# Silting in the Grand Canal in the Domain of Chantilly (Oise, France)—Catchment-Scale Hydrogeomorphological Reconnaissance and Local-Scale Hydro-Sedimentary Transport Modelling

^{*}

## Abstract

**:**

^{3}, when the reconnaissance of the catchment showed the sediment was not a limiting factor. However, the volumes determined are underestimated, as matter brought by vegetation or other systems different from the river (e.g., wind, rainfall) is not considered in the calculation. The quantity of sediment is also subject to uncertainties, as the bathymetry of the canal is not available.

## 1. Introduction

## 2. Hydrogeomorphological Reconnaissance at Catchment Scale

#### 2.1. Hydrology

^{2}and the modulus of the river equals 1.66 m

^{3}/s.

^{3}/s flood is 50% and the probability of a 4.2 m

^{3}/s flood is 20% (4.5 m

^{3}/s flood probability is 10%; 4.8 m

^{3}/s flood probability is 5%; and 5.3 m

^{3}/s flood probability is 2%).

_{sp}of 4.9 l/s/km

^{2}.

#### 2.2. Geology

#### 2.3. Geomorphology

- The plateau is found throughout the south-eastern part of the catchment, to the east, and bordering the northern boundary (in red in Figure 4a);
- A zone of steeper slopes is where the contact between two fluvio-geomorphological units is generally found. In Figure 4b, most of the steep slopes mark the contact between the plateau and the floodplain, which are in the order of 20–25° and in orange in Figure 4a. Depending on fluvial erosion, this contact can be slightly hilly or present a (more-or-less abrupt) ridge. For instance, from Figure 4a, the southwestern edge of the contact between the plateau and the floodplain (very limited in space, so red and green are very close) and the northern part (where red and green areas are well marked with orange) are quite different; the southwestern part is not hilly (presence of ridge), whereas the northern half is;
- The scale of Figure 4 is not realistic in distinguishing between riverbed and floodplain. Riverbed is where water is flowing unceasingly, and floodplain is water flow when the bed can no longer manage the flow. Schematically, the floodplain is visible near the outlet when the bed is not. Near headwaters, the floodplain is non-existent. This is why the river seems to be made up of minute streams in the headwaters and larger ones near its outlet. The contact between the zone of steeper slopes and floodplain is again interpreted as following another set of steep slopes, this time more or less following the river. Additionally, at a local scale, the presence of fluvial terraces along the river is likely (although invisible in Figure 4, due to the scale).

#### 2.4. Morphometry

^{2}) with a perimeter of 138 km. The catchment’s minimum elevation equates to 25 m above sea level (m asl) near Gouvieux and the maximum elevation reaches 222 m asl (mean elevation equal to 93 m asl). Concerning slopes, a mean value of 1.66 degrees (°) was found, with the maximum value reaching 29.7°.

^{2}. And the perimeter is 18.1 km.

^{2}, with a perimeter of 9.2 km. The crest line peaks at 127 m asl and the outlet is to be found 50 m lower (almost 77 m asl). This composite catchment has no slope greater than 10.6° and the mean slope over the whole catchment is 1.7°.

^{2}and a perimeter of 57.8 km. The mean maximum and minimum elevations are, respectively, 173 and 53 m asl. The maximum slope reaches 18° and the mean slope is equal to 2°.

#### 2.5. Climatology

#### 2.6. Soil Use

#### 2.7. Openfield Soil Erosion

^{−2}·yr

^{−1}) [23]. For European rivers, this value ranges from 30 to 80 t·km

^{−2}·yr

^{−1}[24]. Based on this assumption, the specific degradation of the Nonette catchment ranges between 11,790 and 31,440 t·yr

^{−1}.

^{−1}.

^{−2}·yr

^{−1}for the Austreberthe and Andelle basins. In France, for the Royeau basin (Le Mans region), this value has been evaluated at 57 t·km

^{−2}·yr

^{−1}[26], whereas the Caux country [27] presents values that vary between 140 and 240 t·km

^{−2}·yr

^{−1}. In Lower Normandy, the Traspy basin is given an average value of 60 t·km

^{−2}·yr

^{−1}[28].

## 3. Numerical Modelling on a Local Scale

#### 3.1. Material and Methods

#### 3.1.1. Hydraulic System Description

#### 3.1.2. Model Building

^{TM}. The global geometry obtained is presented in Figure 1. The hydraulic system path is divided into three segments (or reaches) (Table 8).

#### 3.1.3. Limits Conditions

^{3}/s); $\mu $ = flow rate coefficient (-); ${C}_{v}$ = speed of approach coefficient (-); $g$ = gravitational acceleration (9.81 m/s

^{2}); ${B}_{c}$ = nail factory spillway crest width (m); ${h}_{e}$ = effective water height (m).

_{weir}= 1.051 m

^{3}/s. The flow rates going through the spillways of the Tête du Rond, the nail factory and the Nonette, respectively Q

_{R}, Q

_{c}et Q

_{N}(m

^{3}/s), are evaluated by means of a proportional relationship between the widths of the crests:

_{R}, Bc and B

_{N}are the widths of, respectively, the spillways of the “Tête du Rond”, the nail factory and the Nonette River (m); Q

_{t}is the total flow rate of the Nonette River at the entrance of the distribution work (m

^{3}/s), gathered from Banque Hydro [14].

_{R}

_{,}and the flow rate into the Hexagon is equal to Q

_{c}+ Q

_{N}.

- Standard year, whose average flow rate is closest to the median of average annual flow rates;
- Dry year, with the lowest average flow rate;
- Wet year, with the highest average flow rate.

- Standard year: 1987;
- Dry year: 2010;
- Wet year: 2001.

#### 3.2. Results

#### 3.2.1. Sensibility to Time Discretization

^{3}/s.

^{3}, with the simulation of the detailed flow rate to a volume of 25.9 m

^{3}. The latter results in an increase of 5.4% compared to the simulation of the average flow rate.

#### 3.2.2. Typical Years

^{3}.

^{3}.

^{3}. These results show the significant variability of material transport depending on the hydrological regime.

#### 3.2.3. 10-Year Modelling

^{3}. The value corresponds to a volume of dry sediment and does not take into account, in particular, materials contributed by vegetation, by direct runoff into the GC, by discharges from rainwater networks, or by wind transport.

## 4. Conclusions

^{3}of sediment was deposited between 2001 and 2010.

## Author Contributions

## Funding

## Institutional Review Board Statement

## Informed Consent Statement

## Data Availability Statement

## Acknowledgments

## Conflicts of Interest

## References

- Bonner, V.; Brunner, G.; Jensen, M. HEC River Analysis System (HEC-RAS). In Proceedings of the National Conference on Hydraulic Engineering, Buffalo, NY, USA, 1–5 August 1994; pp. 376–380. [Google Scholar]
- Werner, M. Impact of grid size in GIS based flood extent mapping using a 1D flow model. Phys. Chem. Earth Part B Hydrol. Ocean. Atmos.
**2001**, 26, 517–522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Horrit, M.; Bates, P. Evaluation of 1D and 2D numerical models for predicting river flood inundation. J. Hydrol.
**2002**, 268, 87–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Thompson, C.; Rhodes, E.; Croke, J. The storage of bed material in mountain stream channels as assessed using Optically Stimulated Luminescence dating. Geomorphology
**2007**, 87, 307–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Sennaoui, F.; Benabdesselman, T.; Saihia, A. Use of modelling for the renovation of drainage channels–The case of the Bouteldja plain in northeastern Algeria. J. Water Land Dev.
**2019**, 43, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Ara Rahman, S.; Chakrabarty, D. Sediment transport modelling in an alluvial river with artificial neural network. J. Hydrol.
**2020**, 588, 588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Greenbaum, N.; Schwarz, U.; Carling, P.; Bergman, N.; Mushkin, A.; Zituni, R.; Halevi, R.; Benito, G.; Porat, N. Frequency of boulders transport during large floods in hyperarid areas using paleoflood analysis—An example from the Negev Desert, Israel. Earth-Sci. Rev.
**2020**, 202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Banque Hydro. Available online: http://hydro.eaufrance.fr (accessed on 21 February 2020).
- Brunet, M.F.; Le Pichon, X. Subsidence of the Paris Basin. J. Geophys. Res.
**1982**, 87, 8547–8560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Averbush, O.; Piromallo, C. Is there a remnant Variscan subducted slab in the mantle beneath the Paris basin? Implications for the Variscan lithospheric delamination process and the Paris basin formation. Tectonophysics
**2012**, 558, 70–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Robin, C. Mesure Stratigraphique de la Déformation: Application à L’évolution Jurassique du Bassin de Paris. Ph.D. Thesis, Université de Rennes, Rennes, France, 1995. [Google Scholar]
- Guillocheau, F.; Robin, C.; Allemand, P.; Bourquin, S.; Brault, N.; Dromart, G.; Friedenberg, R.; Garcia, J.P.; Gaulier, J.M.; Gaumet, F.; et al. Meso-Cenozoic geodynamic evolution of the Paris Basin; 3D stratigraphic constraints. Geodin. Acta
**2010**, 13, 189–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Robin, C.; Guillocheau, F.; Allemand, P.; Bourquin, S.; Dromart, G.; Gaulier, J.M.; Prijac, C. Echelles de temps et d’espace du contrôle tectonique d’un bassin flexural intracratonique-le Bassin de Paris. Bull. Soc. Geéol. Fr.
**2000**, 171, 181–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Brais, J. Le Cénozoïque du Bassin de PARIS: Un Enregistrement Sédimentaire Haute Résolution des Déformations Lithosphériques en Régime de Faible Subsidence. Ph.D. Thesis, Université de Rennes, Rennes, France, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- IGN. BD Alti V2. 2017. Available online: https://geoservices.ign.fr/documentation/diffusion/telechargement-donneeslibres.html#bd-alti-25-m (accessed on 15 December 2019).
- ESRI. ArcGIS Desktop: Release 10; Environmental Systems Research Institute: Redlands, CA, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Strahler, A.N. Hypsometric (area-altitude) analysis of erosional topography. GSA Bull.
**1952**, 63, 1117–1142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Meteoblue. Available online: http://meteoblue.com/ (accessed on 4 May 2020).
- IGN. Corine Land Cover. 2018. Available online: https://land.copernicus.eu/paneuropean/corine-land-cover/clc2018 (accessed on 15 December 2019).
- Dufour, J.; Gravier, J.; Larue, J.-P. Fortes pluies et érosion des sols. L’orage de Mai 1988 dans la Sarthe. Bull. l’Assoc. Géographes Français
**1990**, 2, 159–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Auzet, A.V.; Boiffin, J.; Papy, F.; Ludwig, B.; Maucorps, J. Rill erosion as a function of characteristics of cultivated catchments in the North of France. Catena
**1993**, 20, 41–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Auzet, A.V.; Boiffin, J.; Ludwig, D. Concentrated flow erosion in cultivated catchments: Influence of soil surface state. Earth Surf. Proc. Landf.
**1995**, 20, 759–767. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Bravard, J.P.; Petit, F. Les Cours D’eau, Dynamique du Système Fluvial, 1st ed.; Colin: Paris, France, 1997. [Google Scholar]
- Serrat, P. Genèse et Dynamique D’un Système Fluvial Méditerranéen: Le Bassin de l’Agly (France). Ph.D. Thesis, Université de Perpignan, Perpignan, France, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Laignel, B.; Dupuis, E.; Durand, A.; Dupont, J.-P.; Hauchard, E.; Massei, N. Erosion balance in the watersheds of the western Paris Basin by high-frequency monitoring of discharge and suspended sediment in surface water. CR Geosci.
**2006**, 338, 556–564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Larue, J.-J. Runoff and interrill erosion on sandy soils under cultivation in the western Paris Basin: Mechanisms and an attempt at measurement. Earth Surf. Process. Landf.
**2001**, 26, 971–989. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Ouvry, J.-F. L’évolution de la grande culture et l’érosion des terres dans le Pays d Caux. Bull. l’Assoc. Géographes Français
**1992**, 2, 107–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Delahaye, D. Approches Spatialisées et Analyses Expérimentales des Phénomènes de Ruissellement et D’érosion des Sols. Ph.D. Thesis, Université de Caen, Caen, France, 1992. [Google Scholar]
- Agassi, M.; Lévy, G.J. Stone cover and rain intensity: Effects on infiltration, erosion and water splash. Soil Res.
**1991**, 29, 565–575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Le Bissonnais, Y. Aggregate stability and assessment of soil crustability and erodibility: I. Theory and Methodology. J. Soil Sci.
**1996**, 47, 425–437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Billard, A.; Cosandey, C.L.; Muxart, T. L’érosion sur les hautes terres du Lingas. In Mémoires et Documents de Géographie; CNRS: Paris, France, 1990. [Google Scholar]
- Le Bissonnais, Y. Analyse des Mécanismes de Désagrégation et de Mobilisation des Particules Sous L’action des Pluies. Ph.D. Thesis, Université d’Orléans, Orléans, France, 1988. [Google Scholar]
- AIRELE. Création d’un Barrage Sur le Grand Canal de Chantilly–Dossier de Déclaration au Titre de la Législation EAU; Technical Report; Château de Chantilly: Chantilly, France, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Brunner, G.W. HEC-RAS, River Analysis System User’s Manual Version 5.0; Institute of Water Resources, Hydrological Engineering Center: Davis, CA, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Lencastre, A. Hydraulique Générale, 1st ed.; Eyrolles: Paris, France, 1999. [Google Scholar]
- Les Chênes Conseil. Parc du Château de Chantilly; Technical Report; Château de Chantilly: Chantilly, France, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- AIRELE. Etudes Préalables Aux Opérations de Curage sur le Grand Canal–Analyse du Projet, Programme Proposé, Étude D’incidences; Technical Report; Château de Chantilly: Chantilly, France, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Ladreyt, S.; Laborie, V. Notice sur les Déversoirs: Synthèse des Lois D’écoulement au Droit des Seuils et Déversoirs, 1st ed.; Cerema (ex-Cetmef): France, 2005; Available online: https://side.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/Default/doc/SYRACUSE/223387/notice-sur-les-deversoirs-synthese-des-lois-d-ecoulement-au-droit-des-seuils-et-deversoirs (accessed on 20 July 2021).
- Naïades. Available online: http://naiades.eaufrance.fr/ (accessed on 21 February 2020).
- AIRELE. Présentation des Opérations de Curage du Grand Canal du Parc du Château de Chantilly; Technical Report; Château de Chantilly: Chantilly, France, 2008. [Google Scholar]

**Figure 1.**Nonette catchment with the three main rivers: Nonette, Aunette and Launette. C refers to Chantilly domain and S to the city of Senlis.

**Figure 2.**Mean monthly flow rate calculated over a 41-year period at Courteuil hydrological station, after [8].

**Figure 5.**Soil use based on CLC [19] visualized together with the 122 1st-order catchments within the Nonette catchment.

**Figure 6.**(

**a**) Surficial silent witnesses on the scale of Nonette catchment; (

**b**) zoom on the type of surficial silent witnesses distinguished from aerial pictures (Google Earth) survey.

**Figure 7.**Situation of Chantilly domain (Google Earth); bird’s-eye view from the GC; geometry represented in HEC-RAS and hydraulic peculiarities along the GC.

**Figure 8.**Structural scheme of GC walls, reproduced after [36].

**Figure 10.**HEC-RAS granulometric distribution; grain size in mm on the x-axis and sieve in percentage (%) on the y-axis.

**Figure 12.**Calculated longitudinal profile of the deposition height upstream of GC on 6 January 1987.

**Figure 13.**Calculated longitudinal profile of the deposition height downstream of the GC on 31 December 1987. (

**a**) Details of the calculated longitudinal profile between the Hexagon exit and the dam. (

**b**) Details of the calculated longitudinal profile in the vicinity of the Channel. (

**c**) Details of the calculated longitudinal profile at the bridge.

**Figure 15.**Calculated longitudinal profile of the deposition height at the end of 2001–2010 decade. (

**a**) Upstream of the GC; (

**b**) downstream of the GC.

**Table 1.**Morphometrical parameters chosen for the Nonette catchment’s characterization with unit, the equation, if it is applied to the catchment or the stream and the results; C stands for catchment; S for stream. To be noted that « L » defined for the form factor corresponds to the length of the best-fitted ellipsoid calculated through the zonal geometry as table tool in the geographic information system (GIS).

Parameter | Unit | Equation | Applied to | Results (C/S) |
---|---|---|---|---|

Area | km^{2} | (-) | C | 393.8 |

Perimeter | km | (-) | C | 180 |

Elevation max | m asl | (-) | C/S | 222/138 |

Elevation min | m asl | (-) | C/S | 25/25 |

Elevation mean | m asl | (-) | C/S | 93.30/77.71 |

Slope max/min | degrees | (-) | C/S | 29.69/0/16.16/0 |

Slope mean | degrees | (-) | C/S | 1.66/1.07 |

Length | km | (-) | S | 278.9 |

Melton ratio | (-) | $\raisebox{1ex}{$dH$}\!\left/ \!\raisebox{-1ex}{$\sqrt{A}$}\right.$ | C | 0.01 |

Form factor | (-) | $\raisebox{1ex}{$A$}\!\left/ \!\raisebox{-1ex}{${L}^{2}$}\right.$ | C | 0.50 |

Elongation | (-) | $\raisebox{1ex}{$2\sqrt{A}$}\!\left/ \!\raisebox{-1ex}{$L\sqrt{\pi}$}\right.$ | C | 1.60 |

**Table 2.**Morphometrical results associated with catchments and encompassing area (km

^{2}), perimeter (km), elevations (m asl) and slopes (°). Results are to be understood as follows: minimum/maximum/mean.

Parameter | 1st-Order Catchments | 2nd-Order Catchments | 3rd-Order Catchments |
---|---|---|---|

Area | 1.01/8.3/2.3 | 3.24/21.8/9.4 | 17.2/102/70.6 |

Perimeter | 4.7/23.8/9.2 | 9.7/31.8/18.1 | 27/75.9/57.8 |

Elevation max | 58/222/127.1 | 66/222/147.9 | 110/222/173 |

Elevation mean | 44/154.1/96.7 | 56/125.2/98 | 61/110/94 |

Elevation min | 28/116/76.7 | 35/100/70.6 | 40/64/53 |

Slope max | 2/25.3/10.6 | 1.3/11.6/4 | 9/25/18 |

Slope mean | 0/5.17/1.70 | 0.4/1.38/0.93 | 1/2/2 |

Slope min | 0/0/0 | 0/0/0 | 0/0/0 |

**Table 3.**Morphometrical results associated with streams and encompassing length (km), elevations (m asl) and slopes (°).

Parameter | 1st-Order Streams | 2nd-Order Streams | 3rd-Order Streams |
---|---|---|---|

Length | 0.175/0.95/0.385 | 1.5/15.6/5.9 | 9.6/71.7/49.8 |

Elevation max | 30/138/86 | 44/138/95 | 64/138/110 |

Elevation mean | 29/120.5/81.2 | 38/112.6/82.3 | 53/93/80 |

Elevation min | 28/116/76.8 | 35/100/70.6 | 40/64/53 |

Slope max | 0/10.1/2.53 | 1.3/11.6/4 | 4/16/9 |

Slope mean | 0/6.3/1 | 0.4/1.38/0.93 | 1/1/1 |

Slope min | 0/6/0.17 | 0/0/0 | 0/0/0 |

**Table 4.**Morphometrical results associated with catchments that encompass Melton ratio, form factor and basin elongation.

Parameter | 1st-Order Streams | 2nd-Order Streams | 3rd-Order Streams |
---|---|---|---|

Melton ratio | 0.01/0.1/0.04 | 0.01/0.05/0.03 | 0.01/0.017/0.015 |

Form factor | 0.2/0.75/0.4 | 0.3/0.66/0.47 | 0.347/0436/0.394 |

Basin elongation | 0.98/1.96/1.42 | 1.2/1.84/1.54 | 1.330/1.491/1.416 |

CLC Label | CLC Class | Coverage Percentage |
---|---|---|

112 | Discontinuous urban fabric | 5.23 |

121 | Industrial or commercial units | 1.00 |

122 | Road and rail networks and associated land | 0.36 |

124 | Airports | 0.09 |

131 | Mineral extraction sites | 0.18 |

132 | Dump sites | 0.08 |

133 | Construction sites | 0.13 |

142 | Sport and leisure facilities | 3.01 |

211 | Non-irrigated arable land | 54.01 |

222 | Fruit trees and berry plantations | 0.11 |

231 | Pastures | 1.56 |

242 | Complex cultivation patterns | 0.65 |

243 | Land principally occupied by agriculture | 0.26 |

311 | Broad-leaved forest | 24.08 |

312 | Coniferous forest | 4.56 |

313 | Mixed forest | 5.92 |

324 | Transitional | 0.55 |

112 | Discontinuous urban fabric | 5.23 |

Forms | Shape | Length | Width | Slope | Situation |
---|---|---|---|---|---|

Claw | Sinuous | <1 m | <10 cm | >1% | Hillside |

Rill/inter-rill | Straight | ~100 m | 10–20 cm | >3% | Hillside |

Gutter | Sinuous | ~10 m | 5–80 cm | >3% | Hillside/Talweg |

Ravine | Slightly sinuous | ~100 m | 50 cm–100 cm | <6% | Talweg |

Gully | Slightly sinuous | ~100 m | >50 cm | <6% | Talweg |

Main Hydraulic System Parts | Dimensions |
---|---|

Length of the GC | 2677 m |

Mean slope of the GC | 0.0027% |

Wall height | 2 m |

Tête du rond radius | 59 m |

Maximum breadth of the Hexagon | 218 m |

Maximum breadth of the Channel | 318 m |

Breadth of GC Segments 1 and 2 | 63 m |

Breadth of GC Segment 3 | 56 m |

Name of Reach | Description |
---|---|

GC—upstream | Portion of the stream between the Neuve River arrival into the Tête du Rond and just upstream of the entry of the Nonette River into the Hexagon |

Nonette | Segment of the Nonette River inlet into the Hexagon |

GC—downstream | Portion of the stream between just downstream of the entry of the Nonette River into the Hexagon and the GC outlet |

**Table 9.**Parameter values used to assess the flow rate distribution between the Hexagon and the Tête du Rond.

Parameter | Value | In Equation (1) |
---|---|---|

Width of the nail factory spillway | 1.7 m | B |

Width of Nonette River spillway | 7.3 m | |

Difference in elevation between nail factory spillway crest and Nonette River spillway | +0.2 m | h1 |

Width of Tête du Rond spillway | 4.7 m | |

Height between GC bottom and nail factory spillway crest | 1 m | p |

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |

© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

## Share and Cite

**MDPI and ACS Style**

Chevalier, G.G.; Locatelli, F.; Masson, E.; Blanpain, O.
Silting in the Grand Canal in the Domain of Chantilly (Oise, France)—Catchment-Scale Hydrogeomorphological Reconnaissance and Local-Scale Hydro-Sedimentary Transport Modelling. *Water* **2021**, *13*, 1989.
https://doi.org/10.3390/w13141989

**AMA Style**

Chevalier GG, Locatelli F, Masson E, Blanpain O.
Silting in the Grand Canal in the Domain of Chantilly (Oise, France)—Catchment-Scale Hydrogeomorphological Reconnaissance and Local-Scale Hydro-Sedimentary Transport Modelling. *Water*. 2021; 13(14):1989.
https://doi.org/10.3390/w13141989

**Chicago/Turabian Style**

Chevalier, Guillaume G., Florent Locatelli, Eric Masson, and Olivier Blanpain.
2021. "Silting in the Grand Canal in the Domain of Chantilly (Oise, France)—Catchment-Scale Hydrogeomorphological Reconnaissance and Local-Scale Hydro-Sedimentary Transport Modelling" *Water* 13, no. 14: 1989.
https://doi.org/10.3390/w13141989