One‐dimensional modeling of bed evolution in a gravel bed river subject to a cycled flood hydrograph

Wong, M.; Parker, Gary

doi:10.1029/2006jf000478

Cited by 59 publications

(118 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

107

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This appears reasonable given that the results in the present paper matched the trends observed by Paola (1996), Nicholas (2000) and Ferguson (2003). One-dimensional sediment routing models (SRMs), which use width-averaged estimates of τ and τ c , are commonly used to model bed evolution (e.g., Hoey and Ferguson, 1994;Wong and Parker, 2006). Because the results in the present paper show that the level of underestimation made by one-dimensional calculations varies with excess shear stress and relative submergence, it is also likely to vary from section to section in most rivers.…”

Section: Implications For Bed Evolutionsupporting

confidence: 71%

Does flow variance affect bedload flux when the bed is dominated by grain roughness?

Cooper

2012

Geomorphology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Implications For Bed Evolutionsupporting

confidence: 71%

Does flow variance affect bedload flux when the bed is dominated by grain roughness?

Cooper

2012

Geomorphology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Bed load transport of well-sorted sediment in response to cycled flood events has been considered by Wong and Parker (2006). An interesting phenomenon was observed -in response to the discordance between constant sediment supply and varying flow Figure 3.…”

Section: Computational Case Studiesmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…Examples of capacity models include those of Needham and Hey (1991), Correia et al (1992), Cui et al (1996), Zanre and Needham (1996), Cui and Parker (2005), Wong and Parker (2006) and Goutière et al (2008), as well as Fluvial-12 (Chang, 1998), Gsatrs (Yang andSimões, 2002), HEC-6 (US ACE, 1998) and Isis-Sediment (Halcrow and HR Wallingford, 1999). Non-capacity models include those of Armanini and Di Silvio (1988), Rahuel et al (1989), Holly and Rahuel (1990), Guo and Jin (1999), Wu et al (2004) and Wu (2007), as well as the software packages developed at the Danish Hydraulic Institute (the Mike series) and Delft Hydraulics (the Delft series).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Non-capacity or capacity model for fluvial sediment transport

Cao

Pender

et al. 2012

Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Water Manag

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The last several decades have witnessed the development of both capacity and non-capacity models for fluvial sediment transport. While recent investigations of the multiple timescales of fluvial processes have substantiated the understanding of conditional applicability of capacity models, the extent to which a capacity model differs from a non-capacity model remains to be unravelled. This paper presents a comparative investigation of one-dimensional capacity and non-capacity models. As a corollary to the theoretical analyses of the multiple timescales of fluvial processes, this study demonstrates that bed load transport can adapt to local flow sufficiently rapidly and, accordingly, a capacity model is applicable. However, as bed evolution modifies the flow considerably, a non-capacity model is needed if the flow is to be properly resolved in addition to bed load transport. Furthermore, it takes a long time and space for suspended sediment transport to adapt to capacity. Therefore non-capacity modelling is critical for suspended sediment transport, whereas a capacity model may result in considerable errors at best and become ill-posed at worst because of the requirement for extra boundary conditions. The findings of this work should facilitate the physically enhanced development and applications of mathematical river models.

show abstract

“…The form of the MRSAA model presented here has been simplified as much as possible, i.e., to treat a HSR (highly simplified reach) with constant grain size D. This has been done to allow for a precise and complete characterization of the behavior of the governing equations. It can relatively easily be extended to: (a) abrasion of the clasts that abrade the bed, so abrasional downstream fining is captured (Parker, 1991); (b) size mixtures of sediment (Wilcock and Crowe, 2003); (c) multiple sediment sources (Lague, 2010;Yanites et al, 2010); (d) channels with width variation downstream (Lague, 2010); (e) discharge varying according to a flow duration curve (Sklar and Dietrich, 2006;Lague, 2010), or fully unsteady flow ; and (f) cyclically varying hydrographs (Wong and Parker, 2006b) or "sedimentographs", the latter corresponding to events for which the sediment supply rate first increases, and then decreases cyclically . In addition, the model can and should be extended to include the stochasticity emphasized by Lague (2010).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Macro-roughness model of bedrock–alluvial river morphodynamics

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. The 1-D saltation-abrasion model of channel bedrock incision of Sklar and Dietrich (2004), in which the erosion rate is buffered by the surface area fraction of bedrock covered by alluvium, was a major advance over models that treat river erosion as a function of bed slope and drainage area. Their model is, however, limited because it calculates bed cover in terms of bedload sediment supply rather than local bedload transport. It implicitly assumes that as sediment supply from upstream changes, the transport rate adjusts instantaneously everywhere downstream to match. This assumption is not valid in general, and thus can give rise to unphysical consequences. Here we present a unified morphodynamic formulation of both channel incision and alluviation that specifically tracks the spatiotemporal variation in both bedload transport and alluvial thickness. It does so by relating the bedrock cover fraction to the ratio of alluvium thickness to bedrock macro-roughness, rather than to the ratio of bedload supply rate to capacity bedload transport. The new formulation (MRSAA) predicts waves of alluviation and rarification, in addition to bedrock erosion. Embedded in it are three physical processes: alluvial diffusion, fast downstream advection of alluvial disturbances, and slow upstream migration of incisional disturbances. Solutions of this formulation over a fixed bed are used to demonstrate the stripping of an initial alluvial cover, the emplacement of alluvial cover over an initially bare bed and the advection-diffusion of a sediment pulse over an alluvial bed. A solution for alluvial-incisional interaction in a channel with a basement undergoing net rock uplift shows how an impulsive increase in sediment supply can quickly and completely bury the bedrock under thick alluvium, thus blocking bedrock erosion. As the river responds to rock uplift or base level fall, the transition point separating an alluvial reach upstream from an alluvial-bedrock reach downstream migrates upstream in the form of a "hidden knickpoint". A tectonically more complex case of rock uplift subject to a localized zone of subsidence (graben) yields a steady-state solution that is not attainable with the original saltation-abrasion model. A solution for the case of bedrock-alluvial coevolution upstream of an alluviated river mouth illustrates how the bedrock surface can be progressively buried not far below the alluvium. Because the model tracks the spatiotemporal variation in both bedload transport and alluvial thickness, it is applicable to the study of the incisional response of a river subject to temporally varying sediment supply. It thus has the potential to capture the response of an alluvial-bedrock river to massive impulsive sediment inputs associated with landslides or debris flows.

show abstract

One‐dimensional modeling of bed evolution in a gravel bed river subject to a cycled flood hydrograph

Cited by 59 publications

References 26 publications

Does flow variance affect bedload flux when the bed is dominated by grain roughness?

Does flow variance affect bedload flux when the bed is dominated by grain roughness?

Non-capacity or capacity model for fluvial sediment transport

Macro-roughness model of bedrock–alluvial river morphodynamics

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About