Zimmermann 2008 - Video Based Gravel Transport Measurements With A Flume Mounted Light Table

Earth Surface Processes and Landforms
Video-based gravelLandforms
Earth Surf. Process. transport33,
measurements
2285–2296 (2008) 2285
Published online 13 May 2008 in Wiley InterScience
(www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/esp.1675
Technical Communication
Video-based gravel transport measurements with a

flume mounted light table
André E. Zimmermann,* Michael Church and Marwan A. Hassan
Department of Geography, The University of British Columbia, 1984 W. Mall, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada V6T 1Z2
*Correspondence to: André Abstract

Zimmermann, Department of
Geography, The University of The study of bedload transport processes is constrained by an inability to monitor the mass,
British Columbia, 1984 W. Mall, volume and grain size distribution of sediment in transport at high temporal frequencies.
Vancouver, British Columbia, Building upon a previously published design, we have integrated a high-resolution (1392 × 1024
Canada V6T 1Z2. E-mail: pixels) video camera with a light table to continuously capture images of 2–181 mm material
andre.zimmermann@mail.mcgill.ca exiting a flume. The images are continuously recorded at a rate of 15 to 20 frames per
second and are post-processed using LabView™ software, yielding continuous grain-size-
specific transport information on a per second basis. The video capture rate is sufficient
to record multiple images of each grain leaving the flume so that particle velocities can be
measured automatically. No manual image processing is required.
After calibration the method is accurate and precise for sediment in the 2 mm through to
45 mm grain size classes compared with other means of measuring bedload. Based on a set
of validation samples, no statistically significant difference existed between the D10, D16, D25,
D50, D75, D84, D90 and D95 determined by sieving captured samples and the Di values deter-
mined with the system. On average the system overpredicted transport by 4 per cent (n = 206,
SD = 42%). This error can be corrected easily by simply weighing the mass of sediment that
Received 13 November 2007; leaves the flume. The technology is relatively inexpensive and provides high-resolution data
Revised 15 January 2008; on coarse sediment transport out of a flume. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Accepted 21 January 2008
Keywords: bedload; flume; grain size; gravel-bed rivers; video tracking
Introduction
Observing the size, volume and timing of bedload exiting a flume has generally been difficult and usually consists of
weighing sediment that exits the flume at set intervals either by swapping buckets at the outlet or by using a recording
weighing device. Typically, to determine the grain-size distribution of the bedload the sediment is subsequently dried
and sieved. The temporal resolution of such data is generally limited to 30 second periods or longer and the time
needed to dry and sieve the samples is considerable, often limiting the frequency with which experiments can be
completed.
Philippe Frey at Cemagref in France developed the first system that tracked bedload with a video camera (Frey et al.,
2003) and coined the name GSD (Grain-size distribution and Solid Discharge). With their system 640 × 480 pixel
images were collected in bursts (e.g. they collected 15 images per second for 2 seconds every 8 seconds). The images
were then post-processed using an algorithm to size and enumerate the particles. To determine a sediment transport
rate a mean particle velocity is required, which they determined by manually matching particles in sequential images.
By utilizing the concept presented by Frey et al. (2003), advances in video data acquisition hardware and processing
algorithms that are built into LabView™ software, the GSD system has been improved. Video images are continuously
captured and velocity measurement has been automated, allowing the bedload transport rate and grain-size distribution
of the bedload to be measured every second. In addition, owing to the higher resolution cameras that can now be
utilized, a wider range of grain sizes can be accommodated. The technology provides a significant improvement over
Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earth Surf. Process. Landforms 33, 2285–2296 (2008)
DOI: 10.1002/esp
2286 A. E. Zimmermann, M. Church and M. A. Hassan
the traditional bucket–sieving approach. The objective of this paper is to present the improved GSD so that other
researchers will be able to adapt it to their research programmes.
Equipment
The GSD (Figure 1) costs about US $8500 (a5800) to assemble and is primarily composed of a video camera,
computer, software and a light table (Table I). The video camera we utilized is a Pulnix 1402CL Cameralink™ with an
8-bit grey-scale resolution of 1392 × 1024 pixels and a maximum frame rate of 30 fps. Manufacturers now produce
higher resolution Ethernet cameras that have similar frame-capture rates and costs. We would strongly consider using
one of these cameras if we were to rebuild the system as they will work with longer cable lengths and require less
specific computer hardware.
The width of the light table needs to be appropriate for the size of particles in transport and the resolution of the
camera. We are interested in tracking grains between 2 mm and 181 mm. We use a light table that is 60 cm wide,
yielding 0·44 mm pixels. In theory this should have yielded at least 12 pixels per 2 mm particle; however, a 2 mm
grain consisted of about 7 pixels due to light diffusing around the particle, which is lower than the approximate
minimum of 20 pixels per particle which is suggested in order to adequately identify particles. We observed that this
Figure 1. Conceptual perspective drawing of the flume outlet and grain-size distribution and solid discharge (GSD) device
illustrating the screen and valves used to separate some of the water from the bedload along with a photograph of the light table.
Only two of four valves are shown for clarity. Sketch is not to scale; light table is 60 cm wide.
Table I. Equipment and costs of grain-size distribution and solid discharge (GDS) set-up in US dollars
1392 × 1024 Pulnix CCD Cameralink video camera (four times the resolution of most video cameras) $3000
National Instrument Cameralink video acquisition card $1000
Suitable computer (anything new with SATA RAID 0 configured hard drives) $1000
Hard drives (70 GB per hour of experiment, process over night and delete, depends on need for continuous run time) 1500 GB cost $800
LabView Software with Vision module $2000 (Academic pricing)
Light table and additional hardware (light table is lit by eighteen 10 W 12 V halogen bulbs powered by $500
discarded computer power supplies)
Total cost $8500
DOI: 10.1002/esp
Video-based gravel transport measurements 2287
caused our finest grains to be undersampled and we suggest that in new applications the 20 pixels per smallest particle
guideline be attempted. With a 20 pixel particle, the average diameter of the particle is 5 pixels; thus an additional
pixel would add 20 percent to the apparent diameter of the particle. If the particles are composed of even fewer pixels,
the addition or removal of a single pixel has an even larger effect on the size of the measured particle, and this should
be avoided. A higher resolution camera enables a larger range in grain sizes to be monitored.
We have found that the opaqueness of white plexiglas can vary considerably and affects the results. While the
identical type of plexiglas was purchased for both the prototype and final version of our light table, the second sheet
was considerably more transparent and individual lights were plainly visible through the plexiglas. To overcome this
limitation, a sheet of Mylar was pasted to the underside of the plexiglas. Sheets of copper are used in the transition
from the flume to the light table since copper is quite malleable and waterproof joints can easily be soldered together
with a propane torch. The plexiglas and copper withstood the equivalent of 45 days of continuous sediment transport
without any noticeable wear. In general, once the system is working there is little to no maintenance required.
The choice of lights to be used within the light table is very important as it is critical that the lighting not vary with
time. We found that any lighting that was connected directly to wall 120 V AC had a 1–2 Hz flicker making it very
difficult to process the images. To avoid this problem eighteen 12 V 10 W DC halogen lamps were installed in the
light box. The power for the lights is supplied from abandoned computer power supplies, which provide a stable
source of 12 V power. In total six power supplies are used, each one connected to three halogen light bulbs.
The images are saved to a SATA RAID 0 disk array consisting of two hard drives. The disk array can continuously
record 29 1·4 MB 8-bit tiff images per second. Under normal operating conditions, we capture 15 to 20 frames per
second. Although it is possible to process the images while they are being collected, we have found that when there
are more than about 20 particles per image, the processing algorithm slows down causing the frame rate to drop. Thus
the images are saved to file and after the experiment is finished they are processed and subsequently deleted. Perma-
nently saving the primary images requires unreasonably large storage volumes.
Design Considerations
Considerable attention needs to be paid to the design of the flume outlet and light table. Based on our experience the
slope of the light table should be adjustable from a few percent to 25 percent and particles should be kept in motion
at a velocity of about 1·0 –1·5 m s−1 by varying the slope of the light table and the amount of water flowing over it.
These particle velocities require supercritical flow which will ensure that all the particles travel at the same velocity
and do not stall on the light table. We found that to accommodate high flows (greater than about 25 L s−1 for our set-
up) some of the water coming out of the flume needed to be routed away from the light table. To achieve this we
installed a 2 mm screen in the last 30 cm of the flume and added four 10 cm PVC pipes to the end of the flume. These
pipes have valves that are adjusted to regulate how much water flows through the screen, bypassing the table (Figure 1).
Ideally about 12–20 L s−1 of water flow over the light table. This arrangement works for flows up to about 50 L s−1 or
about 90 L s−1 m−1. Higher flows are not effectively managed and large standing waves form on the light table causing
some wave details to be classified as particles. When operating the flume at flows of a few litres per second with all of
the valves closed it was observed that the 2 mm screen was sufficiently rough to stall sediment and it was necessary to
cover the screen with a smooth sheet of metal.
When the operating width of the flume was narrowed to 25 cm and water diverged at the flume outlet standing
waves formed along the edge of the light table as the water reflected off the walls along the edge of the light table. As
a result particles were propelled towards the sides of the table. Ideally particles are primarily moved down the centre
of the light table to avoid wall drag effects (Figure 2b); thus to reduce the lateral movement of particles, metal guides
mounted parallel with the flume were installed at the flume outlet.
If there had been sufficient room beyond our flume outlet we would have installed a longer box section of channel
covered with a 2 mm screen that could have removed more water and better stabilized the flows. Ultimately the size of
the light table and the length of the transition zone from the flume to the light table will depend on the flows that will be
run and the size of material in transport and should be designed adaptively. In general, better imaging will be achieved with
a longer transition section from the flume to the light table and a longer light table, but at the cost of space and head.
Image Acquisition
The target frame rate is usually specified to be 15 fps and can be increased to 20 fps if particles are moving especially
fast and the same particle cannot easily be tracked visually on the screen during acquisition. The actual frame
DOI: 10.1002/esp
Figure 2. Examples of particle velocity as a function of position across the light table during a low flow (a; 3·8 L s−1) and high flow
(b; 17·4 L s−1) run, area (c) and minor axis (d). Each plot illustrates 32 000 particle velocity measurements. These were made during
16-minute and 60-minute long experiments for plots (a) and (b) respectively.
acquisition rate is determined by the computer and not set to a fixed interval. It usually runs at the target frame rate
but, on occasion, the frame rate may drop when other processes on the computer tie up memory. Each image file is
named using its acquisition time with 1/1000 of a second precision.
To account for variations in light intensity across the light table (as is evident in Figure 4), an image is collected of
the light table prior to each run and all the subsequent images are subtracted from this image. Capturing a background
image at the start of each run controls for any changes in plexiglas opaqueness and bulb ageing. We found that the
sizes of the stones that are recorded with the algorithm are quite sensitive to light intensity. In particular, if the lights
become too dim, the particles are less obvious and the outer edges of the particles are not recorded. While it is
possible to saturate the entire image, causing the image to appear entirely white, this was found to cause the smaller
particles not to be detected. Experience suggests that the electronic gain on the camera should be set so that the
brightest areas in the image are not quite saturated (pixel value should be just under 255). It was also found that
configuring the video image acquisition algorithm to adjust the gain so that the mean pixel value (averaged over 200–
2000 images) was maintained within a narrow range (197–203) helped account for lighting changes caused by varying
water depths and changes in room lighting. To assign dimensions to the pixels an image was taken of a calibration
template that consisted of a grid of points. A perspective calibration was applied and the calibration coefficients were
then applied to all subsequent images.
If one wanted to observe smaller grains the size of the pixels must be reduced by moving the camera closer, using
a lens with a longer focal length and a smaller light table, or acquiring a higher resolution camera. It was observed
DOI: 10.1002/esp
that sampling only a portion of the light table is ill-advised as transport rates are spatially heterogeneous at all flow
rates as they are influenced by the configuration of the bed near the outlet of the flume, which is apt to change with
time.
Data Analysis
In order to develop the particle detection and segmentation algorithm a series of trial runs was completed during
which the threshold for particle detection, filter selected and number of dilations were modified and the results
evaluated. The goal was to have a fixed procedure that worked reasonably well across a range of flow conditions and,
if necessary, correct for any introduced biases through a subsequent calibration procedure. The main challenge faced
was finding a procedure that worked acceptably at high flows when waves and bubbles were common, but also
worked at low flows when the images were near perfect.
Figure 3 illustrates the steps used during the procedure that was finally adopted. Each image is subtracted from the
background image and the calibration information is applied. Then a 3 × 3 number 15 gradient kernel (Perwitt Kernel;
National Instruments, 2005) is applied to emphasize particle edges. Next the image is converted into a binary image
using a threshold range of 150–255 to define particles (pixel values range from 0 to 255). A fixed threshold is applied
rather than a floating threshold as it was found that a floating threshold tends to identify bubbles and waves at high
flows and has difficulty dealing with both high and low sediment transport rates. Subsequently any particles touching
the edge of the image are removed. The outer edge of the particles, which are lighter due to light diffusing around the
stones, is often excluded when the threshold is applied since the threshold is set relatively high in order to reduce the
chance that waves and bubbles are identified as grains. To correct for this bias, two dilations of the particles are
applied, each dilation adds one layer of pixels around each grain. This also helps smooth the particles which can
become somewhat blocky after the threshold is applied (see Figure 4). The dilation causes some particles to become
larger than they actually are, which was corrected for during the calibration procedure. In retrospect, it may be
possible to forgo the dilations; the calibration procedure will likely help remove any introduced bias. If this is
attempted, some care will be required to ensure that the grains are binned into the correct grain-size class. Next, any
holes in the particles are filled. With our arrangement particles must be larger than 10 mm2 in projected area and
smaller than 25 000 mm2 to be included (that is, having a grain diameter between about 3·5 mm and 180 mm). The
minimum of 10 mm2 removes some of the smallest particles, but is required to stop small bubbles from being
enumerated. Finally the x and y coordinates of each particle, its area and equivalent ellipse minor axis are recorded
and these data, along with the time the image was recorded, are saved to a text file. The equivalent ellipse minor axis
is computed in Labview™ using
P2 2A P2 2A
Xminor = + − − (1)
2π 2 π 2π 2 π
where Xminor is the minor axis, P is the perimeter and A is the area of the particle (National Instruments, 2005).
Increasing the threshold from 150 to 180 in 10-unit increments showed that the total amount of material measured
with the GSD decreases as the threshold is increased, but the grain-size distribution does not change markedly.
Figure 3. Schematic diagram illustrating steps in image analysis. Labview™ code can be downloaded through the ESPL supplementary
material website.
DOI: 10.1002/esp
Figure 4. Grain-size distribution and solid discharge (GSD) image: variation in lighting across the light table is evident in larger
image. The effect of subtraction, applying a threshold and filtering on a particle is illustrated in three small images, each of which
have the same scale. Small images illustrate the effect of particle dilation.
In order to calculate the velocity of the particles, images with fewer than 11 particles are selected. The five largest
grains greater than 4 mm in diameter that have their centre separated from other stones by a minimum of 30 mm in
both the x and y directions, and are further than 5 per cent of the width of the light table from the edges of the table
are located. Their location and size are recorded. These particles are matched with particles that meet the same
conditions from the subsequent image and, if a further set of conditions is met, a match is considered to occur and a
velocity is determined using the distance between the centres of each particle and time elapsed between images.
The additional conditions that must be met for a particle pair to be considered a match are as follows.
(1) The lateral position on the light table of the potentially matching particle must differ by less than 5 per cent of the
table width.
(2) The potentially matching particle must have moved far enough for a minimum velocity of 100 mm s−1 to occur.
This prevents different particles that occupy the same place on both images from being counted as a pair.
(3) The potentially matching particle must not have moved so much that the calculated velocity will be more than
2500 mm s−1.
(4) Based on a log base 2 scale, the diameter of the potentially matching particle must not differ by more than 10 per
cent between the two images.
Next the data are summarized by calculating the running average particle velocity using a sampling window of 30
seconds (±15 second). This constitutes an average from about 450 images (i.e. 30 × 15 s−1). If fewer than 10 velocity
measurements exist within a 30 second window, the sampling window is enlarged in 2-second increments until at least
10 velocity measurements are encountered. The average velocity in conjunction with the time between images is then
used to define a portion of each image that records a unique slice of time during which particles were sliding over the
table. Figure 5 illustrates the sampling window for three sequential images. As the time between images changes, the
window size is changed to accommodate the amount of time that passed between the images. Grains with their centres
in the sampling window are included in the final bedload transport data. Application of this procedure to successive
images provides a continuous record of bedload transport with no overlap despite having images that capture the same
grains multiple times. The window is offset from the upper and lower edges of the image to ensure that large stones
are not undersampled in comparison with smaller stones as a result of them being more likely to have been touching
the edge of the image and thus removed.
DOI: 10.1002/esp
Figure 5. Example of sampling window for three sequential images. Dark grey indicates portion of each image that is excluded to
prevent grains near the edges from being sampled. Light grey indicates the sampling window for each image. A particle velocity of
1200 mm s−1 has been assumed. The elapsed time for the third image was determined using the time the fourth image (not shown)
was captured.
On occasion, within any single second the time between images may be sufficiently long that the prescribed
sampling window is taller than the portion of the image that can be sampled. If this happens, the total transport for the
second is increased based on the amount of time that was missed and the amount of transport that was recorded during
the second. Typically less than 1 per cent of the run is missed. If frames are missing for more than 1 second, the
average transport rate for the previous 10 seconds of the run is used and the data are flagged as extrapolated.
There is the potential for up to five grain velocity measurements per image or about 3000 velocity measurements
per 30-second sampling period. Generally there are a few hundred velocity measurements per 30-second sampling
period. A large sample size is sought as the variability in velocity measurements tends to be considerable. Typical
velocities are on the order of 1 m s−1 with a standard deviation of ±0·4 m s−1. Provided discharge rates remain constant,
the variation in velocity over the duration of an experiment is minimal, and dwarfed by the variability in velocity that
occurs within any one 30-second sampling period. Scatter plots illustrate that there is no systematic change in particle
velocity with either particle area or minor axis (Figure 2c and d). Furthermore velocities tend to be consistent across
the width of the light table (Figure 2a). A decrease in velocities can be observed along the walls at high flow rates
(Figure 2b) and the water and light table should be managed to avoid this. The velocity decrease is compensated for as
the slower moving particles are used along with the faster moving particles to calculate the 30-second running mean
velocity. If during a particular sampling period more particles move along the walls where their velocity is reduced,
the mean velocity will be reduced, decreasing the sampling window and thereby compensating for the reduced particle
velocities. Remaining biases introduced by inconsistent velocities across the width of the table at high flows are
considered to be minimal in comparison to other challenges introduced at high flows such as bubbles being classified
as particles and waves forming over particles that distort their dimensions. For these reasons one average velocity
from a 30-second period is applied across the light table. Particle velocities are generally observed to increase as flow
rates increase.
As the video records the area (A) and the equivalent ellipsoid minor axis (Xminor) of the particles a conversion to
weight based on area and b-axis is required. Based on trial runs that involved sliding stones of known dimensions
(measured with calipers) and weights across the light table the weight (Wt ) in grams and b-axis (b) of each grain in
millimetres are calculated using the following equations, which are the best-fit linear regression relations through the
data plotted in Figure 6.
Wt = 0·00106A1·50; R2 = 0·98, p < 0·001 (2)
b = 1·19(Xminor) − 1·05; R2 = 0·95, p < 0·001 (3)
The weight versus area relation is based on grains larger than 11 mm and is shown in Figure 6 to be reasonably
precise. The standard error range for the constant is 0·00119–0·00095, while the standard error range on the exponent
is ±0·01. The standard error of the estimate is 0·119. The relation between b axes is more variable (with standard
DOI: 10.1002/esp
Figure 6. (a) Relation between area of particle measured on light table and weight of particle and (b) ellipsoid minor axis
measured on light table and measured b axis using calipers. The 95 per cent confidence interval of the regression line is shown.
errors of ±0·52 and ±0·013 for the constant and intercept respectively and a standard error of the estimate of 8·45),
particularly for larger grains. The error associated with the large grains occurs as a result of the stones rolling down
the light table. As the particles roll, the projected minor axis that is visible in the images varies between the b and
c axes. Thus the amount of variability observed when measuring the minor axis depends on the difference between
the c and b axes, which is greater for large grains.
If one assumes that the ratio of the a to b axes is the same as the ratio between the b and c axes (which was the case
for the 40 stones used to calibrate the GSD; student t-test, H0 mean ≠ 0, p = 0·16) and the formulae for the volume and
area of an ellipsoid are utilized it can be shown that
3
4 ρs ⎛ A ⎞ 2
Wt = (4)
3 π 10 6 ⎝ C ⎠
where ρs is the density of sediment, assumed to be 2650 kg m−3, and C is the ratio between the a and b axes. This
reduces to Wt = 0·00123A3/2 using C = 1·38, which was the mean value for the 40 stones used to calibrate the GSD.
Relation (2) developed using the video camera is not significantly different from this semitheoretical function.
The relationship between weight and video-derived minor axis (Wt = 0·00211(Xminor)2·99; R2 = 0·94, standard error
range of 0·00272– 0·00179 for the constant and ±0·054 for the exponent) was also found to be similar to the theoretical
relation
π ρs
Wt = Xminor 3 (5)
6 10 6
This reduces to Wt = 0·00139(Xminor)3 and is based on the mass of an ellipsoid (Wt = ρs4/3πr1r2r3; where r1, r2, r3 are the
radii of the ellipsoid) and the ratio of the axes being identical. The result is also similar to the findings of Bunte and
Abt (2001) who found Wt = 0·00307(Xminor)2·98. These results confirm that video particle analysis can reasonably
measure the shape and weight of grains. The video tracking as described yields uncalibrated grain-size-specific
bedload transport information every second.
Calibration of Grain Size Distribution and Solid Discharge

To calibrate the GSD the material caught in the settling basin at the end of the flume was compared with the
cumulative weight and grain-size distribution of the material that was recorded with the GSD. In total 13 calibration
samples were sieved and 15 had their total weight recorded. The GSD on average estimated 39 per cent more
sediment to be transported than was directly measured (95 per cent confidence interval = 30–48%). The overprediction
of sediment in transport is thought to be due to dilated grains appearing larger than they actually are, which affects
DOI: 10.1002/esp
Figure 7. Box plot illustrating error in grain-size distribution and solid discharge (GSD) estimated sediment transport rate by
grain-size class based on (a) 13 calibration samples and (b) 8 validation samples after calibration coefficients were applied. The inset
in (a) illustrates the grain-size distribution of the 13 samples used in calibration tests of the GSD.
small grains more than larger grains, and due to the occasional bubble or wave being interpreted as a stone. There is
also some uncertainty introduced by the regressions between area and weight and the conversion of observed minor
axis to grain b-axis.
The inset in Figure 7a illustrates the grain-size distribution of the 13 samples used to calibrate the GSD. The mean
D50 (size of grain at which 50 per cent of the sample is finer) of the samples (based on weight by sieve) was 7·9 mm.
The D50 ranged between 4·9 and 12·4 mm while the material in transport ranged from 2 to 64 mm. Our GSD design
can accommodate grains up to 181 mm, but was not calibrated for such large grains as stones larger than 64 mm never
exited the flume during the calibration runs.
Figure 7a and Table II compare the amount of sediment in each class actually measured after sieving the sample
with the amount measured with the GSD. A systematic bias exists, which may in part be due to the difference between
Table II. Grain size estimation statistics based on calibration and validation results. The mean number of grains observed using
the vision technique for each grain size class as well as the maximum and minimum number of grains observed for the different
runs is also given
Calibration results Validation results after applying calibration constants
Maximum/ Minimum and

Mean Mean minimum Mean Mean maximum
Grain-size difference SD P Number number number of difference SD P Number number number of
class (mm) (%) (%) value of runs of grains grains (%) (%) value of runs of grains grains
2–2·8 −61 8 <0·001 13 46 293 114 806/4685 2·70 15·5 0·60 8 54 373 176 298/6208
2·8–4 79 32 <0·001 13 119 125 416 747/12 141 −12·41 14·9 0·05 8 136 416 447 728/13 151
4–5·6 126 28 <0·001 13 63 238 246 913/5702 −12·15 20·3 0·14 8 71 351 250 859/4708
5·6–8 80 25 <0·001 13 18 441 73 384/1524 −2·23 26·9 0·82 8 21 793 75 192/1019
8–11 30 21 <0·001 13 4 397 17 193/368 −3·87 29·8 0·72 8 5009 17 119/148
11–16 −21 28 0·02 13 1 127 3614/67 −8·34 23·5 0·35 8 1147 3856/31
16–22 13 16 0·01 13 866 2844/61 23·40 30·6 0·07 8 1001 3347/24
22–32 115 96 <0·001 13 229 720/16 26·45 50·8 0·18 8 228 845/5
32–45 110 93 0·002 11 48 130/1 13·50 66·9 0·68 5 25 93/0
45–64 261 217 0·03 6 3 12/0 1 3/0
DOI: 10.1002/esp
Table III. Results of paired t-test comparisons of Dx calculated using the grain-size distribution and solid discharge (GSD) and
sieved grain-size distribution for the calibration samples (n = 13) and validation samples (n = 8)
Validation results after

Calibration results applying calibration constants
Mean increase SD Mean increase SD

Dx in Dx (phi) (phi) P value in Dx (phi) (phi) P value
D16 0·30 0·08 <0·001 −0·01 0·12 0·80

D25 0·24 0·13 <0·001 −0·01 0·21 0·93
D50 −0·09 0·27 0·25 0·07 0·18 0·32
D75 0·06 0·26 0·4 0·05 0·15 0·37
D84 0·15 0·14 0·002 0·06 0·13 0·20
D90 0·20 0·06 <0·001 0·01 0·13 0·83
D95 0·17 0·08 <0·001 −0·05 0·20 0·49
the caliper and sieved results. In all cases, the difference is significant (one-sample t-test, α = 0·05). Grains in the 2–
2·8 mm and 11–16 mm grain size classes are underrepresented, while grains in the 2·8–11 mm grain size classes and
grains large than 16 mm are overrepresented.
Based on paired-sample t-tests (data in phi units, α = 0·05) the predicted D50 and D75 (size of grain at which
75 percent of the sediment is finer) of the 13 calibration samples do not differ from what was measured by sieving.
While there are statistically significant differences in the tails of the grain size distribution (D16, D25, D84, D90 and D95),
the mean difference was consistently less than half a phi class for all Dx quantities (Table III).
For each grain size class the per cent difference (Table II) between the GSD and the sieved result was used as a
calibration coefficient and applied to all subsequent GSD data. After applying these coefficients to the calibration
samples the total weight predicted by the GSD for the 13 calibration samples was on average 0·1 per cent underpredicted
and had a standard deviation of ±12 per cent.
Validation Tests
Based on 206 validation samples total mass measured with the GSD after applying the calibration coefficients was on
average 4 percent greater than the sample weight (SD = ±42%, p = 0·14). Of the 206 validation samples, eight were
sieved to validate the GSD’s ability to measure grain-size distribution. During the validation tests material up to
45 mm was transported. Figure 7b and Table II illustrate that the errors are fairly well distributed about all of the
grain-size classes. Thus the calibration coefficients remove most of the grain-size-specific error. The difference be-
tween the D16, D25, D50, D75, D84, D90 and D95 determined with the GSD and by sieving shows no statistical significant
difference (Table III, Dx in phi units, validation results, n = 8, p > 0·05). This implies that even if the GSD does not
predict the correct total weight of the sample, it does predict the correct grain-size distribution. Additional analysis
showed that the total error was not related to discharge. The predicted sample weight can easily be corrected by
calculating the ratio between the bucket weight of the sample and the calibrated GSD-derived weight and applying
this ratio to all grain-size classes.
Conclusions
The GSD provides an effective means to monitor the solid discharge and grain-size distribution of sediment leaving
the flume. An example of the resolution of the data is evident in Figure 8, which shows spikes in transport associated
with bed structures failing and the response of the bed to the termination of sediment feed. The GSD eliminates the
need to dry and sieve samples and thereby dramatically increases the efficiency with which experiments can be run.
Typically, the flume and GSD can be run 6–8 hours a day every day of the week. The GSD provides high temporal
resolution bedload transport data and has already produced some impressive results (Recking, 2006). The technique is,
however, limited in the range of grain sizes that can be monitored and the flow rates that can be accommodated. Each
grain should be composed of at least 20 pixels to be adequately imaged. Our finest particles were composed of only
DOI: 10.1002/esp
Figure 8. Record of sediment transport for an experimental run. Solid line indicates feed rate which ended after 60 minutes;
discharge was constant. Each datum point is a 1 second sample of sediment transport. Note that some seconds had no sediment
transport.
7 pixels, and as a result were under-sampled. Our observations also show that the transport of grains out of the
flume can be spatially heterogeneous, necessitating that the entire light table be imaged rather than just a subsection
of the table.
The error that occurred in the calibration procedure with the largest grain sizes re-emphasizes the challenges that
occur when there are only a few large grains in a sediment sample. The uncertainty associated with the relation
between the shape of the grain and its weight (Church, 2003) results in errors for these grains as there generally are
few large grains in any one sample (Table II). During flow conditions that rarely move large sediment, the appropriate
sampling duration and sample size to characterize the ‘average’ transport condition remains a challenging question.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by a Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada Strategic Grant to Michael Church
and a NSERC Canadian Graduate Scholarship to André Zimmermann. Françoise Bigillon hosted A. Z. during a visit to the labs in
Lyon and Grenoble, France, where the original GSD was developed and is in use. This visit was instrumental in the eventual design
and implementation of our GSD. Jon Tunnicliffe recommended that we use LabView™, which was a key factor in our success, as it
removed the need for us to become familiar with image analysis algorithms. In addition, we owe much of our success to computer
data acquisition technologies that have advanced considerably and have made it possible to readily capture and analyze the video
data on a continuous basis. We also would like to thank Christina Lovatt for sieving the samples and helping us calibrate the GSD,
and two anonymous reviewers who provided helpful feedback that improved the paper.
References
Bunte K, Abt SR. 2001. Sampling Surface and Subsurface Particle-Size Distributions in Wadeable Gravel and Cobble Bed Streams for
Analyses in Sediment Transport, Hydraulics, and Streambed Monitoring. Final Report, USDA, Forest Services, Rocky Mountain Research
Station; 428 pp.
DOI: 10.1002/esp
Church M. 2003. Grain size and shape. In Encyclopedia of Sediments and Sedimentary Rocks, Middleton GV (ed.). Kluwer: Dordrecht; 338–
345.
Frey P, Ducottet C, Jay J. 2003. Fluctuations of bed load solid discharge and grain size distribution at equilibrium steep slopes with image
analysis. Experiments in Fluids 35: 589–597.
National Instruments. 2005. NI Vision Concepts Manual. Austin, TX; 399 pp.
Recking A. 2006. An experimental study of grain sorting effects on bedload. PhD thesis, Institut National Des Sciences Appliquees de Lyon,
Lyon, France; 257 pp.
DOI: 10.1002/esp

Zimmermann 2008 - Video Based Gravel Transport Measurements With A Flume Mounted Light Table

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Zimmermann 2008 - Video Based Gravel Transport Measurements With A Flume Mounted Light Table

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Earth Surface Processes and Landforms

Video-based gravel transport measurements with a

*Correspondence to: André Abstract

Wt = 0·00106A1·50; R2 = 0·98, p < 0·001 (2)

b = 1·19(Xminor) − 1·05; R2 = 0·95, p < 0·001 (3)

Calibration of Grain Size Distribution and Solid Discharge

Calibration results Validation results after applying calibration constants

Maximum/ Minimum and

Validation results after

Mean increase SD Mean increase SD

D16 0·30 0·08 <0·001 −0·01 0·12 0·80

You might also like