Sediment Transportation PDF
Sediment Transportation PDF
Transport in Estuaries
Larry Sanford
[email protected]
Gail Kineke
[email protected]
Outline
• Introduction to basic principles of sediment
transport
– Emphasis on erodibility of muds
• Modes of transport
• Modeling
• High Concentration Suspensions
• Turbidity Maxima
General References for figures, etc. (not always noted)
Allen, J.R.L., 1985. Principles of Physical Sedimentology. George Allen & Unwin Ltd.,
London, Boston, Sydney, 272 pp.
Madsen, D.O.S. and Wood, D.W., 2002. Sediment Transport Outside the Surf Zone. In:
D.T. Walton (Editor), Coastal Engineering Manual Outline, Part III, Coastal Sediment
Processes, Chapter III-6, Engineer Manual 1110-2-1100. U. S. Army Corps. of
Engineers, Washington, D. C., pp. 72.
Open-University, 1999. Waves, Tides, and Shallow Water Processes, Second Edition.
The Open University, Milton Keynes, UK, 227 pp.
van Rijn, L.C., 1993. Principles of Sediment Transport in Rivers, Estuaries and Coastal
Seas. Aqua Publications, 386 pp.
Winterwerp, J.C. and Van Kesteren, W.G.M., 2004. Introduction to the Physics of
Cohesive Sediment in the Marine Environment, 56. Elsevier B.V., Amsterdam, The
Netherlands, 466 pp.
Wright, L.D., 1995. Morphodynamics of Inner Continental Shelves. CRC Press, Boca
Raton, 241 pp.
Basic Characteristics of Sediments
• They sink or settle (Latin sedere, to sit) and have
inertia
– They don’t move exactly with the water
• There are sources (rivers, shorelines,
atmosphere, bottom) and sinks (bottom)
• Particle behavior depends on size, weight,
stickiness, and shape
• Biology can affect physics at lowest order
• Other particles (i.e., plankton) can be thought of
as sediments with different density and behavior
Global Sediment Sources –
Rivers account for 85% of inputs to global ocean
Estuaries can trap large portions of riverine inputs, can have
large internal inputs from shoreline erosion, and can import
sediment from the ocean (from Langland and Cronin 2002)
The bottom can serve as both source and sink, and often
dominates both terms in estuaries and coastal seas
90,000 MT 45,000 MT
+ =135,000 MT
resuspended background
4,400 MT/d
What matters the most for sediment transport dynamics? Not
minerology, stickiness, or size per se, but rather settling speed,
remobilization criteria, and deposition criteria.
Background – Classification of Sediment Transport (in
decreasing order of understanding)
• Non-cohesive
– > 64 um particle size, including coarse silts, sands, and gravels,
interparticle cohesive forces negligible, highly permeable
– Dominant on energetic inner continental shelves far from sources of
fines
– Previously thought to be biogeochemically boring, under revision …
• Cohesive
– < 64 um particle size, poorly sorted mix of silts, clays, and organics
(mud), interparticle cohesive forces dominate, impermeable
– Dominant in less energetic environments and/or close to sources
– Strong correlation to transport and fate of POC and associated
contaminants
– Primary determinant of turbidity
• Mixed
– Sands with > 10% mud, muds with > 5-10% sands, essentially
impermeable
– Dominant in all other environments
– More resistant to erosion than either sand or mud alone (?)
– Very complex and poorly understood dynamics
What determines
the settling
velocity of a
sediment particle?
Stokes settling
velocity
Drag coefficient around a sphere (from ?, one of the general refs, I think)
Alternative approximation due to
Gibbs (1971) as quoted by Wright
(1995)
1/ 2
⎡ ⎛ρ ⎞ ⎤
−3ν + ⎢ 9ν 2 + gD 2 ⎜ s − 1⎟ (0.003869 + 0.02480 D ) ⎥
⎣ ⎝ρ ⎠ ⎦
ws =
0.011607 + 0.07440 D
Settling
velocity for
higher Re
(larger or
more dense)
Now, what factors affect remobilization of
sediment from the bottom?
⎛ ⎞ ⎛ z1 ⎞ ⎛ z1 ⎞
⎜ κ ⎟ ⎜ ln z ⎟ ln
⎜ z ⎟
u*s = ⎜ ⎟ u ( z1 ) = u*T ⎜ 0T
⎟ = Cd u ( z1 ) ⎜ 0T
⎟
⎜ ln z1 ⎟ ⎜ ln z1 ⎟ ⎜ ln z1 ⎟
⎜ z ⎟ ⎜ z ⎟ ⎜ z ⎟
⎝ 0s ⎠ ⎝ 0s ⎠ ⎝ 0s ⎠
And the ratio of the skin Ratio of skin friction to total stress for
friction τs to the total kb,tot = 3 cm, kb,skin=0.3 mm, 10
sigma layers
stress τT is
1
2 Skin friction/Total 0.8
⎛ z1 ⎞
⎜ ln ⎟ Stress 0.6
τs z0 T
=⎜ ⎟ 0.4
τ T ⎜ ln z1 ⎟
⎜ z ⎟ 0.2
⎝ 0s ⎠
0
0 5 10 15 20
Water Depth (m)
Surface gravity waves (only most important aspects for sediment transport)
ub is the amplitude
of the near bottom
velocity fluctuations
ub = 0
a
ub = gh
h
From Wright
(1995)
As a deep water wave moves into shallower water, it first becomes a
transitional wave and eventually a shallow water wave. “Deep” is defined
relative to wavelength (or period), however, and it is different in different
environments. Wave base refers to the depth at which typical waves in that
environment first begin to significantly influence the bottom.
Oscillatory boundary layers
and wave friction factors
Oscillatory boundary layers have an inherent
vertical length scale associated with the
diffusion limit for turbulence in one cycle,
δ w ∝ u*w / ω
Wave bbls are typically cms thick, which
greatly enhances shear and turbulent stress
When compared to
quasi-steady drag
coefficients Cd
So surface gravity wave forcing can play a dominant role in
sediment transport in shallow, microtidal environments
(Nakagawa, Sanford, and Halka 2000)
Simulated significant wave height (m) Estimated bottom shear stress (Pa)
Simulated wave height and wave induced bottom shear stress for a 15 m s-1
wind from the northwest in Baltimore Harbor, Maryland, USA
Figure 3 – Time series observations of mud resuspension before, during and
after a storm, from a site in upper Chesapeake Bay, Maryland, USA. (Sanford
in press)
Resistance to remobilization of bottom sediments:
Critical Stress
A threshold value of the applied skin friction below
which there is no (or negligible) transport of bottom
sediments
For non-cohesive sediments, the stabilizing force
Fg is the submerged weight of the particle
Sh ield’s parameter / Ψ determines whether a particle will move. For any
given particle (s, D), there is a critical value of Ψ above which sed iment
motion occurs called the critical Shield’s parameter 6 Ψ c.
Ψ c often plotted as a function o f (Re * =u * k b/ν). For a flat sediment bed,
k b - D 50 / med ian diameter o f the sediment gra ins, so
u* D 50 )
Ψ c = func (
ν
The value of Ψ c mu st be e mpirically determined, resultin g in Shield’s
Dia gra m:
This is inconvenient because both axes are a function of u*, so derive a modified
Shields diagram (Madsen and Grant 1976); also valid for waves
Ψ c = funct ( S* )
250
(Wind Speed)2
8 Stn 6, 1m
6
4
2
0
200
TSP (mg/l)
150 Stn 8, 3m
100
50
0
60
Speed (cm/s)
50 Stn 6, 1m
40
30
20
10
0
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29
September 1992
Interactions between physical and biological disturbance of the sea bed
can lead to distinct layering or near homogeneity
( x-radiographs courtesy of Linda Schaffner)
Increasing physical disturbance of sea bed
10 cm
Peter Traykovski
High Resolution Acoustic Backscatter Profiler, Hudson ETM
Recent emphasis in field has been on
development of new techniques for site-
specific, in-situ erosion testing
• Differences in instrument
calibration or performance –
what we need to know in order
to compare different data sets
• Differences in experimental
design and data analysis –
what we need to resolve before
we can compare instruments
Fig. 1-1. VIMS Sea Carousel Experiment Sites for the Middle Chesapeake
Bay (M 1 and M 2) and Upper Bay Sites (U1 and U2).
VIMS Sea Carousel UMCES Microcosm
We have known for years that a rapid increase of τc with depth
into the bed results in a rapidly time varying erosion rate:
Example erosion test and derived
critical stress profile from Parchure and
Mehta (1985)
If erosion behavior is time dependent, then
differences in the time history of stress application
affect the results of erosion experiments
• Most common to apply a 1.E-04
GP1 Shear
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
E0 ∝ (τ b − τ c ) 2 globally E ∝ (τ b − τ c ) locally
Sea Carousel Microcosm
Time dependent erosion behavior is relatively straightforward to
derive theoretically, especially for specific erosion formulations
that yield analytical solutions:
n − kρ ( z )
E = Aτ b (t ) e
dτ c d ρb
Assume β = constant, =γz assume = constant,
dz dz
dτ b
then for n=2 and = 0,
dτ b dt
for = 0,
dt E0 d ρb
E= , where B = E0k
E ' = β (τ b − τ c 0 )e − βγ t Bt + 1 dz
Reanalysis of Sea Carousel data using the
Microcosm approach reveals real similarities
and differences
GP1 fit Shear Critical Stress (Pa)
1.E-04 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4
Erosion Rate (kg s-1 m -2)
Microcosm
0.2
Shear Stress (Pa)
0.00
Eroded mass (kg m-2)
Time
From Sanford and Halka (1993)
Changeover
Modeling Cohesive Sediments: Erosion,
Deposition, and Bed Processes
What are the main challenges for fine
sediment transport research and application?
• Effective shear stress
• Sediment erosion/resuspension
• Shoreline erosion/protection
• Spatial heterogeneity
• Flocculation and settling
• Sediment Deposition and Consolidation
• Biological effects
• Concentrated benthic suspensions
• Interactions with T/S stratification
• Large events
• Modeling
• Effective adoption of new technologies
• Disciplinary and geographical boundaries and biases
Bottom Sediment
Erosion/Resuspension
• Resistance of the bed a function of cohesion, water content, grain
size distribution and density. Often expressed as erodibility,
parameterized by critical stress τc and erosion rate E.
• In general, erodibility is not predictable a priori and at least some
measurements are required (a sad state of affairs)
• Variety of methods to test erodibility exist, but no real standards for
collection, interpretation, or use of the data
• Can measure, model erodibility profile at one point in time, but how
does the bed evolve from that point or recover from disturbance?
– Consolidation
– Armoring
– Bioturbation/bio-adhesion
• When to switch between fluid mud entrainment and cohesive bed
erosion?
• Mass erosion – bed failure under high stresses, rather than particle
by particle
Biological effects
• Particle stickiness, repackaging, biodeposition
• Bottom roughness of benthic communities
• Bioturbation – mixing of surface sediments
changes surface texture, erodibility
• Macroscale structure/form drag - potential for
feedbacks to sedimentation
– Oyster beds and reefs, coral reefs
– Seagrass beds
– Marsh vegetation
Concentrated benthic suspensions
• Some major advances in recent years
– AMASSEDS, STRATAFORM, COSINUS programs
– Turbulence damping at lutoclines
– Turbidity flows
• CBS are common where energy is high and
sources are large, but just a slight decrease in
energy can result in a change to normal
sediment beds
– Is this a state change? Why, and when is the switch
thrown?
Spatial heterogeneity
• Changes in bottom sediment texture and
strength can be abrupt, sometimes at
smaller scale than model cells
– Why? Is this a state change, rather than
gradual mixing? Can we model it?
– Recent work of van Ledden et al. provides a
framework for interpretation/modeling
• New measurements are fantastic, but how
do we utilize the information to improve
understanding and prediction?
Modeling
• How to best incorporate all of the above into
workable models?
– 1-D process models are important, especially for
development, but 3-D long term, large scale models
are critically needed
– Detailed knowledge of processes must be
parameterized, but retain essential features
• Best models are as simple as possible, but no
simpler…
• The NOPP Community Sediment Transport
project – a major opportunity
• What can be adopted from previous work, and
what needs new development?
NOPP CSTM participants and their roles
Selected cohesive sediment erosion formulations
I Gularte et al. (1980), others
n − kρ ( z )
III E = Aτ b (t ) e Roberts et al. (1998), Lick et al. (2006)
0.3
TSS [g.l-1]
0.2
0.1
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
0.9
taub [Pa]
0.6
0.3
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
m [kg.m-2]
0
0.5
1
0 5 10 15 20 25
m [kg.m-2]
0 0.6
0.4
0.5
0.2
1 0
0 5 10 15 20 25
time, [d]
All mud, very low sediment mixing, 2 days during
event and 1 tidal cycle 2 days after event
30/70 sand-mud, very low sediment mixing
30/70 sand-mud, sediment mixing 10 cm2 yr-1
Modeling Conclusions
• Layered bed model for critical stress profile in
terms of bed mass simplifies formulation, avoids
layer transfers during consolidation.
– Z-dependent model also possible
• Specification of equilibrium conditions based on
observed erosion behavior promising, but may
need tweaking.
• “Consolidation” formulation predicts reasonable
behavior with little computational effort, but
needs more validation
• Mud-sand mixture and diffusive mixing schemes
lead to realistic complex bed structures and
directly affect resuspension
Modeling Conclusions, continued
39.5
Baltimore CBOS
BWI
39.0
76.5 76.0
Physical Features of the ETM
TSS= Total Suspended Solids
0
Salinity,
-2
Axial CTD Survey- May 2, 1996 [PSU]
Depth, [m]
-4
F F F F SF SF SF SF E E E -6
0
-8
1
-4 1 2 1 3
2
Salinity, (PSU) 2 3 -10
1
Depth (m)
-8 1000
4 -12 500
-12 5 14 16 18 20 22 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 200
6 0
-16 100
70
TSS, [mg/l]
-20 -2 60
50
30
30
Depth, [m]
30
-24 -4
30
40
40
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
30
40
30
40
-6 30
40
30
30 30 20
30 40 40
-8
50
10
40
6700
5400
4500
50
30
0 1000 5
TSS, (mg/l) -10
0
-4 200 -12
80
-8 14 16 18 20 22 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Depth (m)
70 70
0 60 Ebb
-12 Along Channel Current Speeds
50 50
-2 40
-16
30 30
0
40
Depth, [m]
20
-20
-4 20
-20
-40
10 10
-20
-6
80
-24 0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0 -10
40
40
-40
20
-8
-20
-20
60
20
60
-20
0
0
-30
-10 -40
14 16 18 20 22 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
-60
-70
Flood
-80
Time of Day, [hours]
Zooplankton in the ETM, May 1996
Spring 1996 TIES Program
White Perch No. m-3
White
Morone americana 500
Perch
Larvae
Striped Bass
Striped 70
Morone saxatilis
Bass
Larvae
0
Conceptual diagram of ETM sediment and
zooplankton trapping at the limit of salt
Annual Susquehanna
River flows and
suspended sediment
loadings to the upper
Bay, 1991-1999
Depth, [m]
Depth, [m]
Depth, [m]
-8 -8 -8
Depth, [m]
Depth, [m]
Depth, [m]
100 100
-8 70 -8 70 -8 70
60 60 60
50 50 50
40 40 40
-16 30 -16 30 -16 30
20 20 20
TSS (mg/l) Feb 1, 1996 10 TSS (mg/l) Oct. 22, 1996 10
TSS (mg/l) Oct. 27, 1996 10
5 5 5
-24 0 -24 0 -24 0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Distance from Havre De Grace, [km] Distance from Havre De Grace, [km] Distance from Havre De Grace, [km]
Near Bed Salinity Gradient v
1 PSU
2001
1996
1 PSU dS/dx 1:1 line
1PSU dS/dx 1:1 line 60
50
50
40
40
30 30
20 20
10 10
10 20 30 40 50 60 10 20 30 40 50 60
1 PSU or dS/dx Location, [River Km] 1 PSU or dS/dx Location, [River Km]
40 40
30 30
20 20
10 10
10 20 30 40 50 60 10 20 30 40 50 60
1 PSU or dS/dx Location, [River Km] 1PSU or dS/dx Location, [River km]
Critical Stress and
Erosion Rate Constant
Critical stress, τ c (Pa)
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
0
Eroded mass (kg m )
-2
0.1
0.2
0.3
1.6070
y = -.0014+1.5688x
0.4 2
R = .78
0.5
-1 -1 -2
Erosion rate constant, M(kg s Pa m )
0 0.001 0.002 0.003
0
Eroded mass (kg m )
-2
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
Spatial and Temporal Variation
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
May July Oct '01 May July Oct '02
'01 '01 '02 '02
Eroded Mass vs ws and Loading
Tolchester Grove Pt. Settling Speed
0.3 8
0.0 0
May '01 July '01 Oct '01 May '02 July '02 Oct '02
60
0.2 50
40
30
0.1 20
10
0 0
Mar Jun Sep Dec Mar Jun Sep
'01 '01 '01 '01 '02 '02 '02
Particle size and settling velocity measurements
Modified Valeport Video In-situ Settling Tube Laser In-Situ Scattering
bottom withdrawal Apparatus (VISTA) mounted on and Transmission
settling tube – with profiling rig with LISST, ADV, (LISST) – particle size in
water jacket and CTD; water pumped through 32 bins between 2-500
reflective insulation tube, valves closed, particle microns, plus forward
settling videotaped transmission
Disaggregated Sediment Sizes: high-volume
filtering 1 mab
250 1000
500
10 200 10 300
200
150
150
100 100
20 D50 (microns) 20 Vol.Conc. <66.5 um (ul/l) 75
75 50
30
50 20
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 10
25
0
0 1.3 0 2000
1500
1000
Depth (m)
1.25
500
10 1.2
10 300
200
1.15 150
100
1.1 75
20 Bulk Density (g/cm^3) 1.05
20 Vol.Conc. >66.5 um (ul/l) 50
30
1.02 20
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 1.005
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 10
0
River Km River Km
October 11, 2002 Weak Flood Survey
2000
0 70 0 1500
60 1000
Depth (m)
500
50
10 10 300
200
40
150
30 100
20 TSS (mg/l) 20 20 Tot. Vol. Conc. (ul/l) 75
50
10 30
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 5 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 20
10
2 0
0 0 2000
300 1500
Depth (m)
1000
250
500
10 200 10 300
200
150 150
100
20 D50 (microns) 100 20 Vol.Conc. <66.5 um (ul/l) 75
50
75
30
20
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 50
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 10
25 0
0 1.3 0 2000
1500
1000
Depth (m)
1.25
500
10 1.2
10 300
200
1.15 150
100
1.1 75
20 Bulk Density (g/cm^3) 1.05
20 Vol.Conc. >66.5 um (ul/l) 50
30
1.02 20
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 1.005
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 10
0
River Km River Km
Tidal Cycle Anchor Station October 10, 2002: Flood - Ebb
Shear (s-1) and current (cm s-1)
0
4.5
4
3.5
Depth (m)
3
5
2.5
2
1.5
1
10 0.5
0.1
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Total Volume (ul l-1) and TSS (mg l-1)
0
2000
1500
1000
500
Depth (m)
300
5 200
150
100
75
50
30
10 20
10
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 0
200
5
150
100
75
10
50
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 25
Time (EDT)
VISTA: Floc Settling Speed v. Floc Size, 10/10/2002
d [m] d [m]
0.00001 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.00001 0.0001 0.001 0.01
0.01 0.01
Surface Middle
8:30 am 8:50 am
9:30 am
ws [m/s]
ws [m/s]
10:00 am 10:20 am
0.001 0.001
10:30 am
1.1912
1.0495
y = 26.597x
y = 5.3443x 2
2
R = 0.4544
R = 0.4548
0.0001 0.0001
d [m] d [m]
0.00001 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.00001 0.0001 0.001 0.01
0.01 0.01
all depths
Bottom
8:40 am Surface
ws [m/s]
Owen tube
ws [m/s]
9:10 am Middle
0.001 0.001
10:10 am LISST range Bottom
0.8331
y = 1.908x y = 147.15x
1.3923
2
R = 0.4744 2
R = 0.6077
0.0001 0.0001
10 250
a) b)
8 200
ws50 [mm s ]
-1
Settling [mg l]
.
6
.
150
4 100
2 50
0 0
0 50 100 150 200 250 0 10 20 30 40 50
. -1
TSS [mg l ] . -1
Non-settling [mg l ]
Conceptual Model of Particle Dynamics in
Chesapeake Bay ETM:
Preliminary Conclusions
• Particle size usually smaller near surface, but
evidence of large, watery flocs in pycnocline
sometimes
– d50 50-100 microns near surface, 100-200 microns
near bottom
– Only weak relationships to turbulent shear
• Some very slowly settling particles always
present, settling particles appear to be
resuspended and deposited tidally with a broad
range of settling speeds (ws50 0.4-8 mm/s)
– No relationship between ws50 and concentration
apparent
www.BITMAXII.org
ETM (essentially)
session at ERF 2007
(Houde and Sanford)