Next Article in Journal
Application of Green Synthesized MMT/Ag Nanocomposite for Removal of Methylene Blue from Aqueous Solution
Previous Article in Journal
Highwater Mark Collection after Post Tropical Storm Dorian and Implications for Prince Edward Island, Canada
Article

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

1
Departamento de Recursos Hídricos y Ciencias Ambientales, Universidad de Cuenca, Cuenca 010207, Ecuador
2
Departamento de Ingeniería Civil, Universidad de Cuenca, Cuenca 010203, Ecuador
3
Facultad de Ingeniería, Universidad de Cuenca, Av. 12 de Abril s/n, Cuenca 010203, Ecuador
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Academic Editor: Georg Umgiesser
Water 2021, 13(22), 3202; https://doi.org/10.3390/w13223202
Received: 19 September 2021 / Revised: 30 October 2021 / Accepted: 5 November 2021 / Published: 12 November 2021
(This article belongs to the Section Hydraulics and Hydrodynamics)
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 View Full-Text
Keywords: effective roughness coefficient; physical roughness parameter; HEC-RAS; mountain-rivers; Representative Friction Slope Method; bed roughness effective roughness coefficient; physical roughness parameter; HEC-RAS; mountain-rivers; Representative Friction Slope Method; bed roughness
Show Figures

Figure 1

MDPI and ACS Style

Cedillo, S.; Sánchez-Cordero, E.; Timbe, L.; Samaniego, E.; Alvarado, A. Patterns of Difference between Physical and 1-D Calibrated Effective Roughness Parameters in Mountain Rivers. Water 2021, 13, 3202. https://doi.org/10.3390/w13223202

AMA Style

Cedillo S, Sánchez-Cordero E, Timbe L, Samaniego E, Alvarado A. Patterns of Difference between Physical and 1-D Calibrated Effective Roughness Parameters in Mountain Rivers. Water. 2021; 13(22):3202. https://doi.org/10.3390/w13223202

Chicago/Turabian Style

Cedillo, Sebastián, Esteban Sánchez-Cordero, Luis Timbe, Esteban Samaniego, and Andrés Alvarado. 2021. "Patterns of Difference between Physical and 1-D Calibrated Effective Roughness Parameters in Mountain Rivers" Water 13, no. 22: 3202. https://doi.org/10.3390/w13223202

Find Other Styles
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Access Map by Country/Region

1
Back to TopTop