Trapping Efficiencies for the BLH-84, Helley-Smith, Elwha, and TR-2 Bedload Samplers

Abstract

Bedload-trapping efficiencies for four types of pressure-difference bedload samplers – a standard Helley-Smith (intake-nozzle width and height of 76.2 mm x 76.2 mm), BLH-84 (76.2 mm x 76.2 mm), Elwha (203 mm x 102 mm) and Toutle River-2 (305 mm x 152 mm) a standard Helley-Smith, US BLH-84 (both with intake nozzle dimensions of 76.2 mm × 76.2 mm), Elwha (203 mm × 102 mm) and Toutle River-2 (TR-2; 305 mm × 152 mm) – were calculated from data collected during the StreamLab06 experiments in the St. Anthony Falls Laboratory Main Flume during January-March 2006. Sampler nozzle-flare ratios –the area of the nozzle's outlet divided by its inlet area – equaled 1.4 for all but the Helley-Smith sampler's nozzle-flare ratio of 3.22.

A sampler's trapping coefficient quantifies its bedload-trapping efficiency. Technically supportable trapping coefficients are divided into raw trapping rates measured by the sampler to produce "true" bedload-transport rates equivalent to that which was inferred to have occurred in the absence of the sampler.

Six combinations of sampler and bed types were tested; the BLH-84, Elwha, and Helley-Smith samplers were deployed atop a sand bed (D50 = 1.0 mm) during five steady flows ranging from 2.0-3.6 m3/s. The BLH-84, Elwha, and TR-2 samplers were deployed atop a gravel bed (D50 = 11.2 mm) at four steady flows ranging from 4.0-5.5 m3/s.

Thirty-seven trials – repeated manual at-a-point deployments of a given bedload sampler for a given steady flow and bed type – took place. Trapping coefficients were calculated for each sampler and bed type in which it was deployed. Ergo, two of the samplers – the BLH-84 and Elwha – were each assigned two trapping efficiencies for sampling on a sand versus a gravel bed.

These data were evaluated using four analytical methods:

Ratio of Averages: This relatively simple and straight-forward method required calculating averages of bedload-transport rates derived for each of the 37 trials for a given bedload sampler and for up to nine combinations of weigh pans and time intervals. The computations were performed using untransformed data.

Average of Ratios: This more complex method using real-space trapping data involved developing average transport rates from selected pan data for each bedload sample. Pan transport-averages were calculated for each interval equal to the duration of a single at-a-point bedload measurement, ranging from 15-180 seconds. Ratios (coefficients) were calculated by dividing each interval average into the single-sample trap rate. Those ratios were then averaged to produce a single trapping coefficient for the trial and then combined into a single average for each bedload-sampler/bed type/flow combination. Modified Thomas and Lewis Model (1993): The Thomas-Lewis Model was revised to operate using untransformed data in addition to cube-root transformed data (thus, the third and fourth analytical methods used, respectively), and to use nine pan-window combinations to calculate trapping coefficients. The original 3-step model required first regressing cube root-transformed sampler data on time-window averaged pan transport rates. The second step squared the regression residuals from the first step on the variance of the cube root of the interval-mean transport rate for the time window. The predicted values from the second-step regression were inverted and used as weights to re-estimate the first-step regression.

Generalized trapping-coefficient calculations based on results from the four analytical methods for the bed-types in which the samplers were deployed follow:

• BLH-84 Sampler: A 0.83 sand-bed trapping coefficient and 0.87 gravel-bed coefficient, which could be averaged to a single coefficient of 0.85. • Elwha Sampler: A 1.67 sand-bed trapping coefficient and 1.54 gravel-bed coefficient, which could be averaged to a single coefficient of 1.6 • Helley-Smith Sampler: The 3.11 sand-bed trapping coefficient could be applied as such or reasonably simplified to a value of 3.0, and • TR-2: The gravel-bed trapping coefficient equaled 1.70.

An unadjusted bedload-trapping rate calculated from a sample collected by a given sampler can be divided by its trapping coefficient(s) to obtain the most reliable transport-rate value.