Lecture # 6

Bedload Transport

Michael Mehari (Ph.D)

Bahir Dar University, BiT
 Bed Load Transport
• Introduction:
• When the flow conditions satisfy or exceed the criteria for
incipient motion, sediment particles along the alluvial bed
will start move.

• If the motion of sediment is “rolling”, “sliding” or

“jumping” along the bed, it is called bed load transport

• Generally the bed load transport of a river is about 5-25%

of that in suspension. However for coarser material higher
percentage of sediment may be transported as bed load.
 Bed Load Transport
• Bed load, strictly defined, is just that component of the
moving sediment that is supported by the bed (and not by
the flow). That is, the term “bed load” refers to a mode of
transport and not to a source.

• Bed load is extremely difficult to measure directly because

the measuring instrument (bed-load sampler) invariably
interferes with the flow.

• there is always some bed scour at the inlet of the bedload

sampler that distorts the actual bed-load transport in the
vicinity of the instrument.
 A commonly used type of bed-load sampler.
Bedload Transport The sampler base usually has a heavy flat
weight attached and the fins keep the
instrument oriented into the flow. (B) When
the bed-load sampler is appropriately oriented
in the flow, bed-load material enters the
sampler through the inlet and the divergent
flow within the sampler reduces the flow
velocity, allowing the sediment to accumulate.
A fine mesh at the rear of the sampler allows
water to pass through but not the bed-load
sediment. After an appropriate measured time-
interval the sampler is recovered and the
trapped sediment is removed for weighing.
 Bedload Transport
• In large rivers where the sampler must be lowered from a boat
by cable to an unseen bed, however, measurements can be
highly inaccurate and must be repeated many times before one
can have confidence in the results. The problems relate largely
to the fact that the operator is unable to see the position of the
sampler on the bed.
 Bedload Transport
• For these reasons river scientists often prefer to rely on other
methods to estimate bed-load transport rates in rivers.

• Methods other than direct measurement by bed-load

sampler include:

• i. Bed-load pits or traps (used to calibrate bed-load

equations)

• ii. Morphological methods

– a. Bedform surveys

– b. Channel surveys

– c. Sedimentation-zone surveys (delta progradation)

 Bedload Transport

Schematic of a bed-load measurement station involving removal of

bed-load sediment from a channel and its return to the sediment
transport system after weighing.
 Bedload Transport
• The main purpose of such a facility is to calibrate bed-load
transport equations for use on other river channels.

• Morphological methods have seen increasing use in

recent years because they completely avoid the problems
related to direct bed-load sampling.

• Where bed-material is moving as bedforms such as dunes,

bedform surveys can be used to track the downstream
movement of sediment (Figure).

• Relies on high-resolution sonar imaging of the river bed

 Bedload Transport

Bedform surveys track the downstream translation of features

such as prograding dunes on the bed of a river as a basis for
determining volumetric bed-load transport rates.
 Bedload Transport
• Channel surveys
– used to produce sequential morphologic maps of a reach of river
– can be differenced (using GIS) to yield amounts of erosion and
deposition overtime.
– The principle here is the same as that for bedform surveys but in
this case involves the entire three-dimensional channel
morphology (Figure).
• Assumes that there is no sediment throughput.
• That is, all transported bed-load is involved in local deposition
and erosion and not simply transported through the reach
without contributing to the changing channel morphology.
• Some argue that this assumption often may not be met and that
this morphologic method can only yield a minimum bed-load
transport rate.
 Bedload Transport
• Thus, it should be used with caution.
• Another limitation of the method is that field data on the
vertical distribution of sediment in the eroded/deposited
material must be known and some criterion to distinguish
between bed-load and other materials must also be
employed.
 Bedload Transport

Channel surveys showing channel alignment at two points in time

(2003 & 2004). Morphologic differencing reveals zones of erosion and deposition
that can be used to construct a sediment budget for the channel reach.
 Bedload Transport

Sediment transport characteristics of experimental channels

 Bedload Transport

River Gumara over the last 50 years at Bridge Location

(Abate et al., 2015)
 Bedload Transport
• Bedload equations
• In many circumstances direct or indirect measurements of
bedload are not possible and it is necessary to estimate bed-
load transport rates using general capacity-limiting sediment-
transport equations.

• Gomez and Church (1989) categorised sediment transport

laws into four groups, discharge, tractive force, stochastic
and stream power (next slide)

• Most equations are effective for only a limited range of

sediment characteristics and hydraulic conditions (Alonso et
al. 1981).
 Bedload Transport
• Selection of a sediment-transport formula is subjective,
• A rule of thumb is to use the following considerations:
a. The data base required for their computations is
available.

b. The equations are framed for easy use in a digital

application, such as a computer program

c. The sediment characteristics and hydraulic conditions, from

which the formula was derived, reflects the best
approximation to the conditions of this study.

d. Previous performance of the formula against measured

sediment-discharges, as reported in the literature
 Bedload Transport
• Most of the formulas predict the sediment transport
capacity, which is the maximum bed-material discharge
under equilibrium conditions for particular hydraulic and
sediment characteristics.

•
• Equilibrium corresponds to steady, uniform flow
conditions, where the respective bed-material discharge
entering and leaving a particular reach are the same, and
where the bed conditions remain unchanged.
 Bedload Transport

• Bedload particles roll, slide, or saltate along the bed. The

transport thus occurs tangential to the bed. In a case where all
the transport is directed in the streamwise, or s direction, the
volume bedload-transport rate per unit width (n direction) is
given by q; the units are length3/length/per time, or
Iength2/time. In general, q is a function of boundary shear
stress τb and other parameters; that is,
Bedload Transport
 ENERGY SLOPE (Discharge) APPROACH
• Meyer-Peter’s Approach:
• Meyer-Peter et al. (1934) conducted extensive laboratory studies on
sediment transport. His formula for bed-load using the metric system is

0.4qb2 / 3 q 2 / 3 S
  17
d D
Where : q b = Bed load (kg/s/m)
q = Water discharge (kg/s/m)
S  Slope and, d  Particle diameter

 Note:
 The Constants 17 and 0.4 are valid for sand with Sp. Gr =2.65
 Above formula can be applied only to coarse material have d>3mm
 For non-uniform material d=d35,
 Energy slope (Discharge) APPROACH
• Schoklistch’s Approach:
• Schoklistch pioneered the use of discharge for determination of bed load.
There are two Schoklistch formulas:
Schoklistch (1934)
S 3/ 2
qb  7000 1/ 2  q  qc  where : q b =Bed load [kg/s/m]
d d= Particle size [mm]
0.00001944d q & q c  Water discharge and critical discharge
qc 
S 4/3 at incipient motion.[m3 /s/m]

Schoklistch (1943)
qb  2500 S 3/ 2  q  qc  Note: qc formulas are applicable for
sediment with specific gravity 2.65
0.6d 3/ 2
qc 
S 7/6
 ENERGY SLOPE (Tractive force) APPROACH
• Meyer-Peter and Muller’s Approach:
• After 14 years of research and analysis, Meyer-Peter and Muller (1948)
transformed the Meyer-Peter formula into Meyer-Peter and Mullers’
Formula
3/ 2
 ks 
   RS  0.047   s    d  0.25 1/ 3qb2 / 3
 Kr 
Where :  s &   Specific weights of sediment and water [Metric Tons/m3 ]
R= Hydraulic Radius [ m]
 = Specific mass of water [Metric tons-s/m 4 ]
S  Energy Slope and,
d  Mean particle diameter
q b = Bed load rate in underwater weight per unit time and width [(Metric tons/s)/m]
 ks 
  S  the kind of slope, which is adjusted such that only a portion of the total energy
 Kr 
loss ,namely that due to the grain resistance Sr, is responsible for bed load motion.
 ENERGY SLOPE APPROACH
• Meyer-Peter and Muller’s Approach:
• The slope energy can be found by Stricker’s Formula

V2 V2
S  2 4/3 & Sr  2 4 / 3 then
Ks R Kr R
1/ 2
Ks  Sr 
 
Kr  S 
However test results showed the relationship to be of form
3/ 2
 Ks   Sr 
    ,
 Kr   S 
The coefficient K r was determined by Muller as,
26
Kr  1/ 6
,
d90
where : d90  Size of sediment for which 90% of the material is finer
 SHEAR STRESS APPROACH
• DuBoys’ Approach:
• Duboys (1879) assume that
sediment particles move in layers
along the bed and presented
following relationship based on
data from small flume experiments.
qb  K (   c )  ( ft / s) / ft
3

0.173
K 3/ 4
 ft 6
(lb 2
 s ) (Straub, 1935)
d
The relationship between  c , k
and d are shown in figure below.
 c can be determined from
shields diagram
Duboys’ Eqution was criticized mainly due to
two reasons
1. All data was obtained from small laboratory flume with a small range of particle
size.
2. It is not clear that the eq. is applicable to field condition,
 SHEAR STRESS APPROACH
• Shields’ Approach:
• In his study of incipient motion, Shield obtain semi empirical equation for
bed-load which is given as
qb s   c
 10
q S s 
Where : qb and q = bed load and water discharge per unit width
   DS
d  Sediment particle diameter
 s &   Specific weights of sediment and water
 Note: The above equation is dimensionally homogenous, and can be
used for any system of units. The critical shear stress can be estimated
from shields’ diagram.
The formula is based mainly on data from flume experiments, with
relative coarse sediments with median sizes ranging from 1.7 mm - 2.5
mm, and specific gravity ranging from 1.06 - 4.2.
 OTHER APPROACHES

• Velocity Approach
– Duboy’s Approach
• Bed Form Approach
• Probabilistic Approach
– Einstein Approach
– The Einstein-Brown Approach
• Stochastic Approach
– Yang and Syre Approach
• Etc etc

Note: Consult reference book for details

 RELATIONS FOR 1D BEDLOAD TRANSPORT
Let qb denote the volume bedload transport rate per unit width (sliding,
rolling, saltating). It is reasonable to assume that qb increases with a
measure of flow strength, such as depth-averaged flow velocity U or
boundary shear stress b.
A dimensionless Einstein bedload number q* can be defined as follows:
qb
qb 
RgD D
A common and useful approach to the quantification of bedload transport
is to empirically relate qb* with either the Shields stress * or the excess
of the Shields stress * above some appropriately defined “critical”
Shields stress c*. As pointed out in the last chapter, c* can be defined
appropriately so as to a) fit the data and b) provide a useful demarcation
of a range below which the bedload transport rate is too low to be of
interest.
The functional relation sought is thus of the form
      
27
q  q (  ) or
b b q  q (   )
b b c
 Simplified Relationships

• A large number of bedload relations can be expressed in the

general form;

• Here, q* is a dimensionless bedload transport rate known as the

Einstein number, first introduced by H. A. Einstein in 1950 and
given by

The following relations are of interest. In 1972, Ashida and

Michiue introduced

and recommend a value of τc* of 0.05. It has been verified with

uniform material ranging in size from 0.3 mm to 7 mm.
 Simplified Relationships
Meyer-Peter and Muller (1948) introduced the following:

where τc* = 0.047. This formula is empirical in nature and has

been verified with data for uniform gravel.
Engelund and Freds0e (1976) proposed,

where τc* = 0.05. This formula resembles that of Ashida and

Michiue because the derivation is almost identical.
Fernandez Luque and van Beek (1976) developed the following,

where τc* varies from 0.05 for 0.9 mm material to 0.058 for 3.3.
mm material. The relation is empirical in nature.
 BEDLOAD TRANSPORT RELATION OF MEYER-PETER
AND MÜLLER
All the bedload relations in this section pertain to a flow condition known
as “plane-bed” transport, i.e. transport in the absence of significant
bedforms.

The “mother of all modern bedload transport relations” is that due to

Meyer-Peter and Müller (1948) (MPM). It takes the form

qb  8(   c )3 / 2 , c  0.047

The relation was derived using flume data pertaining to well-sorted
sediment in the gravel sizes.

Recently Wong (2003) and Wong and Parker (2004) found an error in the
analysis of MPM. A re-analysis of the all the data pertaining to plane-bed
transport used by MPM resulted in the corrected relation
qb  4.93 (   c )1.6 , c  0.047
If the exponent of 1.5 is retained, the best-fit relation is
qb  3.97 (   c )3 / 2 , c  0.0495 30
 LIMITATIONS OF MPM
The “critical Shields stress” c* of either 0.047 or 0.0495 in either the
original or corrected MPM relation(s) must be considered as only a matter
of convenience for correlating the data. This can be demonstrated as
follows.

Consider bankfull flow in a river. The bed shear stress at bankfull flow bbf
can be estimated from the depth-slope product rule of normal flow:

bbf  gHbf S
The corresponding Shields stress bf50* at bankfull flow is then estimated as
Hbf S
bf 50 
RDs50
where Ds50 denotes a surface median size. For the gravel-bed rivers,
however, the average value of bf50* was found to be about 0.05 (previous
data collected).
According to MPM, then, these rivers can barely move sediment of the
surface median size Ds50 at bankfull flow. Yet most such streams do move
this size at bankfull flow, and often in significant quantities. 31
 1.E+01
LIMITATIONS OF MPM contd.
gravel-bed
1.E+00
streams
bf 50 1.E-01
Grav Brit
Grav Alta
Sand Mult
1.E-02
Sand Sing
Grav Ida
1.E-03
1.E+02 1.E+04 1.E+06 1.E+08 1.E+10 1.E+12 1.E+14

Q̂
There is nothing intrinsically “wrong” with MPM. In a
dimensionless sense, however, the flume data used to define it
correspond to the very high end of the transport events that normally
occur during floods in alluvial gravel-bed streams. While the relation
is important in a historical sense, it is not the best relation to use with
gravel-bed streams.
32
 A SMORGASBORD OF BEDLOAD TRANSPORT
RELATIONS FOR UNIFORM SEDIMENT
Some commonly-quoted bedload transport relations with good data
bases are given below.
1 ( 0.143 /  ) 2 43.5qb
(0.143 /  )2 e dt  1  43.5qb
t2
1 Einstein (1950)


qb  17   c    c ,  c  0.05 Ashida & Michiue
(1972)

qb  18.74   c    0.7 c ,  c  0.05 Engelund & Fredsoe
(1976)


q  5.7   
b

c 
 1.5
, c  0.037 ~ 0.0455 Fernandez Luque & van Beek
(1976)
4.5
   

q  11.2 
b  
 1.5 1 
 
c



, c  0.03
Parker (1979) fit to
  Einstein (1950)
33
 PLOTS OF BEDLOAD TRANSPORT RELATIONS
1.E+02
1.E+01
1.E+00
1.E-01
1.E-02 E
AM
1.E-03 EF
qb *

1.E-04 E = Einstein FLBSand

AM = Ashida-Michiue P approx E
1.E-05 EF = Engelund-Fredsoe FLBGrav
1.E-06 P approx E = Parker approx of Einstein
FLBSand = Fernandez Luque-van
1.E-07 Beek, c* = 0.038
1.E-08 FLBGrav = Fernandez Luque-van
Beek, c* = 0.0455
1.E-09
0.01 0.1 1

*
34
 Bedload Transport
• Simplified Expression for sediment transport
Predictions
• sometimes a simplified form of the sediment transport formula
is used, which reads as:
– Qs = m*Un
• Where qs = sediment transport (m2/s), m = proportionality
coefficient in which all the effects are included, U = velocity
(m/s) and n = power of velocity. The reason for writing the
sediment transport formula in this way:
– It clearly shows non-linear character of the sediment transport
– Allows to simple analytical solutions for river morphological problems.
Bedload Transport, Comparisons
Effect of particle diameter on Bedload Transport
Bedload Transport
 Variation of Bedload Transport Rate with Particle
Diameter
7.0E-05
MPM VR1 VR2
Bedload Transport Rate (m2/s)

6.5E-05

6.0E-05

5.5E-05

5.0E-05

4.5E-05

4.0E-05

3.5E-05
0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

Particle Diameter (mm)

 QUANTIFICATION OF TOTAL BED MATERIAL LOAD
The total bed material load is equal to the sum of the bedload and the bed
material part of the suspended load; in terms of volume transport per unit
width, qt = qb + qs. Here wash load, i.e. that part of the suspended load that
is too fine to be contained in measurable quantities in the river bed, is
excluded from qs. Total bed material load is quantified in various ways in
addition to qt

Flux-based volume concentration Ct = qt/(qt + qw)

Flux-based mass concentration Xt = sqt/(sqt + qw)

Flux-based mass concentration in parts per million = Xt106

Concentration in milligrams per liter = sqt/(qt + qw)106, where qt and qw are

in m2/s and s is in tons/m3.

In the great majority of cases of interest qt/qw << 1, so that the concentration
in milligrams per liter is accurately approximated by the mass concentration
in parts per million. 40
 RELATION OF ENGELUND AND HANSEN (1967)
A variety of relations are available for the prediction of bulk total bed
material load. Most of them are based on the regression of large amounts
of data. Five such relations are reported here. Although the data bases for
some of them include gravel, they are not designed for gravel-bed streams.
As such, their use should be restricted to sand-bed streams.

Perhaps the simplest of these relations is that due to Engelund and Hansen
(1967). It takes the form 0.05  5 / 2
qt  ( )
Cf
where  qt  b u2
q  ,   
RgD 50 RgD 50
t
RgD 50 D50

The relation is designed to be used in conjunction with the

formulation of hydraulic resistance of Engelund and Hansen
(1967). Brownlie (1981) has found the relation to perform very
well for field sand-bed streams.
41
 RELATION OF BROWNLIE (1981)
The formulation of Brownlie (1981) can be expressed as:
1 Xt
qt  qw
(R  1) (1  X t )
3
Xt  7.115  10 c F Û  Ûc  1.978
S0.6601Ĥ0.3301
U H
Û  , Ĥ 
RgD50 D50
( 7.7 Re p0.6 )
Ûc  4.596 ( c )0.5293 S 0.1405  g0.1606 
  0.22 Re 0.6
 0.06  10
c p

In the above relations g is the geometric standard deviation

of the bed sediment and cF takes the value of 1 for laboratory
conditions and 1.268 for field conditions. The relation is
designed to be used in conjunction with the Brownlie (1981)
formulation for hydraulic resistance.

42
 RELATION OF YANG (1973)
The formulation of Yang (1973; see also 1996) can be expressed as:
1 Xt
qt  qw
(R  1) (1  X t )
u 
og10 ( X t  10 6 )  5.435  0.286og10 (R f Re p )  0.457og10    
 vs 
  u   US Uc S 
1.799  0.409og10 (R f Re p )  0.314og10   og10   
  v s   vs vs 

 2 .5 uD50 vs
  0.66 , 1.2   70 Rf 
Uc  og10   50
uD   RgD 50
   0.06
vs    
uD RgD 50 D50
 2.05 , 70   50 Re p 
  

In the above relations vs is the fall velocity associated with sediment

size D50.
43
 RELATION OF ACKERS AND WHITE (1973)
The formulation of Ackers and White (1973) can be expressed as:
1 Xt
qt  qw
(R  1) (1  X t )
m 1n
R 1  Fgr   1 
Xt  n

(Cz ) Caw   1 

Fgr   (Cz )  1n

Ĥ  A aw  
 32 og10 (10 Ĥ) 

n
 
1.00  0.56 og10 Re p2 / 3 , 1  Re p2 / 3  60
 0 , 60  Re p2 / 3
 9.66
 2 / 3  1.34 , 1  Re p  60
2/3

m  Re p
 U H
 1.50 , 60  Re p2 / 3 Cz  , Ĥ 
0.23 Re p1/ 3  0.14 , 1  Re p2 / 3  60
u D50
A aw 
 0.17 , 60  Re p2 / 3
2.86 og10 ( Re p2 / 3 )  [og10 ( Re p2 / 3 )]2  3.53 , 1  Re p2 / 3  60
og10 Caw 
  1.60 , 60  Re p2 / 3
44
 RELATIONS OF KARIM AND KENNEDY (1981) AND
KARIM (1998)
The formulation of Karim and Kennedy (1981) can be expressed as:
       
og10 
qt   2.2786  2.9719 og10  U   1.0600 og10  U  og10  u  uc 
 RgD D   RgD   RgD   RgD 
 50 50   50   50   50 
 H   u  uc 
 0.2989 og10   og10   
 D50   RgD 
 50 

where u*c can be evaluated from Brownlie’s (1981) fit to the original Shields
curve:
( 7.7 Re p 0.6 ) RgD D
c  0.22 Re p0.6  0.06  10 , Re p 


The above relation may be used in conjunction with their relation for
hydraulic resistance presented in Chapter 9. Karim (1998) also presents a
total bed material load equation that is fractionated for mixtures;
2.97
 U 
1.47
qti  u 
 0.00139    i
Fai RgDi Di  
 RgDi   v si 
Fai 
Fi / Di 
n

 Fi / Di 
C2
 D  v  v 
i  C1 i  , C1  1.15 s50  , C2  0.60 s50 
i1 45
 D50   u   u 