PART 2:!

FLUVIAL HYDRAULICS"

HYDROEUROPE 2009 1
HYDROEUROPE 2009 2
 About shear stress!
•! Extremely complex concept, can not be measured
directly!

•! Computation is based on very primitive hypotheses

that do not consider the real structure of the flow!
•! The usual way to determine the shear stress is with
formula, valid for the entire “bulk” flow:!
!0 = g"ySf !
•! g = acceleration of gravity!
•! " = specific mass!
•! y = water depth!
•! Sf = friction slope!
HYDROEUROPE 2009 3
 Flow velocity!
•! The flow is turbulent in natural channels!

•! Hydraulic computations consider only the mean

flow velocity, and the effect of turbulence is
found in coefficients such as flow resistance and
mixing coefficients (“diffusivity”)!

•! The vertical velocity profile is determined by the

friction at the bottom and by the turbulence!

HYDROEUROPE 2009 4
 Flow velocity!
•! The formula for a vertical velocity profile is
logarithmic; this law was determined in
laboratory conditions for flow in two dimensions!

•! The shape of the velocity profile depends not only

on the bottom “roughness”, also other factors
such as spatial distribution of the currents, or
secondary currents (e.g., helical), etc...!

HYDROEUROPE 2009 5
 Flow velocity!
•! There is a theoretical relationship between the
shape of the vertical velocity profile and the shear
stress, a basic parameter for sediment transport
computations!

•! The angle between the straight regression line of

velocity versus the logarithm of the depth yields
the shear velocity V*!

HYDROEUROPE 2009 6
 Flow velocity!
Shear velocity - Loire Section Bréhémont # 2

1.80 Verticale 1 - Chenal sec.

Verticale 2
Verticale 3 y = 0.7784x - 0.3712
1.70 Verticale 4
Verticale 5
Verticale 6 y = 0.6015x - 0.0007
1.60 Verticale 1 - Chenal sec. : y = 0.3201x + 0.2352
Verticale 2 : y = 0.6015x - 0.0007
1.50 Verticale 3 : y = 0.7784x - 0.3712
Verticale 4 : y = 0.9846x - 1.102
Verticale 5 : y = 0.8693x - 0.6271
1.40 Verticale 6 : y = 0.4402x + 0.3821

1.30
y = 0.4402x + 0.3821 y = 0.9846x - 1.102
V (m/s)

1.20
V* = 0.9846 / 5.75 = 0.171 m/s!
1.10
y = 0.8693x - 0.6271
1.00

y = 0.3201x + 0.2352
0.90

V* = 0.3201 / 5.75 = 0.057 m/s!

0.80

0.70

0.60
1.40 1.50 1.60 1.70 1.80 1.90 2.00 2.10 2.20 2.30 2.40 2.50 2.60 2.70 2.80 2.90
Log H (Elevation above riverbed, in cm)

HYDROEUROPE 2009 7
 Flow velocity!
•! The shear stress is obtained by multiplying the
specific mass with the square of the shear velocity
!0 = "V*2!

•! This value of the shear velocity obtained from the

vertical velocity may be quite different from the
one calculated by the formula using the slope of
the energy grade line!

HYDROEUROPE 2009 8
 Flow resistance (not “roughness”!!!)!
•! Resistance to the flow is the result of many
processes of mechanical energy dissipation, into
heat !

•! This dissipation process depends on the friction

on the river bed and walls, but also on turbulence
and other internal processes!

•! Structure of turbulence depends on bed geometry:

bed irregularities (the ‘roughness’) and bed forms!
HYDROEUROPE 2009 9
HYDROEUROPE 2009 10
 Flow resistance!
•! In theory exists a laminar boundary layer, below the
turbulent flow, basic to the flow resistance!
•! However, this layer
does not really exist
in a natural river
flow, certainly not
when the riverbed is
mobile, with active
sediment transport!

HYDROEUROPE 2009 11
 Hydraulic slope!
•! In a natural river, the surface slope and the energy
grade line vary with changing head losses!

•! These variations are not easy to observe;

moreover there are transverse slopes!

•! Observation of local slopes may provide useful

indications for the analyses of the river behaviour!

HYDROEUROPE 2009 12
 Alluvial Rivers Hydraulics!
•! Solid transport phenomena are rather complex
and there is no one single theory, universally
accepted.!

•! Most theories were developed from laboratory

flume experiments, quite different from the
conditions encountered in the field.!

HYDROEUROPE 2009 13
 Sediment!
•! A river may carry quite diverse materials, such as
clay, sand, pebbles, rocks, trees, branches, and
other solid debris!

•! In the upper basins, sediment has usually (not

always) large dimensions, larger than in lower
reaches where sediment has rarely dimensions
coarser as gravel (Var river: coarser!)!

•! Sediment with particle sizes smaller than sand are

cohesive.!
HYDROEUROPE 2009 14
 Sediment transport mechanisms!
! About the sediment load, a distinction can be
made about the origin:!

•! Bed material load:!

! all solid material composing the riverbed!

•! Wash load: !
! solids entrained by the flow and that do not settle
to the bottom (or rarely do); it is a quality
parameter of the water!
HYDROEUROPE 2009 15
 Sediment transport mechanisms!
! About the sediment movement, a distinction can
be made about the mode of transport:!
•! Bed load transport: movement of solid particles
remaining in contact with the bed.!

•! Transport in suspension: movement of solid

particles in suspension in the water.!

•! Saltation: movement of solid particles from the

fluvial bed, which jump up to a certain altitude, to
later fall back on the bottom.!
HYDROEUROPE 2009 16
 Sediment transport mechanisms!
ISO 3716, 1977 - Liquid flow measurement in open channels
- Functional requirements and characteristics of suspended
sediment load samplers (definition of sediment loads)!

HYDROEUROPE 2009 17
 Criticism of sediment transport theories!
•! Field observations and measurements have
demonstrated how difficult it is to distinguish bed
load transport from suspended load transport!

•! Few theories allow to account for transport of

solids with a broad sediment size distribution!

•! We have proposed a new definition: the

morphological load, for all solids participating to
the changes of the riverbed morphology!
HYDROEUROPE 2009 18
 Sediment transport mechanisms!
Traditional representation of vertical distribution according to ROUSE’s law!

HYDROEUROPE 2009 19
 Sediment transport mechanisms!
But field observations have revealed in many sand-bed rivers a
progressive transition from transport on the bed to the “pure” transport
in suspension, visible not only on the gradient in transport rates (and
concentration), but also on the size distribution of the sediment!

Data from the Congo river (1971)!

HYDROEUROPE 2009 20
 Sediment transport mechanisms!
Jamuna river - Vertical 3 Jamuna river - Vertical 3

1000 1000
900 900
Elevation above bed (cm)

Elevation above bed (cm)

800 800
700 700
600 600 D35
500 500 D50
400 400 D65
300 300
200 200
100 100
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 0 100 200 300 400 500
Sand transport rate (m3/m.day) Jamuna river - Vertical 3
Sediment particle size (!m)

50.0

Similar field observations in the Jamuna!

Elevation above bed (cm)

40.0

(Brahmapoutra) river, Bangladesh 30.0 D35

(1995)! D50
20.0 D65
Detailed profile close to the bed show a
gradual decrease of the sediment size 10.0

from the bottom upwards, despite the 0.0

irregular variation in sediment transport 0 100 200 300 400 500
Sediment particle size (!m)
rate (figure above)!
HYDROEUROPE 2009 21
 Sediment transport mechanisms!
Field data Loire river show similar behaviour (Bréhémont, France, March 2007)!
SEDIMENT SIZES BREHEMONT SECTION # 20 - D50 ALL VERTICALS

250

200
ELEVATION ABOVE RIVERBED (cm)

150
V4
V3
V2
100 V1

50 Limit morphological load

0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
D50 (microns)

HYDROEUROPE 2009 22
 Sediment transport mechanisms!
The spatial distribution in cross-sections, different for the various size fractions, had
also been observed in the Mississippi, USA!
Distances (m)

Depth (m)

Fraction coarser
than 0.063 mm

Fraction coarser
than 0.063 mm
(Source Meade, 1985)
HYDROEUROPE 2009 23
 Mobile bed flow resistance!
•! Our present understanding of bed forms is rather
limited, based chiefly on laboratory flume
experiments!

•! Bed forms change continuously, depending on the

hydraulic conditions, but also on the difference
between solid transport capacity and sediment
transport rate!

HYDROEUROPE 2009 24
 Mobile bed flow resistance!
•! A classification was established in Fort Collins
(USA, in the fifties and sixties).!

•! Field studies have demonstrated the limits of

these theories.!

•! There are no satisfactory theoretical formulas to

predict the bed forms and/or the flow resistance in
alluvial rivers.!

HYDROEUROPE 2009 25
 Mobile bed flow resistance!

HYDROEUROPE 2009 26
 Mobile bed flow resistance!
•! Relation between the bed
form, the power of the flow
per unit area and the mean
particle fall diameter of the
solid particles!

•! Ripples do not exist for

particles smaller than 0.65 mm!

HYDROEUROPE 2009 27
 Mobile bed flow resistance!

•! Flow resistance increases in the lower flow regime, from

the ripples to the dunes!
•! Flow resistance drops in the transition!
•! Flow resistance increases again in the upper flow regime!

HYDROEUROPE 2009 28
 Mobile bed flow resistance!

•! Antidunes in Pirai river, with supercritical flow, in a

narrow channel between the bank and a central bar.!

•! Antidunes would not appear for a flow which Froude

number is lower than 0.8.!
HYDROEUROPE 2009 29
 Mobile bed flow resistance!
An antidune may remain in place,
be stable, or move in upstream or
in downstream direction.
The photograph shows a breaking
antidune.

HYDROEUROPE 2009 30
 Mobile bed features!
•! There are today very effective technologies to
observe bed forms!

•! The multibeam echosounding system, combined

with GPS positioning, allows accurate
measurements of the underwater riverbed
topography (bathymetric surveys) and LIDAR
airborne laser surveys for the dry parts
(topographic surveys)!

HYDROEUROPE 2009 31
Multibeam soundings in depth contours and dunes revealed by shading

500 m
Bathymetric surveys in Scheldt estuary !
HYDROEUROPE 2009 32
 GENERAL CONCLUSIONS!
•! The challenging morphological problems that
need to be solved in many rivers require new
approaches, as it becomes more and more clear
that numerical modelling can not alone give the
answers!
•! Field surveys: today, we have efficient
technologies for measuring in detail and very
accurately the flow velocities, river discharges
and and riverbed topo-bathymetry!
•! We still miss them for sediment transport!
HYDROEUROPE 2009 33
 GENERAL CONCLUSIONS!
•! The role of scale models in the problem solving
has been underestimated and neglected (it is not
“fashion” any more …) but these tools are very
good for part of the analysis of river behaviour!
•! Expertise: what is even more neglected is the
pure visual observation and analysis of charts,
maps and written documents, as well as the
knowledge of people (experts, especially locals)!
•! Students need to be motivated for the field and
possibly also for scale modelling!
HYDROEUROPE 2009 34