Computational fluid dynamics modelling of boundary roughness in gravel‐bed rivers: an investigation of the effects of random variability in bed elevation

Results from a series of numerical simulations of two-dimensional open-channel flow, conducted using the computational fluid dynamics (CFD) code FLUENT, are compared with data quantifying the mean and turbulent characteristics of open-channel flow over two contrasting gravel beds. Boundary roughness effects are represented using both the conventional wall function approach and a random elevation model that simulates the effects of supra-grid-scale roughness elements (e.g. particle clusters and small bedforms). Results obtained using the random elevation model are characterized by a peak in turbulent kinetic energy located well above the bed (typically at y/h = 0·1–0·3). This is consistent with the field data and in contrast to the results obtained using the wall function approach for which maximum turbulent kinetic energy levels occur at the bed. Use of the random elevation model to represent supra-grid-scale roughness also allows a reduction in the height of the near-bed mesh cell and therefore offers some potential to overcome problems experienced by the wall function approach in flows characterized by high relative roughness. Despite these benefits, the results of simulations conducted using the random elevation model are sensitive to the horizontal and vertical mesh resolution. Increasing the horizontal mesh resolution results in an increase in the near-bed velocity gradient and turbulent kinetic energy, effectively roughening the bed. Varying the vertical resolution of the mesh has little effect on simulated mean velocity profiles, but results in substantial changes to the shape of the turbulent kinetic energy profile. These findings have significant implications for the application of CFD within natural gravel-bed channels, particularly with regard to issues of topographic data collection, roughness parameterization and the derivation of mesh-independent solutions. Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

[1]  A. D. Abrahams,et al.  Estimating shear velocity and roughness length from velocity profiles , 1992 .

[2]  Vladimir Nikora,et al.  On gravel‐bed roughness characterization , 1998 .

[3]  B. Launder,et al.  Progress in the development of a Reynolds-stress turbulence closure , 1975, Journal of Fluid Mechanics.

[4]  J. Smith,et al.  Velocity distribution and bed roughness in high‐gradient streams , 1991 .

[5]  André Robert,et al.  Boundary roughness in coarse-grained channels , 1990 .

[6]  P. L. Wiberg,et al.  Initial motion of coarse sediment in streams of high gradient , 1987 .

[7]  W. Rodi,et al.  Open‐channel Flow Measurements with a Laser Doppler Anemometer , 1986 .

[8]  P. Wilcock.  Estimating Local Bed Shear Stress from Velocity Observations , 1996 .

[9]  Stuart N. Lane,et al.  Hydraulic modelling in hydrology and geomorphology: a review of high resolution approaches , 1998 .

[10]  J. P. V. Doormaal,et al.  ENHANCEMENTS OF THE SIMPLE METHOD FOR PREDICTING INCOMPRESSIBLE FLUID FLOWS , 1984 .

[11]  N. Olsen,et al.  Three-dimensional numerical modelling of water flow in a river with large bed roughness , 1995 .

[12]  S. Orszag,et al.  Renormalization group analysis of turbulence. I. Basic theory , 1986 .

[13]  Stuart N. Lane,et al.  Three-dimensional measurement of river channel flow processes using acoustic doppler velocimetry , 1998 .

[14]  V. C. Patel,et al.  Application of Turbulence Models to Separated Flow Over Rough Surfaces , 1995 .

[15]  D. Naot,et al.  Response of Channel Flow to Roughness Heterogeneity , 1984 .

[16]  Stuart N. Lane,et al.  Investigation of controls on secondary circulation in a simple confluence geometry using a three-dimensional numerical model , 1998 .

[17]  P. J. Whiting,et al.  Boundary Shear Stress and Roughness Over Mobile Alluvial Beds , 1990 .

[18]  F. Sotiropoulos,et al.  THREE DIMENSIONAL NUMERICAL MODEL FOR FLOW THROUGH NATURAL RIVERS , 1998 .

[19]  Brian Launder,et al.  Second-moment closure: present… and future? , 1989 .

[20]  G. Voulgaris,et al.  Evaluation of the Acoustic Doppler Velocimeter (ADV) for Turbulence Measurements , 1998 .

[21]  P. Bradshaw,et al.  Momentum transfer in boundary layers , 1977 .

[22]  Richard D. Hey,et al.  Flow Resistance in Gravel-Bed Rivers , 1979 .

[23]  P. Bradshaw,et al.  Turbulence Models and Their Application in Hydraulics. By W. RODI. International Association for Hydraulic Research, Delft, 1980. Paperback US $15. , 1983, Journal of Fluid Mechanics.

[24]  D. Cokljat,et al.  Second-Order Closure Study of Open-Channel Flows , 1995 .

[25]  D. Cokljat,et al.  On choice of turbulence model for prediction of flows over river bed forms , 1997 .

[26]  A. Nicholas,et al.  Numerical simulation of three-dimensional flow hydraulics in a braided channel , 1999 .

[27]  A. Roy,et al.  ON THE NECESSITY OF APPLYING A ROTATION TO INSTANTANEOUS VELOCITY MEASUREMENTS IN RIVER FLOWS , 1996 .

[28]  Keith Richards,et al.  Estimation of flow resistance in gravel‐bedded rivers: A physical explanation of the multiplier of roughness length , 1992 .

[29]  Robert I. Ferguson,et al.  Numerical modelling of separated flow in river bends: model testing and experimental investigation of geometric controls on the extent of flow separation at the concave bank , 1998 .

[30]  Ramon Cabrera,et al.  Acoustic-Doppler Velocimeter (ADV) for Laboratory Use , 1994 .

[31]  W. Dietrich,et al.  The variability of critical shear stress, friction angle, and grain protrusion in water-worked sediments , 1990 .

[32]  K. Richards,et al.  Sensitivity of bed shear stress estimated from vertical velocity profiles: the problem of sampling resolution , 1998 .

[33]  S. McLelland,et al.  A new method for evaluating errors in high‐frequency ADV measurements , 2000 .

[34]  Andrew Hodskinson.  COMPUTATIONAL FLUID DYNAMICS AS A TOOL FOR INVESTIGATING SEPARATED FLOW IN RIVER BENDS , 1996 .