With regard to the choice between different methods of back water computation, the

analytical solution is applicable only to cases which are so schematic that they will
not be used in any practical cases where an accurate solution is required. It is of
course very convenient for making qualitative computations such as an estimate of
the distance over which the effect of modification in a river will be felt.
Graphical methods are more generally applicable and many different forms
exist, only one of which has been shown. In realistic situations, where for example
the cross-section has an irregular form, any graphical method will be very laborious.
The same applies to numerical methods, applied by hand. However, using a small
desk-top or pocket calculator, they may be at least comparable to graphical methods
in their accuracy and the amount of work to be done. The choice is mainly a matter
of taste and convenience.
For accurate backwater computations a numerical method using a computer,
such as the standard-step method, is preferred. Questions of stability and accuracy
can be solved quite satisfactorily (Subsection 2.2.5). Many backwater programs have
the feature of an automatic step-size adjustment in order to control numerical
accuracy (techniques are described, for example, by Ralston(1965))
Boundary conditions should be supplied at the correct locations. i.e. at the
downstream boundary for sub-critical flow and at the upstream boundary for super-
critical flow. If this rule is not observed, accurate solutions will generally be
impossible as very slight deviations in the boundary value, if supplied at this wrong
end, may result in very large changes in the backwater curve.
Difficult problems arise if the flow changes from super-critical to sub-critical
within the region considered. This will be accompanied by the occurrence of a
hydraulic jump, the location and magnitude of which have to be determined by using
the jump conditions of Part 2: Subsection 2.2.6. Similar corrections are required for
the (continuous) transition from sub-critical to super-critical flow/ A general
computer method for backwater curves, talking all these possibilities into account,
will therefore be quite complicated.
In the preceding discussion it has been assumed that no energy is lost except
by bottom friction. However, additional energy losses may be caused by the uniform
flow pattern in bends, weirs or local constrictions. Semi-empirical relations for many
of these situations have been determined (e.g. Idelcik, 1965). They generally have
the form

2.2.4 Discussion and
practical aspects

Where

is the total head and subscripts 1 and 2 denote downstream

and upstream sections. U is the velocity at the specified location of the obstruct and
is an empirical coefficient. These effects have to be added separately te backwater
computation as internal boundaries, i.e. the computation proceed normally up to a
point of energy loss, then the loss is included separately, rest in an upstream water
level which serves as a boundary condition for the remain of the backwater curve.
Similar difficulties occur when a bifurcation of a river is investigated (see
Fig. 4/2.4). The total discharge

is known, the ratio in which it is distributed over

the two branches, however, is not. This ratio is determined using the fa that only one
water level energy level can be present at point C. Assuming the stage-discharge
relationships are known at points A and B, these are denm

)
Then an arbitrary estimate of

results in boundary values

and

from which
backwater curves can be determined in the two branches up to point. This will
generally result in two different values

()
and

()
ater level at point C. By
means of a trial-and-error procedure the estimate of

Now be modified until the computed water levels (energy levels) at point C coincide.
This procedure need not be mere guess-work as an estimate of the correction to be
applied to

can be obtained from the approximate relations

()

) +

()

) +

Fig. 4/2.4 Example of
backwater curves at
bifurcation point. Also
shown is the effect of a
partial narrowing of the
downstream branches
(dashed lines)
Where effects of non-uniformity have been neglected ( F < 1 ) and the right-hand
members are taken at some representative depth. Note that these formulae are
not applied to actually compute

()
and

()
, only to estimate the effect of a
change in

. The two values should coincide if

is replaced by

and
correspondingly

by

)
(

)
(

Linearizing (assuming to be small) this becomes

Or

()

()

(2.2-10)
Of course this is only an estimate, so by introducing this the two new values for

at C will again be different. The process is therefore repeated iteratively until the
two values agree within some specified accuracy. Afterwards it is possible to
proceed to the upstream branch 3. In Fig. 4/2.4 an example of the result of such a
computation is presented. Similar methods can be used to treat the case of a river
which divides into two branches over a limited distance, for instance.
In this subsection two questions are considered, namely the numerical stability and
accuracy of backwater computations proceeds. If, in the case of sub-critical flow, the
backwater curve is determined from an up-stream boundary, the curve will be
extremely sensitive to small changes in the boundary value whichever method of
solution is used (physical also called inherent instability). However, even if the
computation is carried out in the correct direction, a form of numerical instability
associated with the amplification of numerical errors may occur.
Assume that at

an error

occurs (by rounding off or by an iteration

process which has not fully converged). What then will the error

at the next stage

be (see Fig. 4/2.3)? for the explicit method (Eq. (2.2-7)),

)
(

)
2.2.5 Numerical aspects of
backwater computations
Assuming sub-critical flow and assuming

to be small. Here

indicates the
pastial derivative respect to h. Therefore, if the correct values

and

satisfy
Eq (2.2-7), the equation for the error propagation becomes

This means that the magnitude |

| of the error at the point

will be larger than

that at point

unless
0 <

< 2.
If this condition is violated the error will grow at each step; this called numerical instability.
From part 2: Eq. (2.2-26) it can be derived that

is positive for mild slopes and negative

for steep slopes. Therefore the method will always be unstable for steep slopes. This must be
considered as an inherent (physical) instability, however. As shown in Fig. 2/2.11, the sub-
critical branch

tends to a vertical slope. If any error is present at a downstream point it

will be magnified when the critical depth is approached. On the other hand, for mild slopes,
Eq. (2.2-12) shows that the computation will be stable only if the step size

is restricted,
which is the main disadvantage of the explicit method.
For the implicit method (Eq. (2.2-8) the error propafation is determined by

((

) (

((

Assuming that the true values

and

satisfy the difference equation (2.2-8),

subtraction of the latter gives approximately

Or, assuming

to be approximately constant,

As

is positive for mild slopes, this case yields

|

| so |

| |

|
So the error does not grow and the method is stable. For steep slopes the error will
always grow so the method will be unstable for the same reason as in the explicit
case. It is seen that there is no restriction on the step size in the case of the implicit
method with mild slope; this advantage offsets the additional work required for the
implicit method. This does not mean, however, that an arbitrarily large step size can
be chosen, as the accuracy is also involved. A much more complete error-analysis is
given by McBean and Perkins (1970).
Apart from the different stability properties the explicit and implicit methods
also show differences in accuracy. By forming a Taylor series of

with respect to

, Eq. (2.2-7) yields

( )
Therefore, if a very small

is chosen, the correct differential equation is

approached and the difference equation (2.2-7) is consistent. Since the error (called
the truncation error) depends on the first power of

, the explicit method is said to

have first order accuracy. Note that the error is also determined by

,
associated with the curvature of the computed water surface. Further it should be
noted that the truncation error, which is the error in the equation, does not generally
reflect the error in the solution. However, in many cases the two errors are related
(Ralston,1965).
For the implicit equation (2.2-8) a Taylor series with respect to

yields

( )

So in this case the truncation errors is of second order. It may therefore be expected
that the implicit method will generally be considerably more accurate. This is
illustrated in Fig. 4/2.5 for a simple example.
There is, however, a much more important source of error, namely the in-
accuracy of the data. As shown by McBean and Perkins (1970), uncertainties in the
discharge, bottom slope or bottom roughness introduce errors which are generally
much larger than the numerical errors discussed above. This too is shown in Fig.
4/2.5.









Therefore as long as reasonable steps x are taken, the numerical accuracy will
usually be superior to the accuracy the data. Only if the computation is carried out in
downstream direction (instead of upstream as required for sub-critical flow) can the
numerical error growth be serious (McBean and Perkins, 1970). This of course
corresponds to the fact that control is possible only at downstream sections for sub-
critical flow.
If more than one bifurcation or junction occurs in the river system, so that it becomes
a network of channels, the distribution of discharge is no longer known and it has to
be determined, together with the water levels. This can be done conveniently only
with the aid of a computer. Referring to Fig. 4/2.6, the system of river branches is
divided into nodes and branches.




Nodes are placed at bifurcations or junctions and also at intermediate points if this is
necessary for a good representation of the backwater effect. Each branch (between
two nodes) can be considered as one step x in the backwater computation. A
difference approximation of Part 2: Eq. (2.2-21) for a branch k between nodes i and
j reads
(

) (

(2.2-14)
Where

and

are the discharge and the length of branch k respectively and the
hydraulic properties of that branch are determined at the mean depth

).
The difference in velocity head between the two nodes has been neglected her; this
amounts to the assumption that F <1. This is, however, not an essential assumption:
Fig. 4/2.5 Accuracy of
backwater curves
2.2.6 Networks and two -
dimensional flow
Fig. 4/2.6 Network of
river branches
the method can be generalized although it then becomes somewhat more
complicated. An equation like Eq. (2.2-14) can be written for each branch. At each
node j the continuity requirement gives

()

Where the summation extends over all branches meeting at node j. Thus, including
the boundary conditions, a complete system of equations is available,
A convenient way to solve them ( related to the Hardy Cross method) is
obtained by defining meshes as closed loops or open loops between two boundary
conditions (see Fig. 4/2.6). adding Eqs (2.2-14) around all branches of a mesh,
continuity of the water level gives

(2.2-15)
Where

= 0 for closed meshes or, in the case of open meshes, equals the difference
between the boundary values of water level.
Assume that an initial approximation

()
of the discharge is known,
satisflying continuity at each node. Then in each mesh n a correction

is applied
such that Eq. (2.2-15) is satisfied. Continuity will still be satisfied as the correction
will occur twice at each node: once entering and once leaving that node. Now it is
desire that

(

()

)|

()

Linearizing with respect to

,

()
|

()
|

(
|

()
|

(2.2-16)
By introducing this corrected value into Eq. (2.2-15), the equation will still not be
satisfied, firstly because the correction is an approximation only, and secondly
because corrections from other meshes will introduce new disturbances. The solution
will be approached by repeating the procedure as an iterative process.
It has been assumed here the factor

is a constant. Usually,
however, it depends on the water level. Therefore, after a number of iterations have
been executed the factor has to be recalculated, after which the iteration can be
continued.
Particularly for large networks a number of practical problems are
encountered when using this method. For instance the choice of the meshes, which is
not unique, has a marked influence on the convergence of the process. For further
details reference is made to specialized literature (travers, 1967 ; Vreugdenhill,
1937a)
An additional complication occurring in river systems is the flooding
complication occurring in river systems is the flooding of flood plains. Setting up
mathematical models for such situations is essentially more complicated than in the
preceding cases because the flow will be two-dimensional: the direction of flow has
to be determined in addition to its magnitude. Mathematically the problem is of an
elliptic nature (see also Part 2: subsection 2.28). for this type of problem powerful
numerical methods have been developed (Young and Frank, 1963). Usually they are
iterative methods, but often they can also be considered as computations of non-
steady flow approaching steady conditions. Each iteration is then equivalent to one
time step.
The application of these methods is hampered by the occurrence of
irregularities in the flow region, such as dikes and obstructions. Sometimes flow is
largely determined by these geometrical properties and it is possible to make a
reasonable guess at the streamlines before computing the whole flow pattern.
Based on this observation van Bendegom (1947) proposed a trial and error
method to determine the flow pattern in a river. RWS (1969) extended the method to
a semi-automated version which takes forelands, cross-dikes, etc. into account.









Fig. 4/2.7 Stream-lane
computaion
The method is based on the concept of stream lanes bounded by streamlines; no
water is exchanged laterally between stream lanes (see Fig. 4/2.7). the stream lanes
meet each other in nodes, for example at a point where the forelands join the minor
river bed. The system of lanes is defined manually. The resulting stream system is a
network of one-dimensional channels, just as discussed above, and the flow
distribution and water levels can therefore be determined in a similar manner.
Resistance of cross-dikes is taken into account, the angle of approach of the flow
being known, those parts of the streamlines which are not fixed geometrically have
to be adjusted because their estimated positions are usually not correct. This is done
by drawing lines of equal water level which must be (approximately) continuo
Us across the different stream lanes. If they are not, the pattern is rearranged. It is
claimed that with some experience only a few iteration are required. As an example a
stream lane a stream lane computation for the Nederrijn below Arnhem is illustrated
in Fig. 4/2.7