Threshold gravel channels bank profile: a comparison among 13 models

ABSTRACT

In this paper, 13 models are compared against 6 sets of laboratory data for computation of bank profile of the stable channel. The applied models are Glover and Florey (GFM), Parker (PAM), Ikeda (IKM), Pizzuto (PIM), Diplas (DIM), Diplas and Vigilar (DVM), Vigilar and Diplas (VDM), Cao and Knight (CKM), Babaeyan- Koopaee and Valentine (BVM1, BVM2), Yu and Knight (YKM), Dey (DEM) and Macky (MAM). A set of experiments was carried out by author in order to have a better comparison and evaluation of the results produced by the models. The experimental data revealed that only some of the applied models’ output such as IKM and DIM had a good agreement with the experimental results. Some of the models such as MAM and DEM, which use a complex numerical method for predicting the stable channel bank profile, did not necessarily provide better results. The comparisons indicated that all of the developed models have a considerable error comparing to the laboratory data, which necessitates additional studies. Among these models, the two applied models of PIM and VDM showed the best results with almost 25% error. Due to the simplicity of PIM approach, it can be a proper choice for the related engineering application.

KEYWORDS:

• River engineering
• river model
• stable channel
• threshold gravel channels

Acknowledgements

This study was performed in the Hydraulic laboratory of Civil and Geological Engineering Department at University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada, in a period of sabbatical leave. Special thanks to Professor Jim Kells, Dr Kerry Mazurek and Mr Dale Pavier, technical staff of laboratory, for their supports.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.