Environmental Modelling and Software 159 (2023) 105544

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Environmental Modelling and Software

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/envsoft

GAIA - a unified framework for sediment transport and bed evolution in

rivers, coastal seas and transitional waters in the TELEMAC-MASCARET
modelling system
Pablo Tassi a,b ,∗, Thomas Benson c , Matthieu Delinares d , Jacques Fontaine e , Nicolas Huybrechts f ,
Rebekka Kopmann g , Sara Pavan a , Chi-Tuan Pham a , Florent Taccone a , Régis Walther d
a
Électricité de France Research & Development (EDF R&D), National Hydraulics and Environment Laboratory (LNHE), Chatou, France
b
Saint-Venant Hydraulics Laboratory, Chatou, France
c
HR Wallingford, Wallingford, United Kingdom
d
Artelia, Echirolles, France
e
Électricité de France (EDF), Saint-Denis, France
f CEREMA, Margny-lès-Compiègne, France
g Bundesanstalt für Wasserbau (BAW), Karlsruhe, Germany

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: In rivers, coastal seas and transitional waters, sediment transport processes involve a variety of interacting
Telemac-Mascaret factors that dynamically vary over time and space. The flow dynamics within these highly heterogeneous
Sediment transport natural systems influences the spatial patterns of erosion and deposition of the bed sediments, which in turn
Morphodynamics
shapes and conditions the bottom morphology. By taking advantage of the established modelling framework in
Hydraulics
both two- and three dimensions for unstructured meshes proposed within the Telemac-Mascaret system, the new
Numerical modelling
Hydrodynamics
module Gaia provides a code structure for solving sediment transport and morphological evolution problems.
By a clear treatment of sedimentary processes that happen in the water column, in the bed structure, and at
the water–bed interface, Gaia efficiently manages the spatial and temporal variability of sediment size classes,
properties and transport modes for two- and three dimensions. In addition, this module can easily be expanded
and customised to particular requirements by modifying user-friendly, easy-to-read, and well-documented
FORTRAN-90 subroutines.

1. Introduction
In rivers, coastal seas and transitional (estuaries, lagoons, etc.)
waters, sediment transport processes involve a variety of interact-
ing factors that dynamically vary over time and space. According to
the spatial and temporal scale being considered, the flow dynamics
within these highly heterogeneous natural systems influences both
sedimentary processes and spatial patterns of erosion and deposition
of the bed sediments, which in turn shapes and conditions the en-
vironment. For instance, over long timescales, if forcing conditions
and sediment supply remain relatively stable, the morphology of the
system will ultimately reach a quasi-equilibrium. However, over shorter
scales, this balance can be altered by both natural causes and human
pressures (Masselink et al., 2011; Rhoads, 2020).
Consequently, understanding and predicting the sediment dynamics
and related hydromorphological changes is important for evaluating
the modification of sedimentary features, or for assessing the departure
from naturalness of the body of water. Moreover, these adjustments can
also be intrinsically related with biological (e.g. bacteria, vegetation,
benthic communities) or chemical processes (e.g. pollutants, polymers),
among others (Larsen et al., 2021; Siviglia and Crosato, 2016).
Before the 1970s, solutions to most engineering problems involving
sediment transport processes were determined through field investi-
gations and/or physical scale models in laboratory (Wu, 2007). From
the early 70s, advancements in computer technology and methods
for the solution of scientific and engineering problems propelled the
application of mechanistic models to predict sediment transport pro-
cesses. Mathematical tools describing flow, sediment transport, and
morphological change processes in a water body, consist of a set of
partial differential algebraic equations (PDEs), completed with suitable
initial and boundary conditions and closure relationships.
Analytical or closed-form solutions of these mechanistic models for
the prediction of sediment transport processes provide a quantitative

∗ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: pablo.tassi@edf.fr (P. Tassi).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2022.105544
Received 25 May 2022; Received in revised form 30 September 2022; Accepted 2 October 2022
Available online 18 October 2022
1364-8152/© 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
P. Tassi et al.
means of rapidly describing systematic trends associated with the phe-
nomenon. Nevertheless, they cannot be expected to provide accurate
solutions to problems involving, for example, complex geometries,
time-varying boundary conditions, etc. To overcome these limitations,
numerical solutions are often the most efficient and practical methods
for predicting sediment transport in complex natural systems (James
et al., 2010).
Thanks to the effort of several research institutes from both the
industry and academia, a number of computational models are cur-
rently available and widely applicable to practical cases involving
sediment transport processes. These models have been developed for
different spatial dimensions, flow states, sediment size classes, and
transport modes (Wu, 2007). Their solution relies on the numerical
approximation used for the solution of the PDEs where, according to the
numerical method and nature of sub-spaces used in the approximation,
the given problem is reduced to an algebraic problem having finite
dimension, which can be solved from a selection of convenient algo-
rithms (Quarteroni and Valli, 2009). A coupling strategy based on the
flow field is generally adopted. This procedure usually includes defining
an updating strategy of the flow and sediment transport variables,
the numerical bed updating schemes and morphological acceleration
techniques (Roelvink, 2011).
The numerical simulation of sediment transport processes in river
systems has increased dramatically over the past several decades
(Kaveh et al., 2019). Physical processes observed in morphological
structures commonly found in alluvial systems such as bar units,
bifurcations, etc. (Rhoads, 2020), can be efficiently captured with
standard computational resources. Open-source software packages like
Delft3D (Lesser et al., 2004), iRIC (Shimizu et al., 2020), Basement
(Vanzo et al., 2021), HEC-RAS 2D Sediment (USACE, 2022), SRH-2D (Lai
and Gaeuman, 2020), and Telemac-Mascaret (Villaret et al., 2013),
among others, are able to capture the dynamics of river systems at
different space and time scales.
Many of the numerical tools developed for coastal and transitional
waters derive from methods applied for the solution of river pro-
cesses (Roelvink, 2011). According to their dimensionality, these mod-
els resolve variations in flow and transport along the horizontal direc-
tions for two-dimensional models and along the horizontal and vertical
directions for three-dimensional models. Such models can be applied
to both small-scale and macro-scale problems, for different types of
flow and wave models (Roelvink, 2011). Typical examples of com-
putational models currently available to solve coastal and transitional
water problems are Adcirc (Mirabito et al., 2011), Coawst (Warner et al.,
2010), Mars3d (Grasso et al., 2018), Roms (Sherwood et al., 2018), and
Xbeach (Roelvink et al., 2009).
The Telemac-Mascaret modelling system offers an established mod-
elling framework in both two- (2D) and three-dimensions (3D) for
unstructured meshes. It is an integrated set of open source modular
FORTRAN-90 subroutines, which provide the software architecture nec-
essary for the numerical solution of the governing equations, namely
the data structure, the algebraic operations, and the building and
solving phases (Nheili et al., 2016). Simulations can be launched in
both serial mode or on multiple processors using distributed-memory
architecture (MPI). It also benefits from a Python wrapper and a
FORTRAN API (Application Program Interface) (Goeury et al., 2017),
allowing full control of a running simulation. This software interface
can be used for implementing efficient calibration algorithms based
on data assimilation (Poncot et al., 2017), and to perform sensitivity
analysis and uncertainty quantification (Mouradi et al., 2016). Pre-,
post-processing and analysis tools are available through a set of Python
scripts included in the system’s distribution (Audouin et al., 2019), and
by means of third-party software such as BlueKenue, Paraview, and
others.
In light of this, the sediment transport and bed evolution module
Sisyphe of the Telemac-Mascaret modelling system has been developed
for more than 25 years (Latteux and Tanguy, 1990), originally based on
2
Environmental Modelling and Software 159 (2023) 105544
the finite element structure used to solve the shallow water equations.
Despite its robustness, flexibility and capability of dealing with a large
number of river (Cordier et al., 2019; Dutta et al., 2017; Mendoza
et al., 2017), coastal (Brown and Davies, 2009; Robins et al., 2014;
Van den Eynde et al., 2010), and estuarine (Santoro et al., 2019,
2017; Giardino et al., 2009) sediment transport and morphodynamics
problems (Villaret et al., 2013), a number of issues arose regarding the
improvement of the treatment of graded and mixed (cohesive and non-
cohesive) sediments, as well as the full compatibility between 2D and
3D processes.
Gaia, building upon the Sisyphe module, is able to model complex
sediment and morphodynamic processes in coastal areas, rivers, lakes
and estuaries, accounting for spatial and temporal variability of sed-
iment size classes (uniform, graded or mixed), properties (cohesive
and non-cohesive) and transport modes (suspended, bedload or both
processes simultaneously). The generalised framework used for bed
layering enables any combination of multiple size classes for both
non-cohesive and cohesive sediment to be modelled simultaneously.
Compatibility is ensured between an active layer model (an approach
traditionally adopted for non-cohesive sediment) and the presence of
different classes of fine sediments and consolidation processes.
Although invisible to the end user, suspended sediment transport
processes are dealt with by the hydrodynamic modules of the Telemac-
Mascaret modelling system (Telemac-2D or Telemac-3D), while near-bed,
bedload and processes in the bottom layer are handled by Gaia. This
allows a clearer treatment of sedimentary processes that happen in the
water column, in the bed structure and at the water–bed interface.
The forcing effects from waves are computed from the coupled wave
propagation module Tomawac (Benoit et al., 1996). Gaia can also be cou-
pled with the modules for sediment dredging Nestor (Open Telemac-
Mascaret, 2022a) and water quality Waqtel (Open Telemac-Mascaret,
2022c).
2. Sediment transport processes
Numerical simulations of sediment transport processes in rivers,
coastal seas and transitional waters can be performed by integrating
several modules accounting for different physical mechanisms, act-
ing according their characteristic time response. Relevant mechanisms
driving morphological changes are: (𝑖) hydrodynamics, (𝑖𝑖) sediment
transport, with predictors for the sediment transport capacity, and (𝑖𝑖𝑖)
bed evolution, with a conservation law for sediment mass (Tassi et al.,
2008).
2.1. Hydrodynamics
2.1.1. Currents
The hydrodynamic modules Telemac-2D (Hervouet, 2007) and
Telemac-3D (Open Telemac-Mascaret, 2022b) provide the flow field
needed to compute sediment transport and morphological processes in
2D and 3D spatial dimensions, respectively.
Telemac-2D solves the two-dimensional, depth-averaged shallow wa-
ter equations which implicitly assume hydrostatic pressure distribution,
constant fluid density and depth-averaged velocity components (Vreug-
denhil, 2013; Lane, 1998).
Telemac-3D solves the three-dimensional, free surface Navier–Stokes
equations based on the pressure decomposition. This module allows
consideration of either a hydrostatic or non-hydrostatic pressure hy-
pothesis. The hydrostatic approximation eliminates the need to solve
the three-dimensional Poisson equation for the dynamic pressure, thereby
decreasing computational resources. Conversely, in many cases the
dynamic pressure and the vertical acceleration are not negligible and
the non-hydrostatic approach is needed to effectively capture relevant
sedimentary processes. Density variations in buoyant flows mainly
affect the flow dynamics through the gravity term. The difference in
density 𝛥𝜌 = 𝜌 − 𝜌0 is a deviation of the water density 𝜌 (kg/m3 ) with
P. Tassi et al.
respect to some reference value 𝜌0 (kg/m3 ). In Telemac-3D, it is given
by an equation of state that may be dependent on the temperature, the
salinity and/or the sediment concentration.
For both 2D and 3D models, a number of relationships must be
specified to close the governing equations. The classical squared func-
tion dependency on depth-averaged velocity is used to parameterise the
bed resistance, with Strickler, Manning, Chézy, Haaland or Nikuradse
dimensionless friction coefficients. The Boussinesq approximation is
used for the turbulence parameterisation, with eddy viscosity val-
ues calculated by using one of the options available for turbulence-
closure models such as constant viscosity, Elder, 𝑘 − 𝜖, Smagorinski,
mixing length, 𝑘 − 𝜔 or Spalart–Allmaras. In addition, turbulence-
closure models can be enhanced for simulating a broader range of flow
fields by using the available damping functions, such as the Munk–
Anderson (Winterwerp and Kranenburg, 2002), Viollet (Viollet, 1987),
or a user-defined function.
Telemac-2D uses the finite element and finite volume methods for
solving the governing equations, with an unstructured triangular mesh
discretisation. For Telemac-3D, the computational domain is discretised
with a triangular element mesh over an horizontal plane as for Telemac-
2D, followed by extruding each triangle along the vertical direction into
linear prismatic columns spanning the water column from the bottom
to the free surface. Each column is composed of a fixed number of
prismatic elements whose vertical spacing can be adjusted accordingly,
e.g. to increase the resolution near the bottom and the free surface.
To take into account the domain movement along the vertical direc-
tion, a technique combining Arbitrary Lagrangian–Eulerian (ALE) and
sigma transformation approaches is used in Telemac-3D (Decoene and
Gerbeau, 2009).
In addition, both Telemac-2D and Telemac-3D incorporate radiation-
stress terms to the momentum equations, which are relevant for an
accurate representation of coastal processes when the influence of
the waves is considered. The wave radiation stresses and their corre-
sponding gradients are computed within the wave model Tomawac and
interpolated in space and time in the 2D and 3D flow models.
2.1.2. Waves propagation
In Gaia, the influence of waves on sediment transport processes can
be included using the wave-generated oscillatory or orbital velocity 𝑈𝑤
(m/s) (Roelvink, 2011; Soulsby, 1997). According to the wave’s char-
acteristics and assuming the validity of the linear waves theory, either
(𝑖) regular (monochromatic) or (𝑖𝑖) irregular (spectral) waves can be
considered. Following Soulsby and Smallman (1986), the latter method
calculates the RMS orbital velocity 𝑈𝑟𝑚𝑠 produced by all the waves in
a JONSWAP spectrum√ and then converts it to a monochromatic orbital
velocity 𝑈𝑤 = 2𝑈𝑟𝑚𝑠 . The former method computes the maximum
wave orbital velocity as follows:
𝐻𝑠 𝜔
𝑈𝑤 = ,
2 sinh(𝑘ℎ)
where ℎ is the water depth (m), 𝐻𝑠 is the significant wave height
(m), 𝜔 = 2𝜋∕𝑇𝑝 is the intrinsic angular frequency (1/s), with 𝑇𝑝 the
wave period (s), 𝑘 = 2𝜋∕𝐿 is the wavenumber (1/m), with 𝐿 the
wavelength (m). Both 𝐻𝑠 and 𝑇𝑝 are computed from the waves module
Tomawac (Benoit et al., 1996). The wavenumber is calculated from the
dispersion relationship:
𝜔2 = 𝑔𝑘 tanh(𝑘ℎ),
with 𝑔 the acceleration due to gravity (m∕s2 ).
The bed shear-stress due to waves alone 𝜏𝑤 (N/m2 ) is calculated
as function of 𝑈𝑤 , by using a friction factor 𝑓𝑤 (–) accounting for the
influence of waves:
1 𝐐𝑚𝑏 = 𝜌𝑠 𝐐𝑏 , with 𝐐𝑏 = (𝑄𝑏𝑥 , 𝑄𝑏𝑦 ) = (𝑄𝑏 cos 𝛼, 𝑄𝑏 sin 𝛼).
𝜏𝑤 = 𝜌𝑓𝑤 𝑈𝑤2 .
2
The wave friction factor 𝑓𝑤 is computed according to Soulsby (1997)
as follows:
( )
𝑓𝑤 = 𝑓𝑤 𝐴0 ∕𝑘𝑠 ,
3
Environmental Modelling and Software 159 (2023) 105544
where 𝐴0 = 𝑈𝑤 ∕𝜔 (m) is the semi-orbital excursion and 𝑘𝑠 (m) the bed
roughness. In Gaia, the expression proposed by Swart (1976) has been
implemented:
(
⎧ ( )−0.19 )
⎪exp −6.0 + 5.2 𝐴0 , if
𝐴0
> 1.59
𝑓𝑤 = ⎨ 𝑘𝑠 𝑘𝑠
⎪0.30, otherwise
⎩
In coastal seas, the effect of waves superimposed onto a mean cur-
rent can have an impact on the sediment transport and morphody-
namic processes. As the bed shear-stress varies through a wave cycle,
the following quantities are computed in Gaia for sediment transport
calculations (Soulsby, 2012, 1997):
The mean shear-stress value 𝜏𝑚 (N/m2 ), computed over the wave-
cycle:
[ ( )3∕2 ]
𝜏𝑤
𝜏𝑚 = 𝜏𝑏 1 + 1.2 , (1)
𝜏𝑏 + 𝜏𝑤
with 𝜏𝑏 the bed shear-stress due to current alone (N/m2 ).
The maximum bed shear-stress 𝜏𝑚𝑎𝑥 (N/m2 ) during the wave-cycle
is computed as follows:
[( )2 ( )2 ]1∕2
𝜏𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 𝜏𝑚 + 𝜏𝑤 | cos 𝜙𝑤𝑐 | + 𝜏𝑤 | sin 𝜙𝑤𝑐 | , (2)
with 𝜙𝑤𝑐 the angle between the current and wave directions (◦ ).
The root-mean-square value 𝜏𝑟𝑚𝑠 (N/m2 ) taken over the wave-cycle
is computed by the expression:
( )
1 2 1∕2
𝜏𝑟𝑚𝑠 = 𝜏𝑚2 + 𝜏𝑤 . (3)
2
2.2. Sediment transport processes in the water column
Suspended sediment particles being transported by the flow at a
given time and maintained in temporary suspension above the bot-
tom by the action of upward-moving turbulent eddies are commonly
called suspended load (Garcia, 2008). The equation describing mass
conservation of suspended sediment is the advection–diffusion equation
(ADE), that is valid only for dilute suspensions of particles that are
not too coarse. Within Gaia, the solution of the ADE, completed with
appropriate boundary and initial conditions, is computed by Telemac-2D
or Telemac-3D for 2D and 3D cases respectively. The solution procedure
remains invisible to the user since the physical parameters are provided
by the Gaia steering file. Two advantages of this procedure are evi-
dent: (𝑖) to stay up-to-date with the numerical schemes and algorithm
developments in the hydrodynamics modules for the solution of the
advection terms, and (𝑖𝑖) for a clearer distinction between sediment
transport processes happening in the water column, in the near-bed,
and in the bed structure (for example in cases where exchanges with
the bottom are not required such as suspended sediment transport over
a rigid bed).
2.3. Sediment transport processes in the bottom
2.3.1. Bedload transport
Sediment particles which are transported in direct contact with the
bottom or next to the bed without being affected by the fluid turbulence
are commonly called bedload. In Gaia bedload fluxes are computed
in terms of (dry) mass transport rate per unit width, without pores
(kg/m s):
(4)
Above, 𝐐𝑏 is the vector of volumetric transport rate per unit width
without pores (m2 /s), with components (𝑄𝑏𝑥 , 𝑄𝑏𝑦 ) along the 𝑥 and 𝑦
directions, respectively and module 𝑄𝑏 , 𝛼 (◦ ) is the angle between
the sediment transport vector and the downstream direction (𝑥-axis),
P. Tassi et al. Environmental Modelling and Software 159 (2023) 105544

Table 1
Bedload transport formulas implemented in Gaia. Formulas allowing to account for the effect of waves are indicated with the
symbol ‘‘✓’’. Formulas that do not incorporate explicitly the effect of waves are indicated with the symbol ‘‘✗’’.
Bedload transport formula Waves Reference
Meyer-Peter & Müller ✗ García (2006) and Wong and Parker
(2006)
Einstein–Brown ✗ Einstein (1950) and Rouse (1949)
Engelund–Hansen ✗ Engelund and Hansen (1967)
Engelund–Hansen, modified by Chollet & Cunge ✗ Engelund and Hansen (1967) and
Chollet and Cunge (1979)
Hunziker ✗ Hunziker (1995)
Wilcock & Crowe ✗ Wilcock and Crowe (2003)
van Rijn ✗ van Rijn (1984)
Soulsby & van Rijn ✓ Soulsby (1997)
Bailard ✓ Bailard (1981)
Dibajnia & Watanabe ✓ Dibajnia and Watanabe (1992)

and 𝜌𝑠 the sediment density (kg∕m3 ). The non-dimensional sediment currents. In Gaia, the default value of 𝐴 = 7, as originally proposed
transport rate 𝛷𝑏 is expressed by (Wu, 2007): by Engelund (1974).
𝑄𝑏 Two methods are proposed in Gaia for the correction of the mag-
𝛷𝑏 = √ , (5) nitude of the sediment transport. The method proposed by Koch and
𝑔(𝑠 − 1)𝑑 3
Flokstra (1980) is based on the modification of the bed load transport
with 𝑠 = 𝜌𝑠 ∕𝜌 the relative density (–); 𝜌 the water density (kg∕m3 ); 𝑑 rate by a factor that acts as a diffusion term in the bed evolution
the sand grain diameter (m), and 𝑔 the gravity acceleration constant equation:
(m∕s2 ). Different choices of empirical formulae for computing 𝛷𝑏 can ( ) [ ( )]
𝜕𝑧 𝜕𝑧𝑏 𝜕𝑧
be selected by the user, by default corresponding to the Meyer-Peter 𝑄∗𝑏 = 𝑄𝑏 1 − 𝛽 𝑏 = 𝑄𝑏 1 − 𝛽 cos 𝛼 + 𝑏 sin 𝛼 , (8)
𝜕𝑠 𝜕𝑥 𝜕𝑦
and Müller formula. In Gaia, available sediment transport rate formulas
are shown in Table 1. Other sediment transport formulas can easily be where 𝑄∗𝑏 is the modified bedload transport rate, 𝑠 is the flow direction
implemented by the user within the FORTRAN-90 code. and 𝛽 is an empirical factor accounting for the streamwise bed slope
Three key aspects must usually be considered for computing the effect (= 1.3 by default).
magnitude and direction of the bedload (Abad et al., 2008), namely the The correction proposed by Soulsby (1997) is based on the modifi-
effect of the local bed slope; secondary flow effects on the direction of cation of the critical Shields parameter and is therefore only valid for
the bed shear stress, also referred as to helical flows; and the bed shear threshold bedload formulas:
stress, partitioned into components affected by skin friction and drag √
force from bedforms, also known as form drag. Gaia includes methods 𝜏𝛽𝑐𝑟 cos 𝜓 sin 𝜒 + cos2 𝜒 tan2 𝜙 − sin2 𝜓 sin2 𝜒
= ,
for evaluating these three aspects. 𝜏𝑐𝑟 tan 𝜙
The angle 𝛼 between the sediment transport direction and the 𝑥-axis where 𝜏𝛽𝑐𝑟 is the corrected critical Shields number for a sloping bed
direction will deviate from that of the shear stress due to the combined (N/m2 ), 𝜏𝑐𝑟 (N/m2 ) is the critical Shields number for a flat, horizontal
action of a transverse slope and secondary currents. In a Cartesian bed, 𝜙 is the angle of repose of the sediment (◦ ), 𝜒 is the bed slope
coordinate system, the relation of Struiksma et al. (1985) is: angle with the horizontal (◦ ), and 𝜓 is the angle between the flow and
sin 𝛿 − 1 𝜕𝑧𝑏 the bed slope directions (◦ ).
𝑓 (𝜃) 𝜕𝑦
tan 𝛼 = . (6) The total bed shear stress is due to skin friction and bedform
1 𝜕𝑧𝑏
cos 𝛿 − 𝑓 (𝜃) 𝜕𝑥 drag (Van Rijn et al., 1993), but only the component due to skin friction
acts on bedload (Garcia, 2008). The shear stress due to skin friction is
Above, the terms 𝜕𝑧𝑏 ∕𝜕𝑥 and 𝜕𝑧𝑏 ∕𝜕𝑦 represent respectively the
expressed as:
transverse and longitudinal slopes, 𝑧𝑏 the bottom position above datum
(m) and 𝛿 the angle between the sediment transport vector and the flow 𝜏 ′ = 𝜇𝜏𝑏 , (9)
direction (◦ ). The sediment shape function 𝑓 (𝜃) is a function weighting
the influence of the transverse bed slope, expressed as a function of where 𝜏𝑏 = 0.5𝜌𝐶𝑓 (𝑈 2 + 𝑉 2 ) is the total bed shear stress and 𝜇 (–) is the
the non-dimensional shear stress or Shields parameter 𝜃. It can be friction factor:
3
computed according to (𝑖) Koch and Flokstra (1980): 𝑓 (𝜃) = 2𝜃 ; and 𝐶𝑓′
√
(𝑖𝑖) Talmon et al. (1995): 𝑓 (𝜃) = 𝛽2 𝜃, with the empirical coefficient 𝜇= , (10)
𝐶𝑓
𝛽2 (–). The default value is 𝛽2 = 0.85, but an optimal value of 𝛽2 = 1.6
was found for the calibration of numerical experiments of dunes and where 𝐶𝑓 (–) is the friction coefficient due to form drag plus skin
bars in a laboratory channel (Mendoza et al., 2017). friction (specified in the hydrodynamics module), and 𝐶𝑓′ (–) is the
friction coefficient due only to skin friction, which is computed as:
In curved channels, the direction of the sediment transport will no
longer coincide with the direction of the bed shear stress. For two- ( )2
𝜅
dimensional simulations, the effect of secondary flows can be accounted 𝐶𝑓′ = 2 , (11)
ln(11.036ℎ∕𝑘𝑠 )
from the equation:
( ) where 𝜅 is the von Kármán coefficient (assumed to be equal to = 0.40
( )
𝑉 𝐴 (–) by default), the roughness height 𝑘𝑠 = 𝛼𝑘𝑠 𝑑50 (m), the coefficient
𝛿 = tan−1 − tan−1 ℎ , (7)
𝑈 𝑟𝑠 𝛼𝑘𝑠 is a calibration parameter (–) and 𝑑50 the median diameter of the
where ℎ the water depth (m), (𝑈 , 𝑉 ) the components of the depth- sediment material (m).
averaged velocity field along the 𝑥 and 𝑦 Cartesian directions (m/s), In coastal and transitional water zones, the presence of ripples can
respectively; 𝑟𝑠 the local radius of curvature (m) and 𝐴 the spiral flow be taken into account to compute the friction factor 𝜇 (Van Rijn et al.,
coefficient (–). Above, the second term accounts for the effect of the 1993). For this option, a bedform predictor is used to calculate the
spiral motion on the sediment flux, due to the effect of secondary bedform roughness 𝑘𝑟 (m) in order to account for the effect of ripples.

4
P. Tassi et al.
Both 𝑘𝑟 and 𝑘′𝑠 (defined below) influence the transport rates (van Rijn,
2007a). It is assumed that:
𝐶𝑓′0.75 𝐶𝑟0.25
𝜇= , (12)
𝐶𝑓
where the quadratic friction 𝐶𝑟 due to bedforms is calculated as a
function of 𝑘𝑟 (see Eq. (13)).
A natural sediment bed is generally covered with bedforms, with
wavelength 𝜆𝑑 (m) and height 𝜂𝑑 (m). In most cases, large scale models
do not resolve the small to medium scale bedforms (such as ripples or
mega-ripples) which need therefore to be parameterised by increasing
the friction coefficient. To determine the bed roughness, two options
are available in Gaia:
• By imposing the friction coefficient based on friction laws: in
this case the values of the friction coefficients are provided by
Telemac-2D or Telemac-3D.
• By computing the value of the bed roughness as a function of flow
and sediment parameters using a bed roughness predictor.
Three different options are implemented in Gaia to predict the total bed
roughness:
• The bed is assumed to be flat 𝑘𝑠 = 𝑘′𝑠 = 𝛼𝑘𝑠 𝑑50 , with 𝛼𝑘𝑠 equal to
3 by default.
• The bed is assumed to be covered by ripples:
– For currents only, the ripple bed roughness is function of
the mobility parameter 𝛹 (–), see van Rijn (2007a):
{
𝑑50 (85 − 65 tanh(0.015(𝛹 − 150))) for 𝛹 < 250
𝑘𝑟 = (13)
20𝑑50 otherwise
with 𝛹 = |𝑈 |2 ∕(𝑠 − 1)𝑔𝑑50 , and |𝑈 | the norm of the velocity
vector.
– For waves and combined waves and currents, bedform di-
mensions are calculated as a function of wave parameters
following the method of Wiberg and Harris (1994). The
wave-induced bedform bed roughness 𝑘𝑟 is calculated as a
function of the wave-induced bedform height 𝜂𝑟 :
𝑘𝑟 = max(𝑘′𝑠 , 𝜂𝑟 ). (14)
Then 𝑘𝑠 = 𝑘′𝑠 + 𝑘𝑟 .
• For currents only (without wave effects), the total bed roughness
predictor of van Rijn (2007a) may be used (Huybrechts et al.,
2010). Here the total bed roughness can be decomposed into a
grain roughness 𝑘′𝑠 (m), a small-scale ripple roughness 𝑘𝑟 (m), a
mega-ripple component 𝑘𝑚𝑟 (m), and a dune roughness 𝑘𝑑 (m):
√ Merkel, 2017). The main idea is to keep the vertical grain sorting profile
𝑘𝑠 = 𝑘′𝑠 + 𝑘2𝑟 + 𝑘2𝑚𝑟 + 𝑘2𝑑 . (15)
Both small scale ripples and grain roughness have an influence
on the sediment transport laws, while the mega-ripples and dune
roughness only contribute to the hydrodynamic model (total fric-
tion). In Eq. (15), the general expression for the mega-ripple
roughness 𝑘𝑚𝑟 is given by:
𝑘𝑚𝑟 = 0.00002 𝑓𝑡𝑠 ℎ (1 − exp−0.05𝛹 ) (550 − 𝛹 ), (16)
with
{ process does not disturb the vertical sediment stratification.
𝑑50 ∕(1.5𝑑𝑠𝑎𝑛𝑑 ) for 𝑑50 ⩽ 1.5𝑑𝑠𝑎𝑛𝑑
𝑓𝑡𝑠 =
1.0 otherwise
with 𝑑𝑠𝑎𝑛𝑑 = 0.000062 (m).
Lastly, the general expression for the dune roughness is: 𝑘𝑑 =
0.00008 𝑓𝑡𝑠 ℎ (1 − exp−0.02𝛹 ) (600 − 𝛹 ).
Further details and information about the bed roughness predictor
can be found in van Rijn (2007a).
5
Environmental Modelling and Software 159 (2023) 105544
2.3.2. Bed stratigraphy
For sand graded distributions, two different approaches are pro-
posed: one based on the classical active layer formulation of Hirano
(1971) and Blom (2008) and the other based on a continuous grain
sorting along the vertical direction (CVSM) (Merkel and Kopmann,
2012; Merkel, 2017).
Both approaches consider the concept of an active layer which
supplies material that can be eroded or deposited as bedload or sus-
pended load. Its thickness can be specified by the user or can be
calculated by six different formulations, e.g. Hunziker (1995), Günter
(1971), Fredsoe and Deigaard (1992), van Rijn (1993), Wong and
Parker (2006), Malcherek (2007), and others. The default value is equal
to 3×𝑑50 , with 𝑑50 the median diameter of sediment material contained
in the active layer.
For the approach based on the classical Hirano formulation, the
bed model can be discretised by a constant number of layers along the
vertical direction. Since layers are allowed to be emptied, the utilised
number of layers at each mesh node can vary during a numerical sim-
ulation. When more than one sediment class is specified, the following
cases arise: (𝑖) for a given initial bed stratification (i.e. through a given
number of layers 𝑁𝑙𝑎𝑦 ), an active layer is added inside this stratification
at the beginning of the simulation. In this case the total number of
layers is = 𝑁𝑙𝑎𝑦 + 1; (𝑖𝑖) if the initial bed stratification is not provided,
the sediment bed is thus subdivided in two layers: the active layer and
a substrate layer located directly below. In this case, the total number
of layers is equal to 2.
To maintain the active layer thickness throughout the numerical
simulation, at each time step the following procedures are performed:
• In the case of erosion, the sediment mass is taken from the
active layer, therefore the sediment flux is transferred from the
substratum (first non-empty layer below the active layer) to the
active layer. Note that the rigid bed algorithm is applied to the
active layer, i.e. only the sediment mass in the active layer is
available at the given time step. This is important as bedload
transport rate and/or the rate of entrainment for suspension are
computed using the sediment composition available in the active
layer.
• If the erosion during the time step exceeds the mass of sediment
available in the top layer, this layer is fully eroded and a new
erosion flux is computed using the composition of the layer
underneath, that is now the surface layer.
• In the case of deposition, the increased thickness generates a
sediment flux from the active layer towards the first substratum
layer.
The CVSM approach is based on the work of Blom (2003) and Blom
et al. (2008), and was adapted to Gaia (Merkel and Kopmann, 2012;
independently from the active layer sediment distribution. The vertical
grain sorting profile is stored for each sediment class with a vertical
discretisation adapted to the profile. At each time step the vertical sort-
ing profile is changed. In case of sedimentation a new vertical profile
layer is added. In case of erosion the vertical sediment stratification is
changed for each eroded sediment class. By using a modified version
of the line generalisation algorithm proposed by Douglas and Peucker
(1973), the maximal number of vertical profile layers can be kept.
From the vertical sediment stratification the sediment distribution of
the active layer is calculated at each time step. Therefore, this mixing
2.3.3. Mixed sediments
The Hirano bed model algorithm introduced in the previous section
has been modified to account for the presence of mud or sand–mud
mixtures. Mixed sediment consists of a mixture of 𝑁𝑛𝑐𝑜 ⩾ 1 classes
of non-cohesive sediment (sand and/or gravel) with 𝑁𝑐𝑜 ⩾ 1 classes
of fine, cohesive sediment. Non-cohesive sediments are assumed to be
P. Tassi et al.
transported by bedload and/or suspension, while cohesive sediment is
transported only by suspension.
For mixed sediments, the layer thickness results from the ratio of
the volume of cohesive and non-cohesive sediment contained in each
layer. If the cohesive sediment volume is less than the non-cohesive
sediment porosity (default value equal to 40%), the layer thickness
only depends on the volume of non-cohesive sediment. In this case,
it is assumed that the cohesive sediment is contained within the pore
space volume between the non-cohesive sediment grains. Conversely, if
the cohesive sediment volume is larger than the non-cohesive sediment
porosity, the layer thickness is computed from the non-cohesive sedi-
ment volume plus the cohesive sediment volume minus the interstitial
volume between non-cohesive sediment classes.
The presence of high concentrations of cohesive sediment in the bed
are known to prevent bedload transport from occurring (Van Ledden
et al., 2004). Therefore, in Gaia, bedload transport is only computed if
the mass fraction of cohesive sediment in the active layer is ⩽ 30%.
2.3.4. Consolidation processes
Consolidation processes are based on the semi-empirical formula-
tion proposed by Villaret and Walther (2008), which uses the iso-pycnal
and first-order kinetics formulations. Consolidation of mud deposits is
modelled using a layer discretisation, where the first layer corresponds
to the freshest deposit, while the lower layer is the most consolidated
layer. Sediment deposition from the water column is added directly to
the first layer. A rate (or flux) of consolidation is computed for each
layer and for each class of cohesive sediment separately. The values
of the computed fluxes depend on the availability of each class in the
layer considered.
In the case of mixed sediment, the presence of non-cohesive sedi-
ment in the stratigraphy of the mixture is considered to not alter the
cohesive sediment consolidation.
2.4. Sediment exchanges at the water–bed interface
A unified framework has been developed for modelling the bed
exchange processes at the water–bottom interface of both cohesive and
non-cohesive sediment in 2D and 3D that eliminates unnecessary code
duplication.
2.4.1. Erosion rate
The erosion of sediment classes from the bed per unit area per
unit time 𝐸 (kg/s m2 ) is computed by using the same formulation for
both 2D and 3D simulations (Wu, 2007). For cohesive sediment, the
erosion rate is computed for each sediment class following Partheniades
(1965), assuming the surface erosion rate is a linear function of the
dimensionless excess shear stress:
( )
𝜏𝑏 − 𝜏𝑐𝑒
𝐸=𝑀 , (17)
𝜏𝑐𝑒
with 𝑀 the erodibility coefficient (kg/s m2 ), and 𝜏𝑐𝑒 the critical shear
stress for erosion (N/m2 ). For non-cohesive sediment classes, the ero-
sion rate is calculated for each size class as a function of the equilibrium
sediment concentration at the interface between suspended load and
bedload 𝐶𝑏∗ (g/l), and the settling velocity of the sediment particles 𝑤𝑠
(m/s):
𝐸 = 𝑤𝑠 𝐶𝑏∗ , (18)
Available formulations of the equilibrium sediment concentration at
the interface are Zyserman and Fredsøe (1994), Bijker (1968), van Rijn
(1993), and Knaapen and Kelly (2011).
In Gaia, settling velocity values for non-cohesive sediment particles
are computed from the Stokes, Zanke and Van Rijn formulations (Wu,
2007):
⎧ 𝛬𝑑50
2 𝑔
⎪ 18𝜈 𝑑50 < 10−4
⎪ √
𝑤𝑠 = ⎨ 3
0.01𝛬𝑔𝑑50 (19)
10 𝑑𝜈 ( 1 + − 1) 10−4 ⩽ 𝑑50 ⩽ 10−3
⎪ √ 50 𝜈2
⎪1.1 𝛬𝑔𝑑50 otherwise
⎩
6
Environmental Modelling and Software 159 (2023) 105544
where 𝛬 = (𝜌𝑠 − 𝜌)∕𝜌 (–), with 𝜌𝑠 the sediment density (kg/m3 ), 𝜌 the
water density (kg/m3 ), and 𝜈 is the water kinematic viscosity (m2 /s),
assumed to be equal to 10−6 m2 /s by default. Constant or variable
(e.g. as a function of the sediment concentration) particle settling
velocity values can be also provided by the user.
For non-cohesive sediments, erosion is initiated when the bed shear
stress due to currents (and optionally waves) exceeds a critical thresh-
old. For initiation of erosion of cohesive sediment, it is assumed that
all the cohesive sediment classes have the same combined mechanical
behaviour and therefore the same value of critical shear stress is used
for all classes. Nevertheless, since the erosion flux depends on the
relative availability of each sediment class, the erosion fluxes can differ
between classes.
When considering a mixture of sediment classes in the bed, the
composition in the surface (active) layer is taken into consideration
when computing both the critical shear stress for erosion and the
erosion flux. This is achieved by combining the critical shear stresses
for erosion for all the sediment classes (cohesive and non-cohesive),
according to Le Hir et al. (2011):
• If the mass of cohesive sediment as a fraction of the mixture is
⩾ 50%, then the critical shear stress and erosion flux for cohesive
sediment alone is used.
• If the mass of cohesive sediment as a fraction of the mixture is
⩽ 30%, then the critical shear stress for non-cohesive sediment is
used and the erosion flux for non-cohesive sediment is used.
• If the mass of cohesive sediment as a fraction of the mixture is
⩾ 30% and ⩽ 50%, then the values are interpolated between the
previous values.
The erosion flux determined above is then distributed among the non-
cohesive and cohesive sediment classes according to their respective
mass fractions in the bed mixture.
2.4.2. Deposition flux
The deposition flux 𝐷 (kg/s m2 ) for each sediment class in suspen-
sion is calculated as the product of its class specific settling velocity
𝑤𝑠 and the suspended sediment concentration at the interface between
suspended load and bedload 𝐶𝑏 (g/l), computed from the respective
coupled 2D or 3D suspended transport model (Wu, 2007):
[ ( )]
𝜏𝑏
𝐷 = 𝑤𝑠 𝐶𝑏 1 − , (20)
𝜏𝑐𝑑
with 𝜏𝑐𝑑 the critical shear stress for deposition (N/m2 ). By default, ero-
sion and deposition are allowed to occur simultaneously (Winterwerp
et al., 2012). This paradigm implies that sediment deposition takes
place at all times regardless of the value of the bottom shear stress.
This is performed in Gaia by assuming a very large value, e.g. 𝜏𝑐𝑑 = 1000
N m−2 . The critical shear stress value can also be provided by the user.
2.5. Bed evolution
The bed evolution is computed by solving the mass conservation
equation for sediment or Exner equation (Garcia, 2008), expressed
in terms of mass, where bedload, suspended load or both sediment
transport modes can be considered simultaneously. In its simplest form,
by considering bedload and suspended sediment transport of one class
of non-cohesive sediment, this equation reads:
𝜕(𝜌𝑠 𝑧𝑏 )
(1 − 𝜆) + ∇ ⋅ 𝐐𝑚𝑏 = 𝐷 − 𝐸, (21)
𝜕𝑡
where 𝜆 is the porosity of the bed material at the bed surface (–
), 𝑧𝑏 is the bed elevation above datum (m), and ∇⋅ is the divergence
operator. Numerical computation of sediment fluxes in dry mass as
the conservative variable in Exner equation minimises roundoff error,
particularly for the mass transfer algorithms used for the bed layer
model.
P. Tassi et al.
In Gaia, a morphological factor that modifies the values of sediment
flux for bedload transport and the erosion and deposition fluxes for
suspended transport is implemented. This simple accelerator is based
on a constant scale factor applied to the divergence operator of the
Exner Eq. (21) for the case of bedload transport (Morgan et al., 2020;
Roelvink, 2006). When suspended transport processes are considered,
the constant scale factor is applied to the net exchange flux term at the
bed–water interface.
3. Overview of solution methods
3.1. Numerical methods for the solution of processes in the water column
The solution of the ADE equation for sediments is performed by
Telemac-2D or Telemac-3D, where different numerical schemes are im-
plemented. The following methods are available:
• Method of characteristics (e.g. see Hervouet (2007) for its appli-
cation in the Telemac-Mascaret system) which is not mass con-
servative but has the property of not generating new extrema
(monotone scheme);
• SUPG (Streamline Upwind Petrov–Galerkin) method (Brooks and
Hugues, 1982; Hervouet, 2007);
• Residual distribution method which is mass-conservative and
monotonous. It includes different schemes:
1. the 𝑁 scheme (Roe, 1987);
2. the Positive Streamwise Invariant (PSI) scheme (Struijs,
1994);
3. the Predictor–Corrector scheme (Ricchiuto and Abgrall,
2010; Pavan et al., 2016);
4. the Locally Implicit PSI (LIPS) scheme (Pavan, 2016).
• Edge-based residual distribution method that is also mass-
conservative and monotonous. It includes:
1. 𝑁 Edge-based Residual Distribution (NERD) scheme (Her-
vouet et al., 2011);
2. Element by element Residual distributive Iterative Advec-
tion (ERIA) scheme (Hervouet et al., 2017).
LIPS, NERD and ERIA are suitable schemes for problems accounting
for wetting and drying processes.
3.1.1. Initial conditions
The spatial distribution of initial condition values of concentration
can be specified for each sediment class, expressed in g/l.
3.1.2. Inflow boundary conditions
At inflow boundaries, concentration values can be specified (𝑖) by
imposing a fixed value, (𝑖𝑖) computed according a near-bed equilibrium
concentration formula, and (𝑖𝑖𝑖) by providing time-varying concentra-
tion values through an external ASCII file. For the 3D case, the vertical
profile of suspended sediments can be adopted assuming a constant,
Rouse or user provided concentration distribution along the vertical
direction.
3.1.3. Outflow boundary conditions
At the outflow boundary, the suspended load concentration gradient
along the flow direction is set to zero.
3.1.4. Solid wall boundary conditions
Along banks and islands, the no-flux boundary condition is imposed.
In this case, the suspended load concentration gradient is set to zero:
𝜕𝐶
= 0, (22)
𝜕𝑛
with 𝑛 the coordinate in the direction normal to the boundary.
7
Environmental Modelling and Software 159 (2023) 105544
3.2. Numerical methods for the solution of processes in the bottom
The Exner equation (21) can be solved with two different ap-
proaches. For simplicity, we define below 𝑄 = 𝐐𝑚𝑏 :
1. A finite element centred 𝑁 scheme, as described in Hervouet
et al. (2011). In a first step, fluxes are computed with a distribu-
tive scheme, and in a second step, the positivity of the erodible
layer is ensured by a limitation of the previously computed
fluxes.
2. A finite volume scheme, built on a dual mesh as proposed
by Bristeau and Coussin (2001). By defining 𝑄𝑖𝑗 the solid dis-
charge at the interface between adjacent elements 𝑖 and 𝑗 of the
dual mesh, and 𝑄𝑖 and 𝑄𝑗 the solid discharge computed by a
bedload sediment transport formula (see Eq. (5)) at elements 𝑖
and 𝑗, respectively, then:
𝑄𝑖 +𝑄𝑗
• For the centred scheme: 𝑄𝑖𝑗 = 2
.
• For the upwind scheme, the decentering is chosen accord-
ing to the sign of the solid discharge value projected at the
interface between two cells 𝑄𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑗 : (𝑄𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑗 )𝑖𝑗 = 𝑛𝑥,𝑖𝑗 𝑄𝑥,𝑖𝑗 +
𝑛𝑦,𝑖𝑗 𝑄𝑦,𝑖𝑗 , with 𝑄𝑥,𝑖𝑗 and 𝑄𝑦,𝑖𝑗 the average of the solid
discharge components on each side of the interface, 𝑛𝑥,𝑖𝑗
and 𝑛𝑦,𝑖𝑗 are the components of the normal at the element’s
interface.{ The flux at the interface is therefore calculated
𝑄𝑖 if (𝑄𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑗 )𝑖𝑗 ⩾ 0
as: 𝑄𝑖𝑗 = .
𝑄𝑗 if (𝑄𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑗 )𝑖𝑗 < 0
3.2.1. Inflow boundary conditions
At inflow boundaries, the sediment discharge must be given at each
node. Two different cases can be specified: (𝑖) equilibrium, or (𝑖𝑖) user-
defined time-series of bedload sediment discharge values (constant or
variable).
3.2.2. Outflow boundary conditions
At the outflow boundary, bedload does not require any particular
boundary condition.
3.2.3. Solid wall boundary conditions
At solid boundaries, the bedload transport rate is set to zero.
3.3. Coupling strategy between different modules
The solution of the discretised sediment transport equations is
solved in Gaia in a synchronous-decoupled way, meaning that flow and
sediment transport processes are decoupled. By using this approach,
the pseudocode of the implemented algorithm for the solution of
the morphodynamics problem for bedload transport in the Telemac-
Mascaret modelling system is given in Algorithm 1. In the following,
𝛥𝑡𝑇 2𝐷 is the time step for hydrodynamics (Telemac-2d), 𝛥𝑡𝐺𝐴𝐼𝐴 is the
time step for sediment transport and morphodynamics (Gaia), 𝛥𝑡𝑇 𝑂𝑀 is
the time step for waves (Tomawac), 𝐶𝑃𝑇 2𝐷−𝐺𝐴𝐼𝐴 is the coupling period
for Telemac-2d and Gaia, 𝐶𝑃𝑇 2𝐷−𝑇 𝑂𝑀 is the coupling period for Telemac-
2d and Tomawac, 𝑁𝐼𝑇 is the number of iterations, and 𝑇0 and 𝑇𝑓 are
respectively the initial time and total simulation time. In Algorithm
1, TELEMAC2D, WAC, and GAIA are the main subroutines of modules
Telemac-2d, Tomawac, and Gaia, respectively. A similar procedure is
executed when coupling with Telemac-3d.
P. Tassi et al.
Algorithm 1 Currents, waves and sediment transport coupling
CALL TELEMAC2D()
At 𝑇0 initialise variables
while 𝑡 ≠ 𝑇𝑓 do
solve flow variables 𝑈 , 𝑉 , 𝐻, 𝜏𝑏 , ...
if TOMAWAC.EQ.TRUE then
CALL WAC()
if 𝛥𝑡𝑇 𝑂𝑀 > 𝛥𝑡𝑇 2𝐷 × 𝐶𝑃𝑇 2𝐷−𝑇 𝑂𝑀 then
STOP
else {𝛥𝑡𝑇 𝑂𝑀 ⩽ 𝛥𝑡𝑇 2𝐷 × 𝐶𝑃𝑇 2𝐷−𝑇 𝑂𝑀 }
𝑁𝐼𝑇 = 𝛥𝑡𝑇 2𝐷 × 𝐶𝑃𝑇 2𝐷−𝑇 𝑂𝑀 ∕𝛥𝑡𝑇 𝑂𝑀
while 𝑁𝐼𝑇 ≠ 0 do
compute 𝑈𝑤 , 𝐻𝑠 , 𝑇𝑝 , ...
𝑁𝐼𝑇 ⇐ 𝑁𝐼𝑇 − 1
end while
end if
end if
if GAIA.EQ.TRUE then
if 𝐶𝑃𝑇 2𝐷−𝐺𝐴𝐼𝐴 = 1 then
𝛥𝑡𝐺𝐴𝐼𝐴 = 𝛥𝑡𝑇 2𝐷
else {𝛥𝑡𝐺𝐴𝐼𝐴 = 𝛥𝑡𝑇 2𝐷 × 𝐶𝑃𝑇 2𝐷−𝐺𝐴𝐼𝐴 }
CALL GAIA()
compute solid discharge 𝑄𝑏 , update bottom 𝑧𝑏
end if
end if
𝑡 ⇐ 𝑡 + 𝛥𝑡𝑇 2𝐷
end while
4. Examples
Hereafter, five examples are provided to illustrate the capabilities
of Gaia at reproducing sediment transport and morphological processes
in rivers, coastal seas and transitional waters.
4.1. Flume experiment of a river bend
The flume experiment proposed by Yen and Lee (1995) was chosen
to assess the ability of Telemac-2D/Gaia to reproduce the bed evolu-
tion in an alluvial channel bend under unsteady-flow conditions. This
case might be relevant for river training projects. In bends, sediment
transport is not only longitudinal but also transverse due to secondary
flow. Typically, cut bank erosion occurs at the outer bank and point
bar deposition with finer material occurs at the inner bend. In the
experiment, the final bottom evolution and the sediment sorting were
measured along transverse cross-sections located at points of observed
maximum erosion and deposition around a bend in a flume. Data from
Run 4 of the laboratory experiment of Yen and Lee (1995) were used
to validate the Gaia results. Numerical simulations were performed
by implementing the Wu et al. (2000) bedload transport formulation,
including the hiding-exposure effects. Five sediment classes were con-
sidered, with values ranging from 0.31 to 3.36 mm. Five vertical layers
were adopted for the bottom stratigraphy. The active layer thickness
was computed with the formula of Malcherek (2007). The constant
critical Shields parameter equal to 0.045 and a bed porosity equal to
0.375 were adopted. Slope effects were calculated according to Talmon
(1992) and Soulsby et al. (1996). Secondary currents effects were in-
corporated in the simulations after Engelund (1974), with the Engelund
parameter equal to 7.
Fig. 1 (left) shows a comparison between contour levels of measured
and simulated normalised bottom evolution, and the normalised mean
diameter at 90◦ around the bend, Fig. 1 (right). Numerical results show
that the maximum deposition occurred more upstream (approx. 50◦ ),
leading to a gentler slope at the 90◦ cross-section in comparison with
observations.
8
Environmental Modelling and Software 159 (2023) 105544
Fig. 2 shows the comparison between the measured and the sim-
ulated normalised bottom evolution for the maximum deposition at
90◦ and maximum erosion at 180◦ around the bend. The simulated
bed levels along the 180◦ cross-section are in good agreement with the
measured data. Simulation results follow the expected behaviour in an
alluvial channel bend.
4.2. Suspended sediment distribution in the vertical direction
According to the law of the wall (von Kármán, 1930), for steady-
state, fully-mixed shallow water flows, the shape of the vertical flow
velocity profile is logarithmic. The vertical turbulence in this situation
may be accurately represented using a mixing length formula (Prandtl,
1926) and, with the assumption of a linear decrease in shear stress
between bed and surface, leads to a parabolic shaped eddy diffusivity
profile. If a single class of sediment with uniform settling velocity (and
infinite supply) is then introduced, the resultant steady-state suspended
concentration profile will follow the shape of the analytical Rouse
profile (von Kármán, 1937), written as:
( )− 𝑤𝑠
𝐶(𝑧) (ℎ − 𝑎)𝑧 𝛽𝜅𝑢∗
= , (23)
𝐶𝑎 (ℎ − 𝑧)𝑎
where 𝐶(𝑧) is the concentration (g/l) at height 𝑧 (m) above the bed; 𝐶𝑎
is the concentration (g/l) at reference height 𝑎 (m); ℎ is the height of the
water column (m); 𝑤𝑠 is the settling velocity (m/s); 𝑢∗ is the bed shear
velocity (m/s); 𝜅 is the von Kármán constant (equal to 0.4); and 𝛽 is the
Prandtl number representing the ratio between the turbulent transport
for the sediment and the momentum (assumed here to be equal to 1).
A simple test case was developed to assess the ability of Telemac-
3D/Gaia to reproduce the Rouse profile, and consequently to solve
suspended sediment transport problems. The model geometry com-
prised a rectangular channel (5 km × 0.5 km) with a water depth of
10 m divided into 21 sigma planes. Bed friction was prescribed using a
Nikuradse roughness length of 0.01 m and the lateral boundaries were
prescribed with no friction. The vertical turbulence model was chosen
to be consistent with the law of the wall assumption (i.e. mixing length
model). At the entrance to the channel, a discharge of 5000 m3 /s was
applied generating a depth-mean flow speed of 1 m/s. Sediment was
introduced with a constant concentration through the vertical of 0.1 g/l
and with a settling velocity of 0.001 m/s. During the simulation, the
combined effects of friction, vertical turbulence and settling velocity
led to the gradual development downstream of equilibrium profiles for
eddy diffusivity (𝐾𝑧 ), flow velocity (𝑈 ) and suspended concentration
(𝐶) (Fig. 3). The results validate the ability of Telemac-3D/Gaia at repro-
ducing the Rouse profile and in doing so also validate the modelled flow
velocity profile, mixing length turbulence model and settling velocity
calculations.
4.3. Middle Lower Rhine river reach
For a 46.5 km long stretch of the middle Lower Rhine river between
Neuss and Duisburg in Germany (Rh-km 730–776.5) a coupled Telemac-
2D/Gaia model was built to investigate artificial bedload supply mea-
sures. This case might be relevant for projects related to navigability
and fluvial transportation.
The model was calibrated for a period of 6 years of the natural
hydrograph from 2000-07-11 to 2006-06-22. The computational do-
main was discretised with a mesh of approximately 260,000 nodes and
typical element sizes in the range 3–17 m in the main channel and up
to 40 m in the floodplains. This discretisation allowed an appropriate
reproduction of the groyne geometry as well as the analysis of artificial
bedload supply, bed evolution and bedload transport.
Fig. 4 shows the river topography inside the model boundaries.
The large-amplitude bends in this river stretch strongly influence hy-
drodynamics and morphodynamics processes. Furthermore, a tendency
for long term erosion is observed. Erosion mitigation is applied using
P. Tassi et al. Environmental Modelling and Software 159 (2023) 105544

Fig. 1. Flume experiment of a river bend: comparison of the measured (black lines) and simulated (coloured surfaces) normalised bed evolution (left) and the normalised mean
diameter at 90◦ around the bend (right).

Fig. 2. Flume experiment of a river bend: comparison of the measured (black marks) and simulated (blue line) normalised bed evolution at 90◦ (left) and 180◦ (right) around
the bend.

Fig. 3. Profiles of suspended sediment concentration, flow velocity and eddy diffusivity calculated by Telemac-3D/Gaia (markers) compared with the analytical solutions (lines).
𝐾𝑧 is normalised to maximum 𝐾𝑧 whereas 𝐶 and 𝑈 are normalised using their values at reference height 𝑎 = 0.1 𝑧∕ℎ = 1 m.

sediment management operations including artificial bedload supply actions during the simulation period were considered in the model by
as well as dredging and disposal activities. All sediment management coupling with the Nestor module.

9
P. Tassi et al.
Fig. 4. Middle Lower Rhine river topography between Neuss and Duisburg (Germany)
and numerical model boundaries (© Bundesamt für Kartographie und Geodäsie (2018)).
The flow direction is from South to North. Red lines indicate profile locations at Rh-km
738.1, Rh-km 743.1, Rh-km 761.1.
Numerical simulations were performed with a hydrodynamic time
step of 4 s, a coupling period equal to 10, and a morphological factor
of 4. The adopted parameterisations for friction and turbulence were
Nikuradse friction law and Elder turbulence model, respectively.
Ten sediment classes were defined, with the Hirano multi-layer
model consisting of 3 layers and a constant active layer thickness equal
to 0.1 m. In the numerical simulation, suspended load was assumed to
be negligible relative to bedload and hence only bedload transport was
considered.
The Meyer-Peter and Müller transport formula was adopted, with
the Karim, Holly and Yang hiding-exposure formulation (Karim et al.,
1987). The Soulsby and Talmon slope effect formulation was also
included. Secondary currents were accounted for using the morphody-
namic approach of Engelund, with the radius of curvature provided in
an additional file.
For the model calibration, a moving average of the river bottom
was calculated considering only the mean channel and a moving lon-
gitudinal section of 1100 m. The averaged simulated bottom evolution
is generally in a good agreement with the measurements (see Fig. 5).
Nevertheless, in the last 10 km of the stretch the numerical model
predicts aggregation instead of erosion tendencies. Fig. 6 presents the
comparison of the simulated and measured river bottom at three chosen
cross-sections. The cross-sections Rh-km 738.1 and 743.1 are located
before and after the nearly 180◦ bend while the cross-section Rh-km
761.1 is positioned before the last bend in the model. The positions
of the cross-sections are shown in Fig. 4. The cross-sections 738.1
and 761.1 show a typical outer bank erosion and point bar deposition
profile. Despite some discrepancies between observed and simulated
bed evolution results at section 743.1, predictions of the riverbed
evolution are globally well reproduced by the numerical model.
Fig. 7 illustrates the simulated river bottom and mean diameter at
the sharp bend near Rh-km 741. Typically, at the outer banks the river
bottom consists of coarser material while finer material is located at
the inner banks and middle grounds, which is also well represented by
the numerical model.
10
Environmental Modelling and Software 159 (2023) 105544
4.4. The Gironde estuary
The macrotidal Gironde estuary is located in South-West France,
covering a surface of 635 km2 from the Bay of Biscay to 170 km
landward, see Fig. 8. This transitional water body is characterised by
a complex geomorphology, high suspended particulate matter (SPM)
concentrations of up to 20 g/l, and a heterogeneous bed composi-
tion. Understanding the flow, sediment dynamics and morphological
changes of this coastal-estuarine system would be important for a
more efficient planning of ship routes and management of underkeel
clearance in navigation channels, for example.
Numerical simulations of this transitional water body were per-
formed by coupling Telemac-3d with Gaia, for a time period spanning 90
days. Salinity was considered as a passive tracer with 35 psu imposed
on the offshore boundary and 0 psu for both tributaries, namely the
Garonne and Dordogne rivers. The Prandtl mixing length model, com-
bined with a damping function (Lehfeldt and Bloss, 1988), was selected
for the turbulence closure relationship. The computational domain was
extended offshore up to 70 km from the mouth and about 200 km
alongshore such that the boundary condition for salinity was far enough
from the mouth so it did not influence the salinity within the estuary.
Inland, the model extended up to 180 km, to the limit of the tidal
propagation.
Tides and surges were imposed at the offshore open boundary. The
tidal signal was extracted from the North East Atlantic tidal model of
Legos (Huybrechts et al., 2012). For the simulated period, flowrates
were imposed at both Garonne and Dordogne rivers from a time-series
data provided by Banque hydro (2020).
The digital elevation model containing the bathymetric information
was provided by the Port of Bordeaux. The horizontal mesh comprised
58,250 nodes with typical element sizes ranging from 4 km on the
offshore boundary to 30–50 m inside the tributaries. The mesh discreti-
sation along the vertical direction consisted of 9 planes spaced using a
geometric progression, with a higher mesh density near the bottom.
The mesh was refined along the navigation channel in order to have at
least 5 nodes along the channel width.
Both non-cohesive and cohesive sediments were included in the sim-
ulation. The coarser grained, non-cohesive sediment was considered to
be transported by bedload using the Meyer-Peter Müller formula (Chini
and Villaret, 2007). For the finer cohesive sediment, two classes were
considered. The process of consolidation was included in the bed model
using a multi-layer approach with experimental data (Van, 2012) used
to calibrate the consolidation transfer rate coefficient (Orseau et al.,
2021). The erodibility coefficient 𝑀 was set to 0.0015 kg/s m2 . For set-
tling velocity, time- and space-varying values were computed for both
mud classes as a function of the SPM and salinity, see van Maanen and
Sottolichio (2018). The bed roughness was estimated using the van Rijn
(2007b) formula according to the flow characteristics and predominant
sediment diameter. The sediment composition was estimated from the
available data.
Two simulations were performed considering high and low river
discharges, corresponding to winter and summer periods, respectively.
The ability of the model to reproduce the SPM pattern at observation
stations P2, P3 and P5 is illustrated in Figs. 9 and 10, see Fig. 8
for locations. The main variability is captured well by the model
although the SPM levels are slightly underestimated during the neap
tide combined with low flow-rate. Results from the numerical model
were further used to identify the location of the turbidity maximum
values during winter and summer periods, see Fig. 11.
4.5. The Gironde estuary’s mouth
Located on the SW Atlantic coast façade, the 20 km wide tidal
mouth of the Gironde estuary opens to the Atlantic Ocean. In this
zone, the combined influence of waves and tides has led to the de-
velopment of a complex hydro-sedimentary dynamics, where the net
P. Tassi et al. Environmental Modelling and Software 159 (2023) 105544

Fig. 5. Comparison between measured and simulated averaged bottom evolution along a reach of the Middle Lower Rhine river.

Fig. 6. Comparison of measured and simulated river bottom at three cross-sections (Rh-km 738.1, Rh-km 743.1, Rh-km 761.1, see Fig. 4) of the Middle Lower Rhine river.

Fig. 7. Simulated bed evolution (left) and mean diameter (right) at approximate location Rh-km 741 (see Fig. 4) of the Middle Lower Rhine river.

seaward transport varies with the tidal amplitude (Allen and Castaing,
1973). At the estuary mouth, see Fig. 8, strong tidal currents and
high energy Atlantic swells induce important displacements of coarse-
grained sediment deposits and severe erosion along its coastline (Howa,
1997). These processes lead to the development of numerous sandbanks
in the intertidal and subtidal areas (Stéphan et al., 2019). To be able
to capture the flow-sediment interactions at the estuary’s mouth, all
relevant physical drivers were considered in a three-way coupled sim-
ulation Telemac-3D/Tomawac/Gaia, i.e. tides, waves, wind, atmospheric
pressure and river discharges.
The computational domain was discretised with a finite element
mesh consisting of 106,000 nodes and 207,000 elements, covering
a surface of approximately 15,000 m2 . Along the vertical direction,
5 layers were used. Typical element sizes varied from 3 km on the
offshore boundary down to 50 meters in specific areas of the mesh
to capture the morphology of channels and shoals of the estuary.
Bathymetric information in the study area was incorporated into the
finite element mesh from a digital elevation model built from a dataset
collected during a field campaign performed in 2015 (SHOM, 2016).
The initial bathymetry is showed in Fig. 12(a).
Hydrodynamics forcing accounting for wave and current inter-
actions was implemented by coupling the modules Telemac-3D and
Tomawac. Along the offshore boundary, harmonically derived water

11
P. Tassi et al. Environmental Modelling and Software 159 (2023) 105544

Fig. 8. Computational domain and bottom elevation of the Gironde estuary (France). Units are expressed in (m).

Fig. 9. Comparison of SPM between numerical results and observations at stations P3 (top) and P5 (bottom) during the winter period (see Fig. 8 for locations) in the Gironde
estuary.

levels were prescribed using 33 tidal constituents obtained from inter-
polation of the values available in the global model FES 2012 (Carrère
et al., 2013). Daily flow rates of river discharges were extracted
from Banque hydro (2020) and Aquitaine (2020), ranging from 35 m3 /s
to 2000 m3 /s in the Dordogne river, and from 70 m3 /s to 6000 m3 /s
in the Garonne river. The boundary conditions for the wave model
were extracted from a hindcast data set for the assessment of sea-
states climatologies HOMERE, developed by Ifremer (Boudière et al.,
2013). They consisted of significant wave height, wave period, di-
rection and spread. In addition, the model was forced with time
series of atmospheric pressure fields from the fifth generation ECMWF
atmospheric reanalysis model ERA5 downloaded from the Copernicus
Climate Change Service (C3S) Climate Data Store (Hersbach et al.,
2020). For Gaia, the representative sand diameter selected for the study
area was 𝑑50 = 0.30 mm. The characteristics of the ocean floor (Louazel
et al., 2021) were used to determine the bottom friction for waves
and hydrodynamic propagation. The sediment transport formulation
TRANSPOR2004 (Walstra et al., 2005) was implemented in Gaia. The
interaction due to the combined wave–current forcing was considered.
Bedform, roughness length for waves and current were computed

12
P. Tassi et al.
Fig. 10. Comparison of SPM between numerical results and observations at stations P2 (top) and P3 (bottom) during the summer period (see Fig. 8 for locations) in the Gironde
estuary.
Fig. 11. Numerical solution of SPM in the Gironde estuary. Left: summer period. Right: winter period.
and sediment transport fluxes accounting for the influence of both
suspended and bedload transport were computed.
Time steps were set equal to 10 s for both Telemac-3D and Tomawac
modules. For Gaia, a morphological acceleration factor equal to 5 was
used. Hydrodynamics was validated between 2009 and 2010 against
9 tidal gauges, and waves propagation and generation were validated
using data from a measurement campaign of 2 months in the estuary’s
mouth, where waves meet strong currents. The sediment transport
formula was calibrated with a simulation of one year and was compared
to the mean annual longshore sediment transport deduced from the
shoreline evolution during the last decade (results are not shown here).
Morphodynamic simulations were performed for a period spanning
5 years. Bed evolution results (Fig. 12(b)) show (𝑖) the presence of a
morphological stable zone in the area surrounding the coast for the
considered time period, with bed evolution values comprise within the
range −0.5 m and 0.5 m; (𝑖𝑖) sediment accretion of approximately 5.5
million m3 for 5 average years, see Fig. 12(c) comparable to the 4.6
million m3 resulting from a bathymetric differential in the polygon
indicated in Fig. 12(a), (𝑖𝑖𝑖) a migration of an oblique sandbar in the
13
Environmental Modelling and Software 159 (2023) 105544
central zone of Fig. 12(b), oriented towards the Northwest direction,
related to the wave-induced littoral drift, and (𝑖𝑣) a general tendency
to sediment erosion at the main and secondary channels at the estuary’s
inlet.
5. Conclusions and outlook
Gaia, the new code structure available in the Telemac-Mascaret mod-
elling system, provides an integrated framework for solving sediment
transport and morphological evolution problems. Developments have
been undertaken by considering the large number of variables to be
considered when dealing with rivers, coastal seas and transitional
water applications, namely different spatial dimensions (two-, and
three-dimensional), flow states (steady, quasi-steady, unsteady), flow
regimes (subcritical, critical, supercritical), sediment characteristics
(cohesive, non-cohesive, mixed), sediment classes (uniform, graded),
and transport modes (bedload, suspended load, total load) and states
(equilibrium, non-equilibrium).
P. Tassi et al. Environmental Modelling and Software 159 (2023) 105544

Fig. 12. Gironde estuary’s mouth: (a) Initial bathymetry 𝑡 = 𝑇0 (m); (b) Bed evolution at 𝑡 = 𝑇0 + 5 years (m); (c) Sediment deposition from 𝑡 = 𝑇0 to 𝑡 = 𝑇0 + 5 years in the polygons
(m3 ). The line indicates the simulated deposit, the dot indicates the in-situ sediment deposit between 2015 and 2020.

Continuous developments performed in the Telemac-Mascaret system
allow access to efficient numerical solvers, serial or multiple proces-
sors distributed-memory architectures, and easy-to-use API wrappers
allowing a full control of numerical simulations.
In addition, Gaia can easily be expanded and customised to partic-
ular requirements by modifying user-friendly, easy-to-read, and well-
documented FORTRAN-90 files. Moreover, theoretical aspects and val-
idation test cases are documented and continually updated so that the
quality of the source code remains assured.

14
P. Tassi et al.
In-progress model improvements are (𝑖) the use of highly exploitable
and ‘‘transparent’’ techniques for coupling sediment transport with, for
example, pollutant transport models to better quantify the transport
and fate of chemicals in the aquatic environment, (𝑖𝑖) the improvement
of strategies for morphodynamic updating, e.g. the enhancement of
the various ways of accelerating the computation of sediment and
morphological changes and (𝑖𝑖𝑖) the application of stochastic meth-
ods in morphodynamic modelling, in particular regarding uncertainty
quantification, data assimilation and automatic calibration techniques.
6. Software availability
The Telemac-Mascaret modelling system is distributed under GNU
General Public License (GPL) Version 3, 29 June 2007. The Telemac-
Mascaret modelling system can be downloaded from the GitLab repos-
itory: https://gitlab.pam-retd.fr/otm/telemac-mascaret. Additional in-
formation (new releases, user’s forum, installation notes, etc.) can
be accessed from the Telemac-Mascaret’s webpage: http://www.ope
ntelemac.org. User’s manuals, theoretical guides and miscellaneous
information are available from the wiki: http://wiki.opentelemac.org.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to
influence the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
Data will be made available on request.
Acknowledgements
The authors are indebted to their former co-workers Yoann Audouin
and Agnès Leroy for helpful discussions and numerical/informatics
work essentially contributing to the development of the Gaia module.
The authors would like to acknowledge the contributions of Boris
Glander regarding the development of the sediment dredging and
dumping module Nestor. Sébastien Bourban is kindly acknowledged
for providing advice and support during the manuscript writing. We
sincerely appreciate the Reviewers’ comments and suggestions, which
have been very helpful in improving the manuscript. This research was
partially supported by EDF R&D, France through the project Plateforme
Hydro-Environnementale 2 (PHE2).
References
Abad, J., Buscaglia, G., Garcia, M., 2008. 2D stream hydrodynamic, sediment transport
and bed morphology model for engineering applications. Hydrol. Process. 22,
1443–1459.
Allen, G., Castaing, P., 1973. Suspended sediment transport from the Gironde estuary
(France) onto the adjacent continental shelf. Mar. Geol. 14 (5), 47–53.
Aquitaine, D., 2020. Station de la Dordogne à Pessac-sur-Dordogne et Données
Hydrologiques de Synthèse (1913–2020). Tech. rep.
Audouin, Y., Fontaine, J., Fouquet, T., Goeury, C., Leroy, A., Pham, C.-T., Souillé, F.,
Taccone, F., Duron, L., Daou, M.-P., et al., 2019. A new Python3 mod-
ule for TELEMAC-MASCARET dedicated to post-treatment: Postel. In: XXVIth
TELEMAC-MASCARET User Conference, 15th to 17th October 2019, Toulouse.
Bailard, J., 1981. An energetics total load transport model for a plane sloping beach.
J. Geophys. Res. 86 (C11), 10938–10954.
Banque hydro, 2020. Données Hydrologiques de Synthèse (1996–2020). Tech. rep.
Benoit, M., Marcos, F., Becq, F., 1996. Development of a third generation shallow-water
wave model with unstructured spatial meshing. Coast. Eng. Proc. 1 (25).
Bijker, E., 1968. Mechanics of sediment transport by the combination of waves and
current. In: Design and Reliability of Coastal Structures. pp. 147–173, 23rd Int.
Conf. on Coastal Engineering.
Blom, A., 2003. A Vertical Sorting Model for Rivers with Non-Uniform Sediment and
Dunes (Ph.D. thesis). University of Twente, The Netherlands.
Blom, A., 2008. Different approaches to handling vertical and streamwise sorting in
modeling river morphodynamics. Water Resour. Res. 44 (3).
15
Environmental Modelling and Software 159 (2023) 105544
Blom, A., Ribberink, J.S., Parker, G., 2008. Vertical sorting and the morphodynamics
of bed form-dominated rivers: A sorting evolution model. J. Geophys. Res.: Earth
Surf. 113 (F1).
Boudière, E., Maisondieu, C., Ardhuin, F., Accensi, M., Pineau-Guillou, L., Lep-
esqueur, J., 2013. A suitable metocean hindcast database for the design of Marine
energy converters. Int. J. Mar. Energy 3–4, 40–52, Special Issue – Selected Papers
- EWTEC2013.
Bristeau, M.-O., Coussin, B., 2001. Boundary Conditions for the Shallow Water
Equations solved by Kinetic Schemes. Tech. Rep. 4282, INRIA.
Brooks, A.-N., Hugues, T., 1982. Streamline Upwind Petrov Galerkin formulations
for convection dominated flows with particular emphasis on the Navier-Stokes
equations. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 32, 199–259.
Brown, J., Davies, A., 2009. Methods for medium-term prediction of the net sediment
transport by waves and currents in complex coastal regions. Cont. Shelf Res. 29
(11), 1502–1514.
Carrère, L., Lyard, F., Cancet, M., Guillot, A., Roblou, L., 2013. FES 2012: a new
global tidal model taking advantage of nearly 20 years of altimetry. In: 20 Years
of Progress in Radar Altimetry, Vol. 710. p. 13.
Chini, N., Villaret, C., 2007. Numerical modeling of the bed evolution downstream of
a dike in the Gironde estuary. In: Proceedings of the River, Coastal and Estuarine
Morphodynamics Conference. Taylor & Francis, Didcot, UK.
Chollet, J.P., Cunge, J.A., 1979. New interpretation of some head loss-flow velocity
relationships for deformable movable beds. J. Hydraul. Res. 17 (1), 1–13.
Cordier, F., Tassi, P., Claude, N., Crosato, A., Rodrigues, S., Pham Van Bang, D., 2019.
Numerical study of alternate bars in alluvial channels with nonuniform sediment.
Water Resour. Res. 55 (4), 2976–3003.
Decoene, A., Gerbeau, J.F., 2009. Sigma transformation and ALE formulation for
three-dimensional free surface flows. Internat. J. Numer. Methods Fluids 59 (4),
357–386.
Dibajnia, M., Watanabe, A., 1992. Sheet flow under non-linear waves and currents.. In:
Proc. of the Intl. Conf. on Coastal Eng.. pp. 2015–2029.
Douglas, D., Peucker, T., 1973. Algorithms for the reduction of the number of points
required to represent a digitized line or its caricature. Can. Cartogr. 10, 112–120.
Dutta, S., Wang, D., Tassi, P., Garcia, M., 2017. Three-dimensional numerical modeling
of the Bulle effect: the nonlinear distribution of near-bed sediment at fluvial
diversions. Earth Surf. Process. Landf. 42 (14), 2322–2337.
Einstein, H.A., 1950. The Bed-Load Function for Sediment Transportation in Open
Channel Flows. 1026. US Department of Agriculture.
Engelund, F., 1974. Flow and bed topography in channel bends. J. Hydraul. Div. 100
(11), 1631–1648.
Engelund, F., Hansen, E., 1967. A Monograph on Sediment Transport in Alluvial
Streams. Technical University of Denmark, Ostervoldgade 10, Copenhagen K.
Fredsoe, J., Deigaard, R., 1992. Mechanics of Coastal Sediment Transport, Vol. 3. World
scientific publishing company.
García, M.H., 2006. Manual of Practice 54, Sedimentation Engineering. Classic Edi-
tion, V.A. Vanoni (editor), Environmental and Water Resources Institute (EWRI),
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), p. 418.
Garcia, M., 2008. Sedimentation Engineering: Processes, Measurements, Modeling, and
Practice. American Society of Civil Engineers.
Giardino, A., Ibrahim, E., Adam, S., Toorman, E., Monbaliu, J., 2009. Hydrodynamics
and cohesive sediment transport in the IJzer Estuary, Belgium: Case study. J.
Waterw. Port Coast. Ocean Eng. 135 (4), 176–184.
Goeury, C., Audouin, Y., Zaoui, F., Ata, R., El Idrissi Essebtey, S., Torossian, A.,
Rouge, D., 2017. Interoperability applications of TELEMAC-MASCARET system.
In: Proceedings of the XXIVth TELEMAC-MASCARET User Conference, 17 to 20
October 2017. Graz University of Technology, Austria, pp. 57–64.
Grasso, F., Verney, R., Le Hir, P., Thouvenin, B., Schulz, E., Kervella, Y., Khojasteh
Pour Fard, I., Lemoine, J.-P., Dumas, F., Garnier, V., 2018. Suspended sediment
dynamics in the macrotidal Seine Estuary (France): 1. Numerical modeling of
turbidity maximum dynamics. J. Geophys. Res. Oceans 123 (1), 558–577.
Günter, A., 1971. Die kritische mittlere Sohlenschubspannung bei Geschiebemischun-
gen unter Berücksichtigung der Deckschichtbildung und der turbulenzbedingten
Sohlenschubspannungsschwankungen (Ph.D. thesis). ETH Zurich.
Hersbach, H., Bell, B., Berrisford, P., Hirahara, S., Horányi, A., Muñoz Sabater, J.,
Nicolas, J., Peubey, C., Radu, R., Schepers, D., Simmons, A., Soci, C., Abdalla, S.,
Abellan, X., Balsamo, G., Bechtold, P., Biavati, G., Bidlot, J., Bonavita, M., J.-N., T.,
2020. The ERA5 global reanalysis. Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc. 146.
Hervouet, J.M., 2007. Free Surface Flows Modelling with the Finite Element Method.
John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Hervouet, J., Pavan, S., Ricchiuto, M., 2017. Residual Distribution Advection Schemes
in Telemac. Tech. Rep. 9087, INRIA.
Hervouet, J., Razafindrakoto, E., Villaret, C., 2011. Dealing with dry zones in free
surface flows: a new class of advection schemes. In: Proceedings of the 34th World
Congress of the International Association for Hydro-Environment Research and
Engineering: 33rd Hydrology and Water Resources Symposium and 10th Conference
on Hydraulics in Water Engineering, Vol. 4103. Australia.
Hirano, M., 1971. River-bed degradation with armoring. In: Proceedings of the Japan
Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 1971. Japan Society of Civil Engineers, pp. 55–65.
Howa, H., 1997. Sediment budget in the southern inlet of the Gironde Estuary (SW
France). Phys. Chem. Earth 22 (3), 373–375.
P. Tassi et al.
Hunziker, R.P., 1995. Fraktionsweiser Geschiebetransport (Ph.D. thesis). ETH Zurich.
Huybrechts, N., Villaret, C., Hervouet, J.-M., 2010. Comparison between 2D and 3D
modelling of sediment transport: application to the dune evolution. In: River Flow
2010. pp. 887–894.
Huybrechts, N., Villaret, C., Lyard, F., 2012. Optimized predictive two-dimensional
hydrodynamic model of the Gironde Estuary in France. J. Waterw. Port Coast.
Ocean Eng. 138 (4), 312–322.
James, S.C., Jones, C.A., Grace, M.D., Roberts, J.D., 2010. Advances in sediment
transport modelling. J. Hydraul. Res. 48 (6), 754–763.
Karim, M., Holly, F.M., Yang, J., 1987. Ialluvial: Numerical Simulation of Mobile-Bed
Rivers. Iowa Institute of Hydraulic Research, University of Iowa.
Kaveh, K., Reisenbüchler, M., Lamichhane, S., Liepert, T., Nguyen, N.D., Bui, M.D.,
Rutschmann, P., 2019. A comparative study of comprehensive modeling systems
for sediment transport in a curved open channel. Water 11 (9).
Knaapen, M., Kelly, D., 2011. Modelling sediment transport with hysteresis effects. In:
Proceedings of the XVIIIth Telemac & Mascaret User Club 2011, 19-21 October
2011, EDF R&D, Chatou. pp. 22–27.
Koch, F., Flokstra, C., 1980. Bed level computations for curved alluvial channels. In:
Proceedings of the XIXth Congress of the Int. Ass. for Hydr. Res.. New Delhi, India.
Lai, Y., Gaeuman, D., 2020. SRH-2D User’s Manual: Sediment Transport and Mobile-Bed
Modeling. U.S. Department of the Interior.
Lane, S.N., 1998. Hydraulic modelling in hydrology and geomorphology: a review of
high resolution approaches. Hydrol. Process. 12 (8), 1131–1150.
Larsen, A., Nardin, W., van de Lageweg, W., Bätz, N., 2021. Biogeomorphology, quo
vadis? On processes, time, and space in biogeomorphology. Earth Surf. Process.
Landf. 46 (1), 12–23.
Latteux, B., Tanguy, J., 1990. ’’Système Logiciel "SISYPHE" de Transport Sédimentaire
et d’Évolution Morphologique’’. Tech. Rep. HE-42/89.39, Electricité de France –
Direction des études et recherches Département Laboratoire National d’Hydraulique
Groupe Hydraulique Maritime Cahier de charges.
Le Hir, P., Cayocca, F., Waeles, B., 2011. Dynamics of sand and mud mixtures:
A multiprocess-based modelling strategy. Cont. Shelf Res. 31 (10, Supplement),
S135–S149.
Lehfeldt, R., Bloss, S., 1988. Algebraic turbulence model for stratified tidal flows. In:
Dronkers, J., van Leussen, W. (Eds.), Physical Processes in Estuaries. Springer Berlin
Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 278–291.
Lesser, G., Roelvink, J., van Kester, J., Stelling, G., 2004. Development and validation
of a three-dimensional morphological model. Coast. Eng. 51 (8), 883–915, Coastal
Morphodynamic Modeling.
Louazel, S., Casitas, S., Corréard, S., Ferret, Y., Quilfen, V., Voineson, G., 2021. Shom
operational regional ocean forecasting system. In: 9th EuroGOOS International Con-
ference. In: Advances in Operational Oceanography: Expanding Europe’s Observing
and Forecasting Capacity, Shom and Ifremer and EuroGOOS AISBL, Brest, France,
pp. 216–222.
Malcherek, A., 2007. Sedimenttransport und Morphodynamik. Institut für Wasserwesen,
Universität München.
Masselink, G., Hughes, M.G., Knight, J., 2011. An Introduction to Coastal Processes
and Geomorphology, Second Editions. Hodder Education.
Mendoza, A., Abad, J.D., Langendoen, E.J., Wang, D., Tassi, P., Abderrezzak, K.E.K.,
2017. Effect of sediment transport boundary conditions on the numerical modeling
of bed morphodynamics. J. Hydraul. Eng. 143 (4).
Merkel, U., 2017. C-VSM-II: Large scale and long time simulations with sisyphe’s
continuous vertical grain sorting model. In: Proceedings of the XXIVth TELEMAC-
MASCARET User Conference, 17 to 20 October 2017. Graz University of
Technology, Austria, pp. 131–138.
Merkel, U., Kopmann, R., 2012. Continuous vertical grain sorting for TELEMAC
& SISYPHE v6p2. In: Proceedings of the XIXth TELEMAC-MASCARET User
Conference, 18-19, 2012, Wallingford. pp. 9–17.
Mirabito, C., Dawson, C., Kubatko, E., Westerink, J., Bunya, S., 2011. Implementation
of a discontinuous Galerkin morphological model on two-dimensional unstructured
meshes. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 200 (1), 189–207.
Morgan, J.A., Kumar, N., Horner-Devine, A.R., Ahrendt, S., Istanbullouglu, E., Ban-
daragoda, C., 2020. The use of a morphological acceleration factor in the simulation
of large-scale fluvial morphodynamics. Geomorphology 356, 107088.
Mouradi, R.-S., Audouin, Y., Goeury, C., Claude, N., Tassi, P., El Kadi Abderrezzak, K.,
2016. Sensitivity analysis and uncertainty quantification in 2D morphodynamic
models using a newly implemented API for TELEMAC2D/SISYPHE. In: Proceedings
of the XXIIIrd TELEMAC-MASCARET User Conference 2016, 11 to 13 October 2016,
Paris, France. pp. 153–162.
Nheili, R., Langlois, P., Denis, C., 2016. First improvements toward a reproducible
Telemac-2D. In: Proceedings of the XXIIIrd TELEMAC-MASCARET User Conference
2016, 11 to 13 October 2016, Paris, France. pp. 227–235.
Open Telemac-Mascaret, 2022a. NESTOR User manual. Accessed from http://wiki.
opentelemac.org/.
Open Telemac-Mascaret, 2022b. TELEMAC-3D Theory guide. Accessed from http://wiki.
opentelemac.org/.
Open Telemac-Mascaret, 2022c. WAQTEL Theory guide. Accessed from http://wiki.
opentelemac.org/.
16
Environmental Modelling and Software 159 (2023) 105544
Orseau, S., Huybrechts, N., Tassi, P., Pham Van Bang, D., Klein, F., 2021. Two-
dimensional modeling of fine sediment transport with mixed sediment and
consolidation: Application to the Gironde Estuary, France. Int. J. Sediment Res.
36 (6), 736–746.
Partheniades, E., 1965. Erosion and deposition of cohesive soils. J. Hydraul. Div. 91
(1), 105–139.
Pavan, S., 2016. New Advection Schemes for Free Surface Flows (Ph.D. thesis).
Université Paris-Est.
Pavan, S., Hervouet, J.-M., Ricchiuto, M., Ata, R., 2016. A second order residual based
predictor–corrector approach for time dependent pollutant transport. J. Comput.
Phys. 318, 122–141.
Poncot, A., Goeury, C., Argaud, J.-P., Zaoui, F., Ata, R., Audouin, Y., 2017. Optimal
calibration of TELEMAC-2D models based on a data assimilation algorithm. In:
Proceedings of the XXIVth TELEMAC-MASCARET User Conference, 17 to 20
October 2017. Graz University of Technology, Austria, pp. 73–80.
Prandtl, L., 1926. Ueber die ausgebildete turbulenz [on developed turbulence]. In:
Proceedings 2nd International Congress Applied Mechanics, Zurich. p. 62.
Quarteroni, A., Valli, A., 2009. Numerical Approximation of Partial Differential
Equations. In: Springer Series in Computational Mathematics, Springer Berlin
Heidelberg.
Rhoads, B.L., 2020. River Dynamics: Geomorphology to Support Management.
Cambridge University Press.
Ricchiuto, M., Abgrall, R., 2010. Explicit Runge–Kutta residual distribution schemes
for time dependent problems: Second order case. J. Comput. Phys. 229 (16),
5653–5691.
Robins, P., Neill, S., Lewis, M., 2014. Impact of tidal-stream arrays in relation to the
natural variability of sedimentary processes. Renew. Energy 72, 311–321.
Roe, P., 1987. Linear Advection Schemes on Triangular Meshes. Tech. Rep. coa 8720,
Cranfield Institute of Technology, Technical report.
Roelvink, J., 2006. Coastal morphodynamic evolution techniques. Coast. Eng. 53 (2),
277–287.
Roelvink, D., 2011. A Guide to Modeling Coastal Morphology, Vol. 12. world scientific.
Roelvink, D., Reniers, A., van Dongeren, A., van Thiel de Vries, J., McCall, R.,
Lescinski, J., 2009. Modelling storm impacts on beaches, dunes and barrier islands.
Coast. Eng. 56 (11), 1133–1152.
Rouse, H., 1949. Engineering hydraulics. In: Proceedings of the fourth Hydraulics
Conference. Iowa Institute of Hydraulic Research.
Santoro, P., Fossati, M., Tassi, P., Huybrechts, N., Pham Van Bang, D., Piedra-Cueva, J.,
2017. A coupled wave–current–sediment transport model for an estuarine system:
Application to the Río de la Plata and Montevideo Bay. Appl. Math. Model. 52,
107–130.
Santoro, P., Fossati, M., Tassi, P., Huybrechts, N., Pham Van Bang, D., Piedra-Cueva, I.,
2019. Effect of self-weight consolidation on a hydro-sedimentological model for the
Río de la Plata estuary. Int. J. Sediment Res. 34 (5), 444–454.
Sherwood, C.R., Aretxabaleta, A.L., Harris, C.K., Rinehimer, J.P., Verney, R., Ferré, B.,
2018. Cohesive and mixed sediment in the Regional Ocean Modeling System (ROMS
v3.6) implemented in the Coupled Ocean–Atmosphere–Wave–Sediment Transport
Modeling System (COAWST r1234). Geosci. Model Dev. 11 (5), 1849–1871.
Shimizu, Y., Nelson, J., Arnez Ferrel, K., Asahi, K., Giri, S., Inoue, T., Iwasaki, T.,
Jang, C.-L., Kang, T., Kimura, I., Kyuka, T., Mishra, J., Nabi, M., Patsinghasanee, S.,
Yamaguchi, S., 2020. Advances in computational morphodynamics using the
International River Interface Cooperative (iRIC) software. Earth Surf. Process.
Landf. 45 (1), 11–37.
SHOM, 2016. MNT-Topo-Bathymétrique Cotier à 20 m de l’Estuaire de la Gironde-Aval.
Tech. rep., Projet TANDEM.
Siviglia, A., Crosato, A., 2016. Numerical modelling of river morphodynamics: Latest
developments and remaining challenges. Adv. Water Resour. 93, 1–3.
Soulsby, R., 1997. Dynamics of Marine Sands: A Manual for Practical Applications.
Telford.
Soulsby, R., 2012. Methods for Predicting Suspensions of Mud. Report TR104, HR
Wallingford.
Soulsby, R., Damgaard, J., Whitehouse, R., 1996. A sloping duct for the study of
sediment transport. In: Proceedings of the 25th International Conference of Coastal
Engineering, Orlando, Florida. pp. 1: 3913–3920.
Soulsby, R., Smallman, J., 1986. A Direct Method of Calculating Bottom Orbital Velocity
under Waves. Hydraulics Research, Wallingford.
Stéphan, P., Verdin, F., Arnaud-Fassetta, G., Bertrand, F., Eynaud, F., García-Artola, A.,
Bosq, M., Culioli, C., Suanez, S., Coutelier, C., et al., 2019. Holocene coastal
changes along the Gironde estuary (SW France): new insights from the North Médoc
peninsula beach/dune system. Quat. Rev. Assoc. Fr. Étude Quat. 30 (1), 47–75.
Struijs, R., 1994. A Multi-Dimensional Upwind Discretization Method for the Euler
Equations on Unstructured Grids (Ph.D. thesis). University of Delft, Netherlands.
Struiksma, N., Olesen, K.W., Flokstra, C., Vriend, D.H.J.D., 1985. Bed deformation in
curved alluvial channels. J. Hydraul. Res. 23 (1), 57–79.
Swart, D., 1976. Offshore Sediment Transport and Equilibrium Beach Profiles. Tech.
rep., Delft University, The Netherlands, Delft Hydraulics Publication 131.
Talmon, A., 1992. Bed Topography of River Bends with Suspended Sediment
Transport (Ph.D. thesis). Technische Hogeschool Delft.
Talmon, A., Struiksma, N., van Mierlo, M., 1995. Laboratory measurements of the
direction of sediment transport on transverse alluvial-bed slopes. J. Hydraul. Res.
33 (4), 495–517.
P. Tassi et al.
Tassi, P., Rhebergen, S., Vionnet, C., Bokhove, O., 2008. A discontinuous Galerkin finite
element model for river bed evolution under shallow flows. Comput. Methods Appl.
Mech. Engrg. 197 (33), 2930–2947.
USACE, 2022. HEC-RAS 2D Sediment Transport. United States Army Corps of Engineers
- Hydrologic Engineering Center, https://www.hec.usace.army.mil/confluence/
rasdocs/h2sd. [Online; accessed 07-September-2022].
Van, L.A., 2012. Modélisation du Transport de Sédiments Mixtes Sable-Vase et Appli-
cation à la Morphodynamique de l’Estuaire de la Gironde (France) (Ph.D. thesis).
Paris Est.
Van den Eynde, D., Giardino, A., Portilla, J., Fettweis, M., Francken, F., Monbaliu, J.,
2010. Modelling the effects of sand extraction, on sediment transport due to tides,
on the kwinte bank. J. Coast. Res. 101–116.
Van Ledden, M., Van Kesteren, W., Winterwerp, J., 2004. A conceptual framework for
the erosion behavior of sand/mud mixtures. Cont. Shelf Res. 24, 1–11.
van Maanen, B., Sottolichio, A., 2018. Hydro- and sediment dynamics in the gironde
estuary (France): Sensitivity to seasonal variations in river inflow and sea level
rise. Cont. Shelf Res. 165, 37–50.
van Rijn, L.C., 1984. Sediment transport, part I: Bed load transport. J. Hydraul. Eng.
110 (10), 1431–1456.
van Rijn, L., 1993. Principles of Sediment Transport in Rivers, Estuaries and Coastal
Seas. In: Principles of Sediment Transport in Rivers, Estuaries, and Coastal Seas,
pt. 1, Aqua Publications.
van Rijn, L., 2007a. Unified view of sediment transport by currents and waves. 1.
Initiation of motion, bed roughness, and bed-load transport. J. Hydraul. Eng. 133
(6), 649–667.
van Rijn, L.C., 2007b. Unified view of sediment transport by currents and waves. I:
Initiation of motion, bed roughness, and bed-load transport. J. Hydraul. Eng. 133
(6), 649–667.
Van Rijn, L.C., et al., 1993. Principles of Sediment Transport in Rivers, Estuaries and
Coastal Seas, Vol. 1006. Aqua publications, Amsterdam.
Vanzo, D., Peter, S., Vonwiller, L., Bürgler, M., Weberndorfer, M., Siviglia, A.,
Conde, D., Vetsch, D.F., 2021. Basement v3: a modular freeware for river process
modelling over multiple computational backends. Environ. Model. Softw. 105102.
Villaret, C., Hervouet, J.-M., Kopmann, R., Merkel, U., Davies, A.G., 2013. Morpho-
dynamic modeling using the telemac finite-element system. Comput. Geosci. 53,
105–113, Modeling for Environmental Change.
Villaret, C., Walther, R., 2008. ’’Numerical modelling of the Gironde estuary’’. In:
Physics of Estuaries and Coastal Sediments, Liverpool.
Viollet, P., 1987. The modelling of turbulent recirculating flows for the purpose of
reactor thermal-hydraulic analysis. Nucl. Eng. Des. 99, 365–377.
17
Environmental Modelling and Software 159 (2023) 105544
von Kármán, T., 1930. Mechanische ähnlichkeit und turbulenz [mechanical similitude
and turbulence]. In: Nachrichten von der Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu
Göttingen, Fachgruppe 1 (Mathematik), Vol. 5. pp. 58–76.
von Kármán, T., 1937. Modern conception of the mechanics of fluid turbulence. Trans.
Am. Soc. Civ. Eng. 102, 463–543.
Vreugdenhil, C.B., 2013. Numerical Methods for Shallow-Water Flow, Vol. 13. Springer
Science & Business Media.
Walstra, D., van Rijn, L., Klein, A., 2005. Validation of a new transport formula (TRANS-
POR2004) in a three-dimensional morphological model. In: Coastal Engineering
2004: (in 4 Volumes). World Scientific, pp. 2703–2715.
Warner, J.C., Armstrong, B., He, R., Zambon, J.B., 2010. Development of a coupled
ocean–atmosphere–wave–sediment transport (COAWST) modeling system. Ocean
Model. 35 (3), 230–244.
Wiberg, P., Harris, C., 1994. Ripple geometry in wave-dominated environments. J.
Geophys. Res. 99 (C1), 775–789.
Wilcock, P.R., Crowe, J.C., 2003. Surface-based transport model for mixed-size
sediment. J. Hydraul. Eng. 129 (2), 120–128.
Winterwerp, J.C., van Kesteren, W.G.M., van Prooijen, B., Jacobs, W., 2012. A
conceptual framework for shear flow–induced erosion of soft cohesive sediment
beds. J. Geophys. Res. Oceans 117 (C10).
Winterwerp, J., Kranenburg, C., 2002. Fine Sediment Dynamics in the Marine
Environment. In: ISSN, Elsevier Science.
Wong, M., Parker, G., 2006. Reanalysis and correction of bed-load relation of
Meyer-Peter and Müller using their own database. J. Hydraul. Eng. 132 (11),
1159–1168.
Wu, W., 2007. Computational River Dynamics. In: NetLibrary, Inc, CRC Press.
Wu, W., Wang, S.S., Jia, Y., 2000. Nonuniform sediment transport in alluvial rivers. J.
Hydraul. Res. 38 (6), 427–434.
Yen, C.-L., Lee, K., 1995. Bed topography and sediment sorting in channel bend with
unsteady flow. J. Hydraul. Eng. 121 (8), 591–599.
Zyserman, J.A., Fredsøe, J., 1994. Data analysis of bed concentration of suspended
sediment. J. Hydraul. Eng. 120 (9), 1021–1042.