

 .Reproduction of velocity and sheal stress profiles in estuaries by some onedimensional mathematical models (interim report)
R. Booy Intern
I
Technische Hogeschool Delft Afdeling Civiele Techniek Vakgroep Vloeistofmechanica
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Reproduction of velocity and shear stress profiles in estuaries by some onedimensional mathematical models (interim report)
R.
BooyTechnische Hogeschool Delft Afdeling Civiele Techniek Vakgroep Vloeistofmechanica
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CONTENTS Contents Summary 1. Introduction 2. Hathematical Description 2.1. Onedimensional models2.2. Various eddy viscosity models 2.2.1.Pure eddy viscosity models 2.2.2.Uixinglength model
2.2.3.kmodel 2.2.4.ke:model
Pure Eddy Viscosity Uodels
3.1. ° Comparison with measurements ~n tidal flows 3.2. Constant eddy viscosity
3.3. Quadratic eddy viscosity
3.4. Timedependent quadratic eddy viscosity 3.5~ A hysteresis parameter
3.6. Future developments
4. Phase Lag of Velocity and Turbulence Energy
4.2.
Phase lag ~n periodic flou
Phase lag of the velocity in eddy viscosity models
Estimate of the time lag of the turbulence energy near the bed Estimate of the time lag of the turbulence energy at all depths An analytical solution of the variation of the turbulence
4.3. 4.4. 4.5.
energy ne ar the bed 5. Turbulence Energy Hod eLs 5.1. Introduction
5.2. The kmodel: choice of the constants 5.3. The kmodel: a first calculatio~ 5.4. ke:model 6. Conclusions References 'Notat Lon Figures Page 2 3 5 5 7 7 7 8 9 10 10 14 15 16 20 21 23 23 24 25 27 27 32 32 32 34 36 37 39
41
43I
I
Summary 2I
In this investigation the reproduction of tidal flow in channels of estuaries by means of several simple mathematical models is considered.Attention ~s mainly paid to velocity and shear stress profiles and to
hysteresis effects of the shear stresses with respect to the surface
velocity. Only onedimensional models obtained by neglect of convective
derivatives of the longitudinal velocity are considered. The models are
of the eddy viscosity type, where the eddy viscosity is a prescribed
function of depth and flow velocity or is dependent on the turbulence energy.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Until now the prescribed eddy viscosity got most attention, but it is
shown that eddy viscosities which are dependent on the turbulence energy,
wil1 not give very different results. l~dels with an eddy viscosity
being aquadratic function of the depth and proportional to a varying
velocity (e.g. the depthaveraged velocity) reproduce the velocity and the
shear stress profiles in estuaries quite well. The hysteresis effect
of the shear stresses, however, ~s much smaller than found in the few prototype measurements.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
_{3}I
1. IntroductionI
In many mathematical investigations of the velocity and shear stressprofiles of tidal flow in estuaries, widthaveraged Reynolds equations
for unsteady flow are used. To get a system of equations that is
mathematically closed, it is necessary then to make an assumption,
relating the Reynolds stress term to the flow field.
I
I
I
In many models the Reynolds stress is equated to a product of the
velocity gradient and a coefficient, the socalled eddy viscosity
(or effective viscosity). These eddy viscosity models can be divided
in two kindsof modeis. In the first kind the eddy viscosity ~s
assumed to depend only on the velocity field. Some of these models are
the mixing length model of Prandtl and relatively simple models where
the eddy viscosity is assumed to be a particular function of the velocity
field. (In this report called pure eddy viscosity modeis). In the
seeond kind of models the eddy viseosity mayalso depend on one or more
other turbulence quantities, such as the mean tutbulence energy (kmodel),
or a combination of the mean turbulenee energy and its dissipation ra te
(kEmodel). This second kind of models has come to the fore reeently
in eonneetion with the growing eomputing power.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The value of a model depends on its ability to reproduce some of the
properties of the tidal flow in estuaries. In this connection attention
is primarily paid to veloeity and shear stress profiles and to differences
between the shear stresses in the accelerating and the decelerating phase
of the tide.
I
I
Most measurements in estuaries are executed at the higher eurrent velocities.
In genera 1 the velocity profiles show an almost logarithmical behaviour.
In many models using an eddy viscosity that varies over depth sueh veloeity
profiles can easily be produced.
I
I
I
Not much experimental evidence about shear stress profiles in tidal flow
~s available. The few measurements executed seem to show a dependence
of the shear stress profile on the sign of the aeeeleration. In the
decelerating phase of the tide the maximum of the shear stress sometimes
lies above the bottom, whereas in the aecelerating phase the shear stress
increases with depth
(2).
The shear stresses as measured in the deceleratingphase are larger than the shear stresses in the accelerating phase
(~,ll)·
This 'hysteresis effect' is shown clearly in the hysteresis diagram obtained
I
I
I
4I
by Gordon (12) by plotting the shear stress measurements against the current velocity •I
I
Gordon attributes this dependence of the shear stress on the sign of the acceleration to the 'bursting' phenomenon (12). Heasurements in estuaries reveal the importance of 'bursting' to shear stresses (10,14,16). Moreover
the properties of bursting seem to be dependent on the direction of the pressure gradient· (33) and hence on the sign of the acceleration.
I
I
I
The bursting phenomenon ~s supposed to be more pronounced at larger Reynolds numbers (27). Therefore bursting may be responsible for the large scatter in and poor reliability of many measurements in flows in estuaries.(17).
I
I
In this report various models using an eddy viscosity to close the equations are used to calculate velocity and shear stress profiles. The ability
of the different models to produce the desired properties of tidal flows is considered. Much attention is paid to hysteresis effects and connected time and phase lags of the shear stresses with respect to the current velocity.
I
I
Three pure eddy viscosity models are considered; The used eddy viscosities are:
a) constant eddy viscosity b) quadratic eddy viscosity
c) an eddy viscosity that is quadratic with depth and proportional to the depthaveraged velocity.
I
I
I
I
I
Until now less attention has been paid to the kmodel and the k€model. The influence of the use of the turbulence energy in the expression for the eddy viscosity on time and phase lags has been investigated more thoroughly, ho~ver.
I
I
I
I
5I
2. Mathematical DescriptionI
2.1 OneDimensional ModelsI
In this report a long_wave, small amplitude motion ~n a straight openchannel of'constant width and depth is considered. In the absence of Coriolis accelerations and transverse oscillations, the motion will be essentially twodimensional. To describe this motion a rectangular coordinate system Ox, Oz is used, where Ox is situated on the bottom and directed along the channel and Oz is positive upwards (see fig.l).
I
I
I
Following Proudman (30) the shallowwater equations areI
o
(1)I
I
25..
+a
Jh+Z:; d "t ;:; u z " "x 0o
(2)I
Du az:; = gDt ax h az (3)I
I
I
I
In formula (3) D Dt (4)is the Stokes derivative, u and w represent the ensembleaveraged velocities in the x and z directions respectively, L is the horizontal kinematic Reynolds shear stress, h is the mean free surf ace level and z:;(x,t)its displacement.
I
I
I
The term  g(a~ fax) in equation (3) represents the pressure gradient, which is connected to the surface gradient.
Replacing the Stokes derivative by the time derivative ~n equation (3) gives equation (5).
I
I
I
I
I
6 dU = dt dT Set) dZ (5)I
·where Set) is the kinematic pressure gradient. The error introduced by
the neglect of the terms
I
dU udX and dU wdZI
I
of equation (3) 1S not large in most tidal flows.
In a .tidal channel with a depth of 10 meters or more the tidal wave eelerity is at least 10
mis.
If the velocity,u(z) does not exceed 1mis,
the first neglected term amounts to less than about a tenth of the maximum value ofau/at.
Lower values of u(z), as for instanee encountered near the bottom, bring about proportionally smaller errors. The error introdueed by thenegleet of the second term is much smaller. N~ar the surfaee this ~rror is about a tenth of the error by the negleet of the first term.
The errors are of the same order direetly above the bottom. But the error by neglecting the first term is already small in the bottom layer.
I
I
I
I
I
Assuming that the Reynolds shear stress, T, ean be related to the loeal
mean velocity gradient by means of an effective viseosicy OCeddy viseosity vt (x,z,t) defined by
I
au T =  V t dZ (6)I
equation (5) beeomesI
auat
äZ
a (
\)täZ
au) = _ S (7)I
I
I
To solve equation (7) a hypothesis about the variation of \)twith zand t is needed. If vt ean be expressed in variables at the same x, then equations (1) and (2) are redundant tor ealeulating veloeity profiles
and shear stress profiles. In this reportonly models with this property, onedimensional ~odels, are eonsidered.
I
I
I
7I
2.2 Various Eddy Viscosity ModelsI
Models that use an eddy viscosity to close the system of equations are cal led eddy viscosity models. Same of the models using different hypotheses about the variation of Vt with zand t encountered in theliterature about boundary layers are introduced below ~23).
I
I
_{2.2.1} _{Pure Eddy Viscosity Models}I
In this class of models the eddy viscosity 1S represented'byI
zV
=
U zf()
tee h (8)
I
I
where u and z are a characteristic glohal velocity scale and a global
e e
length scale of the flow respectively. f(z/h) is a prescribed function of z/h and may e.g. be a constant ~,22), a pair of constants (2), or aquadratic function (18,19,20,26,37).
I
I
Concerning the velocity scale, most investigators use a constant velocity 1 " fhd 1 d 1" max " e.g. tie maX1mum 0 t e eptlaverage ve oC1ty, u ,or the maX1mum
éN
of the friction velocity, um:x ,over a tidal period (see pageI4). In this type of problem it seems more useful to use a varying velocity scale.
A
tidal flow in an estuary is a slowly changing houndary layerflow, resembling a stationary boundary layer flow at most times (see page24). The depthaveraged velocity, u ,and the friction velocity, u , may be
av ,%
used as velocity scales for stationary boundary layers flows.
Use of one of these velocities as a varying velocity scale 1n a model of a'..tidal flow will then give satisfactory results at most tidal phases.
I
I
I
I
2.2.2 MixingLength Model
The expression for vt in Prandtlts mixing length hypothesis 1S
I
I
'
I
\) =
1 V
t m t with Vt
=
1mI~I
dZ (9)This mixing length model is close1y related to the eddy viscosity models.
I
I
1
,
the mixing length, must be prescribed as a function of z/h (21) • m1 can he writ ten .as a produkt of a ~obal length scale h and a function of z/h.
m
On
_{the other hand Vt' a velocity that 1S presumed to be characteristic}I
8
I
I
Some defects of the mixingleng th model and of eddy viscosity models are
I) The eddy viscosity behaves unrealistic at some points in the flow.
In the mixing length model the eddy viscosity vanishes where the
velocity gradient is zero. In the eddy viscosity models the use
of a global velocity causes the eddy viscosity to vanish over the
whole depth when this global velocity is zero, and to remain too
large when the velocity gradient is small at nonzero global velocities.
These circumstances are to be expected when dealing with long waves.
2) The local turbulence level, which influences the eddy viscosity, is
determined not only byevents at the place and the time in question
(or on average velocities), but also byevents at other times (and
places).
In the following two roodels these shortcomings do not occur
(23.11).
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2.2.3 k;ModelIDlenthe characteristic velocity for the turbulence intensity in the mixing
length model,Vt, is taken proportional to the root of the ensembleaveraged
turbulence energy k,
= C
Ik
\) (10)
I
I
the eddy viscosity ~s described by
v
= C Likt \) ( I I)
I
where L like 1 is a characteristic length scale of the turbulent motion.m
L is closely connected to 1 and, in fact, is often identified with it.
m
is a constant which equals unity for suitable chosen L (23).
C·
_{v}
The turbulence energy, k, is determine~ by a transport equation (23)
I
I
I
I
ak
(12) =at
I
I
where the terms on the right side account for diffusion, production
and dissipation of the turbulence energy respectively. The length scale
distribution L(z) and the constants ak,
Cv
and CD have to be prescribedI
I
9I
I
In equation (12), strictly speaking, a stokes derivative is replaced by a time derivative as in equation (5). This replacement is based on analogous considerations.
I
A shortcoming of this model is, that the transport of the turbulence length scale is not accounted for. By using a second property of turbulence and its corresponding transport equation, the model can be improved in this respect. Various second properties are in use ~). Some attention will be given to one specific model, the kEmodel, where the dissipation rate, E, of the turbulence energy is used as the second transported property. (See page 36 ).
I
·
1
I
2.2.4 ke:ModelI
I
Writing E for the dissipation rate of the turbulence energy instead of C k3/L/L in equation (12) gives ~,35)
D
I
 E (13)
I
The transport equation for the dissipation rate closes the set of equationsI
I
(14)
I
Again the constants Cl' C2, C3, aE and ak have to be prescribed.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
la
I
I
3. Pure Eddy Viscosity Models
3.I. 'Compal,"isón with Ueasurements ~n Tidal Flows
I
In an eddy viscosity model vt in equation (7) is replaced, as seen above,
by an expression according to equation (8). Solving equation (7) yields the profiles of velocity and shear stress, etc. In expression (8) the
I
z
e
of some measurements done in tidal channels.
choices of ~(z/h) and the used global velocity scale u and length scale
e
have to be r'eaIi sti c , They will be considered first by taking account
I
Most measurements in tidal channels show almost logarithmic velocity profiles(~,1,24,~,~).
These measurements are generally executed at near maximum velocities, Gordon(ll)
finds a profile apparently indicative of a boundarylayer not fully developed up to the surface. As an underdeveloped boundary layer is not expected (see 4), this phenomenon is probably caused by channel topography, density gradients, or the like. At tidal phases where the velocities are smaller, deviations of the logarithmic behaviour may be expected and have indeed been found by Bowden et al.(J).
These last measurements, howeve r , are not very conclusive,asonly one series. of profiles has been measured, during half a tidal cycle, and in this series an inexplicable change between two succeeding profiles is reported. Anyhow, the measurements by Bowdenet al. must be used with care, when discriminating between the performances of the various models.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'Values of
u.tu
where u is the velocity at I meter above the bed,A HlO 100
are of the order of
i/15
to 1/17~,1,12,12).
If a drag coefficientI
CIaO
is defined as u2CIao
~ u2. lQO (15)I
I
then this value correspondends toCIaO
=
4.4 x 103
to 3.5 .x 103.
I
I
1 1
I
This is comparable to the value ClOO= 2.2 x. 103 to 4.0 ;x 103 as found by Sternberg (36) derived from extensive measurernents in various tidalchannels. Sternberg computed the shear stress from the velocity profile.
I
I
The logaritmüic velocity profiles above a rough bed Ln an uniform andsteady flow can be described by
I
u~ z+z u(z). ln(__ o) K z o (16)I
:
1
I
I
where z 1S the characteristic roughness height and K is Von Karman's o
constant. When z is neglected compared to Z" divisü>n of equation (16)
o
( 17)
I
I
I
Writing zrel for the relative characteristic roughness height z /h
o 0 it yields u(z/h) u:.t,
=
;l
1( z/h ) K n z rel o (18)I
rel. .The velocity profiles following from equation (18)with z
=
1.1 ~ 1~4 oare given in fig. 2. This value of zrel corresponds to e.g. a depth o
of 10 m combined with a roughness height of 1.1 mmo (see page14 ). The value of ":.t,./u100in this case is 1/17 and so the value of CIOO is 3.5 x 10_'3. Zo ",1.1 raracorrespondends to an equivalent sand+
roughness ks of 30 Zo
=
3.3 cm. As the value of uäv/u:t is apout 20.2 in this case (see fig. 2), the value of the Chézy resistance coefficient C, defined byI
I
u _{1} C = av g2 u~ 1S about 63 m!/s. (19)I
I
I
I
,
12I
I
McCave (25) mentions nonconstant values of Z ~n tidal flow. The bed
 0
seems to be transitional bet\\1eensmooth and rough for a flow with Re <1.5 x 105 where Re
=
u100ziv
and Z ;,.1 meter (36).Ibis may influence the value Zo ~n a part of the tidal cycle.
I
Following the mixing length hypothesis of Prandtl (29)I
(20)I
I
I
as ~n equation (9), and assuming the m~x~ng length to be
1
=
KZm (21)
I
the velocity profile ~n a steady and uniform boundary layer shows the same logarithmic behaviour (see equation 17). Substitution of equation (21) and the derivative of equation (17)
I
I
~  .i,
lu I
dZ  KZ :t (22)
into equation (9) gives
I
(23)I
I
I
Equation (211 however, applies only in the reg~on near the channel bed, where Z is smaller than
hls
.
.
According to Townsend (38),assumption of a constant eddy viscosity in large regions of the flow gives correct velocity profiles in many types of turbulent flow.
In open channel flow he proposes a constant eddy viscosity above z
=
hlS,
with the valueI
v
=..It,I
U·I
h t . % 5 (24)I
I
I
I
I
I
I
13I
however,Inhibitionredueesof large turbulentthe mixing length and the eddy viseositymotions near the free surfaee,in the surfaee layer in open ehannel flow.I
_{A harmonie} _{kinema tie pressure} _{gradient} _{~s considered} _{~n this report}I
S= Bcoswt • (25)I
Using the nondimensional variablesI
I
I
+ wu
=_{"Hu}
+ t t=
T P (26)I
I
+ z z = h + vt vt_{hZw}
where T ~s the period of the variation of the pressure gradient p
in/w,
equation (7) becomesI
1 2'it + +a
(+au )
az+ vtäZ"
= + cos (2nt ) (27) +Written ~n this way the amplitude of u ~s 1 if the shear stress
. . . + (+ +) . .
term 1.Sum.mportant , Flows wi.th equal vt z ,t are simi lar ,
Substitution of equation(26)in equation (23) and (24) gives the nondimensional eddy viscosity
I
(28)where fez/hl is z/h and 1/5 1.n the case of equation (23) and (24), respectively. u~ can be related to the pressure gradient. When
I
the acceleration of the fluid is negligible, equilibrium of momentum requires
I
14,
I
I
I
where 1 ~s the bed shear stress. o 0
(29)
'
I
I
In this report the following situation ~s considered:
The tidal channel has a depth of 10 mand a characteristic roughness height of 1.1 nnn. The tide is semidiurnal. The values of
the
amplitude of the pressure gradient and the period and the frequency of the tide are respectivelyI
I
B=
1.454 x 1004 m/s2 T 4.32 x:0104 s (30)I
I
w=
1.454 x 10~4 /s •The eddy viscosity and the nondimensional eddy viscosity ~n this case are
0
'
accor d i.ng to To\omsend, respectively,I
I
I
0.1525 x f(~) m2/s \/t = h (31) \/; = 10.49 x f(~)where f (z/h) of equation (28) is used. 3.2. Constant Eddy Viscosity
If \/t is constant, equation (7) allows an analytical solution (32)
I
u(z,t) ~ Beiwt Re • {~w COSh{~(I+ i)(zh)} }] 1 + 0 t cOsh{/fv' (l+i)h} o t (32)I
I
1 1 f be KU ...max hO/5 A reasonab e va ue or \/t seems to A rcorresponding in the situation or tuis page to thè viscosity and non(see page 12),
dimensional viscosity, respectively,
15
I
v
=
0.03051
m
2/
s
tI
+v
t=
2
.0
9
8 .
(33)
I
I
The profiles of the v~~ocity u(z,t) during a tidal cycle are presented in fig. 3A and the prof~ e3 of the shear stress in fig. 3B. (For all
results in this report nonáimensional quantities are used).
The velocity profiles at higher flow velocities differ very little from parabolas. At lower flow velocities fluid at a distance from the bed shows a small phase lag with respect to the fluid near the bed, as the time needed for the pressure gradient to alter the smaller velocities near the bed will be shorter than the time needed to alter
the larger velocities nearer to the surface. This phase lag results in a small hysteresis effect as can be seen by plotting the shear
stress at fixed depths against the surface velocity u • (See the hysteresis
s
diagram in fig.
3E).
The velocities and the shear stresses var.yharmonically with time because ofthelinearity of equation (7) in this case (Seefig.
3e
and3D
.
respectively), so the hysteresis diagram consists of exact ellipses.I
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
The model ~:ith cons tant eddy viscosi ty fails in reproducing the apprcpriate velocity' profiles. The value ku:axh/5, which is close to the
values encountered over most of the depth at ~aximum velocity, gives values of uax,that lie much below 20.2 ult Ccompa:r:efig. 2). The model yields a small hysteresis effect, but the curves in the hysteresis diagram do not resembie 'the hysteresis curves measured (see fig.7a).
I
3.3
Quadratic Eddy ViscosityI
Near the bed(see fig. 4). (z/h ~ 1 15), aquadratic eddy viscosity as given by.max z2
KU
(z  )
*
h(34)
1S a good approximation of the eddy viscosity distribution proposed .on page 12 (at maxi.mum veloci ty) •
I
I
I
I
I
16
Above z/h
=
1/S and near the free surf ace the deviation is not very large either. The eddy viscosity and the nondi~ensional eddy viscosity in the situation of page 14 have the values of expression (31), whereI
Z Zf()
=
.h h (35)
Equation (7) with
v
as given by expression (34) also allows an. . t
analytical solution (26). The solutions of the velocity profiles are confluent hypergeometrie functions
W,
which at higher flow veloeities approxi~ate logarithmic f~nctions (26). The velocity profiles and the shear stress profiles during a tidal cycle are shown ~n fig. SA and SB, respectively. The corresponding hysteresis diagram ~s shown in fig. SE. Again, it consists of ellipses, in accordance with the har~onical relation of veloeities and shear stresses with timeI
I
I
(see fig. SC and 5D).
The quadratic eddy viscosity model is superior to the constant eddy viscosity ~odel in the reproduction of almast logarithmical profiles and in the value of u , whi ch is nearer to 20.2 u , but the hys teresis
av
x
curves are not improved.
I
3.4. TimeDependent Quadratic Eddy ViscosityI
I
Considering the argument on page 7 , it seems reasonable to use a timedependent eddy viscosity, instead of eddy viscosities that do not change with time as in 3.2 and 3.3. Using lu /20.21 as the global velocity
av
scale, h as the global length scale and f(Z/h) as given by expression (35) in equation (8) g~ves an eddy viscosity
I
Z2
h ). (36)
I
',
1
The dependenee on depth.of the eddy viscosities ~n expressions (36) and (34) is the sa~e.
lu~v/20.21 instead of
The choice of the global length scale
lu I
is in accordance with fig. 2. In the!I::
situation of page 14 the nondimensional viscosity has the value,
I
+v
=t (37)
I
I
17I
Equation (7) with vt as given by expression (36) is solved numerically by means of an implicit finite difference method, based on the CrankNicholson scherae. The velocity profiles at the larger mean velocities are almost logarithmic (see fig. 6A), and are equal to the profiles of fig. 2. The corresponding shear stress profiles are nearly linear (see fig. 6B). The phase lag of the velocities is larger than in the foregoing roodels, as the velocities are higher, due to the smaller eddy viscosities. Again the phase lag is highest near the surface for the
same reason as in the constant viscosity raodel (see page 15).
I
I
I
To compare the hysteresis curves of fig. 6E with curves, as found by Gordon by measureraents in an estuary
(l?),
and by Anwar by measurements in a flume (3), allowance has to be made for the different circumstances. FQr this co~parison in fig. 7A, the relative shear stressmax
L/1Ö {(hz)/h} ~s plotted against the relative surface velocity
U ./u max where ~ max• and u'max are t e max~mumh . b de s ear stress anh d
s sos
the maxiraum surface velocity during a tidal cycle, respectively. max
Lo {(hz)/h} would be the maximum shear stress at level z when the shear stresses were exactly.linear with depth.
I
I
I
I
The hysteresis effect computed with this modelat
z/h ~ 0.25 is muchsmaller than the effect shown by the curve obtained from Gordon's raeasurement s at z/h = 0..28 (see fig. 7A). As no bed shear stress is known, because not sufficient information about the velocity profile is given, the reduction of his hysteresis raeasurement into fig. 7A is executed by means of the maximum shear stress on this level instead of L max {(hz)/h} •
o
I
I
The agreement be tween the curve computed with this model at z/h = 0.75 and Anwar's raeasurements at z/h
=
0.72 (and the acceleration period of 200 s) is bad. This is not surprising as Anwar mentions extremely high shear stresses in connection with his hysteresis diagram.Even in the accelerating phase the shear stress exceeds the shear stress that fits a linear stress profile by à factor 2. The measurements of
Anwar show, however, again a much larger hysteresis effect than this roodel does.
I
I
I
I
I
,
18Another curve in fig. 7A is a hysteresis curve derived by the author (5), also based on the measurements of Anwar (3). The anomalous

I
shear stresses do not.appear here.The hysteresis effect, however, 1S still considerable .
.
1
Except for the hysteresis effect the curves in fig 7A obtained from the measurements of Gordon and of Anwar and those obtained by the computations1n this model show the same quadratic relation between Us and T.
In this respect the timedependent global velocity is a consid~rable improvement in comparison to the constant global velocity.
I
I
I
In fig. 6C and fig. 6D, the variation of the velocities and the shear stresses at various depths during a tidal cycle are presented.
The velocity variations in fig. 6C are slightly asymetric. Such an asymnetry, but less pronounced, 1S measured in the Humber off
Grimsby
(12),
and is calculated 1n a kmodel of the same estuary (34). The shear stress variations in fig. 6D correspond to calculations in thesame kmodel and to measurements
(2).
I
I
I
I
I
Prom a supposed analogy between laminar and turbulent flow, Yalin and Russell (39) conclude to the following expression for the bed shear stress under long waves
T =ex
u
2 + Bgh ~.o s ax (38)
I
Heasurements of the time variation of l' in a flume, the surf ace
o
velocity Us an9 the gradient of the surface elevation aç/ax lead to the values ex = (2.5 ln( 11lY'k_{.} _{s}»:2 and 13
=
0.018. In the model of a tidal charme I as used here, wi th h=
lOm, z = 1.1 1IllIl (thuso
k = 33 mm) exgets the value 2.43 x 103• This combination of ex and
s
13 leads to a small hysteresis effect, comparable to the effect computed with this model (see fig. 7B) •. Only the bed shear stress lags behind
the surface velocity, whereas in this model the bed shear stress leads
I
the surface velocity (see fig. 7B). Farther from the bed in this
I
model the shear stresses lag behind the surface velocity too. (see fig. 7A).I
I
19
I
In a steady (or very slowly varying) boundary layer .fLow the logarithmic profile of fig. 2 agrees withI
I
To1.93
x 103 u2s(39)
I
Larger values of 8 lead to larger hysteresis effects.
Using a
=
2.43
x10
3 and8
=
0
.
2
(see fig. 7B) gives a hysteresis effect, comparable to the effects measured by Gordon and by Anwarexcept for the behaviour of the shear stress when the surface velocities are small. (The value 8
=
0
.
018
was derived from measurements at small surface velocities).J
I
I
Thefig. 7a and 7b are taken with repect to,relative shear stresses for the expression of Yalin and Russell ~n,
I
max T o=
1.93
x 103 (usmax)2(40)
I
I
and u smodel were used.
To obtain arelation between Tand u the relation bet\leen êJr,/êJx s
must be known. For this the computatio~in this eddy viscosity
I
This eddy viscosity model combines the reproduction of almost logarithmic velocity profiles and almost linear shear stress profiles of the quadratic nonvarying eddy viscosity model with aquadratic relation between u
. s
and T. This relation shows a much too small hysteresis effect, however, compared to the measurements by Gordon in a tidal flow and hy Anwar in a flume. Extrapolation of the formula of Yalin and Russell to tidal flows does not seem to be advisable.
I
I
I
In this eddy viscosity model and in the eddy viscosity model of
3.3
the bed roughness is introduced i~ the following way. In the fini te difference scheme used the exactitude of the approximation of the velocity gradient close to the wqll depends on the relation between the depth
step and the characteristic roughness .height, zo' To compensate for the error in this approximation a small deviation of relations
(34)
and(36) at the meshpoints most close to the bed is used. This correction
I
depends on
z .
o
I
I
I
I
I
20 3.5. A Hysteresis ParameterFlows with the same parameter
I
I
I
I
I
behave exactly similar in the constant eddy viscosity model (3.2) (see equation (27». Thenondimensional velocitiesu+in the different flows are exactly equal at the same relative distance above the bed z/h
and at the same tidal phase. This holds too for thenondiwensional shear stresses and so for the phase lags of Land u. Consequently the parameter P is decisive for the hysteresis effect in this model. The phase 1ags are proportional to P in the case of flows with a small pnase lag. If no phase lag were present, then the relation between the relative shear stress and the relative surface velocity would be a linear one at each depth, corresponding to a straight line in the hysteresis diagram. If P has a value that implies an important phase lag at a certain depth, than the straight line in the hysteresis diagram becomes an ellips. (see fig. 3E).
I
In eddy viscosity models with nonconstant eddy viscosities (33 and 14) flows with similar eddy viscosity profiles \.ill again be similar if P
is
equal. So if different flows under long \laves exhibit logarithmic velocity profiles, corresponding to similar linear eddy viscosity profiles for z/h ~ 1/5 and almost constant eddy viscosities for z/h ~ 1/5,then the same parameter P wi.lL be i.mportant , To compare the hysteresis effects of such flows,vt in P has to be taken at equal relative depths.
I
The values of Preferring to fig. 7a are, us~ng the eddy viscosity model of 3.4 , and taking vt to be the maximum eddy viscosity at ~h = 0.2 : P (Anwar) = O. 63 (at the acceleration period of 200 s)
P (Gordon) 0.56 (a rough guess)
P (this report)= 0.54 (the tidal situation as used ~n this report (see page 14».
I
I
21I
I
In this light not much difference between the phase lags and the hysteresis effects in these three cases has to be expected. Only
the larger P in Anwars measurements may bring about slightly larger phase lags and hysteresis effects. Without a phase lag the relation between the relative shear stresses at different depths and the relative surface velocity would be aquadratic one, using the eddy viscosity model
of
3.4 •
.
The phase lags implied by a nonzero value of P wi.dens the curvesin the hysteresis diagram (see fig.
7)
.
I
3.6.
Future DevelopmentsI
I
I
Some changes in the model might be interesting
1) Using u~ instead of uav/20~2 fo.rthegl.obal, velocity scale in expression
(36).
This accounts in a better way for the generation of theturbulence, which determines the eddy viscosity, as this generation of turbulence depends largelyon the conditions
in
the undermost centimeters. This change will not have much consequence for the velocity profiles close to maximum flow velocity, as there the flow profiles are almost logarithmic withu =
u /20.2. The~ av
changes at lo\.,erflow velocities and the changes in the hysteresis curves may be appreciable.
2) An attempt may be made to s irauLate the "bursti.ng" phenomenon in boundary layer flow in an eddy viscosity model. A problem is the lack of knowledge of the bursting process, in particular 1n flows of a large Reynolds number. It is doubtful, whether
an eddy viscosity model isattractive for this purpose. possibilities are an eddy viscosity that is larger in the decelerating phase than 1n the accelerating phase, and use of a time delay with respect
I
I
I
I
I
I
to uav or u~in coherent structures from the bed region to the surface region to take account of the transport of turbulent fluid
I
of the flow. As these .structures have an upward velocity of about one tenth of the mean v~loci ty ~, the time lag connec ted wi th
this transport is of the order of 200 S 1n tidal flow, so no
dramatic effects are to be expected. Only the flow at Low mean velocities will be more seriously affected.
I
I
I
22I
3) Calculation of turbulence energy profiles rnaymake possible an extra check by measurements. It mayalso serve as a connection and a comparison with the kmodel and the k€model.
4) The mixing length model of 2.2.2 requ~res roughly the same computational method as eddy viscosity models. Only, points with small au/az may give extra 'problems.Themodel is not trustworthy around these points, because of the vanishing eddy viscosity. At high mean velócities the profile is almost logarithmic, so the mixing
length model is not expected to give results, deviating much from the eddy viscosity model of 3.4.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
23
4. Phase Lag of Velocity and Turbulence Energy
I
I
4.1 Phase Lag in Periodic Flow
I
In the preceding section phase lags of velocity and shear stress with respect to the pressure gradient (and other varying properties) appear. The phase lags are related to the acceleration of the flow under the influence of the pressure gradient. These accelerations arise when the pressure gradient and the derivative of the shear stress dT /dZ
do not balance each other everywhere, as they do in steady flow.
In a varying flow, consequently, the shear stress profile and, vi th it,
the velocity profile lag behind the equilibrium profiles, that constitute the steady state solution matching the pressure gradient at the same moment. In a periodic flow this time lag related to the period of the
fLów gives a phase lag.
I
I
I
Larger accelerations are connected with profiles that deviate more from equilibrium profiles so they are combined with larger phase lags. These larger accelerations may be brought about by a higher frequency or a lower viscosity (causing higher velocities) (see 3.5).J
I
I
I
Generally the phase lag ~s dependent on depth and time. The smaller velocities near the bed mean smaller accelerations and smaller phase lags.
I
In eddy viscosity models where the eddy viscosity ~s dertermined by the turbulence energy k, the phase lag picture is more complicated.
The kvalue at each depth will not match the velocity profile, but will lag behind. If the phase lag of the turbulence energy with respect to the velocities is small, then the kprofiles and hence the eddy viscosity profiles almost match the velocity profiles. Use of these eddy viscosity profiles in an eddy viscosity model will then give the same solution as the krnode l , In that case the only use ~d the kmodel may lie in the computation of the eddy viscosity·profiles.
If the phase lag of the turbulence energy with respect to the velocity ~s important, then the dependence of the eddy viscosity on the turbulence energy (33) can not be expressed in a dependence on the velocity. The eddy viscosity model 'is clearly insufficient in tha~ case.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
24
I
I
In the kEmodel an analogous consideration is possible. The condition of a small phase lag of k will presumably imply a small phase lag of E.
I
4.2. Phase Lag of the Velocity in Eddy Viscosity ModelsI
modelsThe values of the p(3.2
to3
.
5)
haare allse lags below, calculatbased upon the tidal situation of pageed in vario~ eddy viscosity14
,
.
I
In the model vi.th a constant eddy viscosity
(
3
.
2)
the velocity is.harmonie with time at every depth, so the phasc lag of the velocity depends only on the depth. This depthdependency ~s small, however.
At the surface a phase lag of ·11 degrees and at
10
cm of the böttom a phase lag of8
.
5
0 is calculated. This correaponda.ct'o a timelag of
2
2
minutes at the surface and of17
minutes at10
cm above the channel bed.I
In the model wi th aquadratic eddy viscosity
(3.3)
the phase lag again ~s only dependent on the depth, but very weakly. At the surface thephase lag is
3
2
0 corresponding wi th a time lag of 64 minutes.I
Even larger phase lags are calculated in the eddy viscosi ty model where the eddy viscosity has aquadratic dependenee on zand is proportional to IUavl (see3
.
4).
In that case the phase lag is not only dependent on depth, but also on time. At high flow veloeities the dependeneeon depth is small. The pha se lag is about 360 in that case.corresponding
to a time lag of 72 minutes. At low fl.owveloeities the pha se lags
o 0
calculated are much larger: from .51 at the surface to about 46 at
10
cm above the bed, corresponding to time lags of1
hour and42
minutes at the surface to 1 hour and3
2
minutes near the bot tom.I
I
I
I
I
Few mention ~s made of phase or time lags ~n estuaries. When measurements are reported(18,34,37),
time lags of the velocity appear to be betweenI
about hala bit high, but timf an hour eand one hour.lag data in tidal flows are not easily measuredThe values of the last model seem exactly, especially at low flow veloeities.,
I
I
I
25
4.3 Estimate of the Time Lag of the Turbulence Energy ne ar the Bed
I
I
A rough estimate of the time lag of k with respect to the velocity
in
a
tidal channel can be made near the bed. There the terms concerning production and dissipation in the transport equation of turbulence energy(equation 12) are much larger than the term for the turbulent diffusion. Following Townsend (l§), at z/h = 1/10 the ratio between the three terms
is about 7:8:1.respectively (in pipe flow). Therefore the diffusionterm may now be neglected. When the velocity profile is logarithmic with z, then the productionterm in equation (12) is, using equations
I
I
(22) and 23), ak. (ät)prod (42) .I
If the boundary layer were steady, the dissipation rate E would be equal to the production as diffusion is neglected. If, as expected in nonsteady flow, the turbulence energy is not exactly adjusted to the velocity profile, then both the production and the dissipation of turbulence energy differ from the matching value (see equations
(11) and (12»)'. ~s the production is proportional to k 1/2 and t.he
I
I
dissipation to k 3/2 a net production (or dissipation) ofI
I
I
turbulence energy will result.
If the turbulence energy deviates a small amount ~k from the matching value
k,
then the production rate is multiplied by a factor(I+!~~/k)
as(k + ~k) '"(k 1/2+
! ~)
2 k 1/2(43)
I
I
In the same way the dissipation ra te is multiplied by a factor (1 + 3/2 ~k!k). As equation (42) gives the production rate and the (equal) dissipation rate of the turbulence energy when k has the matching value, the value of awat becomes in case of a small mismatching ~k
ak I ~k
"ät=2k
(44)I
I
I
26
I
The time lag is the time that would be needed for the rate of change of the turbulence energy (see expression 44) to make up for the originaldeviation ~k. So the time lag can be estimated by
I
I
I
time lag , = k = kI
KZI
u 3*
(45)To estimate the turbulence energy k in equation (45) arelation with the shear stress can be used (~,38)
I
k
~ 3.54 (46)
I
AssumptionThis relationof a linear stress distributionLS valid only near the channel bed.relates the turbulence energy to the bed shear stress, so near the channel bed the follo\ling expressiongives an estimation of the turbulence energy
I
I
k=
3 54_{•} _{u::t}2 (hz)_{h} (47)Substitution Ln equation (45) gives for the time lag
I
I
time lag _{3.54} _{.}.(hz)
_{h}
_{.}
.1ïÇT
Kz (48)I
I
In a slowly varying flow the bed shear stress and the pressure gradient
are almost in equilibrium, so in that case
u 2
=
hIS(t) I
::t (49)
Using equation (49),expression (48) becomes
I
I
time lagIS(t)
11/2 (50)I
Using the values of S and h pertaining to the tidal situation simulated
in this report (see page 14) equation (50) becomes
I
I
I
I
27 2z
z
1time lag
=
3.7 x )0 h (lh) I_{cos wt}. 1s_{.}econd s (5) ),
I
At z/h
=
1/10 and near max~mum flow veloeities a time lag of about 33 seconds results. Nearer to the bottom the time lags are smaller,more or less proportionally to z. At small veloeities the time lags
become more important. A kmodel may then give appreciably better
results.
4.4. Estimateof the Time·Lag of the Turbulence Energy at all Depths
I
I
I
,
1
Equation (46) holds approximately throughout a large part of the depth,
as the relation between Land depth is almost linear and that between
turbulence energy and depth does not deviate far from a linear relation
except for the surface layer
(l§).
Neglect of the diffusion of turbulence energy then would lead to a maximum time:Lag at haLfedep th of about93 seconds. Diffusion outside the nearbed layer is transporting
turbulence energy upuards. This transport from a region with smaller
time lags will generally reduce the time· lags farther from the bed too.
I
The time lag of the turbulence energy uith respect to the velocity is quite small throughout the flow depth, except at low flow velocities.Because of this small time lag much more accurate solutions of velocity
profiles and other proper ties by using a kmodel, instead of an eddy
viscosity model with an appropriate eddy viscosity distribution, are
not to be expected. (At low flow velocities the solutions may be
improved.) As logarithmic velocity profiles are not very criticalwithrespect
to the exact eddy viscosity distribution, in particular near the surface,
a kmodel can perhaps be used to decide on the eddy viscosity profiles.
I
I
·
I
I
I
I
I
4.5. An Analytical Solution of the Variation of the Turbulence Energy
near the B;ed
I
For the nearbed layer
(z/h ~ 1/
10), where diffusion is negligible,an analytical solution of the transport equation of the turbulence
energy (equation (12)) ~s possible. In contradistinction to the
approximation method of 4.3 this method gives the possibility to
comp~te the turbulence energy at low flow veloeities.
I
28I
I
By substitution of expression (11) and neglect of the diffusion term equation (12) becomes
I
=a
k
a
t
"I k3/2 C L_{\)}
Ik
(~_{az)}
..2._ Cn
r
_{(52)}I
Assuming ~~ to vary harmoniccally with time near the bedI
I
au
 = ycos wtaz
(53) equation (52) becomesI
(54)I
I
I
where q is written for
Ik
Using the nondimensional variables
I
+ t t=
T P + w q_{= B}
_{q} (55)I
equation (54) becomesI
I
+'
o~~+
+(q+)2= a2cos2 2TIt+ (56)where
o
= (57)I
a=
I
I
+When q has a positive initial value equation (56) only permits positive solutions.
I
I
29
I
I
Exeept for reg~ons. 0f t+ w~th. .small cos 21ft , equation+ (56) ean besolved using an asymptotical method. In regions of t+ where cos 21ft+ is small, equation (56) ean be approximated by
I
(58)I
I
where tI _{t}+ _{+}In
4 2.!.<
I I t < 44
::;:r _{(59)}I
I
,
Here n is an integer.If regions exist where bath methods are applieable, then the solutions should give the same results.
I
In the asymptotieal ~ethod it is assumed, that the solution q+(t+) of equation (56) ean be written asI
+ + + + + += qo (t ) +15ql (t ) + 15q2 (t ) + ... (60)
I
where eaeh term on the right side is an order smaller than the preeeding term. For eaeh power of 15equation (56) ean be solved.I
"
Q:~E~~E:
The Oorder part of equation (56) ~s(61 )
I
50 the Oorder solution is,
I
I
(62)
The negative solution ~n eaeh halfeyel~ ean be exeluded as
+ (t+) + ( +) (I
1»"
q = qo t )(.order y ~ v (63)
I
!:~E~~E:The Iorder part of equation
(56) ~sI
30I
I
I
I
(64)giving as Iorder solution
+ + +
oql (t) =0 ntan Znt (65)
·2order: The 2order part of equation (56) is
I
I
(66)
The 2order solution 1S
(67)
I
I
In fig. 8a the Oorder, Iorder and 2order solutions at z/h
=
1/10
+ +
are plotted, together with their sum as an approximation for q (t ). The values of a and 0 pertain to the tidal situation in this report
(see page
14).
a and 0 are evaluated at page34.
Clearly the asymptotieal method ean not be used for It' I < 0.03.I
I
·
I
·
At small values of t' solutions of equation(58) are used as approximations to sDlutions of equation (56).
Taking ~(t') to be a funetion with the property
+
q (t ") _{=} _{""'~;(t""''':"')}
o
dHt')_{.}_{dt'} (68)I
I
equation (58) ean be rewritten as
I
(69)
I
I
I
I
I
31
The solution to this equation 1S a parabolic cylinder function
(l)
I
OIO<p(t
'
)
=I
a (!z1Toa't'f a = I n(nl) a n=O n ' n· n4 a2 = 0 a3 0 (70)I
I
+The parameter al/aO specifies a series of solutions for (q (t') of equation (58) obtained by expres sion (68) from the solutions (70) of equation
(69). A good transition from solution (70)_to the solution as found by using the asymptotical method can be achieved by a proper choice of a/aO'
I
+ +
In fig.
Bb
the solutions of q (t ) at z/h = 1/10 as found by means of both methods is plotted. As the approximation in equation (58) is satisfactory for It' I < 0.055, a sufficient timeregion, where both methods apply, exists.I
The strange b hav ie aV10ur 0f q+ (t+) 1n. f .19. 8b as computed by means 0f+
the approximation method near t = 0.20 is a byproduct of the calculation methode It is caused by the very critical behaviour of
+( +) . /.,
q t w1th regard to the value of al aO for negat1ve values of t •
The turbulence energy follo\ls from q+(t+) with
(71 )
In fig.
Bc
the variation of the turbulence energy at z/h = 1/10 over the tidal cycle is shown.Because of the relation of k and T (see.equation 46) k is made
nondimensional by means of a division by the same factor Bh as was used in the case of T.
I
1
I
I
32
5. Turbulence Energy Models
I
I
I
5.1 IntroductionI
I
In the last few years manyboundary Iayer p rob lems have been attacked numerically with kmodels and kemodels. In these models use is made of the turbulence energy k, as a property which determines the eddy viscosity, and of
k and the dissipation rate e respectively. For each turbulence property used a transport equation has to be solved. (See pages 8 and 9 ).
I
I
To obtain realistic models the constants in equations
(11)
to(14)
have to be chosen carefully. Calibration of the models by optimizing the constants, as is done by Smith and Takhar (35) is dangerous. It is possible to genera te the wanted almost logarithmic velocity profiles with'different combinations of the constants. The constants, so found,
'aridhènee the whole physics of the model may ?e eompletely wrong.
I
I
5.2 The kModel: Choice of the Constants
I
If a kmodel has to make sense, the constants and the distribution of L must be chosen equal to the eonstants in a kmodel for appropriate steady boundary layer flows. An appropriate steady boundary layer flow is the steady flow, eorresponding to the almost logarithmic velocity profiles as found in an estuary at high flow veloeities, as the velocity distribution and the turbulence energy distribution are almost stationary then.
L in equations
(11)
and(12)
is a length seale that characterizes the large turbulent moti.ons(11),
as is lm' the mixing length. L is cho sen equal to 1 here (32). mI
I
I
I
I
I
I
In a steady boundary layer, diffusion of turbulence energy is .negligible near thè wall, so produetion and dissipation are in equilibrium there
(see equation
12).
(72)
Multiplication of this.equation by vt and substitution of equations (6) and (11) yields
I
33I
I
(73)I
I
I
The ratio of k and T, as derived from various measurements, is,near
the wall, given by equation
(46).
This supplies for CvCn
the valueCombination of equations (11) and (23) gLves near the bed
I
Cv _ h:l: I"z
Ik
L(z) (75)I
k ean be eliminated by equation (47) near the bedI
k (76)I
I
As L LS chosen equal to 1
=
~z,
it follows that In\
C '"0,53
v and (77)
I
The diffusion coefficient of the turbulence energy LS about as large as the diffusion eoeffieient for momentum vt' A value of 1.0 or 1.1 is henee generally used for Gk.
I
I
Smith and Takhar (35) use C C
n
2=
0.09 instead of 0.012 in their v
simulation of tidal flow in an estuary. They use an Lprofile in which the L reInains ,large up to the surface (see fig.IO). Such an Lprofile
fits in with boundary layer flow without a free surfaee. In open channel flow the length scale declines again near the surfaee, as the surface inhibits large turbulent motions.
I
I
I
Boundary layer flows are dependent on the roughness of the bed. As
no dependenee of the roughness is included in the equations of the
kmodeL or in the constant.s,She only possi.b i.Li,ty to introduee the roughness ,'ot, the bad lef t is in the boundary conditi.ons ,
I
I
I
I
34I
I
The constants a and 0 in
4.5
can be calculated fromCD,C
v and L.Using the values for Cv and CD of expression
(77), L
=
0
.
4
m at z=
m, and reckoning with the phase lag of u (see page24)
I
u 2y2
=
_! =KZ
(78)
I
see equations(22)
and(29),
the values of a and0
at Z 1 mareI
a =5.80
x10
2ê =
1.235
x 104(79)
I
5.3
The kmodel: A First CalculationI
I
A first calculation with a kmodel simulating the tidal situation of page 14 • ~s performed. As boundary conditions are used:
At .the bed: I
 U
=
0 and k=
ITol/,(CvCD)~ , corresponding withI
equation (73).
The bedroughness ~s introduced by means of the choice of T o in the boundary condition of k.
I
T o=
K
2U(Z)
lu(z)I
(ln(z/z»
2
o(80)
I
for small z, ~n conformity with the law of the wall.~!_!h
~
_~~E!!!~~:
au/az=
0 and ak/az=
0 or absence of momentum andI
energy transport.I
The length scale distribution of Smith and Takhar (see page 33) is used for this calculation. It has to be changed to account for the inhibition of the large turbulent motions near the surface.
I
I
The equations are solved numcrically by means of an implicit fini te difference method, based on the CrankNicholson scheme. The errors introduced by the finite difference ~cheme at the meshpoints near the bed are corrected for.
I
I
The depthstep, öz, is, for the time being, chosen quite large (öz
=
0.25
m).The timestep, öt, depends mainly on the time lag between k and u at the lowest meshpoint in the flow, and has to be very short ~n order to keep
1
the turbulence energy positive. Here
2400
of a tidal cycle or18
s has been used.·
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
35Choosing the first mesh point 1n the flow nearer to the bed requires in this model a smaller timestep as can be concluded from equation (51).
As a much finer depth mesh, in particular near the bed, is desired, a scheme with different timesteps near the bed may be considered.
The differencesbetween the velocity profiles computed using the kmodel (see fig. 9A) and the timedependent quadratic eddy viscosity model (3.4) (see fig. 6A) are smalle A deviation of the logarithmic shape is
connected with the Lprofile used. This deviation is too small
io
be~easured in a prototype. The large depthstep influences the profile close to the bed. The shear stress profile (see fig. 9B), the variation of velocity and shear stress with time (see fig. 9D and 9E, respectively), and the
hysteresis curves of the shear stress (fig. 9G) correspond closely to ~heir counterparts in the eddy viscosity model of 3.4. The phase lag of the velocity in the kmodel deviates only some tentha of degrees from the corresponding phase lag computed usiug the eddy viscosity model.
The turbulence energy profiles are shown in fig. 6C. The shape of the profiles near the bed has to be improved. The value of k near the bed determines the eddy viscosity there and hence influences the amplitude at all depths. The values of k in the surface region are quite high. This may be due tri the Lprofile used. The hysteresis curves of the turbulence energy at various depthsare given in fig. 9H The variatiou of k with time is shown in fig. 9F. The agreement with the analytical solution in fig. 8C is satisfactory. Only the value of k in the maximum phase is somewhat higher than it was cOQPuted analytically, and the assymmetry is stronger. The first difference may be due to the neglect of the diffusion in the analytical solution or tb the large depthstep 1n the kmodel. The second difference is caused by the assumption of a harmonic variation of au/az in the case of the analytical solution•.
I
36I
5.4 ke:Model
I
In the future use of a ke:model (see page 9) is planned.The same attention as in the kmodel has to be given to the constantSt
The lengthscale distribution L can be calculated using the solution of k and e:by
L
(56)
I
ke:modelSmith and Takhanalogousar (~)to the distributioncompute a lengthscalewhichdistributionthey use ~n the kmodel~n their .As the lengthscale does not decline near the surface, this distribution was rejected on page 34. In the ke:model this questionable distribution
is possibly caused by wrong boundary conditions at the surface.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
37
I
I
6. ConclusionsI
In spite of the very simple onedimensional mathematical models of the tidal channel used in this investigation, many aspects of turbulent flow as measured in estuaries and in flumes under long waves are
reproducible. Velocity profiles, shear stress profiles, time lags,
hysteresis effe cts of shear stresses against surf ace velocity etc.
are considered.
I
I
I
The few measurements available show m4ch scatter ~n the data and many aspects of tidal flows in estuaries have not been measured a·tall. This is a handicap concerning the calibration of the models and concerning the determination of the ability of the various models to reproduce the tidal flow. For that reason more measurements in tidal flows are needed. Heasurements in flumes, though less suitable
because of scale effects, are important, as measurements in tidal flows are costly, difficult and mostly inprecise. Density differences, channel topography, bed roughness and cooperating tidal components
all act together. Their respective influences on the flow are not always easily separable.
I
I
I
I
I
In this investigation computations are made in various eddy viscositymodels and in the kmodel until now. The difference between the results ~n the used eddy viscosity model with varying eddy viscosity (3.4) and
.in the kmodel is small, as is expected because of the small phase lag between velocity and turbulence energy.
I
I
I
I
The choice of the formulas used for the eddy viscosity depends on the physical factors which are supposed to play a part and on the desired results. Taking into account the "bursting" phenomenon requires a
knowledge of this phenomenon that is hardly available at this moment. For instance, the choice of the global velocity scale u (in equation 8)
e
has to be made. As the turbulence is generated near the bed, u:;tseems to be the appropriate velocity, but as the"bursting"phenomenon seems to depend on the
near
=
aurf
ace velocity in some aspec ts, u or u mays av
be a better choice(28yor the time being in the best pûre ecldy viscosity model the eddy viscosity is quadratic in z, and proportional to a varying
velocity such as u or ~ • A model of this kind will reproduce many av :;t
of the aspects of the flow in tidal channels sufficiently.
I
I
·
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
38Dne aspect did not reproduce until now. The computed hysteresis effect is much smaller than the effect measured by Cordon (12). Presumebly a model has to be devised, that takes into account the enhancement of the generation of turbulence near the wall in decelerating flow and the displacement of fluid from the bottom to higher layers in the flow through coherent structures connected with the "bursting" phenomenon.
The time lag of the turbulence energy is apparently too small to cause the hysteresis effect as measured by Cordon.
Smith and Takhar (12) have used a kmodel to compute the flow in a tidal channel. They claim to have obtained good results in the reproduction of velocity profiles 1n the Humber, using, however, completely unrealistic constants. They compare, however, only velocity profiles at rtear maximum current velocities. As these velocity profiles are almost logarithmic a correct kmodel will give equally good results when a proper bed roughness is used.