Search USGS⌕ Search

USGS · pp1774

Field evaluation of the error arising from inadequate time averaging in the standard use of depth-integrating suspended-sediment samplers

Abstract

Several common methods for measuring suspended-sediment concentration in rivers in the United States use depth-integrating samplers to collect a velocity-weighted suspended-sediment sample in a subsample of a river cross section. Because depth-integrating samplers are always moving through the water column as they collect a sample, and can collect only a limited volume of water and suspended sediment, they collect only minimally time-averaged data. Four sources of error exist in the field use of these samplers: (1) bed contamination, (2) pressure-driven inrush, (3) inadequate sampling of the cross-stream spatial structure in suspended-sediment concentration, and (4) inadequate time averaging. The first two of these errors arise from misuse of suspended-sediment samplers, and the third has been the subject of previous study using data collected in the sand-bedded Middle Loup River in Nebraska. Of these four sources of error, the least understood source of error arises from the fact that depth-integrating samplers collect only minimally time-averaged data. To evaluate this fourth source of error, we collected suspended-sediment data between 1995 and 2007 at four sites on the Colorado River in Utah and Arizona, using a P-61 suspended-sediment sampler deployed in both point- and one-way depth-integrating modes, and D-96-A1 and D-77 bag-type depth-integrating suspended-sediment samplers. These data indicate that the minimal duration of time averaging during standard field operation of depth-integrating samplers leads to an error that is comparable in magnitude to that arising from inadequate sampling of the cross-stream spatial structure in suspended-sediment concentration. This random error arising from inadequate time averaging is positively correlated with grain size and does not largely depend on flow conditions or, for a given size class of suspended sediment, on elevation above the bed. Averaging over time scales >1 minute is the likely minimum duration required to result in substantial decreases in this error. During standard two-way depth integration, a depth-integrating suspended-sediment sampler collects a sample of the water-sediment mixture during two transits at each vertical in a cross section: one transit while moving from the water surface to the bed, and another transit while moving from the bed to the water surface. As the number of transits is doubled at an individual vertical, this error is reduced by ~30 percent in each size class of suspended sediment. For a given size class of suspended sediment, the error arising from inadequate sampling of the cross-stream spatial structure in suspended-sediment concentration depends only on the number of verticals collected, whereas the error arising from inadequate time averaging depends on both the number of verticals collected and the number of transits collected at each vertical. Summing these two errors in quadrature yields a total uncertainty in an equal-discharge-increment (EDI) or equal-width-increment (EWI) measurement of the time-averaged velocity-weighted suspended-sediment concentration in a river cross section (exclusive of any laboratory-processing errors). By virtue of how the number of verticals and transits influences the two individual errors within this total uncertainty, the error arising from inadequate time averaging slightly dominates that arising from inadequate sampling of the cross-stream spatial structure in suspended-sediment concentration. Adding verticals to an EDI or EWI measurement is slightly more effective in reducing the total uncertainty than adding transits only at each vertical, because a new vertical contributes both temporal and spatial information. However, because collection of depth-integrated samples at more transits at each vertical is generally easier and faster than at more verticals, addition of a combination of verticals and transits is likely a more practical approach to reducing the total uncertainty in most field situatio

Explore related subjects

90° N90° S · 180° W ← longitude → 180° E
Source-reported bounding extent: 30° to 44° latitude; -120° to -103° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

David J. Topping, David M. Rubin, Scott Wright, Theodore S. Melis. 2011. Field evaluation of the error arising from inadequate time averaging in the standard use of depth-integrating suspended-sediment samplers. https://doi.org/10.3133/pp1774

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

Resurvey of the Marble Canyon and Bridge Canyon dam sites in Grand Canyon National Park—Changes in sediment storage and evidence supporting the occurrence of bedrock incision through the mid-20th century

The Bureau of Reclamation developed an extensive plan for a network of dams, water tunnels, and hydropower plants in and around Grand Canyon, Arizona, in the 1940s through 1960s. The two largest of these planned dams were the Marble Canyon and Bridge Canyon Dams on the Colorado River. Though these dams were ultimately never built, Reclamation conducted extensive topographic, bathymetric, and subsurface exploration work at the sites proposed for these dams in the 1940s and 1950s. Resurveys of these dam sites were conducted between 1998 and 2021 to determine the changes in sediment storage at these dam sites caused by the upstream construction and operation of Glen Canyon Dam and by the recession of Lake Mead, the reservoir impounded by Hoover Dam. The resurveys of the Marble Canyon dam sites indicate that the post-1950s changes in sediment storage at these dam sites are broadly consistent with flux-based estimates of voluminous sand erosion from Marble Canyon since the 1963 closure of Glen Canyon Dam. These resurveys also suggest that the pre-dam longitudinal variation in sediment thickness over bedrock played a key role in determining the locations of the sand erosion induced by Glen Canyon Dam; more sand eroded from locations where more sand was present in the 1950s. The resurvey of the Bridge Canyon dam sites indicates that the Colorado River’s incision of the Lake Mead delta is regulated both by bed-sediment grain size and downstream hydraulic controls. Finally, analyses of bed-sediment thickness and sedimentological data at the dam sites, and observations of bed scour and gravel transport, suggest that sufficient bedrock was exposed to allow bedrock incision during commonly recurring pre-dam snowmelt floods that entrained small boulders into transport.

Arizona↗

The eruptive behavior of distributed volcanism forming low shield edifices—A case study of Sentinel-Arlington volcanic field, U.S.A.

Distributed volcanic fields are present in various tectonic settings worldwide, and their characteristics reflect differing influences from magmatic and tectonic processes. In the southwestern United States alone, there are 37 Quaternary distributed volcanic fields. After the primary period of extensional tectonics in the southern Basin and Range 15–5 million years ago, the Sentinel-Arlington volcanic field developed in southwestern Arizona between 4 and 1 million years ago. The Sentinel-Arlington volcanic field consists primarily of low relief shield volcanoes, a type of distributed volcanism with poorly understood temporal evolution. The Sentinel-Arlington volcanic field is less than 200 kilometers (km) from the Colorado Plateau, Gulf of California, and southern San Andreas Fault system. This work identifies and examines controls on the emplacement of the Sentinel-Arlington volcanic field by documenting shallow and surficial structures as well as eruption characteristics and style through time. The Sentinel-Arlington volcanic field consists of 21 volcanoes with a total of 33 vents over an area of about 770 square kilometers (km 2 ). The prominence of low relief shield volcanoes may be explained by ascent of basaltic magmas through thin Basin and Range crust, without much crustal contamination, and low viscosities common to mafic compositions. Typical eruption characteristics involve the construction of low relief shield volcanoes followed by Strombolian fissure eruptions at the summits or near-summit medial areas that produce scoria lapilli, which may weld to form agglomerate. The total lifetime erupted volume of about 4.3 cubic kilometers (km 3 ) represents an average eruptive flux of approximately 2x10 -3 km 3 per thousand years (k.y.). This erupted volume is low relative to Neogene basaltic intraplate distributed volcanic fields worldwide, which typically range from 10 -3 to 1 km 3 k.y. -1 . Sentinel-Arlington volcanic field eruptions were likely triggered by intermittent rejuvenation of transient magmatic zones that exist in thinned crust. Instantaneous flux from point sources feeding the lava flows is estimated to be on the order of 10 -1 to 10 cubic meters per second.

Arizona↗

Capitalization of positional (Lower/Middle/Upper) and temporal (Early/Middle/Late) adjectives in the names of formal chronostratigraphic and geochronologic units of the Phanerozoic

Many authors are understandably confused about the capitalization of the words “lower,” “middle,” “upper,” “early,” and “late.” Where these words are used simply as descriptive adjectives, they should be in lowercase; where they form the first word of a formal chronostratigraphic or geochronologic unit name, they should be in uppercase.

Professional Paper↗