Hydraulic Geometry and Channel Roughness
SUNY College at Oneonta
This activity has benefited from input from faculty educators beyond the author through a review and suggestion process.
This review took place as a part of a faculty professional development workshop where groups of faculty reviewed each others' activities and offered feedback and ideas for improvements. To learn more about the process On the Cutting Edge uses for activity review, see http://serc.carleton.edu/NAGTWorkshops/review.html.
This activity was selected for the On the Cutting Edge Reviewed Teaching Collection
This activity has received positive reviews in a peer review process involving five review categories. The five categories included in the process are
- Scientific Accuracy
- Alignment of Learning Goals, Activities, and Assessments
- Pedagogic Effectiveness
- Robustness (usability and dependability of all components)
- Completeness of the ActivitySheet web page
For more information about the peer review process itself, please see http://serc.carleton.edu/NAGTWorkshops/review.html.
This page first made public: Jul 16, 2008
Used this activity? Share your experiences and modifications
In this field exercise, students measure channel cross sections in a rough (alluvial) and smooth bedrock-floored reach in a local stream. The students test the hypothesis that increasing roughness decreases average stream velocity, and so the depth and/or width must increase for the rougher bed.Students gain insight into how bank and bed roughness influences water flow, and thus can also influence flood heights.
I have used this exercise for both an upper division undergraduate geomorphology course, as well as in a general education course for non-science majors.
Skills and concepts that students must have mastered
Students should have basic algebra skills. In addition, they must have been exposed to basic discharge equation for stream flow, Q = VA = WDV, where Q is discharge (volume/time), V is velocity (length/time), A is cross sectional area, and D is water depth. They should also have been introduced to the idea that the same discharge can have different velocity and or cross section area, and that channel boundaries strongly influence friction.
How the activity is situated in the course
This is a stand-alone activity.
Content/concepts goals for this activity
This activity introduces students to fundamental controls on friction and stream velocity, and shows them how this can influence flood heights, for instance. Students learn simple measurement techniques, practice graphing skills, and learn to recognize "roughness elements" in stream channels.
Higher order thinking skills goals for this activity
Higher order thinking skills for this exercise include: hypothesis development and testing, quantitative assessment of stream cross section areas, and comparative analysis.
Other skills goals for this activity
Students learn how to record field data, and how to work together in groups with assigned roles (booker, shooter, rod person, etc).
Description of the activity/assignment
In this field exercise, students measure channel cross sections in a rough alluvial and smooth bedrock-floored reach in a local stream. This exercise is hypothesis-driven. The hypothesis states that increasing roughness decreases average stream velocity, and so the depth and/or width must increase for the rougher bed. Working in groups, students use hand levels, tape measures, and surveying rods to document channel geometry. They then must reduce the data and plot it as distance-elevation on a chart. Finally, they analyze and compare the results to the predicted roughness-hydraulic geometry relation. Students learn simple surveying methods to collect field data. Students compare real world data to theoretical predictions. Students gain insight into how bank and bed roughness influences water flow, and thus can also influence flood heights.
Designed for a geomorphology course
Integrates geomorphology into a core course in geology
Designed for an introductory geology course
Uses geomorphology to solve problems in other fields
Determining whether students have met the goals
Assessment of student efforts is based on a ranking system for categories (a rubric), given below. Each category receives a rank from 0 to 4, where 0 = unacceptable; 1 = poor, needs a lot of improvement, but passing; 2 = fair, but could use some improvement; 3 = good, and only has very minor problems; 4 = excellent; needs no improvementMore information about assessment tools and techniques.
i. Hypothesis statement
ii. Field Measurements
iii. Data reduction
iv. Analysis and conclusions/summary
Download teaching materials and tips