The relationship between channel shape and sediment characteristics in the channel perimeter

Channel Restoration Design for Meandering Rivers

“…Using a data set from Virginia and North Carolina, they found no conclusive evidence that discharge-width relationships are controlled, in part, by sediment characteristics in piedmont streams, possibly as a result of the relatively homogeneous conditions found in the piedmont zone. This is in accordance with other findings from different regions Schumm, 1960;Nanson and Hickin, 1986;Miller and Onesti, 1979). Furthermore, Kolberg and Howard (1995) demonstrated that the channel geometry relationships of sand-bed and gravel/cobble-bed streams are only statistically different for active channel widths greater than 10 m wide.…”

Effects of peat on the shapes of alluvial channels: examples from the Cumberland Marshes, Saskatchewan, Canada

“…Variously expressed as channel form index, cross-section form ratio, or width/depth ratio, cross-section channel shape is generally thought to be governed by characteristics of both the channel perimeter and the contained flow and its sediment load (Schumm, 1960;Wilcock, 1971;Schumm and Khan, 1972;Miller and Onesti, 1979;Ferguson, 1987). Although width/depth ratio (the shape parameter used here) is somewhat scale dependent owing to the tendency for width to increase downstream at a faster rate than depth, erodability of the channel perimeter often plays a dominating role in controlling cross-sectional shape regardless of channel size.…”

Influence of bank materials, bed sediment, and riparian vegetation on channel form along a gravel-to-sand transition reach of the Upper Tualatin River, Oregon, USA

“…Some empirical studies have found that channels with a higher percent silt and clay in the banks, B, are narrower and deeper (Schumm, 1960(Schumm, , 1961Ferguson, 1987). Other studies have observed no relationship between B and channel form (Charlton et al, 1978;Rowntree and Dollar, 1996) or have reevaluated earlier empirical research to suggest a weaker relationship between bank materials and channel shape (Melton, 1961;Miller and Onesti, 1979). The layering of cohesive and noncohesive sediment within banks or transverse variation on opposite banks may complicate simple quantification of bank material strength and resistance measured as B (Charlton et al, 1978;Thorne and Tovey, 1981).…”