Post on 16-Oct-2020
1
Pierre Y. Julien
River Geometry and Mechanics
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
Colorado State University
Fort Collins, Colorado
River Mechanics and Sediment Transport
Lima Peru – January 2016
Objectives
Brief overview of stream restoration and river rehabilitation guidelines:
1. Hydrology and Hydraulics;
2. Extreme River Floods;
3. Climate Change Impact on Rivers;
4. River Geometry;
5. Flow Pulses Downstream of Reservoirs.
2
1. Hydrology and Hydraulics
Niger River Inner delta Niger river basin
BamakoKoulikoro Niamey
Niger R.
Ban
i R.
Tchad LakeMopti
Guinea Gulf0 200 400 km
Lakoja
Sokoto R.
Benue R.
Arid Semiarid Dry subhumid Moist subhumid Humid Perhumid
Arid
Humid
Climate
Tombouctou
Malanville
Kaduna R.
(a)
3
Surface runoff divide
Groundwater divide
Groundwater flow
Subsurface flow
Channel precipitation
Interception
Transpiration
Evaporation
Infiltration
Deep percolation
Snow
Surface-detention storage
Precipitation
Surface runoff
Evaporation
Exfiltration
Condensation
20 10 0 10 20
40 30 20 10 0 10 20 30 400
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Storm Mountain Big
Thompson River
Distance from Storm Mountain (km)
Alt
itud
e ab
ove
mea
n se
a le
vel (
thou
sand
s of
fee
t)
Distance from Storm Mountain (miles)
Alt
itud
e ab
ove
mea
n se
a le
vel (
thou
sand
s of
met
ers)
-25 °C
0 °C
0°
1525
3545
4535
2515
15
Schematic lines of airflow
Schematic area of rainfall
Radar reflectivity observed at Grover, Colo. Dashed where approximately located. Interval 10 dBZ
Line of equal air temperature, in degrees Celsius Dashed within the cloud
Loveland
Basin boundary
Glen Haven
Glen Comfort
Estes Park
Mouth of Big Thompson Canyon
Ft. Collins
Loveland powerplant
Big Thompson River
Little Thompson River
South P
latte
River
0 5 10 miles
0 5 10 15 km
2 4 6 10
64
2
2
8
6
8
10
46
8
108
2
Masonville
02468
1012
Rai
nfal
l pre
cipi
tati
on
(inc
hes)
Drake
4
AGU Hydrology days 2005
Rainfall distribution of Typhoon Maemi in Korea
Total rainfall of Typhoon Maemi in 2003
5
Water stage and discharge graph at Gupo bridge
6
Dis
char
ge
Time
Without reservoirs
With reservoirs
Reservoir storage - release
Design flood
2 3 4 5 10 25 50 1006
5
4
3
2
11 510 20 40 60 80 90 95 99
Return period (years)
Probability (%)
Dis
char
ge
All da
ta
With
out r
eser
voir
With reservoir
A
T T
T
T
1 2
3
4
Peak discharge reduction
20 000
10 000
5 000
1 000
500
2000.05
0.10.5 1 2 5 10 30 50 70 90 95 96
9999.8
99.9
Before
AfterDominant discharge
Duration of discharge (% time)
Mea
n da
ily
disc
harg
e (c
fs)
AfterBefore
Q
Q
S
s
250
200
150
100
50
01940 1950 1960 1970 1980
Year
Sand
Silt
Clay
Sus
pend
ed s
edim
ent l
oad
(mil
lion
s to
ns/y
ear)
Clear water release at dam
Original bed
Scour and channel degradation Local scour Final bed
(c)
(b)
(a)
1 m /s = 35.5 ft /s33
7
2. Extreme River Floods
14
Analysis of Extreme Floods in Malaysia
Pierre Y. JulienColorado State University
International Symposium on Flood Research and Management 2014ISFRAM 2014
Sabah, BorneoSeptember 28-October 1, 2014
8
15
Floods in Malaysia (2006/2007)
YEAR STATES NOTE SOURCES
2007
Johor, Pahang, Kuala
Lumpur, Kedah, Negeri
Sembilan, Kelantan
RM 1.2 Billion (USD 400 Million)
260,000 people were evacuated from more
than 40,000 families
Shafie (2009); MMD (2007)
2008
Negeri Sembilan, Kuala
Lumpur, Pulau Pinang,
Kelantan, Terengganu,
Pahang
Major roads effected
Landslide
Over 6,000 people evacuated to 40 flood
evacuation centers
MMD (2008)
2009Kuala Lumpur, Kelantan,
Kedah, Selangor, Pahang
Severe traffic congestion
Landslide
About 60 families were evacuated
MMD (2009)
2010Most of the states in
Peninsular Malaysia
More than 70,000 people were evacuated
Traffic jams and water depth more than 1.0 mMMD (2010)
2011Most of the states in
Peninsular Malaysia
More than 70,000 people were evacuated
Traffic jams and water depth more than 1.0 m
Taucan et al. (2011); Utusan (2011);
Maslih et al. (2011); Ismail (2011);
Abdullah (2011); Md.‐Noor (2011); Mohd
and Perimbanayagam (2011)
2012Most of the states in
Peninsular Malaysia
More than 5,000 people were evacuated and
600 houses were submerged
Water depth approximately reached 2.0 m at
most of the places
Utusan (2012); Jamaluddin and Hassan
(2012); Maslih (2012); Sinyang (2012);
Wan‐Alias (2012); Cameons and Wong
(2012); myMetro (2012); Md.‐Noor (2012)
Flooding in Peninsular Malaysia from 2007 to 2012
16
9
Extreme Floods in Malaysia
1. Extreme Rainfall Precipitation
2. Extreme Flood Modeling
3. Kota Tinggi Flood
4. Muda River Flood
5. River Management Manual
17
Rainfall Events in Malaysia Malaysia receives between 2000 and 4000 mm of rainfall per year
18
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1 17 33 49 65 81 97 113
129
145
161
177
193
209
225
241
257
273
289
305
321
337
353
Rainfall (mm)
2010
10
CDF for Subang Station
19
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
F(x)
Total Amount of Precipitation (mm)
2‐consecutive rainy days 3‐consecutive rainy days
4‐consecutive rainy days 5‐consecutive rainy days
6‐consecutive rainy days 1‐rainy day
1‐rainy day 2‐consecutive rainy days
3‐consecutive rainy days 4‐consecutive rainy days
5‐consecutive rainy days 6‐consecutive rainy days
From Shazwani Nur Muhammad
Conditional Probability of Multi‐Day Rainfall Events at Subang Station
20From Shazwani Nur Muhammad
11
Return Period Curves from Measured & Improved Probability Structure
21
1
10
100
1000
10000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Return Period (Days)
n‐Consecutive Rainy Days
>1 >13 >30>60 >90 >120>150 >180 Calculated >1Calculated >13 Calculated >30 Calculated >60Calculated >90 Calculated >120 Calculated >150
From Shazwani Nur Muhammad
22
Extreme Rainfall Events
12
Extreme Floods in Malaysia
1. Extreme Rainfall Precipitation
2. Extreme Flood Modeling
3. Kota Tinggi Flood
4. Muda River Flood
5. River Management Manual
23
Hydrological sub‐models are:
Rainfall and interception
Depression storage and infiltration
Overland flow routing (2D diffusive wave approximation)
Channel flow (1D diffusive wave approximation)
TREX model (Hydrological model)
11
24
13
25
TREX Model California Gulch near Leadville, Colorado25
Extreme Floods in Malaysia
1. Extreme Rainfall Precipitation
2. Extreme Flood Modeling
3. Kota Tinggi Flood
4. Muda River Flood
5. River Management Manual
26
14
27
Modeling set‐upFrom GIS
Area : 1,635 sq. kmGrid size : 230 x 230 mRiver length : 250 kmActive grid: 30,000
GIS – watershed delineation
22
From Jazuri Abdullah
15
PLANTATION(OIL PALM)
URBANIZATION
TROPICAL RAIN FOREST
23From Jazuri Abdullah
CALIBRATIONGRAPHICAL METHOD
27
16
JANUARY 11, 2007 JANUARY 12, 2007
JANUARY 13, 2007 JANUARY 14, 2007
SATELLITE IMAGES – RAINFALL AT KOTA TINGGI
SOU
RC
E: S
HA
FIE
(200
9)
33
Rainfall near Kota Tinggi
32
Date Layang‐Layang Ulu Sebol Bukit Besar Kota Tinggi
December 2006
17‐Dec 66 mm 33 mm 29 mm 48 mm
18‐Dec 52 mm 23 mm 47 mm 43 mm
19‐Dec 156 mm 189 mm 200 mm 161 mm
20‐Dec 73 mm 78 mm 69 mm 39 mm
4 days total 367 mm 353 mm 345 mm 287 mm
January 2007
11‐Jan 145 mm 124 mm 147 mm 167 mm
12‐Jan 135 mm 290 mm 234 mm 122 mm
13‐Jan 84 mm 76 mm 42 mm 49 mm
14‐Jan 20 mm 44 mm 35 mm ‐
4 days total 384 mm 534 mm 458 mm 338 mm
17
KOTA TINGGI FLOOD
DEC. 18, 2006
DEC. 19, 2006
KOTA TINGGI FLOOD
18
DEC. 20, 2006
KOTA TINGGI FLOOD
DEC. 21, 2006
KOTA TINGGI FLOOD
19
37
Extreme Floods in Malaysia
1. Extreme Rainfall Precipitation
2. Extreme Flood Modeling
3. Kota Tinggi Flood
4. Muda River Flood
5. River Management Manual
38
20
DEM
October 1998 Flood
Flood Prone Areas (Oct 1998 Flood)
Flood Map
21
Land Use Data
River Corridor
KG. BUMBUNG LIMA
PEKULA
KG. JAWA
KG. BUKIT
LALANG
Merdeka Bridge
PLUS Highway
42
22
Sand and Gravel Mining
River Sand Mining
43
Riverbed Degradation
44
23
Extreme Floods in Malaysia
1. Extreme Rainfall Precipitation
2. Extreme Flood Modeling
3. Kota Tinggi Flood
4. Muda River Flood
5. River Management Manual
45
River Management
Problems and Issues
Flood Control and Dam SafetyNavigation and Transportation
Water SupplyIrrigation and Drainage
Water QualityAquatic Habitat
Laws and Regulations
International TreatiesWater Delivery Compacts
Water RightsClean Water Act
Endangered Species Act
Major Stakeholders
Federal AgenciesState Agencies
Counties and DistrictsCities and Towns
Private Sector/CompaniesPublic
Technical
Nat
ion
al
46
24
47
Summary and Conclusions
1. Extreme Rainfall Precipitation
Recent advances in the frequency analysis of multi-day rainfall events
2. Extreme Flood Modeling
Distributed models like TREX can simulate extreme floods
3. Kota Tinggi Flood
Multi-day rainfall precipitation events control floods on large watersheds
4. Muda River Flood
Concept of river corridor and problems associated with gravel mining
5. River Management Manual
Major step towards Integrated River Basin Management
25
3. Climate Change Impact on Rivers
Prospective Impact of Climate Change on Rivers and Water Resources
Pierre Y. JulienColorado State University
7th World Water Forum Daegu, South Korea, April 2015
26
“ … four glaciations were recognized, each lasting approximately 100,000 years…
the maximum ice thickness was close to 4,000 metres”
The Canadian Encyclopedia
Upper Elevation: flooding from snowmelt
-----------------------------
Lower Elevation: flooding from thunderstorms
Rainfall vs Snowmelt
27
Upper Basin: high-elevation snowpack; snowmelt runoff
Diverse Topography: highest mountains in Colorado – Elbert, Massive, Harvard, etc.
Pine beetle and the Colorado Forest
Upper Basin: high-elevation snowpack; snowmelt runoff
Diverse Topography: highest mountains in Colorado – Elbert, Massive, Harvard, etc.
Waldo FireColorado June 2012
28
Waldo FireColorado June 2012
Impact on water quality
29
Sediment Plugs on the Rio Grande
Where did the water go?
30
California Imposes First Mandatory Water Restrictions to Deal With Drought
PHILLIPS, Calif. — Gov. Jerry Brown on Wednesday ordered mandatory water use reductions for the first time in California’s history, saying the state’s four-year drought had reached near-crisis proportions after a winter of record-low snowfalls.
Oroville Lake, April 2015
31
La Guardia Intl. Airport October 2012
32
warm oceans => stronger hurricanes
Katrina, August 2005
A category 5 hurricane
33
New Orleans in August 2005 after Hurricane Katrina Damage $108 billions
34
Heavy rains on saturated soils after a snow-heavy winter
Cedar Rapids, IA, June 2008
Cedar Rapids, IA, June 2008
35
Precipitation Peak Inflow
1938 Design – Original 13 inches 430,000 cfs1982 Update 20 inches 1,086,000 cfs
2014 Update 18 inches 1,564,000 cfs
From K. White, USACE, ETL 1100-2-1 https://corpsclimate.us
36
Impact of Katrina
on wetlands
4. River Geometry
37
Objectives
Bedforms and resistance to flow during floods.
Effects of dams on hydraulic geometry.
River response to deviations from equilibrium geometry of alluvial rivers.
Rhine River flood in 1998
38
Bovenrijn
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2500 5000 7500 10000Discharge (m3/s)
pri
mar
y d
un
e h
eig
ht
(m)
CenterLeft Right
Waal
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
2000 4000 6000 8000Discharge (m3/s)
Primary dune height vs discharge
Bovenrijn
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
2500 5000 7500 10000Discharge (m3/s)
Ro
ug
hn
ess
hei
gh
t (m
)
Center
Left
Right
Waal
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
2000 4000 6000 8000Discharge (m3/s)
Roughness height vs discharge
39
Darcy-Weisbach f vs discharge
Bovenrijn
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
2500 5000 7500 10000Discharge (m3/s)
Dar
cy-W
eisb
ach
f
centerLeft Right
Waal
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
2000 4000 6000 8000Discharge (m3/s)
Manning n vs discharge
Bovenrijn
0.02
0.03
0.04
2500 5000 7500 10000Discharge (m3/s)
Man
nin
g n
CenterLeft Right
Waal
0.02
0.03
0.04
2000 4000 6000 800Discharge (m3/s)
Man
nin
g n
40
Downstream Hydraulic Geometry of the Rio Grande, New Mexico
41
Cochiti Dam
N
42
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
189
5
190
5
191
5
192
5
193
5
194
5
195
5
196
5
197
5
198
5
199
5
An
nu
al P
eak
Flo
w (
m3 /s
)
Otowi Gage - Upstream of Dam
Cochiti Gage - Downstream of Dam
1973 - Cochiti Dam Closed
Peak Annual Discharge
Annual Average Daily Sediment Concentration
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
4,500
1956
1958
1960
1962
1964
1966
1968
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
Year
Annual
Ave
rage
Dai
ly S
edim
ent
Con
centr
atio
n (
mg/L
)
Otowi Gage - Upstream of Dam
Cochiti Gage - Downstream of dam
Bernalillo Gage - Reach Outflow
Albuquerque - Reach Outflow
1973 - Cochiti Dam Closed
43
1992 Ac tive Ch anne lSu brea ch d e lin eationReach de lineation
N
C ochiti R eachR io G rand e, N ew M ex ico
0 2 4 6 8 10 Kilo m eter s
1.1
1.92.1
4.6
3.54.1
3.1
2.6
26 Subreaches
284 Cross sections
4 Reaches
Cross section CO-2
5208
5210
5212
5214
5216
5218
5220
5222
5224
0 100 200 300 400 500
Distance from left bank reference point (ft)
Ele
vati
on
(ft
)
Nov-75
Apr-79
Jul-79
Jan-80
Jul-92
Aug-952.1 miles
dowstream from Cochiti Dam
44
Cross section CO-18
5102
5104
5106
5108
5110
5112
5114
5116
5118
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Distance from left bank reference point (feet)
Ele
vati
on
(fe
et)
Nov-75Apr-79Jul-79Jan-80Oct-82Nov-83Nov-86Jul-92Aug-95
17 miles downstream from
Cochiti Dam
Cross section CO-24
5066
5068
5070
5072
5074
5076
5078
5080
5082
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Distance from left bank reference point (feet)
Ele
vati
on
(fe
et)
Nov-75Apr-79Jul-79Jan-80Oct-82Nov-83Jul-92Aug-95
22.5 miles downstream from Cochiti Dam
45
Change in Mean Bed Elevation
-1.6
-1.4
-1.2
-1.0
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0.0
0.2
0.4
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
CO-line Number
Chan
ge
in M
ean B
ed E
leva
tion (m
)
Reach 1 Reach 2 Reach 3 Reach 4
Bed material size
0.1
1
10
100
Reach 1 Reach 2 Reach 3 Reach 4
Med
ian
bed
mat
eria
l siz
e, d
50 (
mm
)
1918193519491962197219851992Gravel
Sand
46
Sinuosity
1.00
1.05
1.10
1.15
1.20
1.25
Reach 1 Reach 2 Reach 3 Reach 4
Sinu
osity
1918193519491962197219851992
Active channel width
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
Reach 1 Reach 2 Reach 3 Reach 4
Reac
h Av
erag
ed A
ctiv
e Ch
anne
l Wid
th (
m)
1918
1935
1949
1962
1972
1985
1992
47
1935 1972 1992
N
Planform geometry
Planform AdjustmentsBraided Meandering
48
Lateral Adjustments
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Active Channel Width from Aerial Photos (m)
Pre
dic
ted
Eq
uil
ibri
um
Wid
th (
m)
J & W
S & A (coarsematerial)
S & A (sandbed & banks)
Lacey
Perfect Agreement
Equilibrium?Hydraulic Geometry Equations
49
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
0 100 200 300 400
Active Channel Width (m)
Eq
uil
ibri
um
Wid
th (
m)
(Ju
lien
-War
gad
alam
199
5) 1918
1935
1949
1962
1972
1985
1992 19181992
Hydraulic Geometry Equations
(Julien & Wargadalam 1995)
Modeling Lateral Movement
Deviation from Equilibrium
kteoe eWWWW
eWWkdt
dW
)( eWWkM
50
0
1000
0 50 100 150 200Time
Wid
th
Equilibrium Width = We
kteoe eWWWW
eWWkdt
dW
Modeling Width ChangeDeviation from equilibrium width
Exponential Model Results
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
1915 1935 1955 1975 1995 2015
Time (years)
Ac
tiv
e c
ha
nn
el
wid
th (
m) Observed
PredictedEquilibrium Width from J-W
r2 = 0.96
Reach 1
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
1915 1935 1955 1975 1995 2015
Time (years)
Ac
tiv
e c
ha
nn
el
wid
th (
m)
r2 = 0.91
Reach 2
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
1915 1935 1955 1975 1995 2015
Time (years)
Ac
tiv
e c
ha
nn
el
wid
th (
m)
r2 = 0.98
Reach 3
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
1915 1935 1955 1975 1995 2015
Time (years)
Ac
tiv
e c
ha
nn
el
wid
th (
m)
r2 = 0.81
Reach 4
51
Conclusions
Bedforms affect resistance to flow and Manning n can increase during floods.
The effects of Cochiti Dam on the Rio Grande are primarily degradation and armouring. There is relatively little effect on channel width.
The rate of change in channel width is proportional to the deviation from the equilibrium channel width.
5. Flow Pulses Downstream of Reservoirs
52
Hapcheon Re-regulation Dam
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
time (hr)
wat
er d
epth
(m
)
Plan view from Main dam to Re-regulation dam
Main Dam
Re-regulation Dam
Main Power Station
Diversion Tunnel
119 m3/s during 3 hr per day
20 m3/s during 24 hr per day
Spillway
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
0 50 100 150 200 250
Time (hour, Jul y 01 2005, 01:00 - Ju ly 10 2005, 24:00)
Flo
w rate
(m
3/s)
Discharge at main dam
Discharge at re-regulation dam
53
Study Reach
Hapcheon Main Dam
Re-regulation Dam
Nakdong River
Study Reach = 45 km
Hapcheon city
Degradation and armouring
40 km
37
39
41
43
45
47
49
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
width (m)
bed
elev
atio
n (m
)
1983
2003
54
1 0 1 Kilometers
N
Sub-reach 1
Sub-reach 2
Sub-reach 3
Variation of Non-vegetated Active Channel
Planform
1982
1993
2004
Variation of Non-vegetatedActive Channel Width
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
051015202530354045
Distance from the confluence with the Nakdong River (km)
Active c
hannel w
idth
(m
)
1982
1993
2004
1982_avg.
1993_avg.
2004_avg.
55
River changes below Hapcheon dam
2004
2007
1983
0.1
1
10
100
051015202530354045
Distance from the confluence (km)
Par
ticl
e si
ze, d
m (
mm
)
198319932003
Median Bed Material Size (d50) along the study reach
Sub-reach 1 Sub-reach 2 Sub-reach 3
56
Lake Borgne Surge Barrier, New Orleans, LA
~ $10 billion … too much or not enough?
ACKNOWLEDGMENTSDr. John England, USBR and RMCDr. Mark Velleux, HDRDr. Jazuri Abdullah, UiTMDr. Shazwani N. Muhammad, UKMDr. Sahol Abu Bakar, UiTMAtikah Shafie, DID MalaysiaDr. Junaidah Ariffin, UiTMDr. Kate White, CRRELPatrick O’Brien, CRREL and ERDC… so many others …
MuchasGracias!
pierre@engr.colostate.edu
57
Thank You!pierre@engr.colostate.edu