PAPANICOLOU (2008) - Sediment Transport Modeling Review-Current and Future Developments

FORUM
Sediment Transport Modeling Review—Current and

Future Developments
Athanasios N. 共Thanos兲 Papanicolaou source pollutant attached to sediments, such sediment exchange
Associate Professor, Univ. of Iowa, IIHR-Hydroscience and Engineering, processes as settling, deposition, and self-weight consolidation;
Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Iowa City, IA 52241. coastal sedimentation; and beach processes under tidal currents
E-mail: apapanic@engineering.uiowa.edu and wave action.
Over the past three decades, a large number of computational
Mohamed Elhakeem hydrodynamic/sediment transport models have been developed
Research Associate Engineer, Univ. of Iowa, IIHR-Hydroscience and En- 共Fan 1988; Rodi 2006兲. Extensive reviews of different
gineering, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Iowa City, IA hydrodynamic/sediment transport models can be found in Nicollet
52241. E-mail: melhakee@engineering.uiowa.edu 共1988兲, Nakato 共1989兲, Onishi 共1994兲, Przedwojski et al. 共1995兲,
Spasojevic and Holly 共2000兲, and the ASCE Sedimentation Engi-
George Krallis neering Manual no. 110 共2007兲. Broadly speaking, these models
ERM Inc., Exton, PA. E-mail: george.krallis@erm.com can be classified on the basis of the range of their applications
共e.g., suspended load versus bed-load; physical versus chemical
Shwet Prakash transport兲; and their formulation in the spatial and temporal con-
ERM Inc., Exton, PA tinua 共e.g., one-dimensional model 共1D兲; two-dimensional model
共2D兲; or three-dimensional model 共3D兲; and steady versus un-
steady兲. The choice of a certain model for solving a specific prob-
John Edinger
lem depends on the nature and complexity of the problem itself,
Faculty Research Associate, Bryn Mawr College, Dept. of Geology.
the chosen model capabilities to simulate the problem adequately,
E-mail: jeedgr@aol.com
data availability for model calibration, data availability for model
verification, and overall available time and budget for solving the
problem.
Introduction The objectives of this article are twofold. First, the article aims
to trace the developmental stages of current representative 共1D,
The use of computational models for solving sediment transport
2D, and 3D兲 models and describe their main applications,
and fate problems is relatively recent compared with the use of
strengths, and limitations. The article is intended as a first guide
physical models. Several considerations govern the choice be-
to readers interested in immersing themselves in modeling and at
tween physical and computational models; namely, the nature of
the same time sets the stage for discussing current limitations and
the problem that needs to be solved, the available resources, and
future needs. Second, the article provides insight about future
the overall cost associated with the problem solution. In some
trends and needs with respect to hydrodynamic/sediment transport
specific problems, a combination of physical and computational
models. In preparing this article, the authors may have uninten-
models can be used to obtain a better understanding of the pro-
tionally omitted some models, since including all the available
cesses under investigation 共de Vries 1973兲. Using computational
models found in the literature is impossible. Finally, this article is
hydrodynamic/sediment transport models, in general, involves the
mainly focused on multidimensional computational models 共2D
numerical solution of one or more of the governing differential
and 3D models兲; however, a brief overview of the 1D models is
equations of continuity, momentum, and energy of fluid, along
also included for providing a rational comparison of the 1D
with the differential equation for sediment continuity. An advan-
model features with the main features of the 2D and 3D models.
tage of computational models is that they can be adapted to dif-
ferent physical domains more easily than physical models, which
are typically constructed to represent site-specific conditions. An-
other advantage of computational models is that they are not sub- Description of Models
ject to distortion effects of physical models when a solution can
be obtained for the same flow conditions 共identical Reynolds and This section provides information about the model formulation,
Froude numbers, same length scale in the three directions, etc.兲 as the spatial and temporal characteristics, the coupling/linkage of
those present in the field. the hydrodynamic and sediment components, and the model’s
With the rapid developments in numerical methods for fluid predictive capabilities. Tables 1–3 complement this description by
mechanics, computational modeling has become an attractive tool providing useful information about the model capabilities to
for studying flow/sediment transport and associated pollutant fate handle unsteady flows, bed load and suspended load, sediment
processes in such different environments as rivers, lakes, and exchange processes, type of sediment 共cohesive versus cohesion-
coastal areas. Representative processes in these environments in- less兲, and multifractional sediment transport. Information about
clude bed aggradation and degradation, bank failure, local scour model acronyms, language, availability, and distribution is also
around structures, formation of river bends, fining, coarsening and provided in Tables 1–3. Tables 4–6 summarize examples of the
armoring of streambeds, transport of point source and nonpoint different model applications. The reader can use these case stud-
JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2008 / 1
Downloaded 12 Jan 2010 to 140.105.48.199. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright; see http://pubs.asce.org/copyright
Table 1. Summary of Selected 1D Models
Bed Suspended Sediment
Last sediment sediment Sediment Cohesive exchange Source
Model and references update Flow transport transport mixtures sediment processes Executable code Language
HEC-6: Hydraulic Engineering V. 4.2 Steady Yes Yes Yes No Entrainment and PD PD F77
Center; 共2004兲 deposition
Thomas and Prashum 共1977兲
MOBED: MObile BED; — Unsteady Yes Yes Yes No Entrainment and C C F90
Krishnappan 共1981兲 deposition
IALLUVIAL: Iowa ALLUVIAL; — Quasi-steady Yes Yes Yes No Entrainment and C C FIV
Karim and Kennedy 共1982兲 deposition
FLUVIAL 11; — Unsteady Yes Yes Yes No Entrainment and C P FIV
Chang 共1984兲 deposition
GSTARS: Generalized sediment V. 3 Unsteady Yes Yes Yes No Entrainment and PD PD F90/95
transport models for alluvial River 共2002兲 deposition
simulation
共Molinas and Yang, 1986兲
CHARIMA: Acronym of the word — Unsteady Yes Yes Yes Yes Entrainment and C C F 77
CHARiage which means bedload in deposition
French
Holly et al. 共1990兲
SEDICOUP: SEDIment COUPled; — Unsteady Yes Yes Yes No Entrainment and C C F77
Holly and Rahuel 共1990兲 deposition
OTIS: One-dimensional transport V. OTIS-P Unsteady No Yes No No Advection- PD PD F 77
with inflow and storage; 共1998兲 diffusion
Runkel and Broshears 共1991兲
EFDC1D: Environmental fluid — Unsteady Yes Yes Yes Yes Entrainment and PD PD F77
dynamics code; deposition
Hamrick 共2001兲
a a
3STD1, steep stream sediment — Unsteady Yes Yes Yes No Entrainmentand C P F90
Transport 1D model; deposition
Papanicolaou et al. 共2004兲
Note: V⫽version; C⫽copyrighted; LD⫽limited distribution; P⫽proprietary; PD⫽public domain; and F⫽FORTRAN.
a
Treated as a total load without separation.
ies as a reference guide for model setup, calibration, and verifi- ometry for a given set of hydraulic and sediment conditions.
cation. Runkel and Broshears 共1991兲 modified the 1D advection-
diffusion equation with additional terms to account for lateral
One-Dimensional Models inflow, first-order decay, sorption of nonconservative solutes, and
transient storage of these solutes.
Since the early 1980s, 1D models have been used with some Most of the 1D models that are presented here can predict the
success in research and engineering practice. Most of the 1D basic parameters of a particular channel, including the bulk-
models are formulated in a rectilinear coordinate system and velocity, water surface elevation, bed-elevation variation, and
solve the differential conservation equations of mass and momen- sediment transport load. All of them, except OTIS, can also pre-
tum of flow 共the St. Venant flow equations兲 along with the sedi- dict the total sediment load and grain size distribution of nonuni-
ment mass continuity equation 共the Exner equation兲 by using
form sediment. 3ST1D by Papanicolaou et al. 共2004兲 cannot
finite-difference schemes. Some representative models that are
differentiate the total sediment load into bed load and suspended
developed on the basis of the previously mentioned equations
load. HEC-6 by Thomas and Prashum 共1977兲 and IALLUVIAL
include MOBED by Krishnappan 共1981兲, IALLUVIAL by Karim
by Karim and Kennedy 共1982兲 are not applicable to unsteady flow
and Kennedy 共1982兲, CHARIMA by Holly et al. 共1990兲, SEDI-
COUP by Holly and Rahuel 共1990兲, 3ST1D by Papanicolaou et conditions. Table 1 contains the complete model reference and
al. 共2004兲. The HEC-6 formulation by Thomas and Prashum acronym explanation and summarizes the main features for each
共1977兲 is also presented in a rectilinear coordinate and is dis- model.
cretized by using finite-difference schemes; but it solves the Some of these 1D models have additional specific features.
differential conservation equation of energy instead of the mo- HEC-6 by Thomas and Prashum 共1977兲, for example, decom-
mentum equation. poses energy losses into form loss and skin friction loss. MOBED
Among other 1D models that use different coordinate systems, by Krishnappan 共1981兲 can predict the sediment characteristics of
equations or schemes of solution are FLUVIAL 11 by Chang a streambed as a function of time and distance for different flow
共1984兲, GSTARS by Molinas and Yang 共1986兲, and OTIS by hydrographs. FLUVIAL 11 by Chang 共1984兲 accounts for the
Runkel and Broshears 共1991兲. Chang 共1984兲 used a curvilinear presence of secondary currents in a curved channel by adjusting
coordinate system to solve the governing equations of his model. the magnitude of the streamwise velocity. The same model can
Molinas and Yang 共1986兲 implemented the theory of minimum predict changes in the channel bed profile, width, and lateral mi-
stream power to determine the optimum channel width and ge- gration in channel bends. CHARIMA by Holly et al. 共1990兲 and
2 / JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2008
Table 2. Summary of Selected 2D Model
a a
SERATRA: SEdiment and — Unsteady Yes Yes No Yes Advection- C C/LD FIV
RAdionuclide TRAnsport; diffusion
Onishi and Wise 共1982兲
a a
SUTRENCH- 2D: SUspended — Quasi Yes Yes No No Advection- C LD F90
sediment transport in TRENCHes; steady diffusion
van Rijn and Tan 共1985兲
a a
TABS-2; — Unsteady Yes Yes No Yes Entrainment and C C F77
Thomas and McAnally 共1985兲 deposition
MOBED2: MObile BED; — Unsteady Yes Yes Yes No Entrainment and C C F77
Spasojevic and Holly 共1990a兲 deposition
a a
ADCIRC: ADvanced CIRCulation; — Unsteady Yes Yes No Yes Advection- C/LD C/LD F90
Luettich et al. 共1992兲 diffusion
a a
MIKE 21: Danish acronym of the — Unsteady Yes Yes No Yes Entrainment and C P F90
word microcomputer; deposition
Danish Hydraulic Institute 共1993兲
a a
UNIBEST- TC: UNIform BEach — Quasi- Yes Yes No No Entrainment and C LD F90
Sediment Transport—Transport steady advection
Cross-shore;
Bosboom et al. 共1997兲
USTARS: Unsteady Sediment — Unsteady Yes Yes Yes No Entrainment and P P F90
Transport models for Alluvial deposition
Rivers Simulations;
Lee et al. 共1997兲
FAST2D: Flow Analysis Simulation — Unsteady Yes Yes No No Entrainment and LD P F90
Tool; deposition
Minh Duc et al. 共1998兲
FLUVIAL 12; — Unsteady Yes Yes Yes No Entrainment and C P F77
Chang 共1998兲 deposition
Delft 2D; — Unsteady Yes Yes No Yes Advection- C LD F90
Walstra et al. 共1998兲 diffusion
CCHE2D: The National Center for V. 2.1 Unsteady Yes Yes Yes No Advection- PD/C LD F77/F90
Computational Hydroscience and 共2001兲 diffusion
Engineering;
Jia and Wang 共1999兲
Note: V⫽version; C⫽copyrighted; LD⫽limited distribution; P⫽proprietary; PD⫽public domain; F⫽FORTRAN.
a
OTIS by Runkel and Broshears 共1991兲 can treat transport and fate and popular. 2D models are depth-averaged models that can pro-
of conservative contaminants and heat. EFDC1D by Hamrick vide spatially varied information about water depth and bed
共2001兲 can be applied to stream networks. 3ST1D by Papanico- elevation within rivers, lakes, and estuaries, as well as the mag-
laou et al. 共2004兲 is capable of capturing hydraulic jumps and nitude of depth-averaged streamwise and transverse velocity com-
simulating supercritical flows; therefore, it is applicable to un- ponents. Most 2-D models solve the depth-averaged continuity
steady flow conditions that occur over transcritical flow stream and Navier-Stokes equations along with the sediment mass bal-
reaches, such as flows over step-pool sequences in mountain ance equation with the methods of finite difference, finite
streams. element, or finite volume. Table 2 shows the complete model
Because of their low data, central processor unit 共CPU兲 re- reference and explanation of the model acronym and summarizes
quirements, and simplicity of use, 1D models remain useful pre-
the characteristics of selected 2D hydrodynamic/sediment trans-
dictive tools even today, especially in consulting, for rivers and
port models. The main specific features of each model are de-
stream ecological applications where 2D or 3D models may not
scribed below:
be needed and are computationally expensive. Table 4 presents
examples of different 1D model applications. SERATRA: A finite-element sediment-contaminant transport
model developed by Onishi and Wise 共1982兲. The model includes
general advection-diffusion equations and incorporates sink/
Two-Dimensional Models source terms. The model can predict overland 共terrestrial兲 and
Since the early 1990s, there has been a shift in computational in-stream pesticide migration and fate to assess the potential
research toward 2D models. Most of the 2D models are currently short- and long-term impacts on aquatic biota in receiving
available to the hydraulic engineering community as interface- streams.
based software to allow easy data input and visualization of re- SUTRENCH-2D: A finite-volume hydrodynamic and sediment
sults. This added capability has made these models user-friendly transport model developed by van Rijn and Tan 共1985兲 for simu-
Table 3. Summary of Selected 3D Models
a a
ECOMSED: Estuarine, Coastal, and V. 1.3 Unsteady Yes Yes No Yes Entrainment and PD PD F77
Ocean Model—SEDiment transport; 共2002兲 deposition
Blumberg and Mellor 共1987兲
a a
RMA-10: Resource Management — Unsteady Yes Yes No Yes Entrainment and C P F77
Associates; deposition
King 共1988兲
GBTOXe: Green Bay TOXic — Unsteady No Yes No Yes Entrainment and NA NA F77
enhancement; deposition
Bierman et al. 共1992兲
EFDC3D: Environmental Fluid — Unsteady Yes Yes Yes Yes Entrainment and PD P F77
Dynamics code; deposition
Hamrick 共1992兲
ROMS: Regional Ocean Modeling V. 1.7.2 Unsteady Yes Yes Yes No Entrainment and LD LD F77
System; 共2002兲 deposition
Song and Haidvogel 共1994兲
CH3D-SED: Computational — Unsteady Yes Yes Yes Yes Entrainment and C C F90
Hydraulics 3D-SEDiment; deposition
Spasojevic and Holly 共1994兲
SSIIM: Sediment Simulation In V. 2.0 Steady Yes Yes Yes No Advection- PD P C-Langua.
Intakes with Multiblock options; 共2006兲 diffusion
Olsen 共1994兲
a a
MIKE 3: Danish acronym of the — Unsteady Yes Yes No Yes Entrainment and C P F90
word Microcomputer; deposition
Jacobsen and Rasmussen 共1997兲
FAST3D: Flow Analysis V. Beta-1.1 Unsteady Yes Yes No No Entrainment and LD P F90
Simulation Tool; 共1998兲 deposition
Landsberg et al. 共1998兲
Delft 3D; V. 3.25.00 Unsteady Yes Yes No
Entrainment and Yes C LD F77
Delft Hydraulics 共1999兲共2005兲 deposition
TELEMAC; — Unsteady aYes a
Yes No Yes Entrainment and C P F90
Hervouet and Bates 共2000兲 deposition
Zeng et al. 共2005兲 — Unsteady Yes Yes No No Entrainment and P P F90
deposition
Note: V⫽version; C⫽copyrighted; LD⫽limited distribution; P⫽proprietary; PD⫽public domain; F⫽FORTRAN.
a
lating sediment transport and associated bed level change under for the “external mode” but using the “internal mode” for obtain-
conditions of combined quasi-steady currents and wind-induced ing detailed velocity and stress at localized areas. The internal
waves over a sediment bed. The model solves the general mode is achieved by specifying the momentum dispersion and the
advection-diffusion equations by incorporating a lag coefficient to bottom shear stress in terms of the vertical velocity profile. The
account for the settling of sediments. wave-continuity formulation of the shallow-water equations is
TABS-2: A group of finite-element based hydrodynamic and used to solve the time-dependent, free-surface circulation and
sediment transport computer codes developed by the USACE Wa- transport processes.
terways Experimental Station 共Thomas and McAnally 1985兲 that MIKE2: A finite-difference model in a rectilinear coordinate
currently operates by using the SMS v.9.0 windows interface. system developed by the Danish Hydraulic Institute 共1993兲 for
These codes are applicable to rivers, reservoirs, and estuaries. The simulating transport and fate of dissolved and suspended loads
main components of TABS-2 are the hydrodynamic component, discharged or accidentally spilled in lakes, estuaries, coastal
RMA2; the sediment transport component, SED2D 共formally areas, or in the open sea. The system consists of four main model
STUDH兲; and the water quality component, RMA4. groups 共modules兲, namely, the hydrodynamic and wave models,
MOBED2: A finite-difference hydrodynamic and sediment the sediment process model, and the environmental hydrody-
transport model used in a curvilinear coordinate system, devel- namic model groups. The hydrodynamic and wave models are
oped by Spasojevic and Holly 共1990a兲. The model can simulate relevant to the types of physical processes considered in flood-
water flow, sediment transport, and bed evolution in natural wa- plain mapping. The sediment process models are used to simulate
terways such as reservoirs, estuaries, and coastal environments shoreline change and sand transport, whereas the environmental
where depth averaging is appropriate. hydrodynamic models are used to examine water quality issues.
ADCIRC-2D: A finite-element hydrodynamic and sediment UNIBEST-TC2: A finite-difference hydrodynamic and sedi-
transport model developed by Luettich et al. 共1992兲 in a rectilin- ment transport model in a rectilinear coordinate system to de-
ear coordinate system for simulating large-scale domains 共e.g., scribe the hydrodynamic processes of waves and currents in the
the entire East Coast of the United States兲 by using 2D equations cross-shore direction by assuming the presence of uniform mean
Table 4. Applications for Selected 1D Models
Model and references Applications
HEC-6; Prediction of the flow and sediment transport along with the bed level change of the Saskatchewan River
Thomas and Prashum 共1977兲 below Gardiner Dam, Canada 共Krishnappan 1985兲
Prediction of the bed profile for the eroded and redeposited delta sediment upstream from Glines Canyon
Dam, Washington 共U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation 1996兲
MOBED; Comparison of MOBED results with HEC-6 results for the flow and sediment transport along with the
Krishnappan 共1981兲 bed-level change for the Saskatchewan River below Gardiner Dam, Canada 共Krishnappan 1985兲
Prediction of fine sediment transport under ice cover in the Hay River in Northwest Territories, Canada
IALLUVIAL; Karim and Kennedy 共1982兲 Simulation of flow and sediment processes in the Missouri River, Nebraska 共Karim and Kennedy 1982兲
Simulation of flow and sediment processes downstream of the Gavins Point Dam on the Missouri River,
Nebraska 共Karim 1985兲
FLUVIAL 11; Simulation of flow and sediment processes of the San Dieguito River, Southern California 共Chang 1984兲
Chang 共1984兲
Simulation of flow and sediment processes of the San Lorenzo River, Northern California 共Chang 1985兲
GSTARS; Prediction of the scour depth and pattern at the Lock and Dam No. 26 replacement site on the
Molinas and Yang 共1986兲 Mississippi River, Illinois 共Yang et al. 1989兲
Prediction of the variation in channel geometry for the unlined spillway downstream Lake Mescalero
Reservoir, New Mexico 共Yang and Simões 2000兲
CHARIMA; Mobile-bed dynamics in the Missouri River from Ft. Randall to Gavins Point Dam, South Dakota 共Corps
Holly et al. 共1990兲 of Engineers兲
Mobile-bed dynamics in the Missouri River from Gavins Point Dam to Rulo, Nebraska 共National Science
Foundation兲
SEDICOUP; Modeling of long-term effects of rehabilitation measures on bed-load transport at the Lower Salzach
Holly and Rahuel 共1990兲 River, Germany 共Otto 1999兲
Long-term modeling of the morphology of the Danube River, Germany 共Belleudy 1992兲
OTIS; Simulation of field experiments conducted by Bencala and Walters 共1983兲 for the change in chloride
Runkel and Broshears 共1991兲 concentration of the Uvas Creek, California.
Estimation of the travel times and mixing characteristics of the Clackamas River, Oregon, using the slug
of rhodamine data of Laenen and Risley 共1997兲
EFDC1D; Simulation of the flow and sediment transport processes in the Duwamish River and Elliott Bay,
Hamrick 共2001兲 Washington 共Schock et al. 1998兲
Development of a water quality model for the Christina River, Delaware 共USEPA 2000兲
3STD1; Prediction of the grain size distribution and bed morphology of the Cocorotico River, Venezuela
Papanicolaou et al. 共2004兲共Papanicolaou et al. 2004兲.
Prediction of the grain size distribution and bed-load rate of the Alec River, Alaska 共Papanicolaou et al.
2006兲
longshore currents along the beach 共Bosboom et al. 1997兲. The DELFT-2D: A finite-difference hydrodynamic and sediment
bed load and suspended load transport processes are modeled by transport model simulating waves and currents 共Walstra et al.
assuming local equilibrium conditions 共no lag effects are consid- 1998兲. The model couples the hydrodynamics with computed bot-
ered between flow and sediment兲. tom morphological changes in a time-dependent way. The model
USTARS: A modified form of 共GSTARS兲 that is also based on can simulate bed-load and suspended load transport by using ei-
the stream tube concept 共Lee et al. 1997兲. The hydrodynamic and
ther a local equilibrium or a nonequilibrium 共i.e., the lag effects
sediment equations are solved with a finite-difference scheme in a
rectilinear coordinate system. As in GSTARS, the theory of mini- between flow and sediment兲 approach. The model can also show
mum stream power is used here to determine the optimum chan- the effects of wave motion on transport magnitude and direction.
nel width and geometry for a given set of hydraulic, geomorpho- CCHE2D: A finite-element hydrodynamic and sediment model
logic, sediment, and man-made constraints. developed by Jia and Wang 共1999兲. The model simulates the sus-
FAST2D: A finite-volume hydrodynamic and sediment model pended sediment by solving the advection-diffusion equation and
with boundary-fitted grids in a curvilinear coordinate system to the bed-load transport by empirical functions 共e.g., Yalin 1972;
simulate sediment transport and morphodynamic problems in al- van Rijn 1993兲. The model accounts for the secondary flow effect
luvial channels 共Minh Duc et al. 1998兲. The model accounts in- in curved channels.
directly for secondary effects attributed to the complexity of the All the aforementioned models are applicable to unsteady flow
domain.
conditions, except SUTRENCH-2D by van Rijn and Tan 共1985兲
FLUVIAL 12: A finite-difference hydrodynamic and sediment
and UNIBEST-TC2 by Bosboom et al. 共1997兲. All models can
model in a curvilinear coordinate system developed by Chang
共1998兲. The combined effects of flow hydraulics, sediment trans- predict the total sediment transport load; but only MOBED2,
port, and river channel changes can be simulated for a given flow USTARS, FLUVIAL 12, and CCHE2D can handle multifrac-
period. The model is a mobile-bed model and simulates changes tional sediment transport and can decompose the total sediment
in the channel-bed profile, width, and sediment bed composition load into bedload and suspended load. DELFT-2D and FAST2D
induced by the channel curvature. can also separate the total sediment load into bedload and sus-
SERATRA; Investigation of the effects of sediment on the transport of radionuclides in Cattaraugus and Buttermilk
Onishi and Wise 共1982兲 Creeks, New York 共Walters et al. 1982兲
Simulation of the hydrogeochemical behavior of radionuclides released to the Pripyat and Dnieper rivers
from the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant in Ukraine 共Voitsekhovitch et al. 1994兲
SUTRENCH-2D; Simulation of sand transport processes and associated bed-level changes along dredged pits and trenches at
van Rijn and Tan 共1985兲 the lower Dutch coast, The Netherlands 共Walstra et al. 1998兲
Modeling sediment transport and coastline development along the Iranian coast, Caspian Sea 共Niyyati and
Maraghei 2002兲
TABS-2; Simulation of the flow and sediment transport processes in the Black Lake, Alaska 共Papanicolaou et al.
Thomas and McAnally 共1985兲 2006兲
Evaluation of the hydraulic performance of different structures found in the Missouri River for creating new
shallow water habitat 共Papanicolaou and Elhakeem 2006兲
MOBED2; Simulation of mobile-bed dynamics in the Coralville Reservoir on the Iowa River, Iowa 共Spasojevic and
Spasojevic and Holly 共1990a兲 Holly 1990b兲
ADCIRC; Simulation of the flow and sediment transport processes of the natural cap in the Matagorda Bay, Texas
Luettich et al. 共1992兲共Edge 2004兲
Simulation of sand transport processes at Scheveningen Trial Trench, The Netherlands 共Edge 2004兲
MIKE 21; Prediction of the spreading of dredged spoils in the Øresund Link, Denmark-Sweden
Danish Hydraulic Institute 共1993兲
Prediction of sediment transport rate at ebb flow in a tidal inlet, Grådyb, Denmark
UNIBEST- TC; Coastal study for the impacts of constructing Kelantan Harbor, Malaysia
Bosboom et al. 共1997兲
Coastal study for shoreline protection of Texel region, The Netherlands
USTARS; Simulation of sand transport processes and associated bed-level changes of a reach in the Keelung River,
Lee et al. 共1997兲 Taiwan 共Lee et al. 1997兲
Routing of flow and sediment of the Shiemen Reservoir, upstream Tan-Hsui River, Taiwan 共Lee et al.1997兲
FAST2D; Simulation of sediment transport processes and associated bed level changes of a reach in the Bavarian
Minh Duc et al. 共1998兲 Danube River, Germany 共Minh Duc et al. 1998兲
Flood analysis and mitigation on the Orlice River, Poland 共Beck et al. 2003兲
FLUVIAL 12; Simulation of flow and sediment processes of the San Dieguito River, Southern California 共Chang 1994兲
Chang 共1998兲
Simulation of flow and sediment processes of the Feather River, Northern California 共Chang et al. 1996兲
Delft 2D; Simulation of sand transport processes and associated bed-level changes along dredged pits and trenches at
Walstra et al. 共1998兲 the lower Dutch coast, The Netherlands 共Walstra et al. 1998兲
Simulation of the flow field and sediment transport processes of the Pannerdense Kop and IJssel Kop
bifurcations in the Rhine River, The Netherlands 共Sloff 2004兲
CCHE2D; Investigation of the effects of the rock pile and the submerged dikes downstream of the Lock and Dam No.
Jia and Wang 共1999兲 2 of the Red River Waterway, Louisiana
Investigation of the effects of large woody debris structures on the fluvial processes in the Little Topashaw
Creek, Mississippi 共Wu et al. 2005兲
pended load, but they are limited to uniform sediment sizes. Ex- ment, or finite-volume. The Reynolds average Navier-Stokes
amples of the different 2D model applications are summarized in 共RANS兲 approach has been employed to solve the governing
Table 5. equations.
The RANS models can be separated into hydrostatic and non-
hydrostatic models. The hydrostatic models 共e.g., Gessler et al.
Three-Dimensional Models
1999兲 are not able to accurately predict flow and transport phe-
In many hydraulic engineering applications, one has to resort to nomena in regions where the flow is strongly 3D and where large
3D models when 2D models are not suitable for describing cer- adverse pressure gradients or massive separation are present 共e.g.,
tain hydrodynamic/sediment transport processes. Flows in the vi- river bends containing hydraulic structures兲. On the contrary, non-
cinity of piers and near hydraulic structures are examples in hydrostatic RANS models have been shown to adequately de-
which 3D flow structures are ubiquitous and in which 2D models scribe intricate features of secondary flows in complex domains
do not adequately represent the physics. With the latest develop- 共e.g., Wu et al. 2000; Ruther and Olsen 2005兲.
ments in computing technology—such as computational speed, Table 3 shows the complete model reference and explanation
parallel computing, and data storage classification—3D of the acronym and summarizes the characteristics of 12 selected
hydrodynamic/sediment transport models have become much 3D hydrodynamic/sediment transport models. The main specific
more attractive to use. Most 3D models solve the continuity and features of each model are described below:
the Navier-Stokes equations, along with the sediment mass bal- ECOMSED: A fully integrated 3D finite-difference hydrody-
ance equation through the methods of finite difference, finite ele- namic, wave, and sediment transport model in an orthogonal cur-
ECOMSED; Simulation of the flow and sediment transport processes of Lavaca Bay, Texas 共HydroQual 1998兲
Blumberg and Mellor 共1987兲
Simulation of the flow and sediment transport processes of the Klarälven River east and west channels at the
bifurcation, Sweden 共Admass 2005兲
RMA-10; Modeling of the Nisqually River Delta to evaluate habitat restoration alternatives, Washington
King 共1988兲
Modeling the hydrodynamics of flow and sediment of the Los Angeles and Long Beach harbors California
共Tetra Tech 2004兲
GBTOXe; Simulation of fate and transport of PCBs in Green Bay, Wisconsin
Bierman et al. 共1992兲
EFDC3D; Modeling of the hydrodynamic and sediment processes in Moro Bay, California
Hamrick 共1992兲
Simulation of flow and sediment transport of Lake Hartwell reservoir on the Savannah River between South
Carolina and Georgia
ROMS; Modeling of sediment transport and estuary turbidity maximum of the Hudson River Estuary, New York
Song and Haidvogel 共1994兲
Simulation of flow and sediment quality of the Southern California Bight, California
CH3D-SED, Evaluation of the relative impact of different sediment sources on the shore areas of the western basin of
Spasojevic and Holly 共1994兲 Lake Erie, Ohio 共Velissariou et al. 1999兲
Simulation of sedimentation on bends, crossings, and distributaries on the lower Mississippi River and
Atchafalaya River, Lousiana
SSIIM; Tested against experimental data from Colorado State University 共Olsen 2003兲
Olsen 共1994兲
MIKE 3; Simulation of the flow, sediment transport processes, and water quality of Upper Klamath Lake, Oregon
Jacobsen and Rasmussen 共1997兲
Simulation of the flow, sediment transport processes, and water quality of Tampa Bay, Florida
FAST3D; Tested against the experimental data of Odgaard and Bergs 共1988兲
Landsberg et al. 共1998兲
Simulation of contaminated regions resulting from hypothetical airborne agent releases in major urban areas
at Washington D.C., Maryland, and Chicago, Illinois 共Pullenet al. 2005兲
Delft 3D; Simulation of the flow, sediment transport processes and water quality of Tolo Harbor and Mirs Bay, Hong
Delft Hydraulics 共1999兲 Kong 共Delft Hydraulics 1999兲
Morphodynamic modeling of the German Wadden Sea and Duck, North Carolina 共Delft Hydraulics 1999兲
TELEMAC; Development of a mesoscale hydrodynamic and sediment transport model for the Peru Basin in the
Hervouet and Bates 共2000兲 Southeast Pacific Ocean 共Zielke et al. 1995兲
Simulation of transport and Fate of Toxic Chemicals in Shasta Reservoir, California 共Gu and Chung 2003兲
Zeng et al. 共2005兲 Tested against the experimental data of Odgaard and Bergs 共1988兲
vilinear coordinate system developed by Blumberg and Mellor lation and mixing processes, whereas the sediment transport com-
共1987兲. The model uses the hydrostatic pressure distribution as- ponent 共GBSED兲 accounts for the transport of cohesive sediment.
sumption and can predict fate and transport processes in large EFDC3D: A finite-difference hydrodynamic and water-quality
water bodies such as lakes and oceans. constituent transport model in an orthogonal curvilinear or recti-
RMA10: A finite-element hydrodynamic model for computing linear coordinate system with a sigma or stretched approximation
water-surface elevations and horizontal velocity components for in the vertical direction 共Hamrick 1992兲. The model solves the
stratified free-surface flow 共King 1988兲. It is designed for water 3D, vertically hydrostatic, free surface, turbulent averaged equa-
bodies in which vertical accelerations can be considered negli- tions of motion for a variable density fluid. The model can simu-
gible 共hydrostatic pressure assumption is considered兲. The model late complex water bodies, such as vertically mixed shallow
solves the transport equation for salinity, temperature, and sus- estuaries, lakes, and coastal areas. The model has also capabilities
pended sediment and incorporates the effect of these quantities on to predict toxic contaminants and water quality state variables.
density. The model is suited for computing the hydrodynamics in Currently, there is an effort to incorporate the EFDC3D code into
tidal flats and wetlands. The model is limited to uniform sedi- BASINS, an EPA open-source watershed model that links terres-
ment. RMA10 is a component of TABS-MD 共multi-dimensional兲. trial 共i.e., uplands兲 and in-stream models.
GBTOXe: A finite-difference model that is formulated in a ROMS: A finite-difference model in an orthogonal curvilinear
rectilinear coordinate system and is developed for predicting coordinate system with sigma-stretched approximation in the ver-
transport and fate of PCBs in riverine environments. The model tical direction 共Song and Haidvogel 1994兲. The model can simu-
was originally developed for addressing the fate and transport late free-surface hydrostatic ocean circulation and parameterizes
issues of PCBs in Green Bay, Wisconsin 共Bierman et al. 1992兲. the effect of surface waves on bottom stresses and apparent
The hydrodynamic component of the model 共GBHYDRO兲 as- roughness.
sumes hydrostatic pressure and accounts for water column circu- CH3D-SED: A boundary-fitted finite-difference model in the
nonorthogonal coordinate system with a sigma-stretched approxi- sion or deposition at the bed. The suspended sediment is modeled
mation in the vertical direction 共Spasojevic and Holly 1994兲. The by using an advection-diffusion equation with a settling velocity
sedimentation component is based on solving the sediment mass term.
balance equation for bedload along with the advection-diffusion Except for the SSIIM model by Olsen 共1994兲, all the afore-
equation for suspended load transport. mentioned models are applicable to unsteady flow conditions. Ex-
SSIIM: A finite volume hydrodynamic and sediment transport cept GBTOXe by Bierman et al. 共1992兲, all of them can predict
model that is based on an unstructured grid system 共Olsen 1994兲. the total sediment load. Only EFDC3D by Hamrick 共1992兲,
The model has the capability of simulating sediment transport in ROMS by Song and Haidvogel 共1994兲, CH3D-SED by Spa-
a movable riverbed with complex geometries. It includes the sojevic and Holly 共1994兲, and SSIIM by Olsen 共1994兲 have the
modeling of meandering and bed forms in rivers and bed load and capabilities to predict the gradation of sediment mixtures;
whereas the other models are applicable to uniform sediment
suspended load transport of nonuniform sediment and associated
only. ECOMSED by Blumberg and Mellor 共1987兲, RMA10 by
sorting and armoring processes. The model has been extended to
King 共1988兲, MIKE3 by the Danish Hydraulic Institute 共1993兲,
such other hydraulic engineering applications as spillway model-
and TELEMAC-3D by Hervouet and Bates 共2000兲 cannot sepa-
ing, head loss in tunnels, meandering in rivers, and turbidity cur-
rate the total sediment load into bedload and suspended load. A
rents. The model has also been used for water quality and habitat few examples of the different 3D model applications are summa-
studies in rivers. rized in Table 6.
MIKE3: A finite-difference model in an orthogonal grid sys-
tem developed by the Danish Hydraulic Institute 共1993兲 for free
surface flows. It includes modeling components for advection-
Discussion and Future Research
diffusion, water quality, heat exchange with the atmosphere,
heavy metals, eutrophication, flooding and drying of intertidal Discrepancies between hydrodynamic/sediment transport model
areas, and sediment processes 共Jacobsen and Rasmussen 1997兲. predictions and measurements can be attributed to different
The model can simulate the fate and transport of conservative or causes. They include oversimplification of the problem by using
linearly decaying constituents, including such processes as nutri- an inappropriate model 共1D versus 2D or 2D versus 3D兲, the use
ent cycling; dissolved oxygen levels; exchange of metals between of inappropriate input data, lack of appropriate data for model
the bed sediments and the water column; and sediment transport, calibration, unfamiliarity with the limitations of the hydro-
deposition, and entrainment. dynamic/sediment transport equations used in developing the
FAST3D: A fully nonhydrostatic 3D finite-volume hydrody- model, and computational errors in source codes because of ap-
namic model 共Landsberg et al. 1998兲. The underlying fluid dy- proximations in the numerical schemes used in solving the gov-
namics algorithm used in FAST3D is the flux-corrected transport erning equations 共boundary condition problems/truncation errors
共FCT兲, a high-order–high-resolution algorithm. The model can because of discretization兲. The last reason is beyond the scope of
handle complex geometric domains mainly because of the added this forum article, and techniques needed to minimize these com-
capabilities that are provided by an efficient parallel implementa- putational errors can be found in computational fluid dynamics
tion of the virtual cell embedding 共VCE兲 algorithms. The sedi- textbooks 共e.g., Chaudhry 1993; Anderson 1995; Tannehill et al.
ment component of the model accounts for nonequilibrium 1997兲. However, both hydrodynamic and sediment equations will
bed-load rate and advection-diffusion–based suspended load rate include such computational errors.
共Wu et al. 2000兲. A hydrogen-oxygen induction parameter 共re- In many applications, inherent model limitations do not allow
duced chemistry兲 model is also included in FAST3D. This model accurate simulation of a process independently of data input and
allows multiple chemical species sharing a single velocity field. model calibration. An explanation for this is that the eddy viscos-
DELFT3D: An integrated modeling system developed by the ity models that are frequently used in solving the governing hy-
Delft Hydraulic Laboratory team that is solved through the finite- drodynamic equations of turbulent flows include some degree of
difference scheme 共Delft Hydraulics 1999兲. The modeling system empiricism in their formulations. The problem is compounded for
contains several submodels that simulate the temporal and spatial sediment transport models, which rely heavily on experimental
variation of six processes 共flow, waves, water quality, morphol- and field information and whose formulations involve a high de-
gree of empiricism. As a consequence, at the present stage, no
ogy, sediment transport, and ecology兲. The hydrodynamic
reliable and comprehensive theoretical formulas can describe the
submodel calculates nonsteady flow resulting from tidal and me-
two-phase phenomenon of sediment and flow.
teorological forcing on a boundary-fitted curvilinear grid system.
It is not surprising, therefore, that Dawdy and Vanoni 共1986兲 in
TELEMAC-3D: A finite-element hydrodynamic and transport
their examination of some of the available 1D hydrodynamic/
model for free-surface boundary condition to characterize the fate sediment transport models concluded that most of the movable
and transport in coastal zones 共Hervouet and Bates 2000兲. For the bed models were found not to yield wholly satisfactory results.
water quality component, the model solves the advection- This study concluded that most of the 1D models assume that a
diffusion equation with additional terms to account for transient stage of equilibrium exists with respect to sediment transport and
storage, lateral inflow, first-order decay, and sorption. that the nature of sediment entrainment is deterministic and not a
Zeng et al. 共2005兲 model: A nonhydrostatic fully 3D model in stochastic process. However, 2D and 3D hydrodynamic/sediment
generalized curvilinear coordinates that is solved through the transport models typically encounter problems in determining the
finite-difference scheme. The model solves the governing equa- reference concentration of sediment near the bed and simulating
tions by integrating them up to the near-wall boundary to avoid the term for sediment diffusion because of turbulent motion. Also,
any near-wall approximations. The solver uses movable grids in the users of the multidimensional models experience difficulties
the vertical direction to account for changes in the free-surface in determining the source term of the advection-diffusion equa-
elevation. The proper kinematic and dynamic conditions are im- tion and the effects of sediment motion on near-bed turbulent flow
posed to account for changes in the bathymetry because of ero- characteristics.
Fig. 1. Factors governing model choice: 共a兲 the model complexity trade-off diagram 共adapted from Overton and Meadows 1976兲; 共b兲 illustration
of spatial and temporal scales 共adapted from Church 2006兲
In subsequent sections, the authors will attempt to provide an simulate flow in smaller scales where detailed mapping of the
insight for model users about model choice and also highlight the turbulent microstructure is required. This finding goes hand in
future research needs for improving available hydrodynamic/ hand with the realization that the use of 3D models to simulate
sediment transport models. basin-scale processes may not be realistic because it currently is a
very costly endeavor at the present.
Model Choice
Model Input and Calibration
It should be accepted that sediment transport models incorporate a
certain degree of simplification to be computationally feasible. Model input and calibration give rise to new demands on field
Simplified models run into the risk of not obtaining a reliable data. The following question arises: Do these data exist, or can
solution, whereas increasing the model complexity can compli- they be collected within the constraints of time and money? Al-
cate the problem formulation and incur more input data prepara- though this question is a pragmatic one, the following discussion
tion, calibration, and verification costs. Such a trade-off between may aid in an appropriate response. Transport of sediment is one
complexity and cost 关Fig. 1共a兲兴 has been discussed by Overton of the most important and difficult classes of processes encoun-
and Meadows 共1976兲 and Simons and Simons 共1996兲. One prac- tered by the hydraulic engineer. Despite the importance of the
tical question that model users typically face is the choice of the subject, it is probable that a greater differential exists between the
appropriate dimensional model. Although a definitive answer to information needed and the information available than in almost
this question does not exist, users need to follow some rules of any other practical engineering hydraulic field. Traditional mea-
thumb. In general, a model should be chosen in the way that the surement protocols of bed bathymetry, stages, grain size distribu-
model hydrodynamic/sediment components retain all relevant tion, bed morphology and velocity, and shear stress distributions
terms related to a specific problem. In addition, Fig. 1共b兲 gives using point or cross-sectional measurements are applicable to a
a guideline for simulating processes of different spatial and tem- limited spatial and temporal resolution and hinder adequate model
poral scales 共Church 2006兲. As Fig. 1共b兲 shows, a direct corre- calibration and verification. For example, point or cross-sectional
spondence exists between the time scale and the length scale. measurements in a riverine environment with mobile bed, ob-
Morphologic scale changes at the basin or catchment scale 共length tained through acoustic Doppler velocimeter 共ADV兲 or acoustic
scale greater than 104 m兲 typically occur in a 1-year period or Doppler current profiler 共ADCP兲, may not be sufficient for model
greater. As a consequence, a 1D or 2D model may be sufficient to calibration and verification because the flow distribution at a cross
simulate these changes. Dynamic scale processes, however, occur section changes in time because of bed-form propagation. Also,
at smaller length scales such as channel reach and sediment par- calibration of mobile bed models on the basis of limited spatial
ticle scale. A reference time scale for these processes ranges from data can be questionable, especially in a dynamic mobile environ-
seconds to an hour. Figure 1共b兲 implies that, for simulation of ment. Thus far, traditional measurement protocols are adequate
flow at the reach scale or around an obstacle, the role of turbu- under conditions that are closely represented by static conditions.
lence is important. As a result, 3D models should be used to The recent boom in sensor technology for in-stream flow and
sediment measurements, however, may alleviate some of the limi- drodynamic and sediment transport components is attributed to
tations regarding model data input, construction, calibration, and the fact that the principles of hydrodynamics and the fundamen-
verification. tals of turbulence theory and modeling have been established over
The absence of a symbiotic relationship between measure- the previous two decades, as compared with the fundamentals of
ments and simulation is another important factor that needs fur- sediment transport 共e.g., Tannehill et al. 1997; Raudkivi 1998;
ther investigation and relates to model calibration, verification, Parker et al. 2000; Rodi 2006兲. Modeling of turbulence is prob-
and grid refinement. The novel capabilities to be sought in ably the weakest component in the hydrodynamic equations of
the future are applications of simulations that can dynamically flow. Although the RANS models are computationally effective,
accept responses to on-line field data and measurements and/or as all turbulent fluctuations are averaged out from the equations
control such measurements. This synergistic and symbiotic feed- solved, they are criticized as “postdiction” rather than “predic-
back control loop between simulation and measurements is a tion” because of the loss of information occurring from averaging
novel technical direction that can open domains in the capabilities the equations.
of simulations within riverine/estuarine environments and facili- Both DNS and LES are principally better suited for simulating
tate capturing episodic and catastrophic events. This control loop complex turbulent flows. DNS requires enormous computing re-
is not currently available for simulating natural flows because of sources and thus is not a method that can be used for an everyday
the limited data that can be obtained from traditional measure- engineering problem 共Rodi 2006兲. DNS can be a valuable re-
ment protocols. As a result, many simulations work in the batch search resource for studying the transition between laminar and
mode; an event is simulated on the basis of a static set of field turbulent flow, considering that this method is limited to low Rey-
data. For example, hydrodynamic/sediment transport models to nolds numbers.
predict morphodynamic changes within streams and the impact of On the contrary, LES can be used at low and high Reynolds
these changes on aquatic life are conducted by considering a con- numbers. At high Reynolds numbers, LES can capture the larger-
stant sediment input value from such terrestrial inputs as roads, scale turbulent structures 共eddies兲 on a given grid by employing
flood plains, and other disturbance references. Hence, perturba- the 3D unsteady Navier-Stokes equations. The smaller-scale co-
tions that exist in the system because of spatial and temporal herent structures that are believed to control the momentum and
variability in the terrestrial environment are not accounted for. mass exchange directed from and to the riverbed cannot be re-
The recent boom in sensor technology can fill the gap between solved directly with LES, and special near-wall treatment has to
simulation and measurement needs. However, the riverine/ be introduced to account for the smaller-scale structures. Despite
estuarine community has to adopt the symbiotic existence of sen- the limitations that LES may have especially for high Reynolds
sors and models to ensure adequate model calibration and verifi- numbers, LES is the most advanced modeling tool currently
cation. Then and only then can the calibration and verification of available for modeling 3D complex flows 共Mahesh et al. 2004兲.
models, occurring in a dynamic fashion, be fully realized. Nevertheless, advances made in the DNS and LES arena allow
Another issue that closely relates to the symbiotic relationship the realistic prediction of complex turbulent flows around struc-
between mobile bed models and sensors is the issue of grid re- tures such as flow in fish ladders of hydroelectric dams, flow
finement and grid sensitivity. Several questions may be raised. around groynes, and flow around bridge structures 共e.g., Lai et al.
For example, are grid-independent tests necessary and practical? 2003兲.
Can a coarse grid lead to misleading results? What is the optimum Simulation of the sediment transport processes remains open
grid size for capturing turbulence-resolving scales? These ques- to future research because sediment transport is not only con-
tions have no universal answers. Different grid refinement criteria trolled by randomness in flow but also by irregularities in land-
to simulate flow and sediment dynamics may produce equally form and bed surface geometry 共e.g., Nino and Garcia 1996;
viable mobile bed responses for a given problem. Ultimately, one Papanicolaou et al. 1999兲. On account of these factors, the sedi-
must rely on the known notion of good engineering judgment. ment transport models developed thus far are not as universal as a
Since the early 1980s, 1D models have been used heavily for hydraulic engineer would like them to be. Some of the limitations
simulating large spatial scales 共covering the order of 100s of kms兲 that most sediment transport models exhibit can be summarized
over a long period of time 共of the order of decades兲. However, as follows:
developments in computer capabilities have recently advanced the One assumption is that sediment entrainment is not triggered
use of 2D and 3D models in natural environments for simulating by the near bed flow turbulent characteristics but by the excess
flow/sediment transport processes and fate of their associated pol- shear stress term 共␶ − ␶c兲. In most entrainment formulas, shear
lutants. Improved computing facilities significantly reduce com- stress ␶ is determined by assuming uniform flow conditions 共e.g.,
putational requirements and at the same time allow better grid Gomez and Church 1989; Almadeij and Diplas 2005兲. Recent
refinement. As the discipline of computational fluid and mobile studies have shown that turbulent sweeps, outward interactions,
bed dynamics evolves at a time when computational and sensor and ejections are the primary triggering mechanisms of sediment
technologies are drastically improving, it is imperative that all of entrainment 共Papanicolaou et al. 2001兲.
us prepare the ground for incorporating multidimensional models The traditional approach in sediment transport models 共e.g.,
into engineering practice. Undoubtedly, multidimensional—and excess shear stress models; settling velocity models兲 has been to
especially 3D—models move closely approximate the complex calculate the transport rate by using a single characteristic grain
processes occurring in waterways, and it is anticipated that they size, such as the median 共Raudkivi 1998兲. Because this approach
will become the models of the near future. does not account for differential transport of sediment particles
with different size 共or density兲, it is likely to underpredict or
Model Limitations overpredict the transport rate of individual fractions when bimo-
dal or multimodal distributions are present atop the surface bed
It has been pointed out that a mismatch exists in the theoretical 共e.g., Holly and Usseglio-Polatera 1984; Usseglio-Polatera and
foundations and performance of the hydrodynamic and sediment Cunge 1985; Pavlovic et al. 1985兲. Furthermore, most multidi-
components of models. The disparity that exists between the hy- mensional models treat flow and sediment processes as entirely
uncoupled or semicoupled within one computational time step 共or ably explains a lingering doubt about the use of the two-phase
even during a sequence of time steps in some cases兲, so that the flow approach in the near-bed areas. Furthermore, certain terms in
influence of changes in bed elevation and surface bed material the two-phase flow governing equations, such as the inter-
size distribution on the flow field can be taken into account only facial momentum transfer, require additional modeling to achieve
approximately 共e.g., Thomas and McAnally 1985; Onishi and system closure. Such modeling has to be based on a detailed
Trent 1985兲. knowledge of turbulence and requires presently unavailable ex-
Recognition of the fact that a sediment particle of an certain perimental data. Finally, the two-phase flow solution of practical
size or density can be transported at different rates has led to the sediment problems, which routinely requires long-term simula-
development of formulations that predict multifractional transport tions, is likely to be CPU-time-prohibitive even in the not-so-near
rates 共Raudkivi 1998兲. Expressions developed for the traveling future.
velocity of particles 共e.g., Sekine and Kikkawa 1992; Jain 1992; In parallel with the research in sediment transport, new mod-
Papanicolaou et al. 2002; Ferguson et al. 2002; Parker et al. 2003; eling paradigms such as artificial neural networks fuzzy logic, and
Francalanci and Solari 2007兲 provide the resting and moving pe- other related methods have emerged 共Bhattacharya et al. 2007兲.
riods of particles of different sizes and the lag coefficient for the These methods offer an alternative to traditional sediment trans-
movement of different sediment fractions. These formulations port modeling, especially in cases where too little data are avail-
allow different sizes to move at different rates, and their inclusion able for calibrating traditional sediment transport models.
into future sediment transport modeling can perhaps improve the Future research should not only focus on the previously stated
predictive ability of these models. limitations but also on other cross-cutting issues such as reconcil-
The treatment of the dispersion and diffusion coefficients as ing different spatial and temporal scales and the capability of
functions of the inner and outer variables, respectively, namely, dynamically simulating bed evolution and sediment exchange
the friction velocity, depth-averaged velocity, width of channel, processes between the sediment bed and the water column. Also,
and mean flow depth is limited. It has been shown that the spa- further investigation is required on the role of grid refinement and
tially averaged inner and outer quantities may not be good ap- grid sensitivity and the required amount of data for mobile bed
proximations of the dispersion process in channel constrictions or model calibration and verification.
expansions and flows near submerged or unsubmerged obstacles
共hydraulic structures兲. Furthermore, the role of relative submer-
gence on the estimation of the dispersion coefficient has not been
assessed 共Tayfur and Singh 2005兲. Acknowledgments
In most cases, the source term in the advection-diffusion equa-
tion does not account for the soil contributions from the bank or The writers would like to acknowledge the following individuals
the terrestrial contributions from the hill slopes and floodplains for the guidance, input and assistance that they have provided:
共Toda et al. 2005兲. Attempts to connect sediment sources origi- Professor Forrest Holly from the University of Iowa; Professor
nating from the hill slopes and floodplains with in-stream pro- Rick Luettich from the University of North Carolina; Professor
cesses are of paramount importance for minimizing error in the Wolfgang Rodi from the University of Karlsruhe; Professors Leo
predictive ability of existing sediment transport models. The stud- van Rijn and Dirk-Jan Walstra from WL/Delft Hydraulics; Pro-
ies of Collins et al. 共1998兲, Fox et al. 共2005a,b兲, Toda et al. fessor Nils Olsen from the Norwegian University of Science and
共2005兲, and others reveal that new technologies—such as Lidar, Technology; Dr. Bommanna Krishnappan from the Aquatic Eco-
biogeochemical tracers, and remote sensing—need to be em- system Impacts Research Branch; Pierre Lang from Sogreah/
ployed to address the connectivity between hill slopes and flood- LHF; Charles Kirsty, Patrick Delaney, and Karen Edelvang from
plains and instream processes. the DHI, Inc. support team; and the ECOMSED support team.
The formulation of the sediment-flow interaction processes
needs further investigation 共Lyn 1992兲. Recent attempts to formu-
late general mathematical models of sediment-flow interaction References
have been inspired by the progress made in two-phase flow mod-
eling in other fields 共e.g., Ishii 1975; Drew 1983; Elghobashi Admass, M. 共2005兲. “3-D numerical modeling of flow and sediment
1994; Crowe et al. 1996兲. The basic idea behind the two-phase transport in rivers.” LIC 2028, KTH Land and Water Resources En-
flow approach 共e.g., Villaret and Davies 1995; Ni et al. 1996; Cao gineering.
et al. 1995; Greimann et al. 1999兲 is to formulate governing con- Almedeij, J., and Diplas, P. 共2005兲. “Bed-load sediment transport in
servation equations for both phases, which include terms defining ephemeral and perennial gravel bed streams.” Eos, 86共44兲, 429–434.
interaction between phases, such as the stress tensor attributable Anderson, J. D. 共1995兲. Computational fluid dynamics, McGraw-Hill,
to phase interactions or the interfacial momentum transfer term. New York.
However, even though the two-phase flow approach seems Beck, J., et al. 共2003兲. “FLAMOR—Flood analysis and mitigation on the
promising, its use and even the formulation of the governing Orlice River.” Report No. AV0Z2060917, École Polytechnique
equations in flow-sediment problems are still in their infancy. Fédérale de Laussane, Lausanne 共in French兲.
Certain terms in the governing equations that are typically ne- Belleudy, P. 共1992兲. “100 years of Danube morphology with SEDI-
glected in other fields may require quite a different treatment in COUP.” 5th Int. Symp. on River Sedimentation, Karlsruhe, Germany.
the flow-sediment field. The stress between fluid and sediment Bencala, K. E., and Walters, R. A. 共1983兲. “Simulation of solute transport
in a mountain pool-and-riffle stream: A transient storage model.”
particles is usually neglected under the assumption that it is much
Water Resour. Res., 19共3兲, 718–724.
smaller than the turbulent stress between fluid particles. The stress Bhattacharya, B., Price, R. K., and Solomatine, D. P. 共2007兲. “Machine
coming from interactions among sediment particles is neglected learning approach to modeling sediment transport.” J. Hydraul. Eng.,
under the assumption that sediment particles do not contact one 133共4兲, 440–450.
another. Both of these assumptions are questionable in the case of Bierman, V. J., et al. 共1992兲. “Development and validation of an inte-
high sediment concentrations, especially near the bed. This prob- grated exposure model for toxic chemicals in Green Bay, Lake Michi-
gan.” Rep. for USEPA Large Lakes and Rivers Research Branch, Gomez, B., and Church, M. 共1989兲. “An assessment of bed-load sediment
Environmental Research Laboratory, Duluth, Minn. transport formulae for gravel bed rivers.” Water Resour. Res., 25共6兲,
Blumberg, A. F., and Mellor, G. L. 共1987兲. “A description of a three- 1161–1186.
dimensional coastal ocean circulation model.” Three-dimensional Greimann, B. P., Muste, M., and Holly, F. M. 共1999兲. “Two-phase formu-
coastal ocean models, N. Heaps, ed., Coastal and Estuarine Sciences, lation of suspended sediment transport.” J. Hydraul. Res., 37共4兲, 479–
American Geophysics Union, Vol. 4, 1–16. 500.
Bosboom, J., Aarninkhof, S. G., Reniers, J. M., Roelvink, J. A., and Gu, R., and Chung, S. 共2003兲. “A two-dimensional model for simulating
Walstra, D. J. 共1997兲. “UNIBEST TC-2.0 model: Overview of formu- the transport and fate of toxic chemicals in a stratified reservoir.” J.
lations.” Rep. H2305-42, Delft Hydraulics, The Netherlands. Environ. Qual., 32, 620–632.
Cao, Z. X., Wei, L. Y., and Xie, J. H. 共1995兲. “Sediment-laden flow in Hamrick, J. H. 共1992兲. “A three-dimensional environmental fluid dynam-
open channels from two-phase flow viewpoint.” J. Hydraul. Eng., ics computer code: Theoretical and computational aspects.” Special
121共10兲, 725–735. Rep. No. 317, Applied Marine Science and Ocean Engineering, Vir-
Chang, H. H. 共1984兲. “Modeling of river channel changes.” J. Hydraul. ginia Institute of Marine Science, Gloucester Point, Va.
Eng., 110共2兲, 157–172. Hamrick, J. M. 共2001兲. “EFDC1D: A One dimensional hydrodynamic and
Chang, H. H. 共1985兲. “Water and sediment routing through curved chan- sediment transport model for river and stream networks, model theory,
nels.” J. Hydraul. Eng., 111共4兲, 644–658. and users guide.” Technical Rep., U.S. EPA National Exposure Re-
Chang, H. H. 共1994兲. “Test and calibration of FLUVIAL-12 model using search Laboratory, Athens, Ga. and U.S. EPA Office of Science and
data from the San Dieguito River.” Rep. Prepared for Southern Cali- Technology, Washington, D.C.
fornia Edison Company. Hervouet, J. M., and Bates, P. 共2000兲. “The TELEMAC modeling sys-
Chang, H. H. 共1998兲. Generalized computer program: Users’ manual for tem.” Hydrolog. Process., 14, 1.3.
FLUVIAL-12: Mathematical model for erodible channels, San Diego. Holly, F. M., and Rahuel, J. L. 共1990兲. “New numerical/physical frame-
Chang, H. H., Harrison, L., Lee, W., and Tu, S. 共1996兲. “Numerical work for mobile-bed modeling. Part 1: Numerical and physical prin-
modeling for sediment-pass-through reservoirs.” J. Hydraul. Eng., ciples.” J. Hydraul. Res., 28共4兲, 401–416.
122共7兲, 381–388. Holly, F. M., and Usseglio-Polatera, J. M. 共1984兲. “Dispersion simulation
Chaudhry, M. H. 共1993兲. Open channel flow, Prentice-Hall, N.J. in two-dimensional tidal flow.” J. Hydraul. Eng., 110共7兲, 905–926.
Church, M. 共2006兲. “Scales of process, modes of analysis: multiples Holly, F. M., Yang, J. C., Schovarz, P., Scheefer, J., Hsu, S. H., and
Einhellig, R. 共1990兲. “CHARIMA: Numerical simulation of unsteady
scales in rivers.” Proc., 6th Int. Gravel-Bed Rivers Conf.
water and sediment movements in multiply connected networks of
Collins, A. L., Walling, D. E., and Leeks, G. L. 共1998兲. “Use of compos-
mobile-bed channels.” Report No. 343, Iowa Institute of Hydraulic
ite fingerprints to determine the provenance of the contemporary sus-
Research, Univ. of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa.
pended sediment load transported by rivers.” Earth Surf. Processes
HydroQual, Inc. 共1998兲. “Development and application of a modeling
Landforms, 23, 31–52.
framework to evaluate hurricane impacts on surficial mercury concen-
Crowe, C. T., Troutt, T. R., and Chung, J. N. 共1996兲. “Numerical models
trations in Lavaca Bay.” HydroQual, Inc., Mahwah, N.J.
for two-phase turbulent flows.” Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech., 28, 11–43.
Ishii, M. 共1975兲. Thermo-fluid dynamic theory of two-phase flow, Ey-
Danish Hydraulic Institute. 共1993兲. MIKE 21 short description, Danish
Hydraulic Institute, Hørsholm, Denmark. rolles, Paris.
Dawdy, D. R., and Vanoni, V. A. 共1986兲. “Modeling alluvial channels.” Jacobsen, F., and Rasmussen, E. B. 共1997兲. “MIKE 3 MT: A
Water Resour. Res., 22共9兲, 71s–81s. 3-dimensional mud transport model.” Technical Rep. DG-12 to the
de Vries, M. 共1973兲. Application of physical and mathematical models for Commission of the European Communities.
river problems, Pub. No. 12, Delft Hydraulics Laboratory. Jain, S. 共1992兲. “Note on lag in bed-load discharge.” J. Hydraul. Eng.,
Delft Hydraulics. 共1999兲. Delft3D users’ manual, Delft Hydraulics, The 118共6兲, 904–917.
Jia, Y., and Wang, S. S. 共1999兲. “Numerical model for channel flow and
Netherlands.
morphological change studies.” J. Hydraul. Eng., 125共9兲, 924–933.
Drew, D. A. 共1983兲. “Mathematical modeling of two-phase flow.” Annu.
Karim, M. F. 共1985兲. “IALLUVIAL: Analysis of sediment continuity and
Rev. Fluid Mech., 15, 261–291.
application to the Missouri River.” Rep. No. 292, Iowa Institute of
Edge, B. L. 共2004兲. “In-Situ containment and treatment: Engineering cap
integrity and reactivity.” Proposal Submitted to the EPA by HSRC/ Hydraulic Research, Univ. of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa.
S&SW, Texas A&M Univ. Karim, M. F., and Kennedy, J. F. 共1982兲. “IALLUVIAL: A commuter
Elghobashi, S. E. 共1994兲. “On predicting particle-laden turbulent flows.” based flow and sediment routing for alluvial streams and its applica-
Appl. Sci. Res., 52, 309–329. tion to the Missouri River.” Rep. No. 250, Iowa Institute of Hydraulic
Fan, S. S., ed. 共1988兲. “Twelve selected computer stream sedimentation Research, Univ. of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa.
models developed in the United States.” U.S. Interagency Subcommit- King, I. P. 共1988兲. “A finite element model for three dimensional hydro-
tee Rep. on Sedimentation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, dynamic systems.” Rep. to Waterways Experiment Station, U.S. Army
Washington, D.C. Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg, Miss.
Ferguson, R. I., Bloomer, D. J., Hoey, T. B., and Werritty, A. 共2002兲. Krishnappan, B. G. 共1981兲. User’s manual: Unsteady, non-uniform, mo-
“Mobility of river tracer pebbles over different timescales.” Water bile boundary flow model—MOBED. Hydraulic Division, National
Resour. Res., 38共5兲, 3.1–3.9. Water Research Institute, CCIW, Burlington, Ontario.
Fox, J., Papanicolaou, A., and Abaci, O. 共2005a兲. “The impact of agri- Krishnappan, B. G. 共1985兲. “Comparison of MOBED and HEC-6 river
cultural erosion processes upon ␦15N, ␦13C, and C / N signatures of flow models.” Can. J. Civ. Eng., 12, 464–471.
eroded-soil.” Int. Symp., IAHR, River, Coastal, and Estuarine Mor- Laenen, A., and Risley, J. C. 共1997兲. “Precipitation-runoff and
phodynamics, IAHR, Illinois, 1147. streamflow-routing model for the Willamette River Basin, Oregon.”
Fox, J., Papanicolaou, A., and Kjos, L. 共2005b兲. “Eddy taxonomy around Water Resour. Investigations Report 95-4284, U.S. Geological Survey,
a submerged barb obstacle within a fixed rough bed: A novel classi- Denver.
fication methodology.” J. Eng. Mech., 131共10兲, 1082–1101. Lai, Y. G., Weber, L. J., and Patel, V. C. 共2003兲. “Nonhydrostatic three-
Francalanci, S., and Solari, L. 共2007兲. “Gravitational effects on bed load dimensional model for hydraulic flow simulation. I: Formulation and
transport at low Shields stress: Experimental observations.” Water Re- verification.” J. Hydraul. Eng., 129共3兲, 196–205.
sour. Res., 43, W03424. Landsberg, A., Chtchelkanova, A., Lind, C., Boris, J., and Young, T.
Gessler, D., Hall, B., Spasojevic, M., Holly, F. M., Pourtaheri, H., and 共1998兲. Fast3D user and programmer reference manual.
Raphelt, N. X. 共1999兲. “Application of 3D mobile bed, hydrodynam- Lee, H. Y., Hsieh, H. M., Yang, J. C., and Yang, C. T. 共1997兲. “Quasi–
ics model.” J. Hydraul. Eng., 125共7兲, 737–749. two-dimensional simulation of scour and deposition in alluvial chan-
nels.” J. Hydraul. Eng., 123共7兲, 600–609. by using the concept of particle velocity: Applications.” Proc., ASCE/
Luettich, R. A., Westerink, J. J., and Scheffner, N. W. 共1992兲. “ADCIRC: EWRI and IAHR Int., Conf. on Hydraulic Measurements and Experi-
An advanced three-dimensional circulation model for shelves, coasts, mental Methods, ASCE, Reston, Va.
and estuaries: Report 1, theory and methodology of ADCIRC-2DDI Parker, G., Paola, C., and Leclair, S. 共2000兲. “Probabilistic Exner sedi-
and ADCIRC-3DL.” Technical Rep. DRP-92-6, U.S. Army Engineer ment continuity equation for mixture with no active layer.” J. Hy-
Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss. draul. Eng., 126共11兲, 818–826.
Lyn, D. A. 共1992兲. “Turbulence characteristics of sediment-laden flows in Parker, G., Seminara, G., and Solari, L. 共2003兲. “Bedload at low Shields
open channels.” J. Hydraul. Eng., 118共7兲, 971–988. stress on arbitrarily sloping beds, alternative entrainment formula-
Mahesh, K., Constantinescu, G., and Moin, P. 共2004兲. “A numerical tion.” Water Resour. Res., 39共7兲, 1183–1191.
method for large eddy simulation in complex geometries.” J. Comput. Pavlovic, R. N., Verga, S., and Misic, B. 共1985兲. “2-D depth averaged
Phys., 197, 215–240. model for the calculations of sediment transport and river-bed defor-
Minh Duc, B., Wenka, T., and Rodi, W. 共1998兲. “Depth-average numeri- mation.” Proc., Int. Symp. on Refined Flow Modeling and Turbulence
cal modeling of flow and sediment transport in the Elbe River.” Proc., Measurements.
3rd Int. Conf. on Hydroscience and Eng., Berlin. Przedwojski, B., Blazejeweki, R., and Pilarczyk, K. W. 共1995兲. River
Molinas, A., and Yang, J. C. 共1986兲. Computer program user’s manual training techniques: Fundamentals, design and applications,
for GSTARS, U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Engineering Research Center, Washington, D.C. Pullen, J., Boris, J. P., Young, T., Patnaik, G., and Iselin, J. 共2005兲. “A
Nakato, T. 共1989兲. “Tests of selected sediment-transport formulas.” J. comparison of contaminant plume statistics from a Gaussian puff and
Hydraul. Eng., 116共3兲, 362–379. urban CFD model for two large cities.” Atmos. Environ., 39, 1049–
Ni, H. Q., Huang, Z. C., Zhou, L. X., and Zhou, J. Y. 共1996兲. “Numerical 1068.
simulation of sedimentation using a two-fluid model of turbulent liq- Raudkivi, A. J. 共1998兲. Loose boundary hydraulics, 4th Ed., Balkema,
uid solid flows.” Flow modeling and turbulence measurements VI, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Chen, Hih, Lienau, and Kund, eds., Balkema, Rotterdam, 781–788. Rodi, W. 共2006兲. “DNS and LES of some engineering flows.” Fluid Dyn.
Nicollet, G. 共1988兲. “River modeling.” Recent advances in hydraulic Res., 38, 145–173.
physical modeling—Series A: Applied science, R. Martins, ed., Klu- Runkel, R. L., and Broshears, R. E. 共1991兲. “OTIS: One-dimensional
wer Academic Publishers. transport with inflow and storage: A solute transport model for small
Nino, Y., and Garcia, M. H. 共1996兲. “Experiments on particle-turbulence streams.” CADSWES Technical Rep. 91-01, Univ. of Colorado, Boul-
interactions in the near-wall region of an open channel flow: Implica- der, Colo.
tions for sediment transport.” J. Fluid Mech., 326, 285–319. Ruther, N., and Olsen, N. R. 共2005兲. “Three-dimensional modeling of
Niyyati, M. F., and Maraghei, A. 共2002兲. “Sediment transport and coast- sediment transport in a narrow 90° channel bend.” J. Hydraul. Eng.,
line development along the Caspian Sea; Bandar Nowshahr area.” The 131共10兲, 917–920.
changing coast, EUROCOAST, Portugal. Schock, K., Zhong, J., Swarner, B., Shuman, R., Munger, S., and Ham-
Odgaard, A. J., and Bergs, M. A. 共1988兲. “Flow processes in a curved rick, J. 共1998兲. “Simulating water quality in the Duwamish Estuary
alluvial channel.” Water Resour. Res., 24共1兲, 45–56. and Elliott Bay: Comparing effects of CSOs and other sources.”
Olsen, N. R. 共1994兲. “SSIIM: A three-dimensional numerical model for Proc., 4th Puget Sound Research Conf., Seattle, Wash.
Sekine, M., and Kikkawa, H. 共1992兲. “Mechanics of saltating grains II.”
simulation of water and sediment flow.” HYDROSOFT 94, Porto Car-
J. Hydraul. Eng., 118共4兲, 536–558.
ras, Greece.
Simons, R. K., and Simons, D. B. 共1996兲. “Modeling contaminated sedi-
Olsen, N. R. 共2003兲. “Three-dimensional CFD modeling of self-forming
ments.” Civil Engineering, 66共9兲, 73–75.
meandering channel.” J. Hydraul. Eng., 129共5兲, 366–372.
Sloff, C. J. 共2004兲. Innovation 2D river-modeling instruments: Delft2D-
Onishi, Y. 共1994兲. “Sediment transport models and their testing.” Com-
Rivers, Delft Hydraulics, The Netherlands.
puter modeling of free-surface and pressurized flows, M. H. Chaudhry Song, Y. T., and Haidvogel, D. 共1994兲. “A semi-implicit primitive equa-
and L. W. Mays, eds., U.S. Government, Washington, D.C., 281–312. tion ocean circulation model using a generalized topography-
Onishi, Y., and Trent, D. S. 共1985兲. “Three-dimensional simulation of following coordinate system.” J. Comput. Phys., 115, 228–244.
flow, salinity, sediment, and radionuclide movements in the Hudson Spasojevic, M., and Holly, F. M. 共1990a兲. “MOBED2: Numerical simu-
River estuary.” Proc., ASCE Hydraul. Div. Conf., ASCE, New York, lation of two-dimensional mobile-bed processes.” Technical Report
1095–1100. No. 344, Iowa Institute of Hydraulic Research, Univ. of Iowa, Iowa
Onishi, Y., and Wise, S. E. 共1982兲. “SERATRA: User’s manual for the City, Iowa.
instream sediment-contaminant transport model.” Technical Rep. No. Spasojevic, M., and Holly, F. M. 共1990b兲. “2-D bed evolution in natural
PB-83-122739, Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Battelle-Northwest, watercourses—new simulation approach.” J. Waterway, Port, Coastal,
Richland, Wash. Ocean Eng., 116共4兲, 425–443.
Otto, A. J. 共1999兲. “Numerical modeling of long term effect of rehabili- Spasojevic, M., and Holly, F. M. 共1994兲. “Three-dimensional numerical
tation measures on bedload transport.” Proc., 28th IAHR Congress, simulation of mobile-bed hydrodynamics.” Contract Rep. HL-94-2,
Hydraulic Engineering for Sustainable Water—Resources Manage- U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss.
ment at the Turn of the Millennium, IAHR. Spasojevic, M., and Holly, F. M. 共2000兲. “Field data and 3D mobile-bed
Overton, D. C., and Meadows, M. E. 共1976兲. Storm water modeling, modeling: Help or hindrance?” Proc., 4th Int. Conf. on Hydroinfor-
Academic, New York. matics, Iowa.
Papanicolaou, A., Bdour, A., and Wicklein, E. 共2004兲. “A numerical Tannehill, J. C., Anderson, D. A., and Pletcher, R. H. 共1997兲. Computa-
model for the study of sediment transport in steep mountain streams.” tional fluid mechanics and heat transfer, 2nd Ed., Taylor & Francis
J. Hydraul. Res., 42共4兲, 357–366. Publisher, Philadelphia.
Papanicolaou, A., Diplas, P., Balakrishnan, M., and Dancey, C. L. 共2001兲. Tayfur, G., and Singh, V. P. 共2005兲. “Predicting longitudinal dispersion
“The role of near-bed turbulence structure in the inception of sedi- coefficient in natural streams by artificial neural network.” J. Hydraul.
ment motion.” J. Eng. Mech., 127共3兲, 211–219. Eng., 131共11兲, 991–1000.
Papanicolaou, A., Elhakeem, M. E., and Sanford, J. T. 共2006兲. “A hydro- Tetra Tech. 共2004兲. Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbor complex frame-
logic and morphologic analysis of the Black Lake system.” Rep. Sub- work for calculating TMDLs, Tetra Tech, San Diego.
mitted to Chignik Regional Aquaculture Association, Bellingham, Thomas, W. A., and McAnally, W. H. 共1985兲. “Users manual for the
Wash. generalized computer program system open-channel flow and
Papanicolaou, A., Knapp, D., and Strom, K. 共2002兲. “Bedload predictions sedimentation— TABS-2.” Main Text, Instruction Rep. HL-85-1, Wa-
terways Experiment Station, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Vicks- nobyl nuclear accident hydrologic analysis and emergency evaluation
burg, Miss. of radionuclide distributions in the Dnieper River, Ukraine, during the
Thomas, W. A., and Prashum, A. I. 共1977兲. “Mathematical model of scour 1993 summer flood.” Technical Rep. No. PNL-9980, Pacific North-
and deposition.” J. Hydr. Div., 110共11兲, 1613–1641. west Lab., Richland, Wash.
Toda, Y., Ikeda, S., Kumagai, K., and Asano, T. 共2005兲. “Effects of flood Walstra, D. J., van Rijn, L. C., and Aarninkhof, S. G. 共1998兲. “Sand
flow on flood plain soil and riparian vegetation in gravel river.” J. transport at the lower shoreface of the Dutch coast.” Technical Rep.
Hydraul. Eng., 131共11兲, 950–960. Z2378, Delft Institute of Hydraulics, The Netherlands.
U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation. 共1996兲. “Sediment Walters, W. H., Ecker, R. M., and Onishi, Y. 共1982兲. “Sediment and
analysis and modeling of the river erosion alternative.” Elwha Tech- radionuclide transport in rivers. Phase 2: Field sampling program for
nical Series PN-95-9, Pacific Northwest Region, Boise, Idaho. Cattaraugus and Buttermilk Creeks, New York.” Technical Rep. No.
USEPA. 共2000兲. “Hydrodynamic and water quality model of Christina PNL-3117, Vol. 2, Pacific Northwest Lab., Richland, Wash.
River Basin.” Final Rep., U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Re- Wu, W., Rodi, W., and Wenka, T. 共2000兲. “3D numerical modeling of
gion III, Philadelphia, Pa. flow and sediment transport in open channels.” J. Hydraul. Eng.,
Usseglio-Polatera, J. M., and Cunge, J. A. 共1985兲. “Modeling of pollutant 126共1兲, 4–15.
and suspended-sediment transport with Argos Modeling System.” Wu, W., Shields, F. D., Bennett, S. J., and Wang, S. S. 共2005兲. “A depth-
Proc. Int. Conf. on Numerical and Hydraulic Modeling of Ports and averaged 2-D model for flow, sediment transport and bed topography
Harbors, Birmingham. in curved channels with riparian vegetation.” Water Resour. Res., 41,
van Rijn, L. C. 共1993兲. Principles of sediment transport in rivers estuar- 15.
ies and coastal seas, Aqua Publications, The Netherlands. Yalin, M. S. 共1972兲. Mechanics of sediment transport, Pergamon Press,
van Rijn, L. C., and Tan, G. L. 共1985兲. “Sutrench model: Two- U.K.
dimensional vertical mathematical model for sedimentation in Yang, C. T., and Simões, F. J. 共2000兲. Users’ manual for GSTARS 2.1
dredged channels and trenches by currents and waves.” Rijskwater- (Generalized stream tube model for alluvial river simulation version
staat communications, No. 41. 2.1), Technical Service Center, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Denver.
Velissariou, P., Velissariou, V., Guo, Y., and Bedford, K. 共1999兲. “A multi Zeng, J., Constantinescu, G., and Weber, L. 共2005兲. “A fully 3D non-
size, multi source formulation for determining impacts of sediments hydrostatic model for prediction of flow, sediment transport and bed
on near-shore sensitive sites.” Proc., 6th Int. Conf. of Estuarine and morphology in open channels.” 31st Int. Association Hydraulic Re-
coastal modeling, M. L. Spaulding and H. L. Butler, eds., search Congress, Seoul, Korea.
Villaret, C., and Davies, A. C. 共1995兲. “Modeling sediment-turbulent flow Zielke, W., Jankowski, J. A., Sundermann, J., and Segschneider, J.
interactions.” Appl. Mech. Rev., 48共9兲, 601–609. 共1995兲. “Numerical modeling of sediment transport caused by deep
Voitsekhovitch, O. V., Zheleznyak, M. J., and Onishi, Y. 共1994兲. “Cher- sea mining.” ISOPE Ocean Mining Symp., Tsukuba, Japan.

PAPANICOLOU (2008) - Sediment Transport Modeling Review-Current and Future Developments

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

PAPANICOLOU (2008) - Sediment Transport Modeling Review-Current and Future Developments

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FORUM

Sediment Transport Modeling Review—Current and

JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2008 / 1

2 / JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2008

JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2008 / 3

4 / JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2008

JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2008 / 5

6 / JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2008

JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2008 / 7

8 / JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2008

JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2008 / 9

10 / JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2008

JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2008 / 11

12 / JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2008

JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2008 / 13

14 / JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2008

You might also like