Modeling alluvial channels

Dawdy, David R.; Vanoni, Vito A.

doi:10.1029/wr022i09sp0071s

Cited by 28 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Therefore, 1D model results are more variable than 2D results. Vulnerability to user variability (Dawdy and Vanoni, 1986) adds to 1D uncertainty in ways this study did not capture.…”

Section: Non-statistical Implications For Model Selectionmentioning

confidence: 90%

Selecting Between One-Dimensional and Two-Dimensional Hydrodynamic Models for Ecohydraulic Analysis

Gibson

Pasternack

2015

River Res. Applic.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

14Aquatic habitat assessment and river restoration design require geospatially explicit maps of 15 hydraulic conditions. Diverse mechanistic ecohydraulic models compute spatially explicit depth 16and velocity results to evaluate habitat suitability spatially as a function of these abiotic 17conditions. This study compared depth and velocity results from two-dimensional (2D) and one-18 dimensional (1D) hydraulic models with algorithms that laterally discretize 1D velocity and 19 interpolate depth and velocity spatially based on the Laplacian heat mapping approach. These 20 'conveyance distributed' methods constitute 'best 1D modeling practice', and were compared to 21 2D results for the first time. The 1D and 2D models were applied to three morphologically 22 distinct reaches (leveed, meandering, and anastomosing) for three flows (base, bankfull, and 23 flood flows) of the partially regulated, gravel/cobble lower Yuba River in north-central California. 24The test metrics were the coefficient of determination (R 2 ) and the median absolute residual 25 ( ). These metrics quantified the incremental uncertainty 1D approximation incurs, results 26 which make explicit cost-benefit processes of model selection possible.

show abstract

“…Therefore, 1D model results are more variable than 2D results. Vulnerability to user variability (Dawdy and Vanoni, 1986) adds to 1D uncertainty in ways this study did not capture.…”

Section: Non-statistical Implications For Model Selectionmentioning

confidence: 90%

Selecting Between One-Dimensional and Two-Dimensional Hydrodynamic Models for Ecohydraulic Analysis

Gibson

Pasternack

2015

River Res. Applic.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The simulation of contaminated sediment transport at the catchment, or intermediate, scale has received relatively little attention compared to larger and smaller scales. At larger scales (e.g., > 500 n-li2) sediment transport in river basins has been extensively studied and many models have been developed and tested for this case (Vanoni, 1984;Dawdy and Vanoni, 1986). Several water quality models for river applications have been available and evaluated.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

SENSITWITY ANALYSIS OF SIMULATED CONTAMINATED SEDIMENT TRANSPORT¹

Fontaine

Jacomino

1997

J American Water Resour Assoc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A simulation analysis of contaminated sediment transport involves model selection, data collection, model calibration and verification, and evaluation of uncertainty in the results. Sensitivity analyses provide information to address these issues at several stages of the investigation. A sensitivity analysis of simulated contaminated sediment transport is used to identify the most sensitive output variables and the parameters most responsible for the output variable sensitivity. The output variables included are streamflow and the flux of sediment and Cs137. The sensitivities of these variables are measured at the field and intermediate scales, for flood and normal flow conditions, using the HSPF computer model. A sensitivity index was used to summarize and compare the results of a large number of output variables and parameters. An extensive database was developed to calibrate the model and conduct the sensitivity analysis on a 6.2 mi2 catchment in eastern Tennessee. The fluxes of sediment and Cs137 were more sensitive than streamflow to changes in parameters for both flood and normal flow conditions. The relative significance of specific parameters on output variable sensitivity varied according to the type of flow condition and the location in the catchment. An implications section illustrates how sensitivity analysis results can help with model selection, planning data collection, calibration, and uncertainty analysis.

show abstract

“…Finally, all results depend upon the sediment transport function used. Choice of sediment transport function is arbitrary, if the models discussed in our paper [Dawdy and Vanoni, 1986] are any indication. Figures 2 and 3] shows the results of simulation using the concepts presented by Chang.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Reply [to “Comment on ‘Modeling alluvial channels’ by David R. Dawdy and Vito A. Vanoni”]

Dawdy¹,

Vanoni²

1987

Water Resources Research

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We appreciate the thoughtful review of our paper [Dawdy and Gupta, 1995] by Ouarda et al. [this issue]. In speaking to some of their points we may be able to clarify some of the points we tried to raise, though perhaps not sufficiently. Before discussing specific issues raised by Ouarda et al. [this issue], we first wish to state unequivocally that our research addresses the long-standing problem of developing a physical basis of regional flood frequencies and hydrologic extremes. Even though the importance of this problem is widely recognized in the literature, not much progress has been made on this topic in river basin hydrology and hydroclimatology. Recent advances in the analysis of spatial rainfall data, regional flood data, and topographic data of large river basins are beginning to change this situation radically because they suggest a totally new and previously unexpected research direction in developing a physical statistical theory of regional floods. The main theme underlying this research program, as outlined by Gupta and Waymire [1996], is to exploit the hypothesis of statistical self-similarity, or scaling invariance, in the spatial variability of rainfall, channel network structures, and floods, since the presence of scaling invariance in each of these has been supported by recent data analyses. Since we are in the early stages of development of this new theory, we think that it is necessary and very useful to examine various implications of scaling in-variance against data analyses, as done by Smith [1992], Gupta and Dawdy [1995], and Dawdy and Gupta [1995], and other models, such as the derived distribution approach (J. S. Rob-inson and M. Sivapalan, An investigation into the physical causes of scaling and heterogeneity in regional flood frequency , submitted to Water Resources Research, 1996) and the index flood assumption [Gupta et al., 1994]. This introduction furnishes the broad context within which our response should be interpreted and understood. Regarding our statement "the significance of [the Matalas et aI. [1975] paper] appears to have been lost in the literature" (p. 2762), we thank Ouarda et al. [this issue] for clarifying our statement and giving some historical perspective. It appears from their references and discussion that situation is worse than we thought. This confusion of sorts is best reflected in the use of "the skewness separation as a criterion for discrimination between candidate [probability] distributions" [Ouarda et al., this issue], which is manifested by thinkSng about the problem of regional flood frequency purely formally and statistically and not physically. This has been a generic problem with the development of most of statistical hydrology during the last quarter century. The "significance" of which we speak of is in terms of a physically based understanding of regional flood Copyright 1997 by the American Geophysical Union. Paper number 96WR02732. 0043-1397/97/96WR.02732509.00 frequency relations. The paper by Ashkar et al. [1992] is a case in point and is...

show abstract

Modeling alluvial channels

Cited by 28 publications

References 12 publications

Selecting Between One-Dimensional and Two-Dimensional Hydrodynamic Models for Ecohydraulic Analysis

Selecting Between One-Dimensional and Two-Dimensional Hydrodynamic Models for Ecohydraulic Analysis

SENSITWITY ANALYSIS OF SIMULATED CONTAMINATED SEDIMENT TRANSPORT¹

Reply [to “Comment on ‘Modeling alluvial channels’ by David R. Dawdy and Vito A. Vanoni”]

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Modeling alluvial channels

Cited by 28 publications

References 12 publications

Selecting Between One-Dimensional and Two-Dimensional Hydrodynamic Models for Ecohydraulic Analysis

Selecting Between One-Dimensional and Two-Dimensional Hydrodynamic Models for Ecohydraulic Analysis

SENSITWITY ANALYSIS OF SIMULATED CONTAMINATED SEDIMENT TRANSPORT1

Reply [to “Comment on ‘Modeling alluvial channels’ by David R. Dawdy and Vito A. Vanoni”]

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

SENSITWITY ANALYSIS OF SIMULATED CONTAMINATED SEDIMENT TRANSPORT¹