New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research

ISSN: 0028-8330 (Print) 1175-8805 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tnzm20

Modelling the distribution of velocity in a river

cross‐section

Derek G. Goring , Jeremy M. Walsh , Peter Rutschmann & Jürg Trösch

To cite this article: Derek G. Goring , Jeremy M. Walsh , Peter Rutschmann & Jürg Trösch (1997)
Modelling the distribution of velocity in a river cross‐section, New Zealand Journal of Marine and
Freshwater Research, 31:2, 155-162, DOI: 10.1080/00288330.1997.9516754

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00288330.1997.9516754

Published online: 30 Mar 2010.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1754

View related articles

Citing articles: 3 View citing articles

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

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tnzm20
New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research, 1997, Vol. 31, 155-162
0028-8330/97/3102-0155 $7.00/0 © The Royal Society of New Zealand 1997
Modelling the distribution of velocity in a river cross-section
DEREK G. GORING
JEREMY M. WALSH
National Institute of Water & Atmospheric
Research Ltd
P. O. Box 8602
Christchurch, New Zealand
PETER RUTSCHMANN
JURG TROSCH
Laboratory of Hydraulics, Hydrology and
Glaciology
Swiss Federal Institute of Technology
Zurich, Switzerland
Abstract A method is described for modelling the
distribution of velocity across a river cross-section
in a straight reach in uniform, steady flow. The
method uses a finite element model based on a
simplified Navier-Stokes equation and a mixing
length hypothesis. The model is applied to a
representative river reach and a comparison is made
with velocity gaugings in the reach. Good
agreement is shown where flow conditions match
the assumptions on which the model is based.
Keywords Navier Stokes equations; velocity
distributions; finite element method; river gauging
INTRODUCTION
Estimating the distribution of velocity across a river
cross-section is important for several practical
reasons. For example, river engineers must estimate
the velocity to determine what size sediment will
move and under what conditions; scientists studying
fish habitats estimate the velocity distribution to
determine what effect a change in the flow regime
M95041
Received 30 June 1995; accepted 27 February 1997
155
will have on the habitat. A common way of
calculating the velocity distribution is by the method
described in Mosley & Jowett ( 1985), whereby flow
is proportioned across the section on the basis of
conveyance (e.g., see Henderson 1966).
In this method, the river cross-section is gauged
at a particular flow (the base flow) by splitting the
cross-section into a number of cells across the
width. In each cell, the velocity is measured and
the proportion of the total conveyance is calculated.
For each cell, an adjustment factor for conveyance
(k),) is then determined so that a satisfactory
correspondence between predicted and measured
point velocities is obtained. When the flow is
increased or decreased, the conveyance for each
slice is recalculated from section properties then
multiplied by the adjustment factor for conveyance
(kb) to allow for the gauging.
The conveyance method may be thought of as
a one-dimensional method because it estimates
depth-averaged velocities across the section. This
paper describes a finite element model which
calculates the distribution of velocity in two
dimensions: both across the section and from the
water surface to the bed. It differs significantly from
the conveyance method in that it is based upon the
mathematical equations describing the flow and
therefore is deterministic, whereas the conveyance
method is basically empirical.
MODEL
Mathematical development
Our model is based on the Navier-Stokes equations
(e.g., see Rodi 1984), which are the general
equations which govern the motion of a Newtonian
fluid. We make the following assumptions about
flow in the cross-section:
(1) the velocity gradient in the flow direction is
negligible, i.e., steady uniform flow is assumed;
(2) velocity vectors are orthogonal to the cross-
section, i.e., there are no velocity components
in the plane of the cross-section; and
(3) the water level is horizontal across the section.
156 New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research, 1997, Vol. 31
With these assumptions, and using Boussinesq's
eddy-viscosity concept (Rodi 1984), the Navier-
Stokes equations reduce to a single equation:
gS (1)
where u(y,z) is the longitudinal velocity,^ andz are
horizontal and vertical components of distance in
the plane of the cross-section, g is the acceleration
of gravity, S is the slope, and v is the total viscosity.
The total viscosity is the sum of the molecular and
turbulent viscosities, but since the latter is orders
of magnitude higher than the former, the molecular
viscosity may be neglected. The total viscosity
therefore becomes equal to the turbulent viscosity
and using a mixing length hypothesis can be defined
as:
(2)
where /„, is the Prandtl mixing length, which is taken
as:
K is von Karman's constant, equal to 0.4 for all
homogenous fluids, and h(y) and z'(y) are total depth
and distance above the bed, respectively, both
measured vertically from the theoretical wall level
at each vertical.
The described mixing length hypothesis strictly
applies only to planar boundaries. It is assumed that
the same equations will approximate the behaviour
of the boundary layer for an irregular boundary.
Model boundary
The bed co-ordinates are assumed to represent a
surface tangential to the top of the bed-roughness
elements. This surface defines the lower boundary
of the calculation domain (or the model lower
boundary). Velocities at this boundary are
determined with a logarithmic wall function:
— = 2.5 1n(30.15/e) (4)
where 8 is the distance to the wall, s is the equivalent
sand grain roughness (taken as 2x dgo ), and u* is
the near-bed shear velocity which is approximated
by:
«* = 4gM (5)
The distance from the model boundary to the
theoretical wall (i.e., bed) level, S, is determined
by multiplying the dgo size of the bed material by a
Model boundary
Origin of the wall
Representation of a bed roughness element
Fig. 1 Bed roughness element.
factor/, which can take any value between 0 and 1
inclusive. Therefore, the distance from the model
boundary to the wall can be varied within the range
of one dgo grain diameter. Figure 1 shows the model
boundary and theoretical wall level for a typical
boundary roughness element located at the bed.
Experimental data (Yalin 1977) pertaining to the
theoretical wall level, below the top of the
roughness elements 8, suggests that a range of 0.15—
0.3 times the equivalent sand grain roughness, e,
is appropriate. Thus, we expect/to take values
between 0.3 and 0.6.
By substituting in the relationships for 8 and e
(i.e., 8 =fd90 ande = 2 dgo), Eq. 4 can be rewritten
as a function of the parameter/, to give the velocity
at the model boundary, i.e.:
- ^ = 2.5 1n(30.1//2) (6)
where u¡, is the velocity at the boundary.
i s t h e 6, a velocity at the boundary .
determined which is indépendant of e, except when
£ is a significant fraction of the total depth, in which
case the effect of e on the near bed shear velocity,
M* is significant. The effect of £ on fluid particles
within the cross-section is felt primarily through
the influence of e on the turbulent viscosity.
Mathematical model
The simplified Navier-Stokes partial differential
equation, Eq. 1, is combined with the expression
for turbulent viscosity, Eq. 2, and the resulting non-
linear partial differential equation is transformed
to an integral equation using the standard Galerkin
approach (e.g., Prinos & Townsend 1984). The
integral equation is then discretised using an 8-node
quadrilateral basis function (Rutschmann 1990).
Linearisation of the integral equation is
performed with the Picard iteration using an
Goring et al.—Velocity in a river cross-section
Fig. 2 Finite element mesh for
a typical cross-section, showing 4fl4
252 eight-node quadrilateral
elements.
48.2
48.0
47.8
47.6
underrelaxation factor of 0.5. Starting with a
logarithmic velocity distribution, where the velocity
depends only on the position in depth and the sand
grain roughness, a new solution is obtained by
solving the system of linearised integral equations
over the calculation domain. Iteration is then
performed until a stable solution is obtained. The
linearised integral equations are solved using frontal
elimination with full pivoting.
Mesh generation
Using an automatic finite element mesh generation
program, the cross-section is divided into 252
elements with 843 nodes, as shown in Fig. 2. The
spacing between nodes increases logarithmically
from the bed up to a semi-ellipse which
encompasses the water surface. This ensures that
elements are sized appropriately to model velocity
gradients at all positions in the cross-section.
APPLICATION
Model sensitivity
Before presenting the results of applying the model
to field data, the sensitivity of the model is examined
by applying it to flow in a wide, rectangular section,
1 m deep by 200 m wide, with material of size dgo
= 0.128 m (e= 0.256 m) and slope 5= 0.001. Figure
3 shows the velocity distribution at mid width for
various combinations of the parameters: the
equivalent sand grain roughness e, the water surface
slope S, and the factor/which determines the
157
Offset (m)
penetration of the flow to below the top of the
roughness elements as a proportion of the d^ grain
size of the bed material.
Figure 3A illustrates that, within the expected
limits o f / ( i . e . , 0.3-0.6), there is a moderate
sensitivity of velocity to this parameter. For
example, the difference in the velocity at 0.6 of the
depth obtained assuming/= 0.3, compared to that
assuming/= 0.6 is c. 31%. In comparison, Fig. 3B
shows that there is very little sensitivity to grain
size. Clearly, the most sensitive of the parameters
is water surface slope (see Fig. 3C), with velocity
varying as the square root of the slope. This agrees
with the empirical Manning's equation (Henderson
1966) commonly used to estimate mean cross-
sectional velocity:
where V is the mean, cross-sectional velocity, R is
the hydraulic radius, and n is Manning's coefficient,
related to the equivalent sand-grain roughness by
the following relationship: (Garde & Ranga Raju
1985)
n = £ 1 / 6 /24 (8)
Figures 4A and 4B show that the depth-
averaged velocities calculated from applying the
finite element method to a wide rectangular section
compare closely with those calculated from the
Manning equation over a wide range of slopes and
bed roughnesses.
Accurate measurement of the water surface
slope in the field is difficult. Figure 4B illustrates
158 New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research, 1997, Vol. 31
Fig. 3 Velocity profiles at mid-
width of a wide, rectangular
section, showing the sensitivity
to: A, the proportion of penetra-
tion into the bed; B, equivalent;
sand grain roughness; and C,
slope.
S = 0.001
£ = 0.256 m

1.4 1.6

1.6

Velocity (m s"1 )

that if the value of the slope is incorrect, the mean

velocity (and hence flow) can be severely under-
or over-estimated. Rather than using field
measurements of the slope, which may not be
reliable, we have devised a method which, in effect,
turns the problem around and starts with a flow,
then calculates the slope from Manning's equation.
Thus, the finite element model is used simply to 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
distribute the flow in the section, with the mean Sand grain roughness e (m)
velocity, slope, and section-properties determined
externally.

Fig. 4 Comparison between velocities calculated by

Manning's equation (solid lines) and depth-averaged
velocities from the finite element model applied to a wide
rectangular section (dots) with penetration factor/= 0.5:
A, as a function of slope for sand grain roughness s =
0.256 m and B, as a function of roughness, for slope S
= 0.001.
Goring et al.—Velocity in a river cross-section
Section numbers
5 6
24 30 36
Distance downstream (m)
Gaugings
The method of handling slope and the finite element
model itself were tested by comparing the
calculation results with a series of flow gaugings.
The gaugings were carried out at 11 sections in a
straight reach of the Taieri River at Waipiata
(45.19°S, 170.15°E, Fig. 5) over a 2-day period in
November 1993. The gauged sections were 6 m
apart. Each gauging was done on verticals spaced
at 0.5 m intervals across the river using a Gurley
current meter. On each vertical, readings were
taken between the surface and the bed at c. 0.1 m
intervals.
Flow conditions in the reach conform broadly
to the assumptions made for the mathematical
model, i.e., uniform flow in a straight reach. Thus,
the velocity measurements provide an opportunity
for validating the model.
Application
The mathematical model was applied to each of the
11 gauged sections composing the Taieri River at
Waipiata reach. For this reach, the dgo of the bed
material was estimated to be 50 mm, based on visual
observation. In all instances, the/parameter was
set to 0.5 and the equivalent sand grain roughness
parameter, e, to 0.1 m (i.e., 2* dgo).
Figure 6 shows the velocity profile on the
thalweg for all 11 sections. For each section,
measured point velocities are compared with the
modelled velocity profile (shown as a solid line)
and a theoretical logarithmic profile (shown as a
dashed line). The logarithmic profile has been
plotted using the same origin and equivalent sand
grain roughness as used by the model. In all
instances, the modelled profiles are skewed to the
left of the logarithmic profiles. This shows the
benefit of applying the 2D model, in that it accounts
for the effect of momentum transfer across the
section in reducing velocities at the thalweg.
159
Fig. 5 Contour plot of bed
bathymetry for the Waipiata reach
of the Taieri River, showing the
sections at 6 m intervals at which
velocity measurements were
made.
42 48 54 60
The modelled velocity profiles, shown in Fig.
6, illustrate a good fit with the measured point
velocity data for all sections, except for Sections 5,
10, and 11. The poorness of fit at Sections 10 and
11 possibly results from conditions down stream
violating the assumptions of a straight uniform
channel. Similarly, inspection of Fig. 5 shows that,
between Sections 4 and 5, the geometry of the
boundary is strongly two-dimensional and therefore
clearly violates the assumptions. The data show that
the model produces good results where the
assumptions are reasonable.
Figure 7 shows a comparative plot of gauged
and modelled velocities for a typical section in the
reach (Section 3), showing good agreement between
modelled and measured results. Gauged velocities
are plotted as posted values and modelled velocities
as velocity contours.
Figure 8 shows a similar plot for Section 5
where, as noted above, agreement between the
modelled and measured velocities is less good. An
inspection of the measured velocities indicates a
comparatively low-velocity region on the true left
side of the section which is not accounted for by
the model. In addition, the main flow in the section
is shifted to the centre of the channel in comparison
with the uniform flow situation represented by the
model. Modelling of the flow in this section would
require a 3D model of the reach to account for the
vertical and across-section components of velocity.
DISCUSSION
Figures 6, 7, and 8 give a good indication of the
model's weaknesses and some of its strengths. The
main assumptions are that the flow is steady and
uniform and that the velocities are orthogonal with
respect to the section. However, in natural rivers,
these conditions rarely exist. Varying topography,
even in straight reaches, can result in non-uniform
160 New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research, 1997, Vol. 31
1

1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6

1
Velocity (m s )
Fig. 6 Comparison between velocity profiles calculated by the model, measured point velocities, and a theoretical
logarithmic velocity profile at the thalweg of each section.

flow conditions and secondary currents. Thus, the
comparative results presented in the figures may
be viewed, not as indications of how well the model
performs, but indications of the proximity of the
actual flow to steady, uniform flow with no
secondary currents. Viewed from this angle, Fig. 6,
7, and 8 indicate that for most of the reach the flow
essentially conforms to these assumptions, but
deteriorates near the downstream end, and at
Section 5, where the flow exhibits most distortion
in the cross-section. In this way, the model can be
used to determine the non-uniformity of measured
cross-sectional velocity data.
Of more practical importance than this,
however, is the possibility of using the model to
enhance or, in some instances, even displace the
Goring et al.—Velocity in a river cross-section 161
m i i o.m \ 7

48.40

Taieri River at Waipiata

Reach - Section 3
47.60
1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00 11.00 12.00 13.00 14.00

Offset (m)

Fig. 7 Comparison between velocity contours calculated by the model and measured point velocities for Section 3.

48.40

i y i —•- — « 0.47 o.BQ 0.B4 U.O1 fe x x x X

\ \ x . x , / ,5, ..- "•«li^-«
nÎ7 nna 0.12 oai x . *_ x. -Ï. 0.70/" . ji^% x. .

Taieri River at Waipiata

Reach - Section 5
47.40-
0.00 1 . 0 0 2 . 0 0 3 . 0 0 4 . 0 0 5 . 0 0 6 . 0 0 7 . Ö 0 8 . Ó 0 9 . 0 0 10^00 11 !00 1 2 . 0 0 13Í00
Offset (m)
Fig. 8 Comparison between velocity contours calculated by the model and measured point velocities for Section 5.

conveyance method for habitat hydraulics sections of the reach under consideration. This
studies. To determine the velocity distribution can be an expensive exercise which may not be
using the conveyance method, one must first justified for the particular application. However,
measure the velocity distribution in a section or for the finite element model described here, the
162 New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research, 1997, Vol. 31
basic requirements are the cross-sectional shape,
the roughness (i.e., the d90 of the bed material)
and any two of the following: water level, flow,
or slope of the energy line. Thus, a primary
difference between the two methods is that the
conveyance method is empirical whereas the
finite element model is based on the physical laws
of conservation of mass and momentum; it is
therefore deterministic and does not require field
measurements of the velocity. Of course, the
velocity distributions thus produced may lack the
details of the actual velocity distribution such as
are introduced by non-uniform flow and
secondary currents (as illustrated in Fig. 6, 7, and
8). Nevertheless, if the purpose of the study is to
estimate how the flow field changes with flow,
for example, thus affecting the habitat, the
differences between velocity distributions may be
more relevant than the absolute distributions.
The other primary difference between the
conveyance method and the finite element method
described here is that whereas the conveyance
method produces depth-averaged velocities across
the section and is thus one-dimensional, the finite
element model produces a two-dimensional velocity
field.
For the results shown in Fig. 6, 7, and 8, the
water level and flow were known and the slope was
calculated from Manning's equation. However, an
alternative approach would be to use the model to
iterate on slope until the desired flow was produced.
Under most circumstances, the results would be
essentially the same, as was illustrated in Fig. 4.
Nevertheless, this iterative method may be
preferable in some circumstances, such as when
there is difficulty in solving Manning's equation
for a complex section.
If, for a particular application, the relationship
between flow and water level is unknown, one
solution is to use the valley slope as the slope of
the energy line, then run the model with a series of
water levels to produce the velocity distribution for
the corresponding series of flows. Such an exercise
is unlikely to reproduce the actual velocities very
accurately, but will give a representative distribution
and how it changes for different flows.
CONCLUSIONS
A finite element model which solves the simplified
Navier-Stokes equations and uses the Prandtl
mixing length hypothesis provides an alternative
means of estimating the velocity distribution across
a river cross-section. The model has been shown to
give reasonable results in a straight reach where
near-uniform flow conditions exist. Where
hydraulic conditions are different from those
assumed, the results are less satisfactory.
The model differs from the well-known
conveyance method (Mosley & Jowett 1983) in that
it is deterministic, not empirical, and the results are
two-dimensional, not one-dimensional.
The model has application to research on the
presence or absence of secondary currents in
measured velocity distributions as well as habitat
hydraulics studies where it provides an alternative
to the conveyance method.
REFERENCES
Garde, R. J.; Ranga Raju, K. G. 1985: Mechanics of
sediment transportation and alluvial stream
problems. 2nd Ed., John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New
York.
Henderson, F.M. 1966: Open channel flow. MacMillan,
New York.
Moslev, M. P.; Jowett, I. G. 1985: Fish habitat analysis
using river flow simulation. New Zealand journal
of marine and freshwater research 19: 293-309.
Prinos, P; Townsend, R. D. 1984: Prediction of main
channel/flood plain flow interaction with FEM.
Proceedings of the 5th International Conference
on Finite Elements in Water Resources.
Berlington, Vermont, pp. 509-520.
Rodi, W. 1984: Turbulence models and their application
in hydraulics, a state of the art review.
International Association of Hydraulic Research,
A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, 2nd ed. 104 p.
Rutschmann, P. 1990: Die Methode der finiten Elemente
in der Hydraulik. In: Halin, J. ed. ASIM
Mitteilungen, Heft 19: 8-14. Zurich, Switzerland.
Yalin, M. S. 1977: Mechanics of sediment transport. 2nd
Ed. Pergamon Press.