Advertisement

Journal of Mountain Science

, Volume 9, Issue 2, pp 175–184 | Cite as

Experiments on channel evolution caused by check-dam failure

  • Wen-Hsiao Tseng
  • Hsiao-Wen WangEmail author
  • Shih-Chieh Chou
  • Yu-Lin Kao
  • Chjeng-Lun Shieh
Article

Abstract

A 10 m long, 0.2 m wide flume was employed to simulate the channel bed evolution of check-dam failure. The experiment longitudinal profiles, the gradient of channel bed, head-cutting propagation distance and deposition length were compared with the theoretical solution derived from a sediment transport diffusion equation. In contrast with the theoretical solution, two different gradients were obtained upstream and downstream of the check-dam. The theoretical solution provides a good description of the changes upstream of the check-dam. The ratio of clear water depth to sediment moving layer thickness in the experiment was analyzed and showed that high concentration sediment laden flow was taken in the incipient of check-dam failure, which may be the reason why the experiment result was slightly different from the theoretical solution in the downstream of check-dam.

Keywords

Check-dam failure Diffusion equation Debris flow 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Adachi S, Nakatoh T (1969) Changes of top set bed in a silted reservoir, Proc, IAHR, 13th Congress, Paper A-33, pp 297–304.Google Scholar
  2. Ashida K, Michiue M (1972) An investigation of river bed degradation downstream of a dam, Proc. IAHR, 14th Congress, Paper C-30, pp 245–255.Google Scholar
  3. Brooks GR, Lawrence DE (1999) The drainage of the Lake Ha!Ha! reservoir and downstream geomorphic impacts along Ha!Ha! River, Saguenay area, Quebec, Canada. Geomorphology 28(1–2):141–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bountry J, Lai Y, Randle T (2006) Comparison of numerical hydraulic models applied to the removal of Savage Rapids Dam near Grants Pass, Oregon. Proceedings of the Eighth Federal Interagency Sedimentation Conference, April 2–6, 2006, Reno, Nevada.Google Scholar
  5. Cantelli A, Paola C, Parker G (2004) Experiments on upstreammigrating erosional narrowing and widening of an incisional channel caused by dam removal. Water Resources Research, 40, W03304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cantelli A, Wong M, Parker G, Paola C (2007) Numerical model linking bed and bank evolution of incisional channel created by dam removal. Water Resources Research 43, W07436, doi:10.1029/2006WR005621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Capart H, Young DL (1998) Formation of a jump by the dam-break wave over a granular bed. Journal of Fluid Mechanics 372: 165–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Capart H, Bellal M, Young DL (2007) Self-similar evolution of semi-infinite alluvial channels with moving boundaries, Journal of Sedimentary Research 77: 13–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cui Y, Parker G, Braudrick C, Dietrich WE, Cluer B (2006) Dam removal express assessment models (DREAM): part 1. Model development and validation. Journal of Hydraulic Research 44(3): 291–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cui Y, Braudrick C, Dietrich WE, Cluer B, Parker G (2006). Dam removal express assessment models (DREAM): part 2. Sample runs/sensitivity tests. Journal of Hydraulic Research 44(3): 307–323.Google Scholar
  11. Cui Y, Wilcox A (2008) Development and application of numerical models of sediment transport associated with dam removal, in Garcia, M.H. (ed.), Sedimentation Engineering: Processes, Measurements, Modeling, and Practice., ASCE Manuals and Reports on Engineering Practice No. 110, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA, pp 995–1010.Google Scholar
  12. Culling WEH (1960) Analytical theory of erosion. Journal of Geology 68(3): 344–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Costa JE, Schuster RL (1988) The formation and failure of natural dams. Geological Society of America Bulletin 100: 1054–1068CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. DeVries M (1973). River bed variations — aggradation and degradation. International Seminar on Hydraulics of Alluvial Streams, IAHR, New Delhi, India.Google Scholar
  15. Downs PW, Cui Y, Wooster JK, Dusterhoff SR, Booth DK (2009) Managing reservoir sediment release in dam removal projects: An approach informed by physical and numerical modelling of non-cohesive sediment. International Journal of River Basin Management 7(4): 433–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Egashira S, Itoh T (2005) Paradoxiacal discussions on sediment transport formulas. Proceedings of River, Coastal and Estuarine Morphodynamics: RCEM. Parker and Garcia (eds), Taylor and Francis Group, London. pp 33–38.Google Scholar
  17. Fraccarollo L, Capart H (2002) Riemann wave description of erosional dam-break flows. Journal of Fluid Mechechnics 461: 183–228.Google Scholar
  18. Gill MA (1983) Diffusion model for aggrading channels. Journal of Hydraulic Research 21(5): 355–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gill MA (1987) Nonlinear Solution of Aggradation and Degradation in Channels. Journal of Hydraulic Research 25: 537–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Huang ST (1992) Aggradation and Degradation in Channels. Master thesis, National Taiwan University, Taipei.Google Scholar
  21. Konrad CP (2009) Simulating the recovery of suspended sediment transport and river-bed stability in response to dam removal on the Elwha River, Washington. Ecological Engineering 35: 1104–1115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Leal JGAB, Ferreira RML, Cardoso AH, Bousmar D, Zech Y (eds.) (2002) Dam-Break Waves on Movable Bed. The 1st IAHR Institute Conference on Fluvial Hydraulics, September 3–6, 2002, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium. pp. 981–990.Google Scholar
  23. Major JJ, O’Connor JE, Grant GE, Spicer KR, Bragg HM, Rhode A, Tanner DQ, Anderson CW, Wallick JR (2008). Initial fluvial response to the removal of Oregon’s Marmot Dam, Eos Trans. AGU 89(27): 241–242.Google Scholar
  24. Madej MA (2001). Development of channel organization and roughness following sediment pulses in single-thread, gravel bed rivers. Water Resources Research 37(8):2259–2272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. O’Connor J, Major J, Grant G (2008). The dams come down: unchaining U.S. rivers. Geotimes 53:22–28.Google Scholar
  26. Soni JP, Ranga Raju KG, Garde RJ (1980) Aggradation in streams due to overloading. Journal of the Hydraulics Division 106(1): 117–132.Google Scholar
  27. Spinewine B, Zech Y (2007) Small-scale laboratory dam-break waves on movable beds. Journal of Hydraulic Research 45(6): 73–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Stillwater Sciences (2001) Comparison of predicted and observed geomorphic changes following the removal of Saeltzer Dam. Task 6 Deliverable Report, prepared for U.C. Davis, June 2001.Google Scholar
  29. Tsuchiya A, Ishizaki K (1969) Estimation of river bed aggradation due to a dam. Proc. IAHR, 13th Congress, Paper A-33, pp 297–304.Google Scholar
  30. Takahashi T (1981) Debris Flow. Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics 13: 57–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. USBR (United States BenchRest) (2003) Sediment and Geomorphic Assessment for the Potential Removal of Chiloquin Dam. Denver, Colorado.Google Scholar
  32. Wang HW, Shih SS, Yang SC (2009) Where will all the sediments go? Impressions from Balin Dam Failure in Taiwan. In: The 4th International Yellow River Forum, October 20–23, 2009, Zhengzhou, China.Google Scholar
  33. Wang YT (2010) A Study on Head-cutting Behavior due to Balin Dam Break. Master thesis, National Taiwan University, Taipei.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Science Press, Institute of Mountain Hazards and Environment, CAS and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Wen-Hsiao Tseng
    • 1
  • Hsiao-Wen Wang
    • 1
    Email author
  • Shih-Chieh Chou
    • 1
  • Yu-Lin Kao
    • 1
  • Chjeng-Lun Shieh
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Hydraulic and Ocean EngineeringNational Cheng Kung UniversityChinese TaipeiChina

Personalised recommendations