Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
RESEARCH,
VOL. 29,NO. 8, PAGES2925-2939,
AUGUST1993
FlumeSimulation
of Recirculating
Flow andSedimentation
JOHN C. SCHMIDT
Departmentof Geography
andEarthResources,
Watershed
ScienceUnit, Utah StateUniversity,
Logan
DAVID M. RUBIN
constant
discharge
(0.60m3/s)showthatreattachment
lengthdepends
notonlyoncharacteristics
of
the expandingjet, but alsoon the topographyof the channelbed downstream;reattachmentlength
decreasedwhenpart of the channelexpansionwasfilledby an aggrading
midchannelbar. Comparison
of these resultswith measurements
in the ColoradoRiver in GrandCanyon suggeststhat downstream
channelirregularitiesplay a largerole in controllingthe lengthof eddiesin natural rivers.
INTRODUCTION
wereundertaken
in the 4-m-wide
banks are sufficientlydivergent, such as at sharp meander canyon;theseexperiments
bends [Leeder and Bridges, 1975] and downstreamfrom flume at the Environmental Research Center, University of
channel confluences[Best, 1986]. These currents also de- Tsukuba. We describe (1) flow patterns, velocities, and
velopwhereconstricted
flowentersa widerreach,suchasin
changes
in reattachmentlengthin a largerecirculationzone,
the lee of debris fans or bedrock that partly obstructs (2) evolutionof bar topographyand bed forms, (3) areal
downstreamflow. Recirculatingflowsare weakerthan adja- sortingof sediments,and (4) efficiencyof this zone in
sediment.The experimental
resultsare relatedto
centdownstreamflow, whichcausessedimentto accumulate capturing
storagein somebedrockcanyons.Barsdeposited
at high
discharge
in recirculating
currents(andsubsequently
emergent)may becomesubstrate
for riparianvegetation
or be
usedas campsites.
In canyons
affected
by upstream
dams,
recirculating
currentbarsmaybeeroded
[Schmidt
andGraf,
1990],and futurerestorationmanagement
strategies
may
includehigh-discharge,
regulated
releases
intended
to reconstruct these bars.
field studies.
LITERATURE REVIEW
We have observedlarge recirculationzones and associated sandbars along the Colorado River in Grand Canyon,
Arizona,andCataractCanyon,Utah; alongthe SnakeRiver
in Hells Canyon,Idaho and Oregon;alongthe River of No
Return reach of the Salmon River, Idaho; along the Green
Flow separation
and associated
recirculation
are long- smaller streams in the western United States and New
studied
phenomena
in thelaboratory
[EatonandJohnston,England.Accountsof river runnersindicatethat suchzones
1981;Simpson,1989]and coastalsettings
[Signelland occurin bedrockcanyonsthroughoutthe world, and recirhasbeendescribedin paleoGeyer,1991;Wolanski
et al., 1984],buthavereceived
less culatingcurrentsedimentation
flood
studies
throughout
the
western
United States[Baker,
attention
inrivers.Thegeneral
hydraulic
andsedimentologic
Schmidt,1990;Schmidt
and Graf, 1990],but few field
observations
have been madeof the rate and styleof bar ing debrisfans. In the upstream195km of GrandCanyon,
development
andhydraulic
conditions
inrivereddies.
There about400largeeddiesexistat mostdischarges[Schmidtand
Graf, 1990].
Copyright
1993bytheAmerican
Geophysical
Union.
Papernumber93WR00770.
0043-1397/93/93WR-00770505.00
2926
typesthatoccurin narrow,deepbedrock
stream
channels,
Shearlayer
'
Time-Averaged
Dividing
....
.Hi
-,._,,/1
Streamline
[1990],basedon observations
in GrandCanyon(Figure2).
Recirculation
Separation Zone
Point
Fig. 1.
"'
Reattachment
Zone
Reattachmentbars form in the reattachment zone and beneath the primary eddy. Separation bars mantle the con-
stricting
debrisfan andareformedat higherdischarges
by
secondary eddies that submerge parts of these fans
[Schmidt, 1990]. Sorting occurs within recirculation zones
[Pageand Nanson, 1982].In GrandCanyon,thoseseparation bars formed by high annual peak dischargesin 19831985 were composed of finer sediment than were reattach-
greater than 40, flow within the wake becomes unsteady, and
vortices develop along the shear zone between the main flow
and the wake. Two flow zones develop: a near wake of
closed
recirculation
and
a far
wake
within
which
shed
sortingprocesses
causedthe coarsersedimentto be deposited in the area where sediment first entered recirculation
zones, the reattachment zone [Schmidt, 1990]. Bed load
transportdirectionsbeneath the primary eddy, inferredfrom
zone.
recirculation zone can extend, controlled at the upstream separationinducingdebrisfan. A small rapid in the centerof the
hasbeenformedby a debrisfan on river right;a small
end by the constrictionitself and at the downstreamend by photograph
irregularitiesin channelgeometry. Schmidt [ 1990]found that patchof sandon top of this debrisfan is a separationbar. Note that
reattachment
barsarehighestin elevationon theirdownstream
and
narrow and deep constrictions create longer recirculation
zones than do wider, shallower constrictions.
shoreward side, and that each reattachment bar has a small remnant
SCHMIDT
ETAL.:FLUME
SIMULATION
OFFLOW
aNDSEDIMENTATION
TABLE 1. ExperimentalConditions
2927
METHODS
Experiment
Flowrate,m3/s
Total run time, hours
Number of runs
Sedimentfeed rate, k/s
Sediment feed characteristics:
mean,
mm
'"
1.3
---
0.96
wasreintroducedandexperimentsresumed.Flow velocities
Number of runsindicatesnumberof timesflumewas drainedand were measuredwith a two-dimensionalelectromagneticcurbed observations were made.
rent meter and from time-lapse photographyof surface
floats.Electromagneticcurrent meter measurements
at 16
sitesweremade0.1 m beneaththe water surfaceevery0.75
sfor a durationof 5 min. Becauseflowdepthincreasedin the
bed form orientationsand sedimentarystructures,mimic downstreamdirection,the positionof the measuringpoint
surfaceflowpatternsandindicaterotarymotion[Rubinet relativeto thebed differedlongitudinally.Resultanthorizonal., 1990].The only largearea of structures
indicatingtal flow vectorsand rose diagramsof the relative amount
downstreamtransportis in the downstream
part of the (durationtimesvelocity) of flow in differentdirectionswere
reattachmentzone. Typical sedimentarystructuresfound computed.The vertical componentof the flow field was not
withinreattachment
andseparation
barsareforesets
depos- determined,althoughNelson [1991] has shown that the
is an importantpart of the flowfieldnear
itedby thebar asit migrates
onshoreandforesets
deposited verticalcomponent
by ripplesanddunesmigratingin a rotarypattern.Symmet- the shear layer. Locations in the flume are referenced to
rical straight-crestedripplesare commonin the reattachment distancedownstreamfrom the headgatewhere water and
zone[Rubinet al., 1990].Separation
bar development
has sedimentwere supplied;for example,station120 is located
beendescribed
by Schmidtand Graf[1990,Figure13],who 120m downstreamfrom the headgate.All referencesto left
documentedupstreammigrationof a separationbar within a or right side of the flume are made as if the viewer were
secondaryeddy duringa regulatedfloodin GrandCanyon. facing downstream.
Field studiesof topographicchangesand sedimentologic We report the resultsof two experimentsin this paper
characteristicsof selectedbars in Grand Canyon are the (Table 1). In both, a semicircularobstruction(constructed
basisof conceptualmodelsof bar buildingwithin recirculat- with sandbagsand coveredby large plasticsheets)coning currentsproposedby Rubin et al. [1990] and Schmidt strictedflowwidth to about1.5 m (Figure3). This obstruc[1990]. These modelspredictthat reattachmentbarsbuild in tionwaslocatedbetweenstations90 and95. For purposesof
an upstreamdirection from the reattachmentzone and that comparison
with laboratorystudiesof backwardfacingstep
sediment deposited at high dischargeis reworked during flow, the stepheightduringour experimentsis taken as the
upstream retreat of the reattachment zone during flood distancefrom the rightwall to the obstructionapex, 2.5 m.
In order to simulate the increased elevation of the bed that
bars.
decelerating
Jet
90
-..,
,>
z,
95 /
..,-,-,..
......
100
..... :.:...,r;'.,4:-:..
;..,
/"-.'.....-.,'.-.',.'..,.'..'.-...':...
,.:.....x,_
"
-: - ,,,
/'-'
'"..::.:.'-'""'"'"'"::'
"-'"'
. \..
-N-"
,.,
- -
105 /
,,r-_
....
.'
shear
layer
_ .....
....
,.
....... '".t.5..--,2:.
._._-_
.,
,.
cross-over
ofmndownstream
flow
110
-.
l ..- v,,Y,'
.... _,,,
119
--X.-
.--'-<-2',J-'-,','' /">-'--',-.'-,.,.'"K'X
\,,\,
.__
115/
'2;.'
,. ,"'":,3:,..'?,',
%
--
_,.,,,
/ ,. t
--
;, A.,, ',.,
, :,,. ,,,,.,
RPw, RPp
stagnant
flow
reattachmen!
zone
strongbackflow
Fig.3. Pathlines
ofsurface
floats
during
run13(discharge
0.30m3/s).
Length
of individual
paths
arefor1 s
duration.
Somepathlinesintersect
oneanother
because
fieldofviewforeachphotograph
wasabout5 m andfieldsof
view overlapped.
Dashedline through
pathlinesshowsaveragelocationof dividingstreamline
for purposes
of
measurement
of A d. RPws is locationof the instantaneous
reattachment
point determined
from water surface
measurements,
andRPpislocation
of theinstantaneous
reattachment
pointdetermined
fromphotographs.
Dashed
curvenearreattachment
pointsis thefullrangeof thereattachment
zoneduringthisrun.Valuesalongtheleft sideof
the flume are station locations.
2928
1.6
total
1.4
energy
reattachment
point
because
the flumewallswere neveraltered;Schmidt[1990]
ater
surface
;"T;,'bar-crest
leVatsiOn
.....
after hr
o.
0.6
Initialcondition
for bar-building
experiment
0.4
8O
140
5O
DISTANCE,IN METERS,FROMHEADGATE
Canyon; however, these experimentsmay not be representative of sites where the downstream increase in flow area is
1.6
water-surface
Indicated
elevation
hours
after
of run time
1,4
tance
to deceleration
of lateral
diffusion
of momentum
characteristics
flume
floor
0.6
0.4
'
30
barcrest
ind
. i
90
lactat
ed
i
100
110
120
130
rntime
140
150
DISTANCE,IN METERS,FROMHEADGATE
Fig. 4. Longitudinalprofileof water surfaceelevationand maximum bed elevation during bar-building experiment for different
durations. (a) Water surface elevation and total energy grade line
after 14 hours and bed conditionsat start of experimentand after 11
hours. Total energy grade line calculatedfrom v a, using(1) from
text. (b) Water surface elevation after 20 and 26 hours and bed
elevation after 22.5 and 30 hours.
va = Q/Aa
(1)
separation
surfacethat dividesdownstream
andrecirculating
flow. Estimatesof va are only a general approximation
becausethe straightline definingthe mean dividing stream-
smallas0.8 because
va is lessthanmaximumvelocityin the
constriction.
neousreattachment
pointat the time whenthe photograph
was taken. Second,digitizedlongitudinaltracesof the water
extentof adverse(upstream)
watersurfaceslopeat thetime
of the water surface measurements. The time of these
measurements
wasgenerally
within15minfromthetimeof
the photography.
Third, visual observations
of the timeaveragedlocationof the reattachment
pointwere made.
Bedtopography
wasdetermined
by repeatedly
surveying
SCHMIDT
ETAL.: FLUMESIMULATiON
OFFLOWANDSEDIMENTATION
2929
2930
105
109
113
117
Fig. 5.
cross sections
Rose diagrams showing resultant flow vectors and amount of flow (speed times duration) toward each
indicated direction during run 7.
located
at 2-m intervals
m/s
to within
were
between
elsewhere.
taken
at 0.2-m
stations 89
Measurements
intervals
calculations
at
and are
were
made
vortices
increase
in
diameter
in
the
downstream
direction, (3) nearly stagnant flow in the lee of the obstruction and extending 1-1.5 channel widths downstream, and
(4) strong backflow in an area immediately downstream from
the stagnant flow area (Figure 3). Vortices eventually increased in diameter such that they extended acrossthe entire
flume. The recirculation zone typically was truncated where
the high-velocity core of downstream current crossed to the
right side of the flume. The location of the reattachment
point fluctuated over distances as great as 5 times the step
height, similar to fluctuation ranges reported by Simpson
[1989] (Table 2).
Although the flow field can be described by average flow
conditions, instantaneous vectors were widely variable, es-
of the combined
flow remained
within 45
degreesof directly downstream. In the center of the recirculation zone, mean velocities were weaker and flow directions were more variable. Farther downstream where the jet
slowed and combined with the vortices, instantaneous vec-
and upstream-
where
can be
SCHMIDT
ETAL.:FLUMESIMULATION
OFFLOWANDSEDIMENTATION
3.5
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
''
'
' ''
'
'
'
'
'
2931
'
orlong
thin
, 3
recirculationzone
13
withpoorly- O
developed
circulation
(13.4-13.))
2
n-
well-developed
circulation
1.5
10.2
10.2-13
- 0.5
0 (9.4-9.8)
9-10.6 13/
8.2-11
O
(7.4-9.4)
,
(7-10.6)
O (10.2) O 8.6
,
rm
7-1 1
poorly-developed
circulation
,
10
FLOW-AREA EXPANSION
12
14
16
RATIO
zones with
area expansionratio< 8
Contraction
Fig 7. Schematic
diagram
offlow
patterns
andrecirculation
zone
length
atdifferent
flow
conditions
Hatchured
line
is location
of hydraulic
jumpanddashed
lineis average
shearsurface.
2932
0hrs
100
110
120
linear
ridge
130
11 hrs
mid-channel
aggradation
rateswithinthe recirculation
zonewerealways
less than 2 cm/h. The highest rates occurred in the downstream part of the recirculation zone, and these rates were
between 2 and 3 times as great as rates that occurred at the
linear ridge. Deposition within the recirculation zone did not
occur at the reattachment zone, but instead always occurred
well upstream.
Although the linear tidge was a persistent feature, its
volume increased at a slower rate than that of downstream
bar
ripples
dunes
collected
in
the
lee
of
the
obstruction
near
the
averaged reattachment length was between 7 and 11 times separationpoint (Figure 11). Sorting within the recirculation
step height; vortices migrated slowly downstream, and re- zone was similar to that reported for flood deposits in Grand
circulation was poorly developed. We never observed in- Canyon [Schmidt, 1990] and for other recirculation zone
stantaneous reattachment lengths between 2 and 6.2 times deposits [Page and Nanson, 1982].
step height, and only rarely were reattachment lengthsless
The rate of deposition within the recirculation zone was
than 8.2 times step height. Variation in the instantaneous
roughly proportional to the transport rate through the conlocation of the reattachment point during runs where con- striction (Figure 12). The relation in Figure 12 (which is not
stricted flow Froude numbers were less than 2 was nearly of
temporally ordered) could be expected to depend in part on
the same order as variation in time-averaged location among
the extent to which the eddy was filled at the time of each
all these runs. The large variation in instantaneousreattachmeasurement. Based on stratigraphic evidence in bars in
ment length in the first experiment (Figure 6, open circles Grand Canyon [Rubin et al., 1990], we suspectedthat the
and squares) masked any relation between reattachment
length and the flow area expansion ratio [Eaton and
Johnston, 1981].
110
1,20
"'
1,30
...........
::...--
:::.-.
,:.........:.......:..::::.,
1,00
RP
========================
Fig. 9. Aggradationratesduringruns, determinedby subtracting previousbed topographyfrom resultantbed topography.Contour interval 10 mm/h, with supplemental5 mm/h dashed contours.
hours.
SCHMIDT
ETAL.:FLUME
SIMULATION
OFFLOW
ANDSEDIMENTATION
Fig. 10.
2933
Photograph
of symmetrical
ripplesthatdeveloped
beneaththe centerof theeddy.
i 0.25
lOO
length was 13 to 16.6 times step height' after 17.5 hours the
reattachmentlength decreasedto 10.2 to 13.8 times step
height, and at the end of the experiment the reattachment
length was 9 to 10.6 times step height (Figure 8). The
location of the reattachment zone was compared to the
longitudinal pattern of deceleration of streamwise flow.
Mean downstreamvelocity in the channel expansionwas
7.5 HRS
y - 0.0192+ 0.226x
r2 - 0 933
80
/ C
'
_ 0.2
(separation
point)
/
/
/
//
leaIra
.... t point
.
,'7
0.15
5 HRS
11 HRS
O
/
::)
//
0.1
/ sediment
feed
20
uj
o
o.{
o.1
lO
0.05 0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
2934
volume
recirculation
stream tributary source of sediment. Schmidt [!987] concluded, basedon textural characteristics,that all deposition
had occurred during this one Paria flood event. He useda
locally developedstage-to-discharge
relation at the reattach-
of
zone
andestimated
themassof aggraded
sediment
fromsurveying
and trenching.Basedon thesemeasurements
and assumptions, Schmidt [!987] estimatedan aggradationrate of 4.2-
y=0.0824
+0.340x
- 0.00236x
2
30HRS
r2 = 0.999
11 HRS
-e '-' "-
--.-,
17.5 HRS
,
..
....
....
5
10
15
20
25
CUMULATIVE VOLUME OF SEDIMENT TRANSPORTED
30
volumeof theemptyoriginalrecirculation
zone.The totalvolumeof
hours of inundation.
ing current by comparinghis estimateof the massof sediment delivered by the Paria with the estimate of the massof
sedimentdeposited in the recirculation zone. The massof
delivered sediment was estimated by using the average
sedimenttransportrelationfor the Paria River gage[Randle
and Pemberton, 1987], the 25% value suggestedby Randle
and Pemberton [1987] for the proportion of transported
sediment within the sand size fraction (0.0625-2 mm), and
theoriginal
recirculation
zonewas25.2m3(28mlengthx 2 mwidth of sedimentdelivery to the Colorado River, the maximum
x 0.45 m average water depth between stations97 and 125). suspendedsedimentconcentrationof the ColoradoRiver
Cumulative run time for each measurement is shown.
immediately downstreamfrom the Paria was 55,000 rag/L,
and concentrations exceeded 10,000 mg/L for the entire
ofsediment
aggraded
atthereattachment
bar,1.2x 105kg,
stream; after 4 hours cumulative run time, v, decreased chargerate of the ColoradoRiver. Theseestimatesare only
minimumvalues of eddy capture rate because(1) the procontinuously downstream. Velocity increased with time
on the channel
between stations 120 and 130 because bed aggradation portionof the deliveredsedimentdeposited
decreasedA d; followingthe initial measurement
period,
decreased to a minimum but increased further downstream
bedupstreamfromthe measurement
siteis unknownand(2)
the actual delivered sediment load and its size distribution is
unknown.
Bar Construction
thehighest
partof thebarexistsin thedownstream
partof
reattachmentbar along the Colorado River 1.5 km downstream from the Paria River (see Schmidt and Graf[!990] for
locations). At this site, topographic surveys and recovered
upstream
partsof recirculation
zones.Field evidence
is
consistent
with the progression
of bar construction
during
Sediment
transport
directions
interpreted
gradedbetweenOctober 1985and January !986. During this theexperiments.
of bed formsand the progression
of
period, only one dischargeevent occurredin the Paria River from the orientation
change
in theflumeshows
thatthebarbuiltin
(October10, 1985,peakdischarge
41 m3/s),the onlyup- topographic
scour chains showed that 0.18 m of brown silty sand ag-
SCHMIDT
ETAL.'FLUME
SIMULATION
OFFLOW
ANDSEDIMENTATION
2935
downstream
areasdeposited
within the initiallylongerrecirculationzone.
There is inconsistency
betweenfield and flume in aggradationpatternsin the reattachmentzone, however. In the
field, we have observed the results of reattachment zone
aggradation
in theformof thicksequences
of climbingripple
structureswith migration directions consistentwith reat-
the instantaneous
reattachmentpoint was much smallerin
the flume than is observed in the field. This is because the
in the reattachment
zone
when
the instantaneous
flow.
backflow velocities
were
2936
2.5
1.5
I1
imO
Wm'"'XX
O3
1 01
RANGE
IN
LOCATION
OF
REATTACHM
ENT
POINT
AFTER
INDICATED
14
--0.5
SED
R
U
NTIME
area;
'f
d
h
"-.
14.,
'
vvn;3',...,'nr-a.
'
80
,,
I,
90
."-.
..:
bar deposition
100
110
120
130
140
DISTANCE, IN METERS
Fig. 14. Mean section velocity during different runs of bar-building experiment. Range of location of reattachment
because
would be predictedusingpublishedrelationsbetweenstep
height and reattachment length. Relative to the relations of
Abbott and Kline [1960] for clear water flow at a single
backward step (Figure 15, line c), the reattachmentlengths
in our empty flume experimentsare too long. Reattachment
lengthsin the bar-buildingexperimentsare shorterand tend
to be similar to those of publishedrelations; field reattach-
of the water
surface
downstream
SCHMIDT
ETAL.:FLUME
SIMULATION
OFFLOW
ANDSEDIMENTATION
2937
I
I
i
I
I'-'
3::
I--
I
!
-=
!
0
30
z 2O
0
range
for
first
experiment
j,/
bar-building
/ ! ._.,,,t
,'""
oxporimort
! !/'' -
c
-
71
o
z
o10
large
mid-channel
,*
iTM
,EXPLA-']
.... !
?,,
.;.,;
/- \
11/'"'
deb;isfan
shortens
':'/
,
0
--
I
7
SCALED-STEP
HEIGHT(V-Wc)AN
c
areflow-area
expansion
ratioforeachrun.Open
circles
areforclear [1962],suggesting
that downstream
channelirregularities
do
water,emptyflumeexperiment,
andsolidsquares
arefor bar- constrainthese reattachment lengths.
building
experiment.
Arrowindicates
theprogress
of thesecond
experiment.
2938
the sediment-transporting
event. In the planningof any
reconstruct
pools,than it may be impossibleto sustainnecessarysediment transport rates for sufficient durations without augmentingnaturally availablesupplies.Otherwise, net erosion
of recirculation zones in upstream sediment-deficient
reaches will result. Planning of bar reconstruction floods
must be based on predicting eddy depositionrates, predicting the duration of high main channel sedimenttransport,
and accountingfor the wide variation in channel and recirculationzone geometrythat exists in natural rivers.
CONCLUSIONS
During a 30-hourexperimentwhen a mixed size distribution of sediment was added to the flow at a rate of 0.5-1.0
least one order of magnitude;however, available field measurements are subject to substantial error.
While these data show that the rate of eddy deposition
dependson the rate of main channeltransport,the extentto
which a recirculation zone fills depends on the duration of
decreased
from 37% (whenthe eddywas empty)to 24%
(whensandfilledapproximately
32%of the eddyvolume).
The reattachment
pointoccurswhereexpandingvortices
SCHMIDT
ETAL.:FLUME
SIMULATION
OFFLOW
ANDSEDIMENTATION
2939
reattachment
pointfluctuation
did not developduringour
163-171, 1985.
experiments.In fact, depositiondid not occurnear the wall Eaton, J. K., and J.P. Johnston,A review of researchon subsonic
turbulentflow reattachment, AIAA J., 19, !093-1100, 1981.
in the reattachment zone.
Ikeda, H., Experiments on bedload transport, bed forms, and
sedimentarystructures using fine gravel in the 4-meter-wide
Recirculation
lengthsweresimilarwithinbroadranges
of
hydraulicconditions.
Whereconstricted
flow was highly flume, Univ. of TsukubaEnviron. Res. Cent. Pap. 2, Ibaraki,
Japan, 1983.
supercritical,the length of the recirculationzonewas about
Kieffer, S. W., The 1983hydraulicjump in Crystal Rapid: Implicatwo step heights, but where Froude numberswere lessthan
tions for river-running and geomorphicevolution in the Grand
about2, the zone of recirculatingcurrentwas of similarsize
Canyon, J. Geol., 93,385-406, 1985.
over a range of area expansionratios. To someextent, Kieffer, S. W., Hydraulic maps of major rapids, Grand Canyon,
Arizona, U.S. Geol. Surv. Geophys.Invest., Map, 1-1897, 1988.
reattachmentlengths were longer, and recirculationflow
Leeder, M. R., and P. H. Bridges, Flow separation in meander
patternsbetter developed, at intermediateFroude numbers
bends, Nature, 253, 338-339, 1975.
between 0.8 and 1.6. As aggradationof a midchannelbar Leopold, L. B., The rapids and the pools--Grand Canyon, U.S.
proceededand the bar migrated upstream,reattachment Geol. Surv. Prof. Pap., 669-D, 1964.
length decreased and the recirculation zone shortened. Nelson, J. M., Experimental and theoretical investigationof lateral
separationeddies (abstract), Eos Trans. AGU, 72,218-219, 1991.
These processeswere linked becauseflow acceleratedover
Page, K., and G. Nanson, Concave-bank benches and associated
the midchannelbar, which preventedstagnationalongthe
floodplainformation, Earth Surf. ProcessesLandforms, 7, 529543, 1982.
wall in areas previously of adversewater slope. As the
midchannelbar retreated upstream, accelerationoccurred Randle,T. J., and E. L. Pemberton,Resultsand analysisof STARS
modelingefforts on the Colorado River in Grand Canyon, Glen
where decelerationhad previouslybeen the case.
during which that delivery from main channelto recirculation zone will occur.
1989.
Geology,MiddleburyCollege,conducted
the surfaceandvolume Yeh, H. H., W. Chu, and O. Dahlberg, Numerical modeling of
modelingcalculations.Assistance
duringthe experiments
wasprovidedby Y. KodamaandH. Iijima. We thankJ. G. Bennett,J. M.
Nelson,andT. L. Vallierfor carefulreviewof themanuscript
and
suggestionsfor improvements.
(Received
October
8, 1992;
revised March 1, 1993;