Abstract
Solute transport by river and stream flows in natural environment has significant implication on water quality and the transport process is full of uncertainties. In this study, a stochastic one-dimensional solute transport model under uncertain open-channel flow conditions is developed. The proposed solute transport model is developed by upscaling the stochastic partial differential equations through their one-to-one correspondence to the nonlocal Lagrangian–Eulerian Fokker–Planck equations. The resulting Fokker–Planck equation is a linear and deterministic differential equation, and this equation can provide a comprehensive probabilistic description of the spatiotemporal evolutionary probability distribution of the underlying solute transport process by one single numerical realization, rather than requiring thousands of simulations in the Monte Carlo simulation. Consequently, the ensemble behavior of the solute transport process can also be obtained based on the probability distribution. To illustrate the capabilities of the proposed stochastic solute transport model, various steady and unsteady uncertain flow conditions are applied. The Monte Carlo simulation with stochastic Saint–Venant flow and solute transport model is used to provide the stochastic flow field for the solute transport process, and further to validate the numerical solute transport results provided by the derived Fokker–Planck equations. The comparison of the numerical results by the Monte Carlo simulation and the Fokker–Planck equation approach indicated that the proposed model can adequately characterize the ensemble behavior of the solute transport process under uncertain flow conditions via the evolutionary probability distribution in space and time of the transport process.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Abbott MB, Basco DR (1989) Computational fluid dynamics-an introduction for engineers. NASA STI/Recon Technical Report A, vol 90
Ahmad S, Khan IH, Parida B (2001) Performance of stochastic approaches for forecasting river water quality. Water Res 35(18):4261–4266
Beck MB (1987) Water quality modeling: a review of the analysis of uncertainty. Water Resour Res 23(8):1393–1442
Botter G, Basu N, Zanardo S, Rao P, Rinaldo A (2010) Stochastic modeling of nutrient losses in streams: interactions of climatic, hydrologic, and biogeochemical controls. Water Resour Res 46(8):W08509
Carpenter SR et al (1998) Nonpoint pollution of surface waters with phosphorus and nitrogen. Ecol Appl 8(3):559–568
Cayar M, Kavvas ML (2009) Symmetry in nonlinear hydrologic dynamics under uncertainty: ensemble modeling of 2D Boussinesq equation for unsteady flow in heterogeneous aquifers. J Hydrol Eng 14(10):1173–1184
Chow VT (1959) Open channel hydraulics. McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc, New York
Davies J-M, Mazumder A (2003) Health and environmental policy issues in Canada: the role of watershed management in sustaining clean drinking water quality at surface sources. J Environ Manag 68(3):273–286
Dimou KN, Adams EE (1993) A random-walk, particle tracking model for well-mixed estuaries and coastal waters. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 37(1):99–110
Ercan A, Kavvas M (2011) Ensemble modeling of hydrologic and hydraulic processes at one shot: application to kinematic open-channel flow under uncertain channel properties by the stochastic method of characteristics. J Hydrol Eng 17(1):168–181
Ferreira JS, Costa M (2002) Deterministic advection-diffusion model based on Markov processes. J Hydraul Eng 128(4):399–411
Finney BA, Bowles DS, Windham MP (1982) Random differential equations in river water quality modeling. Water Resour Res 18(1):122–134
Gates TK, Al-Zahrani MA (1996) Spatiotemporal stochastic open-channel flow. I: model and its parameter data. J Hydraul Eng 122(11):641–651
Godoy VA, Zuquette LV, Gómez-Hernández JJ (2019) Stochastic upscaling of hydrodynamic dispersion and retardation factor in a physically and chemically heterogeneous tropical soil. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess 33:201–216
He S, Ohara N (2019) Modeling sub-grid variability of snow depth using the Fokker–Planck equation approach. Water Resour Res. https://doi.org/10.1029/2017WR022017
Heemink A (1990) Stochastic modelling of dispersion in shallow water. Stoch Hydrol Hydraul 4(2):161–174
Huang L et al (2017) Stochastic modeling of phosphorus transport in the Three Gorges Reservoir by incorporating variability associated with the phosphorus partition coefficient. Sci Total Environ 592:649–661
Ji Z-G (2008) Hydrodynamics and water quality: modeling rivers, lakes, and estuaries. Wiley, New York
Kavvas ML (2003) Nonlinear hydrologic processes: conservation equations for determining their means and probability distributions. J Hydrol Eng 8(2):44–53
Kavvas M, Karakas A (1996) On the stochastic theory of solute transport by unsteady and steady groundwater flow in heterogeneous aquifers. J Hydrol 179(1):321–351
Kavvas ML, Wu J-L (2002) Conservation equations for solute transport by unsteady and steady flows in heterogeneous aquifers: the cumulant expansion/Lie operator method. In: Govindaraju RS (ed) Stochastic methods in subsurface contaminant hydrology. ASCE Press, Reston, pp 281–306
Kerachian R, Karamouz M (2007) A stochastic conflict resolution model for water quality management in reservoir–river systems. Adv Water Resour 30(4):866–882
Kim S, Kavvas ML, Yoon J (2005) Upscaling of vertical unsaturated flow model under infiltration condition. J Hydrol Eng 10(2):151–159
Kubo R (1963) Stochastic liouville equations. J Math Phys 4(2):174–183
Leonard BP (1979) A stable and accurate convective modelling procedure based on quadratic upstream interpolation. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 19(1):59–98
Leonard B (1991) The ULTIMATE conservative difference scheme applied to unsteady one-dimensional advection. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 88(1):17–74
Liang L, Kavvas ML (2008) Modeling of solute transport and macrodispersion by unsteady stream flow under uncertain conditions. J Hydrol Eng 13(6):510–520
Lin B, Falconer RA (1997) Tidal flow and transport modeling using ULTIMATE QUICKEST scheme. J Hydraul Eng 123(4):303–314
Liu Y, Yang P, Hu C, Guo H (2008) Water quality modeling for load reduction under uncertainty: a Bayesian approach. Water Res 42(13):3305–3314
MacCormack RW (1971) Numerical solution of the interaction of a shock wave with a laminar boundary layer. In: Proceedings of the second international conference on numerical methods in fluid dynamics. Springer, pp 151–163
Marsili-Libelli S, Giusti E (2008) Water quality modelling for small river basins. Environ Model Softw 23(4):451–463
Neumann LE, Šimůnek J, Cook FJ (2011) Implementation of quadratic upstream interpolation schemes for solute transport into HYDRUS-1D. Environ Model Softw 26(11):1298–1308
Ohara N, Kavvas M, Chen Z (2008) Stochastic upscaling for snow accumulation and melt processes with PDF approach. J Hydrol Eng 13(12):1103–1118
Petersen W, Bertino L, Callies U, Zorita E (2001) Process identification by principal component analysis of river water-quality data. Ecol Model 138(1):193–213
Plate EJ (1991) Probabilistic modelling of water quality in rivers. In: Ganoulis J (ed) Water resources engineering risk assessment. Springer, Berlin, pp 137–166
Price OR, Williams RJ, van Egmond R, Wilkinson MJ, Whelan MJ (2010) Predicting accurate and ecologically relevant regional scale concentrations of triclosan in rivers for use in higher-tier aquatic risk assessments. Environ Int 36(6):521–526
Runkel RL, Bencala KE (1995) Transport of reacting solutes in rivers and streams. In: Ward AD, Trimble SW, Burckhard SR, Lyon JG (eds) Environmental hydrology. Springer, Berlin, pp 137–164
Shakibaeinia A, Kashyap S, Dibike YB, Prowse TD (2016) An integrated numerical framework for water quality modelling in cold-region rivers: a case of the lower Athabasca River. Sci Total Environ 569:634–646
Shrestha S, Kazama F (2007) Assessment of surface water quality using multivariate statistical techniques: a case study of the Fuji river basin, Japan. Environ Model Softw 22(4):464–475
Sincock AM, Wheater HS, Whitehead PG (2003) Calibration and sensitivity analysis of a river water quality model under unsteady flow conditions. J Hydrol 277(3):214–229
Szymkiewicz R (2010) Numerical modeling in open channel hydraulics, vol 83. Springer, Berlin
Tolman HL (2002) Alleviating the garden sprinkler effect in wind wave models. Ocean Model 4(3):269–289
Tu T et al (2017) Assessment of the effects of multiple extreme floods on flow and transport processes under competing flood protection and environmental management strategies. Sci Total Environ 607:613–622
Van Kampen NG (1976) Stochastic differential equations. Phys Rep 24(3):171–228
Van Vliet M et al (2012) Coupled daily streamflow and water temperature modelling in large river basins. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 16(11):4303–4321
Vega M, Pardo R, Barrado E, Debán L (1998) Assessment of seasonal and polluting effects on the quality of river water by exploratory data analysis. Water Res 32(12):3581–3592
Wang P (2011) Uncertainty quantification in environmental flow and transport models. University of California, San Diego
Whelan M, Gandolfi C, Bischetti G (1999) A simple stochastic model of point source solute transport in rivers based on gauging station data with implications for sampling requirements. Water Res 33(14):3171–3181
Wu Y, Falconer RA (2000) A mass conservative 3-D numerical model for predicting solute fluxes in estuarine waters. Adv Water Resour 23(5):531–543
Yen B-C (1988) Stochastic methods and reliability analysis in water resources. Adv Water Resour 11(3):115–122
Yoshioka H, Unami K, Kawachi T (2012) Stochastic process model for solute transport and the associated transport equation. Appl Math Model 36(4):1796–1805
Zhang DX, Neuman SP (1996) Effect of local dispersion on solute transport in randomly heterogeneous media. Water Resour Res 32(9):2715–2723
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendices
Appendix 1: Convergence of the Monte Carlo simulations
Appendix 2: Validation of the numerical scheme
As described in Sect. 2.3.1, the proposed Fokker–Planck equation is a special type of advection–dispersion equations (ADEs). For some ADEs under specific initial and boundary conditions, their corresponding analytical/exact solutions can be obtained. We provide the comparison between analytical and numerical solutions of a general one-dimensional advection–diffusion equation:
For one-dimensional advection–diffusion equation in the infinite half-space with initial condition \( {\text{c}}\left( {{\text{x}},{\text{t}} = 0} \right) = {\text{c}}_{0} \) and the boundary condition \( {\text{c}}\left( {{\text{x}} = 0,{\text{t}} > 0} \right) = {\text{c}}_{\text{in}} ,{\text{c}}\left( {{\text{x}} = \infty ,{\text{t}} > 0} \right) = 0 \), the analytical solution can be obtained as:
The corresponding solute transport parameters are given as: the channel length L = 10,000 m and flow velocity is 0.5 m/s. Initial solute concentration is 1 mg/L and the upstream inflow solute concentration is 2 mg/L. Dispersion coefficient is 50 m2/s and the total simulation time is 10000 s.
Figure 11 indicates the numerical scheme used in this study for one-dimensional transport problems can achieve satisfactory results when compared with the corresponding analytical solutions.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Tu, T., Ercan, A. & Kavvas, M.L. One-dimensional solute transport in open channel flow from a stochastic systematic perspective. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess 33, 1403–1418 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00477-019-01699-7
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00477-019-01699-7