Assessment of stage–discharge predictors for compound open-channels. (October 2015)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Fernandes, J.N.; Leal, J.B.; Cardoso, A.H.
• Is Part Of: Flow measurement and instrumentation. Volume 45(2015:Oct.)
• Page Start: 62
• Page End: 67
• Publication Date: 2015-10
• Subjects: Compound channels -- Floodplain -- Main channel -- Momentum transfer -- Flow discharge prediction; Fluid dynamic measurements -- Periodicals; Flow meters -- Periodicals; Fluides, Dynamique des -- Mesure -- Périodiques; Débitmètres -- Périodiques; 681.2805
• DOI: 10.1016/j.flowmeasinst.2015.04.010
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0955-5986

Abstract

Abstract: The accurate prediction of flood levels and velocities is a prerequisite to any appropriate management of river valleys, where the mitigation of environmental, economic or human losses caused by flood events is of paramount importance. During these events, rivers frequently acquire a compound channel configuration. Due to the 3D nature of compound channel flows, the stage–discharge curves are not as easily predicted as in single channels. Despite the availability of 2D and 3D flow models that may solve this question, 1D methods are often preferred due to the reduced data required and to the much shorter processing time. In the last five decades, important research efforts have been devoted to the improvement of 1D predictors of stage–discharge curves in compound channels. In this study, the accuracy of seven of those methods is assessed by comparing their predictions with a large experimental dataset, comprising symmetrical and asymmetrical compound channels with vertical and inclined main channel sidewalls, and smooth and rough floodplains. To the authors' best knowledge, this is the most comprehensive assessment of stage–discharge predictors for straight compound channels since it involves the highest number of predictors applied to the widest data set. It was concluded that the methods that account for the momentum transfer between the main channel and the floodplains display considerably better results than the traditional methods. For relative depth (ratio between floodplain and main channel flow depths) higher than 0.25, predicted discharges for the methods that account for the turbulent momentum exchange are within 5% of observed values. Depending on whether the flow depth or the flow discharge is the pertinent variable, two different methods seem to be the most appropriate to produce precise and safe predictions. Highlights: An appropriate river management requires a corrected assessment of the stage–discharge relations. The accuracy of seven stage–discharge predictors is assessed. The most common predictor systematically over-predicts the flow discharge with errors up to 11%. EDM and COHM may be implemented for symmetric and asymmetric configurations, respectively.