Proceedings of the 4th IASME / WSEAS Int.

Conference on WATER RESOURCES, HYDRAULICS & HYDROLOGY (WHH'09)

Fall Velocity of Sediment Particles

S.M SADAT-HELBAR & E. AMIRI-TOKALDANY
Irrigation and Reclamation Engineering Department
Tehran University
Mailbox:13465-193
IRAN.
mortezasadat@yahoo.com

STEVE DARBY
School of Geography
University of Southampton
UK

A. SHAFAIE
Department of civil Engineering
Amir Kabir University of Technology
IRAN.
Abstract: - Estimating the fall velocity of sediment particles is a fundamental requirement when modeling
sediment transport. Many attempts to estimate the fall velocity have been carried out by a range of
researchers over the last 40 years, so a large number of relations for different particle sizes across various
conditions are available in the literature. However, the number of relations can cause confusion and it is not
always clear which relation is the most suitable. In this study, we have examined and re-evaluated 22
relations published by 17 researchers during the period 1933-2007, developing a new relation in the process.
The new relation has been verified using two sets of laboratory data. The mean relative error of 11.7%
indicates that despite the simplicity of the relation, there is a good agreement between observed and
predicted data.

Key-Words: - Fall velocity, sediment particles, river engineering, Reynolds number, relative density

1 Introduction
The analysis of sediment transport in river
engineering problems, such as sedimentation in
river courses, morphological changes of river
banks, designing the settling basins of water
conveyance networks, and sedimentation of dam
reservoirs, needs to use a suitable relation to
estimate the terminal fall velocity, sometimes called
the settling velocity, of sediment particles. The
terminal fall velocity of a particle is the downward
velocity in a low dense fluid at equilibrium in
which the sum of the gravity force, buoyancy force
and fluid drag force are equal to zero. The fall
velocity depends on the density and viscosity of the
fluid, and the density, size, shape, and surface
texture of the particle.
Many attempts to predict the particle fall
velocity have been undertaken in the literature,
starting with Stokes in 1851 [cited in Graf 1971]
and followed by Oseen (1927), Rubby (1933),
Rouse (1938), Interagency Committee (1957),
Zanke (1977), Yalin (1977), Hallermier (1981),
Dietrich (1982), Van Rijn (1989), Concharov [cited
in Ibad-zadeh 1992], Julien (1995), Cheng (1997),
Jimenez and Madsen (2003), Brown and Lawler
(2003) and She et al. (2005) among others, who all
developed empirical or semi-empirical relations for
estimating the settling velocity of sediment
particles.
All these mentioned investigations, however,
have some limitations when it comes to applying
them to river engineering works. For instance, the
relations developed by Stokes [cited in Graf 1971],
Rouse (1938) and Brown and Lawler (2003), are
applicable only to spherical particles. Even for
spherical particles, the analytical solution of Stokes
is only applicable for Reynolds numbers less than
1, and there is no analytical solution to predict the
fall velocity of natural particles. In the absence of
such a solution, some laboratory investigations
have been conducted to provide design curves to
predict the fall velocity based solely on the
diameter of standard particles (e.g. Ruby 1933;
Graf 1971; Baba and Komar 1981 among others),
with a family of curves required to predict the
effects of other particle characteristics on fall
velocity; e.g. Alger and Simons (1962), Komar and
Reimers (1978). In a useful attempt, the US
Interagency Committee on Water Resources (1957)
summarized the data obtained by several

ISSN: 1790-2769 39 ISBN: 978-960-474-057-4

 Proceedings of the 4th IASME / WSEAS Int. Conference on WATER RESOURCES, HYDRAULICS & HYDROLOGY (WHH'09)
researchers and published a graphical relation
to estimate the drag coefficient, and
consequently, to calculate settling velocity
[cited in Wu and Wang 2006]. This graph,
however, includes a series of curves and tables,
and several interpolations must be conducted to
obtain the answer, making it inconvenient to
use. Recently, Wu and Wang (2006) have re-
evaluated the relation of the US Interagency
Committee (1957) using a wider range of data
and the equation proposed by Cheng [cited in
Wu and Wang 2006], introducing an explicit
mathematical expression for the settling
velocity of natural sediment particles. They
reported that by considering the effects of
viscosity and Corey shape factor, their formula
has a relative mean error of 9.1% which
decreases to a relative mean error of 6.8%
when the effects of Corey shape factor are
neglected. Wu and Wang (2006) concluded that
their relation performed better than nine
existing formulas in the literature.
It can be seen that it is very inconvenient
to make a decision on selecting an optimal fall
velocity relation when several empirical or
semi-empirical formulas give different answers
to the same problem. In response to this
uncertainty, in this research a very simple
equation, but with a good degree of accuracy,
to estimate the fall velocity of sediment
particles is developed. The method of
developing the new relation is presented in the
following sections.
2 Development of New Relation
In 1851, Stokes by using the Navier-Stokes
equations along with a continuity equation
expressed in polar coordinates, investigated the
coefficient of drag applied by fluid flow upon a
spherical particle (Graf 1971). Based on
Stokes’ results, the fall velocity of spherical
particles in the region of particle Reynolds
number (Re) less than 1, can be calculated
using (Cheng 1997):
1 g ( s − 1 )d 2
w= (1)
18 υ
In which w = particle fall velocity in m/s,
g=acceleration due to gravity in m/s2, d =
particle diameter in m, υ = kinematic viscosity
in m2/s, and s = relative density ( ρ s / ρ )
ISSN: 1790-2769
where ρ s and ρ are the density of the sediment
particle and ambient fluid in kg/m3,
respectively. For natural sediment particles,
many researchers (Table 1) have attempted to
develop similar equations. Due to the extensive
variation of natural particle geometry, however,
there has been little success in this regard, so
that a large number of different equations, each
of which can only be applied within a limited
range of sediment and fluid conditions, are now
available.
In this research, first, famous relations of
fall velocity introduced from 1933 to 2006,
have been collected and their advantages and
limitations investigated. Based on this,
seventeen relations were chosen and, for the
purpose of comparison, re-shaped based on a
combination of particle Reynolds number (Re)
and effective diameter (Dgr) described as:
wd
Re = (2)
υ
1/ 3
⎛ g ( s − 1) ⎞
Dgr = d ⎜ ⎟ (3)
⎝ υ ⎠
2
In Table 1, both the original and re-shaped
forms of the 17 selected relations are shown.
To compare these relations, a range of 0.01 to
100 mm of particle diameters was considered.
In the second stage, using the selected
relations, Dgr, Re, and fall velocity for each
particle size along with mean value of fall
velocity for each particle size were computed.
In Figure 1, the values of fall velocity for
sediment particle sizes of 0.0005 m and 0.001
m are calculated and compared with laboratory
data of Raudkivi (1990). As shown in Figure 1,
most of the relations estimate the fall velocity
for both particle sizes well. Among the
relations, for a particle size of 0.0005 m, the
equations presented by Ahrens (2000) and
Yalin (1977) have the greatest divergence,
respectively. Similarly, for the particle size of
0.001 m, the relations presented by Yalin
(1977) and Dietrich (1982) have the greatest
divergence, respectively. Further investigations
show that as a whole, the relation presented by
Ahrens (2000) has a great error for some
sediment sizes (0.1 mm<d<1 mm) but, it has a
reasonable accuracy for another sediment size.
Also, the relations presented by Yalin (1977)
and Dietrich (1982) have the greatest error for
sediment particles greater than 1 mm.
40 ISBN: 978-960-474-057-4
 Proceedings of the 4th IASME / WSEAS Int. Conference on WATER RESOURCES, HYDRAULICS & HYDROLOGY (WHH'09)

Table 1. List of relations presented for estimating fall velocity

Originator Main relation Modified relation Comments

3
1 g ( s − 1) d 2 Dgr
Stokes (1851) w= Re =
18 υ 18

0.5
w = F ⎡⎣ d g ( s − 1) ⎤⎦ ⎛ 2D 3 ⎞
Re = ⎜ + 36 ⎟ − 6
gr
Rubby (1933)
⎡2
0.5 0.5 ⎜ 3 ⎟
36 υ2 ⎤ ⎡ 36 υ2 ⎤ ⎝ ⎠
F =⎢ + ⎥ −⎢ ⎥
⎣⎢ 3 g d 3 ( s − 1) ⎦⎥ ⎣⎢ g d ( s − 1) ⎥⎦
3

⎡ 0.5 ⎤
10 υ ⎢⎛ ( s − 1) g d 3 ⎞ ⎡
( ) ⎤
0.5
Zanke (1977) w= ⎜1 + 0.01 ⎟ − 1⎥ Re = 2.5 ⎢ 16 + 0.16 Dgr 3 − 4⎥
d ⎢⎜⎝ υ2 ⎟
⎠
⎥ ⎣ ⎦
⎣⎢ ⎥⎦

Yalin (1977) Re = 1.825 D1.5

gr Re = 1.825 D1.5
gr

3
Dgr 3
Dgr Dgr < 3.42
Re = Re =
Hallermier 18 18
2.1
Dgr 2.1
Dgr 3.42 < Dgr < 21.54
Re = Re =
(1981) 6 6
Re = 1.05Dgr
1.5
Re = 1.05Dgr
1.5 Dgr > 21.54

w = ( R310 R1 + R2 ( s − 1) g υ1/ 3
R1 = −3.767 + 1.929 Log ( Dgr ) − 0.0982 ( Log ( Dgr ) 2 − Log ( Re ) = c0 + c1Δ + c2 Δ 2 + c3Δ3 + c4 Δ 4
Dietrich 0.0058( Log ( Dgr )3 + 0.00056 ( Log ( Dgr )4 Δ = Log ( Dgr ) c0 = −1.2557
R2 = Log (0.647) − 0.0627 tanh ( Log ( Dgr ) − 4.6) − c1 = 2.929 c2 = −0.2944
(1982)
0.0054 ( Log ( Dgr ) − 4.6) c3 = −0.05175 c4 = 0.01512
R3 = ⎣⎡0.65 − 0.247 tanh ( Log ( Dgr ) − 4.6) ⎦⎤

1 gd 2 d < 0.01cm
w= ( s − 1)
Re =
Dgr 3
Van Rijn 18 υ 18
w = 1.1 ⎡⎣( s − 1) g d ⎤⎦ Re = 1.1Dgr
1.5 d > 0.1cm
(1989)
υ⎡ 3 ⎤ Re = 10(( 1 + 0.01Dgr ) − 1)
3 0.5
w = 10 ⎢ ( 1 + 0.01 d ) ⎥ d = 0.1cm
d⎣ ⎦

Concharov 1 g ( s − 1)d 2 Dgr 3 d < 0.015 cm

w= Re =
24 ν 24
(1962) w = 1.068 ( s − 1 ) gd Re = 1.068Dg1.5
r d > 0.15 cm

⎡ υ ⎤ υ Re = ⎡( 13.95 2 + 1.09 D gr
3 0.5
w = ⎢( 13.95 )2 + 1.09( s − 1 ) gd ⎥ − 13.95 ⎣
)
Zhang (1993) ⎣ d ⎦ d
− 13.95 ⎤⎦

υ
w= [ −24 cos 3 α + Dgr ≤ 1 ⇒ α = 0
Zhu & Cheng d ( 9 cos α + 1.8 sin 2α )
3
π
Dgr > 1 ⇒ α =
(1993) ( 576 cos6α + ( 18 cos 3α + 3.6 sin 2α ) Dgr
3 0.5
) ] ⎡ 2 + 2.5( LogDgr ) −3 ⎤
⎣ ⎦

ISSN: 1790-2769 41 ISBN: 978-960-474-057-4

 Proceedings of the 4th IASME / WSEAS Int. Conference on WATER RESOURCES, HYDRAULICS & HYDROLOGY (WHH'09)

Table 1. List of relations presented for estimating fall velocity (Cont. from previous page)

Originator Main relation Modified relation Comments

8υ ⎡ ( s − 1) g d 3 0.5 ⎤ ⎡
( ) ⎤
0.5
Julien (1995) w= ⎢(1 + 0.222 ) − 1⎥ Re = 2 ⎢ 16 + 0.222D gr
3
− 4⎥
d ⎢⎣ 16 υ2 ⎥⎦ ⎣ ⎦

Soulsby 10.36 υ ⎡ ( s − 1 ) g d 3 0.5 ⎤

w= ⎢( 1 + 0.156 ) − 1⎥ ⎡
( ) ⎤
0.5
d ⎢⎣ 16 υ2 ⎥⎦ Re = 2.59 ⎢ 16 + 0.156 Dg3r − 4⎥
⎣ ⎦
(1997)

1.5
wd ⎛
= ⎜ 25 + 1.2d*2 − 5 ⎞⎟
υ ⎝ ⎠ 1.5
⎡
( ) ⎤
0.5
Cheng (1997) Re = ⎢ 25 + 1.2Dgr
2
− 5⎥ csf = 0.7
0.333 ⎣ ⎦
⎛ ( s − 1) g ⎞
d* = ⎜ ⎟ d
⎝ υ
2
⎠

w = C1Δgd 2 / υ + C2 Δgd Δ = s −1
Re = C1 Dgr
3
+ C2 Dgr
3

C1 = 0.055 tanh[ 12 A 0.59

exp( −0.0004 A )]
C1 = 0.055 tanh[ 12Dgr
1.77
exp( −0.0004Dgr
3
)
Ahrens (2000) C2 = 1.06 tanh[ 0.016 A 0.50
exp( −0.0004 A )]
C2 = 1.06 tanh[ 0.016 Dgr
1.5
exp( −120 / Dgr
3
)]
A = Δgd / υ 3 2

Jimenez and w 1
=
( s −1)g d A+
B
D 3gr
Madsen S* Re = csf = 0.7
1.5
0.954Dgr + 20.48
d
(2003) S* = ( s − 1 )g d
4υ

She et al. Re = 1.05D1.5

gr ⎣⎢ (
⎡1 − exp −0.08D1.2 ⎤
gr ⎦⎥ ) Re = 1.05D1.5
gr ⎣⎢ (
⎡1 − exp −0.08D1.2 ⎤
gr ⎦⎥ ) Dgr > 2

(2005) (
Re = 1.05Dgr 1.5 ⎡1 − exp −0.315D0.765 ⎤
)
2.2
⎢⎣ gr (
Re = 1.05Dgr 1.5 ⎡1 − exp −0.315D0.765 ) Dgr < 2
⎣⎢ gr ⎦⎥

−0.65 S f
n n M = 53.5e
Mν ⎡ 1 ⎛ 4 N 1⎤ M ⎡ 1 ⎛ 4N 1⎤
Wu and Wang 1/ n 1/ n
3⎞ 3⎞
ws = ⎢ +⎜ D ⎟ − ⎥ Re = ⎢ +⎜ D ⎟ − ⎥ N = 5.65e
− 2.5 S f

N ⎢ 4 ⎝ 3M 2 2⎥
* gr
Nd ⎢ 4 ⎝ 3M 2 ⎠ 2⎥ ⎠
(2006) ⎣ ⎦ ⎣ ⎦ n = 0.7 + 0.9S f

In the third step, the fall velocities calculated This process is repeated for all particle
by the 17 relations for a specific particle size, sizes considered in this study to provide a final
e.g. 1 mm, were evaluated so that the relations estimate of the mean fall velocity for each
with 25 percent divergence from the mean particle size (Figure 2). Based on these results,
value of fall velocity are classified as the following relations to calculate the fall
unsuitable predictions for that particle size. velocity of all particle sizes are provided:
These erroneous relations are then discarded υ ⎛ d 3 g ( s − 1) ⎞
0 . 963

from the computations and the mean fall w = 0 . 033 ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ D gr ≤ 10

d ⎝ υ2 ⎠ (4)
velocity for the same particle size is calculated 0 . 553
again using only the remaining relations. υ ⎛ d g ( s − 1) ⎞
3
w = 0 . 51 ⎜ ⎟⎟ D gr > 10
d ⎜⎝ υ2 ⎠

ISSN: 1790-2769 42 ISBN: 978-960-474-057-4

 Proceedings of the 4th IASME / WSEAS Int. Conference on WATER RESOURCES, HYDRAULICS & HYDROLOGY (WHH'09)
0.30 Prediction = Observation
Rubey (1933)
zanke (1977)
0.25 Yalin (1977) predicted by Eq. (4). To describe the accuracy
Hallermeier (1981) of Eq. (4) quantitatively, the relative error of
Dietrich (1982)
Van Rijn (1989) the relation for each particle size and the mean
Prediction

0.20 Concharov (1992)

relative error are calculated using the following
W (m/s)

Zhang (1993)
Zhu & Cheng (1993) equations:
Julien (1995)
0.15 Soulsby (1997) wo ( di ) − w( di )
Cheng (1997)
Ahrens (2000)
RE( di ) =
wo ( di )
0.10 Jimenez & Madsen (2003)
She et al (2005)
(5)
n
1
MRE = ∑ RE( di )
Wu & Wang (2006)
New Relation
0.05 n i =1
5.E-02 1.E-01 2.E-01 2.E-01 3.E-01 3.E-01 where RE(di) = the relative error for particle size
W (m/s)
of di, wo(di) = the observed fall velocity of
Observation (Raudkivi 1990) particle size of di, w(di) = the predicted fall
Figure 1. Fall velocity calculated by different relations
velocity of particle size of di, and MRE = the
for particle sizes of 0.5 and 1mm. mean relative error. The mean relative error for
the data sets of (Zegzhda, 1934;
Arkhangel’skii, 1935; Sarkisian, 1958) and
2.5
Raudkivi (1990) is found as 11.8 and 11.6,
respectively, indicating the good accuracy of
the new relation.
2.0
Furthermore, using the above two sets of
data, the accuracy of Eq. (4) for predicting the
w ( m/s )

1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
1.E-05 1.E-04 1.E-03 1.E-02
d(m)
Figure 2. Mean Fall velocity of particle sizes
The correlation coefficients for the first
and the second relations are 0.996 and 0.994,
respectively. Equation (4) can be used to
estimate the fall velocity of any particle size
with reasonable accuracy. In Table 2, the
predicted values of fall velocity estimated for
different particle sizes are shown.
3 Verifying the New Relation
To verify the new relation, two sets of
laboratory data, one set reported by Zegzhda,
1934; Arkhangel’skii, 1935; and Sarkisian,
1958 [compiled by Cheng (1997)], and the data
of Raudkivi (1990), have been used (Figure 3).
As shown in Figure 3, there is good agreement
between the observed data and the values
fall velocity for different particle sizes has been
compared with other relations.
In Table 3 the mean error for the different
relations is indicated. As shown in Table 3, the
fall velocity relations proposed by Ahrenz
(2000), Yalin (1977), and Stokes (1851) have
the greatest errors among the 18 relations
1.E-01 1.E+00 included in Table 3; i.e. 191.27%, 182.78%,
and 63.64%, respectively, whereas the relations
presented by Zhu and Cheng (1993), Cheng
(1997), Wu and Wang (2006) and Eq. (4) have
the least errors; i.e. 8.75%, 9.22%, 10.15%, and
11.75%, respectively. For the data set of
Raudkivi (1990), the equation presented by
Concharov (1962) has the lowest mean error
(1.9%) while again the relations introduced by
Ahrenz, Yalin, and Stokes have the largest
mean error, respectively. As indicated in Table
3, considering the new relation introduced in
this paper, the average of the mean relative
errors for the two mentioned sets of data is
about 11.7%, highlighting the point that despite
its simplicity, Eq. (4), has ability to estimate
particle fall velocity reasonably well.
Moreover, the new equation can be applied
over a wide range of particle sizes. As a result,
the new relation can be a useful tool for
estimating the fall velocity of a wide range of
particle size; i.e. from 0.01 mm to 100 mm.

ISSN: 1790-2769 43 ISBN: 978-960-474-057-4

 Proceedings of the 4th IASME / WSEAS Int. Conference on WATER RESOURCES, HYDRAULICS & HYDROLOGY (WHH'09)

Table 2. The effective diameter, Reynolds number, and mean fall velocity of some particle sizes
predicted by the new relation.
D 1. E-05 1. E-04 0.0005 0.001 0.002 0.005 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.1
(m)
Dgr 0.25 2.53 12.65 25.30 50.59 126.48 252.96 505.9 1264.8 2529.6

Re 0.00062 0.482 34.2 121 346 1542 4990 15800 72000 226000
w
0.000062 0.00482 0.068 0.121 0.173 0.308 0.499 0.790 1.44 2.26
(m/s)

values over a wide range (0.01 mm- 100mm) of

1.0E+00
particle sizes.
Ruadkivi ( 1990 ) Data
1.0E-01
Table 3. The mean relative error of fall velocityies
w Prediction (m/s)

estimated by various relations by using two sets of

1.0E-02
experimental data [(Zegzhda, 1934; Arkhangel’skii,
1935; Sarkisian, 1958) and Raudkivi (1990)].
1.0E-03

Experimental data
1.0E-04
MRE=11.60 %
Zegzhda (1933),
1.0E-05 Raudkivi
1.0E-05 1.0E-04 1.0E-03 1.0E-02 1.0E-01 1.0E+00 Arkhangel’skii (1935),
Originator
w Observation (m/s) (1990)
and Sarkisyan (1958)

1.0E+00 Stokes (1851) 63.64 35.37

Zegzhda (1933 )
Rubey (1933) 31.80 24.28
1.0E-01 Arkhangel Skii ( 1935 )
w Prediction (m/s)

Sarkisyan ( 1958 ) Data Zanke (1977) 25.04 13.98

1.0E-02 Yalin (1977) 182.7 117.0
Hallermeier (1981) 28.42 22.03
1.0E-03
Dietrich (1982) 39.83 34.94
1.0E-04 MRE=11.75 % Van Rijn (1989) 30.73 19.61
Concharov (1992) 13.49 1.90
1.0E-05
1.0E-05 1.0E-04 1.0E-03 1.0E-02 1.0E-01 1.0E+00 Zhang (1993) 12.88 5.62
Zhu and Cheng (1993) 8.75 3.86
w Observation (m/s)
Julien (1995) 30.75 20.46
Figure 3. Testing the ability of the new relation using Soulsby (1997) 25.68 14.16
two sets of data.
Cheng (1997) 9.22 3.66
Ahrens (2000) 191.27 146.57
4 Conclusions Jimenez (2030) 15.05 6.52
In this study the most important relations for She et al. (2005) 30.98 21.21
computing the fall velocity for a range of
Wu and Wang (2006) 10.15 3.70
particle sizes have been evaluated and a new,
but simple, equation has been introduced. New relation 11.75 11.60
Testing the new relation using two sets of
available data indicates a very strong
agreement between observed and predicted

ISSN: 1790-2769 44 ISBN: 978-960-474-057-4

 Proceedings of the 4th IASME / WSEAS Int. Conference on WATER RESOURCES, HYDRAULICS & HYDROLOGY (WHH'09)

5 References law. Journal of Hydraulic Research. 43(2):189–

Arkhangel’skii, B. V. 1935. Experimental study of 195.
accuracy of hydraulic coarseness scale of particles. Soulsby, R. L. 1997. Dynamics of marine sands,
Izd. NIIG, 15, Moscow, Russia (in Russian). Thomas Telford, London.
Ahrens, J. P. 2000. The fall velocity equation. Van Rijn, L.C. 1989. “Handbook: Sediment transport by
Journal of Waterw., Port, Coastal, Ocean currents and waves.” Rep. No. H 461, Delft
Engineering, ASCE, 126(2), 99–102. Hydraulics, Delft, The Netherlands.
Alger, G. R. and Simons, D. B. 1968. Fall velocity of Wu, W., and Wang, S. S. Y. 2006. Formulas for
irregular shaped particles. Journal of Hydraulic sediment porosity and settling velocity. Journal of
Engineering, ASCE, 721-737. Hydraulic Engineering, ASCE, 132(8), 858-862.
Baba, J. and Simons, D. B. 1981. Measurements and Yalin, M.S. 1977. Mechanics of sediment transport,
analysis of settling velocities of natural quartz Pergamon Press, Oxford, pp. 80–87.
sand grains. Journal of Sediment, Petrol. 51(2), Zanke, U. 1977. Berechnung der
631-640. sinkgeschwindigkeiten von sedimenten. Mitt. Des
Brown, P. P., and Lawler, D. F. 2003. Sphere drag and Franzius-Instituts fuer Wasserbau, Heft 46, Seite
settling velocity revisited. Journal of 243, Technical University, Hannover,Germany.
Environmental Engineering, 129(3), 222-231. Zegzhda, A. P. 1934. Settlement of sand gravel
Cheng, N. S. 1997. Simplified settling velocity formula particles in still water. Izd. NIIG, 12, Moscow,
for sediment particle. Journal of Hyraulic Russia (in Russian).
Engineering, ASCE, 123(8), 149–152. Zhu, L. J., and Cheng, N. S. 1993. Settlement of
Dietrich, W.E. 1982. Settling velocity of natural sediment particles. Res. Rep., Dept. Of River and
particles. Water Resource. Research. 18(6), Harbor Engineering., Nanjing Hydr. Res. Inst.,
1615–1626. Nanjing, China.
Graf, W. H. 1971. Hydraulics of sediment transport,
McGraw-Hill Press, New York.
Hallermeier, R. J. 1981. Terminal settling velocity of
commonly occurring sand grains.
Sedimentology, 28(6), 859–865.
Ibad-zadeh, Y. A. 1992. Movement of sediment in open
channels. S. P. Ghosh, translator,Russian
translations series, Vol. 49, A. A. Balkema,
Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Interagency Committee. 1957. Some fundamentals of
particle size analysis: A study of methods used in
measurement and analysis of sediment loads in
streams. Rep . No.12, Subcommittee on
Sedimentation, Interagency Committee on Water
Resources, St. Anthony Falls Hydraulic
Laboratory, Minneapolis.
Jimenez, J. A., and Madsen, O. S. 2003. A simple
formula to estimate settling velocity of natural
sediments. Journal of Waterw., Port, Coastal,
Ocean Engineering, ASCE, 129(2), 70-78.
Julien, Y. P. 1995. Erosion and sedimentation,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,U.K.
Komar,P.D. and Reimers, C.E. 1978. Grain shape
effects on settling rates. Journal of Geology, 86,
193-209.
Oseen, C. 1927. Hydrodynamik, Akademische
Verlagsgesellschaft, Leipzig, Germany.
Raudkivi, A. J. 1990. Loose boundary hydraulics, 3rd
Ed., Pergamon Press, Oxford, U.K.
Rouse, H. 1938. Fluid mechanics for hydraulic
engineers, Dover, New York.
Rubey, W. 1933. Settling velocities of gravel, sand and
silt particles. Am. J. Sci., 225, 325–338.
Sarkisian, A. A. 1958. Deposition of sediment in a
turbulent stream. Izd. AN SSSR, Moscow, Russia
(in Russian).
She. K., Trim, L., and Pope, D. 2005. Fall velocities of
natural sediment particles: a simple
mathematical presentation of the fall velocity

ISSN: 1790-2769 45 ISBN: 978-960-474-057-4