water

Article
Two-Dimensional Numerical Modeling of Flow in Physical
Models of Rock Vane and Bendway Weir Configurations
Drew C. Baird 1, *, Benjamin Abban 1 , S. Michael Scurlock 2 , Steven B. Abt 3 and Christopher I. Thornton 3

1 Sedimentation and River Hydraulics Group, Technical Service Center, Bureau of Reclamation,
Denver, CO 80022, USA; [email protected]
2 AECOM, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601, USA; [email protected]
3 Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523, USA;
[email protected] (S.B.A.); [email protected] (C.I.T.)
* Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +1-720-323-2036

Abstract: While there are a wide range of design recommendations for using rock vanes and bend-
way weirs as streambank protection measures, no comprehensive, standard approach is currently
available for design engineers to evaluate their hydraulic performance before construction. This study
investigates using 2D numerical modeling as an option for predicting the hydraulic performance of
rock vane and bendway weir structure designs for streambank protection. We used the Sedimentation
and River Hydraulics (SRH)-2D depth-averaged numerical model to simulate flows around rock
vane and bendway weir installations that were previously examined as part of a physical model
study and that had water surface elevation and velocity observations. Overall, SRH-2D predicted the
same general flow patterns as the physical model, but over- and underpredicted the flow velocity in
some areas. These over- and underpredictions could be primarily attributed to the assumption of



negligible vertical velocities. Nonetheless, the point differences between the predicted and observed

 velocities generally ranged from 15 to 25%, with some exceptions. The results showed that 2D
Citation: Baird, D.C.; Abban, B.; numerical models could provide adequate insight into the hydraulic performance of rock vanes and
Scurlock, S.M.; Abt, S.B.; Thornton, bendway weirs. Accordingly, design guidance and implications of the study results are presented for
C.I. Two-Dimensional Numerical design engineers.
Modeling of Flow in Physical Models
of Rock Vane and Bendway Weir Keywords: rock vanes; bendway weirs; 2D numerical modeling; SRH-2D; physical model
Configurations. Water 2021, 13, 458.
https://doi.org/10.3390/w13040458

Academic Editor: Yong G. Lai

1. Introduction
Received: 1 December 2020
Accepted: 22 January 2021
Meandering river channels are complex and dynamic systems with planimetric flow
Published: 10 February 2021
path variability confined by the valley floor or meander belt width. Infrastructure, agri-
cultural lands, and buildings are commonly placed adjacent to and within the historical
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
meander migration zone. Bank erosion due to lateral migration of meandering channels
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
can encroach upon infrastructure. Engineers and scientists have developed methodolo-
published maps and institutional affil- gies to inhibit outer bank erosion to combat deleterious channel bend migration. Flow
iations. redirecting approaches, such as transverse instream structures, are used for stream bank
protection rather than riprap revetments because these structures cost less and have more
habitat benefits. These structures do not directly increase bank erosion resistance but rather
alter flow patterns along the bank, thereby indirectly reducing applied flow shear stress.
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors.
Examples of transverse features include rock vanes (also known as barbs) and bendway
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
weirs. Rock vanes are structures oriented upstream that extend from the top of the bank
This article is an open access article
with a sloping crest and intersect the bed after crossing the thalweg. Bendway weirs also
distributed under the terms and are oriented upstream and have flat tops positioned above the low water surface and below
conditions of the Creative Commons the bank-full water surface elevation (WSE). These features produce a weir effect at lower
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// flows. At high flows, bendway weirs redirect near-bed flow away from a bank and change
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ secondary currents near banks, all of which help reduce bank–toe erosion.
4.0/).

Water 2021, 13, 458. https://doi.org/10.3390/w13040458 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/water

Water 2021, 13, 458 2 of 28

Design guides for rock vanes recommend a wide range of design values [1–8]. Rec-
ommended parameter values range from 0.10 Tw to 0.35 Tw (Tw is bankfull width, as in
Figure 1) for crest length (Lc ) [3]; from <20◦ [5] to 80◦ [3,4] for planform angle (θ); and
from 0% [4] to 20% [5] for crest slope. The large variation in recommended values between
design guides leaves the design engineer with considerable uncertainty. Bendway weir
design guidelines offer similarly diverse recommendations [9–11]. Recommended structure
crest lengths range from 0.1 Tw to 0.3 Tw [11], and the recommended crest submergence
(∆z as shown in Figure 1) ranges from zero to half the main-channel depth [10].

Figure 1. Geometric parameters of bendway weirs and rock vanes: (a) illustrates the plan view
geometry, (b) illustrates a rock vane projected onto a cross-section perpendicular to the flow direction
(y-axis), (c) illustrates the parameters of a rock vane on a cross-section taken along the crest of
the structure (y’-axis), and (d) illustrates the parameters of a bendway weir on a cross-section
perpendicular to the flow direction (y-axis).

Several physical-model, field, and numerical-model studies have investigated hy-

draulic performance of rock vanes and bendway weirs [12–27], and most of these studies
noted the lack of comprehensive design guidance for actual field application. The geo-
metric parameters applied in the field are specific for each case, and there is no standard
approach or guidance to determine potential hydraulic performance before implementa-
tion. Physical-model and numerical-model studies, therefore, are an important resource
for design engineers and offer invaluable insight into how structure designs are likely to
perform in an actual field setting.
Physical model studies, while providing valuable measurements and results, are
time consuming, can be expensive when major configuration alterations are needed, and
sometimes do not allow rapid assessment of alternative designs based on multiple trans-
verse feature configurations or channel configurations. Numerical modeling offers an
Water 2021, 13, 458 3 of 28

attractive alternative, and 2D studies have been performed to study design structures [28].
3D models, however, are also limited by computational expenses and have mainly been
applied to examine only a single structure or a couple of structures [15,20]. Thus, using
2D depth-averaged models is attractive from an engineering design standpoint. Depth-
averaging of the flow field does not account for the vertical velocity component in 3D flow
fields generated by these structures. Therefore, identifying and quantifying deviations of
the predicted flow field from the actual flow field can examine these limitations and help
ascertain whether a 2D model can adequately be used to examine structure performance.
To examine the predictive capability of a 2D model of flow in a channel fitted with
configurations of rock vanes or bendway weirs, we compared data from the numerical
model with data from a physical model. This paper describes the physical model, which
provided measurements from baseline and three rock vane and four bendway weir config-
urations. The numerical model results section presents results of the 2D numerical model
for one rock vane and one bendway weir configuration. Lastly, information is provided on
how SRH-2D can be effectively applied during the design process.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Physical Model Facility
A two-bend physical model that yielded extensive water-surface elevation and velocity
measurements was compared with numerical-model results from the numerical model
SRH-2D. The Engineering and Research Center at Colorado State University constructed
the physical model at 1:12 length scale. The overall model gradient was about 0.000863 V:H.
The model was constructed using cross-sectional plywood templates with steel flashing
and filled with sand material. A brushed concrete surface was placed between the plywood
templates. Flows were delivered from the model sump to the headbox in a recirculating
system. Tailwater conditions were established to provide approximately normal flow
conditions throughout the model.
The physical model was based on a reach of the Middle Rio Grande between Cochiti
Dam downstream to Angostura Diversion Dam near Algodones, New Mexico (Figure 2).
In this reach, the historic low-flow, braided, sand-dominated channel had been transitioned
to an incising single-thread, gravel-dominated, lateral migrating channel as a result of
installation of Cochiti Dam [29]. The river’s top-width (TW ) and radius of curvature (RC )
were identified for channel bends in the prototype reach. In the physical model, two
representative bend geometries (Figure 3) spanned the ranges of RC /TW observed from
the prototype (Table 1).

Table 1. Physical Model Bend Geometries.

Radius of Relative Channel

Top Width Bend Angle
Type Curvature Curvature, Length
(m) (degrees)
(m) Rc /Tw (m)
Upstream 5.85 11.81 125 2.02 25.76
Downstream 4.57 20.07 73 4.39 25.45

The channel configurations described here represent fixed-bed native topography.

Even though Cochiti bend is upstream of the San Felipe bend in the middle Rio Grande
(Figure 2), the physical model switched these two to represent the natural topography
in the San Felipe site as the upstream bend and the topography in the Cochiti site as the
downstream bend in the physical model (Figure 4). This was done to accommodate the
physical model within the laboratory configuration. The RC /TW of both bends are in
Table 1.
Water 2021, 13, 458 4 of 28

Figure 2. Aerial view from Cochiti Dam to Angostura Diversion Dam near Algodones, New Mexico
(Google Earth 2020).

Figure 3. Prototype reach topographies (Cochiti topography, downstream; San Felipe topography,
upstream).

2.2. Physical Model Transverse Feature Configurations

This section describes the physical model configurations with fixed bed native to-
pography [30]. To measure and evaluate flows, [22,24,27]. We designed three rock vane
and four bendway weir configurations, based upon the most common design values
from the available design guidance [1–11]. Parameters are based on design recommen-
dations. Table 2 provides the vane parameters and Table 3 provides the bendway weir
parameters. Planimetric views of the vane design configurations (V01, V02, and V07) are
presented in Figure 5 and bendway weir designs (BW01–BW04) are presented in Figure 6.
Figures 7 and 8 are photographs of the physical model.
Water 2021, 13, 458 5 of 28

Figure 4. Native topography plan view schematic and constructed modeled surface [21].

Table 2. Model Rock Vane Configurations [21].

Configuration Length (m) Height (m) Top Width (m) Spacing (m) θ (◦ )
Design Parameters
7% sloping
V01, V02 TW /3–TW /4 2 d100 –3 d100 2.69 L–4.79 L variable
crest
Values
V01
0.42–0.73 * 0.14–0.30 0.3 2.83 85
(downstream)
V02 (upstream) 0.61–1.22 * 0.16–0.45 0.3 2.83 60
NRCS Design Parameters
7% sloping
V07 TW /6 2 d100 –3 d100 2.69 L–4.79 L variable
crest
Values
V07
2.60–3.00 * 0.00–0.17 0.3 5.05–7.38 20–30
(downstream)
d100 is the largest rock diameter; L is the projected structure length; * crest length is reported.

The vanes and bendway weirs were constructed using plywood to create impermeabil-
ity and with tight-fitting angular stones ranging from 91 to 152 mm along the intermediate
axis, in accordance with the guidelines (Tables 2 and 3). Stones were sized to remain
stable while testing physical models in the laboratory and for structures to be constructed
according to the design recommendations in 2 and Table 3.
Water 2021, 13, 458 6 of 28

Table 3. Bendway Weir Configurations [26].

Location Length (m) Height (m) Top Width (m) Spacing (m) θ (◦ ) Transverse Slope
Design Parameters
BW01 (downstream) TW /2 0.333 BF Hydr. Depth 2 d100 2.69 L 85 0
BW02 (upstream) TW /4 0.333 BF Hydr. Depth 2 d100 3.37 L 60 0
Values
BW01 (downstream) 1.2 0.059 0.3 3.23 85 0
BW02 (upstream) 0.9 0.055 0.3 3.02 60 0
Design Parameters
BW03 (downstream) TW /2 0.333 BF Hydr. Depth 2 d100 2.36 L 60 0
BW04 (upstream) TW /4 0.333 BF Hydr. Depth 2 d100 4.17 L 85 0
Values
BW03 (downstream) 1.2 0.059 0.3 2.83 60 0
BW04 (upstream) 0.9 0.055 0.3 3.73 85 0
d100 is the largest rock diameter; L is the projected structure length.

Figure 5. Design schematics of rock vane configurations V01, V02, (a) and V07 (b) the Natural
Resources Conservation Service (NCRS) design configurations [21].
Water 2021, 13, 458 7 of 28

Figure 6. Bendway weir configurations [26].

Figure 7. Constructed installation of rock vanes (looking downstream) [21]. Plywood in the center of
each structure is used for impermeability.
Water 2021, 13, 458 8 of 28

Figure 8. Bendway weir configuration looking downstream [23]. Plywood in the center of each
structure is used for impermeability.

2.3. Physical Model Measurements

Two Acoustic Doppler Velocimeters (ADV) were used to measure velocity: a SonTek®
ADV with ±1% measured accuracy, and a Nortek Vectrino® ADV with ±0.5% accuracy.
Velocity was measured to the nearest 0.001 m per second (m/s), with measurement values
ranging from approximately 0.003 to 1.3 m/s. The associated measurement error for these
values (based on reported precisions) is negligible. For each configuration, 2500 velocity
data points were measured [22,24,27]. To directly compare between laboratory configu-
rations and between laboratory and numerical model results, measurements were made
at consistent locations for baseline, rock vanes, and bendway weirs. To measure depth-
averaged velocity (approximated as the velocity at 0.6 of the flow depth below the water
surface), these data points were along the thalweg, along seven cross-sections, placed in a
more dense grid around one structure in each bend for each test, and placed throughout
the physical model (Table 4 and Figure 9).

Table 4. Physical Model Bend Geometries.

Data Collection Scheme Description Planimetric Distribution Vertical Distribution

Direct comparison to baseline 60% depth,5%, 20% depth
Cross-section Seven points per cross-section
and other tests intervals at thalweg
Twelve points per structure,
Tip, crest, key-in, and 20% depth intervals, 5% depth
Structure one inner- bank point
immediate vicinity hydraulics intervals at 5th and 7th structure
matching spur-dike testing
Flow field hydraulics Twelve to sixteen locations
Outer bank 20% depth intervals
and eddies between structures
Full resolution of 60% depth Staggered points where
60% depth 60% depth
velocity field needed to resolve flow field
Comprehensive mapping of Equidistant grid of closely
Structure Grid 20% depth intervals
structure flow field distributed points

The water-surface elevation for each configuration was measured at the bankline at
approximately 0.15 m intervals using a Leica Total Station laser-surveying unit with a 3D
point accuracy of 0.2 mm. Bed topography was measured with a Leica ScanStation 2®
(Leica Geosystems AG, Heerbrugg, Switzerland), a terrestrial light detection and ranging
unit (LiDAR) with 6-mm position accuracy, 4-mm distance accuracy, and 2-mm modeled
surface precision.
Water 2021, 13, 458 9 of 28

Figure 9. Rock vane configuration V01 and location of velocity measurements [21].

2.4. SRH-2D Numerical Model

For this study, we used the SRH-2D (v 3.0) model [31], a two-dimensional (2D) depth-
averaged numerical model specifically designed for river-flow hydraulics. SRH-2D adopts
a zonal approach for coupled modeling of channels and floodplains. In this approach, a
river system is broken down into modeling zones (delineated based on natural features
such as topography, vegetation and bed roughness), each with unique parameters including
flow resistance, which is specified in a Manning’s roughness coefficient. SRH-2D uses an
unstructured hybrid mixed element mesh that is based on the arbitrarily shaped element
method [32] for geometric representation. This meshing strategy is flexible enough to
model zones, enables greater modeling detail in areas of interest—and ultimately leads to
increased modeling efficiency by balancing solution accuracy and computing demands.

2.4.1. Model Setup and Calibration

We used SRH-2D to compute channel hydraulics in the fixed-bed mode. Inputs
included the physical model’s topographies, discharge at the upstream boundary, and
the measured downstream water surface elevation. We used the Surface-water Modeling
System (SMS) software (v 13.1) [33] to generate a 2D mesh of quadrilateral elements in
the main channel, to delineate model roughness areas and to assign the model boundary
conditions. The pre-processed mesh as well as the roughness and boundary variables
served as inputs to the SRH-2D solver.
The SRH-2D model was calibrated for baseline configuration (corresponding with the
physical model’s baseline configuration), one dataset for a rock vane configuration and one
dataset for the bendway weir configuration. During the calibration, we adjusted the bed
roughness values iteratively, and we compared the predicted flow fields with the measured
flow fields using water-surface elevations and depth-average resultant velocities.
To calibrate the baseline condition, we applied a discharge rate of 0.34 cubic meters per
second (m3 /s) at the upstream boundary in the physical model. However, as the physical
model operations had a small but unquantified amount of seepage, we needed to adjust
the upstream boundary inflow rate and bed roughness in SRH-2D as part of the calibration
process. We compared SRH-2D computed velocity results with lab-measured depth-
averaged velocities and calculated the corresponding Root Mean Square Error (RMSE),
Mean Absolute Error (MAE) and the Mean Absolute Percentage Error (MAPE). For this
Water 2021, 13, 458 10 of 28

calibration, “error” is defined as the difference between computed and measured fields.
Based on the RMS and MAE results, a discharge value of 0.325 m3 /s (seepage of 0.015 m3 /s)
and a Manning’s roughness coefficient of 0.018 were determined to be the values that best
matched the measured data (Table 5). We used the velocity field for the RMSE, MAE,
and MAPE analyses rather than the water-surface elevation (WSE) as velocity field had
a larger variance in the velocity distribution than the WSEs did. This larger variance,
which can be readily seen in the “filled” contour plots presented in the results section,
made velocity a better discriminator of model performance between the configurations
examined. Moreover, velocity is a more important parameter than water-surface elevation
when evaluating the efficacy of a transverse feature design.

Table 5. Computed Versus Measured Velocity Error for Determining Discharge and Manning’s n.

Root Mean Square Error Mean Absolute Error

Mean Absolute Percentage Error
(×10−3 m/s) (×10−3 m/s)
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q1 Q2 Q3
(0.30 m3 /s) (0.325 m3 /s) (0.34 m3 /s) (0.30 m3 /s) (0.325 m3 /s) (0.34 m3 /s) (0.30 m3 /s) (0.325 m3 /s) (0.34 m3 /s)
n1
8.83 8.16 8.24 6.97 6.37 6.31 26% 28% 29%
(0.017)
n2
8.89 8.01 8.16 7.08 6.29 6.29 28% 29% 30%
(0.018)
n3
9.03 8.10 8.04 7.28 6.34 6.20 31% 32% 33%
(0.021)
n4
9.17 8.16 8.10 7.42 6.40 6.23 32% 32% 33%
(0.022)
Qi is ith discharge simulated; ni is ith Manning’s n coefficient simulated.

The mesh resolution used in a 2D model can influence the model’s results if not
selected carefully. Before the roughness calibration, we tested three mesh sizes to establish
grid independence (i.e., the most computationally efficient mesh where smaller cell sizes
did not change the results significantly) (Table 6 and Figure 10). The results are shown
in Figure 11. While the three mesh sizes did not appreciably affect velocity results, the
coarse mesh size did not adequately resolve the flow separation zones associated with the
upstream bend contraction (Figure 11). The medium-sized mesh (Figure 10) was therefore
selected for all the model runs.

Table 6. Mesh Sizes Examined to Determine Grid Independence.

Domain (Cell Type) Fine Medium Coarse

Main Channel–Lateral (quad) 23–38 mm 46–76 mm 198–305 mm
Main Channel–Longitudinal (quad) 30–38 mm 60–76 mm 259–305 mm
Overbank 30–76 mm 60–152 mm 259–610 mm
Total Number of Elements 379,200 94,790 5300

After establishing grid independence and calibrating the roughness under the baseline
configuration, the next step was calibrating SRH-2D against model measurements with
structures in place. Because the LIDAR had a high accuracy rating, the surface topography
of the rock structures had enough accuracy for the numerical model. Because the physical
model replications of rock vanes and bendway weirs used angular rock approximately
91 to 152 millimeters (mm), at least 15 to 25 LiDAR data points were measured over
the diameter for each angular rock—providing good representation of the rock structure
roughness with the topography. The medium mesh cell sizes adequately captured rock
forms as the cells were generally smaller than the rock diameter. Manning’s roughness
values representing skin friction were successively changed (n = 0.018–0.05) over the
footprint of transverse features. Setting the structure roughness at the same value of
the baseline calibrated n = 0.018 produced an ideal match to measured depth-averaged
velocity. Scurlock et al. [34] also found that setting the physical model structure’s roughness
Water 2021, 13, 458 11 of 28

value equal to the numerical model’s baseline roughness value resulted in the most ideal
measured velocity match for models using FLOW 3D, Flow Science® ’s 3D numerical model.

Figure 10. Bed-elevation contours for fine, medium and coarse grid sizes zoomed in on the upstream bend.

2.4.2. Velocity Zone Comparison

Flow field comparisons between the physical model and the numeric model are catego-
rized by the distinct characteristic flow zones that define rock vane and bendway weir hy-
draulics. These separate regions of identifiable velocity trends from rock vane and bendway
weir structures (described in Figure 12 and Table 7) have also been noted by [12,13,15,23].
These regions include: the outer-bank reduction zone, the shifted-conveyance zone at
the center of the channel and inner-bank, the outer-bank increased zone, and zones of
convective acceleration at the structure crest and tip. Although vanes slope from the top of
bank (crest zone) down to the bed at the free end (tip) they have essentially the same flow
zones as bendway weir (Figure 12).

Table 7. Definition of Flow Zones from Rock Vanes and Bendway Weirs.

Flow Zone Definition

Zone that extends from near the structure tip to the point bar where
Shifted Conveyance velocity increases above baseline as longitudinal flows contract and a new
thalweg location is created.
Zone where there is convective acceleration of flow passing over the crest
Crest
of the structure.
Turbulent zone at the tip where flow contracts horizontally. This zone is
Tip
frequently associated with vortex shedding.
Zone along the outer bank shortly downstream of the crest of each
Outer Bank Increase Zone
structure as flow vertically expands after passing over the structure crest.
Zone along the outer bank covering most of the bank between structures
and downstream of the most downstream structure, where bank-line
Outer Bank Reduction
velocity is decreased from baseline conditions. This zone generally
extends laterally from the bankline to near structure tips.
Water 2021, 13, 458 12 of 28

Figure 11. Velocity field contours for fine, medium and coarse grid sizes over the complete physical
model and SRH-2D model domains.

Figure 12. Cross-sectional bendway weir hydraulic regions.

Water 2021, 13, 458 13 of 28

3. Results
3.1. Depth-Averaged Velocity Verification
The physical modeling took measurements at the same flow locations for the baseline,
rock vanes and bendway weirs as described in Section 2. To approximate depth-averaged
velocities, we took these measurements at 60% of the flow depth from the water surface
(Table 4 and Figure 9). To determine if the 60% depth measurements were appropriate
to directly compare with SRH-2D output and to measure the flow field, we measured a
denser grid at 5% depth intervals around one structure in each rock vane and bendway
weir configuration, and measured 20% depth intervals along the outer bank. To compare
the depth-averaged velocity at each of these measurement locations with the 60% depth
measurements, we integrated the 5% and 20% depth interval data over the depth using the
trapezoidal rule. Overall, the integrated velocities from the 5% and 20% depth compared
well with the velocities measured at 60% of the flow depth (Figures 13 and 14). This
result indicates that the 60% depth velocity measurements are a good approximation of the
depth-averaged velocity.

Figure 13. Point velocity (60% of depth from water surface) compared to the integrated depth average
velocity using either 5% or 20% depth intervals for bendway weir configuration BW02.
Water 2021, 13, 458 14 of 28

Figure 14. Point velocity (60% of depth from water surface) compared to the integrated depth average
velocity using either 5% or 20% depth intervals for V01 configuration.

3.2. Baseline Configuration: Physical and SRH-2D Numerical Model Comparisons

Figure 15 shows the physical model’s measured and SRH-2D model’s predicted water-
surface elevation (WSE), and Figure 16 shows the velocity fields for the upstream bend
(Bend 1) and the downstream bend (Bend 2). In each of these figures, the colored shading
indicates the contours, which were derived from the data using inverse distance weighting
to create a Raster surface. The “difference” plot derived by subtracting the physical model’s
measured WSEs from the SRH-2D-predicted WSEs is also shown in Figure 15. Because
there are larger variations in the velocity field, the “difference” plot for velocity is shown in
a separate figure (Figure 17). To avoid distortions introduced by interpolation, only results
at the measurement locations are shown in Figure 17.
Overall, the WSEs from the physical and numerical model results show good agree-
ment, with a slight underprediction in Bend 1 (predicted values are generally 0 to
0.006 meters (m) lower than the measured values) and a slight overprediction in Bend 2
(predicted values are generally 0 to 0.006 m higher than the measured values). The differ-
ences between the measured and predicted velocity contours are more pronounced than
the differences in WSE. The remainder of this section, therefore, focuses on comparing
the measured and predicted velocity contours.
Water 2021, 13, 458 15 of 28

Figure 15. Baseline configuration comparison of physical model-measured and SRH-2D-predicted

WSE values.

At the upstream section of the physical model, velocity is highest in the area on the
inside of Bend 1 (Figure 16). The high-velocity zone extends through and immediately
downstream of the contraction, with the highest velocity occurring on the outside of the
bend. Upstream of the contraction, velocity is lower as the channel experiences a backwater
that develops the head for the flow to pass through the contraction with associated energy
losses. Downstream of the contraction, the next-highest velocity area is along the outside
of the Bend 1, starting from just upstream of the bend apex and stretching through the
downstream side of the bend. Through the crossing (i.e., transition between Bend 1 and
Bend 2), the high-velocity zone is along the left bank until the zone reaches the inside of
Bend 2. Through the bendway, the zone of high velocity crosses over the channel, such that
the high velocity reaches the outside bank of Bend 2 near the bend apex. The high-velocity
zone stays along the outside bank through to the physical model exit.
Water 2021, 13, 458 16 of 28

Figure 16. Baseline configuration comparison of physical model-measured and SRH-2D-predicted

depth-averaged velocity values.

SRH-2D model results for the baseline configuration (Figure 16) also show a higher
velocity area on the inside of Bend 1 in the upstream section. There is a high-velocity area
at the contraction, with the highest velocity near the inside of the bend, which appears to
be due to the contraction effect rather than entrance conditions. Throughout Bend 1, the
high-velocity area is nearly symmetrical with a smaller higher-velocity area near the outer
bank on the downstream of the bend. A small skew in the high-velocity area towards the
outer bank at the downstream boundary of Bend 1 remains on the left bank as the flow
transitions into Bend 2. As the flow enters Bend 2, high-velocity flows are on the inside of
Water 2021, 13, 458 17 of 28

Bend 2. Downstream of the transition, the high-velocity area becomes more symmetrical
within the channel width, with a slight skew towards the outer bank and high-velocity
flows remain in this alignment until the downstream model boundary. The highest-velocity
area is just downstream of the Bend 2 apex and extends for a short distance.

Figure 17. Baseline point and contour difference in values of predicted and measured velocities.

The velocity differences are compared in Figure 16.

SRH-2D overpredicts flow velocities on the:
• inside Bend 1,
• upper half of the outside of Bend 2,
• inside of the Bend 2 near the end of the physical model.
The overprediction is mostly about 0 to 0.09 m/s with a few areas of 0.09 to 0.18 m/s.
Overpredictions are also within 20% of the measured velocities, while most differences are
much less. These differences are relatively small, and it may be concluded that there is
good correspondence between the measured and predicted through both bends.
There is general agreement between the SRH-2D WSE and velocity predictions and
the measurements.
SRH-2D underpredicts the velocity:
• along the outside of Bend 1,
• through the upper portion of the inside of Bend 2,
• on the outside of the downstream portion of Bend 2.
However, the difference magnitude is relatively small—mostly about −0.09 to 0 m/s
with a few locations about −0.18 to −0.09 m/s. SRH-2D velocity predictions are within
20% of the measured velocities, and most areas are even closer.

3.3. Rock Vane Configuration: Physical and SRH-2D Numerical Model Comparisons
This section presents results for the rock vane configuration V01 installation WSE
(Figure 18) and depth-average velocity (Figure 19). Like the baseline configuration, the
measured WSEs compared well with the predicted elevations, with most of the differences
from −0.015 to 0 m, and some small areas with differences between 0 and 0.015 m, and the
rest of this section, therefore, focuses on velocity.
Water 2021, 13, 458 18 of 28

Figure 18. Rock vane configuration V01 comparison of physical model-measured and SRH-2D-
predicted WSE values.

Figure 19. Rock vane configuration V01 comparison of physical model-measured and SRH-2D-
predicted depth-averaged velocity values.
Water 2021, 13, 458 19 of 28

Physical model measurements show that the highest velocity area (0.63 to 0.79 m/s) is
in the shifted conveyance zone between the bend apex and near the downstream model
boundary. The remainder of the shifted conveyance zone is a high-velocity area, with
magnitudes ranging from 0.50 to 0.62 m/s. There is also high velocity in the crest and tip
zones for the first five vanes. The vanes induce low-velocity (0.15 to 0.23 m/s) banklines
out to near the tips of the vanes, in the outer bank reduction zone. The highest velocity
region is in the shifted conveyance zone from about the bend apex downstream to near the
second-to-last vane.
SRH-2D-predicted velocity patterns are close to the physical model’s measured flow
patterns. The outer bank reduction zone is well defined from the bank to near the vane
tips, with low flow velocities ranging from 0 to 0.23 m/s. The high velocity in the shifted
conveyance zone has similar flow regions and velocity ranges in the physical model’s
measurements and the SRH-2D predictions. The SRH-2D-predicted highest velocity is in
the same location as the physical model’s measured highest velocity in the streamwise
direction, but the predicted velocity area is farther away from the vane tips in the transverse
direction than the physical model’s measured area.
The velocity differences are compared in (Figure 20).

Figure 20. Rock vane configuration V01comparison of point and contour values of depth-average velocity.

SRH-2D overpredicts velocities in the:

• crest zone;
• out bank increase zone downstream of the first three upstream vanes;
• fifth vane (in the fifth vane by 0.09 to 0.18 m/s);
• sixth vane (in the sixth vane by 0 to 0.09 m/s);
• tip and shifted conveyance zones where flow has a significant vertical velocity compo-
nent (Sections A-A and B-B in Figure 21);
• areas where flow vertically contracts and expands (outer bank increase zone) over the
structures (Section C-C Figure 21);
• tip zone where there is vortex shedding and associated turbulence kinetic energy
(Section A-A Figure 21).
Water 2021, 13, 458 20 of 28

Figure 21. Measured velocity vectors for rock vane configuration V01.

SRH-2D generally underpredicts flow velocities in the:

• shifted conveyance zone throughout the bendway (−0.18 to 0 m/s);
• tip zone of Vanes 4, 6, 7, and 8 (−0.18 to −0.09 m/s);
• localized zones along the outer bank around Vanes 4, 6, 7, and 8 (−0.18 to −0.09 m/s);
• areas where the shifted conveyance zone is not fully captured.

3.4. Bendway Weir Scenario Configuration: Physical and SRH-2D Numerical Model Comparisons
This section presents results for bendway weir configuration BW02 WSE (Figure 22)
and velocity (Figures 23 and 24).
Water 2021, 13, 458 21 of 28

Figure 22. Bendway weir configuration BW02: comparison of physical model-measured and SRH-
2D-predicted WSE values.

Figure 23. Bendway weir configuration BW02 comparison of physical model-measured and SRH-2D-
predicted depth-averaged velocity values.
Water 2021, 13, 458 22 of 28

Figure 24. Bendway weir configuration BW02: difference between measured and predicted values
of velocity.

Physical model measurements show a high-velocity zone that moves away from the
outside of Bend 1 in the outer bank reduction zone, in contrast to the baseline configuration
without the structures, where the high velocity was along the outer bank. The high velocity
shifts away from the weirs toward the inner bank in the shifted conveyance zone. There is,
however, a local high-velocity area between Bendway Weirs 7 and 8 within the outer bank
reduction zone, but it does not extend to the bankline [23]. This local area could be from
the interactions between flow eddies and the structures. Within the shifted conveyance
zone, local pockets of highest velocities are seen close to the tips of Bendway Weirs 6 and
8. Upstream, at the contraction, there is high flow acceleration over the first bendway
weir that is not observed over the other weirs. This high flow acceleration of the first
bendway weir is also predicted by SRH-2D—suggesting that it is driven largely by the
contraction effects.
SRH-2D was able to predict the shift in high velocity away from the outer bank
reduction zone. The highest-velocity zone was, however, a little farther away from the
weir tips than the measured zone in the physical model. SRH-2D did not predict the
local high-velocity zone between Bendway Weirs 7 and 8—suggesting that the presence
of the zone in the physical model likely caused flow features with significant vertical
velocity components (Figure 25). In design, underprediction along the bankline could
lead to a failure to recognize the potential for accelerated bank erosion that could flank
Bendway Weir 8. Approaches to provide a stable design configuration are included in
Section 4.3. Overall, SRH-2D predicted regions of both higher and lower velocities in the
shifted conveyance zones as well as between the weirs. Velocity vectors illustrate the high
velocity along the crest zone of the bendway weirs (Sections A-A and C-C Figure 25). The
velocity downstream of the bendway weir near the bankline (Section C-C in Figure 25) is
nearly as great as the velocity in the shifted conveyance zone (Section D-D in Figure 25).
Water 2021, 13, 458 23 of 28

Figure 25. Measured velocity vectors for bendway weir configuration BW02.

The WSEs at Bendway Weir 6 (counted from bend entrance) and an area between Bend-
way Weirs 7 and 8 were overpredicted by SRH-2D. However, the measured WSE is about
0.15 m lower than nearby measurements—suggesting these locations were inaccurately
measured.
SRH-2D consistently overpredicts velocity:
• over the bendway weir crests;
• downstream of each weir;
• downstream of the weir tips (weir tips by about 0 to 0.18 m/s).
Interestingly, the velocity is underpredicted:
• at the tips of Weirs 6 and 8;
• between Weirs 7 and 8 along the bank (Weirs 7 and 8 by −0.36 to −0.27 m/s).
Water 2021, 13, 458 24 of 28

The lower velocities in the center of the channel near Bendway Weirs 7 and 8 and
along the bank between the bendway weirs may be a result of SRH-2D’s failure to capture
conveyance shifts from changes in the flow field caused by flow-structure interactions.
SRH-2D underpredicted the WSE by about −0.015 to 0 m throughout most of Bend 1.
The underprediction was larger in areas along the outside bank (−0.076 to −0.061 m). In a
few selected areas, SRH-2D underpredicted the WSEs by about −0.03 to −0.015 m.

4. Discussion, Summary and Conclusions

4.1. SRH-2D Model Performance
A summary of velocity results for the baseline, rock vane and bendway weir config-
urations is presented in Table 8. Velocity zones, defined by distinct hydraulic conditions
(Figure 12 and Table 7), are identified where differences occur between computed and
measured velocities.

Table 8. Summary Comparison between Measured and Predicted Flow Fields.

Configuration Comparison between Measured and Predicted Fields

The highest velocity area starts on the inside of upstream part of Bend
1, moves to outside of Bend 1 downstream of constriction and stays
on that bank to the upstream part of Bend 2, then switches to outside
Baseline
of Bend 2 about the bend apex and continues to the downstream
boundary. SRH-2D predicted less variability in the lateral velocity
area, which continues until the wide section near model outlet.
Both measured and predicted results show that velocity in outer bank
reduction zone is lower in the rock vane configuration than in the
baseline configuration. Within the rock vane configuration, there is a
higher velocity in tip zone, and the highest velocity is in the shifted
V01 conveyance zone near bend apex downstream of vane downstream to
Vane 6 (predicted), and Vane 7 (measured). SRH-2D overpredicts in
crest and tip zone and between Vanes 1 and 2, and 2 and 3, and
downstream of Vanes 3 and 5, and in shifted conveyance zone
downstream of Vane 5, but by less than ±25%.
Both measured and SRH-2D results show that velocity in outer bank
reduction zone is lower and is higher in the shifted conveyance zone
in the bendway weir configuration than in the baseline
configuration.SRH-2D overpredicts in the crest, tip, and outer bank
BW02
increase zone downstream of contraction. SRH-2D both shows
increase and decrease in shifted conveyance zone (overpredicted and
underpredicted regions in zone). Over- and under-predictions are
less than ±25%.

Measured and predicted results from SRH-2D have the same general velocity patterns,
indicating that SRH-2D can be used for design applications with a factor of safety as
described in Section 4.3. SRH-2D overpredicts velocity in the crest zone, tip zone and
sometimes in the shifted conveyance zone—generally where there is a vertical velocity
component and turbulent kinetic energy. These increases are often on the order of 0
to 0.09 m/s and occasionally as high as 0.18 m/s. SRH-2D also shows both over- and
underpredictions compared to measurements in zones where it cannot adequately resolve
flow conveyance shifts due to the neglect of vertical-velocity components. In these zones,
the increased and decreased velocities are necessary for mass conservation. Nonetheless,
the predicted velocities are within ±25% of the measured velocities, with some localized
exceptions. The difference is much less in most locations, which suggests good agreement
between the measured and predicted results. In the shifted conveyance zone (Section D-D
in Figures 21 and 25), the velocity vectors are nearly uniform.
The structures induce secondary currents in the opposite direction of typical bend flow
in the shifted conveyance zone (Section A-A in Figures 21 and 25). In general, however,
the longitudinal velocity magnitude is much greater than the lateral or vertical velocity
Water 2021, 13, 458 25 of 28

components. This higher longitudinal velocity is the underlying reason for the velocity
measured at 60% of the depth below the water surface matching the integrated/computed
depth average velocity (Figures 13 and 14).
Papanicolaou et al. [28] compared the FESWMS 2D model with a physical model.
They reported differences of up to 60% between measured and predicted flow velocity
using a single set of model input (i.e., the same Manning’s n and eddy viscosity) for the
whole domain. When Papanicolaou et al. [28] changed the model input variables for each
flow zone, the model performance improved, predicting differences comparable to those
noted in this study (i.e., velocity differences up to 25%). SRH-2D was able to reach an
accuracy of within ±25% using a single Manning’s n input value for the whole domain,
which is easier for design application.

4.2. Modeling Summary

Transverse features or indirect bank-stabilization methods such as rock vanes and
bendway weirs, based on experience or anecdotal design assumptions, have been used
for many decades. We examined the ability of a two-dimensional depth-averaged model
to predict the flow field around these structures in a two-bend 1:12-scale physical model
developed from two Middle Rio Grande river bends. These bends represent conditions
downstream of Cochiti Dam where the river channel has transitioned from a wide, shifting
sand substrate and low-flow braided condition to a gravel-dominated bed, single thread,
slightly sinuous channel.
We measured depth and velocity in the native topography simulated in the physical
model without the rock structures (baseline) and then in three rock vane configurations and
four bendway weir configurations. The measured data comprised about 2500 velocity mea-
surements within the physical model at the design flow of 0.34 m3 /s. LiDAR topography
was measured for baseline and each configuration.
The physical model was not impervious and leaked. Leakage was not measured
but was determined by evaluating combinations of reduced flow rates and Manning’s
roughness coefficient. This calibration resulted in selection of water flowrate = 0.325 m3 /s
and Manning’s n = 0.018.
The depth-averaged SRH-2D developed by [31] used the adjusted model inflow and
calibrated roughness together with each set of LiDAR (converted to a surface) and a
computational mesh to evaluate each physical model configuration.

4.3. Design Implications of Model Results

The good correspondence between the SRH-2D predictions and the physical model
measurements suggests that SRH-2D can be a useful tool for modeling hydrodynamics of
rock vanes and bendway weirs for design. Key SRH-2D model observations derived from
evaluating all the model runs for the configurations in Tables 2 and 3—and how they may
influence design—are:
• SRH-2D model results matched the overall flow patterns found in physical model
measurements for rock vanes and bendway weirs. Thus, SRH-2D models can be used
to compare the effects of spacing, length, horizontal angle (rock vanes) and orientation
angle of different structure configurations.
• SRH-2D did not compute the high-velocity zone between Bendway Weirs 7 and
8 (Figure 25). Higher velocities exist on the downstream portion of river bends
(Figure 16). Additional bank erosion countermeasures such as bioengineering [35]
could be employed between bendway weirs located in the downstream section of
river bends, as well as between other weirs.
• SRH-2D computes increased resultant velocity when compared to physical model
measurements over transverse feature crests and right at the tips where there is
a vertical-velocity component and turbulent kinetic energy. Overprediction varies
between approximately 15 and 25%, with a few locations over this range. This overpre-
Water 2021, 13, 458 26 of 28

diction provides conservative design. And we recommend that model results be used
over weir crests when designing erosion countermeasures such as bioengineering [35].
• SRH-2D may not fully resolve conveyance shifts. This failure to fully resolve can lead
to both overprediction and underprediction of velocity in certain zones of the flow
field by up to 25%, depending on the configuration. The highest velocity found in the
shifted conveyance zone or at the tip is conservative and should be used for design tip
scour and riprap sizing. Transverse feature rock sizing procedures from large-scale
flume experiments [36] should be used, along with an appropriate factor of safety [37].
These higher velocities might affect sediment transport analysis, but this study did
not determine the magnitude of this effect.
• SRH-2D underpredicts bankline velocity in some locations by up to about 25%. In-
crease bankline velocity by at least this amount during design.

4.4. Conclusions
The velocity differences between SRH-2D predictions and physical-model measurements
are more pronounced (Figures 17, 20 and 24) than WSE differences (Figures 15, 18 and 22).
Results show a useful agreement between SRH-2D estimates and the measurements. There-
fore, SRH-2D is a suitable tool to compare combinations of transverse feature length,
spacing, horizontal and vertical angles (rock vanes), and crest elevation (bendway weirs).
SRH-2D generally predicted increased velocity (between 15 and 25%) in flow regions with
a vertical velocity component and turbulence kinetic energy (tip and crest zones). These
numerical model predictions are suitable for conservative designs. There also were local
regions where SRH-2D underpredicted the velocity (up to 25%) at the outer bank zone
and at the tip zone of select features. Increasing bankline velocity for design up to 25%
is recommended. The crest extending from the top of bank and sloping down to past
the thalweg in rock vanes allows rock vanes to provide much better bank-line velocity
reduction than bendway weirs. As such, bendway weirs are not recommended for bank
protection—and should only be used for thalweg management unless additional erosion
countermeasures are also employed.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, D.C.B., S.M.S., S.B.A. and C.I.T.; methodology, D.C.B.,
B.A. and S.M.S.; numerical modeling, B.A., D.C.B.; validation, D.C.B., B.A.; formal analysis, B.A.,
D.C.B.; investigation, S.M.S., S.B.A., C.I.T. and D.C.B.; writing—original draft preparation, D.C.B.,
B.A.; writing—review and editing, D.C.B., B.A., S.M.S., S.B.A. and C.I.T.; supervision, D.C.B., C.I.T.;
project administration, S.B.A., C.I.T. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of
the manuscript.
Funding: Colorado State University received funding from the Bureau of Reclamation under agree-
ment number R14AC00045.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: The data presented in this study are available on request from the
corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to not having a web site available for
public access.
Acknowledgments: Robert Ettema reviewed a draft of the paper and offering helpful comments.
Nathan Holste, Robert Padilla and Ari Posner provided review and helpful suggestions during
this work.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had a limited role in
the design of the study. The funders had no role in the collection, analyses or interpretation of data,
or in the writing of the manuscript. The funders had a limited role in the review of the study results
and in the decision to publish the results. The findings in this paper are technical in nature and have
been determined by the authors, and are not official policy of the Bureau of Reclamation.
Water 2021, 13, 458 27 of 28

References
1. Washington State Department of Transportation. Hydraulics Manual; Washington State Department of Transportation: Olympia,
WA, USA, 2017.
2. Natural Resources Conservation Service. Kansas Engineering Technical Note No. KS-1 (Revision 1); U.S. Department of Agriculture:
Salina, KS, USA, 2013.
3. Natural Resources Conservation Service. Minnesota Technical Note No. 8 Design of Stream Barbs for Low Gradient Streams; United
States Department of Agriculture: St. Paul, MN, USA, 2010.
4. Natural Resources Conservation Service. Wisconsin Supplement Engineering Field Handbook Chapter 16 Streambank and Shoreline
Protection; United States Department of Agriculture: Madison, WI, USA, 2009.
5. Natural Resources Conservation Service. Technical Supplement 14H Flow Changing Techniques Part 654 National Engineering Handbook;
United States Department of Agriculture: Madison, WI, USA, 2007.
6. Natural Resources Conservation Service. Technical Note 23, Version 2.0 Design of Stream Barbs; United States Department of
Agriculture: Portland, OR, USA, 2005.
7. Johnson, P.A.; Hey, R.D.; Tessier, M.; Rosgen, D.L. Use of vanes for control of scour at vertical wall abutments. J. Hydraul. Eng.
2001, 127, 772–778. [CrossRef]
8. Maryland Department of the Environment. Maryland’s Waterway Construction Guidelines; Water Management Administration:
Baltimore, MD, USA, 2000.
9. Julien, P.Y.; Duncan, J.R. Optimal Design Criteria of Bendway Weirs from Numerical Simulations and Physical Model Studies; Technical
Paper; Department of Civil Engineering, Colorado State University: Fort Collins, CO, USA, 2003.
10. McCullah, J.A.; Gray, D. Environmentally Sensitive Channel- and Bank-Protection Measures; NCHRP Rep. 544; National Cooperative
Highway Research Program, Transportation Research Board of the National Academy of Sciences: Washington, DC, USA, 2005.
11. Lagasse, P.F.; Clopper, P.E.; Pagán-Ortiz, J.E.; Zevenbergen, L.W.; Arneson, L.A.; Schall, J.D.; Girard, L.G. Bridge Scour and Stream
Instability Countermeasures: Experience, Selection, and Design Guidance, 3rd ed.; Rep. No. FHWA NHI HEC-23, Vols. 1 and 2; U.S.
Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, National Highway Institute: Washington, DC, USA, 2009.
12. Abad, J.D.; Rhoads, B.L.; Guneralp, I.; Garcia, M.H. Flow Structure at Different Stages in a Meander-bend with Bendway Weirs.
J. Hydraul. Eng. 2008, 134, 1052–1063. [CrossRef]
13. Jia, Y.; Zhu, T.; Scott, S. Turbulent flow around submerged bendway weirs and its influence on channel navigation.
In Hydrodynamics—Optimizing Methods and Tools; Schulz, H., Ed.; InTech Open: Rijeka, Croatia, 2011; ISBN 978-953-307-712-3.
14. Lyn, D.A.; Cunningham, R.A. Laboratory Study of Bendway Weirs as a Bank Erosion Countermeasure; Rep. No. FHWA/IN/JTRP-
2010/24, Joint Transportation Research Program (JTRP); Purdue University: West Lafayette, IN, USA, 2010.
15. McCoy, A.; Constantinescu, G.; Weber, L. Hydrodynamics of flow in a channel with two lateral submerged groynes. In World
Environmental and Water Resources Congress 2007: Restoring Our Natural Habitat; Kabbes, K.C., Ed.; ASCE: Reston, VA, USA, 2007;
pp. 1–11.
16. Jamieson, E.C.; Rennie, C.D.; Townsend, R.D. 3D flow and sediment dynamics in a laboratory channel bend with and without
stream barbs. J. Hydraul. Eng. 2013, 139, 154–166. [CrossRef]
17. Ottevanger, K.; Blanckaert, K.; Uijttewaal, W.S.J. Processes governing the flow redistribution in sharp river bends. Geomorphology
2012, 163, 45–55. [CrossRef]
18. Bressan, F.; Wilson, C.G.; Papanicolaou, A.N. Improved streambank countermeasures: The Des Moines River (USA) case study.
Int. J. River Basin Manag. 2014, 12, 69–86. [CrossRef]
19. Elhakeem, M.; Papanicolaou, A.N.; Wilson, C.G. Implementing streambank erosion control measures in meandering streams:
Design procedure enhanced with numerical modeling. Int. J. River Basin Manag. 2017, 15, 317–327. [CrossRef]
20. Papanicolaou, A.N.; Bressan, F.; Fox, J.; Kramer, C.; Kjos, L. Role of structure submergence on scour evolution in gravel-bed rivers:
Application to slope-crested structures. J. Hydraul. Eng. 2018, 144, 03117008. [CrossRef]
21. Thornton, C.I.; James, M.; Shin, K.S. Testing of Instream Vane Structures within the Native Topography Channel; Department of Civil
Engineering, Colorado State University: Fort Collins, CO, USA, 2016.
22. Thornton, C.I.; Cox, A.L.; Ursic, M.E.; Youngblood, N.A. Data Report for Completed Bendway weir Configurations within the Native
Topography Model; Department of Civil Engineering, Colorado State University: Fort Collins, CO, USA, 2011.
23. Scurlock, S.M.; Thornton, C.I.; Abt, S.R. Evaluation of Bendway Weir Structures within the Native-Topography Channel; Department of
Civil Engineering, Engineering Research Center, Colorado State University: Fort Collins, CO, USA, 2014.
24. Scurlock, S.M.; Thornton, C.I.; Abt, S.R. Middle Rio Grande Physical Modeling, Re-Evaluations and Comparison of Instream Structures
within the Native-Topography Channel. Native Topography: Construction and Evaluation of Baseline Hydraulic Conditions; Department of
Civil Engineering, Engineering Research Center, Colorado State University: Fort Collins, CO, USA, 2013.
25. Scurlock, S.M.; Thornton, C.I.; Abt, S.R.; Cox, A.L. Middle Rio Grande Physical Modeling, Native-Topography Dataset Evaluation
Summary; Department of Civil Engineering, Engineering Research Center, Colorado State University: Fort Collins, CO, USA, 2012.
26. Scurlock, A.M.; Baird, D.C.; Cox, A.L.; Thornton, C.I. Bendway Weir Design—Rio Grande Physical Model; Department of Civil
Engineering, Engineering Research Center, Colorado State University: Fort Collins, CO, USA, 2012.
27. Scurlock, S.M.; Cox, A.L.; Baird, D.C.; Thornton, C.I.; Parker, T.R.; Abt, S.R. Middle Rio Grande Physical Modeling—Native
Topography: Construction and Evaluation of Baseline Hydraulic Conditions; Department of Civil Engineering, Engineering Research
Center, Colorado State University: Fort Collins, CO, USA, 2012.
Water 2021, 13, 458 28 of 28

28. Papanicolaou, A.N.; Elhakeem, M.; Wardman, B. Calibration and verification of a 2D-hydrodynamic model for simulating flow
around bendway weir structures. J. Hydraul. Eng. 2011, 137, 75–89. [CrossRef]
29. Richard, G.; Julien, P. Dam impacts on and restoration of an alluvial river—Rio Grande, New Mexico. Int. J. Sediment Res. 2003,
18, 89–96.
30. Walker, K.G.; Thornton, C.I.; Abt, S.R.; Cox, A.L. Comparison of a Generalized Trapezoidal Hydraulic Model to a Native Topography
Patterned Bed Surface Model of the Rio Grande; Colorado State University: Fort Collins, CO, USA, 2009.
31. Lai, Y.G. SRH-2D version 2: Theory and User’s Manual; Sedimentation and River Hydraulics Group, Technical Service Center,
Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Department of the Interior: Denver, CO, USA, 2008.
32. Lai, Y.G. Unstructured Grid Arbitrarily Shaped Element Method for Fluid Flow Simulation. AIAA J. 2000, 38, 2246–2252. [CrossRef]
33. Aquaveo. SMS User Manual: The Surface Water Modeling System; Aquaveo, Provo, Utah USA. Available online: https:
//www.xmswiki.com/wiki/SMS:SMS_User_Manual_13.0 (accessed on 7 February 2021).
34. Scurlock, S.M.; Cox, A.L.; Thornton, C.I.; Abt, S.R. Calibration and Validation of a Numerical Model for Evaluation of Transverse In-
Stream Structure Research; Department of Civil Engineering, Engineering Research Center, Colorado State University: Fort Collins,
CO, USA, 2014.
35. Baird, D.C.; Fotherby, L.; Klumpp, C.C. Bank Stabilization Design Guidelines; Report: SRH-2015-25; Sedimentation and River
Hydraulics Group, Technical Service Center, Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Department of the Interior: Denver, CO, USA, 2015.
36. Ettema, R.; Aubuchon, J.; Holste, N.; Varyu, D.; Baird, D.; Padilla, R.; Posner, A.; Thornton, C. Large-Flume Tests on Flow
Dislodgment of Rocks Forming Bendway Weirs, American Society of Civil Engineers. J. Hydraul. Eng. 2020, 146, 2020. [CrossRef]
37. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Hydraulic Design of Flood Control Channels; EM 1110-2-1601; Department of the Army, U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers: Washington, DC, USA, 1994.