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

net/publication/257919036

Sediment Transport

Chapter · January 2012

DOI: 10.1002/9780470057339.vas010.pub2

CITATION READS

1 3,062

3 authors:

Stephane Rodrigues Nicolas Claude

University of Tours Ecole des Ponts et Chaussées - EDF R&D
80 PUBLICATIONS 882 CITATIONS 38 PUBLICATIONS 529 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Florentina Moatar
French National Institute for Agriculture, Food, and Environment (INRAE)
127 PUBLICATIONS 3,932 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Stephane Rodrigues on 12 January 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Sediment transport
Introduction
Sediment transport (ST) is an important geological
factor, which is related to the mechanisms of sed-
iment load production, transport, and deposition. It
is often related to the effects of a moving fluid (air
or water) on cohesive or noncohesive sediments and
to resulting fluxes from sources of particles to sinks.
As sediments cover most of the earth’s surface and
as their long-term movement influence landscapes [1,
2], they represent an important interface between
mankind and the environment (see Hydrology, envi-
ronmental).
Fundamental and applied issues concerning ST are
of interest for human welfare. ST has been widely
studied by Earth scientists. Historically, the estimate
of mountain erosion through joint studies of chemical
and particulate transport in rivers as well as long-term
morphodynamics processes controlling the planform
and sedimentology of the river and its floodplain were
carried out. More recently, process sedimentologists
and physicians focused on the mechanisms of ST,
their influence on bed forms, and the feedback of
these forms on hydrodynamics occurring in modern
environments [3].
Engineers are interested in ST because of the
interest in solving problems such as siltation of
reservoirs and the erosion of coastlines (see Coastal
processes) where commerce could be affected as the
movement and deposition of sediment in harbors and
waterways change the depth and course of navigable
channels and thus restrict the passage of ships. In
rivers, human activities such as sediment mining has
triggered bed erosion [4], destabilization of dykes and
bridges, rapid colonization of river bed by woody
vegetation, decrease in habitat diversity and increase
of flooding risk.
At the catchment scale, land use changes (defor-
estation, cropping, overgrazing, urbanization, etc.),
lead to an increase of sediment fluxes to rivers
and sedimentary basins. Sediment pollution from
urban, industrial, mining, and agricultural activities
Based in part on the article “Sediment transport”
by Alec E. James, which appeared in the Encyclope-
dia of Environmetrics.
Encyclopedia of Environmetrics, Online © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
This article is © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
This article was published in Encyclopedia of Environmetrics Second Edition in 2012 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/9780470057339.vas010.pub2
is also an important issue [5]. Therefore, interac-
tions between climate change (see Global warming),
hydrology, sedimentation regimes, and demographic
development should be considered [2]. The chemical
alteration of fine sediments occurs because they carry
the least soluble contaminants as heavy metals and
persistent organic pollutants (e.g., polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs), Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
(PAHs)).
ST occurs when the flow is rapid enough to erode
and move surficial sediments. In practice, the process
is extremely complex and once movement is initiated
the properties of the fluid are modified by the pres-
ence of the irregularly shaped solid particles from
which the bedform is comprised [6]. When the range
of particle size is large, this leads to various ways
of characterizing ST phenomena. There are two fun-
damental modes of transport, the bedload in which
particles roll or slide along the bed of a river or the
sea (which remains difficult to quantify), and the sec-
ond in which the particles are entrained by the flow
and move in suspension with the water mass. Estima-
tion of suspended sediments concentration is usually
performed using rating curves based on empirical
relations between sediment concentrations and dis-
charge [7] or nonlinear approach as artificial neural
networks [8]. The transported fluxes will depend on
factors such as particle size, shape, and density and
will vary significantly over time and space. The role
of rare or extreme floods on sediment long-term
fluxes has been highlighted by several authors [9,
10]. These observations are the basis of a magni-
tude/frequency concept [11, 12].
This contribution details the key parameters and
basic processes involved in ST in rivers and coastal
environments. First, considering the sediment pro-
duction processes, this article focuses on parameters
governing sediment erosion, transport, and deposi-
tion. The influences on grain size and shape and
on the mechanics of flow are presented. For cohe-
sionless sediments, the critical threshold for particle
motion and the morphodynamics of common bed
forms are explained as well as some methods and
tools for quantification of transport rates. For cohe-
sive sediments, the processes of sediment suspension
are presented. For further details on erosion and mod-
eling of cohesive sediments, see James [13].
2 Sediment transport

Sources and Sediment Features that are effective over the same length scales as the
particle dimensions become important and so these
Sediment Production sediment beds are resistant to erosion [14]. For non-
cohesive sediments, the resistance to transport is a
Most of the sediments that comprise rivers and
function of the particles’ weight, shape, and arrange-
seabeds are made of grains of material that are the
ment. For sediment particles ranging from less than
outcome of weathering and erosion of the rocks that
10−1 μm to greater than 0.1 m, particle size is an
make up the continental landmasses. Either physical
important transport parameter and it is worthwhile
or chemical weathering of the source rock pro-
having a suitable scale for classifying this size range.
duces these terriginous detrital fragments [3]. Physi-
For noncohesive sediments, sizing particles is based
cal weathering is a mechanical process characterized
on the minimum width of sieve aperture through
by two main types of rock fragmentation, namely
which sediment could pass or on laser diffraction or
frost weathering and salt weathering. The first one
pebble counting. For small particles, grain size anal-
corresponds to the fragmentation of rocks resulting
of the increase in volume of infiltrated water as it is ysis can be based on settling velocity of the particle
changed in ice. The second is the result of the expan- and laser diffraction. Once the method of sizing has
sion of salt which is attributed to hydration, heating, been chosen, the type of particle can be classified
and crystal growth. by its size. Table 1 shows the size classification of
Although physical weathering is important, it sedimentary particles based on the Wentworth scale,
should be noted that most sediment grains are likely where size grades are scaled to a reference grain
to be the outcome of chemical weathering, which diameter of 1 mm. The Wentworth scale is a geo-
is simply the result of the decomposition of rocks metric series, which allows for an equal width class
through the reactions of surface water and groundwa- division on the logarithmic scale. Because the class
ter with rock-forming minerals. Some weathering is limits are not integers when log10 is used, Krum-
also due to biological processes that may be chemical blien [15] proposed the φ logarithmic scale where
or physical, such as microorganisms that can attack log2 is used, that is,
rocks or the growth of plant roots that can fracture d
rocks. The final composition of the sediment is a φ = − log2 (1)
complex function of geological and geochemical pro- d0
cesses that are dependent on climate, vegetation, and where d is the grain diameter and d0 is the standard
other factors. There is a great variety in the types of 1 mm grain diameter (to make the equation consis-
sediments produced as a result of chemical and phys- tent) [15].
ical weathering; indeed the sediment particles can
be physically altered and chemically changed during
transport and after deposition (diagenesis). Table 1 Size classification of sedimentary particles based
The dominant minerals in sediments are chemi- on the Wentworth scale.
cally those that are most stable at the earth’s surface Size range (μm) Range of φ Wentworth class
and physically those most resistant to erosion. In gen-
eral, sediments are made up of a mixture of materials, >256 × 10 3
<−8.0 Boulder
the main components being quartz and various clays 64 × 103 –256 × 103 −8.0 to −6.0 Cobble
(chlorite, kaolinite, montmorillonite, and illite) aris- 4 000–64 × 103 −6.0 to −2.0 Pebble
2000–4 000 −2.0 to −1.0 Granule
ing from the chemical weathering of feldspars and 1 000–2000 −1.0–0.0 Very coarse sand
ferromagnesian minerals. 500–1 000 0.0–1.0 Coarse sand
250.0–500.0 1.0–2.0 Medium sand
Sediment Grain Size and Shape 125.0–250.0 2.0–3.0 Fine sand
62.50–125.0 3.0–4.0 Very fine sand
The most important factors influencing the transport 31.50–62.50 4.0–5.0 Coarse silt
of sediments are the size, density, sorting, and the 15.75–31.50 5.0–6.0 Medium silt
mechanical properties (cohesive or noncohesive) of 7.875–15.75 6.0–7.0 Fine silt
3.938–7.875 7.0–8.0 Very fine silt
particles. When the particle size is in the submi- <3.938 >8.0 Clay
crometer range, cohesive interparticle colloidal forces

Encyclopedia of Environmetrics, Online © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

This article is © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
This article was published in Encyclopedia of Environmetrics Second Edition in 2012 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/9780470057339.vas010.pub2

The size and weight of particles influence the way
they are transported. The bedload can be defined as
the coarsest fraction of sediments that moves above
the bed by rolling, sliding, or saltating. The latter
mode corresponds to grains with episodic contact
with the bed. It is differentiated from the wash load,
which corresponds to fine particles transported in the
water column, because the moment of the flow equals
or exceeds that of the gravitational force.
Flow and Sediments Interactions
Mechanics of Flow
Flow is conditioned mainly by its driving force (grav-
ity, pressure) and resistance forces exerted within or
at the flow boundaries (pressure, friction, viscosity).
For steady, uniform, and laminar flow, shear stress, τ
varies linearly from the bed (maximum value) to the
upper parts of the water column as a function of the
velocity gradient, du/dz, (upper layers flowing faster
than lower ones):
du
τ =μ
dz
where μ is the molecular viscosity, u the flow
velocity, and z the height above the bed.
The bed shear stress, τb , can be defined as a
tangential force per unit bed area exerted on the bed
in the flow direction:
τb = ρw gRh Je
where ρw is the water density, g the gravitational
acceleration, Rh the hydraulic radius (ratio between
wetted area and perimeter), and Je is slope of the
energy line (assumed to be equal to the slope of
the water surface). In movable beds, flow resistance
exerted by the bed can be divided into two com-
ponents, namely the grain (τ  ) and form roughness
(τ  ).
The relationship between τ and τb can be
expressed as follows:
 z
τ = τb 1 − (4)
H 
where H is the water depth.
In natural environments, flow is turbulent.
The instantaneous velocity in turbulent motion,
u(x, y, z, t), can be described in terms of average
Encyclopedia of Environmetrics, Online © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
This article is © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
This article was published in Encyclopedia of Environmetrics Second Edition in 2012 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/9780470057339.vas010.pub2
Sediment transport 3
flows and fluctuating components representing the
random fluctuations in the velocity vector. Typically
u = ū + u
v = v̄ + v  (5)

w = w̄ + w
where u, v , and w are the instantaneous components
of velocity in the x, y, and z directions and the
overbars and primes refer to the corresponding
average and fluctuating parts of the respective
components of velocity, respectively. In these
conditions, turbulent eddies present in the flow
increase the viscous shear stresses by addition of eddy
viscosity. Turbulent shear stresses are the main source
of energy dissipation in natural flows, as viscous
dissipation is negligible.
When the motion of any fluid is influenced by the
presence of a solid boundary, large velocity gradients,
corresponding to regions of high shear, are set up.
The region where the influence of the boundary is
important is called the boundary layer. The extent of
the boundary layer depends on various factors and
(2) the flow may be laminar or turbulent. The velocity
profile can be divided into four parts:
1. The laminar boundary sublayer or viscous sub-
layer (a thin millimetric layer where viscous
shear stress is dominant).
2. The buffer zone (transition between the viscous
sublayer and the turbulent layer).
(3) 3. The turbulent boundary layer where flow velocity
increases as the logarithm of depth. In the ocean,
this layer can reach 10 m thickness, whereas in
rivers, the boundary layer can be equal to the
flow depth.
4. The free flow zone corresponds to the part of
flow not affected by the boundary.
As aforementioned, the velocity gradient in the
turbulent layer is not linear. The mean flow in about
10–20% of the boundary layer region above the
beds of rivers is usefully described by a logarithmic
velocity profile corresponding to the Prandtl equation:
1/2
τb z
u = 2.5 ln (6)
ρw zb
where z is the height above the bed and zb is the
roughness length of the bed. Thus, by measuring the
4 Sediment transport
flow velocity at different heights above the bed, the
shear stress τb can be determined from the slope of
the graph of ln(z) as a function of u. As a logarithmic
scale is used for the water depth, the lower part of the
velocity profile extrapolates to a finite height, which
in turn has a physical meaning and is known as the
roughness length (zb ). It will vary depending on the
material from which the bed is made up and on the
bed shape (e.g., ripples).
Role of the Viscous Sublayer on ST
In the viscous sublayer, flow is fairly smooth and may
be considered to be quasi-laminar as viscous forces
will be dominant. The viscous sublayer does not
extend very far into the fluid. The viscous sublayer
thins as velocity, or more particularly shear velocity,
increases. The thickness, δ, of the viscous sublayer
can be estimated as:
v
δ = 11.6 (7)
u∗
where v is the kinematic viscosity and u* is the shear
velocity.
The shear velocity, u∗ , can be interpreted as a
measure of velocity very close to the bed and can
be used as a parameter characterizing the bed stress.
It can be defined as:
 increased to the point where individual grains start to
∗ τb
u = (8)
ρw
One significant consequence for ST arising from
the inverse relationship between the viscous sublayer
thickness and the shear velocity is that at low cur-
rent speeds, grains can be completely enclosed by the
viscous sublayer, whereas they may extend through
the layer as it thins at higher current speeds. This
observation leads to the concepts of hydrodynami-
cally smooth and rough beds together with flows that
can be characterized by the grain Reynolds number:
d spherical particle on a smooth surface, it is unlikely
Reg = ρw u∗
μ
This number corresponds to a roughness estima-
tion combining the shear velocity u* and sediment
diameter. This number is proportional to the ratio
grain diameter/thickness of the viscous sublayer. The
thickness of the viscous sublayer is often referred as
δ. Namely, if Ks < δ, the bed is hydrodynamically
Encyclopedia of Environmetrics, Online © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
This article is © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
This article was published in Encyclopedia of Environmetrics Second Edition in 2012 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/9780470057339.vas010.pub2
smooth and if Ks > 5δ, the bed is hydrodynamically
rough. Ks corresponds to the Nikuradse sand rough-
ness parameter (related to sediment grain size).
A further consequence of the presence of the
viscous sublayer lies in its ability to protect sediments
from erosion. Particles will only remain in suspension
if the upward velocities arising from turbulence
are equal to or exceed the settling velocity of the
particles.
Critical Threshold for Particle Motion in Nonco-
hesive Sediments. For a sediment particle to move
along the bed of a river, it must be subjected to a
sufficient force from the movement of water to over-
come all the forces that resist motion. On a smooth
level surface, a noncohesive, perfectly spherical par-
ticle will move easily and the force that produces
motion can be readily identified as the hydrodynamic
drag force on the sphere resulting from the water
movements. Initial resistance to movement and sub-
sequent rolling resistance depend on the density of the
sphere. There will be no motion unless the drag force
on the sphere is sufficient to overcome the friction.
This phenomenon becomes more complex in natural
sediments, which are irregularly shaped and arranged
and which have nonuniform grain sizes. However,
when water flows over a bed made up of noncohe-
sive sand grains nothing happens until the flow rate is
move. If the size distribution is not too great, a small
increase in this flow rate produces enough force on
the grains to initiate the motion of the entire bed,
which will be transported as bedload. If the flow rate
is further increased, some of the finer particles will
be entrained and move as suspended load.
Historically, much attention has been focused
on the critical threshold for grain motion as this
is of importance for engineering work. It is now
worth considering in more detail the forces acting
on a sediment bed and in particular those acting
on a single grain. In contrast to the notion of a
(9) that all grains of sediment protrude above a smooth
surface. It is more appropriate to consider a single
particle that is part of the bed (see Figure 1). In
the absence of fluid flow, the only forces acting on
the particle are the gravitational force arising from
the particle’s mass acting in the downward vertical
direction and the buoyancy force arising from the
water displaced by the particle acting upward. When
 Sediment transport 5

Forces acting on a grain

Lift F
,F

nt
component ce

me
for

mo of
FL

ve
id

sie ction
Flu

e
st
Dir
Drag component, F D

ea
C. G.

Bed surface a ~ Horizontal

Pivot

Gravity force
FG

Figure 1 Forces acting on a noncohesive particle that is part of the bed. (Source: Reproduced with permission from
Ref. 6. © SEPM (Society for Sedimentary Geology), 1984.)

there is fluid motion, the hydrodynamic shear on the
grain’s surface gives rise to an additional force that
can conveniently be decomposed into a lift force that
acts in the vertical direction and a drag force that is
in the direction of the fluid flow. In general, the drag
force will be equivalent to the shear stress acting on
the bed, τb , while the lift force arises from the flow of
fluid around the particle and can be attributed to the
Bernoulli effect where in order to conserve energy
the pressure around the particle must change as the
kinetic energy of the fluid changes with velocity [6].
The lift force is comparable to the drag force when
the particle is on the bed and dies away rapidly as
the grain moves away from the bed as the drag force
increases with corresponding rapidity. The combined
fluid forces seeking to move the grain are opposed by
the gravity force and aided by the buoyancy force.
The forces that act on the single particle are also
acting on all the other particles on the surface of
the bed, so that once the hydrodynamic stresses have
passed the critical value for one particle, they will
have been exceeded for all similar particles.
However, because sediment beds are complex
structures consisting of extremely large numbers of
particles of varying size, and because environmental
fluid flows are themselves complicated, in spite of
many attempts, it has not yet been possible to make
a priori theoretical predictions of the critical stress
that moves sediment grains. Instead, the common
practice is to take experimental measurements to
determine the critical hydrodynamic bed stress for
the erosion of noncohesive particles. The results are
often presented in terms of various nondimensional
numbers. For example, Shields [16] has shown that
the critical shear stress, τcr , is a function of the
particle size, the excess density between grain and
water, gravity, and the kinematic viscosity of water,
v , that is, τcr = f [d, g, (ρg − ρw ), v ].
This can be rearranged into an appropriate nondi-
mensional parameter θ
 
τcr u∗ · d
θ= =f (10)
gd(ρg − ρw ) v
Shields produced a diagram where the entrain-
ment function is presented as a function of the
grain or particle Reynolds number Reg ((10) and
Figure 2). The nondimensional term on the left-hand
side of (10) is known variously as the nondimensional
bed shear stress, the entrainment function, or the
Shields parameter θ . The area of the diagram located
above the curve corresponds to grains in movement
(Figure 2).
Figure 2 shows that at low Reg , the Shields
parameter is high. This can be explained by the fact

Encyclopedia of Environmetrics, Online © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

This article is © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
This article was published in Encyclopedia of Environmetrics Second Edition in 2012 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/9780470057339.vas010.pub2
6 Sediment transport
100
10−1
10−2
100 101
Figure 2 Typical Shields diagram showing θ as a function of Reg . (Source: Reproduced with permission from Ref. 17.
© International Association of Sedimentologists, 1977. Published by John Wiley and Sons.)
that grains of the bed are fully submerged by the vis-
cous sublayer and are protected from turbulent flows.
In contrast, when the bed is hydrodynamically rough,
once Reg exceeds about 200, the entrainment factor
is approximately constant (θ ≈ 0.047). This part of
the diagram is assumed to be applicable to natural
river flows.
From 10, one can calculate the critical threshold
of shear stress that allows the motion of a particle
of a grain size by giving a finite value to θ (usually
ranging from 0.03 to 0.06 and often taken as 0.047):
τcr = 0.047(ρg − ρw )gd
It should be noted that there are other ways
of expressing threshold relationships; for a typical
example, see Miller et al. [17] who use a number
of these relations to describe the threshold of sedi-
ment motion under unidirectional currents. Using a
nondimensional particle size parameter, Dp , (Dp =
d[g(s − 1)/v 2 ]1/3 , where s is the specific gravity of
the particle, i.e., ρg /ρw ), the Shields threshold line
has been expressed explicitly [18] as
DP < 4, θ = 0.24/DP
4 < DP < 10, θ = 0.14/DP0.64
10 < DP < 20, θ = 0.04/DP0.1
20 < DP < 150, θ = 0.013/DP0.29
DP < 150, θ = 0.056
Encyclopedia of Environmetrics, Online © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
This article is © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
This article was published in Encyclopedia of Environmetrics Second Edition in 2012 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/9780470057339.vas010.pub2
Threshold of sediment motion
after shields (1936)
Solid line from Vanani (1964)
Amber Sand (Casey)
Lignite Sand (Kramer)
Graphite Sand (USWES)
Barite Sand (Gilbert)
102 103
Re g
During his experiments, Shields was not able
to get data for 2 < Reg < 600. The limits of the
works of Shields are clearly stated in Middleton and
Southard [6].
If the critical threshold is reached, then the grains
will roll over their stationary neighbors and ST is
initiated. The more grains that are moved, the more
complex the pattern of forces that are operating on
the bed (as moving particles are likely to collide with
each other and also with stationary particles). Granu-
lar movement is not restricted to the surface layer of
grains and, as hydrodynamic stresses increase, motion
(11) is initiated in the subsurface grains.
Influence of Colloidal Forces on Erosion
of Cohesive Sediments
Cohesive sediments comprise significant quantities of
particles in the colloidal size range and the simple
force balance used to relate hydrodynamic drag to
the motion of a single particle has to be extended
considerably. Typically, in the absence of biological
material, cohesive sediment beds consisting of clays
are subject to additional interparticle attractive and
repulsive colloidal forces. The attractive forces arise
mainly from van der Waals attractions, and the
(12) repulsive forces arise from electrical double-layer
interactions and also lubrication forces [19]. There
are significant factors that must be considered when
making force balances on clay or mud particles in a

sediment bed as single particles interact with other
particles in the bed and the amount of interaction
is affected by the sizes, shapes, and separations
of the particles together with the ionic strength of
the interstitial water. Although the mechanics of
colloidal interactions between pairs of particles are
well understood, the successful quantitative extension
of colloid theory to cohesive sediments has not been
made to date. In some instances, colloidal theory
through the notion of a mechanically weak structure
held together by interparticle forces provides an
adequate qualitative description of the response of
cohesive sediments to hydrodynamic shear, but the
presence of biological materials provides additional
complications. For example, in some cases resistance
to erosion might not be attributed to a network of
simple interparticle forces but to a surface coating
of biological material. In addition, while noncohesive
particles respond individually to hydrodynamic shear,
it is more likely that flocs or clusters of primary
particles or even aggregates consisting of particles
and flocs are eroded from cohesive beds. Following
erosion, the size of the flocs and aggregates that are
transported will depend on the intensity of turbulence.
Increased shear ruptures aggregates, causing the size
of an aggregate or floc to be reduced as particles
are removed. In contrast, decreased shear increases
the chances of flocs colliding, thereby providing the
opportunity for floc growth. This implies that there
may be an equilibrium size of flocs in a particular
shear field.
Although cohesive forces increase the resistance
to erosion in the bed of mud, it might be expected
that once particles are removed from the bed they
will be more easy to transport because they have
low settling velocities and consequently need little
turbulence to keep them in suspension. This is only
partly true because a reduction in turbulence can lead
to increased aggregate size and although the bulk
density of the new aggregate is likely to be reduced
this is usually outweighed by the increase in size
that produces reduced drag per unit area of the floc,
allowing it to settle more rapidly.
In the absence of more rigorous theory, the erosion
and transport of cohesive sediments is characterized
in terms of the response to bed stress, the thresh-
old of erosion, the settling behavior, and strength
of the flocs. Some scientists have directly measured
the shear strength of sediments in rheological exper-
iments [20, 21], while others observe the increase in
Encyclopedia of Environmetrics, Online © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
This article is © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
This article was published in Encyclopedia of Environmetrics Second Edition in 2012 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/9780470057339.vas010.pub2
Sediment transport 7
turbidity above a bed linking an increase in turbid-
ity to erosion at the appropriate hydrodynamic shear
[22, 23].
Sediment Suspension
Sediments are denser than water and hence in the
absence of fluid motion will settle through the water
column. The settling behavior of an individual sedi-
ment particle can be explained in terms of the balance
of forces acting on the particle. These are the weight
of the particle, the drag force on the particle, and
the buoyant upthrust on the particle due to displaced
fluid. If the particle starts moving from rest in a sta-
tionary fluid, the initial imbalance in these forces
causes the particle to accelerate to its terminal veloc-
ity, by which time the drag force will have grown
and balances the other forces. Using the quadratic
drag law, the force on the particle is
1
Fp = CD Ap ρw ut 2 (13)
2
where Ap is the area of the particle perpendicular to
the direction of motion and ut is the terminal settling
velocity of the particle. If Vp is the volume of the
particle, then the masses of the particle and the water
it displaces are respectively ρg Vp and ρw Vp , so that
the force balance on the particle is expressed as:
1
(ρg − ρw )Vp g − CD Ap ρw u2t = 0 (14)
2
Equation (14) is easily rearranged as
 
2(ρg − ρw )Vp g 2
ut = (15)
CD Ap ρw
The drag coefficient, CD , is a function of the
Reynolds number in the laminar, transitional, and
turbulent flow regimes but has to be determined
experimentally outside the laminar region. For a
spherical particle of diameter d, in laminar flow
24
CD = (16)
Reg
where Reg is the particle Reynolds number. As
Reg = ρw ut d/μ, the settling velocity of a spherical
particle is
(ρg − ρw )gd 2
ut = (17)
18μ
8 Sediment transport
An important feature of (17), which is known as
Stokes’ law , is that the settling velocity is propor-
tional to the square of the diameter of the spherical
particle. Stokes’ law is obeyed when the particle
Reynolds number, Reg , is less than 0.5. In the gen-
eral case when the particle is neither smooth nor
spherical it is usual to introduce some factor that
accounts for the irregular shape of the particle. This
factor necessarily has to be found from experimen-
tal measurements. In general, approximately spherical
grains of sand and silt can be expected to have ter-
minal settling velocities similar to those of spheres
having an equivalent diameter. In contrast, plate-like
particles such as shell-derived sands do not settle
like a sphere, but travel downwards with complex
pendulum-like side-to-side translational motion (like
a falling leaf). The settling behavior of such parti-
cles has to be determined experimentally. Apart from
extreme cases such as plate-like particles, Stokes’ law
applies to an individual particle settling in the absence
of other particles and without interference from a
nearby boundary. In general, Stokes’ law provides
a good basis for describing the settling behavior of
groups of particles in which the individual motions of
one particle do not interfere with the other particles,
that is, discrete settling behavior. As the concentra-
tion of particles increases, the motion of a single
particle is not independent of the remaining parti-
cles. At higher concentrations there is increased drag
and mutual interference in the motion of particles,
so the settling rate is reduced. The settling velocity
of a concentrated suspension of grains, uct , has been
found to be related to the volumetric concentration
of the particles
μct = μt (1 − ϕ)nr
where ϕ is the volume concentration of the sphere
and nr is the Richardson–Zaki parameter that can
take values between 2.3 and 4.65. The correlation
suggested by (18) was first reported following exper-
iments with suspensions of monodisperse spheres for
which nr = 2.65 [24].
It is now worth considering the mechanics of parti-
cle suspension, as these are important in determining
the transport of sediment. For a single particle to be
stationary and suspended in a fluid, the sum of the
forces acting on it must be zero. In practice, most
sediment grains are denser than water so the down-
ward force resulting from the immersed weight of the
Encyclopedia of Environmetrics, Online © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
This article is © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
This article was published in Encyclopedia of Environmetrics Second Edition in 2012 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/9780470057339.vas010.pub2
particle must be balanced by upward directed hydro-
dynamic shear. This can be seen to arise from the
vertical component of the velocity vector. In a quies-
cent fluid, the grain will settle and the drag comes
from the downward motion of the particle. If the
forces are in balance, the settling velocity is constant
and is known as the terminal settling velocity of the
particle; see (14). Thus, if the upward component of
fluid velocity is equal to the terminal settling veloc-
ity, then the grain will be stationary; if it is larger
the grain will rise and if smaller the grain will settle.
Note that this simple analysis assumes that the drag
coefficient CD is independent of the velocity; as this
is only true for laminar conditions, it again illustrates
the difficulties encountered even in an apparently sim-
ple situation. However, returning to the simple model,
it is evident that one of the main requirements for ST
is a velocity field that not only has a horizontal com-
ponent of motion, but also vertical components. It
is therefore no surprise that ST is usually associated
with turbulent fluid motion.
Once it is recognized that in many instances the
concentration of suspended solids decreases with
increased height above sediment beds, as does the
velocity, then by considering a mass balance over
a slice of fluid of unit area in the x –y plane
moving in the x-direction at a velocity ū (see
Figure 3), and assuming that there are no horizontal
concentration gradients, a transport equation can be
obtained [25]. It is further assumed that the average
relative velocity between the particle and the fluid
is the terminal settling velocity, ut . If C is the
concentration at some height z, above the bed, then, to
(18) Current
Downward particle flux
dz H
Decreasing
concentration
z
Upward particle flux
Sediment bed
Figure 3 Downstream, upward and downward sediment
suspension fluxes. (Source: Reproduced from Ref. 13. ©
John Wiley and Sons, Ltd., 2002.)

first order in δz, the upward transport rate is +(w −
ut )[C − δz(dC/dz)] and the downward transport rate
of sediment particles is −(w + ut )[C + δz(dC/dz)],
where w is the fluctuating component of the vertical
velocity. At equilibrium, the sum of the upward and
downward fluxes of particles must be zero so the
transport rate can be written as
dC
w δz + ut C = 0
dz
The required solution (19) follows if the Prandtl
mixing length model for flow near a solid bound-
ary is used. It is necessary to identify δz with the
mixing length l and then recall that experimental
observations suggest that u is of the same order of
magnitude as w in the constant-stress layer. This
allows one to replace w δz by u l. Additional rela-
tionships that are needed are u = l(dū/dz) and τ =
ρw l 2 (dū/dz)2 , l = Kz, where K is the von Karman
constant and dū/dz = u∗ /Kz, which is the differen-
tial form of the logarithmic velocity profile:
 
dC ut H
z(H − z) + C=0 (20)
dz u∗ K
Equation (20) is readily integrated to
   
C ut zr (H − z)
ln = ln
Cr K u∗ z(H − zr )
where Cr is a reference concentration at some height
zr (see Refs 18, 25).
Equation (21) provides a description of the verti-
cal concentration gradient but contains constants that
need to be determined experimentally. The value of
the von Karman constant, K, is usually taken as 0.4
for a fluid in which there are no particles present.
In fact, K is a function of the suspended sediment
concentration.
Since, apart from the case of fine silts, suspended
load transport rarely occurs on its own, most sediment
movements occur either as bedload transport or a
combination of bedload and suspended transport.
Thus, most effort has been made to predict the total
load transported using tractive force methods.
Bed Forms in Cohesionless Sediments
Once particle motion has been initiated the morpho-
logical configuration of the bed will change. In both
Encyclopedia of Environmetrics, Online © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
This article is © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
This article was published in Encyclopedia of Environmetrics Second Edition in 2012 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/9780470057339.vas010.pub2
Sediment transport 9
cohesionless and cohesive sediments, the arrange-
ment of grains can define bed forms, which can be
considered as geometric units characterized by a spe-
cific internal arrangement of sediments (sedimentary
structures) which traduces prevailing hydrodynam-
ics and sedimentary conditions [26]. In noncohesive
sediments, bedforms can be considered as part of a
continuum governed by flow conditions and sediment
(19) features (size, sorting, etc.). River and coastal bed
forms were heavily studied in the past [27, 28] in
terms of genesis, influence on flows, ST rates, and
geological preservation potential.
Bedforms are strongly affected by flow regimes
(i.e., subcritical and supercritical regimes). For sub-
critical flows (i.e., Fr < 1), various bedforms can
occur on a bed made of noncohesive sediments. At
stresses slightly greater than the critical value of
motion and for relatively coarse sediments, lower
stage plane beds (i.e., bedload sheets, pebble clus-
ters) results from the disruption of the viscous sub-
layer by coarse grains. For relatively fine sandy
sediments, ripple marks can be observed. They corre-
spond to bed oscillations of a few centimeters high,
moving downstream and characterized by a planar
or curved cross bedding associated to the form of
their crest [27]. This type of internal structure is
linked to the movement of the bedform made pos-
(21) sible because of the presence of a stoss side (gentle
slope, located upstream) where grains are eroded, a
lee side (higher slope, located downstream) where
grains are deposited by avalanching or by settling
due to a separation of flow just downstream the bed-
form. The initiation of ripples is correlated with the
streaky aspect of the viscous sublayer. The presence
of low-speed streaks flowing longitudinally and the
ejection of low-momentum fluid from the viscous
layer as hairpin vortices (which burst in the buffer
layer) are the cause of local bed defect several grains
high on which flow separation can occur. Further
downstream, increased turbulences will cause another
bed defect. These defects will grow and migrate
downstream (Figure 4) until the bed is covered with
ripples [29, 30].
When flow velocity and grain size increase, dunes
can appear. As for ripples, dunes can be characterized
by their geometric features such as height hh and
wavelength, λ which are log-linearly related [31].
hh = 0.0677λ0.8098 (22)
10 Sediment transport

Flow

Primay hairpin vortex

z+~ 100 and low speed streaks

(a)

Formation of subsidiary
and secondary vortices

(b)

Multiple streaks and sweeps

form flow parallel sediment ridges

(c)

Longitudinal ridges
concentrate position
of subsequent sweeps,
(d) generation of formative bed defect

Sweeps amplify bed defect

height. Flow separation generates
downstream erosion and ripple propagation
(e)

Figure 4 Formation of bed defects according to Best, 1992. (Source: Reproduced with permission from Ref. 29. ©
International Association of Sedimentologists, 1992. Published by John Wiley and Sons.)

Dunes can exert a strong feedback on bed rough- rivers [32]. As shown by Refs 33 and 34 among
ness, flow velocity, and ST rates. For the latter point, others, hh and λ adapt to unsteady flow conditions
several studies pointed out their control on hysteresis with a time lag. The dunes themselves will become
of ST rates during flood events in sandy-graveled washed out (humpback dunes) as the fluid flow

Encyclopedia of Environmetrics, Online © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

This article is © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
This article was published in Encyclopedia of Environmetrics Second Edition in 2012 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/9780470057339.vas010.pub2
 Sediment transport 11

+
2.0 + +
+ + + +
Antidunes
++ Fr = 1.0 ++ ++
+ + +
++ + +
(standardized to 10 °C water temperature) ++ +
Fr = 0.84
+
+
+ l
Upper plane dua
Gra
Mean flow velocity, m/s

1.0
Abru
pt
0.8
Dunes ua
l
ad
Gr dual
0.6 a
Gr
ne
pla

Ab
r

ru
we

pt
× Lo
0.4 ×
No movement
Ripples ×

0.2 Mean flow depth

0.25 – 0.40 m

0.1 1.0
Median sediment size, mm
(standardized to 10 °C water temperature)

Figure 5 Stability fields of bed phases in sandy sediments according to Ashley, 1990. (Source: Reproduced with permission
from Ref. 31. © SEPM (Society for Sedimentary Geology), 1990.)

velocity increases and upper stage plane beds can β = W/H of river channels (where W is channel
appear. width).
For supercritical flows (Fr > 1), sinusoidal forms Forced bars are due to a change in channel geom-
parallel to the water surface called antidunes can etry (sinuosity, widening). Alternate bars (which can
form. Owing to the flow regime, these bed forms can be free or forced, migrating or steady) are sediment
migrate upwards eroding their upstream face. waves consisting of consecutive diagonal fronts with
Figure 5 shows that, for sandy particles, the low slope riffles located upstream. Their wavelength
abovementioned bed forms are part of a continuum ranges usually between 5 and 12 channel widths.
depending on sedimentary (here median grain size) The formation of alternate bars have been exten-
and flow (here flow velocity) conditions. sively studied by mathematical or experimental inves-
Obstacles present on the bed of river chan- tigations [42] as well as their role on channel pat-
nels, specifically vegetation, can also generate obsta- tern [43–45] since they are suspected to be at the
cle marks [35, 36] which are often involved in origin of braiding or meandering of rivers. Their
island edification and morphological evolution of wavelength, can be predicted by various mathemat-
rivers [37–39]. ical expressions according to Froude number (Fr),
Alluvial macroforms correspond to forms of the channel width (W ), flow depth (H ), and roughness
bed which are scaled to the channel width (bars, length (zb ) [46]:
riffle/pool sequences). Owing to their condition of Froude number < 0.8
formation, bars are recognized to be free or forced.
Free bars are generated by the instability of tur-
bulent flows over an erodible bed [40, 41]. Their WH
λ=5 (23)
formation depends principally on the aspect ratio Cf

Encyclopedia of Environmetrics, Online © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

This article is © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
This article was published in Encyclopedia of Environmetrics Second Edition in 2012 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/9780470057339.vas010.pub2
12 Sediment transport

Froude number ≥ 0.8 where d90 corresponds to the coarser fraction of

 
WH
λ = 181 B Cf
Cf
With Cf , a roughness number related to the Chezy
coefficient, determined using the following relation
reported in Ref. 47 (in gravel bed rivers):
  
H −2
Cf = 2.5 ln 11
zb
The role played by bars in alluvial architecture
has been documented by facies models developed
for various river types [48, 49]. The facies models
highlighted the limits of reconstituting the processes
involved in the formation of alluvial sequences.
Quantification of Bedload Transport Rates
Empirical Equations
Since the seminal works of Du Boys [50], a large
number of equations (theoretical or empirical) have
been developed to predict bedload transport rates (qb )
for a large range of particle grain sizes and hydraulic
conditions [51]. Most of these equations are based on
the concept of excess shear stress developed by Du
Boys [50]
qb = f (X − Xc )
where X is a quantity associated to the flow (velocity,
shear stress, etc.) and Xc a threshold value of the
same quantity.
The Meyer-Peter Müller [52] equation is one of
the most popular. The bedload transport rate qs (kg
s−1 m−1 ) is given by:
⎛ ⎞3
  3 2 v2
n 2
qb = 8ρg g(s − 1)d50 3 ⎝ θ − 0.047⎠
n where v is the kinematic viscosity. The transport
(26)
where s is the sediment density ratio; d50 is the
median grain size; n is the particle roughness; n is
the total roughness; and θ is the Shields number. The
particle roughness (n ) is equal to:
sediment (90% of the sample are lower in weight).
The total roughness (n) is calculated as follows:
(24)
1 2
Jw2 H 3
n= (28)
ū
where Jw is the water surface slope (m m−1 ); H is
the water depth (m); and ū is the depth-averaged
(25) flow velocity (m s−1 ). The ratio n /n normally
ranges between 0.5 and 1. The absence of a relative
depth H /d50 (in 26) shows that this equation is only
applicable to rolling and sliding modes of transport
and not to suspended material load which varies with
flow depth [53].
Although application of 26 is normally restricted
to 0.4–28.6 mm uniform sediments or mixtures in
steep rivers with high rates of bedload transport [51],
the Meyer Peter Müller formulae is commonly used
to assess bedload transport in a wide range of
systems.
The semi empirical formula of Van Rijn [18]
computes bedload transport from the product of
separated functions that assess the thickness of the
bedload layer, the sediment concentration within this
layer, and particle velocity. This formula was defined
for sandy particle sizes ranging between 0.2 and
2 mm. The bedload transport estimated from the Van
Rijn formula, qb (kg s−1 m−1 ) is equal to:
T 1.5
qs = ρg 0.1 [(s − 1)g]0.5 d50
1.5
(29)
Dp 0.3
where s is the sediment density ratio; g is the
acceleration due to gravity; d50 is the median grain
size of sediment; T is the transport stage, and Dp is
a scaled particle parameter expressed as follows:
 1
(s − 1)g 3
Dp = d50 (30)
stage parameter T , or excess shear parameter, is
calculated using the following equation:
(u∗ )2 − (u∗cr )2
T = (31)
(u∗cr )2

1
 where u∗ is the bed shear velocity related to grains
 26
n = d90 2 (27) and u∗cr is the critical bed shear velocity according to

Encyclopedia of Environmetrics, Online © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

This article is © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
This article was published in Encyclopedia of Environmetrics Second Edition in 2012 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/9780470057339.vas010.pub2

Shields. The bed shear velocity related to grains (u∗ )
is expressed as follows:
ū
u∗ =  
12 H
5.75 log
3 d90
where ū is the depth-averaged flow velocity; H is
the water depth; and d90 represents the grain size of
sediment for which 90% of the particles are lower
in weight. For sandy rivers, the critical bed shear
velocity u∗ is defined from the Shields curve [18] as
follows:
u∗cr = [0.013DP0.29 (s − 1)gd50 ]0.5 with
20 < Dp < 150
Other types of bedload rate predictors were devel-
oped by Bagnold [54] and more recently by Wilcock
et al. [55] and Recking[56] are not based on the con-
cept of excess shear stress. Bagnold based his empir-
ical formulae on the concept of power performed by
a river to transport sediments:
 e 
b based on the product of dunes size with their migra-
qb = ω (34)
tan α
where qs is the rate of ST by immersed weight, eb is
a bedload transport efficiency factor, ω is the stream
power equal to ρw gH Je u = τb u (ρw , is the fluid
density, g, the acceleration of gravity, H , the flow
depth, Je the slope of the energy line, u the mean
flow velocity), and α is a friction coefficient for bed
material.
Garcia [57] details the doubts related to the
hypothesis of Bagnold, while Gomez and Church [58]
showed that Bagnold’s formulation was accurate in
perennial gravel-bed streams.
Direct Measurements of Bedload Transport Rates
Beldoad can also be assessed from direct mea-
surements carried out using isokinetic (or not)
sediment samplers directly deposed on the bed
(e.g., Helley–Smith, bedload transport meter Arn-
hem (BTMA), Karolyi sampler, etc.). The type of
sediment sampler [59] is mainly conditioned by the
size and nature of sediments of the environment
under consideration. These bedload samplers, as
well as bedload monitoring stations equipped with
box samplers, pressure-pillow samplers [60], have
Encyclopedia of Environmetrics, Online © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
This article is © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
This article was published in Encyclopedia of Environmetrics Second Edition in 2012 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/9780470057339.vas010.pub2
Sediment transport 13
been extensively used in small gravel- and sand-
bed rivers [51, 61]. In large sand- and gravel-bed
rivers [32, 62], sediment gauging is technically dif-
(32) ficult, time-consuming, and expensive. The relia-
bilities of the samplers used to measure bedload
transport, in spite of its high temporal and spatial
variability, have been analyzed in several studies
[63, 64].
Indirect Estimates of Bedload Transport Rates
In order to face the technical difficulties of direct
bedload gauging, alternative methods were devel-
oped [65]. For gravel bed rivers, tracers such as
particles with luminescent dyes, magnetic bars, and
(33) acoustics markers are usually used. One of the most
common techniques consists in the use of passive
integrated transponders (PIT) tags inserted in cobbles
which are radiotracked. Acoustic devices can also be
used.
In sandy fluvial and coastal environments, radioac-
tive tracers were also used as well as other indirect
methods. For instance, the dune tracking method,
tion rate, can provide accurate predictions of bedload
discharges [32, 66]. This method differs from the
models mentioned above as it is based on surveys
of the morphological evolution of the river bed
qb = βhh εc ρg (35)
where qs is the bedload transport rate, β the bed-
load discharge coefficient, hh is the bedform height,
ε is the sediment concentration in the bedform (1-
porosity), and c is the celerity of bed forms deter-
mined from bathymetrical surveys. The β coefficient
is equal to 0.5, if the dunes are triangular when they
are considered along a plan parallel to the down-
stream direction. In general, the β coefficient varies
between 0.49 and 0.60 [67, 68].
Comparison of Bedload ST Models
The results obtained with various bedload trans-
port equations have been compared to estimates of
bedload transport rates [51, 58] obtained using other
methods such as sediment gauging (Figure 6) even
if this method is known to be relatively inaccurate.
For instance, [58] have shown over-prediction associ-
ated with the use of the Meyer Peter Muller formulae
14 Sediment transport
5500
Total bedload discharge (m3 d−1)
4500
3500
2500
1500
500
800
Figure 6 Comparison of the total bedload of the Loire River measured with a BTMA and estimated by the Van Rijn,
Meyer-Peter and Müller formulas, and the dune tracking method). Uncertainty for the total bedload measured with the
BTMA corresponds to the standard deviation divided by the square root of the number of measurements. The arrow
indicates the temporal evolution of water discharges. (Source: Reproduced from Ref. 32. © Elsevier.)
for the Elbow River (Canada). Claude et al. [32]
compared Meyer-Peter Müller, Van Rijn, dune track-
ing, and direct sediment gauging in the Loire River
(France).
In Figure 6, the bedload measured with the BTMA
are characterized by a clockwise hysteresis during
the 1-in-2 year flood. This means that at equiva-
lent water discharges, the bedload transport is higher
before the flood peak than after. In sand-gravel bed
rivers, the hysteresis of bedload transport can be
partly explained by the lag time associated with the
adaptation of dunes morphology to changing flow
conditions [34]. For example, dunes are larger after
the peak of the flood, which means that dune-related
roughnesses and turbulences are also higher and less
energy is available for bedload transport during the
falling limb of the flood [18]. Figure 6 shows that
indirect methods used for bedload discharge estima-
tion (namely Meyer-Peter Müller, Van Rijn, and dune
tracking) predict this hysteresis but underestimate its
magnitude.
References
[1] Miall, A.D. (1996). The Geology of Fluvial Deposits:
Sedimentary Facies, Basin Analysis, and Petroleum
Geology, Springer, Berlin, 582 pp.
[2] Perry, C. & Taylor, K. (2007). Environmental Sedimen-
tology, Blackwell Publishing, p. 441.
Encyclopedia of Environmetrics, Online © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
This article is © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
This article was published in Encyclopedia of Environmetrics Second Edition in 2012 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/9780470057339.vas010.pub2
QsGauging
QsVR
QsDT
QsMPM
1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
Water discharge (m3 s−1)
[3] Bridge, J.S. (2003). Rivers and Floodplains: Forms,
Processes, and Sedimentary Record , Blackwell, Oxford,
491 pp.
[4] Detriche, S., Rodrigues, S., Macaire, J.-J., Bonte, P.,
Breheret, J.-G., Bakyono, J.-P. & Juge, P. (2010).
Caesium-137 in sandy sediments of the River Loire
(France): assessment of an alluvial island evolving over
the last fifty years, Geomorphology 115, 11–22.
[5] St-Hilaire, A., Courtenay, S.C., Diaz-Delgado, C.,
Pavey, B., Ouarda, T.B.M.J., Boghen, A., & Bobée,
B. (2006). Suspended sediment concentrations down-
stream of a harvested peat bog: analysis and prelimi-
nary modelling of exceedances using logistic regression,
Canadian Water Resources Journal 31(3), 139–156.
[6] Middleton, G.V. & Southard, J.B. (1984). Mechanics
of sediment movement: society of economic paleontol-
ogists and mineralogists, Short Course 3, 401.
[7] Meybeck, M. & Moatar, F. (2012). Daily variability of
river concentrations and fluxes: indicators based on the
segmentation of the rating curve, Hydrological Processes
26, 1188–1207.
[8] Higgins, H., St-Hilaire, A., Courtenay, S.C., & Har-
alampides, K.A. (2011). Suspended sediment dynamics
in a tributary of the Saint John River, New Brunswick,
Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering 38(2), 221–232.
[9] Meybeck, M., Laroche, L., Durr, H.H., & Syvistski,
J.P.M. (2003). Global variability of daily total suspended
solids and their fluxes in rivers, Global and Planetary
Change 39, 65–93.
[10] Tramblay, Y., Saint-Hilaire, A., Ouarda, T.B.M.J.,
Moatar, F., & Hecht, B. (2010). Estimation of local

extreme suspended sediment concentrations in Califor-
nia rivers, Science of the Total Environment 408(19),
4221–4229.
[11] Nash, D.B. (1994). Effective sediment-transporting dis-
charge from magnitude-frequency analysis, Journal of
Geology 102(1), 79–95.
[12] Simon, A., Dickerson, W., & Heins, A. (2004).
Suspended-sediment transport rates at the 1.5-year
recurrence interval for ecoregions of the United States:
transport conditions at the bankfull and effective
discharge, Geomorphology 58(1–4), 243–262.
[13] Allec, J. (2002) Sediment transport. Encyclopedia of
Environmetrics, 20 pp. DOI: 10.1002/97804470057339.
[14] Postma, H. (1967). Sediment transport and sedimen-
tation in the estuarine environment, Estuaries, Amer-
ican Association for the Advancement of Science 83,
158–179.
[15] Krumblien, W.C. (1934). Size frequency distribution of
sediments, Journal of Sediment Petrology 4, 65–77.
[16] Shields, A. (1936). Anwendung der Ahnlichkeitsmec-
hanik und der Turbulenzforschung auf die Geschiebe-
bewegegung, Heft 26, Preuss. Vers. fur Wasserbau und
Schiffbau, Berlin.
[17] Miller, M.C., McCave, I.N., & Komar, P.D. (1977).
Threshold of sediment motion under unidirectional cur-
rents, Sedimentology 24, 507–528.
[18] Van Rijn, L. (1993). Principles of Sediment Transport in
Rivers, Estuaries and Coastal Seas, Aqua Publications,
Amsterdam, 700p.
[19] Probstein, R.F. (1990). Physical Chemical Hydrodynam-
ics: An Introduction, 2nd Edition, John Wiley & Sons,
New York.
[20] James, A.E., Williams, D.J.A., & Williams, P.R. (1987).
Direct measurement of the static yield properties of
cohesive suspensions, Rheologica Acta 26, 437–446.
[21] James, A.E., Williams, D.J.A., & Williams, P.R. (1989).
Small strain low shear rate rheometry of cohesive sed-
iments, in Physical Processes in Estuaries, J. Dronkers
& W.V. van Leussen, eds, Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg,
pp. 488–500.
[22] Furukawa, K., Wolanski, E., & Mueller, H. (1997).
Currents and sediment transport in mangrove forests,
Estuarine, Coastal and Continental Shelf Science 44,
301–310.
[23] Houwig, E.J. (1997). Determination of the critical ero-
sion threshold of cohesive sediments on intertidal mud-
flats along the Dutch Wadden Sea coast, Estuarine,
Coastal and Shelf Science 19, 545–555.
[24] Richardson, J.F. & Zaki, W.N. (1958). Sedimentation
and fluidisation, Transactions of the Institute of Chemical
Engineers 32, 35–53.
[25] Dyer, K.R. (1986). Coastal and Estuarine Sediment
Dynamics, John Wiley & Sons, New York.
[26] Leclair, S.F. & Bridge, J.S. (2001). Quantitative interpre-
tation of sedimentary structures formed by river dunes,
Journal of Sedimentary Research 71, 713–716.
Encyclopedia of Environmetrics, Online © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
This article is © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
This article was published in Encyclopedia of Environmetrics Second Edition in 2012 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/9780470057339.vas010.pub2
Sediment transport 15
[27] Allen, J.R.L. (1984). Sedimentary Structures: Their
Character and Physical Basis, Developments in Sedi-
mentology, Elsevier, Amsterdam.
[28] Reineck, H.E. & Singh, I.B. (1980). Depositional Sedi-
mentary Environments, Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
[29] Best, J.L. (1992). On the entrainment of sediment
and initiation of bed defects: insights from recent
developments within turbulent boundary layer research,
Sedimentology 39, 797–811.
[30] Best, J.L. (1996). The fluid dynamics of small scale
alluvial bedforms, in Advances in Fluvial Dynamics and
Stratigraphy, P.A. Carling & M.R. Dawson, eds, John
Wiley & Sons, Ltd, Chichester, pp. 67–125.
[31] Ashley, G.M. (1990). Classification of large-scale sub-
aqueous bedforms: a new look at an old problem, Jour-
nal of Sedimentary Petrology 60, 160–172.
[32] Claude, N., Rodrigues, S., Bustillo, V., Bréhéret, J.G.,
Jugé, P., & Macaire, J.J. Estimating unit and total
bedload discharges in large sand-gravel bed rivers:
comparing sediment sampling to dune tracking and
bedload equations. Geomorphology, submitted.
[33] Peters, J.J. (1978). Discharge and sand transport in the
braided zone of the Zaire estuary, Netherlands Journal
of Sea Research 12, 273–292.
[34] Wilbers, A.W.E. & Ten Brinke, W.B.M. (2003). The
response of subaqueous dunes to floods in sand and
gravel bed reaches of the Dutch Rhine, Sedimentology
50, 1013–1034.
[35] Euler, T. & Herget, J. (2012). Controls on local scour and
deposition induced by obstacles in fluvial environments,
Catena 91, 35–46.
[36] Nakayama, K., Fielding, C.R., & Alexander, J. (2002).
Variations in character and preservation potential of
vegetation-induced obstacle marks in the variable dis-
charge Burdekin River of north Queensland, Aus-
tralia:Sedimentary Geology 149, 199–218.
[37] Gibling, M.R. & Davies, N.S. (2012). Palaeozoic land-
scapes shaped by plant evolution, Nature Geosciences 5,
99–105.
[38] Rodrigues, S., Breheret, J.G., Macaire, J.J., Moatar, F.,
Nistoran, D., & Juge, P. (2006). Flow and sediment
dynamics in the vegetated secondary channels of an
anabranching river: the Loire River (France), Sedimen-
tary Geology 186, 89–109.
[39] Rodrigues, S., Breheret, J.G., Macaire, J.J., Greulich, S.,
& Villar, M. (2007). In channel woody vegetation con-
trols on sedimentary processes and the sedimentary
record within alluvial environments: a modern example
of an anabranch of the River Loire, France, Sedimentol-
ogy 54(1), 223–242.
[40] Callander, R.A. (1969). Instability and river channels,
Journal of Fluid Mechanics 36, 465–480.
[41] Colombini, M., Seminara, G., & Tubino, M. (1987).
Finite amplitude alternate bars, Journal of Fluid Mechan-
ics 181, 213–232.
[42] Tubino, M. (1991). Growth of alternate bars in unsteady
flows, Water Resource Research 27, 37–52.
 16 Sediment transport
[43] Fredsoe, J. (1978). Meandering and braiding of rivers,
Journal of Fluid Mechanics 84, 609–624.
[44] Kleinhans, M.G. & van den Berg, J.H. (2010). River
channel and bar patterns explained and predicted by an
empirical and a physics-based method, Earth Surface
Processes and Landforms 35, 1–18.
[45] Rodrigues, S., Claude, N., Juge, P., & Breheret, J.G.
(2012). An opportunity to connect the morphodynamics
of alternate bars with their sedimentary products, Earth
surface processes and Landforms 37(2), 240–248.
[46] Ikeda, S. (1984). Prediction of alternate bar wavelength
and height, Journal of Hydraulic Engineering 110,
317–386.
[47] Parker, G. & Peterson, A.W. (1980). Bar resistance of
gravel-bed streams, Journal of Hydraulic Engineering
106(10), 1559–1575.
[48] Best, J.L., Ashworth, P.J., Bristow, C.S., & Roden,
J. (2003). Three-dimensional sedimentary architecture
of a large, mid-channel sand braid bar, Jamuna River,
Bangladesh, Journal of Sedimentary Research 73,
516–530.
[49] Lunt, I.A., Bridge, J.S., & Tye, R.S. (2004). A quantita-
tive, three-dimensional model of gravelly braided rivers,
Sedimentology 51, 377–414.
[50] Du Boys, P.F.D. (1879). Etude du régime et de
l’action exercée par les eaux sur un lit à fond de
graviers indéfiniment affouillable, Annales des Ponts et
Chaussées Séries 5 18, 141–195.
[51] Batalla, R.J. (1997). Evaluating bed material transport
equations using field measurements in a sandy gravel
bed stream, Arbúcies River, NE Spain, Earth Surface
Processes and Landforms 22(2), 121–130.
[52] Meyer-Peter, E. & Muller, R. (1948). Formulae for
bedload transport, Proceedings of the Second Conference
of the International Association of Hydraulic Research,
Stockholm, Vol. 2, pp. 39–54.
[53] Richards, K. (1982). Rivers, form and processes in
alluvial channels. 361 p.
[54] Bagnold, R.A. (1977). Bedload transport by natural
rivers, Water Resources Research 13, 303–312.
[55] Wilcock, P.R., Kenworthy, S.T., & Crowe, J.C. (2001).
Experimental study of the transport of mixed sand and
gravel, Water Resources Research 37, 3349.
[56] Recking, A. (2010). A comparison between flume
and field bed load transport data and consequences
for surface-based bed load transport prediction, Water
Resources Research 46, W03518, 16 pp.
[57] Garcia, M. (2008). Sedimentation engineering – pro-
cesses, measurements, modeling and practice, ASCE
Manuals and Reports on Engineering Practice n° 110 ,
M.H. Garcia, eds, American Association of Civil Engi-
neers, 1132 p.
[58] Gomez, B. & Church, M. (1989). An assessment of bed
load sediment transport formulae for gravel bed rivers,
Water Resources Research 25(6), 1161.
[59] Hubbell, D.W. (1964). Apparatus and techniques for
measuring bedload, Geological Survey Water-Supply
Paper 1748, 74 pp.
Encyclopedia of Environmetrics, Online © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
This article is © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
This article was published in Encyclopedia of Environmetrics Second Edition in 2012 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/9780470057339.vas010.pub2
View publication stats
[60] Reid, I., Bathurst, J.C., Carling, P.A., Walling, D.E.,
& Webb, B.W. 1997. Sediment erosion, transport and
deposition, in Applied Fluvial Geomorphology for River
Engineering and Management, C.R. Thorne, R.D. Hey,
& M.D. Newson, eds, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, Chich-
ester, pp. 95–135.
[61] Andrews, E.D. (1981). Measurement and computa-
tion of bed-material discharge in a shallow sand-
bed stream, Muddy Creek, Wyoming Water Resources
Research 17(1), 131–141.
[62] Peters, J.J. (1971). La dynamique de la sédimentation de
la région divagante du bief maritime du fleuve Congo,
Académie Royale des Sciences d’Outre-Mer, Rapport
Mateba7, Laboratoire de Recherches Hydrauliques, Min-
istère des Travaux Publics, pp. 1–120.
[63] Hubbell, D.W., Stevens, H.H., Skinner, J.V., & Bever-
age, J.P. Jr (1985). New approach to calibrating bed load
samplers, Journal of Hydraulic Engineering 111, 677.
[64] Kleinhans, M.G. & Ten Brinke, W.B.M. (2001). Accu-
racy of cross-channel sampled sediment transport in
large Sand-Gravel-Bed Rivers, Journal of Hydraulic
Engineering 127(4), 258.
[65] Ergenzinger, P. & De Jong, C. (2003). Perspectives
on bed load measurement, in Erosion and Sediment
Transport Measurement in Rivers, J. Bogen, T. Fergus,
& D.E. Walling, IAHS, 238 p.
[66] Simons, D.B., Richardson, E.V., & Nordin, C.F. (1965).
Bedload equation for ripples and dunes, US Geological
Survey Professional Paper 462-H.
[67] Van den Berg, J.H. (1987). Bedform migration and bed-
load transport in some rivers and tidal environments,
Sedimentology 34(4), 681.
[68] Villard, P.V. & Church, M. (2003). Dunes and associated
sand transport in a tidally influenced sand-bed channel:
Fraser River, British Columbia, Canadian Journal of
Earth Sciences 40(1), 115–130.
Further Reading
Boiten, W. (2003). Measurement of Sediment Transport,
Hydrometry, A.A. Balkema publishers, Tokyo, pp. 155–182.
Gaeuman, D. & Jacobson, R.B. (2007). Field assessment
of alternative bed-load transport estimators, Journal of
Hydraulic Engineering 133, 1319.
Krone, R.B. (1963). A Study of Rheological Properties of
Estuarine Sediments, Technical Bulletin No. 7, Committee
of Tidal Hydraulics, US Army Corps of Engineers, WES,
Vicksburg.
(See also Hydrology, environmental; Catchment
hydrology; Floods and changing climate: seasonal
forecasts and reconstruction; Global warming;
Coastal processes)
STÉPHANE RODRIGUES, FLORENTINA MOATAR,
& NICOLAS CLAUDE