2013
DOI: 10.1002/hyp.9881
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Impact of dissipation and dispersion terms on simulations of open-channel confluence flow using two-dimensional depth-averaged model

Abstract: The flow patterns in confluence channel and the simulation of confluence flow are more complex than that in straight channel. Additional terms in the momentum equations, i.e. dissipation terms, denoting the impact of turbulence, and dispersion terms, denoting the vertical non-uniformity of velocity, show great impacts on the accuracy of numerical simulations. The dissipation terms, i.e. the product of eddy viscosity coefficient and velocity gradient, are much larger than those of the flow in straight channel. … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
5

Citation Types

0
6
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 10 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 34 publications
(36 reference statements)
0
6
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Its popularity is dependent on the relatively smaller computational consumption compared with three‐dimensional (3D) numerical modelling and more importantly the computational robustness on significant variations of both hydrodynamics and morphology. 2D depth‐averaged modelling is still the most popular numerical method to simulate the morphological evolution of braided rivers, meanders, bifurcations and confluences (Guan et al, 2016; Kleinhans et al, 2006; Liu et al, 2020; Schuurman & Kleinhans, 2015; Wang et al, 2015; Xu et al, 2019; Yang et al, 2014). In this study, 2D numerical modelling is used to produce and investigate the hydro‐morphological processes of mountain river confluences despite its limitations due to 3D flow properties in the confluence region.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Its popularity is dependent on the relatively smaller computational consumption compared with three‐dimensional (3D) numerical modelling and more importantly the computational robustness on significant variations of both hydrodynamics and morphology. 2D depth‐averaged modelling is still the most popular numerical method to simulate the morphological evolution of braided rivers, meanders, bifurcations and confluences (Guan et al, 2016; Kleinhans et al, 2006; Liu et al, 2020; Schuurman & Kleinhans, 2015; Wang et al, 2015; Xu et al, 2019; Yang et al, 2014). In this study, 2D numerical modelling is used to produce and investigate the hydro‐morphological processes of mountain river confluences despite its limitations due to 3D flow properties in the confluence region.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The hydro-sediment-morphodynamics of river confluences have been investigated for more than half a century. Field investigations (Rhoads and Sukhodolov, 2001;Sukhodolov and Rhoads, 2001;Biron et al, 2002;Riley and Rhoads, 2012;Ramón et al, 2013;Rhoads and Johnson, 2018;Zhang et al, 2020;Yuan et al, 2021), laboratory experiments (Taylor, 1944;Webber and Greated, 1966;Weber et al, 2001;Ribeiro et al, 2012;Yuan et al, 2018), and mathematical modelling studies (Bradbrook et al, 2001;Biron et al, 2004;Constantinescu et al, 2012;Lyubimova et al, 2014;Yang et al, 2014) have improved the understanding of the hydrodynamic characteristics, mixing, sediment transport, and bed morphology near river confluences. Generally, it has been revealed that the flow structure at river channel confluences can be divided into six major zones, i.e., flow stagnation, flow deflection, flow separation, maximum velocity, flow recovery, and distinct shear zones (Best, 1987).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The equations discretization use the Godunov method (Toro, 2001), which can capture the shock wave accurately and deal with the sharp change of bed form stably. The calculation time is acceptable, and is a very promising tool (Cao, et al, 2011;Yang, et al, 2014;Kvočka, et al, 2015;Yoshioka, et al, 2015;Guan, et al, 2016;Liang, et al, 2016;Hu and Song, 2018;Bellos, et al, 2020;Contreras and Escauriaza, 2020;Khosronejad, et al, 2020).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%