Review

Adapted from Brierley and Fryers.

An approach to River Characteriza<on

Valley Connement
River morphology
Planform (number of channels, sinuosity, stability)
Floodplain characteris<cs
Channel Size
Channel Morphology
Bank Morphology
Bed Morphology
Bars
Bedforms
Ripples
Dunes
Func<on of local hydraulics
depth, shear stress (velocity),
sediment supply.

Bank erosion processes

Existence of cohesion because silt/clay dominate upper
part of many banks Creates Stability
Stability controlled by strength of basal materials
Gravity contributes to stability and instability
Vegeta<on contributes to bank strength
Smith (1976)

Silty banks with no veg [erosion rate = 265 kg/hr] [lateral erosion rate = 162 cm/hr]
Silty banks with 17% root reinforcement and 5 cm of root reinforcement [erosion rate =
0.01 kg/hr] [lateral erosion rate = 0.018 cm/hr]

Weakening mechanisms
Prewe[ng
Desicca<on
Freeze-thaw

Processes

Hydraulic ac<on

Fluvial entrainment
Undercu[ng

Mass failure

Slab failures
Rota<onal failures

Smith (1976), Eect of vegeta7on on lateral migra7on of anastomosed channels of

a glacier meltwater river. GSA Bulle7n 87: 857-860.
Thorne (1982), Processes and mechanisms of river bank erosion, in Gravel-bed
Rivers, Hey et al. eds. Wiley, 227-271.

Bank morphology
Bank morphology records the balance of
erosional and deposi<onal processes
associated with dierent transport, alignment,
and ow energy at dierent discharges
Bank angle primarily is determined by the
type of the bank material
Cohesive material forms steeper banks

Measure Stability of Bank Using Factor of Safety:

Factor of Safety: Resis<ng Forces/Driving Forces
Fs> 1 STABLE
Fs< 1 UNSTABLE

Resis7ng Forces: cohesion and fric7on

f (w (pore- water pressure), (effective angle of internal friction), c
(cohesion of soil), (normal stress))

Driving Forces:
f (bank height, slope, weight of bank material (soil + water), surcharge)

Review of impacts in Simon and Collison 2002

Shear Strength of the Soil (sediment)

fn (cohesion, bank height, slope angle, water content)

f = c + (-w)tan
shear
strength

eec<ve
cohesion

eec<ve angle of
internal fric<on
normal
stress

pore-water
pressure

Mohr-Coulomb Equa<on for the shear strength of soils

Review of impacts in Simon and Collison 2002

Cohesion
Increased (or Decreased) directly with:
Clays
Roots
Cemen<ng of minerals

Other factors that add (or reduce) cohesion:
Water Content as it relates to
pore pressure (matric suc<on)
fric<on angle

hip://www.cals.ncsu.edu/course/zo419/lectaids.html

Vegeta<ve Eects on Bank Stability

Hydrologic Impacts
Stabilizing (reduce pore water pressures) (Remember:( = - ))
a
w
Intercep<on and ET
Destabilizing (increase pore water pressures)
Concentrate ow in certain areas i.e. stem ow

Mechanical Impacts
Stabilizing
Root reinforcement- added cohesion
Increase normal stress
Destabilizing
Surcharge weight of the trees on the bank.

Review of impacts in Simon and Collison 2002

Characterize added cohesion from

roots and their distribu<on in the
bank

Cr soil cohesion
Simon and Collison 2002; Pollen and Simon 2005

Use a jet-test in the eld Test the erodibility of sediment

= k(e-c)
eec<ve and cri<cal
erosion rate
shear stress (Pa)
(m/s)
erodibility
coecient (m3/
N-s)
Greg Hanson

(Hanson 1990; Constan<ne et al 2010)

Bank Erodibility and Migra<on Rates

Empirically derive meander migra<on rate many meander evolu<on models
employ a coecient of bank erosion E. Typically determined through planform
changes thus, unclear physical meaning.

M = E * ub
M = migra<on rate
E = coecient of bank erosion typically
determined by historic planform changes
Ub = dierence between depth-averaged
near-bank velocity and the cross-sec<onally
average velocity.

= k(e-c)
erosion rate
(m/s)

erodibility
coecient (m3/
N-s)

Constan<ne et al., 2010

eec<ve and cri<cal

shear stress (Pa)

Suggests that E is directly related to k

M = E * ub

Photo: M.B. Singer

Sacramento River Test show:

Vegeta<on plays a minor role
Bank material proper<es
dominate
Limit to migra<on is the
erosion of the unconsolidated
basal layer
BUT, this rela@onship may vary with:
The size of the river
Roo<ng depth and bank height
Timeframe over which these variables
are measured

Fine-grained overbank deposits

Root Zone
Bank angle

Bank Toe

Coarse-grained bar deposits and basal

sands (bedload)

What can we infer from bank morphology?

Bank morphology generally dictated by:

1) Sediment mixture (homogenous, cohesion)
2) Vegeta<on
3) Mass movement mechanisms

Other factors that play a major role in bank

morphology:
Coarsening vs Fining Upward Proles

Locally sourced resistant/forcing
elements

Recent history of erosional deposi<onal
processes

However, generally bank morphologies are simple.

Many have bank-aiached bars that create a low-
sloped, stepped morphology.

Modeling Bank Stability/Failure

Takes slope stability approach
Best for steep banks
Model accounts for bank material, bank geometry, added cohesion from roots, and
groundwater
Also incorporates uvial erosion

Developed by Andrew Simon and others

at the USDS-ARS

hip://www.ars.usda.gov/research/docs.htm?docid=5044

Rela%ve Eects of Mechanical and Hydrologic Impacts Vegeta%on

Mechanical eects root tensile strength, root distribu<on, root diameter/area

Hydrologic eects stem ow (water inltra<on around trunk), canopy intercep<on,
pore-water pressure (suc<on).
Simon and Collison 2002

qIncreased Fs due to tree

cover (winter 2000)
qDecrease in Fs with large
rainstorm
qFs begins to rise again due
to higher matric suc7ons
(greatest under trees due to
transpira7on)
qSoil moisture decit
protected bank through
January un7l next storm.
qEarly season winter rain
resulted in failure because
there was no intercep7on
from the canopy.

Role of Invasive Vegeta@on In Channel Narrowing

Rapid invasion of Tamarisk and Russian
Olive
Incised channel with sandy banks (no
cohesion)
NPS interested in vegeta<on removal and
channel recovery

(Pollen-Bankhead et al 2009 Canyon de Chelly)

shape aiributes
Symmetrical
May be erosional channel or cross-over between bends

Asymmetrical
Typical of one side of channel erosional and one side is
deposi<onal

Irregular
Compound

Channel Cross-sec<on Form

Width (B)
Mean depth (h)
Cross-sec<on area (A)
Weied perimeter (P)
Hydraulic radius (R)
Maximum depth (hmax)
Bed width (Bbed)

Width/depth (B/h)
hmax / hmean
asymmetry indices
A* = (Ar - Al)/A

Ar area to right of center

Al area to lev of center

A2 = 2x (hmax - h) / A

X hor dist from center

to max depth

From Knighton

Channel size
Channels with steep slopes and channels transpor<ng large
volumes of coarse bedload with braided channels are typically
wide and shallow
Channels, especially sand channels, with ashy discharge are
typically wide
Channels with dense riparian vegeta<on are narrower and
deeper than with sparse vegeta<on
Regime theory and hydraulic geometry -- be aware of regional
se[ng of the data and condi<on of the channels that were
measured
Is it possible to predict channel geometry??? i.e. channel
width??? Given certain hydrologic parameters and drainage
basin aiributes.

Hydraulic geometry rela<ons: at-

a-sta<on

The mathema<cal form of

these rela<ons is:
B = aQb
h = cQf
U = kQm

This plot is an at-a-sta<on hydraulic

geometry plot, because it depicts
changes that occur at one place on the
channel

Note: Q = B h U = ackQ(b+f+m)

at-a-station

downstream
The hydraulic geometry of
streams:

nB

= aQb

nb

= 0.26
nb = 0.5
nh = cQf
nf

= 0.40
nf = 0.4
nU = kQm
nm = 0.34
nm = 0.1

(Leopold, 1994)

or use regional relations between drainage basin area and width

We do not yet have a good physically-based model that predicts

channel width. The downstream hydraulic geometry is a good
predictor of channel width, But there is a significant degree of
scatter, and natural variability
n

B = aQ0.5

Given a certain hydrology, and certain drainage basin aiributes, how else
can we approach the problem of predic<ng channel geometry?

Methods to es<mate channel-forming discharge:

1. Bankfull discharge a eld-based channel a[ribute

Original observa<ons: heavily grazed meadow,

single-thread meandering stream, rapid
migra<on rate, maintenance of channel
conveyance over a decade of channel movement
Big Creek, UT:
meandering form, very
slow migra<on rate

Florence Creek, MT: coarse-bedded, straight channel,

very slow migra<on rate

Original eld iden<ca<on criteria

(top of the at-lying alluvial
surface), now expanded to include
non-geomorphic aiributes (i.e.,
lower eleva<on of perennial
vegeta<on, stain lines)

Methods to es<mate channel-forming discharge:

1. Bankfull discharge a eld-based channel a[ribute

Although several criteria have been iden7ed to assist in eld

iden7ca7on of bank-full stage considerable experience is
required to apply these in prac7ce, especially on rivers that have
in the past undergone aggrada7on or degrada7on.
(Biedenharn et al. 2008)

Harrelson et al. 1994. Stream channel reference sites: an illustrated

guide to eld technique. General Report No. RM-245, U. S. Forest
Service.

CHANNEL WIDTH CHANGE OVER TIME

PRE-DAM

114

POST-DAM

110
106
102
98

BANKFULL CHANNEL WIDTH, IN METERS

1920

1930

1940

1950

1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

160.0
140.0

MEAN CHANNEL WIDTH, IN METERS

0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2

SECONDARY CHANNEL AREA, IN SQ. METERS

1920

1930

1940

1950

1960

1970

DATE
Allred and Schmidt, 1999 Green River near Green River, UT.

1980

1990

2000

Methods to es<mate channel-forming discharge:

2. Specied recurrence of peak -- objec7vely dened
from hydrologic data

because of the
uncertain7es , it is
recommended that
discharges [of 1-3 yr
recurrence] be compared to
the bank-full stage in the
eld to verify that they do
have morphological
signicance.
(Biedenharn et al. 2008)

assuming a priori that Qri is
related to either Qbf or Qef
should be avoided in channel
design (Shields et al., 2008)

1.06

19% of obs: 1.36<RI<2.2 yr

75% of obs within box

ALL n = 107

Williams, 1978 CO, UT, NM, OR

Leopold, Wolman, Miller 1964 IN, NB, MS, MD

Kilpatrick & Barnes, 1964 AL, GA, NC, SC

2 @ 200 yrs -->
Wolman and Leopold, 1957 WY, MT, MD, NC, SC, CT

10
Return Period of Bankfull Flow (years)

100

Many studies show that the 1-3 yr recurrence

has liPle to do with the bankfull discharge!!!
Bad approxima@on!!!

Soar. 2000. Channel restora7on design for meandering rivers. Ph. D. thesis, University of Nohngham, UK.

Methods to es<mate channel-forming discharge:

3. Eec7ve discharge a calculated value based on
sediment transport data
(Wolman and
Miller, 1960)

(Andrews, 1980)

But many studies have shown that eec<ve

discharge is not equivalent to bank-full discharge
and that the eec<ve discharge may not always
be a direct surrogate for the channel-forming
ow

(Baker, 1977)

Eec<ve discharge is the best basis for channel

restora<on design (Shields et al., 2008)

The channel-forming discharge

(Po et al., 1997)

Long-term average channel form depends on the <me-

averaged magnitude of erosion and deposi<on (recovery)
processes. Rivers where recovery processes are faster
typically are adjusted to more common oods. Channels with
less riparian vegeta<on and with highly variable, ephemeral
ow are more likely to have disequilibrium morphologies.

Wolman and Gerson, 1978)

Method for determining eec<ve discharge (method in montecarlo.xls)

1A) Obtain discharge data for at least 10-15 year period.

well established that mean daily discharge masks role of short-dura<on
events. Thus, hourly or 15-min data should be used for small streams if data
exist.
USGS Instantaneous Data Archive hip://ida.water.usgs.gov/ida/index.cfm

2) Develop sediment ra<ng curve, for transport of those sediment sizes that
form the channel boundary
bed material only or include sizes that comprise the banks and natural
levees?

3) Determine the transport by each discharge event

4) Establish discharge bins and sum total transport for each bin

5) Determine sensi<vity of Qef to bin size

6) Iden<fy modal value

Accoun<ng for Bank Stability/Erosion Improves Width

Predic<ons
unconstrained

Eaton and Millar 2004

constrained

In an unstable channel that adjusts its form to a changing hydrologic

and sediment supply regime, Qbf does not equal Qef. Therefore, the
expression bank-full discharge should never be used to refer to Qri or
Qef.

Problems associated with eec<ve discharge calcula<ons (Shields et al., 2008)

1. Computed values are sensi<ve to the number of increments used to build
the discharge histogram
2. Eec<ve discharge is just one ow that over-simplies the actual ow
regime and its history
3. Limited applicability to unstable channels and those where a catastrophic
event has occurred during the period of record. Flow frequency and
sediment-transport rela<ons may have changed as system adjusts to this
event.

References
B-F: 93-108
B: 162-180
Knighton, 165-187
L: 126-182

Mueller, E. R., and Pitlick, J. (2005), Morphologically based model of bed load transport
capacity in a headwater stream. Journal of Geophysical Research, 110, F02016, doi:
10.1029/2003JF000117.
Parker, G., et al. (2003), Eect of oodwater extrac<on on mountain stream morphology.
Journal of Hydraulic Engineering 129:885-895.
Pitlick, J., and Cress, R. (2002), Downstream changes in the channel geometry of a large
gravel bed river. Water Resources Research 38(10), 1216, doi:10.1029/2001WR000898.