| Literature DB >> 35805294 |
Congmin Liu1, Chengzhong Pan1, Chunlei Liu1, Yuanzheng Zhai1, Wanlai Xue2, Yongsheng Cui1.
Abstract
Ephemeral rivers commonly occur in regions with a shortage of water resources, and their channel configuration tends to change substantially owing to long drying times and artificial sand extraction. During short-term water conveyance, water storage in large potholes and leakage along the dry riverbed retards the flow, which is detrimental for the river landscape and ecological water demand. The objective of this study is to evaluate the flow process corresponding to a certain release scheme. A coupled dynamic leakage loss and flood routing model was established to predict the flood routing distance for dry rivers with potholes and strong leakage. The model mainly includes three sub-models of flow dynamics, dynamic leakage loss and water balance along multiple cross sections of the river channel. The water head was dominated by flow velocity and the overflow from potholes. The model was applied to Yongding River, a typical ephemeral river in northern China, and the model parameters were calibrated and verified using monitoring data from ecological water releases into the Yongding River in 2019 and 2020, thus, making the model more stable and reliable. Finally, the model was used to evaluate the impact of cross section optimization and pothole treatment on the flow process. This study can provide scientific guidance for ecological water conveyance and the ecological restoration of ephemeral rivers.Entities:
Keywords: ephemeral river; flood routing model; leakage losses; potholes; unsteady flow
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35805294 PMCID: PMC9266026 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19137638
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 4.614
Figure 1Model framework.
Figure 2Location and distribution of Yongding River.
Figure 3Change process of water resources of Yongding River from 1962 to 2018.
Average drying up statistics for the Yongding River (Beijing section) from 2005 to 2014.
| Reach | Initial Section | Termination Section | Length (km) | Dry Days (d) | Cut-Off Days (d) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gorge section | Guanting Reservoir | Sanjiadian Barrage | 92 | 0 | 120 |
| North section of plain | Sanjiadian Barrage | Lugouqiao Barrage | 37 | 0 | 365 |
| South section of plain | Lugouqiao Barrage | Cui-Command Camp | 64 | 360 | 365 |
Figure 4Information of large potholes in southern plain reach.
Fitting parameters of infiltration process in the 11 sections and the potholes.
| Section | Location (km) | Coefficient | Horton Equation (cm/s) | Residual Error δ | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 20 | 0.0170 | 0.0059 | 0.2219 | 3.30 × 10−5 | |
| 2 | 25 | 0.0144 | 0.0110 | 0.0356 | 2.97 × 10−4 | |
| 3 | 28.5 | 0.0040 | 0.0031 | 0.0308 | 1.10 × 10−5 | |
| 4 | 33 | 0.0085 | 0.0051 | 0.0482 | 2.06 × 10−5 | |
| 5 | 44 | 0.0041 | 0.0017 | 0.1080 | 1.25 × 10−6 | |
| 6 | 47 | 0.0044 | 0.0017 | 0.1548 | 2.53 × 10−6 | |
| 7 | 48.5 | 0.0027 | 0.0003 | 0.1570 | 2.14 × 10−6 | |
| 8 | 52 | 0.0037 | 0.0020 | 0.0513 | 5.60 × 10−6 | |
| 9 | 53 | 0.0017 | 0.0014 | 0.2000 | 2.68 × 10−6 | |
| 10 | 58.6 | 0.0027 | 0.0017 | 0.1227 | 4.00 × 10−7 | |
| 11 | 59 | 0.0034 | 0.0017 | 0.0995 | 5.41 × 10−6 | |
| potholes | 1.3773 × 10−4 | 5.0926 × 10−5 | 0.2000 | 1.371 × 10−8 | ||
Figure 5Fitted curve of the infiltration rate of 11 sections and pothole. The blue asterisk indicates the field measured infiltration rate, and the red line indicates the fitted riverbed infiltration process.
The results of the water flow routing process in spring 2019.
| Typical Section | Arrival Time | Lugouqiao Discharge | Leakage along the Way |
|---|---|---|---|
| Begin of pothole on Jingliang Road (7 km) | 243 h (Day 10) | 0.084 × 108 m3 | 0.035 × 108 m3 |
| End of pothole on Jingliang Road (10 km) | 1127 h (Day 47) | 0.487 × 108 m3 | 0.228 × 108 m3 |
| Huangliang Railway Bridge (15 km) | 1270 h (Day 53) | 0.59 × 108 m3 | 0.326 × 108 m3 |
Figure 6Flow process diagram of typical sections in the southern plain reach of the Yongding River in 2019.
Calibration of the main parameters of the model.
| Parameter | Before Calibration | After Calibration |
|---|---|---|
| bottom slope | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| bottom slope | 0.00038 | 0.00026 |
| roughness coefficient n | 0.07 | 0.04 |
| side slope m | 5:1 | 5:1 |
The results of the water flow routing process in spring 2020.
| Typical Section | Arrival Time | Lugouqiao Discharge | Leakage along the Way |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ethylene Pipe Bridge (10 km) | 126 h (3 May) | 0.265 × 108 m3 | 0.024 × 108 m3 |
| Sixth Ring Road (17 km) | 168 h (5 May) | 0.354 × 108 m3 | 0.094 × 108 m3 |
| Cui-Command Camp (64 km) | 343 h (12 May) | 0.810 × 108 m3 | 0.403 × 108 m3 |
| As of 25 May, Cui-Command Camp’s total outbound water volume was 13.27 × 106 m3 | |||
Figure 7Flow process of typical sections in the southern plain reach of the Yongding River in spring 2020.
Leakage loss over time.
| Time | Travel | Leakage Lose (m3) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pothole 1 | Pothole 2 | Pothole 3 | Total Leakage | River Course | ||
| 10 h | 5 km | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1.09 × 104 | 4.69 × 104 |
| 40 h | 7 km | 3.11 × 105 | 0 | 0 | 3.70 × 105 | 3.78 × 105 |
| 70 h | 7 km | 5.73 × 105 | 0 | 0 | 6.68 × 105 | 6.75 × 105 |
| 100 h | 7 km | 7.78 × 105 | 0 | 0 | 9.01 × 105 | 9.34 × 105 |
| 126 h | 10 km | 9.18 × 105 | 1.77 × 104 | 4.56 × 103 | 1.08 × 106 | 1.34 × 106 |
| 130 h | 11 km | 9.37 × 105 | 2.24 × 104 | 8.07 × 103 | 1.11 × 106 | 1.72 × 106 |
| 160 h | 16 km | 1.06 × 106 | 5.30 × 104 | 3.10 × 104 | 1.33 × 106 | 6.34 × 106 |
| 168 h | 17 km | 1.09 × 106 | 6.00 × 104 | 3.62 × 104 | 1.37 × 106 | 7.98 × 106 |
| 190 h | 19 km | 1.16 × 106 | 7.69 × 104 | 4.88 × 104 | 1.51 × 106 | 1.23 × 107 |
| 220 h | 19 km | 1.23 × 106 | 9.55 × 104 | 6.27 × 104 | 1.66 × 106 | 1.71 × 107 |
| 250 h | 24 km | 1.29 × 106 | 1.10 × 105 | 7.36 × 104 | 1.79 × 106 | 2.18 × 107 |
| 280 h | 31 km | 1.34 × 106 | 1.21 × 105 | 8.20 × 104 | 1.95 × 106 | 2.67 × 107 |
| 310 h | 54 km | 1.37 × 106 | 1.30 × 105 | 8.86 × 104 | 2.15 × 106 | 3.21 × 107 |
| 343 h | 64 km | 1.40 × 106 | 1.36 × 105 | 9.28 × 104 | 2.32 × 106 | 3.79 × 107 |
The results of modelled trapezoidal sections under different bottom widths.
| Bottom Width | Time to Reach Typical Section (h) | Maximum Distance of Water Flow (km) | Outflow Volume (m3) | Leakage along the Way (m3) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ethylene Pipe Bridge (10 km) | 6th Ring Rd (17 km) | Cui-Command Camp (64 km) | ||||
| 10 m | 844 | 887 | 1273 | 64 | 2.744 × 106 | 2.505 × 107 |
| 20 m | 850 | 903 | 1286 | 64 | 1.475 × 106 | 2.672 × 107 |
| 30 m | 854 | 938 | 1297 | 64 | 0.457 × 106 | 2.804 × 107 |
| 40 m | 860 | 960 | - | 53 (1294 h) | 0 | 2.844 × 107 |
| 50 m | 865 | 978 | - | 44 (1285 h) | 0 | 2.889 × 107 |
| 60 m | 871 | 1080 | - | 31 (1258 h) | 0 | 2.972 × 107 |
| 80 m | 882 | 1200 | - | 24 (1240 h) | 0 | 3.208 × 107 |
| 100 m | 892 | 1201 | - | 19 (1220 h) | 0 | 3.262 × 107 |
Note: The numbers in brackets refer to the time taken for the flow to reach the longest distance.
Figure 8Comparison of water flow routing process before and after pothole repair.