Forum
Shallow Water Hydro-Sediment-Morphodynamic
Equations for Fluvial Processes
Zhixian Cao
Professor, State Key Laboratory of Water Resources and Hydropower
Engineering Science, Wuhan Univ., Wuhan 430072, China; Professor,
Institute for Infrastructure and Environment, Heriot-Watt Univ., Edinburgh
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by GADJAH MADA UNIVERSITY on 10/09/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
EH14 4AS, U.K. (corresponding author). E-mail: zxcao@whu.edu.cn
Chunchen Xia
Ph.D. Candidate, State Key Laboratory of Water Resources and Hydro-
power Engineering Science, Wuhan Univ., Wuhan 430072, China. E-mail:
xcc@whu.edu.cn
Gareth Pender
Professor, Institute for Infrastructure and Environment, Heriot-Watt Univ.,
Edinburgh EH14 4AS, U.K. E-mail: g.pender@hw.ac.uk
Qingquan Liu
Professor, Dept. of Mechanics, School of Aerospace Engineering, Beijing
Institute of Technology, Beijing 100081, China. E-mail: liuqq@bit.edu.cn
Forum papers are thought-provoking opinion pieces or essays
founded in fact, sometimes containing speculation, on a civil en-
gineering topic of general interest and relevance to the readership
of the journal. The views expressed in this Forum article do not
necessarily reflect the views of ASCE or the Editorial Board of
the journal.
DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)HY.1943-7900.0001281
Introduction
The last several decades have witnessed increasingly widespread
applications of shallow water hydrosediment–morphodynamic
(SHSM) models in hydraulic engineering and geomorphological
studies. Pivotal to such models are the SHSM equations that have
been well established from the fundamental mass and momentum
conservation laws of fluid dynamics. However, there continue to be
various simplified SHSM equations based on the assumptions of
very slow bed evolution, sediment transport capacity, and quasi-
steady flow, of which the effects remain insufficiently understood.
Also, in a recent reformulation, the established SHSM equations
are questioned because it is argued that bed sediment entrainment
effects are incorrectly incorporated in previous models and jump
conditions at the bed surface are needed to rectify the accounting
for the effects of mass exchange. This paper presents a review of the
traditional SHSM equations along with three simplified versions,
i.e., the decoupled version based on the assumption of very slow
bed evolution, the deduced version in line with the assumption of
sediment transport capacity, and the truncated version due to the
assumption of quasi-steady flow. It also addresses the recent refor-
mulation that hinges upon presumed, mesoscopically and macro-
scopically controversial jumps of velocity and stress at the bed
surface. A critical issue is flagged out of the reformulation con-
cerning an actual momentum exchange with the bed, which must
vanish physically and otherwise may incur practically unrealistic
© ASCE 02517001-1
J. Hydraul. Eng., 2017, 143(5): 02517001
consequences. Finally, future development of SHSM equations
is briefly discussed under the two-phase flow framework.
Fluvial flows often induce sediment transport and morphologi-
cal evolution, which in turn conspire to modify the flows. The in-
teractive processes of flow, sediment transport, and morphological
evolution in alluvial rivers constitute a hierarchy of physical prob-
lems of significant interest in the fields of fluvial hydraulics and
geomorphology. Enhanced understanding of these processes is es-
sential for not only river engineering practice, but also effective
flood risk management and environmental and ecological well-
being (Gomez 1991; Wu 2007; Frey and Church 2009; ASCE/
EWRI Task Committee 2011).
Mathematical modeling has become one of the most proactive
approaches to enhancing the understanding of fluvial processes
over the last half-century or so (Wu 2007), irrespective of miscon-
ceptions of its capability and uncertainties from a variety of sources
(Oreskes et al. 1994). Papanicolaou et al. (2008) present a review of
current models for fluvial processes, focusing on their main appli-
cations, strengths, and limitations. They also provides insights
into future trends and needs with respect to hydrodynamic and sedi-
ment transport models. While fully three-dimensional modeling
may facilitate very detailed resolution of the phenomena (Wu et al.
2000; Fang and Wang 2000; Marsooli and Wu 2015), the comput-
ing cost is excessively high in general and thus its application
is limited to cases of small spatial scales and short durations.
Comparatively, SHSM models feature a sensible balance between
theoretical integrity and applicability and therefore have seen wide-
spread applications.
Pivotal to shallow water hydrosediment–morphodynamic mod-
els are the governing equations (hereafter SHSM equations), which
are built on the fundamental mass and momentum conservation
laws of fluid dynamics (Xie 1990; Wu 2007). Unlike traditional
shallow water hydrodynamic equations for clear water flows (Toro
2001), the interactions between flow, sediment transport, and bed
evolution are explicitly accommodated in the complete SHSM
equations. The last 10 years or so have seen an increasing number
of computational studies of a hierarchy of extreme fluvial processes
based on these SHSM equations, i.e., dam-break floods over erod-
ible bed (to name a few, Capart and Young 1998; Cao et al. 2004;
Wu and Wang 2007; Xia et al. 2010; ASCE/EWRI Task Committee
2011; Huang et al. 2012, 2014, 2015). More broadly, these equa-
tions have been extended for modeling coastal processes (e.g., Zhu
and Dodd 2015; Kim 2015; Xiao et al. 2010), watershed erosion
processes (Kim et al. 2013), subaqueous sediment-laden flows and
turbidity currents (Hu and Cao 2009; Hu et al. 2012) as well as
sharply stratified processes (Li et al. 2013; Spinewine and Capart
2013; Cao et al. 2015b; Zech et al. 2015), which actually involve
double layer-averaged SHSM equations.
Nevertheless, there continue to be various simplified versions of
the complete SHSM equations used in hydraulic engineering and
geomorphological studies, of which the effects have so far re-
mained insufficiently understood. One of the conventional simpli-
fied versions concerns the decoupled SHSM equations (referred to
as the decoupled version), in which a few terms characterizing the
feedback effects of bed deformation and sediment transport on the
water–sediment mixture flow are ignored. Another widely evoked
J. Hydraul. Eng.
 simplified version points to the deduced SHSM equations based on
the capacity assumption for sediment transport (called the capacity
version), which provides that sediment transport rate (or concen-
tration) at a cross section is entirely determined by the local
(i.e., at a cross section) flow and bed conditions. A further simpli-
fied version relates to the truncated SHSM equations on the basis
of quasi-steady flow assumption (the quasi-steady version), which
neglect the time derivatives in decoupled version of the SHSM
equations except that for bed evolution.
Concurrently, Iverson and Ouyang (2015) tried to reformulate
the underlying theory of depth-integrated models based on the con-
tinuum assumption, arguing that bed sediment entrainment effects
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by GADJAH MADA UNIVERSITY on 10/09/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
are incorrectly incorporated in previous models and jump condi-
tions at the bed surface are needed to rectify the accounting for
the effects of mass exchange. Their reformulation pertains to not
only high-speed mass flows (e.g., debris flows), but also fluvial
flows such as dam-break floods over erodible bed. Succinctly, they
cast doubt on the SHSM equations that have been well established
and widely applied in hydraulic engineering practice and geomor-
phological studies for a few decades (Xie 1990; Wu 2007), while
leaving a number of issues that are open for debate and invite
more investigations.
This paper aims to present a review of the traditional SHSM
equations along with three simplified versions, i.e., the decoupled
version, the capacity version, and the quasi-steady version. The fo-
cus is placed on their respective applicability and issues in need for
further investigations. It also flags a critical issue related to the
recent reformulation by Iverson and Ouyang (2015) in order to
spur discussions about the theoretical basis of the SHSM equations.
Finally, future development of SHSM equations is briefly ad-
dressed under the two-phase flow framework.
Flow–Sediment-Bed Interactions
Generally, fluvial flow, sediment transport, and the bed interact
with each other. Fig. 1 is a sketch of the interactions that warrant
elaboration in the context of computational river dynamics. Specifi-
cally, the flow and sediment transport feature a two-way interac-
tion. Sediment transport is dictated by the flow, while sediment
may modify the flow (e.g., turbulence may be enhanced or sup-
pressed by sediment). In connection with the former way of the
flow-sediment interaction is the issue of noncapacity versus capac-
ity transport in SHSM models (Fig. 1), which is addressed in a
subsequent section. The latter way of flow-sediment interaction
is not covered in this paper because the effects of sediment on
the flow (e.g., turbulence modification) have never been incorpo-
rated in SHSM models as far the authors are aware, despite there
Fig. 1. (Color) Flow–sediment bed interactions
© ASCE 02517001-2
J. Hydraul. Eng., 2017, 143(5): 02517001
having been a number of experimental and analytical studies on this
matter as briefed in Cao et al. (2003).
Fluvial sediment transport and the bed also exhibit a two-way
interaction (Fig. 1). On the one hand, sediment transport can be
affected by the bed conditions (especially bed sediment composi-
tions) by virtue of sediment entrainment from the bed. On the other
hand, sediment transport is normally in a nonequilibrium state,
i.e., sediment entrainment from the bed is unbalanced by sediment
deposition to the bed. As a result, the bed undergoes deformation
(aggradation or degradation). Essentially, equilibrium sediment
transport is just an idealized conceptualization.
The interaction between the flow and the bed in general de-
grades to a one-way phenomenon. The bed is literally the bottom
boundary of the flow and always affects the flow, while the flow
does not directly alter the bed (but indirectly affects bed evolution
via sediment transport), regardless of the forces that the flow exerts
on the bed surface. Of particular significance to the SHSM equa-
tions in this respect is the issue of physically coupled versus de-
coupled modeling (Fig. 1), as discussed in a subsequent section.
The bed surface merits elaboration as a key to this paper. It is
essentially the interface between the water–sediment mixture flow
and the static bed layer. It usually evolves as a result of nonequili-
brium sediment transport due to unbalanced mass exchange,
i.e., the net flux between the upward sediment entrainment from
the bed surface and the downward deposition from the water
column does not vanish. In general, the bed surface may appear
indistinct because the sediment particles may move intermittently
and stochastically close to the bed, and also it can be very compli-
cated when bed forms such as dunes and ripples are present in
alluvial rivers. Nevertheless, the position of the mobile bed has
to be defined in mathematical models (not just depth-averaged
models). The authors are unaware of an explicit definition of
the bed surface in existing literature in the context of river dynam-
ics. Generally, the time-averaged velocity of the water–sediment
mixture flow decreases downward from the free (water) surface
along the flow depth [e.g., Figs. 8.4a and 8.15a in Bridge and
Demicco (2008)]. Therefore, in theory the bed surface can be de-
fined at the level where the time-averaged velocity of the water–
sediment mixture flow just vanishes (Fig. 2). Immediately above
the bed surface, the flow may feature a substantial velocity because
the flow usually increases sharply in the immediate vicinity of the
bed surface. Naturally, there is no motion below the bed surface
because the seepage flow through the porous medium of the static
bed layer can be presumed to be negligible.
SHSM Equations
The governing equations of shallow water hydrosediment–
morphodynamic models can be derived by directly applying the
Reynolds transport theorem in fluid dynamics (Batchelor 1967),
which has been available for over two decades in the undergraduate
textbook edited by Xie (1990). The textbook was written in
Chinese, and therefore may not be accessible to many. Yet, one
can readily find the SHSM equations presented in English
(Wu 2007), derived by integrating and averaging the full three-
dimensional mass and momentum conservation equations. For
convenience, these are referred to as traditional SHSM equations,
as compared with the recently reformulated equations by Iverson
and Ouyang (2015).
Traditional SHSM Equations
For ease of description, this paper focuses on one-dimensional (1D)
models for fluvial flows over a mobile, mild-sloped bed. Also, the
J. Hydraul. Eng.

Fig. 2. Flow velocity and sediment concentration profiles
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by GADJAH MADA UNIVERSITY on 10/09/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
sediment is presumed to be uniform (single-sized) and noncohe-
sive. Nevertheless, the effects of steep slopes on shallow flows
can be substantial, which can be incorporated properly in modified
equations [similar to Cao et al. (2015a) for clear water flows]. Like-
wise, turbulent stresses may play an important role in shallow flows
and sediment transport over steep beds, which can be taken into
account by second-order terms in the momentum equation and
sediment continuity equation in a manner similar to Cao et al.
(2015a) and Bohorquez and Ancey (2015). Also, it must not be
construed that nonuniform sediment transport is less important.
Actually, nonuniform sediment transport involves extremely com-
plicated mechanisms that to date remain poorly understood and
certainly warrant intensive investigations. The extended SHSM
equations for processes featuring nonuniform sediment transport
can be found in Hu (2013), Hu et al. (2014), Qian et al. (2015,
2016), and Cao et al. (2016) that explicitly incorporate the tradi-
tional work by, for instance, Hirano (1971) and Armanini and
Di Silvio (1988). Further, the mean velocity of suspended sediment
is approximately equal to flow velocity, which is generally em-
bedded in the sediment continuity equation. Yet, the mean velocity
of bed-load sediment is usually appreciably lower than the flow
velocity (Einstein 1950; Chien and Wan 1999; Greimann et al.
2008), which can be represented by a coefficient β smaller than
unity in the unit-width sediment transport rate (Cao et al. 2011).
The effects of these approximations may be clarified in further in-
vestigations, but are not addressed herewith.
The traditional SHSM equations comprise the mass and mo-
mentum conservation equations for the water-sediment mixture
flow and the mass conservation equations, respectively, for sedi-
ment and bed material. In general, four physical variables are
solved in 1D models, i.e., flow depth, depth-averaged velocity,
and sediment concentration as well as bed elevation. Hereafter,
the water-sediment mixture flow and the static bed are, respectively,
denoted by subscripts 1 and 2. Then the governing equations are
written as follows (Xie 1990; Cao et al. 2004):
∂ðρ̄1 h1 Þ ∂ðρ̄1 h1 ū1 Þ ∂z
þ ¼ −ρ̄2 b ð1Þ
∂t ∂x ∂t
 
∂ðρ̄1 h1 ū1 Þ ∂ 1 ∂z
þ ρ̄1 h1 ū21 þ ρ̄1 gh21 ¼ −ρ̄1 gh1 b − τ 1bot ð2Þ
∂t ∂x 2 ∂x
∂ðh1 c̄1 Þ ∂ðh1 ū1 c̄1 Þ
þ ¼F ð3Þ
∂t ∂x
∂zb F The fourth term on the RHS of Eq. (6) represents an apparent,
¼− ð4Þ
∂t 1−p
where t = time; x = streamwise coordinate; h1 = flow depth; ū1 =
depth-averaged flow velocity in the x-direction; zb = flow-bed
© ASCE 02517001-3
J. Hydraul. Eng., 2017, 143(5): 02517001
boundary elevation; c̄1 = depth-averaged sediment concentration
of the flow layer; g = gravitational acceleration; τ 1bot = bottom
shear stress of the flow layer, usually estimated using an empirical
relation; p = bed sediment porosity; F = net flux of sediment ex-
change between the flow column and the bed, which needs to
be quantified separately; ρ̄1 ¼ ρf ð1 − c̄1 Þ þ ρs c̄1 = depth-averaged
density of the flow layer; ρ̄2 ¼ ρf p þ ρs ð1 − pÞ = depth-averaged
density of the bed layer; and ρf and ρs = densities of water and
sediment, respectively.
To shed insight into the interactions between the flow, sediment,
and bed evolution and also expedite numerical solution, Eqs. (1)
and (2) are reorganized using Eqs. (3) and (4) so that the
variable density of the water-sediment mixture does not appear
on the left-hand side (LHS) of the equations, as follows (Cao et al.
2004):
∂h1 ∂h1 ū1 F
þ ¼ ð5Þ
∂t ∂x 1−p
 
∂ðh1 ū1 Þ ∂ 1
þ h1 ū21 þ gh21
∂t ∂x 2
∂zb τ 1bot ðρs − ρf Þgh21 ∂ c̄1 ðρ̄2 − ρ̄1 ÞFū1
¼ −gh1 − − − ð6Þ
∂x ρ̄1 2ρ̄1 ∂x ρ̄1 ð1 − pÞ
Further, the continuity equation for the fluid phase (water)
can be readily obtained by subtracting Eq. (3) from Eq. (5), which
reads
∂h1 ð1 − c̄1 Þ ∂h1 ū1 ð1 − c̄1 Þ pF
þ ¼ ð7Þ
∂t ∂x 1−p
Apparently, only two of the three continuity equations
[i.e., Eqs. (5), (3), and (7) for the water-sediment mixture, sediment,
and water, respectively] are independent and can in principle be
used in formulating a mathematical model of fluvial processes.
Each of Eqs. (3), (5), and (7) can be readily derived from the other
two equations. Nevertheless, there have been confused applications
of these continuity equations (Lanzoni et al. 2006; Cui et al. 2005),
as commented by Cao and Hu (2008).
Eq. (5) represents the mass conservation for the water-sediment
mixture. It differs from the traditional continuity equation for clear
water flows in shallow water hydrodynamics because of the mass
exchange between the flow and the erodible bed. The right-hand
side (RHS) of Eq. (5) indicates the contribution of mass exchange
with the bed to the mass conservation of the water-sediment mix-
ture. It is significant for processes with active sediment transport
and fast morphological evolution, including not only extreme
events such as mobile-bed dam-break floods and highly erosive
debris flows, but also usually encountered fluvial processes such
as hyperconcentrated floods in the lower Yellow River and its
tributaries in China.
In Eq. (6), there are two additional terms on the RHS if com-
pared with that for single-phase clear water flows. The third term
on the RHS indicates the effect of streamwise variable sediment
concentration, which makes the current hyperbolic system
distinct from the traditional augmented 1D or the x-split of two-
dimensional (2D) shallow water equations in which a totally pas-
sive scalar has no impact on the flow (Toro 2001; LeVeque 2002).
rather than real, momentum transfer due to sediment exchange
between the flow and the bed. On the one hand, the deposition
of sediment contained in the moving water column can release mo-
mentum to the flow, producing a positive source term related to the
J. Hydraul. Eng.
 deposition flux. On the other hand, the entrainment of bed sedi-
ment, initially with vanishing momentum due to its original static
state, will absorb momentum from the flow, behaving as a sink in
momentum conservation.
Reformulated SHSM Equations
Recently, Iverson and Ouyang (2015) reformulated the SHSM
equations. The reformulation hinges on the premise that the veloc-
ity and stress jump are discontinuous at the bed surface z ¼ zb . In
one dimension, their continuity Eq. (37) is the same as Eq. (1) given
previously, their Eq. (10) is essentially equivalent to Eq. (4) in the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by GADJAH MADA UNIVERSITY on 10/09/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
traditional SHSM equations, and their momentum conservation-
based Eq. (38) can be rewritten as
∂ðρ̄1 h1 ū1 Þ ∂ 1 is primarily dependent on how fast the bed deforms. When bed
þ ðβ 1uu ρ̄1 h1 ū21 þ ρ̄1 gh21 Þ
∂t ∂x 2 deformation is significantly slower than that of flow changes by
∂zb
¼ −ρ̄1 gh1 þ τ 1top − τ 1bot þ ρ̄1 u1 ðzb ÞE1bot ð8Þ
∂x
where β 1uu = Boussinesq momentum-distribution coefficient,
which can be approximately presumed to be equal to unity;
E1bot = bed material entrainment rate at the bottom of the flow
layer; τ 1top = top shear stress of the flow layer, usually negligible
in open channels; and u1 ðzb Þ = velocity component of the flow
layer at the bed surface in the x-direction.
Most notably, Eq. (8) due to Iverson and Ouyang (2015) differs
from Eq. (2) (Wu 2007; Cao et al. 2004; Capart and Young 1998;
Xie 1990) in that the former includes an extra term ρ̄1 u1 ðzb ÞE1bot in
its RHS. Fundamentally, this stems from the way the bottom boun-
dary conditions are characterized. In light of the continuum
assumption, the velocity components and stresses are continuous
at the bed surface, which is in contrast to jumps evoked by Iverson
and Ouyang (2015). Specifically, the tangential velocity compo-
nents vanish at the bed surface because the bed is static, which
in the context of fluid dynamics is referred to as the no-slip con-
dition of viscous fluids, i.e., u1 ðzb Þ ¼ u2 ðzb Þ ¼ 0. This has been
well embedded in models for fluvial processes (Wu 2007) and earth
surface flows [Figs. 8.4a and 8.15a in Bridge and Demicco (2008)].
From a microscopic perspective, the nonslip approximation at a
liquid-solid interface may be affected by a number of factors, as
revealed by experimental studies (Neto et al. 2005) inspired by
the developments in the fields of microfluidic and microelectrome-
chanical devices. Yet, the SHSM equations are certainly developed
for applications to processes at the mesoscopic and macroscopic
scales. More broadly, the continuity condition of the tangential
velocity components at the bed surface holds for subaqueous
granular flows (Armanini 2013; Armanini et al. 2009) and
sediment-laden flows or turbidity currents (Huang et al. 2005;
Kneller and Buckee 2000).
Physically, the mass exchange between the water-sediment mix-
ture flow and the bed does not involve any momentum exchange
because the sediment (and water) entrained from the static bed does
not have any momentum initially, and therefore does not bring any
momentum into the flow. Likewise, the sediment (and water) de-
posited into the bed does not take out any momentum from the
flow. This proposition has been correctly reflected in traditional
SHSM equations, e.g., Xie (1990), Capart and Young (1998),
Cao et al. (2004), and Wu (2007), as illustrated by Eq. (2). Iverson
and Ouyang (2015, p. 13) appreciate that there must not be real
momentum exchange between the flow and the static bed. How-
ever, the last term on the RHS of Eq. (8) clearly indicates a real
momentum gain (when E1bot > 0) or loss (when E1bot < 0) from
mass exchange, if u1 ðzb Þ does not vanish. They try to justify this
© ASCE 02517001-4
J. Hydraul. Eng., 2017, 143(5): 02517001
term by their Eq. (22), which however is controversial because it
represents the lumped momentum conservation for the flow and the
bed as a whole and naturally the interlayer momentum exchange
terms in their Eqs. (20) and (21) disappear. The effect of the real
momentum exchange term in Eq. (8) is demonstrated in a sub-
sequent section, “Computational Test.”
Coupled versus Decoupled Modeling
The flow–sediment-bed interactions (Fig. 1) certainly warrant
explicit incorporation in mathematical river models if they are to
be able to resolve the fluvial processes properly. Of particular sig-
nificance to this paper is the coupled modeling methodology. As
the bed deforms, it will lead to changes in the flow. This influence
orders of magnitude, the feedback effects of bed deformation on
the flow are negligible, and traditional decoupled mathematical
river models are approximately applicable, in which the RHS of
Eq. (5) is neglected along with the third and fourth terms on the
RHS of Eq. (6). Otherwise, decoupled models may totally collapse,
and fully coupled models using the complete SHSM equations are
required in order to properly resolve the strong interactions be-
tween the flow, sediment transport, and bed. One of the most telling
cases concerns dam-break flow over erodible bed (Cao et al. 2004).
It is necessary to flag out that both physical coupling and
numerical coupling are important for modeling fluvial processes
with active sediment transport and rapidly evolving bed. Physical
coupling necessitates the use of the complete, rather than simpli-
fied, governing equations for the phenomena, i.e., Eqs. (5), (6), (3),
and (4). Most notably, the contribution of mass exchange with the
bed to the mass conservation of the water–sediment mixture flow is
critical, as characterized by the RHS term in Eq. (5). For extreme
cases such as dam-break floods over erodible sediment bed, ne-
glecting it may lead to collapse of the modeling at the worst
(Cao et al. 2004), while some mild cases may entail considerable
errors. Compared with the RHS term in Eq. (5), the gradient term of
sediment concentration and the apparent momentum exchange term
on the RHS of the momentum equation [e.g., Eq. (6)] are much
more minor and can be neglected practically. Numerical coupling
requires synchronous solution of the whole set of the governing
equations, an issue tentatively ignored in this paper.
Arguably, prior to Capart and Young (1998), mathematical river
models based on the SHSM equations were rarely coupled as the
RHS of Eq. (5) and the third and fourth terms on the RHS of Eq. (6)
were exclusively ignored, even though the complete SHSM equa-
tions had been available since Xie (1990). Studies over the last de-
cade have revealed that coupled modeling does not incur any
appreciable increase in computing cost compared with decoupled
modeling, as can be anticipated from the fact that the physical cou-
pling just additionally necessitates the computation of a few source
or sink terms. At the same time, coupled modeling involves fewer
assumptions than decoupling modeling, thereby minimizing model
uncertainty. Indeed, coupled modeling has been more and more
widely used in computational river dynamics since Capart and
Young (1998) and Cao et al. (2004), even for large-scale field cases
such as the Tangjiashan landslide dam failure process and the
resulting flood following the Wenchuan Earthquake on May 12,
2008, in Sichuan Province, China, and also the historic megaflood
due to glacier dam-break flood in Altai Mountains, Southern
Siberia (Huang et al. 2012, 2014, 2015). Nevertheless, the advan-
tages of coupled modeling have not been sufficiently recognized
because decoupled modeling continues to be popularly used by
J. Hydraul. Eng.
 not only engineers, but also the academic research sector
(e.g., Charru 2006; Bohorquez and Ancey 2015; Nelson et al.
2015a, b; Nicholas 2010).
In a way, the latest advances in coupled modeling manifest the
vision by Papanicolaou et al. (2008) on the capability of dynami-
cally simulating bed evolution and sediment exchange processes
between the sediment bed and the water column. The primary idea
of the recent reformulation of the SHSM equations by Iverson and
Ouyang (2015) is to think of a mass flow and its bed as interacting,
depth-integrated continua, which in essence concurs with the
coupled modeling methodology in computational river dynamics
(Xie 1990; Capart and Young 1998; Cao et al. 2004; Wu 2007;
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by GADJAH MADA UNIVERSITY on 10/09/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Papanicolaou et al. 2008).
Noncapacity versus Capacity Modeling
Sediment transport capacity is a pivotal concept in the context of
fluvial hydraulics and geomorphology. Succinctly, it is defined as
the maximum amount of sediment that can be transported by the
flow without causing aggradation or degradation of the riverbed.
This corresponds to an idealized regime, characterizing equilibrium
sediment transport by steady and uniform flow. Yet fluvial flows
are generally unsteady and nonuniform, and under these circum-
stances the concept of sediment transport capacity may not be
strictly applicable. Accordingly, nominal sediment transport capac-
ity is introduced, determined exclusively by local flow and bed
conditions (i.e., at a cross section). For ease of description, the word
nominal is typically dropped. Certainly, the nominal transport
capacity reconciles with the actual capacity in steady and uniform
flows over a sufficiently erodible bed.
For over half a century [arguably since Exner’s analysis of why
dunes are asymmetrical in the 1920s (Parker 2004)], fluvial sedi-
ment transport has often been quantified based on the assumption
that its transport rate (or concentration) is always equal to capacity
determined exclusively by local flow and sediment conditions.
Based on this capacity assumption and Eqs. (5), (6), (3), and (4),
one can readily yield the governing equations of capacity
models by eliminating the net flux F of sediment exchange be-
tween the flow and the bed, i.e., the capacity version of the SHSM
equations
∂h1 ∂h1 ū1 ∂zb
þ þ ¼0 ð9Þ
∂t ∂x ∂t
 
∂ðh1 ū1 Þ ∂ 1
þ h1 ū21 þ gh21
∂t ∂x 2 and momentum conservation laws. However, the adaptation is con-
∂zb τ 1bot ðρs − ρf Þgh21 ∂ c̄1 ðρ̄2 − ρ̄1 Þū1 ∂zb
¼ −gh1 − − þ upstream or a tributary, in addition to the conservation laws. As a
∂x ρ̄1 2ρ̄1 ∂x ρ̄1 ∂t
ð10Þ
∂ ∂ðh1 ū1 c1e Þ
½ð1 − pÞzb þ h1 c1e  þ ¼0 ð11Þ
∂t ∂x
where c1e = sediment transport capacity of the flow layer.
Eqs. (9)–(11) constitute the governing equations for a capacity
model [or local model according to Pelosi and Parker (2014)], solv-
ing for three unknowns (h1 , ū1 , and zb ). Eq. (11) reduces to the
traditional Exner equation when dðh1 c1e Þ=dt is neglected, which
provides that the spatial gradient of the sediment transport rate
solely dictates the bed evolution.
From physical perspectives, the temporal and spatial variability
of sediment transport is essentially ignored in the capacity
© ASCE 02517001-5
J. Hydraul. Eng., 2017, 143(5): 02517001
assumption. This is clear if the first term on the LHS of Eq. (3)
is discretized, which indicates that the sediment content ðh1 c1e Þ
in the flow column per unit bed area is actually dependent on its
value at a prior instant, the advection due to mean flow velocity
(represented by the spatial gradient of the sediment transport rate),
and also the mass exchange with the bed (indicated by F). Furbish
et al. (2012) suggested that their derived entrainment form of the
Exner equation [essentially similar to Eq. (3)] considers the lag
effect of bed-load transport, whereas the flux form of the Exner
equation [literally similar to Eq. (11)] does not. Theoretically, as
the spatial and temporal dimensions required for sediment adapta-
tion are properly appreciated, noncapacity [or nonlocal due to
Pelosi and Parker (2014)] models are generally justified as opposed
to capacity models. Capacity models could be conditionally appli-
cable if sediment adaptation to capacity regime is fulfilled suffi-
ciently rapidly and within an adequately short distance.
For fluvial suspended sediment transport, noncapacity models
have been increasingly widely developed and applied during the
last several decades. Most likely this relates to the consensus that
it takes long temporal and spatial dimensions for suspended sedi-
ment transport to adapt to capacity in line with local flow regime,
simply (and somewhat intuitively) because suspended sediment
may distribute along the full flow depth, as opposed to bed load
that usually moves in the immediate vicinity of the bed. Indeed,
the analysis of the relative time scale of suspended sediment
transport concurs with this recognition (Cao et al. 2007), and com-
putational tests (Cao et al. 2012) reveal that a capacity model for
suspended sediment transport may entail substantial deviations
from a noncapacity model and therefore is generally not justified.
In contrasting, bed-load transport has been widely presumed to
be at capacity. Likely this is because bed load usually moves in the
immediate vicinity of the bed and therefore is believed to be able to
adapt to capacity rapidly (van Rijn 1993). This intuition is under-
pinned by the theoretical analysis of the relative time scale of uni-
form bed-load transport (Cao et al. 2011). Complementary to the
analysis, computational tests (Cao et al. 2012) confirm that a capac-
ity model for uniform bed load leads to practically equivalent
results as a noncapacity model. Nevertheless, bed-load sediments
can differ in their sizes greatly, ranging from sands to gravels,
cobbles, and even boulders. The adaptation of nonuniform bed-load
transport to capacity is at least intuitively size-dependent. The
analysis of the relative time scale of nonuniform bed-load transport
shows rapid, size-dependent adaptation to capacity regime (Hu
2013; Cao et al. 2016), extending the work for uniform bed-load
transport (Cao et al. 2011). Yet, this finding is essentially governed
by the complete SHSM equations built on the fundamental mass
strained by changes in the water and sediment inputs from either the
result, the capacity assumption for bed load may not be generally
justified. The computational case study of a strong aggradation case
due to sediment feeding (Seal et al. 1997) reveals that the capacity
model entails substantial errors compared to the noncapacity model
(Hu 2013; Cao et al. 2016).
As Gomez (1991) stated, “Many of the problems that have pre-
vented the development of a viable method of predicting bed load
transport arise directly from the assumption that equilibrium trans-
port conditions prevail.” Here, equilibrium transport condition es-
sentially means capacity regime, rather than the real equilibrium as
shown in Fig. 1. In essence, Gomez (1991) flagged the significance
of accounting for the spatial and temporal variability in generally
nonuniform bed-load sediment transport, which explicitly necessi-
tates noncapacity modeling. Charru (2006) demonstrated that
quantifying bed-load transport with a noncapacity model, instead
J. Hydraul. Eng.
 of a capacity description, significantly improves the prediction of
ripple length in comparison with observed data.
To date, the effects of the capacity assumption for sediment
transport have been only occasionally investigated as compared
against noncapacity modeling (Cao et al. 2007, 2011, 2012,
2016; Hu 2013; Pelosi and Parker 2014), while capacity models
continue to be popularly used (particularly for bed-load transport),
not only in hydraulic engineering, but also in geophysical studies
(e.g., Nelson et al. 2015a, b; Nicholas 2010). More studies are
warranted to resolve this long-standing issue. Currently, it remains
hard to delimit quantitatively the premises under which capacity
modeling is approximately appropriate. From numerical perspec-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by GADJAH MADA UNIVERSITY on 10/09/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
tives, Eq. (3) involved in noncapacity models can be solved con-
gruently along with Eqs. (5) and (6) of the mixture flow, while
Eq. (4) is in essence an ordinary differential equation and can
be readily solved. In contrast, Eq. (11) evoked in capacity models
is in a rather peculiar from and cannot be solved with Eqs. (9) and
(10) in a congruent manner. Consequently, noncapacity modeling is
recommended for general applications as opposed to capacity mod-
eling. Additionally, the computing costs of capacity and noncapac-
ity models are more or less equivalent for cases with uniform
sediment transport, but for fluvial processes involving nonuniform
sediment transport, it remains to be investigated how the two cat-
egories of models perform.
Quasi-Steady Flow Assumption
The last several decades have seen a large number of depth-
averaged models built upon the truncated SHSM equations on the
basis of quasi-steady flow assumption (Cunge and Perdreau 1973;
Cunge et al. 1980; Li and Xie 1986; Xie 1990; Wu 2007). In this
class of simplified models, the RHS of Eq. (5) is typically neglected
along with the third and fourth terms on the RHS of Eq. (6), which
virtually evoke a certain level of decoupling among the flow, sedi-
ment transport, and morphological evolution (Cui et al. 1996; Cui
and Parker 2005; Nicholas 2010). Denoting the characteristic
length, time, and velocity scales of fluvial processes as l0 , T 0 ,
and U 0 , if T 0 ≫ l0 =U 0 , the time derivatives in Eqs. (5), (6), and
(3) can be ignored (de Vries 1965). In a quasi-steady flow model,
the computational period is divided into a number of time intervals.
During each time interval, the flow discharge is assumed to be con-
stant and the flow is assumed to be steady, but the bed change is
updated using Eq. (4) (Xie 1990; Wu 2007).
From a mathematical perspective, the quasi-steady flow
assumption essentially reduces the hyperbolic system of Eqs. (5),
(6), and (3) to a set of first-order ordinary differential equations
(ODEs). This set of ODEs can be readily solved using a spectrum
of routine numerical schemes if the flow is consistently subcritical.
However, special treatment is necessary when transcritical flows
are to be solved (e.g., Cui et al. 1996; Cui 2007). Succinctly, the
quasi-steady assumption is only applicable to cases featuring
steady or sufficiently weak unsteady flows. It will break down for
a range of processes that are triggered by sudden failure of dams
and dikes (Capart and Young 1998; Cao et al. 2004; Wu 2007;
ASCE/EWRI Task Committee 2011; Huang et al. 2012) or by out-
burst of glacier lakes (Huang et al. 2014). Likewise, it is problem-
atic if the response of a sediment bed to rapidly changing boundary
conditions is to be resolved (Lyn 1987).
In fact, the applicability of computational models is lost if the
quasi-steady flow assumption is involved. Equally critically, it re-
mains far from clear how a quasi-steady flow model performs as
compared with a model built on the complete SHSM equations in
terms of accuracy and computing cost. Further studies are required
© ASCE 02517001-6
J. Hydraul. Eng., 2017, 143(5): 02517001
to reveal if and how the quasi-steady flow models could reproduce
the results of the complete SHSM models fairly accurately, and also
how much of the computing cost could be reduced. This is impor-
tant for practical applications because quasi-steady flow models
are currently still in widespread use by engineers (especially for
large-scale and long-duration cases, e.g., the case in connection
with the operation of the Three Gorges Reservoir, Yangtze River,
China). Nevertheless, from a theoretical perspective quasi-steady
flow models are out of date, while the modeling paradigm based
on the complete SHSM equations characterizes the current state-of-
the-art of computational river dynamics and the way forward.
Computational Test
There have been computational studies showing the significance of
coupled modeling in contrast to decoupled modeling (e.g., Cao et al.
2004) and noncapacity modeling in comparison with capacity
modeling (Cao et al. 2012, 2016; Hu 2013). Yet the effect of the
quasi-steady flow assumption remains poorly understood as stated
in a prior section, and is reserved for future studies. This section
aims to demonstrate the effects of the reformulated momentum
Eq. (8) in comparison with the traditional momentum Eq. (2). This
is warranted because it remains unknown how the reformulation by
Iverson and Ouyang (2015) performs.
Momentum Equations
The velocity u1 ðzb Þ at the bed surface involved in Eq. (8) is evalu-
ated by the depth-averaged velocity ū1 following Ouyang et al.
(2015). Given Eqs. (3) and (5) and also τ 1top ¼ 0, Eq. (8) can
be rearranged to a form similar to Eq. (6), i.e.
 
∂ðh1 ū1 Þ ∂ 1
þ h1 ū21 þ gh21
∂t ∂x 2
∂zb τ 1bot ðρs − ρf Þgh21 ∂ c̄1
¼ −gh1 − − þ MT ð12Þ
∂x ρ̄1 2ρ̄1 ∂x
where MT = momentum transfer term. This term can be
expressed as
ðρ̄2 − ρ̄1 ÞFū1
MTC ¼ − ð13aÞ
ρ̄1 ð1 − pÞ
Fū1
MTIO ¼ MTC þ MTA ¼ ð13bÞ
ð1 − pÞ
ρ̄2 ū1 F
MTA ¼ ð13cÞ
ρ̄1 ð1 − pÞ
MTOY ¼ −MTIO ð13dÞ
where the subscripts C, IO, and OY indicate, respectively, Cao et al.
(2004), Iverson and Ouyang (2015), and Ouyang et al. (2015); and
the subscript A indicates an added term.
It is recognized that when F > 0, MTIO is always positive while
MTC and MTOY are invariably negative (because ρ̄2 > ρ̄1 for flu-
vial processes). Obviously, the difference MTA between MTIO and
MTC results from the last term on the RHS of Eq. (8). Also, Ouyang
et al. (2015) should have used MTIO of Eq. (12) in their dam-
break flood modeling exercises. Arguably, however, they encoun-
tered computational difficulty by using MTIO and therefore
used Eq. (12) with MTOY ¼ −MTIO instead. It is intriguing
J. Hydraul. Eng.

Fig. 3. Dam-break floods
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by GADJAH MADA UNIVERSITY on 10/09/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
how Ouyang et al. (2015) derived MTOY ¼ −MTIO from Iverson
and Ouyang (2015).
Implemented with the same mass conservation equations for the
water-sediment mixture, sediment, and bed material, i.e., Eqs. (5),
(3), and (4), the three momentum equations, Eq. (12) with MTC ,
MTIO , and MTOY determined by Eq. (13), are used respectively
to evaluate their influences on dam-break floods as described in
the following.
Results and Evaluation
A case of 1D dam-break flood over erodible bed at the prototype
scale is numerically revisited (Cao et al. 2004). Fig. 3 gives a sketch
of the case. The channel, initial and boundary conditions, and
numerical scheme along with the spatial and temporal steps as well
as the estimation of bed sediment exchange flux are the same as
described in Cao et al. (2004). In this case study, the sediment
particle diameter is set to be 4 mm.
Figs. 4 and 5 illustrate the water surface and bed profiles as well
as velocity profile at different times. The results based on the mo-
mentum equations of Cao et al. (2004) and Ouyang et al. (2015) are
just marginally different. Comparatively, the water surface profile
due to the momentum equation of Iverson and Ouyang (2015) fea-
tures a huge hydraulic jump, severe bed scour, and significantly
faster propagation of the wave forefront (Fig. 4). Most importantly,
the hydraulic jump, bed scour (Fig. 4), and velocity (Fig. 5) in-
crease with time infinitely, and become physically unrealistically
large. This consequence is obviously catastrophic. Indeed, the
Fig. 4. (Color) Water surface and bed profiles at (a) t ¼ 20 s;
(b) t ¼ 60 s; (c) t ¼ 150 s
© ASCE 02517001-7
J. Hydraul. Eng., 2017, 143(5): 02517001
parameterization of the next flux (F) of sediment exchange be-
tween the flow and the bed inevitably bears uncertainty quantita-
tively because the understanding of the mechanism of sediment
exchange remains rather limited. However, it is the positivity of
the term MTIO (when F > 0) that entails the catastrophe. The
parameterization of the net flux of sediment exchange only affects
the time when MTIO leads to the failure of the model. The larger the
net flux of sediment exchange, the sooner the catastrophe occurs,
and vice versa.
Succinctly, the distinct profiles shown in Figs. 4 and 5 are
dictated by the values of MTC , MTOY , and MTIO as illustrated
in Fig. 6. The dam-break flood leads to bed scour, corresponding
to F > 0. As indicated previously, MTC and MTOY are always neg-
ative, which physically means an apparent momentum loss from
bed scour. Therefore, a negative feedback into the flow momentum
occurs from bed scour. On the contrary, MTIO is invariably positive,
indicating a momentum gain of the flow from bed scour. Accord-
ingly, a positive feedback into the flow momentum takes place from
bed scour. In line with this observation, a self-reinforcing mecha-
nism of the mobile-bed flow would exist. The more the flow en-
trains sediment from the bed (and thus the more the bed is scoured),
the more the flow is equipped with momentum, which in turn
would be capable of entraining more sediment from the bed.
Progressively, the flow and bed scour would become unconstrained
and infinitely large. Even intuitively, this is unrealistic. The distinct
mechanisms of the feedback into the flow momentum from bed
scour explain why the values of MTC and MTOY as well as the
corresponding flow (hydraulic jump, velocity, and wave front)
and bed scour are well constrained in time, while those due to
Iverson and Ouyang (2015) increase infinitely in time and become
physically problematic.
Generally, one of the fundamental principles in river dynamics
(usually called the principle of self-adaptation) provides that the
flow would become weaker when entraining sediment from the
bed, i.e., F > 0 (and accordingly the bed degrades), and stronger
if depositing sediment to the bed, i.e., F < 0 (and thus the bed ag-
grades). This principle dictates that a river (reach) at an equilibrium
regime would adapt to a new equilibrium in response to changes,
typically, in discharge and sediment input from the upstream or in
water level at the downstream end. From this principle, one can
immediately figure out that the positive (negative) term MTIO when
F > 0 (F < 0) will cause problems. The reasoning is crystal clear in
Fig. 5. (Color) Velocity profiles at (a) t ¼ 20 s; (b) t ¼ 60 s;
(c) t ¼ 150 s
J. Hydraul. Eng.
 Di Cristo et al. (2015). Some existing two-phase models ignore
the mass exchange between the flow and the bed by omitting
the terms in the RHS of Eqs. (7) and (3) (Pitman and Le 2005;
Pelanti et al. 2008; Pudasaini 2012; Bouchut et al. 2015). Accord-
ingly, the models are rendered physically decoupled (Fig. 1),
applicable only to fixed bed or weakly mobile bed cases.
Concerning the momentum equations for the fluid and solid
phases, the longitudinal gradients of the normal stresses of the fluid
phase due to turbulence and the solid phase due to fluctuations have
been commonly ignored (though the understanding of the effects
remains rather limited) along with the hydrostatic pressure distri-
bution. Yet, there have been distinct approximations of the frac-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by GADJAH MADA UNIVERSITY on 10/09/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

tional pressure and gravity terms (Iverson and Denlinger 2001;

Pudasaini et al. 2005; Pelanti et al. 2008; Pudasaini 2012; Greco
et al. 2012; Di Cristo et al. 2015). For instance, in the momentum
equations of Pudasaini (2012), the pressure for the fluid and solid
phases is proportional to their respective product of volumetric
concentration. Accordingly, the momentum equations for each
Fig. 6. (Color) Values of momentum terms at (a) t ¼ 20 s; phase can be written as
(b) t ¼ 60 s; (c) t ¼ 150 s  
∂ ∂ 1
½h1 ū1f ð1 − c̄1 Þ þ h1 ð1 − c̄1 Þū21f þ gð1 − c̄1 Þh21
∂t ∂x 2
∂zb τ 1botf f sf
this respect. The positive (negative) term MTIO when F > 0 (F < 0) ¼ −gh1 ð1 − c̄1 Þ − − ð14Þ
in the momentum equation means the flow gains (loses) momentum ∂x ρf ρf
and thus becomes stronger (weaker) when F > 0 (F < 0), which  
conflicts with the principle of self-adaptation of river dynamics. ∂ ∂ 2 1 2
ðh ū c̄ Þ þ h c̄ ū þ gc̄ h
∂t 1 1s 1 ∂x 1 1 1s 2 1 1
∂z τ fsf
Future Development: Two-Phase SHSM Equations ¼ −gh1 c̄1 b − 1bots þ ð15Þ
∂x ρs ρs
Sediment-laden flows represent a typical class of fluid-solid two-
phase flows. Generally, when sediment concentration is sufficiently where the subscripts f and s indicate respectively the fluid and
low, the fluid phase dominates, while the interphase (water-to- solid phases; fsf = forces exerted by the fluid on the solid particles;
sediment) and particle-particle interactions are rather weak and ū1f and ū1s = depth-averaged velocities of the fluid and solid
therefore practically negligible. The traditional SHSM equations phases; and τ 1botf and τ 1bots = bottom shear stresses of the fluid
[i.e., Eqs. (1)–(4)] are approximately applicable. The recent refor- and solid phases, respectively.
mulation by Iverson and Ouyang (2015) could also be applicable In contrast, according to Greco et al. (2012) and Di Cristo et al.
provided that the outstanding issues [e.g., the most critical issue (2015), the pressure and gravity for the fluid phase are simply pre-
related to the momentum Eq. (8), as stated previously] could be sumed to be equal to their counterparts in a single-phase clear water
resolved properly. Common to both the traditional SHSM equa- flow, while those of the solid phase are set to be equal to the added
tions and reformulation by Iverson and Ouyang (2015), the aver- quantities due to the presence of sediment. Therefore, the momen-
aged velocity of the sediment phase is a priori quantified by the tum equations for the fluid and solid phases are
flow velocity along with a modification coefficient β (β ≤ 1).  
∂ ∂ 2 1 2
Therefore, both feature essentially quasi-single-phase models for ½h ū ð1 − c̄1 Þ þ h ð1 − c̄1 Þū1f þ gh1
the water-sediment mixture flow, as characterized by the single mo- ∂t 1 1f ∂x 1 2
mentum equation, in spite of the fact that two continuity equations ∂z τ 1botf f dsf
¼ −gh1 b − − ð16Þ
are involved. ∂x ρf ρf
However, for extreme processes such as dam-break floods over
erodible beds and debris flows, sediment concentrations could be  
∂ ∂ 2 1 r 2
high. Accordingly, the interphase and particle-particle interactions ðh ū c̄ Þ þ h c̄ ū þ gc̄ h
are intense and need to be accounted for. A two-phase flow theory, ∂t 1 1s 1 ∂x 1 1 1s 2 r þ 1 1 1
which resolves the fluid and solid phases distinctively based on r ∂zb τ 1bots f dsf
their respective mass and momentum conservation equations, is ¼ −gh1 c̄1 − þ ð17Þ
r þ 1 ∂x ρs ρs
attractive. Accordingly, there are two momentum equations in ad-
dition to two continuity equations (for one-dimensional flows). where r ¼ ðρs − ρf Þ=ρf = submerged specific gravity of sediment;
In this regard, it is noted that some existing models are literally and fdsf = drag force of the fluid on the solid particles.
quasi-single-phase models, rather than two-phase models, though Presently, it seems hard to delimit the pros and cons of the two
they are derived from a two-phase approach (e.g., Pudasaini et al. sets of momentum equations, or to develop physically better
2005; Rosatti and Begnudelli 2013). approximations to the pressure and gravity terms under the frame-
The two-phase SHSM equations can be readily derived by ap- work of shallow water sediment hydrodynamics. Yet refined com-
plying the Reynolds transport theorem in fluid dynamics (Batchelor putational tests using the two sets of momentum equations are
1967; Wallis 1969). For 1D flows with uniform sediment, Eqs. (7) viable to reveal which is practically more attractive.
and (3) represent the continuity equations for the fluid and solid Two-phase flow theory is not new at all in the broad field of fluid
phases, respectively, similar to those of Greco et al. (2012) and mechanics, and especially, depth-averaged two-phase models have

© ASCE 02517001-8 J. Hydraul. Eng.

J. Hydraul. Eng., 2017, 143(5): 02517001

 been widely developed and applied for granular flows and debris
flows (e.g., Pitman and Le 2005; Pelanti et al. 2008; Pudasaini
2012). To date, however, two-phase SHSM models for fluvial
sediment-laden, mobile-bed flows have remained rare, arguably
because of the increase in computing cost and also the demand
for extra relationships that are necessary to close the governing
equations. Extending the work by Greco et al. (2012) and Di Cristo
et al. (2015) presents an updated two-phase SHSM model, which is
tested against laboratory-observed data for dam-break flows over
erodible bed. Yet, it is unclear if their two-phase model performs
considerably better than traditional quasi-single-phase model in
terms of accuracy, despite the increase in computing cost.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by GADJAH MADA UNIVERSITY on 10/09/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
While the pros and cons of two-phase SHSM models remain
poorly understood currently as compared with the traditional
quasi-single-phase SHSM models, in terms of modeling accuracy
and computing cost, two-phase modeling holds great promise be-
cause more refined physical mechanisms of water-sediment flows
are explicitly incorporated. Most notably, fluid-solid two-phase
flows are primarily characterized by the relative motion and inter-
actions between the two phases. For fluvial processes, while
suspended sediment may transport at nearly the same velocity as
the flow, bed-load velocity is considerably lower than the flow
(Einstein 1950; Chien and Wan 1999; Greimann et al. 2008).
As observed in debris flows, the velocities of the two phases may
deviate from each other substantially, therefore, affecting the flow
mechanics (Pudasaini 2012). Accordingly, drag is one of the basic
and critical mechanisms of two-phase flows, featuring the coupling
between the two phases. While the relative motion between the
fluid and the solid phases can be resolved by the two-phase ap-
proach, the associated drag in between the two phases merits care-
ful incorporation. Concurrently, at high sediment concentrations,
the particle-particle interactions play an important role in dictating
the flow mechanics. These interactions are normally represented
by the solid phase stresses (i.e., intergranular stresses) in its mo-
mentum conservation equation. Likewise, the fluid phase stresses
due to viscosity (i.e., viscous stresses) may also be considerable, in
addition to the turbulent stresses.
Among the physical mechanisms mentioned previously, esti-
mating the interphase drag, intergranular stresses, and viscous
stresses might be arguably relatively straightforward. The most
challenging part concerns the turbulent closure model for the fluid
phase and the accounting for the fluctuations of the solid phase
because the current understanding of the physics of water-sediment
flows at high solid concentrations remains very limited, albeit it
progresses (Iverson 1997). This is perhaps why turbulent stresses
and solid phase fluctuations have been rarely, if ever, incorporated
in two-phase SHSM models to date, even for debris flows
(e.g., Pitman and Le 2005; Pelanti et al. 2008; Pudasaini 2012).
Given the sophisticated nature of the phenomena in question,
the turbulent closure models will in general necessitate additional
partial differential equation(s) to close the two-phase SHSM equa-
tions, i.e., Eqs. (7) and (3) along with Eqs. (14) and (15) or Eqs. (16)
and (17), because algebraic closure relations are presumably exces-
sively simplistic and thus may not be generally viable. A similar
observation should hold when accounting for the fluctuations of
the solid particles [e.g., Eq. (35) for granular temperature in Iverson
(1997)]. This certainly invites future investigations.
Conclusion
The shallow water hydrosediment–morphodynamic equations, es-
tablished based on the fundamental mass and momentum conser-
vation laws of fluid dynamics, are generally applicable to hydraulic
© ASCE 02517001-9
J. Hydraul. Eng., 2017, 143(5): 02517001
engineering and geomorphological studies at mesoscopic and
macroscopic scales. The last decade has seen enhanced understand-
ing of the conditional applicability of simplified SHSM equations
based on the assumptions of very slow bed evolution, sediment
transport capacity, or quasi-steady flow, yet further studies are still
in order to delimit their pros and cons under differential conditions.
The reformulated SHSM equations by Iverson and Ouyang (2015)
hinge upon presumed jumps of velocity and stress components at
the bed surface, which are incompatible with the continuum
assumption. The reformulated momentum equation features an
extra term characterizing an actual momentum exchange between
the flow and the bed, which must vanish physically. Otherwise, it
spells a positive (negative) feedback into the flow momentum when
the bed degrades (aggrades), and inevitably leads to catastrophic
failure of the model.
Succinctly, both the traditional SHSM equations and reformu-
lation by Iverson and Ouyang (2015) characterize quasi-single-
phase models for the water-sediment mixture flow. This class of
models are preferentially applicable to cases of low sediment con-
centrations, in which the water flow reigns over the sediment mo-
tions, but may not be refined enough to resolve the complicated
physics of hyperconcentrated flows as the interphase and par-
ticle-particle interactions prevail. The development and applica-
tions of two-phase SHSM equations have so far remained in
their infancy, but hold great promise for modeling shallow water
flow–sediment morphological processes, and therefore there is a
huge scope for further investigations. In this respect, enhanced
understanding of the physics of the interphase and particle-particle
interactions is crucial, in addition to the turbulent stresses of the
fluid phase and also the stresses due to solid particle fluctuations.
Acknowledgments
The work reported in this paper is funded by the Natural Science
Foundation of China (Grant Nos. 51279144 and 11432015) and the
Chinese Academy of Sciences (Grant No. KZZD-EW-05-01-03).
The comments of anonymous reviewers and editors helped improve
the manuscript, which are very much appreciated.
Notation
The following symbols are used in this paper:
c̄1 = depth-averaged sediment concentration of the
flow layer;
c1e = sediment transport capacity of the flow layer;
E1bot = bed material entrainment rate at the bottom of the
flow layer;
F = net flux of sediment exchange between the flow
column and the bed;
fdsf = drag force of fluid on solid particles;
fsf = forces exerted by the fluid on the solid particles;
g = gravitational acceleration;
h1 = flow depth;
MT = momentum transfer term;
MTA = added momentum term due to Iverson and
Ouyang (2015);
MTC = apparent momentum exchange term of Cao et al.
(2004);
MTIO = momentum exchange term of Iverson and
Ouyang (2015);
MTOY = momentum exchange term of Ouyang et al.
(2015);
J. Hydraul. Eng.
 p = bed sediment porosity;
r = submerged specific gravity of sediment;
t = time;
ū1 = depth-averaged flow velocity in the x direction;
ū1f , ū1s = depth-averaged velocities of the fluid and solid
phases;
u1 ðzb Þ, u2 ðzb Þ = velocity components of the flow and bed layers at
the bed surface in the x-direction;
x = streamwise coordinate;
zb = flow-bed boundary elevation;
β = modification coefficient;
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by GADJAH MADA UNIVERSITY on 10/09/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
β 1uu = Boussinesq momentum-distribution coefficient;
ρf , ρs = densities of water and sediment, respectively;
ρ̄1 , ρ̄2 = depth-averaged densities of the flow and bed
layers;
τ 1bot , τ 1top = bottom and top shear stresses of the flow layer;
and
τ 1botf , τ 1bots = bottom shear stresses of the fluid and solid
phases.
References
Armanini, A. (2013). “Granular flows driven by gravity.” J. Hydraul. Res.,
51(2), 111–120.
Armanini, A., and Di Silvio, G. (1988). “A one-dimensional model for
the transport of a sediment mixture in non-equilibrium conditions.”
J. Hydraul. Res., 26(3), 275–292.
Armanini, A., Fraccarollo, L., and Rosatti, G. (2009). “Two-dimensional
simulation of debris flows in erodible channels.” Comput. Geosci.,
35(5), 993–1006.
ASCE/EWRI Task Committee. (2011). “Earthen embankment breaching.”
J. Hydraul. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)HY.1943-7900.0000498, 1549–1564.
Batchelor, G. (1967). An introduction to fluid dynamics, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, U.K.
Bohorquez, P., and Ancey, C. (2015). “Stochastic-deterministic modeling
of bed load transport in shallow water flow over erodible slope: Linear
stability analysis and numerical simulation.” Adv. Water Resour.,
83, 36–54.
Bouchut, F., Fernandez-Nieto, E. D., Mangeney, A., and Narbona-Reina,
G. (2015). “A two-phase shallow debris flow model with energy
balance.” ESAIM-Math. Model. Numer. Anal., 49(1), 101–140.
Bridge, J., and Demicco, R. (2008). Earth surface processes, landforms
and sediment deposits, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K.
Cao, Z., Egashira, S., and Carling, P. (2003). “Role of suspended-sediment
particle size in modifying velocity profiles in open channel flows.”
Water Resour. Res., 39(2), 1–15.
Cao, Z., and Hu, P. (2008). “Comment on ‘Long waves in erodible channels
and morphodynamic influence’ by Stefano Lanzoni et al.” Water
Resour. Res., 44(6), W06601.
Cao, Z., Hu, P., Hu, K., Pender, G., and Liu, Q. (2015a). “Modelling
roll waves with shallow water equations and turbulent closure.”
J. Hydraul. Res., 53(2), 161–177.
Cao, Z., Hu, P., and Pender, G. (2011). “Multiple time scales of fluvial
processes with bed load sediment and implications for mathematical
modeling.” J. Hydraul. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)HY.1943-7900
.0000296, 267–276.
Cao, Z., Hu, P., Pender, G., and Liu, H. (2016). “Non-capacity transport
of non-uniform bed load sediment in alluvial rivers.” J. Mountain
Sci., 13(3), 377–396.
Cao, Z., Li, J., Pender, G., and Liu, Q. (2015b). “Whole-process modelling
of reservoir turbidity currents by a double layer-averaged model.” J.
Hydraul. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)HY.1943-7900.0000951, 04014069.
Cao, Z., Li, Y., and Yue, Z. (2007). “Multiple time scales of alluvial rivers
carrying suspended sediment and their implications for mathematical
modeling.” Adv. Water Resour., 30(4), 715–729.
© ASCE 02517001-10
J. Hydraul. Eng., 2017, 143(5): 02517001
Cao, Z., Li, Z., Pender, G., and Hu, P. (2012). “Non-capacity or capacity
model for fluvial sediment transport.” Proc., ICE—Water Manage.,
165(4), 193–211.
Cao, Z., Pender, G., Wallis, S., and Carling, P. (2004). “Computational
dam-break hydraulics over erodible sediment bed.” J. Hydraul. Eng.,
10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9429(2004)130, 689–703.
Capart, H., and Young, D. L. (1998). “Formation of a jump by the
dam-break wave over a granular bed.” J. Fluid Mech., 372, 165–187.
Charru, F. (2006). “Selection of the ripple length on a granular bed sheared
by a liquid flow.” Physics of Fluids, 18(12), 121508.
Chien, N., and Wan, Z. (1999). Mechanics of sediment transport, ASCE,
Reston, VA.
Cui, Y. (2007). “The unified gravel-sand (TUGS) model: Simulating sedi-
ment transport and gravel/sand grain size distributions in gravel-bedded
rivers.” Water Resour. Res., 43(10), W10436.
Cui, Y., Paola, C., and Parker, G. (1996). “Numerical simulation of aggra-
dation and downstream fining.” J Hydraul Res., 34(2), 185–204.
Cui, Y., and Parker, G. (2005). “Numerical model of sediment pulses and
sediment-supply disturbances in mountain rivers.” J. Hydraul. Eng.,
10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9429(2005)131:8(646), 646–656.
Cui, Y., Parker, G., Lisle, T. E., Pizzuto, J. E., and Dodd, A. M. (2005).
“More on the evolution of bed material waves in alluvial rivers.” Earth
Surf. Process. Landforms, 30(1), 107–114.
Cunge, J. A., Holly, F. M., and Verwey, A. (1980). Practical aspects of
computational river hydraulics, Pitman, London.
Cunge, J. A., and Perdreau, N. (1973). “Mobile bed fluvial mathematical
models.” La Houille Blanche, 7(7), 561–580.
de Vries, M. (1965). “Considerations about non-steady bed-load transport
in open channels.” Proc., 11th Congress, International Association for
Hydraulic Research, Delft, Netherlands, 3.8.1–3.8.8.
Di Cristo, C., Greco, M., Iervolino, M., Leopardi, A., and Vacca, A. (2015).
“Two-dimensional two-phase depth-integrated model for transients over
mobile bed.” J. Hydraul. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)HY.1943-7900
.0001024, 04015043.
Einstein, H. A. (1950). “The bed-load function for sediment transportation
in open channel flows.” Technical Bulletins 1026, U.S. Dept. of
Agriculture, Washington, DC.
Fang, H., and Wang, G. (2000). “Three-dimensional mathematical model of
suspended-sediment transport.” J. Hydraul. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)
0733-9429(2000)126:8(578), 578–592.
Frey, P., and Church, M. (2009). “How river beds move.” Science,
325(5947), 1509–1510.
Furbish, D. J., Haff, P. K., Roseberry, J. C., and Schmeeckle, M. W. (2012).
“A probabilistic description of the bed load sediment flux. 1: Theory.”
J. Geophys. Res., 117, F03031.
Gomez, B. (1991). “Bedload transport.” Earth-Sci. Rev., 31(2), 89–132.
Greco, M., Iervolino, M., Leopardi, A., and Vacca, A. (2012). “A two-phase
model for fast geomorphic shallow flows.” Int. J. Sediment Res., 27(4),
409–425.
Greimann, B., Lai, Y., and Huang, J. (2008). “Two-dimensional total
sediment load model equations.” J. Hydraul. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)
0733-9429(2008)134:8(1142), 1142–1146.
Hirano, M. (1971). “River bed degradation with armouring.” Proc. Jpn.
Soc. Civ. Eng., 195, 55–65 (in Japanese).
Hu, P. (2013). “Multiple time scales of fluvial processes and mathematical
river modelling.” Ph.D. thesis, Wuhan Univ., Wuhan, China
(in Chinese).
Hu, P., and Cao, Z. (2009). “Fully coupled mathematical modeling of tur-
bidity currents over erodible bed.” Adv. Water Resour., 32(1), 1–15.
Hu, P., Cao, Z., Pender, G., and Liu, H. (2014). “Numerical modelling of
riverbed grain size stratigraphic evolution.” Int. J. Sediment Res., 29(3),
329–343.
Hu, P., Cao, Z., Pender, G., and Tan, G. (2012). “Numerical modelling of
turbidity currents in the Xiaolangdi Reservoir, Yellow River, China.”
J. Hydrol., 464-465, 41–53.
Huang, H., Imran, J., and Pirmez, C. (2005). “Numerical model of turbidity
currents with a deforming bottom boundary.” J. Hydraul. Eng., 10.1061
/(ASCE)0733-9429(2005)131:4(283), 283–293.
Huang, W., Cao, Z., Carling, P., and Pender, G. (2014). “Coupled 2D
hydrodynamic and sediment transport modeling of megaflood due to
J. Hydraul. Eng.
 glacier dam-break in Altai Mountains, Southern Siberia.” J. Mountain
Sci., 11(6), 1442–1453.
Huang, W., Cao, Z., Pender, G., Liu, Q., and Carling, P. (2015). “Coupled
flood and sediment transport modelling with adaptive mesh
refinement.” Sci. China Technol. Sci., 58(8), 1425–1438.
Huang, W., Cao, Z., Yue, Z., Pender, G., and Zhou, J. (2012). “Coupled
modelling of flood due to natural landslide dam breach.” Proc. ICE
- Water Manage., 165(10), 525–542.
Iverson, R. M. (1997). “The physics of debris flows.” Rev. Geophys., 35(3),
245–296.
Iverson, R. M., and Denlinger, R. P. (2001). “Flow of variably fluidized
granular masses across three-dimensional terrain. 1: Coulomb mixture
theory.” J. Geophys. Res., 106(B1), 537–552.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by GADJAH MADA UNIVERSITY on 10/09/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Iverson, R. M., and Ouyang, C. (2015). “Entrainment of bed material by
earth-surface mass flows: Review and reformulation of depth-integrated
theory.” Rev. Geophys., 53(1), 27–58.
Kim, D. H. (2015). “H2D morphodynamic model considering wave,
current and sediment interaction.” Coast. Eng., 95, 20–34.
Kim, J., Ivanov, V. Y., and Katopodes, N. D. (2013). “Modeling erosion and
sedimentation coupled with hydrological and overland flow processes
at the watershed scale.” Water Resour. Res., 49(9), 5134–5154.
Kneller, B., and Buckee, C. (2000). “The structure and fluid mechanics of
turbidity currents: A review of some recent studies and their geological
implications.” Sedimentology, 47(s1), 62–94.
Lanzoni, S., Siviglia, A., Frascati, A., and Seminara, G. (2006). “Long
waves in erodible channels and morphodynamic influence.” Water
Resour. Res., 42(6), W06D17.
LeVeque, R. J. (2002). Finite volume methods for hyperbolic problems,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K.
Li, J., Cao, Z., Pender, G., and Liu, Q. (2013). “A double layer-averaged
model for dam-break flows over mobile bed.” J. Hydraul. Res., 51(5),
518–534.
Li, Y., and Xie, J. (1986). “Mathematical modelling of two-dimensional
flow in alluvial rivers.” Chin. J. Hydraul. Eng., 11, 9–15 (in Chinese).
Lyn, D. A. (1987). “Unsteady sediment-transport modeling.” J. Hydraul.
Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9429(1987)113:1(1), 1–15.
Marsooli, R., and Wu, W. (2015). “Three-dimensional numerical modeling
of dam-break flows with sediment transport over movable beds.”
J. Hydraul. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)HY.1943-7900.0000947, 04014066.
Nelson, P. A., McDonald, R. R., Nelson, J. M., and Dietrich, W. E. (2015a).
“Coevolution of bed surface patchiness and channel morphology.
1: Mechanisms of forced patch formation.” J. Geophys. Res.: Earth
Surf., 120(9), 1687–1707.
Nelson, P. A., McDonald, R. R., Nelson, J. M., and Dietrich, W. E. (2015b).
“Coevolution of bed surface patchiness and channel morphology. 2:
Numerical experiments.” J. Geophys. Res.: Earth Surf., 120(9),
1708–1723.
Neto, C., Drew, R. E., Bonaccurso, E., Butt, H. J., and Craig, V. S. J. (2005).
“Boundary slip in Newtonian liquids: A review of experimental
studies.” Rep. Prog. Phys., 68(12), 2859–2897.
Nicholas, A. P. (2010). “Reduced-complexity modeling of free bar morpho-
dynamics in alluvial channels.” J. Geophys. Res., 115(F4), F04021.
Oreskes, N., Shrader-Frechette, K., and Belitz, K. (1994). “Verification,
validation and confirmation of numerical models in the earth sciences.”
Science, 263(5147), 641–646.
Ouyang, C., He, S., and Xu, Q. (2015). “MacCormack-TVD finite differ-
ence solution for dam break hydraulics over erodible sediment beds.”
J. Hydraul. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)HY.1943-7900.0000986, 06014026.
Papanicolaou, A. N., Elhakeem, M., Krallis, G., Prakash, S., and Edinger, J.
(2008). “Sediment transport modeling review—Current and future
© ASCE 02517001-11
J. Hydraul. Eng., 2017, 143(5): 02517001
developments.” J. Hydraul. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9429(2008)
134:1(1), 1–14.
Parker, G. (2004). “1D sediment transport morphodynamics with applica-
tions to river and turbidity currents.” St. Anthony Falls Laboratory,
Univ. of Minnesota, Minneapolis.
Pelanti, M., Bouchut, F., and Mangeney, A. (2008). “A Roe-type scheme
for two-phase shallow granular flows over variable topography.”
ESAIM-Math. Model. Numer. Anal., 42(5), 851–885.
Pelosi, A., and Parker, G. (2014). “Morphodynamics of river bed variation
with variable bedload step length.” Earth Surf. Dyn., 2(1), 243–253.
Pitman, E. B., and Le, L. (2005). “A two-fluid model for avalanche and
debris flows.” Proc. R. Soc. A-Math. Phys. Eng. Sci., 363(1832),
1573–1601.
Pudasaini, S. P. (2012). “A general two-phase debris flow model.”
J. Geophys. Res., 117, F03010.
Pudasaini, S. P., Wang, Y., and Hutter, K. (2005). “Modelling debris flows
down general channels.” Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 5(6), 799–819.
Qian, H., Cao, Z., Liu, H., and Pender, G. (2016). “Numerical modelling of
alternate bar formation, development and sediment sorting in straight
channels.” Earth Surf. Processes Landforms, in press.
Qian, H., Cao, Z., Pender, G., Liu, H., and Hu, P. (2015). “Well-balanced
numerical modelling of non-uniform sediment transport in alluvial
rivers.” Int. J. Sediment Res., 30(2), 117–130.
Rosatti, G., and Begnudelli, L. (2013). “Two-dimensional simulation of
debris flows over mobile bed: Enhancing the TRENT2D model by
using a well-balanced generalized Roe-type solver.” Comput. Fluids,
71, 179–195.
Seal, R., Paola, C., Parker, G., Southard, J. B., and Wilcock, P. R. (1997).
“Experiments on downstream fining of gravel. I: Narrow-channel
runs.” J. Hydraul. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9429(1997)123:10(874),
874–884.
Spinewine, B., and Capart, H. (2013). “Intense bed-load due to a sudden
dam-break.” J. Fluid Mech., 731, 579–614.
Toro, E. F. (2001). Shock-capturing methods for free-surface shallow flows,
Wiley, Chichester, U.K.
van Rijn, L. C. (1993). Principles of sediment transport in rivers, estuaries
and coastal seas, Aqua Publications, Blokzijl, Netherlands.
Wallis, G. (1969). One-dimensional two-phase flow, McGraw-Hill,
New York.
Wu, W. (2007). Computational river dynamics, Taylor & Francis, London.
Wu, W., Rodi, W., and Wenka, T. (2000). “3D numerical modeling of flow
and sediment transport in open channels.” J. Hydraul. Eng., 10.1061
/(ASCE)0733-9429(2000)126:1(4), 4–15.
Wu, W., and Wang, S. S. Y. (2007). “One-dimensional modeling of dam-
break flow over movable beds.” J. Hydraul. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)
0733-9429(2007)133:1(48), 48–58.
Xia, J., Lin, B., Falconer, R. A., and Wang, G. (2010). “Modelling
dam-break flows over mobile beds using a 2D coupled approach.”
Adv. Water Resour., 33(2), 171–183.
Xiao, H., Young, Y. L., and Prevost, J. H. (2010). “Hydro- and morpho-
dynamic modeling of breaking solitary waves over a fine sand beach.
Part II: Numerical simulation.” Mar. Geol., 269(3–4), 119–131.
Xie, J., ed. (1990). River modelling, China Water and Power, Beijing
(in Chinese).
Zech, Y., Soares-Frazao, S., and Van Emelen, S. (2015). “Modelling of fast
hydraulic transients: Issues, challenges, perspectives.” La Houille
Blanche, (5), 5–15.
Zhu, F., and Dodd, N. (2015). “The morphodynamics of a swash event on
an erodible beach.” J. Fluid Mech., 762, 110–140.
J. Hydraul. Eng.