CHAPTER 3 RESISTANCE TO FLOW AND BED FORMS 3.1 INTRODUCTION In the study of open channel hydraulics with rigid boundary, the roughness coefficient can be treated as a constant. After the roughness coefficient has been determined, a resistance formula can be applied directly for the computation of velocity, slope, or depth. In fluvial hydraulics, the boundary is movable and the resistance to flow or the roughness coefficient is a variable. In this case, a resistance formula cannot be applied directly without knowledge of how the resistance coefficient will change under different flow and sediment conditions. Extensive studies have been made by different investigators for the determination of roughness coefficients of alluvial beds. Their results often differ from each other. Most of these studies have been based on limited laboratory data. Uncertainties remain regarding the applicability and accuracy of laboratory results to field conditions. The lack of a reliable and consistent method for the prediction of the variation of the roughness coefficient makes the study of fluvial hydraulics a difficult and challenging task. 5152. SEDIMENT TRANSPORT 3.2, RESISTANCE TO FLOW WITH RIGID BOUNDARY 3.2.1 Velocity Distribution Approach According to Prandtl’s (1926) mixing length theory, ( U, u= (ss +5.75 tog") U, (3.2) 8.5 +5.75 log)U, (3.1) and where u=velocity at a distance y above the bed, U,, = VgDS = shear velocity, D = depth of flow, S=slope, kinematic viscosity, and k, = equivalent roughness defined by Schlichting (1935). Equations (3.1) and (3.2) can be integrated to obtain the relationship between mean flow velocity V and shear velocity U,, or roughness k,. Some of the commonly used relationships thus obtained are as follows (R = hydraulic radius): for circular cross-section, smooth wall, R 3.5 + 5.75 tog 8Ze (3.3) for very large rectangular cross-section, smooth wall, Vv RU, —-=3.0+ 5.75 log —* 3.4 u, 3.0 log (3.4) a for circular cross-section, rough wall, vo R — =6.5+ 5.75 log — 3.5, U, OB. (3.5) for very large rectangular cross-section, rough wall, Vv R = = 6.00 + 5.75 log — 3.6 U, OBA. (3.6) and for rectangular cross-section, rough wall and free surface, Vv R — =6.25 + 5. _ 7. 7 5.75 log k. (3.7) *RESISTANCE TO FLOW AND BED FORMS 53 TABLE 3.1 Values of k, (ft) (Zegzhda, 1938) 0.0010 Exceptionally smooth concrete surfaces faced with cement plaster and reinforced expansion joints and other seams worked flush with the surface 0.0016 Contrete cast in lubricated steel molds, with carefully smoothed or pointed seams and joints 0.0016-0.0049 Smooth-finished gunite 0.0038 Ordinary concrete faced with cement plaster and rubbed down, or concrete cast in wooden forms, not faced or rough-faced 0.0082 Short lengths of concrete pipe of small diameter without special facing of butt joints 0.014 Roughly made concrete conduits 0.01 or 0.033 Untreated gunite The k, values recommended by Zegzhda (1938) and Ackers (1958) for rigid boundary conduits are shown in Tables 3.1 and 3.2, respectively. For sand bed channels, the following sediment sizes have been suggested by different investigators for the value of k,: k, = des (Einstein, 1950); k, = doo (Meyer-Peter and Miiller, 1948); k, = dgs (Simons and Richardson, 1966). 3.2.2. The Darcy-Weisbach Formula The Darcy-Weisbach formula originally developed for pipe flow is (3.8a) TABLE 3.2 Values of k, (ft) (Ackers, 1958) eee seas As nrenrenen eee 0.0005 Concrete (monolithic construction against oiled steel forms with no surface irregularities) 0.002 Wood-stave pipes, planed-plank flumes, and concrete (monolithic construction against steel forms, wet-mix, or spun-precast pipe); smooth troweled surfaces; glazed sewer pipe 0.005 Glazed brickwork (monolithic construction against rough forms or cement-gun surface) 0.01 Precast pipes with mortar squeeze at joints 0.02 Rubble masonry 0.01. Straight, uniform earth channels54 SEDIMENT TRANSPORT where hy = friction loss, f= Darcy—Weisbach friction factor, L = pipe length, D = pipe diameter, V=average flow velocity, and g = gravitational acceleration. For open channel flow, D =4R and S =h,/L. The f value can be expressed as 8gRS fay (3.8b) where R = hydraulic radius and S= energy slope. Because U’, = gRS, Eq. (3.85) can be rewritten as V ( 8" me? (3.9) U, \f 3.2.3 Chezy’s Formula The relationship obtained by Chezy is T= bfpV? (3.10) where t= shear stress along the boundary and p= density of the fluid. The relationship between 1, U,,, and R is uy=(8) Rs) @.1) Fi Egs. (3.10) and (3.11), _ 12 v“ vacRey 6.2) C= (2) (3.13) The dimensions of Chezy’s roughness coefficient are LY? —— 3.14 Ff (14) with L =length and 7 = time. Because the roughness coefficient should be a function of the roughness element L, not a function of time 7, a dimensionless Chezy’s coefficient (3.15) is often used in the study of resistance to flow.RESISTANCE TO FLOW AND BED FoRMS 55, 3.2.4 Manning’s formula One of the most commonly used resistance equations for open channel flows is Manning's equation, namely, (3.16a) in metric units and 1.49 V = R512 (3.16b) n in Imperial (English) units. The dimensions of Manning’s roughness coefficient n are TL3 (3.17a) which has the same drawback as Chezy’s C, because n should not be a function of time T. To correct this deficiency, a modified Manning’s coefficient n'=ngl? = LV (3.17b) is often used in the study of resistance to flow. Chow (1959) made a comprehensive study of the values of n and his recommended values are shown in Table 3.3. These values can be used as a valuable reference in the selection of n values for engineering practice. The U.S. Geological Survey (Barnes, 1967) published color photographs and descriptive data for 50 stream channels for which Manning’s roughness coefficients have been determined. This publication can be a useful tool to aid field engineers in estimating n values for natural rivers. 3.2.5 Sediment Size and Manning’s Coefficient Strickler (1923) defined Manning’s n as a function of sediment particle size: que ear 3.18 "od (3.182) where d = sediment diameter of uniform sand in m, or ) / as —_ (3.185) 25.7 where d = sediment diameter in ft.56 SEDIMENT TRANSPORT TABLE 3.3 Values of Manning’s roughness coefficient n (Chow, 1959) Type of channel and description Minimum Normal Maximum A. Closed conduits flowing partly full A-1. Metal. a, Brass, smooth 0.009 0.010 0.013 b. Steel 1, Lockbar and welded 0.010 0.012 0.014 2. Riveted and spiral 0.013, 0.016 = 0.017 c. Cast iron 1. Coated 0.010 0.013 0.014 2. Uncoated 0.011 0.014 0.016 d, Wrought iron 1, Black 0.012 0.014 0.015 2. Galvanized 0.013, 0.016 0.017 e. Corrugated metal 1, Subdrain 0.017 0.019 0.021 2. Storm drain 0.021 0.024 0.030 A-2, Nonmetal a. Lucite 0.008 0.009 0.010 b. Glass 0.009 0.010 0.013 c. Cement 1, Neat surface 0.010 0.011 0.013 2. Mortar 0.011 0.013 0.015 d. Concrete 1. Culvert, straight and free of debris 0.010 0.011 0.013 2. Culvert with bends, connections, and some debris 0.011 0.013 0.014 3. Finished 0.011 0012 0.014 4, Sewer with manholes, inlet, etc., straight 0.013 0.015 0.017 5. Unfinished, steel form 0.012 0.013 0.014 6. Unfinished, smooth wood form 0.012 0014 0.016 7. Unfinished, rough wood form 0.015 0.017 0.020 e. Wood 1. Stave 0.010 0.012 0.014 2. Laminated, treated 0.015 0.017 0.020 fi Clay 1, Common drainage tile 0.011 0.013 0.017 2. Vitrified sewer 0.011 0.014 = 0.017 3. Vitrified sewer with manholes, inle}, ete. 0.013 0.015 0.017 4, Vittified subdrain with open joint 0.014 0.016 0.018 g. Brickwork 1. Glazed 0.011 0.013 0.015 2. Lined with cement mortar 0.012 0.015 0.017 h, Sanitary sewers coated with sewage slimes, with bends and connections 0.012 0.013 0.016 i. Paved invert, sewer, smooth bottom 0.016 0.019 0.020 j. Rubble masonry, cemented 0.018 0.025 0.030RESISTANCE TO FLOW AND BED FoRMS 57. TABLE 3.3. (Continued) Values of Manning’s roughness coefficient n (Chow, 1959) Type of channel and description Minimum Normal Maximum B, Lined or built-up channels B-l, Metal a. Smooth steel surface 1. Unpainted 0.011 0.012 0.014 2. Painted 0.012 0.013 0.017 b. Corrugated 0.021 0.025 0.030 B.2. Nonmetal a, Cement 1, Neat, surface 0.010 0.011 0.013 2. Mortar 0.013 0.013 0.015 b. Wood 1. Planed, untreated 0.010 0.012 0.014 2. Planed, creosoted 0.011 0.012 0.015 3. Unplaned 0.011 0.013 0.015 4. Plank with battens 0.012 0.015 0.018 5. Lined with roofing paper 0.010 0.014 0.017 c¢, Concrete 1, Trowel finish 0.011 0.013 0.015 2. Float finish 0.013 0.015 0.016 3. Finished, with gravel on bottom 0.015 0.017 0.020 4, Unfinished 0.014 0.017 0.020 5. Gunite, good section 0.016 0.019 0.023 6. Gunite, wavy section 0.018 0.022 0.025 7. On good excavated rock 0.017 0.020 8. On irregular excavated rock 0.022 0.027 d. Concrete bottom float finished with sides of 1, Dressed stone in mortar 0.015 0.017 0.020 2. Random stone in mortar 0.017 0.020 0.024 3. Cement rubble masonry, plastered 0.016 0.020 0.024 4, Cement rubble masonry 0.020 0.025 0.030 5. Dry rubble or riprap 0.020 0.030 0.035 2. Gravel bottom with sides of 1, Formed concrete 0.017 0.020 0.025 2. Random stone in mortar 0.020 0.023 0.026 3. Dry rubble or riprap 0.023 0.033 0.036 f. Brick 1. Glazed 0.011 0.013 0.015 2. Tp cement mortar 0.012 0.015 0.018 g. Masonry 1. Cemented rubble 0.017 0.025 0.030 2. Dry rubble 0.023 0.032 0.035 h. Dressed ashlar 0.013, 0.015 0.017 i. Asphalt 1. Smooth 0.013 0.013 2. Rough 0.016 0.016 j. Vegetal lining 0.030 = 0.50058 SEDIMENT TRANSPORT TABLE 3.3. (Continued) Values of Manning’s roughness coefficient n (Chow, 1959) ‘Type of channel and description Minimum = Normal = Maximum. C. Excavated or dredged a. Earth, straight and uniform 1, Clean, recently completed 0.016 0.018 0.020 2. Clean, after weathering 0.018 0.022 0.025 3. Gravel, uniform section, clean 0.022 0.025 0.030 4. With short grass, few weeds 0.022 0.027 0.033 b. Earth, winding and sluggish 1. No vegetation 0.023 0.025 0,030 2. Grass, some weeds 0.025 0.030 0.033 3. Dense weeds or aquatic plants in deep channels 0.030 0.035 0,040 4, Earth bottom and rubble sides 0.028 0.030 0.035 5. Stony bottom and weedy banks 0.025 0.035 0,040 6. Cobble bottom and clean sides 0.030 0.040 0.050 c. Dragline-excavated or dredged 1. No vegetation 0.025 0,028 0.033 2. Light brush on banks 0.035 0.050 0.060 d. Rock cuts 1. Smooth and uniform 0.025 0.035 0,040 2. Jagged and irregular 0.035 0.040 0.050 e. Channels not maintained, weeds and brush uncut 1. Dense weeds, high as flow depth 0.050 0.080 0.120 2. Clean bottom, brush on sides 0.040 0.050 0.080 3. Same as above, highest flow stage 0.045 0.070 0.110 4, Dense brush, high flow stage 0.080 0.100 0.140 D. Natural streams D-1. Minor streams (top width at flood stage <100 ft) a, Streams on plain 1. Clean, straight, full stage, no rifts or deep pools 0.025 0.030 0.033 2. Same as above, but more stones and weeds 0.030 0.035 0,040 3. Clean, winding, some pools and shoals 0.033 0.040 0.045 4, Same as above, but some weeds a and stones 0.045 0.050 5. Same as above, lower stages, more ineffective slopes and sections 0.040 0.048 0.055 6. Same as 4, but more stones 0.045, 0.050 0.060 7. Sluggish reaches, weedy, deep pools 0.050 0.070 0.080RESISTANCE TO FLOW AND BED FoRMS 59 TABLE 3.3. (Continued) ‘Values of Manning’s roughness coefficient n (Chow, 1959) Type of channel and description Minimum = Normal Maximum 8. Very weedy reaches, deep pools, or floodways with heavy stand of timber and underbrush 0.075 0.100 0.150 b. Mountain streams, no vegetation in channel, banks usually steep, trees and brush along banks submerged at high stages. 1. Bottom: gravels, cobbles, and few boulders 0.030 0.040 0.050 2. Bottom: cobbles with large boulders 0.040 0.050 0.070 D-2. Flood plains a. Pasture, no brush 1. Short grass 0.025 0.030 0.035 2. High grass 0.030 0.035 0.050 b. Cultivated areas 1. No crop 0.020 0.030 0.040 2. Mature row crops 0.025 5 0.045 3. Mature field crops 0.030 0.040 0.050 c. Brush 1. Scattered brush, heavy weeds 0.035 0.050 0.070 2. Light brush and trees, in winter 0.085 0.050 0.060 3. Light brush and trees, in summer 0.040 0.060 0,080 4, Medium to dense brush, in winter 0.045 0.070 0.110 5. Medium to dense brush, 0.070 0.100 0.160 in summer d. Trees 1. Dense willows, summer, straight 0.110 0.150 0.200 2. Cleared land with tree stumps, no sprouts 0.030 0.040 0.050 3. Same as above, but with heavy growth of sprouts 0.050 0.060 0.080 4, Heavy stand of timber, a few down trees, little undergrowth, flood stage below branches 0.080 0.100 0.120 5. Same as above, but with flood stage reaching branches 0.100 0.120 0.160 D-3. Major stream (top width at flood stage >100 ft). The » value is less than that for minor streams of similar description, because banks offer less effective resistance. a, Regular section with no boulders or brush 0.025 = 0.060 6. Irregular and rough section 0.035 = 0.10060 | SEDIMENT TRANSPORT Because Eqs. (3.18a,b) were obtained from a small laboratory flume with uniform sand, they should not be applied directly to natural rivers with nonuniform bed materials. Meyer-Peter and Miller (1948), considering a sand mixture, transformed Strickler’s formula to ays 26 n (3.19) where doo = sediment diameter (in m) for which 90% of the mixture is finer. Equation (3.19) can be used to approximate Manning's coefficient when the bed is not covered by cobbles or armored. Lane and Carlson (1953) in their study of the San Luis Valley canals suggested that avs n= 39 (3.20) where d7; = sediment diameter (in in.) for which 75% of the mixture is finer. The beds of the canals studied by Lane and Carlson were paved with cobbles. 3.3 BED FORMS There is a strong interrelationship between resistance to flow, bed configura- tion, and rate of sediment transport. In order to understand the variation of resistance to flow under different flow and sediment conditions, it is necessary to know the definitions and the conditions under which different bed forms exist. 3.3.1 Terminology The commonly used terms for bed forms in the literature can be summarized as follows (Simons and Richardson, 1960): 1. Plane bed: this is a plane bed surface without elevations or depressions larger than the largest grains of bed material. 2. Ripples: these are small bed forms with wavelengths less than 30cm and heights less than Scm. Ripple profiles are approximately triangular, with long gentle upstream slopes and short, steep downstream slopes. — 3. Bars: these are bed forms having lengths of the same order as the channel width or greater, and heights comparable to the mean depth of the generating flow. There are point bars, alternate bars, middle bars, and tributary bars, as shown in Fig. 3.1.RESISTANCE TO FLOW AND BED FORMS 61 Middle bar Point bar Point bar Tributary bar FIGURE 3.1 Illustration of different types of bars. 4. Dunes: these are bed forms smaller than bars but larger than ripples. Their profile is out of phase with the water surface profile. 5. Transition: the transitional bed configuration is generated by flow condi- tions intermediate between those producing dunes and plane bed. In many cases, part of the bed is covered with dunes while a plane bed covers the remainder. 6. Antidunes: these are also called standing waves. The bed and water surface profiles are in phase. While the flow is moving in the downstream direction, the sand waves and water surface waves are actually moving in the upstream direction. 7. Chutes and pools: these occur at relatively large slopes with high velocities and sediment concentrations. They consist of large elongated mounds of sediment. Figure 3.2 illustrates different bed forms for sand bed channels. ong poe ane eee Typical ripple pattern me all $e = = ~~, <> ¢ ; . ares eee Dunes with ripple superposed Antidune standing wave als Washed-out dunes Chutes and pools FIGURE 3.2 Bed forms of sand bed channels (Simons and Richardson, 1966).OT-99'0 — LI-F'L PIOO-ZIOO ZT O-L>ZO'|D—DODST-0009O'I-EE'0 EC T-O'L ZZ0'0-PI0'0ZL90'0-T8z0'0 000 Z>~000S sounpnuy 290-90 —9'T-O'L_STO'0-110' 90F0'0-0020'0 0002-000 sonea Surpueig 8TO-STO %O-IL:0 PLOO-E10'079Z0'0-FZ0'0-—OOTE-OOST aura autor moy sadde) GYO-LEO 760-190 7200-91010 86L0'O-S1P0'0 ——00OF-OOFL_-—-LT'O-ET'0L'O-SS'0_LIO'O-¥I0'_H¥EO'O-OSzO' —_00FZ-0OOT uonrsues, 0€0-90'0 $9'0-87'0 EEO'O-610'O O6FT'O-680'0——OOZT-OOE_—9T'0-60'0HFO-ZE'D 9700-1200 _T6L0'0-z1900 008-0sT 2ung 10-910 8ZO-PI'O 8Z0'0-0Z0'D _OEET'O-1Z50'0 OOI-E ITO-€20'°0 LEO-LI'O—-LZ0'0-Z'D_-SZOT'O-SE90'0 Ost-1 soiddry, S100 sro 9100 6se0°0 0 1100 “ro 100 ToE0'0 0 oueid SuUIBaE MOY 19407] oorxs a Ga f (dd) oor xs: a GD f (dd) ssauyinox " woexjussu0> wopesyusou0s aq jo uuog voy [610], voy (eI0], pues uma spp pues unm gz"9 (IL6T ‘uospreyory pue suoung) ssouysno1 paq jo SULIOY PUB MOY JO SoUNISaI YIM srajaurEred juIAyIP Jo UCB A we ATAVL 62RESISTANCE TO FLOW AND BED FORMS 63 Flow regime. The flow in sand-bed channels can be classified into lower and upper flow regimes, with a transition in between. The bed forms associated with these flow regimes are as follows. 1. Lower flow regime: (a) ripples; (6) dunes. 2. Transition zone: bed configurations range from dunes to plane beds or to antidunes. 3. Upper flow regime: (a) plane bed with sediment movement; (b) antidunes; (c) breaking antidunes; (d) standing waves; (e) chutes and pools. Examples of flow and sediment characteristics associated with different flow regimes and bed forms observed in laboratory flumes are given in Table 3.4. 3.3.2 Theoretical Analysis of Bed Forms Owing to the importance of bed forms for resistance to flow and sediment transport, attempts have been made to predict the type and dimension of bed forms under different flow and sediment conditions. Most of the analyses have been empirical in nature. Theoretical analyses have employed the idealized two-dimensional potential flow assumption or the continuity equation for sediment transport. A classical example based on continuity of bed form movement is the work of Exner (1925). Consider the movement of a dune in the downstream direction as shown nm Figure 3.3. The continuity equation for the bed form movement is \ ay | 94s poco nes * ot = 3.21 ari (3.21) FIGURE 33 Bed form moving in the downstream x direction.64 | sEDIMENT TRANSPORT where y, = specific weight of sediment, S$ 5 bed elevation, t=time, q, = sediment discharge per unit channel width, and x = downstream distance. Exner (1925) further assumed that qs = AoU, (3.22) where A, = constant and U, = flow velocity near the bed. From Eggs. (3.21) and (3.22), 2+A,—=0 : Yap TAO (3.23) Equation (3.23) can be solved once the initial and boundary conditions are given. An example of Exner’s solution is shown in Fig. 3.4. For irrotational and incompressible flow subject to the influence of gravity, the velocity component can be expressed as a function of the velocity potential, i.e., ad ey 3.24) FS (3.24) where wu and v = velocity components in the x and y directions, respectively, and ¢ = velocity potential. From Eq. (3.24), the continuity equation do ve + $ (3.25) ax? ay’ is satisfied. With proper initial and boundary conditions, the LaPlace equation FIGURE 3.4 Variation of bed forms as a function of time (Exner, 1925).RESISTANCE TO FLOW AND BED FORMS 65, (3.25) can be solved. An example of this type of solution was given by Milne-Thomsen (1960), and a more detailed discussion can be found in Graf (1971). 3.3.3. Empirical and Graphical Analyses The theoretical approach stated in the previous section is limited to some simplified and idealized flow conditions. Their solutions cannot predict the variation of bed forms under actual flow and sediment conditions. Conse- quently, most predictions of bed forms are based on empirical or semiempirical analyses of laboratory flume data. Engelund and Hansen (1966) studied the stability of bed forms in laboratory fiumes, and plotted the results shown in Fig. 3.5. For a given set of hydraulic conditions, namely, Froude number F,, average flow velocity V, and [4 Dunes cS | © Plane bed ¢ © Antidunes A «fo aa y° ° vil. Plane bed 0 05 10 15 2.0 F, =Vi(gD)!? FIGURE 35 Bed form classification based on stability analysis of laboratory data (Engelund and Hansen, 1966).66 shear velocity U,, Fig. 3.5 can be used to determine the bed forms in laboratory flumes. Simons and Richardson (1966) plotted the stream power tV against median fall diameter of sediment particles for laboratory flume and some canal data as shown in Fig. 3.6. This figure can be used for the determination of bed forms in laboratory flumes and small streams. An evaluation of different SEDIMENT TRANSPORT 1.0 I T TT qT idunes and flat be - 20 pees d flat bed 4 & 4 6 a 8 a 3 3 4 3 10 a a 08 4 Ss oF ws, 3 06 R e-R a 3 aot 3 Bee 8 80 3 0 & os a és es So eee 88 8 So . cl co 88 3 02 Se 8% 8 5 Dunes ° . . . . 3 % . Eo ge ’o z 4 ss 0.08 tau < cc ce . S006 — 3 i - 8 \° 2 0.04,— 8 a o 8 rs L E L ° A, a | ° ° g 4 : a mole Ripples oy _| 6 “ i ° 8 2 | g a} | 8 | 0.01 -— 0.008 = é 0.006 & 0.004 a “ © Ripple | aca! 0 Transit - Af 5 ransition _| 4 une ao oD 0.002 & Antidune 7 4 Flat Loj| | «| | —_{_| | J 01 —o1 0203. 04 05 06 07 08 09 Median fall diameter (mm) FIGURE 3.6 Relation of bed form to stream power and median fall diameter of bed sediment (Simons and Richardson, 1966).RESISTANCE TO FLOW AND BED FORMS 67 TABLE 3.5 Evaluation of different graphical analyses (Simons and Sentiirk, 1977) Variables Investigator Comments Undsy Us Liu (1957) Criterion based on flume data did not predict vo Albertson er al. field data well. Most promise appears to lie in (1958) the prediction of beginning of motion. tT _V Garde and Criterion did not predict Rio Grande data well. (0, — p)gdso’ (gR)? Albertson (1959) RS / Garde and Raju Considerable scatter evident, especially with the aso’ py —P (1963) Gilbert and U.S. Geological Survey data. Bds0 Bogardi (1958) Difficulty in using the same criterion for flume ue and field data. W, dso Simons and Difficulty in using the same criterion for flume y a Richardson (1966) and large rivers, but the relation does fairly well for small natural streams. Us Athaullah (1968) Failed to discriminate between bed forms in w? natural systems. _t de Sentiirk (1973) Define bed forms according to their resistance to yids’ ¥ flow. Failure to define antidunes. graphical analyses of bed forms has been given by Simons and Sentiirk (1977): see Table 3.5. 3.3.4 Factors Affecting Bed Forms Theoretical analysis of bed forms cannot be applied to field studies directly for the prediction of bed forms, because it is difficult to satisfy the assumptions used in the analysis. Results from empirical or graphical analysis of laboratory data cannot be applied to field conditions with confidence, because these conditions are far more complex than those observed in laboratory flumes. Factors affecting bed forms and resistance to flow include (but are not limited to) water depth, slope, fluid density, fine material concentration, bed material size, bed material gradation, fall velocity of sediment particles, channel cross-sectional shape, and seepage force. Some general tendencies of the effects of these factors on bed forms and resistance to flow can be summarized as follows (Simons and Sentiirk, 1977). 1. Depth: water depth is related to the relative depth D/d, or relative roughness d/D, and flow velocity distribution. An increase in water depth can cause a dune bed to become a plane bed or antidune. A decrease in depth may reverse the process. An example of the effect of change of depth or hydraulic radius on bed form and flow velocity is shown in68 | sEDIMENT TRANSPORT 10 © Standing waves or antidunes Transition zone 2 -/a ‘ Lower regime (dunes) i / Upper regime (Plane bed, standing waves, antidunes) 0s Velocity (fs) FIGURE 3.7 Relationship between hydraulic radius and velocity of the Rio Grande near Bernalillo, New Mexico (Nordin, 1964). Fig. 3.7. For a plane bed, an increase in depth causes decreases in relative roughness and resistance to flow. For a ripple or dune bed, the resistance to flow decreases with increasing depth. For an antidune, the resistance to flow increases first and then decreases with increasing depth. Slope: for a constant depth, an increase in channel or energy slope can change the bed form all the way from the lower to the upper flow regime. The resistance to flow is a function of the energy slope even if the bed form remains unchanged. For a ripple bed with shallow depth, resistance to flow increases with increasing slope, and is not sensitive to change of 2.RESISTANCE TO FLOW AND BED FORMS 69° slope for deep flows. For a dune bed, the resistance to flow generally decreases with increasing slope when the depth is shallow, and may increase slightly with increasing slope when the depth is deep. 3. Density: an increase in fine sediment concentration will increase the density of the sediment-water mixture, and decrease the submerged weight of sediment and resistance to flow. 4. Size of bed material: a change of bed material can change the grain roughness and the vertical sediment concentration distribution. Gradation of bed material: the bed form of uniform material is more regular and its resistance to flow is higher than that of graded material with the same mean particle size. Fall velocity: this is one of the primary variables that determines the interaction between sediment particles and fluid. An increase in fall velocity can increase the resistance to flow and change the bed form from ripple to dune. It is also observed that no ripple can bé found with fall diameter greater than 0.6 mm. Channel cross-sectional shape: the shape of the channel cross-section affects the velocity and shear stress distributions. Nonuniform distributions of velocity and shear stress can cause multiple bed forms to exist across and along a channel. Seepage flow: seepage flow into a channel can reduce the effective weight of sediment particles and the stability of the sediment. Seepage flow into river banks and bottom has the opposite effect. ” 6. 7. 3.4 RESISTANCE TO FLOW WITH MOVABLE BOUNDARY Resistance to flow with a movable boundary consists of two parts. The roughness that is directly related to grain size is called grain roughness. The roughness that is due to the existence of bed forms and that changes with change of bed forms is called form roughness. An example of the variation of the Darcy-Weisbach roughness coefficient for the 0.19 mm sand data collected by Guy et al. (1966) is shown in Fig. 3.8. Similar results can be obtained by plotting roughness coefficient against water or sediment discharge. It is apparent from the relative magnitude of form roughness and grain roughness that the influence of bed forms cannot be ignored in the determination of total roughness or resistance to flow. 3.4.1. Grain Roughness and Form Roughness The total roughness of an alluvial channel consists of two parts, namely, grain roughness or skin roughness due to the sediment particle size, and form roughness due to the existence of bed forms. If Manning’s roughness coefficient is used, the total coefficient n can be expressed as n=n'+n" (3.26)+70 SEDIMENT TRANSPORT 0.10 © Plane Tt Ripple . A Dune © Antdune > 0.08 a a @ Chute-Pool £ ool = E 4 2 io a z f A g 4 4 5 0.04 g a + D g ° ° 3 Fs hi 0.02 r+ 0. T be— f'=Grain vi volt LI 0.00001 0.0001, 0.001 0.01 Ol Measured unit stream power VS (ft-Ib/Ib)/s ) FIGURE 3.8 Variation of friction factor with bed form and measured unit steam power. where n’ = Manning’s coefficient due to grain roughness and n" = Manning’s coefficient due to form roughness. The value of n’ is proportional to the sediment particle diameter to the sixth power, as shown in Eqs. (3.184, b), (3.19), or (3.20). There is no reliable method for the computation of n”. Our inability to determine or predict the variation of form roughness poses a major problem in the study of alluvial hydraulics. 3.4.2. Surface Drag and Form Drag Similarly to the division of total roughness into grain roughness and form roughness, the shear stress or drag force acting along an alluvial bed can be divided into two parts, i.e., Tat" = yS(R' + R") (3.27) where 7=total drag force acting along an alluvial bed, tv’ and t’=drag force due to grain roughness and form roughness, respectively, y = specific weight of water, S = energy or channel slope, and R’ and R" = hydraulic radii due to grain roughness and form roughness, respectively. Different methods have been suggested in the literature for the determination of total roughness or resistance to flows in alluvial channels.RESISTANCE TO FLOW AND BED FORMS 71. 3.4.3. Einstein’s Approach Einstein (1950) expressed the resistance due to grain roughness or skin friction by Vv R' —, =5.75 1 ( .27 —— ) 7 vu, log (12.27 k x (3.28) where U;, = shear velocity due to skin friction or grain roughness = (gR'S)'?, R' =hydraulic radius due to skin friction, k, = equivalent grain roughness = dgs, x =a function of k,/5, and 6 = boundary-layer thickness, which can be expressed as $= ney Un where v = kinematic viscosity. The relationship between x and k,/6 suggested by Einstein (1950) i: Fig. 3.9. With the given values of V, d¢s, and x determined from Fig. 3.9, Eq. (3.28) can be used to compute the value of R’. Einstein (1950) suggested that ¥ =6w) (30) % NI Rough wall 08 & 06 “O01 0.2 0304 0.6 081.0 2°43 4 6 810 20 30 40 60 80 100 KB FIGURE 3.9 Correction factor in the logarithmic velocity distribution (Einstein, 1950).72 SEDIMENT TRANSPORT 90 TTT TTT TTT 7717 oo Missouri River near Fort Randell, S.D. 4 He Missouri River near Pierre, 8.D. q Missouri River near Omaha, Nebr. 50 Elkhom River near Waterloo, Nebr. 4 aS Big Sioux River near Akron, lowa zal Platte River near Ashland, Nebr. pole Niobrara River near Butte, Nebr. 4 Salinas River at San Lucas, Calif. Nacimiento River near Junction, Calif. 4 * 2 Salinas River at Paso Robles & (heavily vegetated) SL 4 19}-— s+ oF S 8b q bl 4 oF 4 Se 4 4- co ov 4 Py eee label Pipi y | py iit Popp) fj i ptit 04.0506 08 10 2 3 4 5678910 20 30 40 50.60 80 100 y 4s 4 = hs 2165 oe Was vgRSheseers FIGURE 3.10 Friction loss due to channel irregularities as a function of sediment transport rate (Einstein and Barbarossa, 1952). where _¥s7 ¥ dss y 7 SR’ (3.31) The functional relationship between V/U% and ' was determined from field data by Einstein and Barbarossa (1952) as shown in Fig. 3.10. The following procedures for the computation of total hydraulic radius due to grain and form roughness when the water discharge is given, or vice versa, were suggested by Einstein and Barbarossa (1952). Case A. Determine R with given Q Step 1: Assume a value of R’. Step 2: Apply Eq. (3.28) and Fig. 3.9 to determine V. Step 3: Compute yy’ using Eq. (3.31) and the corresponding value of V/Us from Fig. 3.10. Step 4: Compute U% and the corresponding value of R”. Step 5: Compute R=R'+R" and the corresponding channel cross- sectional area A. Step 6: Verify using the continuity equation Q = VA. If the computed QRESISTANCE TO FLOW AND BED FoRMS 73, agrees with the given Q, the problem is solved. Otherwise, assume another value of R’ and repeat the procedure until agreement is reached between the computed and the given Q. Case B. Determine Q with given R. The first five steps are identical to those for Case A. After the R value has been computed, it is compared with the given value of R. If these values agree with each other, the problem is solved and Q = VA. If not, the computation procedures will be repeated by assuming different values of R’ until the computed R agrees with the given R. Example 3.1. Given the following data, determine the flow depth D for the channel shown using the Einstein procedures: Q=40m'/s, B=5m v=10°m'/s, S$ =0,0008 Specific gravity of sand = 2.65 z d3s=0.3mm, des = 0.9 mm —_—4_ Solution (a) Assume R’ (b) Determine velocity from Eq. (3.28): V =5.75U} log, (227s) The equivalent sand roughness k, may be taken as equal to des = 0.0009 m, and the shear velocity Us is Us = (gR’S)'? = 0.089(R’)"? The correction factor x is a function of k,/8, and may be read from Fig. 3.9. The laminar sublayer thickness 6 can be estimated from Eq. (3.29), i.e., _1.6y_ 11.6(10"9) _ 1.31 10- U, —:0.089(R’)"?—(R)!? so kK, _ 0.0009(R’)"? Bat x10e O8R) Substituting for Uj and k,, the velocity can be estimated from V =0.509(R’)*? log (13 633R'x) (c) Compute w’ from Eq. (3.31): pe ae dsete 0.0003 _ 0.619 = 2.651) Rr = 1655 OoogR? OR’ and determine V/U{ from Fig. 3.1074 SEDIMENT TRANSPORT (d) Compute U% and R" from u=(%)'v —Uay _ Us” gS 0.0078 (e) Determine R = R’ + R" and the corresponding depth D and area A. (f) Determine Q = AV, and reiterate if necessary. The determination of depth and area from the hydraulic radius may be facilitated by developing curves relating these variables. The relations may be expressed as A=5D+2D* 5D +2D? 5+4.47D ‘Assuming values of D, the relationship between D, A, and R can be computed from the above two equations as follows: DA R 0.6 © 3.72 (0.484 08 5.28 0.616 1.0 7.00 0.737 12 8.88 0.857 15 12.00 1.025 2.0 18.00 1.290 ‘The following is a tabulation of the solution procedure. Assumed Rok LY vy LR R AO (m) 8 (m/s) Uz (m/s) (m) (m) (m’) (m/s) 0.50 4.86 1.06 1.39 1.24 31 0.045 0.26 0.76 7.0 97 0.20 3.07 118 0.798 310 15 0.053 036 056 45 36 1.00 687 1.02 211 0.619 75 0.028 0.10 1.10 14.0 29.5 120 7.53 1.01 2.35 0.516 97 0.024 0.08 1.28 180 423 1.15 7.37 1.01 2.29 0.538 90 0.025 0.08 1.23 165 37.8 117 7.43 101 2.32 0,529 930.025 0.08 1.25 17.0 39.4 118 7.46 LOL 2.33 0.525 94 0.025 0.08 1.26 17.5 40.8 For Q = 40m’ /s, R=1.254m ‘The corresponding water depth is D = 1.93m. Example 3.2. Use the fluid and sediment properties given in Example 3.1 and the flow depth determined there, compute the water discharge using the Einstein procedures.RESISTANCE TO FLOW AND BED FORMS 75, Solution. Use the same procedure as outlined for Example 3.1, but reiterate until the computed R agrees with the actual R; then determine the discharge Q = AV. The following is a tabulation of the solution procedure: Assumed Rook YOY vy 2 ROR (m6 (m/s) Uy (m/s) (m) (m) 1.17 7.43 101 2.32 0,529 93 0.025 0.08 1.25 1.18 7.46 1.01 2.33 0.525 94 0,025 0.08 1.26 = 1.254m, 4 0.025 = 2.335 m/s Channel cross-sectional area A= 5(1.93) + 2(1.93)? = 17.10 m? Discharge Q =17.10(2.335) = 39.9 m*/s ~ 40 m?/s 3.4.4 Engelund and Hansen’s Approach Engelund and Hansen (1966) expressed the energy loss or frictional slope due to bed form as At T(t ) -L (42) L 2gL\D-3A,, D+3A,,/— 2gL\D where AH” = frictional loss due to bed forms of wavelength L, low discharge per unit width; D=mean depth, and A,, = amplitude of sand waves. Using an idea similar to Eq. (3.27), the total shear stress can also be expressed as (3.32) T= yR(S' +S") (3.33) or Tt T taut yg 34) Rom (3.34) Substituting Eq. (3.32) for S” into Eq. (3.34) and assuming R ~ D for a wide open channel, (3.35) Let ___ps 9 le) con ’ as (3.37) ~[(elp) = 1d