7960
7965
ZU = 1.5 * ZM
Fl = ZL - ZV
F2 = ZM - ZV
F3 = ZU - ZV
F4 = 1 - Fl
F5 = 1 - F2
F6 = 1 - F3
GF = .6 / (TT * AF * DF(J, I) / (.00058 * V(J) ^2)) " ( 5 / 3 )
XJI = F4 * GF / (YA ~ F4 - (2 * DF(J, I)) ~ F4)
CJI = (FWP(J, I) / 100) * B(J) * XJI
BED LOAD COMPUTATION FOR EACH FRACTION
QBI = CJI * (2 * DF(J, I)) ~ F4
UD = (1 + ZV) * V(J) * (2 * DF(J, I) / DM(J)
UBL = X / (43.2 * UD * (2 * DF(J, I)) " Fl)
IF UBL > 100 THEN QBI = (100 / UBL) * QBI
CJI = QBI / (2 * DF(J, I)) ~ F4
ZV
SUSPENDED LOAD COMPUTATION FOR EACH FRACTION
QSL = (CJI / F4) * (YA ~ F4 - (2 * DF(J, I))
A
F4)
QSM = (CJI / F5) * YA * (F2 - Fl) * (YB ~ F5 - YA ~ F5)
QSU = (CJI / F6) * YA ^ (F2 - Fl) * YB ^ (F3 - F2) * (DM(J) ~ F6 - YB ~ F6)
SUMATION OF SEDIMENT LOADS FOR ALL FRACTIONS
QB = QB + QBI
QS = QS + QSL + QSM + QSU
NEXT I
QBT(J) = QB * .0105
QBT(J) = INT(QBT(J) * 100000) / 100000
QST(J) = QS * .0105
QST(J) = INT(QST(J) * 100000) / 100000
NEXT J
'================== PRINTING OF OUTPUTS
CLS
LOCATE 3,
LOCATE 3,
LOCATE 3,
LOCATE 3,
LOCATE 4,
LOCATE 4,
LOCATE 4,
LOCATE 5
LOCATE 5
LOCATE 5
LOCATE 5
PRINT #5,
PRINT #5,
PRINT #5,
PRINT #5,
PRINT #5,
PRINT #5,
PRINT #5,
PRINT #5,
PRINT #5,
PRINT #5,
RETURN
3: PRINT "STAGE"
15: PRINT "Q"
30: PRINT "SUSPENDED LOAD"
55: PRINT "BED LOAD"
13: PRINT "m~3/s"
36: PRINT "kg/s"
58: PRINT "kg/s": COLOR 9
FOR J = 1 TO NO
+ J, 4: PRINT J
+ J, 12: PRINT Q(J)
+ J, 30: PRINT QST(J)
+ J, 56: PRINT QBT(J)
NEXT J
TOFFALETI METHOD"
STAGET WATER DISCHARGE
(m"3/s)
FOR J = 1 TO NO
"; J; " "; Q(J); "
NEXT J
SUSPENDED LOAD
(kg/s)
"; QST(J);
BED LOAD"
(kg/s)"
"; QBT(J)
########### SUBROUTINE SHEAR VELOCITY RELATED TO GRAINS
<=========== ACCORDING TO MANNING-STRICKLER EQUATION
7970 PARAM = .2172 * (9.81 * S(J) * D65(J) / 1000) ~ .125
8020 USHEA = PARAM * V(J) ~ .75
803 5 RETURN
8038 '
8040 '########### SUBROUTINE TERMINAL FALL VELOCITY #####################
8050 '
8080 IF DS < .0001 THEN WS = (1 / 18) * (SSED -1) * 9.810001 * DS " 2 / NU(J): GOTO
8130
8090 IF DS > .001 THEN WS = 1.1 * ((SSED - 1) * 9.810001 * DS)
A
.5: GOTO 8130
8100 WS = 10 * NU(J) / DS * ((1 + .01 * (SSED - 1) * 9.810001 * DS " 3 / NU(J) ~ 2)
~ .5 - 1)
8130 RETURN
Appendix 1
ID. The other selected theories
11 PRINT "
************************ *****,t*,n
12 PRINT
14 PRINT
16 PRINT
18 PRINT
20 PRINT
22 PRINT
26 PRINT
28 PRINT
30 PRINT
32 PRINT
33 PRINT
34 PRINT
35 PRINT
36 PRINT
37 PRINT
38 PRINT
39 PRINT
40 PRINT
41 PRINT
U N I V E R S I T Y OF
r * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
WOLLONGONG *
SEDIMENT LOAD(PART IV):
4- VAN RIJN, BED AND SUSPENDED LOAD
5- WIUFF, SUSPENDED LOAD
6- ENGELUND & HANSEN, TOTAL LOAD
7- YANG , TOTAL LOAD
8- ACKERS & WHITE, TOTAL LOAD
9- HABIBI & SIVAKUMAR, BED & SUSPENDED LOAD
10- BAGNOLD, BED AND SUSPENDED LOAD
11- CELIK & RODI, SUSPENDED LOAD
12- MEYER-PETER & MULLER, BED LOAD
* 1991-92
Q(100), A(100), P(100), B{100), V(100), DM(100), R(100), TE(100)
43 '
44 DIM S(100)
U(100)
45 DIMD16(100), D35(100), D50(100), D65(100), D84(100), D90(100), DA(100)
46 DIM QSTOT(IOO), QBTOT(IOO)
69 '
70 LOCATE 22, 3: COLOR 12: INPUT "-Enter the name of input file :", NAM$
71 OPEN NAM$ FOR INPUT AS #1
74 CLS : KEY OFF
76 '
77 ===================== SELECTION OF METHOD
78 '
80 LOCATE 8, 30: COLOR 14: PRINT "METHODS SELECTION"
82 LOCATE 9,
86 LOCATE 12,
88 LOCATE 14,
89 LOCATE 16,
90 LOCATE 18,
91 LOCATE 20,
92 LOCATE 12,
93 LOCATE 14,
94 LOCATE 16,
95 LOCATE 18,
96 LOCATE 20,
97 LOCATE 22,
99 IF METH$ = "Q" OR METH$ = "q"
100 CLS : COLOR 10
101 LOCATE 15, 3: INPUT "-Enter the name of output file :", NAMO$
102 OPEN NAMO$ FOR OUTPUT AS #5
*********************************************************
30:
10:
10:
10:
10:
10:
40:
40:
40:
40:
40:
3:
PRINT "
PRINT
PRINT
PRINT
PRINT
PRINT
PRINT
PRINT
PRINT
PRINT
PRINT
": COLOR 10
"(V)-an Rijn"
"(W)-iuff"
"(A)-ckers & White"
"(E)-ngelund & Hansen"
"(Y)-ang "
"(H)-abibi & Sivakumar"
"(B)-agnold "
"(C)-elik & Rodi"
"(M)-eyer-Peter & Muller"
"(Q)-uit"
COLOR 12: PRINT "-Which method ?"
THEN 580
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
117
118
119
131
1
PRINT
PRINT
PRINT
PRINT
PRINT
PRINT
PRINT
PRINT
PRINT
PRINT
PRINT
#5, "
#5, "
#5, "
#5, "
#5, "
#5, "
#5, "
#5, "
#5, "
#5, "
#5,
* Dept. of Civil and Mining Engineering
* *
* SEDLOAD *
* *
* By M. Habibi and M. Sivakumar
* 1991-92 *
*********************************************************
Appendix 1
132 PRINT #5,
133 PRINT #5, "
134 PRINT #5, "
135 '
136 '======================= DATA
137 '
COM$:
COM$:
COM$:
COM$:
PROCESSING
141
153
155
157
161
163
164
165
166
167
168
170
171
172
173
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
199
200
201
204
206
208
210
215
216
217
230
243
244
373
374
375
376
378
388
400
410
420
474
476
478
479
482
483
485
#1,
#1,
#1.
#1.
#1,
#1,
#1,
#1,
#1,
#1,
#1,
= 1
#1,
#5,
INPUT
INPUT
INPUT
INPUT
INPUT
INPUT
INPUT
INPUT
INPUT
INPUT
INPUT
FOR J
INPUT
PRINT
NEXT J
INPUT #1
INPUT
INPUT
INPUT
INPUT
INPUT
INPUT
INPUT
IF NB
INPUT
PRINT
FOR J
D16(J)
PRINT
PRINT
PRINT
PRINT
COM$
COM$
COM$
COM$
#5,
#5,
#5,
#5,
NO: PRINT #5, NO
PRINT
PRINT
PRINT
PRINT
PRINT
COM$:
COM$:
COM$ :
COM$:
COM$:
TO NO
KK, Q(J), A(J)
J, Q(J), A(J),
#5,
#5,
#5,
#5,
#5,
COM$
COM$
COM$
COM$
COM$
. P(J)
P(J) ,
. B(J)
B(J) ,
S(J)
S(J) ,
TE(J)
TE(J),
NU(J)
NU(J)
#1,
#1,
#1,
#1,
#1,
#1,
#1,
> 1
#1,
#5,
= 2
COM$: PRINT #5,
COM$: PRINT #5,
COM$: PRINT #5,
COM$: PRINT #5,
NB: PRINT #5, NB
COM$
COM$
COM$
GOTO
PRINT
PRINT
PRINT
199
#5,
#5,
#5,
COM$
COM$
COM$
COM$
COM$
COM$
COM$
KK, D16(l), D35(l)
KK, D16(1), D35(l)
TO NO
D16(l): D35(J)
D50(l)
D50(l)
D65(l)
D65(l)
D84(l)
D84(l)
D90(l)
D90(l)
DA(1)
DA(1)
TO NO
KK, D16(J), D35(J), D50(J), D65(J), D84(J)
J, D16(J), D35(J), D50(J), D65(J), D84(J),
COM$: PRINT
COM$: PRINT
ROS, K
ROS, K
D84(J) = D84(l): D90(J)
NEXT J
GOTO 2 06
FOR J = 1
INPUT #1,
PRINT #5,
NEXT J
INPUT #1,
INPUT #1,
INPUT #1,
PRINT #5,
PRINT #5,
PRINT #5,
CLOSE #1
SSED = ROS / 1000
GOSUB 1055
IF METH$ = "V"
IF METH$ = "W"
IF METH$ = "E"
IF METH$ = "Y"
IF METH$ = "A"
IF METH$ = "H"
IF METH$ = "B"
IF METH$ = "C"
IF METH$ = "M"
LOCATE 23, 27:
PRINT "Hit Any
A$ = INKEY$: IF
10:
= D35(l)
= D90(l)
D50(J) = D50(l)
DA(J) = DA(1)
D65(J) = D65(l)
D90(J)
D90(J),
DA (J)
DA (J)
#5,
#5,
COM$
COM$
OR METH$ = "V" THEN
OR METH$ = "w" THEN
OR METH$ = "e" THEN
OR METH$ = "y" THEN
OR METH$ = "a" THEN
OR METH$ = "h'
OR METH$ = "b'
OR METH$ = "C
OR METH$ = "m'
COLOR 12
Key To Continue"
A$ = "" THEN 474
LOCATE 15, 3
GOSUB
GOSUB
GOSUB
GOSUB
GOSUB
THEN GOSUB
THEN GOSUB
THEN GOSUB
THEN GOSUB
5630
6290
6540
8140
8710
9490
9745
10200
10650
COLOR
#5
#1
"-Would you like to calculate sediment transport with another method
= INPUT$(1)
CLS :
CLOSE
CLOSE
PRINT
(y/n)"
490 METH$
Appendix 1
585 PRINT "-Would you like to calculate sediment transport for another Data?(y/n)"
1000 END
1052 '
1055 '#################### SUBROUTINE HYDRAULIC.CALCULATION #################
1057 '
1070 V(J) = Q(J) / A(J): DM(J) = A(J) / B(J): R(J) = A(J) / P(J)
1080 NEXT J
1590 ME$ = INPUT$(1)
1600 IF ME$ = "N" OR ME$ = "n" THEN 2083
1941 '
1943 '
1960 CHEZY = 18 * (LOG(12 * DM(J) / 3 * (D90(J) / 1000)) / LOG(10))
1965 S(J) = V(J) ~ 2 / (CHEZY ~ 2 * DM(J))
1970 NEXT J
2083 RETURN
5625 '
5630 ################### SUBROUTINE VAN RIJN ############################
5632 '
5635 MEAN = D50(J) / 1000
5640 SIGMA = 0.5 * (D84(J) / D50(J) + D50(J) / D16(J))
5641 '
5642 '============ COMPUTATION OF CRITICAL BED-SHEAR VELOCITY,UCRIT
5643 '
5645 GOSUB 7730
5646 '
5647 '============ COMPUTATION OF BED SHEAR VELOCITY RELATED TO GRAINS,USHEA
5648 '
5650 GOSUB 7990
5651 '
5652 '=========== COMPUTATION OF TRANSPORT STAGE PARAMETERS
5653 '
5660 T = (USHEA / UCRIT) ~ 2 - 1
5661 '
>5662 '=========== COMPUTATION OF REPRESENTATIVE SEDIMENT DIAMETER,DS
5663 '
5665 DS = MEAN * (1 + .011 * (SIGMA - 1) * (T - 25))
5667 IF T >= 25 THEN DS = MEAN
5670 '
5671 '========== COMPUTATION OF TERMINAL FALL VELOCITY,WS
5673 '
5677 GOSUB 8040
5680 '
5681 '=========== REFERENCE HEIGHT COMPUTATION,RHGT
5682
5685 IF T <= 0 GOTO 5941
5710 DELTA = .11 * DM(J) * (MEAN / DM(J))
A
.3 * (25 - T) * (1 - 2.7183 ~ (-.5 * T) )
5720 IF T >= 25 THEN DELTA = 0
573 0 RHGT = .5 * DELTA
5740 IF T >= 25 THEN RHGT = 3 * D90(J) / 1000
5910 RHGT1 = .01 * DM(J)
593 0 IF RHGT1 > RHGT THEN RHGT = RHGT1
5941 '
5942 ' ============ OVERALL BED SHEAR VELOCITY COMPUTATION,USHE1
5943
5950 IF T <= 0 GOTO 5972
5955 KSN = 3 * D90(J) / 1000 + 1.1 * DELTA * (1 - 2.7183 " (-25 * DELTA / (7.3 *
M(J))))
5960 CHEZY = 18 * (LOG(12 * DM(J) / KSN) / LOG(IO))
5965 USHE1 = (9.810001 ~ .5 / CHEZY) * V(J)
5972 '
Appendix 1
5975
5977
5981
5983
5990
6000
6010
6020
6030
6040
6050
6060
6065
6070
6080
6090
6095
6105
6107
6110
6113
6114
6116
6117
6118
6119
6120
6122
6125
6130
6150
6160
6170
6190
6200
6210
6220
6230
6240
6250
6260
6270
6271
6272
6273
6274
6275
6276
6277
6278
6279
6280
6282
6283
6284
6285
6290
6295
6297
6300
6310
6320
6325
6330
6333
6336
6339
6346
6348
' ========= REFERENCE CONCENTRATION & SUSPENDED LOAD COMPUTATION
IF T <= 0 THEN QS = 0: RCONC = 0: GOTO 6090
RCONC = .015 * MEAN * T ~ (1.5) / (RHGT * DSTAR ~ .3)
IF WS / USHE1 >= 1 THEN BETA = 3: GOTO 6020
IF WS / USHE1 <= .1 THEN BETA = 1.02: GOTO 6020
BETA = 1 + 2 * (WS / USHE1) " 2
IF WS / USHE1 >= 1 THEN PHI = 2.5 * (RCONC / .65): GOTO 6050
IF WS / USHE1 <= .01 THEN PHI = .063 * (RCONC / .65): GOTO 6050
PHI = 2.5 * (WS / USHE1) ~ .8 * (RCONC / .65) " .4
Zl = WS / (BETA * K * USHE1)
ZPRI = Zl + PHI
ATOD = RHGT / DM(J)
F3 = (ATOD " ZPRI - ATOD ~ 1.2) / ((1 - ATOD) " ZPRI * (1.2 - ZPRI)
QS = F3 * V(J) * DM(J) * RCONC
QSTOT(J) = QS * B(J) * ROS
1
============ BED LOAD COMPUTATION
MEAN
IF T <= 0 THEN QB = 0: GOTO 6116
QB = .053 * ((SSED - 1) * 9.81) " .5
QBTOT(J) = QB * B(J) * ROS
NEXT J
1.5 2.1 / DSTAR .3
CLS
LOCATE 3, 60: PRINT " BED LOAD
LOCATE 4, 18: PRINT "m^3/s"
FOR J = 1 TO NO
LOCATE 5 + J, 17
LOCATE 5 + J, 40
LOCATE 5 + J, 60
PRINT #5,
PRINT #5,
PRINT #5,
PRINT #5,
PRINT #5,
PRINT #5,
PRINT Q(J)
PRINT QSTOT(J)
PRINT QBTOT(J)
NEXT J
VAN RIJN METHOD"
PRINT #5,
PRINT #5,
PRINT #5,
PRINT #5,
RETURN
(m"3/s)
FOR J = 1 TO NO
"; J; " "; Q(J); "
NEXT J
SUSPENDED LOAD
(kg/s)
"; QSTOT(J); "
BED LOAD"
(kg/s)"
"; QBTOT(J)
###################### SUBROUTINE WIUFF ###############################
FOR J
DS = D50(J) / 1000
1 TO NO
<============ COMPUTATION OF FALL VELOCITY,WS
GOSUB 8040
p============ COMPUTATION OF TOTAL SUSPENDED LOAD,QSTOT
TETA = S(J) * DM(J) / ((SSED - 1) * DS)
IF TETA <= .06 THEN QSTOT(J) = 0: GOTO 6390
Appendix 1
List of computer programs
6350
6360
6370
6380
6385
6390
6395
6400
6405
6410
6420
6430
6440
5460
6470
6480
6490
6500
6510
6520
6521
5622
6523
6524
6525
6526
6527
6528
6529
6530
6532
6533
6534
6535
6540
6545
6547
6550
6552
6554
6556
6560
6580
6590
6601
6605
6610
6615
6620
5630
6640
6650
6670
6680
6690
5700
6710
6720
6730
6731
6732
5633
6734
6735
6736
6737
6738
6739
6740
SEDPAR = .016 * S(J) ^ 2 / ((SSED - 1) - 2
QW = Q(J) / B(J)
QS = SEDPAR * Q W 2
QSTOT(J) = QS * B(J) * ROS
NEXT J
DS WS)
PRINTING OF RESULTS
CLS
LOCATE 4, 18: PRINT "m"3/s"
FOR J = 1 TO NO
NEXT J
PRINT #5, " WIUFF METHOD"
PRINT #5,
PRINT #5,
PRINT #5, " STAGE
PRINT #5, "
PRINT #5, "
WATER DISCHARGE
(nT3/s)
FOR J = 1 TO NO
"; J; " "; Q(J); "
NEXT J
TOTAL SUS. SED. DISCHARGE
(kg/s)"
"; QSTOT(J) PRINT #5,
PRINT #5,
PRINT #5,
PRINT #5,
RETURN
<################# SUBROUTINE ENGLUND & HANSEN ####################
DS
FOR J = 1 TO NO
DSO(J) / 1000
COMPUTATION OF TOTAL SEDIMENT DISCHARGE,QSTOT
SEDPAR = .05 * ROS / ((SSED - 1)
A
2 * DS * 9.81
A
.5)
QSTOT(J) = SEDPAR * B(J) * V(J) " 2 * (R(J) * S(J)) ~ 1.5
NEXT J
l
CLS
LOCATE 3, 40: PRINT "TOTAL SED. LOAD"
LOCATE 4, 18: PRINT "11^3/s"
FOR J = 1 TO NO
NEXT J
PRINT #5, " ENGLUND & HANSEN METHOD"
PRINT #5,
PRINT #5,
PRINT #5, "
PRINT #5, "
PRINT #5, "
PRINT #5, "
PRINT #5,
STAGE
WATER DISCHARGE TOTAL SEDIMENT DISCHARGE
(m"3/s) (kg/s)"
FOR J = 1 TO NO
; J; " "; Q(J)
NEXT J
; QSTOT(J)
6750 PRINT #5,
6760 PRINT #5, " END OF OUTPUT FILE."
7700 RETURN
7720 '
7730 '#### SUBROUTINE CRITICAL BED-SHEAR VELOCITY ACCORDING TO SHIELDS ######
7735 '
7740 CLS
7745 DSTAR = MEAN * (9.810001 * (SSED - 1) / NU(J)
A
2) ~ (1 / 3)
7750 IF DSTAR <= 4 THEN TETACR = .24 / DSTAR: GOTO 7970
7755 IF DSTAR > 4 AND DSTAR <= 10 THEN TETACR = .14 / DSTAR ~ .64: GOTO 7970
7760 IF DSTAR > 10 AND DSTAR <= 20 THEN TETACR = .04 / DSTAR ~ .1: GOTO 7970
7765 IF DSTAR > 20 AND DSTAR <= 150 THEN TETACR = .013 * DSTAR " .29: GOTO 7970
7770 TETACR = .055
7970 UCRIT = ((SSED - 1) * 9.810001 * MEAN * TETACR) " .5
7980 RETURN
7985 '
7990 '###### SUBROUTINE BED-SHEAR VELOCITY RELATED TO GRAINS ############
7995 '
8010 CPRIM = 18 * (LOG(12 * DM(J) / (3 * D90(J) / 1000)) / LOG(10))
8020 USHEA = (9.810001
A
.5 / CPRIM) * V(J)
803 5 RETURN
8037 '
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
8100 WS = 10 * NU(J) / DS * ((1 + .01 * (SSED - 1) * 9.81 * DS ~ 3 / NU(J) ~ 2) ~ .5
1)
813 0 RETURN
8135 '
8140 '################### SUBROUTINE YANG(1973 & 1984) ########################
8145 '
8147 D50(J) = D50(J) / 1000
8150 '
8155 ' ============ OVERALL SHEAR VELOCITY COMPUTATION,USHE1
8160 '
8170 USHE1 = (9.810001 * R(J) * S(J)) ~ .5
8210 '
8215 '========== COMPUTATION OF TERMINAL FALL VELOCITY,WS
8220
8222 DS = D50(J)
8235 GOSUB 8040
8249 '
8251 '============ COMPUTATION OF EROSIVE REYNOLDS NUMBER,RE
8253 '
8254 RE = USHE1 * D50(J) / NU(J)
8250 '
8255 '=========== COMPUTATION OF CRITICAL AVERAGE VELOCITY, VCR
8260 '
8270 IF RE >= 70 THEN VCR = 2.05 * WS: GOTO 8300
8280 VCR = ((2.5 / ((LOG(RE) / LOG(10)) - .06)) + .66) * WS
8300 '
8310 '=========== COMPUTATION OF PARTICLE REYNOLDS NUMBERR,RP
8320 '
8340 RP = WS * D50(J) / NU(J)
8350 '
8360 =========== COMPUTATION OF J FACTOR,JF
8370 '
83 80 UTW = USHE1 / WS
8385 IF D50(J) < .002 THEN JF = 272000 / (RP " .286 * UTW
A
.457): GOTO 8410
8390 JF = 4797334 / (RP
A
.633 * UTW
A
4.816)
8410 '
8420 '=========== COMPUTATION OF K FACTOR,KF
8430 '
8450 IF D50(J) < .002 THEN KF = 1.799 - .178 * LOG(RP) - .136 * LOG(UTW): GOTO 8470
8460 KF = 2.784 - .132 * LOG(RP) - .122 * LOG(UTW)
8470 '
Appendix 1
8480
8490
8500
8510
8512
8514
8516
8520
8525
8530
8540
8550
8560
8570
8580
8590
8600
8620
8630
8640
8650
8660
8668
8670
8671
8672
8673
8674
8675
8676
8677
8678
8680
8682
8684
8686
8690
8700
8710
8720
8725
8730
8740
8750
8760
8770
8780
8790
8800
8810
8820
8830
8840
8850
8860
8870
8890
8900
.53
8910
8920
8930
8940
8960
8980
8990
9000
9020
9030
'=========== COMPUTATION OF TOTAL SEDIMENT CONCENTRATION, CT,IN PPM
IF (V(J) - VCR) <= 0 THEN CT = 0: GOTO 8520
CT = JF * ((V(J) - VCR) * S(J) / WS) ~ KF
'=========== COMPUTATION OF TOTAL SEDIMENT DISCHARGE, QSTOT
QSTOT(J) = CT * Q(J) / 1000
NEXT J
PRINTING OF RESULTS
CLS
LOCATE 3, 40: PRINT "TOTAL SED. LOAD"
FOR J = 1 TO NO
NEXT J
PRINT #5, " YANG METHOD"
PRINT #5,
PRINT #5,
PRINT #5,
PRINT #5,
PRINT #5,
PRINT #5,
PRINT #5,
PRINT #5,
PRINT #5,
RETURN
STAGE WATER DISCHARGE TOTAL SEDIMENT DISCHARGE
(m"3/s)
(kg/s)
FOR J = 1 TO NO
; J; " "; Q(J)
NEXT J
"; QSTOT(J)
>################### SUBROUTINE ACKERS & WHITE ######################
FOR J = 1 TO NO
D35(J) = D35(J) / 1000
============ DIMENSIONLESS GRAIN SIZE COMPUTATION,DGR
DGR = D35(J) * (9.810001 * (SSED - 1) / NU(J) ~ 2) ~ (1 / 3)
'=========== COMPUTATION OF PARAMETERS N,M,AGR,AND C
IF DGR < 1 THEN PRINT #5, J, " GRAIN SIZE TOO SMALL": QSTOT(J) = 0: GOTO 9140
IF DGR > 60 THEN N = 0
IF DGR > 60 THEN M = 1.5
IF DGR > 60 THEN AGR = .17
IF DGR > 60 THEN C = .025
IF DGR <= 60 THEN N = 1 - .56 * LOG(DGR) / LOG(10)
IF DGR <= 60 THEN M = 1.34 + 9.66 / DGR
IF DGR <= 60 THEN AGR = .14 + .23 / DGR " .5
IF DGR <= 60 THEN CI = 2.86 * LOG(DGR) / LOG(10)
IF DGR <= 60 THEN C = 10
A
CI
'========== OVERALL SHEAR VELOCITY COMPUTATION,USHE
USHE = (9.810001 * DM(J) * S(J))
A
.5
========== COMPUTATION OF SEDIMENT MOBILITY NUMBER,FGR
FGRl = USHE ~ N / (9.810001 * D35(J) * (SSED -1)) " .5
FGR2 = (V(J) / (32 " .5 * LOG(10 * DM(J) / D35(J)) / LOG(10)))
(LOG(DGR) / LOG(10) 2 -
(1 N)
0: GOTO 9130
M
TOTAL SEDIMENT DISCHARGE,QSTOT
DM (J) ) * ROS
/ 100000
/ (USHE / V(J))
CLS
LOCATE
LOCATE
LOCATE
LOCATE
LOCATE
LOCATE
LOCATE
LOCATE
3:
20
40
18
46
+
+
+
PRINT
PRINT
PRINT
PRINT
PRINT
J,
J,
J,
4:
17
40
PRINT
PRINT
PRINT
PRINT
PRINT
PRINT
#5,
#5,
#5,
#5,
#5,
#5,
STAGE"
"Q"
"TOTAL SED. LOAD"
"m
A
3/s"
"kg/s": COLOR 9
FOR J = 1 TO NO
PRINT J
PRINT Q(J)
PRINT QSTOT(J)
NEXT J
ACKERS & WHITE METHOD"
9040 FGR = FGR1 * FGR2
9050 IF FGR < AGR THEN GGR =
9060 '
9070 '========== COMPUTATION OF SEDIMENT TRANSPORT PARAMETER,GGR
9080 '
9090 GGR = C * (FGR / AGR - 1)
A
9100 '
9110 '=========== COMPUTATION OF
9120 '
9130 QSTOT(J) = Q(J) * GGR * (D35(J) /
9135 QSTOT(J) = INT(QSTOT(J) * 100000)
9140 NEXT J
9150 '
9160 '=========== PRINTING OF RESULTS
9170 '
9180
9190
9200
9210
9230
9240
9250
9260
9270
9280
9290
9300
9310
9320
9330
9340
9350
9360
9370 PRINT #5
9380
9390
9400
9410
9420
9485
9490
9495 '
9497
9500 DS = D50(J) /
9510 '
9520 '============ COMPUTATION OF FALL VELOCITY,WS
9525 '
9530 GOSUB 8040
9533 '
9536 '============ COMPUTATION OF TOTAL SUSPENDED LOAD, QSTOT
9539 '
9540 BETA = .02
9545 SEDPAR = BETA * S(J) / (2 * (SSED -
9570 QS = SEDPAR * DM(J) * V(J) ~ 2 * (1
9580 QSTOT(J) = QS * B(J) * ROS
9585 QSTOT(J) = INT(QSTOT(J) * 100000) / 100000
9588 NEXT J
9589 '
9590 '============ COMPUTATION
9591 '
(m
A
3/s)
FOR
; J;
NEXT
J = 1 TO NO
"; Q!J);
TOTAL SEDIMENT DISCHARGE
(kg/s)"
QSTOT(J)
#5,
#5,
PRINT
PRINT
PRINT #5,
RETURN
END OF OUTPUT FILE.
###################### SUBROUTINE HABIBI & SIVAKUMAR #################
FOR J =
1000
1 TO NO
* WS)
9.8 * DM(J) S(J) / (.16 V(J)
OF BED LOAD, QBTOT
9592
9593
9594
9595
9596
9597
9598
USTAR = (9.
DS = D50(J)
GOSUB 8040
IF USTAR /
ALFA = 1 /
DS = D90(j;
9599 GOSUB 8040
9600 QB = ALFA '
81
/
FOR J = 1
* DM(J) *
1000
TO NO
S(J) )
WS < 1.8
(USTAR /
/ 1000
USTAR *
THEN ALFA =
(0.4 * WS))
4 / (9.
0.5
1.32: GOTO 9598
(SSED 1) WS .4)
Appendix 1
9601
9603
9605
9607
9608
9609
9610
9686
9688
9690
9692
9694
9696
9698
9700
9702
9705
9706
9708
9710
9712
9714
9716
9718
9720
9722
9724
9726
9728
9730
9732
9733
9734
9740
9745
9750
9755
9760
9770
9780
9785
9790
9792
9795
9800
9805
9820
9830
9835
9840
9845
9850
9856
9860
9861
9862
9863
9865
9870
9875
9877
9880
+ 15:
9890
145:
9900
139:
9910
9920
QBTOT(J) =
QBTOT(J) =
1

CLS
LOCATE 3,
LOCATE 3,
LOCATE 3,
LOCATE 3,
LOCATE 4,
LOCATE 4,
LOCATE 4,
'LOCATE 5
'LOCATE 5
'LOCATE 5
'LOCATE 5
PRINT #5,
PRINT #5,
PRINT #5,
PRINT #5,
PRINT #5,
PRINT #5,
PRINT #5,
PRINT #5,
PRINT #5,
PRINT #5,
RETURN
1
QB * B(J) * ROS
INT(QBTOT(J) * 100000) / 100000
NEXT J
PRINTING OF RESULTS
3: PRINT "DATA NO."
20
40
60
18
46
65
PRINT "Q"
PRINT "SUSPENDED LOAD"
PRINT " BED LOAD
PRINT "m~3/s"
PRINT "kg/s"
PRINT "kg/s": COLOR 9
FOR J = 1 TO NO
+ J, 4: PRINT J
+ J, 17: PRINT Q(J)
+ J, 40: PRINT QSTOT(J)
+ J, 60: PRINT QBTOT(J)
NEXT J
HABIBI & SIVAKUMAR METHOD"
DATA NO. WATER DISCHARGE SUSPENDED LOAD BED LOAD"
(m"3/s) (kg/s) (kg/s)"
n
FOR J = 1 TO NO
"; J; " "; Q(J); " "; QSTOT(J); " "; QBTOT(J)
NEXT J
'###################### SUBROUTINE BAGNOLD(1966) #################
1
DS = DA(J)
1
'=========

GOSUB 8040
WS = WS /
'
,
i
QS = .01 *
QSTOT(J) =
QSTOT(J) =
1
,
1
DS = DA (J)
GOSUB 8040
WS = WS /
i
.
i
IF DA(J) <
IF DA(J) >
GOTO 9920
IF DA(J) >
GOTO 9920
IF DA(J) >
GOTO 9920
EB = -.028
1
FOR J = 1 TO NO
/ 1000
=== COMPUTATION OF FALL VELOCITY,WS
2
COMPUTATION OF SUSPENDED LOAD,QSTOT
DM(J) * S(J) * V(J) ~ 2 / ((SSED - 1) * WS)
QS * B(J) * ROS
INT(QSTOT(J) * 100000) / 100000
NEXT J
xawn T n _ n rriMDTT'TATTn'M
= = = _5_!iU ijKJiWJ \~\JiL?i.r\J 1_\J. _._>1N
FOR J = 1 TO NO
/ 1000
2
r
,
nMDTTT
,
A
r
PTnM c\w npn T nan TR A "NT ci PORT FFFTPTENCY EB
_.l_J__ir U 1 n l _,\JIS v r _5_MJ Li\Jr\L/ 1 r_r_tNOirwr\. _JJT C J. _._._JN_. _ f J_I_J
.015 THEN EB = 0: GOTO 9920
= .015 AND DA(J) <= .06 THEN EB = -.012 * LOG(3.28 * V(J)) / LOG(10)
.06 AND DA(J) <= .2 THEN EB = -.013 * LOG(3.28 * V(J)) / LOG(10) +
.2 AND DA(J) <= .7 THEN EB = -.016 * LOG(3.28 * V(J)) / LOG(10) +
* LOGO.28 * V(J)) / LOG(IO) + .135
Appendix 1
9930
9940
9950
9960
9980
9990
9995
10000
10005
10010
OTO 1
10015
10020
10026
10030
10040
10050
10060
10061
10062
10065
10070
10075
10080
10085
10090
10095
10100
10105
10110
10115
10120
10126
10127
10130
10136
10140
10144
10150
10155
10160
10168
QBTOT
10170
10178
10180
10183
10190
10200
10210
10220
10230
10235
10240
10250
10260
10270
10290
10300
10310
10320
10330
10340
10350
10360
10370
10380
10390
10400
BOTTOM SHEAR STRESS COMPUTATION,TO
TO = 9810.001 * DM(J) * S(J)
USHE = (TO / 1000) ~ .5
COMPUTATION OF FRICTION COEFFICIENT,TANGA
GSQ = ((SSED / 14) ~ .5 * USHE * (DA(J) / 1000) / NU(J)) ~ 2
IF GSQ <= 150 THEN TANGA = .75: GOTO 10020
IF GSQ > 150 AND GSQ < 6000 THEN TANGA = -.236 * LOG(GSQ) / LOG(10) + 1 25-
0020
TANGA = .374
QB = EB * TO * V(J) / ((ROS - 1000) * 9.81 * TANGA)
QBTOT(J) = QB * B(J) * ROS
NEXT J
PRINTING OF RESULTS
CLS
LOCATE 3, 60: PRINT " BED LOAD
FOR J = 1 TO NO
LOCATE 5 + J, 60: PRINT QBTOT(J)
NEXT J
BAGNOLD METHOD" PRINT #5,
PRINT #5,
PRINT #5,
PRINT #5,
PRINT #5,
PRINT #5,
PRINT #5,
(J)
PRINT #5,
PRINT #5,
PRINT #5,
RETURN
(m
A
3/s)
SUSPENDED LOAD
(kg/s)
BED LOAD"
(kg/s)"
FOR J = 1 TO NO
; J; " "; Q(J);
NEXT J
"; QSTOT(J); "
'###################### SUBROUTINE CELIK & RODI #################
DS
FOR J
D50(J) / 1000
1 TO NO
GOSUB 8040
COMPUTATION OF FALL VELOCITY,WS
BOTTOM SHEAR STRESS COMPUTATION,TO
TO = 9810.001 * DM(J) * S(J)
USHE = (TO / 1000)
A
.5
'============ COMPUTATION OF ROUGHNESS HEIGHT,KS
KS = 30 * 2.718 ~ (-1 - .4 * V(J) / USHE) * DM(J)
'========== COMPUTATION OF EFFECTIVE SHEAR STRESS, TE
Appendix 1
10410
10412
10414
10416
10418
10420
10425
10430
10440
10450
10460
10470
10480
10490
10500
10510
10515
10520
10525
10530
10540
10550
10560
10566
10570
10580
10590
10600
10610
10620
10621
10622
10623
10624
10625
10626
10627
10628
10629
10630
10632
10633
10634
10650
10660
10670
10780
10685
10790
10850
10860
10870
10880
10890
10900
10910
10925
10930
10940
10950
10952
10954
10956
10957
10958
10960
10970
10980
10990
TE = (1 - (KS / DM(J)) * .06) * TO
RSTAR = DS * USHE / NU(J)
PAR = 9.81 * DS * (ROS - 1000)
IF RSTAR > .6 THEN TCR = .25 * PAR: GOTO 10420
TCR = .15 * PAR / RSTAR
IF TE <= TCR THEN CT = 0: GOTO 10460
'========== COMPUTATION OF TRANSPORT CONCENTRATION, CT
l
CT = .034 * TE * V(J) / ((ROS - 1000) * 9.81 * DM(J) * WS)
'============ COMPUTATION OF TOTAL SUSPENDED LOAD,QSTOT
QSTOT(J) = Q(J) * CT * ROS
NEXT J
PRINTING OF RESULTS
CLS
LOCATE 4, 18: PRINT "nT3/s"
FOR J = 1 TO NO
LOCATE 5 + J,' 4: PRINT J
NEXT J
CELIK Sc RODI METHOD" PRINT #5,
PRINT #5,
PRINT #5,
PRINT #5,
PRINT #5,
PRINT #5,
PRINT #5,
PRINT #5,
PRINT #5,
PRINT #5,
RETURN
(m
A
3/s)
FOR J = 1 TO NO
"; J; " "; Q(J); "
NEXT J
END OF OUTPUT FILE.'
TOTAL SUS. SED. DISCHARGE
(kg/s)"
"; QSTOT(J)
################### SUBROUTINE MEYER-PETER & MULLER #################
FOR J = 1 TO NO
DS = DA(J) / 1000
======= ===== COMPUTATION OF NS
NS = (D90(J) / 1000)
A
(1 / 6) / 26
'========== COMPUTATION OF GRAIN BED HYDRAULIC RADIUS, RPB
RPB = (V(J) * NS) ~ 1.5 * S(J) " -0.75
'========== COMPUTATION OF DIMENSIONLESS SHEAR STRESS, TPSTAR
TPSTAR = RPB * S(J) / ((SSED - 1) * DS)
>========== COMPUTATION OF DIMENSIONLESS SED. TRANS. PARAMETER, PHI
IF TPSTAR < .047 THEN PHI = 0: GOTO 10990
PHI = 8 * (TPSTAR - .047) " 1.5
i
'============ COMPUTATION OF TOTAL BED LOAD,QBTOT
QB = PHI * ROS * (9.81 * (SSED -1) * DS ~ 3)
A
.5
Appendix 1
11000
11008
11010
11015
11020
11025
11030
11040
11050
11060
11066
11070
11080
11090
11100
11110
11120
11121
11122
11123
11124
11125
11126
11127
11128
11129
11130
11132
11133
11134
QBTOT(J) =
QBTOT(J) =
1
CLS
LOCATE 3,
LOCATE 3,
LOCATE 3,
LOCATE 4,
LOCATE 4,
'LOCATE 5
'LOCATE 5
'LOCATE 5
PRINT #5,
PRINT #5,
PRINT #5,
PRINT #5,
PRINT #5,
PRINT #5,
PRINT #5,
PRINT #5,
PRINT #5,
PRINT #5,
RETURN
= QB * B(J)
= INT(QBTOT(J) * 100000) / 100000
3:
20
40
18
46
NEXT J
PRINTING OF RESULTS
PRINT "STAGE"
PRINT "Q"
PRINT " BED LOAD"
PRINT "nT3/s"
PRINT "kg/s": COLOR 9
FOR J = 1 TO NO
+ J, 4: PRINT J
+ J, 17: PRINT Q(J)
+ J, 40: PRINT QBTOT(J)
11
11
11
"
"
"
NEXT J
MEYER-PETER & MULLER METHOD"
STAGE WATER DISCHARGE TOTAL BED LOAD DISCHARGE
(m^3/s) (kg/s)"
FOR J = 1 TO NO
"; J; " "; Q(J); " "; QBTOT(J)
NEXT J
VANONI AND BROOKS' DATA
Appendix 2
Vanoni and Brooks' data 329
Appendix 2.
Velocity, fps
Fig. 34. Measured velocity profiles at the centerline of
the flume at Station 24 for Runs 1, 3, 5, 6 .
y
20.0
10.0
8.0
6.0
4.0
ô
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.1
-
L?
O'
s
<f
/
/ ;
fi S
2
0
\
\
4
/
/
/

/
/
/
\
/
8
y
/
0.^
/
#
"V /
/
/
Si
<.
1
>
/
\
3
<;
,
c
/
8
-v
f
T _ ^ ^
*
o >^
> i.
/
* c
1
y
\ (.
/
/
^
\y
r
5 8
- ^
/ -
/

5^
s
*> s

S
y
*
Runs 1,3 8 5= 0.10 mm sand
Run 7- 0.16mm sand
1 c \ A e 5 8
r
A
1.0, Run I 1.0, Run 3 1.0, Run 5
c, Concentration, grams/liter
1.0, Run 7
Fig. 35. Measured concentration profiles on centerline of
the flume at Station 24 for Runs 1, 3, 5, 7.
Vanoni and Brooks' (1957) Figure 35

Sediment Transport Estimation Methods in River Systems

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Sediment Transport Estimation Methods in River Systems

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

University of Wollongong

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi