Oscar Castro-Orgaz1
1
Research Engineer, Instituto de Agricultura Sostenible, Consejo Superior
de Investigaciones Cientificas, Finca Alameda del Obispo, E-14080,
Cordoba, Spain. E-mail: oscarcastro@ita.csic.es
The discusser has read with interest this work on tangential vortex
intakes, where a systematic 1D approach was proposed. The au-
thors proved that flow features such as the head-discharge rela-
tionship or the vortex flow zone may be approximated
theoretically. However, other important results including the ex-
perimental free surface profiles in the nonprismatic inlet were
presented but not further analyzed. The authors argued that due to
the energy loss within a hydraulic jump and zones with rapidly
varied flow, the 1D approach may not be used. However, as dem-
onstrated by Castro-Orgaz et al. 2008, nonprismatic channel
flow may be approximated by a relatively simple approach based
on the gradually varied flow theory. The present discussion aims
at providing a 1D analysis of the data presented by the authors
using this approach, a point so far overlooked in the paper. Limi-
tations for the 1D analysis are highlighted, and questions on fea-
tures of general interest are asked of the authors.
The energy head H for sloping channel flow with streamlines
nearly parallel to the bed is given by Montes 1994; Hager 1999
Q2
H=z+h+ 1 + S2o 1
2gA2
where z = channel bed elevation; h = flow depth measured verti-
cally; Q = discharge; b = channel width; A = cross-sectional area
= b h; and So = bed slope. Differentiation of Eq. 1 assuming po-
tential flow, that is, dH / dx = 0, results in
Q2 A
So + 1 + S2o
dh gA3 x
= 2
dx Q2 A
1 1 + S2o 3
gA h
Eq. 2 was numerically solved using a standard fourth-order
Runge-Kutta method, with the critical point as the boundary con-
dition at the corresponding extreme of the nonprismatic channel.
A singular point analysis Castro-Orgaz et al. 2008 for this study
results in spirals i.e., there are no control sections inside the
nonprismatic channel reach. For a nonprismatic channel the criti-
cal depth varies with x, such that different control points results
for the up- and downstream extreme sections. Fig. 1 shows the
solution of Eq. 2 for Test 1 in dimensionless form using the
upstream critical depth for a horizontal channel hc = Q2 / gB21/3 Fig. 1. Comparison between computed Eq. 2 and observed free
as the scaling. surface profiles for nonprismatic tapering channel, Test 1, and Q
For discharges of Q = 4, 8, and 10 l / s the critical point was = a 4 l / s, b 8 l / s, c 10 l / s, d 12 l / s, e 14 l / s, f 16 l / s, g
taken at the upstream channel section, resulting in excellent 17 l / s, and h 20 l / s
References
20
Supercritical and Transitional Flow in Vortex Inlet
10
Our proposed theory for the hydraulic design of tangential intakes 280
is based on heuristic concepts founded on the 1D theory; it rep-
20
resents an advance over previous designs based mainly on expe-
rience or physical model studies Jain and Ettema 1987. 10
However, the limitations of the 1D theory are fully recognized, as 240
there are 3D flow features in the tapering and downward sloping
inlet section, including the junction. Consider first a small dis- 20
charge that drains freely into the vortex dropshaft. The flow will 10
be supercritical in the inlet. Fig. 1 shows the measured transverse 200
free surface profile for model no. 14 cf. Table 1 of paper for
Q = 1.5 L / s. The shock wave in the supercritical flow can readily 20
be seen. The sharp reduction of channel width results in a non- 10
uniform transverse depth distribution; the water depth at the ta- 160
pering side rises substantially higher, nearly twice the depth on
the opposite side. As the shock wave propagates downstream, the 20
transverse difference in depth gradually decreases. This uneven 10
transverse water surface profile is found in the supercritical flow
120
for both smooth stable and hydraulic jump cases. In the experi-
ments, the longitudinal depth variation is measured along the cen- 20
terline of the channel. The transverse free surface profile was
10
measured for selected runs. No independent pressure measure-
ments were made. 80
For larger discharges, when the free draining capacity is ex-
ceeded Q Q f , the vortex flow in the dropshaft would exert an
upstream influence, with the formation of a hydraulic jump with
significant energy loss. In addition, the 3D swirling flow at the
downstream junction with the dropshaft and the inlet flow near
the junction are nonhydrostatic see Fig. 8 of the paper. It is
Flow direction
indeed gratifying that useful results for this complex flow can be
obtained using the 1D concepts. 0
An appreciation of the 3D flow featuresthe transverse shock 0 50 100
wave in the tapering inlet, the complex 3D flow in the dropshaft,
Fig. 1. Measured transverse water depth profile model no. 14, Q
and inlet flow near the junctioncan be gained by viewing the
= 1.5 L / s; all lengths in mm
video clips of both stable and unstable designs at http://
www.aoe-water.hku.hk/vortex.
0
stable manner, without any abrupt change in depth and conse-
quent overflows. The design is based on the determination of the
50
free drainage discharge Q f and the control shift discharge Qc, 2 L/s
which does not explicitly require the prediction of the free surface 4 L/s
100 6 L/s
profile in the tapering inlet channel.
For stable designs Fig. 9 of the paper, energy conservation is 50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300
a valid approximation; the approach channel depth is given by the x (mm)
head-discharge relation, and the depth at the junction is given by
the critical depth. It is well-known that a 1D analysis can be used Fig. 2. Water surface profile in tapering inlet channel model no. 3
to compute the GVF in a nonprismatic channel. For example, the by GVF computation
Final Remarks
Fig. 3. a Dimensionless observed pressure variation at the upstream end P06 and the downstream end of the pipeline P07; b observed
overpressure due to ball valve closure
This assumption was not required for the flume case. References
Where the channel boundary is nonuniform, the shapes of U
and ke profiles differ from what is observed in normal flow Fig. Booker, D. J., Sear, D. A., and Payne, A. J. 2001. Modelling three-
1. Relative to the normal flow section, downstream velocities are dimensional flow structures and patterns of boundary shear stress in a
smaller in the pool head and greater in the pool tail in the lower natural pool-riffle sequence. Earth Surf. Processes Landforms,
third of the profile Fig. 1a and c. In the upper third of the 265, 553576.
Keller, E. A. 1971. Areal sorting of bed material: The hypothesis of
profile, the inverse effects are observed and the highest velocities
velocity reversal. Geol. Soc. Am. Bull., 823, 753756.
occur in the pool head. These effects are more pronounced in the Kim, S. C., Friedrichs, C. T., Maa, J. P. Y., and Wright, L. D. 2000.
field case than in the flume case, perhaps as a result of the rela- Estimating bottom stress in tidal boundary layer from Acoustic Dop-
tively shorter pool or the wood in the field case. The shape of the pler Velocimeter data. J. Hydraul. Eng., 1266, 399406.
ke profiles differs between the field and flume cases near the water MacVicar, B. J., and Roy, A. G. 2007. Hydrodynamics of a forced
surface in the normal flow section Fig. 1b and d. High turbu- riffle-pool in a gravel-bed river: 1. Mean velocity and turbulence in-
lence near to the water surface in the field case may be the result tensity. Water Resour. Res., 43, W12401.
of water surface waves and may indicate that true normal flow did MacWilliams, M. L. J., Wheaton, J. M., Pasternack, G. B., Street, R. L.,
not occur in the field case. Nevertheless, the shape of profiles in and Kitanidis, P. K. 2006. Flow convergence routing hypothesis for
the pool head and the pool tail is similar in both cases. The high- pool-riffle maintenance in alluvial rivers. Water Resour. Res., 42,
W10427.
est levels of turbulent kinetic energy occur in the lower third of
Nezu, I., and Nakagawa, H. 1993. Turbulence in open-channel flows,
the profile in the pool head in both the flume and field cases.
A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
These results are significant for a discussion of the distribution
of shear stress in pools and riffles because both the near-bed
downstream velocity and turbulent kinetic energy can be used to
estimate shear stress on the bed Kim et al. 2000. They show that
a peak in shear stress occurs in the pool-head as a result of high Discussion of Sediment Transport
turbulence, while the change in the shape of the velocity profile
results in high shear stress near to the bed in the pool tail.
Modeling ReviewCurrent and Future
To demonstrate that a near-bed velocity reversal can occur in Developments by A. N. Papanicolaou,
the absence of a bulk velocity reversal, we calculated both veloc- M. Elhakeem, G. Krallis, S. Prakash, and
ity values from field measurements at seven different discharges J. Edinger
Fig. 2. The near-bed velocity was calculated as the mean of all January 2008, Vol. 134, No. 1, pp. 114.
measurements made in the thalweg in the lower 20% of the pro- DOI: 10.1061/ASCE0733-94292008134:11
file. The bulk velocity was calculated as the cross section average
from 5 to 7 velocity profiles spaced at 1 m intervals across the
Chih Ted Yang, F.ASCE1
width of the channel. As a result of lateral flow concentration see 1
Borland Prof. of Water Resources and Director of Hydroscience and
MacVicar and Roy 2007 for discussion, near-bed velocities in the Training Center, Colorado State Univ., Fort Collins, CO 80523-1372.
thalweg are greater than the bulk velocities at relatively low dis- E-mail: ctyang@engr.colostate.edu
charges in the normal flow section and the pool head. Near-bed
velocities in these sections peak at discharges less than half of the
bank-full value and no velocity reversal occurs between the nor- The authors of the article provide a comprehensive review of
mal flow section and the pool head. In the pool tail, and similar to sediment transport models available for solving engineering prob-
results in the pool head, no reversal of bulk velocity occurs. The lems. This type of forum article should be beneficial to students,
cross-sectional area of this section is always greater than the researchers, and practicing engineers on the type of models avail-
cross-sectional area of the normal flow section. However, a ve- able and how to select a proper model for solving a particular
locity reversal does occur in the near-bed velocity between these problem. There is no universally acceptable model that can most
two sections. Above the half bank-full discharge 2.5 m3 / s, cost-effectively give the best results for all conditions. The suc-
the highest near-bed velocity of the three measured sections oc- cess of the application of a computer model depends, to a large
qualitative in nature because no field data are available for veri- sion processes. Fig. 4d shows that the eroded channel gradually
fication. formed a deep center channel with a natural levee on both sides.
Fig. 4a shows the longitudinal bed profile and the water sur- Fig. 4e shows that a central island is formed and the channel
face profile at time step 15 along the emergency spillway of the will have divided flows at low flows. Fig. 4f is a bedrock-
Willow Creek Reservoir. It is apparent that GSTARS can handle controlled section at Station O. The initial predicted erosion at
water surface profile computations for critical flow at stations A, time step 15 was in the vertical direction. However, the channel
F, and O; supercritical flow between A and B, F and G, and O and adjustment cannot move in the vertical direction due to bedrock
P; hydraulic jump between B and C, and H and I; and subcritical control, and erosion occurs in the lateral direction. The theory of
flow between C and E, and I and N. Fig. 4b predicted the nar- minimum stream power was used to guide GSTARS in the deter-
row scour hole at Station B immediately below the spillway crest. mination of optimum channel geometry adjustment. Fig. 4 dem-
Fig. 4c shows that a fairly uniform original cross section of a onstrates that GSTARS has the ability to make realistic
straight channel at Station C changed to an uneven cross section predictions of possible types of channel geometry and pattern
typically found at the bend of a meandering river during the ero- adjustments in accordance with the stream tube concept and the
References n = 0.049d1/6
m 2
For values other than 0.060, 2.65, and 0.049 as referred to above,
Molinas, A., and Yang, C. T. 1986. Computer program users manual the coefficient in Eq. 1 will be somewhat different than 1.75. In
for GSTARS (Generalized Stream Tube model for Alluvial River Simu-
fact, for the authors 76-mm sandstone particles having a specific
lation), U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Engineering and Research Cen-
gravity of 2.29, the coefficient given in Eq. 1 would be equal to
ter, Denver, Colorado.
Othman, K. I., and Wang, D. 2004. Application of GSTARS 2.1 model 2.30, which in part is indicative of the sensitivity of stone stability
for degradation in alluvial channels. Proc., 9th International Sympo- to specific gravity as also noted by Peirson and Cameron 2006.
sium on River Sedimentation, World Association of Sedimentation and A similar expression for the required stone size can also be
Erosion Research, Beijing, Vol. III, 15321537. derived from an equation developed by Stephenson 1979, as
Simes, F. J. M., and Yang, C. T. 2008. GSTARS computer models and shown by Smith and Kells 1995
their applications. Part II: Applications. Int. J. Sediment Res., 234,
dm = 1.62q2/3S7/9 3
299315.
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Technical Service Center. 2006. Erosion which is remarkably similar to Eq. 1. The coefficient in Eq. 3
and sedimentation manual, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Denver. was derived on the basis of Stephensons C coefficient having a
Yang, C. T. 1973. Incipient motion and sediment transport. J. Hydr. value of 0.245, which is the midpoint of the values reported for
Div., 9910, 16791704. smooth pebbles 0.22 and crushed granite 0.27, a stone-specific
Yang, C. T. 2008. GSTARS computer models and sediment control in gravity of 2.65, a stone mass porosity of 40%, and an angle of
surface water systems. Key Note Address, 3rd Int. Conf. on Water repose of the stone material of 35. Using the mean angle of
Resources and Arid Environment, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. repose or friction angle for the stone material reported by the
Yang, C. T., and Simes, F. J. M. 2000. Users manual for GSTARS 2.1,
authors of 48.8, a stone-specific gravity of 2.29 for their 76-mm
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Technical Service Center, Denver.
Yang, C. T., and Simes, F. J. M. 2002. Users manual for GSTARS3,
sandstone material, and a mean porosity of 46% for the randomly
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Technical Service Center, Denver. placed stone material as determined from the authors data, the
Yang, C. T., and Simes, F. J. M. 2008. GSTARS computer models and coefficient in Eq. 3 would be equal to 1.41.
their applications. Part I: Theoretical development. Int. J. Sediment Abt et al. 2008 introduce the coefficient of uniformity, Cu,
Res., 233, 197211. into the stability relationship, which they express as SI units
Yang, C. T., Trevio, M. A., and Simes, F. J. M. 1998. Users manual
for GSTARS 2.0, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Technical Service Cen-
d50 = 97.82C0.70 0.68 0.70
u qf S 4
ter, Denver. where d50 = median stone size cm, which is the same as dm when
both are defined in terms of stone weight; Cu is the coefficient of
uniformity of the stone material dimensionless; and q f = design
unit discharge m3 / s / m. For a uniformly graded stone material
with, for example, Cu = 2, Eq. 4 is very similar to that given
Discussion of Placed Rock as Protection by Smith and Kells 1995 in Eq. 1 and Stephenson 1979 in
against Erosion by Flow down Steep Eq. 3.
Slopes by W. L. Peirson, J. Figlus, The relationship presented in Eq. 1 can be expressed in more
S. E. Pells, and R. J. Cox general terms as
September 2008, Vol. 134, No. 9, pp. 13701375. dm = Kq2/3S7/9 5
DOI: 10.1061/ASCE0733-94292008134:91370
where K is a coefficient which, as shown above, reflects the inte-
J. A. Kells, Ph.D., P.Eng., M.ASCE 1 gration of such parameters as stone-specific gravity, stone mass
1
Prof., Dept. of Civil and Geological Engineering, Univ. of porosity, angle of internal friction of the stone material, particle
Saskatchewan, 57 Campus Dr., Saskatoon, SK, Canada S7N 5A9. roughness, and the coefficient in the Strickler-type relationship
for Mannings n i.e., Eq. 2. In the work reported by Smith and
Kells 1995, which draws considerably on earlier work described
The discusser found the authors paper to be an interesting con- in Smith and Murray 1975, it was found that the value of K is
tribution to the Journal and to the advancement of the use of 1.8 for initial stone movement, 1.5 for initial failure of the stone
stone in the design of steeply sloping channels. The discusser and mass which thereafter heals itself provided that a sufficient
various associates have also carried out some studies on the sta- amount of stone material has been placed at the crest of the
bility of stone on steep slopes, which is the primary focus of this slope, and 1.2 for ultimate failure of the stone-paved slope. Here,
discussion. initial stone movement refers to the point at which a single stone
Smith and Kells 1995 present the development of a semi- is removed from the stone layer and transported to the bottom of
empirical relationship for the median size of stone required for the slope, initial failure is the point at which temporary exposure
stability in a two-dimensional open channel flow of the underlying slope material occurs e.g., exposure of the filter