A coupled simulation of lateral erosion, unsaturated seepage and bank instability due to prolonged high flow

Semmad, Surat; Jotisankasa, Apiniti; Mahannopkul, Krairoj; Inazumi, Shinya

doi:10.1016/j.gete.2021.100301

Cited by 5 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 68 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, the BSTEM assumes that the collapsed block is immediately washed away and dose not participate in subsequent stability calculations. Many researchers have mentioned this assumption (Gao et al, 2021; Krzeminska et al, 2019; Li et al, 2019; Midgley et al, 2012; Semmad et al, 2022; Simon et al, 2009; Yang, 2019; Yu et al, 2020). According to Yang et al (2022), when studying cantilever collapse, the volume of a collapsed block can be calculated using the width of the cantilever; however, this method is not applicable to noncantilever types of rockfalls.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Third, an improved routine was proposed. In previous studies, researchers mostly simulated hydrological events in the order of the TEM followed by the BSM (Semmad et al, 2022; Zong et al, 2017). After the BSM calculation, the simulation of this hydrological event was considered complete, regardless of whether the bank was stable.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, this procedure underestimates the effects of bank erosion. Therefore, many researchers choose to run the TEM first and then the BSM to calculate bank stability (Gao et al, 2021; Geng, 2021; Gong et al, 2021; Li et al, 2019; Semmad et al, 2022). However, after the simulation, a profile with F s < 1.3 may still appear and lead to an inaccurate result.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Refining the Bank Stability and Toe Erosion Model: Improving the timestep, the top of toe selection and the iteration routine

Niu²,

You

2023

Hydrological Processes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Riverbank failure is an essential source of river sediment and a major cause of river meandering. The Bank Stability and Toe Erosion Model (BSTEM) is a widely used simulation tool owing to its simplicity and clear presentation of results. However, the three core issues in the simulation by the software, time‐step determination, top‐of‐toe (TT) selection, and the iterative algorithm, still lack an in‐depth discussion to ensure the rationality and stability of the simulation results. In this study, the Jing‐150 cross‐section of the Jingjiang River was chosen as an example to illustrate these three problems. For the first problem, which is the choice of the time step, the simulation results become stable and close to the measured value as the time‐step decreases. After determining a suitable time step, the difference between adopting and modifying the default TT of the BSTEM was analysed. The results show that adopting the default TT causes chaos in the distribution of profile nodes, leading to an overly large bank failure width, whereas the modified TT node distribution is normal and the bank failure width is close to the measured value. For the third problem, the original iteration routine (OR) may cause the output bank profile to be unstable and cause a deviation between the bank width and measured value. The negative impact of unstable bank profiles diminishes as the time‐step decreases. However, the workload for reducing the time step is enormous. Therefore, an improved routine (IR) was proposed. With IR, the relative error between the simulated and measured values of the failure width was within 15% when the SD of the water stage was reduced to 0.2478. A similar result could only be obtained when the SD of the water stage was less than 0.099 for OR. This means that to obtain the same simulation accuracy for the failure width, IR can use a larger time step than OR, thereby reducing the workload of the simulation.

show abstract