Computers & Geosciences Vol. 24, No. 2, pp.

159±171, 1998
# 1998 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved
Printed in Great Britain
PII: S0098-3004(97)00084-8 0098-3004/98 $19.00 + 0.00

PLUME1.1: DEPOSITION OF SEDIMENT FROM A

FLUVIAL PLUME
JAMES P. SYVITSKI,1 KENNETH I. SKENE,2 MURRAY K. NICHOLSON3 and
MARK D. MOREHEAD1
1
Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80309-0450.
2
Department of Oceanography, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada B3H 4J1, and 3Meridian
Software Inc., 282 Grant Road, Paradise, NS, Canada B0S 1R0
(e-mail: james.syvitski@colorado.edu)

(Received 7 February 1997; revised 28 May 1997)

AbstractÐAn ANSI-standard Fortran 77 program solves the steady, two-dimensional advection-di€u-

sion equation describing a turbid hypopycnal plume emanating from a river mouth. The model solves
for the extent of the plume as a non-dimensioned inventory of sediment mass on an axial-lateral grid.
The basis for the model is a derivation by Albertson for a two-dimensional momentum-driven sub-
merged jet. Particle settling is based on the scavenging model of Syvitski. PLUME is robust but fast
enough to handle the sedimentation beneath a river plume ¯owing into a coastal sea on a daily basis.
Designed for speed, the model may be run with daily-changing river input characteristics (¯ow velocity,
river mouth dimensions, sediment concentrations of up to ten grain sizes) for many (up to thousands
of) years. PLUME1.1 works with input from long-term ®eld observations or from climate-hydrologic
simulations. The model provides for an improved geological simulator of land-sea interaction and the
delivery of sediment onto continental margins. The model can be used to simulate ¯ow into both open-
coast and semi-enclosed basins. Open-coast plume simulations include the ¯ood-dominated Eel River
margin, Northern California, where a three-day ¯ood event could supply more sediment than the pre-
vious seven years combined. A semi-enclosed basin example is from a fjord-basin from British Colum-
bia, where model simulations agree well with sediment concentration observations. # 1998 Elsevier
Science Ltd. All rights reserved

Key Words: River plumes, Sediment transport, Simulation, FORTRAN-77.

INTRODUCTION ated with river discharge is assumed to be negli-

PLUME1.1 is an ANSI-standard Fortran 77 pro-
gram that solves the steady, two-dimensional advec-
tion-di€usion equation describing a hypopycnal
sediment plume emanating from a river mouth. The
program ®rst solves the plume as a non-dimen-
sioned inventory of sediment mass, on a log x
(axial)±linear y (lateral) grid. It then interpolates
the sediment inventory onto a linear-linear x±y
grid. The basis for the model is a derivation by
Albertson and others (1950) of a two-dimensional
submerged jet, a model still considered exceptional
for dispersing sediment load (Bursik, 1995; Nemec,
1995).
Some plume models are either numerically inten-
sive for use in simulation of long periods of earth
history (e.g. Waldrop, 1972), or use too coarse a
spatial resolution to simulate the plume momentum
and its transport of sands and silts [e.g. the
Kourafalou and others (1996) model has a horizon-
tal grid spacing of 5 km by 5 km]. River discharge
is modeled by Kourafalou et al. (1996) as a
``mound'' of zero salinity water, introduced at one
or more coastal nodal points. Momentum associ-
159
gible, and thus the source contribution in the
momentum equation is ignored.
Higher-resolution models are momentum-based.
The momentum of a river plume is the key dynami-
cal force that determines where sediment is trans-
ported (Bonham-Carter and Sutherland, 1968a,b;
Waldrop, 1972; Wright and Coleman, 1974;
Syvitski and others, 1988; Baines and Chu, 1996;
Morehead and Syvitski, in press). Hydraulic proper-
ties and the velocity structure at a river mouth are
then the initial boundary conditions governing the
dispersion of sediment seaward of the mouth
(Albertson and others, 1950; Bonham-Carter and
Sutherland, 1968b; McClimans, 1979; Nemec,
1995).
PLUME1.1 is a signi®cant advance over another
recent model, GRAIN2 (Syvitski and Alcott, 1993).
GRAIN2 used dynamic simulation to trace the
path of a particle of water along the streamlines
and thus obtain the travel time for a given position
within the basin. The travel time was used in a
simple reaction equation to solve for the sediment
inventory at a given location. GRAIN traced 400
streamlines out from the river mouth, an approach
160 J. P. M. Syvitski and others
too numerically intensive for tracking the daily-vari-
able hydrographs of many rivers. GRAIN's stream-
line approach also depicted mean ¯ow. However,
sediment inventory is not only advected by the
mean ¯ow, but is also mixed by the turbulence in
the plume. Additionally, the spatial resolution near
the high-energy river mouth was at the r30 m level
in GRAIN3, but has been improved to 11 m near
the river mouth in PLUME1.1. In addition to this
higher level of resolution, PLUME1.1 o€ers a host
of useful, user-friendly options that make working
with the model more desirable.
PLUME1.1 is able to use the more advanced simu-
lations of HYDROTREND (Steckler and others,
1996) compared to RIVER3 (Syvitski and Alcott,
1995b). HYDROTREND is an advanced climate-
based drainage basin simulator of daily discharge
hydraulics at a river mouth (Steckler and others, 1996;
Syvitski, Morehead and Nicholson, 1997).
PLUME1.1 is also designed for implementation as a
subroutine in the multi-path sediment transport simu-
lator DELTA6 (Syvitski and Alcott, 1995a).
THEORY AND ASSUMPTIONS
We want to solve the sediment inventory plume
resulting from a river ¯owing into either a semi-
enclosed basin or directly onto a continental mar-
gin. We assume a two-dimensional domain with
sediment advected by the river induced velocity
®eld and di€used by turbulence. At the same time,
sediment settles from the plume at a rate governed
by a ®rst order removal rate constant for each grain
size (Syvitski and others, 1988). We assume in
PLUME1.1 that Coriolis forcing and along-shelf
circulation can be ignored (a later and more nu-
merically taxing version includes these forces:
Morehead and Syvitski, in review). We assume that
tidal forces, averaged over a day, have no net ¯ux
and can be ignored. The Albertson and others
(1950) velocity ®eld solution is assumed to be valid
not only for unconstrained plumes, but also for
constrained (semi-enclosed basin) type plumes. In
reality, the constrained plume velocity ®eld has a
zero normal velocity boundary condition along the
basin walls.
The governing equation in this case, for each
grain size, is the steady two-dimensional advection-
di€usion equation:
   
@ uI @ vI @ @I @ @I
‡ ‡ lI ˆ K ‡ K …1†
@x @y @x @x @y @y
where x is the longitudinal or axial direction (m),
y is the lateral direction (m), u is longitudinal vel-
ocity (m/sec), v is lateral velocity (m/sec), I is the
sediment ``inventory'' or mass per unit area of the
plume (kg/m2), l is the ®rst order removal rate
constant (secÿ1) for the grain size in question, and
K is the sediment di€usivity driven by turbulence
(m2/sec). Equation (1) may also be represented in
terms of sediment concentration, rather than
inventory (O'Connor and Nicholson, 1988;
Syvitski and Lewis, 1992), and settling velocity of
grains rather than sediment scavenging (Bursik,
1995). Our objective is to solve for the I(x,y) dis-
tribution and hence the sedimentation rate or ¯ux
from the plume.
We assume no momentum exchange or velocity
slip between the solid and liquid phases, and hence
that the velocity ®eld is that of the submerged jet
presented by Albertson and others (1950) so that u
and v are known for all x and y. Although
Albertson et al. (1950) do not present expressions
for v, these can be obtained by integrating the con-
tinuity equation as shown later.
Sediment di€usivity, K, is assumed equal to the
turbulent di€usivity and that in turn is equal to the
eddy viscosity. Here we use the eddy viscosity de-
rived by Albertson and others (1950) for their zone
of established ¯ow. The Albertson and others
(1950) results assume isotropic turbulence, so K
here is a scalarÐotherwise K would be a tensor.
We further assume that the longitudinal (x) direc-
tion di€usion is small compared to longitudinal
advection and so ignore the second term on the
right hand side of Equation (1).
Our model approach also assumes that the initial
concentration distribution of sediment at the river
mouth is the same as a turbulent velocity pro®le
shape. The river mouth edge-points are set to zero
inventory. This means that the non-dimensioned
inventory will vary from a maximum value of
around 1.14 at the river mouth centerline down to
zero at the edge of the river.
Obtaining lateral velocity in the submerged jet model
Lateral velocity is obtained by integrating the
two-dimensional continuity equation with velocities
and boundary conditions appropriate to either the
Zone of Flow Establishment, out to about 5.2 times
the river mouth width (Albertson and others, 1950)
or the Zone of Established Flow (Fig. 1), seaward
of this line. The non-dimensional continuity
equation is:
@ u~ @ v~
‡ ˆ0 …2†
@ x~ @ y~
where longitudinal velocity (u) and lateral velocity
component (v) are non-dimensional by the river
mouth velocity, u0:
u v
u~ ˆ and v~ ˆ
u0 u0
and longitudinal distance, x, and lateral distance,
y, are non-dimensioned by the river mouth width,
b0:
x y
x~ ˆ and y~ ˆ :
b0 b0
 Plume 1.1: deposition of sediment from a ¯uvial plume 161
p
p p
v~yÿ41 ˆÿ … 2 ÿ 1†C1 …7†
2
independent of longitudinal distance.
Albertson and others (1950) present the ex-
pression for longitudinal velocity in the Zone of
Established Flow as:
s "  2 #
1 y~
u~ ˆ p exp ÿ p …8†
pC1 x~ 2C1 x~

where
1
Figure 1. Cartoon of momentum solution from Albertson ~ x~ 0 and x~ 0 p
xr
and others (1950) showing zones of ¯ow establishment pC1
and established ¯ow, approximate u velocity pro®les, and
region of turbulent di€usion.
where x0 is the longitudinal length of the zone
of ¯ow establishment. Using the boundary con-
Albertson and others (1950) present the ex- dition from symmetry that v = 0 when y = 0, u
pression for longitudinal velocity for the Zone of can be integrated to give the lateral velocity
component:
Flow Establishment as:
s( "  2 #
2 0 3
p x~ 112 ~ x,
v… ~ ˆ p
~ y†
1 y~
exp ÿ p
y~
~
6 By ‡ pC1 2 ÿ 2C 7 pC1 x~ 32 2C1 x~
u~ ˆexp6
4 ÿ@ p A 75
2C x~ 1 p  )
2pC1 y~
ÿ p erf p …9†
1 p 4 x~ 2C1 x~
~
for yr ~
…1 ÿ pC1 x† …3†
2 and for
with boundary condition along the edge of the plug ~
yr0, ~ x,
v… ~ y†
~ ˆ ÿv…
~ x,
~ ÿ y†:
~
¯ow regime such that
In the far ®eld situation, this reduces to
1 p
~
v~ ˆ 0 when y~ ˆ …1 ÿ pC1 x† …4† Albertson and others (1950, eq. 26) result
2 r
p 
pC1
and where C1 is empirically found to be 0.109 v~yÿ41 ˆ ÿ : …10†
8x~
(Albertson and others, 1950).
With the expression for u and the continuity In the model calculations, the following con-
equation, one can integrate to ®nd lateral velocity venient approximation was used in place of the
as: error functions:
s
 
     
y~ ÿ g 2 y~ ÿ g 4x 2 w
~ x,
v… ~ ˆg 0 exp ÿ
~ y† ‡f0 erf…x†  1 ÿ exp ÿ …11†
f f p
  2  p
y~ ÿ g p where a value of the weight factor, w, of 0.98 was
exp ÿ ÿf0 used to give an approximation within 0.7% over
f 2
  the entire range of x.
y~ ÿ g
erf ÿ g0 …5†
f Boundary conditions
The inventory at the river mouth is assumed to
where
take on a pro®le similar in shape to a turbulent
p x~ 1 p C1 velocity pro®le. The pro®le average is made to
~ ˆ ÿ pC1 ‡ ,
g…x† g 0 …x†
~ ˆÿ p
2 2 2 equal the known inventory input at the river
mouth:
and
p p  1
~ ˆ
f …x† ~
2C1 x, f 0 …x†
~ ˆ 2C1 8 b0 ÿ 2y 7
I ˆ I0 …12†
7 b0
and for
where 0R |y| Rb0/2, I0 is the average river mouth
~
yr0, ~ x,
v… ~ y†
~ ˆ ÿv…
~ x,
~ ÿ y†:
~ …6† inventory (kg/m2) and b0 is the river mouth width
(m).
In the far ®eld, as y 4 1 the lateral velocity The edge of the spreading plume is taken from
becomes Albertson and others (1950) nominal jet boundary,
162 J. P. M. Syvitski and others

i.e. a line spreading from the river mouth centerline from this choice is derived in the Appendix. In
at a y/x slope of 1/4 (or 148). Inventory along this ®nite di€erence form, Equation (14) becomes, for a
spreading line is set to zero as the lateral boundary given row, i, and column, j:
condition. ~  ~ 
These boundary conditions are chosen as much Ii, j ÿ I~iÿ1j Ii, j‡1 ÿ I~i, jÿ1
u~ i, j ‡ v~i, j
for numerical as physical reasons. The turbulent dx~ 2dy~
velocity pro®le provides a ``roll o€'' at the edges ~ 
Ii, j‡1 ÿ 2I~i, j ‡ I~i, jÿ1
and makes the numerical solution easier than ‡ l~ I~i, j ˆ K~ i, j
dy~ 2
with a ``harsher'' step change in inventory at the
river mouth edge. The zero inventory along the ~  ~ 
Ii, j‡1 ÿ I~i, jÿ1 Ki, j‡1 ÿ K~ i, jÿ1
nominal jet boundary meanwhile, suppresses nu- ‡ : …15†
2dy~ 2dy~
merical di€usion artifacts that appear if the sol-
ution is allowed to ®nd its own edge at in®nite Equation (15) represents a tridiagonal system of
y. simultaneous equations for each row progressing
The boundary conditions for the problem are: away from the river mouth. This system can be
     solved for I(x, y) using the Thomas algorithm
 b0  8 b0 ÿ 2y 1=7
I 0, jyj<  ˆ I0 (Thomas, 1949). The calculation of non-dimen-
2 7 b0
sioned inventory proceeds row-by-row outward
   from the river mouth until the dimensionless center-
 b0 
I 0, jyjr  ˆ 0 and line inventory falls below a signi®cant amount (cur-
2 rently set at 0.01 in the program).
   A logarithmic spacing between successive rows
b0 was used due to the exponential nature of the
I x, y ˆ 2 ‡ 0:25x ˆ 0 for x<x c
2 inventory decay with increasing x (Syvitski and
Lewis, 1992). Lateral grid spacing between succes-
where the longitudinal distance to constrained ¯ow
(xc) is given by: sive columns, j, was chosen as a constant fraction
of the river mouth width of unity. Thus, the num-
0:5…d0 ÿ b0 † ber of grid columns is proportional to the number
xc ˆ ˆ 2…d0 ÿ b0 † …13†
0:25 of lateral grid points used to represent the river
and d0 is the basin width. mouth. The ®nal dimensional inventory is found
In the situation of basins, the solution is said to using bilinear interpolation onto a dimensional
have reached a point of ``constrained'' ¯ow, xc, grid. The program does this interpolation for the
when the above 148 spreading line intersects the y>0 half of the symmetric inventory grid, since
basin edge of the semi-enclosed basin. only symmetric river mouth inventories are con-
sidered in PLUME1.1.
Solution method Although Albertson et al. (1950) present an ex-
The governing equations are made non-dimen- pression for the exact structure of K as a function
sional so that the u(x, y), v(x, y) velocity ®elds and of position (which physically relates to the inte-
turbulent di€usivity, K(x, y), need be calculated grated shear), we use an approximation to simplify
only once before repetitive inventory solutions with the calculation:
di€erent u0, b0 river characteristics, and grain sizes s  
with di€erent I0 and l are made. Choosing b0, u0 ~ x~ y~
K ˆ p f …16†
and I0 as characteristic quantities and using the pC1 x~
continuity equation to eliminate two terms from the
where C1=0.109 and the function f is found by
expansion of the left-hand-side derivatives,
trial and error using Figure 14, found in Albertson
Equation (1) then gives:
et al. (1950):
@ I~ @ I~ @ 2 I~ @ K~ @ I~        2 
u~ ‡ v~ ‡ l~ I~ ˆ K~ 2 ‡ …14† y~ 1 y~ 2 1 y~
@ x~ @ y~ @ y~ @ y~ @ y~ f ˆ 0:006 1 ÿ p exp ÿ p :
x~ p x~ pC1 x~
where: …17†
x y u v
x~ ˆ , y~ ˆ , u~ ˆ , v~ ˆ This correlation is valid for y/x < 0.34 (a maxi-
b0 b0 u0 u0
mum spreading half angle of 16.78).
I lb0 K We introduce a further simpli®cation that the ex-
I~ ˆ , l~ ˆ and K~ ˆ : pression for K is valid over the zone of developing
I0 u0 u0 b0
¯ow as well as developed ¯ow. In the plug ¯ow
It should be noted that other characteristic region of the zone of developing ¯ow, K = 0.
lengths for this problem are possible. An alternative In the situation of constrained ¯ows, when the
is to use u0/l. The di€erential equation resulting solution reached a longitudinal distance of xc, the
 Plume 1.1: deposition of sediment from a ¯uvial plume
solution variables were set as follows:
~ ˆ0
u~ ˆ uc , v~ ˆ 0, and K
where uc is the last value of u(x, y) before reaching
constrained ¯ow.
Mass balance check
The amount of sediment removed from the
plume for a given grain size can be checked against
the known river input sediment mass ¯ow rate, M,
by
……
M ˆ I0 b0 u0 ˆ lI…x, y† dx dy …18†
Plume
or in non-dimensional form:
~ ˆ I0 b0 u0 ˆ l b2
M ~ x,
I… ~ y†
~ dx~ dy~
I0 b0 u0 b0 u0 0
Plume
ˆ l~ ~ x,
I… ~ y†
~ dx~ dy~ ˆ 1: …
Plume
Because of the equally spaced lateral grid results,
the double integral is evaluated numerically using
Simpson's Rule on lateral (y direction) strips for
each x.
PROGRAM NOTES AND STRUCTURE
Files
Two input ®les are used by PLUME:
plume.datÐuser-speci®ed data to describe
¯ow rates and geometry; and river.disÐa binary ®le
of river and sediment discharge time series pro-
duced by the ``HYDROTREND'' program and
used when the ``File'' option is chosen in
plume.dat.
There are a number of user options in the text
®le plume.dat. Most input parameters are self-
de®ned within the table (Table 1), but some useful
additional notes are given here.
Input lines 1±7 provide control options. Line 1 is
the label header. Line 2 speci®es the ¯ow ®eld type
being modeled: BÐsemi-enclosed basin, or con-
strained plume ¯ow; or CÐcoastal or uncon-
strained plume ¯ow. Line 3 speci®es how the plume
will be traced in space, in one of three run options:
CÐtotal SPM concentration (g/m3); SÐtotal ac-
cumulation rate (mm/d); and DÐtotal centerline
averaged accumulation rate (m/yr). Option D is
appropriate for use with the DELTA program
(Syvitski and Alcott, 1995a) and can be used only
with option F in line 14.
Line 4 speci®es whether to run the model in
normal mode (R), or to scan (S) through the
river.dis ®le to check if the data are in the appropri-
ate format. By typing an S on line 4, the number
of data sets found and the range of river widths will
163
be printed as part of the output, but the model will
not be run.
Line 5 speci®es a speci®c time slice of the output
for eventual (Spyglass Transform1) plotting. Three
values need to be provided: T (transform) or N
(noplot), followed by year number followed by data
set number. For example, T 17 55 would pick data
set 55 from year 17. If the speci®ed data set was
not found during the run, a message noting this is
written to the plume.log ®le.
Line 6 speci®es whether a print plot is required
or not. Use P to generate a plot along with ®le out-
put. Use N if no plot is required. Note that the D
option in line 2 above does not produce a plot.
Line 7 speci®es whether a print ®le is created or
not. Use P to generate an output ®le. Use N if no
output ®le is required.
Lines 8±20 provide data values for boundary
conditions and equation parameters. Lines 8 and 9
are the basin width (km) and length (km), respect-
19†
ively, and are used only when modeling semi-
enclosed basins; otherwise use a dummy for uncon-
strained plume runs.
Line 10 is the lateral (y) grid spacing for output
interpolation, or a dummy when using the Line 3
``Delta'' option (D). Line 11 is the longitudinal (x)
grid spacing for output interpolation.
Line 12 is the number of grain sizes (1±10) that
are to be tracked.
Line 13a is the grain 1 removal rate (dayÿ1) and
bulk density (kg/m3). Line 13b is the grain 2
removal rate (dayÿ1) and bulk density (kg/m3). Line
13c is the grain 3 removal rate (dayÿ1) and bulk
density (kg/m3); etc up to ten lines of grain size in-
formation. The number of lines here must match
the number speci®ed in line 12.
Line 14 speci®es if river data is ``Inline'' or
``File''. As Inline, PLUME will read river data
from the next eight lines of plume.dat. If
speci®ed as File, PLUME will read river data
from the binary ®le river.dis.
Line 15 speci®es the number of data sets per year
(usually one for Inline data). Line 16 speci®es river
bedload (kg/sec). Line 17a is the grain 1 suspended
sediment concentration (g/m3). Line 17b is the grain
2 suspended sediment concentration (g/m3), etc for
up to ten grain size concentrations. Line 18 is the
river velocity (m/sec). Line 19 is the river mouth
width (m). Line 20 is the river mouth depth (m).
PLUME creates the following output ®les
depending on options chosen in plume.dat:
. plume.logÐprovides a data summary of
every run of the model.
. pplot.datÐinventory print plot with input
data header.
. sedmt.datÐresults from A, accumulation
rate option.
. concn.datÐresults from C, suspended par-
ticulate concentration option.
164 J. P. M. Syvitski and others

. sedfx.datÐresults from D, DELTA pro-
gram centerline averaged option.
. trans.datÐresults from T, Spyglass
Transform option.
Plume.log consists of a separate line giving
a summary of each model calculation. Most error
messages that would stop the program run are also
logged to this ®le. Data summary lines look like
these example lines:
follow and x direction grid spacing (m); line 4Ðthe
number of data points (columns) per vector and y
direction grid spacing (m). Lines 5 and onward are
the total suspended particulate concentration in g/
m3 starting at the river mouth. Each vector is sym-
metric about the middle value which is the concen-
tration along the centerline.
Sedmt.dat consists of a header line followed
by the total accumulation rate (mm/day) for a

...
Year 1 Set 6 Gr 3 Conc = .014 Mass = .958 Riv Wid = 87. Dep = .79 Vel = .92
Year 1 Set 6 Gr 4 Conc = .019 Mass = .957 Riv Wid = 87. Dep = .79 Vel = .92
*Year 1 Set 7 Gr 1 Conc = .002 Mass = .990 Riv Wid = 84. Dep = .60 Vel = .83
*Year 1 Set 7 Gr 2 Conc = .004 Mass = .966 Riv Wid = 84. Dep = .60 Vel = .83
*Year 1 Set 7 Gr 3 Conc = .007 Mass = .963 Riv Wid = 84. Dep = .60 Vel = .83
*Year 1 Set 7 Gr 4 Conc = .009 Mass = .948 Riv Wid = 84. Dep = .60 Vel = .83
Year 1 Set 8 Gr 1 Conc = .004 Mass = 1.003 Riv Wid = 86. Dep = .73 Vel = .89
Year 1 Set 8 Gr 2 Conc = .008 Mass = .976 Riv Wid = 86. Dep = .73 Vel = .89
Year 1 Set 8 Gr 3 Conc = .012 Mass = .959 Riv Wid = 86. Dep = .73 Vel = .89
...

where lines with a leading asterisk mark the data
set used to create a Spyglass Transform1 plot.
Year is the year count. Set is the number of
output data sets for a given year (one for annual,
four for seasonal, twelve for monthly, 365 for
daily). Gr is the grain number. Conc is the con-
centration of this grain at river mouth in kg/m3.
Mass is the check of plume sediment mass balance
(ideally it should be 1.0). This value is used to scale
up the plume solution results to eliminate any mass
balance error. Riv Wid is the width of river
mouth in meters. Dep is the depth of the river
mouth (and thus the entire plume thickness) in
meters, and Vel is the velocity at river mouth in
m/sec.
Sedfx.dat consists of an overall header line
followed by the centerline averaged accumulation
rate (m/year) data sets. Each data set consists of a
data vector header followed by the vector of ac-
cumulation rates. The overall header line contains:
(a) x-direction bin increment; (b) basin width (m);
(c) basin length (m); (d) number of grains per data
set; (e) number of years of data; and (f) number of
data sets per year. The data vector header line of
Sedfx.dat contains: (a) grain number; (b)
number of values in following data vector
(NPOINT); (c) starting concentration of this grain
(kg/m3); (d) river velocity (m/sec); (e) river width
(m); (f) river depth (m); and (g) bedload (kg/sec).
The data vector contains NPOINT values of ac-
cumulation rate on 7E11.4 format starting at the
river mouth.
Concn.dat consists of a header line followed
by the total SPM concentration (g/m3) for a given
data set. The header has these four lines: line 1Ð
the concentration label; line 2Ðthe number of grain
sizes; line 3Ðthe number of row data vectors that
given data set. The header has these four lines: line
1Ðthe accumulation label; line 2Ðthe number of
grain sizes; line 3Ðthe number of row data vectors
that follow and x direction grid spacing (m); line
4Ðthe number of data points (columns) per vector
and y direction grid spacing (m). Lines 5 and
onward are the total accumulation rate in mm/day
starting at the river mouth. Each vector is sym-
metric about the middle value which is the accumu-
lation rate along the centerline.
Plot.dat contains a header of key variables
used to generate the plume inventory solution. This
is followed by the print plot of one half of the sym-
metric plume, with the river mouth represented by
the non-zero points on the ®rst row. The plot is
normalized, with a range from zero to the maxi-
mum inventory in the pro®le. The initial inventory
pro®le at the river mouth is arranged such that its
average value is the total input river concentration.
The header portion of a plot would be, for
example:
Total SPM concentration in g/m3
Year 1 data set 1
River width = 134.7 m
River depth = 1.71 m
River velocity = 0.80 m/sec
Delta x (down) = 200. <± grid spacing values in meters.
Delta y (across) = 50.
Trans.dat is an ASCII Special format
®le used by the Spyglass Transform plot package.
This is the native text format for the
package, where: line 1 is the number_
of_rows and the number_of_columns;
line 2 is the Dummy_maximum_value
Dummy_minimum_value; line 3 is the vec-
tor of row (ordinate) values, etc; line 4 is the vector
 Plume 1.1: deposition of sediment from a ¯uvial plume
of column (abscissa) values, etc; line 5 is the data
values speci®ed one row at a time.
If there are missing or incorrect data rather than
those expected, the program will give an error mess-
age and stop. Error messages are logged to the
plume.log ®le.
Other important parameters
Some of the parameters are set in the header por-
tion of the main.F ®le: some parameters are de-
rived from others inputs. They include:
(1) Parameters for initial non-dimensioned grid
solution:
NOFCYCÐnumber of x direction log cycles.
NOFPPCÐnumber of x direction grid points
per log cycle.
NXÐnumber of x direction grid
points = NOFCYC*NOFPPC+1.
NYÐnumber of y direction grid points.
NRIVERÐnumber of y direction grid points
used to represent the river mouth.
(2) Parameters for interpolated dimensional grid
solution:
NXINTRÐnumber of x direction interp-
olated grid points.
NYIÐnumber of y direction interpolated grid
points.
NXINTR and NYI are set to be multiples of
NX and NY, respectively.
(3) Other parameters:
MAXGRNÐthe number of grain sizes to be
handled.
MAXSEAÐthe maximum number of data sets
per year (one, four, twelve, 365)
Parameters may also be set outside of main.F.
(4) In the subroutine prtsco.F:
MAXTRAÐmax. number of Spyglass
Transform axis values (currently 1001)
INVEPSÐwhen sum of non-dimensioned
inventory over four adjacent grid points falls
below this value, the interpolator considers the
point to be outside the plume. Currently set to
0.001.
(5) In the subroutine getinv.F:
MAXPRAÐmax. number of row grid points
that can be solved by tridiagonal routine.
Currently set to 300.
INVEPSÐPlume calculations stop when the
non-dimensioned centerline inventory drops
below this value. Currently set to 0.01
(6) In the subroutine tridag.F:
NMAXPAÐshould be set to the same values
as MAXPRA in getinv.F.
It is possible to specify bin spacing or a range of
river mouth widths that imply grid dimensions lar-
165
ger than those ®xed in the program. For example, if
the river width becomes very small within a given
®xed basin-width, then the number of lateral grid
points required becomes large. This is because the
solution is scaled to the river-mouth width which
has a ®xed number of solution grid points (see
NRIVER before). Grid dimensions can be
increased in the PARAMETER section of
main.F described previously.
PLUME PROGRAM HIERARCHY
GETLUN
GETDAT
LOOKRV
GETGDD
CHKDAT
VFIELD ----- VXYBAR
GETKDF
MAIN ----- GETRIV
SETINV
GETINV ----- TRIDAG
SUMINV
PRPLOT
PRTSCO
PRTFLX
GETLUN opens the required input/output data
®les. river.dis must be present but can be
empty if using the Run option in line 4.
GETDAT reads user-speci®ed data from
plume.dat.
LOOKRV examines river.dis binary ®le,
if speci®ed.
GETGDD sets up x-direction log grid spacing.
CHKDAT checks for consistency and range of
plume.dat values.
VFIELD computes non-dimensioned u, v vel-
ocity ®eld grids.
VXYBAR computes velocities depending on
plume ¯ow regime.
GETKDF computes non-dimensioned turbulent
di€usivity grid.
GETRIV reads data sets from river.dis
binary ®le, if speci®ed.
SETINV initializes non-dimensioned sediment
inventory grid.
GETINV sets up advection-di€usion equation
matrix coecients.
TRIDAG solves the tridiagonal matrix with
Thomas algorithm.
SUMINV numerically integrates the total non-
dimensioned plume inventory to check the mass
balance.
PRPLOT creates the inventory print plot along
plume axis of symmetry, if speci®ed.
PRTSCO carries out the bilinear interpolation
whereby the non-dimensioned inventory is con-
verted to dimensional inventory.
PRTFLX writes out the concentration, accumu-
lation or DELTA6 options (Syvitski and Alcott,
1995b) to ®le.
166 J. P. M. Syvitski and others

Figure 2. (A) Contoured non-dimensional longitudinal velocity, u, ®eld showing plug ¯ow region
(u = 1). (B) Contoured non-dimensional lateral velocity, v, ®eld showing an in¯owing current along the
coast necessary for mass balance. (C) Velocity vector ®eld, given lateral and longitudinal velocity ®elds
of (A) and (B).

The program source ®les use the ``.F'' sux to in-
dicate that they are passed ®rst through the C pre-
processor and then the Fortran compiler. There are
no ``include'' ®les or FORTRAN COMMON
blocks.
UNCONSTRAINED BASIN SIMULATION, EEL
RIVER, NORTHERN CALIFORNIA
We ®rst apply PLUME for a simulation of river
discharge into an unconstrained basin. Discharge
and sediment load data from the Eel River in
Northern California are used to generate river
plumes along an open coast. The model ®rst calcu-
lates the non-dimensional axial (u) velocity ®eld
from Albertson's Model (Albertson and others,
1950) (Fig. 2A). The two-dimensional continuity
equation is then integrated to yield the lateral (v)
velocity ®eld (Fig. 2B). The combined currents (Fig.
2C) are then used in the advection-di€usion
equation (Eq. 1) to solve for the sediment inventory
within the plume and the inventory that is lost from
the plume and accumulates on the sea¯oor. Figure
3 shows an example of the accumulation rate (mm/
day) for a river discharge of 3700 m3/sec. Shown is
the integrated accumulation for the four grain sizes
being modeled. Most of the heavier grains accumu-
late close to the river mouth and are responsible for
the high accumulation rates shown in that vicinity.
The Eel River is a ¯ood-dominated river. Its
three-day ¯ood event, on 23 December 1964
 Plume 1.1: deposition of sediment from a ¯uvial plume 167

Figure 3. Eel River PLUME example simulation given two-year return period ¯ood conditions of
Q = 3700 m/sec3. Plume is symmetrical with highest rates of sediment deposition nearest river mouth.

Figure 4. Eel River PLUME1.1 accumulation rate (mm/d) simulations given (A) low annual peak dis-
charge conditions of Q = 1000 m3/sec; (B) moderate peak ¯ood conditions of Q = 3700 m3/sec with
two-year return interval; (C) typical peak ¯ood conditions with 5-yr return interval of Q = 4000 m3/
sec; (D) high peak ¯ood conditions with 20-yr return interval of Q = 8600 m3/sec.
168 J. P. M. Syvitski and others

Figure 5. Concentration of suspended sediments found along enclosed basin of similar dimensions to
Knight Inlet with Klinaklini River plume ¯owing into fjord. PLUME captures both concentration and
plume length as observed from water samples (Syvitski and Lewis, 1992).

(752,000 cfs or 21,300 m3/sec), input as much sedi-
ment to the coast as the river normally discharges
to the coast over a seven-year period (Brown and
Ritter, 1971). Therefore, it is important to under-
stand the pattern of deposition under di€ering ¯ood
conditions. Figure 4 shows example accumulation
patterns for four ¯ooding magnitudes:
Flood magnitude Return period
(m3/sec) (years)
1000 01
3700 2 constants within the model. The hydrodynamics
5600 5
8600 20
Since the sediment load in a river is a power
function of the river discharge, much higher
amounts of sediment are input to the Northern
California margin during the high-¯ood events.
Sediment is also distributed over a much larger area
due to the increased river momentum and therefore
plume momentum.
face plume ¯owing across a semi-enclosed basin of
width similar to Knight Inlet, and receiving a river
discharge of 1000 m3/sec. The plume concentrations
are an integration of the four grain sizes being
modeled. Figure 5 shows the spreading of the
plume as it exits the river mouth, until the plume
reaches the width of the fjord. Sediment concen-
trations are seen to decrease exponentially down
fjord. The plume predictions compare favorably
with observations given in Syvitski and Lewis
(1992).
Bute Inlet is ideal for testing the removal-rate
simplify to down-fjord advection and cross-fjord
di€usion, which can be easily and accurately
simulated with the Albertson and others (1950)
jet model. Figure 6 is a plot of the measured and
predicted plume concentrations [inventory] (g/m2)
and shows an excellent (r2=0.99) ®t for such a
simple model. Bursik (1995) calculated the depth-
integrated particle settling rate velocities ( f w)
based on the removal rate constants we used in
this exercise as:

CONSTRAINED BASIN SIMULATION,

KNIGHT AND BUTE INLETS,
BRITISH COLUMBIA Particle size l fw
(dayÿ1) (m/day)
Next we apply PLUME to constrained basins,
Knight Inlet and Bute Inlet, two fjords along the Clay (1±2 mm) 2.0 26210
coast of British Columbia, fed by the Klinaklini Fine silt (3.2±6.4 mm) 2.7 35213
Medium silt (10±20 mm) 4.7 61223
and Homathoko rivers, respectively. Figure 5 shows Coarse silt (32±64 mm) 12.3 160261
the predicted concentation of sediment in the sur-
 Plume 1.1: deposition of sediment from a ¯uvial plume 169

Figure 6. Comparison of measured and predicted surface sediment inventory (g/m2) for Bute Inlet.
Inventory is surface concentration (g/m3) integrated across upper 4 m.

Similar removal rate constants were found for
Alaskan and Norwegian settings receiving di€erent
river discharge levels and sediment loads (Syvitski
and others, 1988). Model predictions are sensitive
to the removal rate constants used in Equation (1)
(Syvitski, 1989). Use of Stokes settling velocities for
the individual (rather than ¯occulated) particle sizes
would carry the sediment load much further than
observations would suggest (Syvitski, 1989). The
removal rate constants shown previously are typical
to those observed from direct in situ measurements
in many geological settings (Syvitski and others,
1995). Field observations suggest a narrow range of
removal rate constants.
SUMMARY
An ANSI-standard Fortran 77 model, PLUME,
is presented which solves for the advection-di€usion
of a turbid hypopycnal plume emanating from a
river. The momentum of the system is solved using
the Albertson and others (1950) model for a two-
dimensional submerged jet. The sediment is then
advected using the jet model, di€used using

Figure 7. Although PLUME 1 is designed as symmetrical model, code is able to be altered to handle
Coriolis and long-shelf currents (Morehead and Syvitski, in press).
170 J. P. M. Syvitski and others
Albertson's turbulent di€usion coecient, and
removed from the surface plume to be deposited
on the bottom with a ®rst-order removal-rate con-
stant for each grain size.
The removal rate constants for the advection-dif-
fusion equation are analogous to a settling velocity
that incorporates the e€ects of ¯occulation on the
river-born particles.
The program can be run as a stand-alone
model, but is intended for use in a nested set of
models that predict basin sedimentation (Steckler
and others, 1996). PLUME was designed to con-
tain the necessary dynamics to predict the sedi-
mentation patterns accurately, yet fast enough to
be run on a UNIX workstation and predict
daily plume sedimentation values for thousands
of years.
The next step in the model development is to
add the dynamics necessary to allow the predic-
tion of sedimentation patterns for an open
coastal environment. This necessitates the in-
clusion of the Coriolis force and along-shore cur-
rents, and how they de¯ect the momentum-driven
river plume. Figure 7 shows our preliminary
work on integrating along-shore currents into the
model. The ®gure shows the velocity vectors of
the momentum-based plume being turned by an
along-shore current.
The code is available by anonymous FTP from
the server FTP.IAMG.ORG, or via Internet at
WWW.IAMG.ORG.
REFERENCES
Albertson, M. L., Dai, Y. B., Jensen, R. A. and Hunter,
R. (1950) Di€usion of submerged jets. American
Society of Civil Engineers Transactions 115, 639±697.
Baines, W. D. and Chu, V. H. (1996) Jets and plumes. In
Environmental Hydraulics, eds V. P. Singh and W. H.
Hager, pp. 7±61. Kluwer Academic, The Netherlands.
Bonham-Carter, G. F. and Sutherland, A. J. (1968a)
Di€usion and settling of sediments at river mouths: a
computer simulation model. Gulf Coast Association
Geological Society Transactions 17, 326±338.
Bonham-Carter, G. F. and Sutherland, A. J. (1968b)
Mathematical model and Fortran IV program for com-
puter simulation of deltaic sedimentation. Kansas
Geological Survey Computer Contribution 24, 56 pp.
Brown, W. M. III and Ritter, J. R. (1971) Sediment trans-
port and turbidity in the Eel River Basin, California.
U.S. Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 1986, p.
70.
Bursik, M. (1995) Theory of the sedimentation of sus-
pended particles from ¯uvial plumes. Sedimentology
42(6), 831±838.
Kourafalou, V. H., Oey, L. Y., Wang, J. D. and Lee,
T. N. (1996) The fate of river discharge on the conti-
nental shelf 1. Modeling the river plume and the inner
shelf coastal current. Journal of Geophysical Research
101(C2), 3415±3434.
McClimans, T. A. (1979) On the energetics of river plume
entrainment. Geophysical and Astrophysical Fluid
Dynamics 13, 67±82.
Morehead, M. D. and Syvitski, J. P. (in press) River
plume sedimentation modeling for sequence stratigra-
phy: Application to the Eel Shelf, California. Marine
Geology.
Nemec, W. (1995) The dynamics of deltaic suspension
plumes. In Geology of Deltas, eds M. N. Oti and G.
Postma, pp. 31±93. Balkema, Amsterdam.
O'Connor, B. A. and Nicholson, J. (1988) A three-dimen-
sional model of suspended particulate sediment trans-
port. Coastal Engineering 12, 157±174.
Steckler, M. S., Swift, D. J. P., Syvitski, J. P., Go€,
J. A. and Niedoroda, A. W. (1996) Modeling the sedi-
mentology and stratigraphy of continental margins.
Oceanography 9(3), 183±188.
Syvitski, J. P. M. (1989) Modeling the sedimentary ®ll of
basins. In Statistical Applications in the Earth Sciences,
eds F. P. Agterberg and G. F. Bonham-Carter, pp.
509±515. Geological Survey of Canada, Paper 89-9.
Syvitski, J. P. M. and Alcott, J. M. (1993) GRAIN2:
Predictions of particle size seaward of river mouths.
Computers & Geosciences 19(3), 399±446.
Syvitski, J. P. M. and Alcott, J. M. (1995a) DELTA6:
Numerical simulation of basin sedimentation a€ected
by slope failure and debris ¯ow runout. Pierre Beghin
International Workshop on Rapid Gravitational Mass
Movements, Grenoble, France, pp. 305±312.
Syvitski, J. P. M. and Alcott, J. M. (1995b) RIVER3:
Simulation of water and sediment river discharge from
climate and drainage basin variables. Computers &
Geosciences 21(1), 89±151.
Syvitski, J. P. M., Asprey, K. W., Clattenburg, D. A. and
Hodge, G. D. (1985) The prodelta environment of a
fjord: suspended particle dynamics. Sedimentology 32 ,
40±65.
Syvitski, J. P. M., Asprey, K. W. and LeBlanc,
K. W. G. (1995) In-situ characteristics of particles
settling within a deep-water estuary. Deep-Sea
Research II 42(1), 223±256.
Syvitski, J. P. M. and Lewis, A. G. (1992) The seasonal
distribution of suspended particles, and their iron and
manganese loading, in a glacial runo€ fjord.
Geoscience Canada 19, 13±20.
Syvitski, J. P. M., Morehead, M. D. and Nicholson, M.
(1997) HYDROTREND: A climate-driven hydrologic-
transport model for predicting discharge and sediment
load to lakes or oceans. Computers & Geosciences, 23,
in press.
Syvitski, J. P. M., Smith, J. N., Calabrese, E. A. and
Boudreau, B. P. (1988) Basin sedimentation and the
growth of prograding deltas. Journal of Geophysical
Research 93(C6), 6895±6908.
Thomas, L. H. (1949) Elliptic problems in linear di€erence
equations over a network. Watkins Scienti®c
Computing Laboratory, Columbia, New York.
Waldrop, W. R. (1972) Three-dimensional ¯ow and sedi-
ment transport at river mouths. Ph.D. Dissertation,
Louisiana State University, Coastal Studies Institute,
Technical Report 84, p. 56.
Wright, L. D. and Coleman, J. M. (1974) Mississippi
River mouth process: e‚uent dynamics and mor-
phologic development. Journal of Geology 82, 751±
778.
APPENDIX
The Advection-di€usion Equation with Length Scale u0/l
If we choose the characteristic length scale (L) for this pro-
blem to be u0/l, then the di€erential Equation (1)
becomes:
       
I0 u0 @ u~ I~ I0 u0 @ v~ I~ ~0ˆ I0 @ @ I~
‡ ‡ lII K
L @ x~ L @ y~ L2 @ y~ @ y~
 Plume 1.1: deposition of sediment from a ¯uvial plume 171

or
@ u~ I~ @ v~ I~ ~ @ K @ I~ @ 2 I~
   ‡ ‡I ˆ ‡K 2:
@ u~ I~ @ v~ I~ L ~ L I0 @ K @ I~ @ 2 I~ @ x~ @ y~ @ y~ @ y~ @ y~
‡ ‡ lI0 Iˆ ‡K 2 :
@ x~ @ y~ I0 u0 I0 u0 L2 @ y~ @ y~ @ y~
One can think of u0/l as representing the advection length
scale (L) and K=u0 as representing the di€usion length
And if we say that: scale (W). Then
K Kl W
K~ ˆ ˆ K~ ˆ ˆ tan…a†
u0 L u20 L
can be interpreted as a characteristic spreading angle (a)
then the di€erential equation becomes: for the plume.