Water Resources Management

, 23:3121 | Cite as

Prediction of Bank Erosion in a Reach of the Sacramento River and its Mitigation with Groynes

Open Access


The paper reports on the prediction of flow in a reach of the Sacramento River with focus on a part of the river’s bank where serious erosion has occurred. The simulations were obtained using a three-dimensional Navier–Stokes solver which utilized body-fitted coordinates to represent the complex river bathymetry. Comparative predictions were obtained using a two-dimensional, depth-averaged formulation. Local (nested) mesh refinement was employed to provide the necessary resolution of the bank geometry in the region of interest. The study focuses on the assessment of the effectiveness of a particular arrangement of groynes which was found in physical model studies to significantly reduce the rate of erosion in the region under consideration. To validate the computational models, predictions were first obtained for the case of turbulent flow in a straight rectangular channel with one groyne. Measurements of velocity and boundary shear stress were used for model validation. For the reach of the Sacramento River under consideration, velocity measurements obtained in the large-scale physical model were also used to check the computational model prior to its use for prediction of the river flow with groynes. Here, too, both depth-averaged and three-dimensional computations were performed with the objective being to determine the influence of the groynes on the flow velocity. The bank erosion rate was estimated by coupling the ‘excess shear stress’ method to the computed mean velocity field. The results show that for the groynes configuration that was found optimal in the physical-model studies, and that was actually implemented in the Sacramento River, the groynes are effective in reducing the bank erosion of the affected zone but at the cost of transferring a far less severe problem further downstream.

Computational river mechanics Computational fluid dynamics Turbulent flows Bank erosion Groynes 


  1. ASCE Task Committee on Hydraulics, Bank Mechanics, and Modeling of River Width Adjustment (1998) River width adjustment. I: processes and mechanisms. J Hydraul Eng 124(9):881–902. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9429(1998)124:9(881) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brice JC (1982) Stream channel stability assessment. Report No. FHWA/ RD-82/021, Federal Highway Administration, US Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  3. Celik I, Karatekin O (1997) Numerical experiments on application of richardson extrapolation with nonuniform grids. ASME J Fluid Eng 119:584–590. doi:10.1115/1.2819284 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Darby SE, Thorne CR (1996) Stability analysis for steep, eroding, cohesive river banks. J Hydraul Eng 122:443–454. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9429(1996)122:8(443) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Darby SE, Alabyan AM, de Wiel MJV (2002) Numerical simulation of bank erosion and channel migration in meandering rivers. Water Resour Res 38(9):2.1–2.12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Duan G, Wang SSY, Jia Y (2001) The applications of the enhanced CCHE2D model to study the alluvial channel migration processes. J Hydraul Res IAHR 39:469–480Google Scholar
  7. Ercan A, Younis BA (2008) Uncertainties in the prediction of flow in a long reach of the Sacramento River. Water and Environment Journal, Print ISSN 1747–6585, 2008Google Scholar
  8. Flora KS (2003) Potential geomorphic impacts of bank stabilization measures along the Sacramento River near the Butte City bridge on route 162. M.S. Project, Dept. of Civil & Environmental Engineering, University of California DavisGoogle Scholar
  9. Hanson GJ, Simon A (2001) Erodibility of cohesive streambeds in the loess area of the midwestern USA. Hydrol Process 15(1):23–38. doi:10.1002/hyp.149 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hardy RJ, Lane SN, Ferguson RI, Parsons DR (2003) Assessing the credibility of a series of computational fluid dynamic simulations of open channel flow. Hydrol Process 17(8):1539–1560. doi:10.1002/hyp.1198 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hasegawa K (1984) Hydraulic research on planimetric forms, bed topographies and flow in alluvial channels. PhD dissertation, Hokkaido Univ., Sapporo, Japan (in Japanese)Google Scholar
  12. Hasegawa K (1989) Universal bank erosion coefficient for meandering rivers. J Hydrol Eng 115(4):744–765Google Scholar
  13. Ikeda S (1982) Incipient motion of sand particles on side slopes. J Hydr Div Am Soc Civ Eng 108(HY1):95–114Google Scholar
  14. Ikeda S, Parker G, Swai K (1981) Bend theory of river meanders. Part I. linear development. J Fluid Mech 112:363–377. doi:10.1017/S0022112081000451 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jang CL, Shimizu Y (2005) Numerical simulation of relatively wide, shallow channels with erodible banks. J Hydrol Eng 131(7):565–575. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9429(2005)131:7(565) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Johnston JP (1960) On the three dimensional turbulent boundary layer generated by secondary flow. J Basic Eng Trans ASME Ser D 82:233–248Google Scholar
  17. Julien PY (1998) Incipient motion. Erosion and sedimentation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 112–133Google Scholar
  18. Lane EW (1955) Design of stable channels. Trans Am Soc Civ Eng 81(745):1–17Google Scholar
  19. Lane SN, Bradbrook KF, Richards KS, Biron PA, Roy AG (2000) Secondary circulation cells in river channel confluences: measurement artefacts or coherent flow structures? Hydrol Process 14:2047–2071CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Launder BE, Spalding DB (1972) Lectures in mathematical models of turbulence. Academic Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  21. Lawler DM (1992) Processes dominance in bank erosion systems, in lowland floodplain Rivers. In: Carling PA, Petts GE (eds) Wiley, New York, pp 117-143Google Scholar
  22. Mishra SK, Lindsey WB (2000) Butte City bridge erosion control project. In: Proceedings of building partnership, ASCE, August 2000, Minneapolis, MNGoogle Scholar
  23. Molinas A, Hafez YI (2000) Finite element surface model for flow around vertical wall abutments. J Fluids Struct 14:711–733. doi:10.1006/jfls.2000.0295 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Molls T, Chaudhry MH (1995) Depth-averaged open-channel flow model. J Hydr Eng ASCE 121(6):453-465CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Nagata N, Hosoda T, Muramoto Y (2000) Numerical analysis of river channel processes with bank erosion. J Hydraul Eng 126(4):243–252. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9429(2000)126:4(243) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Nanson GJ, Hickin EJ (1983) Channel migration and incision on the Beatton River. J Hydr Eng ASCE 109(3):327–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Novikov A, Bagtzoglou AC (2006) Hydrodynamic model of the Lower Hudson River esturine system and its application for water quality management. Water Resour Manage 20:257–276. doi:10.1007/s11269-006-0320-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Olsen NRB (2003) Three-dimensional CFD modeling of self- forming meandering channel. J Hydraul Eng 129(5):366–372. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9429(2003)129:5(366) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Parker G (1983) Theory of meander bend deformation, in river meandering. In: Proceeedings of the conference rivers, 83. ASCE, New York, pp 722–732Google Scholar
  30. Partheniades E (1965) Erosion and deposition of cohesive soils. J Hydraul Div 91:105–139Google Scholar
  31. Pierce FJ, Zimmerman BB (1973) Wall shear stress inference from two and three dimensional turbulent boundary layer velocity profiles. J Fluids Eng Trans ASME Ser D 95:61–67Google Scholar
  32. Pizzuto JE, Meckelnburg TS (1989) Evaluation of a linear bank erosion equation. Water Resour Res 25(5):1005–1013. doi:10.1029/WR025i005p01005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rajaratnam N, Nwachukwu B (1983) Flow near groin-like structures. J Hydraul Div 109(3):463–480. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9429(1983)109:3(463) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rastogi AK, Rodi W (1978) Prediction of heat and mass transfer in open channels. J Hydraul Div 104:397–420Google Scholar
  35. Roache PJ (1994) Perspective: a method for uniform reporting of grid refinement studies. ASME J Fluids Eng 116:405–413. doi:10.1115/1.2910291 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Roache PJ (1997) Quantification of uncertainty in computational fluid dynamics. Annu Rev Fluid Mech 29:123–160. doi:10.1146/annurev.fluid.29.1.123 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Shields A (1936) Application of similarity principles and turbulence research to bed load movement. California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, Pub. No. 167 (English Translation)Google Scholar
  38. Singer MB, Dunne T (2001) Identifying eroding and depositional reaches of valley by analysis of suspended sediment transport in the Sacramento River, CA. Water Resour Res 37(12):3371–3381. doi:10.1029/2001WR000457 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Thangam S, Speziale CG (1992) Turbulent flow past a backward-facing step: a critical evaluation of two-equation models. AIAA J 30:1314–1320. doi:10.2514/3.11066 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Thorne CR (1982) Process and mechanisms of river bank erosion, in gravel-bed rivers. In: Hey RD, Bathurst JC, Thorne CR (eds) Wiley, New York, pp 227–271Google Scholar
  41. Tingsanchalli T, Maheswaran S (1990) 2-D depth–averaged flow computation near groyne. J Hydr Eng ASCE 116(1):71–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Tsihrintzis VA, Madiedo EE (2000) Hydraulic resistance determination in marsh wetlands. Water Resour Manage 14:285–309. doi:10.1023/A:1008130827797 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. U.S Army Corps of Engineers (1983) Sacramento River and tributaries bank protection and erosion control investigation. California Sediment Transport Studies, Sacramento Dist., US Corps of Eng., Sacramento, CAGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil & Environmental EngineeringUniversity of California—DavisDavisUSA

Personalised recommendations