Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
Flow behaviour concerning bank stability in the presence of spur dike- a review
Harish Kumar Patela, Sukhjeet Aroraa, Abhijit D. Ladeb, Bimlesh Kumar a,*and H. Md. Azamathullac
a
Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, Guwahati, 781039, India
b
Department of Civil Engineering, Visvesvaraya National Institute of Technology, Nagpur, 440010, India
c
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, The University of West Indies, St. Augustine Campus, Trinidad
*Corresponding author. E-mail: bimk@iitg.ac.in
BK, 0000-0001-6001-8411
ABSTRACT
Flow in streams and rivers typically erodes the banks, causing channel bank migration laterally, resulting in loss of nearby land, modification
in channel morphology, excessive sediment transport, and water quality degradation. A spur dike is a hydraulic structure placed at the chan-
nel bank projecting outward to guide or divert the flow away from the bank, thus protecting it from erosion. The stability of the riverbed and
banks is influenced by turbulent characteristics such as three-dimensional velocity distribution, turbulent kinetic energy, Reynolds shear
stress, turbulent intensity, and bed shear stress. The researchers found that these turbulence parameters are instrumental in sediment
movement along the channel’s bed and from its banks. Spurs dikes are a significant river training structure provided along the river bank
to protect from erosion. Several aspects related to spur dikes, such as their geometry, physical features, design considerations, flow and
scour patterns, etc., are critically reviewed in this paper. Despite the numbers of literature in the field of turbulent characteristics and
scour depth around spur dike, the role of vegetation and the effect of seepage around spur dike still remains an unexplored area. These
knowledge gaps of spur dikes in field conditions are discussed for future studies.
Key words: spur dike, bank stability, bed morphology, scour, turbulent characteristics
HIGHLIGHTS
•Importance of spur for erosion measures.
•Type of Spurs for optimal protection measures.
•Gaps in the present analysis have been identified.
•A direction has been presented for future research.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence (CC BY 4.0), which permits copying, adaptation and
redistribution, provided the original work is properly cited (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
© 2022 The Authors Water Supply Vol 00 No 0, 1 doi: 10.2166/ws.2022.418
Uncorrected Proof
Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/ws/article-pdf/doi/10.2166/ws.2022.418/1148358/ws2022418.pdf
by guest
on 10 December 2022
GRAPHICAL ABSTRACT
1. INTRODUCTION
Rivers flow through various landform terrains, starting from the rocky stage, boulder stage, and alluvial stage to the delta
stage. In the rocky and boulder stage river passes through boulders and rocks, which are hard to displace. However, in
the alluvial stage river comes across different sediment particles ranging from larger sand to clay and silt. These particles
in alluvial stages are susceptible to erosion and get transported downstream along the river flow, causing erosion. The
removal of bank soil particles by flow velocity generates shear in the bank, one of the primary mechanisms causing riverbank
erosion (Gholami & Khaleghi 2013).
Riverbank erosion is one of the most common causes of bank instability. While bank erosion increases the width of the
channel, deposition decreases it. However, these processes do not -occur; therefore, the river width constantly fluctuates.
Some structures in the stream, such as levees, guide banks, spur dikes, etc., are constructed to maintain the channel’s
width and protect the river bank from erosion. The preference of a structure over the other depends on the condition in
which the structure will be constructed. Each has its advantages and disadvantages, generally governed by factors such as
the bank condition, type of soil present in the bank, slope of the bank, channel curvature, etc. When compared to other riv-
erbank erosion prevention techniques, spur dikes provide one of the best solutions (El-Rashedy et al. 2016).
A spur, spur dike, or groyne is a river training structure built on a riverbank at some angle, as shown in Figure 1. Spurs are
generally designed at the channel bank to divert the flow away from the channel bank and protect the banks by controlling
the flow velocity and directing the flow toward the center of the channel. The primary purpose of spur dikes is to provide bank
protection and river training. Spur dikes also improve the hydraulic habitat, mainly when constructed with a barrage (Yang
et al. 2022).
Several Researchers (van Balen et al. 2010;Blanckaert et al. 2012;Engel & Rhoads 2017;Kumar Das et al. 2020) used an
acoustic Doppler current profiler to investigate the impact of Reynolds stress at the outer bank zone. According to the find-
ings, alterations in flow patterns, bed shear stress, sediment entrainment patterns, and the increased-velocity gradient
enhance the rate of bank erosion, leading to river bank collapse and land loss (Darby & Thorne 1996;Chu-Agor et al.
2009). Recent studies suggest that fluctuating streamwise and transverse velocity components significantly impact the river
bank in terms of sediment entrainment (Roy et al. 2019;Kumar Das et al. 2020). Furthermore, Barman et al. (2019) observed
that significant momentum flux and coherent structures play an essential role in bank instability. King (2009) conducted field
studies to illustrate the influence of spur presence in preventing bank erosion. The analysis was done by monitoring the down-
stream channel where the spur dike was present. The results before, during, and after the floods in Buffeljags River in South
Water Supply Vol 00 No 0, 2
Uncorrected Proof
Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/ws/article-pdf/doi/10.2166/ws.2022.418/1148358/ws2022418.pdf
by guest
on 10 December 2022
Africa are shown in Figure 2. It was observed that the presence of spur along the bank performed well in that there was no
further erosion of the riverbank during the 2008 flood.
It is essential to know what causes riverbank erosion in order to prevent it. Researchers studied and found that the nature of
flow turbulence is the main reason for bank erosion and sediment transportation. The stability of the bed and banks is highly
influenced by factors relating to turbulent flow, including the three-dimensional distribution of velocity, turbulent kinetic
energy, Reynolds shear stress, turbulent intensity, and bed shear stress.
Turbulence plays a significant role in enhancing sediment transport from or around the structures, which may cause the
failure of the structure. To ensure these structures’safety and prevent bank erosion, studying the behavior of turbulent
flow parameters around these structures becomes imperative. This paper is a comprehensive review of studies on several
aspects associated with spur dikes and knowledge development. In this paper, we have critically reviewed the current
state of the art on the influence of turbulent characteristics on the bed and bank stability of spur dikes. Based on the current
knowledge, we have identified and discussed vital research areas which are still not sufficiently explored, such as the effect of
seepage and vegetation in the channel.
Figure 1 |Spur dike protects a bend in the Gamka River at Calitzdorp, South Africa (King 2009).
Figure 2 |Photos captured downstream of the spur dike before, during, and after the floods in 2008, showing the minimal damage caused
by the flood (King 2009).
Water Supply Vol 00 No 0, 3
Uncorrected Proof
Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/ws/article-pdf/doi/10.2166/ws.2022.418/1148358/ws2022418.pdf
by guest
on 10 December 2022
2. CLASSIFICATION OF SPUR DIKES
Spur dikes can be classified based on
•Construction methods,
•Submergence condition,
•Geometry.
•Interaction with the flow field
Based on permeability, there are two types of spur dikes.: permeable and impermeable spur dikes. Permeable spur dikes are
often built of one or more rows of steel, bamboo, timber, or RCC piles. Permeable spur dikes are usually applied as temporary
structures and are cheaper. Impermeable spur dikes are generally built of readily available materials such as Stones, gravel,
rocks, and local materials. An impermeable spur dike generally restricts and diverts the incoming flow. On the other hand, a
permeable spur dike allows the flow to pass through it at a low velocity (Shampa et al. 2020;Iqbal et al. 2021;Mirzaei et al.
2021;Tripathi & Pandey 2021,2022).
A submerged spur dike is fully immersed in water. Whereas, Non-submerged spur dikes are partially submerged in water.
Based on the shape of the head; spur dike can be classified into various categories such as; straight, L-shape (for which the
head of the structure turns downstream parallel to the streamflow), T-shape, or Hammer-Head (for which head of the struc-
ture turns in both the sides upstream and downstream), hockey, and molehead spur dikes.
Based on the alignment, Spur dikes are categorized into three types: attracting, deflecting, and repelling spur dikes. An
attracting spur dike inclines towards the downstream with the bank and tends to attract the flow toward the bank, but a repel-
ling spur dike tilts the flow in the upstream direction itself, causing the flow to divert away from the bank. A deflecting spur
dike or transverse dike is fixed perpendicular, extending from the bank into the river to deflect the current away from
the bank.
3. GENERAL GUIDELINES FOR SPUR DESIGN AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The essential elements that are frequently considered while designing spur dikes include plan view shape, length, spacing
between adjacent spur dikes, orientation, channel cross-section, crest height, the material used for construction, and
riprap size (Richardson et al. 1975;Brown 1985;Yossef 2002). The design methods used to construct the spur dikes may
differ, but they all serve the common purpose of providing bank protection at a specific channel section. The most significant
characteristics to consider are as follows-
3.1. Planview shape
Spur dikes can be built using various plan view shapes. Some examples include straight (rectangular) spur dike, hockey stick
or curved, inverted hockey stick spur dike, L head, straight spur dike with pier head, and T-head. Compared to other shapes of
spur dikes, the rectangular shape is one of the most cost-effective constructions. It has received significant attention from
researchers because its installation is more effortless in both the field and the laboratory. Thus, researchers mainly utilize rec-
tangular shape spur dikes (summarized in Table 1) to study flow characteristics around the spur dike. Although other shapes
of the spur are also explored, their implementation is limited. Kuhnle et al. (2008) used a trapezoidal spur dike to observe flow
velocities in a laboratory flume around a submerged spur dike. Hashemi et al. 2008) confirmed that the scour depth formed
around spurs is less in L-shaped spurs than in other shapes. El-Rashedy et al. (2016) analyzed the effect of discharge and
Froude number on the scouring process around the different shapes of spur dikes, such as straight, hockey, mole head,
L-shape, and T-shape. Experiments suggest that hockey shape spur dike performs better in reducing scour depth. Kumar
& Ojha (2019)
(a,b)
investigated turbulent flow characteristics, and equilibrium scour depths around an un-submerged
L-head spur dike using varying structure compositions along with different groyne configurations and constriction ratios.
The flow patterns near in-stream rock structures were studied using single-arm rock vanes (at 20° and 30°), J-hook vane
(at 30°), and bend way weirs (at 80° and 60°) with the help of large-eddy simulation along with the laboratory experiments
(Kang et al. 2021a). The properties of the water surface profile and flow velocity surrounding the spur dikes of five distinct
shapes, including the trapezoidal section arc straight head, the trapezoidal section arc hook head, the trapezoid section fan
straight head, the trapezoidal section fan hook head, and the arc section straight head were analyzed by Yu et al. (2020).In
contrast, studies in the last decade suggest that spur dike of T-shape has the least amount of scouring among all geometric
shapes of spur dikes (Vaghefiet al. 2012,2015,2018,2019;Safarzadeh et al. 2016;Vaghefiet al. 2016a,2016b;Mehraein
Water Supply Vol 00 No 0, 4
Uncorrected Proof
Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/ws/article-pdf/doi/10.2166/ws.2022.418/1148358/ws2022418.pdf
by guest
on 10 December 2022
Table 1 |A summary of the geometric and hydraulic conditions of previous experiments and simulations is described here-
S.no Authors Shape of spur
Single/
Series Orientation Experimental/ numerical Model/method used
Re
(Reynolds
Number)
Fr (Froude
number)
1Giri et al.
(2004)
Rectangular SERIES
(3)
90° Numerical
simulations were
substantiated using
the measured
experimental data
(ADV)
2-D numerical
model
20,000
2Kuhnle et al.
(2008)
Trapezoidal SINGLE 90° Simulated numerically
& Compared with
experimental data
(ADV)
finite element
method (k–ε
turbulent
model)
0.2
3Duan (2009) Rectangular SINGLE 90° Experimental (ADV) 48,483
4Yazdi et al.
(2010)
Rectangular SINGLE 70,90, 110-
degree
Numerical results
verified through the
experimental data
(ADV)
Fluent, (k–ε
turbulent
model)
5Duan et al.
(2011)
Rectangular SINGLE 90° Experimental (ADV) 84,059 and
53,157
6Koken &
Gogus (2015)
Rectangular SINGLE 90° Numerical simulation
(DES)
DES 45,000
7Safarzadeh
et al. (2016)
Rectangular and
T-shape
SINGLE 90° Experimental (ADV) 60,000 0.35
8 Vaghefiet al.
(2017)
T-shape SINGLE 60,90, 120-
degree
Numerical results
verified through the
experimental data
(ADV)
SSIIM CFD
software,
Navier–Stokes
equation, and
k–εturbulence
model
9Mehraein et al.
(2017)
T-SHAPED SINGLE 90° Experimental (ADV) 34,000 0.38
10 Kang (2018) Rectangular SINGLE 90° LES are compared
with the experiment
(ADV)
LES 3.00 10
4
0.1
11 Jeon & Lee
(2018)
Rectangular SINGLE 90° Experimental (ADV) LES 3.00 10
4
and
6.59
10
4
0.10 &
0.90
12 Vaghefiet al.
(2018)
T-shape SINGLE (45-degree)
attractive and
repelling
Numerical simulation
of the experimental
model (ADV)
CFD-RNG k-E
turbulent model
13 Kumar & Ojha
(2019)
(a)
L-head SINGLE 90° Experimental (ADV) 25,000
44,000,
0.34
0.39
14 Kumar & Ojha
(2019)
(b)
L-head SINGLE 90° Experimental (ADV) 3.9 10
4
0.34
15 Bahrami-
Yarahmadi
et al. (2020)
Rectangular and
Triangular
SERIES
(4)
90° Experimental (EVM) 0.176,
0.196,
0.216,
and
0.235
(Continued.)
Water Supply Vol 00 No 0, 5
Uncorrected Proof
Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/ws/article-pdf/doi/10.2166/ws.2022.418/1148358/ws2022418.pdf
by guest
on 10 December 2022
Table 1 |Continued
S.no Authors Shape of spur
Single/
Series Orientation Experimental/ numerical Model/method used
Re
(Reynolds
Number)
Fr (Froude
number)
16 Shampa et al.
(2020)
slit-type
permeable
spur dike
series of
slit-type
spurs
(5)
60, 90, 120-
degree
Numerical
simulations (PIV)
substantiated using
the measured
experimental data
(EVM)
3D RANS; k-ω
SST
34,430 0.71
17 Kang et al.
(2021a)
J-hook vanes,
Rock vanes,
and bendway
weirs
SINGLE rock vanes-
20,30-degree J-
hook vane-30
degree
bendway
weirs-60,80-
degree
Large-eddy
simulation (LES)
and flume
experiments (ADV)
LES 4.08 10
4
0.19
18 Mirzaei et al.
(2021)
SINGLE 90° Numerical simulation
is compared with
experimental
results.
FLOW 3D-LES
turbulence
model
19 Jafari & Sui
(2021)
Rectangular SERIES
(2)
90°, 60°, and 45° Experimental (ADV) 0.19,
0.15,
0.10
20 Akbari et al.
(2021)
T-shape SINGLE 60°, 89°, 91°, and
150°
Experimental (ADV) 67,857 0.34
21 Lodhi et al.
(2021)
Rectangular SINGLE 90° Experimental (ADV) 87,474 0.65
22 Kang et al.
(2021b)
Rectangular SINGLE 90° Numerical simulation
& Experimental
(ADV)
LES 3.00 10
4
0.1
23 Kafle (2021) Rectangular SERIES 90° Numerical simulation CFD–model
Nays 2D
24 Iqbal et al.
(2021)
Rectangular SERIES 90° Numerical simulation
(PIV)
Reynolds stress
model RSM
[FLUENT
(ANSYS)]
10,000 0.13
25 Mulahasan
et al. (2021)
Rectangular SINGLE 90° Simulated numerically
& Compared with
experimental data
k-ε, k-w, RSM
CFD-VOF-
ANSYS
FLUENT
(6,560),
(9,930),
(10,959)
(0.409)
(0.334)
(0.295)
26 Indulekha
et al. (2021)
Rectangular SERIES
(6)
15, 30, 45, 90,
120, 150
degree
Simulated numerically
& Compared with
experimental data
ANSYS Fluent. 0.35
27 Yu et al. (2020) Five different
shapes
SINGLE 90° Experimental (ADV)
28 Pourshahbaz
et al. (2022)
Rectangular SERIES
(3)
90° Numerical
simulations
substantiated using
the experimental
data (ADV)
FLOW-3D and
SSIIM 2.0
0.19, 0.25
CFD, computational fluid dynamics; EVM, electromagnetic velocity meter; PIV, particle image velocimetry; DES, Detached eddy simulation; LES, Large-eddy simulation.
Water Supply Vol 00 No 0, 6
Uncorrected Proof
Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/ws/article-pdf/doi/10.2166/ws.2022.418/1148358/ws2022418.pdf
by guest
on 10 December 2022
et al. 2017;Tripathi & Pandey 2021). Furthermore, Bahrami-Yarahmadi et al. (2020) employed the triangular spur dike to
examine the scour pattern developed around it and suggested that it can reduce scouring at spur dike tips.
3.2. Spur dike length
It is the length projected perpendicularly to the stream flow direction. It is presented as a percentage of channel width at the
bank-full stage. According to the literature, the available parameters for determining spur dike length are site-specific. For
Figure 3 |Classification of spur dikes (Zhang & Nakagawa 2008).
Water Supply Vol 00 No 0, 7
Uncorrected Proof
Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/ws/article-pdf/doi/10.2166/ws.2022.418/1148358/ws2022418.pdf
by guest
on 10 December 2022
straight reaches, Alvarez (1989) proposed that the spur dike length should be kept between the mean depth (h) and 0.25 times
the free surface width (B) of the flow. Richardson et al. (1975) recommended a value of 15.24 m as the minimum length and a
range from 10 to 15% of the bank-full channel width as the maximum length for straight reaches, large-radius bends, and
braided channels. It has been noticed that the length of the spur dike is associated with more scour. Furthermore, when
the length of the spur dike is increased, the maximum scour depth moves closer to the channel’s outer wall (Vaghefiet al.
2009). The bed shear stress values near the spur dike’s tip increased significantly as the length of the spur dike expanded
(Koken & Gogus 2015).
3.3. Spur dikes spacing
Spur dikes are installed mainly in series rather than as individual structures. In the case of spur dikes installed as a series, flow
around the spur dikes alters according to the spacing between the spur dikes.
In the literature, ideal ratio (or) aspect ratio (or) spacing factors (¼spacing of spurs/Length of Spur) range from 1 to 6,
where less than one spacing factor is used in retardance spurs, and six is adopted for impermeable diverter spurs. Several
field spurs were constructed to study the bank protection of the river Sutlej below the Panjnad headwork. After a series of
experiments, the ideal ratio is around 5 for the longest length of bank protection. The bank between the spurs may be attacked
and degraded when the value is more than five, as found by Ahmad (1951). As suggested by Fenwick (1969), the spacing of
the Spur dikes is classified based on the purpose of its installation (for example, spacing ratio values of 2–2.5 for flow control
and 3 for bank protection). Richardson et al. (1975) recommend spacing 1.5–6 times the upstream projected spur length into
the flow. An aspect ratio of 1.5–2.0 is recommended for obtaining a distinct channel for navigation purposes. For bank
protection purposes, the ratio of 2–6 is generally used. In addition, Garg et al. (1980) suggested that when more than one
spur is built, the spacing between them is determined by the spur’s angle and the flow’s curvature. Also, the spurs are separ-
ated by 3–4 times their length.
For groyne installation and protection, considering the transmissivity, angle, length, and channel curvature of the groyne,
Brown (1985) proposed a range of aspect ratio ¼1–6. The appropriate installation spacing is proposed as a minimum of four
times and a maximum of six times, considering a decrease in flow velocity according to the installation of upward groynes and
river bed stability Kim et al. (2014).Bahrami-Yarahmadi et al. (2020) used a triangular shape for their study. They rec-
ommended that the spacing between them be restricted to 5.5 times the effective length of the structure. Hajibehzad et al.
(2020) showed the maximum scour depth around the spur dikes as the distance between them increases. Hence, Spur
dike length and spacing between them are the significant design factors for bank protection.
3.4. Spur dike orientation
Hydraulic structures such as spur dikes or Groynes extend from the bank of rivers or streams oriented either upstream, down-
stream, or perpendicular to the main flow direction. The orientation of the spur dike influences the flow pattern, scouring, and
sedimentation processes in the vicinity of the spur dike. Richardson & Simons (1984) suggested that a spur dike’s orientation
ranges between 30° and 120° when measured downstream. For navigation purposes, spur dikes inclined downstream are
more effective as they provide a greater flow depth. Spur dikes with a greater than 90-degree orientation angle are effective
Figure 4 |Schematic representation of a spur dike configuration displaying significant design criteria (USACE 1980).
Water Supply Vol 00 No 0, 8
Uncorrected Proof
Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/ws/article-pdf/doi/10.2166/ws.2022.418/1148358/ws2022418.pdf
by guest
on 10 December 2022
for bank protection. Because sediment materials settle more readily between these spur dikes, they provide a highly stable
river bank (Brown 1985;Kuhnle et al. 2002).
According to United Nations (1953), the current norm is to build spur dikes either perpendicular to the bank or upstream.
An upstream dike angle of 100–120 degrees was proposed for bank protection. Garde et al. (1961) propounded that the maxi-
mum scour depth would be most significant for a spur perpendicular to the bank line and reduced for all other upstream
and downstream orientations. Ezzeldin et al. (2007) commented that the greatest width of scour holes corresponds to the
135-degree spur. Still, they provide improved aquatic habitats and minimize the possibility of erosion of the channel bank.
Krishna Prasad et al. (2016) suggested an angle of a 135-degree spur for reducing erosion and protecting the bank. As the
angle of inclination of the spur dike decreases, the scour hole depth, length, and width parameters decrease Nath &
Misra (2017).
3.5. Crest elevation
The crest elevation of spurs is described based on alterations caused by flow. Spurs can be built to remain above the water
level (non-submerged) or submerged during floods and emerge only after the flood has passed. The crest height of spurs
should be at least as high as the bank of the channels for bank protection. Non-submerged spurs are usually made Imperme-
able because severe erosion can occur along the spur downstream due to overtopping water in submerged spurs. On the other
hand, submerged spurs can be permeable because they do not obstruct the flow as much as solid spurs. In addition, sub-
merged spurs must attain a height between one-third and half the flow depth ( Ji1a & Karmacharya 2000).
3.6. Minimum number of spurs along the stream bank
The number of spurs required is determined by the length of the stream bank to be protected and the estimated spacing
between the spurs. Streamflow patterns and bed scour patterns associated with different arrangements of spur dikes are uti-
lized to determine which arrangements for single structure and multiple structures are suitable for protecting erosion of banks
and influencing scour patterns. The number of spurs to protect stream banks or to contract the stream; there should be a mini-
mum of three spurs. For the protection of embankments across the stream, one or two spurs may be adequate (Richardson &
Simons 1984).
4. FLOW PATTERN AROUND SPUR DIKE
The flow may be subdivided into four zones as it passes through the spur dike. The flow past a spur was classified into four
sub-zones by Yong & Ikeda (1997): main flow zone, shear layer, reattachment zone, and return flow zone. While according to
Zhang & Nakagawa (2008), the flow through the spur dike is categorized into three zones: the primary flow zone (main flow
zone) is from the spur dike’s head to the opposite side of the channel; a wake zone behind the spur dike; and an intermediate
mixing zone. (Figure 5).
Figure 5 |Typical flow around spur dike (Zhang & Nakagawa 2008).
Water Supply Vol 00 No 0, 9
Uncorrected Proof
Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/ws/article-pdf/doi/10.2166/ws.2022.418/1148358/ws2022418.pdf
by guest
on 10 December 2022
4.1. Main flow zone
The flow accelerates due to a spur dike in the main flow zone. According to Molinas et al. (1998), the velocity at the spur dike
head may be enhanced by up to 50% of the incoming flow velocity. In addition, Ho et al. (2007) used both experimental and
computational approaches to study the flow around impermeable spur dikes and came up with similar conclusions.
4.2. Wake zone
In the wake zone, the flow can be further classified into two zones: return flow and reattachment.
4.2.1. Return flow zone
Two eddies of different sizes and rotating directions are generally formed in the return flow zone. A small eddy is formed in
the vicinity of the spur dike, the center of which is nearly equal to the length of the spur dike (L). At the downstream end of
the small eddy, a larger eddy forms, with its center about six times the length of the spur dike away from the spur dike.
4.2.2. Reattachment zone
The reattachment zone is downstream of the spur dike, where the divided flow re-joins with the channel bank. Yong & Ikeda
(1997) propounded that the reattachment zone is present at a distance of approximately six times the length of the spur dike
(L) and is located between 11 L and 17 L. However, the reattachment zone is frequently reduced to a single point for easy
analysis. The time-averaged velocity is zero at this point. However, it is essential to remember that the instantaneous reattach-
ment point varies. Ouillon & Dartus (1997) found that the reattachment point for impermeable spur dikes was 11.5 L in the
experiments and 10.7 L in the numerical model analysis.
5. SCOUR AROUND SPUR DIKE AND THEIR CLASSIFICATION
The scouring in the vicinity of the spur dike is usually categorized as
(1) General scour,
(2) Constriction scour and
(3) Local scour.
General scour occurs on a channel bed due to sediment movement, occurs regardless of the presence of a spur dike. The
installation of the spur dike narrows the riverbed, resulting in constriction scour. The spur dike restricts flow and promotes
local scouring around the structure. The primary purpose of a spur dike is to deflect the main flow away from the bank. But
like other hydraulic systems, the spur dike faces the biggest threat to its intended performance from excessive scouring. This
scour, known as local scour, is frequently recognized as a vital cause of the failure of the structure. Correct estimation of the
maximum local scour depth is crucial for these structures’safe design.
Local scour is classified as clear-water or live-bed scour based on the sediment transport mechanism by the incoming flow.
The live-bed scour is defined as the condition where the mean velocity of the flow equals or exceeds the critical velocity. On
the other hand, when the mean velocity is less than the critical velocity, it is a clear-water scour. In general, clear-water scour
may be divided into the following four stages: beginning, development, stabilization, and equilibrium stages. The scour devel-
ops rapidly during the beginning and development stages. The variation in scour depth is minimal throughout the stabilized
stage. Finally, an equilibrium stage is established, which takes longer than a live-bed scour. When the scour depth does not
change with time and becomes almost constant, it marks the onset of the ‘equilibrium stage’. Quantitatively, in any morpho-
dynamic process, the onset of the equilibrium stage is a point of time at which the slope of scour depth vs time (in logarithmic
scale) plot tends to zero (Ettema 1980). The scouring increases promptly with time in terms of live-bed scour, and then it
fluctuates nearby a mean value regarding the passages of bedforms. The temporal change of maximum scour depth under
live-bed and clear-water scour circumstances is described in Figure 6.
5.1. Flow structure in the scour (local) area
An obstruction like spur dikes or groynes significantly affects the flow patterns in a river. It alters sediment transport, depo-
sition, and general and local scour near the spur dike. The obstruction caused by a spur dike or groin generates a complex
system of vortices. Vortices remove these sediments from the base of the structure with enhanced lateral flow flowing through
the obstacle. After being propelled along the mainstream flow in the direction of the downstream deposit, the eroded sedi-
ments are subsequently conveyed by wake vortices and aggrade downstream rivers.
Water Supply Vol 00 No 0, 10
Uncorrected Proof
Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/ws/article-pdf/doi/10.2166/ws.2022.418/1148358/ws2022418.pdf
by guest
on 10 December 2022
In front of the spur dike, stagnation of incoming flow results in the formation of bow wave structures at the water surface,
and a downflow occurs near the bottom of the channel. As a result of the flow separation, a horseshoe vortex forms in the
local scour hole, and behind the spur dike, a wake vortex system develops. A schematic diagram showing the generation of
vortices around the spur dike area of local scour is shown in Figure 7.
6. EFFECT ON MORPHOLOGY DUE TO SPUR INSTALLATION
The flow characteristics in the channel have a considerable impact on bed morphology. Installing a spur dike along the bank
of the channel adds to the complexity of flow even further. The projection of a structure, such as a spur dike outward from the
bank, alters the flow patterns and bed morphologies. Usually, these changes initiate the scouring process. The study of mor-
phology changes in the presence and absence of a spur dike is essential to evaluate how the erosion process affects the
channel bank and bed. The scouring in the channel affects spur dike strength, the primary cause of spur dike failure. The
maximum expected scour depth must be considered from the structure’s foundation to avoid failure. Therefore, investigations
attempting to determine what causes the scouring and how to estimate the maximum depth of scouring surrounding the spur
dike are critical research challenges. Several studies have already been conducted on these lines; however, there is still much
Figure 6 |Scour Depth as a function of Time (Chabert 1956).
Figure 7 |Flow pattern around a spur dike (Zhang & Nakagawa 2008).
Water Supply Vol 00 No 0, 11
Uncorrected Proof
Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/ws/article-pdf/doi/10.2166/ws.2022.418/1148358/ws2022418.pdf
by guest
on 10 December 2022
uncertainty in predicting scour depth. Scour at spurs is often predicted based on experience with a specific river or by employ-
ing a case-specific physical model. Many factors that influence the scouring process include spur dike shape, projected and
wing length of the spur, orientation, spacing between adjacent spur dikes, channel cross-section, crest height, the material
used for construction, permeability, and sediment and riprap size. Researchers attempted to explore the influence of these
factors independently and in combinations to conclude which independent factors or their combinations contribute more
to scouring processes.
Ezzeldin et al. (2007) studied the local scour around a single straight impermeable submerged spur installed in a channel
with different angles relative to the flow direction. Scour depth was found to be more due to greater resistance to the flow
made by the spurs. Scour depth increases with an increase in the Froude number and the angle of inclination of the spur
with respect to the flow direction. The maximum width of the scour hole was found at the orientation, with a spur angle
of 135
0
.Atarodi et al. (2021) performed experiments on spurs placed in a series and introduced a protective spur to
reduce the scouring of the downstream spurs. The experiments investigated each spur’s effect on other spurs of the series,
highlighting the protective spur’sinfluence in reducing the scour around other spurs. The introduced protective spur was
shown to effectively decrease the scour around the spurs placed sequentially. Vaghefiet al. (2009) investigated scouring
near a T-shaped spur dike at a 90-degree bend channel. The different lengths of spur dike at various aspects of scour
depth characteristics such as amount, volume, and dimensions were analyzed. It was found that these parameters increased
as the length of spur dike from the bank increased. The maximum scour depth was obtained at the upstream side just near the
spur dike. Alauddin & Tsujimoto (2012) installed groynes in a series with different configurations. They conducted exper-
iments to find which is more effective at high and low flow conditions. The results demonstrated that modified groynes
are more effective than conventional ones for navigation channel maintenance at low-flow fields and bank protection at
high-flow. Vaghefiet al. (2012) experimentally investigated the scouring near the T-shaped spur dike at 90
0
bends. They
studied two scour holes: one developed near the nose of the spur dike at the upstream section, and the other developed at
some distance from the spur at the downstream section. The scour volume upstream is much higher compared to down-
stream. Researchers also reported that the maximum scour depth increases as the spur dike length decreases Ezzeldin
et al. (2007).Dawood (2013) conducted laboratory experiments with three different shapes of impermeable spurs in a straight
channel: straight, T-head, and L-head. They observed an indirect relationship between the effect of spur numbers and the
shape of spurs on the maximum scouring depth. In their experiments, the distance considered between the spurs was 1,
1.5, and 2 times the length of the spurs. The researcher reported an increase in scour depth by nearly 20% when the
spurs’distance increased to 0.5 times the length of the spur. Pandey (2014) reported that in the case of two subsequent
groins in a rectangular straight channel, the maximum scour depth always developed at the upstream side of the first
groin with its location near the nose of the groin on the upstream side. The scour hole size increase as the radius of the chan-
nel bend to channel width ratio increases Mehraein & Ghodsian (2017). The formation of scour around the spur dike
projected at the bend is caused due to cross-current and vortices formed around the structure Pandey et al. (2019). Scour pat-
terns around triangular and rectangular spur dikes were compared at different hydraulic conditions. The result revealed that
scour hole dimensions, such as maximum scour depth and volume, were smaller than rectangular spur dikes in triangular
spur dikes (Bahrami-Yarahmadi et al. 2020). A study of the erosion and sedimentation patterns reveals that scour would
occur at the tip and near the triangular and rectangular spur dike. Akbari et al. (2021) studied the flow patterns around T-
shaped spurs to determine the most effective geometric shapes. They found that the length of the spur dike web and its
wing shape affected the flow characteristics. An increase in the web length and spur dike size can increase the flow velocity
by 77% at the bed, and 38% near the water surface, when the length of the spur installed is about 25 percent of the channel
width. Tripathi & Pandey (2021) examined the local scour and general scour in the vicinity of a T-shaped spur organized at
different locations on the bank of a reverse meander channel. It was noticed that with an increase in the Froude number, the
flow moves towards the spur dike to form a local scour and reduces the general scour in the vicinity of the spur dike while the
depth of scour hole increases. Pandey et al. (2021) investigated temporal scour depth variation in the spur dike (vertical wall)
to identify the most prominent parameters affecting the performance of the spur dike with non-uniform sediment. They pro-
posed a new temporal scour depth equation for calculating maximum scour depth around spur dikes in the presence of non-
uniform sediment. It was observed that the variation of temporal scour depth increases with an increase in parameters such
as the threshold velocity ratio, Froude number, flow depth-particle size ratio, and flow shallowness and reduces as the non-
uniformity of the sediment increases. Flume experiments conducted by Farshad et al. (2022) revealed significant attenuation
to maximum scour depth in the case of permeable spur dike, as compared to the impermeable dike. Also, minimum bank
Water Supply Vol 00 No 0, 12
Uncorrected Proof
Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/ws/article-pdf/doi/10.2166/ws.2022.418/1148358/ws2022418.pdf
by guest
on 10 December 2022
retreat in a meandering channel was observed in the case of permeable spur dikes (Esmaeli et al. 2022). Similar observations
were reported by Khajavi et al. (2022) and Hakim et al. (2022), wherein permeable spurs considerably eliminated the scour at
bridge abutments in both steady and unsteady flow conditions. Tripathi & Pandey (2022) reviewed previous research on flow
patterns and prediction of temporal and maximum scour depth around spur dikes formed by straight, L-shaped, and T-shaped
spurs placed at 90° and 180° curved channels. A detailed review of the numerical and experimental study suggests that the
data and associated results are inadequate for the construction of spurs employed as river structures in curved channels.
The knowledge of how different shapes and orientations of spur dikes in the channel contribute to erosion processes was
investigated to propose the most efficient and cost-effective spur dikes out of the numerous potential shapes. However, most
researchers have not considered one of the primary factors present in the channel that impacts the bank and bed load trans-
port process, even in the presence of spur dikes, which is seepage. In natural channels, along with the main flow, there is
significant seepage flow from the channel bed and banks. The interaction of seepage will affect the flow structure, conse-
quently affecting the scour patterns around the spur dikes. Future studies in this direction are needed for a more realistic
prediction of hydro-morphology around spur dikes for field conditions.
7. TURBULENCE CHARACTERISTICS DUE TO SPUR INSTALLATION
The presence of a spur dike affects the flow, especially near the banks of the channel, and modifies the turbulent character-
istics associated with the flow. The nature of turbulence in a flow is studied by measurement and analysis of instantaneous
flow velocities in cartesian coordinates. The analysis provides various turbulent parameters of the flow, which include Rey-
nolds shear stress, turbulent intensity, turbulent kinetic energy, bed shear stress, etc. The morphology around spur dikes is
governed by turbulent flow parameters around the spur dikes. These characteristics are statically estimated using the root-
mean-square (RMS) of the turbulent velocity fluctuation and covariances for all three velocity combinations. Researchers
have analyzed the flow pattern around spur dikes and determined mean velocity and turbulent flow characteristics, local
scour, riverbank stabilization, and scour reduction by conducting laboratory tests and numerical simulations. The process
understanding gained from these studies and our current knowledge about flow structure and morphological interactions
around spur dikes is explicated in the following section.
7.1. Based on experimental results
Physical-model experiments are an effective way to learn about critical flow characteristics. Researchers experimentally
studied how bed and bank stability is affected due to the influence of turbulent characteristics in the vicinity of spur dikes.
As a research objective, different shapes of spur dikes are employed in various locations, with varying orientations and
spur lengths, to provide suitable arrangements. An experimental flume with a fixed bed was used by Duan (2009) to analyze
the three-dimensional turbulent flow zone near a spur dike. Results show that the maximum bed-shear stress was estimated at
around two-three times the approaching flow of the mean bed-shear stress, which is located just upstream side of the tip of the
spur.
Furthermore, turbulence intensities were high as the flow moved downstream, the mean downstream velocity was nearly
zero, and the mean kinetic energy declined, whereas the turbulent kinetic energy increased. Duan et al. (2011) investigated
the mean flow and turbulence patterns with scoured and flatbed surface around a spur dike. They concluded that the turbu-
lence intensities in the longitudinal (u0) and transverse (v0) components are significantly higher, while the vertical component
(w0) is significantly smaller than the flatbed. Furthermore, the estimated maximum bed shear stress is approximately 6–8 times
the incoming flow for non-erodible and erodible bed surfaces. Safarzadeh et al. (2016) investigated the 3-D turbulent flow
field near straight and T-shape spurs under a smooth flatbed. According to the experiment results, the presence of the
spurs enhanced the turbulent kinetic energy (TKE) by ten times. In addition, TKE was observed to be higher and more
extended in the upstream region of the T-shape spur than in the straight spur. Circular 3D flow structures just upstream of
the T-shape Spur dike are considered responsible for this phenomenon. Mehraein et al. (2017) studied the mean and turbulent
flow fields experimentally and measured scour holes around a submerged and emerged spur dike in a 90° bend. They found
that TKE reaches its highest value near the spur dikes at the upstream tip and elongates as it approaches the downstream
border between the approach and recirculating flow. They also showed that TKE-predicted bed shear stress shows a good
association between scour and bed shear stress. Kumar & Ojha (2019)
(a,b)
used unsubmerged L-head spur dike to investigate
mean and turbulent flow characteristics. They observed that the magnitude of the bed shear stress, vertical Reynolds stress,
and turbulent kinetic energy decreases in the wake zone as groyne’s configuration and constriction ratio increases. In another
Water Supply Vol 00 No 0, 13
Uncorrected Proof
Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/ws/article-pdf/doi/10.2166/ws.2022.418/1148358/ws2022418.pdf
by guest
on 10 December 2022
study, they found that as the flow approaches the spur dike, the magnitude of turbulent kinetic energy increases; however, this
decreases significantly in the confined region of the groyne faces inside the wake zone. They also found that Bed shear stress
increases considerably (by 4.78 times the approaching bed shear stress) within the inner wake zone at the groyne faces and
near the submerged dike. The effects of the spur dike on turbulent properties under ice cover circumstances were evaluated by
Jafari & Sui (2021). The most significant velocity fluctuations were observed above the scour hole and near the spur wing. In
addition, ice on the water surface alters the bed shear stress and increases turbulence intensities inside the scour holes, which
can substantially impact sediment movement. They also observed Reynolds shear stress and found it is negative inside the
scour holes, but it becomes positive as it approaches the flow surface and reaches its maximum just above the scour
holes. Lodhi et al. (2021) explored turbulent characteristics near spur dikes. According to their findings, higher longitudinal
velocity values were getting beyond the scour hole zone and lower within the scour hole region. The Reynolds stresses and
turbulence intensities were greater in the scour hole in the spur dike’s wake zone, and the wake zone had the greatest TKE
value. Due to an increase in the degree of submergence, the TKE increases in front of the spur dike and decreases at the axis
as well as at the rear side of the dike (Yu et al. 2022). Physical model studies were conducted by Wang et al. (2022) on the spur
dikes in the Three Gorges Reservoir area of the Yangtze River due to the action of landslide surge. The results show signifi-
cant effects on the circumferential wave pressure upstream and downstream of the spur dike due to landslide surge.
7.2. Based on numerical simulations
Many researchers studied the flow and turbulence characteristics in the zone of spur dike that extends over the straight chan-
nel by using different numerical simulation models based on their performance, such as Large-eddy simulation (LES),
detached eddy simulation (DES), etc. These models were validated or compared with the measured experimental work.
Giri et al. (2004) employed a 2-D numerical model to simulate the mean flow field, vorticity, and turbulence intensity and
validated it with the experimental data using an acoustic doppler velocimeter. Unsubmerged spur dikes with different orien-
tations were placed along the bank of the meandering experimental flume. An ADV was used by Kuhnle et al. (2008) to
monitor flow velocities in a laboratory flume around a submerged, trapezoidal-shaped spur dike, and numerical simulation
model employs the finite element method to solve the following equations: Reynolds stress equations and the k-e turbulence
closure scheme-
ui,i ¼0 (1)
ui,t þujui,j þ(u0
iu0
j),j þ
p,i
rþfi¼0 (2)
k,t þ
ujk,j vt
sk
k,j
,j
¼P
1
(3)
1
,t þ
uj
1
,j vt
s
1
1
,j
,j
¼C1
1
P
1
kC2
1
1
2
k(4)
where
ui¼mean velocity; u0
i¼fluctuation of turbulent velocity; t ¼time; P ¼production (turbulent kinetic energy);
p¼mean
total dynamic pressure; k ¼turbulent kinetic energy;
1
¼rate of dissipation of turbulent kinetic energy; vt¼turbulent eddy viscosity (Cmk2=
1
); fi¼forcing term and r¼density
of water. Constant of k
1
model were assigned from standard values recommended by Launder & Sharma (1974).
The mean velocity profiles and bed shear stress were obtained at various places near the spur dike. They found that the
maximum bed shear stress near the trapezoidal-shaped spur dike was estimated at 2.7 times the approach flow value. More-
over, this value is significantly smaller than the maximum bed shear stress observed for flat plates. Yazdi et al. (2010) used a
numerical model, Fluent (k v), to predict flow patterns in the zone of spur dike. In this research, the objective was to
Water Supply Vol 00 No 0, 14
Uncorrected Proof
Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/ws/article-pdf/doi/10.2166/ws.2022.418/1148358/ws2022418.pdf
by guest
on 10 December 2022
determine mt¼Cmr(k=v), and following transport equations (Launder & Spalding 1983) were used to obtained k and v:
rDk
Dt þrujkj¼mþmt
sk
kj
þGkrvk (5)
rDv
Dt þrujvj¼mþmt
s
1
vj
þC1
v
kGkC2rv2(6)
where Cm¼0:09 is an empirical constant; m¼m0þmtwhere m0is viscosity of fluid, mtthe turbulence viscosity; Gkrep-
resents the generation of turbulent kinetic energy due to the mean velocity gradients, C1and C2are constants, skand s
1
are
the turbulent Prandtl numbers and other standard constant used in this model recommended by Launder & Spalding (1983).
The impacts of flow discharge, spur dike length, and orientation on the bed shear stress distribution were also investigated.
They concluded that the vertical spur experiences higher bed-shear stress than the stream’s spur dikes-oriented upside or
downside. Also, the Shear stress increases for longer spur dikes as the higher velocities flow through, the narrower the
flow cross-section. Koken & Gogus (2015) studied the turbulent flow pattern by using DES (Detached eddy simulation)
model around isolated spur dikes of three different lengths. The investigations revealed that as the spur dike length increased,
the substantial bed shear stress values near the tip of the spur dike increased. Additionally, the upstream sections of the sep-
arated shear layers and the upstream regions of the primary horseshoe vortex increased. To determine the modified eddy
viscosity following transport equation is solved;
(7)
where v is the kinematic viscosity, ujis the contravariant resolved velocity, t is time, d is the turbulence length scale, and
is the curvilinear coordinate in the j direction. The other
variables and parameters are:
~
S¼Sþ(~
v=k2d2)fv2 (8)
where S is the magnitude of the vorticity, k is the Von Karman constant, which is 0.41 and
fv2 ¼1~
v=1
Rþ~
vfv1
(9)
The eddy viscosity vtis obtained from
vt¼~
vfv1 (10)
where
fv1 ¼X3=(X3þC3
v1) (11)
X¼
~
v
vþ0:5ks
d(12)
fw¼g1þC6
w3
g6þC6
w3
!
1=6
(13)
g¼rþCw2(r6r) (14)
r¼
~
v
~
Sk2d2(15)
The model constants in the above equations are: Cb1 ¼0.135, Cb2 ¼0.622, σ¼0.67, Cv1 ¼0.71, Cw2 ¼0.3, Cw3 ¼2.0 and
Cw1 ¼Cb1=k2þ(1 þCb2 )=s.
Water Supply Vol 00 No 0, 15
Uncorrected Proof
Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/ws/article-pdf/doi/10.2166/ws.2022.418/1148358/ws2022418.pdf
by guest
on 10 December 2022
Kang et al. (2021a) examined flow patterns and turbulence characteristics in an open-channel flume around three
commonly utilized instream rock constructions. ADV was used to detect velocity fields in the wake of these instream objects,
and the findings were compared to large-eddy modeling results. To perform LES, a numerical model created by Kang &
Sotiropoulos (2011) was used. Results showed that the estimated three-dimensional velocity components and Reynolds
shear stress at different sites agreed perfectly. The numerical model, Fluent, was used by Indulekha et al. (2021) to simulate
the flow pattern and identify an appropriate spur dikes orientation by comparing and analyzing pressure, velocity, stream-
lines, and turbulent kinetic energy for different spur orientations. The maximum variation in the properties, such as
pressure and turbulent kinetic energy, was observed inside the contours with an orientation of 90-degree. The maximum
pressure, velocity, and turbulent kinetic energy values were experienced near the spur dike’s tip. Solution of Navier
Stokes equation used for numerical simulation which is based on conservation of mass and momentum. The model transport
equation, standard k vmodel employed for this modelling. Equations expressed as,
r
U¼0 (16)
@
U
@tþ
U:r
U¼1
rrPþvr2
Uþfb (17)
@
@t(rk) þ@
@xi
rkUi¼@
@xj
Gk
@k
@xj
þGkykþSk(18)
@
@t(rv)þ@
@xi
rvUi¼@
@xj
Gv
@v
@xj
þGvyvþSv(19)
where
U is the velocity, P is pressure and fb is body force, Gkand Gvrepresent the effective diffusivity of k and ω, respectively.
ykand yvare the dissipation of k and ωdue to turbulence. Skand Svare the user-defined source terms.
Mulahasan et al. (2021) employed (k–ε) and (k–ω), Reynolds Stress Model (RSM) turbulence models to study to study the
flow properties around a vertical emergent sidewall abutment and compared the results with the experimental data. The result
showed that the highest turbulent kinetic energy was observed at high velocity in the separation zone, and the bed shear stress
was reduced in the recirculation zone. This study also observed that bed shear stresses are 2–3 times the approaching flow of
the mean bed shear stress. Iqbal et al. (2021) used the Reynolds stress turbulence model built using the three-dimensional
(3-D) numerical code FLUENT (ANSYS) to investigate the flow and turbulence characteristics of rectangular spur dikes
with varying permeability. They found that the turbulent intensity and turbulent kinetic energy were significantly lower in
the permeable spur dike than in the impermeable spur dike. As a result, they recommended that a permeable spur dike be
used to prevent the spur dike head from strong turbulent flow during floods and to minimize the recirculation zone of the
spur dike field. Reynolds averaged equations (Governing equations) for continuity and momentum are given below:
Continuity equation as:
@Ui
@xi
¼0 (20)
Momentum equation as:
Uj
@
@xj
(Ui)¼v
r
@
@xj
@Ui
@xj
þ@Uj
@xi
1
r
@P
@xi
þ(
r
uiuj) (21)
where ruiujare the Reynolds stresses.
General form of the Reynolds stresses transport equation descrive as:
@Rij
@tþCij ¼Pij þDij þ1ij þY
ij
þVij (22)
where @Rij=@t represent the rate of change of Reynolds stresses, Cij is the convection transport, Pij represent the rate of
Water Supply Vol 00 No 0, 16
Uncorrected Proof
Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/ws/article-pdf/doi/10.2166/ws.2022.418/1148358/ws2022418.pdf
by guest
on 10 December 2022
generation of Reynolds stresses due to diffusion,
1
ij represent dissipation rate of stresses, Qij represent the distribution of
stresses to turbulent pressure-strain interactions, and Vij is the distribution of stresses due to rotation.
Kang et al. (2021b) studied the mean flow and turbulence characteristics under a low length-to-depth ratio near a non-sub-
merged rectangular spur. A large-eddy simulation model was employed for the studies, and the results were compared with
experimental data (ADV). A numerical model developed by Kang & Sotiropoulos (2011) is employed to carry out LES. They
noticed that the horseshoe vortex significantly increases bed shear stress under its trajectory and around the spur dike of its
upstream corner. They also found that the maximum bed shear stress was almost 17 times the entering flow’s mean bed shear
stress. Permeable spur dikes placed in spillway bends were found effective in reducing velocities, as well as increasing the
energy dissipation rate up to 21% (Yang et al. 2021). Haider et al. (2022) studied the flow turbulence around two spur
dike patterns (L and T) using computational fluid dynamics (CFD) with a standard k εmodel. Both the dike patterns
were found effective in damping velocities and turbulence intensities in the riverbank flow, as compared to the conventional
spur dike. Chen et al. (2022) studied the turbulence statistics in the detached shear layer behind a spur dike using Large-Eddy
Simulations.
Several investigations conducted to disclose the three-dimensional flow characteristics surrounding a spur dike are sum-
marized in Tables 1 and 2.
8. RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND FUTURE DIRECTION
Despite several research studies that have been conducted to understand the 3-D flow characteristics around a spur dike,
many challenges remain for future research. Some of them were attempted experimentally to contribute to the literature
(Duan 2009;Duan et al. 2011;Safarzadeh et al. 2016;Mehraein et al. 2017;Kumar & Ojha 2019;Jafari & Sui 2021;
Lodhi et al. 2021), while others were conducted using a numerical simulation model and compared to existing experimental
work such as (Giri et al. 2004;Kuhnle et al. 2008;Yazdi et al. 2010;Koken & Gogus 2015;Indulekha et al. 2021;Iqbal et al.
2021;Kang et al. 2021a,2021b;Mulahasan et al. 2021).
Two of the most critical factors affecting the flow in the alluvial channel in the field scenarios are vegetation and seepage.
While vegetation provides natural protection against bank erosion, seepage can alter the flow field near the bed and bank of
Table 2 |A summary of the previous work related to turbulent characteristics
S.no Authors 3D velocity BSS TKE RSS TI
1Giri et al. (2004) ✓✓✓✓✓
2Kuhnle et al. (2008) ✓✓···
3Duan (2009) ✓✓✓✓✓
4Yazdi et al. (2010) ✓✓···
5Duan et al. (2011) ✓✓✓✓✓
6Koken & Gogus (2015) ✓✓✓··
7Safarzadeh et al. (2016) ✓·✓··
8Mehraein et al. (2017) ✓✓✓··
9Jeon & Lee (2018) ✓·✓✓✓
10 Kumar & Ojha (2019)
(a)
✓✓✓✓✓
11 Kumar & Ojha (2019)
(b)
✓✓✓✓·
12 Kang et al. (2021a) ✓·✓✓✓
13 Indulekha et al. (2021) ✓·✓··
14 Mulahasan et al. (2021) ✓✓✓··
15 Iqbal et al. (2021) ✓·✓·✓
16 Kang et al. (2021b) ✓✓✓✓·
17 Lodhi et al. (2021) ✓·✓✓✓
18 Jafari & Sui (2021) ✓✓✓✓✓
BSS, Bed shear stress; TKE, Turbulent kinetic energy; RSS, Reynolds Shear Stress; MTI, Turbulent Intensity.
Water Supply Vol 00 No 0, 17
Uncorrected Proof
Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/ws/article-pdf/doi/10.2166/ws.2022.418/1148358/ws2022418.pdf
by guest
on 10 December 2022
the channel. The study of flow modification in the presence of spur dike under the influence of seepage and vegetation is still
unexplored. The effect of these two factors on the hydro-morphology around spur dikes needs to be studied to achieve better
stability and performance of spur dikes in the field.
Soil erosion is more probable when there is little or no vegetation cover on the soil (plants, grasses, crop residue, or trees).
Nabaei et al. (2021) found that vegetation at the channel bed reduces the scour depth by 34.8 percent. Therefore, studying
flow hydraulics on vegetation is essential for river process management. The vegetation in the channel bed or bank can
affect the flow behavior and change the movement of sediment and flow characteristics. Understanding these flow character-
istics is necessary for the safety of dikes and for preventing bank erosion. Despite the availability of literature on turbulent
characteristics and scour depth around spur dikes, the effect of vegetation around spur dikes is still to be addressed in earlier
research.
A spur dike or groyne is one of the most commonly used river training structures that stabilize the river bank by protecting
it from erosion. Turbulent characteristics influence the stability of the bed and banks. The researchers found that turbulence
significantly enhanced sediment movement along the channel’s bed and from its banks. The problem gets even more challen-
ging when seepage occurs over the permeable boundaries of alluvial channels. For example, the presence of downward
seepage aids in the enhancement of sediment movement and bed shear stress, which may alter the channel’s hydrodynamic
properties (Rao & Sitaram 1999;Rao et al. 2011;Sreenivasulu et al. 2011;Liu & Chiew 2012;Deshpande & Kumar 2017).
Furthermore, Sharma & Kumar (2017) showed that turbulence properties such as velocity, Reynolds shear stresses, shear vel-
ocities, and roughness sublayer thickness enhances due to downward seepage. However, studies on how seepage affects
turbulent characteristics surrounding the spur dike have not yet been available, which needs to be quantified.
Many numerical simulations and experimental studies have been done in the straight channels to observe the turbulence
and mean flow characteristics around spur dike; only a few examined the same under the sinuous stream, which needs to be
studied. As a result of various studies focusing on turbulent characteristics around the spur dike, only rectangular channel
cross-sections are utilized. Other channel cross-sections that are more efficient, such as trapezoidal, semi-circular, and circu-
lar, are not employed.
River banks are susceptible to the displacement of soil particles, resulting in bank erosion. The eroded sediments get depos-
ited along the river as they flow downstream, causing a change in the bed level of the rivers. This deterioration of river banks
and deposition along the river course can affect the natural equilibrium of rivers, lands, and control structures constructed
over the river. Therefore, river bank stabilization is one of the major concerns in open channel flow for the reclamation of
the environment and to secure important structures. A spur dike is one of the best solutions to this challenging scenario.
More precise knowledge of scouring around spur dike and its impact on river bank stability is required to analyze river
bank stabilization. Furthermore, observation of maximum scour depth and scour development around the spur dike is necess-
ary for its foundation design. Many researchers studied and explored different factors influencing the flow behavior around
spur dike. Discussion about various aspects during the implementation of this structure, such as spur dike alignment, length,
spacing between the spurs, orientation, contraction ratio, permeability, appearances as a single spur dike or series of spur
dikes, etc., are evaluated.
Although enough research has been conducted on scour and flow patterns developed near the spurs, many researchers
have not included river bank susceptibility due to the installation of spurs. The impact of scouring patterns developed
near the spur on bank stability remains an unexplored area in the field of fluvial hydrodynamics. Thus, it is crucial to consider
these factors to analyze the impact of spurs on both river banks and bed.
9. CONCLUSION
Many studies have been done in the available literature to determine the causes of erosion, and alternative techniques are
proposed for managing it. Studies found that the spur dike is the most suitable structure, which provides stability to the chan-
nel bank by diverting the flow away from it. Based on the critical review of these studies on spur dikes, the following
conclusions and recommendations can be made concerning spur dikes:
(1) Spurs dikes significantly prevent sediment erosion from the bank. The degree of bank protection provided by spur dikes is
depended on various parameters such as spur dike orientation angle, length, spacing, and permeability.
(2) The available factors for estimating spur dike length are site-specific. As the length of the spur increases, the protected
distance downstream increases, but not proportionally; the model dikes could protect a bank 2–5 times their length.
Water Supply Vol 00 No 0, 18
Uncorrected Proof
Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/ws/article-pdf/doi/10.2166/ws.2022.418/1148358/ws2022418.pdf
by guest
on 10 December 2022
(3) In a series, the spacing of Spur dikes should be fixed considering all related factors, including both high and low flow
conditions. If the water level changes, the working length of the Spur dike may vary, and hence the spur ratio can
differ significantly. If the spur dikes are placed with long distances between them, a meander loop may form between
Spur dikes. However, the system will not be cost-effective if the spur dikes are placed too close to each other. Therefore,
Spur dike spacing is the most crucial factor in Spur dike design.
(4) Spur dikes oriented upstream provide even more bank protection, followed by spur dikes oriented perpendicular to the
flow. However, downstream-oriented spur dikes provide the minimum protection compared to upstream and perpendicu-
lar-oriented ones.
(5) The flow turbulence is significantly lower in the permeable spur dike than in the impermeable spur dike. As a result, a
permeable spur dike is preferable in order to protect the spur dike head from the intense turbulence of the flow and
to restrict the recirculation zone of the spur dike field.
(6) Upstream spur dikes manage most of the erosive power of the streamflow compared to downstream spur dikes. As a
result, deeper local scour and greater settlement of the spur dike tip into the scour hole. Therefore, special design atten-
tion must be given to them to ensure the stability of upstream spur dikes in a spur dike field. To avoid collapse, the
foundation of the upstream spur dike must be deeper.
(7) The scour hole in the spur dike’s wake zone, and near the spur wing experience the highest velocity fluctuations, pressure,
Reynolds stresses, turbulence intensities, and turbulent kinetic energy and elongates as it approaches the downstream.
(8) Fluvial factors in the channel, such as seepage, vegetation, etc., can significantly affect the hydro-morphology around spur
dikes. Sufficient literature is unavailable on these lines, and studies should be conducted in the future to answer these
research questions.
DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
All relevant data are included in the paper or its Supplementary Information.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The authors declare there is no conflict.
REFERENCES
Ahmad, M. 1951 Spacing and protection of spurs for bank protection. Civil Engineering and Publication Review 46,3–7.
Akbari, M., Vaghefi, M. & Chiew, Y. M. 2021 Effect of T-shaped spur dike length on mean flow characteristics along a 180-degree sharp bend.
Journal of Hydrology and Hydromechanics 69 (1), 98–107. https://doi.org/10.2478/johh-2020-0045.
Alauddin, M. & Tsujimoto, T. 2012 Optimum configuration of groynes for stabilization of alluvial rivers with fine sediments.International
Journal of Sediment Research 27 (2), 158–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1001-6279(12)60024-9.
Alvarez, J. A. M. 1989 State-of-the-art report: Mexico. Design of groins and spur dikes.
Atarodi, A., Karami, H., Ardeshir, A., Hosseini, K. & Lampert, D. 2021 Experimental investigation of scour reduction around spur dikes by
collar using Taguchi method.Iranian Journal of Science and Technology –Transactions of Civil Engineering 45 (2), 971–983. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s40996-020-00373-1.
Bahrami-Yarahmadi, M., Pagliara, S., Yabarehpour, E. & Najafi, N. 2020 Study of scour and flow patterns around triangular-shaped spur
dikes.KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering 24 (11), 3279–3288. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12205-020-2261-x.
Barman, K., Roy, S., Das, V. K. & Debnath, K. 2019 Effect of clay fraction on turbulence characteristics of flow near an eroded bank.Journal
of Hydrology 571 (January), 87–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2019.01.061.
Blanckaert, K., Duarte, A., Chen, Q. & Schleiss, A. J. 2012 Flow processes near smooth and rough (concave) outer banks in curved open
channels.Journal of Geophysical Research: Earth Surface 117 (4), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1029/2012JF002414.
Brown, S. A. 1985 Design of Spur-Type Streambank Stabilization Structures. Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center.
Chabert, J. 1956 Etude des Affouillements Autour des Piles de Ponts. Rep. Natl. Hydraul Lab., Chatou.
Chen, Y., Lu, Y., Yang, S., Mao, J., Gong, Y., Muhammad, W. I. & Yin, S. 2022 Numerical investigation of flow structure and turbulence
characteristic around a spur dike using large-eddy simulation.Water 14. https://doi.org/10.3390/w14193158.
Chu-Agor, M. L., Fox, G. A. & Wilson, G. V. 2009 Empirical sediment transport function predicting seepage erosion undercutting for
cohesive bank failure prediction.Journal of Hydrology 377 (1–2), 155–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2009.08.020.
Darby, S. E. & Thorne, C. R. 1996 Development and testing of riverbank-stability analysis by Stephen E. Darby 1 and Colin R. Thorne,2
Affiliate Member, ASCE.Journal of Hydraulic Engineering 122 (August), 443–454.
Water Supply Vol 00 No 0, 19
Uncorrected Proof
Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/ws/article-pdf/doi/10.2166/ws.2022.418/1148358/ws2022418.pdf
by guest
on 10 December 2022
Dawood, A. M. 2013 A Study of Scour and Deposition Around Groynes.Unpublished M. Sc. Thesis, Civil Department, Faculty of Engineering,
University of Kufa, Iraq.
Deshpande, V. & Kumar, B. 2017 Effect of downward seepage on the shape of an alluvial channel.170(1982).
Duan, J. G. 2009 Mean flow and turbulence around a laboratory spur dike. https://doi.org/10.1061/ASCEHY.1943-7900.0000077.
Duan, J., He, L., Wang, G. & Fu, X. 2011 Turbulent burst around experimental spur dike.International Journal of Sediment Research 26 (4),
471–486. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1001-6279(12)60006-7.
El-Rashedy, S., Ezzeldin, M. & Sarhan, T. 2016 Influence of Spur Dikes Shapes on Scour Characteristics. Researchgate.Net, (June). Available
from: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Mohsen-Ezzeldin/publication/328006478_Influence_of_Spur_Dikes_Shapes_on_Scour_
Characteristics/links/5bb2668e45851574f7f423a4/Influence-of-Spur-Dikes-Shapes-on-Scour-Characteristics.pdf.
Engel, F. L. & Rhoads, B. L. 2017 Velocity profiles and the structure of turbulence at the outer bank of a compound meander bend.
Geomorphology 295 (July), 191–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2017.06.018.
Esmaeli, P., Boudaghpour, S., Rostami, M. & Mirzaee, M. 2022 Experimental investigation of permeability and length of a series of spur dikes
effects on the control of bank erosion in the meandering channel.Ain Shams Engineering Journal 13 (4), 101701. https://doi.org/
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asej.2022.101701.
Ettema, R. 1980 Scour at bridge piers.
Ezzeldin, M. M., Saafan, T. A., Rageh, O. S., Nejm, L. M. & Assistant, T. 2007 LOCAL SCOUR AROUND SPUR DIKES. (1962), 779–795.
Farshad, R., Kashefipour, S. M., Ghomeshi, M. & Oliveto, G. 2022 Temporal scour variations at permeable and angled spur dikes under
steady and unsteady flows.Water 14 (20). https://doi.org/10.3390/w14203310.
Fei-Yong, C. & Ikeda, S. 1997 Horizontal separation flows in shallow open channels with spur dikes. Journal of Hydroscience and Hydraulic
Engineering 15 (2), 15–30.
Fenwick, G. B. 1969 State of Knowledge of Channel Stabilization in Major Alluvial Rivers.
Garde, R. J., Subramanya, K. & Nambudripad, K. D. 1961 Study of scour around spur-dikes.Journal of the Hydraulics Division 87 (6), 23–37.
Garg, S. P., Singhal, M. K. & Jain, S. K. 1980 Training of rivers. In: Proceedings of the International Workshop on Alluvial River Problems
Held at Roorkee, India.
Gholami, V. & Khaleghi, M. R. 2013 The impact of vegetation on the bank erosion (case study: the Haraz river).Soil and Water Research
8(4), 158–164. https://doi.org/10.17221/13/2012-swr.
Giri, S., Shimizu, Y. & Surajate, B. 2004 Laboratory measurement and numerical simulation of flow and turbulence in a meandering-like
flume with spurs.Flow Measurement and Instrumentation 15 (5–6), 301–309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.flowmeasinst.2004.05.002.
Haider, R., Qiao, D., Wang, X., Yan, J. & Ning, D. 2022 Role of grouped piles on flow characteristics around impermeable spur dike.
International Journal of Civil Engineering 20 (8), 869–883. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40999-022-00706-3.
Hajibehzad, M. S., Bejestan, M. S. & Ferro, V. 2020 Investigating the performance of enhanced permeable groins in series.Water
(Switzerland) 12 (12). https://doi.org/10.3390/w12123531.
Hakim, M., Yarahmadi, M. B. & Kashefipour, S. M. 2022 Use of spur dikes with different permeability levels for protecting bridge abutment
against local scour under unsteady flow conditions.Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering 0(0), null. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjce-2021-
0476.
Hashemi, N. S. F. A., Ayoubzadeh, S. A. L. I. & Dehghani, A. A. 2008 Experimental Investigation of Scour Depth Around L-Head Groynes
Under Clear Water Condition.
Ho, J., Yeo, H. K., Coonrod, J. & Ahn, W. 2007 Numerical modeling study for flow pattern changes induced by single groyne. Proceedings of
the Congress-International Association for Hydraulic Research 32 (2), 662.
Indulekha, K. P., Jayasree, P. K. & Sachin, S. 2021 Simulation of flow pattern around series of groynes with different orientations in
meandering channels.IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering 1114 (1), 012024. https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899x/
1114/1/012024.
Iqbal, S., Pasha, G. A., Ghani, U., Ullah, M. K. & Ahmed, A. 2021 Flow dynamics around permeable spur dike in a rectangular channel.
Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering 46 (5), 4999–5011. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13369-020-05205-y.
Jafari, R. & Sui, J. 2021 Velocity field and turbulence structure around spur dikes with different angles of orientation under ice covered flow
conditions.Water (Switzerland) 13 (13). https://doi.org/10.3390/w13131844.
Jeon, J. & Lee, J. Y. 2018 Experimental investigation of three-Dimensional flow structure and turbulent flow mechanisms around a
nonsubmerged spur dike with a low length-to-depth ratio.Water Resources Research 1995, 3530–3556. https://doi.org/10.1029/
2017WR021582.
Ji1a, H. J. S. & Karmacharya, B. 2000 Flood Control Measures Best Practices Report an Approach for Community-Based Flood Control
Measures in the Terai River. German Technical Cooperation, Kathmandu, Nepal.
Kafle, M. R. 2021 Numerical simulation of flow pattern in series of impermeable groynes in fixed bed.Journal of Advanced College of
Engineering and Management 6,83–88.
Kang, S. 2018 Large-eddy simulation study of turbulent flow around a rectangular spur dike. In E3S Web of Conferences, p. 40. https://
doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/20184005013.
Kang, S. & Sotiropoulos, F. 2011 Flow phenomena and mechanisms in a field-scale experimental meandering channel with a pool-riffle
sequence: insights gained via numerical simulation.Journal of Geophysical Research: Earth Surface 116 (3), 1–22. https://doi.org/
10.1029/2010JF001814.
Water Supply Vol 00 No 0, 20
Uncorrected Proof
Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/ws/article-pdf/doi/10.2166/ws.2022.418/1148358/ws2022418.pdf
by guest
on 10 December 2022
Kang, S., Khosronejad, A., Hill, C. & Sotiropoulos, F. 2021a Mean flow and turbulence characteristics around single-arm instream structures.
Journal of Hydraulic Research 59 (3), 404–419. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221686.2020.1780494.
Kang, S., Khosronejad, A. & Yang, X. 2021b Turbulent flow characteristics around a non-submerged rectangular obstacle on the side of an
open channel.Physics of Fluids 33 (4). https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0042914.
Khajavi, M., Kashefipour, S. M. & Bejestan, M. S. 2022 Bridge abutment protection against scouring for unsteady flow conditions.Periodica
Polytechnica Civil Engineering 66 (1), 310–322. https://doi.org/10.3311/PPci.18892.
Kim, S. J., Kang, J. G. & Yeo, H. K. 2014 An experimental study on flow characteristics for optimal spacing suggestion of 45 upward groynes.
Journal of Korea Water Resources Association 47 (5), 459–468.
King, H. 2009 The use of groynes for riverbank erosion protection. In River Hydraulics, Stormwater & Flood Management, (June), 21.
Koken, M. & Gogus, M. 2015 Effect of spur dike length on the horseshoe vortex system and the bed shear stress distribution.Journal of
Hydraulic Research 53 (2), 196–206. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221686.2014.967819.
Krishna Prasad, S., Indulekha, K. P. & Balan, K. 2016 Analysis of groyne placement on minimising river bank erosion.Procedia Technology
24,47–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.protcy.2016.05.008.
Kuhnle, R. A., Alonso, C. V. & Shields Jr., F. D. 2002 Local Scour Associated with Angled Spur Dikes. (December), 1087–1093.
Kuhnle, R. A., Jia, Y. & Alonso, C. V. 2008 Measured and simulated flow near a submerged spur dike.Journal of Hydraulic Engineering
134 (7), 916–924. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)0733-9429(2008)134:7(916).
Kumar, A. & Ojha, C. S. P. 2019 Effect of different compositions in unsubmerged L-head groynes to mean and turbulent flow characteristics.
KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering 23 (10), 4327–4338. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12205-019-5343-x.
Kumar, A. & Ojha, C. S. P. 2021 Near-bed turbulence around an unsubmerged L-head groyne.ISH Journal of Hydraulic Engineering 27 (S1),
182–189. https://doi.org/10.1080/09715010.2019.1609380.
Kumar Das, V., Barman, K., Roy, S., Chaudhuri, S. & Debnath, K. 2020 Near bank turbulence of a river bend with self similar morphological
structures.Catena 191 (March), 104582. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2020.104582.
Launder, B. E. & Sharma, B. I. 1974 Application of the energy-dissipation model of turbulence to the calculation of flow near a spinning disc.
Letters in Heat and Mass Transfer 1(2), 131–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/0094-4548(74)90150-7.
Launder, B. E. & Spalding, D. B. 1983 The numerical computation of turbulent flows. In Numerical Prediction of Flow, Heat Transfer,
Turbulence and Combustion, Vol. 3. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-08-030937-8.50016-7.
Liu, X. X. & Chiew, Y. 2012 Acta geophysica effect of seepage on initiation of cohesionless sediment transport.60 (6), 1778–1796. https://doi.
org/10.2478/s11600-012-0043-7.
Lodhi, A. S., Jain, R. K. & Sharma, P. K. 2021 Flow behaviour around spur dyke founded in cohesive sediment mixtures.Proceedings of the
Institution of Civil Engineers: Water Management 174 (1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1680/jwama.19.00022.
Mehraein, M. & Ghodsian, M. 2017 Experimental study on relation between scour and complex 3D ow field.Scientia Iranica 24 (6),
2696–2711. https://doi.org/10.24200/sci.2017.4165.
Mehraein, M., Ghodsian, M., Khosravi Mashizi, M. & Vaghefi, M. 2017 Experimental study on flow pattern and scour hole dimensions
around a T-shaped spur dike in a channel bend under emerged and submerged conditions.International Journal of Civil Engineering
15 (7), 1019–1034. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40999-017-0175-x.
Mirzaei, H., Asadi, M., Tootoonchi, H. & Ramezani, A. 2021 Numerical simulation of secondary flow around the open and close groins in
channel with movable bed.Modeling Earth Systems and Environment. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40808-021-01331-0.
Molinas, A., Kheireldin, K. & Wu, B. 1998 Shear stress around vertical wall abutments.Journal of Hydraulic Engineering 124 (8), 822–830.
Mulahasan, S., Al-Osmy, S. & Alhashimi, S. 2021 Modelling of flow pattern in an open channel with sidewall obstruction.IOP Conference
Series: Materials Science and Engineering 1090 (1), 012097. https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899x/1090/1/012097.
Nabaei, S. F., Afzalimehr, H., Sui, J., Kumar, B. & Nabaei, S. H. 2021 Investigation of the effect of vegetation on flow structures and
turbulence anisotropy around semi-elliptical abutment.Water (Switzerland) 13 (21). https://doi.org/10.3390/w13213108.
Nath, D. & Misra, U. K. 2017 Experimental study of local scour around single spur dike in an open channel. International Research Journal of
Engineering and Technology. Available from: www.irjet.net.
Ouillon, S. & Dartus, D. 1997 Three-dimensional computation of flow around groyne.Journal of Hydraulic Engineering 123 (11), 962–970.
Pandey, M. 2014 Flow Pattern and Scour Around Multiple Spur-Dikes in Channels.M. Tech Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, IIT
Roorkee, Roorkee, India.
Pandey, M., Lam, W. H., Cui, Y., Khan, M. A., Singh, U. K. & Ahmad, Z. 2019 Scour around spur dike in sand-gravel mixture bed.Water
(Switzerland) 11 (7), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.3390/w11071417.
Pandey, M., Valyrakis, M., Qi, M., Sharma, A. & Lodhi, A. S. 2021 Experimental assessment and prediction of temporal scour depth around a
spur dike.International Journal of Sediment Research 36 (1), 17–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsrc.2020.03.015.
Pourshahbaz, H., Abbasi, S., Pandey, M., Pu, J. H., Taghvaei, P. & Tofangdar, N. 2022 Morphology and hydrodynamics numerical simulation
around groynes.ISH Journal of Hydraulic Engineering 28 (1), 53–61.
Rao, A. R. & Sitaram, N. 1999 Stability and mobility of sand-bed channels affected by seepage.Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering
125 (6), 370–379.
Rao, A. R., Sreenivasulu, G. & Kumar, B. 2011 Geometry of sand-bed channels with seepage.Geomorphology 128 (3–4), 171–177.
Richardson, E. V. & Simons, D. B. 1984 Use of spurs and guidebanks for highway crossing. Transportation Research Record 2, 184–193.
Richardson, E. V., Stevens, M. A. & Simons, D. B. 1975 The design of spurs for river training. In XVIth, IAHR Congress, pp. 382–388.
Water Supply Vol 00 No 0, 21
Uncorrected Proof
Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/ws/article-pdf/doi/10.2166/ws.2022.418/1148358/ws2022418.pdf
by guest
on 10 December 2022
Roy, S., Das, V. K. & Debnath, K. 2019 Characteristics of intermittent turbulent structures for river bank undercut depth increment.Catena
172 (September 2018), 356–368. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2018.09.008.
Safarzadeh, A., Salehi Neyshabouri, S. A. A. & Zarrati, A. R. 2016 Experimental investigation on 3D turbulent flow around straight and
T-shaped groynes in a flat bed channel.Journal of Hydraulic Engineering 142 (8), 04016021. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)hy.1943-
7900.0001144.
Shampa, Hasegawa, Y., Nakagawa, H., Takebayashi, H. & Kawaike, K. 2020 Three-dimensional flow characteristics in slit-type permeable
spur dike fields: efficacy in riverbank protection.Water (Switzerland) 12 (4). https://doi.org/10.3390/W12040964
Sharma, A. & Kumar, B. 2017 European journal of mechanics/B fluids structure of turbulence over non uniform sand bed channel with
downward seepage.European Journal of Mechanics/B Fluids 65, 530–551. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euromechflu.2017.05.006.
Sreenivasulu, G., Kumar, B. & Rao, A. R. 2011 Variation of stream power with seepage in sand-bed channels. 37 (1), 115–120.
Tripathi, R. P. & Pandey, K. K. 2021 Experimental study of local scour around T-shaped spur dike in a meandering channel.Water Science
and Technology: Water Supply 21 (2), 542–552. https://doi.org/10.2166/ws.2020.331.
Tripathi, R. P. & Pandey, K. K. 2022 Scour around spur dike in curved channel: a review.Acta Geophysica. (0123456789). https://doi.org/
10.1007/s11600-022-00795-7.
United Nations 1953 River Training and Bank Protection.
USACE 1980 Engineering and Design: Layout and Desing of Shallow-Draft Waterways.
Vaghefi, M., Ghodsian, M. & Salehi Neyshaboori, S. A. A. 2009 Experimental study on the effect of a T-shaped spur dike length on scour in a
90 channel bend. Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering 34 (2), 337.
Vaghefi, M., Ghodsian, M. & Neyshabouri, S. A. A. S. 2012 Experimental study on scour around a T-shaped spur dike in a channel bend.
Journal of Hydraulic Engineering 138 (5), 471–474. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)hy.1943-7900.0000536.
Vaghefi, M., Ahmadi, A. & Faraji, B. 2015 The effect of support structure on flow patterns around T-shape spur dike in 90° bend channel.
Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering 40 (5), 1299–1307. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13369-015-1604-2.
Vaghefi, M., Alavinezhad, M. & Akbari, M. 2016a The effect of submergence ratio on flow pattern around short T-head spur dike in a mild
bend with rigid bed using numerical model.Journal of the Chinese Institute of Engineers, Transactions of the Chinese Institute of
Engineers,Series A 39 (6), 666–674. https://doi.org/10.1080/02533839.2016.1187084.
Vaghefi, M., Safarpoor, Y. & Akbari, M. 2016b Numerical investigation of flow pattern and components of three-dimensional velocity around
a submerged T-shaped spur dike in a 90° bend.Journal of Central South University 23 (11), 2984–2998. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11771-
016-3362-z.
Vaghefi, M., Faraji, B., Akbari, M. & Eghbalzadeh, A. 2018 Numerical investigation of flow pattern around a T-shaped spur dike in the
vicinity of attractive and repelling protective structures.Journal of the Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering 40 (2).
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40430-017-0954-y.
Vaghefi, M., Radan, P. & Akbari, M. 2019 Flow pattern around attractive, vertical, and repelling T-shaped spur dikes in a mild bend using
CFD modeling.International Journal of Civil Engineering 17 (5), 607–617. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40999-018-0340-x.
van Balen, W., Blanckaert, K. & Uijttewaal, W. S. J. 2010 Analysis of the role of turbulence in curved open-channel flow at different water
depths by means of experiments, LES and RANS.Journal of Turbulence 11. https://doi.org/10.1080/14685241003789404.
Wang, M., Tian, Y. & Li, X. 2022 Experimental study on pressure distribution of spur dike under the combined action of landslide surge and
water flow.AIP Advances 12 (7). https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0099656.
Yang, J., Shen, Z., Zhang, J., Teng, X., Zhang, W. & Dai, J. 2021 Experimental and numerical investigation of flow over a spillway bend with
different combinations of permeable spur dikes.Water Supply 22 (2), 1557–1574. https://doi.org/10.2166/ws.2021.335.
Yang, X., Zhang, S., Li, W., Tang, C., Zhang, J., Schwindt, S. & …Wang, T. 2022 Impact of the construction of a dam and spur dikes on the
hydraulic habitat of Megalobrama terminalis spawning sites: a case study in the Beijiang River (China).Ecological Indicators 143,
109361. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2022.109361.
Yazdi, J., Sarkardeh, H., Azamathulla, H. M. & Ghani, A. A. 2010 3D simulation of flow around a single spur dike with free-surface flow.
International Journal of River Basin Management 8(1), 55–62. https://doi.org/10.1080/15715121003715107.
Yossef, M. 2002 The Effect of Groynes on Rivers Literature review The Effect of Groynes on Rivers Mohamed F . M . Yossef. (January).
Yu, T., Duan, Q., Wang, P., Meng, C. & Lu, R. 2020 Experimental study on flow structure around spur dikes of different types. 2021 (3).
Available from: www.converter-magazine.info778.
Yu, T., Yun, B., Wang, P. & Han, L. 2022 Turbulent kinetic energy distribution around experimental permeable spur dike.Sustainability
14 (10). https://doi.org/10.3390/su14106250.
Zhang, H. & Nakagawa, H. 2008 Scour around spur dyke: recent advances and future researches. Annuals of Disas. Prev. Res. Inst. 51 (B),
633–652.
First received 12 September 2022; accepted in revised form 29 November 2022. Available online 9 December 2022
Water Supply Vol 00 No 0, 22
Uncorrected Proof
Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/ws/article-pdf/doi/10.2166/ws.2022.418/1148358/ws2022418.pdf
by guest
on 10 December 2022
