2022
DOI: 10.1007/s12517-022-09431-6
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Flow structure and channel morphology after artificial chute cutoff at the meandering river in the upper Yellow River

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
7
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
3
1
1

Relationship

1
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 6 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 49 publications
0
7
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In a prior study of artificial chute cutoff in the upper Yellow River, Qiao et al 34 examined the fluid dynamics. They identified recirculation zones at the end of the spur dikes, with opposite directions on the left and right banks.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…In a prior study of artificial chute cutoff in the upper Yellow River, Qiao et al 34 examined the fluid dynamics. They identified recirculation zones at the end of the spur dikes, with opposite directions on the left and right banks.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The chute channel could be divided into two sections, with nine spur dikes distributed in the upstream section and an artificial diversion channel situated in the downstream section (Figure 1C). After the formation of the artificial chute cutoff, severe scouring and retreat of the left bank occurred from May to October 2018, extending up to 270 m because of inadequate protection from the spur dikes, whereas the right bank gradually silted up, forming a sandbar 34 . Consequently, significant changes were observed in the new chute cutoff following the artificial cutoff.…”
Section: Study Areamentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Those field observations have shown that turbulence structures are affected by river bed materials (Sukhodolov et al, 1998), bedforms (Holmes & Garcia, 2008), submerged vegetation (Sukhodolov & Sukhodolova, 2010), and additional forcing such as tidal currents (Heathershaw, 1979; Sanford & Lien, 1999). In addition, river morphology and man‐made hydraulic structures can affect turbulence structures by introducing secondary flows and reshaping vertical turbulence profiles, such as at river bends (Constantinescu et al, 2013), near banks (Kumar Das et al, 2020), around and over wing dikes (Jamieson et al, 2011), at river confluences (Sukhodolov et al, 2017), and in chute cutoffs (Qiao et al, 2022; Zinger et al, 2013).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…structures can affect turbulence structures by introducing secondary flows and reshaping vertical turbulence profiles, such as at river bends (Constantinescu et al, 2013), near banks (Kumar Das et al, 2020), around and over wing dikes (Jamieson et al, 2011), at river confluences (Sukhodolov et al, 2017), and in chute cutoffs (Qiao et al, 2022;Zinger et al, 2013).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Sukhodolov et al, 1998), bedform (Holmes Jr & Garcia, 2008), submerged vegetation (A. N. Sukhodolov & Sukhodolova, 2010) and additional forcing such as tidal currents (Heathershaw, 1979;Sanford & Lien, 1999). In addition, river morphology and man-made hydraulic structures can affect turbulence structures by introducing secondary flows and reshaping vertical turbulent profiles such as at river bends (Constantinescu et al, 2013), near-bank (Kumar Das et al, 2020, wing dikes (Jamieson et al, 2011), river confluences (A. N. Sukhodolov et al, 2017), and chute cutoffs (Qiao et al, 2022;Zinger et al, 2013). Classic turbulent mixing profiles (e.g., parabolic profile of eddy viscosity) are effective and useful in three-dimensional particle tracking models for egg drift (Garcia et al, 2013;Garcia et al, 2015;Heer et al, 2021).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%