4.7 Article

Hyporheic flow path response to hydraulic jumps at river steps: Flume and hydrodynamic models

期刊

WATER RESOURCES RESEARCH
卷 47, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

AMER GEOPHYSICAL UNION
DOI: 10.1029/2009WR008631

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Science Foundation [0450317, 0836354]
  2. Division Of Earth Sciences
  3. Directorate For Geosciences [0450317] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  4. Div Of Chem, Bioeng, Env, & Transp Sys
  5. Directorate For Engineering [0836354] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The conceptual model of hyporheic exchange below river steps may oversimplify exchange flow paths if it depicts a uniform pattern of downstream-directed upwelling. This research used nonmobile, porous bed flume experiments and hydrodynamic simulation (CFD) to characterize hyporheic flow paths below a river step with a hydraulic jump. Bed slope was 1%, step height was 4 cm, downstream flow depth was 4 cm, substrate was 1 cm median diameter gravel, and hydraulic jump length was 25 cm in the flume and CFD experiments. With the hydraulic jump, flow paths changed to include downwelling beneath the water plunging into the pool and upstream-directed upwelling at the base of the step and beneath the length of jump. Failure to represent the influence of static and dynamic pressures associated with hydraulic jumps leads to erroneous prediction of subsurface flow paths in 75% of the streambed beneath the jump. A refined conceptual model for hyporheic flow paths below a step with a hydraulic jump includes reversed hyporheic circulation cells, in which downwelling water moves upstream and then upwells, and flow reversals, in which the larger flow net of downstream-directed upwelling encounters a nested flow path of upstream-directed upwelling. Heterogeneity in hyporheic flow paths at hydraulic jumps has the potential to explain field-observed mosaics in streambed redox patterns and expand structure-function relationships used in river management and restoration.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据