Advertisement

Modelling River Flow Through In-Stream Natural Vegetation for a Gravel-Bed River Reach

  • Simon D. A. ClarkEmail author
  • James R. Cooper
  • Ponnambalam Rameshwaran
  • Pamela Naden
  • Ming Li
  • Janet Hooke
Conference paper
  • 52 Downloads
Part of the GeoPlanet: Earth and Planetary Sciences book series (GEPS)

Abstract

Macrophytes (aquatic vegetation) are known to modify river flow by reducing local velocities, increasing turbulence generation, and reducing channel conveyance capacity resulting in increased flow depth. Understanding flow response to vegetation change is imperative to inform flood mitigation strategies, however the field is nascent with much uncertainty surrounding the estimation of flow conveyance in vegetated channels and, subsequently, the best vegetation management practices and possible flood risk. Therefore, in order to develop an understanding of how macrophytes modify flow conveyance modelling techniques must be developed which can effectively represent the three-dimensional effect of natural vegetation within an open channel flow environment. This study simulated vegetation-flow interaction using a 3D finite-element modelling method to investigate the feasibility to which a vegetated natural gravel-bed river can be represented using the drag-force approach. Two methods of parameterising vegetation-induced drag were explored to investigate the effect of flow behaviour within a vegetated gravel-bed river reach.

Keywords

Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) Macrophytes Plant patches Fluvial Finite element 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This study has been financed by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council as part of their Centre for Doctoral Training at the Institute for Risk & Uncertainty, Liverpool, UK.

References

  1. Blevins RD (2003) Applied fluid dynamics handbook. Krieger Publishing Company, USA, 558 ppGoogle Scholar
  2. Carney SK, Bledsoe BP, Gessler D (2006) Representing the bed roughness of coarse-grained streams in computational fluid dynamics. Earth Surf Proc Land 31(6):736–749ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Folkard AM (2011) Flow regimes in gaps within stands of flexible vegetation: laboratory flume simulations. Environ Fluid Mech 11(3):289–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Green JC (2006) Effect of macrophyte spatial variability on channel resistance. Adv Water Resour 29(3):426–438ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Hervouet JM (2007) Hydrodynamics of free surface flows: modelling with the finite element method. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. Marjoribanks TI, Hardy RJ, Lane SN (2014) The hydraulic description of vegetated river channels: the weaknesses of existing formulations and emerging alternatives. Wiley Interdiscip Rev: Water 1(6):549–560CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Mulahasan S, Stoesser T (2017) Flow resistance of in-line vegetation in open channel flow. Int J River Basin Manag 15(3):329–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Naden P, Rameshwaran P, Mountford O, Robertson C (2006) The influence of macrophyte growth, typical of eutrophic conditions, on river production. Hydrol Process 20(18):3915–3938ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Nepf HM (1999) Drag, turbulence, and diffusion in flow through emergent vegetation. Water Resour Res 35(2):479–489ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Nepf HM (2011) Flow over and through biota. In: Wolanski E, McLusky D (eds) Treatise on estuarine and coastal science. Academic Press, Waltham, pp 267–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Rameshwaran P, Naden PS (2012) Modelling the influence of macrophyte patches on river flow. In: Murillo Muñoz RE (ed) River flow 2012. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 163–170Google Scholar
  12. Rameshwaran P, Naden PS, Lawless M (2011) Flow modelling in gravel-bed rivers: rethinking the bottom boundary condition. Earth Surf Proc Land 36(10):1350–1366ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Rameshwaran P, Naden P, Wilson CAME, Malki R, Shukla DR, Shiono K (2013) Inter-comparison and validation of computational fluid dynamics codes in two-stage meandering channel flows. Appl Math Model 37(20):8652–8672MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Rameshwaran P, Sutcliffe A, Naden P, Wharton G (2014) In: Schleiss AJ, de Cesare G, Franca MJ (eds) Modelling river flow responses to weed management, pp 467–474Google Scholar
  15. Sand-Jensen K (2003) Drag and reconfiguration of freshwater macrophytes. Freshw Biol 48(2):271–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Wang C, Zheng SS, Wang PF, Hou J (2015) Interactions between vegetation, water flow and sediment transport: A review. J Hydrodyn 27(1):24–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Zeng C, Li CW (2012) Modeling flows over gravel beds by a drag force method and a modified S-A turbulence closure. Adv Water Resour 46:84–95ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Simon D. A. Clark
    • 1
    Email author
  • James R. Cooper
    • 1
  • Ponnambalam Rameshwaran
    • 2
  • Pamela Naden
    • 2
  • Ming Li
    • 1
  • Janet Hooke
    • 1
  1. 1.The University of LiverpoolLiverpoolUK
  2. 2.UK Centre for Ecology and HydrologyWallingfordUK

Personalised recommendations