Journal of Hydrology 234 (2000) 228–248

www.elsevier.com/locate/jhydrol

Fitting and interpretation of sediment rating curves

N.E.M. Asselman 1
Department of Physical Geography, Marine and Atmospheric Research, The Netherlands Centre for Geo-Ecological Research (ICG),
Utrecht University, P.O. Box 80.115, 3508 TC Utrecht, The Netherlands
Received 28 September 1999; revised 28 April 2000; accepted 1 May 2000

Abstract
A large part of the sediment in lowland rivers is transported as wash load. As wash load is a non-capacity load it often is
modelled using empirical relations, such as the rating curve technique. Sediment rating curves in the form of a power function
are derived for several locations along the river Rhine and its main tributaries, using different fitting procedures. Inaccuracies in
estimated sediment loads are analysed, and spatial differences in the shapes of the fitted rating curves are related to watershed
characteristics.
Rating curves obtained by least squares regression on logarithmic transformed data underestimate long-term sediment
transport rates by 10–50%. Better estimates are obtained when nonlinear least squares regression is applied. The steepness
of the fitted rating curves decreases along the main channel of the Rhine in a downstream direction. Contrary to what is
generally believed this is not related to changes in the sediment transport regime. A better indication of the sediment transport
regime is obtained when the slope/intercept pairs of the fitted rating curves are plotted in a graph. All locations that plot on the
same line have a common discharge-concentration value and appear to be characterised by a similar sediment transport regime.
At locations of which the slope/intercept pairs plot on higher lines, a larger part of the annual sediment load is transported
during high discharge. 䉷 2000 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Rhine River; Sediment transport; Suspension material; Modelling; Regression analysis

1. Introduction
In many lowland rivers a major part of the sediment
is transported in suspension. In the German lowland
rivers suspended sediment makes up about 85% of the
total solid sediment load (Hinrich, 1974). In 1984,
93% of the total sediment load of the river Rhine
near the German–Dutch border was transported in
suspension (Bundesanstalt für Gewässerkunde,
1987). About 85% of this load consisted of silt and
E-mail address: nathalie.asselman@wldelft.nl
(N.E.M. Asselman).
1
Present address: WL/DELFT HYDRAULICS, P.O. Box 177,
2600 MH Delft, The Netherlands.
0022-1694/00/$ - see front matter 䉷 2000 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
PII: S0022-169 4(00)00253-5
clay, i.e. wash load. It can thus be concluded that wash
load plays an important role in the sediment transport
in the river Rhine.
As the finest fraction of the suspended sediment
load often is a non-capacity load it cannot be predicted
using stream power related sediment transport
models. Instead, empirical relations such as sediment
rating curves often are applied. A sediment rating
curve describes the average relation between
discharge and suspended sediment concentration for
a certain location. The most commonly used sediment
rating curve is a power function (e.g. Walling, 1974,
1978):
C ˆ aQb …1†
 N.E.M. Asselman / Journal of Hydrology 234 (2000) 228–248
with C is suspended sediment concentration (mg/l), Q
is water discharge (m 3/s), and a and b are regression
coefficients. Eq. (1) covers both the effect of increased
stream power at higher discharge and the extent to
which new sources of sediment become available in
weather conditions that cause high discharge. Despite
its general use several problems are recognised that
regard the accuracy of the fitted curve as well as the
physical meaning of its regression coefficients.
Inaccuracies in predicted instantaneous suspended
sediment concentrations are related to the statistical
method used to fit the sediment-rating curve and to the
scatter about the regression line. Statistical inaccura-
cies related to the fitting procedure are discussed by
Ferguson (1986, 1987), Jansson (1985), Singh and
Durgunoglu (1989), and Cohn et al. (1992). They
concluded that the sediment load of a river is likely
to be underestimated when concentrations are esti-
mated from water discharge using least squares
regression of log-transformed variables. Scatter
about the regression line is, among other things,
caused by variations in sediment supply due to, for
instance, seasonal effects, antecedent conditions in the
river basin, and differences in sediment availability at
the beginning or the ending of a flood. This is not
accounted for by the rating curve.
As a sediment rating curve can be considered a
‘black box’ type of model, the coefficients a and b
in Eq. (1) have no physical meaning. Nevertheless,
some physical interpretation is often ascribed to
them. Peters-Kümmerly (1973) and Morgan (1995)
state that the a-coefficient represents an index of
erosion severity. High a-values indicate intensively
weathered materials, which can easily be transported.
According to Peters-Kümmerly (1973), the b-coeffi-
cient represents the erosive power of the river, with
large values being indicative for rivers where a small
increase in discharge results in a strong increase in
erosive power of the river. Others state that the b-
coefficient indicates the extent to which new sediment
sources become available when discharge increases.
Several authors compare the values of the b-coeffi-
cient obtained for different rivers to discuss differ-
ences in sediment transport characteristics in the
different basins (Peters-Kümmerly, 1973; Walling,
1974; Sarma, 1986; Morgan, 1995; Kern, 1997).
In this study sediment rating curves are derived for
different locations along the river Rhine and its main
229
tributaries. The study has three objectives. The first
objective is to determine spatial differences in the
relation between discharge and suspended sediment
transport for different locations in the Rhine drainage
basin and to relate these differences to differences in
the sediment transport regime. Secondly, inaccuracies
in estimated sediment loads will be analysed and
related to the type of rating curve and the statistical
methodology applied to fit the rating curves. Finally,
the study aims at determining the physical meaning of
the regression coefficients. Questions that need to be
answered with regard to these objectives include
‘Which rating curve produces the most accurate esti-
mates of the suspended sediment load at different
locations in the Rhine drainage basin?’, ‘How does
the shape of the fitted curves differ between different
locations?’, and ‘Do sediment rating curves provide
information on the sediment transport regime of the
river and if so, what kind of information can be
derived from them?’
2. The Rhine drainage basin
The Rhine is one of the largest rivers in north
west Europe. Its drainage basin is situated between
the Alps and the North Sea (Fig. 1). The drainage
area upstream of the German–Dutch border is
about 165 000 km 2 (CHR/KHR, 1976). The total
length of the river is about 1320 km. The Rhine
basin is characterised by a temperate climate.
Mean annual precipitation varies between 600 mm
in the lower downstream parts and 2500 mm in the
Alps (CHR/KHR, 1976). Average annual discharge
increases from about 370 m 3/s at the outlet of the
Bodensee, to about 2300 m 3/s near Rees at the
German–Dutch border. The average annual
suspended sediment load of the river Rhine at
Rees is 3.14 × 10 6 ton.
3. Discharge and suspended sediment data
Daily discharge and suspended sediment concen-
tration measurements have been carried out by the
Bundesanstalt für Gewässerkunde (BfG) in Germany
at several locations along the river Rhine and its main
tributaries. Suspended sediment concentrations are
determined from samples collected about 1 m
230 N.E.M. Asselman / Journal of Hydrology 234 (2000) 228–248

Fig. 1. Measurement locations in the Rhine drainage basin.

below the water surface. Details on the measurement 4. Method

methods are provided by Deutscher Verband für
Wasserwirtschaft und Kulturbau (1986). Data were
provided by the BfG for the measurement locations
indicated in Fig. 1. The data records vary in length,
but at most locations measurements have been
carried out since the early or mid seventies (Table
1). Average water discharge and average annual sedi-
ment loads are also given in Table 1. Sediment loads
are computed by multiplication of daily river
discharge values and daily suspended sediment
concentrations.
4.1. Fitting of sediment rating curves
In most studies, a power function is used, in which
the regression coefficients a and b are obtained by
ordinary least squares regression on logarithms of
concentration and discharge data (e.g. Walling,
1974, 1977a,b, 1978; Church and Gilbert, 1975;
Mossa, 1989):
log C ˆ log a ⫹ b log Q ⫹ log 1 …2†
 N.E.M. Asselman / Journal of Hydrology 234 (2000) 228–248 231

Table 1
Measurement periods, drainage area, annual average discharge and suspended sediment transport of various locations along the river Rhine and
its tributaries

Location Period Area (km 2) Discharge (m 3/s) Sediment load (10 6 t/year)

Rheinfelden (Rhine) 1977–1990 34 550 1100 1.12

Maxau (Rhine) 1975–1990 50 200 1300 1.16
Worms/Nierstein (Rhine) 1984–1990 68 827 1450 1.40
Kaub/Bacharach (Rhine) 1971–1990 103 730 1688 2.16
Andernach/Weissenthurm (Rhine) 1975–1990 139 800 2219 3.48
Rees/Emmerich (Rhine) 1975–1991 159 300 2386 3.14
Rockenau (Neckar) 1972–1990 12 676 142 0.47
Schweinfurt/Viereth (Main) 1973–1989 12 715 108 0.10
Kleinheubach (Main) 1987–1990 21 505 191 0.34
Kalkofen (Lahn) 1971–1990 5305 46 0.08
Hauconcourt (Mosel) 1975–1980 9400 131 0.24
Cochem/Brodenbach (Mosel) 1982–1990 27 088 384 0.88

which is then back-transformed to obtain: method is inappropriate since the assumption of

C ˆ aQb 1 …
in which 1 is a lognormally distributed error. Statis-
tical considerations show that the sediment load of a
river is likely to be underestimated when concentra-
tions are estimated from water discharge, using least
squares regression of log-transformed variables
(Ferguson, 1986, 1987; Jansson, 1985; Singh and
Durgunoglu, 1989; Cohn et al., 1992). To correct for
this underestimation, or bias, several forms of bias
correction factors have been suggested (Ferguson,
1986, 1987; Jansson, 1985). Since the degree of
underestimation is proportional to the degree of scat-
ter about the regression, Ferguson (1986) proposed
the following bias correction factor (CF):
CF ˆ exp…2:651S2 † …
where S 2 is the mean square error of the log-trans-
formed regression (in log-10 units). It is important
to notice that application of this correction factor
only results in unbiased estimates of suspended
sediment concentrations when the residuals of C are
log-normally distributed and C is a power function of
Q. This assumption often is not met.
An alternative approach is to assume a power func-
tion with additive error, which consists of random,
normally distributed white noise, with zero mean
and variance s 2. In this case unbiased estimates of a
and b can be obtained using a nonlinear least squares
regression procedure. However, in statistical terms the
constant variance or scatter of the dependent variable,
3† homoscedasticity, often is not met. The degree of
scatter in a graph of sediment concentrations plotted
against discharge usually increases with discharge.
Also, the estimate of the variance of the normal errors
will often be biased because there can be no negative
concentration values.
As both fitting procedures have their own statistical
shortcomings, they are both applied and evaluated on
the measurement locations along the main channel of
the Rhine. First, a regression was carried out on the
logarithmic transformed data Eq. (2). Then, two
power functions were fitted through the data, using
nonlinear regression. The first power function is
given in Eq. (5):
C ˆ aQ b ⫹ d …5†
4†
where d is a normally distributed error. The second
power function consists of a power function with an
additive constant term (p):
C ˆ p ⫹ aQb ⫹ d …6†
Finally, four sets of rating relationships were
constructed, using data sets subdivided after season
and changes in discharge (i.e. summer and winter
months, and rising or falling limbs of the hydrograph).
4.2. Selection of the calibration period
A sediment rating curve can only be regarded as
representative for a certain location under the present
232 N.E.M. Asselman / Journal of Hydrology 234 (2000) 228–248
range of environmental and climate conditions, when
the relationship between discharge and suspended
sediment concentration is consistent over the entire
measurement period. Homogeneity of the data was
checked using a double-mass curve approach (Nordin
and Sabol, 1973). For most stations except for
Rheinfelden and Basel, the double-mass curve is an
almost straight line, indicating that the relation
between sediment and water discharge is consistent
for the period of record. The bend in the double-mass
curve of Rheinfelden was hardly visible. Also, no
inconsistency occurred during the first 8 years of the
measurement period. Therefore the data were
assumed applicable. The data of Basel were not
used for further analyses.
As sediment rating curves should be based on a
wide range of discharges including a sufficient
number of measurements carried out at high
discharge, it was decided to fit the rating curves on
a relatively wet period. A relatively wet period with
discharge exceeding the long-term average discharge
was selected after examination of the cumulative
monthly mean discharge anomalies, as described by
Lozowski et al. (1989). At all gauging stations a simi-
lar trend was observed, with low discharges in 1976,
and during the period 1989–1991. Relatively high
discharges occurred during the periods 1979–1983
and 1986–1988. The period 1979–1983 was the long-
est wet period. Also, during this period no inconsis-
tencies were found in the data. Therefore it was
decided to develop a complete set of sediment rating
curves for the period January 1979 until December
1983. All fitting procedures and bias correction
factors described previously Eqs. (1), (2), (4), and
(5) were applied on the 9 sub samples of the data
set. The 9 sub samples are (1) all data, (2) summer
and (3) winter months, (4) rising discharge and (5)
falling discharge, (6) rising discharge during summer,
(7) falling discharge during summer, (8) rising
discharge during winter, and (9) falling discharge
during winter. As 4 rating curves were fitted on each
data set, this resulted in a total of 36 curves per
location. Because data records for some of the main
tributaries start after 1979, sediment rating curves
were also fitted for a 5 year period including the
second wet period (1986–1990), and for all available
data, i.e. the period 1975–1990 for most gauging
stations. Comparison of the curves fitted on different
measurement periods provides an indication of the
robustness of sediment rating curves under slightly
different discharge regimes.
5. Results
5.1. Fitted rating curves
Sediment rating curves were fitted for locations
along the river Rhine and its tributaries. The regres-
sion coefficients of the fitted curves for locations
along the main channel are given in Table 2. Although
correlation coefficients for some curves are low, they
are all significant at the 0.05 level, because the
number of data points is large. Several of the regres-
sions given in Table 2 have negative p-values Eq. (6).
This may suggest that when discharges are extremely
low negative concentration estimates can be produced.
However, during the selected periods no flows of less
than the critical discharge levels occurred.
Large differences in regression coefficients are
found for different fitting procedures as well as for
the different calibration periods. To facilitate compar-
ison, some fitted curves obtained for locations along
the main channel of the Rhine are shown in Fig. 2. The
rating curves based on least squares regression of the
log-transformed data seem to underestimate concen-
tration values at high discharge (curve 1). The degree
of underestimation decreases when the bias correction
factor is used (curve 2), or when the rating curve is
obtained by fitting a power function based on
nonlinear least squares regression (curve 3). However,
at gauging stations where suspended sediment
concentrations are relatively high at low discharge
and increase only slightly with increasing discharge,
none of the first three methods fit the data well. This is
best shown by the data obtained from the gauging
station near Rees. This shortcoming can be overcome
by fitting a rating curve in the form of a power func-
tion, based on nonlinear least squares regression, with
addition of a constant term (curve 4). At all locations,
the rating curves obtained by fitting a power function
(curves 3 and 4) visually result in the best fit.
Fig. 3 shows sediment rating curves for locations
along the river Rhine as well as its main tributaries,
fitted by means of nonlinear least squares regression
(curve 4). The rating curves are based on all data
Table 2
Regression coefficients of rating curves fitted for gauging stations along the river Rhine (callibration period: 1979-1983, CF ˆ correction factor, N ˆ number of data points, fall/
rise ˆ falling/rising discharge)

Location Data Log-transformed data Nonlinear Nonlinear N

log C ˆ log a ⫹ b × log Q C ˆ a × Qb C ˆ p ⫹ a × Qb

10 a b CF r2 a b r2 p a b r2

Rheinfelden All 3.35 × 10 ⫺03 1.21 1.18 0.34 7.70 × 10 ⫺04 1.44 0.27 13.7 8.00 × 10 ⫺14 4.43 0.35 1764
Winter 2.42 × 10 ⫺03 1.25 1.21 0.36 1.22 × 10 ⫺06 2.34 0.36 10.7 2.12 × 10 ⫺11 3.73 0.40 849
Summer 6.44 × 10 ⫺03 1.12 1.16 0.24 1.31 × 10 ⫺04 1.67 0.24 17.1 2.10 × 10 ⫺17 5.47 0.30 915
Fall 6.60 × 10 ⫺03 1.10 1.17 0.30 7.40 × 10 ⫺04 1.43 0.22 14.1 1.10 × 10 ⫺15 5.70 0.32 1473
Rise 1.17 × 10 ⫺03 1.38 1.20 0.36 4.26 × 10 ⫺06 2.16 0.34 16.4 1.70 × 10 ⫺11 3.73 0.36 291

N.E.M. Asselman / Journal of Hydrology 234 (2000) 228–248

Winter-rise 1.71 × 10 ⫺03 1.33 1.23 0.37 1.10 × 10 ⫺05 2.05 0.33 15.7 4.70 × 10 ⫺10 3.32 0.34 140
Winter-fall 5.52 × 10 ⫺03 1.13 1.20 0.30 1.71 × 10 ⫺07 2.60 0.33 11.9 3.92 × 10 ⫺18 5.78 0.48 709
Summer-rise 3.08 × 10 ⫺04 1.55 1.17 0.37 2.81 × 10 ⫺06 2.21 0.37 19.3 5.44 × 10 ⫺16 5.06 0.39 151
Summer-fall 1.92 × 10 ⫺02 0.96 1.15 0.19 3.97 × 10 ⫺03 1.20 0.15 16.8 1.06 × 10 ⫺16 5.24 0.19 764
All 75-90 8.84 × 10 ⫺03 1.10 1.28 0.28 1.41 × 10 ⫺03 1.40 0.18 14.8 3.38 × 10 ⫺08 2.75 0.19 5047
Maxau All 8.09 × 10 ⫺03 1.07 1.13 0.37 2.92 × 10 ⫺03 1.22 0.37 7.9 3.90 × 10 ⫺05 1.75 0.38 1826
Winter 5.08 × 10 ⫺03 1.13 1.14 0.43 3.87 × 10 ⫺04 1.49 0.49 12.3 1.50 × 10 ⫺09 3.03 0.53 911
Summer 3.33 × 10 ⫺02 0.88 1.11 0.47 2.40 × 10 ⫺02 0.94 0.23 ⫺7.4 1.38 × 10 ⫺01 0.74 0.23 915
Fall 1.32 × 10 ⫺02 1.00 1.13 0.32 7.29 × 10 ⫺03 1.09 0.32 4.4 9.10 × 10 ⫺04 1.35 0.32 1455
Rise 5.13 × 10 ⫺03 1.14 1.12 0.40 1.23 × 10 ⫺03 1.35 0.40 16.6 1.70 × 10 ⫺08 2.70 0.42 371
Winter-rise 2.83 × 10 ⫺03 1.23 1.14 0.45 4.49 × 10 ⫺04 1.49 0.43 22.3 4.40 × 10 ⫺17 5.16 0.48 189
Winter-fall 1.06 × 10 ⫺02 1.02 1.13 0.36 8.50 × 10 ⫺04 1.38 0.48 11.4 2.86 × 10 ⫺09 2.95 0.54 722
Summer-rise 1.52 × 10 ⫺02 1.00 1.09 0.32 6.15 × 10 ⫺04 1.13 0.37 14.7 2.00 × 10 ⫺06 2.07 0.38 182
Summer-fall 5.37 × 10 ⫺02 0.81 1.12 0.18 4.91 × 10 ⫺02 0.84 0.17 ⫺161.7 7.97 × 10 ⫹01 0.12 0.18 733
All 75-90 1.48 × 10 ⫺02 1.01 1.15 0.36 2.83 × 10 ⫺03 1.25 0.41 11.1 4.35 × 10 ⫺06 2.05 0.43 6148

Kaub/Bacharach All 8.30 × 10 ⫺03 1.06 1.11 0.44 3.70 × 10 ⫺03 1.19 0.36 3.8 1.25 × 10 ⫺03 1.31 0.36 1826
Winter 2.05 × 10 ⫺03 1.24 1.15 0.52 1.32 × 10 ⫺03 1.32 0.39 ⫺1.5 2.00 × 10 ⫺03 1.27 0.39 911
Summer 1.57 × 10 ⫺01 0.68 1.06 0.28 3.15 × 10 ⫺02 0.90 0.31 16.9 3.10 × 10 ⫺05 1.69 0.33 915
Fall 4.54 × 10 ⫺03 1.17 1.09 0.46 9.80 × 10 ⫺03 1.09 0.35 10.9 1.20 × 10 ⫺04 1.55 0.33 1416
Rise 2.40 × 10 ⫺02 0.91 1.13 0.38 1.30 × 10 ⫺02 1.01 0.32 ⫺44.2 7.11 × 10 ⫺01 0.63 0.36 410
Winter-rise 2.79 × 10 ⫺03 1.24 1.17 0.47 1.67 × 10 ⫺02 1.04 0.31 ⫺132.5 1.44 × 10 ⫹01 0.33 0.33 238
Winter-fall 5.68 × 10 ⫺03 1.09 1.12 0.49 8.98 × 10 ⫺04 1.35 0.44 9.8 4.47 × 10 ⫺06 1.97 0.68 673
Summer-rise 1.71 × 10 ⫺02 0.99 1.07 0.46 5.81 × 10 ⫺03 1.14 0.55 6.8 1.31 × 10 ⫺03 1.31 0.55 171
Summer-fall 5.77 × 10 ⫺01 0.50 1.05 0.18 5.00 × 10 ⫺01 0.53 0.14 10.1 3.81 × 10 ⫺02 0.81 0.14 744
All 71-90 5.35 × 10 ⫺02 0.85 1.16 0.30 1.89 × 10 ⫺02 1.01 0.25 7.8 2.60 × 10 ⫺03 1.23 0.25 7305
Andernach Weissent All 1.61 × 10 ⫺02 0.99 1.09 0.49 1.72 × 10 ⫺03 1.29 0.44 6.6 4.24 × 10 ⫺04 1.44 0.44 1826
Winter 4.32 × 10 ⫺03 1.15 1.12 0.59 6.46 × 10 ⫺04 1.41 0.44 1.7 4.58 × 10 ⫺04 1.45 0.44 911
Summer 1.87 × 10 ⫺01 0.67 1.07 0.28 9.22 × 10 ⫺03 1.07 0.50 22.1 8.54 × 10 ⫺06 1.94 0.54 915
Fall 5.34 × 10 ⫺02 0.83 1.09 0.41 8.34 × 10 ⫺03 1.07 0.41 11.4 3.60 × 10 ⫺04 1.42 0.42 1376
Rise 3.52 × 10 ⫺03 1.20 1.13 0.56 2.38 × 10 ⫺03 1.27 0.45 ⫺20.3 2.10 × 10 ⫺02 1.03 0.45 450

233
 234
Table 2 (continued)

N.E.M. Asselman / Journal of Hydrology 234 (2000) 228–248

Location Data Log-transformed data Nonlinear Nonlinear N
log C ˆ log a ⫹ b × log Q C ˆ a × Qb C ˆ p ⫹ a × Qb

10 a b CF r2 a b r2 p a b r2

Winter-rise 1.21 × 10 ⫺03 1.34 0.14 0.61 1.71 × 10 ⫺03 1.31 0.42 ⫺29.1 3.02 × 10 ⫺02 1.01 0.43 260
Winter-fall 1.52 × 10 ⫺02 0.98 1.10 0.55 2.58 × 10 ⫺03 1.22 0.44 5 6.87 × 10 ⫺04 1.37 0.44 651
Summer-rise 4.64 × 10 ⫺02 0.86 1.09 0.64 4.21 × 10 ⫺03 1.17 0.63 21.6 2.70 × 10 ⫺05 1.72 0.64 190
Summer-fall 4.59 × 10 ⫺01 0.55 1.06 0.20 4.36 × 10 ⫺02 0.87 0.36 21.7 2.10 × 10 ⫺05 1.71 0.41 725
All 75-90 3.08 × 10 ⫺02 0.91 1.13 0.40 2.99 × 10 ⫺03 1.22 0.40 9.6 2.89 × 10 ⫺04 1.48 0.64 5844

Rees All 3.36 × 10 ⫹00 0.32 1.08 0.11 7.93 × 10 ⫺01 0.51 0.16 34.3 4.00 × 10 ⫺06 1.86 0.20 1826
Winter 1.64 × 10 ⫹00 0.53 1.09 0.28 1.89 × 10 ⫺01 0.69 0.27 21.2 1.22 × 10 ⫺03 1.24 0.27 911
Summer 6.90 × 10 ⫹01 ⫺0.07 1.05 0.01 1.66 × 10 ⫹01 0.12 0.10 41.5 2.90 × 10 ⫺13 3.61 0.12 915
Fall 1.39 × 10 ⫹01 0.13 1.06 0.02 8.51 × 10 ⫹00 0.20 0.04 37.4 5.20 × 10 ⫺08 2.25 0.06 1392
Rise 2.84 × 10 ⫺01 0.64 1.10 0.31 1.08 × 10 ⫺01 0.78 0.31 12.5 1.82 × 10 ⫺02 0.96 0.31 434
Winter-rise 1.26 × 10 ⫺01 0.75 1.10 0.38 1.17 × 10 ⫺01 0.77 0.31 ⫺18 5.85 × 10 ⫺01 0.61 0.32 270
Winter-fall 2.15 × 10 ⫹00 0.36 1.07 0.19 9.70 × 10 ⫺01 0.47 0.18 26.4 1.80 × 10 ⫺04 1.40 0.20 641
Summer-rise 2.36 × 10 ⫹00 0.37 1.08 0.13 1.25 × 10 ⫺01 0.74 0.27 35.2 1.00 × 10 ⫺06 1.99 0.32 164
Summer-fall 3.06 × 10 ⫹02 ⫺0.26 1.04 0.09 2.48 × 10 ⫹02 ⫺0.23 0.06 35.7 5.15 × 10 ⫹06 ⫺1.79 0.07 751
All 75-91 2.62 × 10 ⫹00 0.33 1.12 0.09 6.85 × 10 ⫺01 0.52 0.15 29.3 1.96 × 10 ⫺06 1.93 0.44 6148
 N.E.M. Asselman / Journal of Hydrology 234 (2000) 228–248 235

Fig. 2. Sediment rating curves established for gauging stations along the river Rhine, using different fitting procedures.

without subdivision after season or discharge stage.
The steepest rating curves are observed in the tribu-
taries of the river Rhine. Along the main channel of
the river Rhine the steepest rating curve is found near
Rheinfelden. The steepness decreases in a down-
stream direction. The flattest rating curve is observed
near Rees.
5.2. Model efficiency of the fitted rating curves
Although the scatter plots in Fig. 2 suggest that
nonlinear least squares regression yields the best esti-
mates of suspended sediment concentrations (curves 3
and 4), the distribution of the concentration data indi-
cate that linear regression on logarithmic transformed
data might produce better results. It can easily be seen
in the scatter plots of Fig. 2 that the concentration data
is not normally distributed and that the variance is not
constant with discharge. Also, analyses of the resi-
duals of these models indicate that they are not
normally distributed either. Best ‘unbiased’ estimates
of a and b would thus be obtained by least squares
236 N.E.M. Asselman / Journal of Hydrology 234 (2000) 228–248

Fig. 3. Sediment rating curves for locations along the Rhine and its main tributaries fitted using nonlinear least squares regression.

regression on logarithmic transformed data in combi- residual variance given by

nation with the correction factor Eq. (4). However,
X
N
when the data distribution is studied in more detail F02 ˆ  2
…Ct ⫺ C† …8†
with the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test (Blalock, 1981), tˆ1
it appears that the data is not log-normally distributed
either. Thus, as statistical considerations indicate that X
N
both fitting procedures are inappropriate for these data F02 ˆ …Ct ⫺ C 0t †2 …9†
sets, it can be suggested that the rating curve with the tˆ1

highest model efficiency should be used for further
computations.
The efficiency of the different rating curve models
in estimating time series of suspended sediment loads
was evaluated using the model efficiency criterion
(R 2) as defined by Nash and Sutcliffe (1970). R 2
is a criterion that determines the efficiency of a
model in comparison with the average value. It is
computed as:
F02 ⫺ F 2
R2 ˆ …
F02
in which F02 is the initial variance, and F 2 is the
in which Ct and C 0 t are measured and computed
concentrations at time t, and C is the average
measured concentration. The model efficiency R 2
should not be confused with the correlation
coefficient, which indicates the degree of inter-
relation between two or more variables or between
estimated and measured values of a single
variable. Instead, it shows whether the applied
model provides better estimates than application
of the average value. Values of R 2 range between
minus infinity and plus 1, where plus 1 indicates
7†
perfect agreement between measured and computed
sediment transport rates. Negative values indicate
that the average measured concentration value is a
 N.E.M. Asselman / Journal of Hydrology 234 (2000) 228–248
Table 3
Model efficiency R 2 (Nash and Sutcliffe, 1970) of different sediment rating curves in estimating suspended sediment transport rates (data
measured during the period 1979–1983 were used for model calibration)
Rees Andernach
Log, all data 0.50 0.56
Log × CF, all data 0.52 0.59
Power, all data 0.57 0.64
Power ⫹ C, all data 0.58 0.64
Power ⫹ C, sum/win 0.59 0.65
Power ⫹ C, fall/rise 0.65 0.68
Power ⫹ C, sum/win ⫹ fall/rise 0.66 0.69
better estimate of instantaneous suspended sediment
concentrations than the estimates obtained by the
model. As R 2 depends on the initial variance in
measured sediment concentrations, which may be
quite different for different time periods or different
gauging stations, values of R 2 can only directly be
compared for different model results of sediment
transport time series, obtained for the same gauging
station, and for the same validation period.
Evaluation of the R 2-factors (Table 3) shows that
for most gauging stations the rating curves based on
least squares linear regression of the logarithmic
transformed data have the lowest efficiency. The effi-
ciency increases when the correction factor is applied.
The best results are obtained when sediment-rating
curves in the form of a power function with additional
constant term are used. The efficiency also increases
when the data is subdivided after season and discharge
stage. This, however, is to be expected as addition of
parameters to a model usually improves the fit. A
criterion for selecting reasonable models in regression
analysis that embraces a penalty for increased
complexity is Akaike’s Information Criterion (AIC).
It is estimated as (Webster and McBratney, 1989):
   
2p
A ˆ n ln ⫹ n ⫹ 2 ⫹ n ln R ⫹ 2m …10†
n
in which n is the number of observations, m the
number of model parameters, and R the residual
sum of squares. Differences in model performance
depend on differences in the residual sum of squares
and the number of model parameters. The number of
model parameters only has a significant effect on the
AIC when regression is carried out on a limited
number of observations. In this study, however,
more than 1800 observations were used to fit the
237
Kaub Maxau Rheinfelden
0.60 0.57 0.32
0.63 0.60 0.36
0.63 0.61 0.41
0.63 0.62 0.51
0.65 0.69 0.53
0.68 0.65 0.45
0.71 0.72 0.57
regression model. Hence, differences in the residual
sum of squares predominate over the penalty for the
number of model parameters. Consequently, the best
rating curve model is a power function with additional
constant term, based on nonlinear least squares regres-
sion on concentration and discharge data, subdivided
after season and discharge stage.
5.3. Model bias and accuracy
Validation of the fitted rating curves also indicates
that rating curves fitted using nonlinear least squares
regression yield the most accurate estimates of long-
term average suspended sediment loads. The model
validation results of 4 locations along the river Rhine
and 1 location along a major tributary are summarised
in Table 4. When no statistical bias occurs, sediment
loads computed for the calibration period should
equal measured sediment loads derived by multiplica-
tion of daily discharge and suspended sediment
concentration values. As variations in discharge and
suspended sediment concentrations during a single
day are small, it is expected that errors in calculated
measured loads are small. When the rating curves
fitted for Rees are applied to compute sediment
loads over the period used for model calibration it
appears that the rating curve based on logarithmic
transformed data underestimates the long-term sedi-
ment load up to 12% (Table 4). When a power func-
tion based on nonlinear least squares regression is
applied an error of less than 1% is attained. At loca-
tions that are characterised by steeper rating curves
the differences in bias are even larger. At Kalkofen for
example, rating curves fitted on logarithmic trans-
formed data tend to underestimate sediment loads by
56%, whereas the rating curves based on nonlinear
238 N.E.M. Asselman / Journal of Hydrology 234 (2000) 228–248

least squares regression overestimate sediment loads Table 4

by 0.2% or less (Table 4). When sediment-rating Differences (%) between estimated and measured sediment loads
for different types of sediment rating curve (types of rating curve:
curves are used to compute sediment transport during (1) logarithmic; (2) logarithmic with correction factor; (3)
single years-larger errors may occur. At Andernach nonlinear; and (4) nonlinear with constant. Rating curves are cali-
for instance (not shown in Table 4) errors in annual brated and validated using the same data series (1979–1983))
sediment loads computed with a rating curve based on
Data Types of rating curve
nonlinear least squares regression, varied from ⫹33%
in 1983 to ⫺39% in 1976, whereas at Kaub errors 1 2 3 4
ranged from ⫺61% in 1971 to ⫹23% in 1983.
Rees (Rhine)
All ⫺12.1 ⫺5.2 ⫺0.4 4.1
Subdivision after season ⫺11.5 ⫺5.0 ⫺0.7 0.6
6. Discussion
Subdivision after stage ⫺9.0 ⫺1.8 0.5 1.0
Subdivision after season ⫺8.7 ⫺2.1 0.1 0.1
6.1. Interpretation of sediment rating curves and stage
Andernach (Rhine)
As discussed previously, the values of the regres-
All ⫺18.5 ⫺11.4 ⫺0.1 0.2
sion coefficients of sediment rating curves are Subdivision after season ⫺18.3 ⫺9.7 ⫺0.0 2.6
assumed to depend on the erosion severity, or the Subdivision after stage ⫺14.3 ⫺5.0 1.4 1.2
availability of sediment in a certain area, the power Subdivision after season ⫺14.1 ⫺5.2 ⫺2.0 0.8
of the river to erode and transport the available mate- and stage
rial, and on the extent to which new sediment sources Kaub (Rhine)
become available in weather conditions that cause All ⫺13.6 ⫺4.2 0.5 ⫺0.0
high discharge. According to Peters-Kümmerly Subdivision after season ⫺13.8 ⫺4.5 ⫺0.1 0.2
Subdivision after stage ⫺4.1 5.8 10.5 3.7
(1973) and Morgan (1995), the erodibility of the
Subdivision after season ⫺9.0 0.7 2.7 2.4
soils is represented by the a-coefficient Eq. (1). High and stage
values of the a-coefficient occur in areas characterised
Maxau (Rhine)
by intensively weathered materials, which can easily
All ⫺13.1 ⫺7.1 ⫺0.1 ⫺0.5
be eroded and transported. The b-coefficient repre- Subdivision after season ⫺13.8 ⫺3.2 ⫺0.8 ⫺0.1
sents the erosive power of the river, with large values Subdivision after stage ⫺11.2 ⫺0.3 0.9 1.6
being indicative for rivers with a strong increase in Subdivision after season ⫺11.9 ⫺1.3 0.1 ⫺0.8
erosive power and in sediment transport capacity and stage
when discharge increases. According to Walling Kalkofen (Lahn)
(1974) b-values are also affected by the grain size All ⫺56.0 ⫺40.0 ⫺0.0 0.2
distribution of the material available for transport,
i.e. in streams characterised by sand sized sediments
the power of the stream to transport sediment will be concentrations, indicating that either the power of
more important than in streams that mainly transport the river to erode material during high discharge peri-
silt and clay. This will result in high b-values. ods is high, or that important sediment sources
However, as the a- and b-coefficients of sediment become available when the water level rises. Flat
rating curves are inversely correlated (Rannie, 1978; rating curves should be characteristic for river
Thomas, 1988) it seems more appropriate to use the sections with intensively weathered materials or
steepness of the rating curve, which is a combination loose sedimentary deposits, which can be transported
of the a- and b-values, as a measure of soil erodibility at almost all discharges.
and erosivity of the river. Steep rating curves, i.e. low When this line of reasoning is accepted for the river
a- and high b-values, should thus be characteristic for Rhine, the following interpretation can be assigned to
river sections with little sediment transport taking the rating curves shown in Fig. 3. The steepest rating
place at low discharge. An increase in discharge curves are found in the tributaries of the river Rhine.
results in a large increment of suspended sediment This suggests a limited amount of fine sediment,
 N.E.M. Asselman / Journal of Hydrology 234 (2000) 228–248 239

Table 5
Importance of high and low discharges in transporting suspended sediment at several locations along the Rhine and its main tributaries

Qavg (m 3/s) a Qavg% (% time) b Qs,avg (% Qs) c Q10% (m 3/s) d Qs,10% (%Qs) e

Rockenau (Neckar) 142 69 9 264 77

Kalkofen (Lahn) 46 71 10 98 77
Hauconcourt (Mosel) 131 67 12 297 66
Cochem (Mosel) 384 68 10 830 70
Schweinfurt (Main) 108 68 24 204 53
Kleinheubach (Main) 191 70 20 371 69
Rheinfelden (Rhine) 1100 57 23 1708 35
Maxau (Rhine) 1300 58 26 2020 36
Worms (Rhine) 1450 60 26 2300 37
Kaub (Rhine) 1688 60 27 2630 38
Andernach (Rhine) 2219 61 23 3569 46
Rees (Rhine) 2386 61 34 3896 34
a
Qavg, annual average discharge.
b
Qavg%, percentage of time during which discharges are lower than Qavg.
c
Qs,avg, percentage of the total annual sediment load transported at discharges below Qavg.
d
Q10%, discharge that is exceeded 10% of the time, i.e. about 36 days per year.
e
Qs,10%, percentage of the total annual sediment load transported at discharges higher than Q10%.

which can be picked up from the bed at low discharge.
Once a certain discharge threshold is exceeded, sedi-
ment supply to the river increases, and sediment can
be picked up from the riverbed, resulting in a rapid
increase in suspended sediment concentrations. The
presence of weirs in most tributaries will also result
in steep rating curves. During low discharge, much
suspended sediment will settle behind the weirs.
When discharge increases this temporary deposited
sediment will be flushed out, resulting in a large
increase in suspended sediment concentrations.
Along the river Rhine, the steepness of the rating
curves decreases in a downstream direction. The flat-
test rating curve is found near Rees, indicating that
near the German–Dutch border large quantities of fine
material are available for transport at low discharge.
This argument leads to the hypothesis that steeper
rating curves are indicative of rivers, or river sections,
where most of the sediment transport takes place at
high discharge. To test this hypothesis, the sediment
transport regime of the river Rhine and its tributaries
was studied. To describe the regime, Qs,avg and Qs,10%
were computed. Qs,avg is defined as the percentage of
the total annual sediment load that is transported at
discharges below the average discharge (Qavg). Qs,10%
represents the percentage of the total annual sediment
load that is transported at very high discharges that are
exceeded 10% of the time, i.e. 36 days per year. As
shown in Table 5 the sediment transport regime varies
little between different locations along the main chan-
nel of the river Rhine. At all locations along the main
stream, about 25–30% of the annual sediment load is
transported at discharge levels below the long-term
average discharge. Little over 35% of the annual sedi-
ment load is transported at very high discharges,
which occur only 10% of the time (i.e. about 36
days per year). In the tributaries low discharges are
less important in transporting suspended sediment,
while high discharges are more important. In the
Main and the Mosel, about 10–20% of the annual
load is transported at discharges below the annual
average discharge, whereas more than 60% of the
annual load is transported at high discharges which
occur only 10% of the time. At Rockenau (Neckar)
and Kalkofen (Lahn) about 77% of the annual load is
transported during these extreme and infrequent
discharges. High discharge can thus be considered
more important in the tributaries than in the Rhine
itself.
Although the steepness of the rating curves
decreases along the Rhine in a downstream direction,
no differences in the sediment transport regime are
observed. This contradicts the previous interpretation
of the sediment rating curves. It can thus be concluded
that differences in steepness of sediment rating curves
do not necessarily indicate differences in the sediment
240 N.E.M. Asselman / Journal of Hydrology 234 (2000) 228–248
Fig. 4. Correlation between slope/intercept values of sediment rating curves fitted using nonlinear least squares regression.
transport regime. Instead, the difference in steepness
of the rating curve observed in Fig. 3 may be related to
scale. For instance, an increase in discharge of
100 m 3/s can be regarded as a relatively larger
increase near Rheinfelden than near Rees, as the aver-
age discharge is much higher at the latter location. As
a result, a stronger increase in suspended sediment
concentrations will be observed near Rheinfelden
than near Rees. High discharges can however, still
be of equal importance in transporting suspended
sediment at both locations. The question that remains
is whether another method exists to determine the
importance of high discharges in transporting
suspended sediment using the shape of sediment
rating curves.
6.2. Correlation between the regression coefficients
To study the effect of the sediment transport regime
on the shape of the sediment rating curve, the regres-
sion coefficients a and b Eq. (1), obtained by nonlinear
least squares regression, were plotted in a graph
(Fig. 4). Per location up to 10 combinations of a-
and b-values are plotted, each of which corresponds
with a rating curve fitted through a different part or
subset of the data (see also Table 2).
It is striking that all coefficients obtained for loca-
tions along the main channel plot as a single line,
whereas the coefficients obtained for the tributaries
plot above this line. Three parallel lines can be
drawn. The lower line coincides with the coefficient
values obtained for the main channel. The upper line
coincides with sample locations in the river Neckar at
Rockenau, and in the river Lahn at Kalkofen. In
between these lines a third line can be drawn for
measurement locations in the Mosel at Hauconcourt
and Cochem, and in the Main near Schweinfurt and
Kleinheubach.
A negative correlation between the regression coef-
ficients has been observed more often (e.g. Rannie,
1978; Thomas, 1988). Thomas (1988) states that this
is due to the fact that a linear regression line fits
through the average values of both variables, here
log-discharge (Q) and log-suspended sediment
concentration (C). Data sets that have similar means
of log-Q and log-C will result in rating curves that
have this one point in common. The slope of the fitted
curves can then be expressed as a linear function of
the intercepts with parameters that depend on the
 N.E.M. Asselman / Journal of Hydrology 234 (2000) 228–248
co-ordinates of the common point. In slope/intercept
plots these points will result in a straight line.
Thomas (1988) sub-sampled a data record of
discharge and suspended sediment concentrations at
a single gauging station and fitted rating curves
through the simulated data sets. However, as all rating
curves are based on the same period of record it can be
expected that the simulated data sets will have similar
discharge and suspended sediment concentration
values. Hence, the rating curves fitted through the
data sets will have one point in common and the
slope/intercept parameters will plot on a straight line.
For the river Rhine different data sets were used,
measured at different locations. Still the slope inter-
cept values plot on a single straight line, indicating
that the rating curves have one common discharge-
concentration value, which can be regarded as a
fulcrum around which the rating curves rotate. To
study this common point in more detail, sediment-
rating curves were developed per calendar year. The
regression coefficients obtained by least squares
regression on the logarithmic transformed variables,
were plotted in a graph similar to the graph in Fig. 4,
and a logarithmic relation was fitted. For the 16 rating
curves established for Andernach the following
relation was obtained (Fig. 5A):
b ˆ 0:4668 ⫺ 02963 log a …r2 ˆ 0:997† …11†
When no scatter around this regression line occurs, all
possible combinations of a- and b-values result in
rating curves that plot through a communal point,
indicated by …Q 01 ; C 01 † in Fig. 5B. However, as in
reality some scatter is present, true-rating curves
will plot through a communal area rather than through
a communal point. Measurement locations that plot on
a different line in the graph in Fig. 4 will have a
different point in common. For Rockenau, the idea-
lised relation established between the a- and b-coeffi-
cients result in rating curves that plot through the
common point …Q 02 ; C 02 † (Fig. 5B).
The value of the common discharge/concentration
point is related to the position of the line in Fig. 4. Its
value is different for the different tributaries, i.e. it
varies spatially, but it appears to be relatively constant
in time. Hence, it can be suggested that the common
point, or the position of the line in Fig. 4, is a function
of watershed characteristics that do not vary in time,
241
i.e. relief, drainage area, and drainage density. The
position of the rating curve coefficients on this line,
however, varies in time and therefore must mainly be
related to watershed characteristics that also vary in
time, such as average or maximum discharge, and
sediment availability. However, no such relation-
ships could be identified in this dataset. For instance,
drainage area increases along the Rhine in a down-
stream direction, while relief and channel slope
decrease, still all measurement locations plot on the
same line.
As the sample locations along the main channel of
the river Rhine are characterised by a similar sediment
transport regime, it can be argued that the common
point, and hence the position of the line plotted in
Fig. 4, provides an indication of the sediment trans-
port regime. In other words, all locations that plot on
the same line have a similar sediment transport
regime, which can be characterised by the communal
point. The locations that plot on the upper left side of
this line have a steeper rating curve than the locations
that plot on the lower right side. This probably is
related to the size of the river, or the distribution of
the samples taken at high and low discharge. Loca-
tions that plot on different lines not only are charac-
terised by steeper or flatter rating curves, but also by a
different sediment transport regime. It can thus be
assumed that the lower line in Fig. 4 represents river
sections where a large part of the annual sediment
load is transported at relatively low discharge. Lines
that have a higher position in this graph, such as the
line plotted through the coefficients obtained for
Rockenau and Kalkofen, would then be representative
for river sections where high discharges are more
important in transporting suspended sediment.
The hypothesis that information on the sediment
transport regime of a river section can be obtained
by from slope/intercept plots is based on a limited
amount of data and therefore remains debatable.
However, when the results presented in Table 5 are
used to verify the hypothesis, no contradictions or
inconsistencies are found. In the main channel about
35% of the total annual sediment load is transported
during infrequent high flows. In the Mosel and the
Main this percentage increases to more than 60%,
and in the Neckar and the Lahn about 77% of the
annual load is transported during these extreme and
infrequent discharges.
242 N.E.M. Asselman / Journal of Hydrology 234 (2000) 228–248

Fig. 5. Sediment rating curves fitted for Andernach and Rockenau (A) slope/intercept relations, (B) fulcrum of the fitted rating curves as derived
from the slope/intercept relations.

6.3. Comparison with the literature
To assess the validity of the above hypothesis,
rating curve coefficient values published in the litera-
ture were plotted in slope/intercept plots (Fig. 6). Fenn
et al. (1985) established sediment rating curves for a
proglacial stream of the glacier de Tsidjiore Nouve in
Switzerland, using hourly instantaneous stream
discharge and suspended sediment concentration
data. The data were subdivided using meteorological
and discharge data. Although differences in suspended
sediment concentrations were observed, all rating
coefficients plot on a single line (Fig. 6A).
Schulte (1995) derived sediment rating curves for
the river Elsenz, a tributary of the river Neckar, using
different intervals of measurements carried out during
a flood in March 1988. The resulting a- and b-coeffi-
cient values plot on a single line (Fig. 6A). The posi-
tion of the line above the lines obtained in the present
study implies that during this particular flood a very
large part of the sediment (more than 80%) must have
been transported at very high discharge.
 N.E.M. Asselman / Journal of Hydrology 234 (2000) 228–248 243

Fig. 6. Correlation between slope/intercept values of sediment rating curves obtained from the literature. Slope/intercept relations established
for the rivers Rhine and Neckar are shown for comparison.

Kern (1997) fitted rating curves using data of 3
measurement locations within a 11 km river section
of the river Neckar, about 65 km upstream of
Rockenau, and 1 location at the confluence of the
river Enz with the river Neckar. The a- and b-values
derived from the rating curves plot on a single line
slightly above the line obtained for the river Neckar at
Rockenau (Fig. 6A). This implies that high discharges
are more important in transporting suspended sedi-
ment at the locations in the river Neckar studied by
Kern than at Rockenau. As the latter gauging station is
located downstream of the confluence of the Neckar
with the rivers Kocher and Jagst (Fig. 1), a decreasing
importance of very high discharge can be expected.
244 N.E.M. Asselman / Journal of Hydrology 234 (2000) 228–248
Walling (1977b) established sediment rating curves
for three small rivers in England, i.e. the rivers
Creedy, Exe, and Dart. Data were grouped according
to season and discharge stage to obtain several rating
relationships. The a- and b-values of these relation-
ships are plotted in Fig. 6B. All values plot well above
the lines found for the river Rhine and its tributaries.
This suggests that in these rivers most sediment is
transported at extreme and infrequent discharges and
that the Qs,10% value as defined in Table 5 exceeds
80%. According to the suspended sediment load dura-
tion curves published by Webb and Walling (1984)
Qs,10% for the river Creedy is in the order of 95%. For
the river Dart Qs,10% is even higher.
Finally, rating curves developed by Kesel (1989)
for the Mississippi River at New Orleans were used
to assess the validity of the hypothesis. As the rating
curves are based on annual concentration and
discharge data the results can not directly be
compared with the results of other studies. Kesel
(1989) identified four groupings in the data: a prehis-
toric period (1851–1952), a pre-dam period (1930–
1952) and two post-dam periods (1953–1962 and
1963–1982). For each period he derived a rating rela-
tionship. According to Kesel (1989) a 43% decrease in
sediment load occurred between the prehistoric and
the pre-dam period, which was mainly caused by
changes in land use practice, whereas river discharge
remained almost constant. The regression coefficients
of both periods plot close to each other (Fig. 6C).
Thus, although the sediment load decreased, the sedi-
ment transport regime probably did not change much.
During the first dam period (1953–1962) the annual
sediment load declined with 51%. The position of the
regression coefficients in the plot is significantly
lower, which suggests a change in the sediment trans-
port regime, with a decreasing importance of years of
high discharge. This can be expected as reservoirs and
lakes tend to trap large amounts of sediment, which
will not be flushed out during high discharge events,
decreasing the importance of high discharge in trans-
porting suspended sediment. During the next period
(1963–1982) the sediment load decreased by another
27%. A line can be drawn through the coefficients of
the first and the second post dam periods. As the line
runs more or less parallel to the lines observed for
other rivers (see the line of the river Rhine for
comparison) it can be assumed that the sediment
transport regime remained the same even though the
total load decreased.
Although none of the examples cited above proves
validity of the hypothesis that the relationship
between the regression coefficients provides infor-
mation on the importance of extreme discharge stages
in transporting suspended sediment, they do not
contradict it either.
6.4. Implications and applicability
The advantage of the sediment rating curve techni-
que is that once a rating curve has been developed it
can be applied to past streamflow data to reconstruct
long-term sediment transport records or to fill gaps in
existing sediment transport records. However, one of
the major shortcomings of the application of rating
curves in the extrapolation of sediment transport
time series is that the requisite assumption of statio-
narity is often questionable. To judge the validity of
the stationarity assumption, we need to know more
about the factors that determine the shape of the sedi-
ment-rating curve. In other words, we can only judge
the stationarity of one or both of the rating coefficients
if we have more insight into the physical meaning of
these coefficients. For instance, can we expect one or
both of the rating coefficients to remain constant when
river discharge increases due to a change in climate,
or when flood discharge decreases due to the construc-
tion of dams? If not, can we predict in which way the
coefficients will change? In the previous discussion on
the interpretation of sediment rating curves it was
shown that a logarithmic relation exists between the
rating coefficients which seems to be related to the
sediment transport regime of the river section under
investigation. For larger rivers, such as the river
Rhine, variations in annual discharge or sediment
load do not seem to have a major effect on the sedi-
ment transport regime as the coefficient values
obtained for periods of low and high discharge plot
on a single line. This implies that gaps in sediment
transport records can be filled using the relation
between the rating coefficients, the daily discharge
record, and an estimate of the total sediment load.
Also, as variations in the sediment transport regime
along the river Rhine are small this method could be
applied to estimate sediment concentrations at loca-
tions where only water discharge has been measured.
 N.E.M. Asselman / Journal of Hydrology 234 (2000) 228–248
Data of the gauging station Andernach were used to
illustrate how the logarithmic relation between the
rating coefficients can be applied to extrapolate the
sediment transport record. The measurement record
at Andernach covers a period of 16 years, 1975–
1990. When no sediment concentrations would be
available for the period since 1986 the following
procedure can be used to obtain an estimate of daily
sediment transport at Andernach since 1986.
First, sediment rating curves are established for all
years between 1975 and 1985. The regression coeffi-
cients are plotted in a graph similar to Fig. 5A and the
slope/intercept relation is determined:
b ˆ 0:4701 ⫺ 0:2948 log a …r2 ˆ 0:998† …12†
As data from the measurement period 1986–1990 are
omitted, the relation is slightly different from the
relation given in Eq. (11).
Second, the total sediment load during the period
1986–1990 is estimated. Four methods can be
applied: (1) The annual sediment load equals the aver-
age annual sediment load measured between 1975 and
1985. (2) The annual sediment load equals the sum of
the loads measured at Kaub (Rhine), Cochem (Mosel)
and Kalkofen (Lahn). (3) The sediment load is a func-
tion of the load measured near Rees. During the period
1975–1985 the load at Andernach was 1.07 times the
load measured near Rees, hence the annual sediment
load can be estimated as 107% of the sediment load
measured at Rees. (4) The sediment load is a function
of the annual discharge. The relationship between
annual discharge and annual sediment load can be
determined from the 1975–1985 data.
Third, the daily discharge frequency distribution
over the period 1986–1990 is determined. Combina-
tion of this daily discharge frequency distribution with
the slope/intercept relation given in Eq. (12) and the
estimated annual sediment load provides the opportu-
nity to deduce a sediment rating curve and to estimate
sediment transport rates as a function of discharge
during the period 1986–1990. This is done iteratively
using:
(n ) Because the total sediment load is set equal to the
X
Qs ˆ Qi Ci 86:4 …13†
iˆ1
with
Ci ˆ aQ…0:4701⫺0:2948
i
log a†
…14†
245
in which Qs is the total sediment load (kg/5 year), Qi
the discharge of day i (m 3/s), Ci the estimated sedi-
ment concentration of day i (mg/l), a the rating curve
coefficient determined by iteration and 86.4 the
conversion factor (86400 s/day × 0.001 g/kg)
Sediment transport rates estimated using a sedi-
ment-rating curve always differ from measured sedi-
ment loads. These errors are shown by ‘method I’ in
Fig. 7. The sediment-rating curve was fitted on
discharge and suspended sediment data measured
between 1986 and 1990. This sediment-rating curve
produces reasonable estimates of long-term total sedi-
ment loads. For the period 1986–1990, the estimated
total sediment load is 6% less than the measured sedi-
ment load. For the different discharge intervals esti-
mation errors are larger and range from ⫺40% to
about 120% (Fig. 7).
When sediment transport at the different discharge
intervals is calculated with the slope/intercept relation
determined at Andernach in combination with esti-
mated long-term total sediment loads, similar errors
are obtained. The long-term total sediment load can be
estimated using any of the four methods described
previously. An example is given by method II
(Fig. 7). Depending on the method applied to estimate
the long-term sediment load, errors in estimated total
sediment load vary from ⫺5% to ⫹4%. Estimation
errors for the different discharge intervals are larger
but in the same order of magnitude as those obtained
with the sediment rating curves fitted on measured
data of the period 1986–1990 (method I, Fig. 7).
Method III (Fig. 7) presents the errors that result
when the slope/intercept relation determined at other
locations along the river Rhine is applied. Since the
errors fluctuate around zero it can be concluded that
the steepness of the rating curve, which is determined
by this slope/intercept relation, is correct (method III,
Fig. 7). When an inappropriate slope/intercept relation
is applied the errors exhibit a clear trend. This effect
becomes apparent when the slope/intercept relation
obtained for Rockenau (Fig. 5) is combined with
discharge data from Andernach (Fig. 7, method IV).
measured sediment load, errors are only the result of
inaccuracies in the shape of the sediment-rating curve.
This method (IV) overestimates sediment loads at low
discharge and underestimates sediment loads at high
discharge. The resulting trend in the errors indicates
246 N.E.M. Asselman / Journal of Hydrology 234 (2000) 228–248

Fig. 7. Differences between measured and computed sediment transport. Sediment loads are computed as a function of discharge, using four
methods. Method I: a sediment rating curve based on sediment concentrations measured at Andernach between 1986 and 1990. Method II:
combination of the slope/intercept relation determined at Andernach, and the long-term average sediment load measured between 1975 and
1985. Method III: combination of the slope/intercept relation determined at other locations along the Rhine, and the measured sediment load.
Method IV: combination of the slope/intercept relation determined at Rockenau (river Neckar) and the measured sediment load.

that the shape of the applied rating curve is wrong, and
that only the slope/intercept relations of gauging
stations that plot on the same line in Fig. 4 should
be used to fill gaps in the sediment transport record.
Finally, the method can be applied to estimate sedi-
ment transport at locations where only water
discharge is measured. As all gauging stations along
the main channel of the river Rhine are characterised
by a similar sediment transport regime, it can be
assumed that a location in between two measurement
locations will have a similar sediment transport
regime. Hence, it can be expected that the slope/inter-
cept relation established for the river Rhine is valid for
all other locations between Rheinfelden and Rees, so
that sediment transport rates can be estimated from
discharge measurements only.
7. Conclusions
Sediment rating curves were fitted for different
locations along the river Rhine and its main tribu-
taries. Rating curves obtained by least squares regres-
sion on logarithmic transformed data tend to
underestimate sediment transport rates by about
10% to more than 50%. The degree of underestima-
tion decreases when a correction factor is applied.
Better estimates are obtained when rating curves are
fitted in the form of a power function, based on
nonlinear least squares regression. For most locations,
computed long-term average sediment transport rates
differ less than 20% from measured sediment loads.
The steepness of the fitted rating curves decreases
along the main channel of the Rhine in a downstream
direction. The steepest rating curves are found for the
tributaries. It is generally believed that the steepness
of the rating curve is related to the availability of
suspended sediment in a certain area, in combination
with the erosive power of the river to transport this
material. Steep rating curves are expected to be char-
acteristic for rivers where most sediment is trans-
ported at high discharge. However, although the
 N.E.M. Asselman / Journal of Hydrology 234 (2000) 228–248
steepness of the rating curve decreases along the river
Rhine in a downstream direction, no changes in sedi-
ment transport regime occur. Thus, rating curve steep-
ness does not provide information on the sediment
transport regime.
A better indication of the sediment transport regime
of a river section is obtained when the slope/intercept
pairs of the fitted rating curves are plotted in a graph.
All locations that plot on the same line have a
common discharge-concentration point and appear
to be characterised by a similar sediment transport
regime. Locations that plot on higher lines, i.e. that
have higher slope values at a given intercept value,
have a different discharge-concentration point and are
characterised by a sediment transport regime where a
larger part of the annual sediment load is transported
during high discharge.
For the river Rhine all slope/interval pairs plot on a
single line. This suggests that for any location along
this river a rating curve can be established using the
relationship between the slope/interval values deter-
mined at other locations along the Rhine, in combina-
tion with water discharge data, and an estimate of the
long-term sediment load.
Acknowledgements
The author thanks the Bundesanstalt für Gewasser-
kunde (Germany) for providing the discharge and
suspended sediment data.
References
Blalock, J.R., 1981. Social statistics, McGraw-Hill, Singapore.
Bundesanstalt für Gewässerkunde, 1987. Schwebstofftransport in
den Bundeswasserstrab en (Übersicht). Bundesanstalt für
Gewässerkunde, Koblenz.
CHR/KHR, 1976. Das Rheingebiet: Hydrologischer Monographie.
Internationale Kommission für die Hydrologie des Rheinge-
bietes (CHR/KHR), ’s Gravenhagen.
Church, M., Gilbert, R., 1975. Proglacial fluvial and lacustrine
environments. In: A.V. Jopling and B.C. McDonald (Eds.),
Glaciofluvial and glaciolacustrine sedimentation. Society of
economic paleontologists and mineralogists. Special
Publication, 23:40–100.
Cohn, T.A., Caulder, D.L., Gilroy, E.J., Zynjuk, L.D., Summers,
R.M., 1992. The validity of a simple statistical model for esti-
mating fluvial constituent loads: an empirical study involving
247
nutrient loads entering Chesapeake Bay. Water Resources
Research 28, 2353–2363.
Deutscher Verband für Wasserwirtschaft und Kulturbau (DVWK),
1986. Regeln zur Wasserwirtschaft, Schwebstoffmessungen.
Regeln zur Wasserwirtschaft, 125.
Fenn, C.R., Gurnell, A.M., Beecroft, I.R., 1985. An evaluation of
the use of suspended sediment rating curves for the prediction of
suspended sediment concentration in a proglacial stream.
Geografiska Annaler 67A, 71–82.
Ferguson, R.I., 1986. River loads underestimated by rating curves.
Water Resources Research 22, 74–76.
Ferguson, R.I., 1987. Accuracy and precision of methods for esti-
mating river loads. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 12,
95–104.
von Hinrich, H., 1974. Schwebstoffgehalt, Gebietsniederschlag,
Abfluß und Schwebstofffracht der Ems bei Rheine und Versen
in den Jahren 1965 bis 1971. Deutsche Gewässerkundliche
Mitteilungen 18, 85–95.
Jansson, M., 1985. A comparison of detransformed logarithmic
regressions and power function regressions. Geografiska
Annaler 67A, 61–70.
Kern, U., 1997. Transport von Schweb- und Schadstoffen in
staugeregelten Fließgewässern am Beispiel des Neckars.
Mitteilungen Institut für Wasserbau, Universität Stuttgart, Stutt-
gart, Germany.
Kesel, R.H., 1989. The role of the Mississippi River in wetland loss
in Southeastern Louisiana, USA. Environmental Geology and
Water Sciences 13, 183–193.
Lozowski, E.P., Charlton, R.B., Nguyen, C.D., Wilson, J.D., 1989.
The use of cumulative monthly mean temperature anomalies in
the analysis of local interannual climate variability. Journal of
Climate 2, 1059–1068.
Morgan, R.P.C., 1995. Soil erosion and conservation, 2nd ed.
Longman, London.
Mossa, J., 1989. Hysteresis and nonlinearity of discharge-sediment
relationships in the Atchafalaya and lower Mississippi. Sedi-
ment and the environment (Baltimore symposium, May 1989).
IAHS publication, Wallingford, 184, 105–112.
Nash, J.E., Sutcliffe, J.V., 1970. River flow forecasting through
conceptual models. Part I. A discussion of principles. Journal
of Hydrology 10, 282–290.
Nordin, C.F., Sabol, G.V., 1973. Estimating average sediment yield
from annual streamflow and sediment records. International
association for hydraulic research, international symposium on
river mechanics. Bangkok, Thailand, pp. 93–104.
Peters-Kümmerly, B.E., 1973. Untersuchungen über Zusammenset-
zung und Transport von Schwebstoffen in einigen Schweizer
Flüssen. Geographica Helvetica 28, 137–151.
Rannie, W.F., 1978. An approach to the prediction of suspended
sediment rating curves. In: Davidson-Arnott, R., Nickling, W.
(Eds.), Research in fluvial systems. Geoabstracts, Norwich,
pp. 149–167.
Sarma, J.N., 1986. Sediment transport in the Burhi Dihing River,
India. In: Hadley, R.F. (Ed.). Drainage basin sediment delivery,
IAHS publication 159, pp. 199–215.
Schulte, A., 1995. Hochwasserabfluß, Sedimenttransport und Gerin-
nebettgestaltung an der Elsenz im Kraichgau. Heidelberger
248 N.E.M. Asselman / Journal of Hydrology 234 (2000) 228–248
Geographische Arbeiten 98. Universität Heidelberg,
Heidelberg, Germany.
Singh, K.P., Durgunoglu, A., 1989. Developing accurate and reli-
able stream sediment yields. Sediment and the environment,
IAHS publication, Wallingford, 184 (Proceedings of the Balti-
more symposium, May 1989: pp. 193–199).
Thomas, R.B., 1988. Monitoring baseline suspended sediment in
forested basins: the effects of sampling on suspended sediment
rating curves. Hydrological sciences Journal 33, 499–514.
Walling, D.E., 1974. Suspended sediment and solute yields from a
small catchment prior to urbanization. In: Gregory, K.J., Walling,
D.E. (Eds.). Fluvial processes in instrumented watersheds, Insti-
tute of British geographers special publication, 6, pp. 169–192.
Walling, D.E., 1977a. Limitations of the rating curve technique for
estimating suspended sediment loads, with particular reference
to British rivers. Erosion and solid matter transport in inland
waters. IAHS publication, Wallingford, 122, 34–48 (proceed-
ings of the Paris symposium, July 1977).
Walling, D.E., 1977b. Assessing the accuracy of suspended sedi-
ment rating curves for a small basin. Water Resources Research
13, 531–538.
Walling, D.E., 1978. Suspended sediment and solute response char-
acteristics of the river Exe, Devon, England. In: Davidson-
Arnott R., Nickling W. (Eds.), Research in fluvial systems.
Geoabstracts, Norwich, pp. 169–197.
Webb, B.W., Walling, D.E., 1984. Magnitude and frequency char-
acteristics of suspended sediment transport in Devon rivers. In:
Burt T.P., Walling D.E. (Eds.), Catchment experiments in
fluvial geomorphology. Geobooks, Norwich, pp. 399–415.
Webster, R., McBratney, A.B., 1989. On the Akaike information
criterion for choosing models for variograms of soil properties.
Journal of Soil Science 40, 493–496.