Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Formula For Sediment Transport in Rivers, Estuaries and Coast PDF
Formula For Sediment Transport in Rivers, Estuaries and Coast PDF
Abstract: The aim of the present study is to develop a formula for the relationship between flow strength and sediment discharge. The
appropriate definition of energy dissipation rate E in the theorem of Bagnold in 1966 is discussed and it is found that the sediment
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/14/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
transport rate gt in unidirectional flows can be well predicted when E is defined as the product of bed shear stress 0 and near bed velocity
u⬘*. Then the linear relationship between u*⬘E and the sediment transport rate is examined using measured data. The good agreement
between measured and predicted values indicates that the phenomena of sediment transport can be reasonably described by the near bed
flow characteristics. As the hydrodynamic modelers are able to calculate the bed shear stress and near bed velocity in various cases now,
thus the new relationship may provide numerical modelers a tool to calculate the sediment transport in rivers, estuaries and coastal waters.
To prove this, the simplified analytical expressions of E and u⬘* in wave-current flows and coastal waters are derived, the results are
checked with the available data over a wide range of flow conditions; and good agreements are achieved, indicating that the presumption
is valid in the cases investigated.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲0733-9429共2005兲131:11共968兲
CE Database subject headings: Sediment discharge; Ocean water; Shear stress; Coastal processes; River flow; Current; Energy
dissipation.
hydrodynamic modelers who are able to precisely determine these is a function of the Shields shear stress parameter
冉 冊
flow parameters by solving the Reynolds equations in rivers, es-
tuaries and coastal waters. ␥s − ␥ d50
⌿= 共2兲
On the other hand, engineers also prefer a simple approach to ␥ RS
describe the sediment transport rate with sufficient accuracy. where ⌽⫽Einstein’s sediment intensity parameter; gt⫽sediment
However, few of the equations developed for sediment transport transport rate per unit width 共kg/ m / s兲; d50⫽median sediment
so far can be used in a wide range of flow conditions. This lack of size; ␥s and ␥⫽specific weight of sediment and water, respec-
accepted fundamental principles and the demand of practical ap- tively; R⫽hydraulic radius; S⫽energy slope; and g⫽gravitational
acceleration. There are other parameters developed to express
1
Visiting Professor, Div. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, sediment discharge or concentration, such as the V3 / 共gR兲 pro-
Korea Maritime Univ., Busan, Korea 606791; formerly, Principal posed by Velikanov 共1954兲, the dimensionless unit stream power,
Research Scientist, Maritime Research Center, Nanyang Technological VS / by Yang 共1996兲, and the transport-stage parameter,
Univ., Nanyang Ave., Singapore 639798. E-mail: csqyang@ntu.edu.sg T = 共u⬘*2 − u2*c兲 / u2*c by Van Rijn 共1984兲, in which
Note. Discussion open until April 1, 2006. Separate discussions must
V⫽depth-averaged velocity; ⫽sand fall velocity; and
be submitted for individual papers. To extend the closing date by one
month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Managing Editor. u⬘* = 共g0.5 / C⬘兲V⫽bed-shear velocity related to grains;
The manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and possible C⬘ = 18 log共12R / 3 / d50兲⫽Chezy-coefficient related to grains;
publication on March 6, 2003; approved on January 17, 2005. This paper u*c⫽critical shear velocity.
is part of the Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, Vol. 131, No. 11, Yang and Lim 共2003兲 and Yang 共2005兲 developed the follow-
November 1, 2005. ©ASCE, ISSN 0733-9429/2005/11-968–979/$25.00. ing equation to express the sediment transport:
冕 he stressed that u*⬘ can eliminate the bed form roughness, and also
h
E = 0V ⬇ ␥S udy = ␥Sq 共5b兲 it is simple and convenient. Van Rijn 共1984兲 comprehensively
0
investigated the sediment transport phenomena and concluded
where q⫽water discharge per unit width and h⫽water depth. that the bed-shear velocity related to grains u⬘* rather than the total
Different from Bagnold’s assumption, some researchers found shear velocity, u* or mean velocity, V, plays a dominant role for
empirically that the sediment transport is closely related to the sediment transport.
energy dissipation near the bed 共Yalin 1977; Cheng 2002兲, viz. Therefore, it is acceptable to express the “available energy,” E
the product of bed shear stress 0 and shear velocity u* with the in Eq. 共4兲 in the following way:
following form:
E = 0u*⬘ 共6兲
E = 0u * 共5c兲
Different from Eq. 共5a兲 共Bagnold 1966兲 and Eq. 共5c兲 共Yalin
where u* = 共gRS兲0.5 = 共0 / 兲0.5. In Eq. 共5c兲, the near bed velocity is 1996兲, Eq. 共6兲 states that not all energy dissipation, but only the
represented by the overall shear velocity, u*. energy loss caused by grain friction is responsible for sediment
The assumption of Bagnold 共1966兲 shown in Eq. 共5b兲 indicates transport, the energy loss due to the bed forms has little contribu-
that the importance of any unit water volume is identical to sedi- tion on the sediment transport. This may be understandable be-
ment transport, regardless of its position. Noticing that most of cause the form drag is caused by the difference between the high
sediment particles travel with water near the bed, and these par- pressure upstream and low pressure downstream of bed form
ticles converts the water energy dissipated on the bed to their when a separation flow appears behind the sand wave, obviously
kinetic energy, consequently the particles are able to collide with the separation flows or large vortexes behind the save waves
each other and to move in the modes of rolling, saltation and transport little sediment directly to the downstream.
suspension. In other words, the water energy dissipation on the Different from the bed form drag, the grain friction is the shear
bed plays a more important role relative to the potential energy stress acting on the sediment grains directly; both the water and
loss in the upper layer. In order to show this argument clearly, let sediment particles move in the same direction, thus the grain fric-
us imagine the density current in a dead water, when the water tion plays a key and direct role for the sediment transport.
bodies with different densities contact each other, the density cur- McLean et al. 共1999兲 differentiated the roles of form drag and
rent of denser water in the lower layer moves in the opposite grain friction for sediment transport, they concluded that the tur-
direction of lighter water in the upper layer, this phenomenon bulent intensity, which is primarily responsible for the mainte-
often occurs in the dead waters such as reservoirs or lakes and the nance of sediment in suspension, is proportional to the total
sediment transport driven by the density current can be observed. boundary shear stress 0, which is typically dominated by the
However, according to Eq. 共5a兲 and 共5b兲, in such case the net form drag, this is why the total shear stress must be taken into
冕
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/14/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
1
h ␥s − ␥
共7兲
冕
us = h lim cyudy
→0
In order to test which hydraulic parameter is suitable for the ex-
lim cydy pression of total sediment discharge, the data set of Barton and
→0
Lin 共1955兲 is particularly selected to compare the correlation co-
where y⫽distance from the bed; u⫽local velocity at level y; and efficients of existing hydraulic parameters with measured sedi-
cy⫽volumetric concentration of particles at level y. us can be ment discharge for the dataset has been widely cited in textbooks
determined theoretically by assuming that u in Eq. 共7兲 follows the including Yalin 共1977, p. 127兲, Chien and Wan 共1999, p. 543兲.
log law and cy follows the Rouse equation 共Chien and Wan 1999兲, The experiment was carried out in a 0.267 m width flume; the
but the result is too complicated, thus researchers have to express water depths varied from 0.047 to 0.09 m, the median sediment
it empirically. sizes were 0.088 and 0.145 mm; the observed dunes ranged gen-
Bagnold 共1966兲 assumed that us = V = 兰h0udy / h, this is equiva- erally from 1 / 6 to 1 / 16 of the depth of flow. The data are shown
lent to the assumption that the concentration cy does not vary with in Fig. 1 in which the solid curves are obtained to fit the data
y as commented by Yalin 共1977兲. As is well known, the sediment points best visually.
concentration increases from zero at water surface with the de- Correlation coefficient measures the degree to which two vari-
creasing values of y depending on the Rouse parameter, in other ables are related to, in the present analysis it is calculated by
words, most sediment particles travel with water near the bed,
therefore, it is rational to assume that the mean transport velocity 共X − X̄兲共Y − Ȳ兲
冑共X − X̄兲2冑共Y − Ȳ兲2
correlation coefficient =
of sediment is proportional to the near bed water velocity, i.e.
us = ␣1u⬘* 共8兲 in which the overbar denotes the mean value; Y⫽measured sedi-
ment transport load 共c , ⌽, or gt兲; and X⫽hydraulic parameters
in which ␣1⫽coefficient.
Substituting Eqs. 共6兲 and 共8兲 into Eq. 共4兲, one obtains a sedi- 共VS / , V3 / gR, T, ⌿, or TT⬘ 兲, and Y = f共X兲 has been expressed by
ment transport formula previous researchers in various ways based on their own data and
theoretical development.
␥s E − Ec Fig. 1共a兲 shows the relationship between the sediment concen-
gt = ku⬘* 共9兲 tration c and the hydraulic parameters of VS / , V3 / 共gR兲, and
␥s − ␥
T = 共u*⬘2 − u2*c兲 / u2*c, respectively. The unit stream power parameter
where k = k1␣1; Ec is introduced to express the critical condition of Yang 共1996兲 VS / gives the correlation coefficient of 0.942;
for sediment motion. Eq. 共9兲 states that the sediment transport rate the parameter V3 / 共gR兲 of Velikanov 共1954兲 provides correlation
depends on the energy dissipation on the bed, E and near bed coefficient of 0.948; the dimensionless parameter, T developed by
velocity, u⬘*, the net transport will be always in the same direction van Rijn 共1984兲 is correlated with the sediment concentration for
as the movement of u⬘*. Since the direction of near bed velocity a coefficient of 0.943.
may differ from the direction of mean velocity in marine environ- Based on the same data set, Fig. 1共b兲 shows the measured
ment, hence Eq. 共9兲 may explain why the net sediment transport sediment discharge gt versus the stream power 0V and 0u*, the
goes against the current in some cases as observed by Inman and former provides a correlation coefficient of 0.96 and the latter
Bowen 共1963兲. In other words, if the bed shear stress and near gives a correlation coefficient of 0.885. The correlation coefficient
bed velocity in complicated cases can be modeled correctly, Eq. of the parameter of Einstein 共1942兲, ⌽ with ⌿ is −0.877.
共9兲 could predict the direction and quantity of sediment transport Fig. 1共c兲 exhibits that a one-to-one and linear relationship be-
in various scenarios including rivers, estuaries and coastal waters. tween gt and TT⬘ can be provided by the parameter of Yang and
The validity of Eq. 共9兲 in these scenarios will be justified in the Lim 共2003兲, which gives the highest correlation coefficient of
following sections. 0.973.
Keulegan 共1938兲 also introduced the near bed velocity u⬘* to Yang 共1996兲 ascertained that among all previous hydraulic pa-
express the rate of energy dissipation E. In his definition, u⬘* is the rameters for the prediction of sediment transport including the
velocity at a certain distance from the bed at which log law holds, stream power V of Bagnold 共1966兲 and the parameter V3 / gRS of
and he admitted that the near bed distance for the determination Velikanov 共1954兲, the dimensionless unit stream power VS / is
of u*⬘ cannot be theoretically computed. Therefore, one should preferable to others in the view of correlation coefficients of mea-
resort to semiempirical ways to express u⬘* or E in some compli- sured total load with these parameters. This conclusion was sup-
cated scenarios, and some simplified assumptions have to be in- ported by the U.S. Geological Survey, the U.S. Bureau of Recla-
troduced, which will certainly bring in some errors. mation, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 共Yang 1996兲.
1
b共t兲 = 2 f wub共t兲兩ub共t兲兩 共16兲
Fig. 2. Comparison between sediment discharge measured from Rio in which f w is wave friction factor. Substituting Eqs. 共16兲 and 共15兲
Grande River and computed results from Eq. 共11兲 into Eq. 共14兲 yields
冕 冋 冉 冊 册
T
fw
= 关u2cu + uwm
2
sin2共1t兲 2A 3
2T E=f f wcos + cuu⬘*cu 共24兲
0 4 T
+ 2ucuuwmsin共1t兲cos 1兴3/2dt 共17兲 Usually a live bed will be hydraulically rough, and in this case the
where 1⫽the angle between the current and the direction of wave friction factor is given by Nielsen 共1992兲 in the following
wave propagation and T⫽wave period. form:
The integral in Eq. 共17兲 cannot be solved analytically. For
simplification of the expression of energy dissipation rate in
wave-current motion, it is assumed that the bed shear stress is
冋 冉 冊
f w = exp 5.5
2d50
A
0.2
− 6.3 册 共25兲
superposed as follows:
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/14/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
where f⫽function of uwm / ucu and needs to be determined empiri- A = H/2 sinh共2h/L兲 共26兲
cally; w共t兲 and cu⫽bed shear stresses introduced by waves and where h⫽water depth; L⫽wave length; H = Hs / 冑2 for random
current, respectively. The experiments of Lodahl et al. 共1998兲 wave; and Hs being the significant wave height.
showed that the mean bed shear stress in wave-current motion Substituting Eq. 共24兲 into Eq. 共9兲 leads to
再冋 册 冎
may retain its steady-current value, indicating that the coefficient
f in Eq. 共18兲 is a unit, but their measured data also show that the
mean bed shear stress may be less than the steady-current value in
the wave-dominated regime, meaning that coefficient f should be
gt = k
␥s u⬘*cu
␥s − ␥
f f wcos
4
2A
T
冉 冊 3
+ u⬘*cu
3
− u⬘*c3
冉 冊
dissipation E over one wave period can be obtained by the sub-
stitution of Eq. 共19兲 into Eq. 共14兲 u 30y
= 2.5 ln 共28兲
u⬘*cu 2d50
E = f共w共t兲uw共t兲 + cuucu兲 = f共w共t兲uw共t兲 + cuucu兲 共20兲
3. Calculate f w and A using Eqs. 共25兲 and 共26兲 using wave
Eq. 共20兲 indicates that the energy dissipation in wave-current height, wave period, and water depth.
flows is simply taken to be the sum of energy dissipation rate in 4. Calculate the sediment discharge gt using Eq. 共27兲 and as-
pure waves and that in a steady flow. suming k = 12.5 and f = 1.
For periodic waves, the time-averaged rate of energy dissipa- The measured data of sediment transport in combined current
tion near the bottom was obtained by Kajiura 共1968兲 and its ex- and nonbreaking wave conditions is rather scarce to verify Eq.
tension to spectral waves was conducted by Madsen et al. 共1988兲 共27兲, especially field data, because of the difficulties in measuring
as follows: both the fluid velocities and sediment concentrations under wave
1
w共t兲uw共t兲 = f wcos
4
2A
T
冉 冊 3
共21兲
conditions. The experimental data of Van Rijn et al. 共1993兲 are
used for the verification. In their experiments, two types of sedi-
ment material were used with median diameter of 100 and
where A⫽water particle semiexcursion near the bed; f w⫽wave 200 m. The current velocities varied in the range of
friction factor; ⫽phase lead of the near bottom wave orbital 0.1–0.5 m / s, irregular waves following and opposing current
velocity which is expressed as follows: with a peak period of 2.5 s were generated. The significant wave
height varied in the range of 0.075 to 0.18 m, the water depth was
/2 about 0.5 m. The sediment concentrations were determined from
tan = 共22兲
30uwm water-sediment sampler using a pump sampling instrument and
ln − 1.15
12d50 the velocities were measured with an electromagnetic velocity
meter. The bed load transport rate was estimated from the mea-
in which u*wm⫽shear velocity driven by waves. sured bed form characteristics. The total sediment transport rate
The rate of energy dissipation on the bed by current in Eq. 共20兲 passing a section was determined as the sum of the rate of
can be written in a way similar to that for steady flows current-related bed load transport and the rate of suspended-load
cuucu = cuu⬘*cu 共23兲 transport. Two-dimensional ripples were observed, the ripple
heights ranged from 1 to 3 cm and the ripple lengths were in the
where u⬘*cu⫽bed shear velocity related to grains and u⬘*cu can be range of 6–20 cm. From the experiments, they concluded that
determined using Eq. 共10兲. “the influence of the current direction on the concentration profile
The relationship cu = u⬘*cu
2
is used to estimate the bed shear and transport rate is negligible,” which is in accordance with
stress driven by a current because the energy slope S in wave- Eq. 共20兲.
combined current and wave conditions from Eq. 共27兲 and the data of
Van Rijn et al. 共1993兲 Fig. 5. Comparison between total sediment discharge between Eq.
共27兲 and the data of Van Rijn and Havinga 共1995兲 for different
current-wave angles
The calculated fall velocities for d50 = 100 and 200 m are
0.616 and 1.92 cm/ s, respectively. The estimated critical shear bination with following and opposing currents in flume condi-
velocities are u*c = 1 and 1.31 cm/ s, respectively. Fig. 4 shows the tions. To demonstrate the influence of the angles between the
comparison of measured and predicted sediment transport rate, in direction of wave propagation and current on sediment transport,
which the measured sediment discharge gt is referred to as the Van Rijn and Havinga 共1995兲 carried out experiments in a wave-
total sediment transport load including the bed load transport rate current basin, in which the water depth was about 0.4 m for all
and suspended load transport rate. The positive sign shown in Fig. tests, and three different wave conditions were generated: signifi-
4 represents sediment transport following the wave direction and cant wave height⫽0.07, 0.1, and 0.14 m for three wave
the negative sign means the sediment transport against the wave directions—60, 90, and 120° between wave orthogonal and cur-
direction. rent direction. Irregular waves with a single-topped spectrum and
Van Rijn et al. 共1993兲 compared the measured sediment trans- a peak period of 2.5 s were generated. Sediment of a median
port rate shown in Fig. 4 with the Bijker 共1971兲 method, the diameter of 100 m was used. Instantaneous fluid velocities were
Nielsen 共1985兲 method, and the Van Rijn 共1985, 1989兲 method. measured by an acoustical probe and an electromagnetic probe,
These methods are all based on the computation of a time- the averaged sediment concentrations were measured by a pump
averaged concentration and velocity profile. All three methods are sampler. The regular ripples are observed, the ripple heights
sensitive to the bed roughness value that is related to the ripple ranged from 0.7 to 1.4 cm and the ripple lengths were in the range
height. of 5.9–11.1 cm. The sediment discharge was measured in 11 tests.
Van Rijn et al. 共1993兲 determined the roughness values by the Fig. 5 displays good agreement between the measured sediment
best fit of the measured velocity profiles, after this treatment he discharge and that calculated with Eq. 共27兲, in which the coeffi-
found that the Bijker 共1971兲 method underestimates 共factor of cient f = 1 and k = 12.5 are applied. The fall velocity and critical
3–5兲 the transport rates, about 48% of the predicted transport rates shear velocity are given as 0.616 and 1 cm/ s, respectively.
are within a factor of 2 of the measured values. The Nielsen Van Rijn and Havinga 共1995兲 compared the measured trans-
共1985兲 method overestimates 共factor of 5–10兲 the transport rates, port rate with the methods of Bijker 共1971兲 and Van Rijn 共1985,
this large overprediction cannot be explained from the predicted 1989兲, they found that the method of Van Rijn yielded the best
concentration profiles, it is caused by the function proposed by results if roughness is set to be 3 times the ripple height, whereas
Nielsen 共1985兲 because this function is quite sensitive to the par- the method of Bijker gave the best results provided the roughness
ticle size of the bed material 共Van Rijn et al. 1993兲. The Van Rijn is about 0.5 times the ripple height, and after the best fit of data,
et al. 共1993兲 method shows reasonable results over the full range about 60% of the computed transport rates were within the dis-
of conditions, about 73% of the predicted transport rates are crepancy ratio of 2 of the measured values. But Eq. 共27兲 shows
within the discrepancy ratio of 2 of the measured values. very good results for these experiments, 100% of the predicted
Without the knowledge of measured velocity profiles and transport rates are within the discrepancy ratio of 2 of the mea-
ripple heights, Eq. 共27兲 also shows reasonable results, about 52% sured values, this is a remarkable achievement for k remains the
of the predicted transport rates are within the discrepancy ratio of value obtained from unidirectional flows and f = 1 is taken, espe-
2 of the measured values. Besides, it can be seen from Fig. 4 that cially Eq. 共27兲 does not require the input of ripple height and the
significant errors occur in the region of low transport rates, the measured velocity profiles.
discrepancy could be ascribed to two main reasons: 共1兲 the mea- In 1999, Grasmeijer and Van Rijn 共1999兲 presented a series of
surement error is relatively larger in the low transport region, this laboratory measurements of sediment transport resulting from un-
is why researchers generally exclude the data with low sediment dertow driven by breaking waves over a near shore bar. The ob-
concentration or discharge for comparison 共Yang 1996兲; 共2兲 the jectives of their experiments were to create breaking wave condi-
low transport region is actually the wave-dominated regime, as tions over a movable bed and to identify the mechanism of
mentioned in such case f is less than 1, but for simplification sediment transport processes. The experiments were conducted in
f = 1 is employed to estimate the transport rate, this may introduce a flume with a length of 45 m, a width of 0.8 m and a depth of 1.0
some errors. Nevertheless, the results of Eq. 共27兲 are still encour- m. Irregular waves were generated with a peak spectral period of
aging. 2.3 s, an artificial sandbar was constructed in the flume, the bed
Fig. 4 only shows the sediment transport under waves in com- profile varied in depth from 0.6 m seaward of the bar to 0.3 m at
the bar crest. The water depth in the trough landward of the bar
crest was 0.5 m, sand with d50 = 95 m was used to form the sand
bar. Two test series were performed with incoming significant ⬘ / u*cu based on experiments shown in
Fig. 7. Variation of f with u*wm
wave heights of 0.16 and 0.19 m, respectively. Time-averaged Figs. 4–6
concentrations were measured with a pump-sampling system and
an acoustic sediment transport meter was used to measure the
instantaneous velocity and particle concentration. Measurements
were performed at 10 different locations across the sand bar, all confirms that f is less than 1 in the wave-dominated regime.
collected sediment discharges are shown in Fig. 6, including the Figs. 4–6 show that k = 12.5 and f = 1 for nonbreaking waves
measurement at breaking point. It was observed that waves were and k = 12.5 and f = 0.4 for breaking waves can generate suffi-
shoaling toward the bar crest, the measured maximum wave ciently accurate results to meet the practical demand.
height was found near the bar crest, the wave height decreased For sediment transport driven by pure oscillatory waves with-
while moving further toward land due to the energy dissipation out currents, Eq. 共9兲 may be also applicable to assess directly the
caused by breaking of waves. Nearly all breaking waves were of transport rate at the time scale of the wave period, in which E can
the spilling breaker type and occurred near the bar crest. be determined from Eq. 共21兲 and the near bed velocity, u⬘*cu can be
An attempt is made herein to extend Eq. 共27兲 to express the estimated by the numerical models or the second-order stokes
sediment transport by undertow. The current shear velocity is cal- wave theorem and the net transport will be always in the direction
culated by Eq. 共10兲 with the depth-averaged velocity, the rate of of the near bed velocity or the drift velocity. Therefore, for the
energy dissipation is calculated with Eq. 共24兲 based on the mea- movement of sediment particles normal to the shore, the shear
sured significant wave heights and the rate of sediment transport velocity of mass transport u⬘*cu in Eq. 共27兲 can be replaced by the
is calculated with Eq. 共27兲. It can be seen from Fig. 6 that the near bed velocity which is expressed as follows according to the
sediment transport rate is well predicted when k = 12.5 and Longuet-Higgins 共1970兲:
f = 0.4 are applied. The reduction of f may be understandable: as
mentioned earlier, in the wave-dominant regime, the factor of f is 52 H2 1 5 um2
smaller than 1. It can be seen from Fig. 6 that about 95% of the u⬘*cu = 2 = 共30兲
4 LT sinh 2h/L 4 C
predicted transport rates are within the discrepancy ratio of 2 of
the measured values, in this case of sediment transport driven by where C⫽wave propagation celerity, and
breaking waves over a near shore bar no other methods are avail-
able for comparison in the literature, as far as the writer knows. H
Further investigation shows that the factor of f in the wave um = 共31兲
T sinh 2h/L
dominant regime can be modified as follows based on the experi-
mental data shown in Figs. 4–6: For long waves, h / L Ⰶ 1, thus Eq. 共31兲 can be simplified as
1
f= 共29兲 H
⬘ /u⬘*cu
1 + 0.7u*wm um = C 共32兲
2h
Fig. 7 shows the comparison between Eq. 共29兲 and the cited ex-
periments. It can be seen from Fig. 7 that the data points are very substituting Eq. 共32兲 into Eq. 共30兲, one obtains
scattered, and the trend for the 0.2 mm sand seems to be opposite
from the 0.1 mm sand, this clearly indicates that Eq. 共29兲 may be
not fully reliable and other parameters such as suspended-
sediment stratification and cohesive behavior should be included
u⬘*cu = 冉 冊
52 H
4 2h
2
C 共33兲
in the function, and the complete analysis of f obviously requires Therefore, one obtains the landward sediment transport rate by
more experiments to be conducted in future. However, Fig. 7 inserting Eq. 共33兲 into Eq. 共27兲.
E=
共E⬘cg兲incos ␣
共35兲
Gt = 0.0187
␥s
␥s − ␥
冉冑 冊
gh
0.5
E⬘cgsin ␣ cos ␣ 共43兲
xb Eq. 共43兲 is the modified equation of Komar and Inman for long-
Strictly speaking, the energy dissipation on the bed is a fraction of shore sediment transport.
that obtained from Eq. 共35兲, but as described in the previous Fig. 9 shows the measured longshore sediment discharge Gt
section, this can be reflected in a reduction of coefficient f in Eq. against P共冑gh / 兲0.5, the data were measured by Komar 共1969兲,
共27兲 or k in Eq. 共9兲 in the breaking waves. Thus, the total sedi- Gable 共1981兲, Inman 共1980兲, Kraus et al. 共1982兲, Watts 共1953兲,
ment discharge in the surf zone, Gt can be obtained by substitut- Bruno and Gable 共1977兲, and these datasets were compiled by
ing Eq. 共35兲 into Eq. 共9兲, one gets Kamphuis et al. 共1986兲. Fig. 9 also includes the measured data by
Wang et al. 共1998兲, Kamphuis and Sayao 共1982兲, Ozhan 共1982兲,
G t = g tx b = k 冉 冊
␥s u⬘*
␥s − ␥
共E⬘cgcos ␣ − cu*cxb兲 共36兲
and Saville 共1950兲. The basic conditions of these datasets are
shown in Table 2.
The correlation coefficient between the measured Gt and
Instead of near bed velocity u*⬘ in Eq. 共36兲, the mean velocity P共冑gh / 兲0.5 is 0.95. Hence, the longshore sediment transport can
V in the surf zone is suggested because it is more reliable in be roughly estimated using Eq. 共43兲. About 65% of the computed
complicated conditions. A well-cited formula developed by transport rates by Eq. 共43兲 are within the discrepancy ratio of 2 of
Longuet-Higgins 共1970兲 is used to assess the mean velocity in the the measured values, whereas the equation of Komar and Inman
surf zone has 60% of predictions in the error band. It can be seen from Fig.
5 K tan  9 that Eq. 共43兲 provides significant discrepancies for the data
V= 冑gh sin ␣ 共37兲 measured by Komar and Sayao 共1982兲, Ozhan 共1982兲, and Wang
16 f w
et al. 共1998兲. The measurement techniques may contribute to the
where K⫽ratio of wave height to mean water depth and discrepancy, e.g., Wang et al. 共1998兲 measured the transport rates
tan ⫽beach slope. Therefore, the longshore sediment transport using the streamer sediment traps and short-term impoundment,
rate is expressed as follows: Bodge 共1986兲 and Dean et al. 共1982兲 found that this technique
was not reliable and Wang et al. 共1998兲 themselves also found
Gt = K0共P − Pc兲 共38兲 that their measured values was 3 times lower than the Coastal
Engineering Research Center, U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers
where Pc = cu*cxbsin ␣ and 共39兲 共CERC兲 predictions.
C ⫽ wave propagation velocity 关L / T兴; cu ⫽ bed shear stresses by current 关M L−1T−2兴;
C⬘ ⫽ Chezy-coefficient related to grains 关L1/2 / T兴; w共t兲 ⫽ bed shear stresses by waves 关ML−1 T−2兴;
c ⫽ depth-averaged sediment concentration 共ppm兲; 0 ⫽ bed shear stress 关ML−1T−2兴;
cg ⫽ wave group velocity 关L / T兴; ⌽ ⫽ Einstein’s transport parameter;
cy ⫽ volumetric concentration of particles at level ⫽ phase;
y; ⌿ ⫽ Einstein’s flow intensity parameter;
d50 ⫽ median sediment size 关L兴; ⫽ fall velocity of particle 关L T−1兴; and
E ⫽ energy dissipated rate 关M T−3兴; 1 ⫽ wave angular frequency 关T−1兴.
Ec ⫽ critical rate of energy dissipation on the bed
for sediment motion 关M T−3兴;
E⬘ ⫽ wave energy at breaker line 关M T−2兴;
References
E⬘cg ⫽ wave energy flux 关M L T−3兴;
eb ⫽ efficiency coefficient;
Ackers, P., and White, W. R. 共1973兲. “Sediment transport: New approach
f ⫽ function of uwm / ucu;
and analysis.” J. Hydr. Div., 99共11兲, 2041–2060.
f w ⫽ wave friction factor; Bagnold, R. A. 共1966兲. “An approach to the sediment transport problem
Gt ⫽ longshore sediment transport rate 关M L−1兴; from general physics.” Geol. Survey Professional Paper No. 422-I,
g ⫽ gravitational acceleration 关L T−2兴; U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
gt ⫽ total sediment discharge 关M L−1 T−1兴; Bailard, J. A. 共1981兲. “An analytic total load sediment transport model for
H ⫽ wave height 关L兴; a plane sloping beach.” J. of Geophysical Research, 86共C11兲,
Hs ⫽ significant wave height 关L兴; 10938–10954.
h ⫽ water depth 关L兴; Barton, J. R., and Lin, P. N. 共1955兲. “A study of the sediment transport in
K ⫽ ratio of wave height to mean water depth; alluvial streams.” Rep. No. 55 JRB2, Civil Engineering Dep., Colo-
K0 ⫽ coefficient; rado Colleage, Fort Collins, Colo.
k ⫽ constant; Bijker, E. W. 共1971兲. “Longshore transport computations.” J. Waterway,
k1 ⫽ coefficients⫽eb / 共us tan ␣兲 + 0.01; Harb., and Coast. Engrg., 97共4兲, 687–701.
Bodge, K. R. 共1986兲. “Short term impoundment of longshore sediment
L ⫽ wave length 关L兴;
transport.” PhD disertation, Univ. of Florida, Gainesville, Fla.
P ⫽ wave energy at beaker line 关M L T−3兴; Brownlie, W. R. 共1981兲. “Compilation of alluvial channel data: Labora-
Pc ⫽ critical wave energy for sediment 关M L T−3兴; tory and field.” Rep. No. KH-R-43B, California Institute of Technol-
q ⫽ water discharge per unit width 关L2 T−1兴; ogy, Pasadena, Calif.
R ⫽ hydraulic radius 关L兴; Bruno, R. O., and Gable, C. G. 共1977兲. “Longshore transport at a total
S ⫽ energy slope; littoral barrier.” Proc., 15th Coastal Engineering Conf., Honolulu,
T ⫽ van Rijn’s transport stage parameter in steady 1203–1222.
flow; Cheng, N. S. 共2002兲. “Exponential formula for bedload transport.” J.
T ⫽ wave period in unsteady flow 关T兴; Hydraul. Eng. 128共10兲, 942–946.
TT⬘ ⫽ dimensionless transport Chien, N., and Wan, Z. 共1999兲. Mechanics of sediment transport, ASCE,
parameter⫽0共u2* − u2*c兲 / 关共␥s − ␥兲冑gd350兴; Reston, Va.
t ⫽ time 关T兴; Culbertson, J. K., Scott, C. H., and Bennett, J. P. 共1976兲. “Summary of
tan ␣ ⫽ ratio of tangential to normal shear force; alluvial-channel data from Rio Grande Conveyance Channel, New
tan  ⫽ beach slope; Mexico, 1965–1969.” USGS Professional Paper 562-J, U.S. Geologi-
cal Survey, Madison, Wis.
ub共t兲 ⫽ instantaneous velocity near the bed 关L T−1兴;
Dean, R. G. 共1973兲. “Heuristic models of sand transport in the surf zone.”
uwm ⫽ amplitude of harmonic near-bed orbital
Proc., 1st Australian Conf. on Coastal Engineering, IAHR, Sydney,
velocity near the bed 关L T−1兴; Australia.
uw共t兲 ⫽ near bed velocity driven by waves 关L T−1兴; Dean, R. G. 共1983兲. “Physical modeling of littoral processes.” Proc.,
⬘ ⫽ amplitude of harmonic near-bed orbital shear
u*wm Conf. on Physical Modeling in Coastal Environment, Univ. of Dela-
velocity 关L T−1兴; ware, Newark, Del.
u ⫽ local velocity 关L T−1兴; Dean, R. G., Berek, E. P., Gable, C. G., and Seymour, J. 共1982兲. “Long-
ucu ⫽ velocity near the bed driven by current shore transport determined by an efficient trap.” Proc., 18th Coastal
关L T−1兴; Engineering Conference, Cape Town, South Africa.
us ⫽ mean transport velocity of sediment 关L T−1兴; Einstein, H. A. 共1942兲. “Formulas for the transportation of bed load.”
currents and waves. III: Breaking waves over barred profile with Saville, T. 共1950兲. “Model study of sand transport along an infinitely
ripples.” J. Waterw., Port, Coastal, Ocean Eng., 125共2兲, 71–79. long, straight beach.” Transactions, American Geophysical Union,
Guo, J. 共1997兲. “The Albert Shields story.” J. Hydraul. Eng., 123共7兲, 31共4兲, 555–565.
666. Soulsby, L. H., Klopman, G., Myrhaug, D., Simons, R. R., and Thomas,
Inman, D. L. 共1980兲. “The origin of swash cusps on beaches.” Marine
G. P. 共1993兲. “Wave-current interaction within and outside the bottom
Geology 49, 133–148.
layer.” Coastal Eng., 21, 41–71.
Inman, D. L., and Bowen, A. J. 共1963兲. “Flume experiments on sand
Thornton, E. B. 共1972兲. “Distribution of sediment transport across the
transport by waves and currents.” Proc., 8th Int. Conf. Coastal Engi-
surf zone” Proc., 13th Coastal Engineering Conf., Vancouver, B.C.,
neering, ASCE, Reston, Va. 137–150.
Canada.
Kajiura, K. 共1968兲. “A model of the bottom boundary layer in water
Toffaleti, F. B. 共1968兲. “A procedure for computation of total river sand
waves.” Bulletin of the Earthquake Research Institute, DPRI, Tokyo
discharge and detailed distribution, bed to surface.” Tech. Rep. No. 5,
Univ., Tokyo, 46, 75–123.
Committee of Channel Stabilization, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Kamphuis, J. W., and Sayao, O. F. S. J. 共1982兲. “Model test on littoral
Vicksburg, Miss.
sand transport rate.” Proc., 18th Coastal Engineering Conf., Cape- Van Rijn, L. C. 共1989兲. “Handbook of sediment transport in currents and
town, Republic of South Africa, ASCE, 2, 1305–1325. waves.” Rep. No. H461, Delft Hydraulics, Delft, The Netherlands.
Kamphuis, J. W.,, Davies, M. H., Nairn, R. B., and Sayao, O. J. 共1986兲. Van Rijn, L. C. 共1984兲 “Sediment transport. Part II: suspended load trans-
“Calculation of littoral sand transport rate.” Coastal Eng., 10共1兲, port.” J. Hydraul. Eng., 110共11兲, 1613–1641.
1–21. Van Rijn, L. C. 共1985兲. “Two-dimensional vertical mathematical model
Kana, T. W. 共1978兲. “Surf zone measurements on suspended sediment.”
for suspended sediment transport by currents and waves.” Rep. No.
Proc., 16th Coastal Engineering Conf., Hamburg, Germany 1725– S488 part IV, Delft Hydraulics, Delft, The Netherlands.
1743. Van Rijn, L. C., and Havinga, F. J. 共1995兲. “Transport of fine sands by
Karim, F. 共1998兲. “Bed material discharge prediction for nonuniform bed
currents and waves. II.” J. Waterw., Port, Coastal, Ocean Eng.,
sediment.” J. Hydraul. Eng., 124共6兲, 597–604.
121共2兲, 123–133.
Keulegan, G. H. 共1938兲. “Law of turbulent flow in open channels.” J.
Van Rijn, L. C., Nieuwjaar, M. W. C., Van der Kaay, T., Nap, E., and Van
Nat. Bureau of Standards, Research Paper No. 1151, 21, 707–740.
Kampen, A. 共1993兲. “Transport of fine sands by currents and waves.”
Komar, P. D. 共1969兲. “The mechanics of sand transport on beaches.” J.
J. Waterw., Port, Coastal, Ocean Eng., 119共2兲, 123–143.
Geophysical Res., 76, 713–721.
Velikanov, M. A. 共1954兲 “Gravitational theory for sediment transport.” J.
Kraus, N. C., Isobe, M., Igarashi, H., Sasaki, T. O., and Horikawa, K.
共1982兲. “Field experiments on longshore transport in the surf zone.” of Science of the Soviet Union, Geophysics, Vol. 4, 共in Russian兲.
Voogt, L., van Rijn, L. C., Van den Betg, J. H. 共1991兲. “Sediment trans-
Proc., 18th Intl. Conf. on Coastal Engineering, ASCE, New York,
port of fine sands at high velocities.” J. Hydraul. Eng., 117共7兲 869–
969–988.
Komar, P. D., and Inman, D. L. 共1970兲. “Longshore sand transport on 890.
beaches.” J. Geophys. Res. 75共30兲, 5914–5927. Wang, P., Kraus, N. C., and Richard, A. D. 共1998兲. “Total longshore
Komar, P. D., Kamphuis, J. W., and Sayao, O. F. S. J. 共1982兲. sediment transport rate in the surf zone: Field measurements and em-
Lodahl, C. R., Sumer, B. M., and Fredsoe, J. 共1998兲. “Turbulent com- pirical predictions” J. Coastal Res., 14共1兲, 269–281.
bined oscillatory flow and current in a pipe.” J. Fluid Mech., 373, Watts, G. M. 共1953兲. “A study of sand movement at south Lake Worth
314–350. Inlet, FL.” Tech. Memo No. 42, U.S. Army, Beach Erosion Board,
Longuet-Higgins, M. S. 共1970兲. “Longshore currents generated by ob- Washington, D.C.
liquely incident waves: 1 and 2.” J. Geophys. Res., 75共33兲, 6678– Yalin, M. S. 共1977兲. Mechanics of sediment transport, Pergamon, Oxford,
6801. U.K.
Madsen, O. S., Poon, Y-K., and Graber, H. C. 共1988兲. “Spectral wave Yang, C. T. 共1996兲. Sediment transport: Theory and practice, McGraw–
attenuation by bottom friction theory.” Proc., 21st Int. Coastal Eng. Hill International Editions, USA.
Conf., Malaga, Spain, 1, 492–504. Yang, S.-Q. 共2005兲. “Prediction of total bed material discharge.” J. Hy-
McLean, S. R., Wolfe, S. R., and Nelson, J. M. 共1999兲. “Predicting draul. Res., 43共1兲, 12–22.
boundary shear stress and sediment transport over bed forms.” J. Hy- Yang, S.-Q., and Lim, S.-Y. 共2003兲. “Total load transport formula for flow
draul. Eng., 125共7兲, 725–736. in alluvial channels.” J. Hydraul. Eng., 129共1兲, 68–72.