Shear Stress and Hydrodynamic Recovery over Bedforms

of Different Lengths in a Straight Channel

Bruce MacVicar 1 and Lana Obach 2

Abstract: Pools and riffles are common morphological features in rivers that are frequently used but poorly specified analogs in restoration
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Inst of Tech - Guwahati on 10/11/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

design. Here, straight two-dimensional (2D) bedforms are conceptualized as perturbations and flow recovery is measured in a laboratory
flume with an array of ultrasonic Doppler velocity profilers (UDVPs). The objectives are to (1) assess the variation of skin friction, turbulent
stresses, and total stress; (2) assess the role of topographical feedback on flow recovery; and (3) compare flow recovery in isolated and
bedforms in series. The results show that the total shear stress and near-bed turbulence greatly exceed the skin friction in decelerating flow
and the pool and that hydrodynamic recovery tends to occur at length scales similar to geophysical scales despite potential negative feedback
from the bed. Repeating short bedforms can push the flow to a more turbulent and laterally concentrated equilibrium condition. Implications
for sediment entrainment thresholds, existing models of riffle-pool hydrodynamics, and the stability of constructed riffle pools are discussed.
DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)HY.1943-7900.0001043. © 2015 American Society of Civil Engineers.

Introduction found in gravel-bed rivers of less than 2% in slope (Montgomery

Pools and riffles are formed in gravel-bed channels by local varia-
tions in boundary shear stress acting on heterogeneous bed-surface
particles during varying stream discharges (Lisle et al. 2000). This
general principle is well understood. Recent numerical simulations,
for example, show that an unsteady one-dimensional (1D) coupled
flow and morphology model with bed-sorting is sufficient to main-
tain pool depth downstream of riffles (de Almeida and Rodríguez
2011). In practice, however, engineers report widespread ambiguity
in the design, construction, and maintenance of instream structures
such as riffles and pools due to a lack of specification standards
(Miller and Kochel 2009; Radspinner et al. 2010). Despite a cost
of over a billion dollars (US) spent per year in the United States
alone on stream restoration activities, with over 25% of this total
on instream habitat improvement and channel reconfiguration
(Bernhardt et al. 2005), the practice of stream restoration has in
many ways preceded the science (Lave 2008). Successful examples
show that instream structures can improve the stability and ecologi-
cal integrity of river channels that have been negatively affected by
human activities such as urbanization and channel straightening
(Newbury 2013; Pasternack et al. 2008; Rhoads et al. 2008; Rosgen
2001), but expensive failures may result if they are poorly con-
ceived, designed, or constructed (Kondolf et al. 2007; Miller
and Kochel 2009). Hydraulic studies are needed that demonstrate
how basic design parameters such as bedform length affect the
hydro and sediment dynamics of open channels.
Unlike other hydraulic structures such as broad crested weirs
(Hager and Schwalt 1994), constructed riffle pools are intended
to mimic at least some aspects of a natural analog. Commonly
1
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Univ. of Waterloo, 200 University Ave. West, Waterloo, ON, Canada
N2L 3G (corresponding author). E-mail: bmacvicar@uwaterloo.ca
2
Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Univ. of Waterloo,
200 University Ave. West, Waterloo, ON, Canada N2L 3G.
Note. This manuscript was submitted on January 1, 2014; approved on
April 2, 2015; published online on June 3, 2015. Discussion period open
until November 3, 2015; separate discussions must be submitted for indi-
vidual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Hydraulic Engineering,
© ASCE, ISSN 0733-9429/04015025(13)/$25.00.
and Buffington 1997), riffles and pools are defined as the high and
low points, respectively, on an undulating bed. They can occur in
straight and meandering channels and have been classically attrib-
uted a modal scaling ratio of one bedform unit every five to seven
channel widths (Keller and Melhorn 1978; Leopold and Wolman
1957). Modern geospatial techniques have put this idea of a classic
riffle-pool couplet into doubt (Wyrick and Pasternack 2014), but
pool and riffle subunits do appear to be spaced at a low multiple
of the channel width, even when forced by nonalluvial elements
such as boulders, trees, and valley constrictions (Montgomery et al.
1995; White et al. 2010; Wyrick and Pasternack 2014). Lateral side
or point bars are typically associated with pools (Church and Jones
1982; Wyrick and Pasternack 2014), as is variation in channel
width (White et al. 2010; Jackson et al. 2015) and size sorting
of sediment (Sear 1996). Large particles tend to imbricate (Clifford
1993) and help to fix the location of the riffle during floods (Church
and Jones 1982; de Almeida and Rodríguez 2011). Some restora-
tion approaches attempt to work with the alluvial nature of gravel
bed rivers (Wheaton et al. 2010), but structured approaches to
riffle-pool design assign a relatively fixed geometry to the channel
(Newbury 2013; Pasternack et al. 2008; Rhoads et al. 2008; Rosgen
2001). Structured riffle pools typically are straighter and steeper
than natural channels (Newbury 2013) and the suppression of bank
erosion is often an explicit criterion (Newbury 2013; Rhoads et al.
2008). Structured riffles typically comprise very coarse material so
that they act as permanent grade-control structures (Newbury 2013;
Rhoads et al. 2008; Rosgen 2001), while the lack of aggrading lat-
eral bars means that sediment supplied from upstream must be
routed through the pool.
Hydraulically, it is not clear how to design riffle pools to meet
stability and sediment routing criteria because the topography cre-
ates pressure gradients that change the shape of velocity and tur-
bulence profiles. In the downstream portion or tail of a pool, for
instance, the reduction in flow depth leads to convectively accel-
erating flow (CAF) due to a favorable pressure gradient. In such
environments, relatively high velocities occur near the channel
bed and turbulence is reduced (Whiting 1997; Piomelli et al. 2000;
MacVicar and Roy 2007; Yang and Chow 2008; MacVicar and
Rennie 2012; MacVicar and Best 2013). In the upstream portion

© ASCE 04015025-1 J. Hydraul. Eng.

J. Hydraul. Eng., 04015025

 or head of the pool, on the other hand, an increase in flow depth
leads to convectively decelerating flow (CDF) due to an adverse
pressure gradient. In such environments, relatively low velocities
occur near the channel bed but turbulence is increased (Clifford
and French 1993; Kironoto and Graf 1995; Krogstad and Skare
1995; Yang and Chow 2008; Lee and Sung 2009; Nagano et al.
1998; Monty et al. 2011; MacVicar and Rennie 2012; MacVicar
and Best 2013). Because of the altered near-bed hydraulics, the
Shields (1936) criterion, which was developed for uniform flows,
may be unreliable over pools and riffles. The addition of form
roughness in riffles and pools also means that the skin friction must
be distinguished from the total resistance to flow for sediment
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Inst of Tech - Guwahati on 10/11/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
linked to geophysical macrobedform scales. Flow patterns in the
straight channel, including near-bed acceleration during CAF and
the lateral convergence of flow during CDF, shared some character-
istics with observations in natural pool riffle systems used to
postulate the velocity reversal (Keller 1971) and lateral flow con-
vergence hypotheses (MacWilliams et al. 2006), both of which are
central to discussions of pool formation. MacVicar and Best (2013)
concluded that the different hypotheses likely described linked as-
pects of the same hydrodynamic process. Their experiments, how-
ever, were carried out in a smooth channel over isolated and
relatively long bedforms. In an alluvial system, feedback from the
bed could accelerate the rate of hydrodynamic recovery or force the

transport calculations (Einstein and Barbarossa 1952; Millar 1999;
Papanicolaou et al. 2012). The generation of turbulence away from
the bed can result in the advection of powerful coherent turbulent
structures toward the bed (Krogstad and Skare 1995; MacVicar
et al. 2013), which can affect scour in straight channels (Sumer et al.
2003; Dwivedi et al. 2010) and in pools with width constrictions
(Thompson 2006; Thompson and Wohl 2009). Shear stress is fre-
quently modeled in riffle pools using a time averaged estimate of
velocity (e.g., Brown and Pasternack 2009; MacWilliams et al.
2006, 2010; Caamano et al. 2009; Jackson et al. 2015), but this
approach may underestimate shear stress in areas of high
turbulence like the head of the pool. Despite recent advances in
physics-based relations that would account for turbulence (Celik
et al. 2013; Diplas et al. 2008), not enough is known about
riffle-pool hydrodynamics for the role of turbulence to be properly
accounted for.
The question of shear stress is also linked with the question of
bedform scale. How far apart and how long should the bedforms
be? Designers tend to use empirical geophysical scales (Miller and
Kochel 2009; Newbury 2013), the physical justification for which
is not clear. Bedform scale is investigated in the current study using
the concept of flow recovery. Flow recovery is defined as the ten-
dency of flow parameters to return toward uniform flow values
when perturbations such as pressure gradients are removed (Smits
and Wood 1985). Inner zone parameters such as the shear velocity
tend to recover quickly while outer zone parameters such as the
velocity defect relative to uniform flow require longer distances
(Smits and Wood 1985). In a study of flow recovery downstream
of straight bedforms, MacVicar and Best (2013) found that recov-
ery distances for the near-bed Reynolds stress exhibited a modal
scaling relation with the channel width, which supported Yalin
and da Silva’s (2001) hypothesis that turbulent length scales are
flow to a new equilibrium condition. Riffle-pool bedforms are also
characterized by rough beds and it is not clear that results from
smooth bed channels are applicable.
The current study continues investigations into the hydrody-
namics of riffle pools by exploring feedback and roughness effects.
Specific objectives are to (1) assess skin friction, turbulent stresses,
and total stress over two-dimensional (2D) bedforms with smooth
and rough beds, (2) assess the role of feedback from the bed on the
recovery of shear stress and velocity distributions, and (3) assess
the effect of repeating vs isolated bedforms on hydrodynamic re-
covery. The scope of the work is limited to a straight laboratory
flume with a fixed bed at a constant discharge. Implications for
sediment transport estimates and riffle-pool design are discussed
based on the shear stress results.
Methods
Experimental Apparatus
Experiments were conducted in a 17 m long, 0.6 m wide recircu-
lating flume at a slope of 0.001 m=m. Modular bedforms were con-
structed from PVC sheets. Uniform depth modules 0.4 m long and
either low (0.025 m) or high (0.085 m) were added or removed
to create deep or shallow uniform sections of different lengths
(Table 1). The nonuniform depth modules were 0.51 m long and
fixed at an angle of 7.2° from the horizontal (Fig. 1). This slope
ensures that permanent flow separation does not occur (Simpson
1981), and is in the range of typical leeside angles in macrobed-
forms (Best and Kostaschuk 2002; Carling and Orr 2000). The non-
uniform modules could be turned 180° to create either CAF or CDF
sections. The bedforms were installed downstream of a uniform

Table 1. Channel Geometry and Flow Parameters for Experimental Runs

Geometry Flow parameters upstream of bedform
Shear velocity (cm s−1 )
Run identifier X s (m) X s =Y X d (m) X d =Y X b (m) X b =Y u
1o u
2o u
3o u
4o Πo Ψo
R240P240 2.4 4.0 2.4 4.0 5.8 9.7 1.18 0.79 0.69 0.60 −0.40 1.01
R160P240 1.6 2.7 2.4 4.0 5.0 8.4 1.16 0.81 0.74 0.65 −0.26 1.03
R80P240 0.8 1.3 2.4 4.0 4.2 7.0 1.16 0.82 0.68 0.65 −0.19 1.02
R40P240 0.4 0.67 2.4 4.0 3.8 6.4 1.16 0.75 0.74 0.59 −0.35 1.01
R40P160 0.4 0.67 1.6 2.7 3.0 5.0 1.16 0.80 0.58 0.65 −0.23 1.03
R40P80 0.4 0.67 0.8 1.3 2.2 3.7 1.16 0.67 0.49 0.66 −0.26 1.05
R40P40 0.4 0.67 0.4 0.67 1.8 3.0 1.17 0.65 0.79 0.50 −0.38 1.00
R240P240 R 2.4 4.0 2.4 4.0 5.8 9.7 0.68 0.46 0.93 0.53 −0.04 1.01
Note: Channel geometry includes length of shallow section (X s ), length of deep section (X d ), and total bedform length including one deep, one shallow, and
two transitional sections (X b ). Section lengths are normalized by the channel width (Y ¼ 0.60 m) for comparison with other studies. All flow parameters are
measured immediately upstream of the bedform at the channel centerline. Shear velocity is estimated with the Clauser method with a fixed intercept (u
1o ),
Clauser method with a floating intercept (u
2o ), Reynolds stress method (u
3o ), and boundary conditions method (u
4o ). Outer zone parameters include the wake
parameter (Πo ), and the centerline lateral concentration of flow (Ψo ).

© ASCE 04015025-2 J. Hydraul. Eng.

J. Hydraul. Eng., 04015025

 Q Y
7.2°
Xs
Uniform Approach Convectively Accelerating Shallow Uniform
Flow Flow (CAF) (Riffle)
Fig. 1. Perspective view of the generalized 2D bedform configuration used in the current study; the lengths of the CAF and CDF sections were fixed
while those of the riffle (X s ) and pool (X d ) sections were varied to change the overall bedform length
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Inst of Tech - Guwahati on 10/11/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
reach just over 6 m in length. Additional bedforms were installed
downstream, as space permitted, to the end of the flume. A final
bedform was placed at the downstream end of all runs and a curtain
gate at the end of the flume was adjusted to ensure the tailwater
elevations were within 0.002 m for all runs.
An array of 4 MHz ultrasonic Doppler velocity profilers
(UDVPs) manufactured by Metflow (Switzerland) was used to
measure flow velocities. The UDVPs measure the Doppler shift
in sound velocity from the return signal reflected from neutrally
buoyant tracer particles. They are single-beam profilers that sample
velocity quasisimultaneously in a series of bins along the beam
axis, with the recorded velocity vectors oriented in the direction
of the beam. Multiple beams cannot be measured simultaneously.
The UDVPs are suited to laboratory measurements due to their high
sampling frequency (up to 100 Hz), small size (0.008 m diameter),
and short blanking distance (∼0.017 m) (Best et al. 2001). The
probes were held in fixed holders slightly under the water surface
(<0.005 m submergence) to minimize disturbance to the flow. The
UDVP measurement parameters were set to record 2-min time
series at 40 Hz in sampling bins that were 0.001 to 0.002 m long
in the beam direction and less than 0.005 m in diameter. See
MacVicar and Best (2013) for more details on the experimental
apparatus.
Quality Control
Quality control was effectuated using MITT (multi-instrument
turbulence toolbox) (MacVicar et al. 2014), a set of MATLAB
algorithms designed to clean and classify data quality from veloc-
imeters. Spikes were detected using a skewed velocity threshold
and the Goring-Nikora (2002) phase-space thresholding algorithm.
The skewed velocity threshold sets a threshold velocity for good
data as
uT ¼ umedian  Cλs
u ð1Þ
ffi = median velocity; λ = universal threshold
wherepffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
umedian
(λ ¼ 2 ln n, where n is the length of the time series) (Goring
and Nikora 2002); s
u = one-sided standard deviation calculated
from the data on the side of the median that has lower variability;
and C = coefficient. This method was found to be effective for data
measured with the UDVP instrument where seeding was insuffi-
cient (MacVicar and Best 2013). In such a case, a second mode
of velocity samples were found clustered around a null velocity
so that they produced a highly skewed distribution. A high value
of C (∼3.0) was found to reliably detect this type of outlier without
resulting in false positive spike detections. Low-pass filtering was
used to remove high frequency noise following Roy et al. (1997).
For each beam of simultaneously measured sampling bins, poor
quality data cells were identified from statistical outliers (α ¼ 0.05)
to third order polynomial fits of mean velocity, standard deviation
© ASCE 04015025-3
J. Hydraul. Eng., 04015025
7.2°
Xd
Xb
Convectively Decelerating Deep Uniform
Flow (CDF) (Pool)
and skewness profiles. Poor quality sampling bins were found
to occur due to reflectance from the channel bed and insufficient
seeding concentration. Raw time series and power spectra were re-
viewed manually to confirm data quality assessments. Poor quality
time series were not included in subsequent analyses.
Determination of Velocity and Reynolds Stress from
Beam Velocities
The streamwise and vertical components of flow and the principal
Reynolds stress were calculated from measured beam velocities.
Beam velocities (ui ) were recorded at orientations of 30° and −30°
to the vertical (referred to using subscripts 1 and 3, respectively).
Reynolds decomposition was used to calculate the mean (U i ) and
fluctuating parts (ui0 ) of each beam velocity. The mean and variance
of each beam velocity were linearly interpolated on a normalized
three-dimensional (3D) grid through the sampling volume. Grid
spacing was set at 1=20 of the channel width (0.03 m), 1=50 of
the flow depth (variable from 1 to 2 mm depending on local depth),
and 1=10 of the length of each morphological subunit in the stream-
wise direction (0.04 to 0.24 m depending on the run and subunit).
Following Lhermitte and Lemmin (1994), the streamwise (U) and
vertical (W) mean velocities were calculated at each grid node from
the interpolated beam velocities
U1 − U3
U¼ ð2Þ
2 sin α
U1 þ U3
W¼− ¼ −U 2 ð3Þ
2 cos α
Again following Lhermitte and Lemmin (1994), the covariance
(−u 0 w 0 ) was calculated from the difference between the variance
terms from the probes pointed up and downstream as
 02 
u3 − u102
−u 0 w 0 ¼− ð4Þ
2 sin 2ϕ
where ϕ is the beam angle measured from the vertical.
The interpolation method is similar to that of Vermeulen et al.
(2014), who decoupled the beam measurements from an acoustic
Doppler current profiler (ADCP) to improve the accuracy of the
mean velocity and covariance estimates. This method reduces
the spatial extent over which flow homogeneity is assumed. The
relative flow depth was used instead of the actual depth following
the stream-tube approach, which was found to more accurately ac-
count for the bulk flow acceleration and deceleration over nonuni-
form topography (Vermeulen et al. 2014).
J. Hydraul. Eng.
 Determination of Shear Velocity (u
) ðδ d − δ θ ÞU c
u
4 ¼ ð7Þ
Shear velocity and shear stress are notoriously difficult parameters Kδ d
to calculate, particularly over nonuniform beds. To better describe
the hydraulic environment over the bedforms, four different esti- where U c is the maximum velocity in the profile at elevation zc ,
mates of u
were made based on established techniques that use K is a constant (∼2=κ) in uniform flow and nonuniform flow
inner and outer zone parameters, mean velocity and Reynolds in equilibrium (Afzalimehr and Anctil 2000, using data from
stress. The first method, commonly referred to as the Clauser Kironoto and Graf 1995), and δ d and δ θ are the boundary layer
method, finds u
by fitting the law of the wall to measured velocity displacement and momentum thickness, respectively, defined as
values in the near-bed (inner) zone, written as Z z 
c U
δd ¼ 1− dz ð8Þ
1 0 Uc
uþ ¼ ln zþ þ A ð5Þ
κ
Z  
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Inst of Tech - Guwahati on 10/11/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

where uþ ¼ U=u
and zþ are the normalized time-averaged veloc-

ity and height above the bed, respectively, κ is the von Karman
constant and A is a constant of integration. Over smooth uniform
beds zþ ¼ zu
=ν, where ν is the kinematic viscosity, while over
rough uniform beds zþ ¼ z=ks , where ks ∼ D50 for a uniform
sediment.
The Clauser method requires the determination of the vertical
extent of the near-bed log-linear (inner) zone and specification
of values for κ and A. It was assumed that κ ∼ 0.41 for all runs
(Nezu and Rodi 1986). The inner zone can be approximated as
the lower 20% of the flow depth in uniform flow (Nezu and Rodi
1986; Kironoto and Graf 1994) and in some cases of nonuniform
flow (Kironoto and Graf 1995; Onitsuka et al. 2009; Afzalimehr
and Anctil 2000), but has been found to vary in other cases
(Afzalimehr and Rennie 2009; Monty et al. 2011; MacVicar and
Rennie 2012). For the current study, a set of two-segment log-
linear relations were fit to the relation between U and z following
MacVicar and Rennie (2012), where the breakpoint between the
segments was allowed to vary between 10 and 20% of the flow
depth, and the relation with the minimum RMS error was assumed
to correctly delineate the inner zone. A is also considered a constant
in uniform flow over smooth (A ∼ 5.3, Nezu and Rodi 1986) and
rough beds (A ∼ 8.5, Kironoto and Graf 1994) and in some cases
of nonuniform flow (Song and Chiew 2001; Onitsuka et al. 2009;
Afzalimehr and Anctil 2000) but has been found to vary in other
cases (Kironoto and Graf 1995; Nagano et al. 1998; Piomelli et al.
2000; Monty et al. 2011). In the current study two estimates of u

were determined using a constant value for A (u
1 ) and allowing A to
float as part of the curve fitting exercise (u
2 and A2 ).
Shear velocity was also estimated by extrapolating the principle
Reynolds stress to the bed
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
u
3 ¼ −u 0 w 0 z→0 ð6Þ
Many studies have shown u
1 ≈ u
3 over smooth and rough beds
(e.g., Nezu and Rodi 1986 and Kironoto and Graf 1994). Over non-
uniform beds it can be more difficult to obtain accurate measure-
ments, but the accuracy of u
3 may be superior to u
1 over complex
geometry due to a reduced reliance on near-bed measurements
(Biron et al. 2004). Nonuniform flows disrupt the linear relation
between relative depth and Reynolds stress, but reasonable esti-
mates are possible if the extrapolation includes only measurements
from the inner zone (Kironoto and Graf 1995). u
3 was therefore
calculated in the current study using the inner zone as defined
in the Clauser method.
The boundary characteristics method was also utilized in this
study (u
4 ). This method is derived from Prandtl’s concept of a
velocity defect arising from viscous shear at a solid boundary
and has been successfully applied to gradually (Afzalimehr and
Anctil 2000) and rapidly varying flows (Papanicolaou et al. 2012).
u
4 was calculated as
zc U U
δθ ¼ 1− dz ð9Þ
0 Uc Uc
The boundary characteristics method has been found to accu-
rately represent the total shear stress (i.e., skin friction and form
roughness) over spatially varying boundaries such as a boulder
array (Papanicolaou et al. 2012). Note that a constant value was
assumed for K following Papanicolaou et al. (2012) despite the
nonuniform and nonequilibrium conditions over the bedforms.
Determination of Outer Zone Parameters
Coles wake law is commonly used to describe the velocity defect or
deviation from the log-law [Eq. (5)] (Coles 1956; Kironoto and
Graf 1995; Song and Chiew 2001; Papanicolaou et al. 2012)
 
uc − ū 1 þ 2Π 2 π z
¼ ln z þ sin ð10Þ
u
κ κ 2 zc
where Π is defined as Coles wake parameter, uc is the maximum
velocity in the profile at elevation zc . Π is approximately 0 in
uniform flows, greater than 0 in CDF, and less than 0 in CAF.
(Kironoto and Graf 1995; Song and Chiew 2001). Two estimates
(Π and Π2 ) were determined by fitting the velocity profiles to
Eq. (10) with u
¼ u
1 and u
2 , respectively.
Another metric tracked in this study is the lateral concentration
of flow (Ψ), defined as
Ψ ¼ qp =qb ð11Þ
where qp = specific discharge measured at a lateral location (y) and
qb = average specific discharge across the whole channel. qp is
determined as the product of U p and Z, where U p is the depth-
averaged velocity at y and Z is the corresponding flow depth.
qb is determined as Q=Y, where Q is the total discharge and Y
is the channel width. This metric is a measure of the lateral velocity
defect, as Ψ ¼ 1 if the flow has a uniform lateral distribution. In the
existing flume under similar flow conditions, Ψ ∼ 1.05 along the
centerline of the channel upstream of the bedform and increased
to 1.21 in a straight pool with a smooth bed (MacVicar and Best
2013). Higher values were observed at the channel centerline
for narrower channels and in a straight pool with a rough bed
(MacVicar and Rennie 2012).
A dimensionless velocity profile shape factor (H) was used to
compare results with other studies of nonuniform flow
δd
H¼ ð12Þ
δθ
H ∼ 1.3 in uniform flows, with lower values in CAF and higher
values in CDF (Monty et al. 2011). Flow separation occurs at
H ∼ 2.4 in turbulent flow (White 2009).

© ASCE 04015025-4 J. Hydraul. Eng.

J. Hydraul. Eng., 04015025

 Experimental Runs constant included the width (Y ¼ 0.60 m), the discharge
(Q ¼ 0.0154 m3 =s), the upstream flow depth (Zd ¼ 0.12 m), bulk
Nine runs on seven bedform configurations were investigated for
velocity (U b ¼ 0.21 m=s), and Reynolds number (R ¼ 2.5 × 104 ).
the current study (Table 1). The length of the shallow uniform riffle
Given the resulting water depths between 0.06 and 0.12 m and the
(X s ) was tested in the first four runs (R240P240, R160P240,
UDVP parameters, velocity was thus measured quasisimultane-
R80P240, and R40P240), and the length of the deep uniform pool
ously in 50 to 100 bins defined along the beam axis. Velocities near
(X d ) was tested in the fourth through the seventh runs (R40P240,
to the water surface could not be measured due to the UDVP blank-
R40P160, R40P80, and R40P40). The effect of a roughened bed
ing distance. Four to seven profiles were measured across one half
was tested with the R240P240 bed configuration covered with
of the channel width, and cross sections were spaced at 0.15 m in
TrueGrip Traction Tape (Incom, Ancaster, Ontario) (0.36 mm alu-
the streamwise direction. Calculated from velocity and Reynolds
minum oxide particles). For each of the first eight runs, the test
stress profiles immediately upstream of the initial bedform on
section began in the uniform flow approach reach and extended
the channel centerline, the shear velocity varied between 0.5 and
over one complete bedform (consisting of CAF, shallow uniform,
1.2 cm=s, depending on the run and the calculation method. Differ-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Inst of Tech - Guwahati on 10/11/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

CDF, and deep uniform subunits (Fig. 1). A ninth run was com-
pleted using the R40P40 bed configuration by measuring in a sec-
ond test section over the fourth of five identical bedforms. The total
bedform length-width ratio (X b =Y) for the runs ranged from 3.0 to
9.7, which straddles the commonly cited scaling relation of 5 to 7
found in natural riffle pools.
The flow was fully turbulent and scaled using the geometry and
Froude number from a field example of a riffle pool (MacVicar
and Roy 2007). For the geometry, the aspect ratio in the shallow
uniform section (1∶10) and the ratio of flow depths in the deep
and shallow uniform sections (∼2∶1) were set to match the field
example. For the flow, the Froude number for the experiments
(0.54) was comparable to that in the field example at bankfull dis-
charge (0.59). Flow measurements at this stage were found to be
correlated with patterns of gravel entrainment (MacVicar and Roy
2011) and for this reason were thought to be relevant for a discus-
sion that includes sediment transport. Parameters that were held
ences between methods are discussed as part of the results. Coles
wake parameter (Π ∼ −0.40 to −0.04) and the lateral concentration
of flow (Ψ ∼ 1.00 to 1.05) were relatively consistent for all runs and
similar to those in the companion experiments (MacVicar and Best
2013). Negative Π values indicate that flow acceleration was affect-
ing velocity profiles upstream of the bedforms.
Results
Velocity and Reynolds Stress Profiles
Velocity and Reynolds stress profiles over the bedforms exhibit a
number of common characteristics that can be illustrated with select
profiles from run R240P240 (Fig. 2). Velocity profiles tend to vary
in gradient as flow accelerates and decelerates over the bedforms
[Fig. 2(a)]. In CAF, for instance, velocity profiles are flatter than in

Fig. 2. Select velocity and Reynolds stress profiles for run R240P240; profiles are normalized by (a and c) outer zone parameters; (b and d) inner zone
parameters; note that all profiles are from channel centerline location at the downstream end of the sections indicated in the legend

© ASCE 04015025-5 J. Hydraul. Eng.

J. Hydraul. Eng., 04015025

 the upstream uniform flow and the riffle, which results in a higher
near-bed velocity. In contrast, velocity profiles are steeper in the
outer zone as a result of CDF, which results in a lower near-bed
velocity. The velocity profile tends to recover toward that observed
in uniform flow in the pool. Exhibited trends in CAF and CDF are
in agreement with laboratory studies of depth-varying flows in
equilibrium (Kironoto and Graf 1995; Song and Chiew 2001), a
field study in a forced riffle pool (MacVicar and Roy 2007), and
the general case of flows subjected to pressure gradients (Monty
et al. 2011; Piomelli et al. 2000; Nagano et al. 1998), while the
trends downstream of depth transitions are in general agreement
with studies of flow recovery (Onitsuka et al. 2009; MacVicar
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Inst of Tech - Guwahati on 10/11/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
and Best 2013).
When normalized by the inner zone parameters, it is possible to
demark a near-bed log-linear zone in all of the profiles [Fig. 2(b)].
This zone has been observed in other studies of nonuniform flow,
although there is some disagreement on the variation of the inter-
cept (A). Kironoto and Graf (1995) identified a weak tendency for
the intercept to be higher in decelerating flow and higher in accel-
erating flow. In contrast, Piomelli et al. (2000) noted an increase in
the thickness of the laminar sublayer and relaminarization due to
CAF, while Nagano et al. (1998) and Monty et al. (2011) observed
a decrease in A as a result of deceleration. The current study shows
that A tends to increase due to CAF and decrease in CDF. In many
cases, however, the range of variability in the current study is
higher than what was observed in the previous studies. The differ-
ences are thought to be the result of the confounding of inner zone
parameters u
and A with the velocity defect in the outer zone and
the relatively high pressure gradients observed in the current study.
These issues will be discussed in the following section as part of a
comparison of velocity defect shape factors (Π, Ψ, and H).
Reynolds stress profiles vary in magnitude and near-bed gra-
dient over the bedforms [Fig. 2(c)]. As expected from studies of
uniform flow, −u 0 w 0 increases toward the bed when measured up-
stream of the bedform. During CAF, −u 0 w 0 is lower near the bed
and the profile becomes slightly concave. Kironoto and Graf (1995)
Fig. 3. Shear velocity estimates along the channel centerline over the bedforms for run R240P240, including (a) bed topography and water surface
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
elevation; (b) u
and −u 0 w 0 z=Z¼0.1 ; (c) log law intercepts (A) and the shape factor (H)
© ASCE 04015025-6
J. Hydraul. Eng., 04015025
and Song and Chiew (2001) observed the opposite effect, noting
that −u 0 w 0 profiles tend to be convex with a peak at the bed in
CAF. This discrepancy is again thought to be related to the strong
pressure gradient in the current study, which will be discussed more
thoroughly following the presentation of results. Within the CDF
zone, −u 0 w 0 is characterized by a strong positive gradient near
the bed so that maxima occur between z=Z ¼ 0.15 and 0.35.
Such changes are expected in flow subjected to positive pressure
gradients due to higher inertia and the generation of turbulence due
to increased strain rates during the deceleration of flow (Kironoto
and Graf 1995; Krogstad and Skare 1995; Lee and Sung 2009). The
increase in turbulence is well known to result in form roughness in
nonuniform open channels and is distinguished from skin friction at
the bed (Einstein and Barbarossa 1952; Millar 1999). This turbu-
lence tends to advect away from the boundary in the downstream
uniform flow section and then dissipate as it moves downstream,
although turbulence remains high in the outer region of the down-
stream CAF in comparison with the flow upstream of the bedform
[Fig. 2(c)].
To compare shear velocity estimates from the near-bed profiles
of velocity and turbulence, −u 0 w 0 was normalized as by u
2 in
Fig. 2(d). As expected from other studies (Kironoto and Graf 1995;
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Song and Chiew 2001), −u 0 w 0 ≈ u
2 for zþ < 100 in the uniform
flow upstream of the bedform, over the riffle, and in CDF. In CAF,
p ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
−u 0 w 0 ≈ u
2 only at a lower relative elevation (zþ ∼ 20), but it is
still reasonable to assume equivalence between the two at the bed.
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
However, −u 0 w 0 ≠ u
2 in the deep uniform section and in the
downstream CAF, where the turbulence is relatively elevated close
to the bed and throughout the flow depth.
Comparison of Shear Velocity (u
) Estimates
A comparison of u
estimates shows that they converge in some
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
locations but diverge in others (Fig. 3). −u 0 w 0 measured at
z=Z ¼ 0.10 is also shown for comparison because turbulence
J. Hydraul. Eng.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Inst of Tech - Guwahati on 10/11/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 4. Scatter plot of Coles wake parameter estimates (Π and Π2 ) ver-
sus the shape factor (H) for all centerline locations in run R240P240;
values and known thresholds from other studies are shown where
available
was thought to be relevant for a discussion of pressure fluctuations
on the bed and their role in sediment transport. The selected eleva-
tion is close to the bed but within the range that is sampled reliably
by the UDVPs. With the exception of u
1 , the estimates are in rel-
ative agreement upstream of the bedform, through CAF, and over
the riffle [Fig. 3(b)]. u
estimates tend to then diverge in CDF
before converging in the pool as they relax toward uniform flow
values. Again with the exception of u
1 , the estimates all show
a local peak in u
within the CDF zone. The highest estimates
are predicted using the boundary conditions method (u
4 ) and
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
−u 0 w 0 z=Z¼0.1 . u
1 follows a unique pattern as it tends to rise
and fall with the bedform, reaching a maximum value in the riffle
and a minimum in the downstream end of the CDF section before
recovering in the pool.
To sift through the predictions of u
, the parameters A, A2 , and
H are shown in Fig. 3(c). A2 varies widely from the constant value
of A, increasing rapidly in CAF, recovering in the riffle, decreasing
in CDF and recovering in the pool. H tends to exhibit opposite
trends to A2 , falling during CAF and rising during CDF. The
parameter H is thought to be reasonably accurate given the exper-
imental apparatus because, U=U c ∼ 1 near the water surface [used
in Eqs. (8) and (9)], while dz → 0 near the channel bed where the
velocity defect is greater. The parameter A2, on the other hand, is
sensitive to near-bed positioning errors and the velocity defect in
the outer zone (Monty et al. 2011). Near-bed positioning is thought
to be a minor source of error here because similar variability of A2
was observed for all runs (results not shown). To test the effect of
the outer zone velocity defect, Π and Π2 (calculated using A and
A2 , respectively) were compared with H (Fig. 4). As shown, Π is
highly correlated with H (R2 ¼ 0.97) while Π2 is not (R2 ¼ 0.35).
It thus appears that the variability in A2 and u
2 are confounded with
variability in the outer zone and that u
1 is a better estimate of the
inner-zone shear stress. The agreement of u
2 with u
3 and u
4
through CAF and over the riffle may reflect changes to the outer
zone that are recorded by the three estimates.
In contrast with u
1 , estimates of u
3 and u
4 exhibit peaks near the
transition from CDF to the pool, with the peak in u
4 greatly exceed-
ing the other parameters. Uncertainty in u
4 is related to the un-
known variability of K in Eq. (7) as a result of nonequilibrium
pressure gradients. However, the same assumption has been applied
© ASCE
J. Hydraul. Eng., 04015025
successfully to accelerating flow (Afzalimehr and Anctil 2000) and
over boulders (Papanicolaou et al. 2012), and u
4 is calculated using
mean velocity measurements in the outer zone, which are generally
more accurate and insensitive to positioning errors than inner zone
measurements. The increase in u
4 and form roughness also corre-
spond with a known local energy loss due to increased turbulence
during CDF (Einstein and Barbarossa 1952; Millar 1999; MacVicar
2013). u
4 was therefore considered to be representative of the
total stress. In contrast with u
4 , the peak in u
3 during CDF is rel-
atively short lived, and u
3 follows u
1 quite closely through the pool
before they diverge again in the downstream CAF zone. u
3 is
thought to have a relatively low accuracy due to the difficulty of
accurately extrapolating Reynolds stress to the bed in nonuniform
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ffi
flows (Kironoto and Graf 1995). The peak in −u 0 w 0 z=Z¼0.1 is
more sustained so that it exceeds u
1 and u
3 while remaining less
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
than u
4 through the pool. −u 0 w 0 z=Z¼0.1 is considered to be a
reasonable estimate of the near-bed turbulent stresses based on
the rigorous data quality control and the minimization of the
assumption of flow homogeneity inherent in the applied interpola-
tion method.
Tracking Metrics of Velocity and Turbulence
Distribution over Bedforms
To demonstrate the effect of the length of bedforms on flow
hydraulics, various inner and outer zone parameters are shown
in Fig. 5. Selected inner zone parameters include u
1 ,
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
−u 0 w 0 z=Z¼0.1 , and u
4 , which represent the skin friction, near-
bed turbulent stress, and total stress, respectively. Consistent with
run R240P240, u
1 rises and falls with the bed, with the maxima
occurring in the riffle (u
1 =u
o ∼ 2.1) and the minima at the transition
from CDF to the pool (u
1 =u
o ∼ 0.5–0.75). For the runs with differ-
ent riffle lengths, no differences between the runs were noted for
u
1 over the riffles or the pools [Fig. 5(a)]. For the runs with differ-
ent pool lengths, no significant differences were observed over the
riffles, but u
1 =u
o < 1 at the end of the pools where they are rela-
tively short, which indicates that skin friction is relatively low
in these pools and that recovery of this parameter is incomplete
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ffi
[Fig. 5(b)]. −u 0 w 0 z=Z¼0.1 diverges from u
1 as it is less than half
the value of u
1 by the end of the CAF section and more than twice
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
the value of u
1 at the end of the CDF section. −u 0 w 0 z=Z¼0.1 tends
to recover toward u
1 nearer the beginning of longer riffles
(e.g., R240P240) in comparison with short rifflesffi (e.g., R80P240)
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
[Fig. 5(a)]. In a similar manner, −u 0 w 0 z=Z¼0.1 tends to recover
more in longer rather than shorter pools [Fig. 5(a)]. As discussed
in the previous section u
4 tends to follow similar patterns as
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
−u 0 w 0 z=Z¼0.1 over the bedforms, with the exception that u
4 re-
mains low through CDF and into the pool for runs with short riffles
[Fig. 5(a)]. This result means that the peak in u
4 during CDF is
moderated by the length of the riffle. Longer pools allow for a
recovery of u
4 to values observed upstream of the bedform.
Presented outer zone parameters include Π and Ψ, which were
assumed to represent the vertical and lateral velocity defects, re-
spectively (Fig. 5). A comparison of Π with u
4 shows that these
parameters are highly correlated, which is expected given that they
are different representations of the velocity defect. u
4 is low when
velocity profiles are relatively flat (as they are in CAF) and high
where velocity gradients are higher in the outer zone (as they are in
CDF). Π is also highly sensitive to the estimate for u
1 so that a
04015025-7 J. Hydraul. Eng.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Inst of Tech - Guwahati on 10/11/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(a) (b)

Fig. 5. Normalized flow and turbulence distribution metrics for (a) riffle length and roughness runs (as listed in the legend a); (b) pool length and
bedforms in sequence runs (as listed in legend b); note that the streamwise distance (xþ ) has been normalized by the length of each bedform subunit
for comparison between runs; a color version of this figure is available online

slightly lower minimum in u
1 for run R40P160 results in a higher
peak value for Π. Due to the linear interpolation method used for
beam velocities, the error is higher around local peaks (as occurs at
the transition from CDF to the pool) in comparison with areas
where flow parameters are gradually changing (e.g., in the pool).
The parameter Ψ is also correlated with u
4 and Π, but shows a
wider variability as a result of riffles with different lengths
[Fig. 5(a)] and is relatively insensitive to the length of the pool
[Fig. 5(b)]. Some unexplained variability in Ψ occurs over in
CAF and over the riffle (xþ < 3) in the runs with different pool
lengths and in particular for run R40P80. Backwater effects over
the short (0.40 m) riffle may be causing some of this variability,
although it is noted that Ψ is dependent on measurements across
the width of the channel and errors or missing data close to the
side wall may be causing some of the variability. The sensitivity
to riffle length shows that flows remain more laterally concentrated
at the end of the pools in runs with longer riffles [Fig. 5(a)].
The results from the run with the rough bed (R240P240 R) show
that roughness tends to affect the magnitude rather than the spatial
patterns of the flow and turbulence metrics [Fig. 5(a)]. The estimate
for u
1 was less for this run than the other runs (Table 1), likely
due to the method used to normalize the inner zone parameters
over the rough bed, and this low estimate accounts for the high
peaks observed for the other parameters.
The fourth pool in run R40P40 is an exception to many of the
described trends because the flow entering the test section is more
turbulent and more laterally and vertically concentrated as a result
of conditioning over the upstream bedforms [Fig. 5(b)]. Relatively
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
high values of −u 0 w 0 z=Z¼0.1 , u
4 , Π and Ψ occur at the upstream
limit of the CAF section and, while they rapidly decrease within
CAF, these parameters remain high relative to the other runs in
the shallow uniform flow section. Within the CDF section, the same
parameters all increase in a manner similar to what was observed in

© ASCE 04015025-8 J. Hydraul. Eng.

J. Hydraul. Eng., 04015025

 the other runs, but the increases in Π and Ψ are less than and greater
than the increases observed in other runs, respectively. No dip in
u
1 is observed at the transition from CDF to deep uniform flow
and u
1 follows the bed profile without exception. Also unlike other
test scenarios, all parameter values at the downstream end of the
bedform are similar to those at the upstream end, which suggests
that a periodic but equilibrium state is reached over repeating bed-
forms that does not occur over isolated forms. The high value of Ψ
indicates that this more rapid return to uniform flow conditions is
coincident with a significant lateral redistribution of flow so that
more flow passes through the middle of the channel and velocities
near the side walls of the channel are relatively low.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Inst of Tech - Guwahati on 10/11/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Discussion
Key results from this study relate to the divergence between esti-
mates of total shear stress, skin friction, and turbulent stresses, and
the perturbation to and recovery of shear stress as a result of the
bedforms. Perhaps most significant for understanding the hydrody-
namics is the observation that the total shear stress and near-bed
turbulence greatly exceed the skin friction in CDF and the pool.
In terms of bedform scaling, a key result is that the degree to which
the different flow parameters recover is in many cases a function of
the length of the pool or riffle. It was also observed that the repeat-
ing bedforms tend to push the velocity and shear stress distributions
to a new equilibrium condition that is different than the uniform
flow case, and the results over isolated bedforms must therefore
be interpreted with some care. The behavior of sediment particles
over the bedforms was not tested in this study, but it is the authors’
hypothesis that the local peaks in turbulent and total stresses in
CDF and the hydraulic length scales associated with flow recovery
regardless of bedform length have implications for riffle-pool dy-
namics and the design of constructed form. The authors discuss the
limitations of the experimental design, the hydrodynamic length
scales including lateral flow concentration, the difficulty of mod-
eling shear stress over the bedforms, and the implications of this
variability for sediment transport processes and bedform stability.
The limitations of the experimental design primarily relate to the
measurement technology. Near-bed measurements with the UDVPs
can be prone to error due to positioning and signal interference
from the bed. The apparatus was designed to allow the rapid col-
lection of a large set of time series over multiple configurations of
the bedforms, but it was still difficult to ensure 100% accuracy.
Considerable effort was made to assess data quality and eliminate
poor data in a transparent and repeatable manner and this effort
led to the creation of an open-source software for this purpose
(MacVicar et al. 2014). The shift of the log-law intercept [Eq. (5)]
as a result of the nonuniform flow was not anticipated because
previous work in open channels had found a near-constant value
(Kironoto and Graf 1995; Song and Chiew 2001; Onitsuka et al.
2009). The variation in the log-law intercept may be related to the
range of pressure gradients. In the current study, the range of the
velocity defect (Fig. 4) was much greater than in previous nonuni-
form open-channel flow studies by Kironoto and Graf (1995)
(Π ¼ −0.30 to 0.41), Song and Chiew (2001) (Π ¼ −0.11 to
0.19), and Onitsuka et al. (2009) (Π ¼ 0.2 to 1.3). The idea that
stronger pressure gradients cause a shift in the intercept is sup-
ported by some studies in wind tunnels such as Piomelli et al.’s
(2000) work comparing weak and strong accelerations in the range
of H ¼ 1.25 to 1.60. They noted an increase in the intercept and
relaminarization in the stronger case. Monty et al. (2011) and
Nagano et al. (1998) also noted decreases in the intercept in ad-
verse pressure gradients. Of the studies examined, however, only
© ASCE 04015025-9
J. Hydraul. Eng., 04015025
Krogstad and Skare 1995) studied decelerating flows with a sim-
ilar velocity defect to the current study (H ¼ 2.0, Fig. 4), and they
found no shift in the log-law intercept. Ultimately this study’s
results are not able to resolve the question, and better quality
near-bed (i.e. zþ < 100) measurements are required for such an
assessment.
Despite the uncertainty, shear velocity calculated with the
assumption of a universal intercept (u
1 ) is a valuable metric for
comparison with the total and turbulent stresses and other studies
where similar assumptions were made. The key 3D numerical mod-
eling study of MacWilliams et al. (2006), for instance, calculated
shear stress from a near-bed velocity and an assumption of a near-
bed log law. The comparison with MacWilliams et al. (2006) is
instructive because they found that the near-bed velocity in the
Dry Creek pool is much lower than the near-bed velocity over
the point bar at high discharges. This same site was originally
used by Keller (1971) to propose his velocity-reversal hypothesis.
MacWilliams et al. (2006) used the near-bed velocity to estimate
shear stress and showed the existence of a high stress corridor over
the bar—a result that was used to propose their lateral flow con-
vergence hypothesis for pool maintenance. Other modeling studies
have similarly used the near-bed velocity to estimate shear stress
(MacWilliams et al. 2010; Caamano et al. 2009; Jackson et al.
2015). In contrast, both u
4 and −u 0 w 0 , which are thought to be
reasonably accurate estimates of the total and near-bed turbulent
stress, show consistent peaks in the pool. The current series of ex-
periments thus builds on the insight from field studies (Clifford and
French 1993; MacVicar and Roy 2007; Thompson and Wohl 2009)
and confirmed in lab experiments (Thompson 2006; MacVicar and
Rennie 2012; MacVicar and Best 2013) that near-bed turbulence
tends to peak in the pool. The boundary conditions method (u
4 )
was added in the current study to demonstrate that the total shear
stress exhibits similar behavior. The key conclusion is that the spa-
tial patterns of shear stress vary with the type of stress (skin friction,
turbulent stress, or total stress), with the implication that different
types of stress may need to be considered for a full explanation
bedform maintenance.
Length scales of flow recovery also suggest that total and tur-
bulent stresses are important metrics for describing shear stress dis-
tribution over bedforms. To better describe the length scales of flow
recovery, normalized values of key metrics at the end of the pool
and riffle sections for the different runs are shown in Fig. 6. Error
bars are shown where multiple runs were made for a given riffle or
pool length. Many parameters exhibit asymptotic trends with bed-
form length so that they tend to stabilize where bedform length (X)
is approximately 3–4 times the channel width (Y). For instance,
u
1 remains low through short pools but recovers in long pools,
with the value at X=Y ¼ 2.7 within the error bars of the multiple
runs at X=Y ¼ 4.0 [Fig. 6(a)]. In contrast, u
1 is not sensitive to riffle
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
length. −u 0 w 0 z=Z¼0.1 and u
4 tend to increase in longer riffles and
decrease in longer pools, again stabilizing between X=Y ¼ 2.7
and 4.0 in the pools [Fig. 6(b and c)]. Outer zone parameters Π
and Ψ tend to recover toward uniform flow values, although recov-
ery is not complete for the longest two bedform runs, and Ψ is
insensitive to the length of the pool. The gradual increase of tur-
bulence and the velocity defect over riffles is similar to observations
of the boundary layer development over broad-crested weirs (Hager
and Schwalt 1994), whereas the dissipation of turbulence in pools
is similar to the qualitative observations of Yalin and da Silva
(2001). These latter researchers proposed that hydrodynamic recov-
ery processes occur at length scales that are low multiples of the
channel width and that they are linked with macro-scale bedform
formation such as pools and riffles. Given the similarity of the
J. Hydraul. Eng.
 Riffle length the pool, the shortened bedform does result in higher turbulent and
Pool length total stresses over the upstream portion of the riffle.
2.2 1.1 The reduction in effective width and recovery to a new equilib-
rium over the shortened bedforms is also interesting because it
2.1 1
u 1/u 1o provides a link with theories of pool maintenance that rely on a
2 0.9 width constriction (Thompson et al. 1999) or topographically in-
1.9 0.8 duced lateral flow convergence (MacWilliams et al. 2006; White
(a) 1.8 0.7 et al. 2010; Milan 2013; Jackson et al. 2015). Topographical lateral
flow convergence is also used to guide flow into constructed pools
2.5 2.5 (Rosgen 2001; Newbury 2013) and is central to the design of some
))u’w’(- / u’w’-o

constructed riffle pools (Rhoads et al. 2008). MacVicar and Rennie

2 2
(2012) showed that a hydraulic lateral flow convergence will occur
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Inst of Tech - Guwahati on 10/11/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

1.5 1.5 in straight pools as a by-product of CDF due to increased drag and
turbulence generation near the channel sidewalls, and that the rate
(b) 1
1 of this convergence is sensitive to the overall channel width. Based
on the results from the fourth pool of run R40P40 it is likely that
4 5
any constriction of the width in the pool would locally increase u
1 ,
3 4
u 4/ u 4 o

which supports recent modeling results by Jackson et al. (2015).

2 3 The results thus allow the conjecture that there is a positive feed-
1 2 back between local channel width constrictions and the rates of hy-
(c) 1 drodynamic recovery, but such an experiment is beyond the scope
0
of the current work.
3 0 The combination of the location of the peak in turbulent stress,
the similarity of the observed hydrodynamic scales to geophysical
2 −2
o

scales, and the persistence of the scales despite feedback from the
/

−4
bed offers a convenient explanation for pool scour and predictions
1
of pool dimensions. This explanation is seen as relatively simple
(d) 0 −6 because the above characteristics are evident with a simple 2D bed-
form geometry at a single discharge. Clearly, however, the conven-
1.1 1.2 ience is not sufficient to prove that turbulence is involved with
bedform genesis and maintenance. Including turbulence in explan-
o

1 1.1 ations of alluvial and constructed pools and riffle sedimentology is

/

not straightforward because of an incomplete understanding of how

(e) 0.9 1
0 1 2 3 4 5
X/Y
Fig. 6. Normalized flow and turbulence distribution metrics at the
downstream limit of the riffle and pool versus the normalized length
of the riffle (X s ) and pool (X d ) sections; all metrics are normalized
by their respective values upstream of the bedform (Table 1)
hydrodynamic scales observed for the longer isolated bedforms in
the study by MacVicar and Best (2013) and the shorter bedforms in
the current study, it appears that recovery cannot be forced by plac-
ing bedforms closer together. This conclusion solidifies the link
between bedform formation and hydrodynamic length scales be-
cause it means that the hydrodynamic recovery is persistent despite
potentially negative feedback from the bed.
The run with short bedforms in series is interesting because
it illustrates that equilibrium states other than uniform flow are
possible. Because hydrodynamic recovery is not accelerated by
the bedforms, hydrodynamic recovery is incomplete over short
bedforms in series in the sense that flow passed to downstream bed-
forms is strongly conditioned by those upstream. A type of equi-
librium is nevertheless achieved over a series of short bedforms,
which is characterized by a more laterally concentrated distribution
of flow, particularly in the pool (Fig. 5). The increase in Ψ was
interpreted as a reduction in the effective width of the channel
due to the relatively low velocity near the channel sidewalls. This
reduction in effective width results in higher skin friction in the
pool, relatively lower turbulent and total stress peaks, and a lower
velocity defect in the pool. Despite lower turbulent stress peaks in
turbulence affects sediment entrainment, transport, and deposition.
At a minimum it is known that turbulence will modify sediment
entrainment (Jackson 1976; Sumer et al. 2003). Recent research
has more accurately quantified the link using a physics-based force
impulse approach (Celik et al. 2013; Diplas et al. 2008). The ap-
proaches for calculating force impulse from turbulent velocity sig-
nals, however, still rely on drag calculations (Celik et al. 2013),
whereas the generation of turbulent structures above the bed during
CDF is likely to affect the lift force on particles. Nevertheless, the
results strongly suggest that Shields (1936) mean-stress criterion
will not accurately represent entrainment thresholds in a decelerat-
ing flow. Based on the occurrence of intermittent but high magni-
tude peaks in turbulent stresses, it can be inferred that a mean stress
criterion will underestimate sediment entrainment in the riffle and
upstream portions of pools. Sediment in motion is likely to deposit
in the areas of pools where the turbulence levels are insufficient to
maintain sediment transport. Such deposition would occur in the
tail and sides of the pools rather than the head, as is observed in
natural pools (Lisle and Hilton 1999).
A consideration of flow recovery can be used to hypothesize
control mechanisms on the length of riffles and pools. It may be
possible to construct relatively short pools and riffles, for instance,
but the result would be higher flow through the middle of the chan-
nel and higher turbulence, particularly in the riffle section. Given
the sensitivity of sediment transport to turbulence, adding turbu-
lence would increase the risk of failure. In riffles, coarse particles
tend to collect and imbricate (Clifford 1993; Sear 1996). Imbricate
structures are more likely to be stable in an environment of unidi-
rectional force vectors, much like stones in an arch can maintain
their stability indefinitely, provided that the force is constant and
unidirectional. Where turbulence is higher, the particles will be

© ASCE 04015025-10 J. Hydraul. Eng.

J. Hydraul. Eng., 04015025

 subjected to greater degree of unsteady and three dimensional
stresses. Long riffles would result in increased turbulence and a
more laterally concentrated flow as the boundary layer develops.
At some threshold, the combined effect of the mean and the shaking
forces would break up stabilizing structures, much like tremors can
bring down an otherwise stable stone arch. In the case of the river
bed, such a breakup would result in local scour and initiate positive
feedback between increased turbulence as a result of CDF and con-
tinued pool scour. In pools, it follows that if the combination of
mean and turbulent stresses are sufficient to move sediment, then
the pool will enlarge. In longer pools, the decelerating flow and
weakening turbulence will eventually lose the capacity to transport
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Inst of Tech - Guwahati on 10/11/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
sediment, resulting in deposition as has been hypothesized by Yalin
and da Silva (2001). When the sediment deposits, convective flow
acceleration will occur, accompanied by a near-bed increase in
velocity, and initiate the formation of a downstream riffle. Con-
structed long pools would thus be subjected to significant deposi-
tion, again possibly leading to failure.
Conclusions
The aim of the current study is to investigate the hydrodynamics
of straight riffle pools as a means improving the confidence in
their design parameters. Specific conclusions are
1. Skin friction, turbulent stresses, and total stress diverge over
macro-scale bedforms such that total and turbulent stresses ex-
ceed skin friction in the head and through the middle of a pool;
2. Hydrodynamic recovery of shear stress and the velocity defect
in the riffle and pool occurs at length scales of a low multiple
of channel width, regardless of constructed bedform length;
and
3. Length scales of hydrodynamic recovery seem to match with
geophysical scales of riffles and pools.
Implications for the design of straight riffle-pool instream struc-
tures are that
1. Skin friction and the Shields criterion may not be suitable for the
prediction of sediment entrainment thresholds in the head and
through the middle of the pool;
2. Construction of short bedforms may be prone to failure because
they allow insufficient space for flow recovery, resulting in a
more turbulent and laterally concentrated flow exported to
downstream bedforms; and
3. Construction of long bedforms may be prone to failure, also
because of flow recovery as boundary layer growth, increasing
turbulence and lateral flow concentration will encourage ero-
sion in the riffle whereas turbulent dissipation will encourage
deposition in the pool.
Future work should more accurately assess the effect of accel-
eration on the near-bed velocity profile and include mobile bed
sediment in a range of size classes to understand how sediment
entrainment and transport respond to the highly turbulent environ-
ment in pools and illustrate feedback mechanisms between the bed
and the hydrodynamics.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Jim Best, Gianluca Blois, and
Marcelo Garcia at the University of Illinois in Urbana-Champaign
for hosting Lana Obach during her time there, allowing access to
the Ven Te Chow Hydrosystems Laboratory, and for providing in-
put and very useful suggestions over the duration of this project.
We appreciate the spirit of collaboration in which this work was
completed. The insight and suggestions of the Editor, Associate
© ASCE 04015025-11
J. Hydraul. Eng., 04015025
Editor and three anonymous reviewers substantially improved an
earlier version of this manuscript. The experimental apparatus was
assembled while the first author was the holder of an NSERC Post
Doctoral Fellowship. The experiments were conducted with the
support of an NSERC Discovery Grant.
References
Afzalimehr, H., and Anctil, F. (2000). “Accelerating shear velocity in
gravel-bed channels.” Hydrol. Sci. J., 45(1), 113–124.
Afzalimehr, H., and Rennie, C. D. (2009). “Determination of bed shear
stress in gravel-bed rivers using boundary-layer parameters.” Hydrol.
Sci. J., 54(1), 147–159.
Bernhardt, E. S., et al. (2005). “Synthesizing US river restoration efforts.”
Science, 308(5722), 636–637.
Best, J., and Kostaschuk, R. (2002). “An experimental study of turbulent
flow over a low-angle dune.” J. Geophys. Res. C: Oceans, 107(C9),
18-1–18-19.
Best, J. L., Kostaschuk, R. A., and Villard, P. V. (2001). “Quantitative
visualization of flow fields associated with alluvial sand dunes: Results
from the laboratory and field using ultrasonic and acoustic Doppler
anemometry.” J. Visual., 4(4), 373–381.
Biron, P. M., Robson, C., Lapointe, M. F., and Gaskin, S. J. (2004). “Com-
paring different methods of bed shear stress estimates in simple and
complex flow fields.” Earth Surf. Proc. Land., 29(11), 1403–1415.
Brown, R. A., and Pasternack, G. B. (2009). “Comparison of methods for
analysing salmon habitat rehabilitation designs for regulated rivers.”
River Res. Appl., 25(6), 745–772.
Caamano, D., Goodwin, P., Buffington, J. M., Liou, J. C. P., and Daley-
Laursen, S. (2009). “Unifying criterion for the velocity reversal hypoth-
esis in gravel-bed rivers.” J. Hydraul. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9429
(2009)135:1(66), 66–70.
Carling, P. A., and Orr, H. G. (2000). “Morphology of riffle-pool sequences
in the River Severn, England.” Earth Surf. Proc. Land., 25(4), 369–384.
Celik, A. O., Diplas, P., and Dancey, C. L. (2013). “Instantaneous turbulent
forces and impulse on a rough bed: Implications for initiation of bed
material movement.” Water Resour. Res., 49(4), 2213–2227.
Church, M., and Jones, D. (1982). “Channel bars in gravel-bed rivers.”
Gravel-Bed Rivers, Wiley, Chicester, U.K., 291–338.
Clifford, N. J. (1993). “Differential bed sedimentology and the maintenance
of riffle-pool sequences.” Catena, 20(5), 447–468.
Clifford, N. J., and French, J. R. (1993). “Monitoring and analysis of
turbulence in geophysical boundaries: Some analytical and conceptual
issues.” Turbulence: Perspectives on flow and sediment transport,
Wiley, Chicester, U.K., 93–119.
Coles, D. (1956). “The law of the wake in the turbulent boundary layer.”
J. Fluid Mech., 1(02), 191–226.
de Almeida, G. A. M., and Rodríguez, J. F. (2011). “Understanding
pool-riffle dynamics through continuous morphological simulations.”
Water Resour. Res., 47(1), W01502.
Diplas, P., Dancey, C. L., Celik, A. O., Valyrakis, M., Greer, K., and
Akar, T. (2008). “The role of impulse on the initiation of particle
movement under turbulent flow conditions.” Science, 322(5902),
717–720.
Dwivedi, A., Melville, B., and Shamseldin, A. Y. (2010). “Hydrodynamic
forces generated on a spherical sediment particle during entrainment.”
J. Hydraul. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)HY.1943-7900.0000247, 756–769.
Einstein, H. A., and Barbarossa, N. L. (1952). “River channel roughness.”
Trans. Am. Soc. Civ. Eng., 117(1), 1121–1132.
Goring, D. G., and Nikora, V. I. (2002). “Despiking acoustic Doppler ve-
locimeter data.” J. Hydraul. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9429(2002)
128:1(117), 117–126.
Hager, W. H., and Schwalt, M. (1994). “Broad-crested weir.” J. Irrig.
Drain. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9437(1994)120:1(13), 13–26.
Jackson, J. R., Pasternack, G. B., and Wheaton, J. M. (2015). “Virtual
manipulation of topography to test potential pool-riffle maintenance
mechanisms.” Geomorphology, 228, 617–627.
J. Hydraul. Eng.
 Jackson, R. G. (1976). “Sedimentological and fluid-dynamic implications
of the turbulent bursting phenomenon in geophysical flows.” J. Fluid
Mech., 77(3), 531–560.
Keller, E. A. (1971). “Areal sorting of bed material: The hypothesis of
velocity reversal.” Geol. Soc. Am. Bull., 82(3), 753–756.
Keller, E. A., and Melhorn, W. N. (1978). “Rhythmic spacing and origin of
pools and riffles.” Geol. Soc. Am. Bull., 89(5), 723–730.
Kironoto, B. A., and Graf, W. H. (1994). “Turbulence characteristics in
rough uniform open-channel flow.” Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. Wat. Marit.
Energy, 106(4), 333–344.
Kironoto, B. A., and Graf, W. H. (1995). “Turbulence characteristics in
rough non-uniform open-channel flow.” Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. Wat.
Marit. Energy, 112(4), 336–348.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Inst of Tech - Guwahati on 10/11/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Kondolf, G. M., Anderson, S., Lave, R., Pagano, L., Merenlender, A., and
Bernhardt, E. S. (2007). “Two decades of river restoration in California:
What can we learn?” Rest. Ecol., 15(3), 516–523.
Krogstad, P. Å., and Skåre, P. E. (1995). “Influence of a strong adverse
pressure gradient on the turbulent structure in a boundary layer.”
Phys. Fluids, 7(8), 2014–2024.
Lave, R. (2008). “The Rosgen wars and the shifting political economy of
expertise.” Ph.D. thesis, UC Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, 257.
Lee, J. H., and Sung, H. J. (2009). “Structures in turbulent boundary layers
subjected to adverse pressure gradients.” J. Fluid Mech., 639, 101–131.
Leopold, L. B., and Wolman, M. G. (1957). “River channel patterns:
Braided, meandering, and straight.” Professional Paper 282-B, U.S.
Geological Survey, Washington, DC, 85.
Lhermitte, R., and Lemmin, U. (1994). “Open-channel flow and turbulence
measurement by high-resolution Doppler sonar.” J. Atmos. Ocean.
Technol., 11(5), 1295–1308.
Lisle, T. E., and Hilton, S. (1999). “Fine bed material in pools of natural
gravel bed channels.” Water Resour. Res., 35(4), 1291–1304.
Lisle, T. E., Nelson, J. M., Pitlick, J., Madej, M. A., and Barkett, B. L.
(2000). “Variability of bed mobility in natural, gravel-bed channels
and adjustments to sediment load at local and reach scales.” Water
Resour. Res., 36(12), 3743–3755.
MacVicar, B. (2013). “Local head loss coefficients of riffle pools in gravel-
bed rivers.” J. Hydraul. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)HY.1943-7900.0000787,
1193–1198.
MacVicar, B. J., and Best, J. (2013). “A flume experiment on the effect of
channel width on the perturbation and recovery of flow in straight pools
and riffles with smooth boundaries.” J. Geophys. Res.-Earth Surf.,
118(3), 1850–1863.
MacVicar, B. J., Dilling, S., and Lacey, R. W. J. (2014). “Multi-instrument
turbulence toolbox (MITT): Open-source MATLAB algorithms for the
analysis of turbulent flow time series.” Comput. Geosci., 73, 88–98.
MacVicar, B. J., Obach, L., and Best, J. L. (2013). “Large-scale turbulent
flow structures in alluvial pools.” Coherent flow structures in geophysi-
cal flows at earth’s surface, Wiley, Chichester, U.K., 243–259.
MacVicar, B. J., and Rennie, C. D. (2012). “Flow and turbulence redistrib-
ution in a straight artificial pool.” Water Resour. Res., 48(2), W02503.
MacVicar, B. J., and Roy, A. G. (2007). “Hydrodynamics of a forced riffle
pool in a gravel bed river. 1: Mean velocity and turbulence intensity.”
Water Resour. Res., 43(12), W12401.
MacVicar, B. J., and Roy, A. G. (2011). “Sediment mobility in a forced
riffle-pool.” Geomorphology, 125(3), 445–456.
MacWilliams, M. L., Jr., Tompkins, M. R., Street, R. L., Kondolf, G. M.,
and Kitanidis, P. K. (2010). “Assessment of the effectiveness of a con-
structed compound channel river restoration project on an incised
stream.” J. Hydraul. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)HY.1943-7900.0000196,
1042–1052.
MacWilliams, M. L., Jr., Wheaton, J. M., Pasternack, G. B., Street, R. L.,
and Kitanidis, P. K. (2006). “Flow convergence routing hypothesis for
pool-riffle maintenance in alluvial rivers.” Water Resour. Res., 42,
W10427.
MATLAB [Computer software]. Natick, MA, MathWorks.
Milan, D. J. (2013). “Sediment routing hypothesis for pool-riffle mainte-
nance.” Earth Surf. Proc. Land., 38(14), 1623–1641.
Millar, R. G. (1999). “Grain and form resistance in gravel-bed rivers.”
J. Hydraul. Res., 37(3), 303–312.
© ASCE 04015025-12
J. Hydraul. Eng., 04015025
Miller, J. R., and Kochel, R. C. (2009). “Assessment of channel dy-
namics, in-stream structures and post-project channel adjustments
in North Carolina and its implications to effective stream restoration.”
Environ. Earth Sci., 59(8), 1681–1692.
Montgomery, D. R., and Buffington, J. M. (1997). “Channel reach mor-
phology in mountain drainage basins.” Geol. Soc. Am. Bull., 109(5),
596–611.
Montgomery, D. R., Buffington, J. M., Smith, R. D., Schmidt, K. M., and
Pess, G. (1995). “Pool spacing in forest channels.” Water Resour. Res.,
31(4), 1097–1105.
Monty, J. P., Harun, Z., and Marusic, I. (2011). “A parametric study of
adverse pressure gradient turbulent boundary layers.” Int. J. Heat Fluid
Flow, 32(3), 575–585.
Nagano, Y., Tsuji, T., and Houra, T. (1998). “Structure of turbulent boun-
dary layer subjected to adverse pressure gradient.” Int. J. Heat Fluid
Flow, 19(5), 563–572.
Newbury, R. W. (2013). “Designing fish-passable riffles as gradient
controls in Canadian streams.” Can. Water Resour. J., 38(3),
232–250.
Nezu, I., and Rodi, W. (1986). “Open-channel flow measurements with a
laser doppler anemometer.” J. Hydraul. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733
-9429(1986)112:5(335), 335–355.
Onitsuka, K., Akiyama, J., and Matsuoka, S. (2009). “Prediction of
velocity profiles and Reynolds stress distributions in turbulent open-
channel flows with adverse pressure gradient.” J. Hydraul. Res.,
47(1), 58–65.
Papanicolaou, A. N., Kramer, C. M., Tsakiris, A. G., Stoesser, T.,
Bomminayuni, S., and Chen, Z. (2012). “Effects of a fully submerged
boulder within a boulder array on the mean and turbulent flow
fields: Implications to bedload transport.” Acta Geophys., 60(6),
1502–1546.
Pasternack, G. B., Bounrisavong, M. K., and Parikh, K. K. (2008).
“Backwater control on riffle-pool hydraulics, fish habitat quality, and
sediment transport regime in gravel-bed rivers.” J. Hydrol., 357(1–2),
125–139.
Piomelli, U., Balaras, E., and Pascarelli, A. (2000). “Turbulent structures in
accelerating boundary layers.” J. Turb., 1, X1–16.
Radspinner, R. R., Diplas, P., Lightbody, A. F., and Sotiropoulos, F. (2010).
“River training and ecological enhancement potential using in-
stream structures.” J. Hydraul. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)HY.1943-7900
.0000260, 967–980.
Rhoads, B. L., Garcia, M. H., Rodriguez, J., Bombardelli, F., Abad, J. D.,
and Daniels, M. D. (2008). “Methods for evaluating the geomorpho-
logical performance of naturalized rivers: Examples from the Chicago
metropolitan area.” River restoration: Managing the uncertainty in
restoring physical habitat, Wiley, Chicester, U.K., 209–228.
Rosgen, D. L. (2001). “The cross-vane, W-weir and J-hook vane structures:
Their description, design, and application for stream stabilization and
river restoration.” Proc., Wetlands Engineering and River Restoration
2001, ASCE, Reston, VA, 22.
Roy, A. G., Biron, P. M., and Lapointe, M. F. (1997). “Implications of
low-pass filtering on power spectra and autocorrelation functions of
turbulent velocity signals.” Math. Geol., 29(5), 653–668.
Sear, D. A. (1996). “Sediment transport processes in pool-riffle sequences.”
Earth Surf. Proc. Land., 21(3), 241–262.
Shields, A. (1936). “Application of similarity principles and turbulence re-
search to bed-load movement.” Mitteilungen der Preuss Versuchsanst
für Wasserbau und Schiffbau, 26 (in German).
Simpson, R. L. (1981). “Review—A review of some phenomena in turbu-
lent flow separation.” J. Fluids Eng., 103(4), 520–533.
Smits, A. J., and Wood, D. H. (1985). “The response of turbulent boun-
dary layers to sudden perturbations.” Ann. Rev. Fluid Mech., 17(1),
321–358.
Song, T., and Chiew, Y. M. (2001). “Turbulence measurement in non-
uniform open-channel flow using acoustic Doppler velocimeter
(ADV).” J. Eng. Mech., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(2001)127:3(219),
219–232.
Sumer, B. M., Chua, L. H. C., Cheng, N. S., and Fredsoe, J. (2003).
“Influence of turbulence on bed load sediment transport.” J. Hydraul.
Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9429(2003)129:8(585), 585–596.
J. Hydraul. Eng.
 Thompson, D. M. (2006). “The role of vortex shedding in the scour of
pools.” Adv. Water Res., 29(2), 121–129.
Thompson, D. M., and Wohl, E. E. (2009). “The linkage between velocity
patterns and sediment entrainment in a forced-pool and riffle unit.”
Earth Surf. Proc. Land., 34(2), 177–192.
Thompson, D. M., Wohl, E. E., and Jarrett, R. D. (1999). “Velocity rever-
sals and sediment sorting in pools and riffles controlled by channel
constrictions.” Geomorphology, 27(3–4), 229–241.
Vermeulen, B., Sassi, M. G., and Hoitink, A. J. F. (2014). “Improved flow
velocity estimates from moving-boat ADCP measurements.” Water
Resour. Res., 50(5), 4186–4196.
Wheaton, J. M., et al. (2010). “Linking geomorphic changes to
salmonid habitat at a scale relevant to fish.” River Res. Appl., 26(4),
469–486.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Inst of Tech - Guwahati on 10/11/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
White, F. M. (2009). Fluid mechanics, McGraw-Hill, New York.
White, J. Q., Pasternack, G. B., and Moir, H. J. (2010). “Valley width
variation influences riffle-pool location and persistence on a rapidly
incising gravel-bed river.” Geomorphology, 121(3–4), 206–221.
Whiting, P. J. (1997). “The effect of stage on flow and components of the
local force balance.” Earth Surf. Proc. Land., 22(6), 517–530.
Wyrick, J. R., and Pasternack, G. B. (2014). “Geospatial organization
of fluvial landforms in a gravel-cobble river: Beyond the riffle-pool
couplet.” Geomorphology, 213, 48–65.
Yalin, M. S., and da Silva, A. M. F. (2001). Fluvial processes, International
Association of Hydraulic Engineering and Research (IAHR), Delft,
Netherlands.
Yang, S. Q., and Chow, A. T. (2008). “Turbulence structures in non-
uniform flows.” Adv. Water Resour., 31(10), 1344–1351.

© ASCE 04015025-13 J. Hydraul. Eng.

J. Hydraul. Eng., 04015025