Kirkstall Forge Flood Defence Background Papers

KIRKSTALL FORGE FLOOD RELIEF CHANNEL
MITIGATION MEASURES
OCTOBER 2007
Weetwood
Elm House Farm, Saighton Lane,
Saighton, Chester, CH3 6EN
Tel. 01244 330111
Fax. 01244 332111
www.weetwood.net
Commercial Estates Group

Central House
Beckwith Knowle
Otley Road
Harrogate
HG3 1WZ
CEG
KIRKSTALL FORGE
SIGNATURE SHEET
Report Title
Client
Kirkstall Forge Flood Relief Channel Mitigation

Measures
CEG
Report Status
Final
Date of Issue
30 October 2007
Prepared by
:
A. Morriss BSc (Hons), MSc
Checked by
:
C. D. Whitlow BSc, PhD
Approved by
A. F. Grime BEng MBA CEng MICE FCIWEM
Weetwood
761R01/AG
30 October 2007
CEG
KIRKSTALL FORGE
CONTENTS
Page
i
ii
iv
Signature Sheet
Contents
List of Tables, Figures & Appendices
INTRODUCTION ................................................................ 1
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
BACKGROUND ..........................................................................................1
OBJECTIVES AND DELIVERABLES ...............................................................1
APPROACH TAKEN IN THIS STUDY ..............................................................2
PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT ........................................................................2
FLOOD RELIEF CHANNEL DESIGN REFINEMENT ..................... 3
2.1
2.2
2.3
EXISTING FRC DESIGN..............................................................................3

EXISTING FRC DESIGN: COMMENTS ...........................................................3
FRC SUGGESTED REFINEMENTS .................................................................4
HYDRAULIC MODELLING .................................................... 6
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.5.1
3.5.2
3.5.3
HYDRAULIC MODELLING REQUIREMENTS ....................................................6

HYDROLOGY ............................................................................................6
HYDRAULIC MODEL REFINEMENTS..............................................................6
HYDRAULIC MODELLING SIMULATIONS .......................................................7
HYDRAULIC MODELLING: RESULTS & DISCUSSION ......................................8
Main River Aire: Rein Road Weir to Kirkstall Bridge ....................................8
Flood Relief Channel...............................................................................8
Sensitivity Tests .................................................................................. 11
GEOMORPHOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT .................................. 13
4.1
GEOMORPHOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT REQUIREMENTS.................................. 13
4.2
GEOMORPHOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT METHODS .......................................... 13
4.2.1. Calculating Sediment Transport Rates ....................................................... 14
4.2.2. Sediment Transport Limitations and Assumptions ....................................... 15
4.2.3. Scenario 1: Without FRC.......................................................................... 16
4.2.4. Scenario 2: With FRC .............................................................................. 16
4.3. GEOMORPHOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT RESULTS .............................................. 17
4.3.1. Sediment Transport Rates ....................................................................... 17
4.3.2. Sediment Transport Rates: Results Summary............................................. 23
4.4. GEOMORPHOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT DISCUSSION ........................................ 23
4.4.1. Impacts of the FRC on the Existing Channel Geomorphology ........................ 24
4.4.2. Geomorphological Consequences: Summary .............................................. 27
4.4.3. Additional Impacts of the Proposed FRC on the Existing Channel .................. 27
4.5. FRC DESIGN: GEOMORPHOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS ................................. 29
Weetwood
ii
761R01/AG
30 October 2007
CEG
KIRKSTALL FORGE
4.5.1. Sediment Transfer .................................................................................. 29

4.5.2. Bed Configuration ................................................................................... 30
4.5.3. Bank Stability......................................................................................... 31
4.6. MITIGATION MEASURES............................................................................. 32
4.6.1. Reducing Bed-Scour................................................................................ 32
4.6.2. Reducing Meander Loop Aggradation and Possible Bank Erosion ................... 32
4.7. GEOMORPHOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS...................................... 33
SUMMARY & CONCLUSIONS.............................................. 35
BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................... 37
Weetwood
iii
761R01/AG
30 October 2007
CEG
KIRKSTALL FORGE
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1 FRC hard engineering design drawings as available for this study...............3
High flow design hydrological estimates were drawn from the existing iSIS model for
the 100-year and 100-year plus allowance for climate change (100-year CC) events.
The QMED estimate was drawn from the HiFlows-UK website whilst the two low flow
design estimates for Q95 and Q50 were read from the flow duration curve held on the
National River Flow Archive (NFRA). Design estimates as used are summarized in
Table 3.1.Table 3.1. Design hydrological estimates and sources as input into the iSIS
model...............................................................................................................6
Table 3.2. Model scenarios as run during this study...............................................7
Table 3.3. Simulated results for the 100-year and 100-year CC events comparing the
pre- (outline design) and post-refinement alterations to the FRC. .......................... 11
Table 3.4. Results of roughness sensitivity tests. Sensitivity results shown against
refined FRC simulation outputs for 100-year CC design event. ............................... 11
Table 4.1. Modelled flows for sediment transport calculations. .............................. 15
Table 4.2. Sediment sizes as used for sediment transport calculations. .................. 15
Table 4.3. Channel cross sections modelled for scenario 1 (without FRC). .............. 16
Table 4.4. Channel cross sections modelled for scenario 2 (with FRC).................... 16
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1. Proposed plan view of FRC: possible pool-riffle sequence as illustrated is
approximate only. ..............................................................................................5
Figure 2.2. Proposed refinements to the hard engineering cross section as supplied.
Levels and measurements indicative only. Note that TRHB has been drawn to the left
of the cross section. ...........................................................................................5
Figure 3.1. FRC iSIS cross section showing revised Mannings n estimates (0.033 in
low flow channel and 0.045 on margins) to reflect the introduction of marginal
vegetation to screen the hard engineering structures. ............................................7
Figure 3.2. Results of 100-year CC design event in long section showing outline FRC
cross section (pre-refinement) and FRC post-refinement from Rein Road Weir to
Kirkstall Bridge. .................................................................................................9
cross section (pre-refinement) and FRC post-refinement from Rein Road Weir to the
lower railway bridge. ..........................................................................................9
Figure 3.4. Results of 100-year design event in long section showing baseline (no
FRC), outline FRC cross section pre-refinement and FRC post-refinement from Rein
Road Weir to Kirkstall Bridge. ............................................................................ 10
Road Weir to the lower railway bridge. ............................................................... 10
Figure 3.6. Results of 100-year CC design event in long section showing refined FRC
against sensitivity test results. .......................................................................... 12
Figure 4.1. The Meyer-Peter and Muller (1948) sediment transport function ........... 14
Figure 4.2. Sediment transport sand fraction Q95. ........................................... 17
Weetwood
iv
761R01/AG
30 October 2007
CEG
KIRKSTALL FORGE
Figure 4.3. Sediment transport sand fraction Q50. ........................................... 18

Figure 4.4. Sediment transport fine gravel fraction Q50. ................................... 18
Figure 4.5. Sediment transport sand fraction QMED.......................................... 19
Figure 4.6. Sediment transport fine gravel fraction QMED.................................. 19
Figure 4.7. Sediment transport coarse gravel fraction QMED.............................. 20
Figure 4.8. Sediment transport cobble fraction QMED. ...................................... 20
Figure 4.9. Sediment transport sand fraction 100-year CC................................. 21
Figure 4.10. Sediment transport fine gravel fraction 100-year CC....................... 21
Figure 4.11. Sediment transport coarse gravel fraction 100-year CC................. 22
Figure 4.12. Sediment transport cobble fraction 100-year CC. ........................... 22
Figure 4.13. Areas of potential increased erosion and deposition. Based on Drawing
360 Required Bank Heights, 05/10/2006, Weetwood. ........................................ 25
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A:
Appendix B:
Weetwood
761 070808 Meeting Note

Hydraulic Modelling Results
761R01/AG
30 October 2007
CEG
KIRKSTALL FORGE
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1
BACKGROUND
In the present situation, the existing flood risk to the proposed redevelopment
at Kirkstall Forge is unacceptable to the Environment Agency largely due to the
potential blockage to the passage of the River Aire beneath a pair of railway
bridges. Flood mitigation has been proposed which involves the introduction of
an entirely new, engineered flood relief channel (FRC).
The construction of the FRC is intended to reduce the flood risk associated with
blockage of the two bridges. Previous modelling work has confirmed the
potential of a FRC to lower flood risk to acceptable levels and has allowed basic
cross section area and geometry to be outlined: the new channel will be a
minimum of 25m wide (based on a Mannings n roughness coefficient estimate
of 0.033).
Weetwood Environmental Engineering (Weetwood) has been supplied with a
proposed hard engineering design of gross cross section geometry based on
these design specifications. This cross section requires refinement in order to:
Ensure that fish habitat is accommodated within the new reach
Ensure that a decrease in the quality or availability of fish habitat present

in existing reaches is avoided
Ensure the flood relief function of the proposed FRC is maintained in

giving due consideration to the above
Accommodate ecological and aesthetic enhancements where appropriate

using established river enhancement and rehabilitation techniques.
The introduction of a new reach to the existing channels at Kirkstall Forge

represents a profound change to the channel configuration. As such, a broadscale, qualitative geomorphological investigation is required in association with
flood risk modelling in order to examine the probable gross morphological
impacts of the construction of the FRC. This includes a consideration of the
probable geomorphological impacts of the new channel on the existing meander
and implications for fish habitat.
1.2
OBJECTIVES AND DELIVERABLES

Throughout this study, the main considerations taken into account when
examining the proposed FRC are (in descending order of priority):
1. Mitigation of flood risk at the Kirkstall Forge site
2. Potential changes to flood conveyance in local reaches if the
geomorphological regime is significantly altered by the introduction of the
bypass channel
3. Potential changes to bank and bed morphology due to the FRC (as 2)
above)
Weetwood
761R01/AG
30 October 2007
CEG
KIRKSTALL FORGE
4. Potential changes to fish habitat both in local reaches and further

downstream
5. Further potential ecological implications and aesthetics of the FRC.
In addressing the outstanding concerns of the Environment Agency regarding
flood risk and associated issues at the Kirkstall Forge site, the main objectives
of this study are:
1. FRC design refinement
2. Broad-scale assessment of likely adjustments of local geomorphology
3. Identification of potential impacts on fish habitat and possible mitigation
strategies.
It should be noted that the geomorphological content of this report is semiquantitative only i.e. results quoted are intended to be indicative of probable
large-scale change. In conducting this analysis, a number of assumptions have
been made which are detailed in the body of the text below. Observations and
recommendations made regarding fish habitat also rest on a number of broadscale, qualitative assumptions regarding habitat requirements.
1.3
1.4
APPROACH TAKEN IN THIS STUDY

In addressing the considerations outlined above, the approach taken has been
to:
Outline a refined cross section design

enhancement and rehabilitation techniques
Re-run the iSIS model to ensure that the hydraulic performance of the
FRC is largely unaffected
Carry out a broad-scale geomorphological assessment of the implications

of the introduction of the FRC incorporating the design refinements
Refine the design recommendations as necessary in keeping with the

natural geomorphological processes expected to operate within the
reaches local to the site.
using
established
river
PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

This report is designed to primarily address the outstanding concerns of the
Environment Agency as stated in a meeting held with Commercial Estates
Group (CEG) on 8th August 2007 summarized in 761 070808 Meeting Note
(Appendix A).
Weetwood
761R01/AG
30 October 2007
CEG
KIRKSTALL FORGE
2 FLOOD RELIEF CHANNEL DESIGN REFINEMENT

2.1
EXISTING FRC DESIGN

Weetwood were supplied with several preliminary drawings incorporating
several proposals for hard engineering geometry consisting of the following
documents as listed in Table 2.1.
Table 2.1 FRC hard engineering design drawings as available for this study.
Document Title
File Name & Type
Author
Date
DV-SK-011 Rev P2
A024328-DV-SK-011 - P2 FLOOD RELIEF CHANNEL.pdf
RD White Young
Green Consulting
20.06.2007
Kirkstall Forge
Bypass
Channel.dwg
No.
675_SK03
Rev.C
10.09.07
Bypass
Channel
Rev. C copy.jpg
675_SK03
Randle
Siddeley
Associates
10.09.2007
Kirkstall
Forge
Bypass-Channel
Section A-A.dwg No.
675_SK04
Rev.D
10.09.07
Bypass Channel cross section

675_SK04 RevD copy.jpg
Randle
Siddeley
Associates
10.09.2007
This information formed the basis of the cross section and planform geometry
refinements as detailed below.
2.2
EXISTING FRC DESIGN: COMMENTS

As specified in 761 070808 Meeting Note, part of the remit of this study was
to soften the appearance of the proposed hard engineering structures with
particular reference made to the rip-rap battering below the railway line (TRHB
of the FRC).
In examining the potential for aesthetic softening of the appearance of these
installations, the following observation was made regarding the configuration of
the bank protection.
Section 1 as shown in White Young Green drawing DV-SK-011 Rev P2 shows
rip-rap overlying a 0.17m thick Reno mattress. It is unclear what benefit this
mattress will offer when positioned beneath rip-rap: it is possible that setting a
mattress at this location (i.e. beneath the rip-rap) will actually be counterproductive. It is recommended that further justification for this section of the
hard-engineering design is sought since the mattress may act as a plane of
shear to the overlying material. (Draft soft-engineering refinement drawings in
this report are presented with no Reno mattress below the rip-rap).
The following soft-engineering design refinements proceed with the
assumption that the general cross section geometry of the proposed hard
engineered structures within the reach will remain largely unchanged.
Weetwood
761R01/AG
30 October 2007
CEG
2.3
KIRKSTALL FORGE
FRC SUGGESTED REFINEMENTS
The gross cross section design as dictated by the hard engineering structures
required refinement mainly to:
1) Provide additional potential fish habitat by the creation of a more varied
flow pattern and potential refugia and lying up areas
2) Provide aesthetic softening of the appearance of the hard engineered
structures as proposed.
In order to address 1) and 2) above, the approach taken was to introduce a
pair of marginal coir net berms to create a sinuous, low flow channel running
along the middle of the FRC. It is proposed to tie this material into the hard
engineering structures and to plant emergent and marginal aquatic vegetation
designed to partially screen the vertical revetment on the TLHB and the base of
the rip-rap on the TRHB.
It is understood that, due to the risk of blockage associated with vegetation and
large woody debris within local reaches, planting trees along these margins
would be unacceptable to the Environment Agency. However, given the vertical
face of the proposed revetment, more effective screening of the TLHB may be
possible using trees and shrubs tolerant of periodic flooding. Costs in terms of
a decrease in conveyance and increase in flood levels are likely to be slight if
only one bank is vegetated in this manner. However, it may be necessary to
set the berm on this bank at a slightly higher level to ensure that any trees
planted here would survive
Without using trees to soften the rip-rap, an alternative method would be to
green this feature by blinding the batters with gravel and soil during
installation and seeding with grass and herbs of local provenance. This may
allow the surface of the rip-rap and the face of the TRHB to appear more
natural and established soon after seeding with an appropriate mixture.
Further structural refinement is proposed by incorporating the engineering of a
sequence of pools and riffles designed to introduce some low flow variability
into the new reach. Running the riffles diagonally across the FRC will, in
conjunction with the marginal mattresses, force flow from side to side of the
channel with passage over each feature. Associated pools and zones of scour
could be added at alternate banks in order to provide a wider, more natural
variety of habitat for fish within the reach. A possible configuration of this
arrangement is presented in Figure 2.1 and Figure 2.2.
Further flow diversity could be ensured by lowering the invert level of one side
of the riffle slightly to force the flow to alternating sides of the FRC during
periods of low discharge if required. Larger material may also be incorporated
within the surface of the riffle i.e. in the boulder fractions in order to
increase small-scale bedform and flow diversity.
Information regarding
appropriate minimum sizing of material can also be found within the
geomorphological assessment section below.
Weetwood
761R01/AG
30 October 2007
CEG
KIRKSTALL FORGE
Figure 2.1. Proposed plan view of FRC: possible pool-riffle sequence as illustrated is
approximate only.
Figure 2.2. Proposed refinements to the hard engineering cross section as supplied.
Levels and measurements indicative only. Note that TRHB has been drawn to the left
of the cross section.
Weetwood
761R01/AG
30 October 2007
CEG
KIRKSTALL FORGE
3 HYDRAULIC MODELLING
3.1
HYDRAULIC MODELLING REQUIREMENTS

As specified in 761 070808 Meeting Note, the Environment Agency required
that the existing iSIS model was altered to incorporate any refinements made
to the proposed outline FRC design in order to ensure that the hydraulic
performance of the FRC as input into previous model runs (i.e. incorporating
the outline FRC cross section geometry) was substantially replicated.
In addition to an assessment of the refined FRC to convey design flood
discharges, low flow hydrological estimates were required in order to examine
the behaviour of the local reaches at low design flows. Both low and high flow
design estimates were necessary components of the broad-scale
geomorphological analysis in order to allow assessment of the potential for
sediment transport and deposition within the reaches of interest.
3.2
HYDROLOGY
High flow design hydrological estimates were drawn from the existing iSIS
model for the 100-year and 100-year plus allowance for climate change (100year CC) events. The QMED estimate was drawn from the HiFlows-UK website
whilst the two low flow design estimates for Q95 and Q50 were read from the flow
duration curve held on the National River Flow Archive (NFRA).
Design
estimates as used are summarized in Table 3.1.
Table 3.1. Design hydrological estimates and sources as input into the iSIS model.
Flow Exceedence
Probability / Return
Period
Q95
3.3
Discharge (m3/s)
Source
Comment
3.367
NFRA
Q50
NFRA
QMED
100yr
100yr CC
138.8
300.63
360.756
HiFlows-UK
Atkins
Atkins
As quoted on website
Approximate (read
from flow duration
curve)
As quoted on website
Scaled to Newlay Weir
Scaled to Newlay Weir
HYDRAULIC MODEL REFINEMENTS

In order to accommodate the proposed refinements to the FRC, iSIS cross
sections representing the new channel were altered as outlined in Figure 3.1 to
reflect the introduction of marginal berms. Proposed planting of vegetation
designed to soften the appearance of the hard engineering structures was
incorporated by raising roughness estimates to 0.045 for all points within the
cross section bordering the new, sinuous low flow channel. A roughness
estimate of 0.033 was preserved for the channel bed between the proposed
marginal berms (representative of the gravel/ cobble bed expected to be
established within this reach).
Weetwood
761R01/AG
30 October 2007
CEG
KIRKSTALL FORGE
Figure 3.1. FRC iSIS cross section showing revised Mannings n estimates (0.033 in
low flow channel and 0.045 on margins) to reflect the introduction of marginal
vegetation to screen the hard engineering structures.
3.4
HYDRAULIC MODELLING SIMULATIONS

Simulations for both the 100-year and the 100-year CC event both included an
assumption of 23% blockage at the upper railway bridge (to account for the
potential build up of trash material during these high return periods known to
add to flood risk to the site in the existing situation). Model runs for lower
return periods (i.e. in this study, QMED and below) assumed no blockage at this
location.
Table 3.2. Model scenarios as run during this study.
Model
Baseline (No FRC)
FRC Included
Return Period
Q95
Q50
QMED
100-year
100-year CC
Q95
Q50
QMED
100-year
100-year CC
Comment
-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-
100-year CC
S1: Roughness of FRC

margins raised to 0.055
100- year CC
100-year CC
Weetwood
S2: Roughness of left

bank margin raised to
0.07
S3: Roughness of entire
FRC bed raised to 0.045
7
Purpose
Baseline Scenarios for
Geomorphological
Analysis
Geomorphological
Analysis and Flood Risk
Flood Risk Sensitivity
Increased Growth of
Vegetation
Flood Risk Sensitivity:
Addition of Trees to Left
Bank
Flood Risk Sensitivity
761R01/AG
30 October 2007
CEG
KIRKSTALL FORGE
Baseline scenarios were also re-modelled (i.e. without the inclusion of the FRC)
for use in the geomorphological assessment.
Runs as executed during this
study are listed in Table 3.2.
3.5
3.5.1
HYDRAULIC MODELLING: RESULTS & DISCUSSION

Main River Aire: Rein Road Weir to Kirkstall Bridge
In order to examine the effects of incorporating the above changes to the
outline FRC design on flood risk, the 100-year CC results from earlier model
runs carried out to estimate the required broad-scale geometry of the bypass
channel were compared with the results of simulations of the same design
event including the above refinements. These results are presented in long
section in Figure 3.2 against earlier results incorporating the basic outline FRC
cross section design. Figure 3.3 shows the same results in long section
running from Rein Road Weir to the lower railway bridge. Figure 3.4 and
Figure 3.5 show the results as simulated for the 100-year design event.
Comparing results from the outline design FRC to the refined FRC scenario,
reveals a slight rise in flood levels upstream from the upper railway bridge is
modelled in both events. This is just visible in the long sections but is
negligible throughout the reach below Rein Road Weir. The maximum change
in flood level was simulated at the upstream face of the upper railway bridge
(node 02671700176C) an increase of 36mm in the 100-year CC event and
of 35mm in the 100-year event. Neither of the simulations indicated a
significant increase in overall flood risk to the development site in the main
river reaches stretching from Rein Road Weir to Kirkstall Bridge.
Results from all runs described in this section are included in Appendix B.
3.5.2
Flood Relief Channel

Simulated results for the 100-year and 100-year CC events comparing the
pre- and post-refinement alterations to the FRC are presented in Table 3.3.
As with the results for the main channel, a comparison of pre- and postrefinement flood levels shows a negligible increase in simulated levels
throughout the FRC. In both the 100-year and 100-year CC events the largest
increase in simulated flood level is found at the entrance to the FRC: 35mm
for the 100-year and 36mm for the 100-year CC event.
The modelled increase at the FRC entrance in the 100-year CC event may be
of some note in that this level (38.736mAOD) is 36mm higher than the
existing minimum flood level to the car park (as shown in White Young Green
drawing DV-SK-011 Revision P2). However, the estimated flood levels are
well below the minimum required bank top heights in the agreed planning
conditions.
Weetwood
761R01/AG
30 October 2007
CEG
KIRKSTALL FORGE
100yr CC Design Event: Long Section
48
46
Elevation/ SG (mAOD)
44
42
40
38
36
34
32
UPSTREAM RAILWAY
BRIDGE
DOWNSTREAM
RAILWAY BRIDGE
30
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
Chainage From Rein Road Weir (m)

Left bank
Right bank
Bed
100yr CC Outline FRC Design
100yr CC Refined FRC
cross section (pre-refinement) and FRC post-refinement from Rein Road Weir to
Kirkstall Bridge.
100yr CC Design Event: Long Section

48
46
44
42
40
38
36
34
32
DOWNSTREAM
RAILWAY BRIDGE
UPSTREAM RAILWAY
BRIDGE
30
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000

Left bank
Right bank
Bed
100yr CC Outline FRC Design
cross section (pre-refinement) and FRC post-refinement from Rein Road Weir to the
lower railway bridge.
Weetwood
761R01/AG
30 October 2007
CEG
KIRKSTALL FORGE
100yr Design Event: Long Section
48
46
44
42
40
38
36
34
32
UPSTREAM RAILWAY
BRIDGE
DOWNSTREAM
RAILWAY BRIDGE
30
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500

Left bank
Right bank
Bed
100yr Outline FRC Design
100yr Refined FRC
Road Weir to Kirkstall Bridge.
100yr Design Event: Long Section

48
46
44
42
40
38
36
34
32
UPSTREAM RAILWAY
BRIDGE
DOWNSTREAM
RAILWAY BRIDGE
30
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000

Left bank
Right bank
Bed
100yr Outline FRC Design
100yr Refined FRC
Road Weir to the lower railway bridge.
Weetwood
10
761R01/AG
30 October 2007
CEG
KIRKSTALL FORGE
Table 3.3. Simulated results for the 100-year and 100-year CC events comparing the
pre- (outline design) and post-refinement alterations to the FRC.
Node
BY_130
BY_065
BY_000
3.5.3
100yr
Outline
FRC
Design
(mAOD)
38.368
38.256
38.13
100yr
Refined
FRC
(mAOD)
Difference
(m)
38.403
38.262
38.13
0.035
0.006
0
100yr CC
Outline
FRC
Design
(mAOD)
38.7
38.57
38.423
100yr
CC
Refined
FRC
(mAOD)
38.736
38.577
38.423
Difference
(m)
0.036
0.007
0
Sensitivity Tests
A short series of sensitivity tests to varying roughness estimates within the
bypass channel were run using the 100-year CC design estimate in order to
assess impact on flood risk. These included:
S1: Raising the roughness of the FRC margins to 0.055 to represent increased
vegetation
S2: Raising the roughness of the FRC TLHB to 0.07 to represent tree growth
S3: Raising the roughness of the entire FRC to 0.045
These results are presented against the results of runs using the refined FRC
(Mannings n of 0.033 and 0.045) in long section in Figure 3.6. Results
within the FRC are presented in Table 3.4. None of the sensitivity tests
caused a significant increase in flood risk to the development site. This is to
be expected since any decrease in conveyance in the FRC is likely to result in
more flow through the existing meander.
Table 3.4. Results of roughness sensitivity tests. Sensitivity results shown against
refined FRC simulation outputs for 100-year CC design event.
Node
100yr
CC
Refined
FRC
BY_130
BY_065
BY_000
38.736
38.577
38.423
Weetwood
S1:
Channel
0.033
Banks
0.055
38.775
38.599
38.423
Difference
from
100yr CC
Refined
FRC
0.039
0.022
0
S2:
Banks
0.045
0.07
38.738
38.578
38.423
11
Difference
from
100yr CC
Refined
FRC
0.002
0.001
0
S3:
Entire
FRC
0.045
38.818
38.622
38.423
Difference
from
100yr CC
Refined
FRC
0.082
0.045
0
761R01/AG
30 October 2007
CEG
KIRKSTALL FORGE
100yr CC Design Event Sensitivity: Long Section
48
46
44
42
40
38
36
34
32
UPSTREAM RAILWAY
BRIDGE
DOWNSTREAM
RAILWAY BRIDGE
30
0
Left bank
100yr CC FRC TLHB 0.07
500
1000
1500

Right bank
Bed
100yr CC FRC Margins 0.055
100yr CC FRC 0.045
2000
2500
Figure 3.6. Results of 100-year CC design event in long section showing refined FRC
against sensitivity test results.
Weetwood
12
761R01/AG
30 October 2007
CEG
KIRKSTALL FORGE
4 GEOMORPHOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
4.1
4.2
GEOMORPHOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT REQUIREMENTS

The broad aims of the geomorphological assessment were to:
Assess the potential impact of the proposed Flood Relief Channel (FRC)
on the geomorphological processes operating within the existing channel
primarily via sediment entrainment/ transport modelling
Address any additional consequences of the FRC as a result of the

modified flows and geomorphological processes operating within the river
(e.g. fisheries habitats, integrity of existing infrastructure and flood risk)
Assess the geomorphological processes operating within the FRC and

provide advice to the final design of the new channel
Provide advice for the implementation of any mitigation measures

required (e.g. erosion control).
GEOMORPHOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT METHODS

To assess the impact of the FRC on the geomorphological processes operating
within the existing channel, it is important to understand how changes to flow
hydraulics will impact on patterns of erosion and deposition within local
reaches. Any alteration to the rates of erosion and deposition may have more
widespread consequences for fisheries habitats, flood risk and/ or channel
infrastructure.
For this study, a sediment transport function was used to calculate rates of
potential sediment transport through a section of river and, thereby, infer any
likely changes to the morphological characteristics (e.g. bed scour, deposition).
Although sediment transport functions are a useful tool, they generally require
calibrating with field data.
For this study, no such data was available:
consequently the application of the model results is limited and must only be
viewed as indicative of relative directions of change rather than absolute
magnitudes of change.
Sediment transport models can be used to give indications of the following:
Potential volume or mass of material transported through a reach.
Downstream fluctuations in the rate of sediment transport
Likely changes of sediment dynamics through time, or changes in

response to natural or man-made perturbations to the river or catchment
Energy available for bed scour, in response to changes in flow discharges

and hydraulics
Patterns of sediment deposition and potential channel aggradation
The potential for different sediment sizes to be scoured, entrained and

transported at various discharges.
Weetwood
13
761R01/AG
30 October 2007
CEG
KIRKSTALL FORGE
Sediment transport modelling coupled with the existing Fluvio report (Fluvio,
2006) and additional design plans and iSIS model results were used to gain an
understanding of the dynamics of potential morphological change within the
River Aire and to indicate likely patterns of change which may otherwise be
unknown.
4.2.1. Calculating Sediment Transport Rates
Sediment transport rates were calculated for a number of cross sections in the
vicinity of the proposed FRC. Results from the hydraulic modelling undertaken
as part of this study were used to provide the key hydraulic parameters. For
each cross section, the Peter-Meyer and Muller transport function (see Figure
4.1) was used to calculate potential sediment transport rates for a range of
flows and a range of sediment sizes.
The Meyer-Peter and Muller sediment transport equation (Meyer-Peter and
Muller, 1948) and as reviewed in Wilcock (2001).
(1)
qs
( s 1) gD
=8
( s 1) gD
3/ 2
( s 1) gD
is Shield`s shear stress, c is critical shear stress, qs is sediment

Where
transport rate, D is sediment size, s is sediment density, g is acceleration of
gravity and is fluid density.
(2)
= ghS
Where S is slope and h is hydraulic depth (approximated by flow depth in wide

channels).
At a given river cross section and for a given grain size, flow depth, flow width
and water surface slope a sediment transport rate (as a volume or mass per
unit of time) can be calculated.
Figure 4.1. The Meyer-Peter and Muller (1948) sediment transport function
Models were run for two scenarios:
Scenario 1: without the designed FRC (current conditions), and
Scenario 2: with the FRC refined.
The flows used to drive the models are shown in Table 4.1 below. These flows
are chosen as they provide a full range of flows from very low to very high
and can be used to observe likely sediment dynamics over a full range of flow
conditions. In natural channels, QMED is approximate to bankfull discharge
and is indicative of the most geomorphologically effective flows within many
rivers (Knighton, 1998).
Weetwood
14
761R01/AG
30 October 2007
CEG
KIRKSTALL FORGE
Table 4.1. Modelled flows for sediment transport calculations.
Flow Exceedence
Probability / Return
Period
Q95
Q50
Discharge
Comment
3.367 m3/s
9 m3/s
QMED
138.8 m3/s
100yr CC*
360.756 m3/s
-/-/Recurrence interval ~2.33

years
Climate Change scenario
(100yr flow plus 20%)
* Note: the sediment transport calculations use a 100yr CC flow incorporating an assumption of a
23% blockage at the upper railway bridge.
Sediment sizes used within the models are based on typical size class
thresholds cited in fluvial geomorphology literature (Knighton, 1998), see
Table 4.2 below. The sediment size used in the transport models is the
minimum size within the size classes. Fluvio (2006) indicate that the gravel
size fraction (10-40mm) is dominant (40%-50%) along with sand material,
although a range of sediment size up to the cobble fraction is found within the
channel at Kirkstall Forge.
Table 4.2. Sediment sizes as used for sediment transport calculations.
Sediment Size
Classes
Boulder
Cobble
Gravel (Coarse)
Gravel (Fine)
Sand
Size in Metres
(Lower Size Limit)
0.256
0.064
0.016
0.002
0.00006
The results of the iSIS hydraulic model for the range of flows listed above
were extracted and imported into an Excel spreadsheet.
A rearranged
Manning`s formula was used to derive a water surface slope (based on
velocity and stage outputs from iSIS) which was then used along with flow
depth, flow width and sediment size to derive a sediment transport rate for a
particular sediment size fraction.
In this study, the sediment transport rates are expressed as a volume of
sediment moved over a period of time (m3/s). The volume (m3) can be
converted into a mass (kg) by multiplying the volume by 2650 (dry weight of
sediment in kg per m3).
4.2.2. Sediment Transport Limitations and Assumptions
The fluvial geomorphology literature lists many assumptions and limitations in
the use and interpretation of sediment transport functions.
Some key
assumptions and limitations are:
Weetwood
Sediment transport rates assume a readily available supply of sediment

for entrainment within the flow.
15
761R01/AG
30 October 2007
CEG
KIRKSTALL FORGE
Sediment transport rates are based on averaged cross section hydraulic

parameters (velocity, slope and area).
The transport function assumes a steady and uniform flow. It does not
take into account turbulence or velocity fluctuations.
Additional sediment parameters, such as packing and sorting are not

accounted for.
As outlined earlier, sediment transport data have not been collected for this
study and therefore the model results have not been calibrated: the figures
obtained are therefore used for indicative purposes only. The relative values
being more appropriate to this study than the absolute values.
4.2.3. Scenario 1: Without FRC
Sediment transport rates are calculated for cross sections within the vicinity of
the proposed FRC. Cross sections used are shown in Table 4.3 below.
Table 4.3. Channel cross sections modelled for scenario 1 (without FRC).
Channel Cross
Section
1700200
1700176C
1700066
1607120D
Location
Located 24 m upstream of railway bridge
Upstream railway bridge
Located within the existing channel meander (between the
two rail bridges)
Located immediately downstream of the proposed FRC
outlet
4.2.4. Scenario 2: With FRC

Sediment transport rates are calculated for cross sections within the vicinity of
the proposed FRC. Cross sections used are shown in Table 4.4 below.
Table 4.4. Channel cross sections modelled for scenario 2 (with FRC).
Channel
Section
1700200
1700176C
1700066
1607120D
BY-130
BY-065
BY-000
Cross
Location
Located 24 m upstream of railway bridge
Upstream railway bridge
Located within the existing channel meander (between the
two rail bridges)
Located immediately downstream of the proposed FRC
outlet
Located within the upstream end of the proposed FRC
Located within the mid-section of the proposed FRC
Located within the downstream end of the proposed FRC
It should be noted that a limited number of cross sections within the Kirkstall Forge reaches
were modelled to provide sediment transport estimates.
Weetwood
16
761R01/AG
30 October 2007
CEG
KIRKSTALL FORGE
4.3. GEOMORPHOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT RESULTS

4.3.1. Sediment Transport Rates
The results of the two model scenarios are plotted for comparison (see Figure
4.2 to Figure 4.12 below). Each plot shows the sediment transport rate
(m3/s) for each cross section. Separate plots are shown for a single discharge
(Q95, Q50, QMED and 100yr CC) and an individual sediment size class. Where
results indicate that material is not transported through a reach, the results
are not plotted (e.g. boulders are not transported at Q95 flows for Scenario 1
and 2).
The three FRC cross sections (Scenario 2 with FRC, blue line) are plotted to
appear downstream of the channel meander cross sections. This is for ease
of result presentation only: they must be viewed and interpreted accordingly.
Sediment Transport (Sand Fraction): Q95

0.00012
Sediment Transport (m3/s)
0.00010
0.00008
0.00006
0.00004
0.00002
0.00000
1700200
1700176C
1700066
1607120D
BY 130
BY 065
BY 000
iSIS Cross Section

Sand With FRC
Sand Without FRC
Figure 4.2. Sediment transport sand fraction Q95.
Weetwood
17
761R01/AG
30 October 2007
CEG
KIRKSTALL FORGE
Sediment Transport (Sand Fraction): Q50
0.00160
0.00140
0.00120
0.00100
0.00080
0.00060
0.00040
0.00020
0.00000
1700200
1700176C
1700066
1607120D
BY 130
BY 065
BY 000
iSIS Cross Section

Sand With FRC
Sand Without FRC
Figure 4.3. Sediment transport sand fraction Q50.
Sediment Transport (Fine Gravel Fraction): Q50

0.00080
0.00070
0.00060
0.00050
0.00040
0.00030
0.00020
0.00010
0.00000
1700200
1700176C
1700066
1607120D
BY 130
BY 065
BY 000
iSIS Cross Section

Fine Gravels With FRC
Fine Gravels Without FRC
Figure 4.4. Sediment transport fine gravel fraction Q50.

Weetwood
18
761R01/AG
30 October 2007
CEG
KIRKSTALL FORGE
Sediment Transport (Sand Fraction): QMED
0.14000
0.12000
0.10000
0.08000
0.06000
0.04000
0.02000
0.00000
1700200
1700176C
1700066
1607120D
BY 130
BY 065
BY 000
iSIS Cross Section

Sand With FRC
Sand Without FRC
Figure 4.5. Sediment transport sand fraction QMED.
Sediment Transport (Fine Gravel Fraction): QMED
0.14000
0.12000
0.10000
0.08000
0.06000
0.04000
0.02000
0.00000
1700200
1700176C
1700066
1607120D
BY 130
BY 065
BY 000
iSIS Cross Section

Figure 4.6. Sediment transport fine gravel fraction QMED

Weetwood
19
761R01/AG
30 October 2007
CEG
KIRKSTALL FORGE
Sediment Transport (Coarse Gravel Fraction): QMED
0.10000
0.09000
0.08000
0.07000
0.06000
0.05000
0.04000
0.03000
0.02000
0.01000
0.00000
1700200
1700176C
1700066
1607120D
BY 130
BY 065
BY 000
iSIS Cross Section

Coarse Gravels With FRC
Coarse Gravels Without FRC
Figure 4.7. Sediment transport coarse gravel fraction QMED.
Sediment Transport (Cobble Fraction): QMED
0.01400
0.01200
0.01000
0.00800
0.00600
0.00400
0.00200
0.00000
1700200
1700176C
1700066
1607120D
BY 130
BY 065
BY 000
iSIS Cross Section

Cobbles With FRC
Cobbles Without FRC
Figure 4.8. Sediment transport cobble fraction QMED.

Weetwood
20
761R01/AG
30 October 2007
CEG
KIRKSTALL FORGE
Sediment Transport (Sand Fraction): 100yr CC
0.50000
0.45000
0.40000
0.35000
0.30000
0.25000
0.20000
0.15000
0.10000
0.05000
0.00000
1700200
1700176C
1700066
1607120D
BY 130
BY 065
BY 000
iSIS Cross Section

Sand With FRC
Sand Without FRC
Figure 4.9. Sediment transport sand fraction 100-year CC.
Sediment Transport (Fine Gravel Fraction): 100yr CC

0.50000
0.45000
0.40000
0.35000
0.30000
0.25000
0.20000
0.15000
0.10000
0.05000
0.00000
1700200
1700176C
1700066
1607120D
BY 130
BY 065
BY 000
iSIS Cross Section

Figure 4.10. Sediment transport fine gravel fraction 100-year CC.

Weetwood
21
761R01/AG
30 October 2007
CEG
KIRKSTALL FORGE
Sediment Transport (Coarse Gravel Fraction): 100yr CC
0.45000
0.40000
0.35000
0.30000
0.25000
0.20000
0.15000
0.10000
0.05000
0.00000
1700200
1700176C
1700066
1607120D
BY 130
BY 065
BY 000
iSIS Cross Section

Coarse Gravels With FRC
Figure 4.11.
Coarse Gravels Without FRC
Sediment transport coarse gravel fraction 100-year CC.
Sediment Transport (Cobble Fraction): 100yr CC

0.25000
0.20000
0.15000
0.10000
0.05000
0.00000
1700200
1700176C
1700066
1607120D
BY 130
BY 065
BY 000
iSIS Cross Section

Cobbles With FRC
Cobbles Without FRC
Figure 4.12. Sediment transport cobble fraction 100-year CC.

Weetwood
22
761R01/AG
30 October 2007
CEG
KIRKSTALL FORGE
4.3.2. Sediment Transport Rates: Results Summary

Scenario 1: Without FRC
Boulders are not transported at any of the modelled flows within any of
the modelled cross sections.
At Q95 flows, sand is the only size fraction potentially transported.
At Q50 flows, sand and fine gravel are the only size fractions potentially
transported.
At QMED and 100yr CC flows, sands to cobbles are potentially

transported, although only very low rates for cobbles at 100yr CC flows
upstream of the proposed FRC (cross section 1700200).
The greatest potential transport rates, for a given sediment size, are
located at cross section 1700200.
Potential sediment transport rates are greater within the existing channel
meander compared to potential rates at the locations of the entrance and
exit to the proposed FRC.
Scenario 2: With FRC Refined
Boulders are not transported at any of the modelled flows within any of
the modelled cross sections.
Sand is potentially transported at all flows, although at only very low

rates through the existing meander.
Within the existing channel meander (cross section 1700066) rates of

potential sediment transport, for all size fractions are greatly reduced,
compared to the present scenario without the FRC. This is evident for all
flows (except 100yr CC cobbles).
Potential transport rates upstream of the FRC (cross section 1700200)

are significantly increased (over 400%) as a consequence of the FRC.
This additional stream power is likely to be translated into bed scour, in
the absence of sediment available for transport from upstream sources.
This increase is modelled for all sediments below the boulder size
fraction, but becomes more pronounced with increased flows.
Potential transport rates are consistently higher within the FRC compared
to those in the existing meander, for a given sediment size and flow.
4.4. GEOMORPHOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT DISCUSSION

The results of the sediment transport modelling presented in this report,
coupled with the information obtained from Fluvio (2006) have been used to
make some broad (semi-quantitative) observations about the likely impact of
the proposed FRC to the geomorphological processes operating within the River
Aire at Kirkstall Forge.
Weetwood
23
761R01/AG
30 October 2007
CEG
KIRKSTALL FORGE
In addition, the iSIS model results, the sediment transport modelling and an
understanding of fluvial processes has been used to make some key
recommendations about the geomorphology related design aspects of the FRC.
4.4.1. Impacts of the FRC on the Existing Channel Geomorphology
4.4.1.1. Erosion and Deposition Pre-FRC
The River Aire at Kirkstall forge is a laterally constrained channel, but with a
long profile characterised by pool and riffle sequences: a consequence of
changes in bed elevation to accommodate temporal and spatial fluctuations
in flow velocities and sediment transport. Sediment within the channel is
dominated by gravels (10-40mm) and sands, but also includes cobbles.
Fluvio (2006) suggest that coarse material is only entrained and transported
very infrequently during high flows whereas the sand fraction is highly
mobile. The absence of exposed gravel bars within the reach and protected
channel banks indicates the river is sediment supply limited.
The results of the sediment transport modelling are broadly in line with these
observations. Sand material is shown to be mobile through all flows above
Q95, whilst coarse-gravels and cobbles are mobilised at flows of QMED and
above.
Results suggest that the highest rates of potential sediment transport
(increased flow velocities) occur upstream of the proposed FRC (cross section
1700200) and remain high (albeit at a lower rate) within the existing channel
meander (cross section 1700066). However, flow velocities and therefore
potential sediment transport rates, are significantly lower at cross sections
1700176C and 1607120D and deposition here is more likely, particularly for
sand size material at lower flows where sediment transport rates are zero.
The main reason for the reduction in flow competence here is the widening of
the channel within the meander loop (~50m) near the railway bridges
compared to further upstream (~25m) near the footbridges. This propensity
for deposition is indicated in the field by the raised bed elevations (riffles)
within the meander loop - particularly on the inside of the meander bend.
4.4.1.2. Erosion and Deposition Within the Existing Channel (Post-FRC)
There are two main impacts of the FRC on sediment dynamics within the
existing channel. The first is a significant increase in channel velocity and
therefore potential sediment transport approximately 24m upstream of the
upper railway bridge (cross section 1700200). The second is a marked
reduction in velocity and potential sediment transport rates within the
existing channel meander (1700066), in between the two railway bridges
(see Figure 4.13). The likely impacts of these changes are discussed in more
detail below.
Weetwood
24
761R01/AG
30 October 2007
CEG
KIRKSTALL FORGE
AREA
POSSIBLE
INCREASED
Area ofOF
possible
increased
EROSION
AROUND
THE HUMP
&
sediment
erosion around
the `hump`
and
POSSIBLY
FURTHER
UPSTREAM
possibly further
upstream
Area
of OF
possible
increased
AREA
POSSIBLE
INCREASED
sediment
deposition
and channel
SEDIMENT
DEPOSITION
AND
bank erosion
CHANNEL BANK EROSION
Figure 4.13. Areas of potential increased erosion and deposition. Based on Drawing
360 Required Bank Heights, 05/10/2006, Weetwood.
4.4.1.3. Cross Section 1700200
Model results suggest that the FRC will cause a significant increase in flow
velocities and therefore potential sediment transport rates at cross section
1700200: most pronounced at flows of QMED and above. This cross section
is located upstream of the new footbridge and at the location of a riffle or
hump (see Fluvio, 2006). Although not modelled for sediment transport
rates, the cross sections further upstream (upstream to 1700350) show a
similar increase in flow velocity and therefore, by extension, there is
potential for increased sediment transport rates at these locations as well.
The increased potential transport rates are most pronounced at flows of
QMED and above and likely to be a result of the greater flow conveyance
through the FRC at these flows.
The model results suggest there may be significant effects on the stability of
the channel at and immediately upstream of cross section 1700200. The
sediment transport rates calculated can only provide an indication of
potential sediment transport: they are based on the assumption of an
unlimited supply of sediment available for transportation. As the River Aire
at Kirkstall Forge appears to be a sediment supply limited channel, then the
excess stream power is likely to be transferred into bed and or bank scour
within this section of river. The likely consequences of this excess stream
power are threefold:
Weetwood
Bed scour is likely to be initiated at the location of increased stream

power and erode upstream through a process of nick point migration
25
761R01/AG
30 October 2007
CEG
KIRKSTALL FORGE
The engineered channel banks may become undermined as the

channel bed level is lowered
Eroded material will be transferred downstream during the next and

subsequent flows of sufficient competence and become deposited
further downstream.
The Fluvio report (Fluvio, 2006) suggests that skimming of the hump (the
raised bed level at cross section 1700200 and upstream) would only result in
a very short-term lowering of the bed elevation. Under current flow and
sediment transport conditions the feature would reform within several years
or a decade. However, erosion of the hump resulting from significant
change to the flow hydraulics (a consequence of the construction of the FRC)
would be likely to cause a permanent change in the bed elevation at this
location and further upstream.
4.4.1.4. Cross Section 1700066
Model results indicate a significant reduction in potential sediment transport
rates within the existing channel meander (in between the two railway
bridges), once the FRC is in operation. This modelled reduction in stream
competence is a direct consequence of the reduction in flow through the
existing channel meander. At Q95, Q50 and QMED discharges approximately
half of the flow within the river is diverted through the FRC. This is increased
to ~63% at 100yr CC flows (with 23% railway bridge blockage).
Material that would normally be transported through this reach at Q95 and
Q50 flows (largely sand), is more likely to be deposited within the channel
meander (as indicated by the cross section 1700066 model results). Even at
QMED flows, gravel material may be deposited whereas previously it would
have been more likely to be transported through the reach. When the
effects of the increased likelihood of bed scour upstream of the FRC are
considered (i.e. increased availability of material for potential deposition as
outlined above) the effects of the reduced stream power within the existing
meander are compounded.
Although sand material may be deposited within the meander section during
low to moderate flows, model results indicate that this material would be
removed at QMED and above. However, more coarse material (gravels) may
only be re-mobilised and transported from this reach during the very highest
discharges. Cobble material (if eroded and transferred to this reach from the
hump as outlined above) may reside within the meander permanently.
Material deposited within the reach may form a more prominent gravel bar
on the inside of the meander loop, adding material to the existing bar
feature. The river here may respond to the formation of a gravel bar feature
in one of two ways.
Weetwood
26
761R01/AG
30 October 2007
CEG
KIRKSTALL FORGE
Firstly, the river channel may become narrower and more incised (forced
towards the outside of the meander bend), with a concomitant increase in
flow velocity in order that continuity of flow is maintained. Secondly, and
potentially less desirable, is a tendency for the river channel to migrate
laterally, causing erosion of the channel banks on the outside of the meander
loop. The likelihood and extent of the latter depends to a large extent on the
composition and strength of the material of the channel banks: soft material
(alluvial material) will be more prone to erosion than more resistance
material (bedrock).
Information about the composition of the channel
material at this location is not available. However, Fluvio (2006) indicate
that the meander loop has undergone a degree of migration over the last
150 years indicating that the banks are prone to erosion. It should be noted
that meander evolution at this location may eventually threaten the stability
of the steep slope at the top of which sits the Leeds and Liverpool Canal.
4.4.2. Geomorphological Consequences: Summary

The broad-scale effects of the FRC on the existing channel morphology in the
River Aire at Kirkstall Forge are summarized below.
Potential erosion of the hump upstream of the FRC as stream

velocities are increased during moderate to high flows causing a
permanent lowering of bed elevations.
Material eroded from the `hump` is likely to be deposited within the

existing channel meander. Fine material (sand to gravel) is likely to be
re-mobilised and transported out of this reach at moderate to high
flows, whereas coarse material may reside within the meander for much
longer periods of time (10s to 100s of years).
A tendency towards sediment deposition (short-term) within the

existing channel meander as flow velocities are reduced: a consequence
of water being diverted through the FRC. Potential erosion of the
channel banks on the outside of the meander loop and possible threat
to the stability of the steep slope at the top of which sits the Leeds to
Liverpool Canal.
4.4.3. Additional Impacts of the Proposed FRC on the Existing Channel

The main probable geomorphological consequences of the FRC are outlined
above. The effects of these shifts in sediment dynamics may have wider
reaching impacts within the River Aire at Kirkstall forge. These effects are
outlined below.
Weetwood
27
761R01/AG
30 October 2007
CEG
KIRKSTALL FORGE
4.4.3.1. Impact on Local Infrastructure

Increased flow velocities upstream of the FRC inlet are likely to promote bed
scour within the channel between the two footbridges. The channel banks in
this location are protected with block-stone revetments (see photograph on
page 9 of the Fluvio report). There is a potential that these revetments may
become undercut as the channel bed erodes, although the depths of the
revetment footings are unknown. Furthermore, it is not clear how far
upstream the zone of potential erosion will migrate: the River Aire has a
relatively low gradient bed and this distance could, therefore, be considerable
(10s to several 100s of metres).
This is further dependent on the
composition of the bed material below the surface of the exposed alluvium:
sub-surface bedrock will tend to resist erosion more so than alluvial material.
The railway bridge piers are located away from this zone of potential bed
scour and are therefore unlikely to be affected directly from bed scour
further upstream. However, the railway bridge at the downstream end of the
meander loop may be compromised if lateral channel migration (see above)
is significant. Detailed information, including pier location and design was
not available for inclusion within this study and, therefore, any assessment of
potential impact is, at present, only speculative.
4.4.3.2. Impact on Fish Habitats
Baseline fisheries surveys conducted in 2004 (Hydrosurveys, 2004) and
reviewed by Fluvio (2006) indicate relatively low fish populations within the
River Aire at Kirkstall Forge. This reflects the relatively poor habitats for fish
in general. Fish habitats within the meander loop between the two railway
bridges are potentially more favourable to fish (Fluvio, 2006) due to the
higher flow velocities and shallower water.
Disturbance of this particular reach due to increased deposition of fine
material is likely to periodically degrade the fish habitat in this location.
However, as mentioned earlier, accumulation of fine material (sand and fine
gravel) is likely to be temporary, as material is likely to be removed during
higher flows. The more significant, long-term changes are likely to be an
increase in the accumulation of coarse gravels and cobbles and changes to
the flow conditions within this reach and a narrower channel with higher
velocities or a wider and shallower channel configuration - depending on the
response of the channel to flow/sediment modifications in this reach.
Erosion of the hump is indicated in this study, and will therefore remove or
modify this fish habitat within the river. Fluvio suggest this particular
location is not an anomalous feature within the Aire at Kirkstall and therefore
alternative fish habitats are available.
Weetwood
28
761R01/AG
30 October 2007
CEG
KIRKSTALL FORGE
Impacts on fish habitats downstream of the proposed FRC are likely to be
short-term only. One consequence of the potential bed scour at the hump
will be mobilisation of bed sediments and re-deposition of this material
further downstream. It has already been indicated that fine material from
the bed scour may be deposited within the existing channel meander.
During subsequent floods, this material is likely to mobilised further,
entrained within the flow and then re-deposited in downstream sections.
However, the flow regime downstream will not be affected and any fine
material that is deposited (as a consequence of bed scour) is likely to be
removed during subsequent moderate to high flows. Furthermore, the
volume of fine material potentially entrained from upstream bed scour is
considerable, but finite and, therefore, may not pose a long-term issue.
Although the fish habitats are likely to be affected to varying degrees, the
additional habitat afforded by the FRC may counter any disturbance to
habitats within the existing channel. A key objective of the FRC is to provide
a suitable habitat for fish populations, notwithstanding the main
consideration for flood risk mitigation.
4.4.3.3. Impact on Flooding

The impact on flood risk caused by the direct morphological alterations of the
existing channel, are likely to be insignificant. The creation of the FRC will
far outweigh any changes to the capacity of the channel, either at the
upstream end of the reach (bed scour) or within the meander loop (increased
aggradation). In particular, the potentially reduced capacity of the channel
at the meander loop may cause some degree of flow impedance at high
flows. This is not likely to cause any great effect to overall flood risk if the
FRC is operating as planned (i.e. conveying over 50% of the total flow).
Any degradation of the channel bank revetments, in response to the
potential for accelerated bed scour upstream of the FRC (as outlined above)
will have obvious implications for any associated infrastructure, including a
potential increase to local flood risk.
4.5. FRC DESIGN: GEOMORPHOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS
4.5.1. Sediment Transfer
The results of the sediment transport models were used to outline sediment
transfer and associated issues within the channel.
For the majority of sediment size classes and flows, material that enters the
FRC from upstream sources is likely to be transferred through effectively.
This material will then be incorporated into the flow within the natural channel
and moved downstream as per current conditions.
However, the models indicate that for the cobble size fraction at QMED,
material entering the FRC may be deposited within it. This does not mean the
FRC will completely fill with cobbles and restrict flow completely: however, it
does suggest that the flow within the FRC may have to modify itself (changes
to width, depth and velocity) in order to accommodate the increased volume
of sediments from upstream sources.
Weetwood
29
761R01/AG
30 October 2007
CEG
KIRKSTALL FORGE
The current FRC designs provide the scope for hydraulic variability (i.e. the
incorporation of pools and riffles), and these will promote a degree of
turbulence within the channel and help promote localised fluctuations in
velocity leading to more effective sediment entrainment. This engineered bed
topography should provide a broad template for the hydraulic variability to
ensure an effective transfer of sediment through the new channel. However,
there are likely to be additional natural bed forms that form and move within
the channel in response to the fluctuating influx of flow and material.
4.5.2. Bed Configuration

Pools and riffles are common topographical bed features within coarse gravel /
cobble bed rivers and form as a function of stream energy and bed material
size. They are found in both straight and meandering rivers. A huge volume
of literature exists describing their characteristics and theories of their
evolution. However they tend to have several common characteristics, which
include:
A more or less regular spacing of successive pools or riffles at a

distance of 5 7 times the channel width.
Riffles tend to have a coarser bed material than adjacent pools
High flow sediment transfer is greater through pools than riffles and low
flow storage at riffles is greater than at pools. This provides the
conditions for the coarse material on riffles and the maintenance of pool
riffle sequences
Successive sequences of pools and riffles often have their high points
(on riffles) and low points (in pools) alternating from one side of the
bank to the other.
This list of key, but by no means exhaustive, riffle-pool characteristics is

important when considering the design of artificial pool-riffle sequences.
The initial broad FRC geometry indicates a channel length of 130m and a
minimum or low/moderate flow width of 15m. Two pool-riffle sequences are
therefore an appropriate number for this width, as indicated in the Randle
Siddeley design plans. Furthermore, this spacing is between a multiple of 1
and 0.5 of the spacing of the riffle-pool sequences in the existing channel, but
given the reduced (multiple ~ 0.5) flows in the FRC and narrower channel
(multiple ~ 0.5), riffle height (above mean bed level) should also reflect the
natural and FRC dimensions and flow/sediment characteristics.
As an
estimate, an appropriate riffle height would be approximately 0.25 to 0.35 m
above mean bed level.
Weetwood
30
761R01/AG
30 October 2007
CEG
KIRKSTALL FORGE
Material used to construct the pool-riffle sequence must also reflect the
characteristics of flow nature of sediment within the channel. As indicated by
the sediment transport models, the cobble size fraction of bed load is
potentially entrained within the FRC however, only at 100yr CC flows. This
suggests that a conservative estimate of material used to `seed` the riffles,
must be somewhat larger than cobbles (i.e. an intermediate axis greater than
64mm). As flows vary in velocity (and therefore entrainment capacity) around
a modelled mean value, an appropriate minimum size for riffle seeding would
be in the order of 100mm. Occasional larger material may also be used, to
provide localised flow variability, to act as zones of deposition and for fish
habitat purposes.
Additional flow variability may also be provided by alternating the location of
successive riffles from one side of the channel to the other (see above). Not
only will this provide valuable flow diversity (undercurrents, secondary
circulation) important as fish habitats, it will provide the channel with a
greater scope for internal adjustments (i.e. hydraulic and bed form
variations). This is important as the new channel attempts to attain a form
and flow that is at equilibrium with the prevalent flow and sediment regimes.
Once the gross riffle and pool sequences are constructed, flows within the
channel will modify the dimensions of these features to a certain extent.
However, as Fluvio (2006) and this study have indicated, local reaches of the
River Aire appear to be sediment supply limited. As such any attainment of
equilibrium within the man-made pool riffle sequence (i.e. material sorting,
armouring, subtle morphological adjustments) make take several years or
flood cycles to mature.
4.5.3. Bank Stability

Stable banks are important for any channel design. However, a compromise
is often necessary between channel bank stability and aesthetics in order to
avoid over-engineering (often visually unappealing and environmentally
unacceptable). A thorough examination of channel bank stability within the
FRC is outside the scope of this assessment. Nevertheless, design plans and
cross sections used in the flow models indicate the use of coarse rip-rap
material for the channel banks associated with various propositions for
greening materials and features.
Model outputs indicate velocities within the FRC in the region of 3 m/s (bulk
cross section velocity) at 100yr CC flows. Although this figure is not fully
representative of velocities adjacent to the channel banks - and flow velocity
is by no means the only force acting on channel bank stability (e.g. additional
gravitational forces) - material no smaller than boulders (i.e. 256mm) would
be an initial, very general estimate for appropriate sizing of rip-rap material.
In addition, any changes in slope through the cross section of the channel (i.e.
change in slope between bank and bed) should reflect as far as possible those
occurring in natural, stable channels: abrupt changes in slope should be
avoided when possible.
It should be noted that more detailed geo-technical assessments are
necessary for a full understanding of the design criteria for any channel bank
protection measures.
Weetwood
31
761R01/AG
30 October 2007
CEG
KIRKSTALL FORGE
4.6. MITIGATION MEASURES

This study has identified two main areas of concern with respect to
geomorphological integrity of the River Aire at Kirkstall Forge. These
observations are based on hydraulic modelling and sediment transport
functions, the latter of which has not been calibrated by any site-specific
sediment transport data.
The significant velocity increase upstream of the proposed FRC inlet,

leading to potential bed scour and possible destabilising existing channel
bank revetments.
The accumulation of sediment within the existing channel meander and

possible erosion of the channel banks towards the outside of the
meander loop.
There are a number of options that may be employed to reduce the impact of
these potential issues and may be viewed as a starting point for further
investigation.
4.6.1. Reducing Bed-Scour
The cause of the possible bed scour upstream of the FRC inlet (upstream of
cross section 1700200) may be a throttle effect through the FRC at moderate
to high flows. Moderation of this impact could be achieved through treating
the cause or halting the effects by:
Reducing the flow competence through the FRC at high flows thereby
slowing flow velocities through the channel (increasing roughness) and
thus causing a backing-up effect further upstream, leading to reduced
flow competence (and channel velocities) at the point of possible bed
scour. Although this is an effective means of reducing or even halting
the bed scour potential, it should be noted that this method is not an
effective means of delivering the required flood protection benefits of
the FRC.
Preventing upstream migration of the zone of bed scour by the

construction of a series of bed-check structures. These prevent
upstream migration of nick points by preventing bed erosion, by
providing stable, erosion-resistant barriers within the bed of the
channel. They may range in design from a series of lateral boulders
(often only in small streams) to concrete sills (often required in larger
channels, such as the found in the River Aire). The design of these
structures is guided by the long profile gradient, flow magnitude and
bed material/ depth. However, they can be a successful means by
which to control the upstream migration of bed scour.
4.6.2. Reducing Meander Loop Aggradation and Possible Bank Erosion

The accumulation of coarse material within the existing meander loop and
possible channel erosion is a likely consequence of the initiation of bed scour
upstream of the proposed FRC. A number of possibilities are available to
reduce or prevent these impacts. Further work is likely to be required to
assess the likely effectiveness of these various options.
Weetwood
32
761R01/AG
30 October 2007
CEG
KIRKSTALL FORGE
Removal of the upstream bed scour problem (see above) may prevent
coarse material from being entrained and further deposited in the
meander loop. However, even by halting or reducing the bed scour
issue, sediment transferred through the reach at the highest flows, will
still be deposited within the meander loop causing a build-up of sediment
due to the reduced flows with the operation of the FRC.
Increasing the flows through the existing channel meander may increase
the competence of flows to remove sediment deposited within the
meander loop. This option, however, may reduce the effectiveness of the
FRC for reducing flood risk as less flow would pass through in high flows.
Furthermore, the entrance to the new channel would require engineering
in such a way that during high flows, only a pre-determined volume of
water is able to enter.
One potential indirect impact of increased accumulation in the meander

loop is for the river to erode the banks towards the outside of the
meander loop (hydraulic modification in response to the increased bed
level). Fluvio (2006) indicate that this section of river has undergone
some lateral shift during at least the last 150 years, indicating that it is
prone to erosion. Some form of bank protection is likely to be required if
erosion on the outside of the meander loop is to be halted.
4.7. GEOMORPHOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS

The main conclusions drawn from this study are listed below.
Sediment transport models indicate that there are likely to be significant

local changes to the sediment dynamics within the existing channel as a
consequence of the proposed FRC.
Increased channel velocities upstream of the FRC and upstream of the

topographic high point or hump are likely to initiate bed scour in this
location. The zone of bed scour may transfer upstream as the river
attempts to attain a new base level potentially causing undermining of
the existing channel bank revetments. Measures to mitigate the effects
of bed scour may include the construction of bed check weirs and/or
lowering conveyance rates through the FRC.
As a consequence of the FRC, flows through the existing meander loop

will be reduced, resulting in a greater propensity for sediment deposition
(particularly by material eroded from the zone of bed scour upstream).
Fine material is likely to be re-mobilised during high flows whereas larger
material may remain within the channel in the form of a bar feature. The
river may respond to this by eroding into the channel banks on the
outside of the meander loop.
Bank protection may be required
(depending on the extent of this possible erosion).
Channel morphology downstream of the FRC is unlikely to be modified to

any great extent, if at all, although fine material may be deposited
temporarily.
Weetwood
33
761R01/AG
30 October 2007
CEG
KIRKSTALL FORGE
Fish habitats are likely to be modified by increased deposition within the

existing channel meander loop and possible erosion of the bed upstream
of the FRC. However, additional habitats within the existing channel and
within the new FRC will offer favourable conditions for fish.
Changes to the sediment dynamics and channel morphology, resulting

from the operation of the FRC, are not likely to have any significant
impact on the effectiveness of the FRC as a control of flood risk.
Modelled sediment transport rates through the FRC indicate that material
will be transferred effectively through the new channel, with no major
morphological changes expected. However, some morphological
readjustment of the designed bed features (pool and riffle sequences) is
to be expected as the channel readjusts to flow and sediment inflows.
The broad-scale bed features and overall design of the FRC are generally
appropriate for the flow characteristics and sediment dynamics within the
River Aire. However, detailed design features, such as the nature of bank
material and cross section dimensions may require further assessment
for a full understanding of its long-term operational effectiveness and
stability.
Weetwood
34
761R01/AG
30 October 2007
CEG
KIRKSTALL FORGE
5 SUMMARY & CONCLUSIONS

This study has investigated the potential for refinements to be made to the hard
engineering proposals for the FRC at Kirkstall Forge. A draft refined design based
on an outline FRC cross section geometry has been produced which aims to both
soften the appearance of the hard engineering and create potential fish habitats
within the new reach. Proposed features within the new channel broadly include:
marginal berms within the FRC designed to encourage a sinuous flow path
and provide a platform for marginal vegetation
a sequence of pools and riffles aimed at providing a diverse flow pattern

within the reach
blinding with gravel and soil of the rip-rap battering in order to allow
vegetation to be readily established and provide a more natural
appearance.
The design of these features is broadly in-line with the geomorphological analysis.
Material with an intermediate axis >64mm could be used to provide a relatively
stable platform from which to initiate or seed a semi-natural pool-riffle sequence.
It is currently proposed to use material of 100mm to 300mm to form the basis of
the features introduced to the new FRC. Subsequent development and maturation
of these bedforms should be expected over several flood events in response to
anticipated sediment delivery from the main channel and scour both within the
main channel and the FRC. However, initial use of material of the above size is
expected to resist transport by all but the most extreme discharges thereby
ensuring that the main riffle and habitat features as installed are not destroyed.
The design of the features within the FRC has been deliberately broad-scale.
Over-engineering the in-stream features is to be avoided and natural sorting and
armouring of the large-scale features as proposed should be expected as a natural
response of the river to the significant geomorphological change in local reaches
prompted by the introduction of an entirely new channel.
Section 1 as shown in White Young Green drawing DV-SK-011 Rev P2 shows riprap overlying a 0.17m thick Reno mattress. It is unclear what benefit this
mattress will offer when positioned beneath rip-rap: it is possible that setting a
mattress at this location (i.e. beneath the rip-rap) will actually be counterproductive. It is recommended that further justification for this section of the
hard-engineering design is sought since the mattress may act as a plane of shear
to the overlying material.
iSIS simulations incorporating the changes to the overall FRC design have shown
that there is a negligible increase in flood levels due the introduction of the
marginal berms and vegetation to soften the engineered channels appearance.
However, subsequent broad-scale geomorphological modelling using results from
the hydraulic model suggests that there may be several significant changes to the
local geomorphological regime which may need to be addressed prior to finalising
and implementing any designs. Most notably, these include:
Weetwood
35
761R01/AG
30 October 2007
CEG
KIRKSTALL FORGE
Possibility of the formation of a nick point in the main channel due to

increased velocities and scour upstream of the FRC with the potential to
undermine the existing revetment structures if left unchecked
Possibility of erosion of the outer bend of the meander between the two
railway bridges due to development of the point bar from aggradation of
sediment transported into the reach from upstream scour.
Meander
evolution at this location may eventually threaten the stability of the steep
slope at the top of which sits the Leeds and Liverpool Canal.
Mitigation options for both these scenarios are outlined above including bed check
structures and additional bank and revetment protection. However, further more
detailed investigation is required in order to reduce the current uncertainty
concerning the potential magnitude of these impacts. Hydraulic model runs
examining these mitigation scenarios have not been attempted in this study.
The modelling and geomorphological assessment have also revealed that there is
some potential for an impact on fish habitat within the existing meander.
However, this is expected to be short term only and is mitigated by the
introduction of new habitat features within the FRC. Deposition of fine material
during periods of low flow is possible due to the decrease in velocities within the
meander reach between the two bridges a direct consequence of the
introduction of the FRC. However, this material is expected to move through the
reach during higher flows on an annual basis. It should be noted that this cycle of
deposition and transport is a natural process and, whilst a change from the
existing regime within the meander, is likely to be consistent with patterns of
erosion and aggradation in the River Aire locally.
Finally, it should be reiterated that the approach taken in this study has been
necessarily broad-scale and semi-quantitative. Results as quoted within the body
of this report rest on a number of assumptions which would, ideally, be subject to
field verification and confirmation in order to reduce the levels of uncertainty
surrounding the qualitative judgements as presented.
Weetwood
36
761R01/AG
30 October 2007
CEG
KIRKSTALL FORGE
6 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Fluvio, 2006. Geomorphological investigation of the River Aire at Kirkstall Forge,
Leeds. Report Prepared for Weetwood Environmental Engineering.
Hydrosurveys, 2004. Baseline fisheries survey of the River Aire, Kirkstall, Leeds.
Unpublished Report, Hydrosurveys, Kenilworth.
Knighton, D., 1998. Fluvial Forms and Processes: a new perspective. Arnold,
London
Meyer-Peter E, Muller R., 1948. Formulation for bed load transport.
Proceedings International Association for Hydraulic Research, 2nd Congress,
Stockholm; 3964.
Randle Siddeley Associates., 2007. Kirkstall Forge Bypass Channel. Drawing
number 675 SK03 REV C.
Wilcock, P. R., 2001. Towards a practical method for estimating sedimenttransport rates in gravel-bed rivers. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms. 26,
1395-1408. J Wiley.
Weetwood
37
761R01/AG
30 October 2007
CEG
KIRKSTALL FORGE
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A:
761 070808 Meeting Note
MEETING WITH ENVIRONMENT AGENCY STAFF AT PHOENIX HOUSE, LEEDS ON

WEDNESDAY 8 AUGUST 2007 AT 2PM
PURPOSE OF MEETING:
To review the current flood risk mitigation measures and surface water drainage
proposals in light of the approved planning conditions and secure agreement in
principle regarding consents required by the Environment Agency
ATTENDEES:
Representing CEG - Charles Johnson, Gareth Chambers, Granville Davies, Andrew
Grime
Representing the Environment Agency Gillian Turner & Robert Sanderson
(Development Control), Ian Thynne (Planning), Erica Adamson (Biodiversity), Neil
Trudgill and Pat OBrien (Fisheries), Karen Wooster (Water Resources)
NOTE OF MEETING:
1. PROPOSED FLOOD RELIEF CHANNEL
Drawing numbers 675_SK03 Rev B. 18.07.07, 675_SK04 Rev C. 06.08.07 and DVSK-011 Rev P2 formed the basis of the discussions although it was noted that the
additional rip rap shown on the last drawing was not yet fully included on the
landscape sketches. It was agreed in principle that the proposals tabled would
allow Clause 28 of the planning conditions to be discharged subject to the
following.
1.1
1.2
1.3
rerunning the model to demonstrate that the proposed channel

would replicate the hydraulic performance of the channel originally
envisaged
incorporating best practice, such as that promoted by the River
Restoration Centre, in the design of the new channel, including:
A naturally excavated river bed at grade
Landscape softening of the rip rap
The inclusion of riffles or similar in the bed of the new channel
consideration being given to the fluvial geomorphologic impacts of
the new channel on the existing meander
Weetwood
761R01/AG
30 October 2007
CEG
KIRKSTALL FORGE
The Environment Agency agreed to confirm the acceptability or otherwise

of the proposed 4m wide maintenance access strip between the proposed
building and new channel. Given that the channel will be newly constructed
and that the building only extends along part of the new channel, it was thought
that this should not be an issue. The Environment Agency confirmed that
they would wish to progress enmaining of the new channel.
2. WORKS TO ABBEY MILL RACE
Clause 32 of the planning conditions requires that the race be cleaned, regarded
and repaired to convey the licensed abstraction flows within 3 years of
commencement of the development. This condition could be easily met but the
plan was to make the race a feature within the redevelopment. The views of the
Environment Agency were sought regarding the feed to the race and any other
matters that they would wish to see given due consideration. There were in
principle no problems with revising the existing abstraction licences on Cow Beck
and a Q95 figure of 31 l/s as set down in the Weetwood report dated October 2005
on Low Flows in Cow Beck was agreed (although the Environment Agency may
wish to see some low flow spot gaugings to verify this figure). The main
other point raised was the preference of the Environment Agency to see redundant
structures1 that impede fish and invertebrate passage upstream removed wherever
possible. In the first instance, the likely flow required to establish the race
as an environmental enhancement to the development needs to be
confirmed.
3. SURFACE WATER DRAINAGE
The redevelopment should comply with the current requirements of PPS25
providing that it leads to an overall reduction in impermeable area and, hence, a
reduction in surface water discharge into the River Aire.
Pre and postdevelopment impermeable areas need to be confirmed initially. This needs
to be In addition, site design will route floodwaters beyond the Sewers for
Adoption standard of 1 in 30 years and up to the 1 in 100 years event safely back
into the river. The Environment Agency pointed out that future standards are
likely to require significant reductions in surface water discharges and confirmed
that SUDS best practice are likely to be called for by the LPA in order to future
proof the development against the vagaries of climate change.
Andrew Grime
16 August 2007
The rights of other riparian owners will need to be considered before such structures are removed
Weetwood
761R01/AG
30 October 2007
CEG
KIRKSTALL FORGE
APPENDIX B:
Hydraulic Modelling Results
Node Label
Outline FRC
Design100yr
CC (mAOD)
FRC
Refined
100yr
CC
(mAOD)
02671700930F
40.487
40.492
S1:
Channel
0.033
Banks
0.055
100-yr
CC
(mAOD)
40.498
10
2671700920
40.473
40.478
40.484
40.478
40.49
39.944
39.949
36
2671700894
40.512
40.517
40.522
40.517
40.527
40.019
40.025
40.76
126
1700804
40.127
40.134
40.141
40.134
40.149
39.642
39.649
40.45
173
02671700757A
40.121
40.127
40.134
40.127
40.142
39.646
39.653
40.44
173
02671700757B
40.121
40.127
40.134
40.127
40.142
39.646
39.653
393
2671700537
39.622
39.632
39.642
39.632
39.654
39.189
39.2
40.07
580
1700350
39.234
39.247
39.262
39.248
39.278
38.832
38.847
39.81
630
1700300
38.98
38.995
39.012
38.996
39.032
38.631
38.648
39.63
680
1700250
38.774
38.797
38.822
38.798
38.849
38.416
38.44
39.58
730
1700200
38.278
38.293
38.31
38.294
38.328
37.939
37.989
39.33
754
02671700176C
38.7
38.736
38.775
38.738
38.818
38.368
38.403
39.83
754
02671700176D
38.449
38.452
38.456
38.452
38.46
38.146
38.148
38.58
864
2671700066
38.428
38.428
38.429
38.428
38.43
38.125
38.125
38.45
930
02671607120C
38.446
38.449
38.452
38.449
38.456
38.141
38.143
38.56
Chainage
From
Rein
Road
Weir (m)
S2:
Banks
0.045
0.07
100-yr
CC
(mAOD)
S3:
Entire
FRC
0.045
100-yr
CC
(mAOD)
Outline FRC
Design100yr
(mAOD)
FRC
Refined
100yr
(mAOD)
Minimum
Required
Bank
Top
Level
40.492
40.504
39.959
39.965
40.75
40.74
930
02671607120D
38.423
38.423
38.423
38.423
38.423
38.13
38.13
38.42
1007
2671607043
38.066
38.066
38.066
38.066
38.066
37.85
37.851
38.07
1124
2671606926
38.079
38.079
38.079
38.079
38.079
37.824
37.824
38.08
1281
2671606769
37.846
37.846
37.846
37.846
37.846
37.598
37.598
1564
2671606486
37.468
37.468
37.468
37.468
37.468
37.267
37.267
1754
2671606296
37.39
37.39
37.39
37.39
37.39
37.187
37.187
1899
2671606151
37.249
37.249
37.249
37.249
37.249
37.007
37.007
2045
2671606005
36.87
36.87
36.87
36.87
36.87
36.728
36.728
2143
2671605907
37.02
37.021
37.021
37.021
37.02
36.84
36.84
2148
02671605902E
37.033
37.033
37.033
37.033
37.033
36.849
36.849
2148
02671605902F
36.848
36.848
36.848
36.848
36.848
36.424
36.424
2169
2671605881
36.845
36.845
36.845
36.845
36.845
36.421
36.421
2284
2671605766
36.713
36.713
36.713
36.713
36.713
36.245
36.245
2438
2671605612
36.379
36.379
36.379
36.379
36.379
35.892
35.892
2542
2671605508
36.22
36.22
36.22
36.22
36.22
35.807
35.807
2588
Chainage
From
FRC
Entrance
(m)
0
02671605462C
36.207
Outline FRC
Design100yr
(mAOD)
FRC
Refined
100yr
(mAOD)
38.7
36.207
S3:
Entire
FRC
0.045
(mAOD)
38.818
BY_130
36.207
S2:
Banks
0.045
0.07
(mAOD)
38.738
35.805
Node Label
36.207
S1:
Channel
0.033
Banks
0.055
38.775
35.805
Outline FRC
Design100yr
CC (mAOD)
36.207
FRC
Refined
100yr
CC
(mAOD)
38.736
38.368
38.403
65
BY_065
38.57
38.577
38.599
38.578
38.622
38.256
38.262
130
BY_000
38.423
38.423
38.423
38.423
38.423
38.13
38.13
Weetwood
761R01/AG
30 October 2007

Kirkstall Forge Flood Defence Background Papers

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Kirkstall Forge Flood Defence Background Papers

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

KIRKSTALL FORGE FLOOD RELIEF CHANNEL

Commercial Estates Group

Kirkstall Forge Flood Relief Channel Mitigation

A. F. Grime BEng MBA CEng MICE FCIWEM

FLOOD RELIEF CHANNEL DESIGN REFINEMENT ..................... 3

EXISTING FRC DESIGN..............................................................................3

HYDRAULIC MODELLING .................................................... 6

HYDRAULIC MODELLING REQUIREMENTS ....................................................6

GEOMORPHOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT .................................. 13

4.5.1. Sediment Transfer .................................................................................. 29

SUMMARY & CONCLUSIONS.............................................. 35

Figure 4.3. Sediment transport sand fraction Q50. ........................................... 18

761 070808 Meeting Note

Ensure that fish habitat is accommodated within the new reach

Ensure that a decrease in the quality or availability of fish habitat present

Ensure the flood relief function of the proposed FRC is maintained in

Accommodate ecological and aesthetic enhancements where appropriate

The introduction of a new reach to the existing channels at Kirkstall Forge

OBJECTIVES AND DELIVERABLES

4. Potential changes to fish habitat both in local reaches and further

APPROACH TAKEN IN THIS STUDY

Outline a refined cross section design

Carry out a broad-scale geomorphological assessment of the implications

Refine the design recommendations as necessary in keeping with the

PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

2 FLOOD RELIEF CHANNEL DESIGN REFINEMENT

EXISTING FRC DESIGN

File Name & Type

A024328-DV-SK-011 - P2 FLOOD RELIEF CHANNEL.pdf

Bypass Channel cross section

EXISTING FRC DESIGN: COMMENTS

HYDRAULIC MODELLING REQUIREMENTS

HYDRAULIC MODEL REFINEMENTS

HYDRAULIC MODELLING SIMULATIONS

Baseline (No FRC)

S1: Roughness of FRC

S2: Roughness of left

HYDRAULIC MODELLING: RESULTS & DISCUSSION

Flood Relief Channel

Chainage From Rein Road Weir (m)

100yr CC Outline FRC Design

100yr CC Refined FRC

100yr CC Design Event: Long Section

Chainage From Rein Road Weir (m)

100yr CC Outline FRC Design

100yr CC Refined FRC

Chainage From Rein Road Weir (m)

100yr Outline FRC Design

100yr Refined FRC

100yr Design Event: Long Section

Chainage From Rein Road Weir (m)

100yr Outline FRC Design

100yr Refined FRC

Chainage From Rein Road Weir (m)

100yr CC Refined FRC

GEOMORPHOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT REQUIREMENTS

Address any additional consequences of the FRC as a result of the

Assess the geomorphological processes operating within the FRC and

Provide advice for the implementation of any mitigation measures

GEOMORPHOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT METHODS

Potential volume or mass of material transported through a reach.

Downstream fluctuations in the rate of sediment transport

Likely changes of sediment dynamics through time, or changes in

Energy available for bed scour, in response to changes in flow discharges