Advertisement

A hydraulic soil erosion model based on a weakly compressible smoothed particle hydrodynamics method

  • Zili Dai
  • Yu HuangEmail author
  • Qiang Xu
Original Paper
  • 74 Downloads

Abstract

Hydraulic soil erosion is one of the most important natural phenomena driving terrain changes over time. It is associated with a variety of geoenvironmental hazards such as coastline retreat, soil loss and debris flows, and can have severe consequences. In this work, an erosion criterion was introduced to analyze the water–sediment interaction, and a hydraulic soil erosion model was then established based on the smoothed particle hydrodynamics (SPH) method. Numerical simulations of dam-break flow on a mobile bed and sediment flushing were carried out, and the performance of the hydraulic erosion model was evaluated. The numerical results matched the experimental data well, thus verifying the reliability and validity of the proposed model.

Keywords

Hydraulic soil erosion Smoothed particle hydrodynamics Water–sediment interface Erosion criterion Geoenvironmental hazards 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the National Science Fund for Distinguished Young Scholars of China (grant no. 41625011), the Open Fund of State Key laboratory of Geohazard Prevention and Geoenvironmental Protection (Chengdu University of Technology; grant no. SKLGP2017K005), and the Open Fund of Key laboratory of Geological Hazards on Three Gorges Reservoir Area (China Three Gorges University) through grant no. 2018KDZ01.

References

  1. Amicarelli A, Kocak B, Sibilla S, Grabe J (2017) A 3D smoothed particle hydrodynamics model for erosional dam-break floods. Int J Comput Fluid Dyn, 31(10): 413–434Google Scholar
  2. Angulo-Martínez M, Beguería S, Navas A, Machin J (2012) Splash erosion under natural rainfall on three soil types in NE Spain. Geomorphology, 175: 38–44Google Scholar
  3. Ashmore P, Conly FM, DeBoer D, Martin Y, Petticrew E, Roy A (2000) Recent (1995–1998) Canadian research on contemporary processes of river erosion and sedimentation, and river mechanics. Hydrol Process 14(9): 1687–1706Google Scholar
  4. Babazadeh H, Ashourian M, Shafai-Bajestan M (2017) Experimental study of headcut erosion in cohesive soils under different consolidation types and hydraulic parameters. Environ Earth Sci 76(12): 438Google Scholar
  5. Beneš B, Těšínský V, Hornyš J, Bhatia SK (2006) Hydraulic erosion. Comput Anim Virtual Worlds 17(2): 99–108Google Scholar
  6. Bhuyan SJ, Kalita PK, Janssen KA, Barnes PL (2002) Soil loss predictions with three erosion simulation models. Environ Model Softw 17(2): 135–144Google Scholar
  7. Bonet J, Lok TS (1999) Variational and momentum preservation aspects of smooth particle hydrodynamic formulations. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 180(1–2): 97–115.Google Scholar
  8. 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): 141–167.Google Scholar
  9. Bui HH, Sako K, Fukagawa R (2007) Numerical simulation of soil–water interaction using smoothed particle hydrodynamics (SPH) method. J Terrramech 44(5): 339–346Google Scholar
  10. Dai ZL, Huang Y, Cheng HL, Xu Q (2014) 3D numerical modeling using smoothed particle hydrodynamics of flow-like landslide propagation triggered by the 2008 Wenchuan earthquake. Eng Geol 180: 21–33Google Scholar
  11. Darby SE, Rinaldi M, Dapporto S (2007) Coupled simulations of fluvial erosion and mass wasting for cohesive river banks. Journal of Geophysical Research: Earth Surface 112(F3). ISO 690Google Scholar
  12. Ercolessi F (1997) A Molecular Dynamics Primer. Spring College in Computational Physics, ICTP, Trieste (24–25)Google Scholar
  13. Feldman Y, Gulberg Y (2016) An extension of the immersed boundary method based on the distributed Lagrange multiplier approach. J Comput Phys 322: 248–266Google Scholar
  14. Feng J, Hu HH, Joseph DD (1994) Direct simulation of initial value problems for the motion of solid bodies in a Newtonian fluid part 1. Sedimentation. J Fluid Mech, 261, 95-134Google Scholar
  15. Hassan MA, Ismail MAM (2018) Effect of soil types on the development of water levels and erosion processes during overtopping test. Civil Eng J-Tehran, 4(10): 2315–2327Google Scholar
  16. Hartmann B, Haque MA (1985) Equation of state for polymer liquids. J Appl Polym Sci 30(4): 1553–1563Google Scholar
  17. Hu W, Dong XJ, Xu Q, Wang GH, Van Asch TWJ, Hicher PY (2016) Initiation processes for run-off generated debris flows in the Wenchuan earthquake area of China. Geomorphology 253: 468–477Google Scholar
  18. Huang Y, Cheng H, Dai Z, Xu Q, Liu F, Sawada K, Moriguchi S, Yashima A (2015) SPH-based numerical simulation of catastrophic debris flows after the 2008 Wenchuan earthquake. Bull Eng Geol Environ 74(4): 1137–1151Google Scholar
  19. Huang Y, Chen W, Liu J (2012) Secondary geological hazard analysis in Beichuan after the Wenchuan earthquake and recommendations for reconstruction. Environ Earth Sci 66(4): 1001–1009Google Scholar
  20. Jorgenson MT, Brown J (2005) Classification of the Alaskan Beaufort Sea coast and estimation of carbon and sediment inputs from coastal erosion. Geo-Mar Lett 25(2-3): 69–80Google Scholar
  21. Kadapa C, Dettmer WG, Peric D (2016) A fictitious domain/distributed Lagrange multiplier based fluid-structure interaction scheme with hierarchical B-spline grids. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 301: 1–27Google Scholar
  22. Khanpour M, Zarrati AR, Kolahdoozan M, Shakibaeinia A, Amirshahi SM (2016) Mesh-free SPH modeling of sediment scouring and flushing. Comput Fluids, 129: 67–78Google Scholar
  23. Krištof P, Beneš B, Křivánek J, Št’ava O (2009) Hydraulic erosion using smoothed particle hydrodynamics. In Computer Graphics Forum, Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 28(2): 219–228Google Scholar
  24. Lei XQ, Yang ZJ, He SM, Liu EL, Wong H, Li XB (2017) Numerical investigation of rainfall-induced fines migration and its influences on slope stability. Acta Geotech, 12: 1431–1446Google Scholar
  25. Liu J, Minami S, Otsuki H, Liu B, Ashida K (2004) Prediction of concerted sediment flushing. J Hydraul Eng 130(11), 1089–1096Google Scholar
  26. Lucy LB (1977) A numerical approach to the testing of the fission hypothesis. Astron J 82: 1013–1024Google Scholar
  27. Manenti S, Agate G, Monaco A Di, Gallati M, Maffio A, Guandalini R, Sibilla S (2009) SPH Modeling of Rapid Sediment Scour Induced by Water Flow. In Proceedings of the 33rd IAHR International Congress: 14–19Google Scholar
  28. Manenti S, Sibilla S, Gallati M, Agate G, Guandalini R (2011) SPH simulation of sediment flushing induced by a rapid water flow. J Hydraul Eng 138(3): 272–284Google Scholar
  29. Maury B (1996) Characteristics ALE method for the unsteady 3D Navier-Stokes equations with a free surface. Int J Computat Fluid Dynamics, 6(3): 175–188Google Scholar
  30. Maury B (1999) Direct simulations of 2D fluid-particle flows in biperiodic domains. J Comput Phys, 156(2): 325–351Google Scholar
  31. Mei X, Decaudin P, Hu BG (2007) Fast hydraulic erosion simulation and visualization on GPU. In Computer Graphics and Applications, 2007. PG’07. 15th Pacific Conference on IEEE: 47–56Google Scholar
  32. Mhaske SN, Pathak K, Basak A (2019) A comprehensive design of rainfall simulator for the assessment of soilerosion in the laboratory. Catena, 172: 408–420Google Scholar
  33. Mitas L, Mitasova H (1998) Distributed soil erosion simulation for effective erosion prevention. Water Resour Res 34(3): 505–516Google Scholar
  34. Monaghan JJ, Gingold RA (1983) Shock simulation by the particle method SPH. J Comput Phys 52(2): 374–389Google Scholar
  35. Monaghan JJ (1992) Smoothed particle hydrodynamics. Annu Rev Astron Astrophys 30(1): 543–574Google Scholar
  36. Monaghan JJ (1994) Simulating free surface flows with SPH, J Comput Phys 110: 399–406Google Scholar
  37. Morris JP, Fox PJ, Zhu Y (1997) Modeling low Reynolds number incompressible flows using SPH. J Comput Phys 136(1): 214–226Google Scholar
  38. Pozorski J, Wawreńczuk A (2002) SPH computation of incompressible viscous flows. J Theor Appl Mech 40(4): 917–937Google Scholar
  39. Ran QH, Tong J, Shao SD, Fu XD, Xu YP (2015) Incompressible SPH scour model for movable bed dam break flows. Adv Water Resour, 82: 39–50Google Scholar
  40. Ran QH, Wang F, Li P, Ye S, Tang HL, Gao JH (2018) Effect of rainfall moving direction on surface flow and soil erosion processes on slopes with sealing. J Hydrol, 567: 478–488Google Scholar
  41. Razavitoosi SL, Ayyoubzadeh SA, Valizadeh A (2014) Two-phase SPH modelling of waves caused by dam break over a movable bed. Int J Sediment Res, 29(3): 344–356Google Scholar
  42. Rousseau YY, Van de Wiel MJ, Biron PM (2017) Simulating bank erosion over an extended natural sinuous river reach using a universal slope stability algorithm coupled with a morphodynamic model. Geomorphology 295, 690–704Google Scholar
  43. Shadloo MS, Zainali A, Yildiz M, Suleman A (2012) A robust weakly compressible SPH method and its comparison with an incompressible SPH. Int J Numer Methods Eng 89(8), 939–956Google Scholar
  44. Shao S, Lo EY (2003) Incompressible SPH method for simulating Newtonian and non-Newtonian flows with a free surface. Adv Water Resour 26(7): 787–800Google Scholar
  45. Sibille L, Lominé F, Poullain P, Sail Y, Marot D (2015) Internal erosion in granular media: direct numerical simulations and energy interpretation. Hydrol Process, 29(9): 2149–2163Google Scholar
  46. Solomon SM (2005) Spatial and temporal variability of shoreline change in the Beaufort-Mackenzie region, Northwest Territories, Canada. Geo-Mar Lett 25(2–3): 127–137Google Scholar
  47. Spinewine B (2005) Two-layer flow behavior and the effects of granular dilatancy in dam-break induced sheet-flow. Hydraulic Structures. University of Catholic the LouvainGoogle Scholar
  48. Takeda H, Miyama SM, Sekiya M (1994) Numerical simulation of viscous flow by smoothed particle hydrodynamics, Prog Theor Phys 92(5): 939–960Google Scholar
  49. Tang C, Zhu J, Li WL (2009) Rainfall-triggered debris flows following the Wenchuan earthquake. Bull Eng Geol Environ 68(2): 187–194Google Scholar
  50. Vandamme J, Zou Q (2013) Investigation of slope instability induced by seepage and erosion by a particle method. Comput Geotech 48: 9–20Google Scholar
  51. Wang C, Sun PT (2017) A fictitious domain method with distributed Lagrange multiplier for parabolic problems with moving interfaces. J Sci Comput, 70(2): 686–716Google Scholar
  52. Wang M, Feng YT, Pande GN, Chan AHC, Zuo WX (2017) Numerical modelling of fluid-induced soil erosion in granular filters using a coupled bonded particle lattice Boltzmann method. Comput Geotech, 82: 134–143Google Scholar
  53. Wicherski W, Dethier DP, Ouimet WB (2017) Erosion and channel changes due to extreme flooding in the Fourmile Creek catchment, Colorado. Geomorphology 294: 87–98Google Scholar
  54. Zainol MRRMA, Kamaruddin MA, Zawawi MH, Wahab KA (2017) Numerical analysis study of Sarawak Barrage river bed erosion and scouring by using Smooth Particle Hydrodynamic (SPH). In IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 267, 012010Google Scholar
  55. Zhang DM, Gao CP, Yin ZY (2019) CFD-DEM modeling of seepage erosion around shield tunnels. Tunn Undergr Space Technol, 83: 60–72Google Scholar
  56. Zhang H, Chen G, Zheng L, Zhang Y, Wu YQ, Han Z, Fan FS, Jing PD, Wang W (2014) A new discontinuous model for three dimensional analysis of fluid-solid interaction behaviour. In Proceedings of the TC105 ISSMGE international symposium on geomechanics from micro to macro, Cambridge, UK: 503–508Google Scholar
  57. Zhang ZL, Walayat K, Chang JZ, Liu MB (2018) Meshfree modeling of a fluid-particle two-phase flow with an improved SPH method. Int J Numer Methods Eng, 116(8): 530–569Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of GeoscienceShimane UniversityMatsueJapan
  2. 2.Department of Geotechnical Engineering, College of Civil EngineeringTongji UniversityShanghaiChina
  3. 3.Key Laboratory of Geotechnical and Underground Engineering of the Ministry of EducationTongji UniversityShanghaiChina
  4. 4.State Key Laboratory of Geohazard Prevention and Geoenvironment ProtectionChengdu University of TechnologyChengduChina

Personalised recommendations