LCH

Burkhard Rosier Poster n° 11

Bed form changes in presence of a lateral overflow
1) Problem & Goals
Problem
¾ Lateral loss of water over side weir crest into flood plains. ¾ Reduction of bed-load transport capacity:

3) Analysis & Results (continued)
=> Average stoss slope angle = 2.76° in region A, 3.24° (B) and 2.75°(C). Average lee slope angle = 8.84° in region A, 8.49° (B) and 9.07° (C). Lee slope 2.63 times steeper than stoss slope. Upstream of weir (A) lee slope 2.95 steeper than stoss slope, 2.58 for region B and 3.15 (C).

=> a) elevation of mean bed level & local sediment deposition near weir, ¾ Stream- and spanwise evolution of measured dune length, height and => b) change of alluvial roughness induced by bed forms. steepness and comparison with approaches from literature (Fig. 5): a) + b) => uncontrolled behaviour of diverting weir & unforeseen 0.28 0.28 2.50 0.12 bed profile B01 side weir B01 side weir (moving average) increase of design discharge. 0.10
2.00

Dune length (Λd) [m]

Dune height (Δd) [m]

0.24

0.24

1.50 0.20 1.00 0.16

0.06 0.04

0.20

Side weir Stability Erosion

0.50

0.16 0.02

0.00 0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

14.00

16.00

0.12 18.00 0.28

0.00 0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

14.00

16.00

0.12 18.00

Channel distance [m]

Channel distance [m]

Goals

Erosion

Deposits

Fig. 1
Dune steepness (δd) [-]

0.12 0.10

B01

side weir

¾ Highlight stream - and spanwise variation of bed form characteristics (upstream of weir (= region A), in weir reach (= region B) and downstream of weir (= region C)) regarding length, height, steepness as well as stoss and lee slope angle. ¾ Comparison with approaches from literature. ¾ Suitability of probability density functions (PDF) for description of bed form geometry.

0.24

0.06 0.04

0.20

0.16 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.12 18.00

Elevation [m]

0.08

Yalin (1964) Allen (1968) Van Rijn (1984b) Julien & Klaassen (1995) Yalin & da Silva (2001)

yB = 0.30 m yB = 0.60 m yB = 0.75 m yB = 0.90 m yB = 1.20 m

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

14.00

16.00

Fig. 5

Channel distance [m]

2) Experimental Setup & Measurements
¾ Flume length = 20.00 m, width = 1.50 m, height = 1.20 m; weir length = 3.00 m, initial weir height = 0.10 m. ¾ Initial bottom slope = 0.2 % ÷ 0.4 %, mobile bed d50 = 0.72 mm, approach discharge = 0.131 m3/s ÷ 0.181 m3/s, ratio outflow / approach discharge = 16.8 ÷ 28.70 %. Fig. 2
main-channel

=> Slight increase of dune length towards weir (A), decrease in weir reach (B) and clear cut increase downstream (C). For dune height no distinct trend but slight increase in region (C). Steepness almost constant throughout regions A, B and C. Inclination in plan view 25° ÷ 60°. => Dune length and height well predicted in regions A and B, considerably underestimated in region C. Steepness in fairly well agreement with theory, all values below threshold value of 0.06 (Yalin & daSilva 2001). ¾ Probability density function (PDF) to describe bed form geometry:
X '( μ ', σ ') =

X (μ , σ ) - μ

with X’ random variable, μ mean value and σ standard deviation. X’ is characterized by μ’ = 0 and a dimensionless std. dev. σ’ = σr Fig. 6
0.14 0.12

μ

side weir

evacuation channel
Probability density [-]

0.03

run B01 run B02

Standard deviation (σ) [m]

σr,β = 0.403

¾ Recording of bed topography by digital photogrammetry, longitudinal bed surface profiles at five spanwise locations: yB = 0.30 m, 0.60 m, 0.75 m (channel axis), 0.90 m and 1.20 m.

0.10 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0.00 -0.80

0.02

run B03 van der Mark et. al (2005)

0.01 σ = 0.36 μ R2 = 0.95 0.00 0.00

3) Analysis & Results
¾ Definition sketch of dune geometry (Fig. 3, left) and longitudinal bed surface profiles at different spanwise locations (Fig. 3, right):
z-mean yB = 0.30 m yB = 0.60 m yB = 0.75 m yB = 0.90 m yB = 1.20 m
= 0.05 m

-0.60

-0.40

-0.20

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

0.07

((β-μ)/μ ) [-]

Mean dune height (μ) [m]

=> PDF for dimensionless lee slope angle might be described by a normal distribution (Fig. 6, left). For other dune characteristics different distributions might be imagined, e. g. Raleigh, Weibull. => μ and σ can be related linearly (e. g. dune height, Fig. 6 right). With increasing height (μ) larger variations in height (σ) are observed.

4) Conclusions & Recommendations
side weir
4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00

B01
18.00

Fig. 3

0.00

2.00

Channel distance [m]

¾ Due to lateral water withdrawal local deposition of sediments near the weir occurs. ¾ Change of flow conditions and bed morphology influences bed form geometry in stream- and spanwise direction and consequently flow resistance. ¾ Approaches from literature appropriate to predict order of magnitude of bed form geometry until downstream weir corner. Downstream of weir less adequate prediction quality. Important for flow calculations. ¾ Stochastic approach using PDF is promising. Linear relationships between μ and σ yield satisfying results regarding bed form geometry.

¾ Stream- and spanwise evolution of measured dune stoss (Fig. 4, left) and dune lee slope angle (Fig. 4, right). Fig. 4
10.00

B01

side weir

Stoss slope angle (αd) [°]

0.24

Lee slope angle (βd) [°]

8.00 6.00

12.00 0.20 8.00 4.00 0.00 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 0.16

0.20 4.00 2.00 0.00 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 0.16

0.12 18.0

0.12 18.0

Channel distance [m]

Channel distance [m]

Elevation [m]

yB = 0.30 m yB = 0.60 m yB = 0.75 m yB = 0.90 m yB = 1.20 m

0.28

20.00 16.00

B01

side weir

final bed morphology

0.28

0.24

Elevation [m]

0.08