Proceedings of the 19th IAHR-APD Congress 2014, Hanoi, Vietnam

ISBN xxx-xxxx-xx-x

TURBULENT STRUCTURES IN FORM-INDUCED SUBLAYER AND SUBSURFACE LAYER OF

MODELED ARMOURED GRAVEL-BED STREAM, AND SAND MOVEMENT

N. TANAKA (1), (2), M. NEMOTO (1) & E. FURUSATO (1), (2)

(1)
Graduate School of Science and Engineering, Saitama University, Saitama, Japan,
tanaka01@mail.saitama-u.ac.jp
(2)
International Institute for Resilient Society, Saitama University, Saitama, Japan

ABSTRACT
This study was conducted for clarifying the turbulent structure, shear stress characteristics, and sand motion in the
armoured gravel-bed layer. As the form-induced sublayer by large stones is thick, log-law cannot be applied. Using linear
equation for the form-induced sublayer and exponential equation for the interfacial layer as the theoretical model, the
vertical profile of double-averaged velocity can be analyzed successfully. Although the spatial-averaged Reynolds stress
at the bed was very small by the sheltering effect of large size stones, the sand moved quickly in between the large stones,
and transported very slowly in lateral directions in our experiments. When the sand height became a height at which the
Reynolds stress equaled the critical shear stress of the sand estimated by single particle size theory, the front of the sand
layer moved to the downstream. This indicates the importance in understanding the characteristics of velocity and shear
stress inside the armoured layer for supplying sand to downstream of a river.

Keywords: Gravel bed; Armouring; Sand supply; Friction velocity; Shear stress

habitat for invertebrate is still much unknown. In addition,

1. INTRODUCTION
In order to solve the dam-downstream riverbed
environmental problem, sediment supply to downstream
by dredging sediment in a reservoir and placing in the
downstream flood basin of the river is recently tested in
Japan. Although the three-dimensional turbulence
structures and sedimentation or erosion on the river bed
are assumed to greatly affect the invertebrate dynamics
(drift, finding refugee, etc.), a few studies have been
conducted especially for armoured bed with the relative
water depth to gravel or stone size is small. In armored
upstream river bed, large-size stones or cobbles do not
move even when the maximum flood occurs in a year. The
movement of small size sand or gravels on the armoured
bed is very important because it refreshes the habitat by
washing out debris and decelerates the succession of
periphyton communities and invertebrate.
Related to sand movement at gravel bed and drift of
invertebrates, Gibbins et al. (2010) investigated the effects
of increase in shear stress manipulated by portable flume
in gravel-bed river (the median particle size is 49 mm, the
entrainment threshold for the size is around 40 [N/m2])
on the bed disturbance and invertebrate drift. They found
that the increase in movability of sand (averaged bed load
size is 1.4 mm) by the shear stress (9 [N/m2]) causes the
increase in drift phenomenon of invertebrate. The flow
structure around the bed, especially in gravel layer has a
very important meaning for ecohydraulics field because it
directly affects the quality of the habitat. Nikora et
al.(2002) pointed out the importance of the flow in gravels
(interfacial sublayer) from the point of view of
ecohydraulics. Especially, Nikora et al. (2004) defined the
roughness layer for which logarithmic law cannot apply,
however, the flow structure near the bed at which the
as the transport of sand is large disturbance to
invertebrate, it is very important to make the movability
of sand clear even at a small flood event.
This study was conducted for clarifying the turbulence
structure and shear stress characteristics around and
inside the armoured layer. In case of sparse distribution of
large size structures, the distribution of friction drag
(grain stress) and form drag components created by bed
forms has a very important role (Lawless and Robert,
2001). However, this study focuses on the very dense
armoured structures as a first step. Under the selected
condition, sand motion in the armoured layer, and
applicability of previous knowledge is checked on
velocity distribution (wall function) and initiation of sand
movement. Furthermore, a new velocity distribution
model for the layer is proposed based on the experimental
results.
2. MATERIAL AND METHODS
2.1 Measurement of time and space-averaged velocity
structure of flow on armoured bed
Experiments were conducted using a flume with 14 [m] in
length and 0.5 [m] in width. For analyzing the sand
movement in the armoured layer, three sizes of gravel
were selected considering the sand initiation by Ashworth
and Ferguson (1989). Fig.1 (a) shows the arrangement of
the armoured layer. Firstly, 1.6 [cm] average diameter
gravels with a thickness of 3.5 [cm] (Group-2) was placed
on bed, and secondly, around 10 [cm] stone (Group-1)
with a staggered arrangement. The size of Group-1 stones

1
 Stones
Gravels PIV 2.2 Sand supply experiment
(Group-1)
(a) (Group-2) measurement
Sand was supplied to the bed of the flume using a funnel
only for making bed material load. The position of sand
supply was upstream in 5 stones rows in streamwise
FLOW 0.5m
direction from PIV measurements because suspended
load occurred close to the supply equipment, funnel-
2.5m 3m 5.5m shaped supplyer, and because the supplement couldnt
0.9m disturb the flow structure. The flux of supplied sand was
St ones 40 [g/min]. Experiment was conducted till the front of the
(b) 0. 1m sand layer passes through the PIV measurement area
(Group-1) (Fig.1(a)). The duration of the experiment was about 500
[min] because the shear stress inside the gravel layer is
FLOW very low, and sand movement was not rapidly occurred.
The sand movement was video-taped and the sand height
L1 was measured with the help of a vertical scale put in the
Grav els cavity behind the Group-1 stone. Three scales for the
L2
(Group-2) measurement of sand height were set as shown in Fig.1(c).
L3
L4 Loc ation 3
3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
L5

Loc ation 2 3.1 Time and space-averaged velocity structure of flow

0. 02m
Loc ation 1 on armoured bed

FLOW
Location 3
Location 1 Location 2
(c)
Figure 1. (a) Plane view of experimental flume, (b) PIV
measurement lines and (c) sand height measurement pools and its
position. 5 [mm] gap shows in yellow and black.
were 125, 82, and 41 [mm] in average diameter for cross-
stream, stream-wise, and vertical directions, respectively.
Standard deviations of the stones were 12, 8, 5 [mm] for
each direction. The arrangement was decided considering
the bed material in the armoured channel observed in the
Futase Dam located in the Arakawa River, Japan. Group-2
gravels were placed on upstream of the flume from 3 to 14
[m], and Group-1 stone were from 5.5 to 8.5 [m]. The
upstream and downstream parts of the 5.5-8.5 [m] channel,
water depth was changed greatly by the change in the
resistance, so the center section (at 6.4 [m]) was selected
where water depth was not changed and considered as
constant. The water depth was about 12 [cm] and the ratio
of water depth to height of Group-1 stone was set as 3.
Particle Image Velocimetry (PIV) method was used for
obtaining the turbulence structure in and around the bed
layer. Velocity distribution and Reynolds stress were
obtained by time and spatial-averaging the visualized
velocity field at totally 5 sections (L1-L5 in Fig.1(b)) with 2
[cm] spacing between each section.
Figs. 2 (a), (b) and (c) show the contour map of time-
averaged velocity at L1, L3 and L5, respectively. For each
measured line, the layer above stones height has higher
velocity compared with the region behind stonesAt L1,
an accelerated flow just above the gravel went into the
upper layer of the cavity when it flowed downstream. At
L3, the low velocity fluid moved upward when it went
downstream. This is supposed to be occurred by the
generation of separated vortices. At L5, the height of the
low velocity fluid region did not change but a similar
trend like at L3 was noticed from the separated region to
upstream. Mixing at L5 was smaller compared with that at
L1 and L3.
Fig.3 shows the vertical distribution of longitudinal time-
averaged velocity and the spatial-averaged velocity at 5
sections. The velocity distributions had three clear
tendencies. The quantitative value of velocities was
highest at L1 and gradually decreased from L1 to L5
compared to one another. The velocity distribution at the
upper part of Group-1 layer was not a logarithmic
function but likely a linear or wake function because the
fluid movement was greatly affected by the separated
vortices generated from the roughness layer. This layer
corresponds to the form-induced sub-layer (FIS) (Nikora
et al., 2004). The velocity distribution inside the Group-1
layer showed an exponential function. This means the
shear stress inside the roughness layer was almost equal
to the form drag by the Group-1 stones. This layer
corresponds to interfacial sub-layer (IS) (Nikora et al.
2004).
3.2 Reynolds stress
Figs. 2 (d), (e) and (f) show the contour map of time
averaged Reynolds stress at L1, L3 and L5, respectively.
On average, Reynolds stress was higher at L1, but where
the upward flow from the separated region (upward of
cavity), high Reynolds stress was measured at L3 and L5.

2
 So the mixing by the separated flow should be considered
u [m/s] when we make a velocity distribution equation.
0.5
Fig.4 shows the vertical distribution of the turbulent shear
0.25 stresses. In the upper layer above z/h > 0.6, the vertical
0.0
distributions of Reynolds shear stress were almost same
among the measurement lines. When z/h was lower than
0.6, Reynolds shear stress distribution varied depending
on the measurement lines. Similar to velocities, shear
stresses at L1 and L2 were highest and gradually
(a) L1
decreased from L1 to L5.
u [m/s]

When it is assumed that the slope component of gravity

0.5
force is equal to the shear force, the shear stress at each
0.25
height can be obtained.

z1 = u ' v' = u* 2 (1 z1)

0.0

[1]
= u* (1 (z + hb ) / (H + hb ))
2

(b) L3 Where, z1 is the shear stress at z1 from bed, z1 is the non-

u [m/s]
dimensional height from bottom, is the density of water,
u, v is the fluctuation velocity in x, y direction,
0.5
respectively, u* is the friction velocity, z is the height from
0.25
the top of stones (Group-1), and, hb is the stone height
0.0 (Group-1), H is the water depth above the stones (See Fig.
5 for conceptual figure).
Reynolds stress measured in our study was compared
with the estimated value from Eq.(1). In upper layer of the
(c) L5
Group-1 stone, Reynolds stress in each line was larger
than the estimated values. This is supposed to be the
momentum transport from in the gravel layer. On
2 2
contrary, the values in the gravel layer were smaller.
-u'v'
u 'v' [m /s ]

0.05 Especially, the values at height lower than 0.2z1 were

0.001 around 3.3-50.2 % of the estimated values. The sheltering
-0.003
effect of stones was quite high in the zone. However, the
Reynolds stress at the top of stone was almost similar to
the value by Eq.(1).

(d) L1
3.3 Roughness layer (RL) model
2 2
-u'v'
u 'v' [m /s ]

0.05
Based on the spatial characteristics of velocity and the
Reynolds stress, Fig.5 shows the concept of three layers
0.001
model for the roughness layer. Nikora et al. (2004)
-0.003
proposed a concept of a velocity distribution for small
relative-water depth flow. The two layers were consisted
of upper Logarithmic layer and below Roughness layer
(RL) at which velocity was greatly affected by roughness
(e) L3
on bed. Further, RL is divided into two: upper Form-
2 2
induced sub-layer (FIS) and below Interfacial sub-layer
-u'v'
u 'v' [m /s ]

0.05 (IS) which is inside the gravel layer. For double-averaged

0.001
velocity distribution function in RL, the study pointed out
-0.003
that logarithmic function cannot be applied. Nikora et al.
(2001) showed the function was linear or exponential, and
some other studies (Ferro and Baiamonte 1994, Franca and
Lemmin 2009) explained it as a S-shaped function. In our
study, the vertical distribution of double averaged
(f) L5
velocity has a linear shape in FIS, and exponential shape
in IS. Logarithmic layer was not observed in whole depth,
so the flow was totally consist of RL. Our exponential
Figure 2. Time-averaged velocity (u) for L1 (a), L3 (b) and L5 (c) function in IS corresponded to the S-type investigated by
and time-averaged Reynolds shear stress for L1 (d), L3 (e) and L5 Ferro and Baiamonte (1994), and Franca and Lemmin
(f) calculated from PIV results.
(2009). Similary, the flow in vegetation (Raupach and
Thom, 1981, Finnigan, 2000) and urban canopy

3
 0.12 L1
L2
L3 3.3.1 Analytical method for expressing the velocity distribution
0.10
Heigh from bottom [m] L4 in the three zone, FIS, EGZ and QCZ
L5
0.08 <u>
u Reynolds stress in FIS can be expressed using Prandtls
hb mixing length l as:
2
0.06 du
= l 2 [2]
dz
0.04 Shear stress as the function of friction velocity, u* is:

0.02 = u*2 [3]

In FIS, the eddies shed from EGZ are not much interacted
0.00 with each other because of the smaller water depth
0 0.2 0.4 compared with the stone height (the ratio of water depth
u [m/s] to height of Group-1 stone is 3 in this study). The mixing
length (l = (hb - d), where is the von Karman constant
Figure 3. Vertical distribution of longitudinal velocity (u): u (=0.41), d is the zero-plane displacement (Raupach and
means double-averaged velocity (Nikora et al., 2001). hB is the Thom, 1981) and is assumed to be a constant.
height of boulders. The other symbols are given in Fig. 1. By Eq.(2) and (3), the velocity distribution function in FIS
is solved as:
z
L1 L2 u = u* + C1 : z>=0 [4]
L3
L5
L4
Averaged vaules
l
3 hb z1
The height of stones (Group-1) Where C1 is a constant corresponds to a velocity at the top
of Group-1 stone (z = 0).
2 The velocity distribution in IS may be described similar to
Reynolds stress

that in canopy flow in aerodynamics (Raupach and Thom,

[N/m ]

1981; Finnigan 2000, Macdonald 2000) is given as:

2

1
d 1
= C D u 2 A : z<0 [5]
0 z1 dz 2
Where, CD is the drag coefficient of stones in Group-1, A is
-1 the projected area in streamwise direction per unit volume
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 [1/m].
(z+h b )/ (H +h b ) Using Eq.(2) and (5), the velocity distribution in IS can be
solved as:

Figure 4. Vertical distribution of the turbulent shear stresses. u =C 2 expz : 0>z [6]
Vertical dashed line represents the height of stones (Group-1).
1
z1 values (diagonal dashed line) are estimated by Eq. [1]
AC 3
(Macdonald 2000) were also reported to exemplify = 2D [7]
exponential velocity distribution. 4l
Where C2 is a constant corresponds to a velocity at z=0 ,
Considering the flow structure observed around Group-1 is a constant related to the distribution of velocity.
stone as shown in Figs. 2,3 and 4, the velocity distribution
in our IS can be further divided into two at around the C1 and C2 can be solved as:
half height of the Group-1 stone (Fig. 5). In the upper part
of IS (Group-1 stone), the velocity distribution differed C1 = C 2 at z = 0
along each line, but not much differences were observed 1
in the below layer of IS (Fig.3). In the upper IS, Reynolds u* 4u*
3
3 [8]
= u0 = =
(hb d ) C D A (hb d )
stress gradually decreased toward the bed direction, but
the tendency was not apparent and being a low value,
0.1[N/m2] in the lower part, as shown in Fig.4. So these
results help divide the IS into two regions as shown in the Where u0 is velocity at z=0.
schematic in Fig.5. The upper part of IS is defined as Eddy
3.3.2 Application of the functions to this study
generation zone (EGZ) as eddies are generated by Kelvin-
Helmholtz instability. In EGZ, eddies are generated, The applicability of Eq.(4), (6) and (8) is shown in Fig.6.
developed and shed to upward like a boil, thus it greatly The constants are given in Table 1. d (=0.02[m]) is decided
affects the mixing length and velocity distribution in FIS. from Fig. 4 which shows the deficit region of Reynolds
The lower part of IS is defined as Quasi-cavity zone (QCZ), stress. Mixing length in FIS (lFIS) is determined as (lFIS =
because the velocity and Reynolds stress was very low (hb-d) = 0.0082 [m]).
and similar to that in a cavity. In QCZ, eddies were not
Velocity at the upper of Group-1 stone (u0 at z=0)can be
generated and the momentum transport from the upper
evaluated by Eq.(8). As the water depth in the observed
layer (EGZ) was slightly affected by the fluid motion in
EGZ.

4
 Flow to FIS. Hence the thickness of QCZ is determined as 0.03
Constant mixing Linear velocity [m]. Eq.(6) is applied to each layer.
length (l ) profile u
H
FIS In the next step, mixing length in EGZ is determined
u* Eddy generation
z considering the flow structure, (lEGZ = hEGZ = 0.0041 [m]).
and release z =0
In QCZ, eddies are assumed to be transported from the
EGZ
downward part of EGZ (lEGZ) and zero-plane
hb IS displacement boundary. The mixing length changes
QCZ linearly from lEGZ (hQCZ) to zero (at hQCD-d), and is zero
momentum transfer from EGZ d
below hQCD-d, considering the Reynolds stress in Fig.4.
Then, the averaged mixing length in QCZ (lQCZ) can be
Double averaged velocity
calculated as:
lEGZ (hQCZ d )
Figure 5. Conceptual model for hydraulic structure and lQCZ = [10]
characteristics of roughness layer (RL). FIS, Form-induced sub- 2 hQCZ
layer (Nikora et al., 2004); IS, Interfacial sub-layer (Nikora et al.,
From the equation (10), mixing length in QCZ (lQCZ) is
2004); EGZ, Eddy generation zone; QCZ, Quasi-cavity zone.
determined as 1/6 of lEGZ (i.e. 0.00068 [m]).
The velocity distribution in FIS, EGZ and QCZ can be
expressed well as shown in Fig.6. The velocity distribution
0.12 Obserevation
FIS (Eq. 4)
equation (Eq.(4) and (6)) is useful for determining the
EGZ(Eq. 6 ) shear stress inside the RL, and it should be generalized by
0.10 QCR(Eq. 6) conducting further studies with different conditions of
roughness and relative height.
Height from bottom (m)

[Form-induced
0.08 3.4 Sediment motion in armoured bed
sub-layer
(FIS)] The sand movement in armoured layer was three
0.06 dimensional. Fig.7 shows temporal changes of the front of
Crest of stones
(Group-1, 0.04m) sand layer where numbers represent measured time
0.04 intervals (10 [min]). The sand first moved into the
[Eddy generation zone (EGZ)] canyon of large stones (Group-1), and moved behind the
large Group-1 stones. The bed load accumulated in the
0.02 porous region of Group-2 gravel and the sand front
[Quasi-cavity zone (QCZ)]
moved downstream. In the process, only the surface sand
0.00 moves. At the front, the shape is like a wedge, and the
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 sand on the surface moved downward following the angle
Double averaged velocity (m/s) of slope at the front wedge (Fig. 7). Fig.8 shows the
temporal changes in sedimentation height at Locations 1-3
Figure 6. Comparison between observed longitudinal velocity
(double-averaged) and predicted velocity above boulder region.
(Fig. 1 (c)). Sand accumulation at Location 1 started about
160min after the experiment began and, secondly,
accumulated at Locations 2 and 3. Whereas, the
Table 1. Values used for analysis (units, m). For the definition of movement of the sand-layer front at Locations 1 and 2
each layer, see Fig.5. began with a thickness of about 35 [mm], the deposited
layers Symbols and the meaning Values sand layer height at Location 3 was smaller than 35 [mm].
This was due to the formation of cavity-type flow, the
hb: stone height 0.04
velocity up to 2 [cm] height from the bed in between the
d: zero-plane displacement 0.02
Group-1 stones was lower than that behind the Group-1
FIS lFIS: mixing length in FIS 0.0082 stones. So the flow in the direction from L5 to L1 was very
H: height from the top of Group-1 small. Then, the movement of sand was determined from
0.08
stone to water surface Location 2 to Location 3 by the angle of slope at the front.
EGZ lEGZ: mixing length in EGZ 0.0041 As shown in Fig.8, the deposited sand height at Location 2
hEGZ: thickness of EGZ 0.01 became maximum after 200 [min], followed a gradual
decreasing and finally got almost a constant value about
QCZ lQCZ: mixing length in QCZ 0.00068
24 [mm]. The sand motion became small over three
hQCZ: thickness of QCZ 0.03
locations, Location 1, 2 and 3, so the threshold height of
sand motion in the QCZ, especially at Location 2 was
assumed to be 24 [mm] under our experimental condition.
region was constant, the slope component of gravity force
relates the friction velocity at z=0 (Eq.(9)). Fig.9 shows the vertical distribution of spatial-averaged
= u* = gHI
2
[9]
Reynolds stress and critical shear stress of the sand at
Location 2. We prefered Location 2 than Location 1
Where, I is the water surface slope (0.001). because it was difficult to measure flow velocity in the
CD is set 0.30.As to the thickness of EGZ (hEGZ), half of the canyon at Location 1 .
length from the zero-plane displacement boundary to the To derive the critical shear stress, Iwagaki formula
top of Group-1 stone (hEGZ =0.01 [m]) is assumed because (Iwagaki, 1956) was used.
eddies generated in EGZ gradually, linearly develops in
reaching the zero-plane displacement boundary and shed
5
 which was similar to the critical shear stress of the sand
(0.84 [N/m2]) given by Iwagaki formula.
On the other hand, critical shear stress for mixed sand was
13.1 [N/m2] by the equation of Komar (1996) and was 62.0
[N/m2] by Ashida and Michiue (1972) which was derived
from the equation by Egiazaroff (1965). Both the
calculated critical shear stresses were more than 10 times
larger than that of Iwagaki (1956) being a 62.0 [N/m2].
Both the equations consider the shielding effect by large
size gravel and immobility effect included, but it doesnt
consider the sand movement in the cavity zone around
large size stones.
From this study, it can be pointed out that the sand
movement in the armoured layer, especially in the cavity
zone, is related to critical shear stress not for mixed sand
but for uniformly graded sand. If the shear stress in IS is
estimated correctly, the equation for uniformly graded
Figure 7. Temporal changes of front of sand (unit: 10 [min]). sand can be more useful for expressing the sand
movement. From that point of view, it is quite important
50 Location 1 to pay attention not only to the horizontal distribution but
Sedimentation height [mm]

Location 2 also to vertical structure in the bed layer. The flow

40 Location 3 structure in RL should be clarified more with different
hydraulic conditions and bed vertical structure.
30
4. CONCLUSIONS
20
This study was conducted for clarifying the turbulence
10 structure and shear stress characteristics around and
inside the armoured layer, and sand motion in the
0 armoured layer; in addition, to check the applicability of
0 200 400 previous knowledge on velocity distribution (wall
Time [min] function) and bed-load flux equations. With the small
relative water depth, the form-induced sub layer by large
Figure 8. Temporal changes in sedimentation height. The position
of each symbol is shown in Figs. 1 (b) and (c). stones was thick and log-law has been found not to be
applied. Immediately behind a stone, a cavity like a
separation zone was generated. The rate of Reynolds
stress in the QCZ and the estimated values by Eq. [1] was
0.06
found to be a very small value, 3.3-50.2 %. Using linear
equation for FIS and exponential equation for IS as
Height from bottom [m]

0.05 Spatial averaged

Reynolds stress
theoretical model, vertical profile of double-averaged
Sedimentation velocity can be analyzed successfully. Under this
0.04 height
1)
condition, sand with an average size of 1.4 [mm] (Group-
3) was supplied. Although the spatial-averaged Reynolds
0.03 2)
stress at bed was very small by the sheltering effect of
large size stones, the sand moved firstly in between the
0.02 Group-1 stones, and transported very slowly in lateral
directions. When the Reynolds stress became the similar
0.01 value of the critical shear of the sand estimated by single
particle size theory, the front of the sand layer moved
0 downstream. For clarifying the effect of sand supply on
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 armoured bed, the velocity and shear-stress distribution
2
Reynolds stress [N/ ] inside the gravel (or stone) layer should be well
understood in relation to the sand front movement.
Figure 9. Vertical distribution of spatial-averaged Reynolds stress
and final sedimentation height at Location 2. 1)Reynolds stress at
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
the final sedimentation height at Location 2, 2)Critical shear stress
estimated from Iwagaki (1956). This study is partially funded by Ecology and Civil
Engineering Research Fund of Water Resources
Environment Center (WEC), Japan. Authors acknowledge
31 Dr. Nandasena for useful comments.
u* c 2 = 134.6ds 22 for 0.1180ds0.3030 : ds=0.14[cm] [11]
Where u*c is the critical shear stress, and ds is the average REFERENCES
diameter of the sand. As shown in Fig.9, the spatially
Ashida K. and Michiue M. (1972). Study on hydraulic
averaged Reynolds stress at 24 [mm] was 0.47 [N/m2] resistance and bed-load transport rate in alluvial
streams. Tran. of JSCE, No. 206, 59-69.

6
Ashworth P.J. and Ferguson R.I. (1989). Size-selective
entrainment of bed load in gravel bed streams. Water
Resour. Res., 25(4), 627-634.
Egiazaroff I.V. (1965). Calculation of nonuniform sediment
concentrations, Proc. ASCE. HY 4.
Franca M.J., Lemmin U. (2009). The simultaneous
occurrence of logarithmic and S-shaped velocity
profiles in gravel-bed river flows. Arch Hydro Eng
Environ Mech, 56, 29-41.
Ferro V. and Baiamonte G. (1994).Flow velocity profiles in
gravel-bed rivers. J Hydraul Eng ASC, 120, 60-80.
Finnigan J. (2000). Turbulence in plant canopies. Annu.
Rev. Fluid Mech. 32, 519571.
Gibbins C., Batalla R.J. and Vericat D. (2010). Invertebrate
drift and benthic exhaustion during disturbance:
Response of mayflies (Ephemeroptera) to increasing
shear stress and river-bed instability. River. Res. Applic.,
Vol.26, pp. 499-511
Iwagaki Y. (1956) Hydrodynamical study on critical
tractive force. Tran. of JSCE, No. 41, 1-21.
Komar P.D. (1996). Entrainment of sediments from
deposits of mixed grain sizes and densities. In: Carling,
P.A., Dawson, M.R. (Eds.), Advances in Fluvial
Dynamics and Stratigraphy. Wiley, Chicester, U.K., pp.
127181.
Lawless M., Robert A. (2001). Scales of boundary
resistance in coarse-grained channels: turbulent
velocity profiles and implications. Geomorphology, 39,
221-238.
Nakagawa H., Tsujimoto T. and Shimizu Y. (1990).
Experimental study on turbulent flow with small
relative submergence. J. Hydrau. Coast. Environ. Eng.
JSCE, No. 423/II-14, 73-81 (in Japanese).
Macdonald R. W. (2000). Modelling the mean velocity
profile in The urban canopy Layer, Boundary-Layer
Meteorology, 97, 25-45.
Nikora V., Goring D., McEwan I. and Griffiths G. (2001).
Spatially-averaged open-channel flow over a rough
bed, J. Hydarul. Engng ASCE, 127 (2), 123-133.
Nikora V., Goring D. and Biggs B. (2002). Some
observations of the effects of micro-organisms growing
on the bed of an open channel on the turbulence
properties. J. Fluid Mech , 450, 317-341.
Nikora V., Koll K., McEwan I., McLean S. and Dittrich A.
(2004). Velocity distribution in the roughness layer of
rough-bed flows. J Hydraul Eng ASCE, 130, 1036-1042.
Raupach M.R. and Thom A.S. (1981). Turbulence in and
above Plant Canopies. Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics,
Vol. 13, 97-129.