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

net/publication/252215503

Sediment trapping characteristics of a pit trap and the Helley-Smith sampler

in a cobble gravel bed river

Article in Water Resources Research · August 2002

DOI: 10.1029/2000WR000052

CITATIONS READS
71 233

2 authors, including:

Shannon Sterling
Dalhousie University
37 PUBLICATIONS 1,788 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Shannon Sterling on 02 May 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 WATER RESOURCES RESEARCH, VOL. 38, NO. 8, 1144, 10.1029/2000WR000052, 2002

Sediment trapping characteristics of a pit trap and the

Helley-Smith sampler in a cobble gravel bed river
Shannon M. Sterling1
Northwest Hydraulic Consultants, North Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

Michael Church
Department of Geography, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

Received 26 October 2000; revised 13 March 2002; accepted 28 March 2002; published 14 August 2002.

[1] Although designed for granule gravels, the Helley-Smith (HS) bed load sampler is
often used in streams with much coarser beds. To compare magnitudes and grain size
distributions of sediment samples collected by a pit trap and a standard HS sampler, we
conducted 22 ‘‘sampling events’’ over a wide range of flows during a snowmelt freshet in a
stream with a coarse gravel bed. Each sampling event consisted of three simultaneous
measurements: one made with a pit trap installed in the bed, one with a HS sampler placed
on the bed directly beside the pit trap (HS-I), and one with a HS sampler placed on the
downstream rim of the pit trap (HS-P). We summed the catches of the pit trap and HS-P to
estimate ‘‘actual’’ bed load transport. The pit trap and HS-I catches were then compared to
the summed sample. The pit trap yielded a remarkably consistent, positively skewed,
sigmoidal distribution of catch efficiency for all 22 measurements, with near 100%
efficiency for material larger than 2.8 mm. The HS-I sampler was more variable in its catch
and trapping efficiency, exhibiting low trapping efficiency for midrange material (0.71 to
16 mm) but high efficiency for finer material. The results cast doubt on the accuracy of bed
load data sets collected by Helley-Smith samplers in coarse gravel channels. INDEX
TERMS: 1815 Hydrology: Erosion and sedimentation; 1894 Hydrology: Instruments and techniques;
KEYWORDS: bed load sampling, gravel bed rivers, Helley-Smith sampler, pit trap, sediment transport

1. Introduction and might reasonably be defined as ‘‘bed load.’’ The HS

[2] Measurement remains a major obstacle to understand-
ing bed load transport in gravel bed rivers. Development
and deployment of bed load samplers remains a difficult art.
The most widely adopted design is that of Helley and Smith
[1971], a pressure-difference bag sampler intended to trap
coarse sand and fine gravels (2 – 10 mm in size) over fine
gravel beds. It is supposed to trap all material traveling
below the usual lower sampling limit of suspended sediment
samplers. For lack of alternatives, this sampler has often
been deployed on coarse gravel beds, including cobble-
gravels. Some examples (among many) are Snake River,
with median bed surface particle diameter, D50s = 54 mm
and Clearwater River, D50s = 74 mm [Jones and Seitz,
1980], Sagehen Creek, a gravel bed stream with D50s =
58 mm [Andrews, 1994], and St. Louis Creek, a cobble-
boulder bed channel [Ryan and Porth, 1999]. Important
questions remain concerning the performance of Helley-
Smith (HS) samplers in coarse gravel bed rivers, for which
it was not designed.
[3] The purpose of a pit sampler is to intercept all
material that would be in contact with the bed at the slot
position: such material might be rolling, sliding, or saltating
1
Also at Division of Earth and Ocean Sciences, Nicholas School of the
Environment and Earth Sciences, Duke University, Durham, North
Carolina, USA.
Copyright 2002 by the American Geophysical Union.
0043-1397/02/2000WR000052
19 - 1
sampler is designed to intercept all of this material but, in
addition, it may intercept material moving in suspension
nearer the bed than the height of its entrance. This material
has been operationally classified as bed load. Prior to this
study, we observed in simultaneous deployments in a coarse
gravel bed channel that a HS sampler caught material with a
different size distribution (GSD) than a pit trap, raising
questions about the trapping performance of the two sam-
plers. To elaborate this observation, we conducted compa-
rative measurements of sediment trapping in a pit trap and
in a HS sampler. As our measurements were conducted at
full scale in the field, we have no accurate reference
estimate of the mean bed load transport rate. Our intent,
rather, is to compare the sediment trapping performance of
two commonly used sampling devices. Accordingly, the
purpose of the study is to test for systematic differences in
catch and GSD between pit traps and HS samplers in a
coarse gravel bed stream.
2. Methods
2.1. Study Site
[4] Measurements were made on a lateral bar in Harris
Creek, a cobble-gravel bedded stream located east of
Vernon, British Columbia (Figure 1). At the study site, the
drainage area is approximately 220 km2 [Church et al.,
1991]. The lateral bar has grown about 25 m downstream
from a 30-degree bend in the channel caused by a bedrock
obstruction on the right bank.
19 - 2 STERLING AND CHURCH: SEDIMENT TRAPPING IN A GRAVEL BED RIVER

Figure 1. Contour map of the study reach, showing gauge and trap locations: inset, location map.
Photos of the study site and channel bed are presented by Church et al. [1991].

[5] Compared with the streamward bar edge and chan- to about 500 mm diameter, though boulders (larger than
nel thalweg, the surface of the lateral bar has more 256 mm) are sparse. D50 of the surface material varies
exposed sand and granule gravel and has a sandy tail between 45 mm and 75 mm in the vicinity of the traps
zone. The largest stones in the channel and bar range up (Figure 2), but the subsurface material, which is supposed
 STERLING AND CHURCH: SEDIMENT TRAPPING IN A GRAVEL BED RIVER 19 - 3

Figure 2. Grain size distribution for bed and surface material in the bar and partial size distributions for
suspended sediments trapped during this study (large volume samples were caught in an open container
laid horizontally in the flow). Size distribution of suspended sediments was not determined below 63 mm.

to represent the transported population in the long term,
has D50
20 mm.
[6] A spring snowmelt flood of about 19 m3/s dominates
the hydrological regime at the study site [Church et al.,
1991] (estimated by area-ratio adjustment of the mean
annual flood determined at WSC gauge 08LC005, located
6 km downstream). In the nival regime, flows vary rela-
tively slowly, so sampling is possible under quasi-steady
conditions. For this study, we established and rated a gauge
on the site.
2.2. Measurement Protocol
[7] In 1988 12 identical traps were installed in the channel
bed with the upper rim level with the bar surface (trap details
in Figure 3a). After installation, there was degradation at
traps 1A/B, 4A/B and 5A/B; for this study we used traps 3B,
3C and 3D as they remained flush with the surface and
represented a sequence of traps that would allow access for
sampling over the full range of flows. In these simple pit
traps, material accumulates in an inner container that
requires periodic emptying, providing a composite ‘‘bed
load’’ sample for all flows since the last emptying. Our pit
traps were designed to have a reasonable chance to intercept
the largest material apt to be in motion (opening diameter,
d = 29 cm), and to be manageable in high flows (container
height, h = 38 cm). The pit trap opening is round so that it is
not sensitive to effects of varying direction of the oncoming
current. There were no obstructions, such as large boulders
or cobbles, upstream of traps 3B/C/D.
[8] Our HS samplers follow the design of Helley and
Smith [1971] exactly. The sampler collects material while it
rests atop the streambed; a pressure drop is induced at the
inlet by an expanded downstream section, so that inlet
velocities exceed ambient velocities. The intake is con-
structed of 6.3 mm (0.25 inch) steel or brass plate with a
76.2 mm (3.0 inch) square entrance leading to a 0.21 mm
mesh sample bag that is attached at the rear, and a support-
ing tubular frame and tail assembly.
[9] Mobile sediment is collected in what we call a
‘sampling event’, consisting of three simultaneous measure-
ments with (Figure 4): (1) a pit trap; (2) a HS sampler
(HS-I) that was placed on the bed approximately 30 cm
from the pit trap on the thalweg side with its entrance
aligned with the upstream edge of the pit trap opening; and
(3) another HS sampler (HS-P) that was placed on the
downstream rim of the pit trap. The purpose of HS-I is to
provide a comparison with the pit trap; the purpose of HS-P
is to catch material traveling in the path of the pit trap that
escaped capture by the trap. The HS samplers were hand-
placed onto the bed; the same operators conducted all
sampling events.
[10] Twenty-two sampling events were observed over a
period of 6 days on the falling limb of the spring freshet
(Figure 5) in 1991. The discharge rapidly decreased during
the first two days of the sampling program from 18.4 m3/s
to 4.18 m3/s (approximately 90% to 40% bank-full). Sus-
pended sediment concentration remained remarkably low
through the peak of the freshet; the bed always remained
visible. With falling stage, trap location of the sampling
19 - 4 STERLING AND CHURCH: SEDIMENT TRAPPING IN A GRAVEL BED RIVER

Figure 3. Pit trap design used in this study: (a) elevation; (b) internal circulation (drawn from a similar
diagram of Tritton [1988, Figure 12.7].

events moved from 3D (one event), to 3C (7 events) to 3B dation and the trap rim became elevated above the bed
(14 events). Grain size of the bed surface material is slightly surface by a maximum of 2.5 cm.
larger at trap 3B, nearest the thalweg, than at trap 3D. [11] Our sampling events had unusually long sampling
During the study the pit traps were subject to local degra- times, which averaged short-term fluctuations in transport
 STERLING AND CHURCH: SEDIMENT TRAPPING IN A GRAVEL BED RIVER
Figure 4. Sampling event layout.
rate; accordingly, we are confident that there was adequate
chance to sample the range of grain sizes in motion.
Sampling duration ranged from 20 minutes to 26 hours,
depending upon the filling rate of the HS sampler (it is for
Figure 5. Sampling events superimposed on the freshet hydrograph: 1991 season. Gauge was located
at the study site (see Figure 1 for gauge location).
19 - 5
this reason that we used the heavily weighted frame/fin
assembly rather than an unstabilized hand sampler). When
HS-I was approximately one quarter full we ended the
sampling event so that the hydraulic efficiency of the HS
samplers would not be reduced. For four sampling events
(18, 20, 21, and 22) the filling rates were slow enough that
the samplers were left in the river overnight; flows on these
occasions were far less than those able to move the heavy
samplers. Each sample was sieved to half psi intervals down
to – 4 psi (0.063 mm), with organic material removed (we
adopt psi = log2D = - phi as a convenient unit of measure
for dominantly gravelly material). When comparing total
weight of samples (not separated by grain size), we trun-
cated samples at 0.25 mm, conservatively estimated to
eliminate the expected portion of the sample transported
mainly in suspension (see Figure 2).
[12] To estimate ‘‘actual bed load transport’’ rate, collec-
tion rates for the pit trap and the HS-P sampler are summed.
The pit and HS-I collection ‘‘efficiency’’ are estimated by
dividing the individual sampler collection rates by the
‘‘actual’’ rate. When material of a certain size category
was trapped by the HS-I sampler and not by the pit trap or
the HS-P sampler, the HS-I sampler is assigned 100%
efficiency for the relevant size category for that sampling
event.
2.3. Theoretical Efficiency of a Pit Trap
[13] While the bed load trapping efficiency of pit traps is
considered to be relatively high [cf. Hubbell, 1987], it may
be affected by water circulation within the trap relaunching
previously collected particles, and by saltating sediment
overpassing the trap. We investigated these conditions to
produce an estimate of the grain size below which the
efficiency of the pit trap would be affected. This is
important since the pit trap is effectively our reference
measurement.
19 - 6 STERLING AND CHURCH: SEDIMENT TRAPPING IN A GRAVEL BED RIVER
[14] The effect of circulation within the trap depends on
whether there is one circulation cell, one circulation cell and
a dead zone, or more than one circulation cell. To determine
this condition we consider the aspect ratio a = h/d, wherein h
is trap depth and d is trap diameter (slot length). In a review
of trap circulation in limnology [Hawley, 1988], values in
the range 3 < a < 5 are associated with the appearance of a
dead water zone in the bottom of the trap; a < 3 would
indicate one circulation cell. Our trap has a = 1.3, implying a
single cell of water circulating within the trap (Figure 3b),
with circulation velocity approximately equal to the near-
bed flow velocity, v, immediately above the trap.
[15] A grain not apt to be relaunched from within the trap
must have FG > FD, FG being the submerged particle weight
and FD the upwardly directed fluid drag force on the rising
side of the circulation cell. FG = g(rsr)V, wherein g is the
acceleration of gravity, rs is sediment density, r is the density
of water, and V is particle volume. FD = CDrv2A/2, wherein
CD is the drag coefficient, v, as above, is the near-bed flow
velocity, and thus the velocity of the circulating cell, and A is
the projected area of the grain. Equating these forces under
the assumption that we can approximate the grain by a
sphere of equivalent volume and nominal diameter Dn, we
obtain
Dn ¼ CD v 2 =21:6 ð1Þ
for rs = 2650 kg/m3. For CD = 1 (a value that we have found
from experiment to be reasonable for settling, natural sand
grains), we find, for example, that at v = 0.2 m/s, a grain
larger than 2.0 mm is unlikely to be relaunched. This size
might in fact be increased by turbulent velocity fluctuations,
and it probably is decreased by the limited probability to
relaunch the particle entirely out of the circulation cell
within the trap into the passing flow. Settling experiments
using previously collected bed load samples support the
relation; our measurements of the settling velocity of natural
grains taken from the samples follow the relation closely for
D > 1 mm.
[16] We use velocity data to apply equation (1) to
estimate the largest circulation velocities that might be
expected in the pit traps during the sampling events, and
thus the largest particle size that might be relaunched. At
the highest observed flows (15 – 18 m3/s), we measured
flow velocities using small axial-screw current meters at
5 cm above the streambed immediately beside traps 1B and
3B (Figure 1), the two traps where the strongest currents are
expected to occur. Five centimeters is about the top level of
the D75 of local bed material and was as close to the bed as
we could practically obtain readings. Individual values were
established as the mean of between 14 and 29 successive
30-second measurements. Grand means at 5 cm were
0.255 ± 0.145 m/s (2 standard deviation range; n = 5) at
trap 1B, and 0.582 ± 0.195 m/s (n = 6) at trap 3B. The
difference in means between the traps appears reasonable,
as the latter trap is much nearer the thalweg. Over the range
of flows measured, the systematic change in velocity was
small and velocity actually declined as flow increased,
presumably as water depth increased. Since the velocity
lines are somewhat depressed over the trap opening
(Figure 3b), we suppose that these values reasonably
represent the largest velocities that might be expected to
have occurred in the traps we used for our study. From
equation (1), at trap 1B, the circulation might, then,
relaunch grains of up to 3 mm size. At trap 3B, grains as
large as 16 mm might theoretically be relaunched. We
expect that these estimates are high.
[17] We also use velocity data to examine the saltation/
suspension transition expected at the highest flows, and thus
the lower limit of sizes apt to be caught in the pit trap.
Results at 5 and 12 cm (measured simultaneously using a
stack of meters) yield shear velocity (v*) estimates of
0.137 ± 0.040 m/s (2 standard error range; n = 7) at trap
1B and 0.138 ± 0.134 m/s (n = 5) at trap 3B. Using the
convention for grain suspension, ws/v* < 1.0 (although a
range of values to 1.25 has been cited [Komar, 1988]; ws
being the grain settling velocity), we infer that grains apt to
overpass the traps in suspension would be, on average, less
than 1 mm in diameter and, at the upper limit of the
indicated distribution of shear velocities, less than 3.5 mm
in diameter. A maximum feasible size for suspended grains
appears, on this criterion, to be in the range 3 to 4 mm.
Grain size of suspended sediment samples collected in the
study reach (unpublished) support the conclusion; the
maximum grain size of suspended sediment from the stream
(Figure 2) was always less than 0.71 mm.
[18] Another check is available based on work on slot
length by Hubbell [1964] and by Poreh et al. [1970]. In
order to avoid overpassing of a pit trap by saltating
sediment, Hubbell suggested that the opening should be
at least 100D (on the basis of an estimate of particle step
length made by Einstein [1944]), where D is the character-
istic size of the material to be trapped. As the opening
diameter of our traps is 29 cm, Hubbell’s criterion suggests
that our traps should retain all material up to 3 mm in
diameter if it is saltating. Poreh et al. [1970] reported that
100% efficiency was approached for the sizes they tested
when d
40D, a considerably less conservative criterion
than that of Hubbell. Following Poreh et al. [1970], our
29 cm maximum opening yields a 7.2 mm critical grain
size. However, the flow conditions we have investigated
fall substantially outside the range studied by Poreh et al.
[1970], such that their results may not hold exactly in our
situation.
[19] Poreh et al. [1970] further related trap efficiency for
a given slot to grain Froude number and grain size for grains
between 1.88 and 4.50 mm. For the smallest grains that we
theoretically expect to trap, given above as 3 mm and
16 mm, grain Froude number (based on mean flow veloc-
ities over the traps from the current meter stack, estimated to
be 0.8 m/s at trap 1B and 1.2 m/s at trap 3B) varies between
13.1 and 5.56, which is somewhat below the range inves-
tigated by Poreh et al. [1970]. From their equations we find
that our trap opening scales to non-dimensional opening
values greater than 9.0 for all trap and proposed limit grain
size combinations, well above the critical value of about 3.0
for 100% trapping efficiency, so particles between 3 and
16 mm would certainly fall into the trap. Backsolving from
the limit scaled slot size of 3.0 (using equation (10) of
Poreh et al. [1970]), we find that our 16 mm grains would
theoretically enter a 13 cm slot, while a 4 mm grain would
enter a 10 cm slot. Because the pit trap opening is circular
the slot length ranges from 0 to 29 cm, but 13 cm chords
encompass 90% of the trap width. We conclude that the
 STERLING AND CHURCH: SEDIMENT TRAPPING IN A GRAVEL BED RIVER 19 - 7

Table 1. Location and Duration of Sampling Events and Material Collection Ratesa
Standardized Collection Rate, Standardized collection rate Grain Size at
Event g m1 s1 Truncated at 0.25 mm, g m1 s1 Which 90% Pit
Duration, Discharge,b Trap Efficiency
Event Trap min m3 s1 Pit HS-P HS-I Pit HS-P HS-I Is Crossed, mm

1 3D 125 18.4 0.64 0.25 0.39 0.60 0.16 0.27 0.50 – 0.71
2 3C 53 17.7 3.40 0.85 1.75 3.36 0.65 1.48 0.71 – 1.0
3 3C 51 16.5 1.35 0.47 3.68 1.33 0.33 3.55 0.71 – 1.0
4 3C 31 15.3 0.74 0.21 1.05 0.72 0.13 0.83 2.0 – 2.8
5 3C 30 15.3 0.32 0.31 0.87 0.31 0.18 0.67 1.4 – 2.0
6 3C 32 14.8 1.04 0.062 0.51 1.02 0.026 0.36 0.35 – 0.50
7 3C 59 13.8 0.33 0.15 0.61 0.32 0.078 0.46 0.70 – 1.0
8 3C 208 12.8 0.15 0.067 0.12 0.14 0.021 0.069 0.70 – 1.0
9 3B 30 9.25 1.50 0.65 0.47 1.49 0.57 0.40 2.8 – 4.0
10 3B 57 8.93 2.41 0.23 1.63 2.41 0.19 1.55 2.0 – 2.8
11 3B 54 8.61 1.54 0.42 1.38 1.54 0.38 1.32 4.0 – 5.7
12 3B 55 8.30 0.39 0.32 0.33 0.39 0.27 0.28 4.0 – 5.7
13 3B 57 8.01 0.38 0.11 0.36 0.38 0.085 0.31 4.0 – 5.7
14 3B 85 7.72 0.14 0.078 0.16 0.14 0.053 0.13 8.0 – 11
15 3B 83 7.45 0.28 0.038 0.051 0.28 0.023 0.033 4.0 – 5.7
16 3B 173 7.19 0.37 0.072 0.053 0.36 0.058 0.040 2.0 – 2.8
17 3B 163 6.93 0.22 0.033 0.087 0.22 0.022 0.071 1.0 – 1.4
18 3B 701 6.93 0.18 0.013 0.022 0.18 0.0063 0.013 0.50 – 0.71
19 3B 503 6.69 0.12 0.014 0.029 0.12 0.0087 0.021 0.71 – 1.0
20 3B 907 6.98 0.10 0.020 0.035 0.10 0.015 0.029 2.0 – 2.8
21 3B 1473 5.15 0.0070 0.0045 0.031 0.0065 0.0019 0.028 1.0 – 1.4
22 3B 1560 4.18 0.0006 0.0017 0.0021 0.0003 0.0003 0.0006 2.8 – 4.0
a
Standardized collection rate means rate per unit width of the sampler/trap entrance. Entries in bold indicate ones in which the rate for HS-I exceeds that
of the combined pit plus HS-P. The catch of HS-I in event 21 is highly anomalous (the sampler, when recovered, contained incredible quantities of large
material), and this sample has been removed from summary calculations.
b
Measured at the beginning of the event.

traps approached 100% efficiency for all sizes not apt to be
relaunched.
[20] An independent indication of the limit size retained
in our traps is provided in an analysis by Hassan and
Church [2001] of fractional transport ratios for the Harris
Creek pit traps. They identified the grain size below which
fractional bed load transport evidently declined sharply,
indicating sediment moving into suspension. At the highest
flows observed, their median result was about 4 mm, and
the extreme value indicated by an envelope under their
results indicated a value of about 16 mm, in agreement with
our calculations.
[21] In summary we estimate that, during the highest flows
experienced within the sampling period, the upper limit of
grain sizes apt to be relaunched from the pit trap is 3 – 16 mm;
and the maximum size of material in suspension is 3– 4 mm.
For mean flow conditions during the sampling period, we
estimate that the effective opening width is 90% of the total
opening for a 16 mm grain, and 94% for a 4 mm grain. From
these indications, pit trap efficiency should begin to decline
at approximately 3 – 4 mm (from high efficiency at larger
grain sizes to lower efficiency at smaller grain sizes).
3. Observations and Discussion
[22] Our observations are summarized in Table 1. First
we compare pit and HS-I collection rates directly, and find
that collection rates of HS-I are substantially lower than
those of the pit trap (Table 1 and Figure 6). The median HS-
I catch rate is 47% of the pit trap for 21 sampling events
(standard deviation ±69%; an outlier, HS-I sample 21, is
removed from all analyses; in this and the following
summary results median statistics are preferred because
the small number of samples and individual eccentric results
create some variability in means).
[23] The difference between the samplers’ collection rates
is striking when separated by grain size (Figure 7). The
distribution of median sampler collection rates for the 21
events over grain size resemble normal curves; the curve for
the pit trap is shifted approximately 2 size classes to the left
(coarser) relative to the HS-I curve. The pit trap has a higher
capture rate than the HS-I in the 5.5 psi (45.3 mm) to 0.5 psi
(1.41 mm) range. For the size ranges 0 psi (1 mm) to 4 psi
(0.062 mm) HS-I has a higher capture rate. Figure 7 also
demonstrates that the modal size of trapped material (in the
range 0.5 to 2 mm), in fact the size of virtually all the
material apparently transported is smaller than the median
size of the bed material and much smaller than the median
size of the bed surface material. This phenomenon has
previously been noted by Dietrich and Whiting [1989],
Leopold [1992], and Lisle [1995].
[24] Next, we compare pit and HS-I with the summed
‘‘actual bed load transport’’. The pit trap has a median
83% efficiency (standard deviation ±12%), while the
median efficiency of HS-I is 56% (standard deviation
±49%). Ryan and Porth [1999] compared annual collection
rates of bed load collected in a cobble-bed stream by several
samplers, including HS, and accumulation in a weir pond.
Predicted rates of bed load transport from the HS catch
summed to 55% of the weir pond bed load collection. While
the similarity between this statistic and ours is striking,
uncertainties introduced into the former result by integration
over large spans of time and flow prevent straightforward
comparison.
19 - 8 STERLING AND CHURCH: SEDIMENT TRAPPING IN A GRAVEL BED RIVER

Figure 6. Comparison of gross collection rates for HS-I and pit trap. Samples are truncated at 0.25 mm
to eliminate the expected portion of the sample transported in suspension.

Figure 7. Median of collection rates recorded over all 22 events for individual 0.5 psi grain size classes.
The results represent material retained on the indicated screen; hence that is larger than the psi reference
number. Millimeter size scale is given at the top of the diagram.
 STERLING AND CHURCH: SEDIMENT TRAPPING IN A GRAVEL BED RIVER
Figure 8. Estimated efficiency by grain size: (a) median
efficiency for all events; (b) efficiency ranges at traps 3C/3D
(bar top). Results from the two traps are combined because
only one measurement was made at trap 3D. (c) Efficiency
ranges at trap 3B (bar edge near thalweg). Efficiency is
calculated for the pit trap and for the HS-I sampler relative
to the summed catch of the pit trap plus the HS-P sampler.
[25] The estimated efficiency of the pit trap over the
range of grain sizes follows a consistent sigmoidal curve
for all 22 sampling events (Figure 8a). It has effectively
100% efficiency for grain sizes between 5.5 psi (45.3 mm)
19 - 9
and 2 psi (4 mm), and then declines to less than 30%
between 2 psi (4 mm) and 2.0 psi (0.25 mm). The
consistent sigmoidal curve allows for the determination of
the grain size at which the pit trap efficiency was reduced in
our experiments, using the statistic ‘‘grain size where 90%
efficiency is crossed’’ (Table 1). Pit trap efficiency declines
between – 1 and +2 psi (0.5 – 4 mm). Comparing these
values with the a priori estimates, we find the upper
envelope of pit trap efficiency decline (4 mm) matches
closely the lower predicted value.
[26] The pattern of estimated efficiency by grain size
class of HS-I is opposite that of the pit trap (Figure 8a). HS-
I efficiency is 100% or greater for the small grain sizes (4
to 1 psi) (0.062 to 0.5 mm), then decreases substantially
for material larger than 1 psi in a pattern that is not
consistent for the 21 analyzed events. In our measurements,
there is the appearance that the HS sampler over-registered
sizes below 0.35 mm (1.5 psi; Figure 8a); essentially all of
this material likely was suspended at the time of trapping.
The HS sampler performed poorly at catching material
larger than 0.71 mm, much of which is likely saltating,
rolling, or sliding.
[27] The variability of HS-I is high at site 3C between 3.5
and 0 psi, the same range as that of substantially low
efficiency (Figures 8b and 8c). The change in variability
may be a consequence of sporadic transport of the larger
grain sizes on the bar top (trap 3C site), or of bed condition
(for sampler placement). The largest spread in the pit trap
efficiencies lies between 0.5 and 2 psi, the range of
rapidly declining efficiency of the trap; however, substantial
variability persists up to 1.0 psi at site 3B, where lower
flows and generally more sporadic movement of gravels
were experienced.
[28] In striking contrast to our results, Emmett [1980]
reported that the HS sampler had 100% trapping effi-
ciency for grains ranging from 0.5 to 16 mm. This
difference is revealing considering that Emmett [1980]
tested the HS sampler in a sand/granule gravel bed,
conforming with the bed material for which the sampler
was designed. We propose that a major cause of the
reduced efficiency of the HS sampler is the elevated
bottom lip above the bed in coarse-grained gravel bed
channels. Against cobbles, the stiff, flat lower lip of the
sampler does not touch the rough bed in most places and
therefore there is a high probability for there to be gaps so
that smaller rolling particles pass under the sampler. This
condition would be made worse by the discrepancy
between bed surface grain size and the much smaller size
of the grains in motion. In contrast, a sand/granule gravel
bed would generally provide favorable conditions for
seating the stiff sampler firmly on the bed.
[29] Other causes for reduced HS efficiency in trapping
coarse grains may include its lower lip thickness, its
narrower width, misalignment with the current, and the
opening size. As described by Novak [1957] the 6.3 mm
height of the bottom edge of the HS sampler reduced its
efficiency, particularly for grain sizes equal to or smaller
than the height of the step; Pitlick [1988] and, more
recently, Ryan and Porth [1999] showed that a HS sampler
with a 1.5 mm thick lower lip catches nearly twice the
amount of material as does the original 6.3 mm thick
design. Given that the HS sampled a narrower bed width
19 - 10 STERLING AND CHURCH: SEDIMENT TRAPPING IN A GRAVEL BED RIVER
than the pit trap, and given the sporadic movement of the
larger material, there is a considerably reduced probability
for larger sizes (often represented by one or a few clasts) to
enter the HS sampler than the pit trap during the sample
period. Gaudet et al. [1994] found a rapid loss of catching
efficiency occurred when the sampler is misaligned with the
current. A possible source of error is that the particle sizes in
transport might be larger than the HS opening size. Such
material is present in the bed but does not appear to have
moved during our sampling events; the largest material
trapped by the pit (a single particle in the 44– 64 mm range)
remained smaller than the HS-I opening (73  73 mm).
[30] Why HS-I trapped more fine sediment (by up to 20%
in the finest sizes) than the reference ‘‘actual rate’’ is not
clear. The HS sampler systematically traps low flying
suspended sediment because of its 7.6 cm height. The HS
may also trap more fine sediment because of over-register-
ing from the high hydraulic efficiency of the sampler, which
is about 1.5 [Druffel et al., 1976]. However, the results
mean that HS-I captured more fines than the nearby HS-P.
Limitations in the sampling arrangement that may have
influenced the result include (1) the fact that the two HS
samplers were essentially measuring two different streams
of sediment load due to spatial displacement; (2) turbulence
or systematic velocity variations generated by the presence
of the pit trap may have altered the trapping performance of
HS-P in comparison with HS-I; and (3) the sometimes
elevated rim of the pit trap may have reduced the efficiency
of the pit trap/HS-P combination in comparison with HS-I.
However, in rebuttal it can be pointed out that the real
variation in sediment streams appears to be low judged by
the consistency of results among the three trap locations,
and the pit trap rim might be expected to have least effect on
the finest grains, most of which were probably suspended,
while the HS-I sampler entrance appears to have had step
problems of its own.
4. Conclusions
[31] Key findings in this study are that the HS sampler
and the pit trap sample different components of load over a
gravel bed and that the HS sampler catches substantially
less material than the pit trap. Thus, the HS sampler and the
pit trap each intercept moving particles in a manner that
prefers particular grain sizes, from which we infer that they
are biased toward a particular transport process. The pit trap
appears to reliably trap rolling and sliding material, and
grains making short saltation hops, while it may miss
material taking long saltation steps. The HS sampler, in
contrast, appears to efficiently sample low-flying sand and,
more variably, saltating, rolling and sliding material. It
appears not to intercept much of the coarsest material in
sporadic motion. Thus the pit more consistently catches
more of the true bed load in transport; this empirical result is
supported by three independent checks of expected grain
size at which efficiency declines. (In contrast to our find-
ings, however, Ryan and Porth [1999] reported reasonable
agreement between GSDs trapped by HS samplers and the
GSD derived from the material trapped in a weir pond, on
an annually integrated basis.)
[32] The fact that the two devices systematically trap
different components of the sediment load leads to the
different GSDs returned. Inasmuch as the HS sampler
systematically caught finer material than the pit trap, we
are left with the conclusion that HS sampler catch system-
atically underestimates the grain size and transport rate of
bed load in coarse-grained gravel bed rivers, unless the
sampler is deployed on a specially constructed sill [e.g.,
Johnson et al., 1977; Kuhnle, 1992]. Inasmuch as a sub-
stantial proportion of all available bed load measurements in
gravel rivers have been obtained using HS samplers
deployed on the natural streambed, we expect that there is
a systematic bias in the literature of GSD statistics and,
possibly, bed load transport rates (depending on how the
grain size of the reported bed load sample was truncated).
Given the emerging importance of specifying GSD for the
mobile population in studies of transport over gravel, and
the importance of bed load transport rates in general, this is
a serious problem.
[33] We emphasize that we do not know the true bed load
transport rate at our sampling devices. We do know, how-
ever, that it was a good deal more than usually indicated by
the HS sampler, a result in conformity with other studies of
performance of the original design in gravel channels. In
comparison, it appears as if the pit trap caught most of the
bed load. We also emphasize that we do not know whether
or not the efficiencies quoted in this paper are biased, since
we used the pit trap itself as the source of the major part of
the reference figures.
[34] The appearance that the efficiency of the pit trap is
limited principally by the probability for particles to be
relaunched raises an interesting possibility for the definition
of what constitutes ‘‘bed load’’. While the idea of bed load
is conceptually clear, the practical definition remains con-
strained by the propensity for certain sizes, usually within
the sand range, to be intermittently suspended. Since the
possibility to relaunch material from the trap is related to
near-bottom stream velocity, which also determines the
propensity for material to be launched off the streambed,
it appears as if it would be possible to define bed load
consistently in terms of what is trapped within a pit with
some specified aspect ratio.
[35] As the result of our study, we recommend that HS
samplers not be used in coarse-grained gravel bed rivers
unless an artificial sill is available to firmly seat the
device. Other studies [Pitlick, 1988; Ryan and Porth,
1999] suggest that thin-walled designs may perform in a
less systematically biased way than our original device.
Nevertheless, they remain subject to most of the sources of
error we have discussed. A pit trap appears to be more
reliable than the HS sampler in that its errors are consis-
tent, and thus may be corrected. This would not easily be
accomplished for the HS sampler because of the high
variability in the sampler errors. Furthermore, pit traps can
be instrumented to record actual transport rates by con-
tinuously weighing the accumulating sample [Reid et al.,
1980]. Depending on design, however, there may be limits
to the flow depth in which pits and related slot-type
samplers can be operated.
[36] We finally note that pit traps and HS samplers trap
different components of the total sediment load and,
therefore, the transport rates they measure in gravel bed
streams are not directly comparable in any case. Depend-
ing upon the question asked, either device may be an
 STERLING AND CHURCH: SEDIMENT TRAPPING IN A GRAVEL BED RIVER
appropriate tool if it is deployed in a manner consistent
with its design.
[37] Acknowledgments. This work was supported by the Natural
Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada. We thank Ken
Christison, Michel Lapointe and H. Rohde for helpful comments and ideas,
Marwan Hassan for supervision of the field work, Scott Babakaiff, Brett
Eaton and Hou Tsizhui for field assistance, and Paul Jance for preparing the
diagrams. The journal’s referees provided constructive critiques incorporat-
ing much additional experience that helped us to improve the report
substantially.
References
Andrews, E. D., Marginal bed load transport in a gravel bed stream, Sage-
hen Creek, California, Water Resour. Res., 30, 2241 – 2250, 1994.
Church, M., J. F. Wolcott, and K. Fletcher, A test of equal mobility in
fluvial sediment transport: Behavior of the sand fraction, Water Resour.
Res., 27, 2941 – 2951, 1991.
Dietrich, W. E., and P. Whiting, Boundary shear stress and sediment trans-
port in river meanders of sand and gravels, in River Meandering, Water
Resour. Monogr., vol. 12, edited by S. Ikeda and G. Parker, pp. 1 – 50,
AGU, Washington, D.C., 1989.
Druffel, L., W. W. Emmett, V. R. Schneider, and J. V. Skinner, Laboratory
hydraulic calibration of the Helley-Smith bed load sediment sampler,
U.S. Geol. Surv. Open File Rep., 76 – 752, 63 pp., 1976.
Einstein, H. A., Bedload transportation in Mountain Creek, Tech. Bull. U.S.
Dep. Agric., 55, 1944.
Emmett, W. W., A field calibration of the sediment-trapping characteristics
of the Helley-Smith bedload sampler, U.S. Geol. Surv. Prof. Pap., 1139,
44 pp., 1980.
Gaudet, J. M., A. G. Roy, and J. L. Best, Effect of orientation and size of
Helley-Smith sampler on its efficiency, J. Hydraul. Eng., 120, 758 – 766,
1994.
Hassan, M., and M. Church, Sensitivity of bedload transport in Harris
Creek: Seasonal and spatial variation over a gravel bar, Water Resour.
Res., 37, 813 – 825, 2001.
Hawley, N., Flow in cylindrical sediment traps, J. Great Lakes Res., 14,
76 – 88, 1988.
Helley, E. J., and W. Smith, Development and calibration of a pressure-
difference bedload sampler, U.S. Geol. Surv. Open File Rep., 18 pp.,
1971.
View publication stats
19 - 11
Hubbell, D. W., Apparatus and techniques for measuring bedload, U.S.
Geol. Surv. Water Supply Pap., 1748, 74 pp., 1964.
Hubbell, D. W., Bed load sampling and analysis, in Sediment Transport in
Gravel-bed Rivers, edited by C. R. Thorne, J. C. Bathurst, and R. D. Hey,
pp. 89 – 106, John Wiley, New York, 1987.
Johnson, C. W., R. L. Engleman, J. P. Smith, and C. L. Hanson, Helley-
Smith bed load samplers, J. Hydraul. Div. Am. Soc. Civ. Eng., 103,
1217 – 1221, 1977.
Jones, M. L., and H. R. Seitz, Sediment transport in the Snake and Clear-
water Rivers in the vicinity of Lewiston, Idaho, U.S. Geol. Surv. Water
Resour. Invest. Open File Rep., 80 – 690, 179 pp., 1980.
Komar, P. D., Sediment transport by floods, in Flood Geomorphology,
edited by V. R. Baker, R. C. Kochel, and P. C. Patton, pp. 97 – 111,
Wiley-Interscience, New York, 1988.
Kuhnle, R. A., Fractional transport rates of bedload on Goodwin Creek, in
Dynamics of Gravel-bed Rivers, edited by P. Billi et al., pp. 141 – 155,
John Wiley, New York, 1992.
Leopold, L. B., The sediment size that determines channel morphology, in
Dynamics of Gravel-bed Rivers, edited by P. Billi et al., pp. 297 – 311,
John Wiley, New York, 1992.
Lisle, T. E., Particle size variations between bed load and bed material in
natural gravel bed channels, Water Resour. Res., 31, 1107 – 1118, 1995.
Novak, P.. Bed load meters development of a new type and determination
of their efficiency with the aid of scale models, paper presented at 7th
General Meeting, Int. Assoc. for Hydraul. Res., Lisbon, 1957.
Pitlick, J., Variability of bed load measurements, Water Resour. Res., 24,
173 – 177, 1988.
Poreh, M., A. Sagiv, and I. Seginer, Sediment sampling efficiency of slots,
Proc. Am. Soc. Civ. Eng. Hydraul. Div., 96, 2065 – 2078, 1970.
Reid, I., J. T. Layman, and L. E. Frostick, The continuous measurement of
bedload discharge, J. Hydraul., 18, 243 – 249, 1980.
Ryan, S. E., and L. S. Porth, A field comparison of three pressure-difference
bedload samplers, Geomorphology, 30, 307 – 322, 1999.
Tritton, D. J., Physical Fluid Dynamics, Oxford University Press, New
York, 1988.


M. Church, Department of Geography, University of British Columbia,
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada V6T 1Z2. (mchurch@geog.ubc.ca)
S. M. Sterling, Northwest Hydraulic Consultants, 2-40 Gostick Place,
North Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada V7M 3G2. (shannon@duke.
edu)