See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/237188911

Modelling cohesive sediment transport in rivers

Article  in  Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering · February 2011

DOI: 10.1139/l04-043

CITATIONS READS
25 186

2 authors, including:

B. G. Krishnappan
Government of Canada
214 PUBLICATIONS   1,562 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Modelling of cohesive sediment transport in the Glenmore Reservoir in Calgary, Alberta, Canada View project

All content following this page was uploaded by B. G. Krishnappan on 15 February 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 749

Numerical modelling of cohesive sediment

transport in rivers
David H. Willis and B.G. Krishnappan

Abstract: Techniques available to practicing civil engineers for numerically modelling cohesive mud in rivers and estu-
aries are reviewed. Coupled models, treating water and sediment as a single process, remain research tools but are usu-
ally not three-dimensional. The decoupled approach, which separates water and sediment computations at each model
time step, allows the three-dimensional representation of at least the bed and the use of well-proven, commercial, nu-
merical, hydrodynamic models. Most hydrodynamic models compute sediment transport in suspension but may require
modification of the dispersion coefficients to account for the presence of sediment. The sediment model deals with the
sediment exchange between the water column and the bed using existing equations for erosion and deposition. Both
equations relate the sediment exchange rates to the shear stress in the bottom boundary layer. In real rivers and estuar-
ies, a depositional bed layer is associated with a period of low flow and shear, at slack tide for example, whereas in
numerical models a layer is defined by the model time step. The sediment model keeps track of the uppermost layers
at each model grid point, including consolidation and strengthening. Although numerical hydrodynamic models are
based strongly on physics, sediment models are only numerical frameworks for interpolating and extrapolating full-
scale field or laboratory measurements of “hydraulic sediment parameters,” such as threshold shear stresses. Calibration
and verification of models against measurement are therefore of prime importance.
Key words: cohesive sediment, mathematical modelling, settling velocity, erosion, resuspension, deposition, fluid mud,
bed layers.
Résumé : Cet article passe en revue les techniques disponibles dont disposent les ingénieurs civils praticiens pour la
modélisation numérique des boues cohésives dans les rivières et les estuaires. Des modèles couplés, traitant l’eau et les
sédiments comme étant un seul processus, demeurent des outils de recherche mais ne sont pas normalement tridimen-
sionnels. L’approche découplée, qui sépare les calculs de l’eau et des sédiments à chaque pas de calcul du modèle, per-
met une représentation tridimensionnelle d’au moins le lit et l’utilisation de modèles hydrodynamiques numériques,
industriels et bien éprouvés. La majorité des modèles hydrodynamiques calculent le transport des sédiments en suspen-
sion, mais peuvent demander une modification des coefficients de dispersion afin de tenir compte de la présence des
sédiments. Le modèle sur les sédiments traite de l’échange de sédiments entre la colonne d’eau et le lit en utilisant les
équations existantes pour l’érosion et la déposition. Les deux équations relient les taux d’échange des sédiments à la
contrainte de cisaillement dans la couche limite du fond. Dans les vrais estuaires et rivières, une couche de déposition
sur le lit est associée à une période de faible débit et de cisaillement, par exemple à l’étale de courant, alors que dans
les modèles numériques, une couche est identifiée par le pas de calcul du modèle. Le modèle sur les sédiments suit
l’évolution des couches supérieures à chaque point grille du modèle, incluant la consolidation et le renforcement. Bien
que les modèles numériques soient basés en grande partie sur la physique, les modèles sur les sédiments ne sont que
des cadres numériques pour l’interpolation et l’extrapolation des mesures en laboratoire ou à plein échelle sur le terrain
des « paramètres hydrauliques des sédiments », tels que les seuils de contraintes de cisaillement. L’étalonnage et la vé-
rification des modèles par rapport aux mesures sont donc d’une grande importance.

Mots clés : sédiments cohésifs, modélisation mathématique, vitesse de sédimentation, érosion, remise en suspension,
déposition, boues fluides, couches du lit.
[Traduit par la Rédaction] Willis and Krishnappan 758

Received 18 August 2003. Revision accepted 30 April 2004. Published on the NRC Research Press Web site at http://cjce.nrc.ca on
1 October 2004.
D.H. Willis. David H. Willis and Associates Limited, Ottawa, ON K1K 1X4, Canada.
B.G. Krishnappan.1 National Water Research Institute, Burlington, ON L7R 4A6, Canada.
Written discussion of this article is welcomed and will be received by the Editor until 28 February 2005.
1
Corresponding author (e-mail: Bommanna.Krishnappan@ec.gc.ca).

Can. J. Civ. Eng. 31: 749–758 (2004) doi: 10.1139/L04-043 © 2004 NRC Canada
750
1. Introduction
Transport processes of fine-grained, cohesive sediments
are significantly different from those of coarse-grained,
cohesionless sediments. The main difference is in the way
the particles interact. For example, fine-grained sediment
particles in the silt and clay size classes have a tendency to
form agglomerations of particles called flocs, whereas
coarse-grained particles in the sand and gravel size classes
behave as individual particles. While the size and the spe-
cific weight of the individually transported cohesionless sed-
iment particles are well defined and invariant with the flow
field, the same properties of the cohesive sediment floc are a
function of the flow field (van Leussen 1988; Krishnappan et
al. 1992; Lau and Krishnappan 1994a; Krishnappan and
Engel 1997). These parameters have to be determined before
the modelling of the cohesive sediment transport can be at-
tempted. In other words, the size and density of the cohesive
sediment floc themselves become dependent variables,
thereby increasing the complexity of the cohesive sediment
transport models (Krishnappan and Marsalek 2000). In addi-
tion, the agglomeration or flocculation of the cohesive sedi-
ment depends on a number of factors such as particle
mineralogy, the electrochemical nature of the flowing me-
dium, biological factors such as bacteria and other organic
material, and the hydrodynamic properties of the flow field
and hence requires a multidisciplinary approach to model-
ling cohesive sediment transport processes.
Past research on cohesive sediment transport was moti-
vated by the need for better estimates of soil erosion, shoal-
ing of channels and harbours, and dredging requirements for
navigational purposes; as a result, researchers were mainly
concerned with the cohesive sediment transport in the estu-
aries and coastal areas. Recently, there is an additional moti-
vation prompted by the need for a better understanding of
transport of pollutants that are attached to cohesive sedi-
ment. A majority of highly toxic and persistent chemicals
entering a river system from agricultural, industrial, and mu-
nicipal sources have high affinity for fine particles and are
transported mostly in association with the cohesive sedi-
ment. Therefore, many existing ecosystem models dealing
with contaminant transport, fate, and bioaccumulation in
aquatic environments invariably include a cohesive sediment
transport component and require a better understanding of
the cohesive sediment transport processes. In this paper, an
overview of the knowledge base required for modelling co-
hesive sediment transport and the associated contaminants in
river flows is reviewed.
1.1. Governing equation
The transport characteristics of cohesive sediment in a
flow field can be described in terms of a sediment mass bal-
ance equation. A form of the equation that was used by
Teisson (1997) is adopted here. In this form, the equation
and the boundary conditions are as follows:
∂c ∂ c ∂ (w − w s) c ∂ (u′ i c′)
[1] + ui + =− + S(x, y, z),
∂t ∂x i ∂z ∂x i
xi = x, y, z and ui = u, v, w
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 31, 2004
where c is the mean concentration of sediment in suspen-
sion; t is the time; ui and ui are the mean and instantaneous
flow velocities, respectively; ui′ and c′ are the fluctuating ve-
locity components and fluctuating sediment concentration,
respectively; w is the vertical velocity component; ws is the
settling velocity of the sediment particle; and S(x, y, z) is the
sediment source or sink within the solution domain other
than the boundaries, where x and y are the horizontal spatial
components and z is the vertical spatial component.
The boundary conditions are as follows:
[2] (w − w s) c + w ′c′ = 0 (at the free surface)
[3] − w sc + w ′c′ = q d + q e (at the bed)
where qd and qe are fluxes due to deposition and erosion, re-
spectively; and w′ is the fluctuating velocity component in
the vertical direction.
The turbulent flux of sediment is usually determined using
the eddy diffusivity concept:
∂c
[4] ui ′ c′ = −Γsi
∂x i
where Γs is the diffusion coefficient.
If we assume that the presence of sediment does not have
an effect on the flow velocity components, then the flow
field can be calculated using a hydrodynamic model inde-
pendently (decoupled approach). In such cases, to close
eq. [1], we need to know ws, the expressions for qe and qd at
the bed, and the sediment diffusion coefficient, Γs. Equa-
tions [1]–[4] are equally valid for cohesionless sediment.
The difference between a cohesive and a cohesionless sedi-
ment transport model arises because of the differences in the
specification of the parameters ws, qe, and qd for the two
types of sediments.
Models based on the decoupled approach are valid only
for low concentrations of the cohesive sediment in the flow
(i.e., for concentrations up to about 300 mg/L). For higher
concentrations (i.e., for concentrations of the order of 1 g/L
and higher), the presence of sediment has an effect on the
turbulence of the flow and modifies the turbulent fluxes of
momentum and concentration, eddy diffusivity, eddy viscos-
ity, and the bottom shear stress. For such flows a coupled
approach is needed. Teisson et al. (1991) proposed two dif-
ferent approaches for modelling such flows. The first
approach is based on a Reynolds stress model, which is ca-
pable of dealing with stratified flows. The second approach
is based on a two-phase flow model, which takes into ac-
count the interaction between the fluid and sediment in a di-
rect way. Le Hir (1997) investigated the capabilities of the
two-phase flow models to predict the fluid-mud flows in the
Loire estuary in France.
Although the coupled models have the advantage of mini-
mizing the empiricism in the cohesive sediment transport
models and predict the vertical profile of sediment concen-
tration from the water surface to the bed, they are still con-
sidered as “research” models and have not yet been applied
for engineering problems. For engineering applications, a
multilayer concept (Le Normant 2000; Willis and Crook-
shank 1997) is used and equations are solved for water col-
umn, sediment in suspension, fluid mud, and consolidated
sediment deposits taking into consideration the net fluxes
© 2004 NRC Canada
Willis and Krishnappan
among different layers. In Willis and Crookshank (1997), a
multilayer cohesive sediment transport model was applied to
Cumberland Basin in the Bay of Fundy, Liverpool Bay, and
Miramichi inner bay in Canada. In the present paper, the
state-of-the-art of formulating multilayer cohesive sediment
transport models for rivers and estuaries is examined by re-
viewing the physical processes involved in different layers
and their governing equations.
2. Hydrodynamic models
Numerical hydrodynamic models form the basis of the co-
hesive sediment transport models. Since it is the water that
transports the cohesive sediment and contaminants, we need
to have a good understanding of the flow. The cohesive sedi-
ment transport is most important in river estuaries, where
fresh and salt water mix under the influence of tides and
ocean currents and the river flow itself. The hydrodynamic
models, therefore, need to be complex: a minimum of two-
dimensional (2-D), often with layers in the third vertical di-
mension; increasingly, fully three-dimensional (3-D).
2.1. Governing equations and processes
Hydrodynamic models such as TELEMAC-3D (Hervouet
2000) solve the full Navier–Stokes equations. The presence
of a free surface is accounted for with the help of an appro-
priate boundary condition. The pressure distribution is nor-
mally assumed to be hydrostatic. The models also have to
deal with the effects of vertical density resulting from tem-
perature, suspended sediment, and salinity variations. The
effects of wind stress on the free surface, heat exchange with
the atmosphere, and Coriolis forces are normally included.
2.2. Flow resistance: viscosity, boundary layer,
roughness, and shear
Laminar flow is uninteresting in real rivers and estuaries
where the flow is fully turbulent. Even at the turn of the tide
(near high water and low water, when the mean flow veloc-
ity over the depth is zero), there is residual turbulence, par-
ticularly in the mixing layer between the salt water, which
continues to flow upstream near the bed, and the fresh water
flowing seaward near the surface.
There can still be a thin laminar boundary layer over a
rare smooth bed, in which water velocity increases linearly,
at constant shear stress defined by viscosity, from zero at the
bed to the familiar logarithmic turbulent velocity profile a
small distance above the bed. Otherwise, the viscosity of the
water is not a major parameter for the flow. It will come into
its majority when we consider settling of suspended sedi-
ment (see Sect. 3.1.1, eq. [20]).
Most natural rivers and estuaries are not smooth but have
rocks and ripples projecting through the laminar sublayer,
directly resisting the turbulent flow above it. The resistance
is again expressed as a shear stress, by the bed on the flow-
ing water and equally and oppositely by the water on the
bed.
Bed shear is the most important flow property for model-
ling cohesive sediment transport (Krishnappan 1990, 1991).
Shear is obviously the forcing function for erosion of the co-
hesive bed, when shear exceeds the (minimum) threshold
shear of the bed material. Less obviously it affects deposi-
751
tion, breaking up and resuspending flocs before they can set-
tle through the boundary layer onto the bed. There is there-
fore a maximum threshold shear for deposition. The
threshold shears are properties of the sediment. The shear
stress on the bed is a property of the flow and the resistance
to flow of the bedforms. Bed shear also correlates with the
level of turbulence of the flow.
Our numerical hydrodynamic models then need to calcu-
late shear stress rather accurately. Most models are very
good at calculating flow velocity and water level, and also
shear stress if they know the bed roughness. On sediment
beds, however, the definition of roughness is circular: ripples
are generated by the flow, are properties of the flow and sed-
iment, and are the roughness that resists the flow. There is a
suspicion that the ripples that form on sediment beds offer
the minimum resistance to the flow that forms them, but this
has yet to be proven.
In steady unidirectional flow, bed shear (τ) is calculated by
[5] τ = ρ wghI
where ρ w is the density of water, g is the acceleration due to
gravity, h is the water depth, and I is the water surface or en-
ergy slope. Bed shear is often written with units of velocity as
[6] u* = τ / ρ w = ghI
in which u* is the shear velocity or “u-star.”
Most numerical hydraulic models ask for a Chézy or
Manning expression of the roughness of the bed at each cal-
culation point. The Chézy coefficient might better be called
a “smoothness” coefficient, relating the bed shear to the
mean flow velocity as
[7] ν = C CHu *
where ν is the mean velocity averaged over depth, and CCH
is the dimensionless Chézy smoothness coefficient.
“Steady uniform flow” and “mean velocity averaged over
depth” have little meaning in a 3-D or layered 2-D model of
an estuary, where salt water continues to flood upstream
near the bed while fresh water ebbs on the surface. Never-
theless, eq. [7] remains useful as a definition of both CCH
and ν.
The Chézy coefficient is related to the bed roughness by
[8] C CH = 5.75 log10(11h / r)
where r is a physical dimension of the bed roughness. In
wave-generated sand ripples, for example,
[9] r ≈ 25R2/λ
where R is the ripple height, trough to crest; and λ is the rip-
ple wavelength, crest to crest. On flat beds,
[10] r ≈ 2D90
where D90 is the (coarse) grain size of which 90% of the bed
is smaller.
We can see why the Chézy coefficient is called a smooth-
ness coefficient: the rougher the bed, the larger the rough-
ness, r, and the smaller the value of CCH; and the smoother
the bed, the smaller the roughness and the larger the value of
© 2004 NRC Canada
752
CCH. In practice, a very smooth bed has a CCH > 30, a very
rough bed CCH < 10, and a fairly smooth bed (muddy bed)
CCH ≈ 25.
Other roughness measures can be derived from the Chézy
coefficient as the Weisbach friction factor
[11] f = 2.83 / C CH
and the Manning roughness
[12] n = (1.49h1/ 6)/(C CH g1/ 2)
2.3. Representations of turbulence
Turbulence plays an important role in maintaining the fine
sediment in suspension and in promoting the flocculation of
the fine suspended sediment. For maintaining the sediment
in suspension, the turbulent diffusive flux counteracts the
settling flux of the suspended sediment. To promote the floc-
culation of the fine suspended sediment, the turbulent fluctu-
ations cause the suspended particles to collide and overcome
the repulsive forces among particles due to like charges of
ions surrounding the particles.
The turbulence also restricts the growth of the flocs by
limiting the largest floc that can form under a certain turbu-
lence level. The breakage of the larger and fragile flocs is
due to the high intensity of particle collisions because of tur-
bulence. The governing parameter for these two mechanisms
is the shear rate, G, of the turbulent flow, which is related to
the turbulent energy dissipation rate, ε, and the kinematic
viscosity, ν, as follows:
[13] G = (ε / ν)1/2
A representation of turbulence that will facilitate the compu-
tation of the shear rate, G is desirable in a hydrodynamic
flow model suitable for handling cohesive sediment trans-
port. The logical choice that will meet this requirement is
the k–ε turbulence model, where k is the turbulent kinetic en-
ergy. The drawback of the k–ε turbulence closure, however,
is the extra computation efforts needed to solve the addi-
tional two equations for k and ε.
2.3.1. Eddy diffusivity
The eddy diffusivity needed to solve the mass balance
equation (eq. [1]) can be calculated by relating it to the eddy
viscosity and a turbulent Schmidt number. The eddy viscos-
ity, in turn, can be calculated from the turbulence closure re-
lationships. For example, in the case of k–ε turbulence
closure, the eddy viscosity, νt , is related to k and ε as fol-
lows:
[14] νt = cµ k 2 / ε
where cµ is an empirical constant.
2.4. Advection, diffusion, and dispersion of solutes:
salinity and pollution
The concentration distribution of neutrally buoyant dis-
solved substances can be calculated using hydrodynamic
models without additional computational efforts, because of
the similarity in the form of the equations describing the
mass and the momentum transport (advection–diffusion
equation). Care should be taken, however, to minimize the
numerical dispersion errors that are inherent in many numer-
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 31, 2004
ical solution techniques. Excessive numerical dispersion will
smear the concentration profiles and yield negative values
for concentrations, which in turn can alter the nature of the
source and sink terms; sources can become sinks and vice
versa.
2.5. Other estuarine processes: waves and tides, wetting
and drying
Both wind waves and tides are water waves. The differ-
ences lie in the frequencies and modes of propagation. Most
Canadian tides are semidiurnal (i.e., two high and two low
waters per day, with the tidal period between highs or lows
of about 12 h and 24 min). Wind waves, on the other hand,
have periods of the order of 10 s and frequencies of about
0.1 Hz.
Most numerical hydraulic models used for cohesive sedi-
ment transport in rivers can handle tidal variations. Tidal flow
varies slowly enough that during a time step it can almost be
considered steady flow; in other words, acceleration terms can
be neglected. Detailed wind wave modelling requires not only
the acceleration terms, but also much smaller time-step and
grid spacing than are practical for large estuaries.
Wind waves are nevertheless important in stirring up and
suspending cohesive sediments and contaminants. It is there-
fore common practice to augment the computed bed shears
for wave activity averaged over a wave period, before pro-
ceeding to the erosion and deposition calculations.
The relevant equations are as follows: (i) bed shear stress
due to waves (τ w)
[15] τ w = ( fw / 4)ρu2b
(ii) maximum orbital velocity at the bed (ub)
[16] ub = πH/[T sinh(2πh/L)]
where H is the wave height, trough to crest; and T is the
wave period; (iii) wave length in shallow water (L)
[17] L = T(gh)1/2
(iv) wave friction factor (fw)
[18] fw = exp[–5.98 + 5.21(do/2r)–0.19]
and (v) maximum orbital excursion at the bed (do)
[19] do = π H/[2 sinh(2π h/L)]
A surprising number of numerical tidal models remain
weak in wetting and drying of the boundaries during a tidal
cycle. During the ebb, the model should remove boundary
elements from the calculation as they emerge above the fall-
ing water level. On the flood, elements should be returned to
the calculation as they are covered. Many models retain all
the boundary elements in all the calculations but reduce the
water depth of “dry” elements to a few millimetres. This
fudge can seriously affect the model’s conservation of water
and sediment. It becomes very important on models of cohe-
sive sediment transport, such as in the Bay of Fundy where
mudflats above low water occupy a significant fraction of
the modelled area.
© 2004 NRC Canada
Willis and Krishnappan
2.6. Calibration and verification of models
All hydraulic models, physical, numerical, and especially
sedimentary, need to demonstrate that they can reproduce
the past and present before they are used for projections into
the future. This demonstration is divided into at least two
phases, namely calibration and verification.
2.6.1. Calibration
With calibration, adjustment of model parameters (rough-
ness and turbulence) is allowed until the model adequately
reproduces a comprehensive set of field measurements. Sta-
tistical techniques as in design of experiments (Willis and
Crookshank 1997) can be employed for this process.
2.6.2. Verification
The calibrated model must then be verified against an in-
dependent comprehensive set of field measurements. If it
does not adequately reproduce the verification dataset with-
out further parameter adjustment, we must return to the cali-
bration phase until the model reproduces both datasets.
3. Sediment in suspension
It is traditional to speak of at least three modes of sedi-
ment transport by water as follows: (i) bedload, in which the
moving sediment is supported at all times by the bed be-
neath it, rolling over a layer of stationary sediment; (ii) sal-
tation (a fancy word for “jumping”), in which a grain travels
in a series of jumps off the bed into the flow and back onto
the bed where its impact dislodges another jumping grain;
and (iii) suspension, in which grains are supported in the
flow by the upward component of turbulence and travel with
the velocity of the surrounding water.
None of these three modes fully describes sediment trans-
port over a rippled bed. It is partly bedload while the grains
are being dragged up the back of a ripple, from which they
are launched in a turbulent eddy (neither saltation nor sus-
pension, but a finite whorl with a more or less horizontal
axis) until the eddy settles back onto the next ripple. It is far
easier to lump all sediment transport into the single process
called suspension. Even those favouring differentiation re-
gard bedload as the lower limit of suspended load. In any
case, the transport of cohesive sediment and contaminants is
always in suspension, both traditional and comprehensive
definitions.
3.1. Cohesionless sediment: a grain of sand
How a grain of sand behaves in flowing water is governed
entirely by its physical properties: size, shape, and mineral
density in water. A free-body diagram can be made of a
grain of sand (Fig. 1) in which bed shear, buoyancy, and lift
and drag by flowing water are the disturbing forces, and the
weight of the grain is the only restoring force. While the
grain is at rest on the bed, or moving as bedload, there are
also reactive forces from the bed beneath it.
3.1.1. Settling velocity
A sand grain in suspension is supported by drag forces
balancing its weight, due to the upward vertical component
of turbulence. In still water, with no turbulence, the same
sand grain will settle at a terminal velocity for which the
753
drag and buoyancy just balance the weight. This property of
the sand grain is known as its “fall velocity” or “settling ve-
locity.” If the grain were spherical, its settling velocity
would be given by Stokes’ law:
[20] w s = [(ρ s − ρ w)gD]/18ρ wv
where ws is the turbulent settling velocity in still water, D is
the equivalent spherical diameter of the grain, ρ w is the mass
density of the water, and ρ s is the mass density of the sedi-
ment. Buoyancy of the grain is taken care of in the following
term:
[21] ∆ = (ρ s − ρ w)/ ρ w
where ∆ is the submerged specific gravity of sediment.
Equation [20] is more used in reverse to compute the
equivalent spherical diameter of an irregular grain or floc,
based on its settling velocity measured in a settling column.
But the numerical modeller can more easily work with just
the measured settling velocity, ws. Settling velocity contains
all the important information about the suspended sediment
(grain size, shape, and density) in a single number. Equation
[20] is then used by the model to compute settling velocities
for different water temperatures and densities and by input
and output routines to produce grain sizes for the customers.
3.2. Cohesive sediment: silt and clay
Most estuarine muds are far from cohesionless. They are
cohesive, or sticky. Sediment particles glom together on the
bed and in suspension. The cohesive forces between parti-
cles exceed the forces of weight and gravity.
The divide between cohesive and cohesionless sediment,
between silt and sand, is usually defined as 60 µm
(0.06 mm). Nevertheless, sand as large as 120 µm can still
exhibit cohesion in salt water. Cohesion dominates in mix-
tures of 75% sand and 25% silt and clay (Torfs 1997).
3.2.1. Cohesion: electrical and biological processes
The electrical attraction between small sediment particles
can be demonstrated in a laboratory settling column. When
the column is filled with clean distilled water, the particles
settle slowly, individually. Introduce an electrolyte, like sea-
water, and the particles glom together into larger, less dense
aggregations called flocs (see Sect. 3.2.2).
Electrical forces aren’t the only forces of cohesion be-
tween cohesive sediment particles. Diatoms living in most
estuarine muds excrete a mucous that binds the sediment, of-
ten loosely, into “fluid mud” (Sect. 4) like the diatomaceous
earth, bentonite, used in construction and drilling. Paterson
(1997) has detailed the biological components of cohesion.
Amos et al. (1988) have shown the importance of drying
during low water in strengthening mudflats. Le Hir et al.
(2000) have shown the opposite effect: European mudflats
that lose strength when exposed to air.
From the modeller’s point of view, the only fact about co-
hesion is that it must be measured in some detail, using nat-
ural water, sediment, and organisms (Krishnappan 1993).
The model is only able to interpolate and extrapolate mea-
surements, not to predict cohesion.
© 2004 NRC Canada
754
Fig. 1. Free body diagram of (a) a cohesionless sand grain on the bed and (b) a cohesive floc in suspension.
3.2.2. Variable settling velocity: flocculation
When electrical cohesion is in full effect, a cohesive sedi-
ment settling model can be formulated as follows: (i) silt,
clay, and fine sand are transported to the estuary in dispersed
suspension in the fresh water of the river; (ii) on meeting the
more conductive sea water in the estuary, the fines agglom-
erate into larger flocs, in a “turbidity maximum;” and
(iii) the flocs then settle onto the bed and the tidal flats.
This is still not bad, in the geological sense of “model.”
The turbidity maximum is an estuarial fact that our numeri-
cal model must reproduce during calibration and verification
(Sect. 2.6). We must nevertheless be wary of the implied as-
sumption that because flocs are bigger than their constituent
particles, they will settle quicker, at a faster settling velocity.
We could predict the settling velocity of a floc, using
something like eq. [20], if we knew its size, shape, and den-
sity; like snowflakes, however, every floc is different. With
snowflakes and cohesionless grains of sand, we can at least
assume a relatively constant, uniform density; the density of
a floc, however, depends on how much and what density of
water it contains. There may be so much fresh water trapped
in the floc that its density will approach that of the salt wa-
ter. As the name implies, a floc resembles a flake, with two
approximately equal dimensions and a third much smaller
dimension. Flocs and flakes tend to settle with the shortest
axis vertical, maximizing the horizontal area and vertical
drag as they settle. A floc can settle very slowly, even in still
water.
Settling velocity is therefore the most important hydraulic
property of cohesive sediment to be modelled. As with sand
(Sect. 3.1.1), the settling velocity summarizes size, shape,
and density of the flocs and is much easier to measure than
any of them. The complexity of the cohesive bond between
particles (Sect. 3.2.1), however, means that the settling ve-
locity of the flocs must be measured in natural water with
living bugs, usually in the field.
In a recent study, Lau and Krishnappan (1994a) developed
a relationship between the density of the flocs and its size
for the sediment particles from the Fraser River in Canada.
The form of the relationship is as follows:
[22] ρ f − ρ w = ρ s exp(−bDc )
where ρ f , ρ w, and ρ s are densities of the sediment floc, wa-
ter, and parent material (the last one measured in water), re-
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 31, 2004
spectively; D is the floc diameter in µm; and b and c are em-
pirical constants determined as b = 0.0015 and c = 1.7.
Using eq. [22], an expression for the settling velocity of
Fraser River sediment flocs was derived by Krishnappan
(2000) as follows:
[23] ws = (1.65/18) exp(–0.0015D1.7)gD2/ν
Equations [22] and [23] are plotted in Fig. 2. The fall ve-
locity increases with an increase in floc size until the size
reaches a value of 55 µm. With a further increase in floc
size, the fall velocity actually decreases and reaches asymp-
totically to zero when the size of the floc is about 175 µm
and the density of the floc is close to that of water. The max-
imum fall velocity of about 0.7 mm/s was calculated for the
floc size of about 55 µm.
3.2.3. Resuspension and erosion
As the floc settles in the estuary it catches up with and
gloms onto other particles and flocs, increasing in size and
decreasing in density. On the way to the bed it will have to
pass through a zone of high shear stress near the bed and
perhaps another zone where fresh water and salt water mix.
It is probable that the shear will be strong enough to break
the weak bonds between particles in the floc and to resus-
pend the smaller particles. The sediment thus exhibits a
threshold shear for deposition, τs. When the bed shear, τ, ex-
ceeds τs, the floc cannot reach the bed but is broken up and
resuspended.
Even when the floc settles on the bed, it will probably be
resuspended before it can consolidate, the next time bed
shear exceeds the sediment’s threshold shear for erosion, τc .
The erosion threshold is a function of the bulk density of the
surface of the bed according to the Migniot relation:
[24] τc = mρ on
where ρ o is the bulk submerged density of the fresh deposit,
and m and n are empirical constants.
The rate of erosion is given by Ariathurai and Arulan-
andan (1978):
[25] dM/dt = M2(τc − τ)/ τc for τ > τc
where M is the mass of sediment on the bed, and M2 is the
rate of erosion at τ = 2τc .
© 2004 NRC Canada
Willis and Krishnappan
Fig. 2. Floc density and fall velocity as a function of floc size.
Once again, the model depends on measurement of prop-
erties, usually in full-scale annular flume tests (Krishnappan
1993; Krishnappan and Engel 1997): τs, ρb , m, n, and M2.
3.2.4. Deposition
If the floc makes it through the bottom boundary layer (if
bed shear, τ, is less than the deposition threshold, τs, for the
sediment), then it will be deposited on the bed at a rate
(Krone 1962)
[26] dM/dt = Cws(τs − τ)/ τs for τ < τs
where C is the concentration of sediment in suspension, and
ws is the settling velocity of the floc.
The modeller requires measurements not only of τs but
also of the bulk submerged density of the fresh deposit, ρ o,
which should be approximately the same as the density of
the flocs. Once again, these measurements need to be made
in the laboratory or in the field, using the natural water, sedi-
ment, and organisms.
3.2.5. Adsorbed contaminants
Because of their high specific surface areas, the fine sedi-
ments readily adsorb contaminants that are present in the
water column. For some of the hydrophobic contaminants
such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and pesti-
cides, the concentration of the contaminant in sediment far
exceeds that in the water column. The transport of sediment-
associated contaminants can be modelled using a fine-
sediment transport model once the partition coefficient and
the rate of adsorption for the contaminant are established.
4. Fluid mud
A layer of fluid mud results from “hindered settling,” i.e.,
when the concentration of flocs near the bed (25 g of sedi-
755
ment per litre is often taken as the lower limit) is so great
that pore water is trapped, unable to drain upwards as the
sediment settles or downwards through the static bed. Pore
pressures build up to support the weight of the sediment.
Bentonite, diatomaceous earth used as drilling mud, is a
good example of a fluid mud. In fluid mud it is not just the
mucous of the diatoms lubricating the sediment, but also
their shells interlocking to block the passage of water mole-
cules and prevent further consolidation. Fluid mud forms in
low points (pits and troughs) in the bed at still water and
then flows under the influence of bed shear and slope on the
subsequent floods and ebbs.
Fluid mud is a non-Newtonian fluid, which only tells you
what it is not. It does not behave like water, in any number
of interesting ways. The most common way is the existence
of thresholds, slope or shear, below which the fluid mud re-
mains stably in place. When a layer of fluid mud flows, it
will probably be at uniform shear stress and laminar by defi-
nition. The act of flowing allows drainage, so the layer can
consolidate (settle) or dilate (resuspend) as it flows.
Modelling fluid mud requires a coupled 3-D (Le Hir
1997) or layered 2-D hydraulic model. Once again, the mod-
eller requires good measurements of properties of the fluid
mud, especially the conditions leading to its formation and
destruction. The properties to be measured depend on the
rheology of the fluid mud to be modelled and may include
shear thresholds, viscosity, density, drainage, dilation, and
consolidation.
5. Riverbed processes
When a layer of cohesive sediment is deposited on the
bed, without resuspension or formation of fluid mud, the
© 2004 NRC Canada
756
model raises the bed elevation (decreases the water depth)
by the initial thickness of the layer.
5.1. Layers and consolidation
Most of the complexity of numerical cohesive bed sedi-
ment models comes from the bookkeeping of layers of sedi-
ment (Fig. 3) below the bed surface. A typical numerical
hydraulic model has 10 000 calculation points on a 100 ×
100 grid. A new layer of deposited sediment, a few milli-
metres thick, can be generated in a sedimentary model time
step, typically about a half hour. Twenty-five layers can then
be deposited in a semidiurnal tidal period.
The layers do not necessarily correspond to real physical
layers of sediment: most often, the thickness of a numerical
layer is determined by the length of the model time step over
which it was deposited. Some reduction in bookkeeping ef-
fort can usually be achieved by merging similar adjacent lay-
ers. Deposition will only take place for about an hour at
each still water for about four numerical layers per tidal cy-
cle, some of which may be eroded during the intervening
ebb and flood. Nevertheless, 25 is not an excessive number
of layers to keep track of.
For each layer at each grid point, we need to store infor-
mation on the composition, time of deposition, initial thick-
ness, and initial density, giving already a million pieces of
information to be stored and sorted. As a fresh layer is de-
posited on the top of the stack of 25, the lowest layer must
join the fully consolidated sub-bed. When a top layer is
eroded, the 24 lower layers move up the stack, all at 10 000
grid points.
The consolidation must then be computed as water drains
from the sediment. The Terzaghi relationship from founda-
tion engineering is as follows:
[27] ρ t +1 = 0.964 ρt (∆tC T / P 2) 0.415
where ρt is the bulk submerged density at time t, ∆t is the
time step (t + 1) – t, CT is the Terzaghi consolidation coeffi-
cient, and P is the length of drainage path and is approxi-
mately equivalent to the depth below the bed surface.
This is another example of an empirical framework for
interpolating and extrapolating measured rates of consolida-
tion, through the laboratory determination of the consolida-
tion coefficient, CT.
Consolidation of all layers, and the resulting lowering of
the bed elevation, is updated every model time step at each
grid point. The model needs to know when to stop the con-
solidation process in a layer: when its bulk density reaches
the maximum, or full consolidation, ρ c , another property of
the sediment to be measured, most likely in the soils labora-
tory.
5.2. Erosion
The erosion threshold of the layer exposed on the surface
of the bed is calculated by the Migniot relation (eq. [24]),
and the rate of erosion is given by the Ariathurai and
Arulanandan equation (eq. [25]). The model needs to check
for complete erosion of the surface layer and switch to the
next layer to be exposed. It will also lower the bed elevation
and increase the water depth by the amount of erosion.
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 31, 2004
Fig. 3. Bed sediment layers.
5.3. Mudflats: wetting and drying
What happens to the erodibility, τc , of a cohesive sedi-
ment riverbed when it is exposed to the air on tidal flats at
low water? Comparisons to pottery clays suggest that it will
strengthen if allowed to bake in the sun for a few hours
(Amos et al. 1988). Fresh rainfall may perhaps weaken it;
mudflat erosion has even been observed during heavy rain-
fall in the Annapolis Basin.
5.4. Mixtures of sand and mud
In Cumberland Basin, Willis and Crookshank (1997)
found cohesionless sand deposited in places on what were
otherwise mudflats. The model of Willis and Crookshank
then needed to deal with both cohesive (mud) and
cohesionless (sand) phases. This was accomplished by dupli-
cating the Ariathurai and Arulanandan equation (eq. [25])
and Krone equation (eq. [26]), with calibration coefficients
for sand and τs ≈ τc , a physical constant based on grain size,
say from the Shields’ curve. The percentage of sand then be-
comes another parameter to be stored for each bed layer
(Sect. 5.1).
When does a mixture of sand and mud begin to behave
cohesively, that is, like a “pure” mud? We included this criti-
cal percentage of sand as a calibration parameter in the
Cumberland Basin model and found a value of about 80%
sand by weight or mass. In a series of laboratory experi-
ments, Torfs (1997) came to the same conclusion, with the
result that 80% sand became fixed in subsequent models.
Twenty percent mud is all that’s required for a mixture to
behave cohesively.
A modelling approach was proposed for mud and sand
mixtures by Chesher and Ockenden (1997) based on labora-
tory and field studies carried out by Williamson and
Ockenden (1992) and Williamson (1993a, 1993b) for mud–
sand mixtures. These studies have shown that the sand con-
tent increased the mud consolidation rate and the shear
strength of the bed and decreased the erosion rate of the
mud, perhaps due to the armouring effect of the sand frac-
tion (Torfs 1997). Once suspended in the water column, mud
and sand appear to act independently with independent de-
position rates. In an earlier study, Kamphuis (1981) had
© 2004 NRC Canada
Willis and Krishnappan
shown that the presence of sand particles increased the ero-
sion rate of a preconsolidated clay bed by the abrasive ac-
tion. More work is needed to quantify the erosion rate of the
sand–mud mixtures.
6. Summary
Numerical models of cohesive sediment and contaminant
transport are extensions of numerical hydraulic models. The
hydraulics is based on much firmer physical principles than
the sediments. In fact, sediment models are no more than nu-
merical frameworks for interpolation and extrapolation of
measurements.
The numerical hydraulic model will compute the transport
of sediment in suspension, including adsorbed contaminants,
and of pollutants and salinity in solution. It therefore must
accurately model turbulent diffusion and dispersion, includ-
ing the downward biasing of sediment settling velocity, and
will probably need to model the third, vertical, dimension.
Like all hydraulic models, numerical models of cohesive
sediment and contaminant transport require calibration and
verification against at least two independent sets of measure-
ments. Extra emphasis must be given to calibrating and veri-
fying the sediment component: sediment transport models
are almost completely empirical.
All measurements must be done at full scale, either in the
field or in the laboratory using sediment, water, and living
organisms from the site to be modelled.
References
Amos, C.L., Van Wagoner, N.A., and Daborn, G.R. 1988. The in-
fluence of subaerial exposure on the bulk properties of fine-
grained intertidal sediment from Minas Basin, Bay of Fundy.
Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 27: 1–13.
Ariathurai, R., and Arulanandan, K. 1978. Erosion rate of cohesive
soils. ASCE Journal of the Hydraulics Division, 104(HY2):
279–283.
Chesher, T.J., and Ockenden, M.C. 1997. Numerical modelling of
mud and sand mixtures. In Cohesive Sediments: Proceedings of
the 4th Nearshore and Estuarine Cohesive Sediment Transport
Conference, INTERCOH’94, Wallingford, UK, 11–15 July
1994. Edited by N. Burt, R. Parker, and J. Watts. John Wiley &
Sons, Chichester, UK. Paper 28, pp. 395–402.
Hervouet, J.M. 2000. TELEMAC modelling system: an overview.
Hydrological Processes, 14: 2209–2210.
Kamphuis, J.W. 1981. Erosion of cohesive sediment by water car-
rying suspended sand. Report ES 4, Queens University,
Kingston, Ont.
Krishnappan, B.G. 1990. Modelling of settling and flocculation of
fine sediments in still water. Canadian Journal of Civil Engi-
neering, 17: 763–770.
Krishnappan, B.G. 1991. Modelling of cohesive sediment trans-
port. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on the
Transport of Suspended Sediments and its Mathematical
Modelling, Florence, Italy, 2–5 Sept. 1991. Officine Grafiche
Tecnoprint, Bologna, Italy. pp. 433–448.
Krishnappan, B.G. 1993. Rotating circular flume. ASCE Journal of
Hydraulic Engineering, 119(6): 658–767.
Krishnappan, B.G. 2000. In situ size distribution of suspended par-
ticles in the Fraser River. ASCE Journal of Hydraulic Engi-
neering, 126(8): 561–569.
757
Krishnappan, B.G., and Engel, P. 1997. Critical shear stresses for
erosion and deposition of fine suspended sediments in the Fraser
River. In Cohesive Sediments: Proceedings of the 4th Nearshore
and Estuarine Cohesive Sediment Transport Conference,
INTERCOH’94, Wallingford, UK, 11–15 July 1994. Edited by
N. Burt, R. Parker, and J. Watts. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester,
UK. Paper 21, pp. 279–288.
Krishnappan, B.G., and Marsalek, J. 2000. Flocculation and trans-
port of cohesive sediments collected from a stormwater deten-
tion pond. In Building Partnerships — 2000 Joint Conference on
Water Resource Engineering and Water Resources Planning and
Management, Minneapolis, Minn., 30 July – 2 August 2000.
Edited by R.H. Hotchkiss and M. Glade. [CD-ROM]. American
Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), Reston, Va.
Krishnappan, B.G., Madsen, N., Stephens, R., and Ongley, E.D.
1992. A field instrument for measuring size distribution of sus-
pended sediments in rivers. In Proceedings of the 8th IAHR
Congress (Asia and Pacific Regional Division), Pune, India, 20–
23 October 1992. International Association of Hydraulic Engi-
neering and Research (IAHR). pp. F71–F81.
Krone, R.B. 1962. Flume studies of the transport of sediment in es-
tuarial shoaling processes. Hydraulic Engineering Laboratory
and Sanitary Engineering Research Laboratory, University of
California, Davis, Calif.
Lau, Y.L., and Krishnappan, B.G. 1994a. Comparison of particle
size measurements made with a water elutriation apparatus and
a Malvern particle size analyzer. NWRI Contribution 94-82, Na-
tional Water Research Institute (NWRI), Burlington, Ont.
Lau, Y.L., and Krishnappan, B.G. 1994b. Does reentrainment occur
during cohesive sediment settling? ASCE Journal of Hydraulic
Engineering, 120(2): 236–244.
Le Hir, P. 1997. Fluid and sediment “integrated” modelling appli-
cation to fluid mud flows in estuaries. In Cohesive Sediments:
Proceedings of the 4th Nearshore and Estuarine Cohesive Sedi-
ment Transport Conference, INTERCOH’94, Wallingford, UK,
11–15 July 1994. Edited by N. Burt, R. Parker, and J. Watts.
John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UK. Paper 30, pp. 417–428.
Le Hir, P., Roberts, W., Cazaillet, O., Christie, M., Bassoullet, P.,
and Bacher, C. 2000. Characterization of intertidal flat hydrody-
namics. Continental Shelf Research, 20: 1433–1459.
Le Normant, C. 2000. Three dimensional modelling of cohesive
sediment transport in Loire Estuary. Hydrological Processes,
14(13): 2231–2243.
Paterson, D.M. 1997. Biological remediation of sediment erodibility:
ecology and physical dynamics. In Cohesive Sediments: Proceed-
ings of the 4th Nearshore and Estuarine Cohesive Sediment
Transport Conference, INTERCOH’94, Wallingford, UK, 11–15
July 1994. Edited by N. Burt, R. Parker, and J. Watts. John Wiley
& Sons, Chichester, UK. Paper 14, pp. 215–229.
Teisson, C. 1997. A review of cohesive sediment transport models.
In Cohesive Sediments: Proceedings of the 4th Nearshore and
Estuarine Cohesive Sediment Transport Conference,
INTERCOH’94, Wallingford, UK, 11–15 July 1994. Edited by
N. Burt, R. Parker, and J. Watts. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester,
UK. Paper 36, pp. 367–382.
Teisson, C., Simonin, O., Galland, J.C., Lawrence, D., and Fritsch,
D. 1991. Numerical modelling of cohesive sediment transport:
past experience and new research axes. In Proceedings of the In-
ternational Symposium on the Transport of Suspended Sedi-
ments and its Mathematical Modelling, Florence, Italy, 2–5
September 1991. Officine Grafiche Tecnoprint, Bologna, Italy.
pp. 475–493.
Torfs, H. 1997. Erosion of mixed cohesive/non-cohesive sediments
in uniform flow. In Cohesive Sediments: Proceedings of the 4th
© 2004 NRC Canada
758 Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 31, 2004

Nearshore and Estuarine Cohesive Sediment Transport Confer- m empirical constant in Migniot relation (eq. [22])
ence, INTERCOH’94, Wallingford, UK, 11–15 July 1994. M mass of sediment on bed
Edited by N. Burt, R. Parker, and J. Watts. John Wiley & Sons, M2 rate of erosion at τ = 2τ c
Chichester, UK. Paper 16, pp. 245–252. nManning roughness (eq. [12])
van Leussen, W. 1988. Aggregation of particles, settling velocity of nempirical constant in Migniot relation (eq. [22])
mud flocs. In Physical processes in estuaries. Edited by J. P length of drainage path
Dronkers and W. van Leussen. Springer-Verlag, New York. qd sediment flux due to deposition
Williamson, H.J. 1993a. Tidal transport of mud/sand mixtures. qesediment flux due to erosion
Field trials at Blue Anchor Bay. HR Wallingford Report SR333, rphysical dimension of bed roughness (eq. [9])
HR Wallingford Ltd., Wallingford, Oxon, UK. R ripple height, trough to crest
Williamson, H.J. 1993b. Tidal transport of mud/sand mixtures.
S(x, y, z)sediment source or sink
Field trials at Clevedon, Severn Estuary. HR Wallingford Report
t
time
SR372, HR Wallingford Ltd., Wallingford, Oxon, UK.
Twave period
Williamson, H.J., and Ockenden, M.C. 1992. Tidal transport of
mud and sand mixtures: Laboratory tests. HR Wallingford Re- u, ν horizontal velocity components
port SR257, HR Wallingford Ltd., Wallingford, Oxon, UK. ub maximum orbital velocity at bed (eq. [16])
Willis, D.H., and Crookshank, N.L. 1997. Modelling multiphase uiinstantaneous flow velocity
sediment transport in estuaries. In Cohesive Sediments: Pro- ui′fluctuating velocity component
ceedings of the 4th Nearshore and Estuarine Cohesive Sediment uitemporal mean flow velocity
Transport Conference, INTERCOH’94, Wallingford, UK, 11–15 u* shear velocity, “u-star”
July 1994. Edited by N. Burt, R. Parker, and J. Watts. John vspatial mean velocity, averaged over depth
Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UK. Paper 27, pp. 383–394. w vertical velocity component
w′fluctuating velocity component in the vertical direction
ws settling velocity of sediment or floc
List of symbols
x, y horizontal spatial coordinates
b empirical constant (eq. [22]) zvertical spatial coordinate
c empirical constant (eq. [22]) εturbulent energy dissipation
c mean concentration of sediment in suspension λripple wavelength, crest to crest
c′ fluctuating sediment concentration νkinematic viscosity of water
cµ empirical constant (eq. [2]) νteddy viscosity due to turbulence
C concentration of sediment in suspension ρw density of water
CCH dimensionless Chézy smoothness coefficient (eq. [8]) ρb bulk submerged density of bed surface layer
CT Terzaghi consolidation coefficient (eq. [25]) ρf density of sediment floc
do maximum wave orbital excursion at bed (eq. [19]) ρo bulk submerged density of fresh deposit
D equivalent spherical diameter of grain or floc ρs mass density of sediment
D90 the (coarse) grain size of which 90% of the bed is smaller ρs submerged density of parent material (eq. [22])
(eq. [10]) ρtbulk submerged density at time t
f Weisbach friction factor (eq. [11]) τbed shear
fw wave friction factor (eq. [18]) τccritical (threshold) bed shear for erosion
g acceleration due to gravity τscritical (threshold) bed shear for deposition
G shear rate (eq. [13]) τw bed shear due to waves, averaged over wave period
h water depth (eq. [15])
H wave height, trough to crest ∆ submerged specific gravity of sediment
I water surface or energy slope ∆t time step
k turbulent kinetic energy Γ diffusion coefficient
L wavelength, crest to crest

© 2004 NRC Canada

View publication stats