Skip to main content
Log in

One-dimensional solute transport in open channel flow from a stochastic systematic perspective

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Beck MB (1987) Water quality modeling: a review of the analysis of uncertainty. Water Resour Res 23(8):1393–1442

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Carpenter SR et al (1998) Nonpoint pollution of surface waters with phosphorus and nitrogen. Ecol Appl 8(3):559–568

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chow VT (1959) Open channel hydraulics. McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferreira JS, Costa M (2002) Deterministic advection-diffusion model based on Markov processes. J Hydraul Eng 128(4):399–411

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finney BA, Bowles DS, Windham MP (1982) Random differential equations in river water quality modeling. Water Resour Res 18(1):122–134

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gates TK, Al-Zahrani MA (1996) Spatiotemporal stochastic open-channel flow. I: model and its parameter data. J Hydraul Eng 122(11):641–651

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heemink A (1990) Stochastic modelling of dispersion in shallow water. Stoch Hydrol Hydraul 4(2):161–174

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ji Z-G (2008) Hydrodynamics and water quality: modeling rivers, lakes, and estuaries. Wiley, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kavvas ML (2003) Nonlinear hydrologic processes: conservation equations for determining their means and probability distributions. J Hydrol Eng 8(2):44–53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim S, Kavvas ML, Yoon J (2005) Upscaling of vertical unsaturated flow model under infiltration condition. J Hydrol Eng 10(2):151–159

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kubo R (1963) Stochastic liouville equations. J Math Phys 4(2):174–183

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leonard BP (1979) A stable and accurate convective modelling procedure based on quadratic upstream interpolation. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 19(1):59–98

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leonard B (1991) The ULTIMATE conservative difference scheme applied to unsteady one-dimensional advection. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 88(1):17–74

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin B, Falconer RA (1997) Tidal flow and transport modeling using ULTIMATE QUICKEST scheme. J Hydraul Eng 123(4):303–314

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Plate EJ (1991) Probabilistic modelling of water quality in rivers. In: Ganoulis J (ed) Water resources engineering risk assessment. Springer, Berlin, pp 137–166

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Szymkiewicz R (2010) Numerical modeling in open channel hydraulics, vol 83. Springer, Berlin

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Tolman HL (2002) Alleviating the garden sprinkler effect in wind wave models. Ocean Model 4(3):269–289

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Van Kampen NG (1976) Stochastic differential equations. Phys Rep 24(3):171–228

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Wang P (2011) Uncertainty quantification in environmental flow and transport models. University of California, San Diego

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yen B-C (1988) Stochastic methods and reliability analysis in water resources. Adv Water Resour 11(3):115–122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang DX, Neuman SP (1996) Effect of local dispersion on solute transport in randomly heterogeneous media. Water Resour Res 32(9):2715–2723

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tongbi Tu.

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

See Figs. 9 and 10.

Fig. 9
figure 9

Change in flow velocity variance in space and time between different numbers (n1, n2) of Monte Carlo simulations by \( \frac{{MC_{n1} - MC_{n2} }}{{MC_{n1} }} \) in Problem 1 a n1 = 1000 and n2 = 3000; b n1 = 3000 and n2 = 5000; c n1 = 5000 and n2 = 7000; d n1 = 7000 and n2 = 8000; e n1 = 8000 and n2 = 9000; f n1 = 9000 and n2 = 10000

Fig. 10
figure 10

Change in flow velocity variance in space and time between different numbers (n1, n2) of Monte Carlo simulations by \( \frac{{{\text{MC}}_{{{\text{n}}1}} - {\text{MC}}_{{{\text{n}}2}} }}{{{\text{MC}}_{{{\text{n}}1}} }} \) in Problem 2 (the ratio above 2% is shown) a n1 = 1000 and n2 = 3000; b n1 = 3000 and n2 = 5000; c n1 = 5000 and n2 = 7000; d n1 = 7000 and n2 = 9000

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:

$$ \frac{{\partial {\mathbf{c}}}}{{\partial {\mathbf{t}}}} + {\mathbf{U}}\frac{{\partial {\mathbf{c}}}}{{\partial {\mathbf{x}}}} = {\mathbf{D}}\frac{{\partial^{2} {\mathbf{c}}}}{{\partial {\mathbf{x}}^{2} }} $$

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:

$$ {\text{c}}\left( {{\text{x}},{\text{t}}} \right) = {\text{c}}_{0} + \frac{{{\text{c}}_{{\rm in}} - {\text{c}}_{0} }}{2}\left( {{\text{erfc}}\left( {\frac{{{\text{x}} - {\text{Ut}}}}{{2\sqrt {\text{Dt}} }}} \right) + \exp \left( {\frac{{\text{Ux}}}{{\text{D}}}} \right){\text{erfc}}\left( {\frac{{{\text{x}} + {\text{Ut}}}}{{2\sqrt {\text{Dt}} }}} \right)} \right) $$

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.

Fig. 11
figure 11

Numerical results of the solute concentration through time at x = 1000 m, 3000 m, 5000 m by ULTIMATE QUICKEST (UQ) and the corresponding analytical solutions

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00477-019-01699-7

Keywords

Navigation