Hey 1998

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 6

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 12/30/16. Copyright ASCE.

For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Frequency and Duration of Bankfull Flow and


Application for Natural Channel Design

Richard D. Hey MASCE

Abstract

The use of the 1.5 year flood (annual maximum series) as the dominant,
design discharge for stabilising and restoring channels is not supported by field data.
For stable channels, bankfull return periods are not uniquely designed by this value,
principally because the annual maximum series ignores lesser floods which transport
sediment and cause morphological change as well as the duration of transport events.
Given the close correspondence between bankfull flow and the effective discharge,
defined as the flow that transports most sediment in the longer term derived from
daily average flow data and associated sediment transport rates, it follows that
bankfull flow will be more closely associated with daily flow exceedance durations
than flood return periods as it accounts for both the magnitude and duration of all
transport events. Its value varies between river environments reflecting regional
differences in flow and sediment transport regimes.

The steady flow which produces the same channel form and dimensions as the
natural range of flows has been referred to as the dominant or channel forming flow
(Inglis 1941) and is generally considered to be the flow at, or about bankfull (Inglis
1947, Ackers and Charlton 1970). Although Wolman and Miller (196) produced
evidence to show that bankfull flow actually corresponded to the discharge that
transports most sediment in the longer term, often referred to as the effective
discharge, yet the only real evidence for this is scanty and is restricted to gravel-bed
rivers (Andrews 1980, Carling 1988).
New data obtained from across a range of river environments in the US, sand
and fine gravel-bed rivers (Little Missouri, ND), gravel and sand bed (Sevier, UT),

’ Reader,School of Environmental Sciences,University of East Anglia, Norwich, NR4 7TJ, United


Kingdom

Copyright ASCE 2004 Engineering Approaches to Ecosystem Restoration Wetlands 1998


gravel (East Fork, San Juan, CO), boulder and cobble (White, WA) indicates that for
perennial humid temperature and slightly ephemeral semi arid rivers that are in
regime, bankfull flow corresponds to the effective discharge provided that the
appropriate component of the total load is used in the assessment (Hey 1997).
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 12/30/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

This indicates that for rivers that are in regime either the bankfull or the
effective discharge can be used to directly determine the dominant discharge or,
alternatively, their return period or exceedance duration could be used to indirectly
determine its value provided that it was constant or that variations between rivers
could be explained.

Return Period of Bankfull Discharge

There is a considerable body of data in the literature on the return period of


bankfull flow based on annual maximum series data (Hey 1994). A key feature of
these data is the variation in its value, ranging from just over once per year to once
every 35 years. The modal value of once every 1.5 years is often regarded as the
typical bankfull return period, yet no real attempt has been made to explain its
variability. The latter corresponds to the most probable annual flood provided that
the flood data corresponds to the Gumbel (General Extreme Value Type I)
distribution.
Inevitably some of this scatter will reflect errors in the assessment of bankfull
stage and its associated discharge plus differences in the flood frequency distributions
used to fit the flood data which could mask real differences between sites. Where
studies have been carried out within a particular river basin using consistent
operational procedures, systematic variations in the return period of bankfull flow
have been observed. Return periods are lower in headwater areas due either to lack
of flood storage (Hey 1975) or to changes in geology, impermeable to permeable,
between source and mouth (Petit and Panquet 1997).
Flood return periods were derived for the US sites where effective discharges
had been determined in order to establish whether there is a constant bankfull return
period across a range of river environments. In order to ensure that comparisons
could be made between sites, natural alluvial reaches were surveyed, four cross
sections, adjacent to a gauging station. This enabled the active flood plain elevation
to be identified through the reach. Bankfull profiles were extended as far as the gauge
board in order to establish the associated discharge from the rating curve. The return
period of bankfull flow was assessed by fitting a General Extreme Value Type II
distribution (GEV II) to the annual maximum flood data. This is a flexible 3
parameter distribution, containing a variable shape factor, which incorporates the
Gumbel distribution as a special case.
The results (table l), indicate that significant differences occur between the
surveyed sites. One reason for this could be that the procedure, which is based on the
highest annual flood peaks, discounts lesser events which can transport bed material
and, hence, modify the river.

Copyright ASCE 2004 Engineering Approaches to Ecosystem Restoration Wetlands 1998


River Location Bankfull Annual Maximum Partial Duration
Discharge Series Series
(m3 se’) Return Period (years) Return Period (years)
I event/ 2 events/
YW YW
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 12/30/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Little Missouri Marma&~ ND 68.79 1.16 0.44 0.40


Little Missouri Medora ND 90.20 1.12 0.72 *
bier Hatch UT 20.82 3.07 * *
East Fork San PagosaSprings CO 10.51 1.12 0.39 *
Juan
White Buckley WA 80.10 1.03 0.78 0.42
(UpstreamMud
Mountain Dam)
White Buckley WA 114.70 1.04 0.98 *
(Downstream Mud
Mountain Dam)

* insufficient data

Table 1 Bankfull discharge return periods; annual maximum and partial


duration series

Partial duration series data, based on all independent flood events above bed
material transport thresholds, have been used to determine the true return period of
bankfull flow at several sites in the UK (Hey and Heritage 1988). This indicates that
bankfull flow is exceeded between once in 0.56 and 3.44 years with a modal value of
0.9 years; a value confirmed by Carling (1988) for two small upland gravel-bed rivers
in northern England.
As the discharge threshold for the US data exceeded bed material transport
thresholds, it was not possible to directly evaluate the UK results. Instead bankfull
return periods at each site were established by fitting the General Pareto distribution
(GPD) to the flood data for one event per year on average, annual exceedance series,
and two events per year, partial duration series. The GPD was chosen because it
corresponds to the GEV II provided that the events in each year follow a Poisson
distribution. The observed variation between sites (table 1) indicates that bankfull
flow does not have a fixed return period possibly because it takes no account of the
duration of channel forming flows.

ExceedanceDuration of Bankfull Flow

A few studies report on the exceedance duration of bankfull flow derived


from daily mean flow duration curves (Nixon 1959, Andrews 1980, 1984, Bray
1972). As before, comparisons are difficult to draw between the various studies
because of differences in determining bankfull stage. Andrews used the active
floodplain level, Bray the valley flat and Nixon an unspecified level. The latter also
included heavily dredged sites in his data base. Andrews results indicated that in the

Copyright ASCE 2004 Engineering Approaches to Ecosystem Restoration Wetlands 1998


headwaters of the Colorado River and its tributaries bankfull flow was generally
exceeded between 1 and 10 days per year. In comparison, Biedenharn et al. (1987)
showed that the effective discharge, considered here to be a surrogate for bankfull
flow, was equalled or exceeded between 35 and 55 days/year on the lower reaches of
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 12/30/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

the Mississippi, Red and Pearl Rivers.


Results for the surveyed sections of the US gauging stations (table 2) confirm
that there are real differences between sites, 3.6-23.7 days/year and that there is no
common exceedance duration for bankfull flow.
Consideration of the procedure for calculating the effective discharge
indicates that bankfull flow for stable sites, given its equivalence to the effective
discharge, will reflect both the flow and sediment transport regime of the river. For a
given sediment rating curve, the flashier the river, the lower the bankfull exceedance
duration and vice versa (Hey 1975). Similarly, for a given sediment rating curve, the
exceedance duration of bankfull flow will depend on the shape of the sediment load-
discharge rating curve; in particular the values of the threshold discharge for sediment
transport and the coefficient and exponent of the rating curve. For example, with a
given threshold discharge and coefficient, the larger the exponent the lower the
exceedance duration of bankfull flow and vice versa (Hey 1975).
This indicates that the exceedance duration of bankfull flow is expected to
vary between rivers but is likely to be relatively constant within a given river
environment reflecting regional similarities in flow and sediment transport regimes
(table 2). This is borne out by the fact that exceedance durations on the Little
Missouri at Marmarth and Medora are comparable. In contrast the values for the two
sites on the White River are very different, in spite of their proximity to each other.
This, in part reflects the effect of Mud Mountain Dam, a flood storage dam located
between the two sites, on the flow regime as its only function is to temporarily store
flood water. Mainly, however, it is due to the downstream site having a significantly
different sediment transport regime.

River Location Bankfidl Exceedance(%) Duration


Discharge (m3 s-‘) (day~year)
Little Missouri MamlathND 68.79 3.00 10.95
Little Missouri Medora ND 90.20 3.25 11.86
Sevier Hatch UT 20.82 1.00 3.65
East Fork San PagosaSprings CO 10.51 6.00 21.90
Juan
White Buckley WA 80.10 6.50 23.72
(upstreamMud
Mountain Dam)
White Buckley WA 114.70 2.25 8.21
(downstreamMud
Mountain Dam)

Table 2 Exceedance durations of bankfull flow

Copyright ASCE 2004 Engineering Approaches to Ecosystem Restoration Wetlands 1998


Application for Natural Channel Design

The 1.5 year flood, based on annual maximum series, has often been
advocated as the dominant discharge for designing natural channels given that on
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 12/30/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

most rivers its value ranges between 1.01 and 2.0 years. This limited range reflects
the nature of the flood frequency curve whereas the associated discharges vary
considerably. For example the 1.5 year flood at Marmarth on the Little Missouri
River is 140.66 m3 s-‘, the 1.01 year is 5.95 m3 s-r and the 2 year is 205.75 m3 s-l. As
bankfull is 68.79 m3 s-‘, the use of the 1.5 year flood as the dominant, channel
forming, flow for design purposes would be disastrous. Before using any particular
flood return period for defining the dominant discharge, it would be necessary to
determine an appropriate local value for stable channels.
Similarly the return period of bankfull flow based on partial duration series
data varies considerably between sites, even when all the independent flood events
that transport bed material load are included in the analysis. Local values would need
to be determined if this approach is to be used with any confidence.
Exceedance durations of bankfull flow offer a better alternative for defining
the dominant discharge. The evidence presented here indicates that its value will vary
but, as it reflects the flow and sediment transport regime of the river, they are likely
to vary regionally in a systematic manner. Further research is required to identify
these regional patterns. Until this is carried out, an appropriate value would need to
be determined from local gauging station records.

References

Ackers, P. and Charlton, F.G. (1970) “Meander geometry arising from varying flow”.
J. Hydrol. 11, 230-252.
Andrew, E.D. (1980) “Effective and bankfull discharge of streams in the Yampa
Basin, Colorado and Wyoming”. J. Hydrol. 46, 311-330.
Andrews, E.D. (1984) “Bed material entrainment and hydraulic geometry of gravel-
bed rivers in Colorado”. Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. 97, 1012-1023.
Bray, D.I. (1972) “Generalized regime-type analysis of Alberta rivers”. Unpub. Ph.D.
thesis, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada.
Biedenharn, D.S., Little, CD. and Thorne, CR. (1987) “Magnitude and frequency
analysis in large rivers”. Proc. 1987 Nat. Conf. on Hydr. Engrg. ed. R.M.
Ragan, ASCE.
Carling, P.A. (1988) “The concept of dominant discharge applied to two gravel-bed
streams in relation to channel stability thresholds”. Earth Surf. Process and
Landforms 13, 355-367.
Hey, R.D. (1975) “Design discharge for natural channels” In. Science, Technology
and Environmental Management, ed. R.D. Hey and T.D. Davies, Saxon
House, UK, 73-88.

Copyright ASCE 2004 Engineering Approaches to Ecosystem Restoration Wetlands 1998


Hey, R.D. (1994) “Channel Response and Channel Forming Discharge: Literature
Review and Interpretation”. US Army Corps. of Eng., Euro. Res. Office,
Contract R&D 6871-EN-01, 60pp.
Hey, R.D. (1997) “Channel Response and Channel Forming Discharge: Final
Report”. US Army Corps. of Eng., Euro. Res. Ofice, Contract R&D 6871-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 12/30/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

EN-01, 108pp.
Hey, R.D. and Heritage, G.L. (1988) “Dominant discharge in alluvial channels”.
Proc. Int. Conf. Fluvial Hydr., Budapest, 143- 148.
Nixon, M. (1959) “A study of bankfull discharges of rivers in England and Wales”.
Proc. Inst. Civ. Engrs. 12, 157-175.
Petit, F. and Panquet, A. (1997) “Bankfull discharge recurrence interval in gravel-bed
rivers”. Earth Surf: Processesand Landforms 22, 685-693.

Copyright ASCE 2004 Engineering Approaches to Ecosystem Restoration Wetlands 1998

You might also like