Flow resistance in the channel-bar landscape of large alluvial rivers

doi:10.1007/s11707-022-1040-z

Front. Earth Sci.

2024, Vol. 18

Issue (2) : 412-421 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11707-022-1040-z

Flow resistance in the channel-bar landscape of large alluvial rivers

Yong HU¹, Congcong LIU^2,^3,^4,⁵, Jinyun DENG¹(

), Wei ZHANG¹, Yitian LI¹

¹. State Key Laboratory of Water Resources and Hydropower Engineering Science, Wuhan University, Wuhan 430072, China
². CCCC Second Harbor Engineering Company Ltd, Wuhan 430040, China
³. Key Laboratory of Large-span Bridge Construction Technology, Wuhan 430040, China
⁴. Research and Development Center of Transport Industry of Intelligent Manufacturing Technologies of Transport Infrastructure, Wuhan 430040, China
⁵. CCCC Highway Bridge National Engineering Research Centre Co. Ltd, Wuhan 430040, China

Download: PDF(3227 KB) HTML
Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks

Abstract

Accurate approaches for estimating flow resistance in large alluvial rivers are fundamental for simulating discharge, sediment transport, and flood routing. However, methods for estimating riverbed resistance and additional resistance in the channel-bar landscapes remain poorly investigated. In this study, we used in situ river bathymetry, sediment, and hydraulic data from the Shashi Reach in the Yangtze River to develop a semi-empirical approach for calculating flow resistance. Our method quantitatively separates flow resistance into riverbed resistance and additional resistance and shows high accuracy in terms of deviation ratio (~20%), root-mean-square error (~0.008), and geometric standard deviation (~3). Additional resistance plays a dominant role under low-flow conditions but a secondary role under high flows, primarily due to the reduction in momentum exchange in channel-bar regions as discharge increases. Riverbed resistance first decreases and then increases, which might be attributed to bedform changes in the lower and transitional flow regimes as flow velocity increases. Overall, our findings further the understanding of dynamic changes in flow resistance in the channel-bar landscapes of large river systems and have important implications for riverine ecology and flood management.

Keywords flow resistance channel-bar landscape interaction region large river bedform

Corresponding Author(s): Jinyun DENG

Online First Date: 05 June 2024 Issue Date: 19 July 2024

Cite this article:

Yong HU,Congcong LIU,Jinyun DENG, et al. Flow resistance in the channel-bar landscape of large alluvial rivers[J]. Front. Earth Sci., 2024, 18(2): 412-421.

URL:

https://academic.hep.com.cn/fesci/EN/10.1007/s11707-022-1040-z
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fesci/EN/Y2024/V18/I2/412

Fig.1 Sketch map and photos of the study area: (a) the Shashi Reach; (b) a typical cross-section profile; (c) the Change Jiang Basin; (d) photo showing the channel, low bar, and high bar areas (taken by Wei Liu in December 2015); and (e) photo showing the sampling of the low bar (taken by Chi Fu in December 2015).

Tab.1 Summary of hydraulic, topographic, and granulometric parameters on the channel-bar interaction regions of the Shashi Reach

Investigator	Discharge/(m³·s^?1)	Data within different error bands/%
Investigator	Discharge/(m³·s^?1)	$± 10 %$	$± 20 %$	$± 30 %$	DR/%	GSD	RMSE
Peterson and Peterson (1988)	10000	7.12	17.76	28.84	37.91	1.94	0.0167
Peterson and Peterson (1988)	35000	19.90	44.34	80.57	20.62	2.34	0.0089
van Rijn (1984)	10000	0.00	0.00	21.35	41.97	1.34	0.0178
van Rijn (1984)	35000	0.05	1.14	39.72	35.43	1.35	0.0145
Present study	10000	36.38	59.87	81.74	17.42	3.69	0.0069
Present study	35000	15.88	42.22	65.40	25.11	2.75	0.0094

Tab.2 Performance of different formulae for flow resistance

Fig.2 Comparison of Manning’s roughness coefficient (n) for the proposed formula using 501 (2947) sets of data when the discharge rate = 10000 (35000) m³/s. Note that DR is the deviation ratio and Q is discharge.

Fig.3 Variations of flow resistance with water depth (a, b), flow velocity (c, d), and median diameters of riverbed grains (e, f) when the discharge rates = 10000 m³/s and 35000 m³/s, respectively. Note that n is total Manning’s roughness coefficient, n′ is riverbed Manning’s roughness coefficient, n′′ is additional Manning’s roughness coefficient, Q is the discharge, H is the mean water depth, U is the mean flow velocity, and D₅₀ is the median diameter of riverbed grains.

Fig.4 Variations of flow resistance with (a) B, (b) b, (c) h₂, (d) h₃, (e) U₁, (f) U₂, and (g) D₅₀. The smallest B in (a) is 1416 m because it should at least be wider than the width of the main channel. The smallest U₁ in (e) is 0.37 m/s because it should at least be faster than the flow velocity in the interactive region. Note that n is total Manning’s roughness coefficient, n′ is riverbed Manning’s roughness coefficient, n′′ is additional Manning’s roughness coefficient, B is the total channel width, b is the main channel width, h₂ is the channel-bar interaction region water depth, h₃ is the main channel water depth, U₁ is the average flow velocity in the channel, U₂ is the average flow velocity in the interaction region, and D₅₀ is the median diameter of riverbed grains.

1	F, Arnaud L, Schmitt K, Johnstone A J, Rollet H Piégay (2019). Engineering impacts on the Upper Rhine channel and floodplain over two centuries.Geomorphology, 330: 13–27 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2019.01.004
2	D, Bousmar Y Zech (1999). Momentum transfer for practical flow computation in compound channels.J Hydraul Eng (NYNY), 125(7): 696–706 https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9429(1999)125:7(696
3	J B C, Cassells M F, Lambert R W C Myers (2001). Discharge prediction in straight mobile bed compound channels.Proc Inst Civ Eng Water Marit Eng, 148(3): 177–188 https://doi.org/10.1680/wame.2001.148.3.177
4	C S Chandra (2019). Analysis of Apparent Shear Stress and Turbulence in Meandering Compound Flows. Dissertation for Master’s Degree. Rourkela: National Institute of Technology Rourkela
5	G, Chen S, Zhao W, Huai S Gu (2019b). General model for stage–discharge prediction in multi-stage compound channels.J Hydraul Res, 57(4): 517–533 https://doi.org/10.1080/00221686.2018.1494055
6	X, Chen M A, Hassan C, An X Fu (2020). Rough correlations: meta-analysis of roughness measures in gravel bed rivers.Water Resour Res, 56(8): e2020WR027079 https://doi.org/10.1029/2020WR027079
7	Y, Chen R A, DiBiase N, McCarroll X Liu (2019a). Quantifying flow resistance in mountain streams using computational fluid dynamics modeling over structure‐from‐motion photogrammetry‐derived microtopography.Earth Surf Process Landf, 44(10): 1973–1987 https://doi.org/10.1002/esp.4624
8	Z, Chen Q, Chen L Jiang (2016). Determination of apparent shear stress and its application in compound channels.Procedia Eng, 154: 459–466 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2016.07.538
9	G C Christodoulou (1992). Apparent shear stress in smooth compound channels.Water Resour Manage, 6(3): 235–247 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00872358
10	M, Church R I Ferguson (2015). Morphodynamics: rivers beyond steady state.Water Resour Res, 51(4): 1883–1897 https://doi.org/10.1002/2014WR016862
11	Z Dai (2021). Changjiang Riverine and Estuarine Hydro-morphodynamic Processes. New York: Springer
12	Z, Dai X, Mei S E, Darby Y, Lou W Li (2018). Fluvial sediment transfer in the Changjiang (Yangtze) river-estuary depositional system.J Hydrol (Amst), 566: 719–734 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2018.09.019
13	R Ferguson (2010). Time to abandon the Manning equation?.Earth Surf Process Landf, 35(15): 1873–1876 https://doi.org/10.1002/esp.2091
14	R Ferguson (2013). 9.5 Reach-scale flow resistance. In: Shroder J F, ed. Treatise on Geomorphology. San Diego: Academic Press, 50–68
15	R I Ferguson (2021). Roughness calibration to improve flow predictions in coarse-bed streams.Water Resour Res, 57(6): e2021WR029979 https://doi.org/10.1029/2021WR029979
16	R I, Ferguson R J, Hardy R A Hodge (2019). Flow resistance and hydraulic geometry in bedrock rivers with multiple roughness length scales.Earth Surf Process Landf, 44(12): 2437–2449 https://doi.org/10.1002/esp.4673
17	R I, Ferguson J, Lewin R J Hardy (2022). Fluvial Processes and Landforms.Geological Society London Memoirs, 58
18	R I, Ferguson B P, Sharma R J, Hardy R A, Hodge J Warburton (2017). Flow resistance and hydraulic geometry in contrasting reaches of a bedrock channel.Water Resour Res, 53(3): 2278–2293 https://doi.org/10.1002/2016WR020233
19	R, Fernandez J, Best F López (2006). Mean flow, turbulence structure, and bed form superimposition across the ripple‐dune transition.Water Resour Res, 42(5): 2005WR004330 https://doi.org/10.1029/2005WR004330
20	Z, He Z, Sun Y, Li Q, Zhao Y, Hu Z Chen (2022). Response of the gravel–sand transition in the Yangtze River to hydrological and sediment regime changes after upstream damming.Earth Surf Process Landf, 47(2): 383–398 https://doi.org/10.1002/esp.5254
21	J M, Hooke L Yorke (2011). Channel bar dynamics on multi-decadal timescales in an active meandering river.Earth Surf Process Landf, 36(14): 1910–1928 https://doi.org/10.1002/esp.2214
22	C, Huang X, Zhao M Gong (2004). Comparisons of flow resistance equations in movable bed.J Sediment Res, 5: 1–7
23	F, Huthoff P C, Roos D C, Augustijn S J Hulscher (2008). Interacting divided channel method for compound channel flow.J Hydraul Eng (NYNY), 134(8): 1158–1165 https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9429(2008)134:8(1158
24	D W Knight, C Hazlewood, R Lamb, P G Samuels, K Shiono (2018). Practical Channel Hydraulics: Roughness, Conveyance and Afflux. CRC Press
25	D W, Knight K Shiono (1990). Turbulence measurements in a shear layer region of a compound channel.J Hydraul Res, 28(2): 175–196 https://doi.org/10.1080/00221689009499085
26	D, Li X X, Lu L, Chen R J Wasson (2019). Downstream geomorphic impact of the Three Gorges Dam: with special reference to the channel bars in the Middle Yangtze River.Earth Surf Process Landf, 44(13): 2660–2670 https://doi.org/10.1002/esp.4691
27	D, Li X, Lu I, Overeem D E, Walling J, Syvitski A J, Kettner B, Bookhagen Y, Zhou T Zhang (2021). Exceptional increases in fluvial sediment fluxes in a warmer and wetter High Mountain Asia.Science, 374(6567): 599–603 https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abi9649
28	M Y, Liu W X, Huai B Chen (2021a). Predicting the effective diffusivity across the sediment–water interface in rivers.J Clean Prod, 292: 126085 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126085
29	M Y, Liu W X, Huai Z H, Yang Y H Zeng (2020). A genetic programming-based model for drag coefficient of emergent vegetation in open channel flows.Adv Water Resour, 140: 103582 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advwatres.2020.103582
30	M, Liu W, Huai B Ji (2021b). Characteristics of the flow structures through and around a submerged canopy patch.Phys Fluids, 33(3): 035144 https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0041782
31	Y, Lou Z, Dai C, Long H, Dong W, Wei Z Ge (2022). Image-based machine learning for monitoring the dynamics of the largest salt marsh in the Yangtze River Delta.J Hydrol (Amst), 608: 127681 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2022.127681
32	X, Mei Z, Dai S E, Darby S, Gao J, Wang W Jiang (2018). Modulation of extreme flood levels by impoundment significantly offset by floodplain loss downstream of the Three Gorges Dam.Geophys Res Lett, 45(7): 3147–3155 https://doi.org/10.1002/2017GL076935
33	A, Mohanta A, Pradhan M, Mallick K C Patra (2021). Assessment of shear stress distribution in meandering compound channels with differential roughness through various artificial intelligence approach.Water Resour Manage, 35(13): 4535–4559 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-021-02966-5
34	P J, Moreta J P Martin-Vide (2010). Apparent friction coefficient in straight compound channels.J Hydraul Res, 48(2): 169–177 https://doi.org/10.1080/00221681003704137
35	A J, Paarlberg C M, Dohmen‐Janssen S J, Hulscher P Termes (2009). Modeling river dune evolution using a parameterization of flow separation.J Geophys Res Earth Surf, 114(F01014): 1–17 https://doi.org/10.1029/2007JF000910
36	G Parker (1991). Selective sorting and abrasion of river gravel. II: applications.J Hydraul Eng (NYNY), 117(2): 150–171 https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9429(1991)117:2(150
37	K C, Patra S K Kar (2000). Flow interaction of meandering river with floodplains.J Hydraul Eng (NYNY), 126(8): 593–604 https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9429(2000)126:8(593
38	A W, Peterson A E Peterson (1988). Mobile boundary flow: an assessment of velocity and sediment discharge relationships.Can J Civ Eng, 15(4): 539–546 https://doi.org/10.1139/l88-074
39	D M Powell (2014). Flow resistance in gravel-bed rivers: progress in research.Earth Sci Rev, 136: 301–338 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2014.06.001
40	S, Proust D, Bousmar N, Riviere A, Paquier Y Zech (2009). Nonuniform flow in compound channel: a 1-D method for assessing water level and discharge distribution.Water Resour Res, 45(12): 2009WR008202 https://doi.org/10.1029/2009WR008202
41	H W, Shen A S, Harrison W J Mellema (1978). Temperature and Missouri river stages near Omaha.J Hydraul Div, 104(1): 1–20 https://doi.org/10.1061/JYCEAJ.0004907
42	K, Shiono D W Knight (1991). Turbulent open-channel flows with variable depth across the channel.J Fluid Mech, 222: 617–646 https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022112091001246
43	K J, Skalak A J, Benthem E R, Schenk C R, Hupp J M, Galloway R A, Nustad G J Wiche (2013). Large dams and alluvial rivers in the Anthropocene: the impacts of the Garrison and Oahe Dams on the Upper Missouri River.Anthropocene, 2: 51–64 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ancene.2013.10.002
44	B, Tellman J A, Sullivan C, Kuhn A J, Kettner C S, Doyle G R, Brakenridge T A, Erickson D A Slayback (2021). Satellite imaging reveals increased proportion of population exposed to floods.Nature, 596(7870): 80–86 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03695-w
45	Prooijen B C, van J A, Battjes W S Uijttewaal (2005). Momentum exchange in straight uniform compound channel flow.J Hydraul Eng (NYNY), 131(3): 175–183 https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9429(2005)131:3(175
46	Rijn L C van (1984). Sediment transport, part III: bed forms and alluvial roughness.J Hydraul Eng (NYNY), 110(12): 1733–1754 https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9429(1984)110:12(1733
47	J, Wang Z, Dai X, Mei Y, Lou W, Wei Z Ge (2018). Immediately downstream effects of Three Gorges Dam on channel sandbars morphodynamics between Yichang–Chenglingji Reach of the Changjiang River, China.J Geogr Sci, 28(5): 629–646 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11442-018-1495-8
48	J, Xia S, Deng J, Lu Q, Xu Q, Zong G Tan (2016). Dynamic channel adjustments in the Jingjiang Reach of the Middle Yangtze River.Sci Rep, 6(1): 22802 https://doi.org/10.1038/srep22802
49	S, Yamaguchi S, Giri Y, Shimizu J M Nelson (2019). Morphological computation of dune evolution with equilibrium and non-equilibrium sediment-transport models.Water Resour Res, 55(11): 8463–8477 https://doi.org/10.1029/2018WR024166
50	C, Yang X, Cai X, Wang R, Yan T, Zhang Q, Zhang X Lu (2015). Remotely sensed trajectory analysis of channel migration in Lower Jingjiang Reach during the period of 1983–2013.Remote Sens (Basel), 7(12): 16241–16256 https://doi.org/10.3390/rs71215828
51	X, Yang Z, Sun J, Deng D, Li Y Li (2022). Relationship between the equilibrium morphology of river islands and flow-sediment dynamics based on the theory of minimum energy dissipation.Int J Sediment Res, 37(4): 514–521 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsrc.2021.12.001
52	B C Yen (2002). Open channel flow resistance.J Hydraul Eng (NYNY), 128(1): 20–39 https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9429(2002)128:1(20
53	M, Zhou J, Xia S, Deng Z Li (2022). Two-dimensional modeling of channel evolution under the influence of large-scale river regulation works.Int J Sediment Res, 37(4): 424–434 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsrc.2022.02.005
54	Y, Zhou D, Li J, Lu S, Yao X, Yan Z, Jin L, Liu X X Lu (2020). Distinguishing the multiple controls on the decreased sediment flux in the Jialing River basin of the Yangtze River, Southwestern China.Catena, 193: 104593 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2020.104593

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared

Discussed