Next Article in Journal
Uncertainty Analysis of a Two-Dimensional Hydraulic Model
Previous Article in Journal
Water Resources Allocation in Transboundary River Based on Asymmetric Nash–Harsanyi Leader–Follower Game Model
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Evaluation and Comparison of Extremal Hypothesis-Based Regime Methods

1
College of Water Conservancy and Hydropower Engineering, Hohai University, Nanjing 210098, China
2
State Key Laboratory of Hydrology-Water Resources and Hydraulic Engineering, Nanjing 210098, China
3
National Engineering Research Center for Water Resources Efficient Utilization and Engineering Safety, Nanjing 210098, China
4
Key Laboratory of Integrated Regulation and Resource Development of Shallow Lakes, Ministry of Education, College of Environment, Hohai University, Nanjing 210098, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Water 2018, 10(3), 271; https://doi.org/10.3390/w10030271
Submission received: 18 January 2018 / Revised: 19 February 2018 / Accepted: 19 February 2018 / Published: 4 March 2018

Abstract

:
Regime channels are important for stable canal design and to determine river response to environmental changes, e.g., due to the construction of a dam, land use change, and climate shifts. A plethora of methods is available describing the hydraulic geometry of alluvial rivers in the regime. However, comparison of these methods using the same set of data seems lacking. In this study, we evaluate and compare four different extremal hypothesis-based regime methods, namely minimization of Froude number (MFN), maximum entropy and minimum energy dissipation rate (ME and MEDR), maximum flow efficiency (MFE), and Millar’s method, by dividing regime channel data into sand and gravel beds. The results show that for sand bed channels MFN gives a very high accuracy of prediction for regime channel width and depth. For gravel bed channels we find that MFN and ‘ME and MEDR’ give a very high accuracy of prediction for width and depth. Therefore the notion that extremal hypotheses which do not contain bank stability criteria are inappropriate for use is shown false as both MFN and ‘ME and MEDR’ lack bank stability criteria. Also, we find that bank vegetation has significant influence in the prediction of hydraulic geometry by MFN and ‘ME and MEDR’.

1. Introduction

An alluvial channel, either artificial or natural, persists to deform its boundary by itself while transporting water and sediments. Nevertheless, if water and sediment rate remain constant, the deformation ceases after a certain period to achieve regime state or dynamic equilibrium or quasi-equilibrium [1]. In regime state, the hydraulic geometry characteristics of the channel remain invariant with time, thus having many economic and ecological benefits. Regime channels have been used for stable canal design [2,3] and to determine river response to environmental changes like climate shifts, construction of dams, land use changes, and river training [4,5,6,7].
A plethora of methods is available describing the hydraulic geometry of alluvial rivers in the regime. American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) Task Committee [8] has grouped regime methods into empirical (regime theory and power law), rational, or mechanistic and extremal hypotheses. Review of regime methods can be found in [9,10,11,12,13]. There is progressive development in the methods where old regime methods act as stepping stones for new methods which try to define dominant physical processes forming the regime channels. For example, in the development of empirical methods, Kennedy [14] was the first to observe that stable canals, neither aggrading nor degrading, exhibited power-law relations between velocity and depth. Subsequently, Lacey [15] incorporated boundary materials in Kennedy’s relations, while Blench [16] further developed Lacey’s method by defining separate factors describing bed and bank composition. While previous empirical regime equations were only for sand bed channels, Hey and Thorne [2] and Davidson and Hey [17] extended regime equations to gravel bed channels. Similarly, in rational methods, Lane [18] gave the tractive force approach to predict regime channels but could not explain sediment transport in the channel. This deficiency was solved by Parker [19,20] by postulating lateral diffusion of suspended sediment and then used single perturbation techniques to calculate regime channel characteristics. Ikeda et al. [21] modified Parker’s model for heterogeneous materials and Ikeda and Izumi [22] for vegetation influence.
Empirical regime methods have many drawbacks in that they are site-specific and dimensionally inhomogeneous [8]. Therefore, their validity is constrained to basins and data where they are developed. Farias et al. [23] have shown that regime methods based on extremal hypotheses predict regime channels better than empirical methods. Similarly, rational methods also have many drawbacks, for example, only regime channel depth can be readily determined from Parker’s model, which yields larger depth for smaller channels and smaller depth for larger channels. Moreover, Nanson and Huang [13] argued that rational regime models can only be used for stable profiles at an individual cross-section of a channel. Of late, Khodashenas [24] found that rational methods did not give satisfactory results in predicting regime channels and proposed an additional study of these methods.
Although extremal methods have been called the illusion of progress [25], they have been used for stable canal design and to determine channel pattern [26], river response to land use changes, and channel changes [4], and to predict the equilibrium geometry of a river [27]. However, which extremal hypothesis should be used remains a topic of debate because there is no convincing theoretical explanation for any of the hypotheses [13,28].
Extremal methods or optimality theory is based on the assumption that regime state is achieved when a certain energy or mechanistically related parameter, K * , is either maximized or minimized [1]. Generally regime channel characteristics B R ,   h R and S R are determined by simultaneously solving the following three equations [1]:
Q = f Q ( B R ,   h R ,   S R ,   c R )   ( Resistance   equation )
Q s = f Q ( B R ,   h R ,   S R ,   c R )   ( Bed   load   transport   equation )
dK * =   0   ( Optimization   criteria )
where Q is the bankfull discharge, B R is the regime channel width, h R is the regime channel depth, S R is the regime channel slope, Q s is the bed load, and c R is the Chézy resistance coefficient at regime state defined by c R = f c ( h R ,   S R ) . Based on the parameter of optimization K * the following extremal methods are found in the literature: maximum sediment transport capacity (MSTC) [29,30,31], minimum stream power (MSP) [26,32], minimum energy dissipation rate (MEDR) [33], minimum unit stream power (MUSP) [34], maximum friction factor (MFF) [35], and maximum flow efficiency (MFE) [27,28,36,37].
Though developed by different researchers, some of these methods tend to be equivalent. For example, MSP and MSTC give identical results [28,38]. MFE is the general case of MSP and MSTC [15,27,28]. MEDR is the general case of MSP and MUSP [35]. Davies and Sutherland [35] have shown that under certain circumstances, MFF is the general case of MEDR, MSP, and MUSP. In our study we have taken MFE as a typical representative of these methods because it has been widely used for regime channel computation [27] and to determine river channel pattern [13]. Moreover, MFE has been proven using the principle of least action [28].
In other developments, MSTC, MSP, MEDR, MUSP, MFF, and MFE have been criticised by Millar and Quick [38], Eaton and Millar [39], and Millar [40] for predicting very low regime channel width/depth ratios and thus resulting low values for regime channel width B R and high values for depth h R . For example, MFE yields a width/depth ratio of 2.5 while MEDR yields 2 [40]. This low prediction of width/depth ratio has been attributed to lack of bank stability or bank strength criteria in their formulation [38,39,40]. Millar and Quick [38] thus developed a model which incorporated bank stability criteria in the model of MSTC which has the form
Q = f Q ( B R ,   h R ,   S R ,   c R )   ( Resistance   equation )
Q s = f Q ( B R ,   h R ,   S R ,   c R )   ( Bed   load   transport   equation )
dK * = 0   ( Optimization   criteria )
τ bank τ bankc   ( Bank   stability   criteria )
where τ bank is the shear stress of the bank, and τ bankc is the critical shear stress of the bank. Eaton and Millar [39], using the model of Millar and Quick [38], have shown that regime models that are not constrained by bank stability are only suitable for highly resistant boundaries. Millar [40] again refined the model of Millar and Quick [38] with a different sediment transport equation and dimensionless form of MSTC. The model developed by Millar [40] is named as Millar’s method for this article.
In contrast to MSTC, MSP, MEDR, MUSP, MFF, and MFE, minimization of Froude number (MFN) uses a width equation instead of a sediment transport equation. Yalin and Da Silva [1] contend that the value of bed load Q s in Equation (2) is not known beforehand except in controlled laboratory experiments. Moreover, there is large uncertainty in the calculation of Q s [26,41]. Thus, they developed a width equation by using dimensional analysis and calculated regime channel characteristics and incorporating a resistance equation, width equation, and an optimization criteria.
Singh et al. [42], influenced by the work of Deng and Zhang [43], developed a regime method by combining principles of maximum entropy and minimum energy dissipation rate (ME and MEDR).
The purpose of this work is to evaluate and compare four different extremal hypothesis-based regime methods, namely minimization of Froude number (MFN), maximum entropy and minimum energy dissipation rate (ME and MEDR), maximum flow efficiency (MFE), and Millar’s method, by dividing the regime dataset into sand and gravel. All of the four methods are different in their procedure to compute regime channel characteristics which are described in Section 2. The dataset is divided into sand and gravel bed for evaluation.

2. Description of Methods

2.1. Maximum Flow Efficiency (MFE)

Huang and Nanson [28,36] defined MFE as maximum sediment transport capacity per unit available power and expressed as
Max   F e ( ζ ) = Max Q S Ω a ( ζ )
where F e is a measure of flow efficiency, Ω is the total energy of flow in the form of the product of flow discharge and energy slope (=γQS, where γ is the specific weight of water and Q is the bank full discharge), ζ is the width to depth ratio, and α is an exponent of less than 1.0 and also varies with bed load transport equations adopted.
Using the Manning–Strickler flow resistance Equation (9) and Meyer–Peter and Müller bed load Equation (10) modified by MFE theory, Huang et al. [27] derived regime channel width B R given by Equation (13) and depth h R given by Equation (14) using MFE as an optimization criteria. This method is typically representative of methods using bed load transport to calculate regime channel.
V = c f gRS ( R D 50 ) 1 / 6   ( Flow   resistance   equation )
where V is the flow velocity (m/s), g is acceleration due to gravity (m/s2), R is the hydraulic radius (m), S is the slope, D 50 is median bed sediment size (m), and c f is the frictional coefficient, which has relation with Manning’s coefficient (n), given by c f = D 50 1 / 6 ng 1 / 2 .
= c b ( τ b * τ c * ) β   ( Bed   load   equation )
where is the dimensionless sediment transport rate expressed by Equation (11), c b is the coefficient whose value is 6, τ b * is a dimensionless flow strength parameter given by Equation (12), τ c * is the dimensionless critical shear stress of flow for the incipient motion of bed sediments whose value is 0.047, and β is an exponent whose value is 5/3.
= q b γ s ( γ s γ 1 ) gD 50 3
τ b * = τ o ( γ s γ ) D 50
where q b is the rate of bed load discharge in dry volume per unit channel width, τ o is the shear stress of the flow and γ s is the specific weight of the sediments.
B R =   ( Q C f gS ) 3 8 D 50 1 16 ζ m 3 8 ( ζ m + 2 ) 1 4
h R = ( Q C f gS ) 3 8 D 50 1 16 ζ m 13 8 ( ζ m + 2 ) 1 4
where ζ m is the optimum channel width/depth ratio which can be determined by solving the Equation (15)
k 2 ζ m 3 8 ( ζ m + 2 ) 3 4 τ c * = 3 β ( ζ m 2 ) τ c * 6 ( 1 + β ) + ( 5 3 β ) ζ m
The maximum bed load discharge can be determined by Equation (16).
Q s = k 1 ζ 3 8 ( ζ + 2 ) 1 4 [ k 2 ζ 3 / 8 ( ζ + 2 ) 3 / 4 τ c * ] β
where k 1 and k 2 are coefficients given by Equations (17) and (18), respectively.
k 1 =   c b ( γ s γ 1 ) g d 25 / 16 ( Q c f gS ) 3 / 8
k 2 =   S 13 / 16 ( γ s γ 1 ) d 15 / 16 ( Q c f g ) 3 / 8

2.2. Minimization of Froude Number (MFN)

For calculating regime channel characteristics B R and h R , Yalin and Da Silva [1] used resistance Equation (19), width Equation (20), and minimization of Froude number Equation (21) as an optimization criteria. The optimization criteria of minimization of Froude number was derived from principles of thermodynamics. In contrast to other extremal hypotheses, the bed load transport equation is supplanted by a width equation.
( F r ) R = Q 2 ( gB R 2 h R 3 )   ( Resistance   equation )
B R = α B Q v * cr   ( Width   Equation )
( F r ) R =   c R 2 S R   min ( Minimum   Froude   number )
The detailed procedure for solving Equations (19)–(21) is shown in [1] (p. 95).

2.3. Maximum Entropy and Minimum Energy Dissipation Rate (ME and MEDR)

Singh et al. [44] used two hypotheses for calculating stable hydraulic geometry. The first hypothesis is that “the spatial variation of the stream power of a channel for a given discharge is accomplished by the spatial variation in channel form (flow depth and channel width) and hydraulic variables, including energy slope, flow velocity, and friction”. Using this hypothesis, they derived the following relations:
P n = 2 n γ Q 3 B 2 h 10 / 3   [ dn / dx ] [ d ( SP ) / dx ]
P B =   2 n 2 γ Q 3 B 3 h 10 / 3   [ dB / dx ] [ d ( SP ) / dx ]
P h =   10 γ n 2 Q 3 3 B 2 h 13 / 3   [ dh / dx ] [ d ( SP ) / dx ]
where P n , P B and P h are the proportions of the adjustment of stream power by friction, channel width, and flow depth, respectively, and n, γ, Q, SP, h, B and x are Manning’s roughness coefficient, weight density of water, flow discharge, stream power, flow depth, channel width, and the direction of flow, respectively. Then they applied the second hypothesis that is the principle of maximum entropy and minimum energy dissipation to show P n = P B = P h , which resulted in four sets of possibilities; (1) P n = P B , (2) P h = P B , (3) P n = P h , and (4) P n = P B = P h . These four sets of possibilities were solved to obtain a family of hydraulic geometry relations. The calibration of derived hydraulic geometry relations and morphological coefficients determination were carried out for an assumed V-shaped channel cross-section. It was found that possibility (2) P h = P B , is most prevalent in nature and it was used to validate the hypotheses. The stable hydraulic relations from possibility (2) P h = P B are
B R = 0.50 z Q 0.462 S 0.231
h R = 1.52 ( n z ) 0.6 Q 0.323 S 0.161
where Q is the bankfull discharge(m3/s), z is the stable side slope, and n is the Manning’s coefficient.

2.4. Millar’s Method

Millar and Quick [38] incorporated bank stability criteria, which are influenced by vegetation, in the model of MTC. They found that bank stability criteria have a significant influence on the hydraulic geometry of the channel with the vegetated channel being narrower, deeper, and less steep. Based on the model of Millar and Quick [38], Eaton and Millar [39] argued that extremal models which do not incorporate bank stability criteria are inappropriate for use. Millar [40] derived stable hydraulic geometry characteristics B R , h R in dimensionless form using maximum sediment-transport efficiency as optimization criteria with consideration of dimensionless bankfull discharge ( Q * ), slope (S), and bank strength ( µ ) as independent variables. The relations have the form
B R * = 28 Q * 0.7 S 0.6 µ 1.10
h R * = 0.125   Q * 0.16 S 0.62 µ 0.64
B R h R = 0.155 Q * 0.53 S 1.23 µ 1.74
where B R * is the dimensionless regime channel width ( B R * =   B R / D 50 ), h R * is the dimensionless regime channel depth ( h R * = h R / D 50 ), Q * is dimensionless bankfull discharge given by Equation (30), S is the slope, and µ is the relative bank strength defined as the ratio of critical shear stress for bank to bed sediments given by Equation (31)
Q * = Q D 50 2 gD 50 ( s 1 )
µ = τ bankc τ bedc
where s is the specific gravity of the sediment particle (s = 2.65), τ bankc is the dimensional critical stress (Pa) for the bank sediments, and τ bedc is the dimensional critical stress (Pa) for the bed sediments.

3. Data Selection

Regime channel data for sand bed, in total 266, were assembled from [27,45,46,47]. Each regime channel entailed observed values of bankfull discharge Q ( m 3 / s ) , median bed sediment size D 50 (mm), width B (m), depth h (m), and slope S. Ackert [46] collected regime data from various journals and technical reports. These data were from both laboratory and field channels. Huang et al. [27] collected regime channel data from six different reaches of the middle and lower Yangtze river. Huang et al. [27] used these data to test the predictive capability of MFE. Valentine et al. [46] and Wolman and Brush Jr. [47] collected regime data from self-formed laboratory channels. The description of the sand bed data is shown in Table 1.
Regime channel data for gravel bed, in total 127, were collected from [2,17,48,49]. Each regime channel data entailed observed values of bankfull discharge Q ( m 3 / s ) , median bed sediment size D 50 (mm), width B (m), depth h (m), and slope S. In addition to these observations, information about bank vegetation was also present. Hey et al. [2] and Davidson and Hey [17] divided the bank vegetation into four different classes, namely Type I, which represented grassy banks with no trees or bushes; Type II, 1–5% tree/shrub cover; Type III, 5–50% tree/shrub cover; and Type IV, greater than 50% tree/shrub cover. Similarly, Andrews [48] divided the bank vegetation into thin and thick categories. The description of the gravel data is shown in Table 1.
In addition to the observed values, some more parameters like Manning’s n and critical side slope z are needed in the methods ‘ME and MEDR.’ These were calculated based on observed values. For example, Manning’s n was calculated using observed bankfull discharge, width, depth, and slope [39] while critical side slope z was determined as in [43].

4. Results and Discussion

4.1. For Sand Bed

Predicted regime channel widths B R are plotted against observed widths B R , with log10–transformation applied to both, in Figure 1, and predicted regime channel depths h R are plotted against observed depths h R in Figure 2. Similarly, the disparity ratio, defined as the ratio of predicted to observed value, for width B R and depth h R , is plotted against bankfull discharge in Figure 3 and Figure 4, respectively. The data used are from sand bed channels obtained from [27,45,46,47]. Of the four methods, Miller’s method could not be used because it uses a bed load equation developed only for gravel beds.
Concordance correlation coefficient (CCC) [50] is used to measure the agreement between predicted and observed values. The value of CCC lies between 0 and 1. Mathematically, CCC is given by
CCC = 2 σ 1 σ 2 σ 12 σ 1 2 + σ 2 2 + ( μ 1 μ 2 ) 2
where σ 1 is the standard deviation of the observed values, σ 2 is the standard deviation of the predicted values, μ 1 is the mean of the observed values, μ 2 is the mean of the predicted values, and σ 12 is the Pearson correlation coefficient between the observed and predicted values. In addition to CCC, the percentages of predicted widths and depths falling under a specific error range (say ±30%) is calculated to access the accuracy of the methods. This is important because sediment-transport-related data inevitably plot with a certain degree of scattering along a perfect agreement line. The statistics computed for the three methods are shown in Table 2.

4.1.1. Regime Channel Width

The predicted widths by MFN are well scattered around the perfect agreement line y = x (Figure 1A) with CCC value of 0.96. MFE (Figure 1B) and ‘ME and MEDR’ (Figure 1C) underpredict the regime channel width when the observed width is less than 1m. The CCC value for MFE is 0.95, and that for ‘ME and MEDR’ is 0.95. Also, the percentage of predicted width for MFN falling within ±30% error range is 59% while that for MFE is 26% and ‘ME and MEDR’ is 44% (see Table 2). Similarly, the predicted width to depth ratio for MFN is in the range of 6.8–63 while that for MFE is 2–154, and ‘ME and MEDR’ is 4.2–61 (see Table 2). It is clear from observation of the figures and statistics that MFN gives high accuracy for prediction of regime channel width.

4.1.2. Regime Channel Depth

The predicted depths by MFN are well scattered around the perfect agreement line y = x (Figure 2A) with CCC value of 0.96. Also, the percentage of predicted depths for MFN falling within ±30% error range is 75%. MFE (Figure 2B) and ‘ME and MEDR’ (Figure 2C) overpredict the regime channel depth when the observed width is less than 0.1 m. The CCC value for MFE is 0.95, and that for ‘ME and MEDR’ is 0.95. Also, the percentage of predicted depth within ±30% error range for MFE is 56% while that for ‘ME and MEDR’ is 70% (see Table 2). It is clear from observation of the figures and statistics that MFN gives high accuracy for prediction of regime channel depth.

4.1.3. Underprediction of Width and Overprediction of Depth by MFE

MFE underpredicts the width and overpredicts the depth for certain data points portrayed by +, ∆ (Figure 1B and Figure 2B). These data points are from [46,47]. Such results occurred because of these data points’ width/depth ratio ζ m 2 in Equation (15), which also gives bed load Q s 0 in Equation (16). The width/depth ratio ζ m 2 because for these data points, the shear stress on the bed at regime state is either equal to or less than the critical shear stress for the incipient motion. This is the result of the linear relationship between shear stress and the width/depth ratio [51] given by
τ o τ c τ c = χ [ ζ m ( ζ m ) c ]
where χ is a coefficient, ( ζ m ) c is the width/depth ratio at the critical state of motion whose value is 2. However, Eaton and Millar [39] and Millar [40] have argued that this low prediction of width/depth ratio is due to lack of bank strength or bank stability criteria in the formulation of MFE.

4.2. For Gravel Bed

Predicted regime channel widths B R are compared with observed width with log10–transformation applied to both in Figure 5 and predicted regime channel depths h R are compared with observed depth in Figure 6. Similarly, the disparity ratio for width B R and depth h R is plotted against bankfull discharge in Figure 7 and Figure 8, respectively. All of the four methods are applicable here. Regime data compiled by Hey et al. [2], Andrews [48], Davidson and Hey [17], and Mueller et al. [49] are used. The vegetation classes as described in Section 3 are again divided into two categories, namely sparse vegetation which contains Type I, II, and Thin, and dense vegetation which contains Type III, IV, and Thick, as in [40]. It is essential to divide the regime data into sparse and dense vegetation classes because bank strength µ , which depends upon vegetation density in Millar’s method, is difficult to measure. However, for sparse vegetation class, µ = 1 can be considered [40]. Here only the sparse vegetation category which consists of 82 sets of regime data is used.

Regime Channel Width and Depth

MFE gives the poorest prediction for regime channel width and depth with CCC values for width 0.39 and depth 0.52. Similarly, the percentage of predicted width and depth within ±30% error range is 3% and 3%, respectively. Also, the predicted width to depth ratio is very narrow and is in the range of 2–12. Millar’s method gives a moderately good prediction for regime channel width and depth with CCC values for width 0.83 and depth 0.85. The percentage of predicted width and depth within ±30% error range is 57% and 66%, respectively. The predicted width to depth ratio by Millar’s method is in the range of 4–130. MFN and ‘ME and MEDR’ give an excellent prediction for regime channel width and depth. For MFN the CCC value for width is 0.92 and for depth is 0.91, while for ‘ME and MEDR’ the CCC value for width is 0.94 and for depth is 0.93. Similarly, the percentage of predicted width and depth within ±30% error range is 70% and 82%, respectively, for MFN while for ‘ME and MEDR’ it is 60% and 93%, respectively.
MFE underpredicts the width and overpredicts the depth (Figure 5B and Figure 6B). The predicted width/depth ratio is in the range of 2–12 (see Table 3) which is very low for gravel bed channels because natural gravel tends to have a width/depth ratio greater than 10 [40]. This low prediction of width/depth ratio may be due to a linear relationship between shear stress and width/depth ratio as governed by Equation (33). When the shear stress on the bed surface decreases, then accordingly the width/depth ratio decreases. Nevertheless, Eaton and Millar [39] and Millar [40] have asserted that this low prediction of width/depth ratio is because MFE does not account for bank stability or bank strength criteria in its formulation. Moreover, they argue that optimization or extremal models which are not comprised of bank stability are inappropriate for use in the prediction for regime channels.
However, methods of MFN and ‘ME and MEDR’ do not show such bias towards low prediction of width/depth ratio (see Table 3.) and also do not account for bank strength. The predicted width/depth ratio is in the range of 12.5–28.9 for MFN and 11.4–75 for ‘ME and MEDR’. This may be because MFN and ‘ME and MEDR’ both lack the bed load transport equation as a contrast to MFE for computation of regime channel. MFN uses a width equation instead of the sediment transport equation, while ‘ME and MEDR’ use bankfull discharge, slope, Manning’s coefficient (n), and side slope (z) to calculate regime channel dimensions. The results obtained by MFE and ‘ME and MEDR’ can also be corroborated by empirical regime relations for gravel bed rivers established by Davidson and Hey [17]. They found that regime channel width and depth are independent of bed load but influenced by vegetation. Thus the claim of Eaton and Millar [39] that regime models not comprised of bank strength are inappropriate for use is found to be false because both MFN and ‘ME and MEDR’ give a very high accuracy of prediction for regime channel width and depth.

4.3. Influence of Vegetation in Hydraulic Geometry

Bank vegetation has significant influence on the hydraulic geometry relations of the alluvial channels [2,39,40,48,52]. Bank vegetation affects the coefficient of the hydraulic geometry relations, not the exponent. Strong bank vegetation results in narrow, deep, and steep alluvial channels [10].
In order to show the influence of the vegetation on the regime models of MFN and ‘ME and MEDR’, a similar framework as in [40] is used here. The disparity ratio for width B R and depth h R is plotted against bankfull discharge in Figure 9 and Figure 10, respectively. Millar [40] used bank strength µ = 1 in Equations (27) and (28) to calculate regime channel widths and depths and subsequently found that predicted regime channel widths for the denser vegetation class were wider than their observed counterparts. The predicted depths were shallower than their observed counterparts. These results are vivid in Figure 9A in which the B R disparity ratio for width is greater than 1 for denser vegetation and in Figure 10A, the h R disparity ratio for width is less than 1 for denser vegetation. MFN (Figure 9B and Figure 10B) and ‘ME and MEDR’ (Figure 9C and Figure 10C) also give similar results. This signifies that regime models of MFN and ‘ME and MEDR’ should also incorporate bank vegetation in their computation.

5. Conclusions

Four extremal hypothesis-based regime methods, namely, minimization of Froude number (MFN), maximum flow efficiency (MFE), maximum entropy and minimum energy dissipation rate (ME and MEDR), and Millar’s method, are evaluated and compared by dividing regime channel data into sand and gravel beds. The regime channel data are obtained from various published journal articles.
For sand bed channels, MFN gives a very high accuracy of prediction for regime channel width and depth. This method can be used for river restoration works or to determine channel changes in rivers due to natural or anthropogenic activities. Also, MFN provides a unique advantage among other extremal methods in that bed load is not required to compute regime channel width and depth for both sand and gravel beds. It is important to know that bed load is challenging to measure [40]. MFN requires only bankfull discharge and bed sediment size to compute regime channel characteristics.
The claim that regime models which do not explicitly account for bank strength or bank stability are inappropriate for use is shown false since both MFN and ‘ME and MEDR’ give a very high accuracy of prediction for regime channel width and depth for gravel bed channels. Therefore, these two methods can be used for regime channel computation when the bank is unvegetated and consists of loose gravel (i.e., Bank strength µ = 1 ). However, when the bank has a significant amount of vegetation, these two methods will give erroneous results.
Predicted regime channel widths and depths obtained by MFN and ‘ME and MEDR’ are influenced by bank vegetation. However, these two methods do not account for vegetation influence in their computation. Additional study is required to account for vegetation influence in both MFN and ‘ME and MEDR’. For example, width equation can be redefined in MFN to account for vegetation.
More regime data for both sand and gravel bed is required to evaluate regime methods so attempts should be made to collect data from a large number of sources. This is because regime channel data from the individual source are not fully reliable [1] (p. 93).

Acknowledgments

This research is supported by the National Key RD Program of China (2016YFC0402501), the NSFC (51479071), the 111 project (B17015, B12032) and the Priority Academic Program Development of Jiangsu Higher Education Institutions (PAPD).

Author Contributions

All of the authors have contributed to this paper. Ishwar Joshi analyzed the data and wrote the manuscript, Wenhong Dai is the corresponding author and he formulated the idea, and Ahmed Bilal, Akhanda Raj Upreti, and Ziming He performed the technical review.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Yalin, M.S.; Da Silva, A.M.F. Fluvial Processes; IAHR: Delft, The Netherlands, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  2. Hey, R.D.; Thorne, C.R. Stable Channels With Mobile Gravel Beds. J. Hydraul. Eng. 1986, 112, 671–689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Cao, S.; Knight, D.W. Design for hydraulic geometry of alluvial channels. J. Hydraul. Eng. 1998, 124, 484–492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Eaton, B.C.; Millar, R.G. Predicting gravel bed river response to environmental change: The strengths and limitations of a regime-based approach. Earth Surf. Process. Landf. 2016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Eaton, B.C.; Moore, R.D.; Giles, T.R. Forest fire, bank strength and channel instability: The “unusual” response of Fishtrap Creek, British Columbia. Earth Surf. Process. Landf. 2010, 35, 1167–1183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Simon, A.; Thorne, C.R. Channel adjustment of an unstable coarse-grained stream: opposing trends of boundary and critical shear stress, and the applicability of extremal hypotheses. Earth Surf. Process. Landf. 1996, 21, 155–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Julien, P.Y. Downstream hydraulic geometry of alluvial rivers. IAHS-AISH Proc. Rep. 2014, 367, 3–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. ASCE Task Committee. River Width Adjustment. I: Processes and Mechanisms. J. Hydraul. Eng. 1998, 124, 881–902. [Google Scholar]
  9. Gleason, C.J. Hydraulic geometry of natural rivers: A review and future directions. Prog. Phys. Geogr. 2015, 39, 337–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Eaton, B.C. Hydraulic Geometry: Empirical Investigations and Theoretical Approaches. Treatise Geomorphol. 2013, 9, 313–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Paik, K.; Kumar, P. Optimality approaches to describe characteristic fluvial patterns on landscapes. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 2010, 365, 1387–1395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Singh, V.P. On the theories of hydraulic geometry. Int. J. Sediment Res. 2004, 18, 196–218. [Google Scholar]
  13. Nanson, G.C.; Huang, H.Q. Least action principle, equilibrium states, iterative adjustment and the stability of alluvial channels. Earth Surf. Process. Landf. 2008, 33, 923–942. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Kennedy, R.G. The prevention of silting in irrigation canals. (including appendix). In Minutes of the Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers; Thomas Telford-ICE Virtual Library: Scotland, UK, 1895; Volume 119, pp. 281–290. [Google Scholar]
  15. Lacey, G. Stable channels in alluvium (includes appendices). In Minutes of the Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers; Thomas Telford-ICE Virtual Library: Scotland, UK, 1930; Volume 229, pp. 259–292. [Google Scholar]
  16. Blench, T. Mobile-Bed Fluviology; a Regime Theory Treatment of Canals and Rivers for Engineers and Hydrologists; University of Alberta Press: Edmonton, AB, Canada, 1969. [Google Scholar]
  17. Davidson, S.K.; Hey, R.D. Regime Equations for Natural Meandering. J. Hydraul. Eng. 2011, 137, 894–910. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Lane, E.W. Progress report on studies on the design of stable channels by the Bureau of Reclamation. In Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, NY, USA, 20 October 1953; Volume 79, pp. 1–31. [Google Scholar]
  19. Parker, G. Self-formed straight rivers with equilibrium banks and mobile bed. Part 1. The sand-silt river. J. Fluid Mech. 1978, 89, 109–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Parker, G. Self-formed straight rivers with equilibrium banks and mobile bed. Part 2. The gravel river. J. Fluid Mech. 1978, 89, 127–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Ikeda, S.; Parker, G.; Kimura, Y. Stable width and depth of straight gravel rivers with heterogeneous bed materials. Water Resour. Res. 1988, 24, 713–722. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Ikeda, S.; Izumi, N. Width and depth of self-formed straight gravel rivers with bank vegetation. Water Resour. Res. 1990, 26, 2353–2364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Farias, H.D.; Pilan, M.T.; Mattar, M.T.; Pece, F.J. Regime width of alluvial channels: Conciliation of several approaches. In Proceedings of the ICHE Conference, Cottbus, Germany, 1998. [Google Scholar]
  24. Khodashenas, S.R. Threshold gravel channels bank profile: A comparison among 13 models. Int. J. River Basin Manag. 2016, 5124, 337–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Griffiths, G.A. Extremal Hypotheses for River Regime: An Illusion of Progress. Water Resour. Res. 1984, 20, 113–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Chang, H.H. Fluvial Processes in River Engineering; Wiley Interscience: New York, NY, USA, 1988; ISBN 0894647377. [Google Scholar]
  27. Huang, H.Q.; Deng, C.; Nanson, G.C.; Fan, B.; Liu, X.; Liu, T.; Ma, Y. A test of equilibrium theory and a demonstration of its practical application for predicting the morphodynamics of the Yangtze River. Earth Surf. Process. Landf. 2014, 39, 669–675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Huang, H.E.Q.; Nanson, G.C. Hydraulic geometry and maximum flow efficiency as products of the principle of least action. Earth Surf. Process. Landf. 2000, 16, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Pickup, G. Adjustment of stream-channel shape to hydrologic regime. J. Hydrol. 1976, 30, 365–373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Kirkby, M.J. Maximum Sediment Efficiency as a Criterion for Alluvial Channels; University of Leeds, School of Geography: Leeds, UK, 1976. [Google Scholar]
  31. White, W.R.; Bettess, R.; Paris, E. Analytical approach to river regime. J. Hydraul. Div. 1982, 108, 1179–1193. [Google Scholar]
  32. Chang, H. Design of stable alluvial canals in a system. J. Irrig. Drain. Eng. 1985, I, 36–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Yang, C.T.; Song, C.C.S.; Woldenberg, M.J. Hydraulic geometry and minimum rate of energy dissipation. Water Resour. Res. 1981, 17, 1014–1018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Yang, C.T. Minimum unit stream power and fluvial hydraulics. J. Hydraul. Div. 1976, 102, 919–934. [Google Scholar]
  35. Davies, T.R.H.; Sutherland, A.J. Extremal hypotheses for river behavior. Water Resour. Res. 1983, 19, 141–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Huang, H.Q.; Nanson, G.C. A stability criterion inherent in laws governing alluvial channel flow. Earth Surf. Process. Landf. 2002, 27, 929–944. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Huang, H.Q.; Chang, H.H.; Nanson, G.C. Minimum Energy as the General Form of Critical Flow and Maximum Flow Efficieny and for explaining Variations in River Channel Pattern. Water Resour. Res. 2004, 40, W04502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Millar, R.G.; Quick, M.C. Effect of Bank Stability on Geometry of Gravel Rivers. J. Hydraul. Eng. 1993, 119, 1343–1363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Eaton, B.C.; Millar, R.G. Optimal alluvial channel width under a bank stability constraint. Geomorphology 2004, 62, 35–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Millar, R.G. Theoretical regime equations for mobile gravel-bed rivers with stable banks. Geomorphology 2005, 64, 207–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Barry, J.J. Bed Load Transport in Gravel-Bed Rivers; University of Idaho: Moscow, ID, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  42. Singh, V.P.; Yang, C.T.; Deng, Z.-Q. Downstream hydraulic geometry relations: 2. Calibration and testing. Water Resour. Res. 2003, 39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Deng, Z.; Zhang, K. Morphologic equations based on the principle of maximum entropy. Int. J. Sediment Res. 1994, 9, 31–46. [Google Scholar]
  44. Singh, V.P.; Yang, T.C.; Deng, Z.Q. Downstream hydraulic geometry relations: 1. Theoretical development. Water Resour. Res. 2003, 39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Ackert, S.F. A Study of Different Methods for Determination of Regime Channel Geometry with Application to Streams in Southwestern Ontario. Master’s Thesis, University of Windsor, Windsor, ON, Canada, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  46. Valentine, E.M.; Benson, I.A.; Nalluri, C.; Bathurst, J.C. Regime theory and the stability of straight channels with bankfull and overbank flow. J. Hydraul. Res. 2001, 39, 259–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Wolman, M.G.; Brush, L.M., Jr. Factors Controlling the Size and Shape of Stream Channels in Coarse Noncohesive Sands; US Government Printing Office: Washington, DC, USA, 1961.
  48. Andrews, E.D. Bed-material entrainment and hydraulic geometry of gravel-bed rivers in Colorado. Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. 1984, 95, 371–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Mueller, E.R.; Pitlick, J.; Nelson, J.M. Variation in the reference Shields stress for bed load transport in gravel-bed streams and rivers. Water Resour. Res. 2005, 41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Lawrence, I.; Lin, K. A concordance correlation coefficient to evaluate reproducibility. Biometrics 1989, 255–268. [Google Scholar]
  51. Huang, H.Q. Reformulation of the bed load equation of Meyer-Peter and Müller in light of the linearity theory for alluvial channel flow. Water Resour. Res. 2010, 46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Huang, H.Q.; Nanson, G.C. Vegetation and channel variation; a case study of four small streams in southeastern Australia. Geomorphology 1997, 18, 237–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Comparison of predicted and observed widths B R for sand bed channels [27,45,46,47]. (A) MFN; (B) MFE; (C) ME and MEDR.
Figure 1. Comparison of predicted and observed widths B R for sand bed channels [27,45,46,47]. (A) MFN; (B) MFE; (C) ME and MEDR.
Water 10 00271 g001
Figure 2. Comparison of predicted and observed depth h R for sand bed channels [27,45,46,47]. (A) MFN; (B) MFE; (C) ME and MEDR. Same legend as on Figure 1 applies here.
Figure 2. Comparison of predicted and observed depth h R for sand bed channels [27,45,46,47]. (A) MFN; (B) MFE; (C) ME and MEDR. Same legend as on Figure 1 applies here.
Water 10 00271 g002
Figure 3. Scatter plot of disparity ratio B R against bankfull discharge for sand bed channels [27,45,46,47]. (A) MFN; (B) MFE; (C) ME and MEDR. Same legend as on Figure 1 applies here.
Figure 3. Scatter plot of disparity ratio B R against bankfull discharge for sand bed channels [27,45,46,47]. (A) MFN; (B) MFE; (C) ME and MEDR. Same legend as on Figure 1 applies here.
Water 10 00271 g003
Figure 4. Scatter plot of disparity ratio h R against bankfull discharge for sand bed channels [27,45,46,47]. (A) MFN; (B) MFE; (C) ME and MEDR. Same legend as on Figure 1 applies here.
Figure 4. Scatter plot of disparity ratio h R against bankfull discharge for sand bed channels [27,45,46,47]. (A) MFN; (B) MFE; (C) ME and MEDR. Same legend as on Figure 1 applies here.
Water 10 00271 g004aWater 10 00271 g004b
Figure 5. Comparison of predicted and observed width B R for gravel bed channels [2,17,48,49], (A) Millar’s Method; (B) MFE; (C) MFN; (D) ME and MEDR.
Figure 5. Comparison of predicted and observed width B R for gravel bed channels [2,17,48,49], (A) Millar’s Method; (B) MFE; (C) MFN; (D) ME and MEDR.
Water 10 00271 g005aWater 10 00271 g005b
Figure 6. Comparison of predicted and observed depth h R for gravel bed channels [2,17,48,49]. (A) Millar’s Method; (B) MFE; (C) MFN; (D) ME and MEDR.
Figure 6. Comparison of predicted and observed depth h R for gravel bed channels [2,17,48,49]. (A) Millar’s Method; (B) MFE; (C) MFN; (D) ME and MEDR.
Water 10 00271 g006
Figure 7. Scatter plot of disparity ratio B R against bankfull discharge for gravel bed channels [2,17,48,49]. (A) Millar’s Method; (B) MFE; (C) MFN; (D) ME and MEDR.
Figure 7. Scatter plot of disparity ratio B R against bankfull discharge for gravel bed channels [2,17,48,49]. (A) Millar’s Method; (B) MFE; (C) MFN; (D) ME and MEDR.
Water 10 00271 g007
Figure 8. Scatter plot of disparity ratio h R against bankfull discharge for gravel bed channels [2,17,48,49]. (A) Millar’s Method; (B) MFE; (C) MFN; (D) ME and MEDR.
Figure 8. Scatter plot of disparity ratio h R against bankfull discharge for gravel bed channels [2,17,48,49]. (A) Millar’s Method; (B) MFE; (C) MFN; (D) ME and MEDR.
Water 10 00271 g008aWater 10 00271 g008b
Figure 9. Scatter plot of disparity ratio B R against bankfull discharge for gravel bed channels [2,17,48,49]. (A) Millar’s Method; (B) MFN; (C) ME and MEDR.
Figure 9. Scatter plot of disparity ratio B R against bankfull discharge for gravel bed channels [2,17,48,49]. (A) Millar’s Method; (B) MFN; (C) ME and MEDR.
Water 10 00271 g009
Figure 10. Scatter plot of disparity ratio h R against bankfull discharge for gravel bed channels [2,17,48,49]. (A) Millar’s Method; (B) MFN; (C) ME and MEDR.
Figure 10. Scatter plot of disparity ratio h R against bankfull discharge for gravel bed channels [2,17,48,49]. (A) Millar’s Method; (B) MFN; (C) ME and MEDR.
Water 10 00271 g010
Table 1. Description of the Regime Data.
Table 1. Description of the Regime Data.
Observed VariablesRangeType of BedReferences
Bankfull Discharge Q, m3/s0.004–46,000
Median Bed Sediment Size D50, mm0.07–2
Width B, m0.35–2190Sand[27,45,46,47]
Depth h, m0.02–23
Slope S, %0.78–0.00152
Bankfull Discharge Q, m3/s0.697–424
Median Bed Sediment Size D50, mm13.9–175.8
Width B, m2.32–83.8Gravel[2,17,48,49]
Depth h, m0.201–3.21
Slope S,%0.088–2.6
Vegetation TypeI, II, III, IV, Thin, Thick
Table 2. Statistics computed for MFE, MFN, and ‘ME and MEDR’ based on sand bed data.
Table 2. Statistics computed for MFE, MFN, and ‘ME and MEDR’ based on sand bed data.
MethodCCCWidth B R Depth h R Predicted
Width   B R Depth h R 30% Error Range50% Error Range30% Error Range50% Error Range B R h R
MFN0.960.9659%75%72%87%6.8–63
MFE0.950.9626%56%51%72%2–154
ME and MEDR0.950.9544%70%61%77%4.2–61
Table 3. Statistics computed for Millar’s method, MFE, MFN, and ‘ME and MEDR’ based on sparse gravel data.
Table 3. Statistics computed for Millar’s method, MFE, MFN, and ‘ME and MEDR’ based on sparse gravel data.
MethodCCCWidth B R Depth h R Predicted
Width B R Depth h R 30% Error Range50% Error Range30% Error Range50% Error Range B R h R
Millar’s method0.830.8557%76%66%84%4–130
MFE0.390.523%16%3%11%2–12
MFN0.920.9170%98%82%100%12.5–28.9
ME and MEDR0.940.9360%86%93%100%11.4–75

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Joshi, I.; Dai, W.; Bilal, A.; Upreti, A.R.; He, Z. Evaluation and Comparison of Extremal Hypothesis-Based Regime Methods. Water 2018, 10, 271. https://doi.org/10.3390/w10030271

AMA Style

Joshi I, Dai W, Bilal A, Upreti AR, He Z. Evaluation and Comparison of Extremal Hypothesis-Based Regime Methods. Water. 2018; 10(3):271. https://doi.org/10.3390/w10030271

Chicago/Turabian Style

Joshi, Ishwar, Wenhong Dai, Ahmed Bilal, Akhanda Raj Upreti, and Ziming He. 2018. "Evaluation and Comparison of Extremal Hypothesis-Based Regime Methods" Water 10, no. 3: 271. https://doi.org/10.3390/w10030271

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop