Design of sediment detention basins: Scaled model experiments and application

Moldenhauer-Roth, Anita; Piton, Guillaume; Schwindt, Sebastian; Jafarnejad, Mona; Schleiss, Anton

doi:10.1016/j.ijsrc.2020.07.007

Cited by 10 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The total water discharge Q is split into Q 1 , the discharge passing through the dam, and Q 2 , the discharge overflowing the dam. basin width and accumulates in the close vicinity of the open check dam (Moldenhauer-Roth et al, 2021). This was also observed in our relatively narrow flume.…”

Section: Flume and Sensorssupporting

confidence: 86%

“…Hydrograph recession or an eventual flood hydrograph with several peaks was not modelled. LW jams tend to remain in place when discharge decreases according to our experience (see also Moldenhauer-Roth et al, 2021). If LW jams are not removed, we consider, consistently with Schalko et al (2019a), that large head losses are to be expected at structures already jammed by LW.…”

Section: Comparison With Existing Studiessupporting

confidence: 65%

“…i. Overflowing structures such as dam spillways, PK weirs and our closed dam exhibit the smallest h/h 0 values ranging 0 %-50 % (Hartlieb, 2012(Hartlieb, , 2017Schmocker, 2017;Furlan, 2019;Pfister et al, 2013aPfister et al, , b, 2020, with lower values when a rack or protruding piles are set upstream of the spillway (Schmocker, 2017;Furlan, 2019;Pfister et al, 2020).…”

Section: Comparison With Existing Studiesmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…To provide a field equivalent of our model results, a scale ratio of 1 : 34 is used throughout the paper and is relevant to the case study of the Combe-de-Lancey stream (Piton et al, 2019c;Moldenhauer-Roth et al, 2021). However, the experimental setup was not a downscaled version of any particular site.…”

Section: Flume and Sensorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The second question, i.e. which conditions drive LW overtopping and releases over a structure, has only been ad-dressed for reservoir dam spillways: Pfister et al (2013a) for PK weirs, as well as Furlan et al (2018Furlan et al ( , 2019Furlan et al ( , 2020, Furlan (2019) and Pfister et al (2020) for ogee crests with piles. These studies concluded that the ratio of flow depth to LW diameter was key to determining whether LW stays in the reservoir or overtops the dam.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Open check dams and large wood: head losses and release conditions

Piton¹,

Horiguchi²,

Marchal³

et al. 2020

Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Open check dams are strategic structures to control sediment and large-wood transport during extreme flood events in steep streams and piedmont rivers. Large wood (LW) tends to accumulate at such structures, obstruct their openings and increase energy head losses, thus increasing flow levels. The extent and variability to which the stage–discharge relationship of a check dam is modified by LW presence has so far not been clear. In addition, sufficiently high flows may trigger a sudden release of the trapped LW with eventual dramatic consequences downstream. This paper provides experimental quantification of LW-related energy head loss and simple ways to compute the related increase in water depth at dams of various shapes: trapezoidal, slit, slot and sabo (i.e. made of piles), with consideration of the flow capacity through their open bodies and atop their spillways. In addition, it was observed that LW is often released over the structure when the overflowing depth, i.e. total depth minus spillway elevation, is about 3–5 times the mean log diameter. Two regimes of LW accumulations were observed. Dams with low permeability generate low velocity upstream, and LW then accumulates as floating carpets, i.e. as a single floating layer. Conversely, dams with high permeability maintain high velocities immediately upstream of the dams and LW tends to accumulate in dense complex 3D patterns. This is because the drag forces are stronger than the buoyancy, allowing the logs to be sucked below the flow surface. In such cases, LW releases occur for higher overflowing depth and the LW-related head losses are higher. A new dimensionless number, namely the buoyancy-to-drag-force ratio, can be used to compute whether (or not) flows stay in the floating-carpet domain where buoyancy prevails over drag force.

show abstract

Section: Flume and Sensorssupporting

confidence: 86%

Section: Comparison With Existing Studiessupporting

confidence: 65%

Section: Comparison With Existing Studiesmentioning

confidence: 94%

Section: Flume and Sensorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Open check dams and large wood: head losses and release conditions

Piton¹,

Horiguchi²,

Marchal³

et al. 2020

Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

French Experience With Open Check Dams

Carladous¹,

Piton²,

Kuss³

et al. 2022

Check Dam Construction for Sustainable Watershed Management and Planning

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Deposition areas: An effective solution for the reduction of the sediment volume transported by stony debris flows on the high‐sloping reach of channels incising fans and debris cones

Bernard,

Barbini,

Boreggio

et al. 2023

Earth Surf Processes Landf

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SummaryThe main approach to managing the volume of sediment transported by stony debris flows routing along channels is through retention basins and open check dams, usually built in the lower reach just upstream of inhabited areas where slopes are gentler. In some cases, these measures are not sufficient to retain all the volume of sediment transported by debris flows. Works for trapping the sediments should also be placed in the upper reach of debris‐flow channels. In this area, where the channel bed is characterized by very high slopes and vertical variability over time, constructing and maintaining transversal embankments for sediment retention is difficult. In addition, they could also be susceptible to failure, potentially increasing the magnitude of the phenomenon instead of mitigating it. On the other hand, other types of works, such as solid‐body check dams or net barriers, have a decreasing efficiency over time in reducing the volume of sediment transported by debris flows. An alternative solution could be a retention basin open on the downstream side, that is, without the ending transversal embankment or berm. Therefore, it can be designated as a deposition area because the retention effect of the downstream embankment is missing, and sediment deposition only occurs due to the flatness of the basin. For sizing purposes, here, we derive two relationships between the deposition area and the volume of the deposit. These two relationships are derived from a physically based geometrical approach and empirical approach, respectively. After analyzing the morphology of the depositional processes that occurred in an existing deposition area during debris‐flow events, we test the validity of the two relationships. Overall, these can be used independently or in combination for designing a deposition area. At last, we introduce the necessary geomorphological conditions for the construction of the deposition area and guidance for its placement.

show abstract

Design of sediment detention basins: Scaled model experiments and application

Cited by 10 publications

References 32 publications

Open check dams and large wood: head losses and release conditions

Open check dams and large wood: head losses and release conditions

French Experience With Open Check Dams

Deposition areas: An effective solution for the reduction of the sediment volume transported by stony debris flows on the high‐sloping reach of channels incising fans and debris cones

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About