Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />Andrews and Nelson <br /> <br />125.0 <br />00 <br />10 <br />20 <br />30 <br />4.0 <br />5.0 <br />6.0 <br /> <br />00 <br />1.0 <br />2.0 <br />3.0 <br />4.0 <br />5.0 <br />60 <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />:I: 0.0 <br />!i: 10 <br />~ 2.0 <br />30 <br />4.0 <br />5.0 <br />60 <br /> <br />00 <br />1.0 <br />2.0 <br />3.0 <br />4.0 <br />5.0 <br />6.0 <br /> <br />00 <br />10 <br />2.0 <br />3.0 <br />4.0 <br />5.0 <br />60 <br /> <br />479 <br /> <br />DISTANCE FROM CENTERLINE [M] <br />0.0 <br /> <br />-1250 <br /> <br /> <br />18 <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />16 <br /> <br /> <br />24 <br /> <br /> <br />22 <br /> <br /> <br />20 <br /> <br />Fig. 7. Predicted evolution of bar topography at 5 cross sections during a discharge of 275 <br />m3/s for 2 days. Dashed line shows original topography and eolid line shows fmal. <br />topography. <br /> <br />(~change in bed elevation. Downstream froin section 16, however, a complex pattern <br />I of scour and fill develops. Significant erosion of the primary channel occurs along <br />I the entire length of the bar. Between cross sections 18 to 20, the secondary channel <br />! also erodes through a much slower rate than in the primary channel. Downstream <br />Lfrom cross section 20, located near the crest of the bars, sediment accumulates very <br /> <br /> <br />