chapter 9: relations for hydraulic resistance in rivers
Post on 24-Feb-2016
44 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
1
1D SEDIMENT TRANSPORT MORPHODYNAMICSwith applications to
RIVERS AND TURBIDITY CURRENTS© Gary Parker November, 2004
CHAPTER 9:RELATIONS FOR HYDRAULIC RESISTANCE IN RIVERS
Dunes in the Mississippi River, New Orleans, USA
Image from LUMCON web page:http://
weather.lumcon.edu/weatherdata/audubon/map.html
Dunes on an exposed point bar in the meandering Fly River,
Papua New Guinea
Sediment transport often creates bedforms such as dunes. These bedforms are accompanied by form drag, and so reduce the ability of the flow to transport sediment.
2
1D SEDIMENT TRANSPORT MORPHODYNAMICSwith applications to
RIVERS AND TURBIDITY CURRENTS© Gary Parker November, 2004
SKIN FRICTION AND FORM DRAG: THE CONCEPTSThe drag force acting on a body can be decomposed into skin friction and form drag. The former is generated by the viscous shear stress acting tangentially to the body. The latter is generated by the normal stress (mostly pressure) acting on a body. The Newtonian constitutive relation for water is
i
j
j
iij,vij,vijij x
uxu,p
Here ij denotes the stress acting in the jth direction on a face normal to the ith direction, p denotes the pressure, ij denotes the Kronecker delta ( = 1 if i = j and 0 if i j), ui = (u1, u2, u3) denotes the velocity vector and xi = (x1, x2, x3) denotes the position vector. The drag force Di on a body is given as
dSnD jjii
where ji is evaluated at the surface of the body, ni denotes a local unit vector outward normal to the surface of the body, and dS denotes an infinitesimal element of surface area.
3
1D SEDIMENT TRANSPORT MORPHODYNAMICSwith applications to
RIVERS AND TURBIDITY CURRENTS© Gary Parker November, 2004
SKIN FRICTION AND FORM DRAG: THE CONCEPTS contd.The drag force Di can be decomposed into a component due to skin friction Dsi and a component due to form drag Dfi as follows:
Drag due to skin friction consists of that part of the drag that pulls the surface of the body tangentially. Form drag consists of that part of the drag that pushes the body in normally. Only the former is thought to directly contribute to sediment transport. Now in the diagrams below let and denote the skin friction and form drag forces on the area element dS, denote a unit tangential vector to the surface in the x direction and denote a unit vector normal to the surface.
fisii DDD
dSpnD,dSnxu
xudSnD ifij
i
j
j
ijji,vsi
dSnzuDd tx
bodys
dSnpDd nbodyf
sD
fD
txn
nn
dS
pnn
dS
x
z
txn
u
4
1D SEDIMENT TRANSPORT MORPHODYNAMICSwith applications to
RIVERS AND TURBIDITY CURRENTS© Gary Parker November, 2004
SKIN FRICTION AND FORM DRAG: THE CONCEPTS contd.
Let D denote the drag force in the flow direction and nx denote the component of the unit outward normal vector to the surface in the flow direction. At sufficiently high Reynolds number, the drag on a streamlined body is mostly skin friction. The drag on a blunt body behind which flow separation occurs is mostly form drag. (The pressure in the separation bubble equilibrates with the low pressure at the point of separation.)
u
z
u
flow flow
separation bubble
p p
p
dSzuDD
bodys dSnpDD xbodyf
5
1D SEDIMENT TRANSPORT MORPHODYNAMICSwith applications to
RIVERS AND TURBIDITY CURRENTS© Gary Parker November, 2004
EINSTEIN DECOMPOSITIONEinstein (1950); Einstein and Barbarossa (1952)
When bedforms are not present, all of the drag on the bed is skin friction. This tangential drag force acts to pull the sediment along. When bedforms such as dunes are present, part of the drag is form drag associated with (most prominently) flow separation behind the dunes. Since this form drag is composed of stress that acts normal to the bed surface, it does not contribute directly to the motion of bed grains. As a result it is usually subtracted out in performing bedload calculations.
U
separation bubble
H
6
1D SEDIMENT TRANSPORT MORPHODYNAMICSwith applications to
RIVERS AND TURBIDITY CURRENTS© Gary Parker November, 2004
EINSTEIN DECOMPOSITION contd.
Consider an equilibrium (normal) flow over a bed with mean streamwise slope S that is covered with bedforms. The flow has average depth H and velocity U averaged over depth and the bedforms. The boundary shear stress averaged over the bedforms is given by the normal flow relation
U
separation bubble
H
gHSUC 2fb
7
1D SEDIMENT TRANSPORT MORPHODYNAMICSwith applications to
RIVERS AND TURBIDITY CURRENTS© Gary Parker November, 2004
EINSTEIN DECOMPOSITION contd.
Now smooth out the bedforms, “glue” the sediment to the bed so it remains flat but offers the same microscopic roughness as the case with bedforms, and run a flow over it with the same mean velocity U and bed slope S. In the absence of the bedforms, the resistance is skin friction only. Due to the absence of bedforms the skin friction coefficient Cfs and the flow depth Hs should be less than the corresponding values with bedforms.
U
separation bubble
H
SgHUC s2
fsbs
UHs
Skin friction + form drag Skin friction only
The difference between the two characterizes form drag.
8
1D SEDIMENT TRANSPORT MORPHODYNAMICSwith applications to
RIVERS AND TURBIDITY CURRENTS© Gary Parker November, 2004
EINSTEIN DECOMPOSITION contd.
bf = b - bs = mean bed shear stress due to form drag of bedformsCff = Cf – Cfs = friction coefficient associated with form dragHf = H – Hs = mean depth associated with form drag
U
separation bubble
H
SgHUC s2
fsbs
UHs
Skin friction + form drag Skin friction only
The difference between the two characterizes form drag.
SgHUC f2
ffbf
SHHgUCC fs2
fffsbfbs
gHSUC 2fb
9
1D SEDIMENT TRANSPORT MORPHODYNAMICSwith applications to
RIVERS AND TURBIDITY CURRENTS© Gary Parker November, 2004
SKIN FRICTION
Skin friction can be computed using the techniques developed in Chapter 5; where = 0.4 and r = 8.1,
U
separation bubble
HU
Hs
Skin friction + form drag Skin friction only
The difference between the two characterizes form drag.
SgHUC s2
fsbs
s
s2/1fs k
H11n1C 6/1
s
sr
2/1fs k
HC
or
2n,Dnk k90sks
10
1D SEDIMENT TRANSPORT MORPHODYNAMICSwith applications to
RIVERS AND TURBIDITY CURRENTS© Gary Parker November, 2004
FORM DRAG OF DUNES: EINSTEIN AND BARBAROSSA (1952)One of the first relations developed to predict the form drag in rivers in which dunes predominate is that of Einstein and Barbarossa (1952). They obtained an empirical form for Cff as a function of s*, where
35
2s
35
bs35s RgD
uRgD
bs
su0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.1
0.01 0.1 1 10
s35*
Cff
denotes the Shields number due to skin friction and D35 is the grain size such that 35 percent of a bed surface sample is finer. Note that
11
1D SEDIMENT TRANSPORT MORPHODYNAMICSwith applications to
RIVERS AND TURBIDITY CURRENTS© Gary Parker November, 2004
The total shear velocity u*, shear velocity due to skin friction u*s and shear velocity due to bedforms u*f, and the associated Shields numbers are defined as
Engelund and Hansen (1967) determined the following empirical relation for lower-regime form drag due to dune resistance;
or thus
50s
2f
f50s
2s
s50s
2
RgDu,
RgDu,
RgDu
2s 4.006.0
Note that bedforms are absent (skin friction only) when s* = *; bedforms are present when s* < *. The relation is designed to be used with the following skin friction predictor:
Engelund and Hansen (1967) also present a form drag relation for upper-regime bedforms (antidunes).
FORM DRAG OF DUNES: ENGELUND AND HANSEN (1967)
bf
fbs
sb u,u,u
2sf 4.006.0
s
s2/1fs k
H11n1C 65ss D2k
12
1D SEDIMENT TRANSPORT MORPHODYNAMICSwith applications to
RIVERS AND TURBIDITY CURRENTS© Gary Parker November, 2004
Engelund-Hansen Bedform Resistance Predictor
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3x
x E-H RelationNo form drag
s
s
f
No form drag
Engelund-Hansen
FORM DRAG OF DUNES: ENGELUND AND HANSEN (1967) contd.
13
1D SEDIMENT TRANSPORT MORPHODYNAMICSwith applications to
RIVERS AND TURBIDITY CURRENTS© Gary Parker November, 2004
DEPTH-DISCHARGE PREDICTIONS WITH THE FORM DRAG PREDICTOR OF ENGELUND AND HANSEN (1967)
Form drag relations allow for a prediction of flow depth H and velocity U as a function of water discharge per unit width qw. In order to do this with the relation of Engelund and Hansen (1967) it is necessary to specify the stream slope S, bed material sizes Ds50 and Ds65, submerged specific gravity of the sediment R. The computation proceeds as follows for the case of normal flow, for which b = u*
2 = gHS.
Compute ks from Ds65.Assume a value (a series of values) of Hs.Assuming normal flow, compute u*s = (gHsS)1/2 and s* =u*s
2/(RgDs50).Compute * from s* according to Engelund-Hansen.Again assuming normal flow, * = (HS)/(RDs50) so that H = RDs50*/S.Compute Czs = Cfs
-1/2 from Hs/ks and the skin friction predictor.Compute the velocity U from the relation U/u*s = Czs.Compute the water discharge per unit width qw = UH.Plot H versus qw.
14
1D SEDIMENT TRANSPORT MORPHODYNAMICSwith applications to
RIVERS AND TURBIDITY CURRENTS© Gary Parker November, 2004
The form drag predictor of Engelund and Hansen (1967) tends to work well for sand-bed streams at laboratory scale. It also works well at small to medium field scale, i.e. in streams in which dunes give way to upper-regime plane bed before bankfull flow is achieved. It works rather poorly for large, low-slope sand-bed rivers, in which dunes are usually never washed out even at or above bankfull flow. Wright and Parker (2004) have modified it to accurately cover the entire range.
This relation is designed to be used with the skin friction predictor
where strat is a correction for flow stratification which can be set equal to unity in the absence of other information (see original reference).
numberFroudegHU
Fr 8.07.0s 7.005.0 Fr
FORM DRAG OF DUNES: WRIGHT AND PARKER (2004)
61
s
s
strat
2/1fs k
H32.8C
90ss D3k
15
1D SEDIMENT TRANSPORT MORPHODYNAMICSwith applications to
RIVERS AND TURBIDITY CURRENTS© Gary Parker November, 2004
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Middle Loup NiobraraRio Grande RedAtchafalaya MississippiEngelund-Hansen
sk*
*
*sk*
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Middle Loup NiobraraRio Grande RedAtchafalaya MississippiNew relation
sk*
7.0*Fr 7.0Fr
ss
COMPARISON OF FORM DRAG PREDICTORS AGAINST FIELD DATA
Engelund and Hansen (1967) Wright and Parker (2004)
The Niobrara and Middle Loup are small sand-bed streams. The Rio Grande is a middle-sized sand-bed stream. The Red, Atchafalaya and Mississippi Rivers are large sand-bed streams.
16
1D SEDIMENT TRANSPORT MORPHODYNAMICSwith applications to
RIVERS AND TURBIDITY CURRENTS© Gary Parker November, 2004
DEPTH-DISCHARGE PREDICTIONS WITH THE FORM DRAG PREDICTOR OF WRIGHT AND PARKER (2004)
The computation proceeds as follows for the case of normal flow, for which b = u*
2 = gHS. The stratification correction is not implemented here for simplicity.
Compute ks from Ds90.Assume a value (a series of values) of Hs.Assuming normal flow, compute u*s = (gHsS)1/2 and s* =u*s
2/(RgDs50).Compute the velocity U from the skin friction predictor.Compute from the indicated equation.Compute H from the indicated equation.Compute the water discharge per unit width qw = UH.Plot H versus qw.
61
s
s
s kH32.8
SgHU
8.07.0
50ss gH
URD
HS7.005.0
61
s
ss k
HSgH32.8U
13/207.0
50s
Ug
SRDH
4/5
s
7.005.0
The relations can be written as:
or alternatively as:
17
1D SEDIMENT TRANSPORT MORPHODYNAMICSwith applications to
RIVERS AND TURBIDITY CURRENTS© Gary Parker November, 2004
PREDICTION OF BEDLOAD TRANSPORT IN A STREAM IN WHICH DUNES MAY BE PRESENT
If dunes are not present, the calculation of bedload transport may proceed using the techniques of Chapter 7.
If dunes are present, the calculation is based not on the total boundary shear stress b, but rather just that component due to skin friction bs. Thus in the case of relations for uniform sediment D, the following transformation must be made
so that the bedload relation of e.g. Ashida and Michiue (1972) is recast as
In the case of the normal flow
and the calculation can proceed from the calculation of thedepth-discharge relation.
RgDu
RgD
2sbs
s
05.0,17q ccscsb
RDDHs
s
18
1D SEDIMENT TRANSPORT MORPHODYNAMICSwith applications to
RIVERS AND TURBIDITY CURRENTS© Gary Parker November, 2004
Depth-Discharge and Bedload Calculator Uses a) Wright-Parker formulation for flow resistance (without stratification correction)b) Ashida-Michiue formulation for bedload transport,
Input ParametersS 4.00E-05 bed slopeD50 0.3 mm median sediment sizeD90 0.6 mm size such that 90% of the sediment is finernk 3 factor such that ks = nk Ds90R 1.65 submerged specific gravity of sediment
InputHs (m)
s* U (m/s) H (m) qw (m2/s)* s*/* Fr u* (m/s) u*s (m/s) qb (m
2/s)0.800 0.0646 0.4072 0.008 0.254 0.1036 0.0206 3.145 0.258 0.00999 0.01772 1.60E-07 Discard results whenever s*/* > 10.900 0.0727 0.4405 0.014 0.544 0.2397 0.0440 1.654 0.191 0.01461 0.01879 3.72E-071.000 0.0808 0.4725 0.02 0.906 0.4279 0.0732 1.104 0.159 0.01885 0.01981 6.64E-071.100 0.0889 0.5035 0.027 1.323 0.6664 0.1069 0.831 0.14 0.02279 0.02078 1.03E-061.200 0.0970 0.5336 0.034 1.788 0.9539 0.1444 0.671 0.127 0.02648 0.0217 1.47E-061.300 0.1051 0.5629 0.042 2.29 1.2891 0.1851 0.568 0.119 0.02998 0.02259 1.97E-061.400 0.1131 0.5914 0.049 2.826 1.6712 0.2284 0.495 0.112 0.0333 0.02344 2.53E-061.500 0.1212 0.6192 0.057 3.39 2.0994 0.2740 0.442 0.107 0.03647 0.02426 3.15E-061.600 0.1293 0.6464 0.066 3.98 2.5729 0.3216 0.402 0.103 0.03952 0.02506 3.83E-061.700 0.1374 0.6731 0.074 4.592 3.0912 0.3711 0.37 0.1 0.04245 0.02583 4.57E-061.800 0.1455 0.6992 0.083 5.225 3.6536 0.4222 0.344 0.098 0.04528 0.02658 5.35E-061.900 0.1535 0.7249 0.092 5.876 4.2598 0.4749 0.323 0.095 0.04802 0.0273 6.19E-062.000 0.1616 0.7501 0.101 6.545 4.9092 0.5289 0.306 0.094 0.05068 0.02801 7.08E-062.100 0.1697 0.7749 0.11 7.229 5.6015 0.5841 0.291 0.092 0.05326 0.02871 8.01E-062.200 0.1778 0.7993 0.119 7.927 6.3362 0.6406 0.278 0.091 0.05577 0.02938 8.99E-062.300 0.1859 0.8234 0.129 8.639 7.1130 0.6981 0.266 0.089 0.05822 0.03004 1.00E-052.400 0.1939 0.8471 0.138 9.364 7.9316 0.7567 0.256 0.088 0.06062 0.03069 1.11E-052.500 0.2020 0.8704 0.148 10.1 8.7917 0.8162 0.248 0.087 0.06296 0.03132 1.22E-05
50
ss RD
SH
61
s
ss k
HSgH32.8U
4/5
s
7.005.0
13/207.0
50s
Ug
SRD
H
UHqw
50RDHS
gHU
Fr
gHSu
SgHu ss
)05.0)(05.0(DRgDq ss5050b
SAMPLE PREDICTION OF FLOW AND BEDLOAD TRANSPORT
The basis for the calculation is a large sand-bed stream. The calculation uses Wright-Parker (without stratification correction) and Ashida-Michiue.
Discard first three rows
This calculation is implemented in:Rte-bookWPHydResAMBL.xls
19
1D SEDIMENT TRANSPORT MORPHODYNAMICSwith applications to
RIVERS AND TURBIDITY CURRENTS© Gary Parker November, 2004
DEPTH-DISCHARGE AND BEDLOAD RELATION FOR SAMPLE CALCULATIONWright-Parker depth-discharge predictor: Ashida-Michiue bedload transport relation
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0
qw (m2/s)
H (m
), q b
(m2 /s
)
0.0E+00
2.0E-06
4.0E-06
6.0E-06
8.0E-06
1.0E-05
1.2E-05
1.4E-05
Hqb
20
1D SEDIMENT TRANSPORT MORPHODYNAMICSwith applications to
RIVERS AND TURBIDITY CURRENTS© Gary Parker November, 2004
A BULK PREDICTOR FOR DEPTH-DISCHARGE RELATIONSThe Brownlie (1982) empirical depth-discharge predictor has been demonstrated to be accurate for both laboratory and field sand-bed streams. It takes the lower-regime form
and the upper-regime form
where
Once H is known U = qw/H can be computed. It is then possible to back-calculate Hs from any appropriate relation for skin friction and the normal flow assumption, e.g.
Once Hs is known, s* = (HsS)/(RDs50) and thus the bedload transport rate can be computed. A discriminator between lower regime and upper regime canbe found in the original reference.
08013.0g
08750.06248.0w
1 S)Sq(S2836.0H
1050.0g
09188.06539.0w
1 S)Sq(S3724.0H
50s50s
ww
50s DgDqq,
DHH
6/1
s
sr
s kH
SgHU
21
1D SEDIMENT TRANSPORT MORPHODYNAMICSwith applications to
RIVERS AND TURBIDITY CURRENTS© Gary Parker November, 2004
ANOTHER BULK PREDICTOR FOR FLOW RESISTANCEThe flow predictor of Karim and Kennedy (1981) takes the following form:
where qt denotes the total volume bed material load per unit width. Karim and Kennedy’s predictor for qt is presented in Chapter 11.
s10
310
5010
5010
s10
5050
t10
5010
s10
5050
t10
5010
vuog10Sog
DHog0411.0
Duogvuog2166.0
DRgDqogDuog
vuog0831.0
DRgDqog1665.09045.0
RgDUog
22
1D SEDIMENT TRANSPORT MORPHODYNAMICSwith applications to
RIVERS AND TURBIDITY CURRENTS© Gary Parker November, 2004
GENERALIZATION TO GRADUALLY VARIED FLOWS
The preceding calculations are predicated on the assumption of normal flow. In the case of gradually varied flow, the equation to be solved is
2f
1SS
dxdH
Fr
In the calculation of gradually varied flow the actual slope S should be replaced by the friction slope Sf in the relations for skin friction and form drag:
For example, the relations of Wright and Parker (without stratification correction) become
61
s
s
fs
w
kH32.8
SgHHq
8.07.0
2/3w
50s
f
50
fs
Hgq
RDHS7.005.0
RDSH
HgSgHgH
UCS fbb
2
ff
23
1D SEDIMENT TRANSPORT MORPHODYNAMICSwith applications to
RIVERS AND TURBIDITY CURRENTS© Gary Parker November, 2004
GENERALIZATION TO GRADUALLY VARIED FLOWS contd.
The flow is assumed to be subcritical. The depth H is assumed to be known at the downstream point H2; it is to be computed at the upstream point H1. The formulation can be discretized as
32
2w
31
2w
gHq
gHq 1
Sx
1
Sxx
21HH
2f21
1f21
21
flow
x
x1 x2
H1
H2
Now since qw and H2 are known, Hs1 and Sf1 can be computed (iteratively) from the two relations
61
s
1s
1f1s1
w
kH32.8
SgHHq
8.07.0
2/31
w
50s
1f1
50
1f1s
Hgq
RDSH7.005.0
RDSH
24
1D SEDIMENT TRANSPORT MORPHODYNAMICSwith applications to
RIVERS AND TURBIDITY CURRENTS© Gary Parker November, 2004
GENERALIZATION TO GRADUALLY VARIED FLOWS contd.
Once all quantities at x2 are computed, H1, Hs1 and Sf1 can be computed iteratively from the following three equations.
32
2w
31
2w
gHq
gHq 1
Sx
1
Sxx
21HH
2f21
1f21
21
flow
x
x1 x2
H1
H2
61
s
1s
1f1s1
w
kH32.8
SgHHq
8.07.0
2/31
w
50s
1f1
50
1f1s
Hgq
RDSH7.005.0
RDSH
25
1D SEDIMENT TRANSPORT MORPHODYNAMICSwith applications to
RIVERS AND TURBIDITY CURRENTS© Gary Parker November, 2004
REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 9Ashida, K. and M. Michiue, 1972, Study on hydraulic resistance and bedload transport rate in
alluvial streams, Transactions, Japan Society of Civil Engineering, 206: 59-69 (in Japanese).Brownlie, W. R., 1981, Prediction of flow depth and sediment discharge in open channels, Report
No. KH-R-43A, W. M. Keck Laboratory of Hydraulics and Water Resources, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California, USA, 232 p.
Einstein, H. A., 1950, The Bed-load Function for Sediment Transportation in Open Channel Flows, Technical Bulletin 1026, U.S. Dept. of the Army, Soil Conservation Service.
Einstein, H. A and Barbarossa, N. L., 1952, River Channel Roughness, Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, 117.
Engelund, F. and E. Hansen, 1967, A Monograph on Sediment Transport in Alluvial Streams, Technisk Vorlag, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Karim, F., and J. F. Kennedy, 1981, Computer-based predictors for sediment discharge and friction factor of alluvial streams, Report No. 242, Iowa Institute of Hydraulic Research, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa.
Wright, S. and Parker, G., 2004, Flow resistance and suspended load in sand-bed rivers: simplified stratification model, Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, 130(8), 796-805.
top related