Hydrostatic versus nonhydrostatic hydrodynamic modelling of secondary flow in a tortuously meandering river: Application of Delft3D

Given the importance of pressure gradients in driving secondary flow, it is worth studying how the modelled flow structures in a natural river bend can be impacted by the assumption of hydrodynamic pressure. In this paper, the performance of hydrostatic versus nonhydrostatic pressure assumption in the three‐dimensional (3D) hydrodynamic modelling of a tortuously meandering river is studied. Both hydrostatic and nonhydrostatic numerical models were developed using Delft3D‐Flow to predict the 3D flow field in a reach of Stillwater Creek in Ottawa, Canada. An acoustic Doppler velocimeter was employed to measure the 3D flow field at a section in a sharp bend of the simulated river at two flow stages. The results of the Delft3D hydrostatic model agreed well with the acoustic Doppler velocimeter measurements: The hydrostatic model predicted reasonably accurately both the streamwise velocity distribution across the section and the magnitude and location of the primary secondary flow cell. The results of the Delft3D nonhydrostatic approximation showed that the model was not conservative and could not accurately generate either the secondary flow or the streamwise velocity distribution. This study illustrated the superior performance of the hydrostatic over nonhydrostatic 3D modelling of the secondary flow using Delft3D. Several possible reasons for unfavourable performance of the nonhydrostatic version of Delft3D are discussed, including the pressure correction technique employed in Delft3D. Considering the uncertainties that may arise in both modelling and field measurements, the 3D hydrostatic Delft3D model was capable of reasonably predicting the river bend flow structures in the studied meandering creek.