Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science (1998) 47, 235–250

Article No. ec980359

Modelling Suspended Sediment Concentrations in the

Firth of Forth
S. Clarkea and A. J. Elliott
Unit for Coastal and Estuarine Studies, Marine Science Laboratories, Menai Bridge, Anglesey LL59 5EY, U.K.

Received 23 September 1997 and accepted in revised form 19 March 1998

A two-dimensional depth-integrated sediment transport model has been applied to the Firth of Forth to study the
resuspension and movement of sediment in the lower estuary. The dominant particle size in the region is 10 ìm with
about 70% of the near-bed particles and over 90% of the surface particles being in the size range 0–15 ìm. The tidal
velocity was assumed to be logarithmic with height above the bed, and the vertical structure of the suspended particulate
matter (SPM) concentration was represented by a modified Rouse profile. Erosion and deposition threshold parameters
were extracted from two sets of observed SPM concentrations. The most realistic simulations were obtained when the
erosion and deposition parameters were made functions of the spring/neap cycle. On the approach to neap tides the
erosion threshold increased due to consolidation of the bed sediment, while after mean tide the increased bottom stress
caused the erosion threshold to be exceeded for longer during each tidal cycle which resulted in more sediment being
removed from the bed. The importance of the time-varying nature of these parameters has been demonstrated using
a single grid-point model that calculated SPM concentration from in situ erosion and deposition processes alone.
The inclusion of the shallow-water constituents in the tidal currents was required for realistic simulation of SPM
concentrations.  1998 Academic Press

Keywords: sediment transport; resuspension; model; Firth of Forth

Introduction Sediment transport models have been applied to

engineering problems and Teisson (1991) outlined
two cases where models were used to predict long-
The simulation of the movement of particulates in
term siltation in harbours located in the Loire estuary.
estuaries and the representation of the processes
O’Connor and Nicholson (1992) presented a trans-
involved in sediment transport, for use in mathemati-
port model that considered suspended sediment and
cal tidal models, is a challenging objective. Mehta and
bedload separately and accounted for bedform evolu-
Dyer (1993) present an overview of the present state
tion. The bed sediment in the model was defined as
of knowledge of the mathematical parameterization of
being layered and the erosion threshold increased with
sediment transport processes. Bottom stress is respon-
depth. Gurbutt et al. (1988) described the develop-
sible for the erosion and resuspension of bed-located
ment of a simple box model to determine the distri-
sediment particles. However, the distinction between
bution of radionuclides that had adsorbed onto
immobile material on the bed and particles that are in
sediment particles in the Irish Sea. They included the
suspension is not clear as it is hard to define precisely
mixing of the sediment deposits by biota using a
when particles begin to move. Due to this ambiguity,
bio-diffusion approximation, and used a layered
it is difficult to measure the erosion threshold in situ
bed approach to differentiate between radionuclide
and only a general theory can be formulated concern-
concentrations in the bed sediments. In a three-
ing the onset of motion for a sediment particle. For
dimensional model, simulating the dispersion of
example, Amos et al. (1997) found that the erosion
suspended sediments in the North Sea, Puls and
threshold for mud from the Fraser River delta could
Sündermann (1990) used the Monte Carlo tracer
be related to both the sediment grain size and the bulk
method to track individual sediment grains which
density of the deposit. McCave (1984) details the
were moved by wind and density-driven currents
difficulties encountered when attempting to introduce
and by residual tidal currents obtained from a
general mathematical formulae for the threshold
three-dimensional hydrodynamic model.
erosion value of cohesive sediments.
The work described here was aimed at the develop-
a
Present address: Westlakes Scientific Consulting Ltd, Moor Row, ment of predictive models of suspended sediment
Cumbria CA24 3JZ, U.K. concentrations in the vicinity of the Rosyth dockyard

0272–7714/98/030235+16 $30.00/0  1998 Academic Press

236 S. Clarke & A. J. Elliott
56.3
Ochil Hills
56.2
Stirling
56.1 Kincardine
Rosyth
* *
* R
56.0 Grangemouth
Latitude
55.9
Pentland Hills
55.8
55.7
55.6
0 25
km
–3.8 –3.6
F 1. Map of the Firth of Forth showing mooring positions ( ) (R and HP) and areas of extensive mud flats (*).
which lies at the boundary of the estuary and firth
regions of the Firth of Forth. The interest lay both in
short time-scale processes, e.g. the erosion and depo-
sition of sediments within individual tidal cycles, plus
consideration of the pathways followed by material
that is redistributed within the region over longer
time-scales.
The study area
The Firth of Forth is a funnel-like feature on the east
coast of Central Scotland (Figure 1). It is 93 km long
and the Forth River has a 4655 km2 drainage-basin
covering several groups of large hills that include the
Pentland, Ochil and Lomond Hills. The Forth estuary
is the inner part of the Firth of Forth area that extends
from Stirling in the west to the Forth road and rail
bridges in the east. It is a macrotidal estuary with a
mean tidal range of 4·5 m and mean peak velocities of
0·8 ms
1 on the ebb tide and 0·5 ms
1 on the flood
tide. The depths in the estuary range from about 20 m
off Rosyth (with depths of up to 50 m found under the
bridges) to less than 5 m in the upper estuary above
Alloa. The freshwater inflow from the Forth, Teith
and Allan Rivers at Stirling is small, being on average
61 m3s
1 (Dyke, 1987). The hydrodynamic regime
of the estuary is described by Webb and Metcalfe
(1987). A notable feature of the tides in the estuary is
Methil
Isle of May
Kirkcaldy
Fidra
HP
*
Edinburgh
Scotland
–3.4 –3.2 –3.0 –2.8 –2.6 –2.4
Longitude
the importance of shallow-water constituents, made
apparent in the occurrence of double high and low
waters (locally known as ‘ lackie ’ tides) which is most
apparent in the region between Grangemouth and
Alloa (Elliott & Clarke, 1998).
The Forth estuary is turbid with mean concen-
trations of suspended particulate material (SPM)
ranging from 50 to 100 mg l
1 in the lower estuary
off Rosyth, to values of greater than 10 000 mg l
1 in
the upper estuary in the region of the turbidity
maximum between Fallin and Alloa (Forth River
Purification Board, 1986). The turbidity maximum
migrates along the estuary according to freshwater
flow and tidal range. In contrast, the firth is relatively
free of suspended sediment and has mean SPM con-
centrations of 20 mg l
1 (Balls, 1992). The dominant
suspended sediment type in the region is mud (sedi-
ment with a median particle diameter of less than
10 ìm) and there are four large intertidal areas at the
edges of the estuary (see Figure 1) which appear to be
sinks for the muddy sediment. However, there is also
evidence of particles with diameters of greater than
250 ìm in the deeper channels (R. Lewis, pers.
comm.) where scouring of the bed has occurred.
In 1989, velocity and SPM concentration measure-
ments were made over a period of a few months
at two locations in the lower Forth estuary (Lindsay
et al., 1996). A recording current meter and a

70
Alloa
5 5
60
Kincardine
50 5
5 5
J
5 5 15
40 5 35
5 15
30 Grangemouth
20
20 40
F 2. Region covered by the two-dimensional sediment transport model. Water depth is shown in metres.
transmissometer were placed at depths of 5 and 10 m
above the bed at Rosyth (R on Figure 1), and at
Hound Point (HP on Figure 1) they were located at
depths of 10 and 20 m above the bed. The SPM
measurements were made using optical backscatter
techniques and were calibrated using in situ sampling.
A two-dimensional sediment transport model
A two-dimensional sediment transport model of the
Forth estuary (Figure 2) was developed to simulate
the processes that influence the relocation of bed
sediments. The model used a depth-averaged
advection-diffusion equation to simulate the SPM
concentrations in the form:
where P is the depth-averaged SPM concentration,
h is the total water depth, U and V are the depth-
averaged velocity components, K1 and K2 are diffu-
sion coefficients, Er is the erosion rate and Dp is the
deposition rate. The domain of the sediment transport
model formed the inner portion of a larger area tidal
model that covered the region between Stirling and
Fidra. The development of the hydrodynamic model
and the simulation of the tidal streams is described in
Elliott and Clarke (1998).
When erosion (deposition) occurs in a grid cell, the
mass eroded (deposited) is removed from (added to)
the amount of sediment on the bed. O’Connor and
Nicholson (1992) presented a bed sediment thickness
Suspended sediment in the Firth of Forth 237
0 5 km
Burntisland
5
25
Rosyth 5
15 5
15 5 5
5 5 5 5
15 5
55 5
South 5
Queensferry
60 80 100 120
I
continuity equation that included bedload and cross-
shore transport terms. The sediment transport model
described here, however, neglects bedload since it is
considered unimportant in comparison with the sus-
pended load in a region of high SPM concentration.
The equation used to determine the change in bed
sediment depth, Z, was:
where pr is the porosity of the sediment deposit and ñs
is the density of the sediment deposit.
Gularte et al. (1980) used an expression for the
erosion rate that considered chemical factors includ-
ing activation energy and temperature. However, two
commonly used simpler formulae for the erosion rate,
Er, are described by Ariathurai and Krone (1976) and
Lavelle et al. (1984). The Ariathurai and Krone
(1976) formula for the erosion rate of cohesive sedi-
ments has been used by Puls and Sündermann (1990)
and Teisson (1991). It was derived empirically from
data gathered in the Gironde estuary and is of the
form:
where u*e is the erosion threshold and is the eroda-
bility, both of which must be determined by labora-
tory tests. Both the erosion threshold and the variable
are unique to each sediment and location. The
erosion rate formula described by Lavelle et al. (1984)
is essentially of the same form as Equation 3 and
includes a parameter which must be determined by
field or laboratory experiments.
238 S. Clarke & A. J. Elliott
The deposition rate for cohesive particles, Dp, is
usually represented by the formula given by Teisson
(1991) as:
where u*d is the deposition threshold, ws is the fall
velocity of the suspension and Pb is the SPM concen-
tration near the bed. This equation was first presented
by Einstein and Krone (1962) and requires a value for
the deposition threshold.
The onset of erosion is limited by the threshold
value, u*e, and deposition is also limited by a threshold
value, although others have expressed doubts as to
whether the inclusion of a deposition threshold for
cohesive sediments is necessary (for example, Sanford
& Halka, 1993). The amount of sediment available for
erosion is limited by defining an initial depth of
sediment on the bed. This limiting condition enables
the possibility of bed scouring (removal of all
sediment from the bed) at times of high velocity.
It is difficult to obtain in situ values of the thresholds
since the onset of both processes is rarely clear-cut,
and it is difficult to make measurements very close to
the bed. These parameters are therefore usually given
values that produce the best fit between the simulated
SPM concentration and the observational data set. It
is apparent from the data gathered at Rosyth and
Hound Point that the time of peak current speed was
simultaneous with the time of peak SPM concen-
tration (Figure 3). The quarter-diurnal periodicity in
the SPM record can be contrasted with the behaviour
observed in other coastal regions where horizontal
advection plays an important role. For example, Jago
et al. (1993) observed a pronounced semi-diurnal
character, but with double maxima around the time of
peak ebb and flood flow, that could be explained by
the interaction of resuspension processes with the
horizontal advection of sediment. The lack of a
double-maxima signal in the Firth of Forth suggest
that the effects of advection are small in comparison
with local resuspension and settling.
A one-point SPM concentration model
The time rate of change of the depth-averaged SPM
concentration in two-dimensions is described by
Equation 1 which includes both advective and diffu-
sive effects. However, it is not possible to obtain a
measure of the spatial gradients in the SPM concen-
tration from data collected at a single point. Thus, the
changes in SPM due to advection and diffusion can-
not be calculated from the observations. However,
since the data suggest that advection is of secondary
importance compared with the balance between ero-
sion and deposition (Figure 3) this section describes
the development of a single-point model that was used
to study the erosion/deposition processes. The one-
point model used the observed currents and SPM
concentrations to derive erosion/deposition algor-
ithms which were then used in the two-dimensional
advection/diffusion model.
The dominant particle size in the Rosyth region of
the Firth of Forth is 10 ìm with about 70% of the
near-bed particles and over 90% of the surface sample
being in the range 0–15 ìm (Lindsay, 1991). If an
arbitrary reference concentration of 100 mg l
1 is as-
sumed at a reference height of the roughness length, z0,
then 70 mg l
1 of this concentration will be due to the
10 ìm fraction and the remainder will be due to con-
tributions from non-cohesive sediments in the water
column. The Rouse (1937) profile is often used to
describe the variation of sediment concentration with
depth. Assuming that 10 mg l
1 of the concentration
at the reference level is due to non-cohesive particles of
90 ìm diameter, it is possible, using the Rouse profile,
to estimate the contribution from the 90 ìm class at
the height of the observations 5 m above the bed. The
concentration decreases rapidly with height above the
bed. For example, at 0·07 m above the bed the 90 ìm
contribution is already less than 1% of the total con-
centration and at 5 m the fraction is less than 0·1%. It
is thus likely that the observed concentrations were
due to cohesive sediment particles alone.
The erosion and deposition formulae therefore only
considered cohesive particles of 10 ìm diameter. The
equation used to describe changes in SPM concen-
tration at Rosyth represents a balance between erosion
and deposition at the bed so that:
where Er and Dp are given by Equations 3 and 4,
respectively.
Equation 5 was solved using centred time differ-
encing so that the SPM concentration at time t+ÄT
was given by:
The coefficients H1(t) and H2(t) are Heaviside func-
tions which depend on the erosion and deposition
thresholds and are given as:
 Suspended sediment in the Firth of Forth 239

1.5 (a) 300

1.0
Observed velocity (ms )
–1
250

0.5
200

SPM (mg l )
0.0
150

–1
–0.5
100

–1.0
50

–1.5
18 19 20
Days
1.5 300
(b)

1.0 250
Observed velocity (ms )
–1

0.5 200

SPM (mg l )
0.0 150

–1
–0.5 100

–1.0 50

28 29 30
Days
F 3. Extracts from observed velocity (solid curve, ms
1) and suspended particulate matter (SPM) concentration
(dashed curve, mg l
1) data from (a) Rosyth (18–20 August 1989) and (b) Hound Point (28–30 March 1990). (The Rosyth
data were measured at a height of 5 m above the bed, the Hound Point data at 10 m above the bed.)

and: where ó is the frequency of the dominant tidal fre-

Both the erosion and deposition formulae used in the
one-point model are functions of friction velocity
which was derived in the following manner from the
current meter data. The depth of the boundary layer,
äL, can be estimated as:
quency and umax is the maximum tidal speed (Johns,
1983). In the Forth area, the dominant tidal fre-
quency is M2 and the maximum tidal speed is about
1·2 ms
1 so that äL is about 250 m. The depth of the
logarithmic part of the boundary layer is (0·1–0·2)äL
and so, for depths of less than about 50 m, the
logarithmic layer will extend throughout the entire
water column. Since the maximum depth in the Firth
of Forth region is about 50 m, a logarithmic profile of
the form:
240 S. Clarke & A. J. Elliott
can be used to describe the vertical variation of
velocity where u*r and v*r are the components of the
friction velocity, u*, and z is measured vertically
upwards from the bed. The von Karman constant
ê is 0·4 and z0 is the bottom roughness which,
for a muddy bed, lies in the range 2–710
4 m
(Heathershaw, 1988). The value of z0 used in the
simulations was 410
4 m.
Equation 9 can be averaged over the water column
to give a relationship between the depth-averaged
velocity and the velocity at a height z above the bed
so that:
and:
where D is the mean water depth. These equations
can be used to estimate the depth-averaged velocity
using the current meter data recorded at two depths.
A value for the scalar friction velocity, u*, is
required to estimate the mass of sediment eroded or
deposited during a time step. This quantity was
calculated using the depth-averaged velocities.
Consequently the friction velocity used in the one-
point model was a combination of the two resolved
components of friction velocity, u*r and v*r, and was
given by:
The aim of the one-point model was to simulate the
fraction of the observed SPM concentrations that
resulted from erosion and deposition processes alone.
However, the observed SPM data, like the observed
velocities, were recorded at two heights above the bed
(5 and 10 m) and thus cannot be directly compared
with the depth-averaged results of the model. A modi-
fied version of the Rouse (1937) profile defines the
value of the SPM concentration, pz, at a height, z,
above the bed as:
where â is an arbitrary constant, a is the height above
the bed of a reference level, pa is the SPM concen-
tration at the reference level and ws is the fall velocity
of the suspended sediment. Equation 12 can then be
integrated over depth to obtain the depth-mean SPM
concentration. The relationship between fall velocity,
ws, and particle diameter can be expressed empirically
as:
where C1 and C2 are empirical constants having the
values 9·36 and 0·32, respectively, and ì is the mol-
ecular viscosity. The particle diameter, in metres, is
represented by dp. Since only cohesive particles were
considered, the value for ws in Equation 12 should lie
in the range of fall velocities appropriate for particles
of less than 64 ìm diameter. The typical particle size
for the Rosyth data is 10 ìm so that, using Equation
13, the value for the mean fall velocity should be
about 9·7610
5 ms
1.
The value of the ratio ws/â that appears in the
exponent of the Rouse profile in Equation 12 can be
calculated by using the ratio of the concentrations at
the two depths, p5 and p10, to remove the unknown
values, a and pa, giving:
The value of this ratio determined from the July–
September 1989 data from Rosyth using a value of u*
calculated from the observed velocities using Equa-
tions 10a, 10b and 11 is plotted in Figure 4. The
mean value of ws/â for the period was 1·1710
2.
If the value for the mean fall velocity (9·76
10
5 ms
1) is realistic then the associated mean
value for â would need to be 8·3410
3. However,
in general, â is assumed to be equal to 1 (Dyer, 1986).
This requires the mean fall velocity of the observed
Rosyth data to be 1·1710
2 ms
1 which is sub-
stantially larger than the derived value. The higher
value of the fall velocity was used in the simulations
that follow.
A possible reason for the apparent increase in the
mean fall velocity is flocculation of the cohesive par-
ticles in the water column. This would increase the fall
velocity by increasing the size and hence the mass of
the sediment particles in suspension. The formation of
flocs in estuarine conditions is well documented with
Milligan (1995) reporting the presence of flocs at low
flow rates in the Elbe estuary and de Haas and Eisma
(1993) examining the flocculation of suspended cohe-
sive sediments in the Dollard estuary. Flocculation

F 4. The value of ws/â calculated using data from the period 27 July–5 September 1989 collected at Rosyth.
is known to occur at SPM concentrations up to
10 000 mg l
1 (Dyer, 1986) and it is likely that it
influenced the fall velocities of the particles in the
Forth estuary. Van Leussen and Cornelisse (1993)
have observed flocs of 400–1100 ìm diameter, which
had fall velocities of 110
3–710
3 ms
1, at
SPM concentrations greater than 50 mg l
1. Lau and
Krishnappan (1992) showed that the SPM concen-
tration during deposition predicted by a model that
considered only single grains was twice the observed
concentration.
A standard formula used to represent the floccula-
tion effect assumes that the fall velocity is proportional
to the local depth averaged SPM concentration, P, so
that:
ws =KPN (15)
with the value of N chosen to be 0·5 which lies within
the accepted interval 0·5–1·2 (Gibbs, 1985; Dyer,
1986; Pejrup, 1988). A value for K can be calculated
by requiring that the fall velocity predicted using
Equation 15 for the mean SPM concentration of the
July–September 1989 survey is equal to the mean fall
velocity obtained from Figure 4. The mean observed
SPM concentration was approximately 30 mg l
1
(which is equivalent to 0·03 kg m
3) and thus with
N=0·5 and ws equal to 1·1710
2 ms
1 the re-
quired value of K is 6·510
2.
If Equation 12 is integrated over the water column
from z0 to h, the unknown values of pa and a can be
removed by re-substitution from Equation 12 and a
formula for the SPM concentration at a specific depth,
Suspended sediment in the Firth of Forth 241
pz, in terms of the depth averaged SPM concentration
is obtained. This formula can then be used to trans-
form the depth-averaged model results to the concen-
trations at the two heights of the observations. The
relationship that results is:
where P is the depth-averaged SPM concentration.
The deposition formula given by Equation 4 re-
quires the calculation of a near bed SPM concen-
tration since not all particles in the water column will
have an equal chance of settling out during a time
step. Only those within a distance wsDT of the bed
are likely to reach the bed. The depth-averaged
concentration over the near bed region can be calcu-
lated by integrating Equation 12 over the depth
interval from z0 to wsDT so that substitution of
the product pzzws/âêu* from Equation 16 gives the
relationship:
which can be used with Equation 4.
The one-point model was used to simulate the SPM
concentration at the two sites in the Forth estuary
using Equation 6 and formulations for the variables
u*, ws and Pb given by Equations 11, 13 and 17,
respectively. The depth-averaged currents calculated
from the observed velocities using Equations 10a and
10b were used to estimate the friction velocity at each
time step.
242 S. Clarke & A. J. Elliott
(Positive)
u*e
∂(hP)/∂t
0
(Negative)
u*d
u*
2
F 5. An idealized version of the graph of )(hP)/)t vs
u*2 for erosion (solid curve) and deposition (dashed curve)
periods.
Determination of erosion and deposition
parameters
The section describes the method by which the ero-
sion and deposition parameters were estimated from
the field observations. If the first half, or accelerating
part, of both ebb and flood tides is considered to be an
erosion period (when the change in SPM concen-
tration is due to erosion effects alone) then Equation
5 can be used to find the values of the erosion
threshold and the erodability. The erosion formula
used is given by Equation 3 so that during the
accelerating tide:
If h is assumed to be equal to the mean depth of water
at Rosyth, then both the time derivative on the left
hand side of Equation 18 and the value for u*2 can be
calculated from the observed SPM and velocity data.
If these values are plotted for each ebb and flood tide
of the data series then the values for u*e and for each
tide can be extracted.
An idealized version of the expected shape of the
graphs is shown in Figure 5 by the solid line. The
point on the u*2 axis above which the SPM concen-
tration starts to increase is marked as u*e2. The slope
of the following linear section of the graph is /u*e2.
Thus both erosion constants can be derived from the
graph. Some examples of graphs plotted from the
erosion periods of the August 1989 survey are shown
in Figure 6.
If the variability in the SPM concentration during
the accelerating part of each flood and ebb tide is due
to erosion effects alone, then it is also reasonable to
assume that the concentrations of the second half, or
decelerating part, of each tide will be due to deposi-
tional effects. The rate of change of SPM concen-
tration during these deposition periods will therefore
be given by:
If h is taken as the mean water depth, the values for
u*2 and the left-hand-side of Equation 19 can again
be calculated from the observations. A typical graph
would resemble the dashed line in Figure 5 with the
point where the straight part of the line rejoins the u*2
axis corresponding to u*d2 since the SPM concen-
tration decreases at speeds below this value. The slope
of the line does not need to be determined since u*d is
the only unknown in Equation 19. However, calcula-
tion of ws from the slope of the graphs is possible and
gives a mean value of 110
3 ms
1. This is slightly
lower than the value derived from Figure 4 but is still
significantly higher than the value for ws calculated
from Equation 13, validating the assumption that
flocculation is occurring. Examples of graphs obtained
from the deposition periods of August 1989 are
plotted in Figure 7.
The data from the March 1990 survey made at
Hound Point were also analysed to estimate the
erosion/deposition thresholds and erodability. The
values determined for the erosion threshold u*e and
the erodability for both sites are shown in Figure
8(a,b) and 8(d,e) while the values of the deposition
threshold, u*d, are plotted in Figure 8(c,f). The maxi-
mum speed of each tide throughout the observation
period, which varied due to the spring–neap cycle, is
also shown on each diagram. These results clearly
show that both the erosion and deposition thresholds,
as well as the erodability, vary considerably with time.
The variation of the erosion threshold is strongly
related to the tidal speed with the deposition threshold
and the erodability being less dependant. Therefore,
if the erosion and deposition variables are to be
parameterized they should be made a function of the
spring–neap cycle.
If the maximum speed of a tide is Umax then the
variation in maximum speed due to the spring–neap
cycle can be represented by:
where t is the time from the start of the year. The
amplitudes of the main lunar and solar tidal velocities
are represented by UM2 and US2, respectively, and the
 Suspended sediment in the Firth of Forth 243

0.04
0.08 (a) (b)

0.06 0.03
∂(hP)/∂t (g m–3 s–1)

∂(hP)/∂t (g m–3 s–1)

0.04 0.02

0.02 0.01

–0.02 –0.01

–0.04 –0.02
0.0010 0.0020 0.0010 0.0020
2 2 –2 2 2 –2
u* (m s ) u* (m s )

(c) 0.05 (d)

0.03
0.04
∂(hP)/∂t (g m–3 s–1)

0.02 ∂(hP)/∂t (g m–3 s–1) 0.03

0.02
0.01
0.01

–0.01
–0.01
–0.02

0.0004 0.0008 0.0008 0.0016

u*2 2 –2
(m s ) u*
2 2 –2
(m s )

3
1
2
F 6. Examples of graphs of )(hP)/)t (g m 2 2
s ) vs u* (m s ) for the erosion periods of the summer 1989
survey. (a) 18 August; (b) 19 August; (c) 24 August; (d) 30 August 1989.

value è is the phase of the spring–neap cycle relative to
the start of the year. In this expression TSN is the
period of the spring–neap cycle which has a period of
14·765 days.
The parameterization of the erosion and deposition
variables, u*e, u*d and can then take the form:
and:
where the coefficients E0, D0 and A0 are the mean
erosion threshold, deposition threshold and eroda-
bility, respectively, and the amplitudes of the variation
of each erosion and deposition variables are repre-
sented by Ea, Da and Aa. The phases ã, ä and ø define
the lag of the erosion threshold, the deposition
threshold and the erodability curves behind the maxi-
mum speed envelope. [The method used to derive
è from the spring–neap cycle of tidal velocities is
explained in Clarke (1995).]
The coefficients in the erosion and deposition vari-
ables formulae which give the best fit to the observed
data for both of the sample sites are shown in Table 1.
The comparison between the thresholds and eroda-
bility values extracted from the data and the values
predicted using Equations 21, 22 and 23 for August
1989 at Rosyth and for March 1990 at Hound Point
are also shown in Figure 8.
The effect of time-varying thresholds and eroda-
bility on the results from the one-point model is
demonstrated in Figures 9 and 10. Figure 9 shows
simulated SPM concentrations during a spring–neap
cycle, obtained using best fit constant erosion and
deposition thresholds (Lindsay, 1994), compared with
the observed SPM values. The erosion threshold was
set to 0·028, the deposition threshold to 0·01 and the
erodability, , of Equation 3 set to 210
4 kg m
2
s
1. The simulated SPM concentrations on mean tide
before springs (day 1 in Figure 9) are substantially
244 S. Clarke & A. J. Elliott
F 7. Examples of graphs of )(hP))/t (g m
3 s
1) vs u*2 (m2 s
2) for the deposition periods of the summer 1989
survey. (a) 15 August; (b) 20 August; (c) 21 August; (d) 31 August 1989.
higher than the observed values, and at mean tide
before neaps (days 7–9) the simulated SPM concen-
trations are much lower than the observations. How-
ever, at neap tide (days 11 and 12) the simulated SPM
concentrations and the observed data agree well.
Figure 10 shows the simulated SPM concentrations
obtained using time-varying thresholds and erodability
as described by Equations 21, 22 and 23. The simu-
lations made at each stage of the tide are now in
better agreement with the observations. The SPM
concentration of the mean tide before springs simula-
tion has decreased and the mean tide before neaps
simulated SPM concentration has increased while
the good fit of the neap tide simulation has been
maintained.
The parameterizations of the erosion/deposition
processes derived by the one-point model were ap-
plied to the two-dimensional sediment transport
model which included horizontal advection/diffusion
processes. The tidal model reproduced advection by
simulating the M2, S2, M4, MS4, M6 and 2MS6 tidal
constituents to ensure the reproduction of the pro-
nounced shallow-water effects (Elliott & Clarke,
1998). The sediment on the bed of each cell was
considered to be composed of four principal size
classes, one cohesive and three non-cohesive. The
particle diameter of 10 ìm was shown by Lindsay
(1991) to be the dominant cohesive sediment size and
was chosen to represent the cohesive sediment frac-
tion in the model. The non-cohesive size classes were
derived from data gathered around Grangemouth (R.
Lewis, pers. comm.) which showed that the sediment
in the region was evenly distributed between three
sediment size classes represented by particle diameters
of 90, 180 and 375 ìm, respectively.
Equations 21, 22 and 23 were used to determine
the time-varying values of the erosion and deposition
thresholds and the erodability at each time step. The
spring–neap variation of the erosion and deposition
constants was applied only to cohesive sediments. The
erosion and deposition thresholds and the erodability
of the non-cohesive sediment classes were considered
to be constant with values of 0·011 ms
1 for the
90 ìm fraction, 0·014 ms
1 for the 180 ìm fraction
and 0·032 ms
1 for the 375 ìm fraction. These
values were calculated using a parameterization of the
 Suspended sediment in the Firth of Forth 245

0.08 0.06
0.07 (a) 1.0 (b) (c) 1.6
0.05
0.06 1.4
0.8

Speed (ms–1)
0.04 1.2

u*d (ms–1)
u*e (ms–1)

0.05

α × 103
0.6 1.0
0.04 0.03
0.8
0.03 0.4 0.02 0.6
0.02 0.4
0.2 0.01
0.01 0.2

10 20 30 40 50 60 10 20 30 40 50 60 10 20 30 40 50 60
Tidal cycle Tidal cycle Tidal cycle

0.06 1.0 0.06 1.6

(d) (e) (f) 1.4
0.05 0.8 0.05
1.2

Speed (ms–1)
0.04 0.04

u*d (ms–1)
u*e (ms–1)

1.0
α × 103

0.6
0.03 0.03 0.8
0.4 0.6
0.02 0.02
0.4
0.01 0.2 0.01 0.2
0
10 20 30 40 50 60 10 20 30 40 50 60 10 20 30 40 50 60
Tidal cycle Tidal cycle Tidal cycle
F 8. The erosion/deposition parameters extracted from the survey data: Top: Rosyth summer 1989, (a) the erosion
threshold; (b) the erodability; (c) the deposition threshold. Bottom: Hounds Point spring 1990, (d) the erosion threshold;
(e) the erodability; (f) the deposition threshold. , data; – – –, simulated; ——, speed envelope.

T 1. Coefficients for the erosion and deposition parameters (Equations 21–23) derived from the
observations

Rosyth Hound Point

Erosion threshold Mean (ms
1) 0·030 0·025

Amplitude (ms
1) 0·010 0·008
Phase (degrees) 275 270
Erodability Mean (kg m
1 s
1) 0·00024 0·00015
Amplitude (kg m
1 s
1) 0·00017 0·00012
Phase (degrees) 300 300
Deposition threshold Mean (ms
1) 0·023 0·022
Amplitude (ms
1) 0·004 0·005
Phase (degrees) 94 95

Shields curve. The erodability for each of the three
non-cohesive sediment size classes was assumed to be
510
5 kg m
2 s
1.
The simulated SPM concentration near Rosyth for
the period August 17, 1989, obtained from the two-
dimensional model is compared with observations in
Figure 11 (b). These concentrations were derived by
running the SPM model with the inclusion of both
resuspension/settling and horizontal advection and
diffusion processes. In contrast, Figure 11 (c) shows
the results obtained by running the model with the
advection and diffusion terms removed. There is little
difference between the two sets of results, supporting
the earlier assumption about the dominance of erosion
and deposition over horizontal processes
Qualitative estimates of the movement of sediment
on time-scales of several weeks were made by
setting the initial depth of the bed sediment to 0·02 m
(Lindsay, 1994) and then computing the net change
in the thickness of the bed layer after 60 days of
simulation. Figure 12 shows the results. In general,
there was movement of sediment out of the deep
channel and a deposition in the shallow water regions
near the shoreline. This was most pronounced in the
upper estuary between Stirling and Grangemouth
(x grid co-ordinates in the range I=20 to I=40) where
246 S. Clarke & A. J. Elliott
F 9. The suspended particulate matter concentration (dashed curve) simulated for the period 15–28 August 1989 using
observed velocities and the one-point resuspension/settling model with constant erosion and deposition parameters.
(Observed concentrations are shown by the solid curve.)
almost no sediment was left on the bed in mid-
channel and deposition was predicted to occur in
regions characterized by known mud flats. However,
accumulation of sediment was also predicted for a
localised region just to the west of the Queensferry
road bridge (near grid co-ordinate 95). Particle track-
ing simulations (Clarke, 1995) have suggested that
the source of this sediment is a near-shore region close
to the northern shore to the west of the Rosyth
dockyard. This source region also appears to feed the
approach channel to Rosyth: a region that is known to
exhibit rapid siltation and which requires constant
dredging.
Conclusions and discussion
The simulation of SPM concentrations in the Rosyth
region of the Firth of Forth is a challenging task and
the successful achievement of the goal requires fairly
sophisticated models. The models must reproduce
both the unique hydrodynamic character of the tides
in the region and take account of the variability of
erosion characteristics during the spring/neap cycle.
The region of direct interest lay away from the tur-
bidity maximum, which is located near the upstream
boundary of the model, and consequently the sus-
pended load concentrations near Rosyth were not
dominated by processes associated with river flow. In
addition, the concentrations were not exceptionally
high, being typically less than 200 mg l
1, and the
observed time series of SPM showed a high degree of
variability that is unlikely to be resolved by the deter-
ministic tidal models of the type considered here. (A
major omission of this model is the stirring of bottom
sediments by wave action. Such processes, even
during summer months, probably account for a
considerable fraction of the observed variability.)
The study has used in situ observations of tidal
currents and SPM concentrations to derive time-
varying erosion and deposition parameters for two
locations in the region. A one-point model (i.e. a
model that neglected horizontal transport processes)
used the observed currents to simulate the depth-
mean SPM concentration. The observations, recorded
at two heights above the sea bed, were converted to
depth-mean values by assuming that the tidal current
 Suspended sediment in the Firth of Forth 247

1.0

(ms–1) –1.0
300
250
200
(mg l–1)

150
100
50

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Days

1.0
(ms–1)

–1.0
300
250
200
(mg l–1)

150
100
50

8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Days
F 10. The suspended particulate matter concentration (dashed curve) simulated for the period 15-28 August 1989
using observed velocities and the one-point model with time varying erosion and deposition parameters. (Observed
concentrations are shown by the solid curve.)

was logarithmic with height above the bed and by
assuming that the vertical structure of the SPM distri-
bution could be approximated by a modified form of
the Rouse profile.
The observed SPM concentrations were used to
estimate the ratio ws/â where ws is the settling velocity
of the sediment. This ratio was found to be signifi-
cantly larger than the expected value, suggesting that
flocculation was increasing the deposition rate. This
effect was therefore parameterized into the model by
making the settling velocity a function of the SPM
concentration. The dominant sediment particles in
the region have a size of about 10 ìm and account for
over 90% of the near-surface SPM. Even close to the
bed, this size fraction accounts for over 70% of the
sediment load. However, the model results were
improved by including three other size fractions that
covered larger non-cohesive particles.
The observations provided evidence for the erosion/
deposition constants being functions of the spring–
neap cycle. This effect was parameterized by making
them depend on the envelope of the speed of the tidal
currents. The sediment was most consolidated, and
hence the erosion threshold at its highest, soon after
neap tides. The use of time-varying parameters caused
a significant improvement in the simulated SPM
concentrations (compare Figures 9 and 10).
Examination of the August 1989 erosion thresholds
at Rosyth [Figure 8(a)] suggests an explanation for the
variation of the threshold values. On the approach to
neap tides, the erosion threshold starts to rise due to
increased consolidation of the bed-located sediment.
At some point in the spring–neap cycle the magnitude
of the tidal velocities will exceed the erosion threshold
for a sufficient time during a tidal cycle to begin to
lower the consolidation of the bed sediments and thus
reduce the erosion threshold. For the Forth estuary,
this point is close to the mean tide after neaps. At this
time, the bed sediment is at its most consolidated and
thus the erosion threshold is at its highest. After mean
tide, the increase in magnitude of the tidal velocities
causes the erosion threshold to be exceeded for more
of the tidal cycle so that more sediment will be eroded
from the bed. Thus the consolidation time at slack
water will be shortened and hence the erosion
threshold will begin to decrease.
248 S. Clarke & A. J. Elliott

1.5 rather scattered, in contrast to the more cyclic erosion

(a) threshold values. However, there is a tendency for
1.0
the erodability to follow the erosion threshold and
0.5
to increase and decrease in phase with the erosion
(ms )
–1

0.0 threshold. The erodability of a sediment deposit

–0.5 describes the mass of sediment that is removed from
–1.0 the bed during a unit time period. When the erosion
threshold is high, the bed sediment is more consoli-
5 10 15 20 dated and therefore may be eroded in large flocs
Hours (which will be broken up in the water column by
turbulence) rather than as single particles or small
100
(b) flocs. A greater mass of sediment will thus be removed
80 from the bed per unit time and so the erodability
will be correspondingly higher. At lower erosion
(mg l )

60
–1

thresholds, the bed sediment is less compacted and

40 hence single particles and small flocs are more likely to
20
be eroded.
The variation of the deposition threshold [Figures
5 10 15 20
8(c,f)] at both survey sites was less pronounced. The
Hours
deposition of a sediment is not affected by the con-
solidation state of the sediment on the bed but it may
100 be affected by the size of the flocs that form in the
(c)
80 water column. The deposition threshold decreased at
neap tides and increased slightly at springs. This
(mg l )

60
–1

variation is possibly due to the changes in floc size at

40
20
5 10 15 20
Hours
F 11. (a): Observed (solid curves) and simulated
(dashed curves) components of the east and north current
components during 17 August 1989. (b): Comparison of
observed suspended particulate matter concentrations (solid
curve) with those simulated by the two-dimensional sedi-
ment transport model (dashed curve) when the horizontal
transport processes are included. (c): Comparison of ob-
served SPM concentrations with those simulated by the
two-dimensional sediment transport model when horizontal
advection and diffusion are neglected.
The threshold is still falling at spring tide because
the larger stresses caused by the strong tidal velocities
continue to mix sediment up from the bed and allow
less time for consolidation of the sediment. As mean
tide after springs is approached, the bed sediment has
reached a minimum in consolidation. As the magni-
tudes of the velocities drop still further, the sediment
remains on the bed longer at slack water thus allowing
consolidation to begin again and the erosion threshold
value starts to rise, thus completing the cycle. This
effect is evident at both sites.
The variation of the erodability is more difficult to
explain: the values extracted from the observations are
these times. Since there is more turbulence in the
water column at spring tides than at neaps there
will be more particle collisions which will result
in the creation of larger flocs (Dyer, 1986). These
flocs will fall out of suspension and onto the bed faster
than smaller ones, resulting in an increase in the
deposition threshold at spring tides. The small flocs
and single particles in suspension at neap tides will
settle slower than large flocs, and hence deposit on the
bed later, and so the deposition threshold will be
decreased.
The parameterizations derived from the one-point
model were passed to the fully two-dimensional sedi-
ment model (represented by Equations 1–4) and
simulations made of both the tidal flow and the
resulting SPM concentrations. Both the hydrodynam-
ics and the sediment load were satisfactorily repro-
duced (Figure 11), and the model confirmed the
relative unimportance in the Forth region of horizon-
tal processes in comparison to the effects of erosion/
resuspension and settling. The observed character of
the SPM concentrations had suggested that horizontal
processes were likely to be relatively unimportant
due to the strongly quarter-diurnal envelope that is
characteristic of local resuspension and deposition. In
contrast, regions in which there are strong horizontal
SPM gradients can reveal dominantly semi-diurnal
double maxima due to the influence of tidal advection
(Jago et al., 1993).

70
60
50
J
40 0–5 mm
5–15 mm
30
15–25 mm
25–40 mm
20
>40 mm
20 40 60
F 12. Bed layer sediment thickness (mm) after a 60 day simulation. The initial thickness was 20 mm.
The two-dimensional model was able to reproduce
known features of sediment movement over time
scales of several weeks. The strongest feature was a
scouring of the sediment from the bed in the main
channel coupled with deposition in areas of mud flats
near the banks. This resulted in the channel of the
upper estuary being almost free of sediment, while in
the lower estuary deposition coincided with the loca-
tions of known mud flats. In the vicinity of Rosyth, the
simulations predicted a region of strong deposition
near the Queensferry bridge and a redistribution of
sediment near the approaches to the dockyard. The
hypothesized pathways followed by the sediment were
supported by the results from particle-tracking simu-
lations that formed a separate part of the study
(Clarke, 1995).
The simulations reported here have focused on the
movement of sediment by tidally-driven processes.
This required the realistic simulation of the shallow-
water tidal currents that are a feature of the region
(Elliott & Clarke, 1998). A study of the seasonal
movement of SPM would need to include the influ-
ence of major winter storms and the transport due
to wind-driven currents coupled with the effects of
bottom stress due to waves. In addition, the seasonal
transport would need to consider the variability in
river flow and the riverine input of SPM to the region
during major run-off events.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the Procurement
Executive of the MoD and was performed in collabo-
ration with the Department of Nuclear Science and
Technology, the Royal Naval College, Greenwich.
Suspended sediment in the Firth of Forth 249
80 100 120
I
The authors thank Dr J West at Birmingham
University and Dr P W Balls at SOAEFD, Aberdeen,
for providing us with the tidal current and SPM
observations.
References
Amos, C. L., Feeney, T., Sutherland, T. F. & Luternauer, J. L.
1997 The stability of fine-grained sediments from the Fraser
River delta. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 45, 507–524.
Ariathurai, R. & Krone, R. B. 1976 Finite element model for
cohesive sediment transport. Journal of the Hydraulic Division,
American Society of Civil Engineers 102, 323–338.
Balls, P. W. 1992 Nutrient behaviour in two contrasting Scottish
estuaries, the Forth and Tay. Oceanologica Acta 15, 261–277.
de Haas, H. & Eisma, D. 1993 Suspended sediment transport in the
Dollard estuary. Netherlands Journal of Sea Research 31, 37–42.
Clarke, S. 1995 Advective/Diffusive Processes in the Firth of Forth.
PhD thesis, University of Wales, 262 pp.
Dyer, K. R. 1986 Coastal and Estuarine Sediment Dynamics. Wiley-
Interscience Publication, 342 pp.
Dyke, P. P. G. 1987 Water circulation in the firth of Forth,
Scotland. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh 93B,
273–284.
Einstein, H. A. & Krone, R. B. 1962 Experiments to determine
modes of cohesive sediment transport in salt water. Journal of
Geophysical Research 67, 1451–1461.
Elliott, A. J. & Clarke, S. 1998 Shallow water tides in the Firth of
Forth. Hydrographic Journal 87, 19–24.
Forth River Purification Board 1986 A Second Survey of the Resus-
pension of Solids in the Upper Forth Estuary Report No. ES1/86,
FRPB, Colinton Dell House West Mill Road Colinton,
Edinburgh, 36 pp.
Gibbs, R. J. 1985 Estuarine flocs: their size, settling velocity and
density. Journal Geophysical Research 90, 3249–3251.
Gularte, R. C., Kelly, W. E. & Nacci, V. A. 1980 Erosion of
cohesive sediments as a rate process. Ocean Engineering 7, 539–
551.
Gurbutt, P. A., Kershaw, P. J. & Durance, J. A. 1988 Modelling the
distribution of soluble and particle-adsorbed radionuclides in the
Irish Sea. In Radionucludes: a Tool for Oceanography (Guary, J. C.,
Guegueniat, P. & Pentreath. R. J., eds). Elsevier, London,
pp. 395–406.
250 S. Clarke & A. J. Elliott
Heathershaw, A. D. 1988 Sediment transport in the sea, on beaches
and in rivers: Part I—Fundamental principles. Journal of Naval
Science 14, 154–170.
Jago, C. F., Bale, A. J., Green, M. O., Howarth, M. J., Jones, S. E.,
McCave, I. N., Millward, G. E., Morris, A. W. & Rowden, A. A.
1993 Resuspension processes and seston dynamics, southern
North Sea. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of
London, Series A 343, 475–491.
Johns, B. 1983 Physical Oceanography of Coastal and Shelf Seas.
Elsevier Science Publishers, Amsterdam. 470 pp.
Lau, Y. L. & Krishnappan, B. G. 1992 Size distribution and settling
velocity of cohesive sediments during settling. Journal of Hydraulic
Research 30, 673–684.
Lavelle, J. W., Mofjeld, H. O. & Baker, E. T. 1984 An in situ
erosion rate for a fine-grained marine sediment. Journal of
Geophysical Research 89, 6543–6552.
Lindsay, P. 1991 Some Aspects of Solute and Sediment Transport and
Mixing Processes in the Forth Estuary. MPhil (qualifying) thesis,
University of Birmingham, 167 pp.
Lindsay, P. 1994 Some Aspects of Solute and Sediment Transport
Processes in the Lower Forth Estuary. PhD thesis, University of
Birmingham, 216 pp.
Lindsay, P., Balls, P. W. & West, J. R. 1996 Influence of tidal range
and river discharge on suspended particulate matter fluxes in the
Forth estuary, Scotland. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 42,
63–82.
McCave, I. N. 1984 Erosion, transport and deposition of fine
grained marine sediments. In Fine Grained Sediments: Deep Water
Processes and Facies (Stow, D. A. V. & Piper, D. J. W., eds).
Geological Society special publication No 15, 35–69.
Mehta, A. J. & Dyer, K. R. 1993 Cohesive sediment transport in
estuarine and coastal waters. In The Sea, Volume 9B (LeHaute, B.
& Hanes, D. M., eds). Wiley Publications, pp. 815–839.
Milligan, T. G. 1995 An examination of the settling behaviour of a
flocculated suspension. Netherlands Journal of Sea Research 33,
163–171.
O’Connor, B. A. & Nicholson, J. 1992 An estuarine and coastal
sand transport model. In Dynamics and Exchanges in Estuaries and
the Coastal Zone (Prandle, D., ed.). Coastal and Estuarine Studies
40. Springer-Verlag, pp. 507–526.
Pejrup, M. 1988 Suspended sediment transport across a tidal flat.
Marine Geology 82, 187–198.
Puls, W. & Sündermann, J. 1990 Simulation of suspended sedi-
ment dispersion in the North Sea. In Residual Currents and Long
Term Transport (Cheng, R. T., ed.). Coastal and Estuarine Studies
38. Springer-Verlag, pp. 356–372.
Rouse, H. 1937 Modern conceptions of the mechanics of fluid
turbulence. Transactions of the American Society of Civil Engineers
102, 463–543.
Sanford, L. P. & Halka, J. P. 1993 Assessing the paradigm of
mutually exclusive erosion and deposition of mud, with examples
from upper Chesapeake Bay. Marine Geology 114, 37–57.
Teisson, C. 1991 Cohesive suspended sediment transport: feasi-
bility and limitations of numerical modelling. Journal of Hydraulic
Research 29, 755–769.
Van Leussen, W. & Cornelisse, J. M. 1993 The determination of
the sizes and settling velocities of estuarine flocs by an underwater
video system. Netherlands Journal of Sea Research 31, 231–241.
Webb, A. J. & Metcalfe, A. P. 1987 Physical aspects, water
movements and modelling studies of the Forth estuary, Scotland.
Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh 93B, 259–272.