Applied Numerical Mathematics 62 (2012) 1749–1766

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Applied Numerical Mathematics

www.elsevier.com/locate/apnum

Numerical modelling of sediment transport in the Nador lagoon

(Morocco)
Fayssal Benkhaldoun a , Salah Daoudi b , Imad Elmahi b,∗ , Mohammed Seaid c
a
LAGA, Université Paris 13, 99 Av. J.B. Clement, 93430 Villetaneuse, France
b
ENSAO, EMSN, COSTE, Université Mohammed 1, B.P. 669, 60000 Oujda, Morocco
c
School of Engineering and Computing Sciences, University of Durham, South Road, Durham DH1 3LE, UK

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: We present a numerical method for solving the sediment transport in the Nador lagoon.
Available online 28 June 2012 The lagoon is located on the Moroccan eastern coast and exchanges water flow with
the Mediterranean sea. The governing equations consist of the well-established shallow
Keywords:
water system including bathymetric forces, friction terms, coriolis and eddy-diffusion
Nador lagoon
Shallow water equations
stresses. To model sediment transport we consider an Exner equation for morphological
Sediment transport evolution and an advection–diffusion problem for the transport of suspended sediments.
Morphodynamics As a numerical solver, we apply an adaptive finite volume method using a centred-type
Finite volume method discretization for the source terms. The proposed method can handle complex topography
Unstructured mesh using unstructured grids and satisfies the conservation property. Several numerical results
are presented to demonstrate the high resolution of the proposed method and to confirm
its capability to provide accurate and efficient simulations for sediment transport in the
Nador lagoon.
© 2012 IMACS. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

The Nador lagoon is located on the Moroccan eastern coast. It is a restricted lagoon of 115 km2 (25 km by 7.5 km)
and with a depth not exceeding 8 m, see Fig. 1. Recently, the Nador lagoon has been the subject of many investigations
on water quality, currents, flora, fauna, fishing and aquaculture, see for instance [9,22]. Most of these studies deal with the
environmental aspects of the lagoon such as biological and socioeconomic impacts. However, to the best of our knowledge,
there are no research studies on the numerical modelling of sediment transport in the Nador lagoon. Needless to mention
that numerical studies are essential since they can quantify the interaction between sediment transport and water flow and
thereafter can help to understand the evolution of the lagoon morphodynamics. Consequently, this may provide numerical
tools to study the physical environment of the lagoon and to assess the development strategy reducing the flood and
pollution risks in the lagoon. Certainly, numerical modelling of sediment transport in the Nador lagoon would be less costly
than experimental study on the lagoon field.
In the current work, the governing equations consist of the well-established shallow water system including bathymetric
forces, Coriolis effects, friction terms and eddy-diffusion stresses. To model sediment transport we consider the well-known
Exner equation for morphological evolution and an advection–diffusion problem for the suspended sediment accounting
for erosion and deposition effects. The coupled hydrodynamical and morphological model forms a hyperbolic system of
conservation laws with source terms which are not easy to solve numerically. For instance, numerical simulation of mor-
phodynamical changes of the bed in hydraulic systems involve different physical mechanisms propagating within the system

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: ielmahi@ensa.ump.ma (I. Elmahi).

0168-9274/$36.00 © 2012 IMACS. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apnum.2012.05.010
1750 F. Benkhaldoun et al. / Applied Numerical Mathematics 62 (2012) 1749–1766

Fig. 1. Location and schematic description of the Nador lagoon.

according to their time response i.e., the problem is a multi-scale system which requires a robust solver to accurately re-
solve both hydrodynamical and morphodynamical time scales. In addition, most morphodynamical flows frequently involve
important features such as internal bores and moving shoreline fronts which present a significant challenge to the accuracy
and stability of numerical models. The objective of this work is to devise a stable, reliable and accurate numerical method
able to approximate solutions to the coupled hydrodynamical and morphological system in the Nador lagoon. It should be
stressed that it is difficult to validate numerical results for sediment transport against measurements from field experiments.
The main difficulties lie essentially on the empirical formulae needed to close the sediment transport model and also on
the calibration of the parameters involved in the bed-load modelling, we refer the reader to [11] for more discussions.
An adaptive finite volume Non-Homogeneous Riemann Solver (SRNH) has recently been proposed in [6,7] for solving sed-
iment transport by shallow water equations without accounting for suspended sediment. Here, the acronym SRNH stands for
“Solveur de Riemann Non Homogène”. The SRNH method belongs to the class of methods that employ only physical fluxes
and averaged states in their formulations. To control the local diffusion in the scheme and also to preserve monotonicity, a
parameter is introduced based on the sign matrix of the flux Jacobian. The main features of such a SRNH scheme are: (i) the
capability to satisfy the conservation property resulting in numerical solutions free from spurious oscillations in significant
morphodynamic situations (ii) the implementation on unstructured meshes allowing for local mesh refinement during the
simulation process, and (iii) the achievement of strong stability for simulations of slowly varying bed-load as well as rapidly
varying flows containing also shocks or discontinuities. It should also be stressed that the SRNH method has been success-
fully applied to solve pollutant dispersion by shallow water flows in [3]. Neither eddy diffusivity nor wind shear stresses
at the water surface have been taken into account in the study presented in [3]. Nevertheless, our SRNH method has been
found to perform effectively on realistic irregular bottoms, handle complex geometry, to solve different hydraulic regimes,
and to preserve conservation properties for both water free-surface and pollutant concentration. Our aim in this paper is to
extend the SRNH method for solving the problem of sediment transport in the Nador lagoon. We should mention that in the
current work, we are not interested in solutions with shocks within the Nador lagoon. Numerical results presented in this
study show that an interesting feature of the SRNH method is to allow multilevel mesh adaptation without deteriorating
accuracy of the computed solutions.
The structure of this paper is as follows. In Section 2, we present the mathematical equations for the sediment transport
problems considered. The formulation of the adaptive finite volume method is detailed in Section 3. Section 4 is devoted to
numerical results. Finally, Section 5 contains the conclusions.

2. Governing equations for sediment transport problems

In this section we describe the physical model used for modelling the sediment transport by shallow water flows. Here,
the two-dimensional shallow water equations are briefly recast for the hydrodynamics followed with a short description for
the sediment transport equations for the morphodynamics.

2.1. Shallow water equations

Shallow water equations have been widely used to model free surface flows of a fluid under the influence of gravity. This
class of equations uses the assumption that the vertical scale is much smaller than any typical horizontal scale and can be
 F. Benkhaldoun et al. / Applied Numerical Mathematics 62 (2012) 1749–1766 1751

Fig. 2. Sketch of a domain for two-dimensional suspended sediment transport.

derived from the depth-averaged incompressible Navier–Stokes equations, compare [23] among others. For two-dimensional
flow problems, these equations are:

∂ h ∂(hu ) ∂(hv )
+ + = 0, (1a)
∂t ∂x ∂y
∂(hu ) ∂(hu 2 + 12 gh2 ) ∂(huv ) ∂B τbx τ wx
+ + = − gh − Ω hv − + + Dxx (h, u , v ), (1b)
∂t ∂x ∂y ∂x ρw ρw
∂(hv ) ∂(huv ) ∂(hv 2 + 12 gh2 ) ∂B τby τ w y
+ + = − gh + Ω hu − + + D y y (h, u , v ), (1c)
∂t ∂x ∂y ∂y ρw ρw
where u and v are the depth-averaged water velocities in x- and y-direction, h the water depth, B the bottom topog-
raphy, g the gravitational acceleration, ρ w the water density, Ω the Coriolis parameter defined by Ω = 2ω sin φ , with
ω = 0.000073 rad s−1 is the angular velocity of the earth and φ is the geographic latitude, see Fig. 2 for an illustration.
Here, τbx and τby the bed shear stress in the x- and y-direction, respectively, defined by the depth-averaged velocities as
 
τbx = ρ w C b u u 2 + v 2 , τby = ρ w C b v u 2 + v 2 , (1d)

where C b is the bed friction coefficient, which may be either constant or estimated as C b = g /C z2 , where C z = h1/6 /nb is the
Chezy constant, with nb being the Manning roughness coefficient at the bed. The surface stress τ w is usually originated by
the shear of the blowing wind and is expressed as a quadratic function of the wind velocity,
 
τ wx = ρ w C w w x w 2x + w 2y , τby = ρ w C w w y w 2x + w 2y , (1e)

with C w is the coefficient of wind friction and w = ( w x , w y ) T is the velocity of wind at 10 m above water surface. It is
usually defined by
  
C w = ρa 0.75 + 0.067 w 2x + w 2y × 10−3 ,

where ρa is the air density. For the diffusion terms Dxx (h, u , v ) and D y y (h, u , v ) we have adopted the model derived in
[12,16] as
    
∂ ∂u ∂ v ∂ ∂u
Dxx (h, u , v ) = 2ν h 2 + + 2ν h ,
∂x ∂x ∂ y ∂y ∂y
    
∂ ∂v ∂ ∂u ∂v
D y y (h, u , v ) = 2ν h + 2ν h +2 ,
∂x ∂x ∂y ∂x ∂y
where ν is the kinematic viscosity. Note that we have assumed water flow at laminar regime however, turbulent effects can
also be accounted for in the model (1) by modifying the eddy viscosity coefficients. In addition, other coefficients of wind
friction can also be applied in (1e).
1752 F. Benkhaldoun et al. / Applied Numerical Mathematics 62 (2012) 1749–1766

2.2. Suspended sediment equations

Most of existing formulations of sediment transport are empirical and have been derived based on experimental data
and measurements. There are many mathematical models for sediment transport by shallow water flows. In the current
work, we consider the advection–diffusion equation
   
∂(hC ) ∂(huC ) ∂(hvC ) ∂ ∂C ∂ ∂C
+ + = κh + κh + E − D + hQ , (2a)
∂t ∂x ∂y ∂x ∂x ∂y ∂y
where C is the depth-averaged concentration of suspended sediment, Q is the depth-averaged sediment source, and κ is
the diffusion coefficient of the sediment. In Eq. (2a), E and D represent the erosion and deposition terms in upward and
downward directions, respectively. In the current study, the erosion–deposition term is calculated as

E − D = αωs (C ∗ − C ), (2b)
where ωs is the settling velocity of sediment particles, α is the recovery coefficient of the suspended sediment and C ∗ is
the sediment concentration close to the bed defined by [20]

0.015d50 T
C∗ = , (2c)
δb d0∗.3
with d50 is the mean diameter of the sediment and δb is a reference level fixed in our computations to 0.05h, compare [18].
The excess bed shear stress T is defined as

u 2∗ − u c2
T = , (2d)
u c2
where the shear velocity u ∗ and the critical bed shear velocity u c for the sediment are given by
 
2
τbx + τby
2  b
2 d50
u∗ = , uc = a ,
ρw 10
with a and b are constants depending on the mean diameter of the sediment particles. In (2c), the particle-size diameter d∗
is defined as
  13
ρs − ρ w
d∗ = d50 g , (2e)
ρw ν 2
where ρs is the sediment density. Note that the parameters α , ρs , a, and b are user-defined constants in the sediment
transport model.

2.3. Bed-load equations

In (1a), the function B corresponds to the sediment layer characterizing the bed level. For fixed bottom topography,
i.e., B = B (x), Eq. (1a) reduces to the standard shallow water equations. In the current work, we assume that a sediment
transport takes place such that the bed level depends on the time variable as well. This requires an additional equation for
its evolution. Here, to update the bed-load, we use the Exner equation given by
   
∂ B ∂ Q bx ∂ Q by ∂ ∂B ∂ ∂B
(1 − p ) + + = ζ + ζ , (3a)
∂t ∂x ∂y ∂x ∂x ∂y ∂y
where p is the sediment porosity assumed to be constant and ζ is the diffusion coefficient. In Eq. (3a), Q bx and Q by
represent the bed-load sediment transport fluxes in x- and y-direction, respectively. These fluxes depend on the type of
sediment and for simplicity in the presentation, we consider the basic sediment transport fluxes proposed by Grass in [13]

m−2 1
m−2 1
Q bx = Au u 2 + v 2 , Q by = A v u 2 + v 2 , (3b)
where A is a given experimental constant and 1  m  4 is a chosen parameter both of which are specific to the particular
sediment transport formula. In all simulations presented in this paper, the parameter m = 3. It should be stressed that the
finite volume method described in this paper can be applied to other forms of sediment transport fluxes without major
conceptual modifications. For instance, the bed-load sediment transport functions proposed in [19,21] can also be handled
by the proposed finite volume method. Notice that, in practical situations the diffusion coefficients ν , κ and ζ depend on
water depth, flow velocity, bottom roughness, wind and vertical turbulence, compare [15] for more details. For the purpose
of the present work, the problem of the evaluation of diffusion coefficients is not considered.
 F. Benkhaldoun et al. / Applied Numerical Mathematics 62 (2012) 1749–1766 1753

Fig. 3. Generic control volume and notation.

For simplicity in presentation we can also reformulate Eqs. (1), (2) and (3) in a compact conservative form as

∂W ∂
∂

+ F(W) − F̃(W) + G(W) − G̃(W) = Q(W) + S(W), (4)

∂t ∂x ∂y
where W is the vector of conserved variables, Q is the source term accounting for the slope variations, S is the source term
accounting for Coriolis forces, friction losses and erosion–deposition terms, F and G are the advective tensor fluxes, F̃ and G̃
are the diffusion tensor fluxes, compare [3] for a similar formulation for shallow water equations over fixed beds. In (4)
⎛ ⎞
h
⎜ hu ⎟
⎜ ⎟
W = ⎜ hv ⎟,
⎝ hC ⎠
B
⎛ ⎞ ⎛ ⎞
0 0
⎜ − gh ∂ B ⎟ ⎜ −Ω hv − τbx + τ wx ⎟
⎜ ∂x ⎟ ⎜ ρw ρw ⎟
⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟
Q(W) = ⎜ − gh ∂ B ⎟, S(W) = ⎜ Ω hu − τby + τ w y ⎟, (5)
⎜ ∂y ⎟ ⎜ ρw ρw ⎟
⎝ 0 ⎠ ⎝ E − D + hQ ⎠
0 0

⎛ ⎞ ⎛ ⎞
hu hv
⎜ hu 2 + 1 gh2 ⎟ ⎜ ⎟huv
⎜ 2 ⎟ ⎜ 2 1 2⎟
F(W) = ⎜
⎜ huv ⎟,
⎟
⎜
G(W) = ⎜ hv + 2
gh ⎟,
⎟
⎝ huC ⎠ ⎝ hvC ⎠
Q bx Q by
1− p 1− p
⎛ ⎞ ⎛ ⎞
0 0
⎜ 2ν h(2 ∂∂ux + ∂v ⎟
∂y) ⎟ ⎜ 2ν h ∂∂ uy ⎟
⎜ ⎜ ⎟
⎜ ⎟ ⎜ 2ν h ( ∂ u + 2 ∂ v ) ⎟
F̃(W) = ⎜ 2ν h ∂∂ vx ⎟, G̃(W) = ⎜ ∂y ⎟.
⎜ ⎟ ⎜
∂x
⎟
⎜ κ h ∂∂Cx ⎟ ⎝ κ h ∂∂ Cy ⎠
⎝ ⎠
ζ ∂B ζ ∂B
1− p ∂ y
1− p ∂ x

Note that we have considered only a single suspended sediment with concentration C transported by the shallow water
flow, however the techniques presented in this paper can straightforwardly be extended to sediment transport with multiple
species.

3. Finite volume non-homogeneous Riemann solver

The main advantages of the finite volume methods lie on their implementation on unstructured triangular meshes and
preserving conservation properties of the equations. Hence, using the control volume depicted in Fig. 3, a finite volume
discretization of (4) yields
1754 F. Benkhaldoun et al. / Applied Numerical Mathematics 62 (2012) 1749–1766

 
t 
t 

Wni +1 = Wni − F Wn ; η dσ + F̃ Wn ; η dσ
|T i | |T i |
j ∈ N (i )Γ j ∈ N (i )Γ
ij ij
 
t n

t n

+ Q W dV + S W dV , (6)
|T i | |T i |
Ti Ti

where N (i ) is the set of neighboring triangles of the cell Ti , Wni is an average value of the solution W in the cell Ti at
time tn ,

1
Wi = W dV ,
|T i |
Ti

where |Ti | denotes the area of Ti and Si is the surface surrounding the control volume Ti . Here, Γi j is the interface between
the two control volumes Ti and T j , η = (nx , n y ) T denotes the unit outward normal to the surface Si , and

F (W; η) = F(W)nx + G(W)n y , F̃ (W; η) = F̃(W)nx + G̃(W)n y .

Note that the time stepping in (6) is only first-order accurate. A second-order accuracy in time can be achieved by consider-
ing a two-step Runge–Kutta method. Its implementation for solving the semi-discrete equations (6) is straightforward. The
finite volume discretization (6) is complete once the gradient fluxes F (Wn ; η), diffusion fluxes F̃ (Wn ; η) and source terms
Q(Wn ) and S(Wn ) are reconstructed.

3.1. Discretization of gradient fluxes

Let us consider the hyperbolic part in the system (4)

∂ W ∂ F(W) ∂ G(W)
+ + = Q(W), (7)
∂t ∂x ∂y
where the source term Q accounts only of the bed slopes given in (5). Applied to the system (7), the finite volume dis-
cretization (6) yields
 
∂
h dV + (hunx + hvn y ) dσ = 0,
∂t
Ti Si
     
∂ 2 1 2
hu dV + hu + gh nx + huvn y dσ = − gh Bnx dσ ,
∂t 2
Ti Si Si
      
∂ 2 1 2
hv dV + huvnx + hv + gh n y dσ = − gh Bn y dσ ,
∂t 2
Ti Si Si
 
∂
hC dV + (huCnx + hvCn y ) dσ = 0,
∂t
Ti Si
 
∂

B dV + A ξ u u 2 + v 2 n x + v u 2 + v 2 n y d σ = 0,
∂t
Ti Si

where ξ = 1/(1 − p ). Using the local cell outward normal η and tangential τ = η⊥ , the above equations can be reformulated
as
 
∂
h dV + hu η dσ = 0,
∂t
Ti Si
    
∂ 1
hu dV + huu η + gh2nx dσ = − gh Bnx dσ ,
∂t 2
Ti Si Si
    
∂ 1
hv dV + hvu η + gh2n y dσ = − gh Bn y dσ ,
∂t 2
Ti Si Si
 F. Benkhaldoun et al. / Applied Numerical Mathematics 62 (2012) 1749–1766 1755

 
∂
hC dV + hu η Cdσ = 0,
∂t
Ti Si
 
∂

B dV + A ξ u 2 + v 2 u η d σ = 0, (8)
∂t
Ti Si

where the normal velocity u η = unx + vn y and tangential velocity u τ = un y − vnx . In order to simplify the system (8), we
first sum the second equation multiplied by nx to the third equation multiplied by n y , then we subtract the third equation
multiplied by nx from the second equation multiplied by n y . The result of these operations is
 
∂
h dV + hu η dσ = 0,
∂t
Ti Si
    
∂ 1 2
hu η dV + hu η u η + gh dσ = − gh B dσ ,
∂t 2
Ti Si Si
 
∂
hu τ dV + hu τ u η dσ = 0,
∂t
Ti Si
 
∂
hC dV + hu η Cdσ = 0,
∂t
Ti Si
 
∂

B dV + A ξ u 2 + v 2 u η d σ = 0, (9)
∂t
Ti Si

which can be reformulated in differential form as

∂ h ∂(hu η )
+ = 0,
∂t ∂η
 
∂(hu η ) ∂ 1 ∂B
+ hu 2η + gh2 = − gh ,
∂t ∂η 2 ∂η
∂(hu τ ) ∂
+ (hu η u τ ) = 0,
∂t ∂η
∂(hC ) ∂
+ (hu η C ) = 0,
∂t ∂η
∂B ∂

+ A ξ u η u 2η + u 2τ = 0. (10)
∂t ∂η
Hence, the system (10) can also be rewritten in a vector form as

∂W ∂W
+ Aη (W) = 0, (11)
∂t ∂η
where
⎛ ⎞
h
⎜ hu η ⎟
⎜ ⎟
W = ⎜ hu τ ⎟,
⎝ hC ⎠
B
⎛ ⎞
0 1 0 0 0
⎜ gh − u η 2
2u η 0 0 gh ⎟
⎜ ⎟
Aη (W) = ⎜ −u η u τ uτ uη 0 0 ⎟.
⎜ ⎟
⎝ −u η C C 0 uη 0 ⎠
3u η (u 2η +u 2τ ) 3 u 2η +u 2τ 2u η u τ
− Aξ h
Aξ h
Aξ h
0 0
Note that one of the advantages in considering the projected system (11) is that no discretization of source terms is required.
Thus, in the predictor stage, we use the projected system (11) to compute the averaged states as
1756 F. Benkhaldoun et al. / Applied Numerical Mathematics 62 (2012) 1749–1766

1
1  

Wnij = Wni + Wnj − sgn Aη (W) Wnj − Wni , (12)

2 2
where the sign matrix is defined as
   
sgn Aη (W) = R(W) sgn Λ(W) R−1 (W),

with Λ(W) is the diagonal matrix of eigenvalues, R(W) is the right eigenvector matrix and W is the Roe’s average state
given by
⎛ h i +h j
⎞
⎜ √ √ 2
√ √ ⎟
⎜
ηy) ⎟
h i +h j u i h i +u j h j vi hi + v j h j
⎜ ( √ √ ηx + √ √ ⎟
⎜ 2 hi + h j
√ √ hi + h j
√ √ ⎟
⎜ u h +u v i hi + v j h j
⎟
W=⎜ h i +h j
ηx ) ⎟
h
⎜ 2
(− i √ i √j j ηy + √ √ ⎟. (13)
⎜ hi + h j hi + h j ⎟
⎜ √ √ ⎟
h i +h j C i h i +C j h j
⎜ ( √ √ ) ⎟
⎝ 2 hi + hj ⎠
Bi +B j
2

The matrices Λ(W) and R(W) can be explicitly expressed using the associated eigenvalues of Aη (W). For convenience of
the reader, these matrices are formulated in Appendix A.
Once the projected states are calculated in the predictor stage (12), the states Wnij are recovered by using the trans-
formations v = (u τ , u η ) · η and u = (u τ , u η ) · τ . Thus, applied to the system (7), the proposed SRNH scheme consists of a
predictor stage and a corrector stage and can be formulated as
1
1  

Wnij = Wni + Wnj − sgn Aη (W) Wnj − Wni ,

2 2
t  n

Wni +1 = Wni − F Wi j ; ηi j |Γi j | + tQni , (14)

|T i |
j ∈ N (i )

where Qni is a consistent discretization of the source term in (7) defined as

⎛ ⎞
0

⎜ − g h̄nxi j ∈ N (i ) B i j nxi j |Γi j | ⎟
⎜  ⎟
Qi = ⎜
n ⎟
⎜ − g h̄ yi j ∈ N (i ) B i j n yi j |Γi j | ⎟ .
n (15)
⎝ 0 ⎠
0

The approximations h̄nxi

and h̄nyi are reconstructed in such a way the SRNH scheme satisfies the well-known C-property, see
for example [8,3,6,7]. Thus,
 
j ∈ N (i ) (h i j ) n xi j |Γi j | j ∈ N (i ) (h i j ) n yi j |Γi j |
n 2 n 2
1 1
h̄nxi =  , h̄nyi =  . (16)
2 |T i | j ∈ N (i ) h i j n xi j |Γi j |
n
2 |T i | j ∈ N (i ) h i j n yi j |Γi j |
n

Note that we have used a quadrature rule to approximate the integrals in the projected system (8). A more detailed for-
mulation on how these integrals are evaluated, by solving a linear system within each control volume, can be found in [5].
Obviously, the finite volume method (14) is only first-order accurate. In order to develop a second-order finite volume
scheme, we use a MUSCL method incorporating slope limiters in the spatial approximation. The MUSCL discretization uses
an approximation of the solution state W by linear interpolation at each cell interface Γi j as

1 1
Wi j = Wi + ∇ Wi · di j , W ji = W j − ∇ W j · di j , (17)
2 2
where xi = (xi , y i ) T and x j = (x j , y j ) T are respectively, the barycentric coordinates of cells Ti and T j , and di j is the distance
between xi and x j , compare Fig. 3. Thus, the cell gradients are evaluated by minimizing the quadratic functional
  
Ψi (x, y ) = Wi + (x j − xi )x + ( y j − y i ) y − W j 2 , (18)
j ∈ M (i )

where M (i ) is the set of indices of neighboring cells that have a common edge or vertex with the control volume Ti . For
∂W ∂W
instance, ∇ Wi = ( ∂ x i , ∂ y i ) T in (17) are solutions of the linear system

∂Ψi (x, y ) ∂Ψi (x, y )

= 0, = 0.
∂x ∂y
 F. Benkhaldoun et al. / Applied Numerical Mathematics 62 (2012) 1749–1766 1757

It is easy to verify that

∂ Wi J x I y y − J y I xy ∂ Wi J y I xx − J x I yx
= , = , (19)
∂x D ∂y D
where D = I xx I y y − I xy I yx and
 
I xx = (x j − xi )2 , I yy = ( y j − y i )2 ,
j ∈ M (i ) j ∈ M (i )

I xy = I yx = (x j − xi )( y j − y i ),
j ∈ M (i )
 
Jx = (x j − xi )(W j − Wi ), Jy = ( y j − y i )(W j − Wi ).
j ∈ M (i ) j ∈ M (i )

In order to obtain a TVD scheme, we incorporate slope limiters to the reconstruction (17)–(18) using the MinMod limiter
function. This is achieved by replacing the cell gradients in (19) by
      
∂ lim Wi 1 ∂W j ∂W j  ∂W j 
= min sgn + max sgn min   , (20)
∂x 2 j ∈ M (i ) ∂x j ∈ M (i ) ∂x j ∈ M (i ) ∂ x

∂ lim W
with a similar expression for ∂ y i . It should be pointed out that this slope limiter function is very easy to implement,
but it may cause some numerical smoothing of the solution, we refer to [3] for further discussions. More sophisticated
limiters that are less dissipative are currently under investigation for sediment transport problems. It should be pointed out
that, in order to achieve a second-order accuracy in the proposed SRNH scheme, the state solutions Wi j and W ji in the
discretization of gradient fluxes and source terms should be replaced by the second-order reconstruction (17).

3.2. Discretization of diffusion terms

To discretize the diffusion fluxes in (6) we adapt a Green-Gauss diamond reconstruction, see for example [10,3] and
further references are therein. This method has been selected because it is second-order accurate, it can be applied on
general unstructured adaptive grids, it does not require serious restrictions on the angles of triangles, and it can be easily
incorporated in our SRNH scheme. Hence, a co-volume coV i j is first constructed by connecting the barycentres of the
elements that share the edge Γi j and its endpoints as shown in Fig. 3. Then, in the x-direction, diffusion fluxes in the
sediment transport equation are evaluated at an inner edge Γi j as
  
∂C κ h |Γ i j C N1 + C N2
κh n x dσ = nx dσ , (21)
∂x |coV i j | 2
Γi j  ∈∂ coV i j 

where N 1 and N 2 are the nodes of the edge  on the surface ∂ coV i j , C N 1 and C N 2 are the values of the concentration C
in the node N 1 and N 2 , respectively. The discretization in y-direction of the diffusion fluxes is carried out in an analogous
manner. Note that, in (21) we have assumed constant diffusion coefficient. In the case of space dependent diffusion, the
coefficient κ in (21) should be replaced by
κN1 + κN2 + κN3 + κN4
,
4
with κ Nk , k = 1, . . . , 4, are values of the diffusion coefficient κ at the co-volume nodes N k approximated by linear interpo-
lation from the values on the cells sharing the same vertex N k .
Finally, to discretize the friction, Coriolis and erosion–deposition terms contained in the source term S(W) in (5), we
consider an operator splitting procedure. Thus, the system (4) is decomposed in two equations as
∂W
+ Res(W) = Q(W),
∂t
∂W
= S(W), (22)
∂t
where Res describes the convection and diffusion terms in the momentum equation corresponding to the surface integral
in (4) and it is approximated as the sum taken over all edges of each element in the computational mesh.
First, an explicit method is used to integrate the first equation in (22) leading to
 − Wn
W

+ Res Wn = Q Wn . (23)
t
 is taken to be the initial condition when solving the second equation in (22).
In the second step, the state solution W
1758 F. Benkhaldoun et al. / Applied Numerical Mathematics 62 (2012) 1749–1766

Fig. 4. Illustration of a two-level refining. The numbers in the figure refer to the number of refinements to be performed for each subtriangle.

3.3. Procedure for mesh adaptation

The mesh generation is based on the Delaunay triangulation [14], which uses a curvature-dependent generation strategy
designed to produce smaller elements in regions of high curvature in the spatial domain. In order to improve the efficiency
of the SRNH scheme, we have performed a mesh adaptation to construct a nearly optimal mesh able to capture the small
hydraulic and sediment features without relying on extremely fine grid in smooth regions far from concentration or hy-
draulic jumps. In the present work, this goal is achieved by using an error indicator for the concentration of the suspended
sediment. This indicator requires only information from solution values within a single element at a time and it is easily
calculated. Other adaptation techniques based on the estimation of gradients such as those studied in [1] can also be ap-
plied. However, these error estimations can be computationally very demanding since a global solution step is needed to
project the gradients on a linear basis.
The adaptive procedure used here is based on multilevel refinement and unrefinement, it is aimed at constructing an
adaptive mesh which dynamically follows the unsteady solution of the physical problem. This procedure has been used
recently in [10] for adaptive finite volume solution of a combustion system and in [4] for pollutant transport by shallow
water flows. The algorithm begins by selecting some criterion (here based on the concentration of the suspended sediment),
which permits to make the refinement and unrefinement decisions. A list S of elements to be refined, their degree of
refinement, and those to be unrefined is then established. This is accomplished by filling an integer array denoted for
example by I for all triangles of the coarse mesh. At time t = t n and for a macro-element Ti we set I (Ti ) = m which
means that the element Ti has to be divided into 4m triangles. Thus, starting from a mesh level l, made of N (l) cells, the
next mesh level will contain N (l+1) = 4 × N (l) cells. Clearly, this process can be repeated as long as l < mmax with mmax
being the number of refinement levels. In order to obtain a mesh which is not too distorted, the algorithm decides to divide
into two equal parts some additional edges. An illustration of the adaptation procedure is shown in Fig. 4.
In our simulations, the adaption criterion is based on the normalized concentration of the suspended sediment, and is
evaluated as
C (Ti )
Critn (Ti ) = , (24)
maxT j C (T j )

where C (Ti ) is the sediment concentration on cell Ti . The advantage of this normalization is that the criterion (24) is known
to take its values in the interval [0, 1]. Hence, an adaptation procedure can be performed as follows:
Given a sequence of three real numbers {rm } such that 0 = r0 < r1 < r2 < r3 < r4 = 1. If a macro-element Ti satisfies the
condition

rm  Critn (Ti )  rm+1 , m = 0, . . . , 3,

then Ti is divided into 4 triangles. Note that the values of {r1 , r2 , r3 } can be interpreted as tolerances to be set by the user
m

resulting into a two-level refining.

4. Numerical results

We consider the limited coastal region on the Nador lagoon shown in the left plot in Fig. 1. The coastal boundary and the
bed surface topography of the Nador lagoon are very irregular and several regions of various depths coexist in the lagoon
with the minimum bathymetric values of 9 m and 8 m are localized in the center of the lagoon. As an initial bed bottom
we used the reconstructed bathymetry illustrated in Fig. 5. It should be pointed out that values of the topography were
calibrated to cover all the unstructured meshes used at each level of refinement. Certainly, this will add some computational
effort to the adaptive SRNH scheme. The selected values for the evaluation of the present model are summarized in Table 1.
The model is started from rest and a well-developed discharge of 10 m2 /s is imposed at the entrance of the lagoon. This
discharge corresponds to the annual mean of the Mediterranean input flux and it is also comparable to the flow generated
by the main semi-diurnal M 2 tide in the lagoon. For the suspended sediment we assume a small hump to be localized near
the entrance of the lagoon with a maximum concentration of order 1. In this sense, the simulations are schematic, since the
 F. Benkhaldoun et al. / Applied Numerical Mathematics 62 (2012) 1749–1766 1759

Fig. 5. Reconstructed initial bottom bed used for simulations in the Nador lagoon.

Table 1
Parameters and reference quantities considered in the present study.

Quantity Reference value Quantity Reference value

ρw 1000 kg/m3 A 10−4
ρs 2600 kg/m3 d50 1 mm
ρa 1200 kg/m3 f 8.55 × 10−5 /s
g 9.81 m/s2 α 0.2
ν 10−6 m2 /s ws 0.0237
κ 10−6 m2 /s p 0 .4
ζ 10−6 m2 /s a 0.0055
nb 0.0157 s/m1/3 b 1

number, the arrangement, and the capacities of suspended sediment in the Nador lagoon only partially correspond to the
real situation. All the results presented in this section are computed using two-level refining with variable time stepsizes
t adjusted at each step according to the CFL condition

t = c min( t conv , t diff ),

where
   
| T i | + |T j | |Ti |
t conv = min , t diff = min ,
Γi j 2|Γi j | max p |(λ p )i j | Γi j 2 max(ν , κ , ζ )
with Γi j is the edge between two cells Ti and T j , and c is the Courant number set to 0.8 for all test cases to ensure stability.

In Fig. 6 we present the computed results for a test example without the erosion–deposition effects (i.e., E − D = 0 in
(2b)) using the adaptive SRNH scheme at three different times t = 1.3, 3 and 5 hours corresponding to the time required
by the sediment to evolve towards the south if no wind effects are taken into account. In this figure we show the adapted
meshes, velocity fields and contours of the normalized concentration, C /C max , where C max denotes the maximal value of
the initial concentration of the suspended sediment. Notice that no adaption to the bathymetry has been performed in this
test case. It is clear that the adaptive mesh procedure was able to capture the complex features of the flow with a high
level of accuracy. The results also show that the adaptive SRNH scheme was able to predict complex wave interactions
with accuracy and to capture sediment concentration with sharp resolution. By using an adaptive grid, high resolution is
automatically obtained in those regions where the sediment concentration gradients are steep such as the moving fronts. For
the conditions considered, the adaptive SRNH scheme gives a shock-capturing method with very little numerical dissipation,
even after long time simulations are carried out.
The results obtained for the test example with the erosion–deposition effects (i.e., E − D = 0) are depicted in Fig. 7. From
the computed results we can also observe that, for the considered flow and sediment conditions, the suspended sediment
is transported faster than the previous case. The dispersion of the sediment is also larger than the case without erosion–
deposition terms. During its advection, the sediment alerts the flow structure developing recirculation zones with different
order of magnitude in the middle and the south coast of the lagoon. The downstream recirculation zone near the south
coast is mainly due to the concentration differences at the region near the exit boundary. In summary, the transport of
sediment is captured accurately, the flow field is resolved reasonably well, and the fronts are shape preserving. All these
features have been achieved using adaptive techniques on unstructured meshes. The presented results demonstrate that
 1760
F. Benkhaldoun et al. / Applied Numerical Mathematics 62 (2012) 1749–1766
Fig. 6. Adapted meshes (first column), velocity vectors (second column) and sediment concentration (third column) for sediment transport without erosion–deposition at three different simulation times using the
Grass formula. From top to bottom times t = 1.3, 3 and 5 hours.
 F. Benkhaldoun et al. / Applied Numerical Mathematics 62 (2012) 1749–1766
Fig. 7. Adapted meshes (first column), velocity vectors (second column) and sediment concentration (third column) for sediment transport with erosion–deposition at three different simulation times using the
Grass formula. From top to bottom t = 1.3, 3 and 5 hours.

1761
1762 F. Benkhaldoun et al. / Applied Numerical Mathematics 62 (2012) 1749–1766

Fig. 8. Evolution in time of sediment concentration at three different gauges G1, G2 and G3 in the Nador lagoon using the Grass formula.

Table 2
Mesh statistics and computational times for the considered test examples with and without erosion–deposition effects. The CPU times are given in minutes.

Without erosion–deposition With erosion–deposition

t = 1.3 h t=3 h t=5 h t = 1.3 h t=3 h t=5 h
# of elements 12 947 12 833 12 115 16 017 25 910 45 292
# of nodes 6978 6921 6562 8552 13 504 23 295
CPU time 26 62 110 45 102 210

the proposed method is suited for the prediction of coupled hydrodynamics and morphodynamics in the Nador lagoon. It
should be stressed that results from the proposed sediment transport model should be compared with observations of real
sea-surface flow in the Nador lagoon. However, there is no data available until now to carry out this work. Thus, at the
moment we can only perform simulations and verify that results are plausible and consistent.
The SRNH method performs very satisfactorily on this nonlinear coupled problem since it does not diffuse the moving
sediment fronts and no spurious oscillations have been detected near steep gradients of the flow field in the computational
domain. It can be clearly seen that the erosion–deposition terms plays an important role in the sediment transport and
changes not only the transport behaviour but also the flow features. In both simulations, the flow structures on the Nador
lagoon are being well captured by the SRNH method. To further quantify the resolution of the SRNH method, we display
in Fig. 8 the evolution in time of the sediment concentration at three relevant locations G1, G2 and G3 situated in the
Nador lagoon. The coordinates of the gauges G1, G2 and G3 are (9 km, 12.4 km), (7 km, 12.4 km) and (3.6 km, 11.4 km),
respectively. It is clear that the simulated results predict the correct sediment trends at each gauge according on how far
the gauge is from the lagoon entry. Note that, since physical diffusion is incorporated into the sediment transport model,
the maximum concentration of the suspended sediment was reduced in the two test examples considered with or without
erosion–deposition effects.
Next, analysis of computational cost has been carried out for the test cases with and without erosion–deposition effects.
Table 2 summarizes the mesh statistics and computational cost of the SRNH method for the presented simulations at times
t = 1.3, 3 and 5 hours. All the computations were performed on the cluster machines of LAGA in Paris 13 university. The
main features reported in this table are on one hand, accounting for erosion–deposition effects in the sediment transport
model results in an increase in the computational time compared to the CPU time used by the simulation without erosion–
deposition terms. On the other hand, the number of elements in the final adaptive mesh decreases with the simulation time
for the test example without erosion–deposition terms and increases for the test example with erosion–deposition terms.
This can be attributed to the fact that, for the simulations with erosion–deposition effects the sediment dispersion covers
a larger area in the lagoon compared to the sediment advection in simulations without erosion–deposition terms. These
results offer a clear impression on how sensitive the numerical prediction of morphological response of the suspended sed-
iment. It is noteworthy that, the simulations presented in this study show that large scale sediment transport models with
irregular topography can be efficiently solved using personal computers without relying on complicated supercomputing
resources.
Finally, to examine the dependence of the numerical results on the selection of the sediment discharge Q b , we compare
the results obtained using the Grass formula (3b) to those obtained using the Meyer-Peter and Müller (MPM) formula given
in [17] by
u 3
Q bx = A p max(T∗ − Tc , 0) 2 ,
u2 + v 2
v 3
Q by = A p max(T∗ − Tc , 0) 2 , (25)
u2 + v 2
 F. Benkhaldoun et al. / Applied Numerical Mathematics 62 (2012) 1749–1766 1763


where A p = 8 g (s − 1)d350 and
√
nb2 u2 + v 2
T∗ = 1
,
(s − 1)d50 h 3
ρ
with d50 is the median diameter of the sediment and the grain specific gravity s = ρ s , with ρs is the sediment density.
w
In our simulations, we solve the bed-load equation (3a) subject to the sediment fluxes (25) using Tc = 0.047 and the
remaining parameters are given in Table 1. Fig. 9 presents the results obtained for the test example with the erosion–
deposition effects. A simple inspection of these results and those depicted in Fig. 7 reveals that, for the considered set of
parameters in both formulae, there is no significant differences between the results obtained using the Grass model and
the Meyer-Peter and Müller model. Comparison of time evolution of the sediment concentration at the gauge G2 obtained
for both models shows no noticeable differences in the results by Grass model and the Meyer-Peter and Müller model
(see Fig. 10). Similar trends have been observed in other results not reported here for the case of sediment transport
without erosion–deposition. This may be explained by the fact that sediment transport in the Nador lagoon is controlled
by the suspended sediments rather than the morphodynamics of the lagoon bathymetry. It is worth stressing that for
morphodynamic-dominant sediment transport problems the Meyer-Peter and Müller model resolves the problem under
consideration with less dissipation than the Grass model, we refer the reader to [2] for an extensive comparative study of
these morphodynamic models in contracting channel flows (see Fig. 10).

5. Conclusions

A two-dimensional numerical model was implemented and applied to simulate sediment transport in the Nador lagoon.
The model consists of shallow water equations for the hydrodynamics and suspended sediment coupled to bed-load trans-
port for the morphodynamics. The governing equations form a hyperbolic system of conservation laws with source terms
accounting for diffusion, friction, Coriolis and erosion–deposition terms. To approximate solutions to the system we have
presented an adaptive finite volume method using unstructured triangular grids. The method consists of two stages which
can be interpreted as a predictor-corrector procedure. In the first stage, the scheme uses the projected system of the mor-
phodynamical equations and introduces the sign matrix of the flux Jacobian which results in an upwind discretization of the
characteristic variables. In the second stage, the solution is updated using the conservative form of the equations and a spe-
cial treatment of the bed bottom in order to obtain a well-balanced discretization of the flux gradient and the source term.
To increase the accuracy of the scheme we have incorporated slope limiters along with an adaptive procedure using the
sediment concentration as an error indicator. The considered method is second-order accurate, well balanced, nonoscillatory
and simple to implement in unstructured triangular meshes.
Verification of the proposed method has been carried out using two test cases namely, a situation with erosion–
deposition effects and a case without accounting for erosion–deposition terms. The obtained results exhibited good shape,
high accuracy and stability behaviour for all morphodynamical regimes considered. The presented results demonstrate the
capability of the finite volume method that can provide insight to complex sediment transport behaviours. Finally, it should
be remarked that it is important to perform mesh adaptation with respect to all flow variables. For example, using the
bed-load and the water depth or water free-surface as monitoring function the resolution in the sediment transport may be
improved. Therefore, future work will be focused on the development of error indicators for both bed-load and hydraulic
variables. It is also worth emphasizing that, the model problem considered in the current study is highly idealized, in par-
ticular, the wind effects and tidal waves as in many coastal scenarios are not accounted for. However, the results make it
promising to be applicable also to real situations where, beyond the many sources of complexity, there is a more severe
demand for accuracy in predicting the morphological evolution, which must be performed for long time.

Acknowledgements

This work was partly supported by a visiting grant from the Université Paris 13 in France. The authors would like to
thank anonymous referees for their careful reading of the manuscript and for their thoughtful comments, which greatly
helped to improve the presentation.

Appendix A. Eigenvalues and sign matrix

The five eigenvalues corresponding to the projected system (10) are

  
1 2
λ1 = 2 − Q cos θ + u η ,
3 3
  
1 2
λ2 = 2 − Q cos (θ + 2π ) + u η ,
3 3
 1764
F. Benkhaldoun et al. / Applied Numerical Mathematics 62 (2012) 1749–1766
Fig. 9. Adapted meshes (first column), velocity vectors (second column) and sediment concentration (third column) for sediment transport with erosion–deposition at three different simulation times using the
Meyer-Peter and Müller formula. From top to bottom t = 1.3, 3 and 5 hours.
 F. Benkhaldoun et al. / Applied Numerical Mathematics 62 (2012) 1749–1766 1765

Fig. 10. Evolution in time of sediment concentration at the gauge G2 in the Nador lagoon using the Grass formula and the Meyer-Peter and Müller formula.

  
1 2
λ3 = 2 − Q cos (θ + 4π ) + u η ,
3 3
λ4 = λ5 = u η ,
where
 
R 1

θ = cos−1  , Q = − u 2η + 3g (h + d) ,
−Q 3 9
uη

R= 9g (2h − d) − 2u 2η , d = A ξ 3 u 2η + u 2τ .
54
Hence, the sign matrix in (14) is defined as
   
sgn Aη (W) = R(W) sgn Λ(W) R−1 (W),

where W is the Roe’s average state given by (13), R(W) and Λ(W) are respectively, the right eigenvector and the diagonal
matrices reconstructed as
⎛ ⎞
1 1 1 0 −1
⎜ λ̄1 λ̄2 λ̄3 0 −ū η ⎟
⎜ ⎟
⎜ ū τ ū τ ū τ 0 −ū τ + 1 ⎟
R(W) = ⎜ β̄ ⎟,
⎜ −C̄ ⎟
⎝ C̄ C̄ C̄ h̄ ⎠
ᾱ12 ᾱ22 ᾱ32
c̄ 2
−1 c̄ 2
−1 c̄ 2
−1 0 1
⎛ ⎞
λ̄1 0 0 0 0
⎜ 0 λ̄2 0 0 0 ⎟
⎜ ⎟
Λ(W) = ⎜
⎜ 0 0 λ̄3 0 0 ⎟,
⎟
⎝ 0 0 0 λ̄4 0 ⎠
0 0 0 0 λ̄5
⎛ ⎞
γ1
σ1 − ᾱ2σ+1ᾱ3 β̄ ᾱ2 ᾱ3
σ1 0 c̄ 2
σ1
⎜ ⎟
⎜ − σγ22 ᾱ1 +ᾱ3 β̄ ᾱ1 ᾱ3
− σ2 − σc̄ 2 ⎟
2
⎜ σ2 0 ⎟
⎜ ⎟
R (W) = ⎜
−1
⎜
γ3
− ᾱ1σ+3ᾱ2 β̄ ᾱ1 ᾱ2 c̄ 2 ⎟ ,
⎜ σ3 σ3 0 σ3 ⎟ ⎟
⎜ ⎟
⎝ − C̄h̄ 0 0 1
h̄
0 ⎠
−β̄ ū τ 0 β̄ 0 0
where

γ1 = c̄ 2 − ū 2η + λ̄2 λ̄3 − β̄ ᾱ2 ᾱ3 ū τ , σ1 = −ᾱ2 ᾱ1 + ᾱ2 ᾱ3 − ᾱ3 ᾱ1 + ᾱ12 ,
γ2 = c̄ 2 − ū 2η + λ̄1 λ̄3 − β̄ ᾱ1 ᾱ3 ū τ , σ2 = ᾱ2 ᾱ1 + ᾱ3 ᾱ2 − ᾱ3 ᾱ1 − ᾱ22 ,
1766 F. Benkhaldoun et al. / Applied Numerical Mathematics 62 (2012) 1749–1766

γ3 = c̄ 2 − ū 2η + λ̄1 λ̄2 − β̄ ᾱ1 ᾱ2 ū τ , σ3 = ᾱ2 ᾱ1 − ᾱ3 ᾱ2 − ᾱ3 ᾱ1 + ᾱ32 ,

2 A ξ ū
with β̄ = τ
, ᾱ1 = λ̄1 − ū η , ᾱ2 = λ̄2 − ū η , ᾱ3 = λ̄3 − ū η , and c̄ = g h̄ is the wave speed calculated at the interface of
h̄
control volume.

References

[1] I. Babuska, T. Strouboulis, C. Updhyay, S. Gangaraj, A posteriori estimation and adaptive control of the pollution error in the h-version of finte-element
method, Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng. 38 (1995) 4207–4235.
[2] F. Benkhaldoun, S. Daoudi, I. Elmahi, M. Seaïd, A comparison of unstructured finite-volume morphodynamic models in contracting channel flows, Math.
Comput. Simulation 199 (2011) 2087–2097.
[3] F. Benkhaldoun, I. Elmahi, M. Seaïd, Well-balanced finite volume schemes for pollutant transport by shallow water equations on unstructured meshes,
J. Comput. Phys. 226 (2007) 180–203.
[4] F. Benkhaldoun, I. Elmahi, M. Seaïd, Application of mesh-adaptation for pollutant transport by water flow, Math. Comput. Simulation 79 (2009) 3415–
3423.
[5] F. Benkhaldoun, I. Elmahi, M. Seaïd, A new finite volume method for flux-gradient and source-term balancing in shallow water equations, Comput.
Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 199 (2010) 49–52.
[6] F. Benkhaldoun, S. Sahmim, M. Seaïd, Solution of the sediment transport equations using a finite volume method based on sign matrix, SIAM J. Sci.
Comput. 31 (2009) 2866–2889.
[7] F. Benkhaldoun, S. Sahmim, M. Seaïd, A two-dimensional finite volume morphodynamic model on unstructured triangular grids, Int. J. Numer. Methods
Fluids 63 (2010) 1296–1327.
[8] A. Bermúdez, M. Vázquez, Upwind methods for hyperbolic conservation laws with source terms, Comput. & Fluids 23 (1994) 1049–1071.
[9] K. Bloundi, J. Duplay, Heavy metals distribution in sediments of Nador lagoon (Morocco), Geophysical Research Abstracts 5 (2003) 11744.
[10] I. Elmahi, F. Benkhaldoun, R. Borghi, S. Raghay, Ignition of fuel issuing from a porous cylinder located adjacent to a heated wall: A numerical study,
Combustion Theory Model. 8 (2004) 789–809.
[11] J. Fredsøe, R. Deigaard, Mechanics of Coastal Sediment Transport, Advanced Series on Ocean Engineering, vol. 3, 1992.
[12] J. Gerbeau, B. Perthame, Derivation of viscous saint-venant system, for laminar shallow water; numerical validation, Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst. Ser. B 1
(2001) 89–102.
[13] A. Grass, Sediment transport by waves and currents, SERC London Cent. Mar. Technol. Report No: FL29, 1981.
[14] F. Hermeline, Une méthode automatique de maillage en dimension n, PhD thesis, Université de Paris 6, 1980.
[15] B. Lin, R. Falconer, Tidal flow and transport modeling using ultimate quickest scheme, J. Hydraul. Eng. 123 (1997) 303–314.
[16] F. Marche, Derivation of a new two-dimensional viscous shallow water model with varying topography, bottom friction and capillary effects, European
J. Mech. B Fluids 26 (2007) 49–63.
[17] E. Meyer-Peter, R. Müller, Formulas for bed-load transport, in: Report on the 2nd Meeting of the International Association Hydraulic Structure Research,
Stockholm, 1948.
[18] N. Olsen, Two-dimensional numerical modeling of flushing processes in water reservoirs, J. Hydraul. Res. 37 (1999) 3–16.
[19] D. Pritchard, A. Hogg, On sediment transport under dam-break flow, J. Fluid Mech. 473 (2002) 265–274.
[20] L.V. Rijn, Mathematical modeling of morphodynamical processes in the case of suspended sediment transport, Dissertation, Delft University 382, 1987.
[21] G. Rosatti, L. Fraccarollo, A well-balanced approach for flows over mobile-bed with high sediment-transport, J. Comput. Phys. 220 (2006) 312–338.
[22] F. Ruiz, M. Abad, M. Olias, E. Galán, I. González, E. Aguilá, N. Hamoumi, I. Pulido, M. Cantano, The present environmental scenario of the Nador lagoon
(Morocco), Environmental Research 102 (2006) 215–229.
[23] J. Zhou, Lattice Boltzmann Methods for Shallow Water Flows, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2004.