ISH Journal of Hydraulic Engineering

ISSN: 0971-5010 (Print) 2164-3040 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tish20

Evaluation of bed load equations using field

measured bed load and bed material load

Sanjaykumar Madhusudan Yadav, Vipin Kumar Yadav & Anurag Gilitwala

To cite this article: Sanjaykumar Madhusudan Yadav, Vipin Kumar Yadav & Anurag Gilitwala
(2019): Evaluation of bed load equations using field measured bed load and bed material load, ISH
Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, DOI: 10.1080/09715010.2019.1594417

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09715010.2019.1594417

Published online: 19 Apr 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tish20
ISH JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING
https://doi.org/10.1080/09715010.2019.1594417

Evaluation of bed load equations using field measured bed load and bed material
load
Sanjaykumar Madhusudan Yadava, Vipin Kumar Yadavb and Anurag Gilitwalac
a
Civil Engineering Department, Sardar Vallbhbhai National Institute of Technology, Surat, India; bCivil Engineering Department, Dr. S. & S S
Ghandhy Government Engineering College, Surat, India; cDepartment of Civil Engineering, Dr. S & S. S. Ghandhy Government Engineering
College, Surat, India

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Bed load transport can be determined by direct measurement of bed load being transported by a Received 26 June 2018
stream. In India, measurement of bed load is rarely done. In the present study, bed load has been Accepted 8 March 2019
measured by unequal width incremental method using United States Geological Survey (USGS) bed KEYWORDS
load sampler (Modified-Helley–Smith bed load sampler) and bed material has been measured using Bed load; bed material; bed
scoop type sampler for the Ver stream in Mandvi region of Surat, Gujarat, India. From the field shear stress; field
measurements and analysis, it is seen that the Ver stream has dominance of bed load transport with measurements
a Rouse number higher than 2.5 for all the selected cross sections. The measured average bed load
transport rate is found to be 7.77 t/day. The measured bed load transport rate has been tested using
two prominent bed load models. In 1950 Brown proposed the reach averaged approach which was
augmented and supported by Recking in 2013. Both Brown's and Recking's reach averaged
approaches have been used for computing bed load of Ver stream using particle size of bed load
and bed material. Bed load computed using Recking's approach matches well with the observed
bed load while Brown's model over-predicted bed load transport rate using bed load particle size.
Overall, Recking's reach-averaged approach performs well using bed load particle size and bed
material particle size.

1. Introduction load transport are conceptualized with computational tech-

niques, a theoretical base, which is calibrated and tested for
Bed load is required for management, operation, planning
flume data sets. Before application of any model, it has to be
and designing of hydraulic projects. Hydraulic projects such
carefully validated on observed field data as and where it is
as river valley development, dam construction, bridge, mor-
to be used (Recking 2013). Accurate and reliable prediction
pho-dynamics, stability of channels and streams are in
of bed load transport rate is still not a surety (Bunte et al.
fundamental connection with the sediment delivered to
2004). Results obtained, especially in gravel bed rivers, are
stream by catchment and sediment being transported by
less reliable than those in sand bed rivers because of the
the stream (Emmett and Wolman 2001). Brambilla et al.
influence of hiding factor (Guo 2002). When different sizes
(2018) focused on how water discharge is changing the
are placed in a mixture, the relative size effect tends to
relationships between different measurement techniques
increase the transport rate of larger grains and decrease
and found that high discharge events force the channel to
the transport rate of smaller grains. The magnitude of the
behave in a unique way, while low discharge events generate
relative size effect and, therefore, the transport rate of indi-
more intrinsic variability. In practice, bed load predicting
vidual sizes within a mixture will be sensitive to the com-
models and sediment rating curves are used by field and
position of the mixture, which can change during transport
design engineers for sediment analysis. In the absence of
and in response to variation in flow and sediment supply. A
measured bed load data, total load sediment analysis is not
quantitative model for mixed-size transport must account
that accurate (Gomez and Church 1989; Waikhom and
for the distribution of grain sizes available for transport
Yadav 2017). The measurement of bed load in the field is
(Wilcock and Kenworthy 2002). Other reasons, consider-
a challenging and costly affair, particularly during high
ably affecting the bed load, are the movement of bars, the
flows. Bedload particles transported in natural flow and
movement of gravel sheets, the variable fluxes of bedload
bed material composing the boundary of flow are typically
across a measured section and the errors associated with the
made up of non-uniform sediment. The development of a
use of samplers. Paucity of measured field data for these
theoretical bedload formula to predict the evolution of bed
parameters has restricted the incorporation of their effects
surfaces comprising non-uniform sediment is considered to
on sediment transport in rivers.
be paramount in the field of sediment transport mechanics.
The sediment particle gets into the contact of flow and
Unfortunately, few theoretical investigations deal with this
moves only if it has gained a shear stress value, higher than
problem (Sun and Donahue 2000). Bedload transport is
a critical value. Shear stress value at which the particle gets
known to be a highly fluctuating temporal phenomenon,
in motion from static condition is taken as its threshold
even under constant (mean) flow conditions, as a conse-
shear stress value. If the shear stress experienced by the
quence of stochasticity in bedform migration, grain sorting,
particle is just higher than the critical value, then the
hysteresis or sediment supply. Models developed for bed

CONTACT Sanjaykumar Madhusudan Yadav Shivnam27@yahoo.co.in

© 2019 Indian Society for Hydraulics
2 S.M. YADAV ET AL.
particle may start contact motion (i.e. motion by rolling).
The transport behaviour of gravel size sediment is affected
by the quantity of fine sediment present. If the fraction of
sand in the bed is smaller than about 0.4, the critical Shields
stress for the initiation of gravel motion decreases with
increasing fraction of sand. The critical Shields stress
increases, however, with increasing the fraction of sand
when it is larger than about 0.4 (Miwa and Parker 2017).
If the energy of flow is great enough to impart shear stress
sufficiently higher than critical stress and if the particle is light
enough to remain in suspension, then it may transport in
suspension till flow energy reduction occurs to drop the par-
ticle back on the bed (Yang 1996). Bed material is defined as
the sediment composition of bed and the sediment load that is
transported by flowing fluid as bed load or suspended load
comprises particles derived from the bed. Bed material nor-
mally comprises the greater part of the bed load, and the extent
of the suspended load that is embodied in the bed sediment.
Bed load transport rate prediction models are grouped into
three classes as advection based model, energy concept models
and empirical models (Julien 2010). Du Boys (1879) gave the
pioneering bed load equation. Gomez and Church (1989)
tested various bed load models and concluded that none of
the proposed bed load transport models is consistent in its
performance. Yadav and Samtani (2008) have developed an
empirical bed load transport equation using Tapi River, India.
Pourhosein et al. 2015 have measured bed load in Iran for
three reaches of Babolroud River. Pourhosein et al. (2015)
tested seven bed load equations using field measurements in
Babolroud River catchment in Northen Iran. The bed load was
collected by Helley–Smith (HS) sampler and also flow depth,
flow velocity and slope were measured. The sampling time was
60, 120 and 300 s, depending on the bed load rate in the
selected section. They found that beside Du Boys and
Hassanzadeh, Recking (2013) bed load equation predicts well
with measured data. Habersack and Laronne (2002) found
that the use of bed load texture based on bed load sampling
is useful for more accurate prediction of bed load discharge.
Rather than identifying the best predicting equation, they
investigated the variability of equation’s predictive power.
The difficulties and challenges involved with direct bed-
load measurements and the large natural variability of
transport rates, the necessary data to systematically test,
calibrate and validate laboratory derived equations for nat-
ural streams are not currently available (Rickenmann 2017).
In India, bed load is not measured as a regular procedure
(Garg et al. 1971; Yadav and Samtani, 2008; Waikhom and
Yadav 2018). The objective of the present study is to mea-
sure the bed load transport rate for a natural stream along
with other hydraulic parameters and to identify the best
predicting model out of Brown’s and Recking’s bed load
models.
2. Study area and data collection
Mandvi is a town located at around 61 km east of Surat and
lies on the banks of Tapi River. Mandvi is situated at an
altitude of 50 m and 113 km (aerial distance) from Arabian
Sea. The normal yearly precipitation for the region is
1702 mm.
The Ver stream originates from the Khoramba Mountain
and meets the Tapi River in its downstream. The bed load
has been measured at Ver stream located near the Godavadi
village in Mandvi region Surat, India (21.258731°N,
73.219994°E). The stream bed is made up of sand, gravel
and cobble. The flow depth at the site is around 0.50–1.2 m.
Figure 1(a and b) shows the top views of the study area and
Figure 1(c) shows the photographic view of Ver stream.
Field measurements were done at eight cross sections of
Ver stream at selected site. Five cross sections were taken U/S
of causeway and three sections were selected D/S of it. Figure 2
shows location of cross sections where bed load, depth and
flow velocity are measured. The hydraulic parameters, such as
flow depth, velocity, are measured simultaneously at every
cross section along with bed load sampling. The slope of
channel bed was measured between each cross section using
dumpy level and staff. Bed material is also collected at every
cross section using scoop type of sampler. Bed load was
measured by USGS-modified HS bed load sampler with the
hydraulic efficiency of 1.54 and the expansion ratio equal to
3.22. Figure 3 shows bed load sampler used in the present
study. The mesh size of collection bag used in sampler is
25 µm. A brief summary of observed data is given in Table 1.
The HS samplers are typically operated manually by a
single person, and thus operation at high flows may be difficult
(Helley and Smith 1971). Bedload samplers are flexible with
regard to the selection of sampling locations both along and
across a stream channel. However, sampling duration depends
on the volume of the sampler and on the transport rate.
Typically, samples are therefore quite limited regarding the
temporal and spatial coverage of bedload transport.
A 10% increase in the flow can double or triple the
sediment transport rate. There is no thumb rule to fix the
sampling time, but the sampling time should be such that it
does not adversely affect the sediment transport rate.
Sampling results obtained from a HS sampler have been
found to differ from those collected with other samplers,
particularly those that are not restricted by a small opening
size, a small sampler bag, short sampling times and direct
contact with the bed. The ability to convert HS sampling
results to those obtained from a sampler without those
restrictions, such as bedload traps, might be beneficial
because HS samplers are frequently used in field studies
due to their widespread availably and ease of use (Emmett
1979; Bunte and Abt 2009).
2.1. Measurement of bed load
A fluid flowing with certain velocity for the wetted perimeter
of the river may generate fluid power by shear between
lowest layer and the bed. This power of the flowing fluid is
conceptualized as stream power. The wetted cross-sectional
area is maximum during the monsoon period (June–
September) in Mandvi region. The bed load samples have
been collected from 24 August 2016 to 29 September 2016.
The selected sampling method of bed load has been
identified from the literature survey (Pourhosein et al.
2015). There exist three methods for systematic collection
of the sample i.e. single equal width increment (SEWI),
multiple equal width increment (MEWI) and unequal
width incremental (UWI) method. In the present study,
UWI method of bed load measurement has been used. In
this method, the distance between two sampling points
varies in the ongoing cycle and in different cycles. UWI
method is applied in the present study, because of its suit-
ability for the field condition of study area. In this method,
 ISH JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING 3

(a). Map View of Study area

(b). Satellite View of Study area

(c). Photographic View of Ver stream

Figure 1. (a) Map view of study area, (b) satellite view of study area and (c) photographic view of Ver stream.

entire cross section of the stream is divided into ‘n’ unequal uniform and bed consists of highly undulated bed surface.
subsections. Sampling is started from one side of stream to In the present study, UWI method of bed load sampling has
another side of stream. This method is best suited wherever been used as the selected river reach consists of highly
repetitive sampling is required and the bed material is non- undulated bed surface. Sufficient bed load was not collected
4 S.M. YADAV ET AL.

Figure 2. Location of cross sections for sampling (all dimensions are in meter).

M
Ri ¼ ðg=s=mÞ (2)
Ns  t

where QB represents bed load transport rate in grams per

second, Ri represents the bed load transport rate, in grams
per second per meter, Ns represents the width of the sam-
pler nozzle, in meter, t represents the sampling time in
second, M represents the collected dry bed load mass in
grams and Wi represents width between sampling verticals i
and i þ 1, in meter.
Figure 4 shows lateral variation of bed load transport rate
at cross section 5. Particle size was measured by sieve analysis
and particle distribution curve was plotted. Figure 5 shows
Figure 3. Modified-Helley–Smith bed load sampler. the particle size distribution curve of the measured bedload.
Figure 6 shows the particle size distribution curve of the
Table 1. Summary of observed field data. collected bed material. Table 2 shows particle sizes of bed
Variability of bed load and bed material in eight selected cross sections of Ver
Cross sec- Duration of sam- No. of repetition at load discharge stream. Similar procedure was followed for other observa-
tion no. pling (min) each vertical (t/day) tions also.
V1 10 1 0.456 The depth of water was measured using fibre glass-rein-
V2 10 1 0.469
V3 10 1 4.456 forced measuring tape and velocity of flow was measured by
V4 10 1 9.846 using a propeller type current meter directly in m/s. To
V5 10 1 14.302 measure channel bed slope, two cross sections were selected
V6 10 1 12.146
V7 10 1 15.603 and water surface along cross section was measured. The
V8 10 1 4.948 slope value with respect to central axis was measured by
dividing the difference of water surface measured at cross
section with the distance between two cross sections. The
at each cross section in second sampling due to variation in range of observed velocity of flow is between 0.45 and
flow rate and hence not included to keep the analysis 0.8 m/s. The lateral depth and velocity across the section
uniform. are shown in Figures 7 and 8, respectively.
In a study of mobility of bed load, shear velocity and
shear stress are considered as most critical parameters. The
3. Measurement of channel and flow parameters shear stress picks up its most extreme value in the lower
for bed load and bed material sediment gradation part of the bed and becomes zero at the intersections of the
and transport rate water surface and boundary. The average bed shear stress is
The bed load transport rate for the measured cross section identified with flow parameters as per the following
is computed by using three methods: (1) total cross-sec- equation.
tional method, (2) mean section method and (3) midsection
method. The total cross-sectional method is used when τO ¼ γ  R  S (3)
sampling time is constant for all subsection and is most
suitable with SEWI and MEWI bed load method. When the where γ is the unit weight of the fluid, R is the hydraulic
cross section is divided into unequal subsections, the bed radius and S is the slope of the channel bed. Using the
load transport rate is computed by mean section and mid- average bed shear stress, the shear velocity is determined
section method (Edwards and Glysson 1999). In this study, using Equation (4).
mean section method is used to calculate bed load transport
rate using following equations (Edwards and Glysson 1999). U ¼ ðτ O =ρÞ 0:5
(4)

Xn1  
Ri þ Riþ1 Table 3 shows a summary of measured and computed
QB ¼ Wi  (1) hydraulic parameters of Ver stream and measured bed load.
i¼1 2
 ISH JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING 5

Fraction bed load transport rate

10

(g/s/m)
4

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Width of the stream bed (m)
Figure 4. Lateral variation of bed load transport rate at cross section 5.

Grain size distribution curve of bed load for c/s 5

110
100
90
Percentage finer

80
70 point 1
60
point 2
50
40 point 3
30 point 4
20
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Particle size in mm
Figure 5. Particle size distribution curve for measured bed load of Ver stream, India.

Grain size distribution curve of bed material for c/s 5

110
100
90
Percentage finer

80
70
60 Point 1
50 Point 2
40
Point 3
30
20 Point 4
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Particle size in mm
Figure 6. Particle size distribution curve for collected bed material of Ver stream, India.

Table 2. Particle size of observed bed load and bed material.

Particle size of bed load Particle size of bed material
Cross section D50 (mm) D84 (mm) D50 (mm) D84 (mm)
V1 1.6 5.9 7.5 17
V2 1.95 6.27 7.2 15
V3 2.67 7.79 4.7 11.7
V4 2.65 7.7 5.7 12.7
V5 2.72 8.27 5.2 12.6
V6 1.9 5.85 6.4 13.7
V7 3.3 9 2.3 7.8
V8 2.6 7.7 5.3 11
Figure 7. Depth of water across section 5 (all dimensions are in meter).
6 S.M. YADAV ET AL.

Velocity distribution across section 5

0.8
0.7

Velocity in m/s
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Distance in meter
Figure 8. Velocity across section 5.

Table 3. Summary of measured and computed hydraulic parameters.

Cross section V1 V2 V3 V4 V5 V6 V7 V8
Slope (m/m) 0.0007 0.0007 0.0007 0.0007 0.0007 0.0007 0.0007 0.0007
Width (m) 5.62 5.4 24.4 31 30.5 31 26 23.5
Area (m2) 3.05 2.77 10.6 12.76 9.6 8.44 13.59 10.63
Hydraulic Depth (m) 0.543 0.513 0.435 0.412 0.315 0.272 0.523 0.452
Wetted perimeter (m) 5.95 5.73 24.64 31.05 30.51 31.02 26.09 23.57
Hydraulic radius (m) 0.513 0.483 0.43 0.411 0.315 0.272 0.521 0.451
Mean flow velocity (m/s) 0.459 0.414 0.546 0.635 0.613 0.792 0.741 0.567
Shear stress (N/m2) 3.52 3.32 2.95 2.82 2.16 1.86 3.57 3.09
Shear velocity, U* (m/s) 0.059 0.057 0.054 0.053 0.046 0.043 0.059 0.055
Discharge (m2/s) 0.249 0.212 0.237 0.262 0.193 0.216 0.387 0.257
Measured bed load transport rate (t/day) 0.457 0.47 4.456 9.847 14.302 12.146 15.603 4.948
Froude number No. 0.199 0.184 0.264 0.316 0.349 0.485 0.327 0.269

4. Evaluation of Brown (1950) and Recking (2013) is the median sediment diameter (m); τ  is the Shields number;
bed load equations γ and γs are the specific weight of fluid and specific weight of
sediment, respectively (N/m3); ϑ is the kinematic viscosity; R is
In this study, Brown (1950) and Recking (2013) equations
the hydraulic radius (m) and S is the channel slope (m/m).
were chosen to assess the predictive ability in Ver stream.
Recking (2013) equation has been suggested for gravel–
These two equations are evaluated by using two type of
sand bed rivers and thus suitable for evaluation for Ver
particle size, namely, bed material particle size and bed
river having gravel–sand bed. The proposed method by
load particle size. Brown has modified Einstein’s approach
Recking (2013) enables the mass load transport to be calcu-
for bed load prediction which is based on probabilistic
lated by considering dimensionless shear stress, d84 of the
approach. The equations can be written as follows
bed surface. The final set of equations selected in the pre-
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
γ sent study is given in the following equations:
qsv ¼ q  F1  ½ð s  1Þ  g  D350  (5)
γ h    4 i
; ¼ 14τ 2:5
84 = 1 þ τ m =τ 84 (8)
2 30:5
2 36  # 2
F1 ¼ 4 þ   5 SR
3 γs
 1  g  D 3 τ 84 ¼ (9)
γ 50 ðs  1ÞD84
2 30:5
36  # 2
pffiffi
 4  5 (6) S1:5
γs
 1  g  D3 τ m ¼ ð5S þ 0:06ÞðD84 =D50 Þ4:4 (10)
γ 50

qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
 
0:391 qsv ¼ g ðs  1ÞD384 ; (11)
q ¼ 2:15 exp When τ  < 0:09
τ
QS ¼ WρS qsv ½kg=s (12)
q ¼ 40  τ 3 When τ  > 0:09
where for the corresponding transition from partial to full
γRS mobility Shields stress, τ m is computed and ρS represents sedi-
τ ¼   (7) ment density, ρ represents water density, s represents specific
γs  γ  D50
gravity of sediment (ρs/ρ), W is channel width and ; represents
where qsv is the bed load discharge in volume per unit width dimensionless sediment discharge, τ 84 is the Shields stress
(m3/s/m); q is the dimensionless volumetric bed load trans- calculated for D84, qsv is the bed load transport rate per unit
port rate per unit width; F1 is the parameter of fall velocity; D50 width in volumetric means, respectively (Shields et al. 1936).
 ISH JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING 7

5. Result analysis DR ¼ qC =qM (13)

Brown (1950) and Recking (2013) equations have been where qC is computed and qM is measured bed load dis-
evaluated by using two type of particle sizes, namely bed charge. To obtain a perfect correlation between qC and qM,
material particle size and bed load particle size. The com- discrepancy ratio should be one. Equation (14) is used for
puted and measured bed load using Brown (1950) equation calculating the standard deviation and Equation (15) is used
for these two particle approaches is presented in Tables 4 for averaged variation coefficient.
and 5. Similarly, the computed and measured bed load p Xn  2
using Recking (2013) equation are presented in Tables 6 σ¼ i¼1
DR  Vc =ðn  1Þ (14)
and 7.
Xn
For the analysis in the present study, various statistical Vc ¼ DR=n (15)
measures are calculated to compare the performance of the i¼1

two selected equations as discussed below. In order to assess To find the prevalent sediment transport load in Ver
the applicability of a bed load equation, the discrepancy stream, the Rouse number (Julien 2010) was considered as
ratio which is calculated as the ratio of computed bed load follows:
discharges and measured bed load discharges (DR) was ω
utilized. P ¼ (16)
ku
where k is the 0.4 is Von Karman’s constant, u is the cross-
Table 4. Measured bed load and computed bed load rate using bed load sectional velocity and ω is the settling velocity which is
particle size for all cross section using Brown (1950) equation.
defined by Soulsby in the following equation:
Measured bed load Calculated bed
Cross section (t/day) load (t/day) Discrepancy ratio qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 
#
V1 0.456 0.396 0.868 ω¼ ð10:362 þ 1:049d3 Þ  10:36 (17)
V2 0.469 3.021 6.434 d50
V3 4.456 52.541 11.790
V4 9.846 16.237 1.648 where # is the kinematic viscosity and d is the dimension-
V5 14.302 3.161 0.221 less particle size. These parameters were obtained from the
V6 12.146 13.735 1.130 following equation:
V7 15.603 99.298 6.364
V8 4.948 24.352 4.921  1
ðGs  1Þg 3
d ¼  d50 (18)
#2
Table 5. Measured bed load and computed bed load rate using bed material
particle size for all cross section using Brown (1950) equation.
When the value of Rouse number is between 2.5 and 7.5,
Measured bed load Calculated bed
sediment particles move by rolling and saltation on the bed,
Cross section (t/day) load (t/day) Discrepancy ratio indicating that sediment is transported as a bed load. The
V1 0.456 0.0081 0.0169 result of this study shows that bedload transport was the
V2 0.469 0.0057 0.010 dominant process as the Rouse numbers were higher than
V3 4.456 0.512 0.118
V4 9.846 0.051 0.004
2.5 for measured sections in Ver stream, India.
V5 14.302 0.004 0.00026 The discrepancy ratio of the computed and measured
V6 12.146 0.0000083 0.00000078 bed load transport rate using bed load and bed material
V7 15.603 73.782 4.813
V8 4.948 0.287 0.052
particle size is presented in Tables 4 and 5 for Brown (1950)
equation and in Tables 6 and 7 for Recking (2013) equation,
respectively. The deviation of predicted values from the
Table 6. Measured bed load and computed bed load rate using bed load observed values is obtained graphically utilizing Brown
particle size for all cross section using Recking (2013) equation. and Recking bed load equations using bed load and bed
Measured bed load Calculated bed material particle size, as shown in Figures 9 and 10. Table 6
Cross section (t/day) load (t/day) Discrepancy ratio
and Figure 9 demonstrate that Recking (2013) approach
V1 0.456 2.539 5.559
V2 0.469 3.624 7.719
shows a reasonable agreement with measured data using
V3 4.456 25.080 5.627 bed load particle size. Recking (2013) approach also predicts
V4 9.846 18.256 1.853 well the measured bed load transport rate using bed mate-
V5 14.302 6.960 0.486
V6 12.146 13.604 1.120
rial particle size as shown in Table 7 and Figure 10. Brown
V7 15.603 38.701 2.480 (1950) approach gives better results with the bed load par-
V8 4.948 20.094 4.060 ticle size than the bed material particle size which contradict
with the findings of Haddachi et al. (2013).
Table 7. Measured bed load and computed bed load rate using bed material
In order to test the reliability of preliminary results
particle size for all cross section using Recking (2013) equation. obtained on the basis of DR, further statistical measures
Measured bed load Calculated bed like mean absolute percentage error (MAPE), root mean
Cross section (t/day) load (t/day) Discrepancy ratio squared error (RMSE), scatter index (SI) and BIAS were
V1 0.456 0.405 0.887 calculated and compared. These statistical measures are cal-
V2 0.469 0.319 0.679
V3 4.456 4.635 1.040
culated as given by Equations (19)–(22) (Najafzadeh et al.
V4 9.846 2.014 0.204 2017; Najafzadeh and Movahed 2018):
V5 14.302 1.119 0.078
V6 12.146 0.334 0.027 100 Xn ðBLP  BLO Þ
V7 15.603 31.341 2.008 MAPE ¼ mod (19)
n i¼1 BLO
V8 4.948 3.622 0.732
8 S.M. YADAV ET AL.

Figure 9. Comparison of computed and observed bed load rate using bed load particle size.

Figure 10. Comparison of computed and observed bed load rate using bed material particle size.

sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Pn 2 Table 9. Variation coefficient for the selected equation for bed material particle
i¼1 ðBLP  BLO Þ size.
RMSE ¼ (20)
n Average Standard
of varia- deviation of
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Pn    2ffi
Bed load tion coef- variation
equations ficient coefficient MAPE RMSE SI BIAS
1
n i¼1 BL P  BL P  BL O  BL O −37.288 22.272 2.773 1.296
SI ¼ Pn (21) Brown (1950) 0.62 1.69
1 Recking 0.70 0.64 −29.267 8.833 9.121 −2.305
n i¼1 BLO
(2013)

Pn
ðBLP  BLO Þ2
BIAS ¼ i¼1
(22)
n the bed load with higher accuracy with much lower values
where BLP and BLP are predicted bed load and mean pre- (MAPE = 261.364, RMSE = 12.89, SI = 1.679, BIAS = 8.329)
dicted bed load, BLO and BLO are observed and mean as compared to prediction by Brown (1950) relation for bed
observed bed load and ‘n’ is the total number of load particle size. For bed material particle size also,
observations. Recking (2013) gives better result as compared to Brown
Tables 8 and 9 present the results of statistical measures; (1950). The values of MAPE and RMSE are much less;
correlations of computed and observed bed load transport however, SI and BIAS are slightly greater than for Brown
using bed load and bed material particle size, MAPE, RMSE, (1950). It can be said that Recking (2013) gives better
SI and BIAS, respectively. Recking (2013) relation predicted prediction of the bed load for Ver stream, India.
Many researchers discussed at length probable reasons for
variation in the bed load predicted by various approaches.
Table 8. Variation coefficient for the selected equation for bed load particle
size. Sediment transport phenomena comprise a wide range of particle
Average Standard motion conditions – from intermittent particle entrainment occur-
of varia- deviation of ring on an otherwise inactive bed, to collective particle movement
Bed load tion coef- variation acting as a granular flow on top of a static boundary. Characterizing
equations ficient coefficient MAPE RMSE SI BIAS such widely varied motion scenarios usually yields inconsistent
Brown (1950) 4.17 3.97 317.237 35.121 36.766 18.814 results across the entire transport range. The data fitting curves,
Recking 3.52 2.54 261.364 12.891 1.679 8.329 for example, give different power functions whose characteristic
(2013) exponent values may change between 1.5 and 16. This uncertainty
hinders the development of predictive models for engineering and

scientific purposes. Most recent research, however, suggests the
possibility of having a constitutive law applicable to every transport
condition under consideration. (Shih et al. 2018)
The rate of sediment transport in rivers depends on many
variables such as water discharge, average flow depth, flow
velocity, energy slope, shear stress, stream power, particle size
and gradation as well as temperature. It is very difficult to
simultaneously incorporate all these variables and to develop
one sediment transport function (Hossain and Rehman, 1998).
Bed load transport of mixtures of sand and gravel in streams is
difficult to predict because of hydraulic sorting (Hsu and Holly
1992). Almost all existing formulae of sediment transport were
derived based on the assumption that sediment transport can
be fully expressed by streamwise parameters like velocity or
boundary shear stress etc., whilst the vertical parameters are not
included like the variation of water depth (pressure) over time
and space (Yang 2013). Yang (2013) found that vertical velocity
affects critical shear stress for incipient motion, mobility and
stability of sediment. The vertical velocity can be induced by
channel’s geometry, non-uniformity, unsteadiness, burst, den-
sity stratification, surface waves etc. and existing bed load
equations do not take them into account sufficiently. The
difference in prediction of bed load equation is also dependent
on mean sediment size considered. Because of these reasons, it
is not possible for an individual formula to predict bed load
accurately.
6. Discussion
The observed data for many cross sections were analysed using
selected suitable bed load equations to assess their predictabil-
ity. The results of the present study can be summarized as
(1) The sediment particle size analysis shows that large
portion of bed load material of Ver stream is sand.
(2) Recking (2013) equation provides best results using
bed load particle size and bed material particle size.
(3) Brown (1950) equation overpredicts the measured bed
load transport rate using particle size of bed load and
under predicts using bed material particle size.
(4) Bed load transport is found to be a prevalent process
for Ver stream, India as indicated by analysing Rouse
number.
(5) The evaluation of Brown (1950) and Recking (2013)
bed load equations using observed field data, it is
found that only Recking (2013) equation predicts
bed load satisfactorily using particle size of bed
load and bed material.
As observed from the plots between observed and pre-
dicted bed load transport rate using either bed load particle
size or bed material particle size, the points lying on the
straight lines are few. Some points are close but there are
values lying quite far from mean values.
This variability in prediction may be attributed to highly
random behaviour of some involved parameters like flow
velocity, fall velocity, shear stress, hiding and exposure of
particles etc. The development of most of the empirical
equations has depended on averaging of parameter values
like depth of flow, velocity, sediment concentration etc. over
ISH JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING 9
space and time due to many physical constraints of mea-
surements. Though practical, this adds to the inaccuracies
in prediction by these equations. The bed form is another
significant factor which can directly affect other stochastic
parameters and thus can create a completely different sce-
nario. The clustering of sediment particles in gravel bed
rivers can have multiple important influences on flow and
sediment transport by altering bed roughness characteris-
tics, promoting sediment hiding and contributing to bed-
load pulsations. In the complex flow environments found
within steep mountainous streams, particle clusters are
known to develop readily atop the riverbed due to the
influences of relatively immobile boulders that provide shel-
ter to incoming sediment. Yet, the relative influences of
particle-to-particle interactions (i.e. granular effects) and
of flow field modification by boulders (i.e. turbulent effects)
in determining the morphology of particle clusters around
boulders are minimally understood. It is believed that both
granular and turbulent effects on the characteristics of indi-
vidual particle movements around boulders can influence
cluster morphology (Kyriakopoulos et al. 2018). The influ-
ence of turbulence on sediment transport is another factor
needing more research. The ejection and bursting events
and their implications on bed load transport are under
critical review. The turbulence is also caused by the flow
separation over the bed forms. In addition to bed shear
stress, the sediment transport is also found to be a function
of near bed turbulence and bed load sediment transport
increases markedly with increase in the turbulence level
(Sumer et al. 2003).
It is very difficult to predict any such behaviour with
reliability. As most of the equations developed on any con-
cept have been largely unable to identify the true indepen-
dent and interdependent behaviour of the involved
parameters, the results have often been far-off.
Movement of bed load due to the flow of water in a river
is very crucial as the trapping efficiency of bed load is
comparatively higher than the suspended load. Reservoirs
built across such high bedload carrying rivers experience
capacity loss at a very high rate (Fan and Morris 1992).
Worldwide, the storage capacity of the reservoirs is in
declination, with present storage capacity being on the
same order as it later was in 1950 (Annandale et al. 2018;
Sumi and Kantoush 2018). The impacts of suspended sedi-
ment transport on larger dams have been extensively stu-
died and are therefore comparatively well known as
compared to unmeasured (bed) load (Salas and Shin 1999;
Kondolf et al. 2014; Tadesse and Dai 2018). Measured bed
load and variation in model predictions, presented in the
study, may help to make uncertainty bounds to the bed load
estimates and will guide practising field engineers to under-
stand the importance of bed load size distribution for pre-
diction of bed load. Hence, the research presented may
guide field engineers/dam operators for sediment manage-
ment across a hydraulic structure.
The practising engineers continuously face the dilemma of
choosing the suitable sediment transport equation and have
to rely on the previous experience or thumb rules suggested
by other experts of the field. The uncertainty in prediction of
these bed load equations will exist till accuracy in predictions
become possible through more and more observed stream
10 S.M. YADAV ET AL.
data and adequately analysis to identify the behaviour of the
stochastic parameters in the empirical equations.
In the present study, the observed bed load data have
provided an insight regarding applicability of available empiri-
cal equations in the natural streams. The predictions have been
found varying from the mean values despite the physical
observations. The reason for the differences in the observed
and predicted results could be attributed to assumptions made
in the wake of unavailable accurate measured data for various
parameters like temperature, viscosity, channel roughness,
specific gravity of sediments, surface composition, uniform
slope between two sections, uniform bed layer, uniform hiding
and sheltering effect across the sections etc.
7. Conclusions
The averaged bed load transport rate for Ver stream is 7.77 t/
day in the study reach. The flow of the stream is subcritical as
Froude number is less than one. The sediment particles move
by rolling and jumping with stream bed, since bed load is
dominant transport in the stream as Rouse number lies
between 2.5 and 7.5. Brown (1950) equation over predicted
measured bed load using bed load particle size and under-
predicted bed load transport rate using bed material particle
size. It can be reliably concluded from the number of evaluated
statistical measures that Recking (2013) reach-averaged
approach of computing bed load agrees well with measured
bedload for Ver stream, India and may be used for other
streams of similar morphological characteristics.
Acknowledgments
The authors acknowledge the support from the Central Water
Commission, Surat and appreciate their staff for providing help in
sampling and field data collection.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
References
Annandale, G.W., Randle, T.J., Langendoen, E.J., and Hotchkiss, R.H.,
US NRSST. (2018). Reservoir sedimentation management: A sustain-
able development challenge, Hydrolink, IAHR, Vol. 3, 72–75.
Brambilla, D., Papini, M., and Longoni, L. (2018). “Temporal and
spatial variability of sediment transport in a mountain river: A
preliminary investigation of the Caldone River, Italy.” Geosciences,
8(163). doi:10.3390/geosciences8050163
Brown, C.B. (1950). “Sediment transportation.” Eng. Hydraul. Wiley,
New York, 12, 769–857.
Bunte, K., and Abt, S.R. (2009). “Transport relationships between
bedload traps and a 3-inch Helley-Smith sampler in coarse gravel-
bed streams and development of adjustment functions.” Report
submitted to the Federal Interagency Sedimentation Project 3909
Halls Ferry Rd. Vicksburg, MS 39180.
Bunte, K., Abt, S.R., Potyondy, J.P., and Ryan, S.E. (2004).
“Measurement of coarse gravel and cobble transport using portable
bedload traps.” J. Hydraul. Eng., 130(9), 879–893. doi:10.1061/
(ASCE)0733-9429(2004)130:9(879)
Du Boys, M.P. (1879). “The Rhone and streams with movable beds.”
Annals des Pontes et Chaussees, 18, 22.
Edwards, T.K., and Glysson, G.D. (1999). “Field methods for measure-
ment of fluvial sediment.” US Geological Survey; Information
Services, Reston, Virginia
Emmett, W.W. (1979). A field calibration of the sediment-trapping charac-
teristics of the Helley-Smith bedload sampler, US Government Printing
Office, Washington, 1139. doi:10.3133/pp1139
Emmett, W.W., and Wolman, M.G. (2001). “Effective discharge and
gravel-bed rivers.” Earth Surf. Processes Landforms, 26(13), 1369–
1380. doi:10.1002/esp.303
Fan, J., and Morris, G.L. (1992). “Reservoir sedimentation I: Delta and
density current deposits.” J. Hydraul. Eng., 118(3), 354–369.
doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9429(1992)118:3(354)
Garg, S.P., et al. (1971). Sediment exclusion at Yamuna intake. Water
power, London. June.
Gomez, B., and Church, M. (1989). “An assessment of bed load
sediment transport formulae for gravel bed rivers.” Water Resour.
Res., 25(6), 1161–1186. doi:10.1029/WR025i006p01161
Guo, J. (2002). “Hunter rouse and shields diagram.” Advances in
hydraulics and water engineering, Vol. I & II, 1096–1098.
doi:10.1142/9789812776969_0200
Habersack, H.M., and Laronne, J.B. (2002). “Evaluation and improve-
ment of bed load discharge formulas based on Helley–Smith sam-
pling in an alpine gravel bed river.” J. Hydraul. Eng., 128(5), 484–
499. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9429(2002)128:5(484)
Haddachi, A., Omid, M.H., and Dehghani, A.A. (2013). “Bed load
equation analysis using bed load-material grain size.” J. Hydrol.
Hydromechanics, 61(3), 241–249. doi:10.2478/johh-2013-0031
Helley, E.J., and Smith, W. (1971). “Development and calibration of a
pressure-difference bedload sampler.” Open File Report, U.S.
Department of the Interior Geological Survey, Water Resources Division,
Menlo Park, California, Series No. 73–108. DOI: 10.3133/ofr73108
Hossain, M. M., and Rehman, M. L. (1998). "sediment transport
functions and their evaluation using data from large alluvial rivers
of bangladesh", modelling soil erosion, sediment transport and
closely related hydrological processes (proceedings of a symposium
held at vienna, july 1998). Iahs Publ. No. 249, pp. 375–382
Hsu, S.M., and Holly, F.M., Jr. (1992). “Conceptual bed-load transport
model and verification for sediment mixtures.” J. Hydraul. Eng., 118
(8). doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9429(1992)118:8(1135)
Julien, P.Y. (2010). Erosion and sedimentation, Cambridge University
Press, UK.
Kondolf, G.M., Gao, Y., Annandale, G.W., Morris, G.L., Jiang, E.,
Zhang, J., Cao, Y., Carling, P., Fu, K., Guo, Q., Hotchkiss, R.,
Peteuil, C., Sumi, T., Wang, H.-W., Wang, Z., Wei, Z., Wu, B.,
Wu, C., and Yang, C.T. (2014). “Sustainable sediment management
in reservoirs and regulated rivers: Experiences from five conti-
nents.” Earth’s Future, 2. doi:10.1002/2013EF000184
Kyriakopoulos, T., Papanicolaou, T., and Wyssmann, M. (2018).
“Clustering of particles: Comparison of granular effects to turbulent
effects.” American geophysical union, fall meeting 2018, abstract
#EP41B-2659.
Miwa, H., and Parker, G. (2017). Effects of sand content on initial
gravel motion in gravel- bed rivers.
Najafzadeh, M., and Movahed, F.S. (2018). “GMDH-GEP to predict
free span expansion rates below pipelines under waves.” Mar.
Georesour. Geotechnol. doi:10.1080/1064119X.2018.1443355
Najafzadeh, M., Movahed, F.S., and Sarkamaryan, S. (2017). “NF-
GMDH based self-organized systems to predict bridge pier scour
depth under debris flow effects.” Mar. Georesour. Geotechnol.
doi:10.1080/1064119X.2017.1355944
Pourhosein, M., Afzalimehr, H., Singh, V.P., and Dehghani, A.A.
(2015). “Evaluation of bed load in a gravel-bed river.” Int. J.
Hydraul. Eng., 4(3), 70–79.
Recking, A. (2013). “Simple method for calculating reach-averaged
bed-load transport.” J. Hydraul. Eng., 139(1), 70–75. doi:10.1061/
(ASCE)HY.1943-7900.0000653
Rickenmann, D. (2017). “Bedload transport measurements with geo-
phones, hydrophones, and underwater microphones (Passive
Acoustic Methods).” Gravel-Bed Rivers: Processes and Disasters, D.
Tsutsumi and J.B. Laronne, eds., John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 185–208.
Salas, J.D., and Shin, H.S. (1999). “Uncertainty analysis of reservoir
sedimentation.” J. Hydraul. Eng., 125(4), 339–350. doi:10.1061/
(ASCE)0733-9429(1999)125:4(339)
Shields, A., Ott, W.P., and van Uchelen, J.C. (1936). Application of similarity
principles and turbulence research to bed-load movement, (translation of
original German by W. P. Ott and J. C. van Uchelen, California Inst.
Tech.). Mitteilungen der Preussischen Versuchsanstalt für Wasserbau
und Schiffbau.

Shih, W., Diplas, P., Bastola, H., and Zheng, Y. (2018). “A constitutive
law of sediment transport: Experimental validation conducted in
water and aeolian environments.” American geophysical union, fall
meeting 2018, abstract #EP41B-2665.
Sumer, B.M., Chuaz, L.H.C., Cheng, N.S., and Fredsøe, J. (2003). “Influence
of turbulence on bed load sediment transport.” J. Hydraul. Eng., 129(8),
585–596. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9429(2003)129:8(585)
Sumi, T., and Kantoush, S.A. (2018). Innovative strategies for mana-
ging reservoir sedimentation in Japan, Hydrolink, IAHR, Vol. 4,
100–104.
Sun, Z., and Donahue, J. (2000). “Statistically derived bed load formula
for any fraction of non-uniform sediment.” J. Hydraul. Eng., 126(2),
105–111. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9429(2000)126:2(105)
Tadesse, A., and Dai, W. (2018). “Prediction of sedimentation in
reservoirs by combining catchment based model and stream based
model with limited data.” Int. J. Sediment Res., 37, PP.27–37.
doi:10.1016/j.ijsrc.2018.08.001
ISH JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING 11
Waikhom, S.I., and Yadav, S.M. (2017). “Prediction of total load
transport of an Indian alluvial river to estimate unmeasured bed
load through an alternative approach.” Curr. Sci., 113(6), 1120–
1128. doi:10.18520/cs/v113/i06/1120-1128
Waikhom, S.I., and Yadav, S.M. (2018). “A total load approach to
predict bed load transport of Indian alluvial river.” ISH J. Hydraul0
Eng., 24(1), 92–99. doi:10.1080/09715010.2017.1354338
Wilcock, P.R., and Kenworthy, S.T. (2002). “A two-fraction model for
the transport of sand/gravel mixtures.” Water Resour. Res., 38(10),
1194. doi:10.1029/2001WR000684
Yadav, S.M., and Samtani, B.K. (2008). “Bed load equation evaluation
based on alluvial river data, India.” Korean Soc. Civ. Eng. J. Civ.
Eng., 12(6), 427–433. doi:10.1007/s12205-008-0427-z
Yang, C.T. (1996). Sediment transport: Theory and practice McGraw
hill series in water resources and environment., McGraw-Hill, New
York.
Yang, S.Q. (2013). “Why cannot sediment transport be correctly pre-
dicted”. 35th IAHR World Congress (pp. 1–10). China: IHAR.