Resistance parameters and permissible velocity from cohesive channels

Cantalice, Jose Ramon Barros; Rocha, Layane Carmen A.; Alves, Carlos Victor O.; Moura, Amanda Quintela; Santiago, Edgo Jackson Pinto; Barros, Maykon Rodrigo; Medeiros, Paulo Costa

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2022-275

Preprints

https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2022-275

Preprints

10 Aug 2022

| 10 Aug 2022

Status: this discussion paper is a preprint. It has been under review for the journal Hydrology and Earth System Sciences (HESS). The manuscript was not accepted for further review after discussion.

Resistance parameters and permissible velocity from cohesive channels

Jose Ramon Barros Cantalice, Layane Carmen A. Rocha, Carlos Victor O. Alves, Amanda Quintela Moura, Edgo Jackson Pinto Santiago, Maykon Rodrigo Barros, and Paulo Costa Medeiros

Abstract. The forces determining erosion resistance in cohesive channels are not yet completely understood. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the resistance parameters and obtain a flow velocity equation for such channels. Experimental data were obtained from cohesive channels with a 60 % clay proportion and under increasing flow levels. The soil detachment rates were inversely proportional to the applied shear stress, and the obtained critical shear stress and soil erodibility values were as high as 120 Pa and 0.00003 kg N^-1 s^-1, respectively. Under the highest applied flow, the yield stress was significantly influenced by the geometry variation, flow velocity, and sediment concentration. The shear stress generated by the applied flows remained below the critical shear stress of the cohesive bed channels. Using the Buckingham theorem, we developed an equation to predict the permissible flow velocity in cohesive channels. this will help engineers design and manage river structures more effectively.

Received: 27 Jul 2022 – Discussion started: 10 Aug 2022

Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this preprint. The responsibility to include appropriate place names lies with the authors.

Download & links

Jose Ramon Barros Cantalice, Layane Carmen A. Rocha, Carlos Victor O. Alves, Amanda Quintela Moura, Edgo Jackson Pinto Santiago, Maykon Rodrigo Barros, and Paulo Costa Medeiros

Status: closed

CC1:
'Comment on hess-2022-275', Rahul Kumar, 09 Sep 2022

The authors have successfully studied and evaluated the resistance parameters and permissible velocity from cohesive channels. They have successfully developed an equation to predict the permissible flow velocity in cohesive channels using the Buckingham theorem. The current study is well designed and performed in a good way. I am sure it will contribute to scientific knowledge and will definitely help the engineers to design and manage river structures. However, I would like to suggest the authors to write the conclusion section concisely within a single paragraph.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2022-275-CC1
- AC1: 'Reply on CC1', JOSE CANTALICE, 29 Sep 2022
  
  Thank you, Dr. Rahul Kumar, for your positive comments. I will consider reducing the conclusions as you had recommended.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2022-275-AC1
- CC4: 'Reply on CC1', Layane Carmen A. Rocha, 29 Sep 2022
  
  Dear Rahul Kumar, Thank you for your comment and contribution.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2022-275-CC4
CC2:
'Comment on hess-2022-275', Valdemir Silva Junior, 29 Sep 2022

Comments about Resistance parameters and permissible velocity from cohesive channels, Hess-2022-275

The present manuscript shows relevant contributions to resistance parameters and flow velocity occurring in cohesive channels. The results had appointed that new research has to consider higher flow application than the here applied in cohesive channels to reach
The effective detachment rates on channels will permit identify the critical velocity of channels with such high clay content.
Please, I recommend that the authors fix the following points below:

Lines 323 to 326. The results of these two methodologies do not bring an advantage to this manuscript. Please retire;
On tables 3 and 4, relocate the variables legend below the tables;
Figure 6 has to be inserted below line 409;
Line 469. The shear stress is different from the shear stress shown in table 4. Please adjust it;
Lines 645 and 646. These lines can be deleted; cite only the equations.

Sincerely,
Dr. Valdemir de Paula e Silva Junior,
Researcher associate at UFAPE – Agrest Federal University of Pernambuco, Brazil.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2022-275-CC2
- CC3:
  'Reply on CC2', Layane Carmen A. Rocha, 29 Sep 2022
  
  Dear Valdemir, we appreciate your contributions and we will investigate it for a possible adjustment.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2022-275-CC3
  - AC2: 'Reply on CC3', JOSE CANTALICE, 29 Sep 2022
    
    Thank you, Dr. Silva Junior, for your comments/review. We will consider another experiment to apply higher flow rates on cohesive channels. We review your recommendations point to point.
    Professor, Jose Ramon Barros Cantalice.
    
    Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2022-275-AC2
RC1:
'Comment on hess-2022-275', Anonymous Referee #1, 12 Oct 2022

Most of the equations seem to add little to the substance of the paper, which seems to be to estimate maximum acceptable flow over a cohesive surface, to prevent erosion of the surface. As the experiments never reach the critical conditions , it is difficult to use the expmerimental setup to improve the critieria.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2022-275-RC1
- AC3: 'Reply on RC1', JOSE CANTALICE, 12 Oct 2022
  
  The results and equations obtained in this experimental research can be used within the boundary conditions, which means cohesive channels with a 60% clay proportion in field condition, a rare condition in the literature, and for applied flows between 70 to 545 L/minutes, furthermore there is many information and relations about rheological and resistance parameters from these cohesive conditions as yield shear stress, cohesion, Shields´s parameter to cohesive sediment, and a soil cohesion erodibility value was obtained in accordance with others results in the literature.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2022-275-AC3
RC2:
'Comment on hess-2022-275', Anonymous Referee #2, 17 Oct 2022
The creative and cutting-edge characteristic of this research should be much more emphasized in the conclusion and abstract.

I recommend you should compare the empirical model in this research with the physical numerical simulation models.

I think the sample number “n=16” (in figure 4 ~9) is too small to obtain the distinctive results, especially it comes to statistics.

The unit “L”: Such as page 2, line 174, Q=545L/min, and also in page 10 line 246. Which does this “L” mean liter” l” or length of the channel” L”? It is very confusing.

Figure 3 in page 13: You have to clarify the explanation of the lateral axis.

Figure 4, the formula in this figure: Is “F” the resistance hydraulic “f”? You have to define it clearly

Figure 4, ~ 9, “n”: In those figures, I think the sample number “n=16” is too small to obtain the distinctive results. I think you have to make a effort to increase it.

Table 4 ~6: You should explain the meaning of “a”, “ab”, and “c” in those tables. I think you should add the legend.

Figure 9 in page 25: You should unify the expression of exponent such as “2âE-05” and another expression “2â10^-5”.

P 28, equation (32): How was the evaluation result of equation (32)? You have to show the reader how much the critical index such as detective rate, success rate, correct rate or regression coefficient was.

Please, contemplate 10 comments above.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2022-275-RC2
- AC4: 'Reply on RC2', JOSE CANTALICE, 17 Oct 2022
  
  Reply to comments.
  Comment 1. Thank you for your comments, and recognizing the effort in working in a completely cohesive condition, we will write some sentences to improve in this sense.
  Comment 2. Thank you for this comment; I will look for some numerical simulation models to work in this direction.
  Comments 3, 7, and 8. Each block consisted of four flow levels applied and four repetitions totaling 16 runs. The n = 16 runs are statistically significant, meaning that the results were applied to statistical analysis, a variance analysis (ANOVA), and two-way analysis of variance in randomized blocks. The variance analysis had appointed by the significance of factors (level applied flows).
  The letters a, b, and c show the statistical significance of the average value. For example, in table 4, the highest level applied (Q4) shows different statistical to shear stress (letter b). In contrast, the other flow applied (Q1, Q2, and Q3) were statistically the same (letter b), showing that the shear stress produced by Q1, Q2, and Q3 not had been a difference. The legend is below each table; for example, Values followed by the same letter in the column do not differ by Tukey test (Tukey, P < 0,05).
  I did not make an effort to obtain the relationship; I did regressions.
  Comment 4. Yes, L in lines 174 and 246 means Liter.
  Comment 5. Figure 3, page 13. Sorry, the lateral axis is hidden. I will improve it.
  The lateral axis shows the mean flow velocity.
  Comment 6. Yes, f in figure 4 is the hydraulic resistance represented by the Darcy-Weisbach coefficient.
  Comment 9. Thank you. I will improve these exponents in the expressions.
  Comment 10. Equation (32) results from hydraulic experimental parameters on a highly cohesive channel (60% clay proportion) and dimensional analyses. It can be used safely to find permissible velocities for applied flows between 70 and 545 Liter/minute in cohesive channels until 60 % clay content. Equation 32 was obtained by dimensional analyses, which guarantees that it works well to find permissible velocities in the previously mentioned cohesive conditions.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2022-275-AC4

Status: closed

CC1:
'Comment on hess-2022-275', Rahul Kumar, 09 Sep 2022

The authors have successfully studied and evaluated the resistance parameters and permissible velocity from cohesive channels. They have successfully developed an equation to predict the permissible flow velocity in cohesive channels using the Buckingham theorem. The current study is well designed and performed in a good way. I am sure it will contribute to scientific knowledge and will definitely help the engineers to design and manage river structures. However, I would like to suggest the authors to write the conclusion section concisely within a single paragraph.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2022-275-CC1
- AC1: 'Reply on CC1', JOSE CANTALICE, 29 Sep 2022
  
  Thank you, Dr. Rahul Kumar, for your positive comments. I will consider reducing the conclusions as you had recommended.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2022-275-AC1
- CC4: 'Reply on CC1', Layane Carmen A. Rocha, 29 Sep 2022
  
  Dear Rahul Kumar, Thank you for your comment and contribution.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2022-275-CC4
CC2:
'Comment on hess-2022-275', Valdemir Silva Junior, 29 Sep 2022

Comments about Resistance parameters and permissible velocity from cohesive channels, Hess-2022-275

The present manuscript shows relevant contributions to resistance parameters and flow velocity occurring in cohesive channels. The results had appointed that new research has to consider higher flow application than the here applied in cohesive channels to reach
The effective detachment rates on channels will permit identify the critical velocity of channels with such high clay content.
Please, I recommend that the authors fix the following points below:

Lines 323 to 326. The results of these two methodologies do not bring an advantage to this manuscript. Please retire;
On tables 3 and 4, relocate the variables legend below the tables;
Figure 6 has to be inserted below line 409;
Line 469. The shear stress is different from the shear stress shown in table 4. Please adjust it;
Lines 645 and 646. These lines can be deleted; cite only the equations.

Sincerely,
Dr. Valdemir de Paula e Silva Junior,
Researcher associate at UFAPE – Agrest Federal University of Pernambuco, Brazil.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2022-275-CC2
- CC3:
  'Reply on CC2', Layane Carmen A. Rocha, 29 Sep 2022
  
  Dear Valdemir, we appreciate your contributions and we will investigate it for a possible adjustment.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2022-275-CC3
  - AC2: 'Reply on CC3', JOSE CANTALICE, 29 Sep 2022
    
    Thank you, Dr. Silva Junior, for your comments/review. We will consider another experiment to apply higher flow rates on cohesive channels. We review your recommendations point to point.
    Professor, Jose Ramon Barros Cantalice.
    
    Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2022-275-AC2
RC1:
'Comment on hess-2022-275', Anonymous Referee #1, 12 Oct 2022

Most of the equations seem to add little to the substance of the paper, which seems to be to estimate maximum acceptable flow over a cohesive surface, to prevent erosion of the surface. As the experiments never reach the critical conditions , it is difficult to use the expmerimental setup to improve the critieria.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2022-275-RC1
- AC3: 'Reply on RC1', JOSE CANTALICE, 12 Oct 2022
  
  The results and equations obtained in this experimental research can be used within the boundary conditions, which means cohesive channels with a 60% clay proportion in field condition, a rare condition in the literature, and for applied flows between 70 to 545 L/minutes, furthermore there is many information and relations about rheological and resistance parameters from these cohesive conditions as yield shear stress, cohesion, Shields´s parameter to cohesive sediment, and a soil cohesion erodibility value was obtained in accordance with others results in the literature.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2022-275-AC3
RC2:
'Comment on hess-2022-275', Anonymous Referee #2, 17 Oct 2022
The creative and cutting-edge characteristic of this research should be much more emphasized in the conclusion and abstract.

I recommend you should compare the empirical model in this research with the physical numerical simulation models.

I think the sample number “n=16” (in figure 4 ~9) is too small to obtain the distinctive results, especially it comes to statistics.

The unit “L”: Such as page 2, line 174, Q=545L/min, and also in page 10 line 246. Which does this “L” mean liter” l” or length of the channel” L”? It is very confusing.

Figure 3 in page 13: You have to clarify the explanation of the lateral axis.

Figure 4, the formula in this figure: Is “F” the resistance hydraulic “f”? You have to define it clearly

Figure 4, ~ 9, “n”: In those figures, I think the sample number “n=16” is too small to obtain the distinctive results. I think you have to make a effort to increase it.

Table 4 ~6: You should explain the meaning of “a”, “ab”, and “c” in those tables. I think you should add the legend.

Figure 9 in page 25: You should unify the expression of exponent such as “2âE-05” and another expression “2â10^-5”.

P 28, equation (32): How was the evaluation result of equation (32)? You have to show the reader how much the critical index such as detective rate, success rate, correct rate or regression coefficient was.

Please, contemplate 10 comments above.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2022-275-RC2
- AC4: 'Reply on RC2', JOSE CANTALICE, 17 Oct 2022
  
  Reply to comments.
  Comment 1. Thank you for your comments, and recognizing the effort in working in a completely cohesive condition, we will write some sentences to improve in this sense.
  Comment 2. Thank you for this comment; I will look for some numerical simulation models to work in this direction.
  Comments 3, 7, and 8. Each block consisted of four flow levels applied and four repetitions totaling 16 runs. The n = 16 runs are statistically significant, meaning that the results were applied to statistical analysis, a variance analysis (ANOVA), and two-way analysis of variance in randomized blocks. The variance analysis had appointed by the significance of factors (level applied flows).
  The letters a, b, and c show the statistical significance of the average value. For example, in table 4, the highest level applied (Q4) shows different statistical to shear stress (letter b). In contrast, the other flow applied (Q1, Q2, and Q3) were statistically the same (letter b), showing that the shear stress produced by Q1, Q2, and Q3 not had been a difference. The legend is below each table; for example, Values followed by the same letter in the column do not differ by Tukey test (Tukey, P < 0,05).
  I did not make an effort to obtain the relationship; I did regressions.
  Comment 4. Yes, L in lines 174 and 246 means Liter.
  Comment 5. Figure 3, page 13. Sorry, the lateral axis is hidden. I will improve it.
  The lateral axis shows the mean flow velocity.
  Comment 6. Yes, f in figure 4 is the hydraulic resistance represented by the Darcy-Weisbach coefficient.
  Comment 9. Thank you. I will improve these exponents in the expressions.
  Comment 10. Equation (32) results from hydraulic experimental parameters on a highly cohesive channel (60% clay proportion) and dimensional analyses. It can be used safely to find permissible velocities for applied flows between 70 and 545 Liter/minute in cohesive channels until 60 % clay content. Equation 32 was obtained by dimensional analyses, which guarantees that it works well to find permissible velocities in the previously mentioned cohesive conditions.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2022-275-AC4

Jose Ramon Barros Cantalice, Layane Carmen A. Rocha, Carlos Victor O. Alves, Amanda Quintela Moura, Edgo Jackson Pinto Santiago, Maykon Rodrigo Barros, and Paulo Costa Medeiros

Viewed

Total article views: 1,297 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)

HTML	PDF	XML	Total	BibTeX	EndNote
973	277	47	1,297	47	49

HTML: 973
PDF: 277
XML: 47
Total: 1,297
BibTeX: 47
EndNote: 49

Views and downloads (calculated since 10 Aug 2022)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Aug 2022	219	24	3	246
Sep 2022	72	28	9	109
Oct 2022	147	47	10	204
Nov 2022	38	12	1	51
Dec 2022	14	4	0	18
Jan 2023	16	6	0	22
Feb 2023	26	18	0	44
Mar 2023	15	11	0	26
Apr 2023	9	12	0	21
May 2023	11	7	0	18
Jun 2023	9	3	1	13
Jul 2023	30	23	1	54
Aug 2023	27	3	1	31
Sep 2023	12	16	2	30
Oct 2023	8	7	0	15
Nov 2023	9	5	0	14
Dec 2023	3	4	1	8
Jan 2024	11	4	2	17
Feb 2024	7	9	0	16
Mar 2024	16	11	1	28
Apr 2024	43	3	7	53
May 2024	40	3	0	43
Jun 2024	43	2	4	49
Jul 2024	32	6	4	42
Aug 2024	33	3	0	36
Sep 2024	32	3	0	35
Oct 2024	30	1	0	31
Nov 2024	21	2	0	23

Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 10 Aug 2022)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Aug 2022	219	24	3	246
Sep 2022	72	28	9	109
Oct 2022	147	47	10	204
Nov 2022	38	12	1	51
Dec 2022	14	4	0	18
Jan 2023	16	6	0	22
Feb 2023	26	18	0	44
Mar 2023	15	11	0	26
Apr 2023	9	12	0	21
May 2023	11	7	0	18
Jun 2023	9	3	1	13
Jul 2023	30	23	1	54
Aug 2023	27	3	1	31
Sep 2023	12	16	2	30
Oct 2023	8	7	0	15
Nov 2023	9	5	0	14
Dec 2023	3	4	1	8
Jan 2024	11	4	2	17
Feb 2024	7	9	0	16
Mar 2024	16	11	1	28
Apr 2024	43	3	7	53
May 2024	40	3	0	43
Jun 2024	43	2	4	49
Jul 2024	32	6	4	42
Aug 2024	33	3	0	36
Sep 2024	32	3	0	35
Oct 2024	30	1	0	31
Nov 2024	21	2	0	23

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 1,223 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 1,223 with geography defined and 0 with unknown origin.

Country	#	Views	%

Latest update: 20 Nov 2024

Short summary

Cohesive channels are naturally less erodible due to the clay in their streambed, which confers more resistance to the shear stress generated by concentrated flow. How much faster can the flow be concentrated in the cohesive channels? What resistance can parameters be used in cohesive channels? How the permissible velocity equations were initially developed for alluvial channels, there is still little information on permissible velocity on cohesive channels. So read this paper to know.


Total:	0
HTML:	0
PDF:	0
XML:	0