BASEMENTBasic Simulation Environment for computation of environmental flow and natural hazard simulationLaboratory of Hydraulics, Hydrology and Glaciology (VAW)ETH Zurich |
You are not logged in.
Hi
I notice a difference in manual calculations for bedload transport using Wilcock & Crowe compared to the Basement results. One reason could be the use of the non linear effect of Fs calculated in Basement (which was not used in the manual calculations).
Could anyone tell me how Fs is determined in Basement?
My GSD has not really sand (lowest grain class is D=2.8mm), would this mean it calculates Fs=0?
Any other processes I am missing that Basement incorporates that could affect the bedload transport as different from the manual calculations?
Thanks!
Alyssa
Offline
Hi Alyssa,
if there is no sand the formula considers Fs=0. Refer to the manual (or to Parker's ebook) to see how the formula was implemented.
How did you test it? I think the best way would be to simulate uniform flow in a rectangular channel, otherwise the hydraulics is way to complicated to be approximated with manual calculations.
Cheers
Matteo
Offline
Hi Matteo
Thanks for the quick reply.
Yes I used a rectangular channel. I used first a hydrograph, but then confirmed with a uniform flow for each Q (which gives the same result as the hydrograph for each Q in the hydrograph).
If I count Fs=0, the difference becomes even larger between calculations/model.
cheers
Alyssa
Offline
What I meant is that I would do the test using a single value of Q, check if uniform flow conditions are reached and in that conditions check the results against yout manual calculations.
Which basement output are you looking at?
Offline
Yes that's what I did. I tested with single values of Q until uniform flow is reached. I checked different flows, and I see that it is not really different from bedload simulated when using the hydrograph (which is good).
I'm looking at the out.dat file, total bedload flux, and fractional per grain size (6 classes). It's a rectangular reach, fixed slope- although it doesn't vary much over the reach, I take an average over all cross sections.
Is there a better way?
Offline
Nope, what you do is correct. I am wondering what could be wrong. Do the results differ very much? If you want you can upload the file with your calculations somewhere, provide a link so I can have a look at your calculations
Offline
Hi
I found a silly mistake in my graph. With Fs=0 the results are basically the same now.
Thanks!
Offline
Hey, that's actually good news
Cheers
Offline