Journal of Hydraulic Research

ISSN: 0022-1686 (Print) 1814-2079 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tjhr20

Longitudinal dispersion coefficient in ice-covered

rivers

Yongcan Chen, Zhigang Wang, Dejun Zhu & Zhaowei Liu

To cite this article: Yongcan Chen, Zhigang Wang, Dejun Zhu & Zhaowei Liu (2016):
Longitudinal dispersion coefficient in ice-covered rivers, Journal of Hydraulic Research, DOI:
10.1080/00221686.2016.1175519

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00221686.2016.1175519

Published online: 13 May 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 26

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tjhr20

Download by: [University of Lethbridge] Date: 11 June 2016, At: 21:13

 Journal of Hydraulic Research, 2016
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00221686.2016.1175519
© 2016 International Association for Hydro-Environment Engineering and Research

Research paper

Longitudinal dispersion coefficient in ice-covered rivers

YONGCAN CHEN (IAHR Member), Professor, Department of Hydraulic Engineering, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084,
People’s Republic of China
Email: chenyc@tsinghua.edu.cn

ZHIGANG WANG, Engineer, Department of Hydraulics, China Institute of Water Resources and Hydropower Research,
Beijing 100038, People’s Republic of China
Email: bimonbird@163.com
Downloaded by [University of Lethbridge] at 21:13 11 June 2016

DEJUN ZHU, Associated Professor, Department of Hydraulic Engineering, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, People’s Republic
of China
Email: zhudejun@tsinghua.edu.cn

ZHAOWEI LIU (IAHR Member), Associated Professor, Department of Hydraulic Engineering, Tsinghua University,
Beijing 100084, People’s Republic of China
Email: liuzhw@tsinghua.edu.cn (author for correspondence)

ABSTRACT
The focus of this paper is on the ice-cover effects on the longitudinal dispersion coefficient in rivers. The dispersion coefficients due to either
the vertical or transverse velocity shear are calculated using Elder’s or Fisher’s triple integral equation, respectively, based on the assumptions of
a parabolic cross section and a vertical logarithmic velocity distribution in both the riverbed and the ice-cover zones. The results show that in ice-
covered natural rivers, where the aspect ratio is usually larger than 10, the dispersion coefficient due to the transverse velocity shear is 50 times greater
than that due to the vertical velocity shear. An analytical formula for longitudinal dispersion coefficient is further developed by the simplification of
Fischer’s triple integral equation, and it is validated against field tracer tests with discrepancy between observations and predictions less than 150%.
Comparing the proposed formula to the most widely-used Fischer’s formula demonstrates that for wide and shallow rivers the presence of ice-cover
will lead to about a three-fold increase in the magnitude of the longitudinal dispersion.

Keywords: Cross-sectional distribution of velocity; ice-covered rivers; longitudinal dispersion coefficient; parabolic cross section;
shear velocity

1 Introduction dispersion due to the velocity shear is caused by non-uniform

Contaminated water, as soon as it is discharged to a river, will
undergo several stages of mixing as it is transported down-
stream by the flowing water. The effluent plume initially spreads
vertically, transversely and longitudinally due to turbulent dif-
fusion. However, once it is vertically and transversely fully
mixed, the cloud of dissolved substance will spread primarily
by longitudinal dispersion.
Two distinct dispersion mechanisms are known to act in
rivers: dispersion due to velocity shear and dispersion due
to the storage zone effects (Atkinson & Davis, 2000; Davis
& Atkinson, 2000; Davis, Atkinson, & Wigley, 2000). The
velocity distribution and turbulent diffusion and leads to a Fick-
ian distribution of trace concentration. The concept of dispersion
due to the mean velocity shear was first proposed by Taylor
(1954) and shortly after that applied to open channel flows and
natural rivers by Elder (1959) and Fischer, List, Koh, Imberger,
and Brooks (1979). The dispersion due to the effect of the stor-
age zone denotes tracer exchange between the shear flow and
the storage zones in which there is no (or very weak) longi-
tudinal transport. The earliest contribution to the storage zone
dispersion was made by Banks (1974) who proposed a cell-
in-series model to explain the deviation of measured cloud
from the Gaussian distribution predicted by Taylor’s theory.

Received 17 July 2014; accepted 4 April 2016/Currently open for discussion.

ISSN 0022-1686 print/ISSN 1814-2079 online

http://www.tandfonline.com
1
 2 Y. Chen et al.
Subsequently, several models were developed to describe the
dispersion due to exchange process between the fluid masses
in storage zones and in main streams by Bencala and Walters
(1983), Haggerty and Gorelick (1995), Boano, Packman, Cortis,
Revelli, and Ridolfi (2007), and Marion and Zaramella (2005).
Although attention to the dispersion due to the storage zone
effects is growing, the velocity shear dispersion models are
still widely used in engineering practice due to their simpli-
city (Sukhodolov, Nikora, Rowinski, & Czernuszenko, 1997;
Sukhodolov, Sukhodolov, Kozerski, & Kohler, 2006). More-
over, its corresponding longitudinal dispersion coefficient DL ,
which indicates the rate of cloud spreading, still serves as one
of the most important parameters in river water quality mod-
els. To obtain DL , three types of method were proposed, namely
the analytical approach, tracer experiment approach (Clark,
Schlosser, Stute, & Simpson, 1996) and empirical formulae
Downloaded by [University of Lethbridge] at 21:13 11 June 2016
(Zeng & Huai, 2014), among which the analytical approach is
more frequently used.
Elder (1959) investigated the dispersion due to the verti-
cal velocity shear in an infinitely wide channel and derived an
expression for the dispersion coefficient DL1 as:
 1  z
1 1
DL1 =− û(z)
H 0 0 Dt
where H is the average water depth, Dt is the turbulent diffusi-
vity, û(z) is the deviation of the time-averaged velocity from
the depth-averaged velocity at z, and z is the vertical distance
to the riverbed. Later, Fischer et al. (1979) derived a similar
expression for the dispersion coefficient DL2 due to transverse
velocity shear, which is:
 B  y
1 1
DL2 =− h(y)û(y)
A 0 0 Dtt h(y)
(2)
where A is the cross-sectional area, B is the channel width, Dtt is
the transverse mixing coefficient, y is the transverse coordinate,
h(y) is the local water depth, and û(y) is the deviation of local
depth-averaged velocity at y from the cross-sectional average
velocity.
Elder (1959) and Fischer et al. (1979) studied the longi-
tudinal dispersion coefficients in natural streams. In order to
improve the accuracy of the longitudinal dispersion coefficient
in natural rivers, Deng, Singh, and Bengtsson (2001) calculated
the transverse mixing coefficient considering the processes of
both the transverse turbulent diffusion and the transverse dis-
persion. Seo and Baek (2004) used the beta probability density
function to represent the transverse velocity distribution in a
natural stream. The function can be used to produce both sym-
metrical and skewed velocity profiles. Furthermore, Marion and
Zaramella (2006) included sinuosity in the evaluation of the lon-
gitudinal dispersion coefficient. In recent years, the effects of
cross-section shape (Chen & Zhu, 2007), riparian vegetation
(Perucca, Camporeale, & Ridolfi, 2009), suspended sediment
Journal of Hydraulic Research (2016)
(Ng, 2000), and water surface waves (Huang & Law, 2011) on
the longitudinal dispersion were also studied. However, syste-
matic research on the effects of ice cover has not yet been well
developed.
The existence of ice cover alters the flow characteristics
greatly, with the maximum velocity shifted down and the
average velocity decreased (Lau & Krishnappan, 1980; Teal,
Ettema, & Walker, 1994). This leads to changes in the shear
stress distribution (Meyer, 2009), vertical turbulent diffusivity
and transverse mixing capacity (Engmann & Kellerhals, 1974;
Zhang & Zhu, 2011). The velocity distribution, vertical turbu-
lent diffusivity and transverse mixing capacity are all key factors
contributing to the longitudinal dispersion, thus from Eqs (1)
and (2) one can expect a different longitudinal dispersion
coefficient in ice-covered rivers from that in ice-free streams.
In this paper, we report a study of the effects of ice cover
on the longitudinal dispersion coefficient in rivers and we
propose an analytical expression to represent the longitudinal
dispersion coefficient in ice-covered rivers. Firstly, the dis-
persion coefficients DL1 and DL2 are computed using Eqs (1)
and (2), respectively, based on the assumptions of a parabolic
cross section and a vertical logarithmic velocity distribution in
 z
both the near riverbed and the near ice-cover zones. Then, an
û(z) dz dz dz (1)
0
analytical expression is derived from Eq. (2) to determine the
longitudinal dispersion coefficient in ice-covered rivers where
the aspect ratio is so large that the dispersion due to the vertical
velocity shear can be neglected. Finally, the analytical solution
is verified by the observed data obtained from field tracer tests
by Beltaos (1998) and the effects of ice cover on the longitudinal
dispersion process in rivers are discussed.
 y
2 Parabolic cross sections in ice-covered rivers
h(y)û(y) dy dy dy
0 In real rivers, the cross section is often composed of a deep part
and one or two adjacent shallow portions near the river banks;
hence it is too irregular to be expressed in an analytical manner.
However, the deep part of a cross section can often be assumed
to be parabolic (Deng & Chu, 2001). Consequently, a parabolic
curve can be used to represent the cross section in ice-covered
rivers (Fig. 1) where the flow rate is usually small enough to
be restricted in the deep part of the cross section. According to
Fig. 1, the water depth distribution over the cross section can be
obtained by:
y y 
h(y) = −4Hm −1 (3)
B B
where Hm is the maximum water depth.
ice cover
B
O y
Hm h(y)
Figure 1 Sketch of a parabolic cross-section in ice-covered rivers
 Journal of Hydraulic Research (2016)
(a) (b)
(c) (d)
Downloaded by [University of Lethbridge] at 21:13 11 June 2016
Figure 2 Typical cross-sections of the Mudan River
The assumption of a parabolic cross-sectional shape in ice-
covered rivers was verified by the topography of the Mudan
River located in the north-east of China. The river is ice-covered
for approximately five months each year, on average. In 2010,
the Hydrological Bureau of Mudanjiang investigated the river
topography along a 110 km reach nearby the Mudanjiang City.
They drilled holes in the ice-cover and placed the system of V60
GNSS RTK (produced by Hi-Target Survey Instruments Com-
pany, Guangzhou, China) into the river flow to measure the
horizontal position and bed elevation. The transverse intervals
of measured points were unequal and ranged from 10 m to 50 m.
(4)
The longitudinal spans between measured cross sections var-
ied between 1 km and 2 km and in total 63 cross sections were
measured. During the investigation, the flow was found to be
mostly restricted in the deep part of cross section. Using Eq. (3)
to fit the measured cross sections it was found that the corre-
lating coefficients R2 were greater than 0.80, and the deep parts
of the cross sections were all of the parabolic type (four typi-
cal cross sections are shown in Fig. 2), although the overall
forms were different from one another. The agreement between
the parabolic curves and the measured data demonstrated that
parabolic cross sections are a reasonable approximation for a
significant proportion of ice-covered rivers.
3 Analytical formula for the longitudinal dispersion
coefficient
3.1 Velocity distribution and mixing characteristics
Although the ice cover makes the vertical velocity distribution
different from that in ice-free rivers, the logarithmic law is still
Dispersion in ice-covered rivers 3
suitable to represent the vertical velocity profile (Dolgopolova,
2008; Meyer, 2009; Teal et al., 1994). A cross section is divided
into two zones by the maximum velocity line: the ice-cover zone
and the riverbed zone (Fig. 3). In these two zones, the verti-
cal velocity distributions follow the logarithmic law. Applying
the logarithmic law at any transverse coordinate y will give the
cross-sectional velocity distribution as:
⎧
⎪ u∗i 30h(y) − 30z
⎪
⎪ hb (y) < z ≤ h(y)
⎨ κ ln Ki
u(y, z) =
⎪
⎪ u∗b 30z
⎪
⎩ ln 0 < z ≤ hb (y)
κ Kb
where κ is the von Karman constant (typically 0.41),
Ki and Kb are the equivalent roughness heights of the
bottom of ice cover and the surface of riverbed; they
can be obtained from Manning’s roughness coefficients
√
using equations ni = κ/ g(ln [30(h − hb )/Ki ] − 1)−1 and
√
nb = κ/ g(ln [30hb /Kb ] − 1)−1 , respectively; hb (y) is the local
water column for the riverbed zone at y (i.e. distance from
the
 ice-cover to the location of the velocity maximum), u∗i =
√
g(H − Hb )S and u∗b = gHb S are the local shear velocities
for the ice-covered zone and riverbed zone, respectively, S is
the hydraulic slope, g is acceleration due to gravity, and Hb is
the height of the local water column at the riverbed zone, where
h(y) = H.
The vertical turbulent diffusivity, representing the effects
of flow turbulence and vertical advection, is one of the most
important parameters used to analyse the longitudinal dispersion
due to the vertical velocity shear. Using the Reynolds analogy
and assuming a linear distribution of shear stress in both the
 4 Y. Chen et al. Journal of Hydraulic Research (2016)

Figure 3 Sketch of the vertical profile of the mean longitudinal velocity in ice-covered rivers

ice-cover and the riverbed zones (Lau & Krishnappan, 1980; u* and ζ as:
Meyer, 2009), the vertical turbulent diffusivity is determined.
Downloaded by [University of Lethbridge] at 21:13 11 June 2016

Then, the depth-averaged vertical turbulent diffusivity can be h∗ = h(y)/H (7)

expressed as: ∗
u = û(y)/U (8)
κu∗i [H − Hb ]2 + κu∗b Hb2 ξ = y/B (9)
Dt = (5)
6H
where U is the cross-sectional-averaged velocity. Based on the
The transverse mixing in natural rivers is a complex pro- channel geometry, one can get the cross section area as:
cess involving shear dispersion, turbulent diffusion, and maybe
advection by micro-spiral-motions for some special situations. A = BH (10)
In general, it is difficult to distinguish one from another. Thus
up till now, the only reasonable approach to study the process Substituting Eqs (7)–(10) into Eq. (2) results in the following
of transverse mixing in rivers is to perform tracer tests. Accord- simplified equation:
ing to the test results, it is advisable to calculate the transverse
 B  y  y
mixing coefficient Dtt of ice-covered rivers using: 1 1
DL2 =− h(y)û(y) h(y)û(y)dydydy
A 0 0 Dtt h(y) 0
Dtt = ku∗ R (6)  1
B3
=− H h∗ (ξ )Uu∗ (ξ )
BH 0
where k is a dimensionless coefficient, which is found to be  ξ  ξ
1
approximately 50% smaller than that for open water conditions × H h∗ (ξ )Uu∗ (ξ )dξ dξ dξ
√ ∗
0 ku∗ RH h (ξ ) 0
(Engmann & Kellerhals, 1974), and u∗ = gJR is the global 
shear velocity of the cross section. As k is always as assumed B2 U2 2 1 ∗
=− h (ξ )u∗ (ξ )
to be 0.15 in ice-free conditions, it is recommended to use the H u∗ k 0
value of 0.075 in the ice-covered rivers. Parameter R = A/χ is  ξ  ξ
1
the hydraulic radius with χ representing the wetted perimeter; × ∗ (ξ )
h∗ (ξ )u∗ (ξ )dξ dξ dξ
0 h 0
for wide and shallow ice-covered rivers R is approximated equal  2  2
2I B U
to H /2. = H u∗ (11)
k H u∗

3.2 Longitudinal dispersion due to velocity shear where

 1  ξ  ξ
The longitudinal dispersion coefficient due to vertical veloc- ∗ ∗ 1
I =− u h u∗ h∗ dξ dξ dξ (12)
ity shear in ice-covered rivers, DL1 , can be estimated using 0 0 h∗ 0
Eq. (1), if the velocity distribution and the vertical turbulent dif-
To calculate the parameter I, the distributions of h* and u* are
fusivity Dt are available. With the velocity distribution and the
needed. If the cross section is parabolic, the transverse distribu-
transverse mixing coefficient Dtt known, the longitudinal dis-
tion of flow depth h(y) can be expressed using Eq. (3) and H can
persion coefficient due to the transverse velocity shear in an
be expressed as H = 2Hm /3, therefore:
ice-covered river can be estimated using Eq. (2). However, a
simple analytical solution can be obtained assuming a parabolic
cross-sectional shape. Let us define dimensionless variables h*, h∗ = −6ξ(ξ − 1) (13)
 Journal of Hydraulic Research (2016) Dispersion in ice-covered rivers 5

As is known, U can also be calculated using the Manning 1

formula, expressed for ice-covered rivers as: S = 0.0009, H = 5m, n = 0.03m-1/3s
b
0.8
S = 0.0012, H = 5m, n = 0.03m-1/3s
 b
1 H 2/3 1/2 0.6
S = 0.0015, H = 5m, n = 0.03m-1/3s
U= S (14) b
n 2 0.4 -1/3
S = 0.0009, H = 3m, nb = 0.03m s
-1/3
The channel sides can be expected to have little influence on the 0.2 S = 0.0009, H = 10m, nb = 0.03m s

e
velocity profile in the central region when the width-to-depth 0 S = 0.0009, H = 5m, n = 0.02m
b
-1/3
s
ratio is sufficiently large. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume S = 0.0009, H = 5m, nb = 0.04m
-1/3
s
-0.2
that the Manning formula is valid for the local depth-averaged
velocity Uv (y) over the cross section, thus: -0.4

-0.6
1 h(y) 2/3 1/2
Uv (y) = S (15) 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
n 2
r
D −D
As û(y) = Uv (y) − U, Eq. (8) combined with Eqs (14) and (15) Figure 4 Relation curves of effect coefficient (ε = L1DL1−ice−free
L1−ice−free
) of
ice covers on the longitudinal dispersion due to vertical velocity shear
Downloaded by [University of Lethbridge] at 21:13 11 June 2016

can be transformed to:

versus the ratio (r = ni /nb ) of ice roughness to bed roughness
u∗ = [−6ξ(ξ − 1)]2/3 − 1 (16)

Substituting Eqs (13) and (16) into Eq. (12), the value of I can
be shown by numerical integration to be 0.0014. Combined
with k = 0.075, an analytical expression for the longitudinal
dispersion coefficient due to the transverse velocity shear in
ice-covered rivers can be derived as:
water depth and bed roughness. Such an effect is indicated by
the negative values of ε in Fig. 4, and could be explained by a
much slower flow due to an additional drag of ice-covers. Fur-
thermore, the magnitude of ε reached the minimum when the
roughness ratio r = 1, where also the difference between disper-

2 
2 sion coefficients for ice-covered rivers and ice-free rivers is the
B U largest. However, if the ice roughness was much smaller than
DL2 = 0.037 H u∗ (17)
H u∗ the bed roughness, the longitudinal dispersion coefficient in ice-
covered rivers might be larger than that in ice-free rivers. In
For ice-free rivers, Fischer (1975) proposed a similar analyti- such case, the velocity profile in ice-covered rivers was simi-
cal expression by simplifying Eq. (2) using data obtained from lar to that in ice-free rivers except in the region near the water
several flume and field experiments. The expression is given as: surface, and as a result, the non-uniformity of velocity distribu-

2 
2 tion would become dominant. Besides, according to Fig. 4 and
B U
DL = DL2 = 0.011 H u∗ (18)
H u∗
Although derived differently, Eqs (18) and (17) share the same
appearance except that the numerical coefficient takes the value
of 0.011 in Eq. (18) while it is 0.037 in Eq. (17).
4 Application and discussion
Based on Eq. (1), Wang, Chen, Zhu, and Liu (2013) investi-
gated the ice-cover effects on the longitudinal dispersion due
to the vertical velocity shear and presented an interesting rela-
DL1 − DL1−ice−free
tionship shown in Fig. 4, where ε = is the
DL1−ice−free
coefficient of ice-cover effect on the dispersion coefficient,
DL1−ice−free is the longitudinal dispersion coefficient due to the
vertical velocity shear in ice-free flows, calculated using Elder’s
(1959) formula and r = ni /nb is the ratio of ice-cover rough-
ness coefficient to the bed roughness coefficient. For most cases,
the longitudinal dispersion coefficient in ice-covered rivers was
smaller than that in ice-free rivers with the same hydraulic slope,
the definition of ε, it could be concluded that the longitudinal
dispersion coefficient due to the vertical velocity shear in ice-
covered rivers would increase with water depth and hydraulic
slope, which was the same as in ice-free rivers.
However, the longitudinal dispersion coefficient due to the
transverse velocity shear in ice-covered rivers followed a dif-
ferent pattern. To clearly illustrate it, eight hypothetical cases
were designed with different hydraulic parameters that could
influence the flow structure greatly, namely the water depth,
hydraulic slope, and Manning’s roughness coefficient. The cal-
culation results using Eq. (2) are listed in column (11) of
Table 1. It is shown that the longitudinal dispersion coefficient
due to the transverse velocity shear increased with the hydraulic
slope in ice-covered rivers. In contrast, the dispersion coeffi-
cient decreased with either the water depth or the roughness
coefficient of ice cover.
Furthermore, Eq. (17) was also used to evaluate the lon-
gitudinal dispersion coefficient due to the transverse velocity
shear and the corresponding results are shown in column (12)
of Table 1. The numbers in column (12) were approximately
the same as those in column (11) with the discrepancy less than
 6 Y. Chen et al. Journal of Hydraulic Research (2016)

Table 1 Longitudinal dispersion coefficients for hypothetical cases

DL2 (m2 s−1 ) Error**

Case B (m) Hm (m) S (10−3 ) ni (m−1/3 s) nb (m−1/3 s) U (m s−1 ) Dt (m2 s−1 ) Dtt (m2 s−1 ) DL1 * (m2 s−1 ) Eq. (2) Eq. (17) (%)

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13)

TC1 50 1 0.4 0.009 0.03 0.46 0.002 0.001 0.23 846.1 806.2 5
TC2 50 3 0.4 0.009 0.03 0.96 0.008 0.005 1.18 703.8 680.8 3
TC3 50 5 0.4 0.009 0.03 1.35 0.017 0.010 2.54 646.1 626.6 3
TC4 50 10 0.4 0.009 0.03 2.14 0.048 0.029 7.19 575.4 555.5 3
TC5 50 5 0.4 0.030 0.03 0.94 0.009 0.010 0.91 313.4 303.8 3
TC6 50 5 0.4 0.070 0.03 0.54 0.013 0.010 2.06 105.3 100.3 5
TC7 50 5 0.1 0.009 0.03 0.67 0.009 0.005 1.27 323.1 308.7 4
TC8 50 5 0.7 0.009 0.03 1.78 0.023 0.013 3.35 854.7 823.5 4

*DL1 is calculated using Eq. (1)

**Error = |Eq. (17) – Eq. (2)|/Eq. (2), is the absolute value of the difference between the dispersion coefficient by Eq. (2) and that by Eq. (17)
divided by the dispersion coefficient by Eq. (2).
Downloaded by [University of Lethbridge] at 21:13 11 June 2016

5%, which were listed in column (13). Differences in rough-
ness characteristics, which changed the cross-sectional distri-
bution of velocity, were responsible for these discrepancies.
The equivalent roughness height was assumed to be constant
over the cross section in Eq. (4) that was used in Eq. (2). In
contrast, Manning’s roughness coefficient was assumed to be
constant over the cross section in Eq. (14) that was used in the
derivation of Eq. (17). However, these discrepancies were so
small that Eq. (17) could be regarded as a good approximation
to Eq. (2).
For wide and shallow ice-free rivers, the transverse velo-
city shear dominated the process of shear dispersion, and as
a result, the dispersion coefficient due to the transverse veloc-
ity shear was much larger than that due to the vertical velocity
shear (Fischer et al., 1979). To compare the dispersion due to
either vertical velocity shear or transverse velocity shear in ice-
covered rivers, the longitudinal dispersion coefficients due to
the vertical velocity shear for the eight hypothetical cases were
calculated using Eq. (1) and listed in column (10) of Table 1,
with h(y) being the average water depth H. For all of the cases
in Table 1, the aspect ratios were greater than 5 and the ratios
of DL2 to DL1 were greater than 50. Furthermore, the ratios
of DL2 to DL1 increased with increasing the width-to-depth
ratio (Case 1–4). The results indicate that the transverse velo-
city shear played a much more important role than the vertical
velocity shear in the process of longitudinal dispersion in ice-
covered rivers where the width-to-depth ratio is usually greater
than 10. Consequently, the longitudinal dispersion coefficient in
ice-covered rivers could be predicted using Eq. (17), in which
only the transverse velocity shear was taken into account and
the vertical velocity shear was ignored.
It is difficult to validate an analytical formula of the lon-
gitudinal dispersion coefficient against a tracer dye test in
natural rivers, because such tracer tests could only be car-
ried out during ice-cover periods, not to mention the effects
of potential storage zones. The assumption of parabolic cross
section, velocity distribution, and turbulent diffusion should be
validated before the comparison of Eq. (17) with field tracer
tests. For environmental fluid mechanics studies, a systematic
survey was conducted on the lower Spree River near Berlin.
The riverbed of the investigated reach was modelled by a
parabolic function (Sukhodolov & Uijttewaal, 2010). During
ice-covered periods, the vertical profile of streamwise velocity
followed the logarithmic law and the shear stress over the water
depth was linearly distributed (Sukhodolov, Thiele, Bungartz, &
Engelhardt, 1999).
Beltaos (1998) reported several sets of field tracer dye tests
in ice-covered rivers which were conducted by the Alberta
Research Council. As not all test reaches extend far enough to
achieve a Fickian dispersion, Beltaos (1998) proposed a method
to estimate the longitudinal dispersion coefficient using a cor-
rection coefficient l, which was used to estimate characteristic
length and assumed values from 0.48 to 4.5 (Beltaos, 1979).
Consequently, the top five tests were chosen for the validation
of Eq. (17) based on the coefficient l, since their values were
large enough to represent typical river lengths as well as the
longitudinal dispersion coefficients. The selected test reaches
had large lengths L ranging from 45 km to 140 km as well as
large widths B from 60 m to 142 m, while the water depths H
were normally below 1 m (Table 2). Thus the width-to-depth
ratios were about or even above 100, suggesting that the tested
reaches were all wide and shallow, and thus Eq. (17) could be
used to evaluate the longitudinal dispersion coefficients. The
experimental longitudinal dispersion coefficients and the dis-
persion coefficient predicted by Eq. (17) are listed in columns
(9) and (10) of Table 2, respectively. The discrepancies between
the values calculated by Eq. (17) and the experimental results
are smaller than 150%, column (12) of Table 2. The agreement
is fairly good, bearing in mind that Eq. (17) was derived from
Eq. (2), which is based on the assumption of uniform straight
flow while real rivers are always sinuous. Besides, the main
channels of cross sections were not exactly parabolic, and the
 Journal of Hydraulic Research (2016) Dispersion in ice-covered rivers 7

Table 2 Characteristics and longitudinal dispersion coefficients of the test reaches in ice-covered conditions (data from Beltaos, 1998)

DL2 (m2 /s)

Case L (km) B (m) H (m) S (10−3 ) n (m−1/3 s) U (m s−1 ) Dtt (m2 s−1 ) Expt. Eq. (17) Eq. (18) Error* (%)

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12)

EC1 102 105 0.65 1.26 0.035 0.48 0.0016 ≥ 982.0 2282.5 678.6 132
EC2 140 128 0.94 0.82 0.049 0.35 0.0022 ≥ 736.3 1285.5 382.1 75
EC3 45 60 0.90 0.81 0.070 0.24 0.0020 ≥ 162.8 142.6 42.4 12
EC4 121 116 1.44 0.79 0.073 0.31 0.0040 ≥ 828.9 445.0 132.3 46
EC5 71 142 1.00 0.93 0.060 0.32 0.0025 ≥ 1136.0 1131.7 336.5 0

*Error = |Eq. (17) – Expt.|/Expt., is the absolute value of the dispersion coefficient difference between prediction (Eq. (17)) and field test (Expt.)
divided by the measured dispersion coefficient.

experimental results from field tracer tests were not completely Thirdly, the prediction of the longitudinal dispersion coefficient
accurate since the dispersion coefficients cannot be measured was easier in ice-covered rivers. Compared with so many irregu-
Downloaded by [University of Lethbridge] at 21:13 11 June 2016

directly.
Equation (18) was also used to predict the measured dis-
persion coefficients and the results are listed in column (11)
of Table 2. Clearly Eq. (18) underestimated the dispersion
coefficients for all cases. Such underestimation implies that ice-
covered rivers had larger dispersion coefficients than ice-free
rivers, which was also concluded by Beltaos (1998). As men-
tioned earlier, the dispersion coefficient due to the vertical velo-
city shear in ice-covered rivers was smaller than that in ice-
free rivers. In contrast, the dispersion coefficient due to the
transverse velocity shear in ice-covered rivers was larger than
that in ice-free rivers. However, the transverse velocity shear
dominated the dispersion process in wide-and-shallow ice-
covered rivers. Recalling the derivation process of Eq. (17),
we can find that it is the transverse mixing, rather than the
transverse velocity shear, that contributed to the difference
of the dispersion coefficients in ice-covered rivers and ice-
free rivers. Hence, smaller transverse mixing capacity resulted
in a larger longitudinal dispersion coefficient in ice-covered
rivers.
Seo and Cheong (1998) stated that Eq. (18), compared with
the other theoretical and empirical equations available for real
ice-free rivers, predicts the dispersion coefficients better, within
400% error if compared to measured data. Therefore, Eq. (17)
should be considered as a significant improvement in the current
predictive capabilities as the discrepancy between the predicted
and the measured dispersion coefficients for ice-covered rivers
is smaller than 150%. The relatively good performance of the
equations proposed in the present study is due to three factors.
Firstly, compared to hundreds of field tracer tests in ice-free
rivers, only a limited number of field tracer tests were performed
investigating longitudinal dispersion in ice-covered rivers. Even
worse, few theoretical or empirical works could be found.
Secondly, the measurement of the longitudinal dispersion coef-
ficient was more accurate in ice-covered rivers. As mentioned
above, the flow was nearly uniform since it was small enough to
be restricted in the main channel during the ice-covered period.
larities in ice-free rivers, the cross section shapes are simpler and
a significant proportion of ice-covered rivers can be expected to
be parabolic. Consequently, the longitudinal dispersion coeffi-
cient in ice-covered rivers could be calculated by an analytical
solution with an improved precision. Nevertheless, new and
accurate tracer tests in both real rivers and laboratory flumes
are still needed.
5 Conclusions
Under the assumptions that the cross section is parabolic and the
velocity profiles in both the riverbed zone and the ice-cover zone
follow the logarithmic law at each location of the cross section,
the longitudinal dispersion coefficients due to the vertical veloc-
ity shear and the transverse velocity shear were calculated for
ice-covered rivers. The calculation results showed that, for the
longitudinal dispersion process in wide and shallow ice-covered
rivers, the transverse velocity shear was dominant and the effect
of vertical velocity shear could be ignored. Then, an analytical
expression (Eq. (17)) was proposed to evaluate the longitudinal
dispersion coefficient in wide and shallow ice-covered rivers,
by simplifying the triple integral method developed by Fischer
et al. (1979). The formula was verified by the measured data
for the dispersion coefficients of several field tracer tests in
ice-covered rivers, with the discrepancy being less than 150%.
A comparison between the present formula and Eq. (18), pro-
posed by Fischer (1975) for ice-free rivers, showed that the
dispersion coefficient in ice-covered rivers was larger than that
in ice-free rivers under the same conditions. It is the trans-
verse mixing capacity, rather than the transverse velocity shear,
that makes the dispersion in ice-covered rivers greater than that
in ice-free rivers. The prediction of the longitudinal disper-
sion coefficient in ice-covered rivers was relatively accurate,
since the flow was nearly uniform by being restricted in the
main channels. Therefore, the proposed analytical expression
could be a good tool to estimate the longitudinal dispersion in
ice-covered rivers.
 8 Y. Chen et al. Journal of Hydraulic Research (2016)

Acknowledgements u* = dimensionless velocity (–)

u∗ = global shear velocity of the cross section,
√
The authors gratefully acknowledge the topography measure- u∗ = gRS, (m s−1 )
ment conducted by the Hydrological Bureau of Mudanjiang, u∗b = local shear velocity of riverbed zone,
√
China, during the ice-covered period. The authors also appre- u∗b = gHb S, (m s−1 )
ciate the helpful comments and suggestions of the anonymous u∗i = local shear
 velocity of ice-cover zone,
reviewers. u∗i = g(H − Hb )S, (m s−1 )
û = deviation of local velocity from the cross-sectional
mean (m s−1 )
Funding
U = cross-sectional average velocity (m s−1 )
Uv = local depth-averaged velocity (m s−1 )
The work was partly supported by the National Natural Sci-
y = transverse coordinate (m)
ence Foundation of China [numbers 51039002 and 51279078],
z = vertical coordinate (m)
the Program for New Century Excellent Talents in Univer-
ε = effect coefficient of ice-cover (–)
sity [2012490811] and the Program for Changjiang Scholars
κ = the von Karman constant (–)
and Innovative Research Team in University of Ministry of
ξ = dimensionless transverse coordinate (–)
Education of China [IRI13025].
χ = wetted perimeter (m)
Downloaded by [University of Lethbridge] at 21:13 11 June 2016

Notation
References
A = cross-sectional area (m2 )
B = river width (m) Atkinson, T. C., & Davis, P. M. (2000). Longitudinal disper-
DL = longitudinal dispersion coefficient (m2 s−1 ) sion in natural channels: 1. Experimental results from the
DL1 = longitudinal dispersion coefficient due to vertical River Severn, UK. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences,
velocity shear (m2 s−1 ) 4(3), 345–353.
DL2 = longitudinal dispersion coefficient due to transverse Banks, R. (1974). A mixing cell model for longitudinal dis-
velocity shear (m2 s−1 ) persion in open channels. Water Resources Research, 10(2),
Dt = vertical turbulent diffusivity (m2 s−1 ) 357–358.
Dtt = transverse mixing coefficient (m2 s−1 ) Beltaos, S. (1979). Mixing characteristics of the Athabasca
g = acceleration due to gravity (m s−2 ) river below Fort McMurray winter conditions. Preparation
h(y) = local water depth at transverse coordinate y (m) for the Alberta Oil Sands Environmental Research Program
hb = local water column height of river bed zone (m) by Transportation and Surface Water Engineering Division,
h* = dimensionless water depth (–) Alberta Research Council.
H = mean water depth (m) Beltaos, S. (1998). Longitudinal dispersion in ice-covered
Hb = local water column height of riverbed zone where rivers. Journal of Cold Regions Engineering, 12(4), 184–201.
h(y) = H (m) Bencala, K. E., & Walters, R. A. (1983). Simulation of solute
Hm = maximum water depth (m) transport in a mountain pool-and riffle stream: A transient
I = integrated parameter (–) storage model. Water Resources Research, 19(3), 718–724.
k = dimensionless coefficient for transverse mixing Boano, F., Packman, A. I., Cortis, A., Revelli, R., & Ridolfi, L.
coefficient (–) (2007). A continuous time random walk approach to the
Kb = equivalent roughness height of the surface of river stream transport of solutes. Water Resources Research, 43,
bed (m) W10425.
Ki = equivalent roughness height of the bottom of ice Chen, Y. C., & Zhu, D. J. (2007). Study on longitudinal dis-
cover (m) persion coefficient in trapezoidal cross-section open channels.
n = composited Manning’s roughness coefficient (m−1/3 s) Proceedings of 32nd International Association of Hydraulic
nb = Manning’s roughness coefficient of the surface of river Engineering & Research (IAHR) congress, Venice, Italy,
bed (m−1/3 s) A1.a-010-O.
ni = Manning’s roughness coefficient of the bottom of ice Clark, J. F., Schlosser, P., Stute, M., & Simpson, H. J.
cover (m−1/3 s) (1996). SF6–3He tracer release experiment: A new method
r = ratio of ice roughness coefficient to river bed roughness of determining longitudinal dispersion coefficients in large
coefficient (–) rivers. Environmental Sciences & Technologies, 30(5),
R = hydraulic radius (m) 1527–1532.
S = hydraulic slope (–) Davis, P. M., & Atkinson, T. C. (2000). Longitudinal disper-
u = local mean velocity (m s−1 ) sion in natural channels: 3. An aggregated dead zone model
 Journal of Hydraulic Research (2016)
applied to the River Severn, UK. Hydrology and Earth System
Sciences, 4(3), 373–381.
Davis, P. M., Atkinson, T. C., & Wigley, T. M. L. (2000). Lon-
gitudinal dispersion in natural channels: 2. The roles of shear
flow dispersion and dead zones in the River Severn, UK.
Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 4(3), 355–371.
Deng, Z. Q., & Chu, J. D. (2001). Longitudinal dispersion coef-
ficient in natural rivers. Advances in Water Science, 12(2),
137–142 (in Chinese).
Deng, Z. Q., Singh, V. P., & Bengtsson, L. (2001). Longitudinal
dispersion coefficient in straight rivers. Journal of Hydraulic
Engineering, 127(11), 919–927.
Dolgopolova, E. N. (2008). Vertical transfer coefficient in natu-
ral streams. Water Resources, 35(4), 408–416.
Elder, J. W. (1959). The dispersion of a marked fluid in turbulent
shear flows. Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 5(4), 544–560.
Downloaded by [University of Lethbridge] at 21:13 11 June 2016
Engmann, J. E. O., & Kellerhals, R. (1974). Transverse mix-
ing in an ice-covered river. Water Resources Research, 10(4),
775–784.
Fischer, H. B. (1975). Discussion of “simple method for pre-
dicting dispersion in streams”. Journal of the Environmental
Engineering Division-ASCE, 101(3), 453–455.
Fischer, H. B., List, E. J., Koh, R. C. Y., Imberger, J., &
Brooks, N. H. (1979). Mixing in inland and coastal waters.
New York: Academic Press, 104–138.
Haggerty, R., & Gorelick, S. M. (1995). Multiple-rate mass
transfer for modeling diffusion and surface reactions in media
with pore-scale heterogeneity. Water Resources Research,
31(10), 2383–2400.
Huang, G., & Law, A. W. K. (2011). Taylor dispersion of
contaminants by random waves. Journal of Engineering
Mathematics, 70(4), 389–397.
Lau, Y. L., & Krishnappan, B. G. (1980). Ice cover effects on
stream flows and mixing. Journal of Hydraulics Division,
107(10), 1225–1242.
Marion, A., & Zaramella, M. (2005). A residence time model
for stream-subsurface exchange of contaminants. Acta Geo-
physica Polonica, 53(4), 527–538.
Marion, A., & Zaramella, M. (2006). Effects of velocity gra-
dients and secondary flow on the dispersion of solutes in
a meandering channel. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering,
132(12), 1295–1302.
Meyer, Z. (2009). An analysis of the mechanism of flow in ice-
covered rivers. Acta Geophysica, 58(2), 337–355.
Dispersion in ice-covered rivers 9
Ng, C. O. (2000). Dispersion in sediment-laden stream flow.
Journal of Engineering Mechanics, 126(8), 779–786.
Perucca, E., Camporeale, C., & Ridolfi, L. (2009). Estimation
of the dispersion coefficient in rivers with riparian vegetation.
Advances in Water Resources, 32(1), 78–87.
Seo, I. W., & Baek, K. O. (2004). Estimation of the longi-
tudinal dispersion coefficient using the velocity profile in
natural streams. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, 130(3),
227–236.
Seo, I. W. & Cheong, T. S. (1998). Predicting longitudinal dis-
persion coefficient in natural streams. Journal of Hydraulic
Engineering, 124(1), 25–32.
Sukhodolov, A. N., Nikora, V. I., Rowinski, P. M., &
Czernuszenko, W. (1997). A case study of longitudinal
dispersion in small lowland rivers. Water Environment
Research, 69(7), 1246–1253.
Sukhodolov, A. N., Thiele, M., Bungartz, H., & Engelhardt,
C. (1999). Turbulence structure in an ice-covered, sand bed
river. Water Resources Research, 35(3), 889–894.
Sukhodolov, A. N., & Uijttewaal, W. S. J. (2010). Assessment of
river reach for environmental fluid dynamics studies. Journal
of Hydraulic Engineering, 136(11), 880–888.
Sukhodolov, T., Sukhodolov, A., Kozerski, H-P., & Kohler,
J. (2006). Longitudinal dispersion in a lowland river
with submersed vegetation. Proceeding of 3rd Interna-
tional conference on fluvial hydraulics. Lisbon, Portugal,
631–637.
Taylor, G. I. (1954). The dispersion of matter in turbulent flow
through a pipe. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London,
A, 223, 446–468.
Teal, M. J., Ettema, R., & Walker, J. F. (1994). Estimation
of mean flow velocity in ice-covered channels. Journal of
Hydraulic Engineering, 120(12), 1385–1400.
Wang, Z. G., Chen, Y. C., Zhu, D. J., & Liu, Z. W. (2013).
Study on longitudinal dispersion caused by vertical shear in
ice-covered rivers. Proceedings of 2012 SREE conference
on hydraulic engineering (CHE 2012), SREE, Hong Kong,
China, 23–28.
Zeng, Y. H., & Huai, W. X. (2014). Estimation of longi-
tudinal dispersion coefficient in rivers. Journal of Hydro-
environment Research, 8(1), 2–8.
Zhang, W., & Zhu, D. Z. (2011). Transverse mixing in an unreg-
ulated northern river. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering,
137(11), 1426–1440.