WATER RESOURCES RESEARCH, VOL. 45, W12406, doi:10.

1029/2009WR008364, 2009

Lagrangian modeling of advection-diffusion transport in open

channel flow
Bishnu H. Devkota1,2 and Jörg Imberger1
Received 7 July 2009; accepted 7 August 2009; published 9 December 2009.
[1] A fully Lagrangian method is presented for the accurate simulation of advection-
diffusion transport in both steady and unsteady open channel flows. Numerical results are
presented for Gaussian tracer distributions, top hat tracer distributions, and steep tracer
fronts (step function) profiles in a uniform flow and are compared against analytical
solutions and against the results obtained with an Eulerian Quadratic Upstream
Interpolation for Convective Kinematics with Estimated Streaming Terms (QUICKEST)
method. It is demonstrated that the Lagrangian scheme can totally eliminate numerical
diffusion and oscillations including those normally observed in steep frontal regions in most
Eulerian schemes. In steady, uniform flow, the scheme allowed a large time step to be
used and provides exact solutions for a wide range of Courant numbers (results are presented
for Cr from 0 to 20) and for an entire range of grid Peclet numbers (from 0 to infinity). These
simulation results for a uniform flow were extended to flows due to simple waves,
solitary waves, and undular bores; again, the scheme produced excellent results. It is shown
that the simple Lagrangian model is an efficient and accurate tool to predict transport in
advection dominated systems, and when it is coupled with the new Lagrangian river model,
the dynamic river model, it can be an ideal model for long-term and large-scale simulation of
transport for water quality in river systems and for transport with steep frontal regions.
Citation: Devkota, B. H., and J. Imberger (2009), Lagrangian modeling of advection-diffusion transport in open channel flow, Water
Resour. Res., 45, W12406, doi:10.1029/2009WR008364.

1. Introduction parabolic-hyperbolic character of the systems [Yeh et al.,

[2] Numerical methods suitable for the solution of the
transport equation:
 
@C @C 1 @ @C
þU ¼ KA ; ð1Þ
@t @x A @x @x
remain the subject of extensive research in computational
fluid dynamics [Celia et al., 1988; Durran, 1999]. In
application to open channels and river flows, equation (1)
describes the evolution of contaminant concentration C(x, t)
in a one dimensional flow in a channel of cross-sectional
area A(x, t), a mean flow velocity U(x, t) and a diffusion
coefficient K(x, t). Transport by advection and diffusion can
be separated and are additive processes [Fischer et al.,
1979]. In the Eulerian solution of equation (1), difficulties
arise because of the dual nature of the transport equation
[Zhang et al., 1993]. When the transport is advection
dominated, the equation behaves as a first-order hyperbolic
equation, but when the transport is diffusion dominated the
equation behaves as a second-order parabolic equation. To
accurately model the advection-diffusion transport, the
numerical scheme must be able to handle the mixed
1
Centre for Water Research, University of Western Australia, Crawley,
Western Australia, Australia.
2
Now at Water Corporation, Leederville, Western Australia, Australia.
Copyright 2009 by the American Geophysical Union.
0043-1397/09/2009WR008364
1992].
[3] Eulerian models that have grids fixed in space have a
number of difficulties when transport is advection dominat-
ed. These include numerical diffusion, oscillations, insta-
bilities and peak clipping because of the numerical
representation of advection terms in the transport equation
[Fischer et al., 1979; Durran, 1999; Yeh, 1990; Zhang et al.,
1993]. First-order upwind schemes [van Genuchten and
Gray, 1978] or upstream finite element schemes [Huyakorn,
1978; Bradford and Katopodes, 2000] are effective in
reducing numerical oscillations, but these upwind methods
introduce large numerical diffusion [Yeh, 1990; Zhang et al.,
1993; Abbott and Basco, 1995; Gross et al., 1999]. Numer-
ical diffusion can be reduced by using second- or higher-
order schemes, but these schemes then produce oscillations
[Leonard, 1979; Neuman, 1984; Leonard, 1991]. Numerical
oscillations and diffusion can both be minimized by using a
small grid size and small time steps, such that the Courant
number, Cr = UDt/Dx and the grid Peclet number, Pe =
UDx/K are small, but this comes at the expense of compu-
tation time [Manson et al., 2001]. However, even with small
time steps and small grid size, negative concentrations may
still be encountered because of numerical oscillation in the
vicinity of sharp fronts or in regions of high local concen-
tration gradients, for example in the modeling of outfalls of
wastewater or heated water discharge. Although third-order
upwind schemes such as Quadratic Upstream Interpolation
for Convective Kinematics with Estimated Streaming Terms
(QUICKEST) [Leonard, 1979] and ULTIMATE QUICKEST
[Leonard, 1991] yield satisfactory results [Gross et al.,

W12406 1 of 14
W12406 DEVKOTA AND IMBERGER: ADVECTION-DIFFUSION TRANSPORT
1999; Lin and Falconer, 1997], QUICKEST produces
oscillations and has some numerical diffusion near sharp
frontal regions. ULTIMATE QUICKEST suppresses the
oscillations, but still exhibits numerical diffusion and hence
smears the concentration at sharp frontal regions [Leonard,
1991; Lin and Falconer, 1997]. Furthermore, being explicit,
these schemes have limitations in that the Courant number
must not exceed one in advection simulation and hence
small time steps must be used. This makes these schemes
unsuitable for long-term and large-scale simulations of
transport that are often required to capture seasonal- and
basin-scale variation of water quality in river systems
[Thomann, 1998]. Although the implicit schemes allow
the use of large time steps and large Cr, this does not bring
any accuracy at time steps significantly larger than the
stability limit of the explicit schemes [Manson and Wallis,
1997]. Among Eulerian explicit schemes, QUICKEST was
assessed by Gross et al. [1999] to be the best among six
widely used advection schemes tested. Cahyono [1993]
concluded that ULTIMATE QUICKEST was the most
attractive among 36 schemes tested.
[4] Semi-Lagrangian methods that use a fixed grid, but
solve the equation in two steps by decoupling the solution,
allow large time steps to be used. First, the advection part
(first-order hyperbolic) is solved in a Lagrangian sense by
particle tracking and second, the diffusion part (second-
order parabolic) is solved in the fixed Eulerian grid. This
method has been successfully applied using large time steps
in a river system [Holly and Preissmann, 1977; Manson et
al., 2001] and in the atmospheric system [Staniforth and
Cote, 1991]. But, in the interpolation that is required to
obtain the Lagrangian value in the advection step, a smaller
grid size is required to minimize the numerical diffusion and
instabilities in the sharp frontal regions [Yeh, 1990]. Al-
though, the zoomable (or adjustable) hidden fine-mesh
approach [Yeh, 1990] and an adaptive local grid refinement
[Yeh et al., 1992] is able to eliminate numerical diffusion
and oscillations in the sharp front region in the entire range
of Peclet numbers and Courant number above 1, in terms of
practical implementation, the process of zooming and
refining the grids at each time step is not straight forward
[Zhang et al., 1993]. Also, a large number of grids are
required that take excessive amounts of computer memory
and run time. Zhang et al. [1993] used a modified single
step reverse particle tracking in the advection step to elimi-
nate numerical diffusion and oscillations at steep fronts, but
the Courant number needed to be below 1, requiring the use
of a small time step and a long computational time.
[5] The limitation of time steps and problems in the
vicinity of steep fronts in the Eulerian and semi-Lagrangian
approaches can be overcome by using a fully Lagrangian
approach, in which the parcels of water (or grids) are moved
with the mean flow velocity and the advection term (first-
order parabolic term) is eliminated [Devkota and Imberger,
2009a, 2009b]. In the absence of the advection term,
numerical diffusion, oscillations and instability can be
totally eliminated because there is no need to establish the
fixed grid points and allocate concentrations to specific
locations and compute the advective flux; rather the grid
is a set of moving points that represent the centers of the
marked volumes or parcels. Also, the Lagrangian transport
is conceptually advantageous when coupling water quality
2 of 14
W12406
models to a hydrodynamic code because, in a Lagrangian
formulation, we are dealing with parcels that always
contain the same mass [Jobson, 1987]. However, the early
Lagrangian transport models [Fischer, 1972; McBride and
Rutherford, 1984; Jobson, 1987; Schoellhamer, 1988] had a
number of shortcomings. First, these transport models were
not coupled to Lagrangian flow models, instead they used
an externally supplied, reach averaged, velocity field at
fixed grid points that needed to be interpolated. Second,
the mixing was calculated based on the exchange flow
between two adjacent parcels requiring a small time step.
Third, these models required new parcels to be introduced,
at each time step, at the upstream boundary, necessitating
the introduction of a large number of parcels. However, it
should be noted that the Lagrangian scheme may introduce
numerical diffusion if two parcels need to be combined,
such as may be the case when the flow goes through rapidly
changing river geometry. Nevertheless, this combining
process can be optimized by choosing the parcel size that
matches the river basin geometry.
[6] The objective of the present work is to incorporate a
transport model within the dynamic river model (DYRIM)
per the work of Devkota [2005] and Devkota and Imberger
[2009a, 2009b]. DYRIM is a one-dimensional Lagrangian
river model for the simulation of flow that computes
velocity, depth and position of the moving water parcels
in river channel and floodplain and the lateral exchange
between them. The incorporation of the transport model will
allow fully Lagrangian modeling of advection-diffusion
transport of heat, mass and pollutants in open channels,
rivers and floodplain systems. In this paper, we first present
simulations for pure advection and advection-diffusion
transport under steady, uniform flow in a channel using
bench mark test case problems to verify the accuracy of the
scheme. Many of these tests are a subset of the benchmark
initial and boundary value problems used to test advection-
diffusion algorithms of this type, which represent the
various practical problems in physical systems [Celia et
al., 1988; Yeh, 1990; Zhang et al., 1993]. The results are
then compared against an exact (analytical) solution and the
results obtained using the QUICKEST method where pos-
sible. We show that the simple Lagrangian method pre-
sented here can remove the deficiencies of Eulerian and
semi-Lagrangian approaches described above. It can totally
eliminate numerical diffusion and oscillations, allow large
time steps to be used and provide exact solutions even at
very high Courant numbers for pure advection (or advection
dominated) transport including for steep fronts. The model
was also tested for pure advection simulation and mass
transport in unsteady flows including cases with simple
waves, solitary waves and undular bores in channels.
2. Lagrangian Transport Model
[7] Figure 1 shows the Lagrangian parcels moving with
the mean flow velocity. In the Lagrangian system, the
dependent variables are a function of the initial position
‘‘a’’ and time ‘‘t’’. Thus the advection-diffusion transport
given by equation (1) may be written as:
!
^ ða; t Þ 1 @
dC ^
@C
¼ KA ; ð2Þ
dt A @^x @^x
W12406 DEVKOTA AND IMBERGER: ADVECTION-DIFFUSION TRANSPORT W12406

Figure 1. Schematic of Lagrangian parcels moving under waves and currents: U is the mean flow
velocity, Vw is the wave speed, h is the water depth, Ck is the concentration of the parcel k, and the two-
headed arrows represents down gradient diffusion transport.

where C^ (a, t) is the concentration of the tracer, dC/dt

^ is the with the degree of implicitness measured by a weighting
total derivative, ^x (a, t) is the Lagrangian position of the factor q [Sinokrot and Stefan, 1993]:
parcel at time t, A(^x, t) is the cross-sectional area of the flow
and a is the initial position of the parcels. The longitudinal 2 !nþ1 !nþ1 3
^
@C ^
@C
dispersion coefficient K, was given by Fischer et al. [1979]: 6 KA  KA 7
^
C nþ1 ^
C n 6 @x @x 7
k k 6 kþ1=2 k1=2 7
¼ q6 7
0:011W 2 U 2 Dt 6 Anþ1 nþ1
k Lk
7
K¼ ; ð3Þ 4 5
hu*
2 !n !n 3
where U is the mean flow velocity, W ispthe ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiwidth of the
ffi pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ^
@C ^
@C
channel, h is the depth of the flow, u* = t b =r = gRS is 6 KA  KA 7
6 @x @x 7
the friction velocity, t b is the boundary shear stress, R is the 6 kþ1=2 k1=2 7
þ ð1  qÞ6 7; ð6Þ
hydraulic radius and S is the friction slope (bed slope for 6 Ank Lnk 7
4 5
uniform flow).
[8] For pure advection transport (K = 0), equation (2) is
given as: ^ (a, t)n+1
where C k is the concentration of the particle at time
n + 1, that was at position a at time t = 0 (or the
^ ða; t Þ
dC
¼0 ð4Þ concentration at the new position ^xn+1, at the present time n
dt + 1), C^ (a, t)nk is the concentration of the same particle at
^ no longer previous time n (or at the previous position, ^xn at time n) as
In equations (2) and (4), the concentration C shown in Figure 2 and Ln+1 = ^xn+1 xn+1
k k+1/2  ^k1/2 is the length of
represents the concentration at a point in space and time, but the parcel at time n + 1. The scheme is flexible in that it
rather the concentration of a fluid particle in the Lagrangian becomes fully explicit if q = 0, fully implicit if q = 1 and
positions, as the parcels move with mean flow velocity semi-implicit if 0  q  1, but in practice usually q = 0.55–
along the trajectory given by the fluid kinematics relation 0.65 is chosen if a semi-implicit scheme is used [Hoffmann
as: and Chiang, 1993].
[10] The new position of the parcel (the grid) at time level
d^xða; t Þ ^ n + 1 is given by equation (5) as:
¼ U ða; t Þ; ð5Þ
dt
^xnþ1
k ¼ ^xnk þ U Dt; ð7Þ
where ^x (a, t) is the position of the particle at time t that was
at position a at t = 0, U ^ (a, t) is the mean (cross-sectional
average) flow velocity in the Lagrangian coordinate. The   
where U ¼ 0:5 U^ ða; t n Þ þ U
^ a; t nþ1 ð8Þ
Lagrangian form (equations (2) and (5)) of the Eulerian
equation (1) eliminates the advection term so that the
equation takes on a purely parabolic appearance that can be is the time average velocity, U^ (a, tn+1) is the velocity of the
solved efficiently with a finite difference or finite element parcel at time n + 1 that was at position a at time t = 0 (or
method. Equation (4) shows that, in a pure advection system the velocity at the new position, ^xn+1 at the present time n +
(or nondiffusive system), the concentration of the parcels 1, U^ (a, tn) is the velocity of the same parcel at previous
remain unchanged and any smearing in concentration time n (or the velocity at the previous position, ^xn at time n,
provides an estimate of numerical diffusion and any ^x(a, t) is the position of a fluid particle at time t that
overshoot and undershoot provides an estimate of numerical originated at position a at time t = 0. The velocity and the
oscillations. This can be used as a criterion to test the position of the parcels are computed by DYRIM. It should
numerical diffusion and oscillations in any scheme. be noted that if the flow is unsteady (or nonuniform), the
length of the parcel changes as the flow evolves [Devkota,
2005; Devkota and Imberger, 2009a, 2009b]. The simula-
3. Numerical Method tion results are used to describe the effects of the grid
[9] A variety of numerical methods exist to solve equa- distortion on the spatial concentration profiles.
tion (2). In this study, a Crank-Nicolson type scheme is used

3 of 14
W12406 DEVKOTA AND IMBERGER: ADVECTION-DIFFUSION TRANSPORT W12406

Figure 2. Schematic of Lagrangian computational moving grid: solid circles represent the locations of
the centers of mass of the parcels, open circles represent the locations of the faces, solid lines represent
the trajectory of the centers of mass, and dashed lines represent the trajectory of the faces.

[11] Equation (6) may be further discretised as: The widely used QUICKEST method that is a third-order
upwind explicit scheme [Leonard, 1979], is given by Abbott
"
1 ^ nþ1  C
C ^ nþ1 and Basco [1995] as:
^ nþ1
C ¼ ^n
C þ qDt nþ1
Kkþ1=2 Anþ1 kþ1 k
k k kþ1=2
Vknþ1 nþ1
Dxk

!# Cr  2  n
^ nþ1 ^ nþ1 Cknþ1 ¼ Ckn þ g ð1  Cr Þ  Cr  3Cr þ 2 Ckþ1
nþ1 C C 6
 Kk1=2 Anþ1
k1=2
k k1

Dxnþ1
k1 Cr  2 
"  g ð2  3Cr Þ  Cr  2Cr  1 Ckn
^n  C
C ^n 6
1 n kþ1 k

þ ð1  qÞDt Kkþ1=2 Ankþ1=2 Cr  2  n

Vkn n
Dxk þ g ð1  3Cr Þ  Cr  Cr  2 Ck1
!# 2
^n  C
C ^n

 n
Kk1=2 Ank1=2 k k1
: ð9Þ Cr  2  n
nþ1
Dxk1 þ gCr þ Cr  1 Ck2 ; ð12Þ
6

where V is the volume of the parcel and Dxn+1k = ^xn+1 xn+1

k+1  ^k where Cr = UDt/Dx is a Courant number. In section 4 of the
is the center to center distance of the parcel (the grid size at paper, the present methods are compared, where possible,
time n + 1). For an uniform flow and uniform grid size with the analytical solution, as well as the numerical results
using an explicit approach (q = 0), equation (9) can be obtained with the QUICKEST scheme, for a range of
simplified as: Courant numbers and Peclet numbers, where Pe = Cr/g or
UDx/K. It should be noted that equations (10) and (11)
 n 
C k
^ n þ gDt C
^ nþ1 ¼ C
k
^ ^n ^n
kþ1  2Ck þ Ck1 ; ð10Þ compute the concentrations in the Lagrangian moving frame
that are a function of the initial position a and time t. The
where g = KDt/Dx2 is diffusion number or mixing fraction. position of the moving parcel at time t is given by equation
It should be noted from equation (10) that for pure (7), whereas equation (12) gives the concentration in an
advection simulation, regardless of the flow regime (uni- Eulerian fixed position x and time t.
form and nonuniform), the Lagrangian approach provides
an exact result if there is no error in computing velocity 4. Results and Discussion
field and tracking of parcels, equation (7). If either a fully 4.1. Advection-Diffusion in Steady Flow
implicit or a semi-implicit (0 < q  1) scheme is used,
equation (9) forms a tridiagonal matrix that can be [12] The model was first verified using two examples to
efficiently solved using the Thomas algorithm [Fletcher, demonstrate the capability of the Lagrangian algorithm to
1991]: solve the transport equation in steady, uniform flow for a
range of Courant and Peclet numbers. Example 1 is a set of
nþ1 initial value problems (Table 1) and example 2 is a set of
DtKk1=2 Anþ1 nþ1
DtKk1=2 Anþ1
q
k1=2 ^ nþ1 þ
C 1þq
k1=2 boundary value problems (Table 2). In example 1, seven
k1
Vknþ1 Dxnþ1
k1 Vknþ1 Dxnþ1
k1 simulations were carried out for the solution of pure
nþ1
! advection and advection-diffusion of an initial Gaussian
DtKkþ1=2 Anþ1
kþ1=2
nþ1
DtKkþ1=2 Anþ1
kþ1=2
þq ^ nþ1  q
C C^ nþ1 tracer distribution and pure advection of an initial top hat
k kþ1
Vknþ1 Dxnþ1
kþ1 Vknþ1 Dxnþ1
kþ1 tracer distribution (Table 1). A channel of 10,000 m length
" 
n
DtKk1=2 ^n
Ank1=2 C k1
n
DtKk1=2 Ank1=2 was used with a mean flow velocity = 0.5 m/s, a flow depth
¼C^ n þ ð1  qÞ þ = 0.5 m, bed slope 1 in 2000 m, a channel width, W = 50 m
k n n n n
Vk Dxk1 Vk Dxk1
! # and Manning’s n = 0.0278 (s/m1/3), giving a longitudinal
n
DtKkþ1=2 Ankþ1=2 n
DtKkþ1=2 ^n
Ankþ1=2 C kþ1 dispersion coefficient, K = 280.45 m2/s using equation (3), a
þ C^n þ : ð11Þ
Vkn Dxnkþ1 k
Vkn Dxnkþ1 value typical for large rivers [Fischer et al., 1979]; and W =
10 m, and Manning’s n = 0.0264 s/m1/3, giving a longitu-

4 of 14
W12406 DEVKOTA AND IMBERGER: ADVECTION-DIFFUSION TRANSPORT W12406

Table 1. List of Cases for Example 1, Initial Value Problemsa Although the Dirichlet boundary condition is used in these
Dispersion Initial test cases, the model can handle Neumann boundary
Velocity Coefficient Condition, conditions as well, where the derivative of the concentration
Case (m/s) (m2/s) so (m) Dt (s) Dx (m) Cr Pe in the boundary is specified.
1A 0.5 0.0 167.47 50 50 0.5 1
[15] The exact solution for advection-diffusion of a
1B 0.5 0.0 167.47 1000 50 10 1 Gaussian profile was given by Fischer et al. [1979]:
1C 0.0 11.68 341.76 420 100 0.0 0.0
1D 0.5 100.0 632.45 50 100 0.5 0.5
!
1E 0.5 11.68 216.15 420 100 2.1 4.28 M ð x  Ut Þ2
C ð x; t Þ ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi exp  : ð16Þ
1F 0.5 0.0 NA 50 50 0.5 1 4pKt 4Kt
1G 0.5 0.0 NA 1000 50 10 1
a
Cases 1A and 1B are pure advection, 1C is pure diffusion, 1D and 1E The exact solution for pure advection (equation (4)), which
are advection and diffusion of Gaussians, and 1F and 1G are pure advection is a limiting case when K = 0 in equation (16) can be given
of top hat distributions. by

dinal dispersion coefficient, K = 11.68 m2/s (typical for slow C ð x; tÞ ¼ f ð x  Ut Þ ¼ Co at position x  Ut; ð17Þ
moving water). In some cases the K value was specified to
be suitable for testing pure advection and testing the range where f is a function that satisfies the initial condition.
of Peclet numbers (Tables 1 and 2). These initial value [16] Figures 3a and 3b show a comparison of the results
problems are relevant in a range of practical applications of concentration profiles for pure advection of a Gaussian
such as instantaneous release of pollutants, chemicals, or oil distribution (cases 1A and 1B, respectively) against an
spills in river systems that can exhibit steep frontal regions analytical solution and the results obtained from the
or high local concentration gradients (for example top hat QUICKEST method (for the grid Pe infinite and Cr = 0.5
tracer distribution). The simulations were carried out with a and 10). The Lagrangian results cannot be distinguished
range of Cr from 0 to well above 1 (up to Cr = 20) and the from the analytical solution for both Courant numbers,
grid Pe from zero to infinity (Table 1). In example 2, five which demonstrates that the Lagrangian scheme can effi-
simulations were made, two for the pure advection and three ciently handle large Cr and allows the use of a large time
for advection-diffusion of steep front (step function) profiles step. The Lagrangian results were obtained using the
as shown in Table 2. These boundary value cases are explicit mode (q = 0). It should be noted from equation
relevant in practical situations such as transport of effluent (9) that in pure advection simulation, both explicit and
from outfalls of wastewater or heated discharge in river implicit schemes become the same and not only give the
systems. It should be noted that the top hat described here is same results but also can handle any Courant number in
an initial value problem that has a steep front at both sides, uniform flow or in specified velocity field. The QUICKEST
while the step function is a boundary value problem that has result is also generally good for Cr less than 1 (Figure 3a),
a steep front at one only side with a continuous source of the although the peak is slightly underpredicted because of a
contaminant at the upstream boundary. small numerical diffusion. Importantly, QUICKEST is not
4.1.1. Gaussian Tracer Distribution applicable for Cr greater than 1 so that its result is not
[13] For pure advection of the Gaussian tracer distribu- shown in Figure 3b. Lin and Falconer [1997] reported that
tion, the initial condition was given by Fischer et al. [1979]: in the pure advection simulation of an initial Gaussian
! distribution in a rotating two-dimensional (2-D) flow,
M ð x  Uto Þ2 ULTIMATE QUICKEST also underpredicted the peak con-
C0 ð x; 0Þ ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi exp  ; ð13Þ centration in the same manner as in one-dimensional flow.
4pKt o 4Kto
[17] Figures 4a – 4c compare the results of advection-
diffusion simulation of a Gaussian tracer distribution (cases
s20 ¼ 2Kt0 ; ð14Þ from 1C to 1E, respectively) in steady, uniform flow. The
Lagrangian results were obtained using the explicit mode
where M is the initial mass per unit area and s2o is the initial with weighting factor q = 0 (equation (10)). Figure 4a shows
variance that is a measure of the spread of the distribution. a pure diffusion (case 1C with Cr = 0 and Pe = 0) and
For pure advection simulations (cases 1A and 1B), the Figure 4b shows the result of advection-diffusion (case 1D)
initial value of so was 167.47 m (with K0 = 280.45 m2/s and with Cr = 0.5 and Pe = 0.5 (in a case where diffusion
to = 50 s) so that initial length of the tracer cloud was
sufficiently long (1000 m or 20 parcels under the Gaussian
curve as shown in Figure 3) to capture the initial Gaussian Table 2. List of Cases for Example 2, Boundary Value Problemsa
profile whose peak was located at about 3000 m. For
advection-diffusion simulation the initial value of so and the Velocity Dispersion
dispersion coefficients were as shown in Table 1. Case (m/s) Coefficient (m2/s) Dt (s) Dx (m) Cr Pe
[14] The boundary conditions were given by the Dirichlet 2A 0.5 0.0 1 1.0 0.5 1
condition, i.e., by specifying the concentration as: 2B 0.5 0.0 40 1.0 20 1
2C 0.5 0.5 1 1.0 0.1 0.2
C ð0; t Þ ¼ 0 ð15aÞ 2D 0.5 0.5 1 1.0 0.5 1.0
2E 0.5 1.0 10 1.0 5.0 5.0
a
Cases 2A and 2B are pure advection, and cases 2C, 2D, and 2E are
and C ð1; t Þ ¼ 0: ð15bÞ advection-diffusion of steep fronts (step function).

5 of 14
W12406 DEVKOTA AND IMBERGER: ADVECTION-DIFFUSION TRANSPORT W12406

Figure 3. Comparison of the results of pure advection (Pe infinity) of Gaussian tracer distribution
profiles in steady, uniform flow as obtained with an exact solution, Lagrangian model and the
QUICKEST scheme: (a) case 1A and (b) case 1B. The QUICKEST result is not shown because this
scheme in not applicable if Cr is greater than 1.

dominates the advection in the numerical grid in the sense
that Pe is less than 1), in which both Lagrangian and
QUICKEST have produced excellent results. Figure 4c
shows the result of case 1E, which is similar to case 1D,
but with Cr = 2.1 and Pe = 4.28 (where advection
dominates the diffusion in the numerical grid as Pe is
greater than 1), in which the Lagrangian scheme has
produced excellent results and QUICKEST is not applicable
at these high Courant and Peclet numbers. These simula-
tions demonstrate that the Lagrangian explicit scheme can
efficiently handle advection-diffusion where both Cr and Pe
are well above 1 and allows the use of a large time step.
4.1.2. Top Hat Tracer Distribution
[18] The ability of the model to reproduce pure advection
of a top hat tracer distribution was also tested. As a top hat
distribution has steep fronts on both sides (Figure 5), this is
more difficult to simulate than a Gaussian distribution. The
initial condition for the top hat distribution was given by
C ð x; 0Þ ¼ Co ¼ 1:0 when x1 < x < x2 ; ð18Þ
C ð x; 0Þ ¼ 0 otherwise: ð19Þ
The boundary conditions were given as:
C ð0; t Þ ¼ 0 ð20aÞ
and C ð L; t Þ ¼ 0; ð20bÞ
where x1 and x2 define the position of the hat and L is the
length of the channel. The exact solution for pure advection
(K = 0) of a top hat distribution also is the same as equation
(17), in which the concentration and the shape of the hat
does not change at it moves with the mean flow velocity.
Initially, the center of the hat was located at 3000 m, x1 =
2700 m and x2 = 3300 m so that the width of the hat was
600 m. Simulations were carried out with Dx = 50 m and
Dt = 50 s and 1000 s. This gives simulations with Courant
numbers 0.5 and 10 (Table 1, cases 1F and 1G,
respectively).
[19] Figures 5a and 5b show a comparison of the results
of concentration profiles of pure advection of top hats (cases
1F and 1G, respectively) against an exact solution and
QUICKEST scheme for the grid Pe infinity and Cr = 0.5
and 10. The Lagrangian model results are in exact agree-
ment with the analytical solution even for Cr = 10. The
initial top hat distribution did not change in concentration or
shape. This shows that the Lagrangian scheme eliminates
numerical diffusion, oscillations, or any other numerical
problems and allows the use of a large time step for
advection simulation including for steep frontal regions. It
should be noted from equation (11) that for pure advection
(K = 0) the Lagrangian solution, in fact, provides the
analytical solution (equation (16)), by transporting the
concentration grid to grid (equation (8)) and thus provides
the exact result irrespective of the shape of initial tracer
concentration distribution.. Also, it should be noted that in
the simulation of pure advection of a top hat or any other

6 of 14
W12406 DEVKOTA AND IMBERGER: ADVECTION-DIFFUSION TRANSPORT W12406

Figure 4. Comparison of the results of advection and diffusion of a Gaussian tracer distribution in
steady, uniform flow as obtained with an exact solution, Lagrangian model and the QUICKEST scheme.
(a) Case 1C shows a pure diffusion of the Gaussian, (b) case 1D shows the result of advection and
diffusion, and (c) case 1E shows the result of advection and diffusion. The QUICKEST result is not
shown because this scheme did not handle this Cr and Pe.

shape tracer distribution in a channel with variable cross-
sectional area or steady nonuniform flow, the spatial con-
centration profile will change in size as it evolves. The
concentration profile will stretch or contract depending
on the stretching or contacting of length of the parcels
(parcels) to conservation of volume [Devkota and Imberger,
2009a]. But this will not introduce any numerical diffusion
and oscillations as the concentration, being moved by a
Lagrangian model, will simply be transported from grid to
grid by the mean flow velocity. We describe the stretching
of concentration profile below for unsteady velocity field.
[20] As shown in Figures 5a and 5b, QUICKEST results
are not satisfactory even for Cr less than one. The results
have not only numerical oscillations as evidenced by the
peak concentration being overpredicted and underpredicted
near the sharp front region, but also have numerical diffu-
sion as seen by the smeared sharp fronts. Overall the shape
of the top hat distribution was not preserved. The top width
of the hat decreased and the bottom width increased.
Naturally, at Cr = 10, QUICKEST is not applicable.
Lin and Falconer [1997], who used QUICKEST and
ULTIMATE QUICKEST for the simulation of pure advec-
tion of a column in a 2-D radial flow and reported that
ULTIMATE QUICKEST suppressed oscillations, but failed
to preserve the shape of the hat and the concentration was
smeared because of numerical diffusion. It should be noted
that being an explicit scheme, ULTIMATE QUICKEST also
requires Cr less than 1. This example thus demonstrates that
the Lagrangian scheme, unlike QUICKEST methods, is
efficient in that it allows the use of a large time step and
provides an exact solution to pure advection even at large
Courant numbers.
4.1.3. Steep (Step Function) Tracer Fronts
[21] In example 2 for boundary value problems, five
simulations were carried out for the advection-diffusion of
a steep front (step function) in uniform flow (Table 2). Two
simulations were made for pure advection (cases 2A and
2B) and three for advection-diffusion transport (cases 2C

7 of 14
W12406 DEVKOTA AND IMBERGER: ADVECTION-DIFFUSION TRANSPORT W12406

Figure 5. Comparison of the results of pure advection of top hat tracer distribution in steady, uniform
flow as obtained with an exact solution, Lagrangian, and QUICKEST methods: (a) case 1F and (b) case
1G. QUICKEST method is not applicable in this high Courant number.

through 2E). The steep front (step function) can be advection, which is a limiting case for K = 0 is merely a
described as: translation of the step function:

C ð x; 0Þ ¼ Co ¼ 1 for 0 < x < b; ð21Þ C ð x; t Þ ¼ Co x < b; ð25Þ

C ð x; t Þ ¼ Co ¼ 0 otherwise; ð22Þ C ð x; t Þ ¼ Co at position x  U t: ð26Þ

where b is the width of the step. The boundary conditions [22] Figures 6a and 6b compare the results of concentra-
were given as: tion profiles for pure advection of initial steep front profiles
(cases 2A and 2B) where the grid Pe is infinite and Courant
C ð0; t Þ ¼ Co ¼ 1 ð23aÞ number, Cr = 0.5 and 20, respectively. The Lagrangian
results have an exact match to the analytical solution
including for Cr = 20, which demonstrates the efficiency
and C ð1; t Þ ¼ 0: ð23bÞ and accuracy of the model. As shown in Figures 6a and 6b,
QUICKEST results are not only oscillatory evidenced by
The exact solution for advection-diffusion transport (K > 0) the over and under predictions, but also have some numer-
for the case b = 0 was given by Fischer et al. [1979]: ical diffusion evidenced by the smearing of the steep front.
  For case 2B, where Cr = 20 (or for greater than 1),
Co x  b  Ut QUICKEST is not applicable. The oscillations near the
C ð x; tÞ ¼ erfc pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
2 4Kt sharp frontal region in the QUICKEST results were also
    reported by Leonard [1979] and Abbott and Basco [1995].
Co x  b þ Ut U ð x  bÞ
þ erfc p ffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ffi exp : ð24Þ Leonard [1991] compared various schemes for the simula-
2 4Kt K
tion of steep fronts and concluded that the ULTIMATE
The initial condition for advection-diffusion simulation was QUICKEST performed the best of the Eulerian schemes
given by equation (24) with t = 5 s and the initial condition tested.
for pure advection was given by b = 10 m in equation (21). [23] Figures 7a –7c compares the results of advection-
It should be noted that as the top hat distribution is a case diffusion of steep fronts (step function) cases (Table 2, cases
with steps on both sides, the analytical solution for the 2C through 2E,). Figure 7a is case 2C where Pe and Cr both
advection-diffusion of the top hat can be given by are less than 1 (Pe = 0.2 and Cr = 0.5) and Figure 7b is case
superposition of equation (24). The exact solution for pure 2D, in which Cr = 0.5 and Pe = 1 (a case where the

8 of 14
W12406 DEVKOTA AND IMBERGER: ADVECTION-DIFFUSION TRANSPORT W12406

Figure 6. Comparison of the results of pure advection of a steep tracer front (step function) in steady,
uniform flow as obtained with an exact solution, Lagrangian and QUICKEST methods: (a) case 2A and
(b) case 2B. QUICKEST method is not applicable in this high Courant number.

advection and diffusion has equal strength in the numerical
grid as the grid Pe is 1). For both cases, Lagrangian and
QUICKEST have produced excellent results. Figure 7c is
case 2E, where advection dominates the diffusion in the
numerical grid as the grid Pe is greater than 1 with Cr = 5.0
and Pe = 5.0. The Lagrangian result has exact match to the
analytical solution, but the QUICKEST scheme is not
applicable at such high Courant and Peclet numbers. It
should be noted that for these boundary value problems
under steady flow, the semi-Lagrangian schemes of Yeh
[1990], Yeh et al. [1992] and Zhang et al. [1993] required
Cr less than 1. The Lagrangian model results were obtained
using the semi-implicit mode (with q = 0.55) to demonstrate
the applicability of different modes of the scheme described
above.
4.2. Pure Advection Transport in Unsteady Flow
[24] The purpose of this test was to demonstrate the
ability of the model to handle advection dominated transport
in unsteady flows and to obtain insights into mass transport
under waves and currents that include simple waves and
dispersive, solitary waves and undular bores. The hydrody-
namics phenomena and practical applicability of these
waves are described by Frazao and Zech [2002], Chanson
[2000] and Devkota and Imberger [2009a, 2009b]. Despite
the importance of mass transport in such flows in practical
situations [Chanson, 2000, 2004], simulation results do not
appear to have been reported. In the present study, pure
advection transport of an initial top hat tracer distribution
that has steep fronts on both sides (Table 3, example 3) was
used in a simple wave (case 3A), a solitary wave (case 3B)
and an undular bore (case 3C). The analytical solution of
transport in unsteady flow is the same as given in equation
(17), the only difference being that the velocity field is
unsteady, but the concentration of the parcels remains
unchanged as the tracer concentration evolves in time. It
should be noted that, in the Lagrangian transport simulation,
the position of the parcel may introduce some error arising
from any inaccuracy in the Lagrangian velocity field and
tracking of parcels, but as the velocity field computed by
DYRIM (used in this simulation) has almost exact match to
the analytical solution [Devkota and Imberger, 2009a,
2009b], the position of the parcel and hence the evolution
of the concentration is also error free.
4.2.1. Pure Advection Mass Transport in Simple Waves
[25] The velocity field used in this simulation represents a
simple wave velocity field (Figure 8a) that has excellent
agreement with the analytical solution as described by
Devkota and Imberger [2009a]. The mean fluid (or particle)
velocity was 0.0– 0.6 m/s, maximum at the wave peak,
where the depth is greater and reduces to zero away from
the wave and the wave speed was approximately 4.03 m/s.
The simulation was carried out in a 1000 m long channel
with Dx = 2 m and Dt = 0.2 s. This gave an initial Courant
number, Cr = 0.48, but Cr varied as both the velocity and
the grid size varied in time and space (Cr increased to 0.545
for the parcel located under the wave peak as the wave
evolved). In the simulation, the center of the top hat was
initially at 400 m with x1 = 398 m and x2 = 402 m (in
equation (18)), so that only three parcels located in the

9 of 14
W12406 DEVKOTA AND IMBERGER: ADVECTION-DIFFUSION TRANSPORT W12406

Figure 7. Comparison of the results of advection-diffusion of a steep tracer front in uniform flow as
obtained with an exact solution, QUICKEST and Lagrangian methods for (a) case 2C (b) case 2D, and
(c) case 2E. QUICKEST result is not shown as this scheme did not handle this high Cr.

region of the wave peak had a concentration of 1.0 mg/L. that in the next 50 s, it moved only another 5 m as the
The rest of the parcels had zero concentration (Figure 8b, as velocity was much reduced behind the wave and eventually
shown in concentration profile at t = 0,). reached zero in the top hat region. In fact, after 50 s the
[26] Figure 8b shows the simulation results of the evolu- hat was left behind the wave (which was in the same
tion of the top hat concentration distribution in the simple position), as the current velocity in the position of the hat
wave for 60 s. The result is exact to the analytical solution was zero.
as the initial top hat distribution remained a top hat, without
any change in the concentration or shape of the hat as it
evolved. This shows the model totally eliminates numerical Table 3. List of Cases for Example 3 (Initial Value Problems),
diffusion and oscillations under unsteady velocity field. As Pure Advection in Simple Waves, Solitary Waves, and Undular
the parcels (grids) located under the wave were stretched to Boresa
conserve the volume after they were left behind the wave
[Devkota, 2005; Devkota and Imberger, 2009a], the spatial Wave
concentration profile was also stretched as seen by the Velocity Dispersion Height
2
Cases (m/s) (m /s) (m) Dt (s) Dx (m) Cr Pe
increment in top and base of the hat. The top hat, which
moved with mean flow velocity (0 – 0.6 m/s) traveled only 3A no mean currents 0.0 0.2 0.2 2.0 variable 1
10 m in 60 s and was left behind the wave, which moved 3B no mean currents 0.0 0.2 0.025 0.25 variable 1
3C variable 0.0 0.2 0.10 0.5 variable 1
with a wave speed of 4.03 m/s and traveled a distance of
241.8 m in the same time. In the first 10 s, the top hat a
Case 3A is a simple wave, 3B is solitary wave, and 3C is an undular
moved about 5 m and the rate of movement decreased such bore.

10 of 14
W12406 DEVKOTA AND IMBERGER: ADVECTION-DIFFUSION TRANSPORT W12406

Figure 8. Pure advection of a top hat tracer distribution in a simple wave, case 3A, with (a) simple wave
VELOCITY profile and (b) evolution of the top hat concentration.

4.2.2. Pure Advection Mass Transport in Solitary
Waves
[27] The velocity field used in this simulation represents a
solitary wave velocity field (Figure 9a), that is almost exact
to the analytical solution as described by Devkota and
Imberger [2009b]. The small tail behind the wave, seen in
the velocity profile, is a characteristic of a propagating
solitary wave of the type used in this simulation as
described by Devkota and Imberger [2009b]. The mean
current velocity varied from 0 to 0.6 m/s and the wave
speed was approximately 3.431 m/s, but the wavelength
was much shorter (approximately 20 m) and velocity
dropped off to zero within 10 m from the position of the
wave peak as compared to 150 m in the simple wave. The
simulation was carried out with Dx = 0.25 m and Dt =
0.025s. This gave initial Courant number, Cr = 0.4 for
the parcel located under the wave peak, but Cr increases as
the wave evolves as explained above. Figure 9b shows the

Figure 9. Pure advection of a top hat tracer distribution in a solitary wave, case 3B, with (a) solitary
wave velocity profile and (b) evolution of the top hat tracer concentration.
11 of 14
W12406 DEVKOTA AND IMBERGER: ADVECTION-DIFFUSION TRANSPORT
Figure 10. Pure advection of a top hat tracer distribution in an undular bore, case 3C, with (a) undular
bore velocity profile and (b) evolution of the top hat tracer concentration.
evolution of a top hat distribution under a solitary wave that
was initially positioned at 100 m. The model reproduced
the exact shape of the concentration without any numerical
diffusion and oscillations. The top hat, which moved only
0.5 m in 5 s, was left behind the solitary wave, which
moved 17.15 m at the same time. In this case also, the top
width and the base of the hat increased to conserve water
volume and the mass of the tracer as explained above. After
5 s, the mean current velocity in the position of the top hat
was zero so that the top hat had not moved and was totally
left behind the wave (Figure 9b). In the absence of the mean
current, there will be no turbulent mixing, which suggests
that the solitary waves virtually do not transport any mass
of the tracer.
[28] It should be noted that in the above two examples,
the tracer was initially under the wave crest and the spatial
concentration was stretched as the wave moved forward. If
the initial tracer had been ahead of the crest of the wave,
then the spatial tracer profile would have first contracted as
the crest reached the tracer location [Devkota, 2005;
Devkota and Imberger, 2009b].
4.2.3. Pure Advection Mass Transport in Undular
Bores
[29] The velocity field used in this simulation represents a
velocity of an undular wave train as shown in Figure 10a.
Details of the computation of this velocity field and the
evolution of an undular bore are described by Devkota and
Imberger [2009b]. Unlike the simple and solitary wave
cases, the undular bore had a mean flow velocity of 0.292
m/s in the upstream region and the wave speed was
approximately 3.3 m/s. The simulation was performed with
Dx = 0.5 m and Dt = 0.1 s. This gave an initial Courant
number, Cr = 0.75 for the parcel located under the wave
peak. Figure 10b shows the evolution of the top hat tracer
distribution, which was initially located at the 100 m
position. The result exactly matches the analytical solution
12 of 14
W12406
as the top hat remained a top hat as it moves. In the present
simulation case, although the undular waves left the top
hat behind, the hat moved with the mean flow velocity
(Figure 10b).
[30] The above results show that DYRIM is able to
accurately predict transport in unsteady flow and the results
have given insights on mass transport under waves and
currents. In all the simulations, there was exact conservation
of the mass of the tracer. The conservation of the fluid
mass was also almost exact as explained by Devkota and
Imberger [2009a, 2009b]. For transport under waves, the
Courant number and time step used were small, which
were required to accurately simulate these fast moving
waves.
[31] It should be noted that as the grid stretches and
contracts, the longer parcels may have to be split and shorter
parcels merged [Devkota and Imberger, 2009a, 2009b].
This may introduce error as this new concentration after
merging and splitting is required for use in the later
computation. However, the error may be minimized by
spatial interpolation of solute mass in splitting and balanc-
ing mass while amalgamating the parcels [Manson and
Wallis, 1997]. Moreover, the error will be limited only at
the merged or split parcel at that particular time step, but not
at each time step and each parcel. Although the present
simulations have shown that merging and splitting of
parcels (grids) can be avoided, future research should be
directed toward the grid convergence studies to avoid this
splitting and merging process and on the accuracy of the
advection-diffusion simulation in the case of merging and
splitting. Also, a useful piece of further work would be to
compare the results of the fully Lagrangian model with
those of a good semi-Lagrangian model, in order to assess
the benefits of the former, in terms of accuracy and
computational efficiency, over the latter.
W12406 DEVKOTA AND IMBERGER: ADVECTION-DIFFUSION TRANSPORT
[32] The physical processes of lateral mass exchange,
between the main channel and floodplains of a river or
main channel and transient storage in the dead zones,
[Valentine and Wood, 1977] or the effect of exchange with
the hyporheic zone [Worman, 2000; Runkel, 2002] can
easily be included in the model. This may be achieved by
including a mass exchange term, depending on the concen-
tration gradient, in the transport equation in the similar to
what is done for the momentum exchange formulation
between the river channel and floodplains [Devkota, 2005;
Devkota and Imberger, 2009a].
5. Conclusions
[33] A computationally efficient Lagrangian method is
presented for solving one-dimensional advection-diffusion
transport in steady and unsteady open channel flows. The
model is a transport algorithm of the Lagrangian river
model DYRIM that moves parcels (or grids) with the mean
flow velocity. The method employs a Crank-Nicolson type
scheme that can be used in explicit, semi-implicit, or fully
implicit modes. The model was validated against analytical
solutions and numerical results obtained with the QUICKEST
method for benchmark test problems that included Gaussian
tracer distributions, top hat tracer distributions and steep tracer
fronts (step function) in both uniform flow and flow because of
a traveling wave. Pure advection transport in steady, uniform
flow showed that the Lagrangian scheme totally avoided
numerical diffusion and oscillations and provided exact sol-
utions. The model is efficient in that it allowed the use of a
large time step and large Courant numbers (results are pre-
sented for Cr 0 to 20), and entire range of Peclet numbers (from
zero to infinity) including for steep front problems. For the
case of transport under a wavefield, the simulations confirmed
that the wave propagated through the tracer field with no
numerical artifacts.
[34] As the model allows a long time step to be used, it
forms an ideal tool for the simulation of long-term transport
for seasonal- and basin-scale variation of water quality in a
large river system.
[35] Acknowledgments. The opportunity to do this research was
made possible by an International Postgraduate Research Scholarship (IPRS)
and financial support from the University of Western Australia. In addition,
the authors wish to express their thanks to the colleagues of the Centre for
Water Research for helpful comments and discussions related to this work.
References
Abbott, M. B., and D. R. Basco (1995), Computational Fluid Dynamics: An
Introduction for Engineers, Longman, Harlow, U. K.
Bradford, S. F., and N. D. Katopodes (2000), The anti-dissipative, non-
monotone behavior of Petrov-Galerkin upwinding, Int. J. Numer. Methods
Fluids, 33, 583 – 608, doi:10.1002/1097-0363(20000630)33:4
<583::AID-FLD23>3.0.CO;2-W.
Cahyono, M. (1993), Three-dimensional numerical modeling of sediment
transport processes in non-stratified estuarine and coastal waters, Ph.D.
thesis, Dep. of Civ. Eng., Univ. of Bradford, Bradford, U. K.
Celia, M. A., W. G. Gray, G. F. Pinder, L. A. Ferrand, and W. G. Brebbia
(1988), Numerical Methods for Transport and Hydrologic Processes:
Proceedings of the VII International Conference, MIT, USA, June
1988, vol. 2, Computational Methods in Water Resources, Comput.
Mech., Boston.
Chanson, H. (2000), Boundary shear stress measurements in undular flows:
Application to standing wave bed forms, Water Resour. Res., 36(10),
3063 – 3076, doi:10.1029/2000WR900154.
13 of 14
W12406
Chanson, H. (2004), Mixing and dispersion role of tidal bores, in Fluvial,
Environmental and Coastal Developments in Hydraulic Engineering:
Proceedings of the International Workshop on State-of-the-Art Hydraulic
Engineering, Bari, Italy, 16 – 19 February 2004, edited by M. Mossa et
al., pp. 223 – 232, Taylor and Francis, Haarlem, Netherlands.
Devkota, B. H. (2005), A new Lagrangian model for the dynamics and
transport of river and shallow water flow, Ph.D. thesis, Cent. for Water
Res., Univ. of West. Aust., Australia.
Devkota, B. H., and J. Imberger (2009a), Lagrangian modeling of the
dynamics of river and flood plain flow, J. Hydraul. Eng., 135(10),
771 – 782.
Devkota, B. H., and J. Imberger (2009b), Lagrangian modeling of
weakly nonlinear nonhydrostatic shallow water waves in open chan-
nels, J. Hydraul. Eng., 135(11), 926 – 934.
Durran, D. A. (1999), Numerical Methods for Wave Equations in Geophy-
sical Fluid Dynamics, Springer, New York.
Fischer, H. B. (1972), A Lagrangian method for predicting pollutants dis-
persion in Bolinas Lagoon, Martin Country, California, U.S. Geol. Surv.
Prof. Pap. 582-B.
Fischer, H. B., E. J. List, R. C. Y. Koh, J. Imberger, and N. H. Brooks
(1979), Mixing in Inland and Coastal Waters, Academic, New York.
Fletcher, C. A. J. (1991), Computational Techniques for Fluid Dynamics,
vol. 1, Springer, Berlin.
Frazao, S. S., and Y. Zech (2002), Undular bores and secondary waves—
Experiments and hybrid finite-volume modeling, J. Hydraul. Res., 40(1),
33 – 43.
Gross, E. D., J. R. Koseff, and S. G. Monismith (1999), Evaluation of
advective schemes for estuarine salinity simulations, J. Hydraul. Eng.,
125(1), 32 – 46, doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9429(1999)125:1(32).
Hoffmann, K. A., and S. T. Chiang (1993), Computational Fluid Dynamics
for Engineers, Eng. Educ. Syst., Austin, Texas.
Holly, F. M., and A. Preissmann (1977), Accurate calculation of transport in
two dimensions, J. Hydraul. Div. Am. Soc. Civ. Eng, 103(11), 1259 –
1277.
Huyakorn, P. S. (1978), An upwind finite element scheme for improved
solution of the convective-diffusion equation, Rep. 76-WR-2, Water
Resour. Program, Princeton Univ., Princeton, N. J.
Jobson, H. E. (1987), Lagrangian model of nitrogen kinetics in the
Chatthoochee River, J. Environ. Eng., 113(2), 223 – 242, doi:10.1061/
(ASCE)0733-9372(1987)113:2(223).
Leonard, B. P. (1979), A stable and accurate convective modeling proce-
dure based on quadratic upstream interpolation, Comput. Methods Appl.
Mech. Eng., 19, 59 – 98, doi:10.1016/0045-7825(79)90034-3.
Leonard, B. P. (1991), The ULTIMATE conservative difference scheme
applied to unsteady one-dimensional advection, Comput. Methods Appl.
Mech. Eng., 88, 17 – 74, doi:10.1016/0045-7825(91)90232-U.
Lin, B., and R. A. Falconer (1997), Tidal flow and transport modeling using
ULTIMATE QUICKEST scheme, J. Hydraul. Eng., 123(4), 303 – 314,
doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9429(1997)123:4(303).
Manson, J. R., and S. G. Wallis (1997), Towards an accurate fate and
transport model for non-uniform surface waters, Adv. Environ. Res.,
1(1), 98 – 114.
Manson, J. R., S. G. Wallis, and D. Hope (2001), A Conservative semi-
Lagrangian transport model for rivers with transient storage zones, Water
Resour. Res., 37(12), 3321 – 3329, doi:10.1029/2001WR000230.
McBride, G. B., and J. C. Rutherford (1984), Accurate modeling of river
pollutant transport, J. Environ. Eng., 110(4), 808 – 827, doi:10.1061/
(ASCE)0733-9372(1984)110:4(808).
Neuman, S. P. (1984), Adaptive Eulerian-Lagrangian finite element method
for advection-dispersion, Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng., 20, 321 – 397,
doi:10.1002/nme.1620200211.
Runkel, R. L. (2002), A new metric for determining the importance of
transient storage, J. North Am. Benthol. Soc., 21(4), 529 – 543.
Schoellhamer, H. (1988), Lagrangian transport modeling with QUAL II
kinetics, J. Environ. Eng., 114(2), 369 – 381.
Sinokrot, B., and H. G. Stefan (1993), Stream temperature dynamics: Mea-
surement and modeling, Water Resour. Res., 29(7), 2299 – 2312,
doi:10.1029/93WR00540.
Staniforth, A., and J. Cote (1991), Semi-Lagrangian transport schemes for
atmospheric models—A review, Mon. Weather Rev., 119(9), 2206 – 2223,
doi:10.1175/1520-0493(1991)119<2206:SLISFA>2.0.CO;2.
Thomann, R. V. (1998), The future ‘‘Golden Age’’ of predictive models for
surface water quality and ecosystem management, J. Environ. Eng.,
124(2), 94 – 103, doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9372(1998)124:2(94).
Valentine, E. M., and I. R. Wood (1977), Longitudinal dispersion with dead
zones, J. Hydraul. Div. Am. Soc. Civ. Eng., 103(9), 975 – 990.
W12406 DEVKOTA AND IMBERGER: ADVECTION-DIFFUSION TRANSPORT W12406

van Genuchten, M. T., and W. G. Gray (1978), Analysis of some dispersion
corrected numerical schemes for solution of the transport equation, Int. J.
Numer. Methods Eng., 12, 387 – 404.
Worman, A. (2000), Comparison of models for transient storage in small
steams, Water Resour. Res., 36(2), 455 – 468, doi:10.1029/
1999WR900281.
Yeh, G. T. (1990), A Lagrangian-Eulerian method with zoomable hidden
fine-mesh approach to solving advection-dispersion equation, Water
Resour. Res., 26(6), 1133 – 1144.
Yeh, G. T., J. R. Chang, and E. T. Short (1992), An exact peak capturing and
oscillations-free scheme to solve advection-dispersion transport equations,
Water Resour. Res., 28(11), 2937 – 2951, doi:10.1029/92WR01751.
Zhang, R., K. Huang, and M. T. van Genuchten (1993), An efficient
Eulerian-Lagrangian method for solving solute transport problems in
steady and transient fields, Water Resour. Res., 29(12), 4131 – 4138,
doi:10.1029/93WR01674.


B. H. Devkota, Water Corporation, Leederville, WA 6007, Australia.
(bishnu.devkota@watercorporation. com.au)
J. Imberger, Centre for Water Research, University of Western Australia,
35 Stirling Highway, Crawley, WA 6009, Australia.

14 of 14