Figure 8: Instantaneous flow structures extracted using the Q-criterion (Qcriterion=1200) and colored by the magnitude of flow velocity.

Chendi Zhang1
, Yuncheng Xu1,2, Marwan A Hassan3
, Mengzhen Xu1
, Pukang He1
1State Key Laboratory of Hydroscience and Engineering, Tsinghua University, Beijing, 100084, China. 2
College of Water Resources and Civil Engineering, China Agricultural University, Beijing, 100081, China.
5 3Department of Geography, University of British Columbia, 1984 West Mall, Vancouver BC, V6T1Z2, Canada.
Correspondence to: Chendi Zhang (chendinorthwest@163.com) and Mengzhen Xu (mzxu@mail.tsinghua.edu.cn)

Abstract

스텝 풀 시스템은 계류의 일반적인 기반이며 전 세계의 하천 복원 프로젝트에 활용되었습니다. 스텝 풀 장치는 스텝 풀 기능의 형태학적 진화 및 안정성과 밀접하게 상호 작용하는 것으로 보고된 매우 균일하지 않은 수력 특성을 나타냅니다.

그러나 스텝 풀 형태에 대한 3차원 수리학의 자세한 정보는 측정의 어려움으로 인해 부족했습니다. 이러한 지식 격차를 메우기 위해 SfM(Structure from Motion) 및 CFD(Computational Fluid Dynamics) 기술을 기반으로 하이브리드 모델을 구축했습니다. 이 모델은 CFD 시뮬레이션을 위한 입력으로 6가지 유속의 자연석으로 만든 인공 스텝 풀 장치가 있는 침대 표면의 3D 재구성을 사용했습니다.

하이브리드 모델은 스텝 풀 장치에 대한 3D 흐름 구조의 고해상도 시각화를 제공하는 데 성공했습니다. 결과는 계단 아래의 흐름 영역의 분할, 즉 수면에서의 통합 점프, 침대 근처의 줄무늬 후류 및 그 사이의 고속 제트를 보여줍니다.

수영장에서 난류 에너지의 매우 불균일한 분포가 밝혀졌으며 비슷한 용량을 가진 두 개의 에너지 소산기가 수영장에 공존하는 것으로 나타났습니다. 흐름 증가에 따른 풀 세굴 개발은 점프 및 후류 와류의 확장으로 이어지지만 이러한 증가는 스텝 풀 실패에 대한 임계 조건에 가까운 높은 흐름에서 점프에 대해 멈춥니다.

음의 경사면에서 발달된 곡물 20 클러스터와 같은 미세 지반은 국부 수력학에 상당한 영향을 주지만 이러한 영향은 수영장 바닥에서 억제됩니다. 스텝 스톤의 항력은 가장 높은 흐름이 사용되기 전에 배출과 함께 증가하는 반면 양력은 더 큰 크기와 더 넓은 범위를 갖습니다. 우리의 결과는 계단 풀 형태의 복잡한 흐름 특성을 조사할 때 물리적 및 수치적 모델링을 결합한 하이브리드 모델 접근 방식의 가능성과 큰 잠재력을 강조합니다.

Step-pool systems are common bedforms in mountain streams and have been utilized in river restoration projects around the world. Step-pool units exhibit highly non-uniform hydraulic characteristics which have been reported to closely 10 interact with the morphological evolution and stability of step-pool features. However, detailed information of the threedimensional hydraulics for step-pool morphology has been scarce due to the difficulty of measurement. To fill in this knowledge gap, we established a hybrid model based on the technologies of Structure from Motion (SfM) and computational fluid dynamics (CFD). The model used 3D reconstructions of bed surfaces with an artificial step-pool unit built by natural stones at six flow rates as inputs for CFD simulations. The hybrid model succeeded in providing high-resolution visualization 15 of 3D flow structures for the step-pool unit. The results illustrate the segmentation of flow regimes below the step, i.e., the integral jump at the water surface, streaky wake vortexes near the bed, and high-speed jets in between. The highly non-uniform distribution of turbulence energy in the pool has been revealed and two energy dissipaters with comparable capacity are found to co-exist in the pool. Pool scour development under flow increase leads to the expansion of the jump and wake vortexes but this increase stops for the jump at high flows close to the critical condition for step-pool failure. The micro-bedforms as grain 20 clusters developed on the negative slope affect the local hydraulics significantly but this influence is suppressed at pool bottom. The drag forces on the step stones increase with discharge before the highest flow is used while the lift force has a larger magnitude and wider varying range. Our results highlight the feasibility and great potential of the hybrid model approach combining physical and numerical modeling in investigating the complex flow characteristics of step-pool morphology.

Figure 1: Workflow of the hybrid modeling. SfM-MVS refers to the technology of Structure from Motion with Multi View Stereo. DSM is short for digital surface model. RNG-VOF is short for Renormalized Group (RNG) k-ε turbulence model coupled with Volume of Fluid method.
Figure 1: Workflow of the hybrid modeling. SfM-MVS refers to the technology of Structure from Motion with Multi View Stereo. DSM is short for digital surface model. RNG-VOF is short for Renormalized Group (RNG) k-ε turbulence model coupled with Volume of Fluid method.
Figure 2: Flume experiment settings in Zhang et al., (2020): (a) the artificially built-up step-pool model using natural stones, with stone number labelled; (b) the unsteady hydrograph of the run of CIFR (continually-increasing-flow-rate) T2 used in this study.
Figure 2: Flume experiment settings in Zhang et al., (2020): (a) the artificially built-up step-pool model using natural stones, with stone number labelled; (b) the unsteady hydrograph of the run of CIFR (continually-increasing-flow-rate) T2 used in this study.
Figure 3: Setup of the CFD model: (a) three-dimensional digital surface model (DSM) of the step-pool unit by structure from motion with multi view stereo (SfM-MVS) method as the input to the 3D computational fluid dynamics (CFD) modeling; (b) extruded bed 160 surface model connected to the extra downstream component (in purple blue) and rectangular columns to fill leaks (in green), with the boundary conditions shown on mesh planes; (c) recognized geometry with mesh grids of two mesh blocks shown where MS is short for mesh size; (d) sampling volumes to capture the flow forces acting on each step stone at X, Y, and Z directions; and (e) an example for the simulated 3D flow over the step-pool unit colored by velocity magnitude at the discharge of 49.9 L/s. The abbreviations for boundary conditions in (b) are: V for specified velocity; C for continuative; P for specific pressure; and W for wall 165 condition. The contraction section in Figure (e) refers to the edge between the jet and jump at water surface.
Figure 3: Setup of the CFD model: (a) three-dimensional digital surface model (DSM) of the step-pool unit by structure from motion with multi view stereo (SfM-MVS) method as the input to the 3D computational fluid dynamics (CFD) modeling; (b) extruded bed 160 surface model connected to the extra downstream component (in purple blue) and rectangular columns to fill leaks (in green), with the boundary conditions shown on mesh planes; (c) recognized geometry with mesh grids of two mesh blocks shown where MS is short for mesh size; (d) sampling volumes to capture the flow forces acting on each step stone at X, Y, and Z directions; and (e) an example for the simulated 3D flow over the step-pool unit colored by velocity magnitude at the discharge of 49.9 L/s. The abbreviations for boundary conditions in (b) are: V for specified velocity; C for continuative; P for specific pressure; and W for wall 165 condition. The contraction section in Figure (e) refers to the edge between the jet and jump at water surface.
Figure 4: Distribution of time-averaged velocity magnitude (VM_mean) and vectors in three longitudinal sections. The section at Y = 0 cm goes across the keystone while the other two (Y = -18 and 13.5 cm) are located at the step stones beside the keystone with 265 lower top elevations. Q refers to the discharge at the inlet of the computational domain. The spacing for X, Y, and Z axes are all 10 cm in the plots.
Figure 4: Distribution of time-averaged velocity magnitude (VM_mean) and vectors in three longitudinal sections. The section at Y = 0 cm goes across the keystone while the other two (Y = -18 and 13.5 cm) are located at the step stones beside the keystone with lower top elevations. Q refers to the discharge at the inlet of the computational domain. The spacing for X, Y, and Z axes are all 10 cm in the plots.
Figure 5: Distribution of time-averaged flow velocity at five cross sections which are set according to the reference section (x0). The reference cross section x0 is located at the downstream end of the keystone (KS). The five sections are located at 18 cm and 6 cm upstream of the reference section (x0-18 and x0-6), and 2 cm, 15 cm and 40 cm downstream of the reference section (x0+2, x0+15, x0+40). The spacing for X, Y, and Z axes are all 10 cm in the plots.
Figure 5: Distribution of time-averaged flow velocity at five cross sections which are set according to the reference section (x0). The reference cross section x0 is located at the downstream end of the keystone (KS). The five sections are located at 18 cm and 6 cm upstream of the reference section (x0-18 and x0-6), and 2 cm, 15 cm and 40 cm downstream of the reference section (x0+2, x0+15, x0+40). The spacing for X, Y, and Z axes are all 10 cm in the plots.
Figure 6: Distribution of the time-averaged turbulence kinetic energy (TKE) at the five cross sections same with Figure 3.
Figure 6: Distribution of the time-averaged turbulence kinetic energy (TKE) at the five cross sections same with Figure 3.
Figure 7: Boxplots for the distributions of the mass-averaged flow kinetic energy (KE, panels a-f), turbulence kinetic energy (TKE, panels g-l), and turbulent dissipation (εT, panels m-r) in the pool for all the six tested discharges (the plots at the same discharge are in the same row). The mass-averaged values were calculated every 2 cm in the streamwise direction. The flow direction is from left to right in all the plots. The general locations of the contraction section for all the flow rates are marked by the dashed lines, except for Q = 5 L/s when the jump is located too close to the step. The longitudinal distance taken up by negative slope in the pool for the inspected range is shown by shaded area in each plot.
Figure 7: Boxplots for the distributions of the mass-averaged flow kinetic energy (KE, panels a-f), turbulence kinetic energy (TKE, panels g-l), and turbulent dissipation (εT, panels m-r) in the pool for all the six tested discharges (the plots at the same discharge are in the same row). The mass-averaged values were calculated every 2 cm in the streamwise direction. The flow direction is from left to right in all the plots. The general locations of the contraction section for all the flow rates are marked by the dashed lines, except for Q = 5 L/s when the jump is located too close to the step. The longitudinal distance taken up by negative slope in the pool for the inspected range is shown by shaded area in each plot.
Figure 8: Instantaneous flow structures extracted using the Q-criterion (Qcriterion=1200) and colored by the magnitude of flow velocity.
Figure 8: Instantaneous flow structures extracted using the Q-criterion (Qcriterion=1200) and colored by the magnitude of flow velocity.
Figure 9: Time-averaged dynamic pressure (DP_mean) on the bed surface in the step-pool model under the two highest discharges, with the step numbers marked. The negative values in the plots result from the setting of standard atmospheric pressure = 0 Pa, whose absolute value is 1.013×105 Pa.
Figure 9: Time-averaged dynamic pressure (DP_mean) on the bed surface in the step-pool model under the two highest discharges, with the step numbers marked. The negative values in the plots result from the setting of standard atmospheric pressure = 0 Pa, whose absolute value is 1.013×105 Pa.
Figure 10: Time-averaged shear stress (SS_mean) on bed surface in the step-pool model, with the step numbers marked. The standard atmospheric pressure is set as 0 Pa.
Figure 10: Time-averaged shear stress (SS_mean) on bed surface in the step-pool model, with the step numbers marked. The standard atmospheric pressure is set as 0 Pa.
Figure 11: Variation of fluid force components and magnitude of resultant flow force acting on step stones with flow rate. The stone 4 is the keystone. Stone numbers are consistent with those in Fig. 9-10. The upper limit of the sampling volumes for flow force calculation is higher than water surface while the lower limit is set at 3 cm lower than the keystone crest.
Figure 11: Variation of fluid force components and magnitude of resultant flow force acting on step stones with flow rate. The stone 4 is the keystone. Stone numbers are consistent with those in Fig. 9-10. The upper limit of the sampling volumes for flow force calculation is higher than water surface while the lower limit is set at 3 cm lower than the keystone crest.
Figure 12: Variation of drag (CD) and lift (CL) coefficient of the step stones along with flow rate. Stone numbers are consistent with those in Fig. 8-9. KS is short for keystone. The negative values of CD correspond to the drag forces towards the upstream while the negative values of CL correspond to lift forces pointing downwards.
Figure 12: Variation of drag (CD) and lift (CL) coefficient of the step stones along with flow rate. Stone numbers are consistent with those in Fig. 8-9. KS is short for keystone. The negative values of CD correspond to the drag forces towards the upstream while the negative values of CL correspond to lift forces pointing downwards.
Figure 13: Longitudinal distributions of section-averaged and -integral turbulent kinetic energy (TKE) for the jump and wake vortexes at the largest three discharges. The flow direction is from left to right in all the plots. The general locations of the contraction sections under the three flow rates are marked by dashed lines in figures (d) to (f).
Figure 13: Longitudinal distributions of section-averaged and -integral turbulent kinetic energy (TKE) for the jump and wake vortexes at the largest three discharges. The flow direction is from left to right in all the plots. The general locations of the contraction sections under the three flow rates are marked by dashed lines in figures (d) to (f).
Figure A1: Water surface profiles of the simulations with different mesh sizes at the discharge of 43.6 L/s at the longitudinal sections at: (a) Y = 24.5 cm (left boundary); (b) Y = 0.3 cm (middle section); (c) Y = -24.5 cm (right boundary). MS is short for mesh size. The flow direction is from left to right in each plot.
Figure A1: Water surface profiles of the simulations with different mesh sizes at the discharge of 43.6 L/s at the longitudinal sections at: (a) Y = 24.5 cm (left boundary); (b) Y = 0.3 cm (middle section); (c) Y = -24.5 cm (right boundary). MS is short for mesh size. The flow direction is from left to right in each plot.
Figure A2: Contours of velocity magnitude in the longitudinal section at Y = 0 cm at different mesh sizes (MSs) under the flow condition with the discharge of 43.6 L/s: (a) 0.50 cm; (b) 0.375 cm; (c) 0.30 cm; (d) 0.27 cm; (e) 0.25 cm; (f) 0.24 cm. The flow direction is from left to right.
Figure A2: Contours of velocity magnitude in the longitudinal section at Y = 0 cm at different mesh sizes (MSs) under the flow condition with the discharge of 43.6 L/s: (a) 0.50 cm; (b) 0.375 cm; (c) 0.30 cm; (d) 0.27 cm; (e) 0.25 cm; (f) 0.24 cm. The flow direction is from left to right.
Figure A3: Measurements of water surfaces (orange lines) used in model verification: (a) water surface profiles from both sides of the flume; (b) upstream edge of the jump regime from top view. KS refers to keystone in figure (b).
Figure A3: Measurements of water surfaces (orange lines) used in model verification: (a) water surface profiles from both sides of the flume; (b) upstream edge of the jump regime from top view. KS refers to keystone in figure (b).
Figure A15. Figure (a) shows the locations of the cross sections and target coarse grains at Q = 49.9 L/s. Figures (b) to (e) show the distribution of velocity magnitude (VM_mean) in the four chosen cross sections: (a) x0+8.0; (b) x0+14.0; (c) x0+21.5; (d) x0+42.5. G1 to G6 refer to 6 protruding grains in the micro-bedforms in the pool.
Figure A15. Figure (a) shows the locations of the cross sections and target coarse grains at Q = 49.9 L/s. Figures (b) to (e) show the distribution of velocity magnitude (VM_mean) in the four chosen cross sections: (a) x0+8.0; (b) x0+14.0; (c) x0+21.5; (d) x0+42.5. G1 to G6 refer to 6 protruding grains in the micro-bedforms in the pool.
Figure A16. The distribution of turbulent kinetic energy (TKE) in the same cross sections as in figure S15: (a) x0+8.0; (b) x0+14.0; (c) x0+21.5; (d) x0+42.5.
Figure A16. The distribution of turbulent kinetic energy (TKE) in the same cross sections as in figure S15: (a) x0+8.0; (b) x0+14.0; (c) x0+21.5; (d) x0+42.5.

References

720 Aberle, J. and Smart, G. M: The influence of roughness structure on flow resistance on steep slopes, J. Hydraul. Res., 41(3),
259-269, https://doi.org/10.1080/00221680309499971, 2003.
Abrahams, A. D., Li, G., and Atkinson, J. F.: Step-pool streams: Adjustment to maximum flow resistance. Water Resour. Res.,
31(10), 2593-2602, https://doi.org/10.1029/95WR01957, 1995.
Adrian, R. J.: Twenty years of particle image velocimetry. Exp. Fluids, 39(2), 159-169, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00348-005-
725 0991-7 2005.
Chanson, H.: Hydraulic design of stepped spillways and downstream energy dissipators. Dam Eng., 11(4), 205-242, 2001.
Chartrand, S. M., Jellinek, M., Whiting, P. J., and Stamm, J.: Geometric scaling of step-pools in mountain streams:
Observations and implications, Geomorphology, 129(1-2), 141-151, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2011.01.020,
2011.
730 Chen, Y., DiBiase, R. A., McCarroll, N., and Liu, X.: Quantifying flow resistance in mountain streams using computational
fluid dynamics modeling over structure‐from‐motion photogrammetry‐derived microtopography, Earth Surf. Proc.
Land., 44(10), 1973-1987, https://doi.org/10.1002/esp.4624, 2019.
Church, M. and Zimmermann, A.: Form and stability of step‐pool channels: Research progress, Water Resour. Res., 43(3),
W03415, https://doi.org/10.1029/2006WR005037, 2007.
735 Cignoni, P., Callieri, M., Corsini, M., Dellepiane, M., Ganovelli, F., and Ranzuglia, G.: Meshlab: an open-source mesh
processing tool, in: Eurographics Italian chapter conference, Salerno, Italy, 2-4 July 2008, 129-136, 2008.

Comiti, F., Andreoli, A., and Lenzi, M. A.: Morphological effects of local scouring in step-pool streams, Earth Surf. Proc.
Land., 30(12), 1567-1581, https://doi.org/10.1002/esp.1217, 2005.
Comiti, F., Cadol, D., and Wohl, E.: Flow regimes, bed morphology, and flow resistance in self‐formed step-pool
740 channels, Water Resour. Res., 45(4), 546-550, https://doi.org/10.1029/2008WR007259, 2009.
Dudunake, T., Tonina, D., Reeder, W. J., and Monsalve, A.: Local and reach‐scale hyporheic flow response from boulder ‐
induced geomorphic changes, Water Resour. Res., 56, e2020WR027719, https://doi.org/10.1029/2020WR027719, 2020.
Flow Science.: Flow-3D Version 11.2 User Manual, Flow Science, Inc., Los Alamos, 2016.
Gibson, S., Heath, R., Abraham, D., and Schoellhamer, D.: Visualization and analysis of temporal trends of sand infiltration
745 into a gravel bed, Water Resour. Res., 47(12), W12601, https://doi.org/10.1029/2011WR010486, 2011.
Hassan, M. A., Tonina, D., Beckie, R. D., and Kinnear, M.: The effects of discharge and slope on hyporheic flow in step‐pool
morphologies, Hydrol. Process., 29(3), 419-433, https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.10155, 2015.
Hirt, C. W. and Nichols, B. D.: Volume of Fluid (VOF) method for the dynamics of free boundaries. J. Comput. Phys., 39,
201-225, https://doi.org/10.1016/0021-9991(81)90145-5, 1981.
750 Javernick L., Brasington J., and Caruso B.: Modeling the topography of shallow braided rivers using structure-from-motion
photogrammetry, Geomorphology, 213(4), 166-182, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2014.01.006, 2014.
Lai, Y. G., Smith, D. L., Bandrowski, D. J., Xu, Y., Woodley, C. M., and Schnell, K.: Development of a CFD model and
procedure for flows through in-stream structures, J. Appl. Water Eng. Res., 1-15,
https://doi.org/10.1080/23249676.2021.1964388, 2021.
755 Lenzi, M. A.: Step-pool evolution in the Rio Cordon, northeastern Italy, Earth Surf. Proc. Land., 26(9), 991-1008,
https://doi.org/10.1002/esp.239, 2001.
Lenzi, M. A.: Stream bed stabilization using boulder check dams that mimic step-pool morphology features in Northern
Italy, Geomorphology, 45(3-4), 243-260, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-555X(01)00157-X, 2002.
Lenzi, M. A., Marion, A., and Comiti, F.: Local scouring at grade‐control structures in alluvial mountain rivers, Water Resour.
760 Res., 39(7), 1176, https://doi:10.1029/2002WR001815, 2003.
Li, W., Wang Z., Li, Z., Zhang, C., and Lv, L.: Study on hydraulic characteristics of step-pool system, Adv. Water Sci., 25(3),
374-382, https://doi.org/10.14042/j.cnki.32.1309.2014.03.012, 2014. (In Chinese with English abstract)
Maas, H. G., Gruen, A., and Papantoniou, D.: Particle tracking velocimetry in three-dimensional flows, Exp. Fluids, 15(2),
133-146. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00223406, 1993.

765 Montgomery, D. R. and Buffington, J. M.: Channel-reach morphology in mountain drainage basins, Geol. Soc. Am. Bul., 109(5), 596-611, https://doi.org/10.1130/0016-7606(1997)109<0596:CRMIMD>2.3.CO;2, 1997. Morgan J. A., Brogan D. J., and Nelson P. A.: Application of structure-from-motion photogrammetry in laboratory flumes, Geomorphology, 276(1), 125-143, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2016.10.021, 2017. Recking, A., Leduc, P., Liébault, F., and Church, M.: A field investigation of the influence of sediment supply on step-pool 770 morphology and stability. Geomorphology, 139, 53-66, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2011.09.024, 2012. Roth, M. S., Jähnel, C., Stamm, J., and Schneider, L. K.: Turbulent eddy identification of a meander and vertical-slot fishways in numerical models applying the IPOS-framework, J. Ecohydraulics, 1-20, https://doi.org/10.1080/24705357.2020.1869916, 2020. Saletti, M. and Hassan, M. A.: Width variations control the development of grain structuring in steep step‐pool dominated 775 streams: insight from flume experiments, Earth Surf. Proc. Land., 45(6), 1430-1440, https://doi.org/10.1002/esp.4815, 2020. Smith, D. P., Kortman, S. R., Caudillo, A. M., Kwan‐Davis, R. L., Wandke, J. J., Klein, J. W., Gennaro, M. C. S., Bogdan, M. A., and Vannerus, P. A.: Controls on large boulder mobility in an ‘auto-naturalized’ constructed step-pool river: San Clemente Reroute and Dam Removal Project, Carmel River, California, USA, Earth Surf. Proc. Land., 45(9), 1990-2003, 780 https://doi.org/10.1002/esp.4860, 2020. Thappeta, S. K., Bhallamudi, S. M., Fiener, P., and Narasimhan, B.: Resistance in Steep Open Channels due to Randomly Distributed Macroroughness Elements at Large Froude Numbers, J. Hydraul. Eng., 22(12), 04017052, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)HE.1943-5584.0001587, 2017. Thappeta, S. K., Bhallamudi, S. M., Chandra, V., Fiener, P., and Baki, A. B. M.: Energy loss in steep open channels with step785 pools, Water, 13(1), 72, https://doi.org/10.3390/w13010072, 2021. Turowski, J. M., Yager, E. M., Badoux, A., Rickenmann, D., and Molnar, P.: The impact of exceptional events on erosion, bedload transport and channel stability in a step-pool channel, Earth Surf. Proc. Land., 34(12), 1661-1673, https://doi.org/10.1002/esp.1855, 2009. Vallé, B. L. and Pasternack, G. B.: Air concentrations of submerged and unsubmerged hydraulic jumps in a bedrock step‐pool 790 channel, J. Geophys. Res.-Earth, 111(F3), F03016. https://doi:10.1029/2004JF000140, 2006. Waldon, M. G.: Estimation of average stream velocity, J. Hydraul. Eng., 130(11), 1119-1122. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9429(2004)130:11(1119), 2004. Wang, Z., Melching, C., Duan, X., and Yu, G.: Ecological and hydraulic studies of step-pool systems, J. Hydraul. Eng., 135(9), 705-717, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9429(2009)135:9(705), 2009

795 Wang, Z., Qi, L., and Wang, X.: A prototype experiment of debris flow control with energy dissipation structures, Nat. Hazards, 60(3), 971-989, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-011-9878-5, 2012. Weichert, R. B.: Bed Morphology and Stability in Steep Open Channels, Ph.D. Dissertation, No. 16316. ETH Zurich, Switzerland, 247pp., 2005. Wilcox, A. C., Wohl, E. E., Comiti, F., and Mao, L.: Hydraulics, morphology, and energy dissipation in an alpine step‐pool 800 channel, Water Resour. Res., 47(7), W07514, https://doi.org/10.1029/2010WR010192, 2011. Wohl, E. E. and Thompson, D. M.: Velocity characteristics along a small step–pool channel. Earth Surf. Proc. Land., 25(4), 353-367, https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1096-9837(200004)25:4<353::AID-ESP59>3.0.CO;2-5, 2000. Wu, S. and Rajaratnam, N.: Impinging jet and surface flow regimes at drop. J. Hydraul. Res., 36(1), 69-74, https://doi.org/10.1080/00221689809498378, 1998. 805 Xu, Y. and Liu, X.: 3D computational modeling of stream flow resistance due to large woody debris, in: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Fluvial Hydraulics, St. Louis, USA, 11-14, Jul, 2346-2353, 2016. Xu, Y. and Liu, X.: Effects of different in-stream structure representations in computational fluid dynamics models—Taking engineered log jams (ELJ) as an example, Water, 9(2), 110, https://doi.org/10.3390/w9020110, 2017. Zeng, Y. X., Ismail, H., and Liu, X.: Flow Decomposition Method Based on Computational Fluid Dynamics for Rock Weir 810 Head-Discharge Relationship. J. Irrig. Drain. Eng., 147(8), 04021030, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)IR.1943- 4774.0001584, 2021. Zhang, C., Wang, Z., and Li, Z.: A physically-based model of individual step-pool stability in mountain streams, in: Proceedings of the 13th International Symposium on River Sedimentation, Stuttgart, Germany, 801-809, 2016. Zhang, C., Xu, M., Hassan, M. A., Chartrand, S. M., and Wang, Z.: Experimental study on the stability and failure of individual 815 step-pool, Geomorphology, 311, 51-62, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2018.03.023, 2018. Zhang, C., Xu, M., Hassan, M. A., Chartrand, S. M., Wang, Z., and Ma, Z.: Experiment on morphological and hydraulic adjustments of step‐pool unit to flow increase, Earth Surf. Proc. Land., 45(2), 280-294, https://doi.org/10.1002/esp.4722, 2020. Zimmermann A., E.: Flow resistance in steep streams: An experimental study, Water Resour. Res., 46, W09536, 820 https://doi.org/10.1029/2009WR007913, 2010. Zimmermann A. E., Salleti M., Zhang C., Hassan M. A.: Step-pool Channel Features, in: Treatise on Geomorphology (2nd Edition), vol. 9, Fluvial Geomorphology, edited by: Shroder, J. (Editor in Chief), Wohl, E. (Ed.), Elsevier, Amsterdam, Netherlands, https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-818234-5.00004-3, 2020.

PDF 원문보기