Estimating Sediment Settling Velocities from a

Theoretically Guided Data-Driven Approach

Zhendong Cao 1; Phillip J. Wofram 2; Joel Rowland 3; Yu Zhang 4; and Donatella Pasqualini 5

Abstract: Sediment settling velocities are commonly estimated from analytical or process-based approaches. These approaches have
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Birmingham on 07/22/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

theoretical constraints due to the incompletely resolved settling physics. A parametric data-driven approach was recently proposed without
theoretical constraints, but it is limited by its mathematical assumptions. To overcome these limitations, this study applies a machine learning
algorithm to an aggregated sediment settling experimental database and develops a nonparametric data-driven model to estimate the non-
cohesive sediment settling velocity in water. A cross-comparison against five process-based equations and a parametric data-driven equation
demonstrates the higher accuracy and better consistency of the new model in estimating sediment settling velocities under various physical
regimes. The new model also shows an easily implemented self-update capability by assimilating theoretical data derived from the process-
based equations. The updated model, incorporating experimental and theoretical data of sediment settling processes, further improves the
accuracy and reduces the uncertainty in estimating sediment settling velocities. This study demonstrates the capability of machine learning in
sediment transport study and illustrates an alternative framework for other hydraulic engineering challenges. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)
HY.1943-7900.0001798. © 2020 Published by American Society of Civil Engineers.

Introduction Analytical and process-based approaches derive sediment set-

Sediment settling velocity is prerequisite for various sediment
transport studies and engineering applications. It influences the
sediment transport mode, rate, and distance in water (e.g., Dietrich
1982) and, therefore, is crucial in modeling sediment deposition,
suspension, mixing, and exchange processes (e.g., Zhiyao et al.
2008). Sediment settling is a complex process because it depends
on the sediment particle density, particle geometry (e.g., size,
shape, and roundness), interparticle cohesivity, fluid characteristics
(temperature, density, and viscosity), and fluid turbulence velocity
(e.g., Dietrich 1982; Nielsen 1993). Many sediment settling veloc-
ity equations have been proposed based on a broad range of ap-
proaches, including (pseudo-)analytical approaches (e.g., Stokes
1851; Oseen 1927; Goldstein 1929; Rubey 1933), process-based
approaches (e.g., Dietrich 1982; Van Rijn 1989; Raudkivi 1990;
Fredsoe and Deigaard 1992; Cheng 1997; Ahrens 2000; She et al.
2005; Wu and Wang 2006; Nasiha and Shanmugam 2018), and a
parametric data-driven approach (Goldstein and Coco 2014).
1
Postdoctoral Research Associate, Fluid Dynamics and Solid Mechanics,
Theoretical Div., Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM
87544 (corresponding author). ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002
-5400-431X. Email: caozd999@lanl.gov
2
Scientist, Fluid Dynamics and Solid Mechanics, Theoretical Div., Los
Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM 87544. Email: pwolfram@
lanl.gov
3
Scientist, Div. of Earth and Environmental Science, Los Alamos
National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM 87544. Email: jrowland@lanl.gov
4
Postdoctoral Research Associate, Div. of Earth and Environmental
Science, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM 87544. Email:
yuzhang@lanl.gov
5
Scientist, Div. of Analytics, Intelligence and Technology, Los Alamos
National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM 87544. Email: dmp@lanl.gov
Note. This manuscript was submitted on November 26, 2019; approved
on April 28, 2020; published online on July 22, 2020. Discussion period
open until December 22, 2020; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Hydraulic Engineer-
ing, © ASCE, ISSN 0733-9429.
tling velocities from the force equilibrium equation governing
the settling particles, which is solved by finding the solution of

 1 n
M n 1
CD ¼ þN n
R
(e.g., Cheng 1997), where CD = particle drag coefficient; R = par-
ticle Reynolds number; and M, N and n = parameters. Analytical
equations (e.g., Stokes 1851; Oseen 1927; Goldstein 1929) solve
the CD − R relationship analytically under small particle Reynolds
numbers (R < 2) and have been proven to break down in real ap-
plications (Munson et al. 2006). Process-based equations extend
their application regimes to a much wider R range, but the CD − R
relationship can only be empirically approximated because the
settling physics (e.g., turbulent flow around the settling particles)
cannot be resolved analytically. Various CD − R relationships have
been derived from different experimental data with certain assump-
tions (e.g., Table 1 in Zhiyao et al. 2008), and different process-
based equations have been proposed accordingly. However, the
variations of the equations indicate the limitation of process-based
approaches to describe the settling process in precise mathematical
terms. Furthermore, only a few studies (e.g., Jiménez and Madsen
2003; Wu and Wang 2006) have compared different process-based
equations, and new equations are rarely tested against existing data
to determine their general reliability. All these factors indicate the
uncertainty and inaccuracy of process-based equations in estimating
settling velocities in sediment transport studies (e.g., Bhattacharya
et al. 2007; Yang 2013). This might explain why many sediment
transport studies neither identify (e.g., Nielsen 1986; Huijts et al.
2006; Warner et al. 2008; Donatelli et al. 2018; Olabarrieta et al.
2018) nor use (e.g., Warner et al. 2007; Ganju et al. 2009;
Fagherazzi et al. 2013) equations to estimate sediment settling
velocities.
As pioneers, Goldstein and Coco (2014) developed a new sedi-
ment settling velocity equation from an aggregated database using a
genetic programming (GP) data-driven approach. This approach
does not have the theoretical constraints of process-based models,
and it needs to specify the mathematical operators as a prerequisite.

© ASCE 04020067-1 J. Hydraul. Eng.

J. Hydraul. Eng., 2020, 146(10): 04020067

 Table 1. Aggregated sediment settling velocity database
Source Data points Dn (m) Δ ν (m2 =s) w (m=s)
Corey (1949) 46 1.6 × 10−3 − 7.1 × 10−3 1.65 1.2 × 10−6 0.16 − 0.42
Wilde (1952) 335 3.8 × 10−3 − 2.5 × 10−2 1.42 − 2.08 4.6 × 10−7 − 9.2 × 10−5 0.09 − 1.0
Briggs et al. (1962) 126 9.0 × 10−5 − 5.5 × 10−4 2.19 − 4.07 1.0 × 10−6 9.0 × 10−3 − 9.5 × 10−2
Schulz et al. (1954) 159 1.0 × 10−4 − 1.4 × 10−2 1.54 − 6.5 1.0 × 10−6 − 1.0 × 10−5 6.1 × 10−3 − 0.16
US Inter-Agency Committee (1957) 12 1.5 × 10−4 − 1.5 × 10−3 1.65 1.0 × 10−6 1.5 × 10−2 − 1.17
Alger (1964) 64 2.4 × 10−2 − 3.1 × 10−2 1.57 − 1.98 8.0 × 10−7 − 7.0 × 10−4 0.214 − 1.11
Komar and Reimers (1978) 51 6.4 × 10−3 − 1.9 × 10−2 1.77 − 2.80 9.0 × 10−4 1.9 × 10−2 − 0.12
Hallermeier (1981) 115 1.0 × 10−4 − 2.2 × 10−3 0.03 − 1.67 1.0 × 10−6 − 1.0 × 10−4 4.4 × 10−3 − 0.219
Cheng (1997) 43 1.0 × 10−6 − 4.5 × 10−3 1.65 6.6 × 10−7 − 1.4 × 10−4 5.7 × 10−7 − 0.28
Paphitis et al. (2002) 12 3.63 × 10−4 − 8.58 × 10−4 1.72 − 1.8 1.1 × 10−6 2.65 × 10−3 − 8.19 × 10−3
Smith and Cheung (2003) 22 4.2 × 10−4 − 6.9 × 10−3 1.6 9.9 × 10−7 − 1.0 × 10−6 4.8 × 10−2 − 0.316
6.8 × 10−5 − 4.3 × 10−3 9.2 × 10−7 6.0 × 10−3 − 0.307
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Birmingham on 07/22/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Ferguson and Church (2004) 12 1.65

Watts and Zarillo (2019) 10 3.85 × 10−4 − 8.8 × 10−3 1.7 9.6 × 10−7 9.98 × 10−2 − 0.275

However, it is unclear how to select mathematical operators for GP,
which makes it challenging to reproduce the researchers’ work;
furthermore, predefined operators may limit a model’s ability to
fully capture the internal relationships in data. To overcome these
limitations, this study presents a nonparametric data-driven model
of sediment settling velocities based on an aggregated database.
The new model, built upon a machine learning (ML) algorithm
called a random forest (RF), relaxes the theoretical or mathematical
constraints of previous studies and describes the internal relation-
ships in the data from a fully data-driven approach. Background
knowledge of the RF and its applications to relevant research
are presented in the methodology section. The new model has the
capability to self-update with the addition of new theoretical data
derived from process-based equations. Cross-comparisons between
different approaches (process-based, parametric data-driven, and
nonparametric data-driven) are also presented to evaluate the vari-
ety of sediment settling velocity models across multiple physical
regimes.
The paper is organized as follows. First, data compilation, pre-
processing, and the ML model configuration are described in the
methodology section. Then the ML model performance, cross-
model comparison, and sensitivity tests are presented in the results
section. Differences between process-based and data-driven mod-
els, including model sensitivity analysis and ML model update, are
provided in the discussion section. This is followed by a conclusion
section summarizing the value of this study and its illustration of
ML capabilities for hydraulic engineering applications.
Methodology
Aggregated Database and Data Pre-Processing
A multisource database of sediment settling measurements is com-
piled from Paphitis et al. (2002), Goldstein and Coco (2014), and
Watts and Zarillo (2019). The database has 1,006 measurements
(Table 1) with 4 independent variables: the nominal diameter of
a particle (Dn ) (m), the particle submerged specific gravity (Δ)
(dimensionless), the kinematic viscosity of fluid (ν) (m2 =s), and
the corresponding particle settling velocity (w) (m=s). The specific
gravity Δ ¼ ρs =ρw − 1, where ρs and ρw are the density (kg=m3 ) of
sediment and water, respectively. Data standardization is carried
out according to the following four steps:
1. The nominal diameter (Dn ) is converted to sieve diameter (D)
by D ¼ Dn =1.1 (Raudkivi 1990) for consistency with paramet-
ric settling equations that use D as an input variable.
2. Data are restricted to noncohesive sediment with D > 6.25 ×
10−5 m (1,000 measurements).
3. Data are classified into sand (D < 2 × 10−3 m) and gravel
(D > 2 × 10−3 m).
4. Only data in water are considered (ν < 2 × 10−5 m2 =s) for typ-
ical real-world applications.
After data standardization, the final database contains 756 ex-
perimental measurements with the variable distributions shown
in Fig. 1.
New Data-Driven Approach Using Random Forest
A RF (Breiman 2001) is a supervised machine learning algorithm
that learns intrinsic information within data, as demonstrated across
a variety of scientific fields and applications (Svetnik et al. 2003;
Cutler et al. 2007; Shotton et al. 2013; Chen and Hu 2017; Kane
et al. 2014; Zhou et al. 2019; Chen et al. 2019). A brief overview
of a RF algorithm with simple examples is presented in Liaw and
Wiener (2002). Comparisons between RF and other ML algorithms
(e.g., artificial neural network and support vector machine) demon-
strate its easy implementation, competitively high accuracy, and
transparency, as well as its ability to deal with small sample sizes
and high-dimensional data (e.g., Svetnik et al. 2003; Liu et al.
2013; Smith et al. 2013; Biau and Scornet 2016; Tyralis and
Papacharalampous 2017; Chen and Hu 2017; Chen et al. 2019).
Readers are referred to Verikas et al. (2011) for a review of the wide
applications of RF and its comparisons with other ML algorithms.
This study chooses a RF regression model because it (1) does not
require significant data preprocessing for discrete data, (2) guaran-
tees good performance with reduced sensitivity to outliers, which
are sometimes inevitable and hard to exclude in experimental data,
(3) is less susceptible to overfitting, (4) requires minimal parameter
tuning, (5) does not have linear/nonlinear assumptions, and (6) can
provide the relative importance of each variable in the model, which
is helpful in model sensitivity analysis (e.g., Segal 2004; Svetnik
et al. 2003; Raschka and Mirjalili 2017). Here, the open-source
RF regression algorithm sklearn.ensemble.RandomForestRegressor
(Pedregosa et al. 2011) is applied in Python 3 (Summerfield 2010)
is applied in this study. Three parameters are fine-tuned in the
model; the number of decision trees (ntrees), the depth of each tree
(max_depth), and the number of features (max_features) used to
determine tree splits. Each parameter is evaluated over a range of
values, and the combination of values for best model performance
is determined using grid search (Lerman 1980). Fivefold cross-
validation (Kohavi 1995) is incorporated into the grid search to
mitigate model overfitting (Raschka and Mirjalili 2017) during

© ASCE 04020067-2 J. Hydraul. Eng.

J. Hydraul. Eng., 2020, 146(10): 04020067

 (a) (b)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Birmingham on 07/22/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(c) (d)

Fig. 1. Aggregated database sample distributions: (a) sediment sieve diameter; (b) fluid kinematic viscosity; (c) submerged specific gravity; and
(d) settling velocity.

training. The final RF model with optimized model parameters is accuracy: MAE describes the average error of the model directly,
selected from a trade-off between model simplicity and accuracy. and RMSE has the benefit of penalizing large errors in the model.
The database is split into training and test data sets based on D Among the nine optimized models (Table 2), the one with the best
because of the broad distribution of these values in the database performance on both training and test data is selected as the final
[Fig. 1(a)]. A stratified random split is applied to preserve a con- RF model:
stant sediment class ratio (0.35 for gravel and 0.65 for sand) in both
training and test data sets, with the test size ratio (test_size) varied ΣNi¼1
Tr
ðwiobs − wirfp Þ2
R2 ¼ 1 − ð1Þ
between 0.1 and 0.9 to produce nine parameter tuning scenarios. In ΣNi¼1
Tr
ðwiobs − wobs Þ2
each scenario, the RF decision trees are binarily split until the
depths reach max_depth. A grid search is performed for max_depth sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
1 N Tr i
from 5 to 20, max_features from 1 to 3, and ntrees from 100 to σ¼ Σ ðw − wobs Þ2 ð2Þ
400 at an interval of 50. A fivefold cross-validation assesses model N Tr i¼1 rfp
performance and the optimized model is selected based on both
the confidence of determination [R2 , Eq. (1)] and the standard 1 N Te i
MAE ¼ Σ jw − wirfp j ð3Þ
deviation [σ, Eq. (2)]. These two metrics are used to evaluate the N Te i¼1 obs
average model performance throughout the model cross-validation
process, i.e., higher R2 and lower σ indicate higher model accuracy qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
1
and stability. Each scenario generates one optimized model that is RMSE ¼ ΣNi¼1 Te
ðwiobs − wirfp Þ2 ð4Þ
N Te
verified by the test data across three metrics: R2 , mean absolute
error [MAE, Eq. (3)], and root-mean-square error [RMSE, Eq. (4)]. where N Tr and N Te = total number of samples in training and test
Both MAE and RMSE are the evaluation metrics for the model data, respectively; wiobs = observed settling velocity of ith sample;

Table 2. Grid search results with fivefold cross-validation

Training data Test data
Scenario test_size ntrees max_depth MAEa RMSEa R2 MAEa RMSEa R2
1 0.1 100 8 1.57 2.67 0.99 2.54 4.81 0.97
2 0.2 150 9 1.37 2.35 0.99 2.42 4.28 0.97
3 0.3 100 9 1.35 2.30 0.99 2.44 4.38 0.97
4 0.4 350 11 1.17 2.13 0.99 2.60 4.64 0.96
5 0.5 400 13 1.16 2.15 0.99 2.55 4.65 0.96
6 0.6 400 5 2.05 3.31 0.98 3.06 5.55 0.95
7 0.7 150 6 1.62 2.34 0.99 3.30 6.14 0.93
8 0.8 100 5 1.66 2.50 0.99 3.68 6.66 0.92
9 0.9 150 9 1.31 2.29 0.99 3.77 6.78 0.92
a
10−2 m=s.

© ASCE 04020067-3 J. Hydraul. Eng.

J. Hydraul. Eng., 2020, 146(10): 04020067

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Birmingham on 07/22/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
(a)
Fig. 2. (Color) Performance of RF estimator on the training and test data, respectively: (a) training data (605 measurements); and (b) test data (151
measurements).
wobs = averaged settling velocity; and wirfp = estimated settling
velocity of ith sample from RF model.
Results
Model Performance
Model performance obtained during parameter tuning is shown
in Table 2. Each row denotes a scenario for the best combination
of ntrees and max_depth. Model performance is the best when
max features ¼ 3. The fivefold cross-validation results (with
all R2 values greater than 0.95) and the metric evaluations indicate
that no optimized model is overfit. Model structure (estimated
by ntrees × max depth) and the model accuracy (MAE, RMSE,
and R2 ) on both training and test data are compared to determine
Scenario 2 as the final RF model, which is referred to as the RF
estimator hereafter.
The performance of the RF estimator on both training and test
data is shown in Fig. 2. The evaluation metrics in the training data
(MAE ¼ 1.37 × 10−2 m=s, RMSE ¼ 2.35 × 10−2 m=s, and R2 ¼
0.99) and the test data (MAE ¼ 2.42 × 10−2 m=s, RMSE ¼ 4.28 ×
10−2 m=s, and R2 ¼ 0.97) indicate that an accurate model for
sediment settling velocities has been developed without any phys-
ical or mathematical constraints. The one standard deviation
(1-sigma) prediction interval shows that the RF estimator has rel-
atively smaller prediction intervals for smaller settling velocities,
e.g., for w < 0.30 m=s, but the relative uncertainties as obtained
by normalizing the standard deviation with the velocity are smaller
for larger settling velocities (not shown here). The overall perform-
ance of the RF estimator on the entire database is MAE ¼ 1.58 ×
10−2 m=s, RMSE ¼ 2.85 × 10−2 m=s, and R2 ¼ 0.98 (Fig. 4 red
text and dots). Feature importance analysis identifies D as the most
important parameter for the RF estimator with an index of 0.89 (out
of 1.0). The importance indices of ν and Δ are both quite small and
are less than 0.10 individually. This result indicates that the RF
estimator is only sensitive to D and the corresponding particle
© ASCE 04020067-4
J. Hydraul. Eng., 2020, 146(10): 04020067
(b)
Reynolds number, which will be further demonstrated and dis-
cussed in the sensitivity analysis.
Cross-Model Comparison
The RF estimator is compared against six selected algebraic para-
metric sediment settling velocity equations, as listed in Table 3. The
selected equations include five process-based equations (VR89,
SB97, CH97, WW06, and SH09) and one parametric data-driven
equation (GC14). All these equations have been well validated by
their experimental data and are reported to be applicable to different
flow regimes (Van Rijn 1989; Soulsby 1997; Cheng 1997; Wu and
Wang 2006; Sadat-Helbar et al. 2009; Goldstein and Coco 2014).
Specifically, VR89 and CH97 solve the CD − R relationship sim-
ilarly, but they derive different M, N, and n from different exper-
imental data; WW06 considers the sediment particle shape in
solving the CD − R relationship; SB97 is one of the most simplified
process-based equations with optimization of the coefficients in a
combined viscous plus bluff-body drag law; SH09 is a process-
based equation, but it is derived from the artificial data generated
by other equations; and GC14 is the first parametric data-driven
equation using an aggregated experimental database. As shown
in Fig. 3, each equation performs well in the test data, but none
outperforms the RF estimator. Considering that GC14 is developed
using nearly the same database as used in this study, the model
accuracy of GC14 and the RF estimator is further compared on
the entire final database. The results shown in Fig. 4 indicate that
the RF estimator has a higher accuracy and overall less bias with a
higher R2 and smaller MAE and RMSE.
Model performance across different sediment classes (gravel
and sand) is also evaluated. The results (Table 4) demonstrate that
the RF estimator performance is comparably accurate on sand and
gravel classes, but the algebraic equations do not have consistent
accuracy across different sediment classes. For example, the WW05
is the best among the six equations on sand samples (MAE ¼ 0.96 ×
10−2 m=s, RMSE ¼ 1.35 × 10−2 m=s, and R2 ¼ 0.94), but it
performs poorly on gravel samples (MAE ¼ 10.34 × 10−2 m=s,
J. Hydraul. Eng.
 Table 3. Algebraic parametric settling velocity equations
Reference Formulation of w Abbreviation
8
> 3
> νD if D ≤ 16.187
>
>
>
> 18D
>
>
<
10ν hpffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi i
Van Rijn (1989) 1 þ 0.01D − 1 if16.187 < D ≤ 16187 VR89
>
> D
>
>
>
> 1.1νD 1.5
>
> 
: if D > 16187
D
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 
ν
Soulsby (1997) 10.362 þ 1.049D3 − 10.36 SB97
D
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 1.5
ν
Cheng (1997) 25 þ 1.2D2 − 5 CH97
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Birmingham on 07/22/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

D
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
 1 !n
Mν 4ND3 n
Wu and Wang (2006) 0.25 þ − 0.5 WW06a
ND 3M 2
8  
3 0.963
> 0.033ν ΔgD
>
> if D ≤ 10
< D ν 2
Sadat-Helbar et al. (2009)
>   SH09
>
> 0.51ν ΔgD3 0.535
: if D > 10
D ν2
37.8ΔDn þ 3,780ΔD2n
Goldstein and Coco (2014) GC14
0.383 þ 10,000Δν þ 100Δ2 Dn
1
a
D ¼ D½Δg =ν 2 3 is the particle effective diameter. The coefficients M, N, and n in WW06 consider the Corey shape factor Sf (Corey 1949),
M ¼ 53.5e−0.65Sf , N ¼ 5.65e−2.5Sf , and n ¼ 0.7 þ 0.9Sf , where Sf ¼ pcffiffiffiffi
ab
, with a, b, and c the lengths (m) of the longest, intermediate, and shortest axes
of the particle. In this study Sf ¼ 0.8.

Fig. 3. (Color) Performances of algebraic parametric equations on test data.

© ASCE 04020067-5 J. Hydraul. Eng.

J. Hydraul. Eng., 2020, 146(10): 04020067

 sand), and 10−2 m (pebbles), respectively. Then the values of w are
calculated for each group using the RF estimator and the six equa-
tions, assuming constant nominal values of ν ¼ 1.0 × 10−6 m2 =s
and Δ ¼ 1.65. Model results are represented by the maximum,
minimum, and mean estimate values of each sediment group
and their standard deviation (σ) in Fig. 5, where abscissa labels
are model names (Table 3), the black error bars indicate the stand-
ard deviation of the estimate, the red error bars indicate the esti-
mate ranges between the minimum and maximum values, and the
black dots along the bars indicate the mean values of each estimate
group. Both the RF estimator and GC14 are sensitive to the grain
size variations from fine sand to pebbles, with the highest sensi-
tivity on the coarse sand. The remaining five equations show high
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Birmingham on 07/22/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 4. (Color) Comparison of RF estimator and GC14 on entire
database (756 measurements).
RMSE ¼ 13.34 × 10−2 m=s, and R2 ¼ 0.65). This indicates that
the traditional process-based equations, derived from limited exper-
imental data and not tested by new data, may fail to show their gen-
eral reliability. Compared to WW05, the RF estimator improves the
accuracy by 9.4% for sand samples and 48.6% for gravel samples
according to the MAE values. Similarly, compared to GC14, which
performs the best on gravel samples but the worst on sand samples,
the RF estimator has an increased accuracy by 44.2% and 17.8% on
sand and gravel classes, respectively. In general, the RF estimator
outperforms the other six algebraic equations and shows consistent
accuracy across different sediment classes.
Model Sensitivity Testing
To evaluate the sensitivity of the RF estimator and the six equations
to each input variable, three sensitivity scenarios are completed
with each scenario testing one feature.
sensitivity for coarse sand and pebbles, but less for fine sand.
GC14 overestimates w when the grain size is small [Fig. 5(a)],
indicated by the estimate range (red bar) not overlapping with
any other model results. This is consistent with the findings of
Goldstein and Coco (2014).
Sensitivity to Kinematic Viscosity and Submerged Specific
Gravity
Twenty-one different fluid kinematic viscosity ν values are selected
with constant intervals from the range of 10−6 m2 =s and 10−5 m2 =s.
Constant nominal values of D ¼ 10−3 m and Δ ¼ 1.65 are defined
for each ν value. For the sensitivity test against Δ, 15 different Δ
values are selected from [1 3], with ν and D assigned to be
10−6 m2 =s and 10−3 m, respectively. Model sensitivity results to
ν and Δ are shown in Fig. 6. Fig. 6(a) shows that the RF estimator
and GC14 are not sensitive to ν, but the other five equations are
strongly sensitive. Sensitivity results for the specific gravity Δ
are similar: the five process-based models are more sensitive to
Δ than the RF estimator and GC14 [Fig. 6(b)]
Discussion
In contrast to the traditional process-based approach based on lim-
ited experimental data and mathematical/physical laws, the data-
driven approach is inductive and relies on aggregated database to
develop insight, predictions, or relationships. The two distinctive
approaches have intrinsic differences. Here the differences are ad-
dressed from two perspectives: (1) model sensitivity and (2) model
scalability. The latter focuses on the improvement of our data-
driven model with the addition of more data derived from sampling
theoretical relationships.

Sensitivity to Sediment Particle Size

Sediment particle size is typically characterized by laboratory sieve
analysis (e.g., BSI 1967, 1986). Assuming a 10% error for grain
size (D  error) in sieve analysis, three groups of sediment are se-
lected, with the average D as 10−4 m (fine sand), 10−3 m (coarse
Model Sensitivity Analysis
Sediment particles are sampled with a wide range of D, varying
from 6.25 × 10−5 m to about 0.03 m [Fig. 1(a)], across 323 differ-
ent D values in the database. The numbers of ν and Δ values,

Table 4. Performances of models on test data

Sand Gravel Sand and gravel
Model
name MAE a
RMSE a
R2 MAE a
RMSE a
R2 MAE a
RMSEa R2
RF 0.87 1.21 0.96 5.31 7.07 0.92 2.42 4.28 0.97
VR89 1.18 1.62 0.92 7.65 10.60 0.78 3.44 6.39 0.93
SB97 1.36 1.93 0.89 8.17 11.40 0.75 3.73 6.90 0.91
CH97 1.12 1.76 0.91 7.95 10.62 0.78 3.51 6.43 0.92
WW05 0.96 1.35 0.94 10.34 13.34 0.65 4.23 7.96 0.88
SH09 1.40 2.10 0.86 10.47 13.51 0.64 4.56 8.16 0.88
GC14 1.56 2.23 0.85 6.67 8.60 0.86 3.34 5.39 0.95
Note: Bold denotes lowest two error values.
a −2
10 m=s.

© ASCE 04020067-6 J. Hydraul. Eng.

J. Hydraul. Eng., 2020, 146(10): 04020067

 (a)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Birmingham on 07/22/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(b)

(c)

Fig. 5. (Color) Model sensitivity to different grain sizes: (a) fine sand; (b) coarse sand; and (c) pebbles.

however, are much smaller. There are only 48 different ν values and
70 different Δ values in the database. More specifically, ν and Δ
can be effectively clustered into single groups [Figs. 1(b and c)]:
646 out of the 756 samples (85.4%) have ν values around
10−6 m2 =s (log10 ν ∈ [−6.1 − 5.9]); more than 70.7% of the Δ val-
ues falls in between 1.45 and 1.85, with 295 values equal to 1.65.
This explains why the RF estimator (and GC14) is sensitive to D
but not to either ν or Δ.
In fact, the database is largely composed of data on quartz par-
ticles falling in water. This is the most common engineering con-
dition in the real world: water kinematic viscosity is around
10−6 m2 =s, and most sediment particles are quartz or similar min-
erals with a characteristic density of 2,650 kg=m3 ; water density is
around 1,000 kg=m3 ; and the specific gravity Δ ¼ 1.65 is the typ-
ical value in sediment transport studies (Soulsby 1997). The data-
driven model’s sensitivity does not affect the model application in
the real world. For example, Farrell and Sherman (2015) compiled
a database from all five of the existing sediment settling velocity
experimental data sets in air, in which all the measurements share
the same air kinematic viscosity (1.5 × 10−5 m2 =s) and submerged
specific density (2,207). However, from that database they derived
a linear equation of settling velocity in air with respect to only grain
size, which outperforms eight previous equations with more inde-
pendent variables (e.g., ν and Δ) and more complex formulations
[Table 5 in Farrell and Sherman (2015)].
The proposed model’s sensitivity testing demonstrates intrinsic
differences between a data-driven model and a process-based
model. The key capability of a process-based model is its transpar-
ency in physics—each variable has a distinct role in determining
the physical process; for example, D determines the volume and
surface area of a particle, ν determines the drag forces on settling
particles, and Δ determines the relative gravity of particles in fluid.
These variables largely control the particle settling process, with
their contributions to the settling velocity represented as distinct
terms in the equations (Table 3). The data-driven model, however,
is an inductive approach that embeds theory and logic within the

© ASCE 04020067-7 J. Hydraul. Eng.

J. Hydraul. Eng., 2020, 146(10): 04020067

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Birmingham on 07/22/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(a)

(b)

Fig. 6. (Color) Model sensitivity results: (a) v ∈ ½10−6 ; 10−5 ; and (b) Δ ∈ ½1; 3.

Table 5. Averaged IA values of models in different and overall R bands

IA values in various log10 ðRÞ bands
Model <0.5 0.5 ∼ 1.0 1.0 ∼ 1.5 1.5 ∼ 2.0 2.0 ∼ 2.5 2.5 ∼ 3.0 3.0 ∼ 3.5 >3.5 Overall average
VR89 0.95 0.90 0.93 0.96 0.89 0.95 0.99 0.98 0.96
SS97 0.95 0.88 0.91 0.94 0.99 0.96 0.93 0.90 0.93
CH97 0.78 0.83 0.85 0.93 0.96 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.97
WW06 0.83 0.91 0.96 0.94 0.89 0.85 0.85 0.86 0.86
SH09 0.65 0.81 0.95 0.96 0.92 0.95 0.97 0.93 0.95
GC14 0.33 0.76 0.96 0.95 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.92 0.89
RF 0.87 0.95 0.96 0.97 0.90 0.92 0.88 0.84 0.91
RF_update 0.89 0.95 0.97 0.98 0.97 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99
Note: The highest values in each column are bolded.

model implicitly. The development of the data-driven model relies
on the sufficiency and accuracy of the database, but it is not sus-
ceptible to overreductionism via conceptual assumptions. One con-
sequence is that the data-driven model might be applicable only
within the range of the data used to develop it. But this limitation
also applies to the process-based models using empirical descrip-
tions for complex physical process, although it is rarely mentioned
(Goldstein et al. 2019).
Improvement of RF Estimator with Theoretical Data
The largest deficiency of the RF estimator is that it does not
have theoretical knowledge of sediment settling processes as
do process-based equations. One solution is to have the RF es-
timator trained on data from theoretically derived predictions.
Under the inspiration of Sadat-Helbar et al. (2009), an ensemble
learning method is introduced to generate the theoretical data
from the five process-based equations in Table 3. This will
incorporate theoretical knowledge of the settling process from
the predicted data with reliable accuracy, and the ensemble learn-
ing method will integrate five process-based equations and
reduce the uncertainty of each individual estimate (e.g., Mendes-
Moreira et al. 2012). The ensemble learning procedure is imple-
mented as follows:
1. Select 1,000 sediment particles with fixed density (ρs ¼
2,650 kg=m3 ) but varying grain size (D values that are evenly
distributed in the range ½10−4 ; 10−2  m).
2. Estimate the settling velocities of the particles in water (assume
ν ¼ 10−6 m2 =s and Δ ¼ 1.65) using each of the five process-
based equations.

© ASCE 04020067-8 J. Hydraul. Eng.

J. Hydraul. Eng., 2020, 146(10): 04020067

 3. Average the five estimates of each particle to generate the the-
oretical data.
As a scalable model with no fixed formulation, the RF estimator
has an easily implemented capability to self-update given more
data. The RF estimator is retrained and updated by randomly se-
lecting 10% (100 samples) of the new theoretical data and adding
them to the original training data set. The updated RF estimator
(RF_update hereafter) is then tested on the remaining 90% data
using precisely the same approach and observational data used
to test the RF model. To compare the model performance, an indi-
vidual accuracy (IA) metric is introduced:
jwiavg − wiest;j j
IAij ¼ 1 − ð5Þ
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Birmingham on 07/22/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
wiavg
where IAij = accuracy of jth process-based equation in estimating
individual ith sample in new theoretical data; and wiavg and wiest;j =
averaged theoretical value and estimated value of sediment settling
velocity of ith sample by jth equation, respectively. The IAij value
varies in the range (−∞ 1]. An IA closer to 1 indicates a better
estimate of the model.
IA variations with respect to particle Reynolds numbers
(R ¼ wD=ν) for each model/equation are shown in Fig. 7. IA val-
ues in the range [0.7, 1] are highlighted, and the minimum values
are provided for some equation curves (SH09 and GC14) that are
not fully shown in the figure. Most models have IA values in the
range [0.8, 1], but no model performs consistently well on all R
bands. GC14 significantly underestimates the settling velocity when
R is small (for the case of very fine sand), as noted by Goldstein and
Coco (2014). The RF estimator has the most fluctuations of IA due
to the ensemble of decision trees in RF, but these fluctuations are
predominantly within the range of the overall IA values as shown in
Fig. 7. The performance of RF_update is greatly improved by in-
tegrating the theoretical data, especially at R > 102 . The fluctua-
tions in the RF estimator are modulated in the RF_update by
incorporation of the theoretical data. Table 5 lists averaged IA val-
ues of each model on different and overall R bands. Process-based
equations are obviously very accurate to estimate the new test data
generated by them, especially VR89 and CH97. The RF estimator
and GC14 do not outperform the process-based equations in this
new test data mainly because they do not have the theoretical
knowledge of sediment settling process as the process-based equa-
tions do. Compared with the RF estimator and the other algebraic
equations, the RF_update shows a significant improvement in es-
timating the theoretical data, with slightly low IA values for the first
R band [log10 ðRÞ < 0.5] but with a near optimal value for the re-
maining bands. In addition, the RF_update is applied to the original
training and test data, and the results show that the RF_update per-
forms nearly the same as the RF estimator on the original training
data, and slightly better on the original test data (MAE ¼ 2.31 ×
10−2 m=s, RMSE ¼ 4.11 × 10−2 m=s, and R2 ¼ 0.97 for RF_update
Fig. 7. (Color) IA variations in various models with respect to R from
theoretical data.
© ASCE 04020067-9
J. Hydraul. Eng., 2020, 146(10): 04020067
versus MAE ¼ 2.42 × 10−2 m=s, RMSE ¼ 4.11 × 10−2 m=s, and
R2 ¼ 0.97 for the RF estimator). This indicates that the RF_update
does not lose experimental data knowledge when trained using the
theoretical knowledge from the new data. The RF_update model
learns from both the theory and the data. The overall accuracy and
consistency of the RF_update is the best among the eight models.
This indicates that the RF_update has subsequently learned from
the available sediment settling knowledge contained within the ex-
perimental and theoretical data and made an improvement in reduc-
ing the estimation uncertainty. This improvement is important
because the uncertainty is the main issue in reliable prediction for
sediment transport applications (Yang 2013).
The easily implemented, straightforward, self-updating capabil-
ity is an advantage of the nonparametric data-driven model with no
algebraic formulation. Although process-based equations are more
transparent in terms of physical interpretation than the data-driven
models, a deterministic mathematical expression of the complex
settling physics appears impractical. GC14 should also be able
to assimilate the new data for better estimates, but the manually
predefined mathematical operations constrain the model to the lim-
ited knowledge of sediment settling physics, although it does pro-
vide an algebraic equation that the RF estimator cannot. However,
the benefits of the fully data-driven approach appear to outweigh
this disadvantage by producing an accurate and consistent sediment
settling velocity estimate across various physical regimes because it
is flexible and comprehensive in integrating aggregated experimen-
tal and theoretical knowledge to express the particle settling process
inductively.
Further Sediment Settling Velocity Modeling
Considerations
The real-world sediment settling process is much more complex
than the simplified conditions typically addressed in the literature
and this study. For instance, particle shape affects sediment settling
velocity (e.g., Corey 1949; Wilde 1952; Dietrich 1982; Camenen
2007), but in the database the particle shape is only denoted by
a particle diameter. This may limit the model application to spher-
ical sediment particles only. The effects of flocculation of cohesive
sediment (e.g., Winterwerp et al. 2002), sediment suspension
(e.g., Baldock et al. 2004), and mutual particle interactions (e.g., Imai
1980; El-Nahhas et al. 2009) also influence the sediment settling
process. But these complex real-world effects are not explicitly
considered within the present database. Additionally, some phys-
ical processes in the laboratory experiments such as wall effects
(e.g., Brown and Lawler 2003) absent in the real world may intro-
duce error into the experimental data and are not considered or cali-
brated for in the database.
The model developed in this study is accurate within these
constraints and is readily extensible subject to the availability of
additional data, but it does so at the cost of losing a simplified
framework for computation and direct theoretical underpinnings.
This makes the model difficult to understand and more costly to
compute as compared to an algebraic equation. However, the com-
plexity of the problem and the limitations of existing approaches as
illustrated here suggest value in this framework to provide better
estimates of sediment settling velocity. Minimally, there are two
key benefits: (1) the results obtained with the RF_update model
can be used to better select input values for sediment settling com-
putations and (2) results suggest parameter ranges that additional
laboratory or theoretical exploration should address to improve
understanding of sediment settling processes given the accuracy
of existing estimations relative to the integrated knowledge assimi-
lated in the RF_update model.
J. Hydraul. Eng.
 Conclusion
In this study, a new nonparametric data-driven model is developed
for noncohesive sediment settling velocity in water based on an ag-
gregated multisource sediment settling database. Cross-comparisons
between the new model and six algebraic equations demonstrate
the differences between the process-based and data-driven models:
(1) the nonparametric data-driven model, without any theoretical and
mathematical constraints, estimates sediment settling velocities with
higher accuracy and better consistency under various physical re-
gimes; (2) the data-driven model’s sensitivity largely depends on
the training database, and the process-based equations are sensitive
to all variables controlling the settling process; and (3) the nonpara-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Birmingham on 07/22/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
metric data-driven model has an easily implemented self-updating
capability given more data. By integrating both experimental and
theoretical knowledge of sediment settling process, the updated
model further enhances the model performance with improved esti-
mate accuracy and consistency.
There are many complex natural processes with incompletely
resolved physics in the hydraulic engineering research literature,
such as sediment transport, turbulent flows, and water resource
management. Deterministic mathematical frameworks for such
complex processes appear intractable from the perspective of current
process-based approaches. Alternatively, with the increase in avail-
able data and progress in ML techniques, data-driven approaches
have been increasingly applied to complex hydraulic engineering re-
search, for example, in sediment transport [e.g., a review in Goldstein
et al. (2019)], in turbulent flows (e.g., Mohan et al. 2019), and in
water resource research (e.g., Najafzadeh et al. 2017; Granata et al.
2018). This study, using a nonparametric data-driven approach, not
only demonstrates the capability of ML models to better identify the
internal relationships present in data but also shows its potential in
leveraging theoretical knowledge for further model improvement. In
addition, it provides an alternative framework that may be applied to
other hydraulic engineering challenges.
Data Availability Statement
The compiled data and python code for this study can be obtained
by sending a written request to the corresponding author.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank Drs. Goldstein and Coco for sharing data and for
helpful discussions motivating this study. The authors would also
like to thank the editors and three anonymous reviewers for their
valuable comments that helped improve the manuscript. Funding
for this study was provided under the Los Alamos National Labora-
tory Research and Development Directed Research project “Adaption
Science for Complex Natural-Engineered Systems” (20180033DR).
This publication has been supported by the Los Alamos Laboratory
Directed Research and Development project under LA-UR-20-22942.
References
Ahrens, J. P. 2000. “A fall-velocity equation.” J. Waterway, Port, Coastal,
Ocean Eng. 126 (2): 99–102. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733
-950X(2000)126:2(99).
Alger, G. 1964. “Terminal fall velocity of particles of irregular shapes as
affected by surface area.” Ph.D. dissertation, Dept. of Civil Engineering,
Colorado State Univ.
© ASCE 04020067-10
J. Hydraul. Eng., 2020, 146(10): 04020067
Baldock, T. E., M. R. Tomkins, P. Nielsen, and M. G. Hughes. 2004.
“Settling velocity of sediments at high concentrations.” Coastal Eng.
51 (1): 91–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coastaleng.2003.12.004.
Bhattacharya, B., R. K. Price, and D. P. Solomatine. 2007. “Machine
learning approach to modeling sediment transport.” J. Hydraul.
Eng. 133 (4): 440–450. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9429
(2007)133:4(440).
Biau, G., and E. Scornet. 2016. “A random forest guided tour.” Test 25 (2):
197–227. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11749-016-0481-7.
Breiman, L. 2001. “Random forests.” Mach. Learn. 45 (1): 5–32. https://doi
.org/10.1023/A:1010933404324.
Briggs, L. I., D. S. McCulloch, and F. Moser. 1962. “The sand particles.”
J. Sediment. Res. 32 (4): 645–656. https://doi.org/10.1306/74D70D44
-2B21-11D7-8648000102C1865D.
Brown, P. P., and D. F. Lawler. 2003. “Sphere drag and settling velocity
revisited.” J. Environ. Eng. 129 (3): 222–231. https://doi.org/10.1061
/(ASCE)0733-9372(2003)129:3(222).
BSI (British Standards Institution). 1967. Methods of testing soils for civil
engineering purposes. BS 1377:1967. London: BSI.
BSI (British Standards Institution). 1986. British standard specification for
test sieves. BS 410:1986. London: BSI.
Camenen, B. 2007. “Simple and general formula for the settling velocity of
particles.” J. Hydraul. Eng. 133 (2): 229–233. https://doi.org/10.1061
/(ASCE)0733-9429(2007)133:2(229).
Chen, S., and C. Hu. 2017. “Estimating sea surface salinity in the northern
Gulf of Mexico from satellite ocean color measurements.” Remote
Sens. Environ. 201 (Nov): 115–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse
.2017.09.004.
Chen, S., C. Hu, B. B. Barnes, R. Wanninkhof, W. J. Cai, L. Barbero, and
D. Pierrot. 2019. “A machine learning approach to estimate surface ocean
pCO2 from satellite measurements.” Remote Sens. Environ. 228 (Jul):
203–226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2019.04.019.
Cheng, N.-S. 1997. “Simplified settling velocity formula for sediment
particle.” J. Hydraul. Eng. 123 (2): 149–152. https://doi.org/10.1061
/(ASCE)0733-9429(1997)123:2(149).
Corey, A. T. 1949. “Influence of shape on the fall velocity of sand
grains.” M.S. thesis, Irrigation Engineering, Colorado Agricultural
and Mechanical College.
Cutler, D. R., T. C. Edwards Jr., K. H. Beard, A. Cutler, K. T. Hess,
J. Gibson, and J. J. Lawler. 2007. “Random forests for classification
in ecology.” Ecology 88 (11): 2783–2792. https://doi.org/10.1890/07
-0539.1.
Dietrich, W. E. 1982. “Settling velocity of natural particles.” Water
Resour. Res. 18 (6): 1615–1626. https://doi.org/10.1029/WR018i006
p01615.
Donatelli, C., N. K. Ganju, S. Fagherazzi, and N. Leonardi. 2018.
“Seagrass impact on sediment exchange between tidal flats and salt
marsh, and the sediment budget of shallow bays.” Geophys. Res. Lett.
45 (10): 4933–4943. https://doi.org/10.1029/2018GL078056.
El-Nahhas, K., N. G. El-Hak, M. A. Rayan, and I. El-Sawaf. 2009. “Effect
of particle size distribution on the hydraulic transport of settling slur-
ries.” In Proc., 13th Int. Water Technology Conf., IWTC13. Hurghada,
Egypt: International Water Technology Conference.
Fagherazzi, S., P. L. Wiberg, S. Temmerman, E. Struyf, Y. Zhao, and P. A.
Raymond. 2013. “Fluxes of water, sediments, and biogeochemical com-
pounds in salt marshes.” Ecol. Processes 2 (1): 3. https://doi.org/10
.1186/2192-1709-2-3.
Farrell, E. J., and D. J. Sherman. 2015. “A new relationship between grain
size and fall (settling) velocity in air.” Prog. Phys. Geogr. 39 (3):
361–387. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309133314562442.
Ferguson, R., and M. Church. 2004. “A simple universal equation for grain
settling velocity.” J. Sediment. Res. 74 (6): 933–937. https://doi.org/10
.1306/051204740933.
Fredsoe, J., and R. Deigaard. 1992. “Advanced series on ocean engineer-
ing.” In Vol. 3 of Mechanics of coastal sediment transport. Singapore:
World Scientific.
Ganju, N. K., D. H. Schoellhamer, and B. E. Jaffe. 2009. “Hindcasting of
decadal-timescale estuarine bathymetric change with a tidal-timescale
model.” J. Geophys. Res. Earth Surf. 114 (F4): F04019. https://doi
.org/10.1029/2008JF001191.
J. Hydraul. Eng.
 Goldstein, E. B., and G. Coco. 2014. “A machine learning approach for the
prediction of settling velocity.” Water Resour. Res. 50 (4): 3595–3601.
https://doi.org/10.1002/2013WR015116.
Goldstein, E. B., G. Coco, and N. G. Plant. 2019. “A review of machine
learning applications to coastal sediment transport and morphodynam-
ics.” Earth Sci. Rev. 194 (Jul): 97–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.earscirev.2019.04.022.
Goldstein, S. 1929. “The steady flow of viscous fluid past a fixed spherical
obstacle at small Reynolds numbers.” Proc. R. Soc. London, Ser. A
Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 123 (791): 225–235. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspa
.1929.0067.
Granata, F., M. Saroli, G. de Marinis, and R. Gargano. 2018. “Machine
learning models for spring discharge forecasting.” Geofluids 2018:
1–13. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/8328167.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Birmingham on 07/22/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Hallermeier, R. J. 1981. “Terminal settling velocity of commonly occurring
sand grains.” Sedimentology 28 (6): 859–865. https://doi.org/10.1111/j
.1365-3091.1981.tb01948.x.
Huijts, K. M. H., H. M. Schuttelaars, H. E. De Swart, and A. Valle-
Levinson. 2006. “Lateral entrapment of sediment in tidal estuaries: An
idealized model study.” J. Geophys. Res. Oceans 111 (C12): C12016.
https://doi.org/10.1029/2006JC003615.
Imai, G. 1980. “Settling behavior of clay suspension.” Soils Found. 20 (2):
61–77. https://doi.org/10.3208/sandf1972.20.2_61.
Jiménez, J. A., and O. S. Madsen. 2003. “A simple formula to estimate
settling velocity of natural sediments.” J. Waterway, Port, Coastal,
Ocean Eng. 129 (2): 70–78. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733
-950X(2003)129:2(70).
Kane, M. J., N. Price, M. Scotch, and P. Rabinowitz. 2014. “Comparison of
ARIMA and random forest time series models for prediction of avian
influenza H5N1 outbreaks.” BMC Bioinf. 15 (1): 276. https://doi.org/10
.1186/1471-2105-15-276.
Kohavi, R. 1995. “A study of cross-validation and bootstrap for accuracy
estimation and model selection.” IJCAI 14 (2): 1137–1145.
Komar, P. D., and C. Reimers. 1978. “Grain shape effects on settling rates.”
J. Geol. 86 (2): 193–209. https://doi.org/10.1086/649674.
Lerman, P. 1980. “Fitting segmented regression models by grid search.”
J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. C Appl. Stat. 29 (1): 77–84. https://doi.org/10
.2307/2346413.
Liaw, A., and M. Wiener. 2002. “Classification and regression by random
forest.” R News 2 (3): 18–22.
Liu, M., M. Wang, J. Wang, and D. Li. 2013. “Comparison of random for-
est, support vector machine and back propagation neural network for
electronic tongue data classification: Application to the recognition of
orange beverage and Chinese vinegar.” Sens. Actuators, B 177 (Feb):
970–980. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.snb.2012.11.071.
Mendes-Moreira, J., C. Soares, A. M. Jorge, and J. F. D. Sousa. 2012.
“Ensemble approaches for regression: A survey.” ACM Comput. Surv.
45 (1): 1–40. https://doi.org/10.1145/2379776.2379786.
Mohan, A., D. Daniel, M. Chertkov, and D. Livescu. 2019. “Compressed
convolutional LSTM: An efficient deep learning framework to model
high fidelity 3D turbulence.” Preprint, submitted February 28, 2019.
https://arxiv.org/abs/1903.00033.
Munson, B. R., D. F. Young, and T. H. Okiishi. 2006. Fundamentals of fluid
mechanics. New York: Wiley.
Najafzadeh, M., A. Tafarojnoruz, and S. Y. Lim. 2017. “Prediction of local
scour depth downstream of sluice gates using data-driven models.” ISH
J. Hydraul. Eng. 23 (2): 195–202. https://doi.org/10.1080/09715010
.2017.1286614.
Nasiha, H. J., and P. Shanmugam. 2018. “Estimation of settling velocity
of sediment particles in estuarine and coastal waters.” Estuarine
Coastal Shelf Sci. 203 (Apr): 59–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss
.2018.02.001.
Nielsen, P. 1986. “Suspended sediment concentrations under waves.”
Coastal Eng. 10 (1): 23–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-3839(86)
90037-2.
Nielsen, P. 1993. “Turbulence effects on the settling of suspended par-
ticles.” J. Sediment. Res. 63 (5): 835–838.
Olabarrieta, M., W. R. Geyer, G. Coco, C. T. Friedrichs, and Z. Cao. 2018.
“Effects of density-driven flows on the long-term morphodynamic
© ASCE 04020067-11
J. Hydraul. Eng., 2020, 146(10): 04020067
evolution of funnel-shaped estuaries.” J. Geophys. Res. Earth Surf.
123 (11): 2901–2924. https://doi.org/10.1029/2017JF004527.
Oseen, C. W. 1927. Vol. 1 of Hydrodynamik. Leipzig, Germany: Akad.
Verl. Ges.
Paphitis, D., M. B. Collins, L. A. Nash, and S. Wallbridge. 2002. “Settling
velocities and entrainment thresholds of biogenic sands (shell fragments)
under unidirectional flow.” Sedimentology 49 (1): 211–225. https://doi
.org/10.1046/j.1365-3091.2002.00446.x.
Pedregosa, F., et al. 2011. “Scikit-learn: Machine learning in Python.”
J. Mach. Learn. Res. 12: 2825–2830.
Raschka, S., and V. Mirjalili. 2017. Python machine learning. Birmingham,
UK: Packt Publishing.
Raudkivi, A. J. 1990. Loose boundary hydraulics. 3rd ed. Oxford, UK:
Pergamon.
Rubey, W. W. 1933. “Settling velocity of gravel, sand, and silt particles.”
Am. J. Sci. 25 (148): 325–338. https://doi.org/10.2475/ajs.s5-25.148
.325.
Sadat-Helbar, S. M., E. Amiri-Tokaldany, S. Darby, and A. Shafaie. 2009.
“Fall velocity of sediment particles.” In Proc., 4th IASME/WSEAS Int.
Conf. on Water Resources, Hydraulics and Hydrology, WHH’09.
Cambridge, UK: WSEAS Press.
Schulz, S. E., R. H. Wilde, and M. L. Albertson. 1954. Influence of shape
on the fall velocity of sedimentary particles. M.R.D Sediment Series
No. 5. Omaha, NE: USACE.
Segal, M. R. 2004. Machine learning benchmarks and random forest re-
gression. Technical Rep. San Francisco: Center for Bioinformatics &
Molecular Biostatistics, Univ. of California.
She, K., L. Trim, and D. Pope. 2005. “Fall velocities of natural sediment
particles: A simple mathematical presentation of the fall velocity law.”
J. Hydraul. Res. 43 (2): 189–195. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221686
.2005.9641235.
Shotton, J., T. Sharp, A. Kipman, A. Fitzgibbon, M. Finocchio, A. Blake,
M. Cook, and R. Moore. 2013. “Real-time human pose recognition in
parts from single depth images.” Commun. ACM 56 (1): 116–124.
https://doi.org/10.1145/2398356.2398381.
Smith, D. A., and K. F. Cheung. 2003. “Settling characteristics of calca-
reous sand.” J. Hydraul. Eng. 129 (6): 479–483. https://doi.org/10.1061
/(ASCE)0733-9429(2003)129:6(479).
Smith, P. F., S. Ganesh, and P. Liu. 2013. “A comparison of random forest
regression and multiple linear regression for prediction in neuro-
science.” J. Neurosci. Methods 220 (1): 85–91. https://doi.org/10
.1016/j.jneumeth.2013.08.024.
Soulsby, R. 1997. Dynamics of marine sands: A manual for practical
applications. London: Thomas Telford.
Stokes, G. G. 1851. Vol. 9 of On the effect of the internal friction of fluids
on the motion of pendulums. Cambridge, UK: Pitt Press.
Summerfield, M. 2010. Programming in Python 3: A complete introduction
to the Python language. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Svetnik, V., A. Liaw, C. Tong, J. C. Culberson, R. P. Sheridan, and B. P.
Feuston. 2003. “Random forest: A classification and regression tool for
compound classification and qsar modeling.” J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci.
43 (6): 1947–1958. https://doi.org/10.1021/ci034160g.
Tyralis, H., and G. Papacharalampous. 2017. “Variable selection in time
series forecasting using random forests.” Algorithms 10 (4): 114. https://
doi.org/10.3390/a10040114.
US Inter-Agency Committee. 1957. Some fundamentals of particle size
analysis: A study of methods used in measurement and analysis of sedi-
ment loads in streams. Rep. No. 12. Minneapolis: US Inter-Agency
Committee on Water Resources.
Van Rijn, L. C. 1989. Handbook: Sediment transport by currents and
waves. Delft, Netherlands: Delft Hydraulics Laboratory.
Verikas, A., A. Gelzinis, and M. Bacauskiene. 2011. “Mining data with
random forests: A survey and results of new tests.” Pattern Recognit.
44 (2): 330–349. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patcog.2010.08.011.
Warner, J. C., C. R. Sherwood, and W. R. Geyer. 2007. “Sensitivity of
estuarine turbidity maximum to settling velocity, tidal mixing, and sedi-
ment supply.” In Estuarine and coastal fine sediments dynamics, edited
by J. P.-Y. Maa, L. P. Sanford, and D. H. Schoellhamer, 355–376.
Amsterdam: Elsevier.
J. Hydraul. Eng.
 Warner, J. C., C. R. Sherwood, R. P. Signell, C. K. Harris, and H. G.
Arango. 2008. “Development of a three-dimensional, regional, coupled
wave, current, and sediment-transport model.” Comput. Geosci. 34 (10):
1284–1306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cageo.2008.02.012.
Watts, I. M., and G. A. Zarillo. 2019. “Fall velocity determination of indi-
vidual grain size classes in a carbonate rich environment: Implications
for numerical modeling.” In Proc., 9th Int. Conf. on Coastal Sediments,
1029–1040. Singapore: World Scientific.
Wilde, R. H. 1952. “Effect of shape on the fall-velocity of sand-sized par-
ticles.” M.S. thesis, Fort Collins, Colorado A & M College.
Winterwerp, J. C. 2002. “On the flocculation and settling velocity of estua-
rine mud.” Cont. Shelf Res. 22 (9): 1339–1360. https://doi.org/10.1016
/S0278-4343(02)00010-9.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Birmingham on 07/22/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Wu, W., and S. S. Wang. 2006. “Formulas for sediment porosity and set-
tling velocity.” J. Hydraul. Eng. 132 (8): 858–862. https://doi.org/10
.1061/(ASCE)0733-9429(2006)132:8(858).
Yang, S. Q. 2013. “Why cannot sediment transport be accurately pre-
dicted.” In Proc., 35th World Congress of the International Association
for Hydraulic Research, 1–10. Chengdu, China: International Associ-
ation for Hydraulic Research.
Zhiyao, S., W. Tingting, X. Fumin, and L. Ruijie. 2008. “A simple formula
for predicting settling velocity of sediment particles.” Water Sci. Eng.
1 (1): 37–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1674-2370(15)30017-X.
Zhou, Y., S. Li, C. Zhou, and H. Luo. 2019. “Intelligent approach based on
random forest for safety risk prediction of deep foundation pit in sub-
way stations.” J. Comput. Civ. Eng. 33 (1): 05018004. https://doi.org/10
.1061/(ASCE)CP.1943-5487.0000796.

© ASCE 04020067-12 J. Hydraul. Eng.

J. Hydraul. Eng., 2020, 146(10): 04020067