RELATIONS FOR HYDRAULIC RESISTANCE IN RIVERS

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.

Dunes in the Mississippi River, New

Dunes on an exposed point bar in
Orleans, USA
the meandering Fly River, Papua
Image from LUMCON web page: 1
New Guinea
http://weather.lumcon.edu/weatherdata/audubon/map.html
 EINSTEIN DECOMPOSITION
Einstein (1950); Einstein and Barbarossa (1952)
When bedforms are not present, all of the drag on the bed is skin friction.
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.

H U

2
separation bubble
 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

b  Cf U2  gHS

H U

3
separation bubble
 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.

bs  CfsU2  gHsS

Skin friction + form drag Skin friction only

H U Hs
U

separation bubble

4
The difference between the two characterizes form drag.
 EINSTEIN DECOMPOSITION contd.

bf = b - bs = mean bed shear stress due to form drag of bedforms
Cff = Cf – Cfs = friction coefficient associated with form drag
Hf = H – Hs = mean depth associated with form drag

bs  CfsU2  gHsS bf  CffU2  gHf S

bs  bf  Cfs  Cff U2  gHs  Hf S
b  Cf U2  gHS
Skin friction + form drag Skin friction only

H U Hs
U

separation bubble

5
The difference between the two characterizes form drag.
 SKIN FRICTION

Skin friction can be computed using the techniques developed in rigid boundary
channels; where  = 0.4 and r = 8.1, (Look the next 2 slides)
1/ 6
1  H   Hs 
C 1 / 2
 n11 s  or C 1/ 2
 r  
  ks 
fs fs
 ks 
k s  nk Ds90 , nk  2
bs  CfsU2  gHsS
Skin friction + form drag Skin friction only

H U Hs
U

separation bubble

6
The difference between the two characterizes form drag.
 QUANTIFICATION OF BOUNDARY SHEAR STRESS AT THE BED

U = cross-sectionally averaged flow velocity ( depth-averaged

flow velocity in the wide channels studied here) [L/T]

Q
U
BH

u* = shear velocity [L/T]

b
u 

Cf = dimensionless bed resistance coefficient [1]
b
Cf 
U2
Cz = dimensionless Chezy resistance coefficient [1]
U
Cz   Cf 1/ 2 7
u
 RESISTANCE RELATIONS FOR HYDRAULICALLY ROUGH FLOW
Keulegan (1938) formulation:
U 1  H
Cz   C f 1/ 2  n11 
u   ks 

where  = 0.4 denotes the dimensionless Karman constant and ks = a roughness

height characterizing the bumpiness of the bed [L].
Manning-Strickler formulation:
1/ 6
U H
Cz   Cf 1/ 2  r  
u  ks 
where r is a dimensionless constant between 8 and 9. Parker (1991) suggested
a value of r of 8.1 for gravel-bed streams.
Roughness height over a flat bed (no bedforms):
k s  nk Ds90
where Ds90 denotes the surface sediment size such that 90 percent of the
surface material is finer, and nk is a dimensionless number between 1.5 and 3.
8
For example, Kamphuis (1974) evaluated nk as equal to 2.
 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

 bs u2s
   0.1
RgD 35 RgD 35
s 35

denotes the Shields

number due to skin 0.01

friction and D35 is the

Cff

grain size such that 35

percent of a bed surface
0.001
sample is finer. Note
that

bs
0.0001

us  0.01 0.1 1 10

 s35*
9
 FORM DRAG OF DUNES: ENGELUND AND HANSEN (1967)
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
b bs bf  u2  u2s  u2f
u  , us  , uf    ,  
s ,  
f
   RgD s50 RgD s50 RgD s50
Engelund and Hansen (1967) determined the following empirical relation for lower-
regime form drag due to dune resistance;

  0.06  0.4 
s  
 2

  
or thus
     2
        0.06  0.4 
f s
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:
1  Hs  k s  2 Ds65
C fs1/ 2  n11 
  ks 
Engelund and Hansen (1967) also present a form drag relation for upper- 10
regime bedforms (antidunes).
 FORM DRAG OF DUNES: ENGELUND AND HANSEN (1967) contd.

Engelund-Hansen Bedform Resistance Predictor

2.5
No form drag
2

s 1.5 E-H Relation

x

No form drag
1 f Engelund-Hansen
0.5
s
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

 x 11
 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*s2/(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. 12
 FORM DRAG OF DUNES: WRIGHT AND PARKER (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.


  0.05  0.7  Fr
s   0.7 0.8
 Fr 
U
gH
 Froude number

This relation is designed to be used with the skin friction predictor

1
8.32  Hs  6
C 1/ 2
   k s  3Ds90
 s trat  k s 
fs

where strat is a correction for flow stratification which can be set equal to unity in
the absence of other information (see original reference). 13
 COMPARISON OF FORM DRAG PREDICTORS AGAINST FIELD DATA
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.
2.0 2.0
Middle Loup Niobrara Middle Loup Niobrara
1.8 Rio Grande Red 1.8 Rio Grande Red
Atchafalaya Mississippi Atchafalaya Mississippi
1.6 Engelund-Hansen 1.6 New relation
1.4 1.4
1.2


1.2

 * sks 1.0
 * sk   * 
 * sk
s 1.0
0.8
0.8
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
* 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
  * Fr 0.7
0 .7

 Fr 14
Engelund and Hansen (1967) Wright and Parker (2004)
 DEPTH-DISCHARGE PREDICTIONS WITH THE FORM DRAG PREDICTOR OF
WRIGHT AND PARKER (2004)
0.8
H 
1
6  HS   U 0.7 
U
The relations can be written  8.32  s  s  0.05  0.7     
as: gHsS  ks   RDs50   gH  

 
20 / 13
H 
1
6  RD  g 0.7   s  0.05 
5/4
s 50   
or alternatively as: U  8.32 gHsS  s  H      
   
 ks  
S  U    0 .7 
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*s2/(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. 15
 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 Part 6-B.

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
 u 2
  s  bs  s
RgD RgD
so that the bedload relation of e.g. Ashida and Michiue (1972) is recast as


qb  17 s  c  
s  c , c  0.05
In the case of the normal flow
 HsD
 
s
RD
and the calculation can proceed from the calculation of the 16
depth-discharge relation.
 SAMPLE PREDICTION OF FLOW AND BEDLOAD TRANSPORT
Depth-Discharge and Bedload Calculator Uses a) Wright-Parker formulation for flow resistance (without stratification correction)
b) Ashida-Michiue formulation for bedload transport,
Input Parameters
S 4.00E-05 bed slope
D50 0.3 mm median sediment size This calculation is implemented in:
D90 0.6 mm size such that 90% of the sediment is finer
nk 3 factor such that ks = nk Ds90
Rte-bookWPHydResAMBL.xls
R 1.65 submerged specific gravity of sediment
20 / 13
HsS  RD 0 .7

s   g U
RD 50 1
H   s 50    Fr  qb  RgD50 D50 ( s  0.05)( s  0.05 )
H  6
 S  U   gH
U  8.32 gHsS  s     
 ks  qw  UH u  gHS
   0.05 
   s 
5/4
 
HS Discard first
RD50 us  gHsS
Input  0 .7 
Hs (m) s* U (m/s)  H (m) qw (m2/s)* s*/* Fr u* (m/s) u*s (m/s) qb (m2/s)
three rows
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*/* > 1
0.900 0.0727 0.4405 0.014 0.544 0.2397 0.0440 1.654 0.191 0.01461 0.01879 3.72E-07
1.000 0.0808 0.4725 0.02 0.906 0.4279 0.0732 1.104 0.159 0.01885 0.01981 6.64E-07 The basis for the
1.100 0.0889 0.5035 0.027 1.323 0.6664 0.1069 0.831 0.14 0.02279 0.02078 1.03E-06
1.200 0.0970 0.5336 0.034 1.788 0.9539 0.1444 0.671 0.127 0.02648 0.0217 1.47E-06 calculation is a
1.300 0.1051
1.400 0.1131
0.5629 0.042 2.29 1.2891 0.1851 0.568 0.119 0.02998 0.02259 1.97E-06
0.5914 0.049 2.826 1.6712 0.2284 0.495 0.112 0.0333 0.02344 2.53E-06
large sand-bed
1.500 0.1212 0.6192 0.057 3.39 2.0994 0.2740 0.442 0.107 0.03647 0.02426 3.15E-06 stream. The
1.600 0.1293 0.6464 0.066 3.98 2.5729 0.3216 0.402 0.103 0.03952 0.02506 3.83E-06
1.700 0.1374 0.6731 0.074 4.592 3.0912 0.3711 0.37 0.1 0.04245 0.02583 4.57E-06 calculation uses
1.800 0.1455 0.6992 0.083 5.225 3.6536 0.4222 0.344 0.098 0.04528 0.02658 5.35E-06
1.900 0.1535 0.7249 0.092 5.876 4.2598 0.4749 0.323 0.095 0.04802 0.0273 6.19E-06 Wright-Parker
2.000 0.1616 0.7501 0.101 6.545 4.9092 0.5289 0.306 0.094 0.05068 0.02801 7.08E-06
2.100 0.1697 0.7749 0.11 7.229 5.6015 0.5841 0.291 0.092 0.05326 0.02871 8.01E-06
(without
2.200 0.1778
2.300 0.1859
0.7993 0.119 7.927 6.3362 0.6406 0.278 0.091 0.05577 0.02938 8.99E-06
0.8234 0.129 8.639 7.1130 0.6981 0.266 0.089 0.05822 0.03004 1.00E-05
stratification
2.400 0.1939 0.8471 0.138 9.364 7.9316 0.7567 0.256 0.088 0.06062 0.03069 1.11E-05
17 correction) and
2.500 0.2020 0.8704 0.148 10.1 8.7917 0.8162 0.248 0.087 0.06296 0.03132 1.22E-05
Ashida-Michiue.
DEPTH-DISCHARGE AND BEDLOAD RELATION FOR SAMPLE CALCULATION
Wright-Parker depth-discharge predictor: Ashida-Michiue bedload transport relation

10.0 1.4E-05

9.0
1.2E-05
8.0

7.0 1.0E-05
H (m), qb (m /s)

6.0
2

8.0E-06
H
5.0
qb
6.0E-06
4.0

3.0 4.0E-06
2.0
2.0E-06
1.0

0.0 0.0E+00
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0
18
qw (m2/s)
 A BULK PREDICTOR FOR DEPTH-DISCHARGE RELATIONS
The 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 1
Ĥ  0.3724 S (q̂w S) 0.6539 0.09188
S g
0.1050

and the upper-regime form

Ĥ  0.2836 S 1 (q̂w S)0.6248 S0.08750 0g.08013
where
H qw
Ĥ  , q̂w 
Ds50 gDs50 Ds50
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. 1/ 6
U  Hs 
  r  
gHsS  ks 
Once Hs is known, s* = (HsS)/(RDs50) and thus the bedload transport rate can be
computed. A discriminator between lower regime and upper regime can
19
be found in the original reference.
 ANOTHER BULK PREDICTOR FOR FLOW RESISTANCE
The flow predictor of Karim and Kennedy (1981) takes the following form:

 U   q 
og10    0.9045  0.1665 og10  t 
 RgD   RgD D 
 50   50 50 

 u   uD50   q 
 0.0831og10   og10   og10  t 
 vs      RgD D 
 50 50 

 u  u D 
 0.2166 og10   og10   50 
 vs    
 H   u 

 0.0411og10  
  
og10 S  10 og10  
3

 D50   vs 
where qt denotes the total volume bed material load per unit width. Karim and
Kennedy’s predictor for qt is presented in Chapter 11.
20
 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
dH S  S f

dx 1  Fr 2
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:

U2 b
Sf  Cf   b  gS f H
gH gH
For example, the relations of Wright and Parker (without stratification correction)
become
0 .8
1
   qw 
0 .7

qw  Hs  6
HsS f HS f
 8.32    0.05  0.7   
RD50  RD s50  3/2 

H gHsS f  ks  
g H   21
 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
     
 1 2
 Sf1 1 2
 Sf 2 
1  x x 
H1  H2  x 2
 2
2  qw qw 
 1  3
1  3 
 gH 1 gH 2 
flow
Now since qw and H2 are known, Hs1 and
H1 Sf1 can be computed (iteratively) from the
two relations
H2 1
qw H  6
 8.32  s1 
H1 gHs1S f 1  ks 
x 0.8

Hs1S f 1  H S   q 
0.7

 0.05  0.7  1 f 1
  w  
RD50  3/2 
 RDs50   g H1  
22
x1 x2  
 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.

  1  2 
 Sf1  Sf 2 
1  x
1 2

H1  H2  x 2
 x 2 
2  qw qw 
 1  1 
 gH13 gH32 

flow 1
qw  Hs1  6

H1  8.32  
H1 gHs1S f 1  ks 
H2
0.8

Hs1S f 1   H S   q 
0.7

 0.05  0.7 1 f 1
  w  
x RD50 
 RDs50   g H1  3/2 
 
23
x1 x2
 REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 9
Ashida, 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.

24