EARTH SURFACE PROCESSES AND LANDFORMS, VOL.

10, 33-44 (1985)

THE INCIDENCE AND NATURE OF BEDLOAD TRANSPORT

DURING FLOOD FLOWS IN COARSE-GRAINED ALLUVIAL
CHANNELS
IAN REID, LYNNE E FROSTICK, AND JOHN T LAYMAN'
Departments of Geography and Geology; Birkbeck College; University of London; London WC IE 7HX; V.K.

Received 9 March 1984

Revised 14 May 1984

ABSTRACT
A continuous record reveals that the incidence of bedload in a coarse-grained river channel changes from flood to flood.
Long periods of inactivity encourage the channel bed to consolidate sufficiently so that bedload is largely confined to the
recession limb of the next flood-wave. But when flood's follow each other closely, the bed material is comparatively loose
and offers less resistance to entrainment. In this case, substantial amounts of bedload are generated on the rising limb. This
is confirmed by values of bed shear stress or stream power at the threshold of initial motion which can be up to five times the
overall mean in the case of isolated floods or those which are the first of the season. This produces a complicated
relationship between flow parameters and bedload and explains some of the difficulties in establishing bedload rating
curves for coarse-grained channels. Besides this, the threshold of initial motion is shown to occur at levels of bed shear stress
three times those at the thresholds offinal motion. This adds further confusion to attempts at developing predictive
bedload equations and clearly indicates at least one reason why equations currently in use are unsatisfactory. Bedload is
shown to be characterized by a series of pulses with a mean periodicity of 1.7 hours. In the absence of migrating bedforms, it
is speculated that this well-documented pattern reflects the passage of kinematic waves of particles in a slow-moving
traction carpet. The general pattern of bedload, including pulsations, is shown to occur more or less synchronously at
different points across the stream channel.

KEY WORDS Fluvial sedimentology Bedload River floods Sediment sampler

INTRODUCTION
Bedload constitutes a small fraction of the total sediment transported by a river. Johnson and Smith (1977)
estimate the amount to be between 6 and 24 per cent for several small Idaho rangeland drainage basins.
Einstein (1971) summarizing the Rhine river study gives a general figure of 2 per cent. Yet the movement of
river bed material as bedload is often responsible for the problems associated with shifting channels, with the
loss of reservoir capacity, and with local difficulties that arise in water abstraction. Despite the importance of
bedload transport in engineering design, our understanding of its incidence in natural streams is still far from
complete. This arises largely because of the problems of obtaining satisfactory field measurements (Novak,
1957; Hubbel, 1964). Bedload generating floods are infrequent in gravel-bed streams and cannot be forecast.
The logistical difficulties associated with being on hand when bedload occurs have led to a reliance on
theoretical (Einstein, 1950) and semiempirical (Shields, 1936; Meyer-Peter and Miiller, 1948) predictive
formulae which utilize flume data in deriving mathematical constants. Yet, the limited amount of reliable field

* Present address: La Sainte Union College, Southampton, U.K.

0197-9337/85/010033-1 2%01.20
0 1985 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
34 I. REID. L. E. FROSTICK A N D J. T. LAYMAN

data that is available illustrates the inadequacies of such treatments in predicting both the Occurrence and
magnitude of bedload (Lauffer and Sommer, 1982;Parker, Klingeman, and McLean, 1982; Reid and Frostick,
1984) if only for the reason that the arrangement of particles on the bed of a stream is more complicated than
that assumed in theoretical formulae or achieved in controlled flume studies as illustrated by Fenton and
Abbott (1 977) and Brayshaw, Frostick, and Reid (1 983).
The development of devices for the continuous measurement of bedload discharge (Milhous and
Klingeman, 1973; Leopold and Emmett, 1976; Reid, Layman, and Frostick, 1980; Reid, Brayshaw, and
Frostick, 1984) removes the need to speculate on its occurrence and allows the relationship between water and
bedload discharge to be assessed. This is particularly important in upland streams with coarse bed material,
since flow is not only unsteady but subject to large short-term fluctuations that involve rapid changes in shear
stress at the bed with the passage of flood waves. It is with this in mind that the pattern of bedload discharge in a
small gravel-bed stream is described here.

FIELD INSTALLATION
Six Birkbeck Bedload Samplers (Reid, Layman, and Frostick, 1980) were installed in Turkey Brook, Enfield
Chase, 18 km due north of London. Each sampler acts independently and provides a permanent slot
conformable with the bed of the stream through which bedload material passes to accumulate in a free-moving
box that sits on a pressure pillow in a concrete lined pit. The pressure exerted on the water-filled pillow by the
box and its sediment is continuously assessed and recorded automatically (Figure 1). Water stage at the pit site
is measured synchronously but by a separate recorder, and rates of bedload transport are computed by
subtracting the weight of water from the total weight of water and sediment accumulating in the box. The
original cross-channel width of each slot was 40 cm. This was reduced to 20 cm after the first few floods had
generated greater than expected amounts of bedload. Even with this smaller slot width the samplers would
sometimes fill to capacity, but this is easily distinguished on the chart trace and subsequent recordings were
ignored until the boxes were emptied and the installation reset.
Turkey Brook drains a London Clay catchment that has a rapid rainfall-runoff response. As a result the
flood hydrograph is flashy (Figure 2) and the time of rise from base-flow to flood peak is characteristically less
than four hours and can be as little as two hours for single isolated storms. The channel is incised and consists
of straight reaches punctuated by S-shaped meanders. It is half-way along two of these straight reaches that the
Birkbeck Samplers were installed in banks of three. The results of only one reach are reported here, though
patterns of bedload movement are similar in the other and reinforce the conclusions drawn.
Though there are point-bars and associated scour pools at the meanders, the straight reaches do not have
well-developed bedforms. Alternating low-amplitude bars have a relief of about 10 cm and become obvious
only at low flows (Figure I). As a result, the channel is more or less rectangular in cross-section. Its average
width is 3 m and bankfull water depth is 1.4 m. The bed material is dominated by rounded flint gravel with an
average sphericity of 0.68, but the channel banks and tributary drainage ditches contribute clay peds and sand
that move into the gravel interstices. An armour layer has a median diameter (D,,) of 22 mm and D90 (90
percentile) of 47 mm. The subarmour layer has a D,, of 16 mm and a D,, of 35 mm. The D,, of the bedload
averages 1 1 mm with a D,, of 34 mm. The similarity of bedload and subarmour layer size distributions is
reminiscent of the data given by Parker et al. (1982) for OAk Creek.
Besides the continuous record of bedload, water stage was recorded at two gauging sites up- and
downstream of the pit samplers in order to assess changes in water surface slope. Since there is considerable
variability during the course of a flood-wave, with steeper values on the rising limb than on the falling limb, this
represents a refinement over the average reach values of bed slope more commonly used. But for gross
comparison with other streams, the average water-surface slope at this reach on Turkey Brook is 0-0086.Water
discharge was computed from a stage-discharge rating equation derived from both area-velocity and salt-
dilution gauging. Average bed shear stress, T, and unit stream power, W , were calculated from
T =pRS
w = p Q S / W = pYSii
 BEDLOAD IN COARSE-GRAINED CHANNELS 35

Birkbeck bedload samplers

0 5 10 15
rder metres

pressure pillow
(water filled)

Figure 1. Birkbeck Bedload Sampler Installation. (A) Plan map of the experimental reach of Turkey Brook showing sampler locations.
(B) Channel cross-section showing sampler dimensions and recording mechanism

where p is fluid density, R is hydraulic radius, S is water-surface slope, Q is water discharge, W is channel
width, Y is water depth, and ii is mean water velocity.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Bedload in relation to theflood wave
Figure 2 gives the pattern of bedload transport in relation to the stream hydrograph for 11 floods in two winter
seasons. A further three bedload generating floods of this period are not represented since on these occasions
the samplers were already full from a preceding event. Each of the 201 points on the bedload curves is derived
by weighting the data of the individual samplers according to the proportion of the stream cross-section they
represent and averaging the three results. These values of mean unit bedload are given in terms of submerged
mass, ib.
Immediately noticeable is the apparently poor correlation between bedload transport and water stage. A
similarly poor correlation has been noted for steep Austrian streams by Lauffer and Sommer (1982). This has
been attributed to an hysteretic loop in the relationship between bedload transport and water discharge though
the evidence is contradictory: Nanson (1974) reports greater bedload transport rates on the rising than the
36 1. REID, L. E. FROSTICK AND J. T. LAYMAN

falling limb of one flood hydrograph, while Milhous and Klingeman (1973) show a variability in the direction
of the loop between floods that is dependent upon the availability of finer bedload material. Meade, Emmett,
and Myrick (198 1) provide some useful reasoning for the differences in direction of any possible hysteretic loop
by considering the position of sampling locations in relation to sand storage areas: sampling points
immediately downstream from bars receive sediment quickly and sediment transport rates are higher on the
rising limb; the opposite holds for points distant from bar sediment sources. But their explanation relates to
comparatively long seasonal changes in snowmelt discharge on the East Fork River. An analysis of the

r0.75
0.04 IO.'
1 0 - 1 1 Dec 1 9 7 8 0.50

0.02

0
0
18 0 6 12 18

5
0 02 1
0.25 n
24 1 5 DFC I ' J i 8 a
3
5

- 0 n
r 12 18 12 18 a 6 3
E
DD
-I

-
0 06
0

2
I

$ 004
C
2 2 8 - 2 9 Dec w 7 a 0.04
0 .0.50

5
a
... 1 3 - 1 4 Mar 1 9 7 9
m
0 02
.n 2s
0 02

0
C

*
I 0

*
r0.50

2 5 2 6 Ian 1979
n 02

0
0

a
1 inrv , h

Figure 2a. Continuous record of unit bedload transport expressed as submergedmass, i,, for selected floods at Turkey Brook, 1978-1980.
Bedload transport rates are average values for samplers 1,2, and 3
 BEDLOAD IN COARSE-GRAINED CHANNELS 37

a06
0 06
1.00

0.75

0.04 0.75
0.04
0 50

0.50
:
0 25 ?
0 02 n
0.25
2r
0 <

Y
d
.

-p
.n

L
* 0
b ' 1'2 i'n '

*
b ' 1'2

0.06

-
n
c
4

P
4 0.04
-
0
D
01
D 0.04

0.02
25
srt sampler 1s) full
0.02

0
h

Figure 2b. Continuousrecord of unit bedload transport expressed as submergedmass, ib, for selected floods at Turkey Brook,1978-1980.
Bedload transport rates are average values for samplers 1,2, and 3

relationship between bedload transport and water discharge from individual floods on Turkey Brook does not
produce recognizable hysteretic loops.
One factor which may explain the confusing picture of bedload as it relates to the flood wave is the
availability of sediment from one flood to the next. This availability need not be a function of temporary
exhaustion of supply (as suggested by Leopold and Emmett, 1976, and by Arkell et al. 1983), but may be due to
temporal differencesin the resistance of the bed material to movement. Long periods between floods allow the
gravel framework to bed down and particle interlock is enhanced. Besides this, matrix fines are observed to
settle into interstices in the gravel bed during periods of low flow (Frostick, Lucas, and Reid, 1984), so
adding strength to the framework. As a result, the first winter flood generates bedload on the recession limb
after the rising limb has loosened the structure and winnowed out the fines. The floods of 10-1 1 December
1978 and 9-10 December 1979 (Figure 2) might be explained this way. Both follow low-flow periods in excess
of four months and as a result 92 per cent and 99 per cent of bedload occurs as the flood recedes. Another
example where flood flow follows a long period (24 months) in which the bed has been undisturbed is 12-13
March 1980. This flood generated 94 per cent of its bedload on the recession limb (Figure 2). In contrast, floods
that follow others comparatively quickly are characterized by substantial bedload on the rising limb (uiz. 25-26
January 1979,31 January-1 February 1979,13-14 March 1979). Of considerable interest is the double rise of
38 1. REID. L. E. FROSTICK AND 1. T. LAYMAN

the 13-14 February 1979 flood: the fraction of bedload carried on the rising limb increases from 13 per cent to
24 per cent in the second wave, which exploits an already loosened bed. An exception appears to be the floodof
28-29 December 1978. But even here the rising flood limb does transport some bedload and thiscontrasts with
the first flood of the season (that of 1G11 December 1978) which is a higher magnitude event.
The broad pattern of bedload transport is far from simple. The changing availability of bed material already
outlined is partly responsible for this. In addition, however, Emmett (1976),Jackson and Beschta (1982),and
Parker et ul. (1982) have illustrated the importance of sudden breaching of the armour layer in upsetting the
relationship between flow and bedload discharge, though in their cases the size distributions of armour and
subarmour layers are substantially different. The smaller subarmour layer particles are readily entrained once
exposed.
A continuous record of bedload discharge such as that of Turkey Brook clearly demonstrates the
inappropriateness of explaining the incidence of bedload in terms of what are thought to be significant flows
such as bankfull discharge (Wilcock, 1971) or flood peak discharge (Leopold and Emmett, 1981; Carling, 1983).
On average, bedload at Turkey Brook commences at a water depth of 0.21 m (Table I) which is only 015 of
bankfull water depth.

Thresholds of motion
One fact that clearly emerges from the Turkey Brook data when considering sediment entrainment is that,
on average, the bed shear at initial motion is c. three times greater than at the point when bedload transport
ceases. Expressed in terms of unit stream power, shown by Bagnold (1973) to be a better measure of the
transporting capacity of a stream, the ratio is 5 : 1 (Table I). A similar pattern was noted by Rathbun and Guy
(1967) but for a controlled flume study using sand as a bed material. On the other hand, Francis (1973),
investigating the motion of solitary grains in another flume study argued strongly in favour of a difference in
levels of force at initial and final motion but this was not borne out by his experimental results.
The higher threshold values for initial motion have been shown to be due in part to particle interlock and to
the hiding of one grain by another, especially where clusters form a significant part of the microrelief
(Brayshaw,Frostick, and Reid, 1983; Reid, Brayshaw, and Frostick, 1984). But also involved are the differences
between static and dynamic friction that mean more power is required to initiate than to maintain bedload
motion (Francis, 1973;Reid and Frostick, 1984).This is broadly analogous to the differences between the water
velocity causing erosional scour and that maintaining the transportation of suspended sediment in estuarine

Table I. Hydraulic parameters at initial and final motion of bedload, I,,-and bedload pulse time-interval for individual
floods, Turkey Brook

Initiation of I , I , -pulse interval*

Y TO 0 0 Cessation of I , X U
Flood date (m) (kgn-') (kgm-'s-') Y 76 4 (h) (h)
10 Dec 1978 0.55 6.65 18.31 0.18 1.07 1.12 1 -5 0.4
24 Dec 0.07 0.82 0.65 0.09 0.68 0.43
28 Dec 0.10 1 a4 0.7 1 2-0 1-3
25 Jan 1979 0.17 2-25 2-G5 1-5 0.8
31 Jan 0.17 2.31 2.13 1 -9 0.7
13 Feb 0.18 1.56 1.40 0.12 0.74 0.67
13 Mar 0.27 2.61 2.86 1.8 0.7
17 Mar 1.5 0.4
26 May 0.13 1.56 1.29 1-5 0.6
9 Dec 028 3.31 5.36 014 0.89 0.85 1*4 08
13 Dec 1 -7 0.3
27 Dec 0.20 1.98 2.26 1-6 0.7
12 Mar 1980 0.28 3.18 4.12 0.13 0.78 072 1-8 1.1
Mean 0.21 2.20 3.74 013 0.79 0.76 1.7 -

* Data from sampler 3 only-for explanation see text.

 BEDLOAD IN COARSEGRAINED CHANNELS 39

environments (Postma, 1967). Good examples of this difference are offered by the first floods of the winter
seasons. Coming after more than four months of low flows in which the bed material has undergone some
consolidation,the events of 10 December 1978and 9 December 1979 fail to generate bedload until bedshear is
3 and 1-5 times the average shear stress at initial motion for all the recorded floods. The other notably isolated
event-12 March 198&also requires relatively high shear stress to initiate motion (1.4 times the average,
Table I).
Shields’ entrainment function (extended for large bed material by Miller, McCave, and Komar, 1977) is
commonly used to predict the incidence of bedload transport. The Turkey Brook data show it to be inadequate
for gravel-bed streams. This is not only because of the dual nature of the transport thresholds, but also because
of the effect of differential exposure of clustered bed particles on entrainment. The value of Shields’ parameter
for Turkey Brook bedload taken from the curve of Miller et al. (1977)ranges narrowly around 0.037 while the
actual value for initial motion using D,, to derive particle Reynolds number averaged 0.225, some 6 1 times
that predicted. Even by taking the 90 percentile (Dg0)of the mobile sediment to derive the particle Reynolds
number, the Shields parameter is still 1.6 times the predicted value at 0058.
Flow depth and bedload transport
Bedload transport equations in common use predict increasing sediment transport rates with increasing
flood stage (Bogardi, 1974).Yet Williams (1970)observed in a flume study that transport rates declined and
even ceased altogether with comparativelysmall increases in flow depth. He was able to show this to be related
to the relative protrusion of bed particles into the flow. Bagnold (1977) extended Williams’ conclusions by
adding the bedload data for the East Fork, Snake, aad Clearwater Rivers, postulating a general inverse
relationship between the ratio of flow depth to median grain size ( Y / D ) and bedload transport, ib.
Turkey Brook offers a further glimpse of the importance of changes in flow depth to sediment transport
rates, Figure 3 gives unit bedload transport rates for the flood of 30-31 May 1979 for sampler 3 only (the other

1.50

0.08-

0.06- 1.00

<
c

7
v: 3
0.04-
‘E
i
-I

.-i 1.50

0.02-
).25

1
0
18 0 6
30 M a v 1979 31 Mav

Figure 3. Unit bedload transport and water depth for the low-frequency,high magnitude Turkey Brook flood 3&31 May 1979. Data from
sampler 3 only
40 I. REID, L. E. FROSTICK AND J. T. LAYMAN

two were more or less filled by the preceding event). During this exceptionally large flood, bedload transport
commenced early on the rising limb but ceased abruptly as water depth reached 1.01m even though water
depth, stream power, and shear velocity continued to climb. On the recession limb, bedload recommenced
when water depth fell to 0.91 m. Looking now at the only other documented example of an exceptionally large
flood-27-28 December 1979, Figure 2-a similar bedload pattern is evident. Mov5ment of material into all
three independently operating samplers fell momentarily to zero as water depth passed 0.90 m, a value not
dissimilar to that of the other large flood. It may be possible to suggest that with flow depths of c. 0.9 m andY/D
approaching 70, turbulent eddies are dissipated remote from the bed and are less likely to sweep downwards
disturbing its particles. This contrasts with shallower flows where the relative protrusion of bed grains is far
greater and any turbulence will almost inevitably impinge upon them, encouraging bedload transport.
Bedload pulses
Perhaps the most striking feature that emerges from Turkey Brook is the pulsing nature of bedload
discharge (Figure 2). Because the Birkbeck Samplers are recording both continuously and synchronously for
three well-sited positions cross-channel, the doubts about instrument design that left Einstein (1937)
suspicious of bedload pulses in the Rhine study do not arise at Turkey Brook. Besides this, an increasing
number of studies reporting pulses even under steady flow conditions (Emmett, 1975)gives some confidence in
a growing awareness that the complicated interaction between fluid and bed material need not produce a
simple bedload response (Table 11).
Table I gives values for the mean and standard deviation of bedload pulse intervals, flood-by-flood, as
recorded in the right-bank sampler. Similar bedload patterns emerge for the other two samplers but since
transport rates were generally less on the right bank of the reach this sampler gave a more complete record in
those cases where bedload eventually filled the collecting boxes. From Table I it can be seen that the interval
between pulses is reasonably regular. The overall average is 1.7 hours with means for individual floods ranging
narrowly around this value.
Although bedload pulses were commented on as early as 1931 by Ehrenberger, they still lack proper
explanation. Frostick, Reid, and Layman (1983) link fluctuations in suspended sediment to pulses in water
discharge that result from the contribution of tributaries to the main channel in a drainage basin. However,
these are transitory and cannot be responsible for bedload pulses lasting in excess of one hour. Einstein (1971)
mentions a changing size distribution of bedload on the Rhine and accredits it to the passage of sand and gravel
waves. But Klingeman and Emmett (1982) specifically note no apparent bedform migration on Slate Creek,
even though bedload transport rates fluctuate rhythmically, and this is also the case with Turkey Brook.
In the absence of identifiable migrating bedforms, we are left to speculate on the appositeness of Langbein
and Leopold’s (1968) application of kinematic wave theory to bedload, given the certain knowledge from a
different study at Turkey Brook using a permanently installed and recording electromagnetic sensor that
particles do indeed move in groups (Reid, Brayshaw, and Frostick, 1984).The bed might be envisaged as a slow
moving layer not more than one or two grains thick, within which the concentration of particles varies
streamwise.

Table 11. Bedload pulse interval and flow conditions reported for natural rivers
Bedload pulse
interval
Reference River Flow (h)
Reid, Frostick, and I’urkey Brook, England Unsteady 14-2
Layman (this paper)
Ehrenberger, 1931 Danube, Austria ? 03
Muhlhofer, 1933 Inn, Austria ? 0.1
Einstein, 1937 Rhine, Switz. Steady 20
Solov’yev, 1967 Mzymta and Ugam, USSR ? 02
Emmett, 1975 Slate Cr., Steady 0147
Idaho
 BEDLOAD IN COARSE-GRAINED CHANNELS 41

Cross-channel diflerences in bedload transport rate

So far, consideration has largely been given to temporal variations in bedload discharge. An evaluation of
cross-channel variations is also important. Synchronous records of bedload are given for right-bank, centre,
and left-bank stations of Birkie Reach during two selected floods in Figure 4.
The general pattern of movement is similar at all points. There is, however, a suggestion of general decline in
transport rates towards the channel edges and away from the centre line as would be expected from a
considerationof bank effects. This confirms a pattern already established for sand transport in a straight reach
of the East Fork River (Leopold and Emmett, 1977) and even for a meander bend on the River South Esk
(Bridge and Jarvis, 1982).

0.04
n l e f t bank
0.04

D.50
left bank

0.02 0.0; n
0.25 g
*
5

0 3
(

0.Of

mid channel

10 Dec 1978 1 1 Dec

right bank
0.01 18:
... ':
..:.:..
... .:
....
...
...
... ...
..
...
....
...... .:.
............
...... .......
0
18 0 6
9 Dec 1979 10 D e c

Figure 4. Synchronous plots of the continuous record of unit bedload transport for left-bank, midchannel, and right-bank samplers
during two selected floods at Turkey Brook
42 I. REID, L. E. FROSTICK AND J. T. LAYMAN

A detailed examination of the bedload reveals some cross-channel differences in the apparent number and
timing of the pulses (Figure 4). This suggests that the kinematic waves of bedload particles do not necessarily
have an axis orthogonal to the thalweg, and that a slow moving part of one wave may find itself merging with
part of a faster-moving successor.

CONCLUSIONS
The Birkbeck Samplers reveal a broad pattern of bedload transport in coarse-grained streams that differs from
flood to flood. Isolated events or the first flood of the season require a loosening of the bed material as
discharge increases before transport rates are significant. As a result bedload occurs predominantly on the
recession limb. This is not so with floods that follow closely on each other. Here bedload occurs on the rising
limb of the flood-wave because the bed material is no longer consolidated. These differences help to explain the
wide scatter in bedload rating curves for coarse-grained channels that use point data derived with non-
recording samplers. A continuous record also reveals the reason why bedload cannot be related in a simple
fashion to parameters of flood flow such as bankfull or peak discharge.
The wide separation in levels of stream power at the thresholds of initial and final motion (which themselves
can only be detected with continuous monitoring) poses its own problem in the development of predictive
equations. Bedload is not simplya function of shear stress in excess o f a single threshold defined at the point of
incipient motion. Once started bedload transport continues long beyond the point at which bed shear stress
falls below this threshold value on the falling limb of the flood wave. Besides this, the Turkey Brook field record
gives values of force at initial motion which are higher than have previously been used for similar materials
based on Shields’ (1936) criterion. This is because Shields’ curve is constructed using data from flume
experiments in which the bed is not allowed to consolidate. As a result, bedload in natural channels starts later
but goes on longer than predicted.
As well as indicating broad patterns hitherto unsuspected, the continuous record at Turkey Brook confirms
the pulsing nature of bedload. This may engender greater confidence in other work where wide-ranging values
spaced closely in time are often credited to the design problems of samplers. An explanation of bedload pulses
can only be speculative,since direct observation of the bed is impossible during flood flow. But the absence of
identifiable migrating bedforms gives a strong indication that the pulses are due to streamwise differences in
the concentration of particles in a slow-moving traction carpet, and that these might represent kinematic
waves.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We are grateful to Chris Hawkins and Derek Lee for assistance with field installation of the samplers and to
Andrew Brayshaw who helped with the arduous tasks that followed each flood during the second winter
season. Eddie Bates, another member of the Birkbeck fluvial sedimentology team, kindly provided the
stage-discharge rating curve. A grant from the Central Research Fund of the University of London allowed
development of the samplers while JTL was in receipt of a NERC Research Training Award during the course
of fieldwork. Access to the Turkey Brook sites was made possible under licence from the Greater London
Council’s Valuation and Estates Department, and with the blessing of Colin Pains who farmed the adjacent
land.

APPENDIX
Notation

D Diameter of bed particle; subscript denotes percentile of size distribution.

‘b Unit bedload transport rate, submerged mass, kgm - ls- l .
Ib Bedload transport rate, kgs-
Q Water discharge, 111%- l .
 BEDLOAD IN COARSE-GRAINEDCHANNELS 43

R Hydraulic radius, m.
S- Water surface slope, mm-’.
U Mean water velocity, ms-’.
x Arithmetic mean.
Y Water depth, m.
P Fluid density.
d Standard deviation of sample.
7 Average bedshear, kgm -2.
70 Average bedshear, at initial motion, kgm-2.
rb Average bedshear at final motion, kgm-2.
w Unit stream power, kgm - ‘s- ’.
w0 Unit stream power at initial motion, kgm-ls-’.
ob Unit stream power at final motion, kgm-’s-’.

REFERENCES

Arkell, B., Leeks, G., Newson, M.,and Oldfield, F. 1983. ‘Trapping and tracing: some recent observations of supply and transport of coarse
sediment from upland Wales’, Spec. Publs. int. Ass. Sediment., 6, 107-119.
Bagnold, R. A. 1973. ‘The nature of saltation and of ‘bedload’ transport in water’, Proc. R. SOC.Lond.,A332,473-504.
Bagnold, R. A. 1977. ‘Bed load transport by natural rivers’, Water Resources Research, 13, 303-312.
Bogardi, J. 1974. Sediment Transport in Alluvial Streams, Akademiai Kiado, Budapest, 242-291.
Brayshaw, A. C., Frostick, L. E., and Reid, I. 1983. ‘The hydrodynamics of particle clusters and sediment entrainment in coarse alluvial
channels’, Sedimentology, 30, 137-143.
Bridge, J. S. and Jarvis, J. 1982. ‘The dynamics of a river bend: a study in flow and sedimentary processes’, Sedimentology, 29,499-541.
Carling, P. A. 1983. ‘Thresholds of coarse sediment transport in broad and narrow natural streams’, Earth Surface Processes Landforms, 8,
1-18.
Ehrenberger, R. 1931. ‘Direkte Geschiebemessungen an der Donau bei Wein und deren bischerige Ergehuisse’, Die Wasserwirtschaft, 34,
1-9.
Einstein, H. A. 1937. ‘Die Eichung des im Rhein verwendeten Geschiebefangers’, Schweizer. Bauzeitung, 110, 29-32.
Einstein, H. A. 1950. ‘The bed-load function for sediment transportation in open channel flows’, U.S. Dept. Agric. Tech. Bull., 1026,71 pp.
Einstein, H. A. 1971. ‘The Rhein study’, In Shen, H. W. (Ed.), River Mechanics Yol. I, 4.14.18.
Emmett, W. W. 1975. ‘The channels and waters of the upper Salmon River area, Idaho’, U.S. geol. Surv. Prof. Pap., 87GA.
Emmett, W. W. 1976. ‘Bedload transport in two large gravel-bed rivers, Idaho and Washington’, Proc. 3rd Federal Inter-agency
Sedimentation Conf., Denver, Colorado, 15 pp.
Fenton, J. D. and Abbott, J. E. 1977. ‘Initial movement of grains on a stream bed: the effect of relative protrusion’, Proc. R. SOC.Lond.,
A352, 523-537.
Francis, J. R. D. 1973. ‘Experiments on the motion of solitary grains along the bed of a water-stream’,Proc. R. SOC.Lond., A332,443471.
Frostick, L. E., Reid, I., and Layman, J. T. 1983. ‘Changing size distribution of suspended sediment in arid-zone flash floods’, Spec. Publs.
int. Ass. Sediment., 6, 97-106.
Frostick, L. E., Lucas, P. M., and Reid, I. 1984. ‘The infiltration of fine matrices into coarse-grained alluvial sediments and its
implications for stratigraphical interpretation’, J. geol. SOC.Land., 141.
Hubbell, D. W. 1964. ‘Apparatus and techniques for measuring bedload, US.geol. Surv., Water-supply Pap., 1748, 74 pp.
Jackson, W. L. and Beschta, R. L. 1982. ‘A model of two-phase bedload transport in an Oregon Coast Range stream’, Earth Surface
Processes Landforms, 7 , 517-527.
Johnson, C. W. and Smith, J. P. 1977. ‘Sediment characteristics and transport from Northwest Rangeland Watershed’, Am. SOC.Agric.
Engineers Presented Pap., Chicago, 77-2509, 27 pp.
Klingeman, P. C . and Emmett, W. W. 1982. ‘Gravel bedload transport processes’, in Hey, R. D., Bathurst, J. C., and Thorne, C. R. (Eds),
Gravel-bed Rivers, Wiley, Chichester, 141-179.
Langbein, W. B. and Leopold, L. B. 1968, ‘River channel bars and dunes-theory of kinematic waves’, U.S. geol. Surv. Prof: Pap., 422-L,
20 PP.
Lauffer, H. and Sommer, N. 1982. ‘Studies on sediment transport in mountain streams of the eastern Alps’, 14th Congre‘s des Grans
Barrages, Rio de Janeiro, 431453.
Leopold, L. B. and Emmett, W. W. 1976. ‘Bedload measurements, East Fork River, Wyoming’, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA, 73,1CK%1004.
Leopold, L. B. and Emmett, W. W. 1977. ‘1976 bedload measurements, East Fork River, Wyoming’, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA, 74,
2644-2648.
Leopold, L. B. and Emmett, W. W. 1981. ‘Some observations on the movement of cobbles on a stream bed.’ In?. Assoc. Hydrological
Sciences Proc. Florence Symposium, 49-59.
Made, R. H., Emmett, W. W., and Myrick, R. M. 1981. ‘Movement and storage of bed material during 1979 in East Fork River, Wyoming,
USA’,in &vies, T. R. H. and Pearce, A. J. (Eds), Erosion and Sediment Transport in Pacfic Rim Steeplands. Int. Assoc. Hydrological Sci.
Publ., 132,225-235.
Meyer-Peter, E. and Miiller, R. 1948. ‘Formulas for bedload transport’, Int. Assoc.for Hydraulic Structures Research Rept. 2nd Meeting,
Stockholm, 3 9 4 .
44 1. REID, L. E. FROSTICK A N D J. T.LAYMAN

Milhous, R. T. and Klingeman, P. C. 1973. ‘Sediment transport system in a gravel-bottomed stream’, in Hydraulic Engineering and the
Environment. Proc. 21st Ann. Hydraulics Diu. Spec. Conf: Am. SOC.Ciu. Engineers, Boseman, Montana, 293-303.
Miller, M. C., McCave, I. N., and Komar, P. D. 1977. ‘Threshold of sediment motion under unidirectional currents’, Sedimentology, 24,
507-528.
Miihlhofer, L. 1933. ‘Untersuchungen uber die Schwebstoff- und Geschiebefiihrung des Inn nachst Kirchbichl (Tirol)’, Die
Wasserwirtschaft, 26, 1 4 , 17-21, 31-34, 48-51, 55-57, 7&74.
Nanson, G. C . 1974. ‘Bedload and suspended load transport in a small, steep, mountain stream’, Am. J. Sci., 274,471-486.
Novak, P. 1957. ‘Bedload meters-development of a new type and determination of their efficiency with aid of scale models’, Int. Ass.
Hydraulics Res. Trans., 1, A9.1-A9.11.
Parker, G., Klingeman, P. C., and McLean, D. G. 1982. ‘Bedload and size distribution in paved gravel-bed streams’, J. Hydr. Diu. ASCE,
108, 544-571.
Postma. H. 1967. ‘Sediment transmrt and sedimentation in the estuarine environment’. in Lauff. G. H. (Ed.). Estuaries. Am. Assoc. Ado.
~ I

Sci. Publ., 83, 158-179.

Rathbun, R. E. and Guy, H. P. 1967.‘Measurement of hydraulic and sediment transport variables in a small recirculating flume’, Wafer
Resources Res., 3, 107-122.
Reid, I., Layman, J. T., and Frostick, L. E. 1980. ‘The continuous measurement of bedload discharge’, J . Hydraulic Res., 18,24>249.
Reid, I., Brayshaw, A. C., and Frostick, L.E. 1984. ‘An electromagnetic device for automatic detection of bedload motion and its field
applications’, Sedimentology, 31, 269-276.
Reid, 1. and Frostick, L.E. 1984. ‘Particle interaction and its effect on the thresholds of initial and final bedload motion in coarse alluvial
channels’, in Koster, E. H. and Steel, R.J. S . (Eds), Sedimentology ofGrauels and Conglomerates. Canadian SOC. Petroleum Geologists
Memoir, 10.
Shields, A. 1936. ‘Anwendung der Aehnlichkeits mechanik und der Turbulenzforschung auf die Geschiebebewegung’,Mitteilungen der
Preussischen Versuchsanstalt Jur Wasserbau und Schissbau, 26,98-109.
Solov’yev, N. Ya. 1967. ‘Improvement and test on an instrument for recording coarse sediment’, Transactions State Hydrol. Inst. (TRUDY
GGI), 141, 58-78.
Wilcock, D. N. 1971. ‘Investigation into the relation between bedload transport and channel shape’, Geol. SOC. Am. Bull., 82,2159-2176.
Williams,G. P. 1970. ‘Flume width and water depth effects on sediment transport experiements’,U.S.geol. Suru. Prof: Pap., 562H,37 pp.