Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://hdl.handle.net/10953/1347
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorCarling, Paul A.-
dc.contributor.authorBohorquez, Patricio-
dc.contributor.authorFan, Xuanmei-
dc.date.accessioned2023-11-29T07:36:47Z-
dc.date.available2023-11-29T07:36:47Z-
dc.date.issued2020-04-07-
dc.identifier.citationCarling P.A., Bohorquez P., Fan X. Hydraulic control on the development of megaflood runup deposits. Geomorphology, 361: 107203, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2020.107203es_ES
dc.identifier.issn1872-695Xes_ES
dc.identifier.otherhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2020.107203es_ES
dc.identifier.uri10.1016/j.geomorph.2020.107203es_ES
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/10953/1347-
dc.description.abstractRunup deposits are veneers of alluvium that drape floodway valley side walls above the height of giant bars deposited during megafloods. Given sufficient sediment supply, the highest giant bars, deposited in re-entrants along the flood margins, tend to grow to close to the maximum time-averaged water level of the flood. However, considerable fluctuations in the water level, caused by sediment-charged floodwaters surging over shorter time-scales, are responsible for the higher runup deposits. Here, the theoretical calculations of the expected maximum runup heights are compared with surveyed heights of six runup deposits in the Chuja Valley, Altai, Siberia. The limitations and strengths of the theoretical approach are identified and modified parameters proposed that can be used to provide partial explanation for the differences between theory and observation. Conceptually, surging can be viewed as caused by four interrelated elements: (1) propagation of undular weir flow; (2) macroturbulence; (3) flow separation; and (4) standing, reflection and interference waves. The heights of the observed runup deposits primarily are related to the depth of the flood water above the bar tops and, to a lesser extent, the Froude number, but tend to lie below the maximum surge heights of the modelled flow. Changes in the effective geometry of the flow re-entrant, mediating flow patterns, as water depth increases is likely the cause of mismatch between theory and observation. Runup deposits may also lie at lower elevations than predicted because of sediment supply considerations and the return flow of surges ‘combing’ down deposits. Nonetheless, the difference between observed and predicted runup heights is often only a few tens of metres such that, for deep floods, runup deposits potentially are useful palaeostage indicators. The analysis also indicates that upper-stage plane beds do not dominate bar tops, rather bar top deposition was primarily to lower-stage plane beds, from dense suspensions.es_ES
dc.description.sponsorshipThis work was supported by the Spanish Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universities (MICINN/FEDER, UE) under Grant CGL2015-70736-R and by the National Science Fund for Outstanding Young Scholars of China (Grant No. 41622206), the Fund for Creative Research Groups of China (Grant No. 41521002), the State Key Laboratory of Geohazard Prevention and Geoenvironment Protection Independent Research Project (SKLGP2019Z002).es_ES
dc.language.isoenges_ES
dc.publisherElsevieres_ES
dc.relation.ispartofGeomorphology 2020; 361: 107203es_ES
dc.rightsAtribución-NoComercial-SinDerivadas 3.0 España*
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/es/*
dc.subjectMegafloodes_ES
dc.subjectGiant barses_ES
dc.subjectRunup depositses_ES
dc.subjectFlood hydraulicses_ES
dc.titleHydraulic control on the development of megaflood runup depositses_ES
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/articlees_ES
dc.rights.accessRightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccesses_ES
dc.type.versioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/acceptedVersiones_ES
Appears in Collections:DIMM-Artículos

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
GEO2020.pdfCarling P.A., Bohorquez P., Fan X. Hydraulic control on the development of megaflood runup deposits. Geomorphology, 361: 107203, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2020.1072032,96 MBAdobe PDFView/Open


This item is protected by original copyright