CRITERIA FOR INCIPIENT MOTION OF SPHERICAL SEDIMENT PARTICLES

By Chi-Hai Ling I

ABSTRACT: Initiation of bed-load transport of uniform spherical sediment particles on a horizontal bed in an
open-channel flow is studied. On the basis of micromechanical and fluid dynamical considerations, two separate
criteria for the initiation of motion are derived: one for rolling and one for lifting. Fluid forces such as drag,
shear lift, Magnus lift, and lift due to centrifugal force are included in the derivation. The formulation of the
lift force is theoretical. No empirical coefficient is used other than the drag coefficient C" which is well
established in the literature. In the low particle Reynolds number regime, where u.dlv oS 1, the dimensionless
stress required to initiate lifting is found to be much higher than that of rolling, the former substantially above
the Shields' curve while the latter is substantially below it. The theory is compared with Vanoni's 1964 data,
with meaningful results. For higher particle Reynolds number, where u*dlv > 10, the dimensionless stress
needed to initiate lifting is closer to that of rolling. The Shields' curve for the most part lies between the two
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of Miami on 12/29/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

theoretical thresholds.

INTRODUCTION THEORY

Shields (1936) has been credited as the first person to ex-
press the critical shear stress for initiation of sediment motion
in a dimensionless form. His relation has the form
Til _ F (U*d)
('Y, - 'Y)d v uration. Letting the fluid motion be from left to right, the
in which To = critical shear stress; 'Ys = specific weight of the
sediment; 'Y = specific weight of the fluid; d = diameter of
the sediment; u* = shear or friction velocity, being equal to
V(To/p), where p = density of the fluid; v = kinematic vis-
cosity; and F = some function.
Eq. (1) was obtained largely from dimensional considera-
tions, but it was subsequently verified by experiments and
became the well-known Shields' curve. A number of theories
have come to existence to explain (1). Reviews by Vanoni
(1966) and Graf (1971) included theories by White (1940),
and Egiazaroff (1965), among others, who essentially derived
their theoretical results by balancing fluid drag with the weight
of a sediment particle. Coleman (1967), Yang (1973), Ikeda
(1982), and Wiberg and Smith (1987) on the other hand in-
cluded the lift force F L with the drag force and weight in their
momentum or moment balance
L = C,A[(p/2)V2]
in which CL = lift coefficient; A = cross-sectional area of
the sediment particle; p = fluid density; and V = fluid ve-
locity at some reference point between the top and the bottom
of the particle.
The present theory starts with both the moment and mo-
mentum equations in the balance of drag, lift, and gravity.
It partially incorporates the previous work of Coleman (1967)
and Wiberg and Smith (1987). The purpose of this paper is
to develop separate criteria for rolling and lifting by treating
the lift force as the sum of the Saffman (1965) shear lift, the
Rubinow and Keller (1961) spin (or Magnus) lift, and the
centrifugal force. The need to use the empirical and uncertain
lift coefficient C L has been eliminated.
For noncohesive uniform spherical sediments in a steady
two-dimensional uniform flow of fluid in an open channel,
the movement of the sediments on the top layer is typified
as shown in Fig. 1, where one sphere is situated on top of
two other spheres in a hypothetical two-dimensional config-
(1)
balance of forces in the normal and tangential directions are
D sin A + (G - L)cos A = N + 2rnr(dS/dt)2 (3)
D cos A - (G - L)sin A - T = 2rnr[(d ZS)/(dt Z )] (4)
in which D, G, L, N, and T = fluid drag on sphere 1, weight
of the sphere, fluid lift, normal force from sphere 3, and
tangential force from sphere 3, respectively (no reactional
forces from sphere 2 is considered, because they are zero
when sphere 1 is about to move to the right); S = angle
between the line segments 0\0 3 and 0203; A = angle be-
tween the normal and gravity forces with A + e = 90°; t =
time; rn and r = mass and the radius of the sphere, respec-
a
tively; and the symbol is used for differentiation to distin-
guish it from the diameter d.
The moment equation (McCuskey 1959) about the point
of contact A is
(5)
(2)
in which M A = moment about point A; re; = position vector
O\A; ac; = acceleration of the sphere at the point 0\; x =
symbol for vector product; Ie; = moment of inertia of the
sphere about 0\; CI. = angular acceleration of the sphere; and
k = a unit vector perpendicular to both re; and a(; in the
direction a right-handed screw advances.
SPHERE 1
z

'Hydro., U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resour. Div., Western Re-

gion. 345 Middlefield Rd., MS-496, Menlo Park, CA 94025.
Note. Discussion open until November 1,1995. To extend the closing
date one month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Manager
of Journals. The manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and
possible publication on May 2. 1994. This paper is part of the Journal SPHERE 2 SPHERE 3
of Hydraulic Engineering, Vol. 121, No.6. June, 1995. ©ASCE, ISSN
0733-9429/95/(J()06-0472-0478/$2.00 + $.25 per page. Paper No. 8386. FIG. 1. Definition Sketch

472/ JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING / JUNE 1995

J. Hydraul. Eng. 1995.121:472-478.

 Since the magnitude of au is 2rd 2 6/dt 2 and I u = (2/5)mr 2 , in which
(5) can be written as
(15)
d2e 2 d2 e'
(L - G)sin A + D cos A = 2mr -d->
t-
+ -5 mr d- >
t"
(6)
L", = 'lTr'pwV, ( 16)
where 8' = angle of rotation of sphere 1. Eqs. (3), (4), and
and
(6) can be solved numerically when it is known whether sphere
1 is rolling or sliding. If it is rolling, then 6' = 28; and if it (rwF
is sliding, then T = ILrN, where ILr = coefficient of friction L = m --cos A (17)
.. 2r
between the spherical surfaces. Ling and others (1992) studied
a similar problem where the driving force on the sphere is where a" = Saffman lift coefficient, being equal to 1.615:
gravity only. They numerically solved the equations of motion dU/dZ = velocity gradient; r = radius of the sphere; and w
and found that when motion begins, it starts with rolling = angular velocity of the sphere, counting positive clockwise.
because T is usually much smaller than ILrN. In fact, sliding Saffman (1965) found that the spin lift was less than the
is limited to consuming up only about 1% of the kinetic energy shear lift by an order of magnitude and subsequently many
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of Miami on 12/29/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

the sphere carries. Experiments of Halow (1973) showed that authors ignored the spin lift in their momentum analysis.
spherical particles roll and angular particles slide in turbulent However, the value of the Saffman lift coefficient was later
horizontal and inclined pipe flow. We will therefore assume found to be miscalculated, and Saffman (1968) corrected it
rolling in the analysis. from 20.3 to 1.615. This correction puts the spin lift back at
Eq. (6), after incorporating the condition 6' = 26, becomes the same order of magnitude as the shear lift, therefore both
lift forces L, and L", should be retained in calculating total
. 14 d2e lift L.
(L - G)sm A + D cos A = 5 mr dt 2 (7)
The gravitational force on the sphere or the submerged
weight is
The condition for rolling to begin is then d 2 8/dt 2 ~ 0, or
G = (4/3)'lTr'(y, - "I) = ('IT/6)(y, - -y)d' (18)
(L - G)sin A + D cos A 2': 0 (8)
When the first threshold is reached, sphere 1 starts to roll.
For A = 30°, this reduces to
And if the flow produces enough stress, sphere I may roll
V3D+L~G (9) over sphere 3 and sphere 4 or more spheres while picking up
speed. However, the maximum angular velocity sphere I can
Eq. (9) is a condition of initial movement for closely packed achieve is that of the freely rotating particle, or (1/2)(dU/dZ)
two-dimensional arrangement of spheres assuming a hori- (Saffman 1965), when the flow is the only driving force for
zontal bed and identical packing in the y-direction. It needs the sphere. Thus w :s (l/2)(dU/dZ), or W lllax = (1/2)(du/dz).
some modification to be applicable to three dimensional sit- The experiments of Ling and others (1992) have shown that
uations. Coleman's (1967) analysis of closely packed three for a particle Reynolds number less than 500 the rolling sphere
dimensional arrangement of spheres showed the moment still keeps in contact with the sphere under it after collison,
equation as follows: because the energy in the normal direction is completely ab-
sorbed by the other spheres, directly and indirectly, so that
(1,/IJD + L 2': G (lOa)
the normal velocity is negligible after collision. In this paper.
where 12 and I} = lengths of moment arms, with we will therefore assume that sphere 1 keeps in contact with
the spheres below it while rolling until it is lifted. The second
d d threshold, one for suspension or lifting, is the condition be-
L = ~ R and I, (lOb,c)
- 4v 3 . V6 yond which the total lift force on the sphere exceeds its sub-
merged weight in the fluid and lifts the sphere off the bed.
thus (10), after dropping the unequal sign, can be written as
L=G (19)
4/Y2D + L = G (11)
As can be seen from (15) and (16), the shear lift L, is pro-
This condition represents the beginning of sediment move- portional to V, which is equal to V r - Vx' where V r = average
ment and will be considered as the first threshold, or "rolling velocity of the fluid across sphere 1; and V, = velocity com-
threshold," for incipient motion. A second threshold, or "lift- ponent of sphere 1 (at 01) in the x-direction. The spin
ing threshold," will be discussed later. lift L", is proportional to both V, and w, which is equal to
The drag force in (11) can be expressed as 2V,/(d cos A). As sphere 1 accelerates from W = 0 to w =
(1I2)(du/dz) the total lift L attains a maximum value some-
(12) where in between. To find this maximum, let
according to Rijn (1984), where CD = drag coefficient; and V, = VI - V, = BV, (20)
V, = relative velocity between the fluid and sphere 1. When
the Reynolds number is small, CD = 24/(Vr d/v), giving by using the fact that w = 2Vx /(d cos A) we can write

where IL = viscosity of the fluid. For turbulent flow at large

(13) L. = Bapv"'d2,),
., ., ( )'"
dU
'dZ
. (21)

Reynolds numbers CD is constant in (12).

L - B(I - B) _'IT_ pd 2 V2 (22)
The lift force L is expressed as the sum of the Saffman '" - 4 cos A '
(1965, 1968) force or shear lift L" the Magnus force or spin
lift (Rubinow and Keller 1961) L"" and the centrifugal force
L, = (1 - BF _'IT_ pd 2 V 2 (23)
L, 6 cos A I

L = L, + L", + L .. (14) Introducing the dimensionless velocity

JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING / JUNE 1995/473

J. Hydraul. Eng. 1995.121:472-478.

 (24) u~
au - -
- (38)
az v
and the dimensionless velocity gradient
or
(25)
(39)
Eqs. (21)-(23) can be written as

( d)
0.5

L, = BaH,H~ "u*
--;;- Td~
'1
(26) Eq. (13) then gives

71'
Lot = B(1 - B) - - HrTd2 (27)
D = 371'J..ldV = 371'J..ld
f
(! U~d)
2 v
4 cos A

L = (1 - B )"' -71'- H'1'T"

d' (28)
= ~ 71' (1 + 2 ~) Td l (40)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of Miami on 12/29/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

, 6 cos A
and (26) gives
where T = pu~ = bed shear stress. Since L = L, + L", +
L" differentiation of L with respect to B gives the maximum
L at (41a)

(29) L, = B~ (U:d) (1 + 2~) Td 2 (41b)

where at the point where sphere 1 starts to roll, 0 = 0, W = 0, and

B = 1, thus
(30)
D = 371' Tdl. L (U.d)
a, - d'
2 ' , =2 - v T" (42a,b)
F, = 71' -
-- H'l' (31)
- 4 cos A L", = 0 and L, = 0 (42c,d)
and Substituting (14), (18), and (42) into (11) gives the rolling
threshold
F, = - -71' - H'1 (32)
~ Td2 ~' Td2 (U:d) ~ (y,
. 6 cos A
+ = - -y)d 3
Eq. (14) can be written alternatively as (43a)
L = [BF, + B(1 - B)F2 + (J - B)2FJ 1Td 2 (33) or

Turbulent Flow at Small Reynolds Numbers
For small particle Reynolds number u*dlv the thickness of
the laminar sublayer is about 11.6 times the value of vlu*
(Einstein 1950; Wiberg and Smith 1987). Any particle di-
ameter less than 11.6vlu* (or u*dlv < 11.6) would be com-
pletely submerged in the sublayer. It is safe to say that for
lI"dlv < 1 the fluid velocity around the particle is linear. Thus
We now assume that the bed surface is at the bottom of sphere
I when it is at rest (as shown in Fig. 1). As sphere 1 rolls
over sphere 3, its center 0, is raised by the amount 0, where
5 = d( cos A - cos Ao)
here cos Ao = 0.8164, the lowest position for sphere 1 in
three-dimensional configuration. Letting Ub and u, be the fluid
velocities at the bottom and the top of the sphere where z
= 0 and z = d + 0, respectively, we have
T
(71'/6) (=0.04 for u.d s; 1.0)
(-y, - -y)d (a)2)(u.dlv) + 671'/\/2 v
(43b)
A numerical study was done to estimate roughly the max-
imum total lift by using (29) and other related equations, for
values of B less than or equal to 1 (otherwise sphere 1 will
be moving backward). The total lift obtained this way is greater
(34) than or equal to what is physically possible (for example,
some values of B require the sphere to rotate much faster
than W max ) , thus giving a lifting threshold from (19) lower
than or equal to what it should be. But it is still much hig~er
than the rolling threshold of (43). Therefore the followmg
scenario is assumed: sphere 1 will start to roll first when the
(35) stress reaches the rolling threshold, and then accelerate to its
maximum angular velocity W max ' As the stress level increases,
the sphere will roll to higher values of W max ' Finally the stress
reaches the lifting threshold and sphere 1 lifts away from the
bed. Hence at the point of lifting, sphere 1 is rotating at the
W max produced by the threshold stress. Yet

(36) 2Vx 2(1 - B)Vf 2( 1 - B)H ,11*

W = -d-c-o-s-A = d cos A (44a)
d cos A
or
and

(37) (44b)

and therefore setting W = W max gives

474/ JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING / JUNE 1995

J. Hydraul. Eng. 1995.121:472-478.

 B = 1 - (::;J cos A (44c)
quartz sand with a mean diameter of 0.102 mm. The 80%
confidence interval was between 0.086 mm to 0.120 mm and
the specific gravity was 2.65. The rate of movement were
at the point of lifting. classified into four groups: in ascending order the groups are
The lifting threshold from (14) and (19) is therefore "negligible," "small," "critical," and "general." A compar-
[BF, + B(1 - B)F~ + (1 - BFF3lTd~ = ('iT/6)(y, - -y)d 3 ison of (43) and (45) with Vanoni's data is shown in Fig. 2.
(45a) Indeed, all of Vanoni's data lie between the two theoretical
thresholds.
or
T ('iT/6) Turbulent Flow at Large Reynolds Numbers
(45b)
(-Y, - -y)d BF, + B(1 - B)F~ + (1 - B)~F,
The equations to be used for establishing the two thresholds
where F Fl , and F3 are from (30)-(32), with for turbulent flow at large Reynolds numbers are the same
" as those at small Reynolds numbers. But since the velocity
H, = V, = ! u*d (1 + 2~)d distribution is different, the expressions for V, and au/az in
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of Miami on 12/29/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(45c)
u* 2 v the equations will also be different. For particle Reynolds
numbers greater than 30, the flow over the sediments is in
Ho = au .!!- = u*d (45d)
the completely rough regime, for which the velocity distri·
- az u* v bution is (Schlichting 1960)

and u/u* = 8.5 + 5.75 log zlk, (46a)

o or, alternatively, as in Wiberg and Smith (1987)

d= cos A - cos Ao
from (37), (39), and (35). Calculations show that the maxi-
mum lift for the linear velocity profile occurs at cos A = 1,
or when sphere 1 is on top of sphere 3.
The rolling and lifting thresholds shown in (43) and (45)
are the theoretical minimum for rolling and lifting, respec-
tively, of incipient motion under idealistic conditions for uni-
form particles. Existing experiments under very idealistic con-
ditions are hard to obtain for comparison. However, Vanoni
(1964) made two series of experiments to study incipient sed-
iment motion in turbulent flow at small Reynolds numbers,
each with a single sediment possessing a narrow 80% confi-
dence interval for the size distribution and thus making the
sediment size reasonably uniform. So these experiments are
compared with the theory.
In one experiment Vanoni (1964) used glass beads with a
mean diameter of 0.037 mm. The diameters of 80% of the
beads were between 0.029 mm to 0.046 mm. The specific
gravity was 2.49. For the other experiment he used natural
(45e)
ulu* = 2.5 In zlzo (46b)
where k, = equivalent sand roughness of Nikuradse's exper-
iments on rough pipes; and Zo = roughness parameter being
equal to k)30. According to Rijn (1984) who quoted works
by Kamphuis (1974), Hey (1979), Mahmood (1971), and Gladki
(1975), this sand roughness k, should be set equal to about
two to three times the diameter of the sediments when (46)
is used in turbulent flow over sediments. Here k)d = 3, which
corresponds to dlz o = 10, will be used for well-sorted sedi-
ment. The effects of this ratio on the thresholds will be dis-
cussed later in the section headed "Comment."
In this paper, VI and au/az will both be derived by taking
the simple average of u and aulaz.
Consider the velocity profile around the sediment particle.
The logarithmic profile of (46) is valid for z > 100zo . An
extension of this profile to z = Zo is used as an approximation
following Wiberg and Smith (1987). Thus the average relative
velocity Vr between the flow and the particle and the velocity
gradient aulaz can be calculated in terms of the ratio d/z o

o
RATE Of TRANSPORT
NONE V, =
1 {=~d'&
d J=~" udz =
1 {'H&
d J& u*
( z)
2.5 In ~ dz
.. NEGLI GIBLE
+ SMALL

'b
)( CRITICAL
o GENERAL = 2.5u* { (1 + ~) [In t (1 + ~) - 1]

. ..~~~ .
_ 0, Zo (In ! . . 0, Zo _
1)}
..
I

..•.. ~.. d Zo d (47)

~'? '.-.~~
_,-r- ... ". # and
,,>'Q"+ •••• ~

.~
. -.. ++ ~ ''1'"
~.t·.
au = .! {=-d+& au dz
d J= - &
=
0" •••••••........ az az d
ROLLINS THRESHOLD EO. (131 ........ _-
= 2.5 -u* { In -d ( 1 + -
d Zo
0) -
d
In (!!...~)}
Zo d (48)
where the notation 8, Zo means 8 or zo, whichever is larger.
Substituting (47) and (48) into (12), (24), and (25), gives

FIG. 2. Equations for Roiling and Lifting Thresholds Compared (49)

with Data from Vanonl (1964)

JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING / JUNE 1995/475

J. Hydraul. Eng. 1995.121:472-478.

 LEGENDS
o GLASS BEADS (VANONIl
.. SAND lVANDNIl
~ AMBER (SHIELDSl
(50) x LIGNITE (SHIELDS)
(~ ~ LIGNITE (SHIELDS)
and ").
v BARITE 1SHIELDSl
~ • STEEL SHOT (WHITEl
He = 2.5 {In -d(1 + -8) - In (d
--8, -zo)} (51) .. \~ ~
'\ (')
.. SAND (WHITEl
Zo d Zo d
..
I
"~ to Tto
The rolling threshold for the incipient motion of sediments .
.... o'~.
"40
·r·····... ~
~ .......• r.
in turbulent flow at large particle Reynolds numbers can ~hA ~ .. EO. 1531
therefore be obtained by first setting 0 = 0; L", = 0; L, =
0; and B = 1 in (14), (41), and (49)-(51), and then substi·
\"", ~ ;~ ..~~~~.~.~_ ..
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of Miami on 12/29/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

tuting into (11) EO. (43) '--. + ,,'7"."-"

ROt · ··... . " .
d)O.5 LING THRf: ..
4 1T C
08 D
H'ITd'• + aH
., I
H~5
- (~
v Td 2 = ~
6 ("V.
I.'
- "V)d
1
J SHOW rlr-" ..
• (57)

(52a)

or
..
u d/"

(1T/6) FIG. 3. Comparison of Various Thresholds of Incipient Motion

(52b)
(-Y, - -y)d o.5 (U*d) -0.5 7T C H2
H ,H
(X le +,!"iD! where
v 2v2
Values of CD are obtained by using the formula of Schiller
and Naumann (1933)
C
K
1
= - In(Kz,i); K = 0.4 (54b,c)

V d)O.6H7] (54d,e)
Cn = 24/(Vf dlv) [ 1 + 0.150 ( -;- (52c)
v

for up to Vrdlv = 1,754, which corresponds to u*dlv = 500. and

The value of a., is set equal to Saffman's 1.615 for all particle
Reynolds numbers in this study (up to 500). Calculation of k,
Zo = 30 (54!)
a., with (15) and (46) using the experiments of Chepil (1961)
gives a, = 0.655, 1.334, 1.146, and 2.78 for u*dlv = 150,
198,522, and 2,584, respectively. The average of these four
values is 1.48, which is very close to 1.615.
The lifting threshold for the incipient motion of sediments
in turbulent flow at large particle Reynolds numbers is [(33)]
(7T/6)
(53a)
(y, - y)d
where
(53b)

while F I , F2 , and FJ are calculated by using HI and H 2 from

(50) and (51). The maximum lift for the logarithmic velocity
profile occurs at cos 'A = 0.92. Since the F-values are different,
the notation T2 is used here to distinguish (53) from (45).
The thresholds for turbulent flow at both small and large
particle Reynolds numbers [(43), (45), (51), and (52)] are
compared with the Shields diagram in Fig. 3. Because the
.( _ 0.33~*d+ _ 1)] _[e -O·JJ!lu.dlv)(Sldl!

completely rough regime starts at about ksu* Iv = 70 (Schlichting

. (_ 0.33u*d ~ _
1960), or equivalently u*dlv = 23, the region where the par-
ticle Reynolds numbers fall between 1 and 30 is considered
v d 1)]} (55)
the transitional regime. For the velocity profile in this region and
Wiberg and Smith (1987) found that the formula of Reichardt
(1951) agrees excellently with measurements made in that
region and also fits well in both the small and large Reynolds
number range. This formula will be used to find the two
thresholds
= 2.5 In (1 + 0.4 u*:+) - C [1 - e 1111 1.6)(".<1 'Iv)

u = u* [1. In(l +
K
KZ+) - C (1 - e -z+/II.6 - ~ e -o.J}z+)]
11.6
__1_ (U*d+) e -'U}IU.d+IV)] _ {2.5 In
(54a) 11.6 v

476 / JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING / JUNE 1995

J. Hydraul. Eng. 1995.121:472-478.

 ·(1 + 0.4 U:d~) - c [1 - e -(I/11.6)((u.d/v)(&/d)J
- 1:.6 (U:d ~) CO 33IlU.,IIV)(S/dlJ]}
where
d+ = d[1 + (old)]
With the foregoing dimensionless velocity and velocity gra-
dient, the two thresholds from (11) and (19) can be obtained
by using the expressions for D, L" L m , and L c in (12), (18)
and (26)-(28).
The rolling threshold is
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of Miami on 12/29/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
(Tr/6)
('y, - -y)d
H H~' (~
d)-o., + ~ C HZ
0:
, 1 v- 2\11
where HI and H 2 are obtained from setting 0 = 0 in (55) and
(56) and the lifting threshold is
(-rr/6)
(y, - -y)d
where
(4~J cos A
B = 1 -
and F I , F2 , and F3 are from (30)-(32), with HI and H 2 cal-
culated from (55) and (56). The value of cos A is set equal
to 1 for u*dlv :s 3, and 0.92 for u*dlv ~ 3.
Eqs. (57) and (58) are plotted as shown in Fig. 3. For small
particle Reynolds numbers, they coincide with the curves rep-
resenting (43) and (45); for large particle Reynolds numbers,
they approach those of (52) and (53). It is felt that (57) and
(58) are adequate for use as threshold for all particle Reynolds
numbers. The lifting threshold and the rolling threshold are
far apart at small Reynolds numbers and get closer and closer
as the Reynolds number increases. This perhaps explains the
belief that a unique relation for critical shear stress cannot
be obtained for u*dlv < 3.5 [Graf (1971), page 98], because
there is such a wide range between the two thresholds where
a critical shear stress may be subjectively and differently de-
fined. The Shields' curve lies for the most part between the
two thresholds except when the particle Reynolds number
exceeds about 100. Measurements by Chepil (1961) and Cole-
man (1967) seem to suggest higher values of O:s and CD for
large values of u*dlv than the ones used in this paper. When
higher values of O:s and CD are used, the rolling threshold
would certainly go below the Shields curve for u*dlv > 100.
However, more experimental data are needed to establish
that.
COMMENT
The lift force used in deriving the lifting threshold for large
Reynolds numbers is based on the maximum that is physically
possible for a sphere moving over a tightly packed bed made
of other identical spheres. In the three-dimensional config-
uration (Coleman 1967), Sphere 1 would first roll over the
valley formed by the two spheres whose line of connection
is perpendicular to the direction of the flow, and then over
a single sphere around its peak, then the valley and the peak
again for a number of cycles until sphere 1 is lifted. An as-
sumption is made that when there is enough stress to move
the sphere, it will accelerate until the angular velocity of the
sphere reaches the free-rotating value of (1I2)(aulaz) and then
remains roughly constant.
The criterion for the incipient motion depends on how
tightly packed the bed is, and the direction of the flow, both
of which would change the angle A. How far apart the top
(56a)
layer of loose spheres (sphere Is) are situated also affects the
result because the ratio k)d will change. Schlichting (1960)
studied experimentally the values of equivalent sand rough-
ness for a large number of roughnesses arranged in a regular
(56b) fashion. He found for the same sphere diameter d the equiv-
alent sand roughness k, increased substantially when the spheres
are put closer together. The ratio k)d varied from about 0.2
to about 4. One may expect similar behavior to hold true for
the configuration in this paper even though the bed is not flat
like Schlichting's. Thus the value of k,ld = 3 suggested by
Rijn (1984) and used in this paper may correspond to some
average situation. A smaller value such as k,ld = I that
Wiberg and Smith (1987) used as a standard case would cor-
(57)
respond to the case in which the moving spheres are less
D I densely distributed, and the thresholds from (56) and (57)
would produce lower values (by a factor of about two) for
the dimensionless critical shear stress than those shown on
Fig. 3 because of an increase in the values of Vflu* and (aul
dz)(dlu*). Wiberg and Smith (1987) showed the same kind
of effects from different ratios of k)d. Viewed from a longer
(58a)
time frame, this "compactness" of the top layer loose spheres,
which can assume any value between "no sphere" to "tightly
packed," is an indication of where it is in the stages of con-
tinuous deposition to or erosion from the bed. This is perhaps
(58b) another reason for the scattering of measurements of critical
shear stress.
The effect of turbulence has not been included in this pa-
per. It is believed that the incipient motion of sediment par-
ticles is sensitive to the fluctuating fluid forces. Therefore
further research is needed to study this influence of turbu-
lence on incipient motion.
CONCLUSIONS
Two thresholds have been derived as criteria for the incip-
ient motion of spherical sediment particles. The rolling
threshold gives the minimum dimensionless shear stress re-
quired to start the bed-load transport in the form of rolling
and the lifting threshold gives the minimum stress for sus-
pension. The Shields curve along with some representative
classical data lie mostly between the two thresholds; and Van-
oni's (1964) data fall completely between the two thresholds,
showing an increase of rate of transport as the data points
move from the rolling threshold toward the lifting threshold.
Since the experimental definition of a "critical shear stress"
is subjective and not unique, because one may define it
anywhere between rolling and lifting, it may be useful to
experimentally establish the two thresholds rather than one
vague "critical" threshold in the study of sediment trans-
port.
Although the derivations in this paper are based on an
idealized situation with a deterministic approach, further ex-
tension into statistical analysis that may include particle shapes,
sizes and its distribution as well as bed geometry is possible.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The writer is very grateful to Dr. Jonathan Nelson, who suggested
the inclusion of the centrifugal force and commented on the treatment
of the velocity profile of the flow, among other things; and Dr. John
Dingler for his editorial comments and suggestions. Comments from two
anonymous ASCE reviewers are also appreciated.
APPENDIX I. REFERENCES
Chepil. W. S. (1961). "The use of spheres to measure lift and drag on
wind-eroded soil grains." Proc., Soil Sci. Soc. of Am., 25(5). 343-
345.
JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING / JUNE 1995/477
J. Hydraul. Eng. 1995.121:472-478.
 Coleman, N. L. (1967). "A theoretical and experimental study of drag Wiberg, P. L., and Smith, J. D. (191\7). "Calculations of the critical shear
and lift forces acting on a sphere resting on a hypothetical stream stress for motion of uniform and heterogeneous sediments." WaleI'
bed." Proc., 12th Congress, Int. Assoc. for Hydr. Res. (IAHR), Fort Resour. Res., 23(1\),1471-141\0.
Collins, Colo., Vol. 3, 11\5-192. Yang, C. T. (1973). "Incipient motion and sediment transport. "J. Hydr.
Egiazaroff,1. V. (1965). "Calculation of nonuniform sediment concen- Div., ASCE, 99(10), 1679-1705.
trations." 1. Hydr. Div., ASCE, 91(4), 225-247.
Einstein, H. A. (1950). 'The bed-load function for sediment transpor- APPENDIX II. NOTATION
tation in open channel flows." Tech. Bull. 1026, U.S. Dept. of Agr.
Soil Conservation Service, Washington, D.C. The following symbols are used in this paper:
Gladki, H. (1975). "Discussion of 'Determination of sand roughness for
fixed beds.'" J. Hydr. Res., 13(2). cross-sectional area of sediment particle (sphere);
Graf. W. H. (1971). Hydraulics ofsedimenllransport. McGraw-Hili Book
Co .. Inc., New York, N.Y. VrlV,;
Halow, J. S. (1973). "Incipient rolling, sliding and suspension of particles drag coefficient;
in horizontal and inclined turbulent flow." Chemical Engrg. Sci., Vol lift coefficient;
21\, 1-12. drag force on sediment (sphere);
Hey, R. D. (1979). "Flow resistance in gravel-bed rivers." J. Hydr. Div., symbol for differentiation;
ASCE, 105(4), 365-379. particle or sediment diameter;
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of Miami on 12/29/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Ikeda, S. (1982). "Incipient motion of sand particles on side slopes." J. weight of sediment (sphere);
Hydr. Div., ASCE, 101\(1), 95-114. dimensionless velocity V,lu*;
Kamphuis, J. W. (1974). "Determination of sand roughness for fixed dimensionless velocity gradient (aulaz) (dlu*);
beds." 1. Hydr. Res., 12(2), 193-203.
Ling, C. H .. Jan, C. D., Chen, C. L., and Shen, H. W. (1992). "Nu-
equivalent Nikuradse sand roughness;
merical simulation of a sphere moving down an incline with identical lift force on sediment (sphere);
spheres placed equally apart." Proc., 9th Conf. on Engrg. Mech., centrifugal force;
ASCE, New York, N.Y .. 764-767. Lm Magnus force or spin lift;
Mahmood, K. (1971). "Flow in sand bed channels." Water Mgmt. Tech. L, Saffman force or shear lift;
Rep. No. 11, Colorado State Univ .. Fort Collins, Colo. 12 , I, lengths of moment arms;
McCuskey, S. W. (1959). An introduction to advanced dynamics. Ad- m mass;
dison- Wesley Publishing Co., Inc., Reading, Mass., 3. N normal force on sediment (sphere);
Reichardt, H. (1951). "Vollstandige darstellung der turbulenten I' radius of sediment (sphere);
geschwindig-keitsverteilung in glatten leitungen." Z. Angew. Math.
T tangential force on sediment (sphere);
Mech., Berlin, Germany, 31(7), 201\-219 (in German).
Rijn, L. C. van (191\4). "Sediment transport. Part I: bed load transport." t time;
1. Hydr. Engrg., ASCE, 110(10), 1431-1456. u longitudinal flow velocity;
Rubinow, S. r.. and Keller, J. B. (1961). "The transverse force on a u* shear or friction velocity;
spinning sphere moving in a viscous fluid." J. Fluid Mech., 11(3),447- V fluid velocity at some reference point;
459. V, average velocity of fluid across spherical sediment;
Saffman, P. G. (1965). "The lift on a small sphere in a slow shear flow." Vr relative velocity between fluid and sediment (sphere);
1. Fluid Mech., 22(2), 31\5-400. V, velocity component of sphere in the x-direction;
Saffman, P. G. (1961\). "Corrigendum, the lift on a small sphere in a X, Z longitudinal, vertical coordinate;
slow shear flow." 1. Fluid Mech., 31(3), 624.
z" zero velocity level;
Schiller, L., and Naumann, A. (1933). "Uber die grundlegenden be-
rechnungen bei der schwerdraftaufbereitung." Zeitschrift Des verein 0,.\_ Saffman lift coefficient;
delllscher Ingenieure, Dusseldorf, Germany, Vol. 77, 318-320 (in Ger- specific weight of fluid;
man). specific weight of sediment (sphere);
Schlichting, H. (1960). Boundary layer theory. McGraw-Hili Book Co., angular displacement of sphere from horizontal;
Inc., New York, N.Y. angle between normal force and gravity;
Shields, A. (1936). "Application of similarity principles and turbulence cos - 1 (0.8164), maximum for A:
research to bed-load movement." Rep., W. P. Ott and J. C. van viscosity of fluid;
Uchelen, translators, California Inst. of Technol., Pasadena, Calif. kinematic viscosity of fluid;
Vanoni, V. A. (1964). "Measurements of critical shear stress." Rep. No.
p density of fluid;
KH-R-7, California Inst. of Teehnol., Pasadena, Calif.
Vanoni, V. A. (1966). "Sediment transportation mechanics: initiation critical shear stress with different expressions of HI'
of motion; progress report of the Task Committee on Preparation of H 2;
Sedimentation Manual." 1. Hydr. Div., ASCE, 92(2), 291-314. T" critical shear stress;
White, C. M. (1940). "The equilibrium of grains on the bed of a stream." W angular velocity; and
Proc., Royal Soc., London, England, A 174,322-338. aulaz velocity gradient in the z-direction.

478 I JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING I JUNE 1995

J. Hydraul. Eng. 1995.121:472-478.