See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/278646350

1.13 Sediments and Sediment Transport

Chapter · December 2013

DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-12-374739-6.00013-0

CITATION READS

1 4,202

3 authors, including:

Douglas Sherman Lisa Davis

University of Alabama University of Alabama
141 PUBLICATIONS   3,199 CITATIONS    17 PUBLICATIONS   84 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Nearshore Processes View project

Coastal Dunes View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Douglas Sherman on 14 August 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Provided for non-commercial research and educational use only.
Not for reproduction, distribution or commercial use.

This chapter was originally published in the Treatise on Geomorphology, the copy attached is provided by Elsevier for
the author’s benefit and for the benefit of the author’s institution, for non-commercial research and educational use.
This includes without limitation use in instruction at your institution, distribution to specific colleagues, and providing
a copy to your institution’s administrator.

All other uses, reproduction and distribution, including without limitation commercial reprints, selling or licensing
copies or access, or posting on open internet sites, your personal or institution’s website or repository, are prohibited.
For exceptions, permission may be sought for such use through Elsevier’s permissions site at:

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/permissionusematerial

Sherman D.J., Davis L., and Namikas S.L. (2013) Sediments and Sediment Transport. In: John F. Shroder (ed.)
Treatise on Geomorphology, Volume 1, pp. 233-256. San Diego: Academic Press.

© 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

 Author's personal copy

1.13 Sediments and Sediment Transport

DJ Sherman and L Davis, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL, USA
SL Namikas, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA, USA
r 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1.13.1 Introduction 234

1.13.2 Key Concepts 235
1.13.2.1 The Froude Number 235
1.13.2.2 The Reynolds Number 235
1.13.2.3 The Prandlt and von Kármán Boundary-Layer Concepts 235
1.13.2.4 Nikuradse’s Sand Grain Roughness 236
1.13.2.5 The Rouse Number 237
1.13.3 The Properties of Sediment 238
1.13.3.1 Particle Size and Its Measurement 238
1.13.3.1.1 Particle-size scales 238
1.13.3.1.2 Particle-size measurement 240
1.13.3.2 Particle Shape 241
1.13.3.2.1 Sphericity 241
1.13.3.2.2 Roundness 243
1.13.3.3 Sediment Size Distributions 243
1.13.4 Initiation of Sediment Motion 245
1.13.4.1 The Hjulström Curve 245
1.13.4.2 The Shields Curve 246
1.13.4.3 Bagnold’s (1936) Equation 248
1.13.5 Sediment Transport 248
1.13.5.1 Grove Karl Gilbert 248
1.13.5.2 Ralph Alger Bagnold 251
1.13.5.3 Douglas Lamar Inman 253
1.13.6 Conclusions 253
References 253

Glossary Law of the wall A deterministic model to describe the

Capacity The total amount of suspended and bed
sediment a stream is capable of transporting. It is
determined by the available unit stream power and
bed-shear stress distributed across the width of a channel
cross-section. It differs from the total load of a channel
as the load refers to what the stream is actually carrying,
which is dependent on the amount of sediment
supplied from upstream, and this is usually less than the
capacity.
Competence The largest caliber of sediment a stream is
capable of entraining and transporting. Competence is
proportional to flow velocity.
Form ratio The mathematical relationship between
stream channel width and depth, usually expressed as mean
depth/width. Form ratio is often calculated in order to
determine channel cross-sectional area and/or channel
capacity.
rate of change of fluid velocity in the stress region of a
turbulent boundary layer. The model underpins the use of
measured velocity profiles to estimate shear velocity and
shear stress.
Mixing length A theoretical construct that represents the
scale of eddies that transfer fluid momentum within a
turbulent boundary layer between the surface and the top of
the boundary layer, where the free-stream velocity is
attained. The assumption of a characteristic mixing length is
fundamental to the ‘law of the wall.’
Phi-scale The phi-scale is widely used to express the size
of sediment particles or populations. A phi (j) value is the
negative base-2 logarithm of the grain size in millimeters.
Roughness length A scaling parameter used to represent
the magnitude of the influence of a surface on an adjacent
fluid flow. It is commonly expressed as a function of the
grain size of bed sediment. The roughness length is

Sherman, D.J., Davis, L., Namikas, S.L., 2013. Sediments and sediment
transport. In: Shroder, J. (Editor in chief), Orme, A.R., Sack, D. (Eds.),
Treatise on Geomorphology. Academic Press, San Diego, CA, vol. 1, The
Foundations of Geomorphology, pp. 233–256.

Treatise on Geomorphology, Volume 1 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-374739-6.00013-0 233

 Author's personal copy
234 Sediments and Sediment Transport

sometimes interpreted physically as the height above the
bed at which a fluid flow becomes zero.
Sediment budget A sediment budget comprising the
entire suite of sources and sinks of clastic material that
affect a given location. A positive sediment budget produces
net deposition at that location, whereas a negative budget
results in net erosion and a balanced budget is associated
with no net change.
Settling velocity The rate at which a sediment particle will
fall through a quiescent fluid after the gravity force is
balanced by the drag force so that there is no further
acceleration. Settling velocity, also termed as fall or terminal
velocity, is used as an indicator of the hydrodynamic or
aerodynamic behavior of a particle.

Abstract

Sediment transport is one of the most basic and important processes responsible for shaping the Earth’s surface, and is thus
of fundamental interest to geomorphologists. Existing landforms are sculpted and altered by the erosion of weathered
sediments, and the subsequent deposition of those materials produces new suites of landforms at other locations. The
purpose of this chapter is to review the development of some key concepts and techniques in sediment transport that have
become part of the repertoire of modern geomorphology. This body of knowledge has grown out of contributions from
many scientific disciplines, including, but not limited to, engineering, geography, geology, geomorphology, hydraulics,
physics, oceanography, and sedimentology. Herein, the authors aim to highlight the especially important advances.

The chapter begins with introductions to key supporting
concepts, mostly drawn from work in fluid mechanics con-
ducted between the mid-nineteenth and mid-twentieth cen-
turies, which were of a nature to change fundamentally the
way that we conceive of the physics of sediment transport.
These include the dimensionless numbers developed by
William Froude and Osborne Reynolds, which remain widely
used to characterize the nature of flows and to establish dy-
namic similitude in models; the boundary-layer theory and
law of the wall developed by Ludwig Prandtl and his student
Theodore von Kármán, which permeate studies of sediment
transport across nearly all environments; the characterization
of the roughness length of sediment surfaces developed by
Johann Nikuradse; and the dimensionless parameter de-
veloped by Hunter Rouse that is used to characterize and
normalize profiles of suspended sediment concentration.
The remainder of the chapter addresses three themes rep-
resenting major subcomponents of sediment transport: (1)
developments in the characterization and measurement of the
size and form of sediments and sediment populations; (2)
major contributions to our understanding of the initiation of
sediment motion, focusing on the contributions of Filip
Hjulstrom, Albert Shields, and Ralph Alger Bagnold; and (3)
major contributions to the study and modeling of sediment
transport in various environments, including Bagnold’s classic
aeolian transport model, Grove Karl Gilbert’s work in fluvial
systems, and Douglas Lamar Inman studies of sediment
transport in coastal environments.
1.13.1 Introduction
A rich heritage of research and discovery concerning sediment
and sediment transport is relevant to geomorphology. This
work directly underpins much of process geomorphology and
is also fundamental to many environmental interpretation
and reconstruction studies. The generation of sediments by
weathering and the subsequent erosion of those sediments
lead to the reshaping of landforms. Similarly, the deposition
of transported sediments leads to the formation and evolution
of a different suite of landforms. Furthermore, the nature of
sediment deposits provides insight to the process environment
that is associated with their transport and deposition. For
these reasons, among others, understanding the fundamentals
of sediments and sediment transport provides the geo-
morphologist with powerful tools for modeling and inter-
preting landform evolution. The purpose of this chapter is to
review the development of some of the key concepts and
techniques that have become part of the repertoire of modern
geomorphology. Such classic work comes to us from many
scientific disciplines, including, but not limited to, engin-
eering, geography, geology, geomorphology, physics, ocean-
ography, and sedimentology.
Numerous books have been written concerning particular
aspects of sediment and sediment transport, but there is in-
sufficient space in this chapter to detail all of the important
contributions of even the last century or so. Therefore, the
attention is focused on a selection of key publications or-
ganized by three themes: (1) developments in measuring and
characterizing sediments; (2) major contributions to the study
of the initiation of motion, and (3) major contributions to the
study of sediment transport. In each of these sections, a se-
lection of developments is detailed in their historical context
to provide what is hoped to be a deeper appreciation of their
background. Shorter, more general introductions to sup-
porting concepts that contributed each advance, generally
from fluid mechanics, are also included. These concepts were
of a nature to change fundamentally the way in which the
physics of sediment transport is conceived.
In the section characterizing sediments, the classic works of
Wentworth, Wadell, Krumbein, and Folk and Ward are the
focus. For the initiation of motion, the studies by Hjulström,
Shields, and Bagnold are discussed. In the section on sediment
transport, the work of Gilbert, Bagnold, and Inman are
 Author's personal copy
considered. Our coverage is not intended to be comprehen-
sive, but, hopefully, not idiosyncratic. For fuller consideration
of sediments and sediment transport, the reader is referred,
topically, to the following. There are many excellent treatments
of sediment properties, including the classic text by Krumbein
and Pettijohn (1938) and later works by Carver (1971), Folk
(1980), and Tucker (2001). Similar information also appears
in general texts on sedimentology and sedimentary petrology.
For treatments of motion initiation and sediment transport in
various environments, there are again many excellent com-
pendia, including books by Bagnold (1941), Allen (1982),
Graf (1984), and Julien (2010). The Treatise on Geomorphology
also includes several volumes of direct relevance to the prin-
ciples reviewed in this chapter, notably Volume 9, Fluvial
Geomorphology (Ellen Wohl, Editor); Volume 10, Coastal
Geomorphology (Douglas Sherman, Editor); Chapter 11.1,
and Volume 14, Methods in Geomorphology (Adam Switzer
and David Kennedy, Editors). Also, in Chapter 1.2 of this
volume, The Foundations of Geomorphology, Antony Orme
discusses these principles during geomorphology’s formative
years from the Renaissance to the early nineteenth century.
1.13.2 Key Concepts
Much of what we understand concerning sediment transport is
based on a series of fundamental concepts in fluid mechanics.
These reflect ideas explored in the seventeenth and eighteenth
centuries that were advanced significantly during the late
nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. In this chapter, we
examine a particular subset of advances that is believed to be
of special relevance to modern geomorphologists concerned
with, especially, sand transport. These include important
developments by William Froude (1866: the Froude number);
Osborne Reynolds (1883: the Reynolds number); Theodore
von Kármán and Ludwig Prandtl (early twentieth century:
boundary-layer theory and the law of the wall); Johann
Nikuradse (1933: equivalent sand grain roughness); and
Hunter Rouse (1938: the Rouse number).
1.13.2.1 The Froude Number
William Froude (1810–1879) was an English hydrodynamicist
and naval architect with a degree in mathematics from Oxford.
His major contribution to the study of sediment transport in
geomorphology lies in the dimensionless number that bears
his name, although the relation was proposed earlier by Jean-
Baptiste Bélanger (Chanson, 2009). The Froude number (Fr)
can be expressed in several forms, but most generally as:
V
Fr ¼ pffiffiffiffiffi ½1
gL
where V is a characteristic velocity, g is the gravitational con-
stant, and L is a characteristic length (Graf, 1984). The Froude
number can be interpreted as the ratio of inertial to gravi-
tational forces, or as the ratio of mean flow velocity to the
celerity of a shallow water surface wave.
In the context of open channel flow, V represents the flow
velocity averaged over the entire channel cross-section and L is
Sediments and Sediment Transport 235
the hydraulic depth (the cross-sectional channel area divided
by the surface width). In rivers, the Froude number provides
one approach to distinguish between flow regimes. A Froude
number o1 indicates subcritical or tranquil flow. In this state,
flow velocity is smaller than that of a wave propagating on the
surface and gravitational forces are dominant. For Fr 41, the
flow is termed supercritical or rapid, and the inertial forces are
dominant. The Froude number is also useful in establishing
similitude between model and prototype in laboratory studies.
1.13.2.2 The Reynolds Number
Osborne Reynolds (1842–1912) was an Irish-born, Cambridge-
educated mathematician and engineer. Virtually, his entire
professional career was spent as a Professor of Engineering at
Owens College. The author of more than 70 scholarly publi-
cations on topics ranging from fluid mechanics to naval
architecture, and from thermodynamics to civil engineering,
Reynolds’ many achievements led him to be elected a fellow of
the Royal Society in 1877 (Jackson, 1995).
Reynolds’ accomplishments in the realm of fluid mech-
anics include development of the useful concept that has
come to be known as ‘Reynolds-averaging,’ in which turbulent
flows are characterized through decomposition into mean and
fluctuating components. But he is best known for his studies
of flow in pipes and the quantification of conditions associ-
ated with the transition from laminar to turbulent flow, as
characterized by the well-known Reynolds number (Re):
VL
Re ¼ ½2
n
where n is kinematic viscosity (Reynolds, 1883). This dimen-
sionless number represents the ratio of inertial to viscous
forces. At small values (Re o2300 in pipe flow), viscosity is
dominant and flow will be laminar. At high values (Re 44000
for pipe flow), stronger inertial forces will produce turbulent
flows. A transitional zone exists between the laminar and
turbulent regimes in which either flow condition may prevail
depending on additional factors like surface roughness.
In the original studies, the characteristic length scale (L)
was the pipe diameter, but in later practice, it varied with
application. In the case of open channel flow, for example,
hydraulic depth is generally used. For particles settling in a
fluid, the particle diameter is used for L (and the resulting
quantity is termed the particle Reynolds number). Along with
the Froude number, the Reynolds number provides a key tool
for determining whether dynamic similitude exists between
model and prototype flows (e.g., Middleton and Wilcock,
1994).
1.13.2.3 The Prandlt and von Kármán Boundary-Layer
Concepts
Every modern textbook on fluid dynamics or mechanics will
include a discussion of boundary-layer concepts based on the
work of Ludwig Prandtl (1875–1953) and his student,
Theodore von Kármán (1881–1963). The motivation for the
work was the desire to quantify shear stresses across the sur-
faces of aircraft wings. Because the Navier–Stokes equations
 Author's personal copy
236 Sediments and Sediment Transport
were intractable, such quantification was impossible before
Prandtl’s short (10 min) presentation at the Third Inter-
national Mathematics Congress in Heidelberg in 1904 (see
discussion in Anderson, 2005), when he postulated the pres-
ence of a boundary layer within which the flow is influenced
by friction. In the ‘free stream’ above the boundary layer,
frictional effects are negligible. At the base of the boundary
layer there was hypothesized a ‘no-slip’ condition where
flow velocity became zero. These concepts revolutionized
the study of flow across a surface. Within a few decades, the
boundary-layer theory found its way into sediment-transport
applications (discussed below), especially with regard to the
development of the ‘law of the wall’ and the shear velocity
concept. Both of these developments are related through,
among other concepts, the theories of mixing lengths.
For laminar flow in a boundary layer, the change in velocity
from zero at the surface to the free-stream velocity at the top of
the boundary layer is caused by vertical momentum transport
associated with molecular motion along a mean free path. For
turbulent flows, it is assumed that small (relative to boundary-
layer thickness) parcels of fluid – eddies – may behave in an
analogous manner while conserving a characteristic mo-
mentum (or other physical property). The distance through
which momentum is conserved is the mixing length. In a
turbulent boundary layer, the mean velocity, u, at an elevation,
y, above the surface is an average of the velocities of the slower
moving eddies arriving from one mixing length, l, below that
elevation and faster moving eddies arriving from one mixing
length above that elevation, as depicted in Figure 1. This is the
key element in Prandtl’s momentum–transport theory
(Prandtl, 1926, as cited in Vennard and Street, 1982):
 
du 2
t ¼ rl2
dy
where t is shear stress and r is the fluid density. He also noted
that l is a function of distance from the boundary: l ¼ ky, with
k an empirical constant.
Theodore von Kármán (1881–1963) was a student of
Prandtl at the University of Göttingen, and his PhD, written
y
u + l1(du/dy )
l1
u extensive research on the nature of flow in pipes and channels
l1
u − l1(du/dy )
y1
u to produce a uniform surface roughness. He then measured
Figure 1 Schematic of the mixing length concept. The fluid speed u
at elevation y1 is the average of the speeds arriving with eddies from
a mixing length above and below.
about the behavior of solids, was awarded in 1908. His
interests turned to fluid mechanics almost by accident, ac-
cording to his biographer (Dryden, 1965). However, he was
soon appointed director of the Aerodynamics Institute at the
University of Aachen in 1912, where he honed his interests in
boundary layers. In 1930, he presented his Similarity Theory
for mixing length, arguing that the structure of turbulent ed-
dies is similar at all elevations in the boundary layer, except
that their dimensions scale with elevation, so that there is a
zone of constant shear stress (von Kármán, 1930, cited in
Duncan et al., 1970). From his arguments:
 , 
du d2 u  du
 
l ¼ k  ¼ u = ½4
 dy dy2  dy
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
where u is the shear velocity, defined as u  t=r.
This formulation led to the law of the wall:
 
u z
uz ¼ ln ½5
k z0
where k (now known as the von Kármán constant) ¼ 0.4, and
z0 is the surface roughness length. From this relationship,
shear velocity can be estimated using the slope, m, of a log-
linear velocity profile: u ¼ km.
The law of the wall and its applications are used extensively
in process geomorphology, especially for deriving estimates of
shear velocity. The latter is a critical parameter for estimating
the threshold condition for the movement of sediments, and
also is a common element in models of sediment-transport
rates.
Both Prandtl and von Kármán continued to make funda-
½3
mental contributions to the field of aerodynamics; the former
for Nazi Germany and the latter for the allies. Von Kármán
immigrated to USA in 1930 to take up a position at the
California Institute of Technology, where he later helped to
establish the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. Both earned many
honors during their lifetimes, but perhaps without recognizing
that their boundary-layer theories would underpin one
element of the discipline of geomorphology.
1.13.2.4 Nikuradse’s Sand Grain Roughness
Johann Nikuradse (1894–1979) was another of the
notable students who studied at the University of Göttingen
under Ludwig Prandtl. Nikuradse completed his PhD in 1923
and continued at Göttingen for another decade, conducting
of various types with Prandtl (Hager and Liiv, 2008). His most
important contribution to sediment transport derives from his
classic paper on the nature of turbulent flow in rough pipes
(Nikuradse, 1933).
In a painstaking series of experiments, Nikuradse affixed
uniform coatings of sand grains to the interior of pipes using
thin lacquer. The sand was sieved to a very narrow size range
the influence of various surface roughness lengths (different
grain sizes) on flows across a wide range of Reynolds numbers,
to determine a resistance or friction factor.
 Author's personal copy
Sediments and Sediment Transport 237

1.1

1.0  = 15
k
= 30.6
= 60
0.9 = 126
= 252
= 507
0.8

log (100)
0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

log Re
0.2
2.6 2.8 3.0 3.2 3.4 3.6 3.8 4.0 4.2 4.4 4.6 4.8 5.0 5.2 5.4 5.6 5.8 6.0
Figure 2 Nikuradse’s friction factor (l) as a function of Reynolds number (Re) for various relative surface roughness lengths (t¼pipe radius
and k ¼grain diameter). Reproduced from Nikuradse, J., 1933. Stromungsgesetze in Rauhen Rohren. Forschung auf dem Gebiete des
Ingenieurwesens, Forschungsheft 361, VDI Verlag, Berlin, Germany (English Translation: Laws of Flow in Rough Pipes). Technical Memorandum
1292, National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, Washington, DC, 1950.

Nikuradse found that at low Reynolds numbers, the fric-
tion factor is independent of grain size (surface roughness)
and it decreases as Reynolds numbers increase (Figure 2). This
results from the roughness elements remaining within the
thicker laminar sublayer. As the Reynolds number is increased,
a transitional zone is entered in which the roughness elements
are of approximately the same size as the laminar sublayer and
the friction factor increases with Re. Beyond the transitional
zone, the roughness elements protrude through the laminar
layer and influence the outer flow directly. In this region,
which is characteristic of many natural sediment-transport
situations, the friction factor becomes a constant that is in-
dependent of the Reynolds number and controlled by the
surface roughness length (grain size).
Following Nikuradse’s work, a number of simple ex-
pressions have been proposed to relate surface roughness
length, z0, to grain size, d, in studies of sediment transport in
various environments. For example, Bagnold (1941) suggested
z0 ¼ d/30, whereas Einstein (1950) used z0 ¼ d65/30 (d65 is the
diameter in a grain-size population at which 65% of the grains
are finer). In many cases, the drag imparted on a moving fluid
by surface grains (also referred to as skin drag) is mainly de-
termined by the size of the sediments that comprise that
surface. Other surface irregularities, including bedforms (form
drag) and vegetation, will also contribute to the total drag and
these latter factors may be far more significant, especially in
natural environments.
Rouse (1991) remarked on Nikuradse’s unusual experi-
mental approach, in which individual measurements were
immediately plotted and subsequently discarded if they devi-
ated significantly from the general trend. Nonetheless, Yang
and Joseph (2009) recently suggested that Nikuradse’s work
remains the ‘gold standard’ for experimental studies of flow in
rough pipes, and Hager and Liiv (2008) concluded that
‘‘Nikuradse’s contribution to hydraulic engineering will sur-
vive.’’ According to Oswatitsch and Wieghardt (1987), the re-
ports on those experiments were the last substantive pieces of
research Nikuradse published, as he left the Kaiser Wilhelm
Institut after he tried unsuccessfully, with the help of a Nazi
Party official, to replace Prandtl as director.
1.13.2.5 The Rouse Number
Hunter Rouse (1906–1996) was a pioneer in ‘‘ythe appli-
cation of fluid mechanics to hydraulics, fusing theory and
experimental techniques to form the basis for modern en-
gineering hydraulics’’ as recognized in the text of his award by
the American Society of Civil Engineers of the John Frits Medal
in 1991 (Mutel and Ettema, 2010: 229). Among his many
accomplishments was the recognition and quantification of a
characteristic, vertical concentration profile for suspended
sediments, leading to the development of what is now referred
to as the Rouse number.
Rouse (1938) was interested in relationships between tur-
bulence and suspended sediments in water. His reasoning
began with recognition of the basic relationship between
vertical velocities associated with turbulent eddies and the
settling velocity of transported sediments, and the vertical
velocity profile as described by the law of the wall. Using a
blender-like apparatus to suspend particles via vertical oscil-
lation, he was able to produce and measure vertical concen-
tration profiles with four different sediment sizes, ranging
from 0.03 to 0.25 mm in diameter. Results are presented in his
Figure 4, depicting the linear relationship between elevation
and the log of concentration. There was a distinct profile for
each of the grain sizes, but each of the slopes, S, followed the
 Author's personal copy
238 Sediments and Sediment Transport
relationship S ¼ 2.3(e/ws), where 2.3 is the ln to log10 con-
version, e ¼ bu0 l, where b is a constant of proportionality –
usually assumed to be 1, u0 is the mean velocity associated
with turbulent fluctuations, and ws is the sediment fall (set-
tling) velocity. The inverse of the term e/ws is now recognized
as the Rouse number, P, but with e parameterized as ku.
The Rouse number is used to normalize suspended sedi-
ment concentrations under different flow conditions and with
different grain sizes, to a characteristic form – the Rouse
profile:
 p
Cs zðh  za Þ a
¼ ½6
Ca za ðh  zÞ
where cs is a reference concentration at elevation z above the
bed, ca is the concentration at elevation za, h is water depth,
and a is a constant of proportionality (b in Rouse, 1938) that
varies from approximately 1.0 for low concentrations of fine
sediments to approximately 10 for medium sands (e.g., Dyer,
1986). Rose and Thorne (2001) found b to range from 0.90 to
2.38 with only relatively small changes in grain size, but
showing a general increase with decreasing shear velocity. The
Rouse profile has been widely used in fluvial and coastal en-
vironments. A few examples of river applications include
studies by Li et al. (1998), Duan and Julien (2005), Waeles
et al. (2007), Wiele et al. (2007), Davy and Lague (2009),
Shugar et al. (2010), and Bouchez et al. (2011). In beach and
nearshore work, the Rouse profile concept has been used by
Beach and Sternberg (1992), Hardisty et al. (1993), Osborne
and Greenwood (1993), Vincent and Osborne (1995), Bass
et al. (2002), Vitorino et al. (2002), Nielson and Teakle
(2004), Masselink et al. (2005), van Rijn (2007), or Pacheco
et al. (2011). In estuaries and marshes, it has been employed
by, among many others, Geyer (1993), Murphy and Voulgaris
(2006), Winterwerp et al. (2009), Shi (2010), and Chant et al.
(2011). There has also been more limited application in ae-
olian studies: in an apparently independent derivation by
Sundborg (1955) and by Udo and Mano (2011) for sand. A
broader literature has occurred for suspended dust, including
work by Anderson (1986), Tsoar and Pye (1987), Scott
(1994), and Duran et al. (2011). Related applications of
Rouse’s work have also been applied to gravity flows and to
transport processes on other planets. Such has been the im-
portance of the Rouse profile to the study of sediment trans-
port that it places among the leading innovations discussed in
this section.
1.13.3 The Properties of Sediment
The fundamental properties of a sediment particle, especially
with regard to potential transport, are size, shape, and com-
position. A population of mixed-size particles, typically found
in nature, is usually described in terms of the statistical or
graphical mean, sorting, skewness, and kurtosis of an appro-
priate sample. In this section, several of the key individuals
and papers that led in the development of: (1) methods of
estimating particle size using manual, mechanical, and visual
analyses, emphasizing methods used for sand-size particles or
larger; (2) descriptive and quantitative approaches developed
to categorize particle sizes; (3) methods of characterizing
particle shape; and (4) methods of describing particle popu-
lations are reviewed.
Sediment characteristics can yield a variety of information
about deposition and transport processes, sediment source
areas, and can help reconstruct environmental conditions. But
in order to interpret sediment characteristics and their geo-
morphic, geologic, and environmental significance, it is first
necessary to describe sediment in some way that allows con-
clusions and comparisons to be made. Before the nineteenth
century, most geologists and physical geographers used indi-
vidually developed techniques and nomenclatures to describe
sediment, which, in addition to creating a great deal of con-
fusion, all but excluded the possibility of comparing data and
results between investigators. Some of the major impediments
to the development of standard sediment characterizations
include debate about which characteristics are the most
meaningful, what nomenclature should be used, and the
cumbersome and time-consuming nature of some of the
measurement techniques that hinder reproducibility. Of
the many ways that sediment can be characterized, several
measures or descriptors have survived the passage of time or
have been so seminal that they form the basis for the tech-
niques utilized today. These are the focus of the following
discussion.
1.13.3.1 Particle Size and Its Measurement
1.13.3.1.1 Particle-size scales
Major headway in characterizing sediment occurred in the
early twentieth century as investigators began seeking standard
techniques and nomenclature. In 1922, Chester Wentworth
(1891–1969) of the State University of Iowa published a
named grade scale for clastic sediments, which as the
Udden–Wentworth scale (Figure 3) became the universal
standard for describing grain size in sediments and sedi-
mentary rocks (Blair and McPherson, 1999). Wentworth’s
(1922c) scheme clarified and improved an existing classifi-
cation scheme developed by Udden (1914). During the later
nineteenth century, many scientists had devised schemes that
divided particles into classes based on the diameter of their
intermediate axis, which was used because it was found to
control how particles pass through, and are thus separated by,
sieve openings. Sieving was then the most widely used tech-
nique for particle-size analysis. However, the differing prac-
tices and preferences of those who developed these schemes,
and the names they assigned, restricted comparative studies of
sediments.
Wentworth modified Udden’s classification scheme by re-
naming some of the clast grades, including a boulder class
beginning at 256 mm instead of 16 mm, reassigning Udden’s
large (128–256 mm) and medium boulders (64–128 mm) to
cobble gravel (64–256 mm), renaming particle classes be-
tween 4 and 64 mm as pebble gravel, introducing granule
gravel for medium gravel (2–4 mm), renaming fine gravel
(1–2 mm) as very coarse sand, and describing the four silt
classes (1/16–1/256 mm) collectively as silt, and coarse to fine
clay simply into clay (finer than 1/256 mm) (Figure 3). The
 New York city* United States** Classification
aqueduct K.Keilhack † J.Thoulet ‡ A.W. Grabau § Ortb|| J. S. Diller ¶ H. A. Barker †† J. A. Udden ‡ ‡
Bureau of soils here proposed
commission

Bowlder gravel
Bowlders 256 mm 256 mm
Large bowlders
150 mm 128 mm Cobble gravel
Coarse Medium bowlders
Cobbles 64 mm 64 mm
Gravel Gravel Small bowlders
50 mm
Very course gravel 32 mm
Gravel Very small bowlders
25 mm 16 mm Pebble gravel
Gravel
Very coarse gravel
Coarse gravel 8 mm
5 mm Fine gravel 5 mm Gravel Coarse gravel
4 mm 4 mm
Fine 3 mm Fine gravel 3 mm Medium gravel Granule gravel
gravel 2 mm 2.5 mm 2 mm 2 mm 2 mm 2 mm 2 mm
Very coarse sand Coarse sand Very coarse sand Very coarse sand Fine gravel Fine gravel Very coarse sand Fine gravel Very coarse sand
1 mm 1 mm 0.89 mm 1 mm 1 mm 1 mm 1 mm 1 mm 1 mm 1 mm
Coarse sand Coarse sand Medium sand Coarse sand Coarse sand Coarse sand Coarse sand Coarse sand Coarse sand Coarse sand
0.5 mm 0.5 mm 0.45 mm 0.5 mm 0.5 mm 0.5 mm 0.5 mm 0.5 mm 1/ 2 mm 1/2 mm
Medium sand Medium sand Fine sand Medium sand Medium sand Medium sand Medium sand Medium sand Medium sand Medium sand
0.25 mm 0.26 mm 0.25 mm 0.25 mm 0.25 mm 0.25 mm 0.25 mm 1/4 mm 1/4 mm
0.2 mm
Fine sand Fine sand Fine sand Fine sand Fine sand Fine sand Fine sand Fine sand
0.1 mm 0.1 mm Very fine sand 0.1 mm Fine sand 0.1 mm 0.1 mm 0.1 mm 1/8 mm 1/8 mm
Very fine sand Very fine sand
Superfine sand Superfine sand Superfine sand Very fine sand Very fine sand Coarse silt 1/16 mm 1/16 mm
0.05 mm 0.05 mm 0.04 mm 0.05 mm 0.05 mm 0.05 mm 0.05 mm 0.05 mm Coarse silt
Fine-fine sand 1/32 mm
Rock flour Dust Rock flour Dust Silt Silt Medium silt
Silt
1/64 mm Silt
0.01 mm 0.01 mm 0.01 mm 0.01 mm 0.01 mm 0.01 mm Fine silt
Superfine rock flour Superfine rock flour Finest silt 1/128 mm
0.005 mm 0.005 mm 0.005 mm 0.005 mm Very fine silt
Clay 1/256 mm 1/256 mm
Coarse clay
Finest dust Clay size Finest dust Clay Clay 1/512 mm

Sediments and Sediment Transport

Clay size Medium clay Clay
1/1024 mm
Fine clay
1/2048 mm

* Quoted by A.W. Grabau, Principles of Stratigraphy (1913), 286 pp. ** United States Bureau of Soils, Soil Survey Field Book (1906), pp. 17, 18.
† Konrad Keilhack, Lehrbuch der praktischen Geologie (1908), 2le Auflage, Stuttgart, Ferdinand Enke. †† H.A. Baker, On the Investigation of the Mechanical Constitution of Loose Arenaceous Sediments by
‡ J. Thoulet, Precis d’analyse de fonds sous-marins actuel et anciens, 64 pp. Paris, R. Chapelot and Cie. the Method of Elutriation, with Special Reference to the Thanet Beds of the Southern Side of the London Basin,
§ A.W. Grabau, Principles of Stratigraphy (1913), New York, A.G. Seiler and Company. 2 pp, London, Dulan and Co., 1920.
|| Orth, Beseichnung des Sandes nach der Grõsse des Kornes. Neus Jehrbuch für Mineralogie, ‡ ‡ J.A. Udden, “Mechanical Composition of Clastic sediments,” Bulletin of the Geological Society of America, vol. XXV
551 pp. Volume for 1875, (1914), pp. 655−744.
¶ J.S. Diller, U.S. Geological Survey of Bulletin 150 (1902), 380 pp.

Figure 3 Table from Wentworth (1922c) showing the ‘Udden–Wentworth size scale for clastic sediments and several particle size classification schemes that preceded it.’ Reproduced from Table 2 in
Wentworth, C.K., 1922c. A scale of grade and class terms for clastic sediment. Journal of Geology 30(5), 377–392.

239
 Author's personal copy
240 Sediments and Sediment Transport
affix ‘gravel’ was later dropped but is still used informally, as is
shingle in Britain and elsewhere, for particles in the granule,
pebble, and cobble range.
Although Wentworth renamed the clast grades recognized
by Udden, this revised scheme became more widely used be-
cause Wentworth chose class names based on a survey of 28
geologists in the US Geological Survey. Another reason for its
acceptance lay in the geometric progression of Udden’s clas-
sification, which Wentworth confirmed. Because the intervals
between progressive classes in the Udden–Wentworth scale
maintain a constant ratio of 1:2 (defined by fractions or
decimals), the scheme preserves equal weighting between fine
and coarse particle sizes when size data are graphically de-
picted, making graphical displays of data easier to interpret. To
make this scale more mathematically versatile, Krumbein
(1934, 1938) converted it to whole numbers by taking the
negative logarithm to the base-2 of the intermediate particle
axis in millimeter (f¼  log2 dmm). This phi-scale (f) nor-
malizes the particle-size distribution, making it easier to de-
scribe and analyze. It has become customary for the phi-scale
to be converted from base-2 to base-10 logarithms because of
the latter’s wider application.
1.13.3.1.2 Particle-size measurement
There are many ways to measure the diameter of individual
sediment particles or the size statistics of grain populations
(see Switzer, Chapter 14.19). The most common approach for
the analysis of sand-sized particles has been mechanical siev-
ing. One of the shortcomings of sieving is that for non-
spherical particles, it is the intermediate axis that controls the
ability of a particle to pass through a sieve opening. This axis
may or may not be representative of the hydrodynamic or
aerodynamic behavior of a grain. Thus, it has been argued
‘‘that the settling velocity of a particle is a more fundamental
dynamic property than any geometrically defined measure of
size’’ (Syvitski et al., 1991: 45). Several approaches have been
adopted to measure the settling velocities of sediments, but
the use of settling tubes (fall columns) is most common.
A century-long tradition of particle sizing has used con-
tinuous-weighing settling tubes (Odén, 1915, cited in Gibbs,
1972), although Krumbein (1932, citing Jarilow, 1913) noted
that the principles of grain settling through water were dis-
cussed as early as 400 BC. Those principles are relatively
simple. The equilibrium rate at which a single particle will fall
through a given column of water or air is a function of its size,
shape, and density. That equilibrium rate will be obtained if
the length of fall is sufficient to cause the accelerating force of
gravity to be offset by the resisting force of the fluid. The
resulting rate is termed the fall, settling, or terminal velocity of
the grain for a particular medium.
A quantitative relationship for terminal velocity of small
spheres was first proposed by Stokes (1851), and was used to
estimate a hydraulic equivalent grain diameter by Schöne
(1867, cited in Krumbein, 1932). The latter was based on the
understanding that natural grains are not spherical, and will
thus behave in a manner not exactly described by Stokes law.
But, according to Krumbein (1932: 108–109, and Figure 11), it
was Odén’s (1915) work that set the stage for modern settling-
tube designs by introducing a balance to weigh the sediments
accumulating on the pan as they fell through the water. It was
early recognized that the Stokes equation would not work for
larger (e.g., sand sized) particles. Gibbs et al. (1971) intro-
duced a more general empirical relationship that was valid for
a range of fluid densities and viscosities, and spherical grains
with diameters from 0.1 mm to 6 mm over a range of densities:
3Z þ ½9Z2 þ gr 2 rf ðrs  rf Þð0:015476 þ 0:19481rÞ0:5
ws ¼
rf ð0:011607 þ 0:14881rÞ
½7
where ws is the fall velocity (centimeter per second) of a sphere
of radius r (centimeter), Z is dynamic viscosity (poise), g is the
gravity constant (centimeter per second), and rf and rs are
fluid and sediment densities (gram per cubic centimeter). For
nonspherical grains, eqn [7] predicts fall velocities faster than
those observed. Baba and Komar (1981) and de Lange et al.
(1997), for example, found that there were differences of 15%
or more between grain diameters calculated from fall velocity
and those found by sieving the same sand samples. Several
empirical relationships have been proposed to equate settling
tube and sieve-derived grain sizes. One of the most commonly
used (because of its simplicity) is the Baba and Komar (1981)
conversion (using centimeter per second):
wm ¼ 0:997ws 0:913 ½8
where wm is the fall velocity measured in a settling tube. A
more accurate expression (determined empirically) is that of
Jiménez and Madsen (2003), simplified from the work of
Dietrich (1982):
 
ws B 1
w ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ¼ A þ ½9
ðs  1Þgdn S
where w is a dimensionless fall velocity, s is rs/r, dn is nominal
grain diameter (diameter of a sphere of volume equivalent to
that of the grain being considered), A and B are empirical
constants, and S is a modification of Madsen and Grant’s
(1976) fluid-sediment parameter:
dn pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
S ¼ ðS  1Þgdn ½10
4u
with u representing kinematic viscosity. By curve fitting,
Jiménez and Madsen (2003) found that for typical natural
sand grains, dn ¼ d/0.9 (where d is particle diameter found via
sieving), A ¼ 0.954, and B ¼ 5.12. Sieving is still the most
common method for quantifying grain size, whereas fall vel-
ocity is increasingly important in geomorphological appli-
cations (e.g., Dean’s parameter for beach morphodynamics
(Wright and Short, 1984) and the Rouse number, described
earlier). Therefore, the above conversion factors remain valu-
able tools for understanding the dynamic behavior of sedi-
ments and sediment transport.
Relatively few studies have been made of the terminal
velocity of sand grains falling through air. Some examples
include Bagnold’s (1935) study where he found that the
aerodynamically equivalent diameter, de, of a sphere was
0.75–0.85 of the sieve diameter. More recently, for natural
sand grains in air, Cui et al. (1983) found that:
 Author's personal copy
wm ¼ 1:10w0:9
s ½11
Malcolm and Raupach (1991) found a simple expression,
similar to Bagnold’s (1935), de ¼ 0.9d, and Chen and Fryrear
(2001) presented similar data graphically.
1.13.3.2 Particle Shape
Many approaches have been used to describe the geometric
form of sediment particles, to the degree that there is general
confusion about what is meant by the seemingly inter-
changeable terms of form, shape, and morphology. This ne-
cessitates some clarification of what is meant by these terms.
In a recent review, Blott and Pye (2008) define particle shape
as the broad- and medium-scale components of morphology
and surface texture as characterized by small-scale, particle-
surface features. Furthermore, they define shape in terms of
form, roundness, sphericity, and irregularity. The major re-
search works that led to the standard definition of form,
roundness, and sphericity (the three most prevalent measures
of particle shape), are discussed below.
Particle form is important for determining particle settling
velocity and entrainment potential. It is characterized using
ratios of a particle’s three linear axes: length (L), breadth (I),
and thickness (S), where L is the longest dimension, I is the
longest dimension perpendicular to L, and S is the longest
dimension perpendicular to both L and I (Krumbein, 1941;
Sneed and Folk, 1958). These axes have been notated in other
ways, including D0 , D00 , and D000 (Wentworth, 1922a, b), and a,
b, and c (Zingg, 1935). Wentworth (1922a) made an early
attempt in characterizing particle form by developing a flat-
ness index, expressed as (L þ I)/2S. However, it seems the ul-
timate goal of many early particle-form characterization efforts
was to move beyond form indices and devise a singular
graphical tool that could be used to describe particle morph-
ology easily. One of the first of such efforts was a diagram of
pebble shape created by Zingg (1935). This diagram was
divided into four quadrants that consisted of different shape
classes: disc-shaped, spherical, bladed, and rod-like. Each class
was separated based on 2/3 ratios of breadth to length (I/L or
b/a) and thickness to breadth (S/I or c/b) (Figure 4, from
Krumbein, 1941). However, this early effort was quite limited
in that it only represented four possible shapes, under-
representing rod-like particles, and overrepresenting bladed
particles. To accommodate these three-dimensional shapes,
Sneed and Folk (1958) developed a triangular plot with 10
form categories by dividing the S/L ratio into three parts
(delineated by 0.3, 0.5, and 0.7), and the L/I and L/S ratios
into two parts (delineated by 0.33 and 0.67) (Figure 5, from
Blott and Pye, 2008). The advantage of the Sneed and Folk
triangle over the Zingg diagram is that it represents form more
as a continuum and avoids unequal distributions of one shape
over another.
1.13.3.2.1 Sphericity
Sphericity of sediment particles is significant in that it can be
used to determine sediment-transport distance and the po-
tential for particles to remain transported in suspension
(Bunte and Abt, 2001). Sphericity can be defined in several
Sediments and Sediment Transport 241
I
II
I Spherical
Disk-shaped
(oblale spheroid)
2/3
III IV
b/a
Bladed Rod-like
(triaxial) (prolate
spheroid)
0
0 2/3 I
c/b
Figure 4 Zingg classification of pebble shapes taken from Krumbein
(1941). Reproduced from Figure 4 in Krumbein, W.C., 1941.
Measurement and geological significance of shape and roundness of
sedimentary particles. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology 11(2), 64–72.
ways and was once used interchangeably with roundness.
Hakon Wadell of the University of Chicago was among the
first to distinguish between sphericity and roundness (Wadell,
1932, 1933). He defined sphericity as the ratio of the surface
area of a particle to its volume: the smaller the ratio, the closer
the form to a sphere. Because this ratio, c, was difficult to
measure, the actual ratio was refined as follows:
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
3 Volume of the particle
c¼
Volume of a sphere that can circumscribe the particle
½12
Wadell’s measurement of sphericity required the following
steps: (1) measurement of the volume of the particle (pebbles
or larger); (2) measurement of the particle0 s longest diameter;
(3) calculation of the diameter of a sphere having the same
volume as the pebble or the ‘nominal diameter’; and (4) cal-
culation of the ratio expressed above. Because this procedure
was time consuming, a simpler method was developed by
Krumbein (1941), in which the long (a), intermediate (b), and
short axes (c) are measured, and the b/a ratio and c/b ratio
calculated and used to read a sphericity value from a
chart (Figure 6; Krumbein, 1941). These ratios were later
simplified by Pye and Pye (1943) as follows:
 
b  c 1=3
c¼ ½13
a2
Values of sphericity as measured with Krumbein’s techni-
que, called intercept sphericity, range from 0 to 1, with 1
being a perfect sphere and 0 representing platy or elongated
shapes. Using graduate student labor, Krumbein (1941) tested
 Author's personal copy
242 Sediments and Sediment Transport

Compact
1.0

0.9

C
0.8

0.7

0.6 CP CB CE

S/L 0.5

0.4 P B E

0.3

0.2
VP VB VE
0.1

0.0
0.4

0.6
0.5
0.3

0.7

0.9
0.8
0.1

0.2

1.
0
0.

0
Platy (L–I)/(L–S) Elongated
Bladed
Figure 5 Triangular plot for particle size analysis by Sneed and Folk (1958). Reproduced from Figure 2 in Blott, S.J., Pye, K., 2008. Particle
shape: a review and new methods of characterization and classification. Sedimentology 55, 31–63.

1 0.7
0.5 0.6 0.8 0.9 his approach against Wadell’s method and found good cor-
0.9 0.4 respondence for average sphericity. Thus, in addition to sim-
plifying sphericity measurements, Krumbein effectively
0.8 married Wadell’s definition of sphericity with Zingg’s (1935)
0.8 graphical classification of pebble shape.
0.3
0.7 For estimating transportability (suspension potential and
settling velocity), two other measures of sphericity are now
0.6 commonly used: the Corey (1949) shape factor and the Sneed
and Folk (1958) effective settling velocity. The Corey shape
b/a

0.5 0.6
factor is calculated by:
0.4
c
C¼ ½14
0.3
0.4 ða  bÞ0:5

0.2
Particles that have been transported far tend to approach a
0.1 Corey shape-factor of 1 (a perfect sphere), with 0 being the least
spheroidal shape. The Sneed and Folk effective settling velocity,
0 a measure of compactness, is designed to capture the tendency
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
c/b for platy particles to settle more slowly than particles shaped
otherwise (Bunte and Abt, 2001). It is calculated as follows:
Figure 6 Chart for determining intercept sphericity developed by
Krumbein (1941). Reproduced from Figure 5 in Krumbein, W.C., 1941.
Measurement and geological significance of shape and roundness c
of sedimentary particles. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology 11(2), S¼ ½15
a
64–72.
 Author's personal copy
Roundness = 0.1 0.2 0.3
0.6 0.7 0.8
Figure 7 Chart for visual analysis of pebble roundness with Wadell’s original roundness values developed by Krumbein (1941). Reproduced
from Figure 5 in Krumbein, W.C., 1941. Measurement and geological significance of shape and roundness of sedimentary particles. Journal of
Sedimentary Petrology 11(2), 64–72.
1.13.3.2.2 Roundness
Particle roundness describes not how circular a particle is, but
how curved its corners and edges are. Roundness is commonly
used to discern the travel distance of particles, with rounder
particles assumed to have travelled farther and thereby become
rounder as their edges are abraded during transport (not always
a valid assumption). Wadell (1932, 1933, 1935) was the first to
develop a technique for measuring roundness, which he de-
fined from the ratio of the curvature of particle corners and
edges to the curvature of the particle as a whole. His method
was arduous, requiring the projection of an image of the par-
ticle from which to measure the radii of all corners and the
maximum inscribed circle within the outline. Roundness (P)
was calculated as follows, with r¼ mean size of radii that can be
fitted into corners (corners¼ n), and R¼ radius of the max-
imum inscribed circle (Bunte and Abt, 2001):
Srn
P¼ ½16
nR
Krumbein (1941) developed a chart with drawings of peb-
bles that had been assigned Wadell’s original roundness values
(Figure 7; Bunte and Abt, 2001: 91). Krumbein’s chart allows
for visual analysis of roundness by comparing a sample to the
drawn images in the chart and reading the corresponding
roundness value under the matching image. Roundness values
range from very angular (0.1) to very smooth (0.9).
1.13.3.3 Sediment Size Distributions
Descriptive statistics are used to interpret particle-size distri-
butions in order to understand what, if anything, these data
Sediments and Sediment Transport 243
0.4 0.5
Broken pebbles
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.9
may indicate about transport distance and duration, trans-
portation mode, and perhaps transport potential. Statistics
used include the mean (a measure of central tendency), the
standard deviation (SD, the range of values or sorting co-
efficient), skewness (the symmetry of a distribution), and
kurtosis (the peakedness of a distribution). Two main cat-
egories of techniques are used to derive these descriptive
statistics: the graphic method (percentile approach) and the
moment method (frequency distribution approach). These
techniques were developed for sediments earlier in the twen-
tieth century (e.g., Trask, 1932; Krumbein, 1936; Inman,
1952; Folk and Ward, 1957). Table 1 (from Bunte and Abt,
2001) provides an excellent summary of the different methods
most commonly used to determine these statistics by the
above methods. Krumbein and Pettijohn (1938) and Bunte
and Abt (2001) discussed the full suite of these techniques.
This discussion of the principles, assumptions, and differences
between the graphical and moment methods, is based mostly
on the latter.
Graphic and moment methods are applied in different
ways depending on whether the data are in millimeter or j
units. Graphic methods can be applied to particle-size data
measured in millimeter, using a geometric approach, and j
units using an arithmetic approach. The moment method
can be applied to particle-size data measured in j units and in
log-transformed millimeter. Many of the techniques applied
in these methods assume a normal or Gaussian distribution
to the data. Grain-size distributions are generally log-normal,
thus requiring some transformation from size data in milli-
meter. The j transformation is one such example. The geometric
 244
Sediments and Sediment Transport
Table 1 Summary of methods used for computing particle size distribution mean, standard deviation (sorting), skewness, and kurtosis

Distribution parameter Graphic methods Moment method

Geometric approaches Mixed approach Arithmetic approaches

Particles sizes in millimeter Particle sizes in f-units

nth root computation Log computation Trask (1932) Inman (1952) Folk and Ward (1957)

Mean (central value) Root of percentile product Log of percentile product Arithmetic mean of 2 or more percentiles 1st Moment
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi P
D16  D84 ðD  D Þ D25 þ D75 f16 þ f84 f16 þ f50 þ f84 ðfci  mi Þ
log 16 84 ¼ fm
2 2 2 3 n
Sorting (standard deviation) Root of percentile ratio Log of percentile ratio Root of percentile ratio Standard deviation Weighted percentile difference 2nd Moment
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffi rffiffiffiffiffiffiffi sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
logðD84 =D16 Þ D25 f84  f16 f84  f16 f95  f5 P
D84 ¼ sf þ mi ðfci  fm Þ2
D16 2 D75 2 4 6:6
n1

Skewness (symmetry) Mean/sorting (Fredle Index) Mean/sorting Mean/mean Mean1–median/ Mean–median sorting þ mean–median sorting 3rd Moment
sorting
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi P
D16  D84 logðD16  D84 Þ D25  D75 fm  f50 f16 þ f84  2f50 f5 þ f95  2f50 mi ðfci  fm Þ3
2
þ
D75 =D25 logðD75 =D25 Þ D50 sf 2ðf84  f16 Þ 2ðf95  f5 Þ n  s3

Kurtosis (peakedness) Theoretically: sorting/sorting Theoretically: sorting/sorting Sorting/sorting Mean-sorting/sorting Sorting/sorting 4th Moment
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi P
D16 =D84 logðD16 =D84 Þ D75  D25 0:5ðf95  f5 Þ  sf f95  f5 mi ðfci  fm Þ2
D75 =D25 logðD75 =D25 Þ 2ðD90  D10 Þ sf 2:44ðf75  f25 Þ n  s4

Source: Reproduced from Bunte, K., Abt, S.R., 2001 Sampling surface and subsurface particle-size distributions in wadeable gravel- and cobble-bed streams for analyses in sediment transport, hydraulics, and streambed monitoring. General Technical
Report RMRS-GTR-74, US Forest Service, 428 pp.
 Author's personal copy
approach differs from the arithmetic approach in how the
mean is determined, which affects other statistics that use the
mean in their derivation. The geometric mean (mg) is calcu-
lated from the nth root of the product of n numbers:
p
3
ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
mg ¼ 469¼6 ½17
Graphic methods calculate the statistics of particle-size data
using a few percentile values that are derived from a cumu-
lative frequency distribution plotted on arithmetic or prob-
ability paper. This approach was common before the
introduction of personal computers. More recently, computers
have been used to determine percentile values by using linear
interpolation of percentile values between adjacent j or log-
transformed mm size classes of cumulative frequency distri-
butions:
 
yx  y1
fx ¼ ðx2  x1 Þ  þ x1 ½18
y2  y1
where y2 is the cumulative percent frequency just below the
cumulative frequency of interest, y1 is the cumulative percent
frequency just above the cumulative frequency of interest (yx),
x2 is the j unit associated with y2, and x1 is the j unit asso-
ciated with y1.
In cases where a sediment population is not log-normally
distributed, the accuracy of the calculated distribution par-
ameters is increased by using a larger number of graphically
obtained j data. Inman (1952) and Folk and Ward (1957)
used j50, j16, and j84 percentiles, which represent 71 SD
from the mean, and the j5 and j95 percentiles, which repre-
sent 72 SDs from the mean, to calculate mean, SD, skewness,
and kurtosis. If j units are used to calculate the arithmetic
mean from percentiles, and this mean is converted to milli-
meter, then it is equal to the geometric mean.
The moment method requires the percentage or the
absolute frequency of all particle-size classes, from fine to
coarse, to be known, and that the size classes be equidistant. It
uses the percentage or absolute frequency of the size classes to
calculate the four moments (roughly speaking shapes created
by the distribution of data points in data space) that corres-
pond to the mean, SD, skewness, and kurtosis. It is not
suitable for use in situations where the percentage or the ab-
solute frequency of all size classes is not known, such as in the
case of having an unsieved component of the sample in the
receiving pan. It has also been shown to over predict SD values
if the sediment is only sieved in a few large sieve classes (Folk,
1966). With widely available software, the derivation of par-
ticle-size statistics using the moment method has become
the standard approach for producing sediment-population
statistics.
1.13.4 Initiation of Sediment Motion
Fundamental to the accurate prediction of sediment-transport
rates is the specification of a threshold condition for the
initiation of grain movement. Here, three of the most
Sediments and Sediment Transport 245
notable approaches to this problem, the Hjulström (1935)
and Shields (1936) curves for fluvial systems and Bagnold’s
(1936) equation for wind-blown sand are reviewed. Each
of these developments relied, to different degrees, on advances
in understanding boundary-layer dynamics, described earlier.
1.13.4.1 The Hjulström Curve
Filip Hjulström (1902–1982) was a Swedish geomorphologist
whose study of fluvial processes led to his defining dissertation
on the morphological activities of rivers that, among other
things, linked flow conditions quantitatively to sediment-
transport processes. The dissertation is remarkable in several
contexts. It is a very early exercise in what Hjulström (1935:
221) termed ‘physiogeographical and geological dynamics’
that anticipated Strahler’s (1952: 937) ‘dynamic-quantitative’
geomorphology. Hjulström emphasized that his dissertation
was ‘‘ywritten with the conviction that the knowledge of
forces at work on the land-surfaces of the earth is quite as
important in geomorphology and physiography as the results
brought about by these forces’’ (Hjulström, 1935: 221). His
work inspired a succession of process-oriented geomorph-
ologists who were his students at the (then) Geographical
Institute at the University of Uppsala. Beyond the 5 years of
field measurements made on the River Fyris, his dissertation
presented a state-of-the-art review of fluid mechanics and
sediment dynamics. He displayed a firm grasp of con-
temporary boundary-layer theory, citing Nikuradse, von Kär-
män, Prandtl, and Leighly (1932, 1934) and used that
knowledge as a starting point for his development of the
Hjulström curve.
Hjulström completed many laboratory experiments on the
behavior of suspended sediments (using a salt mixture as
surrogate). However, his seminal contribution on the curves
of erosion and deposition of a uniform material is based on
an assessment of the experiments of others. He set out to
analyze those findings to relate the conditions of erosion,
transportation, and deposition of different size sediments to
flow velocity. He recognized that this approach ‘has, to a cer-
tain degree, been considered antiquated and out-of-date’
(Hjulström, 1935: 293), but noted that other approaches,
such as those employing concepts of critical tractive force, had
not been successful. He believed that his velocity-based ap-
proach would be successful, and it was.
Although the specification of the Hjulström curve itself
was a major accomplishment, it was only possible because
of some foundational work. First, he rationalized different
representations of flow velocity. Some earlier studies had
reported depth-averaged mean flow; others had reported
bottom velocity or surface velocity. Hjulström chose to use
the mean flow velocity for his study and corrected bottom
velocities to the mean by increasing their values by 40%,
and he decreased surface velocities by 20% for the same pur-
pose. These corrections were made based on his understand-
ing of the logarithmic distribution of velocities above the
bed. He also recognized that flow depth had an effect on
potential transport conditions so he made velocity adjust-
ments for flow depths less than approximately 0.3 m by
adding 0.2 ms1. His next challenge was rationalizing the
 Author's personal copy
246 Sediments and Sediment Transport
1000
Velocity in cm/sek
500
300
200
100
50
30
20
10
5 port
Trans
3
2
1
0.5
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.001
0.002
0.003
0.005
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.05
Figure 8 Reproduction of Hjulström’s (1935) Figure 18; the classic log–log plot of grain size and flow velocity. Reproduced from Hjulström, F.,
1935. Studies of the morphological activity of rivers as illustrated by the River Fyris. Bulletin of the Geological Institute of Uppsala 25, 221–527.
different visual observations of flow conditions to allow a
consistent comparison. He did this by careful reading of
the respective reports, although in some cases clast-size in-
formation was minimally provided, and the transport obser-
vations somewhat vague.
Figure 8 is a reproduction of his now classic Figure 18, in
which velocity (centimeter per second) and particle size (milli-
meter) were depicted logarithmically (Hjulström, 1935: 298).
He explained that the vague nature of the transport data is why
the threshold velocity curve was drawn as a band rather than a
line (Hjulström, 1935: 296), although most modern represen-
tations of this diagram reproduce the erosion–transportation
boundary as a line rather than a zone (e.g., Schubert, 2006;
Weiss and Bahlburg, 2006; Callow and Smettem, 2007). Fur-
thermore, it is perhaps inevitable that later reproductions of the
curve do not include the parallel straight lines, representing
Hjulström’s interpretation of the erosion–transportation–
sedimentation regimes for coarse particles from Owens (1908)
equation.
The Hjulström curve is still largely used as he had origin-
ally intended, but in applications that might have surprised
him. For example, Weiss and Bahlburg (2006) used it in
their investigation of tsunami sedimentation. Callow and
Smettem (2007) used it to demonstrate the effects of vege-
tation change on flow velocities and the resulting changes in
sedimentological regime. Abhyankar and Beebe (2007) used it
to explain the settling (and patterning) of cells onto substrate.
Pipan et al. (2010) used the curve to explain possible bias in
sampling because of favorable transport of particular sizes of
copepods. And, of course it is still used to study sediment
transport in fluvial systems and is included in most intro-
ductory physical geography and geology textbooks.
Erosion
a ti o n
Sedimentation
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.5
2
3
5
10
20
30
50
100
200
300
500
Size of particles in mm
1.13.4.2 The Shields Curve
Albert Shields (1908–74) was an American engineer who
produced one of the landmark concepts in fluvial geo-
morphology – the Shields Curve – almost accidentally. Ac-
cording to Kennedy (1995), Shields was deflected from a
planned course of study because of financial constraints when
beginning studies for a Doctor of Engineering degree at the
Technischen Hochschule Berlin in late 1933. A project con-
cerning bedload transport was made available to him at
minimal cost, and he accepted that as his dissertation topic.
He was given access to a flume and other laboratory facilities
at the Prussian Research Institute (PRI), and provided with
some technical support staff. Using data from his experiments
as well as those from his predecessors at PRI, he produced, in
1936, his dissertation, Anwendung der Ähnlichkeitmechanik und
der Turbulenzforschung auf die Geschiebebewegung (Application
of similarity principles and turbulence research to bed-load
movement). The work was in four parts, the second of which
concerned the initiation of bedload motion.
The description of the development of the Shields cri-
terion requires only 11 pages of text (in the translated ver-
sion). Using similarity arguments and dimensional analysis,
he efficiently laid out the basis for his reasoning. First, the
resistance force, K0, of the grain is proportional to the grain
weight: a2(g1  g)a1d3, where a1 is the ‘influence of grain
shape on porosity,’ a2 is the ‘influence of grain shape on bed-
friction coefficient,’ g is the specific weight of the fluid, g1 is
specific weight of the grain, and d is mean grain diameter.
Against the resistance force, he balanced the effective force of
the flow: za3d2g(u2c /2g), where z is the grain resistance co-
efficient at a critical velocity uc, and a3 is decisive grain area
 Author's personal copy
Sediments and Sediment Transport 247

Figure 9 Reproduction of Shields (1936) diagram relating sediment characteristics and fluid and flow characteristics with resulting transport
conditions. Reproduced from Shields, A., 1936. Anwendung Der Aenlichkeitsmechanik und Der Turbulenzforschung Auf Die Geschiebebewegung.
Mitteilungen der Preussischen Versuchsanstalt fur Wasserbau und Schiffbau, Berlin, Germany. California Institute of Technology, Pasadena,
(English translation: Ott, W.P., van Uchelen, J.C.).

(another shape term). Following the work of Nikuradse and Shields then manipulated these relationships, along with
based on the law of the wall, Shields argued: several derivations based on the law of the wall, and
  argued that the balance of driving (the two left-hand terms
v d below) versus resisting forces (the two right-hand terms) at the
uc ¼ v fa4 ½19
u initiation of motion must be:
   
where v is shear (friction) velocity (his symbology has been gRS t0 v d d
¼ ¼ fa ¼ f a1 ½23
kept here for coherence with his classic representation of data, ðg1  gÞd ðg1  gÞd u d
Figure 9), fa4 is another grain shape function, d (in this case) is
grain roughness length, and u is kinematic viscosity. For ap- where d is the boundary-layer thickness (d ¼ C(u/v) (C is
plicability in the flume experiments, he defined shear velocity Chezy’s C; see Orme, Chapter 1.2, this volume). These rela-
in terms of the characteristics of the channel: tionships set the backdrop for Shields’ flume experiments and
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi results, including the classic Shields (1936) curve (Figure 9).
v ¼ gRS ¼ t=r ½20
Unlike most reconstructions of this diagram, the original de-
picts the curve as a shaded area rather than a distinct line.
where R is hydraulic radius, S is slope, t is shear stress, and r is Shields included data from several sources, and described ex-
fluid density. Shields then redefined the grain resistance co- istence regimes for bedforms and saltation.
efficient as: Shields’ data and his interpretations came very close to
 
v d being lost to the research community. He left Germany shortly
z ¼ fa45 ½21 after defending his dissertation (Kennedy, 1995) and put bed-
u
load transport behind him, finding employment designing
where again the subscript a indicates grain shape coefficients. corrugated-box machinery and winning more than 200 patents.
The fluid forcing of the grain could then be rewritten as: It was the chance discovery of Shields’ dissertation by Hunter
  Rouse, during a visit to PRI where he had once studied, that led
v d to the introduction of the work to the fluvial community. Rouse
a3 d2 gRSf a6 ½22
u obtained and studied Shields’ work, brought it to USA where he
 Author's personal copy
248 Sediments and Sediment Transport
had it translated by two Soil Conservation Service employees,
W.P. Ott and J.C. van Uchelen. Guo (2002) noted the possi-
bility that Rouse saved what might have been the only copy of
Shields’ dissertation to escape destruction during World War II.
However, Kennedy (1995) reported that Shields himself had
purchased one copy. Presumably, without the intervention of
Rouse, that one copy would be resting in an attic somewhere. It
was not until a round of correspondence between Rouse and
Shields that the latter had any indication that his research was
playing a fundamental role in the study of sediment discharge
in fluvial systems (Kennedy, 1995).
1.13.4.3 Bagnold’s (1936) Equation
Ralph Alger Bagnold (1896–1990) made numerous funda-
mental contributions to the study of sediments and sand
transport. Trained as an engineer, he traveled extensively in the
deserts of North Africa, sponsored early on by the Royal
Geographical Society. He began publishing, in 1931, a se-
quence of papers concerning first his expeditions (Bagnold,
1931, 1933) and then changing abruptly to focus on wind-
blown sand and desert dunes (Bagnold, 1935, 1936, 1937a, b,
1938), although his earlier works did include abundant ob-
servations of dunes, ripples, and the behavior of sand. Most of
the results published in this latter set of articles were repro-
duced and expanded on in his classic book on The Physics of
Blown Sand and Desert Dunes (Bagnold, 1941). Here, one of his
most enduring contributions, an equation to predict the ini-
tiation of the motion of sand by wind is detailed.
In a series of wind-tunnel studies, Bagnold (1936) carefully
described the behavior of a sand surface as wind speed is
slowly increased from an initially slow flow. His observations
(Bagnold, 1936: 600) included the progression of motions
from the occurrence of sporadic transport disturbances to that
of ‘‘ya steady sand flow.’’ In particular, he noted the difficulty
in establishing a specific threshold wind speed, but did define
different threshold conditions for ‘static’ and ‘dynamic’ sur-
faces, with the latter requiring a lower wind speed for the
initiation of motion. Later in that same paper, he first for-
malized his threshold equations in terms of wind speed and
shear velocity (Bagnold, 1936: 607). He began with Jeffreys’
(1929) equation for threshold velocity, rewritten as:
 1.13.5
u2t ¼ A rsrr gd ½24
where A is a constant (from Jeffreys, 1929, A¼ (1/3 þ1/
9p2)¼ 1.43). Bagnold recognized (as did Jeffreys) that a
problem with eqn [24] was that velocity is not constant with
elevation above the bed. Jeffreys (1929): 274 specified a vel-
ocity at the top of the grain – a value impractical to measure.
Bagnold argued that a better representative velocity could be
estimated using the law of the wall to extrapolate the log-
linear velocity profile down to the height of k0 , his ‘focus’ at
3-mm elevation:
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
30k0 rs r
ut ¼ Alog r gd ½25
d 1.13.5.1
where A ¼ 0.43, as determined from his wind-tunnel experi-
ments (note that in Bagnold, 1937, this changes to A¼ 0.47).
This equation is intended to predict the dynamic threshold of
motion, whereby sand transport, once begun, will continue.
Bagnold (1936) also provided the first threshold shear stress,
ut model, written to parallel Jeffreys’ term:

rs r
u2t ¼ A0 r gd ½26
And no value is given for A0 . In Bagnold (1937), this
equation is combined with eqn [25] using the law of the wall
to obtain:
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
0:47 rs r
ut ¼ r gd ½27
5:75
and the first term to the right of the equality sign reduces to
0.082. This represents the first value given for Bagnold’s ‘A’
used for estimating the dynamic (afterward termed ‘impact’ in
Bagnold, 1941) threshold shear velocity.
The familiar form of Bagnold’s threshold shear velocity
equation first appears in Bagnold (1941: 86):
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi

rs r
ut ¼ A r gd ½28
Based on his wind-tunnel experiments, he established two
values for A. Where the shear stress is entirely grain borne, he
specified A¼ 0.08 (rounded down from 0.082) as the impact
threshold value. Where the shear stress is entirely wind borne,
he specified A¼ 0.1. The total number of experiments that
Bagnold conducted to determine the threshold shear velocities
(fluid and impact) cannot be determined from reading the
series of his publications. It could be as few as three or four. It
is also difficult to determine exactly what part of his deriv-
ations can be credited to the work of Hjulström (1935) or
Shields (1936). Both are cited in Bagnold’s (1941) chapter on
‘‘Threshold Speed and Grain Size,’’ but it is unclear to what
degree the earlier works influenced his findings, if at all.
Sediment Transport
The developments discussed earlier, along with a host of re-
lated concepts, are of interest to the geomorphologist mainly
as they pertain to sediment transport. This is because it is
sediment transport that has the potential to shape landforms
by either erosion or deposition. From the rich literature de-
scribing the results of laboratory, field, and modeling research,
we have chosen here to focus on the key advances made by
three scientists whose contributions represent landmarks
within the respective fields of fluvial, aeolian, and coastal
geomorphology: Grove Karl Gilbert, Ralph Alger Bagnold, and
Douglas Lamar Inman.
Grove Karl Gilbert
With the publication in 1914 of his US Geological Survey
Report on The Transportation of Débris by Running Water,
 Author's personal copy
Sediments and Sediment Transport 249

Grove Karl Gilbert (1843–1918) produced one of the most

cited works from the geomorphology of the twentieth century
(Leopold, 1980). To date, it remains a foundation for con-
temporary fluvial geomorphology, contributing toward a bet-
ter understanding of the mechanics of fluvial systems, the role
of channel slope in system-scale processes, human impacts in
river systems, and sediment transport. The last theme is the
focus here.
Gilbert’s (1914) report summarized the methods and
findings of a series of flume experiments that he conducted
with Edward Charles Murphy. This study marked a return to
active research for Gilbert, after spending some time in a
largely administrative position as head of the Appalachian
Division of the US Geological Survey (Bourgeois, 1998). The
bulk of Gilbert’s field career was spent working in the
American West. He was a member of two of the four federal
government survey groups (King, Powell, Wheeler, and Hay-
den surveys), the latter three of which survived to be merged
into the US Geological Survey in 1879. Gilbert initiated his
experiences in the American West as a member of the
Wheeler Survey from 1871 to 1874, where the goal was to
conduct a geographical survey west of the 100th meridian for
military and engineering purposes. Gilbert was then invited
to join the Powell Survey of the Rocky Mountain region.
Gilbert’s work as part of these surveys, and then as head of
the short-lived Great Basin Division of the US Geological
Survey, resulted in many physiographic, structural, geo-
physical, and sediment studies. His flume studies of sediment
transport had their roots in issues that arose during his earlier
field work with the Powell Survey and the US Geological
Survey. Later, Gilbert had been tasked with investigating
issues related to hydraulic mining waste in California rivers,
Figure 10 Gilbert’s flume constructed on the campus of the
specifically the problems of the transport capacity of im-
University of California Berkeley. Reproduced Gilbert, G.K., 1914. The
pacted streams (Gilbert, 1914). With this assignment came an transportation of débris by running water. Professional Paper 86, US
opportunity to conduct experiments that would allow the Geological Survey.
largely qualitative and deductive ideas about sediment
transport that Gilbert had published in 1877 to be tested,
and the results used to help understand sediment dynamics the experiments on his own and wrote a report of the results,
and system responses observed in streams impaired by which he submitted to Gilbert on his return. Gilbert used
hydraulic mining debris. Murphy’s report to make his much cited and respected 1914
The experiments took place in a flume that had been report and made clear in its preface the substantial role that
constructed for the project at the University of California, Murphy had in the research:
Berkeley, USA, between 1907 and 1909 (Figure 10, from
Gilbert, 1914). The role that Edward Murphy played in It will readily be understood from this account that I am respon-
the research is not generally discussed, but in the preface to sible for the planning of the experimental work as well as for the
the 1914 report, Gilbert made clear that Murphy played a discussion of results here contained, while Mr. Murphy is respon-
sible for the experimental work. It must not be understood, how-
large role and by today’s standards would most definitely
ever, that in assuming responsibility for the discussion I also claim
have shared authorship. Gilbert had to leave the research sole credit for what is novel in the generalizations. Many conclu-
project for some time due to illness. Although this was sions were reached by us jointly during our association, and others
mentioned in the preface, Gilbert did not disclose the nature were developed by Mr. Murphy in his report. These have been in-
of the illness. In his youth, Gilbert was twice called up for corporated in the present report, so far as they appear to be sus-
tained by the more elaborate analysis, and specific credit is given
military service in the Civil War but never drafted. This only where I find it practicable to quote from Mr. Murphy’s
event, among others, has been cited as evidence that Gilbert manuscript (G.K. Gilbert, 1914: 9).
had a lifelong battle with poor health (Pyne, 1980; Bour-
geois, 1998). In light of these issues, Gilbert’s field activities
in the American West are all the more impressive given the One can only speculate as to why Murphy was not made
rigorous and physically demanding nature of the work car- coauthor or his name not associated with the study despite his
ried out by the various surveys. contributions beyond that of a technician. Murphy’s role in
The design of the flume experiments was all of Gilbert’s such an important and impressionable work should be
origin, but as a result of his illness, Murphy conducted most of acknowledged.
 Author's personal copy
250 Sediments and Sediment Transport
As for the study itself, Gilbert’s experiments investigated
three main aspects of sediment transport. The first of these was
competence, where he endeavored to describe the relation-
ships between size-dependent thresholds of entrainment and
the maximum size of sediment that could be transported.
A second focus was capacity, specifically the maximum weight
of load that could be transported for given flow conditions
such as stream energy, channel shape, and particle size. A
third component was to investigate bedform development
and geometries and their relationship to sediment transport.
The experiments consisted of measuring the slopes at
which sediment transport occurred under controlled dis-
charge, sediment load, and width conditions. The experiments
were conducted on two different types of beds: ‘plastic’ beds,
which consisted of sediment, and ‘rigid’ beds, which consisted
of the planed wood forming the base of the flumes. Unlike
most flumes constructed today, the slope of Gilbert’s flume
was fixed, and sediment, which consisted of pre-sieved sands
and gravels of uniform size, was manually fed into the top of
the flume before each run. For each experiment, sediment of a
specific size was fed into a stream of a fixed width and dis-
charge. Once a slope developed from the aggradation of
introduced sediment and sediment transport began down this
slope, the slope was measured. The sediment that accrued at
the lower end of the flume was collected and weighed as a
measure of the amount of sediment transported during the
experiment.
The experiments resulted in three equations that explained
stream capacity, C:
C ¼ b1 ðS  sÞn ½29a
C ¼ b3 ðQ  kÞo ½29b
p
C ¼ b4 ðF  fÞ ½29c
Each equation explains how capacity varies with a change
in one of the controlling variables: slope (S), discharge (Q), or
sediment fineness (F), whereas the other two controlling
variables are held constant. The Greek letters s, k, and j stand
for the threshold values of S, Q, and F, respectively, at which
sediment transport begins to occur. The exponents n, o, and p
can vary with changes in mean velocity and the form factor
R, which is the hydraulic mean depth over width. Although
presented as independent in the above equations, Gilbert
acknowledged interdependency between the variables:
In eqn [10] b1, s, and n are constant so long as Q and F hold the
same values; they do not vary with variation in S. But when the
values of Q and F are changed, those of b1, s, and n are modified
(Gilbert, 1914: 186).
To produce a final, overall equation for stream com-
petence, Gilbert combined eqns [29] and added additional
terms to account for the effects of the form ratio, which was
difficult to control in the experiments. This yielded:
 
m R m
C ¼ bðS  sÞn ðQ  kÞo ðF  fÞp 1  R ½30
mþ1 p
The variable p is the optimum form ratio or the value of R
that equals the maximum value of competence. It varies with
changes in all the other controls. The variable m is meant to
account for flow resistance from the channel sides. The distri-
bution of values for R was quite different from those of the other
controlling variables. Instead of increasing from zero to infinity
like the other variables, Gilbert found that the sensitivity of
capacity to changes in R increased to a finite maximum, which
he called p, the optimum form ratio, and then decreased to zero.
Gilbert also developed a system of equations based on
eqns [29] and [30] that show trends of change that occur with
changes in the four independent variables (S, Q, R, and F):
 = f1 (Q, F, R ) n = f5 (Q, F, R)
 = f2 (S, F, R) o = f6 (S, F, R)
½31
Φ = f3 (S, Q, R ) p = f7 (S, Q, R)
 = f4 (S, Q, F ) m = f8 (S, Q, F )
Despite the novelty and important implications of Gilbert’s
1914 report, it had its limitations. Clifford (2008) pointed out
that Gilbert was aware of the role of fluid motion as an im-
portant factor in sediment transport since he qualitatively
discussed the role of turbulence in sediment transport in his
1877 (Gilbert, 1877) work and his peers were publishing on
it, but he did not address turbulence outright in his 1914
report. Leopold (1980) questioned how meaningful some of
results were, given Gilbert’s use of a flume that required
sediment be fed into it at the start of each experiment, making
sediment an independent variable in the experiment. In con-
trast, experiments using sediment-recirculating flumes treat
sediment as a dependent variable, and the difference between
dependent or independent variables can affect the interpret-
ations of results. Leopold also worried about Gilbert’s slope
measurements, which came not from the slope of the water
surface but from the slope of the debris bed, which ‘was
usually graded before measurement by scraping from crests
into adjacent hollows’ (Gilbert, 1914: 25).
Gilbert himself discussed two specific limitations to his
study. One was his measurement of depth, which was ren-
dered uncertain because the gauge rod interfered with flow
conditions. The other was how transferrable his results were to
natural streams. He believed that the relations he found would
hold true for streams of similar slope, form ratio, and fineness
to that used in his experiments, but he realized that this would
include a very limited number of streams. He was concerned
that the range of discharges and channel shapes experienced in
natural streams precluded comparisons between his flume
observations and most natural streams. Gilbert was also con-
cerned with issues of sediment dynamics that plague sediment
studies to this day, specifically how to address issues of sedi-
ment supply. He acknowledged that a stream’s sediment load
is not just determined by what it can carry but is also a
function of the sediment supplied to it, an aspect of sediment
transport that his study did not address.
Despite its limitations, Gilbert’s (1914) report remains a
classic piece on sediment transport because of the relationships
it identified, the beautiful simplicity of his experimental design,
and the thoroughness with which he and Edward Murphy
conducted their research. The results of his experiments were
used by Hjulström (1935) and Shields (1936) for their seminal
 Author's personal copy
studies on fluvial transport, and by Bagnold (1966) in his
studies of the fundamentals of sediment transport.
1.13.5.2 Ralph Alger Bagnold
Ralph Bagnold (1896–1990) was possibly the most influential
figure in the study of sediment transport during the twentieth
century. The son of a wealthy family with long-standing
military traditions, much of Bagnold’s life was spent as an
officer in the Royal Engineers within the British Army, where
he eventually rose to the rank of Brigadier (US Brigadier
General). His advanced education was limited to an under-
graduate degree in engineering from Cambridge and he con-
sidered himself an amateur at science, but his work in
sediment transport won major honors from the Royal Geo-
graphical Society, the US National Academy of Science, the
Geological Society of America, and the International Associ-
ation of Sedimentologists, and he was elected a Fellow of the
Royal Society (Bagnold, 1990).
His initial work on sediment transport in the 1930s fo-
cused on the physics of wind-blown sand and desert dunes,
inspired by a fascination with the desert that was engendered
by extensive military service in North Africa that culminated in
several pioneering expeditions to explore uncharted regions of
Libya and the Sudan. Discharged from the military in 1935
due to a misdiagnosed illness, Bagnold returned to London
where he constructed a wind tunnel and a variety of apparatus
to study wind-blown sand in borrowed laboratory space at
Imperial College.
The results of his studies were reported in papers published
in the Proceedings of the Royal Society and The Geographical
Journal, and formed the basis for his classic text (Bagnold,
1941), which has been a standard reference on the subject ever
since. Among many notable advances, Bagnold is probably
best known for developing the first physically based model of
the rate of wind-blown sand transport. Bagnold’s approach to
the problem of wind-blown sand was a classic example of
deterministic reductionism. As he opined, ‘‘it seemed to me
[that] if any advance were to be made in our knowledge of
[sand movement], it must in the first instance be approached
via the study of the behaviour of a single grain in a stream of
wind’’ (Bagnold, 1941: xix).
Bagnold (1941) approached the transport-rate issue by
invoking the notion of a ‘characteristic’ saltation path.
Recognizing that the trajectories followed by saltating particles
would vary widely in terms of physical dimensions, he sim-
plified the problem by considering a single average trajectory
that would interact with the wind field in a representative
fashion. The behavior of the heterogeneous population of
saltating particles could therefore be represented simply by
scaling up from this characteristic path (Figure 11).
He then considered the change in horizontal momentum
of a single particle during the course of a saltation hop. This
can be represented as:
Mp ¼ mp ðu2  u1 Þ ½32
where Mp is particle momentum, mp is particle mass, and u2
and u1 are the final and initial horizontal speeds of the par-
ticle, respectively. The change in particle momentum is simply
the product of grain mass and the change in horizontal
Sediments and Sediment Transport 251
w1
Characteristic path
Initial u1 Final u2
w
Grain velocities relative to ground 2
L
Figure 11 Schematic of Bagnold’s (1937) saltation ‘characteristic
path’ trajectory model. Reproduced from Bagnold, R.A., 1937a. The
transport of sand by wind. Geographical Journal 89, 409–438.
velocity. The momentum that is gained by the particle during
the hop is extracted from the air, a result of the drag exerted on
the wind by the more slowly moving grain.
The momentum transferred to the grain can be converted
to a rate of momentum loss per unit streamwise distance by
dividing the total momentum lost during the hop by the
length of the saltation hop (l). If the single grain is then re-
placed by some larger mass of sand (q) that moves past a unit
width during a unit time, the total momentum extracted from
the wind per unit area and per unit time would be given as:
qðu2  u1 Þ=l ½33
This expression is equivalent to a force per unit surface area
(i.e., a shear stress) acting on the wind. Thus
qðu2  u1 Þ=l ¼ t ½34
where t is the drag force acting on the air due to saltating
grains.
Based on wind-tunnel observations that indicated that
grains typically rise almost vertically from the bed, Bagnold
assumed that all horizontal momentum was lost (transferred
to the bed) on impact and that the initial horizontal velocity
of saltating particles is approximately zero. Thus, u1 in eqn
[34] will be approximately zero and can be neglected. His
wind-tunnel measurements also revealed that the wind field
above actively saltating sand was quite different from that
above a fixed bed. From this, he inferred that the drag on the
wind field was entirely due to the saltating grains, so that:
qðu2 Þ=l ¼ rv02 ½35
where v0 is the shear velocity above the saltation layer
(keeping Bagnold’s original symbology).
Bagnold found that the ratio u2/l was closely approximated
over a wide range of values by g/wi, where wi is the initial
vertical velocity of the particle. Equating the two ratios and
rearranging gives:
l ¼ u2 wi =g ½36
The ratio wi/g approximates the time required to decelerate
a particle from its initial launch velocity to zero (that is,
the travel time to the top of the trajectory). Assuming that
the particle does not reach terminal fall velocity, the total
travel time would then be 2wi/g. Because the initial horizontal
 Author's personal copy
252 Sediments and Sediment Transport

velocity of the particle is zero, the average horizontal velocity
during the hop is approximately u2/2. The distance traveled
by the particle during the saltation hop (l) is therefore as
given in eqn [36]. Substituting for u2/l in [35] and rearranging
gives:
q ¼ r=g v02 wi
The typical or characteristic grain is presumed to be laun-
ched from the bed by the impact of similar grain. The im-
pacting grain, having traveled through the wind field and
been exposed to a range of wind velocities described by the
shear velocity, was assumed to have an impact velocity that
was proportional to v0. Thus, the impact velocity can be
represented in terms of shear velocity as:
wi ¼ Bv0
where B is the proportionality coefficient. Substituting into
[37] gives:
q ¼ Br=g v03 ½39
Based on calculations of the dimensions of the character-
istic path, Bagnold determined a value of B ¼ 0.8. Equation
[39] explicitly accounts only for the transport of particles
moving in saltation. Based on wind tunnel and field obser-
vations, Bagnold found creep to account for approximately
25% of the total transport, so that a value of B¼ 1.1 could
represent the total transport rate.
Controlled wind-tunnel tests at several shear velocities
showed that eqn [39] provided a good representation of wind-
blown sand-transport rates, but the model consistently
underpredicted the measured transport rate by approximately
35%. Bagnold hypothesized that this resulted from the in-
ability to control precisely the grain size of the sand employed
in the experiments. Although all calculations had been based
½37 on a ‘characteristic’ grain diameter of 0.25 mm, the diameter
of the experimental sands actually ranged from 0.18 to
0.30 mm. The largest grains therefore had a mass approxi-
mately 4.5 times larger than the smallest, and thus could act as
launch pads, allowing small grains to retain horizontal mo-
mentum at impact. This would produce longer saltation paths
and an increased transport rate. Subsequent experiments
confirmed that transport rates did in fact increase with de-
creased sorting (i.e., larger range of grain sizes). They also
revealed that transport rates at a given shear velocity were
larger for a coarser sand bed than for finer sands, increasing at
½38
a rate that was proportional to the square root of grain size.
Incorporation of these findings led to the final form of
Bagnold’s transport-rate model:
q ¼ Cðd=DÞ0:5 ðr=gÞ v03 ½40
where D is the ‘characteristic’ grain diameter (0.25 mm), and
C is a sorting coefficient with suggested values ranging from
1.5 for nearly uniform sand to 1.8 for naturally graded sand
(such as dune sand), to 2.8 for poorly sorted sand.
Many later workers proposed additional models for the
rate of aeolian transport (e.g., Kawamura, 1951; Zingg, 1953;
Kadib, 1965; Hsu, 1973; Lettau and Lettau, 1977). Although
these models were typically derived from different assump-
tions, in form they are striking in the degree to which they
correspond to the Bagnold model (Figure 12). Notably,

100
Bagnold (1936)
Kawamura (1951)
Zingg (1953)
Owen (1964)
Kadib (1965)
Hsu (1973)
10−1
Lettau and Lettau (1977)
Sørensen (2004)
Q (kg−1 m−1 s)

10−2

10−3
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
u* (m/s)

Figure 12 Comparison of different aeolian sand transport models. Reproduced from Sherman, D.G., Jackson, D.W.T., Namikas S.L., Wang J.,
1998. Wind-blown sand on beaches: an evaluation of models. Geomorphology 22, 113–133.
 Author's personal copy
Sediments and Sediment Transport 253

predictions from the Bagnold model tend to fall toward the where d is the local water depth, and a is the angle of wave
middle of the range produced by the suite of alternative approach relative to the shoreline. Caldwell (1956) had
models. Field studies have typically shown that most models quantified a relationship between the alongshore sediment
significantly overpredict measured rates of aeolian transport. transport rate and Pl, based on data from two field sites:
This is likely due in part to the many site-specific factors that
inhibit transport in the prototype (e.g., particle cohesion by q ¼ 210p0:8 ½45
l
moisture, salt crusts, algae, sheltering vegetation, and slope
variability), but are not accounted for in standard transport
Inman and Bagnold (1963) note that eqn [45] is not cor-
models. Comparative studies (e.g., Berg, 1983; Sarre, 1988;
rect dimensionally, that the empirical constant should include
Sherman et al., 1998) have not found any model to provide a
several parameters that can be specified for a particular en-
consistent improvement in predictive ability over the Bagnold
vironment, and that the transport rate would be more
model, which remains the most widely used approach to
meaningfully expressed as an immersed weight of sediment:
modeling the rates of aeolian sand transport.
Il ¼ ðrs  rÞga0 q ¼ KPl ½46
1.13.5.3 Douglas Lamar Inman
and a0 is a pore–space correction (usually approximately 0.6,
Douglas Inman (1920–) and his cadre of graduate students
to represent the portion of a given volume of sediments made
have made fundamental contributions to the study of beaches
up of solids). Equation [46] is known as the Coastal
and coasts for almost six decades. Inman received his PhD from
Engineering Research Center (CERC) formula, as it was earlier
the University of California, Los Angeles, USA, for research he
adopted by the CERC and published in the Shore Protection
conducted at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, where
Manual (CERC, 1984). A great deal of research has been
his supervisor was the renowned coastal geologist, Francis
devoted to deriving estimates for the value of K (e.g., CEM,
Shepard. From his earliest work, he demonstrated careful and
1998; Davidson-Arnott, 2010), but the basic form of the
innovative approaches to sedimentology, coastal processes, and
model has remained the same, and it has been applied to
geomorphological response. His work on the characterization
coastal environments around the globe (Komar, 1998).
of sediment populations, discussed earlier, was published while
he was still a graduate student (Inman, 1952). He also pub-
lished his early work on longshore currents (Inman and Quinn,
1.13.6 Conclusions
1952; Shepard and Inman, 1951) and was a leader in linking
coastal morphology to large scale processes (Inman and
The modern practice of geomorphology depends greatly on
Nordstrom, 1971); in pioneering the application of sediment
our abilities to understand the sediment and sediment-trans-
budget analysis to coastal change (Bowen and Inman, 1966);
port processes that influence landform change. Recognizing,
and in the application of radiation stress and edge-wave con-
characterizing, and modeling key parameters in sediment
cepts to nearshore circulations, sand transport, and morpho-
transport are part of a disciplinary tradition that underpins
logical adjustments (e.g., Bowen et al., 1968; Komar and
much of the scientific basis for geomorphology. Part of that
Inman, 1970; Inman and Guza, 1982). Of interest here is
tradition is celebrated here through our selection of the con-
Inman’s work with Bagnold in developing an immersed-weight
cepts, histories, and theories summarized in this chapter. It is
transport model for alongshore sediment transport in the
obvious that there is much more that could have been in-
nearshore zone (Inman and Bagnold, 1963).
cluded in this review, and some of our choices are subject to
The immersed-weight, alongshore sediment-transport rate
debate. In the field of sediment-transport studies, in particular,
model evolved directly from Bagnold’s aeolian sand-transport
there have been many undiscussed key laboratory and field
model. The nearshore model is of the simple form:
experiments. Many of those are discussed in other chapters
Il ¼ KPl ½41 and volumes in the Treatise on Geomorphology, where their
value is explicitly recognized. But it would be argued that each
could trace roots to the works on fluid mechanics, sediments,
where Il is the immersed-weight transport rate, K is an em-
and sediment transport featured in this chapter.
pirical constant, and Pl is the longshore component of wave
energy flux (sometimes also referred to as wave power) at the
breakpoint: References
Pl ¼ ðECg Þsina cosa ½42
Abhyankar, V.V., Beebe, D.J., 2007. Spatiotemporal micropatterning of cells on
arbitrary substrates. Analytical Chemistry 79, 4066–4073.
E is the wave energy density at the breakpoint: Allen, J.R.L., 1982. Sedimentary Structures: Their Character and Physical Basis.
Elsevier Scientific, New York, vol. 1, 593 pp.
E ¼ rgH2 ½43 Anderson, Jr. J.D., 2005. Ludwig prandtl’s boundary layer. Physics Today 58, 42–48.
Anderson, R.S., 1986. Erosion profiles due to particles entrained by wind:
application of an eolian sediment-transport model. Geological Society of
H is the wave height at the break point and Cg is the local wave America Bulletin 97, 1270–1278.
group celerity: Baba, J., Komar, P.D., 1981. Measurements and analysis of setting velocities of
natural quartz sand grains. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology 51, 631–640.
pffiffiffiffiffi Bagnold, R.A., 1931. Journeys in the Libyan desert: 1929 and 1930. Geographical
Cg ¼ gd ½44 Journal 78, 13–33.
 Author's personal copy
254 Sediments and Sediment Transport
Bagnold, R.A., 1933. A further journey through the Libyan desert. Geographical
Journal 82, 103–126.
Bagnold, R.A., 1935. The movement of desert sand. Geographical Journal 85,
342–365.
Bagnold, R.A., 1936. The movement of desert sand. Proceedings of the Royal
Society of London. Series A, Mathematical and Physical Sciences A157,
594–620.
Bagnold, R.A., 1937a. The transport of sand by wind. Geographical Journal 89,
409–438.
Bagnold, R.A., 1937b. The size-grading of sand by wind. Proceedings of the Royal
Society. Series A, Mathematical and Physical Sciences A163, 250–264.
Bagnold, R.A., 1938. The measurement of sand storms. Proceedings of the
Royal Society. Series A, Mathematical and Physical Sciences A167, 282–291.
Bagnold, R.A., 1941. The Physics of Blown Sand and Desert Dunes. Morrow, New
York, 265 pp.
Bagnold, R.A., 1966. An Approach to the Sediment Transport Problem from General
Physics. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 422-I, 37 pp.
Bagnold, R.A., 1990. Sand. Wind, and War: Memoirs of a Desert Explorer.
University of Arizona Press, Tucson, 209 pp.
Bass, S.J., Aldridge, J.N., McCave, I.N., Vincent, C.E., 2002. Phase relationships
between fine sediment suspensions and tidal currents in coastal seas. Journal of
Geophysical Research, 107. http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2001JC001269.
Beach, R.A., Sternberg, R.W., 1992. Suspended sediments transport in the surf
zone: response to incident wave and longshore current interaction. Marine
Geology 108, 275–294.
Berg, N.H., 1983. Field evaluation of some sand transport models. Earth Surface
Processes and Landforms 8, 101–114.
Blair, T.C., McPherson, J.G., 1999. Grain-size and textural classification of coarse
sedimentary particles. Journal of Sedimentary Research 69, 6–19.
Blott, S.J., Pye, K., 2008. Particle shape: a review and new methods of
characterization and classification. Sedimentology 55, 31–63.
Bouchez, J., Métivier, F., Lupker, M., Maurice, L., Perez, M., Gaillardet, J., France-
Lanord, C., 2011. Prediction of depth-integrated fluxes of suspended sediment
in the Amazon River: particle aggregation as a complicating factor. Hydrological
Processes 25, 778–794.
Bourgeois, J., 1998. Model survey geologist: G. K. Gilbert. GSA Today, February,
pp. 16–17.
Bowen, A.J., Inman, D.L., 1966. Budget of Littoral Sands in the Vicinity of Point
Arguello, California. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Coastal Engineering
Research Center Technical Memorandum No. 19, 41 pp.
Bowen, A.J., Inman, D.L., Simmons, V.P., 1968. Wave ‘set-down’ and set-up.
Journal of Geophysical Research 73, 2569–2577.
Bunte, K., Abt, S.R., 2001. Sampling surface and subsurface particle-size
distributions in wadeable gravel- and cobble-bed streams for analyses in
sediment transport, hydraulics, and streambed monitoring. General Technical
Report RMRS-GTR-74, US Forest Service, 428 pp.
Caldwell, J.M., 1956. Wave Action and Sand Movement near Anaheim Bay,
California. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Beach Erosion Board Technical Memo
No. 68, 21 pp.
Callow, J.N., Smettem, K.R.J., 2007. Channel response to a new hydrological
regime in southwestern Australia. Geomorphology 84, 254–276.
Carver, R.E., 1971. Procedures in Sedimentary Petrology. Wiley-Interscience,
London, 623 pp.
CEM, 1998. Coastal Engineering Manual, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Washington, DC, vol. III.
CERC, 1984. Shore Protection Manual, Fourth ed. U.S. Government Printing Office,
U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station.
Chanson, H., 2009. Development of the Bélanger equation and backwater equation
by Jean-Baptiste Bélanger (1828). Journal of Hydraulic Engineering 135,
159–163.
Chant, R.J., Fugate, D., Garvey, E., 2011. The shaping of an estuarine superfund
site: roles of evolving dynamics and geomorphology. Estuaries and Coasts 34,
90–105.
Chen, W., Fryrear, D.W., 2001. Aerodynamic and geometric diameters of airborne
particles. Journal of Sedimentary Research 71, 365–371.
Clifford, N.J., 2008. River channel processes and forms. In: Burt, T.P., Chorley, R.J.,
Brunsden, D., Cox, N.J., Goudie, A.S. (Eds.), The History of the Study of
Landforms or the Development of Geomorphology. The Geological Society of
London, Bath, UK.
Corey, A.T., 1949. Influence of shape in the fall velocity of sand grains. M.S. thesis,
A and M College, Colorado, 102 pp.
Cui, B., Komar, P.D., Baba, J., 1983. Settling velocities of natural sand grains in air.
Journal of Sedimentary Petrology 53, 1205–1211.
Davidson-Arnott, R.G.D., 2010. Introduction to Coastal Processes and
Geomorphology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 442 pp.
Davy, P., Lague, D., 2009. Fluvial erosion/transport equation of landscape evolution
models revisited. Journal of Geophysical Research, 114. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1029/2008JF001146.
Dietrich, W.E., 1982. Settling velocities of natural particles. Water Resources
Research 18, 1615–1626.
Dryden, H.L., 1965. Theodore von Kármán: 1881–1963. National Academy of
Sciences Biographical Memoirs 38, 345–384.
Duan, J.G., Julien, P.Y., 2005. Numerical simulation of the inception of channel
meandering. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 30, 1093–1110.
Duncan, W.J., Thom, A.S., Young, A.D., 1970. Mechanics of Fluids, Second ed.
Edward Arnold, London, 725 pp.
Duran, O., Andreotti, B., Claudin, P., 2011. Numerical simulation of turbulent
sediment transport, from bedload to saltation. Physics of Fluids. (pre-print).
Dyer, K., 1986. Coastal and Estuarine Sediment Dynamics. John Wiley and Sons,
Chichester, 358 pp.
Einstein, H.A., 1950. The Bed-Load Function for Sediment Transportation in Open
Channel Flows. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Conservation Service Technical
Bulletin 1026, 71 pp.
Folk, R.L., Ward, W.C., 1957. Brazos river bar: a study in the significance of grain
size parameters. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology 27, 3–26.
Folk, R.L., 1966. A review of grain-size parameters. Sedimentology 6,
73–93.
Folk, R.L., 1980. Petrology of Sedimentary Rocks. Hemphill Publishing, Austin, TX,
182 pp.
Geyer, W.R., 1993. The importance of suppression of turbulence by stratification on
the estuarine turbidity maximum. Estuaries 16, 113–125.
Gibbs, R.J., Matthews, M.D., Link, D.A., 1971. The relationship between sphere size
and settling velocity. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology 41, 7–18.
Gibbs, R.J., 1972. The accuracy of particle size analysis utilizing settling tubes.
Journal of Sedimentary Petrology 42, 141–145.
Gilbert, G.K., 1877. Report on the Geology of the Henry Mountains. U.S.
Geographical and Geological Survey, Washington, DC.
Gilbert, G.K., 1914. The transportation of débris by running water. Professional
Paper 86, Geological Survey U.S.
Graf, W.H., 1984. Hydraulics of Sediment Transport. Water Resources Publications,
LLC, Highlands Ranch, CO, 515 pp.
Guo, J., 2002. Hunter rouse and the shields diagram. Proceedings of the 13th
IAHR-APD Congress vol. 2, 1096–1098.
Hager, W.H., Liiv, U., 2008. Johann Nikuradse – hydraulic experimenter. Journal of
Hydraulic Research 46, 435–444.
Hardisty, J., Davidson, M., Russell, , Huntley, D.A., Hoad, J.P., 1993. Numerical
experiments with gravity and infragravity waves on a macro-tidal beach profile.
Journal of Coastal Research, SI 15, 198–214.
Hjulström, F., 1935. Studies of the morphological activity of rivers as illustrated
by the River Fyris. Bulletin of the Geological Institute of Uppsala 25,
221–527.
Hsu, S.-A., 1973. Computing eolian sand transport from shear velocity
measurements. Journal of Geology 81, 739–743.
Inman, D.L., 1952. Measures for describing the size distribution of sediments.
Journal of Sedimentary Petrology 22, 125–145.
Inman, D.L., Bagnold, R.A., 1963. Littoral Processes. In: Hill, M.N. (Ed.), The Sea.
John Wiley and Sons, New York, vol. III, pp. 529–553.
Inman, D.L., Guza, R.T., 1982. The origin of swash cusps on beaches. Marine
Geology 49, 133–148.
Inman, D.L., Nordstrom, C.E., 1971. On the tectonic and morphologic classification
of coasts. Journal of Geology 79, 1–21.
Inman, D.L., Quinn, W.H., 1952. Currents in the surf zone. Proceedings of the 2nd
Conference on Coastal Engineering, pp. 24–36.
Jackson, J.D., 1995. Osborne Reynolds: Scientist, engineer and pioneer.
Proceedings of the Royal Society, Series A 451, 49–86.
Jarilow, A., 1913. Die Keime der pedologie in der antiken welt. Int. Mitteilungen für
Bodenkunde 3, 240–256.
Jeffreys, H., 1929. On the transport of sediments by streams. Mathematical
Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society 25, 272–276.
Jiménez, J.A., Madsen, O.S., 2003. A simple formula to estimate settling velocity of
natural sediments. Journal of Waterway, Port, Coastal, and Ocean Engineering
129, 70–78.
Julien, P.Y., 2010. Erosion and Sedimentation, Second ed. Cambridge University
Press, 371 pp.
Kadib, A.A., 1965. A Function for Sand Movement by Wind. University of California
Hydraulics Engineering Report HEL 2-12, Berkeley, CA.
 Author's personal copy
von Kármán, T., 1930. Mechanische aehnlichkeit und turbulenz. Proceedings of the
Third International Congress for Applied Mechanics, pp 79–93.
Kawamura, R., 1951. Study of sand movement by wind. Translated (1965) as
University of California Hydraulics Engineering Report HEL 2-8, Berkeley, CA.
Kennedy, J.F., 1995. The Albert shields story. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering 121,
766–772.
Komar, P.D., Inman, D.L., 1970. Longshore sand transport on beaches. Journal of
Geophysical Research 75, 5914–5927.
Komar, P.D., 1998. Beach Processes and Sedimentation, Second ed. Prentice-Hall,
Upper Saddle River, NJ, 544 pp.
Krumbein, W.C., 1932. A history of the principles and methods of mechanical
analysis. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology 2, 89–124.
Krumbein, W.C., 1934. Size frequency distribution of sediments. Journal of
Sedimentary Petrology 4, 65–77.
Krumbein, W.C., 1936. The use of quartile measurements in describing and
comparing sediments. American Journal of Science 37, 98–111.
Krumbein, W.C., 1938. Size frequency distribution of sediments and the normal phi
curve. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology 8, 84–90.
Krumbein, W.C., 1941. Measurement and geological significance of shape and
roundness of sedimentary particles. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology 11(2),
64–72.
Krumbein, W.C., Pettijohn, F.J., 1938. Manual of Sedimentary Petrography.
Appleton-Century, Inc., New York, 549 pp.
de Lange, W.P., Healy, T.R., Darlan, Y., 1997. Reproducibility of sieve and settling
tube textural determinations for sand-sized beach sediment. Journal of Coastal
Research 13, 73–80.
Leighly, J.B., 1932. Toward a theory of the morphological significance of turbulence
in the flow of water in streams. University of California Publications in
Geography 6, 1–22.
Leighly, J.B., 1934. Turbulence and the transportation of rock debris by steams.
Geographical Review 24, 453–464.
Leopold, L.B., 1980. Techniques and interpretation: the sediment studies of G.K.
Gilbert. Geological Society of America Special Paper 183.
Lettau, K., Lettau, H., 1977. Experimental and micrometeorological field studies
of dune migration. In: Lettau, K., Lettau, H. (Eds.), Exploring the World’s
Driest Climate. University of Wisconsin-Madison, IES Report 101, pp. 110–147
Li, G., Wei, H., Han, Y., Chen, Y., 1998. Sedimentation in the yellow river delta,
part 1: flow and suspended sediment structure in the upper distributary and the
estuary. Marine Geology 149, 93–111.
Madsen, O.S., Grant, W.D., 1976. Sediment Transport in the Coastal Zone. Ralph
M. Parsons Lab for Water Resources and Hydrodynamics, Mass. Inst. of
Technology, Report 209: 105 pp.
Malcolm, L.P., Raupach, M.R., 1991. Measurements in an air settling tube of the
terminal velocity distribution of soil material. Journal of Geophysical Research
96, 15,275–15,286.
Masselink, G., Evans, D., Hughes, M.G., Russell, P., 2005. Suspended sediment
transport in the swash zone of a dissipative beach. Marine Geology 216,
169–189.
Middleton, G.V., Wilcock, P.R., 1994. Mechanics in the Earth and Environmental
Sciences. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 461 pp.
Murphy, S., Voulgaris, G., 2006. Identifying the role of tides, rainfall and
seasonality in marsh sedimentation using long-term suspended sediment
concentration data. Marine Geology 227, 31–50.
Mutel, C.F., Ettema, R., 2010. Hunter Rouse: 1906–1996. National Academy of
Engineering Memorial Tributes 13, 227–230.
Nielson, P., Teakle, I.A.L., 2004. Turbulent diffusion of momentum and suspended
particles: a finite-mixing-length theory. Physics of Fluids 16, 2342–2348.
Nikuradse, J. 1933. Stromungsgesetze in Rauhen Rohren. Forschung auf dem
Gebiete des Ingenieurwesens, Forschungsheft 361, VDI Verlag, Berlin,
Germany (English Translation: Laws of Flow in Rough Pipes). Technical
Memorandum 1292, National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, Washington,
DC, 1950.
Odén, S., 1915. Eine neue method zur mechanischen bodenanalyze. Int.
Mitteilungen für Bodenkunde 5, 257–311.
Osborne, P.D., Greenwood, B., 1993. Sediment suspension under waves and
currents: time scales and vertical structure. Sedimentology 40, 599–622.
Oswatitsch, K., Wieghardt, K., 1987. Ludwig Prandtl and his Kaiser-Wilhelm-Institut.
Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics 19, 1–26.
Owens, J., 1908. Experiments on the transporting power of sea currents. The
Geographical Journal 31, 415–425.
Pacheco, A., Williams, J.J., Ferreira, Ó., Garel, E., Reynolds, S., 2011. Applicability
of sediment transport models to evaluate medium term evolution of tidal inlet
systems. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 95, 119–134.
Sediments and Sediment Transport 255
Pipan, T., Holt, N., Culver, D.C., 2010. How to protect a diverse, poorly known,
inaccessible fauna: identification and protection of source and sink habitats in
the epikarst. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 20,
748–755.
Prandtl, L., 1926. Uber die ausgebildete turbulenz. Verh. 2nd Intl Kong. Fur Tech.
Mech., Zurich (available in English translation NACA Technical Memo. 435).
Pye, W.D., Pye, M.H., 1943. Sphericity determinations of pebbles and sand grains.
Journal of Sedimentary Petrology 13(1), 28–34.
Pyne, S.J., 1980. Grove Karl Gilbert: A Great Engine of Research. University of
Texas Press, Austin, TX, 306 pp.
Reynolds, O., 1883. An experimental investigation of the circumstances which
determine whether the motion of water shall be direct or sinuous, and of the law
of resistance in parallel channels. Philosophical Transactions 174, 9350982.
van Rijn, L.C., 2007. Unified view of suspended sediment transport by currents
and waves. II: suspended transport. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering 133,
668–689.
Rose, C.P., Thorne, P.D., 2001. Measurements of suspended sediment transport
parameters in a tidal estuary. Continental Shelf Research 21, 1551–1575.
Rouse, H., 1938. Experiments on the mechanics of sediment suspension.
Proceedings of the International Congress for Applied Mechanics, pp 550–554.
Rouse, H., 1991. The Nikuradse Story. Selected Writings 2, 220-221. Iowa Institute
of Hydraulic Research, Iowa City, IA, USA.
Sarre, R.D., 1988. Evaluation of aeolian sand transport equations using intertidal
zone measurements, Saunton Sands, England. Sedimentology 35, 671–679.
Schöne, E., 1867. Ueber Schlämmanalysen, Berlin.
Schubert, J., 2006. Significance of hydrologic aspects on RBF performance.
In: Hubbs, S. (Ed.), Riverbank Filtration Hydrology. Springer, The Netherlands,
pp. 1–20.
Scott, W.D., 1994. Wind erosion of residue waste. Part 1. Using the wind profile to
characterize wind erosion. Catena 21, 291–303.
Shepard, F.P., Inman, D.L., 1951. Nearshore circulation. Proceedings 1st Conference
on Coastal Engineering, pp 50–59.
Sherman, D.G., Jackson, D.W.T., Namikas, S.L., Wang, J., 1998. Wind-blown sand
on beaches: an evaluation of models. Geomorphology 22, 113–133.
Sherman, D.J., Li, B., 2011. Predicting aeolian sand transport rates: a reevaluation
of models. Aeolian Research 3, 371–378.
Shi, J.Z., 2010. Tidal resuspension and transport processes of fine sediment within
the river plume in the partially-mixed Changjiang River estuary, China: a
personal perspective. Geomorphology 121, 133–151.
Shields, A., 1936. Anwendung Der Aenlichkeitsmechanik und Der Turbulenzforschung
Auf Die Geschiebebewegung. Mitteilungen der Preussischen Versuchsanstalt fur
Wasserbau und Schiffbau, Berlin, Germany. California Institute of Technology,
Pasadena, (English translation: W. P. Ott, J. C. van Uchelen).
Shugar, D.H., Kostaschuk, R., Best, J.L., Parsons, D.R., Lane, S.N., Orfeo, O.,
Hardy, R.J., 2010. On the relationship between flow and suspended sediment
transport over the crest of a sand dune, Rı́o Paraná, Argentina. Sedimentology
57, 252–272.
Sneed, E.D., Folk, R.I., 1958. Pebbles in the lower Colorado River, Texas: a study
in particle morphogenesis. Journal of Geology 66, 114–150.
Stokes, G.G., 1851. On the effect of the internal friction of fluids on the motion of
pendulums. Transactions of the Cambridge Philosophical Society 9, 8–106.
Strahler, A.N., 1952. Dynamic basis of geomorphology. Geological Society of
America Bulletin 63, 923–938.
Sundborg, A., 1955. Meteorological and climatological conditions for the genesis of
aeolian sediments. Geografiska Annaler 37, 94–111.
Syvitski, J.P.K., Asprey, K.W., Clattenburg, D.A., 1991. Principles, design, and
calibration of settling tubes. In: Syvitski, J.P.M. (Ed.), Principles, Methods, and
Application of Particle Size Analysis. Cambridge University Press, 368 pp.
Trask, P.D., 1932. Origin and Environment of Source Sediment in Petroleum. Gulf
Publishing Company, Houston, TX, 324 pp.
Tsoar, H., Pye, K., 1987. Dust transportation and the question of desert loess
formation. Sedimentology 34, 139–153.
Tucker, M.E., 2001. Sedimentary Petrology: An Introduction to the Origin of
Sedimentary Rocks, Third ed. Blackwell Science, Oxford, 262 pp.
Udden, J.A., 1914. Mechanical composition of clastic sediments. Bulletin of the
Geological Society of America XXV, 655–744.
Udo, K., Mano, A., 2011. Application of Rouse’s sediment concentration profile to
aeolian transport: is the suspension system for sand transport in air the same
as that in water? Journal of Coastal Research SI64, 2079–2083.
Vennard, J.K., Street, R.L., 1982. Elementary Fluid Mechanics, Sixth ed. John Wiley
and Sons, New York, 685 pp.
Vincent, C.E., Osborne, P.D., 1995. Predicting suspended sand concentration
profiles on a macro-tidal beach. Continental Shelf Research 15, 1497–1514.
 Author's personal copy
256 Sediments and Sediment Transport

Vitorino, J., Oliveira, A., Jouanneau, J.M., Drago, T., 2002. Winter dynamics on the
northern Portuguese shelf. Part 2: bottom boundary layers and sediment
dispersal. Progress in Oceanography 52, 155–170.
Wadell, H., 1932. Volume, shape, and roundness of rock particles. Journal of
Geology 40, 443–451.
Wadell, H., 1933. Sphericity and roundness of rock particles. Journal of Geology
41, 310–331.
Wadell, H., 1935. Volume, shape, and roundness of quartz particles. Journal of
Geology 43, 250–280.
Waeles, B., Le Hir, P., Leseur, P., Delsinne, N., 2007. Modelling sand/mud transport
and morphodynamics in the Seine river mouth (France): an attempt using a
process-based approach. Hydrobiologia 588, 69–82.
Weiss, R., Bahlburg, H., 2006. A note on the preservation of offshore tsunami
deposits. Journal of Sedimentary Research 76, 1267–1273.
Wentworth, C.K., 1922a. The shapes of beach pebbles. U.S. Geological Survey
Professional Paper, 131-C: 75–83.
Wentworth, C.K., 1922b. A method of measuring and plotting the shapes of pebbles.
The Shapes of Pebbles. U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin, 730-C, 91–102.
Wentworth, C.K., 1922c. A scale of grade and class terms for clastic sediment.
Journal of Geology 30(5), 377–392.
Wiele, S.M., Wilcock, P.R., Grams, P.E., 2007. Reach-averaged sediment routing
model of a canyon river. Water Resources Research, 43. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1029/2005WR004824.
Winterwerp, J.C., Lely, M., He., Q., 2009. Sediment-induced buoyancy destruction
and drag reduction in estuaries. Ocean Dynamics 59, 781–791.
Wright, L.D., Short, A.D., 1984. Morphodynamic variability of surf zones and
beaches: a synthesis. Marine Geology 56, 93–118.
Yang, B.H., Joseph, D.D., 2009. Virtual nikuradse. Journal of Turbulence 10, 1–24.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14685240902806491.
Zingg, A.W., 1953. Wind Tunnel Studies of the Movement of Sedimentary Material.
Institute of Hydraulics, Iowa City. IA, Proceedings of the 5th Hydraulics
Conference, Bull. 34.
Zingg, T., 1935. Beitrag zur schotteranalyse. Schweiz. Mineral. Petrogr. Mitt. 15, 39–140.

Biographical Sketch

Doug Sherman is a Professor of Geography at the University of Alabama, where he is also Department Chair. His
academic credentials include a PhD in Geography from the University of Toronto and he was a postdoctoral
scholar in the Ocean Engineering Department at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. He has been a Professor
of Geography at the University of Southern California and at Texas A&M University. He is a Fellow of the
American Association for the Advancement of Science and Past Chair of the International Geographical Union’s
Commission on Coastal Systems. Professor Sherman’s research expertise is in nearshore processes and sediment
transport in coastal and aeolian systems. He has authored more than 100 scholarly publications, and his research
has been supported by numerous state and federal programs.

M.A. Lisa Davis is an Assistant Professor of Geography at the University of Alabama. She received her PhD in
Geography from the University of Tennessee in 2005 and holds an MPhil in Geography from the University of
Wales, Swansea, and a BA in Geography from the University of Southern Mississippi. Her research specialty is in
fluvial geomorphology, particularly human impacts in river systems, sediment dynamics, and geomorphic
interactions between rivers and other natural systems. Most of her published work to date deals with human
impacts in rivers, specifically geomorphic adjustment to channelization and land-use change.

Steven L. Namikas is an Associate Professor of Geography at Louisiana State University. He received his PhD from
the University of Southern California in 1999. He is the author of approximately 30 research articles dealing with
coastal and aeolian geomorphology. His work focuses on the nature and dynamics of modern processes operating
in these environments, including aeolian sediment transport, beach micrometeorology, and beach hydrology. He
also has ongoing interests in a variety issues related to instrumentation, monitoring, and modeling of process-
response systems.

View publication stats