How to Design Bendway Weirs

Project Background
• U.S. Bureau of Reclamation: Middle
Rio Grande Channel Maintenance
Program
– 29-Mile Study Reach: Cochiti Dam to Bernalillo
– Geomorphic Changes Due to Dam Construction
– Meandering Threatening Critical Riverside
Facilities
– Two Endangered Species and Degrading Habitat
– Employ Native Material and Rock Weir
Techniques
Project Background
 Project Background
• Physical Hydraulic Model Study
– Determine Design Criteria for Native
Material and Rock Weir Structures
• Bendway Weirs

• W-Weir, V-Weirs

• J-Hooks

• Root Wads
 Study Objectives
• Collect Empirical Data to Describe the Flow in
Bends

• Collect Empirical Data in an Effort to Quantify

the Performance of Bendway Weirs While Varying
Geometric Parameters

• Determine an Optimal Spacing for Bendway Weir

Design

• Develop Design Criteria Applicable to Bends of

Varying Geometry
 Physical Model

Characteristic Prototype Model Scale Factor

(1/6)
Manning's' Roughness, n 0.027 0.018 LR
3 (5/2)
Design Flow (ft /sec) 6000 12 LR
Bend Type 1 Bottom Width (ft) 122 10.17 LR
Bend Type 1 Radius of Curvature (ft) 465 38.75 LR
Bend Type 3 Bottom Width (ft) 72 6 LR
Bend Type 3 Radius of Curvature (ft) 790 65.8 LR
Bed Slope (ft/ft) 0.000863 0.000863 1
Model Construction
Model Construction
Model Construction
 Instrumentation
• Mobile Instrumentation Cart w/ Standard Point
Gage
• 122 Piezometer Taps and Stilling Wells
• 3-D ADV Meter
• Preston Tube
 Baseline Data Collection
• Model Flows 8, 12, 16, and 20 cfs
• Measurements Collected Over Each Piezometer
Tap
– WSE Using Piezometer Taps 60.001 ft
– 3-D Velocity Profiles at 10% Depths
– Preston Tube Shear
 Baseline Data Analysis

• Water Surface Super Elevation

– DZ = WSEX – WSED

• Velocity
– Vector Mapping of 3-D Velocities
• Plan View
• Cross Section: Helical Flow
• Shear Stress
– Contour Mapping
– Cross Section Distribution vs 1-D Model Output
– Turbulence Stresses
 Super Elevation 16cfs
Left Bank Piezo A Piezo B Piezo C

0.020
0.015
0.010 Downstream Bend
∆Ζ (ft)

0.005
0.000
-0.005
-0.010 Upstream Bend
-0.015
-0.020
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Cross Section

Super Elevation 16cfs

Piezo E Piezo F Piezo G
Right Bank
0.020
0.015
0.010 Upstream Bend
∆Ζ (ft)

0.005
0.000
-0.005
-0.010 Downstream Bend
-0.015
-0.020
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Cross Section
 18 16cfs Downstream Bend

17

16
2.4 Cross Section 18
2.3
2.2
2.1
2
Velocity (ft/s)

1.9
1.8
1.7
1.6
1.5
1.4 Cross Section 17
1.3
1.2
1.1
1
0.9

Cross Section 16

0.28 0.24 0.2 0.16 0.12 0.08 0.04 0

Flow

Lateral Velocity (ft/s)

Flow Direction

Boundary Shear Stress Distribution

XSEC 6, 16cfs

0.000 0.000
0.004 Outer Bank -0.010
0 0.008 -0.020
0.004 0.012 -0.030
0.008 0.016 -0.040
Boundary Shear Stress

0.012 0.020 -0.050

το

0.016 0.024 -0.060

(psf)

0.02 0.028 -0.070

0.024 0.032 -0.080
0.028 0.036 -0.090
0.032 0.040 -0.100
0.036 0 4 8 12 16 20
0.04 Station (ft)
 Flow Direction

Boundary Shear Stress Distribution

XSEC 10, 16cfs
0.00 0.0000

- 0.0100
0.01 Outer Bank
- 0.0200

0.02 - 0.0300

- 0.0400
0.03
τ ο (psf)

- 0.0500
0.04
- 0.0600

0.05 - 0.0700 0
0.005
- 0.0800
0.06 0.01
- 0.0900 0.015

0.07 - 0.1000 0.02

0 3 6 9 12 15 0.025
0.03
Station (ft) 0.035
0.04
0.045
0.05
0.055
0.06
0.065
Bendway Weirs

• Height
• Length
• Orientation Angle
• Spacing Ratio
 Literature Review
• United Nations (1953)
• Indian Central Board of Irrigation and Power (1971)
• Richardson (1975)
• USACE (1980)
• Copeland (1983)
• Brown (1985)
• Maza Alvarez (1989)
• Derrick (1994 & 1998)
• Przedwojski (1995)
• Lagasse (1997)
• Lagrone (1998)
• Smith (1998)
• Heintz (2002)
 Literature Review: Weir Spacing
Recommended Type of
Author Remarks
Spacing Ratio Bank
1 Concave General Practice
United Nations (1953)
2-2.5 Convex General Practice
4.29 Straight
Ahmad (1951)
~5 Curves
Joglekar (1971) 2-2.5 Upstream Groynes
US Army (1984a) 2 Mississippi River
Mathes (1956) 1.5
Strom (1962) 3-5
Varies depending on curvature
3-4
Acheson (1968) and stream slope
2-6 For bank protection
Richardson et al. (1975) T-head groynes for navigation
3-4
channels
Mamak (1956) 1.5-2 Deep channel for navigation
Blench et al. (1976) 3.5
Copeland (1983) >3 Concave
Kovacs el al. (1983) 1-2 Danube River
Submerged groynes of height one-
Mohan and Agraval (1979) 5
third the depth
5.1-6.3 Straight Sloping crested weirs for bank
Maza Alvarez (1989)
protection
2.5-4 Curves

Weir Crest
Flow

Lproj,w

LLarc
arc
 Literature Review: Weir Length
Author Suggested Length
"Start with a shorter length and extend the groynes after space between them has
United Nations (1953)
been silted up"

ICBIP (1971): No rules apply, build models to determine appropriated length

Richardson (1975) 50 feet or less

USACE (1980) Should be set at the desired constriction width of channel for navigation purposes

Brown (1985) Less Than 15% of bankfull channel width for impermeable structures

Maza Alvarez (1989) Less than 25% of bankfull channel width

Lagasse (1997) Less than 33% of bankfull channel width

Derrick (1998) Site-Specific Basis, engineering judgment

LaGrone (1998) 16.67%, not a design guideline but a site specific design

Channel Top Width

Flow

Lproj,cw

Weir Crest
 Literature Review: Orientation Angle
Author Range of Angles Suggested Angle
Brown (1985) 30-150 150 decreasing to 90
Copeland (1983) 60-120 90
Derrick (1994) 45-80 60
Indian Central Board of
60-80
Irrigation and Power (1965):
Lagasse (1997) 50-85 60
Mamak (1964): (Copeland
70-80
Literature Review)
Maza Alvarez (1989) 110
Richardson (1975) 60-150 70-80
Smith (1998) 60-75
United Nations (1953) 60-80
USACE (1980) 100-105

Flow

Weir Crest
θ

Line Tangent to Bank

 Literature Review:
Conclusions

• Design criteria are largely based upon engineering

judgment and field experiences

• Typically, design criteria do not quantitatively

explain changes in flow conditions due to bendway weir
installations

• Cumulative effects of changing weir spacing, length,

and angle are uncertain
 Bendway Weirs: Design Review

• Weir Height
– At or just below the bankfull or channel forming flow
depth
• Weir Length
– 15 – 30% of the top width
– Length perpendicular to the bank
• Weir Orientation Angle
– Pointing upstream or perpendicular to the bank: 60 – 90
degree angle
• Spacing
– Ratio between spacing and length, spacing ratio = 1 – 6.3
 Test Matrix
Number of
Test Variable Variation Values
Variations
Discharge (cfs) 3 8, 12, 16
Spacing Ratio 4 3.4, 4.1, 5.9, 7.6
Weir Length 3 15%, 22%, 28%
Orientation Angle 2 90, 60

• 72 tests examining weir length, angle, and spacing

• 18 (and counting) supplemental tests, examining weir
spacing
• Over 90 tests in all
Data Collection
Data Collection
 Data Analysis

• MVR Regression Analysis

• Dimensional Analysis

• MVRout, MVRin, and MVRcenter Prediction Methods

MaxVa
MVRa =
MaxVCenterBase
 Preliminary MVR Analysis
Outer Bank Maximum Total Velocity Ratio
1.0
0.9 16cfs
0.8
12cfs
0.7
0.6 8cfs Upstream
MVRout

0.5 8cfs Downstream

0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Spacing Ratio

MaxVa
MVRa =
MaxVCenterBase
 Preliminary MVR Analysis
Outer Bank Maximum Velocity Ratio vs. Spacing Ratio,
12cfs

1.5

1.2
28%
MVRout

0.9
22%
0.6
15%
0.3

0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Spacing Ratio

• Distinct trends were observed for weirs having

varying weir characteristics
 Dimensional Analysis
Material Properties
Symbol Definition Dimensions
ρw Density of Water M/L3
νw Kinematic Viscosity of Water 2
L /T
υw Dynamic Viscosity of Water MT/L
2

Channel Properties
Symbol Definition Dimensions
So Bed Slope L/L
TWt es tflow Top Width at Test Flow L
b Base Width L
Ss Side Slope L/L
n Mannings' Roughness T/L(1/3)
y Flow Depth L
r radius of curvature L
k Conveyance L3/T
2
Ac Area of the Channel at Test Flow L

Weir Properties
Symbol Definition Dimensions
Lproj,cw Projected Length of Weir Crest L
Lcw Weir Crest Length L
Lproj,w Projected Length of Weir L
Lw Weir Length L
hw Weir Height L
Larc Arc Length Between Weirs L
θw Angle of weir with Respect to Perpendicular Transect L/L
Lperp Distance from Weir Tip Perpendicular to XS through Centerline L
2
Aw Area of weir projected on Perpendicular Transect L

External Properties
Symbol Definition Dimensions
Q Discharge L3/T
2
g Gravity L/T

MVR = f (Larc , L proj , w , y , hw , TWtestflow , L proj ,cw , Lcw , Aw , Ac )

 Dimensional Analysis
¾Buckingham’s Pi theorem (Dimensional Analysis):
Identified the following dimensionless parameters

Larc y TWtestflow
π1 = π2 = π3 =
L proj , w hweir L proj ,cw

L proj ,cw WeirArea

π4 = π5 =
Lcw TotalArea

⎛ Larc y TWtestflow L proj ,cw Aw ⎞⎟

MVR = f ⎜ , , , ,
⎜L Ac ⎟⎠
⎝ proj , w hw L proj ,cw Lcw
Data Analysis: Linear Regression
MVR = f (π 1 ,π 2 ,π 3 ,π 4 ,π 5 )

Necessary Analysis included:

• Multiple Linear Regression
• Natural Log Transformation of Intrinsically Linear
data
• Best Subsets method to determine the most
suitable regression model
• Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), contribution of
independent variables, and determination of possible
outliers
 Data Analysis: Multivariate
Linear Regression (MVR Out)
Trial # Vars R-Sq Adj. R-Sq C-p s π1 π2 π3 π4 π5
1 1 38.6 37.4 62.9 0.413 X
2 1 35.0 33.7 69.5 0.425 X
3 1 28.5 27.1 81.4 0.446 X
4 1 1.3 0.0 131.5 0.524 X
5 1 1.0 0.0 132.0 0.524 X
6 2 68.0 66.8 10.8 0.301 X X
7 2 66.4 65.1 13.7 0.308 X X
8 2 45.6 43.4 52.1 0.393 X X
9 2 43.6 41.4 55.7 0.400 X X
10 2 39.0 36.6 64.3 0.416 X X
11 3 73.3 71.7 3.2 0.278 X X X
12 3 70.2 68.4 8.8 0.294 X X X
13 3 68.6 66.8 11.7 0.301 X X X
14 3 68.0 66.1 12.8 0.304 X X X
15 3 66.4 64.4 15.7 0.311 X X X
16 4 73.7 71.6 4.4 0.278 X X X X
17 4 73.3 71.1 5.2 0.281 X X X X
18 4 70.2 67.8 10.8 0.296 X X X X
19 4 68.7 66.2 13.5 0.304 X X X X
20 4 54.7 51.0 39.3 0.365 X X X X
21 5 73.9 71.2 6.0 0.280 X X X X X
 Weir Variables

• Weir Height
• Design Flow 12cfs
• Height of Weirs Equal to 12cfs Measured Depth
Orientation Angle
• Varying angle to bank
• Crest Width
• Set at 1ft
 Weir Variables: Spacing

• Spacing Ratio Measurement

S = Larc/Lw

• Spacing Ratio: 3.4 - 8.4

Weir Crest
Flow

Lproj,w

LLarc
arc
 Weir Variables: Orientation Angle

Flow

Weir Crest
θ

Channel Top Width

Line Tangent to Bank

Flow

Lproj,cw

Weir Crest
 Data Analysis: Multivariate
Linear Regression
0.899
⎛ L arc ⎞
2.35
⎛ L proj , cw ⎞
⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟
⎜L ⎟ ⎜ L ⎟
⎝ proj , w ⎠ ⎝ cw ⎠
MVRout = 0.019 0.859
⎛ Aw ⎞
⎜⎜ ⎟⎟
⎝ Ac ⎠
0.160
⎛ L arc ⎞
0.567 0.160
⎛ L proj , cw ⎞ ⎛ Aw ⎞
MVR center = 1.350⎜ ⎟ ⎜
⎜ L
⎟
⎟
⎜⎜ ⎟⎟
⎜L ⎟
⎝ proj , w ⎠ ⎝ cw ⎠ ⎝ Ac ⎠

0.700 0.153
⎛ L proj ,cw ⎞ ⎛ Aw ⎞
⎜ ⎟ ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟
⎜ L ⎟
⎝ cw ⎠ ⎝ Ac ⎠
MVRin = 2.153 0.109
⎛ Larc ⎞
⎜ ⎟
⎜L ⎟
⎝ proj , w ⎠
 Data Analysis: Multivariate
Linear Regression (MVR Out)
MVRout:: Observed vs. Predicted

1.2

0.8
Observed MVR out

0.4

Test Data
Ideal Fit

0.0
0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2
Predicted MVRout

0.899
⎛ L arc ⎞
2.35
⎛ L proj ,cw ⎞
⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟
⎜L ⎟ ⎜ L ⎟ Error = Observed MVR – Predicted MVR
⎝ proj , w ⎠ ⎝ cw ⎠
MVRout = 0.019
⎛ Aw ⎞
0.859
Average Error = 0.01
⎜⎜ ⎟⎟
⎝ Ac ⎠ Average Absolute Error = 0.07
 Data Analysis: Multivariate
Linear Regression (MVR Center)
MVRcenter: Observed vs. Predicted

1.8

1.6
center
Observed MVR

1.4

1.2

Test Data
Ideal Fit

1.0
1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
Predicted MVRcenter

0.160
⎛ L arc ⎞
0.567
Average Error = 0.00
0.160
⎛ L proj , cw ⎞ ⎛ Aw ⎞
MVR center = 1.350⎜ ⎟ ⎜
⎜ L
⎟
⎟
⎜⎜ ⎟⎟
⎜L ⎟ Average Absolute Error = 0.07
⎝ proj , w ⎠ ⎝ cw ⎠ ⎝ Ac ⎠
 Data Analysis: Multivariate
Linear Regression (MVR In)
MVRin : Observed vs. Predicted

1.8

1.6
Observed MVR in

1.4

1.2

1.0
Test Data
Ideal Fit

0.8
0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
0.700 0.153
⎛ L proj ,cw ⎞ ⎛ Aw ⎞
Predicted MVRin

⎜ ⎟ ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟
⎜ L ⎟
⎝ cw ⎠ ⎝ Ac ⎠
MVRin = 2.153 0.109
Average Error = 0.00
⎛ Larc ⎞
⎜ ⎟ Average Absolute Error = 0.05
⎜L ⎟
⎝ proj , w ⎠
 Data Analysis: Multivariate
Linear Regression (Summary)
Larc L proj ,cw WeirArea
π1 = π4 = π5 =
L proj , w Lcw TotalArea
π 10.899π 42.35
MVRout = 0.019 •
π 50.859

MVRcenter = 1.350π 10.160π 40.567π 50.160

π 40.700π 50.153
MVRin = 2.153
π 10.109
 Design Example: Site Selection

Middle Rio Grande:

• 10 miles downstream of
Cochiti Dam

Southwestern Willow
0 2000’ Flycatcher
 Design Example: Site Selection

• 2001 Aerial Photograph

• Bend Properties:
• rc = 578’
rc
• Channel Top Width = 188.5’
• Channel Length = 1090’

• rc/TW = 3.07

0 2000’
 Design Example: Site Selection
Bend Properties:
¾ rc = 578’
¾ Channel Top Width = 188.5’
¾ Channel Length = 1090’
¾ rc/TW = 3.07

Radius of Relative
Bend Type Top Width Curvature Curvature Rc
(ft) (ft) dimensionless
1 230.4 465 2.02
3 180 789.96 4.39
 Design Example: Design Channel
Design Channel Properties:
• Base Width = 80’
• Design Top Width = 134.2’
• Side Slope = 3:1 (H:V)
• Design Flow = 6000 cfs
• n = 0.027
• Bed Slope = 0.000863

1.486 2 1
Q= 3
AR S 2 Flow depth = 9.24 ft
n

Q = VA Velocity = 6.0 ft/sec

 Design Example: Baseline Conditions

• Estimated Centerline Maximum baseline velocity = 6.0

ft/sec
• Estimated Outer Bank Maximum baseline velocity =
(1.1)*(6.0 ft/s) = 6.62 ft/sec
• From Sediment Transport Analysis a 60 % reduction
of baseline conditions is desired
• Desired Outer Bank Velocity = 2.65 ft/sec

MaxVout 2.65
MVRout = = = .40
MaxVCenterBase 6.00
 Design Example: Preliminary Weir Design

• Weir Design depends upon design Top Width

• Start with 3 primary weir variables:
• Weir Length, Angle, and Spacing
• Keep two variables constant, change the third to
achieve desired MVR results
Design Example: Preliminary Weir Design

• Weir Crest Length = 20%

o
• Orientation Angle = 75
• Spacing = ?
• Calculate known weir variables
Larc L proj ,cw WeirArea
π1 = π4 = π5 =
L proj , w Lcw TotalArea
Projected Length of Weir Crest (ft) 26.84
Length of Weir Crest (ft) 27.79
Length of Weir (ft) 37.03
Projected Length of Weir (ft) 35.77
Area of Channel (ft) 995.33
Projected area of Weir (ft) 161.19
 Design Example: Preliminary Weir Design

0.899
⎛ L arc ⎞
2.35
⎛ L proj ,cw ⎞
⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟
⎜L ⎟ ⎜ L ⎟
⎝ proj , w ⎠ ⎝ cw ⎠
MVRout = 0.019 0.859
⎛ Aw ⎞
⎜⎜ ⎟⎟
⎝ Ac ⎠

• Solving for arc length yields a value of 203.8 ft

• A Spacing Ratio of 5.7 results (within tested limits)
Design Example: Preliminary Weir Design

0 500
Design Example: Velocities along Other Axes
0.700 0.153
⎛ L proj ,cw ⎞ ⎛ Aw ⎞
⎜ ⎟ ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟
⎜ L ⎟
⎝ cw ⎠ ⎝ Ac ⎠
MVRin = 2.153 0.109
⎛ Larc ⎞
⎜ ⎟
⎜L ⎟
⎝ proj , w ⎠

MaxVIn
MVRIn =
MaxVCenterBase

• Solving results in MVRin = 1.32

• Solving results in a Maximum predicted inner bank
velocity of 7.89 ft/sec
• Is this acceptable?
Design Example: Velocities along Other Axes

0.160
⎛ L arc ⎞
0.567 0.160
⎛ L proj , cw ⎞ ⎛ Aw ⎞
MVR center = 1.350⎜ ⎟ ⎜
⎜ L
⎟
⎟
⎜⎜ ⎟⎟
⎜L ⎟
⎝ proj , w ⎠ ⎝ cw ⎠ ⎝ Ac ⎠

MaxVCenter
MVRCenter =
MaxVCenterBase

• Solving results in MVRcenter = 1.31

• Solving results in a Maximum predicted center
channel velocity of 7.84 = ft/sec
• Is this acceptable?
 Design Example: Examination of Sensitivity

Sensitivity of Angle
% Top Theta MaxVout
Trial # Spacing MVRout
Width (degrees) (ft/sec)
1 20 75 5.7 0.400 2.40
2 20 90 5.7 0.430 2.58

Sensitivity of Spacing
% Top Theta MaxVout
Trial #
Width (degrees)
Spacing MVRout
(ft/sec) Trial #1: Larc = 203.86’
Trial #3: Larc = 164.52’
1 20 75 5.7 0.400 2.40
3 20 75 4.6 0.329 1.97

Sensitivity of Length
% Top Theta MaxVout
Trial #
Width
Spacing MVRout Trial #1: Lproj,w = 26.84’
(degrees) (ft/sec)
1 20 75 5.7 0.400 2.40 Trial #4: Lproj,w = 33.55’
4 25 75 5.7 0.326 1.96
 Conclusions

• Regression analysis permits the prediction of

MVR’s as a function of weir characteristics.

• Solutions may be optimized for specific

project constraints/objectives.

• Design procedure is still evolving!

Questions?