Next Article in Journal
An Experimental Study of Hydraulic Jump in a Gradually Expanding Rectangular Stilling Basin with Roughened Bed
Next Article in Special Issue
Streambank Alluvial Unit Contributions to Suspended Sediment and Total Phosphorus Loads, Walnut Creek, Iowa, USA
Previous Article in Journal
Stormwater Biofilters as Barriers against Campylobacter jejuni, Cryptosporidium Oocysts and Adenoviruses; Results from a Laboratory Trial
Previous Article in Special Issue
Quantifying Effectiveness of Streambank Stabilization Practices on Cedar River, Nebraska
Article Menu
Issue 12 (December) cover image

Export Article

Open AccessFeature PaperArticle
Water 2017, 9(12), 950;

Modeling Stream Bank Erosion: Practical Stream Results and Future Needs

Technical Service Center, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Bldg. 67, P.O. Box 25007, Denver, CO 80225, USA
Received: 12 October 2017 / Revised: 29 November 2017 / Accepted: 30 November 2017 / Published: 6 December 2017
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Streambank Erosion: Monitoring, Modeling and Management)
Full-Text   |   PDF [8502 KB, uploaded 8 December 2017]   |  


Coupled two-dimensional (2D) morphodynamic and bank erosion models are gaining attentions in recent years. It has been shown that such models have advantages over the one-dimensional (1D) modeling approaches. In this paper, a previous 2D bank erosion model with the moving mesh method is extended to include the fixed mesh approach. Further, two practical streams with differing complexity are simulated to demonstrate the extended model. Both the moving mesh and fixed mesh methods are used in the modeling. The model consists of two components: a 2D flow and mobile-bed model for vertical bed changes and hydraulic forces acting on a bank and a lateral bank retreat model. The 2D vertical model and the lateral bank erosion model are coupled together spatially and temporally through a special procedure and a common mesh. With the experiences gained with practical stream modeling, the modeling procedure and key model input parameters are described. The study shows that the moving and fixed mesh methods together make the extended bank erosion model numerically robust and capable of predicting both the vertical bed changes and the lateral stream bank erosion for complex streams. Each individual method, however, has its own limitations in terms of model accuracy and efficiency. The moving mesh works well if bank retreat is relatively small, e.g., less than one channel width, and produces more accurate results than the fixed mesh method. The fixed mesh may be needed for ensuring numerical stability if a bank may be subject to significant retreat (e.g., more than one channel width). The fixed mesh method, however, is less accurate than the moving mesh method and a much refined mesh may be needed. Both methods need future research and improvements in terms of their model accuracy. View Full-Text
Keywords: bank erosion model; 2D sediment transport model; SRH-2D; coupled modeling; fluvial processes; sediment transport modeling bank erosion model; 2D sediment transport model; SRH-2D; coupled modeling; fluvial processes; sediment transport modeling

Figure 1

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. (CC BY 4.0).

Share & Cite This Article

MDPI and ACS Style

Lai, Y.G. Modeling Stream Bank Erosion: Practical Stream Results and Future Needs. Water 2017, 9, 950.

Show more citation formats Show less citations formats

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

Related Articles

Article Metrics

Article Access Statistics



[Return to top]
Water EISSN 2073-4441 Published by MDPI AG, Basel, Switzerland RSS E-Mail Table of Contents Alert
Back to Top