JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION

Vol. 49, No. 1 AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION February 2013

COMPARISON OF MORPHODYNAMIC MODELS FOR THE LOWER YELLOW RIVER1

Junqiang Xia, Zhengbing Wang, Yanping Wang, and Xin Yu2

ABSTRACT: Significant channel adjustments often occur during flood seasons in the Lower Yellow River (LYR),
and it is a challenging work to accurately simulate the morphodynamic processes in the LYR using numerical
models. A comparison of two morphodynamic models (Delft3D and 2DLLCDM) for the LYR is presented herein
to identify critical improvements for these models. The concepts of these models are first compared with each
other. The models were then used to simulate the processes of flood routing, sediment transport, and morpholog-
ical changes occurring in a braided reach of the LYR. The differences were investigated between the simulated
results from these models and corresponding field measurements, and the results indicate that: (1) the hydrody-
namic processes calculated by both models agree closely with the measurements if an appropriate Manning’s
roughness coefficient is used; (2) the concentrations of suspended load at the downstream boundary calculated
by the models agree reasonably with the observed data; and (3) the predicted cross-sectional profiles obtained
from these models do not correspond well with the measurements. Based on these findings, the weak aspects of
the models are clarified, and three critical improvements are recommended, including: (1) the development of
roughness predictor; (2) the refinement of graded sediment transport capacity formulation; and (3) the consider-
ation of bank erosion module. These improvements need to be implemented in the future.

(KEY TERMS: morphodynamic model; Manning’s roughness coefficient; sediment transport capacity; fluvial pro-
cesses; Lower Yellow River.)

Xia, Junqiang, Zhengbing Wang, Yanping Wang, and Xin Yu, 2012. Comparison of Morphodynamic Models
for the Lower Yellow River. Journal of the American Water Resources Association (JAWRA) 49(1): 114-131.
DOI: 10.1111 ⁄ jawr.12002

INTRODUCTION world’s rivers in terms of sediment load (Li, 2003; Wu

The Yellow River (see Figure 1), the second largest
river in China, is well known for its high concentra-
tions of suspended load. At Sanmenxia, the mean
annual natural runoff of the Yellow River is normally
58 billion m3, and the mean annual suspended sedi-
ment load is 1.6 billion tons, ranking it first of all the
et al., 2008a). In general, the Lower Yellow River
(LYR) is defined as the reach between Mengjin in
Henan and Lijin in Shandong, with a total length of
about 786 km. The LYR is usually divided further
into three geomorphologically distinct reaches. The
upper reach, from Mengjin to Gaocun, has a typical
braided channel pattern. The lower reach, from
Taochengpu to Lijin, is a well-restricted and stable

1
Paper No. JAWRA-11-0126-P of the Journal of the American Water Resources Association (JAWRA). Received October 12, 2011; accepted
August 23, 2012. ª 2012 American Water Resources Association. Discussions are open until six months from print publication.
2
Respectively, Professor (Xia), State Key Laboratory of Water Resources and Hydropower Engineering Science, Wuhan University, No. 8,
Donghu South Road, Wuhan 430072, China; Professor (Wang), Delft University of Technology, Faculty of Civil Engineering and Geosciences,
2600 GA Delft, The Netherlands; and Senior Engineer (Wang) and Professor (Yu), Yellow River Institute of Hydraulic Research, Yellow River
Conservancy Commission, Zhengzhou 450003, China (E-Mail ⁄ Xia: xiajq@whu.edu.cn).

JAWRA 114 JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION

 COMPARISON OF MORPHODYNAMIC MODELS FOR THE LOWER YELLOW RIVER

Sanhuhekou 200 km
Yellow River Basin
Bayangaole Toudaoguai
Main stream of YR
Wanjiazhai
Tributaries of YR

Bohai Bay
Shizuishan

Lijing
Liujiaxia Qingtongxia
Wubao
Longyangxia Luokou
Xiaheyan
Aishan
Taochengpu
III
Longmen Gaocun

Lanzhou
Sunkou
Tangnaihei
Xiaolangdi
Jiahetan II
Huayuankou
Maqu
Tongguan
I
Jiwan

Reservoirs Sanmenxia

Hydrological stations I=Braided reach; II=Transitional reach; III=Meandering reach

Tuchengzi Section(TCZ)

FIGURE 1. Sketch of the Yellow River Basin.

meandering river reach. The river reach lying 1994; Wu et al., 2004; Xia et al., 2004). Zhang (1994)
between Gaocun and Taochengpu has a transitional proposed a steady 2D model in a body-fitted coordinate
channel pattern from braided to meandering. Heavy system to simulate the fluvial processes in a braided
soil erosion on the Loess Plateau upstream has led to reach of the LYR. Xia et al. (2004) integrated a depth-
intensive sedimentation in the LYR. According to the averaged 2D flow and sediment transport submodel
observed data, the total deposition volume in the with a cohesive bank erosion submodel to simulate the
LYR reached about 5.52 billion m3 during the period lateral and longitudinal channel deformations, which
from 1950 to 1999, of which 60% was deposited in the accurately reproduced the processes of channel widen-
braided reach (Xia et al., 2010), and severe sediment ing and bed deposition in a braided reach of the LYR
deposition caused the bed in the braided reach to (Wang et al., 2008). Wu et al. (2004) used a depth-aver-
aggrade by 2-4 m over this period because of a reduc- aged 2D model to calculate the process of flow and sedi-
tion in the water volume entering the LYR (Li, 2003). ment transport in the reach of the LYR between
One effect of heavy sedimentation in the LYR was an Huayuankou and Jiahetan. The simulated time series
obvious shrinkage of the main channel accompanied of water level, discharge, and sediment concentration
by a sharp decrease of the flood discharging capacity, were in reasonably good agreement with the measure-
which severely influenced the management of flood ments. At present, depth-averaged 2D models are more
control and made the phenomenon of ‘‘secondary often adopted in practice when simulating the morpho-
perched river’’ more serious (Wu et al., 2008a; Xia logical changes in the LYR due to their relatively easy
et al., 2010). Therefore, river engineers and scientists implementation and applications, although the process
in China adopted various methods to study the pro- of bed evolution in a braided reach is very complex due
cesses of flood routing, sediment transport, and mor- to there being numerous bars and complicated
phological changes in the LYR, and these methods branches appearing at low water stages, frequent
usually comprised physical river modeling and math- shifting of the main channel, and significant channel
ematical river modeling (Zhang and Xie, 1993). adjustment during high discharges. Therefore, the
Physical river models were used widely in the 1980s application of 2D morphodynamic models to the LYR is
and the 1990s to investigate the fluvial processes, and a challenging task at the present stage. Cao and Car-
they played an important role in solving the sediment ling (2002) presented a general review on the current
problem of the LYR. With the rapid development of status of mathematical modeling of alluvial rivers, and
computer performance and numerical methods for pointed out that the current mathematical models for
nonlinear analysis during the last four decades, math- morphodynamic processes are far from being mature,
ematical river models have become more popular due and some key issues need to be investigated further,
to their low cost, flexibility in evaluating different including the formulae of sediment transport capacity
effects of river engineering works, and capability of and bed roughness. Therefore, it is important to iden-
delivering detailed predictions. Two-dimensional (2D) tify what kind of model improvement is most relevant
models capable of simulating the processes of flow and and most urgently required in the modes for the LYR,
sediment transport as well as morphological changes which can be further referred to other river morphody-
have been developed since the end of the 1990s (Zhang, namic models.

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION 115 JAWRA

 XIA, WANG, WANG, AND YU

In this study, an intercomparison of two morphody-
namic models was conducted by considering both the
discrepancies between the model concepts and the dif-
ferences in the simulated results and corresponding
observed data, with some experience being then
obtained from this intercomparison. The common
shortcomings of both these models considered herein
were presented, including the inaccuracy of input data
concerned both the initial bathymetry and initial bed-
material composition. Furthermore, the most critical
model improvements for simulating the morphody-
namic processes in the LYR were identified in this
study as our primary objective, covering the bed rough-
ness predictor, the formulation of graded sediment
transport capacity, and the module of bank erosion.
not only predicting the processes of flood routing and
longitudinal bed deformation in natural rivers such as
the LYR, but also simulating the process of lateral bed
deformation, especially the process of lateral erosion
and failure of cohesive, noncohesive, or composite river-
banks (Xia et al., 2004; Wang et al., 2008).
Hydrodynamic Module
In this section, the governing equations for hydro-
dynamics in curvilinear coordinates are presented
first. In addition, treatments of key parameters
related to the equations are also given, covering the
effect of sediment on the hydrodynamics and the for-
mulation of bed roughness coefficient.

Governing Equations for Hydrodynam-

COMPARISON OF MODEL CONCEPTS ics. Both models in common use the 2D shallow
water equations (Lesser et al., 2004; Wang et al.,
2008). The depth-averaged continuity equation for
In this section, general information is first flow in curvilinear coordinates can be written as
described for these two morphodynamic models con-
sidered herein. Governing equations with the treat- @Z 1 @ 1 @
ments of key parameters and numerical solution þ ðhUCg Þ þ ðhVCn Þ ¼ 0 ð1Þ
@t Cn Cg @n Cn Cg @g
methods are also presented for each model.
The momentum equations for flow in the n and g
directions are given respectively by
General Information

Two morphodynamic models for the LYR are @U U @U V @U UV @Cn V 2 @Cg

þ þ þ 
included in the comparison: Delft3D (Delft Hydrau- @t Cn @n Cg @g Cn Cg @g Cn Cg @n
lics, 2003) and 2DLLCDM (2D longitudinal and lat- pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
2 2
g @Z 2 U þV ð2Þ
eral channel deformation model) (Xia et al., 2004). ¼  gn U
Cn @n h4=3
Delft3D is a generic commercial software package,  2 
whereas another model is specially developed for the mt @ U @2U
þ þ 2
LYR. Each of the models can be considered as con- Cn Cg @n2 @g
sisting of four modules: (1) a hydrodynamic module;
(2) a sediment transport module; (3) a module for
updating the morphology; and (4) a module for updat- and
ing the bed-material composition.
Delft3D (Delft Hydraulics, 2003; Lesser et al., @V U @V V @V UV @Cg U 2 @Cn
þ þ þ 
2004) was developed by WL|Delft Hydraulics in the @t Cn @n Cg @g Cn Cg @Cn Cn Cg @g
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Netherlands. It is a model suite that consists of a 2 2
g @Z 2 U þV ð3Þ
number of integrated modules that together allow the ¼  gn 4=3
V
Cg @g h
simulation of 2D or 3D hydrodynamics, and the com-  2 
putation of sediment transport and morphological mt @ V @2V
þ þ ;
changes in various coordinate systems. During this Cn Cg @n2 @g2
study, only the 2D-FS mode of Delft3D was used; it
comprises a 2D flow and online-sediment module in where n and g are orthogonal curvilinear coordinates
orthogonal curvilinear coordinates. in the horizontal directions; Z is the water level; h is
2DLLCDM, developed by Xia et al. (2004), is a depth- the water depth; U and V are velocity components in
averaged 2D model for the full channel adjustment, the n and g directions, respectively; Cn and Cg are
which consists of a submodel of 2D flow and sediment Lamé coefficients; and mt (=/u*h) is the horizontal
transport in orthogonal curvilinear coordinates and a turbulent viscosity coefficient for flow, where / is the
submodel of riverbank erosion. The model is capable of empirical parameter ranging from 0.0 to 1.0, u* is the

JAWRA 116 JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION

 COMPARISON OF MORPHODYNAMIC MODELS
pffiffiffi
friction velocity calculated by u ¼ nu g=h1=6 , in
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
which u ¼ U 2 þ V 2 , g is the gravitational accelera-
tion and n is the Manning’s roughness coefficient,
and t is the time. Equation (1) represents mass con-
servation for the water volume. In Equation (2) or
(3), the first term on the left-hand side represents the
local variation in momentum with time, and the other
terms represent the advective transport of momen-
tum. The terms on the right-hand side in Equation
(2) or (3) represent water-level gradient, friction loss,
and diffusive turbulent momentum transfer associ-
ated with the Reynolds’s stresses, respectively.
Equations (1-3) only represent the classical clear-
water governing equations, which usually need to be
solved using a decoupled approach. Therefore, the
influences of sediment transport and bed evolution on
the hydrodynamic processes are not directly taken
into consideration in the governing equations in the
case of the decoupled solution (Cao and Carling,
2002; Wu, 2008). Furthermore, the parameter of
roughness coefficient in Equations (2-3) is a very
important one, and the selected value of Manning’s
roughness coefficient has a significant effect on the
variations in water level and flood propagation speed.
Therefore, the selection of roughness coefficient needs
to be treated specially. These two issues related to
Equations (1-3) are discussed separately as follows.
Effect of Sediment on the Hydrodynamic Pro-
cesses. The sediment concentrations in the LYR are
sometimes extremely high, especially during flood
seasons, so that the density of the water-sediment
mixture varies temporally and spatially, which in
turn influences the turbulent structure of the flow. In
the 3D mode of Delft3D, all these effects can be taken
into account, whereas only the density variation is
considered in the 2D-FS mode of Delft3D. 2DLLCDM
cannot directly account for the effect of sediment con-
centrations in the flow governing equations. Such a
treatment is regarded to be reasonable without the
occurrence of hyperconcentrated sediment-laden flows
or rapid bed evolution (Cao and Carling, 2002; Wu,
2008). Therefore, this treatment is applicable in the
current study because the sediment concentrations to
be simulated were relatively low, with a maximum
value of <20 kg ⁄ m3. However, the calculation of Man-
ning’s roughness coefficient in 2DLLCDM accounts
for the effect of sediment concentrations, which indi-
rectly considers the effect of sediment concentrations
on the hydrodynamic processes.
Formulation of Bed Roughness Coefficient. In
the LYR, the magnitude of Manning’s roughness coef-
ficient was found to be quite large during low dis-
charges, with a highest measured value of more than
0.045 (Chien and Wan, 1999). Following the increase
JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION
FOR THE LOWER YELLOW RIVER
of a discharge, the coefficient gradually decreased
and approached a minimum value of 0.007 to 0.010.
Chien and Wan (1999) pointed out that the variation
in Manning’s roughness coefficient is closely related
to the development of bed form in the LYR.
In Delft3D, the roughness coefficient is specified as
a constant, or as a space-varying coefficient of Man-
ning, White-Colebrook or Chezy, or computed with a
roughness predictor proposed by Van Rijn (2007a).
Van Rijn’s roughness predictor determines the
parameter of bed form from the hydraulic and sedi-
mentary conditions such as flow velocity, water
depth, and grain size, and the parameter of bed form
is then used to compute the roughness coefficient,
which is used for computations of both sediment
transport and flow motion. However, this roughness
predictor has not been extensively validated in rivers
with high sediment concentrations such as the LYR,
for which the morphology in this reach is poorly
understood. Therefore, only constant roughness val-
ues are used in the present study for Delft3D.
2DLLCDM uses the formula proposed by Zhang
et al. (2001) to calculate Manning’s roughness coeffi-
cient, and this formula can take into consideration
the effect of hydraulic and sedimentary factors on the
value of Manning’s roughness coefficient. It can be
expressed by
 1=6  
h d
n ¼cn pffiffiffi
g h
8 "   #5 91
<  0:77  
d d d 0:2 =
0:49 þ 1 3p=8 sin ;
: h h h ;
ð4Þ
where cn = 0.375j and d ð¼ Db50 Þ is the roughness
thickness related to the flow intensity and the grain
size of bed material, in which b¼1
0:5 3
þ108:113Fr ð1Fr Þ , Fr is the Froude number of flow;
and j is the Von Kármán coefficient
pffiffiffiffiffiffi for turbid water,
calculated by j ¼ 0:4  1:68 Sv ð0:365  Sv Þ, where Sv
is the sediment concentration by volume. This empiri-
cal formula is valid for Fr <0.80. The validity of this
formula was verified using ample laboratory and field
data, and it has been used in other numerical models
for the LYR (Zhang et al., 2001; Ni et al., 2004; Wang
et al., 2008).
Sediment Transport Module
In the LYR, the change in morphology is mainly
caused by the nonequilibrium transport of suspended
load, which is closely related to the calculation
117 JAWRA
 XIA, WANG, WANG,
method of the source term, and the formulation of
sediment transport capacity in the governing equa-
tions for sediment transport.
Governing Equations for Sediment Trans-
port. In the calculation of sediment transport,
Delft3D always includes the transport of both bed
load and suspended load. 2DLLCDM specially devel-
oped for the LYR, does not include the simulation of
bed load transport because the transport of sus-
pended load in this river is fairly dominant. Accord-
ing to the analysis of observed data by Long and
Zhang (2002), the average ratio of bed load to total
load of sediment in the LYR is only about 0.5%.
Therefore, the transport of bed load is often ignored
and only the transport of suspended load is consid-
ered in this model. The advection-diffusion equation
for the fractional suspended load used in both models
can be given as
 
@ 1 @   @
ðhSk Þ þ Cg UhSk þ ðCn VhSk Þ
@t Cn Cg @n @g
   
particle size, and a the reference height. In this
h @ Cg @ @ Cn @
¼ es ðSk Þ þ es ðSk Þ
Cn Cg @n Cn @n @g Cg @g
þ ðEk  Dk Þ
where es is the horizontal turbulent diffusivity coeffi-
cient for sediment; Sk is the sediment concentration
for the kth fraction; and the source term is repre-
sented by the rates of bed erosion (Ek) and deposition
(Dk), respectively. These models adopt different
expressions for the terms of Ek and Dk.
Calculation of the Source Term. These two
models apply a similar equation for the calculation of
the source term, given by:
Dk  Ek ¼ ask xsk ðSk  Sk Þ;
where xsk represents the effective settling velocity for
the kth fraction; and S*k and ask are the sediment
transport capacity and coefficient of saturation recov-
ery or adjustment for the kth fraction.
In Delft3D, a distinction is made between noncohe-
sive and cohesive fractions. For noncohesive fractions,
Equation (6) is also used to calculate the source term,
but the coefficient ask is calculated according to the
formulation of Galappatti and Vreugdenhil (1985), or
Wang (1992). For cohesive fractions, the Krone-
Partheniades formulations are used to determine the
rates of erosion and deposition (Krone, 1962; Parthe-
JAWRA
AND YU
niades, 1965). In 2DLLCDM, ask is determined by the
method proposed by Zhang et al. (2001), and its
detailed expression can also be found in Ni et al.
(2004) and Wang et al. (2008). Furthermore, all the
fractions of suspended load are regarded as noncohe-
sive sediment in 2DLLCDM.
Formulation of Sediment Transport Capac-
ity. Delft3D uses formulas that calculate either the
total sediment transport or the bed load and sus-
pended load separately. For the suspended load, a
depth-averaged sediment concentration in equilib-
rium (S*) can be calculated by the formula proposed
by Van Rijn (1984a), which can be expressed as fol-
lows:
S ¼ 0:015qs FD50 T 1:5 =ðaD0:3
 Þ; ð7Þ
where qs is the density of sediment, F the shape coef-
ficient, D50 the median diameter of bed material, T
the transport stage parameter, D* the dimensionless
;
study, the enhanced sediment transport formula of
Equation (7) is applied in Delft3D (Van Rijn,
2007a,b). This formula can calculate the sediment
ð5Þ transport capacity of the total load at the same time.
The bed load transport formula for steady flow, pro-
posed by Van Rijn (1984b), was modified by introduc-
ing the instantaneous bed-shear stress. The enhanced
sediment formula has been developed for sediments
with a grain size of 0.008 mm and coarser, for con-
centrations up to 150 kg ⁄ m3, and water depths
exceeding 1.0 m. However, the sediment transport
capacity computed by the enhanced formula is under-
estimated when the flow velocity is <0.6 m ⁄ s and the
median diameter of suspended load is <0.1 mm (Wu
et al., 2008b).
In 2DLLCDM, the sediment transport capacity for-
mula proposed by Zhang and Zhang (1992) is used,
ð6Þ which can be written as
"  #0:62
ð0:0022 þ Sv Þu3 h
S ¼ 2:5 ln ; ð8Þ
j cs ccm ghxm 6D50
m
where S* is the sediment transport capacity; cs and
cm denote the specific densities Pof sediment and tur-
bid water, respectively; xm ¼ N k¼1 DPk xsk is the
group settling velocity of nonuniform sediment,
where DP*k is the percentage of the sediment trans-
port capacity for the kth fraction; and D50 is the med-
ian diameter of bed material. SI units are used in
this formula. The accuracy of this formula was
118 JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION
 COMPARISON OF MORPHODYNAMIC MODELS FOR THE LOWER YELLOW RIVER

validated using a series of field and laboratory data, in Delft3D underpredicts the sediment transport
which confirmed its reasonable predictive accuracy. capacity if the concentration is <10 kg ⁄ m3, although
Therefore, this formula has been widely used in the it generally overestimates the capacity at high con-
computation of sediment transport in several numeri- centrations; and (2) Equation (8) in 2DLLCDM per-
cal models for the LYR (Zhang et al., 2001; Ni et al., forms well because it was calibrated by the data from
2004; Wang et al., 2008). the Yellow River. A statistical method of the mean
Figures 2a and 2b compare the results calculated normalized error (MNE) is usually used to evaluate
by the above sediment transport formulas with the the goodness-of-fit between the computed and mea-
observed data. These observed data were mainly from sured results. For a perfect fit, the value of MNE
the measurements at hydrometric stations in the approaches zero. The obtained values of MNE for
LYR (Wu et al., 2008b), with the flow velocities rang- Van Rijn’s formula and Equation (8) are 0.557 and
ing from 0.3 to 3.1 m ⁄ s, and with the water depths 0.478, respectively. Therefore, the predictive accuracy
ranging from 0.6 to 11.3 m. It can be seen from Fig- of these formulas is limited partly due to the compli-
ure 2 that: (1) Van Rijn’s formula (Van Rijn, 2007b) cated sediment transport in this reach.

3
10
HYK (Huayuankou) Module for Updating the Morphology
JHT (Jiahetan)
GC
(Gaocun)
10
2 SK
(Aishan)
Channel adjustments can occur in two spatial
Computed Concentration (kg/m )

AS
directions in the LYR. One is longitudinal channel
3

LK (Luokou)
LJ (Lijing) adjustment, characterized by morphological changes
1 TCZ (Tuchengzi) such as bed scour or sediment deposition on the bed,
10
and the other is lateral channel adjustment, distin-
guished by river width adjustments, usually involving
10
0
the process of bank erosion (Xia et al., 2004). In
updating the morphology in the LYR, the rate of
longitudinal channel adjustment can be determined
-1
10 using the bed deformation equation due to the non-
equilibrium transport of suspended load, whereas the
(a) lateral channel adjustment requires the simulation of
-2
10 bank erosion process.
-2 -1 0 1 2 3
10 10 10 10 10 10
3
Measured Concentration (kg/m ) Updating Bed Level. 2DLLCDM only accounts
for the transport process of suspended load. There-
1.0E+3 fore, the change in bed levels can be calculated by:

HYK XN   X N
JHT
@Zb
0 0 DZbk
q ¼q ¼ ðDk  Ek Þ; ð9Þ
1.0E+2 GC @t k¼1
Dt k¼1
Computed Concentration (kg/m3)

SK
AS
LK
LJ
where Zb is the bed level, q¢ the dry density of bed
1.0E+1 TCZ material, DZbk the thickness of bed evolution for the
kth fraction, N the total number of fractions used to
represent the gradation of nonuniform sediment, and
Dt the time step. Delft3D still includes bed load
1.0E+0 transport, and therefore the change in bed levels is
extended with the divergence of the bed load trans-
(b) port.
1.0E-1
1.0E-1 1.0E+0 1.0E+1 1.0E+2 1.0E+3
Simulating Bank Erosion. In the braided reach
3
Measured Concentration (kg/m ) of the LYR, bank erosion often occurs during the per-
iod of clear water scouring, due to water impound-
ment and sediment detention of the Xiaolangdi
FIGURE 2. Comparison Between the Calculated and
Observed Concentrations: (a) Delft3D (Van Rijn’s formula) and Reservoir. Analysis of the observed data during the
(b) 2DLLCDM (Equation 8). period from 1999 to 2005 showed that the amount of

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION 119 JAWRA

 XIA, WANG, WANG,
scouring in the braided reach was 0.594 billion m3,
which occupied 77% of the total scouring in the LYR
over the period. It also indicated that the sediment
quantity from bank erosion accounted for 30-50% of
the total sediment amount scoured in the braided
reach (Xia et al., 2007). Delft3D and 2DLLCDM adopt
different methods to account for the process of bank
erosion.
Delft3D uses a factor of dry cell erosion to simulate
the process of bank erosion (Roelvink et al., 2003). In
the case of erosion near a dry bank, the standard
scheme will not allow erosion of the adjacent cells,
even when a steep scour hole would develop right
next to the bank. Therefore, a scheme has been
implemented, where for each wet cell the erosion vol-
ume is distributed over the wet cell and the adjacent
dry cells if there are dry points adjacent to it. The
distribution is governed by a user-specified parame-
ter, which determines the fraction of the erosion to be
assigned to the adjacent dry cells. If this factor equals
0, the standard scheme is used; if this factor equals
1, all erosion that would occur in the wet cell is
assigned to the adjacent dry cells.
2DLLCDM simulates the process of bank erosion
using the methods of near-bank hydrodynamics and
soil mechanics (Darby, 1998; Mosselman, 1998; Xia
et al., 2004; Wang et al., 2008). For cohesive river-
banks, this simulation is based on the bank erosion
model proposed by Osman and Thorne (1988), and the
corresponding computational procedure includes two
steps: (1) computation of lateral erosion distance; and
(2) analysis of bank slope stability. The eroded mate-
rial from the bank is divided into two parts: suspended
load and bed material. The former is the lateral input
term for the transport equation of suspended load, and
the latter is used to determine the deposition thickness
in the near-bank zone. The detailed procedure for the
enhanced bank erosion submodel can be found in Xia
et al. (2004) or Wang et al. (2008).
Module for Updating the Bed-Material Composition
In order to simulate the phenomenon of armoring
or sorting of bed material during degradation or
aggradation, a procedure of updating the bed-mate-
rial composition is often applied. In 2DLLCDM, the
bed material at each computational cell is divided
into two vertical layers: the upper one is called the
mixing or active layer and the lower one is called the
memory layer. The thickness of the mixing layer is
denoted by Hb, with its gradation being represented
by DPbk. The memory layer is further divided into m
smaller sublayers, with the thickness and gradation
of each sublayer being represented by DHm and DPmk,
respectively. The adjustment procedure of the size
JAWRA
AND YU
distribution of bed material in the surface layer can
be classified into two cases of bed scour and bed depo-
sition, with a detailed description of the procedure
being given in Wang et al. (2008). Delft3D uses a sim-
ilar procedure as presented in 2DLLCDM. However,
the former usually accounts for the adjustment of
bed-material composition in the mixing layer.
Numerical Solution Methods
In Delft3D, a model domain is usually covered by a
set of curvilinear mesh, and the variables are
arranged in a pattern called a staggered grid to dis-
cretize the 2D shallow water equations in space. In
this arrangement, a water-level point is defined in
the center of a cell and the velocity components are
located on the grid cell faces normal to their orienta-
tions. In this model, an alternating direction implicit
(ADI) method is used to solve the continuity and
momentum equations (Leendertse, 1970). The advan-
tage of the ADI method is that the implicitly inte-
grated water levels and velocities are coupled along
grid lines, leading to the discretized equations with a
small band width. Stelling (1984) extended the ADI
method of Leendertse (1970) with a special approach
for the horizontal advection terms, and the corre-
sponding scheme is denoted as a cyclic method of
ADI (Stelling and Leendertse, 1991). This leads to a
method that is computationally efficient, at least sec-
ond-order accurate, and stable at Courant numbers of
up to approximately 10. The sediment transport
equation is formulated in a conservative form (finite
volume method) and is solved using the cyclic
method. In addition, a horizontal Forester filter (For-
ester, 1979) based on the diffusion along the horizon-
tal direction is applied to remove any negative
concentration values that may occur. The Forester fil-
ter is mass conserving and does not cause significant
amplitude losses in sharply peaked solutions.
2DLLCDM uses a three-step solution procedure
(Wang et al., 2008). First, the flow governing equations
in curvilinear coordinates are split into two sets of
equations in the longitudinal and lateral directions
using the method of fractional steps (Yanenko, 1971).
The ‘‘time marching’’ ADI scheme is employed to solve
the two sets of discretized equations on a staggered
grid (Leendertse, 1970). Secondly, a method of frac-
tional steps in space and a hybrid scheme of explicit-
implicit discretization are employed to solve the 2D
transport equation of suspended load, and more details
of this method can be referred to Xia et al. (2004) or
Wang et al. (2008). Thirdly, the bed level at each node
by the end of the time level can be updated with the
explicit scheme, and the calculation of updating the
bed-material composition is then conducted.
120 JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION
 COMPARISON OF MORPHODYNAMIC MODELS
Summary of the Model Capabilities
According to the aforesaid description, the main
characteristics of the two models are summarized in
Table 1, which clearly indicates the difference in the
model capabilities, including calculations of bed
roughness and sediment transport capacity, treat-
ment of the source term in sediment transport, and
calculations of updating the morphology and bed-
material composition. Furthermore, it should be
pointed out herein that the current governing equa-
tions for flow and sediment transport are based on
the diffusion model using the assumption of a kind of
continuous medium (Wu, 2008), instead of the two-
phase model for sediment-laden flows.
MODEL SET-UP
According to the flood defense strategy of the Chi-
nese government, the water levels in the reservoirs
along the Yellow River need to be lowered to specified
pool levels before the flood season each year. A large
volume of storage water in the reservoirs needs to be
released during this period. In order to optimize the
use of the storage water, a series of large-scale exper-
iments of a joint operation between several associated
reservoirs have been undertaken in recent years.
Xiaolangdi Reservoir has played a key role in this
operation. This reservoir has a total storage capacity
of 12.65 billion m3 and is located at the exit of the
last gorge in the middle reach of the Yellow River,
130 km downstream of the Sanmenxia Dam (see Fig-
ure 1). The Xiaolangdi Reservoir was built in the late
1990s as a key management measure for flood and
sediment control, irrigation and water supply, as well
as power generation. The reservoir started to
impound water in October 1999, and large-scale
TABLE 1. Summary of the Model Capabilities.
Model Capabilities Delft3D
Bed roughness Constant roughness
Sediment transport capacity Sediment transport formula by Van Rijn
(2007a,b)
Cohesive sediment and noncohesive sediment
are considered
Source term in Equation (5) Galappatti and Vreugdenhil (1985) for
noncohesive sediment
Partheniades (1965) for cohesive sediment
Morphological updating Factor of dry cell erosion (Roelvink et al., 2003)
Bed-material composition updating Only updating in the mixing layer
JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION 121
FOR THE LOWER YELLOW RIVER
experiments of regulating water and sediment have
been conducted annually since 2002. These experi-
ments usually adopt a scheme of a joint operation,
with the water from other reservoirs along the Yellow
River being first transferred to the Xiaolangdi Reser-
voir. The water is then released from the Xiaolangdi
Reservoir with relatively large discharges (i.e., man-
made flood peaks) to maintain a certain level of sedi-
ment concentration. The man-made floods first route
along the braided reach, and then propagate along
the transitional and meandering reaches of the LYR.
The channel in the braided reach is scoured to a cer-
tain extent due to low sediment concentrations and
large discharges released from the Xiaolangdi Reser-
voir, and the corresponding flood discharging capacity
in the main channel is estimated to increase signifi-
cantly in this reach. During these experiments,
detailed hydrological data are collected at many
locations along the river. These measurements have
provided the necessary information required for
conducting the intercomparison of these models.
In the current study, the above models were set up to
simulate a water and sediment regulation experiment
in a braided reach conducted before the 2004 flood sea-
son. An intercomparison of the model-predicted mor-
phodynamic processes was undertaken. In addition,
these model predictions were also compared with the
available field data. The study reach consisted of 15 con-
secutive river bends with different curvatures. There-
fore, it was also characterized as a meandering reach to
a certain extent, although it was part of a braided reach.
This geometry was caused by severe sedimentation and
shrinking of the main channel in the LYR since 1987.
Before the flood season in 2004, the mean width of the
main channel in the study reach was 780 m, with a min-
imum value of 300 m, and the mean longitudinal slope
of the main channel was about 1.5 ⁄ 10,000. It should be
noted that all the hydrological data used in the models
were measured by the Bureau of Hydrology, Yellow
River Conservancy Commission (YRCC), including the
Different Models
2DLLCDM
Roughness predictor (Zhang et al., 2001)
Suspended load transport formula by Zhang
and Zhang (1992)
Only noncohesive sediment is considered
Zhang et al. (2001)
Bank erosion module based on soil mechanics
(Xia et al., 2004)
Updating in the mixing layer and memory layer
JAWRA
 XIA, WANG, WANG, AND YU

measurements of water levels, discharges, concentra-
tions, cross-sectional profiles, and so on. A list of all the
hydrological data is shown in Table 2.
Computational Mesh and Initial Bathymetry
The study domain covered the braided reach
between Jiahetan and Gaocun in the LYR. It had a
length of about 87 km with 46 observed cross-sectional
profiles. The main channel and a part of the low flood-
plains were covered by the study domain. Because
large-scale overbank flows did not occur during this
experiment, it was not necessary to cover the entire
floodplains. The study domain was divided into
472 · 10 curvilinear cells with grid sizes varying
between 22 and 555 m. A part of computational mesh
in a local region is shown in Figure 3. The bed eleva-
tion of each cell was obtained from the observed cross-
sectional geometry by the technique of smooth interpo-
lating in the separate regions of main channel and low
floodplains (see Figure 3). The above computational
mesh was used by both Delft3D and 2DLLCDM.
at Jiahetan, and the observed hydrograph of water
level at Gaocun. Due to the operation of the Xiao-
langdi Reservoir, the released water consisted of two
phases with the flood peak discharges of 2,780 and
2,840 m3 ⁄ s, respectively, and with the corresponding
peak sediment concentrations of 11.0 and 12.1 kg ⁄ m3.
It can also be found that the discharge hydrograph at
Jiahetan and the water-level hydrograph at Gaocun
were well correlated.
Figure 5 shows a mean size distribution of the sus-
pended load at Jiahetan over the study period, and
the mean median diameter at this section was
0.031 mm. The gradation of incoming suspended load
was used to determine the fractional sediment dis-
charges at the upstream boundary. The study period
was 600 h, from June 19 to July 14, 2004, and the
computational time step was 6 s. As compared with
the water volume entering this reach, the volume of
water diversion during the period was negligible in
this reach, and therefore the process of water diver-
sion was not accounted for.
Initial Bed-Material Composition

Boundary Conditions The data for the bed-material composition in this

reach observed in April 2004 were available at only
The upstream model boundary was located at the eight cross-sections, so the size distribution of bed
Jiahetan gauging station, 220 km downstream of the material at each node was obtained by linear interpo-
Xiaolangdi Dam. The downstream model boundary lation of these known bed-material gradations at the
was located at the Gaocun gauging station, 307 km sections. Figure 5 also indicates a mean size distribu-
downstream of the dam. Figure 4 shows the observed tion of the bed material in this reach at the initial
time series of discharge and sediment concentration time. It can be seen from Figure 5 that the size distri-
butions for both the suspended load and bed material
were nonuniform, with the particle sizes ranging
TABLE 2. List of All the Hydrological Data.
from 0.002 to 0.500 mm. In this study, five fractions
Figures Data Name Sources or References were used to represent the nonuniform sediment mix-
ture, with the corresponding representative diame-
2a Sediment transport data Wu et al. (2008b) ters of 8, 23.50, 46.50, 93.50, and 250.0 lm. At the
3 Initial bathymetry Interpolation from the
initial time, the mean median diameter of the bed
measured
cross-sectional profiles material in this reach was 0.056 mm, which was
4 Hydrographs of discharge YRCC coarser than that of the suspended load at Jiahetan.
and suspended load In Delft3D, the first fraction was treated as cohesive
concentration at sediment, whereas the other fractions were treated
Jiahetan
as noncohesive sediment. In 2DLLCDM, all the frac-
Water-level hydrograph
at Gaocun tions were regarded as noncohesive sediment.
5 Gradations of inflow
suspended load and bed
material in the reach
6-7 Water-level hydrographs
ANALYSIS OF MODEL RESULTS
at different sites
8 Discharge hydrograph at
Gaocun
9 Hydrograph of suspended Before application, numerical models are usually
load concentration at Gaocun first calibrated and subsequently verified with inde-
10-11 Measured cross-sectional
pendent datasets. The most common calibration
profiles
parameter for hydrodynamics is the bed roughness

JAWRA 122 JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION

 COMPARISON OF MORPHODYNAMIC MODELS FOR THE LOWER YELLOW RIVER

18
Jiahetan
Bed elevation (Unit:m)
15 Location of hydrometric station
59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 Location of water gauging station
12
Y(km) CS05 Local mesh Location of observed cross-section
CS30
9
5
CS15 CS3
6
CS40 ng

Gaocun
CS25 ua
3 CS10 CS20
g zh CS45
Qin
Dongbatou1

0
0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 60 66 72
X(km)

FIGURE 3. Initial Bathymetry in the Study Region with the Location of Each Section.

3000 16 63.2

2700 63
14

2400 62.8
12

Concentration S (kg/m3)
Discharge Q (m3/s)

62.6
2100

Water level Z (m)

10
62.4
1800
8 62.2
1500
62
6
1200
61.8
Q 4
900 61.6
S 2
600 61.4
Z
300 0 61.2
0 60 120 180 240 300 360 420 480 540 600
June 19 July 13
Time (hours)

FIGURE 4. Boundary Conditions Used in the Models.

100
of the two models in the LYR can be referred to in
80 Wang et al. (2008) and Van Maren et al. (2011).
% by weight finer than

Therefore, the effect of different parameter settings

60
40
20
0 the hydrodynamic and morphologic results simulated
0.001
FIGURE 5. Size Distributions for the Bed Material and
Suspended Load.
coefficient, whereas the calibration parameters for
morphology are numerous. In the present study, a
different approach was followed because numerous
datasets with high accuracy were not readily avail-
able for the LYR, but more importantly, the calibra-
tion of the parameters themselves was a part of the
analysis. A key step of this study was to preliminarily
identify the effect of different model concepts on the
corresponding model results, based on different bed
roughness coefficients. Detailed validation processes
should be investigated more as a sensitivity analysis
rather than placed within a calibration ⁄ verifica-
Suspended load
tion ⁄ application sequence. The hydrodynamic pro-
Bed material cesses are also strongly coupled with the morpho-
dynamic processes in the LYR, and therefore, both
0.010 D(mm) 0.100 1.000
by both models are presented in detail.
A small bed roughness coefficient produces higher
flow velocities and lower water levels, and conse-
quently increases the propagation speed of flood
waves (Julien, 2002). The sediment transport capac-
ity is modified indirectly by the roughness coefficient
through the water depth and flow velocity, but also
directly in Delft3D because the roughness value is an
input parameter for the sediment transport formula-
tion. In this section, the effects of different bed rough-
ness coefficients were investigated on water levels at
water gauge stations, discharges and concentrations
at the downstream boundary, and bed evolution at
typical sections. Delft3D and 2DLLCDM usually had
to be run for a sufficiently long time or a spin-up

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION 123 JAWRA

 XIA, WANG, WANG, AND YU

period without bathymetric updating to achieve a 78.0

(a)
steady state under the given inflow discharge and sus- 77.5
pended load concentration at the upstream boundary,
and the given water level at the downstream bound- 77.0

Water level (m)

ary. These steady state results were then treated as 76.5
the initial conditions of flow and sediment transport.
76.0

75.5
Effect of Bed Roughness on Water Level 75.0

Figures 6 and 7 compare the water-level hydro- 74.5

graphs at the water gauge stations of Jiahetan, Don- 74.0

gbatou1, and Qingzhuang calculated using different 0 60 120 180 240 300 360 420 480 540 600
Manning’s roughness coefficients with the corre- Time (hours)
sponding measurements. 75.0
In the case of Delft3D (Figure 6), a Manning’s (b)
74.5
roughness coefficient of 0.012 provides the best agree-
ment between the simulated and measured water lev- 74.0
els at Jiahetan. However, at Dongbatou1, the

Water level (m)

73.5
calculated water levels are underestimated if Man-
73.0
ning’s roughness coefficients smaller than 0.015 are
used, whereas they agree closely with the observed 72.5
data for a value of n = 0.018. At Qingzhuang,
72.0
although the roughness coefficient does not greatly
influence the calculated water levels because the cali- 71.5
bration location is very close to the downstream 71.0
boundary, a value of n = 0.018 gives reasonable 0 60 120 180 240 300 360 420 480 540 600
agreement between the model predictions and mea- Time (hours)
surements. The sensitivity of water levels to the 65.0
selected roughness value varies at different sections. (c)
64.5
The mean water level at Jiahetan or Dongbatou1,
over the study period, was predicted to increase by 64.0
about 0.50 m as the value of Manning’s roughness
Water level(m)

63.5
coefficient varied from 0.012 to 0.018, whereas it was
predicted to rise by only 0.1 m at Qingzhuang for the 63.0

same change in the roughness value. Therefore, vari- 62.5

ous roughness values at different sites are required
62.0
in order to provide reasonable agreement between
Observed Manning's n = 0.012
the model predictions and corresponding measure- 61.5
Manning's n = 0.015 Manning's n = 0.018
ments. 61.0
Figure 7 shows that 2DLLCDM can satisfactorily 0 60 120 180 240 300 360 420 480 540 600
simulate water levels at the three stations when the Time (hours)
roughness predictor of Equation (4) is used. This is
expected because the roughness predictor in FIGURE 6. Comparison Between the Calculated Water Levels by
2DLLCDM was calibrated by the measurements in Delft3D Using Various Roughness Coefficients and Those Observed
this reach. At Jiahetan, the calculated water levels at (a) Jiahetan, (b) Dongbatou1, and (c) Qingzhuang.
are closer to the observed data if a constant rough-
ness coefficient of 0.010 is used. At the stations of The following conclusions can be drawn from these
Dongbatou1 and Qingzhuang, the calculated water results: (1) a calibrated Manning’s predicator pro-
levels are in agreement with the observed data if a vides better results than constant Manning’s values;
constant roughness coefficient of 0.015 is used. There- (2) the value of Manning’s roughness coefficient in
fore, this comparison between the calculated water the LYR usually changes with flow intensity, and
levels under different roughness values and corre- reasonable results can be obtained if it ranges from
sponding measured data can testify further that a 0.010 to 0.015; and (3) various roughness values at
reasonable roughness predictor is necessary for a different cells are required in order to increase the
morphodynamic model in the LYR. predictive accuracy of water levels.

JAWRA 124 JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION

 COMPARISON OF MORPHODYNAMIC MODELS FOR THE LOWER YELLOW RIVER

78.0 However, a decrease in the value of Manning’s rough-

(a)
77.5 ness coefficient from 0.015 to 0.012 results in an ear-
lier arrival of the first peak discharge by
77.0
approximately 6 h. In addition, the comparison shows
Water level (m)

76.5 that a lower roughness coefficient yields more accu-

76.0 rate results. In the case of n = 0.012, the correlation
coefficient squared (R2) between the observed and cal-
75.5
culated discharges is 0.980, with the corresponding
75.0 value of root mean square deviation (RMSD) of
74.5 116.5 m3 ⁄ s. In the case of n = 0.018, the value of R2
between them is 0.942, with the corresponding RMSD
74.0
value of 194.2 m3 ⁄ s. Therefore, the correlation degree
0 60 120 180 240 300 360 420 480 540 600
between them would reduce by about 4% as the value
Time (hours)
of Manning’s roughness coefficient increases from
75.0
(b) 0.012 to 0.018.
74.5 Figure 8b indicates that different bed roughness
74.0 coefficients have a marked influence on the dis-
charges predicted by 2DLLCDM. In the case of the
Water level (m)

73.5
roughness predictor adopted, the value of R2 between
73.0 the observed discharges and calculated values is
72.5 0.982, with the corresponding RMSD value of
135.1 m3 ⁄ s. With the increase of the roughness coeffi-
72.0
cient, the calculated peak discharge is underesti-
71.5 mated by about 300 m3 ⁄ s, and the calculated
71.0 minimum discharge is overestimated by about
0 60 120 180 240 300 360 420 480 540 600 200 m3 ⁄ s. During the period from t = 190 h and
Time (hours) t = 270 h, the calculated discharges using the rough-
65.0 ness predictor are greater than the observed data.
(c) This phenomenon can also be found in the results in
64.5
Figure 8a from Delft3D, which may have been caused
64.0 by the fact that the process of water diversion during
this period was not taken into consideration in the
Water level (m)

63.5
models.
63.0 Based on the above comparison, the following
62.5 Observed conclusions are drawn: (1) Manning’s roughness
Manning's n = 0.010 coefficient has a marked effect on the predicted
62.0 discharge hydrograph at the downstream section for
Manning's n = 0.015
61.5 2DLLCDM; and (2) a lower value of Manning’s
Manning's n = 0.020 Manning's n = Predictor
roughness coefficient (n = 0.012) improves the simu-
61.0
lated results in this case study.
0 60 120 180 240 300 360 420 480 540 600
Time (hours)

Effect of Bed Roughness on Sediment Concentration

FIGURE 7. Comparison Between the Calculated Water Levels by
2DLLCDM Using Various Roughness Coefficients and Those
Observed at (a) Jiahetan, (b) Dongbatou1, and (c) Qingzhuang. Figure 9 compares the calculated concentrations of
suspended load at the downstream boundary using
different values of Manning’s roughness coefficient
Effect of Bed Roughness on Discharge with the observed data. Temporal variation in the
suspended load concentrations calculated by Delft3D
Figure 8 compares the discharge hydrographs at is similar to that in the observed data, as shown in
the downstream boundary calculated by different Figure 9a. The sediment concentrations calculated
Manning’s roughness coefficients with the observed with high roughness coefficients of 0.015 and 0.018
data. The effect of the bed roughness coefficient on are lower than the observed concentrations, whereas
the discharges predicted by Delft3D is minor, as the sediment concentrations calculated with a Man-
shown in Figure 8a. The calculated two peak dis- ning’s roughness coefficient of 0.012 agree better with
charges are in good agreement with those observed. the observations. During the early period, the

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION 125 JAWRA

 XIA, WANG, WANG, AND YU

3500
(a)
3000

Discharge (m /s)
2500

3
2000 2000
Observed

1500
1600 Manning's n = 0.012
1200 Manning's n = 0.015
1000 Manning's n = 0.018
800
48 52 56 60 64 68 72
500
0 60 120 180 240 300 360 420 480 540 600
Time (hours)
3500
(b)

3000
Discharge (m /s)

2500
3

2000
Observed
1500 Manning's n = Predictor
Manning's n = 0.010
1000 Manning's n = 0.015
Manning's n = 0.020

500
0 60 120 180 240 300 360 420 480 540 600
Time (hours)

FIGURE 8. Comparison Between the Calculated Discharges at Gaocun Using Different Roughness Coefficients and the
Measured Data: (a) Delft3D and (b) 2DLLCDM.

20
(a)
18
Concentration at GC (kg/m )
3

16 Observed
14 Manning's n = 0.012

12 Manning's n = 0.015
Manning's n = 0.018
10
8
6
4
2
0
0 60 120 180 240 300 360 420 480 540 600
Time (hours)
20
(b)
18
Concentration at GC (kg/m )

Observed
3

16
Manning's n = Predictor
14 Manning's n = 0.010
12 Manning's n = 0.015
10 Manning's n = 0.020

8
6
4
2
0
0 60 120 180 240 300 360 420 480 540 600
Time (hours)

FIGURE 9. Comparison Between the Calculated Concentrations at Gaocun Using Different Roughness Coefficients and the
Measured Data: (a) Delft3D and (b) 2DLLCDM.

JAWRA 126 JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION

 COMPARISON OF MORPHODYNAMIC MODELS FOR THE LOWER YELLOW RIVER

calculated concentrations are underestimated by 2 to ment with the measurements during the early period,
4 kg ⁄ m3 if different roughness coefficients are used, while they are underestimated during the second
whereas they are in close agreement with the mea- flood peak, as shown in Figure 9b. In the case of the
surements during the second flood peak. In the case roughness predictor adopted, the value of R2 between
of n = 0.012, the value of R2 between the observed the observed and calculated concentrations is 0.68,
and calculated concentrations is 0.71, with the corre- with the corresponding RMSD value of 1.45 kg ⁄ m3.
sponding RMSD value of 1.47 kg ⁄ m3. In the case of Based on the above results, the following conclu-
n = 0.018, the value of R2 between them is 0.65, with sions are obtained: (1) the concentrations of sus-
the corresponding RMSD value of 2.73 kg ⁄ m3. There- pended load predicted by Delft3D and 2DLLCDM are
fore, the correlation degree between the observed and in general agreement with the measurements if an
calculated concentrations would decrease by about appropriate value of Manning’s roughness coefficient
8.5% as the value of Manning’s roughness coefficient is used; and (2) limited accuracy for predicting sedi-
increases from 0.012 to 0.018. In addition, Delft3D ment concentrations in these models indicates that
also predicted the magnitude of cohesive sediment for the simulation of graded sediment transport depends
different Manning’s roughness coefficients. In the on various formulations such as the roughness coeffi-
case of n = 0.012, the mean magnitude of cohesive cient, the sediment transport capacity, and the source
sediment concentration at the downstream boundary term in Equation (5).
was predicted to be about 2.17 kg ⁄ m3, whereas the
mean value of noncohesive sediment concentration at
the same section was estimated to be 5.24 kg ⁄ m3; the Effect of Bed Roughness on Changes in
mean rate of bed load transport at the downstream Cross-Sectional Geometry
boundary was predicted to be equal to 0.18 t ⁄ s, which
was much less than the mean rate of suspended load Figures 10 and 11 compare the predicted changes in
transport (15.72 t ⁄ s). cross-sectional geometry at Sections CS03, CS29, and
For 2DLLCDM, the sediment concentrations calcu- CS42 with different Manning’s roughness coefficients to
lated with the roughness predictor are in close agree- those observed. CS03 was located 3.4 km downstream

77 (a) CS03 71 (b) CS29 67 (c) CS42

70 66
76
69 65
Bed elevation (m)

Bed elevation (m)

Bed elevation (m)

75 68 64
67 63
74
66 62
65 61
73
64 60
72 63 59
2800 3000 3200 3400 3600 3800 4000 4200 4200 4400 4600 4800 5000 5200 5400 4200 4400 4600 4800 5000 5200 5400
Distance from the left bank (m) Distance from the left bank (m) Distance from the left bank (m)

Initial(April) Observed (July) Manning's n = 0.012 Manning's n = 0.015 Manning's n = 0.018

FIGURE 10. Comparison Between the Calculated Cross-Sectional Profiles by

Delft3D Using Different Roughness Coefficients and Those Observed.

77 71 67
(a) CS03 (b) CS29 (c) CS42
70 66
76
69
65
Bed elevation (m)

Bed elevation (m)

Bed elevation (m)

75 68
64
67
74 63
66
62
73 65
64 61
72
63 60

71 62 59
2800 3000 3200 3400 3600 3800 4000 4200 4200 4400 4600 4800 5000 5200 5400 4200 4400 4600 4800 5000 5200 5400
Distance from the left bank (m) Distance from the left bank (m) Distance from the left bank (m)

Initial(April) Observed (July) Manning's n = Predictor Manning's n = 0.010 Manning's n = 0.015 Manning's n = 0.020

FIGURE 11. Comparison Between the Calculated Cross-Sectional Profiles by

2DLLCDM Using Different Roughness Coefficients and Those Observed.

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION 127 JAWRA

 XIA, WANG, WANG,
of the inlet section with a bankfull width of 915 m.
CS29 was located about 48 km downstream of the inlet
section with an initial bankfull width of 460 m. CS42
was located about 73 km downstream of the inlet sec-
tion with a bankfull width of 760 m.
Figure 10 shows that in Delft3D, different bed
roughness coefficients only have a little effect on the
changes of lateral profiles, with the exception of CS03.
At CS03, the simulated profile with a Manning’s
roughness coefficient of 0.018 agrees generally with
the measurement. At CS29, the simulated profiles
with different roughness values are characterized by
about 390 m retreat of the right floodplain bank, inde-
pendent of Manning’s roughness coefficients used.
However, this section did not experience any bank ero-
sion. At CS42, the left deep-channel was not formed
for different roughness values. In a word, the final
profiles with the roughness value of n = 0.015 from
Delft3D indicate that excessive channel incision was
predicted to occur in the reach, and the mean values
of bed levels were predicted to be 74.51, 66.51, and
62.63 m at these sections, respectively, which were
lower than the corresponding measured values of
75.02, 67.06, and 62.84 m. The limited agreement
between the measured and calculated profiles indi-
cates that the accuracy for predicting morphological
changes depends on various modules, such as the
hydrodynamic module, the sediment transport mod-
ule, and especially the module of bank erosion.
Figure 11 indicates that, in 2DLLCDM, different
Manning’s roughness coefficients only have a little
effect on the changes of lateral profiles at CS29 and
CS42. At CS03, the simulated lateral profile using
the roughness predictor agrees closely with the
observed one. At CS29, all the simulated profiles
using different roughness values show bank erosion,
although no bank erosion was observed. At CS42, the
simulated profiles do not show the deepening of the
left channel using different roughness coefficients. In
general, the final profiles with the roughness predic-
tor from 2DLLCDM also indicate that significant bed
scour was predicted to occur, with the calculated
mean bed levels of 75.01, 66.04, and 62.35 m at these
sections, respectively. This poor agreement between
the observed and simulated lateral profiles can be
partly attributed to the complexity of morphological
changes in the LYR on the one hand, and it also pro-
poses a requirement to refine the current morphody-
namic model on the other hand.
It can be seen from the simulated lateral profiles
that these models cannot accurately predict the
changes in cross-sectional geometry at different sec-
tions, which may be caused by the models them-
selves, and inaccurate computational conditions
input. In the following section, a detailed discussion
is given to investigate these errors.
JAWRA
AND YU
DISCUSSION
The above analysis of the predicted results from
these two models indicates that the determination of
Manning’s roughness coefficient is a crucial parame-
ter in the models. In general, the predicted water
levels and discharges agree reasonably with the
observed data if an appropriate Manning’s roughness
coefficient is used. Delft3D and 2DLLCDM can gener-
ally simulate the sediment concentrations, whereas
neither of the models is able to accurately predict the
observed changes in cross-sectional geometry partly
due to the complex morphodynamic processes in the
LYR. It should be pointed out that some discrepan-
cies between the simulated and observed data were
caused by the inaccuracy of input data, and a part of
them were induced by the model limitations them-
selves.
Inaccuracy of Input Data
The inaccuracy of input data in these models con-
cerned both the initial bathymetry and initial bed-
material composition. The inaccuracy of initial
bathymetry resulted from three scenarios: (1) large
spacing existed between the two observed consecutive
sections. The current initial bathymetry used in the
models was obtained by the special interpolation
method using the available geometry of 46 cross-sec-
tional profiles. The average distance between the two
consecutive sections was about 2 km. This spacing was
too large for the complex bathymetry of the LYR,
which could not provide a detailed presentation of the
complex topography for 2D models. (2) The latest
bathymetry in this reach was not available. The initial
cross-sectional profiles were measured on April 20,
whereas the simulation period started on June 19. (3)
Coarser mesh dimensions could not provide accurate
bathymetry. In this study, only 11 computational
nodes were allocated along the lateral direction, which
could not provide a detailed representation of the main
channel and floodplains in cross-sectional geometry.
However, finer mesh dimensions would have greatly
increased the computer time in this study. An increase
in the density of computational grids can slightly
improve the calculated results, according to a previous
mesh sensitivity test similar to the current case study
(Wang et al., 2008).
The local sediment transport capacity is closely
related to the local composition of bed material.
Therefore, the composition of bed material and its
spatial variation influence the pattern of erosion or
deposition. However, this spatial variation is not
known in sufficient detail. Vertical variation in the
128 JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION
 COMPARISON OF
bed-material composition (the history of the initial
conditions) is also important, but is not known at
present. Therefore, the inaccuracy of bed-material
composition may result in the inaccuracy of sediment
transport capacity and corresponding magnitude of
bed evolution in local zones.
Model Limitations
Model limitations for the LYR cover many aspects
due to the complex morphology of the LYR. In the
current case study, the effects of high sediment con-
centrations and rapid bed evolution on the hydrody-
namic processes are not considered, and therefore, a
decoupled solution of the governing equations is used
in the models, which is appropriate for low sediment
concentrations and slow bed changes (Cao and Car-
ling, 2002; Wu, 2008). Methods of determining the
bed roughness coefficient and sediment transport
capacity have an important effect on the predicted
results. Furthermore, inaccurate simulation of the
bank erosion process also influences the predicted
changes of cross-sectional profiles.
Based on the comparison between the simulated
and observed water levels, it can be concluded that
the bed roughness coefficient should be variable in
both space and time. Figure 12 indicates the values
of Manning’s roughness coefficient at Jiahetan and
Gaocun observed in recent years, and it can be seen
that: (1) the roughness value varies with the flow
intensity (Froude number); and (2) this value at
Jiahetan is usually different from that at Gaocun
with the same flow intensity. Therefore, the first
improvement in the models is to develop a roughness
predictor with relatively high accuracy for the LYR,
which requires more detailed measured roughness
data to be collected, including flow and sediment
characteristics at various hydrometric sections. Fur-
thermore, these influencing factors can be directly
considered in developing the new roughness predic-
tor, including the hydraulic factor such as the Froude
number and the factor of bed features such as dimen-
sionless shear stress.
The accuracy of the sediment transport capacity
formulas used in the models directly influences the
morphological changes, and has an indirect effect on
the flood routing and water levels along the reach. Of
the formulas of sediment transport capacity used,
Van Rijn’s formula is relatively inaccurate due to the
lack of calibration with the observed data in the LYR.
In each of the morphodynamic models, the change of
bed elevation at a node is calculated according to the
difference between the suspended load concentration
and its equilibrium value for each fraction, and the
total magnitude of bed evolution is then obtained
JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION
MORPHODYNAMIC MODELS FOR THE LOWER YELLOW RIVER
0.040
0.035
Manning roughness coefficient
Jiahetan
0.030
Gaocun
0.025
0.020
0.015
0.010
0.005
0.000
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
Froude number
FIGURE 12. Relationship Between the Observed Manning’s
Roughness Coefficient and Froude Number of Flow at Sections of
Jiahetan and Gaocun.
through summing the thickness of bed deformation
for each fraction. In fact, the current predictive accu-
racy of the graded sediment transport capacity for-
mulae is relatively low in these two models.
Figure 13 indicates a comparison between the graded
sediment transport capacity computed by Equation
(8) and corresponding observed concentration for
three fractions. It can be seen from this figure that
the points for the computed and observed concentra-
tions are extremely scattered for the fractions with
sediment diameters of <0.025 and >0.050 mm. The
computed concentrations are greatly underpredicted
for the fraction of diameter <0.025 mm, whereas they
are significantly overestimated for the fraction of
diameter >0.050 mm. For the fraction of diameter
ranging from 0.025 to 0.050 mm, the computed con-
centrations generally agree with the observed data,
as shown in Figure 13b. In addition, it should be
noted that both models do not consider the hiding
and exposure mechanisms in nonuniform bed mate-
rial, and the hiding and exposure effect is a very
important aspect of multiple-sized sediment trans-
port, which also influences the predictive accuracy
(Wu, 2008). Therefore, the second improvement in
the models is to enhance the accuracy of the current
formulas for the graded sediment transport capacity.
The process of bank erosion plays an important
role in the channel adjustments of the LYR, which is
related to the riverbank soil composition and mechan-
ical characteristics. A study using the field observa-
tion and indoor experiments on the bank soil samples
in this reach conducted by Xia et al. (2008) proposed
that the majority of the riverbanks are cohesive, and
are characterized by an obvious structure of vertical
layers. In addition, the variation in riverbank soil
composition along the reach is very noticeable in the
braided reach. Two factors can cause serious bank
erosion in the braided reach. First, a local low clay
129 JAWRA
 100 100
(a) d < 0.025 mm (b) d = 0.025 - 0.050 mm

Computed S *k (kg/m3)

Computed S *k (kg/m3)
10 10

1 1

0.1 0.1
0.1 1 10 100 0.1 1 10 100
Measured Sk (kg/m3) Measured Sk (kg/m3)

content in riverbank soil reduces the value of the crit- at the downstream section from Delft3D and
ical shear stress of bank soil (0.1-0.3 N ⁄ m2), which is 2DLLCDM agree reasonably with the measurements,
much smaller than the average near-bank flow shear whereas both models cannot predict accurately the
stress (2-3 N ⁄ m2). Second, frequent bank failure dur- observed changes of cross-sectional profiles.
ing flood seasons is mainly caused by a large reduc- Based on further consideration, two factors causing
tion in the apparent cohesion from 34 to 4 kN ⁄ m2, the inaccuracy of simulated results were presented,
due to the increase in water content of riverbank soil. including the inaccuracy of input data and model lim-
However, such influencing factors cannot be taken itations. Three urgent improvements for these models
into consideration in the models of Delft3D and have been identified in order to accurately simulate
2DLLCDM. Therefore, the third improvement in the the morphodynamic processes in the LYR, which are:
models is to develop a bank erosion module, which is (1) the development of bed roughness predictor; (2)
based on the near-bank hydrodynamics and soil the refinement of graded sediment transport capacity
mechanics, and can account for the temporal varia- formulation; and (3) the consideration of bank erosion
tions in shear strength and water content of river- module. These improvements need to be implemented
bank soil. in the future mathematical river models for the LYR.

CONCLUSIONS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This research was partly supported by the Natural Science

Foundation of China (Grant No. 51079103), and was partly sup-
In this study, two morphodynamic models (Delft3D ported by the Program for New Century Excellent Talents in Uni-
and 2DLLCDM) were intercompared as they were versity from the Chinese Ministry of Education (Grant No. NCET-
used to simulate the morphodynamic processes in the 10-0619) and by the Scientific Special Expenditure for Nonprofit
Public Industry from the Chinese Ministry of Water Resources
LYR. Both models applied the method of decoupled
(200901015).
solution due to low sediment concentrations and slow
bed changes in the current case study. The intercom-
parison included the comparison of the model con-
LITERATURE CITED
cepts, and the differences between the model
predictions and corresponding field measurements. Cao, Z.X. and P.A. Carling, 2002. Mathematical Modelling of Allu-
Moreover, the corresponding explanations were pre- vial Rivers: Reality and Myth. Part I: General Review. Proceed-
sented to investigate these differences. Therefore, ings of the Institution of Civil Engineers Water, Maritime and
Energy 154(3):207-219.
some experience from this intercomparison can also
Chien, N. and Z.H. Wan, 1999. Mechanics of Sediment Transport.
be further referred to the improvements for morpho- American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, Virginia, 913 pp.
dynamic models in other alluvial rivers. Darby, S.E., 1998. Modelling Width Adjustment in Straight Allu-
The simulated results indicate that the predicted vial Channels. Hydrological Processes 12(8):1299-1321.
water levels along the reach and discharges at the Delft Hydraulics, 2003. User Manual of Delft3D-FLOW: Simulation
of Multi-Dimensional Hydrodynamic Flows and Transport Phe-
downstream boundary from these two models can
nomena, Including Sediments. Report of Delft Hydraulics, The
agree closely with the observed data with an appro- Netherlands, 614 pp.
priately selected value of Manning’s roughness coeffi- Forester, C.K., 1979. Higher Order Monotonic Convective Differ-
cient. The predicted concentrations of suspended load ence Schemes. Journal of Computational Physics 23(1):1-22.
 COMPARISON OF MORPHODYNAMIC MODELS
Galappatti, R. and C.B. Vreugdenhil, 1985. A Depth-Integrated
Model for Suspended Sediment Transport. Journal of Hydraulic
Research 23(4):359-377.
Julien, P.Y., 2002. River Mechanics. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, 433 pp.
Krone, R.B., 1962. Flume Studies of the Transport of Sediment in
Estuarial Shoaling Process. University of California, Berkeley,
110 pp.
Leendertse, J.J., 1970. A Water Quality Simulation Model for Well-
Mixed Estuaries and Coastal Seas (Vol. 1), Principles of Compu-
tation. Rand Corporation, RM-6230-RC, New York, 71 pp.
Lesser, G.R., J.A. Roelvink, V. Kester, and G.S. Stelling, 2004.
Development and Validation of a Three-Dimensional Morpholog-
ical Model. Coastal Engineering 51(8-9):883-915.
Li, G.Y., 2003. Ponderation and Practice of the Yellow River Con-
trol. Yellow River Conservancy Press, Zhengzhou, China, 271
pp.
Long, Y.Q. and Y.F. Zhang, 2002. Study on the Yellow River Sedi-
ment From the Viewpoint of Total Sediment Load. Journal of
Yellow River 24(9):28-30 (in Chinese).
Mosselman, E., 1998. Morphological Modelling of Rivers With Erod-
ible Banks. Hydrological Processes 12(8):1357-1370.
Ni, J.R., H.W. Zhang, A. Xue, S. Wieprecht, and A.G.L. Borthwick,
2004. Modeling of Hyperconcentrated Sediment-Laden Floods in
the LYR. ASCE Journal of Hydraulic Engineering 130(10):1025-
1032.
Osman, A.M. and C.R. Thorne, 1988. Riverbank Stability Analysis
I: Theory. ASCE Journal of Hydraulic Engineering 114(2):134-
150.
Partheniades, E.A., 1965. Erosion and Deposition of Cohesive Soils.
ASCE Journal of the Hydraulics Division 91(1):105-139.
Roelvink, J.A., T. Van Kessel, S. Alfageme, and R. Canizares, 2003.
Modelling of Barrier Island Response to Storms. In: Proceedings
of Coastal Sediments 2003, R.A. Davis, A. Sallenger, and P.
Howd (Editors). World Scientific Pub Co Inc., Florida, pp. 1-11.
Stelling, G.S., 1984. On the Construction of Computational Meth-
ods for Shallow Water Flow Problem. Rijkswaterstaat Commu-
nications, Vol. 35. Government Printing Office, The Hague, The
Netherlands.
Stelling, G.S. and J.J. Leendertse, 1991. Approximation of Convec-
tive Processes by Cyclic AOI Methods. In: Proceeding of the 2nd
ASCE Conference on Estuarine and Coastal Modelling, M.L.
Spaulding, K. Bedford, A. Blumberg, R. Cheng, and C. Swanson
(Editors). The Waterway, Port, Coastal and Ocean Division of
ASCE, New York, pp. 771-782.
Van Maren, D.S., M. Yang, and Z.B. Wang, 2011. Predicting the
Morphodynamic Response of Silt-Laden Rivers to Water and
Sediment Release From Reservoirs: Lower Yellow River, China.
ASCE Journal of Hydraulic Engineering 137(1):90-99.
Van Rijn, L.C., 1984a. Sediment Transport, Part II: Suspended
Load Transport. ASCE Journal of Hydraulic Engineering
110(11):1613-1641.
Van Rijn, L.C., 1984b. Sediment Transport, Part I: Bed Load
Transport. ASCE Journal of Hydraulic Engineering
110(10):1431-1456.
Van Rijn, L.C., 2007a. Unified View of Sediment Transport by Cur-
rents and Waves I: Initiation of Motion, Bed Roughness, and
Bed-Load Transport. ASCE Journal of Hydraulic Engineering
133(6):649-667.
Van Rijn, L.C., 2007b. Unified View of Sediment Transport by Cur-
rents and Waves II: Suspended Transport. ASCE Journal of
Hydraulic Engineering 133(6):668-689.
Wang, G.Q., J.Q. Xia, and B.S. Wu, 2008. Numerical Simulation of
Longitudinal and Lateral Channel Deformations in the Braided
Reach. ASCE Journal of Hydraulic Engineering 134(8):1064-1078.
JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION
FOR THE LOWER YELLOW RIVER
Wang, Z.B., 1992. Theoretical Analysis on Depth-Integrated Model-
ling of Suspended Sediment Transport. Journal of Hydraulic
Research 30(3):403-421.
Wu, B.S., D.S. Van Maren, and L.Y. Li, 2008b. Predictability of
Sediment Transport in the Yellow River Using Selected Trans-
port Formulas. International Journal of Sediment Research
23(4):283-298.
Wu, B.S., G.Q. Wang, J.Q. Xia, X.D. Fu, and Y.F. Zhang, 2008a.
Response of Bankfull Discharge to Discharge and Sediment
Load in the Lower Yellow River. Geomorphology 100(3-4):366-
376.
Wu, W.M., 2008. Computational River Dynamics. Taylor & Francis,
New York, 494 pp.
Wu, W.M., E.H. Jiang, and S.S.Y. Wang, 2004. Depth-Averaged 2D
Calculation of Flow and Sediment Transport in the Lower Yel-
low River. International Journal of River Basin Management
2(1):51-59.
Xia, J.Q., B.S. Wu, G.Q. Wang, and Y.P. Wang, 2010. Estimation of
Bankfull Discharge in the Lower Yellow River Using Different
Approaches. Geomorphology 117(1-2):66-77.
Xia, J.Q., B.S. Wu, and Y.P. Wang, 2007. Processes and Character-
istics of Recent Channel Adjustment in the Lower Yellow River.
In: Proceedings of the 10th International Symposium on River
Sedimentation (Vol. V), M.V. Lomonosov (Editor). Moscow State
University, Moscow, Russia, pp. 126-135.
Xia, J.Q., B.S. Wu, Y.P. Wang, and S.G. Zhao, 2008. An Analysis of
Soil Composition and Mechanical Properties of Riverbanks in a
Braided Reach of the Lower Yellow River. Chinese Science Bul-
letin 53(15):2400-2409.
Xia, J.Q., G.Q., Wang., and B.S. Wu, 2004. Two-Dimensional
Numerical Modelling of the Longitudinal and Lateral Channel
Deformations in Alluvial Rivers. Science in China (Series E)
47(Suppl. I):199-211.
Yanenko, N.N., 1971. The Method of Fractional Steps: The Solution
of Problems of Mathematical Physics in Several Variables (Eng-
lish translation edited by M. Holt). Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
Zhang, H.W., Y.D. Huang, and L.J. Zhao, 2001. A Mathematical
Model for Unsteady Sediment Transport in the LYR. Interna-
tional Journal of Sediment Research 16(2):150-158.
Zhang, H.W. and Q. Zhang, 1992. Formula for the Sediment Trans-
port Capacity of the Yellow River. Journal of Yellow River
14(11):7-9 (in Chinese).
Zhang, R.J. and J.H. Xie, 1993. Sedimentation Research in China.
China Water and Power Press, Beijing, 260 pp.
Zhang, S.Q., 1994. Two-Dimensional Mathematical Model for
Studying Erosion and Sedimentation of a Wandering Stretch in
the Lower Yellow River. International Journal of Sediment
Research 9(Special Issue):246-255.
131 JAWRA