Patterns of Difference between Physical and 1-D Calibrated Effective Roughness Parameters in Mountain Rivers

Due to the presence of boulders and different morphologies, mountain rivers contain various resistance sources. To correctly simulate river flow using 1-D hydrodynamic models, an accurate estimation of the flow resistance is required. In this article, a comparison between the physical roughness para...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales:	Sebastián Cedillo, Esteban Sánchez-Cordero, Luis Timbe, Esteban Samaniego, Andrés Alvarado
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN
Publicado:	MDPI AG 2021
Materias:	effective roughness coefficient physical roughness parameter HEC-RAS mountain-rivers Representative Friction Slope Method bed roughness Hydraulic engineering TC1-978 Water supply for domestic and industrial purposes TD201-500
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/c667e775b45f4b7f910f678d45b2654c
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:c667e775b45f4b7f910f678d45b2654c
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:c667e775b45f4b7f910f678d45b2654c2021-11-25T19:15:27ZPatterns of Difference between Physical and 1-D Calibrated Effective Roughness Parameters in Mountain Rivers10.3390/w132232022073-4441https://doaj.org/article/c667e775b45f4b7f910f678d45b2654c2021-11-01T00:00:00Zhttps://www.mdpi.com/2073-4441/13/22/3202https://doaj.org/toc/2073-4441Due to the presence of boulders and different morphologies, mountain rivers contain various resistance sources. To correctly simulate river flow using 1-D hydrodynamic models, an accurate estimation of the flow resistance is required. In this article, a comparison between the physical roughness parameter (PRP) and effective roughness coefficient (ERC) is presented for three of the most typical morphological configurations in mountain rivers: cascade, step-pool, and plane-bed. The PRP and its variation were obtained through multiple measurements of field variables and an uncertainty analysis, while the ERC range was derived with a GLUE procedure implemented in HEC-RAS, a 1-D hydrodynamic model. In the GLUE experiments, two modes of the Representative Friction Slope Method (RFSM) between two cross-sections were tested, including the variation in the roughness parameter. The results revealed that the RFSM effect was limited to low flows in cascade and step-pool. Moreover, when HEC-RAS selected the RSFM, only acceptable results were presented for plane-bed. The difference between ERC and PRP depended on the flow magnitude and the morphology, and as shown in this study, when the flow increased, the ERC and PRP ranges approached each other and even overlapped in cascade and step-pool. This research aimed to improve the roughness value selection process in a 1-D model given the importance of this parameter in the predictability of the results. In addition, a comparison was presented between the results obtained with the numerical model and the values calculated with the field measurementsSebastián CedilloEsteban Sánchez-CorderoLuis TimbeEsteban SamaniegoAndrés AlvaradoMDPI AGarticleeffective roughness coefficientphysical roughness parameterHEC-RASmountain-riversRepresentative Friction Slope Methodbed roughnessHydraulic engineeringTC1-978Water supply for domestic and industrial purposesTD201-500ENWater, Vol 13, Iss 3202, p 3202 (2021)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN
topic	effective roughness coefficient physical roughness parameter HEC-RAS mountain-rivers Representative Friction Slope Method bed roughness Hydraulic engineering TC1-978 Water supply for domestic and industrial purposes TD201-500
spellingShingle	effective roughness coefficient physical roughness parameter HEC-RAS mountain-rivers Representative Friction Slope Method bed roughness Hydraulic engineering TC1-978 Water supply for domestic and industrial purposes TD201-500 Sebastián Cedillo Esteban Sánchez-Cordero Luis Timbe Esteban Samaniego Andrés Alvarado Patterns of Difference between Physical and 1-D Calibrated Effective Roughness Parameters in Mountain Rivers
description	Due to the presence of boulders and different morphologies, mountain rivers contain various resistance sources. To correctly simulate river flow using 1-D hydrodynamic models, an accurate estimation of the flow resistance is required. In this article, a comparison between the physical roughness parameter (PRP) and effective roughness coefficient (ERC) is presented for three of the most typical morphological configurations in mountain rivers: cascade, step-pool, and plane-bed. The PRP and its variation were obtained through multiple measurements of field variables and an uncertainty analysis, while the ERC range was derived with a GLUE procedure implemented in HEC-RAS, a 1-D hydrodynamic model. In the GLUE experiments, two modes of the Representative Friction Slope Method (RFSM) between two cross-sections were tested, including the variation in the roughness parameter. The results revealed that the RFSM effect was limited to low flows in cascade and step-pool. Moreover, when HEC-RAS selected the RSFM, only acceptable results were presented for plane-bed. The difference between ERC and PRP depended on the flow magnitude and the morphology, and as shown in this study, when the flow increased, the ERC and PRP ranges approached each other and even overlapped in cascade and step-pool. This research aimed to improve the roughness value selection process in a 1-D model given the importance of this parameter in the predictability of the results. In addition, a comparison was presented between the results obtained with the numerical model and the values calculated with the field measurements
format	article
author	Sebastián Cedillo Esteban Sánchez-Cordero Luis Timbe Esteban Samaniego Andrés Alvarado
author_facet	Sebastián Cedillo Esteban Sánchez-Cordero Luis Timbe Esteban Samaniego Andrés Alvarado
author_sort	Sebastián Cedillo
title	Patterns of Difference between Physical and 1-D Calibrated Effective Roughness Parameters in Mountain Rivers
title_short	Patterns of Difference between Physical and 1-D Calibrated Effective Roughness Parameters in Mountain Rivers
title_full	Patterns of Difference between Physical and 1-D Calibrated Effective Roughness Parameters in Mountain Rivers
title_fullStr	Patterns of Difference between Physical and 1-D Calibrated Effective Roughness Parameters in Mountain Rivers
title_full_unstemmed	Patterns of Difference between Physical and 1-D Calibrated Effective Roughness Parameters in Mountain Rivers
title_sort	patterns of difference between physical and 1-d calibrated effective roughness parameters in mountain rivers
publisher	MDPI AG
publishDate	2021
url	https://doaj.org/article/c667e775b45f4b7f910f678d45b2654c
work_keys_str_mv	AT sebastiancedillo patternsofdifferencebetweenphysicaland1dcalibratedeffectiveroughnessparametersinmountainrivers AT estebansanchezcordero patternsofdifferencebetweenphysicaland1dcalibratedeffectiveroughnessparametersinmountainrivers AT luistimbe patternsofdifferencebetweenphysicaland1dcalibratedeffectiveroughnessparametersinmountainrivers AT estebansamaniego patternsofdifferencebetweenphysicaland1dcalibratedeffectiveroughnessparametersinmountainrivers AT andresalvarado patternsofdifferencebetweenphysicaland1dcalibratedeffectiveroughnessparametersinmountainrivers
_version_	1718410121956032512

Patterns of Difference between Physical and 1-D Calibrated Effective Roughness Parameters in Mountain Rivers

Ejemplares similares