ASSESSING PREDICTIVE CAPABILITY OF

SELECTED BED LOAD EQUATIONS USING

EXPERIMENTAL AND FLUME DATA

GUIDED BY SUBMITTED BY
Dr. S.M.YADAV VANKAR JITENDRA P.
Dr. B.K.SAMTANI (P11WR011)
 CONTENT

INTRODUCTION

LITERATURE REVIEW

METHEDOLOGY

DATA COLLECTION

RESULT & ANALYSIS

CONCLUSION

REFERENCES
INTRODUCTION
 General
Sediment is a naturally occurring material that is broken down by
processes of weathering and erosion, and is
subsequently transported by the action of wind, water, or ice, and/or
by the force of gravity acting on the particle itself.

Individual particles move along the bed of the water course by

rolling, sliding or occasionally in jumps (saltation) which is generally
termed as bed load (The Subcommittee on Sediment Terminology of
the American Geophysical Union.)

Bed load transport in alluvial rivers is the principle link between river
hydraulics and river form and is responsible for building and
maintaining the channel geometry

Prediction of bed load is of primary importance for river engineering,

fluvial geomorphology, eco-hydrology, environmental surveys and
management, and hazard prediction
 NEED FOR STUDY
Rivers often changes their course considerably due to various
factors. Nature and man-made structures affect the forces
acting on the rivers and the way they respond.

Amount of sediment carried by a river is one of the most

important variables affected by hydrological and hydraulic
characteristics. Besides reducing the water storage capacity of
reservoir due to silting, it results in increase in water spread
area leading to larger evaporation losses.
Present study on flume is undertaken to find out the bed load of
some selected particle size under different hydraulic conditions
and compare the bed load predicted with formulae developed by
researchers

As, it is nearly impossible to take observations in real stream

conditions due to dynamic variations of flow discharge, velocity,
sediment transport, etc and therefore the data generated by
simulating the desired conditions of stream flow in flume can be
more reliable for a particular set of conditions.
 OBJECTIVE OF THIS STUDY
To analyze the bed load database using existing bed load
formulae.

To evaluate functions that computes bed load using

dimensional, regression and theoretical analysis.

To analyze the bed load formula of some selected researcher by

doing experimental work.
 SCOPE OF STUDY

The scope of the study is to compile observed bed load data of

various researchers.

To carryout experimental work with different uniform mixtures and

measured bed load in case of each mixture.

To observe the change in bed load with respect to discharge.

To observe the change in bed load with respect to slope.

To predict the suitable formulae for the bed load transport using few
existing data set and experimental work.

To establish relationship between Dimensionless shear stress and Bed

Load.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Meyer-Peter and E. Muller (1948) presented a brief summary of all given
of the results and interpretation of tests already made known in former
publications of the Laboratory for Hydraulic Research and Soil Mechanics
at the Federal Institute of Technology, Zurich. After that, an attempt is
made to derive an empirical law of bed load transport based on recent
experimental data. Bed-load transport is meant the movement of the
solid material rolling or jumping along the bed of a river; transport of
matter in suspension is not included.

Einstein, H.A., and Banks, R.B. (1950) studied the series of flume
experiments to determine the composite resistance of different types of
roughness opposing the flow of water through an open channel. Each of
the roughness types investigated possessed a distinctive geometrical
shape and each type contributed resistance to the flow. The different
types of roughness were acting on the same surface and each could be
assumed to be uniformly distributed over the surface. The combined or
composite resistance was sought in terms of the resistances which the
individual roughness types exerted. Within the range of the variables
tested, it was found that the total resistance exerted by combined
types of roughness is equal to the sum of the resistance forces exerted by
each type individually.
Gary Parker (1979) studied the hydraulic geometry of straight reaches of
wide, active rivers with beds and banks composed of loose gravel. Naive
mechanistic formulations lead to the stable channel paradox; stable width
is incompatible with an active bed. A resolution of the paradox based on
bed stress redistribution due to turbulent lateral transfer of downstream
momentum is outlined and is used to obtain three rationally derived regime
relations. These dimensionless relations provide channel properties as
functions of bed pavement size and two specified variables, e.g., water and
sediment discharge, or water discharge and width. Reduction to relations
for hydraulic geometry is shown to require information concerning
watershed mechanics that is external to the river, and thus fluvial
indeterminate. An empirical relation is determined for this purpose,
allowing for derivation of dimensionless relations for hydraulic geometry.
Leo C. Van Rijn (1982) presented the method which enables the
computation of the bed load transport as the product of the saltation
height, the particle velocity and the bed load concentration. The equations
of motions for a solitary particle are solved numerically to determine the
saltation height and particle velocity. Experiments with gravel particles
(transported as bed load) are selected to calibrate the mathematical model
using the lift coefficient as a free parameter. The model is used to compute
the saltation heights and lengths for a range of flow conditions. The
computational results are used to determine simple relationships for the
saltation characteristics. Measured transport rates of the bed load are used
to compute the sediment concentration in the bed-load layer. A simple
expression specifying the bed-load concentration as a function of the flow
and sediment conditions is proposed. A verification analysis using about
600 (alternative) data shows that about 77% of the predicted bed load
transport rates are within 0.5 and 2 times the observed values.
Peter E. Ashmore (1988) studied the bed load transport rate in ten self-formed
small-scale gravel braided streams developed in a laboratory flume at several
different values of steady discharge and flume gradient. The streams are
approximate Froude models of typical prototype braided streams but of no
particular river. Slight viscous effects may be present in the models because
particles Reynolds numbers are close to 70. Total bed load discharge was
measured every fifteen minutes throughout each 60 hour run. In addition, 80
channel cross-sections were measured in each run to establish the average
channel geometry. Total bed load transport rate correlates well with total
discharge and total stream power, although at a given stream power bed load
discharge is greater when braiding is less intense and the width/depth ratio is
lower. Analysis using unit stream power and cross-section average bed shear
stress reveals that the laboratory data conform to existing empirical bed load
transport relationships. Comparison with field data from gravel-bed Rivers
shows discrepancies that may be due to differences in bed material size
gradation and bed sediment structure. At constant discharge, wide fluctuations
in bed load discharge occur with some regularity. Periods range from 2 to 10
hours in the models, which is equivalent to several tens of hours in a
prototype. The presence of these long-period fluctuations compounds the
problems of field measurement of bed load in braided streams.

Literature Table :Lit Review.docx

METHEDOLOGY
General

All runs were performed in the Advanced Hydraulic Laboratory

in Sardar Vallabhbhai National Institute of Technology, Surat.
With the objective to study the bed load transport, it was very
important to ensure the equilibrium condition and use efficient
tools to develop the experimental set up.
The experimental setup

Fig. 3.1 Hydraulic Flume Setup

For each run the following parameters were
measured:

1. The flow discharge ,Q (m3/s):

2. The flume slope, S (m/m):

3. The outlet solid discharge (Kg/20min): from

weighed samples collected at the outlet of
the flume.

4. The mean flow velocity, U (m/s).

Measurements were taken for equilibrium

condition

link\Link for Methodology.xlsx

3.2.2 Sediments

Three uniform mixtures of mean diameter of 2.8284mm(2-4mm) ,

5.6564mm (4-8mm) and 1.41 mm (1-2mm) (called Mixture I, II, III
respectively) were selected by sieving natural sand gravel mixtures and
density was 2600 kg/m3 for Mixture I, Mixture II and Mixture III
respectively.

The grain sorting coefficient approximately 1.1 for each mixture

shows the uniformity of all three mixtures.
3.3 Flume equipments and
instrumentation

Fig.3.2 Centrifugal Pumps

Sediment Feeder

Fig. 3.2 Sediment Feeder

Pointer Gauge

Fig.3.4 Pointer gauge

Bed Load Traps

Fig 3.5 Details of Bed Load Traps

Signal Inverter

Fig. 3.6 Signal inverter

 Uniform flow set up

All the experiments were conducted under uniform flow conditions,

where the surface of the water was parallel to the bed and therefore,
flow depth was constant along the flume.

Uniform flow conditions are important as they permit comparison of

measurements of hydraulic and bed characteristics that are often
taken at different locations within the flume.

In addition, some formulae, including bed shear stress estimation

methods, require uniform flow conditions.
Uniform flow was established for each flow as follows: for a given bed
slope and flow, repeat measurements of depth were taken at 10
locations along the flume at 0.5 m interval, adjusting the tailgate to
produce approximate uniform flow (defined when slope of the fitted line
to water levels was within ± 2 % of the objective slope).

Repeating this procedure for the full range of flows produced a

relationship between flow, tailgate position and average flow depth.
These data were subsequently used to set uniform flow conditions
during the experiments and to estimate shear stress for each flow.
Performance Steps of Experiment:

Place the material uniformly within the working length (6m) of

flume by sediment feeder.

Adjust initial slope of flume and prime both pumps.

Start both pumps and adjust the discharge.

Make the flow uniform by adjusting tail gate at the end of the
flume.

After making the uniform flow saturate the mixture for at least
01 hour.
After 01 hour take the wash load in the bed load trap and place
uniformly in the upstream of the flume to make the equilibrium
condition.

Then start taking reading of Discharge, Slope, velocity, and bed load
sample within the specific time limit. In this study the time limit to
collect bed load sample was 20min.

Then place the taken mixture in the upstream of the flume with the
help of sediment feeder.

Repeat step 7-8 until bed load remain constant.

After completing the whole run spread the mixture in the flume to dry it
for the next run.
Details of Bed Load Equations used in the present study
Sr Scientist Equation Approach Remarks
No.
1 Meyer-Peter and Ф =8(τ*-τ*crit)3/2 if θ≥ θc Energy Slope Original
Paper
Muller (1948) Ф =0 if θ< θc assume
τ*crit=0.047

2 Einstein (1950) Ф = Kexp(−0.391 / τ*)/0.465 if Probabilistic

-
τ*<0.182
Ф =40Kθ3 if
τ*≥0.182
Where K

3 Soulsby (1997) Ф = 5.1(τ*-τ*crit)3/2 Shear stress -

4 Van Rijn(1984) Ф = [(τ*/τ*crit)-1] Regression -

5 Parker (1979) Ф = 11.20 Probabilistic -

6 Ashmore (1988) Ф = 3.11(τ*-0.045)1.37 Shear stress -

7 Wong & Parker Ф = 3.97(τ*-0.0495)1.5 Shear stress -

Ranking of the transport
formulas
DATA COLLECTION
General

In this study data were collected in two parts. First part
contains the data which is collected from the historical
experimental data of several researchers.

The second part contains the experimental data which has

been collected from the hydraulic tilting flume situated in
the Advanced Hydraulics Laboratory in the Sardar
Vallabhbhai National Institute of Technology, Surat.
 Historical Data
No Author Year Diameter Standard Sediment Slope Width of
D (mm) deviation Density S(m/m) flume
σ ρs (Kg/m3) W(m)

1 Casey 1935 2.5 mm 1.16 2650 0.00119<S<0.00509 0.4

1 mm 2.81 2810 0.0012<S<0.00519 0.4
2 Graf & Suszka 1987 12.2 mm 1.2 2716 0.005<S<0.015 0.6

3 Ho Pang-Yung 1939 3.1 mm 2.24 2490 0.00105<S<0.00336 0.339

4.4 mm 1.59 2700 0.00127<S<0.00336 0.339

6.3 mm 1.49 2660 0.00169<S<0.00504 0.339
2 mm 1.99 2450 0.00101<S<0.00168 0.339
6 mm 1.39 2660 0.00333<S<0.00501 0.339
1.4 mm 1.96 2640 0.00099<S<0.00102 0.339
4 Mavis 1937 4.2 mm 1.23 2660 0.00175<S<0.01 0.819
3.1 mm 1.25 2660 0.0017<S<0.00955 0.819
2 mm 1.29 2660 0.00155<S<0.0101 0.819
1.4 mm 1.24 2660 0.00135<S<0.01 0.819
3.7 mm 1.3 2660 0.0018<S<0.01 0.819
1.7 mm 1.36 2660 0.00165<S<0.01 0.819
5 Paintal 1971 22.2 mm 1.07 2650 0.0079<S<0.0103 0.914
8 mm 1.1 2650 0.00226<S<0.0052 0.914
2.5 mm 1.08 2650 0.00117<S<0.00213 0.914
6 MPM 1948 28.7 mm 1 2680 0.00317<S<0.01767 1.999
Experimental Data

No Mixture Size Range Diameter Slope Width of flume

D(mm) S (m/m) W(m)

1 I 1-2 mm 1.41 0.0008<S<0.003 0.86

2 II 2-4 mm 2.82 0.005<S<0.008 0.86

3 III 4-8 mm 5.65 0.005<S<0.008 0.86

RESULT & ANALYSIS
 Data Set Analysis

(i) Casey flume data (1935)

(ii) Graf & Suszka flume data (1987)

(iii) HoPang-Yung flume data (1939)

(iv) Mavis et al. flume data (1937)

(v) Paintal flume data (1971)

(vi) Meyer-Peter and Muller flume data (1948)

Casey Data Set Analysis
link\Appendix.xlsx

0.25

0.2

0.15
The Meyer Peter
Computed Ф

0.1 MPM(1948)
& Muller’s function
predicts fairly well
0.05
dimensionless bed
0
load transport.(Fig.
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 5.1)
Actual Ф

Fig. 5.1
 0.25
The dimensionless bed
0.2
load transport computed
0.15 using Einstein function
Computed Ф

0.1
Einstein(1950)
under predicts it.(Fig.5.2)
0.05

0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25

Actual Ф

Fig. 5.1
0.25

0.2
The Soulsby’s function
0.15 predicts the dimensionless
Computed Ф

0.1 bed load transport well.

Soulsby(1997)

0.05
(Fig. 5.3)
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25

Actual Ф

Fig. 5.3
 0.25

0.2 The dimensionless bed

load transport predicted by
Computed Ф

0.15
Van Rijn is fairly well in
0.1
Van Rijn(1984) agreement with actual
0.05
dimensionless bed load
0 transport. (Fig. 5.4)
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25

Actual Ф

Fig. 5.4

0.25

0.2 The Parker’s function

0.15
under predicts the
Computed Ф

dimensionless bed load

0.1
Parker(1979) transport. (Fig.5.5)
0.05

0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25

Actual Ф

Fig.5.5
 0.25

0.2
The Ashmore function
predicts dimensionless bed
0.15
load transport fairly well. (Fig.
Computed Ф

0.1
Ashmore
5.6)
0.05

0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25

Actual Ф

Fig. 5.6
0.25

0.2

0.15 The dimensionless bed load

Computed Ф

0.1 predicted by Wong & Parker

Wong & Parker
function underestimates the
0.05
predicted bed load. (Fig.5.7)
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25

Actual Ф

Fig.5.7
 1 The bed load and
dimensionless shear stress
Dimensionless shear stress τ*

D 2.5
appear to be uniquely related
mm for the Casey data. (Fig.5.8)
0.1 D 2.5
mm
D 1 mm
D 1 mm

0.01
1E-10 0.00000001 0.000001 0.0001
Bed Load qb

Fig.5.8
0.0001 For d50 as 2.5 mm diameter
fig. 5.9 shows variation of bed
0.00001
load transport versus shear
0.000001 stress .It can be seen that the
transport formulas of MPM,
Bed Load qb

0.0000001
Soulsby, Ashmore and
0.00000001
Parker predict the highest
0.000000001 transport rate. The formulas
of Wong & Parker and Einstein
1E-10
0.01 0.1
show the medium transport
Dimensionless shear stress τ* rate and the formula of Van
Rijn predicts lowest transport
Fig.5.9
 0.0001

0.00001

Bed Load qb
0.000001

0.0000001

0.00000001
0.01 0.1 1

Dimensionless shear stress τ*

fig. 5.10
For d50 as 1 mm diameter fig. 5.10 shows variation of bed load transport
versus shear stress. It can be seen that the transport formulas of MPM,
Soulsby, and Van Rijn predicts highest bed load transport rate. The
formulas of Parker and Ashmore show the medium bed load transport rate
and the formulas of Wong & Parker and Einstein predicts the lowest bed
load transport rate.
 0.0001

0.00001

0.000001

0.0000001
Bed Load qb
0.00000001

0.000000001

1E-10

1E-11

1E-12
0.01 0.1 1

Dimensionless shear stress τ*

Fig. 5.11

 For Casey data set fig. 5.11 shows variation of bed load
transport versus shear stress. It can be seen that the transport
formulas of MPM, Soulsby and Parker predicts the highest bed
load transport rate. The formulas of Van Rijn and Ashmore
predict medium bed load transport rates and the formulas of
Einstein and Wong & Parker predict the lowest bed load
transport rate.
 Table 5.2 Score and Ranking of bed
load transport formula for Casey Data

Wong &
Formulae MPM Einstein Soulsby Van Rijn Parker Ashmore Parker
Score 0.16 0.1459 0.2899 0.1373 0.19 0.16776 0.069409
Ranking 4 5 1 6 2 3 7

Table 5.3 Summary of Casey data set

Author Slope Range Discharge Range Well Fairly well Under
Predictable Predictable predictable
Bed load Bed load Bed load
Formulae Formulae formulae
Casey 0.0019<S<0.0051 0.0008<Q<0.099 Soulsby MPM and Einstein, Van
9 1 Ashmore Rijn, Parker
and Wong &
Parker
Graf & Suszka Data Analysis
link\Appendix.xlsx
 0.06 The dimensionless bed load
0.05 transport computed using MPM
0.04 function over predicts the
Computed Ф

0.03 dimensionless bed load transport.

0.02
MPM(1948) (Fig.5.12)
0.01

3.12250225675825E-17
-0.04 0.01 0.06
-0.00999999999999997

Actual Ф

Fig.5.12

0.06

0.05

0.04
The Einstein’s function under
Computed Ф

0.03

0.02
Einstein(1950 predicts the dimensionless bed
)
load transport.(Fig. 5.13)
0.01

3.12250225675825E-17
-0.04 0.01 0.06
-0.00999999999999997

Actual Ф

Fig. 5.13
 0.06

0.05 The Soulsby’s function predicts

0.04 the dimensionless bed load
Computed Ф

0.03 transport well. (Fig. 5.14)

0.02
Soulsby(1997)
0.01

3.12250225675825E-17
-0.04 0.01 0.06
-0.00999999999999997

Actual Ф

Fig. 5.14

0.06

0.05

0.04 The dimensionless bed load

Computed Ф

0.03 predicted by Van Rijn function

0.02
Van Rijn(1984) underestimates the predicted bed
0.01 load. (Fig.5.15)
3.12250225675825E-17
-0.04 0.01 0.06
-0.00999999999999997

Actual Ф

Fig.5.15
 0.06

0.05
The Parker’s function predicts
0.04
fairly well the dimensionless bed
load transport. (Fig. 5.16)
Computed Ф

0.03

0.02
Parker(1979)
0.01

3.12250225675825E-17
-0.04 0.01 0.06
-0.00999999999999997

Actual Ф

Fig. 5.16

0.06
The Ashmore’s function over
0.05
predicts the dimensionless bed
0.04
load transport. (Fig. 5.17)
Computed Ф

0.03

0.02
Ashmore
0.01

3.12250225675825E-17
-0.04 0.01 0.06
-0.00999999999999997

Actual Ф

Fig. 5.17
 0.06 The Wong & Parker’s function
0.05 predicts the dimensionless bed
0.04 load transport well. (Fig. 5.18)
Computed Ф

0.03

0.02
Wong & Parker
0.01

3.12250225675825E-17
-0.04 0.01 0.06
-0.00999999999999997

Actual Ф

Fig. 5.18

1
Dimensionless shear stress τ*

0.1 D 12.2
The bed load and dimensionless
mm shear stress appear to be
uniquely related for the Graf &
Suszka data. (Fig.5.19)
0.01
0.0000001 0.000001 0.00001 0.0001 0.001

Bed Load qb

Fig.5.19
 0.0001

0.00001

Bed Load qb

0.000001

0.0000001
0.01 0.1

Dimensionless shear stress τ*

Fig. 5.20

For d50 as 12.2 mm diameter fig. 5.20 shows variation of bed load transport
versus shear stress. It can be seen that the transport formulas of MPM,
Ashmore and Parker predict the highest bed load transport rate. The formulas
of Einstein, Wong & Parker and Soulsby shows the medium bed load transport
rates and the formula of Van Rijn predict lowest bed load transport rate.
 0.0001

Bed Load qb

0.00001
0.01 0.1

Dimensionless shear stress τ*

Fig. 5.21
For Graf & Suszka data set fig. 5.21 shows variation of bed load transport
versus shear stress. It can be seen that the transport formulas of MPM,
Ashmore and Parker predict the highest bed load transport rate. The
formulas of Einstein, Wong & Parker and Soulsby shows the medium bed
load transport rates and the formula of Van Rijn predict lowest bed load
transport rate.
 Score Table for Graf & Suszka Data

Wong &
Formulae MPM Einstein Soulsby Van Rijn Parker Ashmore Parker
Score 0.334327 0.464037 0.227595 0.012647 0.5645 0.426902 0.408434
Ranking 5 2 6 7 1 3 4

Summary of Graf & Suszka

Author Slope Range Discharge Well Fairly well Under

Range Predictable Predictable predictable
Bed load Bed load Bed load
Formulae Formulae formulae
Graf & 0.005<S<0.015 0.04<Q<0.205 Soulsby, Einstein and MPM and
Suszka Parker, Wong Ashmore Van Rijn
& Parker
Ho Pang-Yung Data Analysis

link\Appendix.xlsx
 0.06

0.05
The dimensionless bed load
0.04
predicted by MPM function
Computed Ф

0.03
underestimates the predicted
0.02
MPM(1948)
bed load. (Fig.5.22)
0.01

3.12250225675825E-17
-0.04 0.01 0.06
-0.00999999999999997

Actual Ф

Fig.5.22
0.06

0.05

0.04
The Einstein function under
predicts the dimensionless bed
Computed Ф

0.03

0.02
load transport. (Fig.5.23)
Einstein(1950)
0.01

3.12250225675825E-17
-0.04 0.01 0.06
-0.00999999999999997

Actual Ф

Fig.5.23
 0.06

0.05
The Soulsby’s function predicts
0.04
dimensionless bed load transport
fairly well.(Fig. 5.24)
Computed Ф

0.03

0.02
Soulsby(1997)
0.01

3.12250225675825E-17
-0.04 0.01 0.06
-0.00999999999999997

Actual Ф

Fig. 5.24

0.06

0.05

0.04
 The Van Rijn’s function under
Computed Ф

0.03

0.02
Van Rijn(1984)
predicts the dimensionless bed
0.01 load transport. (Fig.5.25)
3.12250225675825E-17
-0.04 0.01 0.06
-0.00999999999999997

Actual Ф

Fig.5.25
 0.06

0.05 The Parker function predicts

0.04 dimensionless bed load transport
Computed Ф

0.03 fairly well. (Fig. 5.26)

0.02
Parker(1979)
0.01

3.12250225675825E-17
-0.04 0.01 0.06
-0.00999999999999997

Actual Ф

Fig. 5.26
0.06

0.05
The Ashmore’s function under
0.04
predicts the dimensionless bed
Computed Ф

0.03
load transport. (Fig.5.27)
0.02
Ashmore
0.01

3.12250225675825E-17
-0.04 0.01 0.06
-0.00999999999999997

Actual Ф

Fig.5.27
 0.06

0.05 The Wong & Parker’s

0.04 function under predicts the
Computed Ф

0.03 dimensionless bed load

0.02
Wong & Parker transport. (Fig.5.28)
0.01

3.12250225675825E-17
-0.04 0.01 0.06
-0.00999999999999997

Actual Ф

Fig.5.28

1
D 3.1
Dimensionless shear stress τ*

mm
D 3.1 The bed load and
0.1 mm
D 4.4
dimensionless shear stress
mm appear to be uniquely
0.01
D 4.4
mm
related for the HoPang-
D 6.3 Yung data. (Fig.5.29)
mm
Linear (D
6.3 mm)
Bed Load qb

Fig.5.29
 0.00001

0.000001

Bed Load qb

0.0000001

0.00000001

0.000000001
0.01 0.1
Dimensionless shear stress τ*

Fig. 5.30

For d50 as 3.1 mm diameter fig. 5.30 shows variation of bed load
transport versus shear stress. It can be seen that the formulas of bed
load transport of MPM, Ashmore, Parker, Soulsby and Wong & Parker
predicts the highest bed load transport. The formula of Einstein
shows the medium bed load transport and Van Rijn’s formula predict
the lowest bed load transport.
 0.00001

0.000001

Bed Load qb

0.0000001

0.00000001

0.000000001
0.01 0.1

Dimensionless shear stress τ*

Fig. 5.31

For d50 as 4.4 mm diameter fig. 5.31 shows variation of bed load
transport versus shear stress. It can be seen that the transport formulas of
MPM and Ashmore predicts the highest bed load transport rate. The
formulas of Parker, Wong & Parker and Soulsby shows the medium bed
load transport rate and the formulas of Einstein and Van Rijn predict
lowest bed load transport rate.
 0.00001

0.000001
Bed Load qb

0.0000001

0.00000001

0.000000001
0.01 0.1
Dimensionless shear stress τ*

fig. 5.32

For d50 as 6.3 mm diameter fig. 5.32 shows variation of bed load
transport versus shear stress. It can be seen that for the transport
formulas of MPM, Ashmore predicts the highest bed load transport
rate. The formulas of Parker and Wong & Parker show the medium
bed load transport rate and the formulas of Einstein, Soulsby and
Van Rijn predict the lowest bed load transport rate
 0.00001

0.000001

Bed Load qb
0.0000001

0.00000001
0.01 0.1

Dimensionless shear stress τ*

fig. 5.33

For d50 as 6 mm diameter fig. 5.33 shows variation of bed load

transport versus shear stress. It can be seen that the transport
formulas of MPM, Parker and Ashmore shows the medium bed load
transport rate and the formulas of Einstein, Soulsby and Wong & Parker
predict the lowest bed load transport rate.
 0.0001

0.00001

Bed Load qb
0.000001

0.0000001

0.00000001
0.01 0.1
Dimensionless shear stress τ*

Fig. 5.34

For d50 as 2 mm diameter fig. 5.34 shows variation of bed

load transport versus shear stress. It can be seen that for the
transport formulas of MPM, Soulsby predicts the highest bed
load transport rate. The formulas of Parker and Ashmore
show the medium bed load transport rate and the formulas of
Einstein, Wong & Parker and Van Rijn predict the lowest bed
load transport rate
 0.0001

0.00001

Bed Load qb

0.000001

0.0000001

0.00000001
0.01 0.1
Dimensionless shear stress τ*

Fig. 5.35

For d50 as 1.4 mm diameter fig. 5.35 shows variation of bed load
transport versus shear stress. It can be seen that the transport
formula of Soulsby shows the medium bed load transport rate and
the formulas of MPM, Einstein, Van Rijn, Parker, Ashmore and Wong
& Parker predict the lowest bed load transport rate.
 0.00001

Bed Load qb

0.000001
0.01 0.1
Dimensionless shear stress τ*

Fig. 5.37

For HoPang-Yung data set fig. 5.36 shows variation of bed load
transport versus shear stress. It can be seen that for the transport
formulas of MPM, Soulsby, Parker and Ashmore predicts the highest bed
load transport rate and the formulas of Einstein, Wong & Parker and Van
Rijn predict the lowest bed load transport rate.
Score and Ranking of bed load transport formula for Ho Pang-
Yung Data

Wong &
Formulae MPM Einstein Soulsby Van Rijn Parker Ashmore Parker
Score 0.159683 0.160783 0.152751 0.037548 0.200682 0.146404 0.076699
Ranking 3 2 4 7 1 5 6

Summary of HoPang-Yung data set

Author Slope Range Discharge Range Well Fairly well Under

Predictable Predictable predictable
Bed load Bed load Bed load
Formulae Formulae formulae

HoPang- 0.00009<S<0.005 0.0034<Q<0.069 Soulsby, MPM,

Yung Parker, Einstein, Van
Ashmore Rijn and
Wong &
Parker
Mavis Data Analysis
link\Appendix.xlsx
 0.08 The Meyer Peter & Muller’s
0.0700000000000001 function predicts dimensionless
0.0600000000000001
0.05
bed load transport fairly well.
(Fig. 5.37)
Computed Ф

0.0400000000000001
MPM(1948)
0.03
0.02
0.01
4.68375338513738E-17
-0.00999999999999995 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08

Actual Ф

Fig. 5.37

0.08
0.0700000000000001 The Einstein’s function under
0.0600000000000001 predicts the dimensionless bed
0.05
load transport. (Fig.5.38)
Computed Ф

0.0400000000000001
0.03 Einstein(1950)
0.02
0.01
4.68375338513738E-17
-0.02
-0.00999999999999995 0.03 0.08

Actual Ф

Fig. 5.38
 0.08
0.0700000000000001
The Soulsby’s function predicts
0.0600000000000001
0.05 the dimensionless bed load
Computed Ф

0.0400000000000001 transport well. (Fig. 5.39)

0.03
0.02 Soulsby(1997)

0.01
4.68375338513738E-17
-0.00999999999999995

Actual Ф

Fig. 5.39

0.08
0.0700000000000001
0.0600000000000001
0.05
The Van Rijn’s function under
Computed Ф

0.0400000000000001
0.03
predicts the dimensionless bed
0.02
Van Rijn(1984)
load transport. (Fig.5.40)
0.01
4.68375338513738E-17
-0.00999999999999995 0 0.05

Actual Ф

Fig. 5.40
 0.08 The Parker’s function predicts
0.07
0.06
dimensionless bed load transport
0.05 fairly well. (Fig. 5.41)
Computed Ф

0.04
0.03
Parker(1979)
0.02
0.01
0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08

Actual Ф

Fig. 5.41

0.06

0.05

0.04
The Ashmore’s function
Computed Ф

0.03
predicts dimensionless bed load
0.02
Ashmore transport fairly well. (Fig. 5.42)
0.01

3.12250225675825E-17
-0.04 0.01 0.06
-0.00999999999999997

Actual Ф

Fig. 5.42
 0.06 The Wong & Parker’s
0.05 function under predicts the
0.04 dimensionless bed load
Computed Ф

0.03 transport. (Fig.5.43)

0.02
Wong & Parker
0.01

3.12250225675825E-17
-0.04 0.01 0.06
-0.00999999999999997

Actual Ф

Fig. 5.43

1
D 4.2
mm
Dimensionless shear stress τ*

D 4.2
mm
D 3.1
The bed load and
0.1 mm dimensionless shear stress
D 3.1 appear to be uniquely related
mm
D 2 mm
for Mavis data. (Fig.5.44)
D 2 mm
D 1.4
0.01
mm
0.00000001 0.0000001 0.000001 0.00001
Bed Load qb

Fig. 5.44
 0.00001

0.000001

Bed Load qb
0.0000001

0.00000001
0.01 0.1

Dimensionless shear stress τ*

Fig. 5.45

For d50 as 4.2 mm diameter fig. 5.45 shows variation of bed load
transport versus shear stress. It can be seen that for the transport formulas
of MPM, Ashmore and Parker predicts the highest bed load transport rate.
The formulas of Einstein, Wong & Parker and Soulsby show the medium bed
load transport rate and the formula of Van Rijn predict the lowest bed load
transport rate.
 0.00001

0.000001
Bed Load qb

0.0000001

0.00000001
0.01 0.1
Dimensionless shear stress τ*

Fig. 5.46

For d50 as 3.1 mm diameter fig. 5.46 shows variation of bed load
transport versus shear stress. It can be seen that for the transport formulas
of MPM, Ashmore and Parker predicts the highest bed load transport
rate. The formulas of Einstein, Wong & Parker and Soulsby show the
medium bed load transport rate and the formula of Van Rijn predict the
lowest bed load transport rate
 0.00001

0.000001
Bed Load qb

0.0000001

0.00000001
0.01 0.1
Dimensionless shear stress τ*

Fig. 5.47

For d50 as 2 mm diameter fig. 5.47 shows variation of bed load

transport versus shear stress. It can be seen that for the transport
formulas of MPM, Soulsby, Ashmore and Parker predicts the highest
bed load transport rate. The formulas of Van Rijn and Wong & Parker
show the medium bed load transport rate and the formula of Einstein
predict the lowest bed load transport rate
 0.00001

0.000001
Bed Load qb

0.0000001

0.00000001
0.01 0.1
Dimensionless shear stress τ*

Fig. 5.48

For d50 as 1.4 mm diameter fig. 5.48 shows variation of bed load
transport versus shear stress. It can be seen that for the transport
formulas of MPM, Soulsby Ashmore and Parker predicts the highest
bed load transport rate. The formulas of Van Rijn and Wong & Parker
show the medium bed load transport rate and the formula of Einstein
predict the lowest bed load transport rate
 0.00001

Bed Load qb 0.000001

0.0000001

0.00000001
0.01 0.1
Dimensionless shear stress τ*

Fig. 5.49

 For d50 as 3.7 mm diameter fig. 5.49 shows variation of bed load
transport versus shear stress. It can be seen that for the transport
formulas of MPM, Ashmore and Parker predicts the highest bed load
transport rate. The formulas of Einstein, Wong & Parker and Soulsby
show the medium bed load transport rate and the formula of Van Rijn
predict the lowest bed load transport rate
 0.00001

0.000001

Bed Load qb

0.0000001

0.00000001
0.01 0.1
Dimensionless shear stress τ*

Fig. 5.50
For d50 as 1.7 mm diameter fig. 5.50 shows variation of bed load transport
versus shear stress. It can be seen that for the transport formulas of MPM,
Ashmore and Soulsby predicts the highest bed load transport rate. The
formula of Parker shows the medium bed load transport rate and the
formulas of Wong & Parker, Einstein and Van Rijn predict the lowest bed
load transport rate.
 0.00001

Bed Load qb

0.000001
0.01 0.1
Dimensionless shear stress τ*

Fig. 5.51
For Mavis data set fig. 5.51 shows variation of bed load
transport versus shear stress. It can be seen that for the
transport formulas of MPM, Ashmore and Parker predicts the
highest bed load transport rate. The formulas of Einstein, Wong &
Parker and Soulsby show the medium bed load transport rate and
the formula of Van Rijn predict the lowest bed load transport rate
 Score Table for Mavis Data

Wong &
Formulae MPM Einstein Soulsby Van Rijn Parker Ashmore Parker
Score 0.252058 0.383353 0.238586 0.184989 0.372242 0.26721 0.160341
Ranking 4 1 5 6 2 3 7

Summary Table for Mavis Data

Author Slope Range Discharge Range Well Fairly well Under

Predictable Predictable predictable
Bed load Bed load Bed load
Formulae Formulae formulae

Mavis 0.0013<S<0.010 0.0006<Q<0.01461 Soulsby MPM, Einstein, Van

Parker and Rijn, and
Ashmore Wong &
Parker
Paintal Data Analysis
link\Appendix.xlsx
 0.0400000000000001
0.0350000000000001 The Meyer Peter & Muller’s
0.0300000000000001
0.0250000000000001
function predicts dimensionless
Computed Ф

0.02 bed load transport fairly well.(Fig.

0.015
MPM(1948)
5.52)
0.01
0.00500000000000001
0
-0.00999999999999998 0.04

Actual Ф

Fig. 5.52

0.04
0.035
0.03
0.025
The Einstein’s function under
Computed Ф

0.02
0.015
Einstein(1950)
predicts the dimensionless bed load
0.01 transport. (Fig.5.53)
0.00500000000000002
2.34187669256869E-17
-0.00999999999999998
-0.00499999999999998 0.04

Actual Ф

Fig. 5.53
 0.04
0.035
The Soulsby’s function under
0.03
0.025
predicts the dimensionless bed load
Computed Ф

0.02 transport. (Fig.5.54)

0.015
Soulsby(1997)
0.01
0.00500000000000002
2.34187669256869E-17
-0.00999999999999998
-0.00499999999999998 0.04

Actual Ф

Fig. 5.54

0.04
0.035
0.03 The Van Rijn’s function under
0.025 predicts the dimensionless bed load
Computed Ф

0.02
transport. (Fig.5.55)
0.015
Van Rijn(1984)
0.01
0.00500000000000002
2.34187669256869E-17
-0.00999999999999998
-0.00499999999999998 0.04

Actual Ф

Fig. 5.55
 0.04
0.035
The Parker’s function under predicts
0.03
0.025
the dimensionless bed load transport.
Computed Ф

0.02 (Fig.5.56)
0.015
Parker(1979)
0.01
0.00500000000000002
2.34187669256869E-17
-0.00999999999999998
-0.00499999999999998 0.04

Actual Ф

Fig. 5.56

0.04
0.035
0.03
0.025
The Ashmore’s function under
Computed Ф

0.02
0.015
predicts the dimensionless bed load
0.01
Ashmore
transport. (Fig.5.57)
0.00500000000000002
2.34187669256869E-17
-0.00999999999999998
-0.00499999999999998 0.04

Actual Ф

Fig. 5.57
 0.04 The Wong & Parker’s
0.035
0.03
function under predicts the
0.025 dimensionless bed load
Computed Ф

0.02 transport. (Fig.5.58)

0.015
Wong & Parker
0.01
0.00500000000000002
2.34187669256869E-17
-0.00999999999999998
-0.00499999999999998 0.04

Actual Ф

Fig. 5.58

1
Dimensionless shear stress τ*

D 22.2 mm The bed load and

D 22.2 mm
0.1
D 8 mm
dimensionless shear stress
D 8 mm appear to be uniquely
D 2.5 mm related for the Paintal Data.
0.01
D 2.5 mm (Fig.5.59)
1E-12 1E-10 0.00000001 0.000001 0.0001

Bed Load qb

Fig. 5.59
 0.00001

0.0000001

0.000000001

Bed Load qb
1E-11

1E-13

1E-15

0.01 0.1

Dimensionless Shear Stress τ*

Fig. 5.60

For d50 as 22.2 mm diameter fig. 5.60 shows variation of bed load
transport versus shear stress. It can be seen that for the transport
formulas of MPM, Ashmore, Einstein and Parker predicts the lowest bed
load transport rate.
 0.00001

0.000001

0.0000001

Bed Load
0.00000001

0.000000001

1E-10

1E-11
0.01 0.1

Dimensionless shear stress τ*

Fig. 5.61
For d50 as 8 mm diameter fig. 5.61 shows variation of bed load
transport versus shear stress. It can be seen that for the transport
formulas of Einstein and Parker show the medium bed load transport
rate.
 0.0001

0.00001

0.000001

0.0000001
Bed Load qb

0.00000001

0.000000001

1E-10

1E-11
0.01 0.1
Dimensionless shear stress τ*

Fig. 5.62

For d50 as 2.5 mm diameter fig. 5.62 shows variation of bed load
transport versus shear stress. It can be seen that for the transport
formulas of MPM, Ashmore, Soulsby and Parker predicts the highest
bed load transport rate. The formula of Wong & Parker shows the
medium bed load transport rate and the formulas of Einstein and
Van Rijn predict the lowest bed load transport rate
 0.00001

0.0000001

0.000000001
Bed Load qb

1E-11

1E-13

1E-15

0.01 0.1

Dimensionless shear stress τ*

Fig. 5.63

For Paintal data set fig. 5.63 shows variation of bed load transport
versus shear stress. It can be seen that for the transport formulas of
MPM, Ashmore, Soulsby and Parker predicts the highest bed load
transport rate. The formula of Wong & Parker shows the medium bed
load transport rate and the formulas of Einstein and Van Rijn predict the
lowest bed load transport rate
 Score Table for Paintal Data

Wong &
Formulae MPM Einstein Soulsby Van Rijn Parker Ashmore Parker
Score 0.023871 0.252779 0.025835 0.005925 0.153746 0.048607 0.015307
Ranking 5 1 4 7 2 3 6

Summary Table for Paintal Data

Author Slope Range Discharge Range Well Fairly well Under
Predictable Predictable predictable
Bed load Bed load Bed load
Formulae Formulae formulae
Paintal 0.0011<S<0.0103 0.02931<Q<0.13309 MPM Ashmore,
Einstein,
Soulsby ,
Van Rijn,
Parker and
Wong &
Parker
Meyer-Peter Muller Data Analysis

link\Appendix.xlsx
 0.5

0.4
The Meyer Peter & Muller function
over predicts the dimensionless bed
0.3
Computed Ф

load transport. (Fig.5.64)

0.2
MPM(1948)
0.1

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

Actual Ф

Fig. 5.64

0.5
The Einstein’s function predicts the
0.4
dimensionless bed load transport
0.3 well. (Fig. 5.65)
Computed Ф

0.2
Einstein(1950)
0.1

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

Actual Ф

Fig. 5.65
 0.5

0.4
The Soulsby’s function predicts the
dimensionless bed load transport
0.3
Computed Ф

well. (Fig. 5.66)

0.2
Soulsby(1997)
0.1

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

Actual Ф

Fig. 5.66

0.5 The Van Rijn’s function under

0.4
predicts the dimensionless bed load
transport. (Fig.5.67)
0.3
Computed Ф

0.2
Van Rijn(1984)
0.1

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

Actual Ф

Fig. 5.67
 0.5

0.4
The Parker’s function over predicts
the dimensionless bed load
0.3
Computed Ф

transport. (Fig.5.68)
0.2
Parker(1979)
0.1

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

Actual Ф

Fig. 5.68

0.5

0.4
The Ashmore’s function predicts
the dimensionless bed load transport
0.3
well. (Fig. 5.69)
Computed Ф

0.2
Ashmore
0.1

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

Actual Ф

Fig. 5.69
 0.5

0.4
The Wong & Parker’s
function predicts the
Computed Ф

0.3
dimensionless bed load
0.2
Wong & Parker
transport well. (Fig. 5.70)
0.1

0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5

Actual Ф

Fig. 5.70

1
Dimensionless shear stress τ*

The bed load and

D 28.7 mm
dimensionless shear stress
0.1 D 28.7 mm appear to be uniquely
D 5.2 mm
related. (Fig.5.71)

D 5.2 mm
0.01
0.000001 0.00001 0.0001 0.001 0.01

Bed Load qb

Fig. 5.71
 0.01

Bed Load qb

0.001
0.01 0.1 1
Dimensionless shear stress τ*

Fig. 5.72

For d50 as 28.7 mm diameter fig. 5.72 shows variation of bed load
transport versus shear stress. It can be seen that for the transport
formulas of MPM, Einstein, Soulsby, Van Rijn, Parker, Ashmore and
Wong & Parker predicts the lowest bed load transport rate.
 0.001

Bed Load qb

0.0001
0.01 0.1 1

Dimensionless shear stress τ*

Fig. 5.73

For d50 as 5.2 mm diameter fig. 5.73 shows variation of bed load
transport versus shear stress. It can be seen that for the transport
formulas of MPM and Parker predicts the highest bed load transport
rate. The formulas of Einstein, Wong & Parker, Ashmore and Soulsby
show the medium bed load transport rate and the formula of Van Rijn
predict the lowest bed load transport rate.
 0.001

Bed Load qb 0.0001

0.00001

0.000001
0.01 0.1 1

Dimensionless Shear Stress τ*

Fig. 5.74

For Meyer Peter Muller data set fig. 5.74 shows variation of bed load
transport versus shear stress. It can be seen that for the transport
formulas of MPM and Parker predicts the highest bed load transport rate.
The formulas of Einstein, Soulsby, Ashmore and Wong & Parker
and Soulsby show the medium bed load transport rate and the formula
of Van Rijn predict the lowest bed load transport rate.
 Score Table for MPM Data
Wong &
Formulae MPM Einstein Soulsby Van Rijn Parker Ashmore Parker
Score 0.432788 0.226309 0.235399 0.074356 0.422733 0.365879 0.273715
Ranking 1 6 5 7 2 3 4

Summary Table for MPM Data

Author Slope Range Discharge Range Well Fairly well Under

Predictable Predictable predictable
Bed load Bed load Bed load
Formulae Formulae formulae
MPM 0.00128<S<0.02169 0.02169<Q<0.0226 Einstein, MPM and Van Rijn
Soulsby, Parker
Ashmore
and Wong
& Parker
Vankar, Yadav and Samtani’s (VYS)
Experimental Data Analysis

link\Appendix.xlsx
Analysis for Mixture I
link\Appendix.xlsx
 60

50 The Meyer Peter & Muller’s

40 function under predicts the
Computed Ф

30 dimensionless bed load transport.

20 MPM
(Fig.5.75)
10

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Actual Ф

Fig. 5.75

60

50

40 The Einstein’s function under

Computed Ф

30 predicts the dimensionless bed

20 Einstein load transport. (Fig.5.76)
10

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Actual Ф

Fig. 5.76
 60

50 The Soulsby’s function under

40 predicts the dimensionless bed
Computed Ф

30 load transport. (Fig.5.77)

20 Soulsby(1997)

10

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Actual Ф

Fig. 5.77

60

50 The Van Rijn’s function under

40 predicts the dimensionless bed
load transport. (Fig.5.78)
Computed Ф

30

20 Van Rijn

10

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Actual Ф

Fig. 5.78
 60

50 The Parker’s function under

predicts the dimensionless bed
40
load transport. (Fig.5.79)
Computed Ф

30

20 Parker

10

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Actual Ф

Fig. 5.79

60

50

40 The Ashmore’s function under

predicts the dimensionless bed
Computed Ф

30

20 Ashmore
load transport. (Fig.5.80)
10

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Actual Ф

Fig. 5.80
 60

50
The Wong & Parker’s
40 function under predicts
Computed Ф

30 the dimensionless bed

20 Wong & parker load transport. (Fig.5.81)
10

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Actual Ф

Fig. 5.81
1

The bed load and

Dimensionless shear stress τ*

dimensionless shear stress

D 1.41 appear to be uniquely
0.1 mm related for the Mixture I.
(Fig.5.82)

0.01
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1
Bed Load qb

Fig. 5.82
 100

Bed Load qb

10

1
0.01 0.1
Dimensionless shear stress τ*

Fig. 5.83

For d50 as 1.41 mm diameter fig. 5.83 shows variation of bed load
transport versus shear stress. It can be seen that for the transport
formulas of MPM, Einstein, Soulsby, Van Rijn, Ashmore, Parker and
Wong & parker predicts the lowest bed load transport rate.
 Score Table for Mixture I

Wong &
Formulae MPM Van Rijn Einstein Soulsby Parker Ashmore Parker
Score 0.000894204 0.00049 0.0002532 0.00078 0.00064 0.00054 0.00041
Ranking 1 5 7 2 3 4 6

Summary Table for Mixture I

Mixture Slope Range Discharge Range Well Fairly well Under

Predictable Predictable predictable
Bed load Bed load Bed load
Formulae Formulae formulae

0.0003<S<0.003 0.04723<Q<0.05250 - - MPM,

I Einstein, Van
Rijn,
Soulsby,
Ashmore,
Parker and
Wong &
Parker
Analysis for the mixture II

link\Appendix.xlsx
 0.3

0.25 The Meyer Peter & Muller’s function

0.2 predicts the dimensionless bed load
calculated Ф

0.15 transport well. (Fig. 5.84)

0.1
MPM
0.0500000000000003

2.91433543964104E-16
-0.0999999999999997 0.1 0.3
-0.0499999999999997

Actual Ф

Fig. 5.84

0.25
The Einstein’s function under
0.15
predicts the dimensionless bed load
transport. (Fig.5.85)
0.0500000000000003
calculated Ф

-0.0499999999999997
Einstein

Actual Ф

Fig. 5.85
 0.3

0.25 The Soulsby’s function predicts

0.2 fairly well dimensionless bed load
calculated Ф

0.15 transport. (Fig. 5.86)

0.1
Soulsby
0.0500000000000003

2.91433543964104E-16
-0.0999999999999997 0.1 0.3
-0.0499999999999997

Actual Ф

Fig. 5.86

0.3

0.25
The Van Rijn’s function under
0.2
predicts the dimensionless bed load
transport. (Fig.5.87)
calculated Ф

0.15

0.1
Van Rijn
0.0500000000000003

2.91433543964104E-16
-0.0999999999999997 0.1 0.3
-0.0499999999999997

Actual Ф

Fig. 5.87
 0.3

0.25
The Parker’s function predicts
0.2
fairly well dimensionless bed load
calculated Ф

0.15
transport.(Fig. 5.88)
0.1
Parker
0.0500000000000003

2.91433543964104E-16
-0.0999999999999997 0.1 0.3
-0.0499999999999997

Actual Ф

Fig. 5.88

0.3

0.25 The Ashmore’s function under

0.2 predicts the dimensionless bed
load transport. (Fig.5.89).
calculated Ф

0.15

0.1
Ashmore
0.0500000000000003

2.91433543964104E-16
-0.0999999999999997 0.1 0.3
-0.0499999999999997

Actual Ф

Fig. 5.89
 0.3

0.25
The Wong & Parker’s
0.2
function under predicts the
calculated Ф

0.15
dimensionless bed load
0.1
Wong & parker
transport. (Fig.5.90)
0.0500000000000003

2.91433543964104E-16
-0.0999999999999997 0.1 0.3
-0.0499999999999997

Actual Ф

Fig. 5.90

1
The bed load and
Dimensionless shear stress τ*

dimensionless shear stress

appear to be uniquely related
0.1
for the Mixture II. (Fig.5.91)
D 2.82 mm
D 2.82 mm

0.01
0.00001 0.0001 0.001

Bed Load qb

Fig. 5.91
 0.001

Bed Load qb
0.0001

0.00001
1 10

Dimensionless shear stress τ*

Fig. 5.92

For d50 as 2.82 mm diameter fig. 5.92 shows variation of bed load
transport versus shear stress. It can be seen that for the transport
formulas of MPM and Parker predicts the highest bed load transport rate.
The formulas of Soulsby, Ashmore and Wong & Parker show the medium
bed load transport rate and the formulas of Einstein and Van Rijn predict
the lowest bed load transport rate
 Score Table for Mixture II
Wong &
Formulae MPM Van Rijn Einstein Soulsby Parker Ashmore Parker
Score 0.859703 0.278372 0.36126 0.714225 0.839321 0.628631 0.510371
Ranking 1 7 6 3 2 4 5

Summary Table for Mixture II

Mixture Slope Range Discharge Range Well Fairly well Under

Predictable predictable predictable
Bed load Bed load Bed load
Formulae Formulae formulae
II 0.005<S<0.008 0.05031<Q<0.0572 MPM, Wong & Einstein, Van
8 Soulsby and Parker Rijn, ,Parker
Ashmore
Analysis for Mixture III

link\Appendix.xlsx
 0.04
0.035
0.03
The Meyer Peter & Muller’s function
0.025
under predicts the dimensionless
Computed Ф

0.02
0.015 bed load transport. (Fig.5.93)
MPM
0.01
0.00500000000000002
2.34187669256869E-17
-0.00999999999999998
-0.00499999999999998 0.04

Actual Ф

Fig. 5.93
The Einstein’s function under
0.04 predicts the dimensionless bed load
0.035 transport. (Fig.5.94)
0.03
0.025
Computed Ф

0.02
0.015
Einstein
0.01
0.00500000000000002
2.34187669256869E-17
-0.00999999999999998
-0.00499999999999998 0.04

Actual Ф

Fig. 5.94
 0.04
0.035
The Soulsby’s function under
0.03
0.025
predicts the dimensionless bed
Computed Ф

0.02 load transport. (Fig.5.95)

0.015
Soulsby
0.01
0.00500000000000002
2.34187669256869E-17
-0.00999999999999998
-0.00499999999999998 0.04

Actual Ф

Fig. 5.95

0.04 The Van Rijn’s function under

0.035
predicts the dimensionless bed
0.03
0.025
load transport. (Fig.5.96)
Computed Ф

0.02
0.015
Van Rijn
0.01
0.00500000000000002
2.34187669256869E-17
-0.00999999999999998
-0.00499999999999998 0.04

Actual Ф

Fig. 5.96
 0.04
0.035 The Parker’s function under
0.03 predicts the dimensionless bed load
0.025
transport. (Fig.5.97)
Computed Ф

0.02
0.015
Parker
0.01
0.00500000000000002
2.34187669256869E-17
-0.00999999999999998
-0.00499999999999998 0.04

Actual Ф

Fig. 5.97

0.04 The Ashmore’s function under

0.035 predicts the dimensionless bed load
0.03
transport. (Fig.5.98)
0.025
Computed Ф

0.02
0.015 Ashmore
0.01
0.00500000000000002
2.34187669256869E-17
-0.00999999999999998
-0.00499999999999998 0.04

Actual Ф

Fig. 5.98
 0.04
0.035
0.03
The Wong & Parker’s function
0.025 under predicts the dimensionless
Computed Ф

0.02 bed load transport. (Fig.5.99)

0.015
wong & parker
0.01
0.00500000000000002
2.34187669256869E-17
-0.00999999999999998
-0.00499999999999998 0.04

Actual Ф

Fig. 5.99
1 The bed load and dimensionless
shear stress appear to be
Dimensionless shear stress τ*

uniquely related for the Mixture

III. (Fig.5.100)
D
0.1
5.65
mm

0.01
0.000001 0.00001 0.0001 0.001

Bed Load qb

Fig. 5.100
 0.001

0.0001

Bed Load qb
0.00001

0.000001
0.01 0.1

Dimensionless shear stress τ*

Fig. 5.101

For d50 as 5.65 mm diameter fig. 5.101 shows variation of bed load
transport versus shear stress. It can be seen that for the transport
formulas of MPM. Parker and Ashmore predict the highest bed load
transport rate. The formulas of Einstein, Wong & Parker and Soulsby
show the medium bed load transport rate and the formula of Van Rijn
predict the lowest bed load transport rate
 Score Table for Mixture III
Wong &
Formulae MPM Van Rijn Einstein Soulsby Parker Ashmore Parker
Score 0.390465 0.005945 0.082111 0.104438 0.272161 0.320629 0.144366
Ranking 1 7 6 5 3 2 4

Summary Table for Mixture III

Mixture Slope Range Discharge Range Well Fairly well Under

Predictable Predictable predictable
Bed load Bed load Bed load
Formulae Formulae formulae

0.005<S<0.00 0.05031<Q<0.0572 MPM, Einstein, Van

III 8 8 Rijn, Soulsby,
,Parker,
Ashmore, and
Wong &
Parker
CONCLUSION
The following findings can be summarized from the present study:

Casey Data set

The formula proposed by Soulsby predicts bed load well , Meyer Peter
and Ashmore formulae predicts bed load fairly well while Einstein, Van
Rijn, Parker Wong & Parker’s formulae gives under predicts bed load for
a particular slope and discharge range.

Graf & Suszka Data set

The formula proposed by Soulsby, Parker, Wong & Parker’s predicts bed
load well, Einstein and Ashmore formulae predicts bed load fairly well
while MPM and Van Rijn’s formulae gives under predicts bed load for a
particular slope and discharge range.

HPY Data Set

The formula proposed by Soulsby, Parker and Ashmore predicts bed load
well while MPM, Einstein, Van Rijn and Wong & Parker formulae under
predicts bed load for a particular slope and discharge range.
Mavis Data Set
The formula proposed by Soulsby predicts bed load well, MPM, Parker and
Ashmore predicts bed load fairly well while Einstein ,Van Rijn and Wong &
Parker’s formulae under predicts bed load for a particular slope and
discharge range.

Paintal Data Set

The formula proposed by MPM predicts bed load fairly well while Ashmore,
Einstein, Soulsby , Van Rijn, Parker and Wong & Parker’s formulae under
predicts bed load for a particular slope and discharge range.

MPM Data Set

The formula proposed by Einstein, Soulsby, Ashmore and Wong & Parker
predicts bed load well, MPM and Parker predicts bed load fairly well while
Van Rijn formulae under predicts bed load for a particular slope and
discharge range.
Mixture I

The formula proposed by Einstein, Soulsby, Ashmore, Wong & Parker,

MPM, Parker, and Van Rijn under predicts bed load for a particular slope
and discharge range.

Mixture II
The formula proposed by MPM, Soulsby and Ashmore predicts bed load
well, Wong & Parker predicts bed load fairly well while Einstein, Van Rijn,
Parker formulae under predicts bed load for a particular slope and
discharge range.

Mixture III
The formula proposed by MPM predicts bed load fairly well while
Einstein, Van Rijn, Soulsby, Parker, Ashmore and Wong & Parker
formulae under predicts bed load for a particular slope and discharge
range.
Dimensionless Shear Stress versus Bed Load
The relationship between dimensionless shear stress and bed load has
been developed for all the data sets used in the present study as well as
experimental data set. In this relationship MPM, Ashmore and Parker shows the
highest bed load transport rate within the range of particle diameter 2 to 6 mm.
Van Rijn predict the lowest bed load transport rate for most data sets and
experimental data.

Future Scope of work:

The experiments with steep slope may be repeated to compare the results.
More formulas may be selected for evaluation.
Further Experimental work with different uniform and non uniform martial can
be carried out.
REFERENCES
1.0 Benoit Camenen, Magnus Larson, (2005). A general formula for non
cohesive bed load sediment transport, Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf
Science 63 (2005). Page 249– 260.
2.0 Brown, C.B., (1950), Sediment Transport in Engineering Hydraulics, Ch.
12, Rouse, H. (ed.), Wiley.
3.0 Bogen Jim, Moen Knut, (2003), Bed load measurements with a new
passive acoustic sensor, IAHS Publ. 283
4.0 Chegini A.H.N., Pender, G.,(2012), Determination of small size bed load
sediment transport and its related bed form under different
uniform flow conditions, Wseas transactions on environment and
development, Issue 4, Volume 8.
5.0 Colby B.R. (1963), Fluvial sediments a summary of source,
transportation, deposition, and measurement of sediment discharge,
United States Geological Survey Bulletin 1181-A.
6.0 Dietrich W.E., Kirchner J.W., Ikeda H., and Iseya F., (1987), The origin of
coarse surface layer in gravel bedded streams: the role of sediment
supply, Geological Society of America Bulletin, 19, 642.
7.0 Edwards, T.K., and Glysson, G.D., 1999, Field Methods for Measurement
of Fluvial Sediment: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-
Resources Investigations, Book 3, Chapter C2, 89 p
8.0 EINSTEIN H. A., (1942) Formulas for the transportation of bed load
Transport, American Society of Civil Engineers., 107
9.0 Einstein, H.A., (1950), The Bed load function for sediment
transportation in open channel flows. United State Department of
Agriculture – Soil Conservation Service, Washington pp71.
10.0 Einstein, H.A., and N.L. Barbarossa, (1951), River Channel
Roughness, American Society of Civil Engineers, Paper N2528, 1121- 1146.
11.0 Engelund F. and Hansen E. (1967), A Monograph on sediment Transport
in Alluvial streams, Technical University of Denmark, Hydraulic
Laboratory. Pg. 634
12.0 Fernandez R. Luque, Van Beek R., (2010), Erosion and Transport of Bed
Load Sediment, Journal of Hydraulic Research, 14:2, 127-144.
13.0 Gomez, B., Richard L.N, and Hubbell D.W, (1989), Temporal variations
in bed load transport rates associates with the migration of bed
forms , Earth Surface processes and Landforms, Vol. 14, 135-156.
14.0 Graeme M. Smart., (1982), Sediment transport formula for steep
channels, Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, Vol. 110, No.3.
15.0 Huang Jinchi,(1992), Application of sand wave measurements in
calculating bed load discharge, IAHS Publ. no. 210.
16.0 Jaber H. Almedeij and Panayiotis Diplas, (2003), Bed load Transport in
Gravel-Bed Streams with Unimodal Sediment, Journal of Hydraulic
Engineering, Vol. 129, No. 11
17.0 Jackson, W.L., and R.L. Beschta, (1984), Influence of increased sand
delivery on the morphology of sand and gravel channels, Water
Resource. Bull., 20, 4, 527-533.
18.0 Jau-Yau Lu, Chih-Chiang Su and I-Yu Wu, (2004), Transport of Gravels
with Different Ranges of Grain Sizes in a Steep Channel, Journal of
Hydraulic Engineering, ASCE.
19.0 Jeffrey J. Barry, John M. Buffington and John G. King, (2004), A general
power equation for predicting bed load transport rates in gravel bed
rivers, Water Resources Research, Vol. 40.
20.0 Kazemi Younes, Salajegheh Ali, Mahdavi Mohammad and Rostami
Noredin,(2011), Estimating the bed load to suspended load ratio in
central Alborz rivers; Iran (case study: Taleghan and Jajroud
rivers), International Journal of Agriculture Research and Review. Vol., 1
(1), 44-47.
21.0 Knighton D. (1998), Fluvial Forms and Processes, Arnold, London, 383
pg.
22.0 Kuhnle, R.A., (1996), unsteady transport of sand and gravel mixtures.
Pages 183-201 in P.C.A.M. Dawson, editor. Advances in fluvial
dynamics and Stratigraphy (Chap 5). John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
23.0 Leo C. Van Rijn, (1982), Sediment transport, Part I: Bed load
transport, Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, Vol. 110, No. 10, Paper No.
19220.
24.0 Leopold, L.B., M.G. Wolman, and J.P Miller, (1964), Fluvial Processes in
Geomorphology, San Francisco.
25.0 Lisle Thomas E., (1993), Response of a Channel with Alternate Bars to a
Decrease in Supply of Mixed-Size Bed Load: A Flume Experiment,
water resources research, vol.29, no. 11, pages3623-3629.
26.0 Maarten G. Kleinhans, Leo C. Van Rijn, (2002), Stochastic Prediction of
Sediment Transport in Sand-Gravel Bed Rivers, Journal of
Hydraulic Engineering, Vol. 128, No. 4.
27.0 Meyer-Peter, E. and Muller, R, (1948), Formulas for bed-load
transport, 2nd Conference IAHR Congress, Int’l, .Assoc. Hydraulic. Res.,
Stockholm, 39-64.
28.0 Parker, G., (1979), Hydraulic geometry of active gravel rivers, Journal of
Hydraulic Engineering, 105, 9, 1185-1201.
29.0 Panayiotis Diplas, (1986), Bed load transport in gravel-bed
streams, Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, Vol. 113, No. 3.
30.0 Parker G., Seminara G., and Solari L., (2003), Bed load at low Shield
stress on arbitrarily sloping beds: Alternative entrainment
formulation, Water Resources Research, 39, 7, 1183.
31.0 Patel, P. L., and Ranga Raju, K. G., (1996), Fraction wise calculation of
bed load Transport , J. Hydraul. Res., vol. 34, pp. 363-379.
32.0 Patricia L. Wiberg and J. Dungan Smith, (1988), Model for Calculating
Bed Load Transport of Sediment, Journal of Hydraulic Engineering,
Vol. 115, No.1, Paper No. 23123.
33.0 Recking A., Frey P., Paquier A., Belleudy P. and Champagne J.Y., (2008),
Bed Load Transport Flume Experiments on Steep Slopes, Journal of
Hydraulic Engineering, Vol. 134, No. 9.
34.0 Recking, A., V. Boucinha, and P. Frey, (2004), Experimental study of bed
load grain size sorting near incipient motion on steep slopes, River
Flow. AIRH, Napple, pp 253-258.
35.0 Seminara, G., M. Colombini, G. Parker, (1996), Nearly pure sorting
waves and formation of bed load sheet, Journal of Fluid mechanism,
312,253-278.
36.0 Shaohua Marko Hsu, Forrest M. Holly,(1991), Conceptual bed load
transport model and verification for sediment mixtures, Journal of
Hydraulic Engineering, Vol. 118, No.8.
37.0 Shvidchenko A.B., Kopaliani, Z.D.(1996), Hydraulic modeling of bed
load transport in gravel-bed laba river, Journal of Hydraulic
Engineering, Vol. 124, No.8.
38.0 Song, G.M., M.J. Duncan and C.O. Chin, (1998), Effect of bed-load
movement on flow friction factor, Journal of Hydraulic Engineering,
124, 2, 165-175.
39.0 Soulsby R. L., (1997) Dynamics of Marine Sands. A Manual for Practical
Applications. Thomas Telford, London, UK.
40.0 Talukdar S., Bimlesh Kumar, Dutta S., (2012), Predictive capability of
bed load equations using flume data J. Hydrol. Hydromech. 60,
2012, 1, 45–56.
41.0 Van der Scheer P. Ribberink J.S.,. Blom A. (2002), Transport Formulas
for Graded Sediment, M.Sc. Thesis, Page 34, 56 & 78.
42.0 Van Rijn, L.C., (1984), Sediment transport, Part I: Bed load
transport, ASCE J. Hydraulic Engineering, 110, 1431-1456.
43.0 Wong, Y.-H.,(2006) ,Formula for predicting bed load transport rate in
oscillatory sheet flow, Coastal Engineering 54, pages. 594 –601.
44.0 Yager E.M., Kirchner J.W., and Dietrich W.E., (2007), Calculating bed
load transport in steep boulder bed channels, Water Resources
Research, Vol. 43.
45.0 Yang, C.T., and S. Wan, (1991), Comparisons of selected bed material
load formulas, Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, 117, 8, pages. 973-
989.
46.0 Yalin, M.S., (1963), An expression for bed load transportation, Proc.
ASCE, 89, 221-250
BOOKS:

47.0 Mechanics of sediment transportation and alluvial stream problem by

R.J.Garde, K.G.Rangaraju, Delhi publisher.

WEBSITES:

1. www.sciencedirect.com
2. www.asce.com
3. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com
THANK YOU