排序方式: 共有5条查询结果,搜索用时 15 毫秒
1
1.
Alluvial fans and fan deltas can, in principle, have exactly the same upstream conditions, but fan deltas by definition have ponding water at their downstream boundary. This ponding creates effects on the autogenic behaviour of fan deltas, such as backwater adaptation, mouth bars and backward sedimentation, whereas alluvial fans may lack these effects. Hence the present authors hypothesize that morphodynamics on alluvial fans are determined primarily by upstream boundary conditions, whereas morphodynamics on fan deltas are determined by both the upstream and the downstream boundary condition and changes therein. To isolate the effects of the upstream and downstream boundaries, five new alluvial fan experiments are compared with the details of three fan deltas published earlier that were formed under very similar and simple conditions. Similar to the fan deltas, the alluvial fans build up by sheet flow, whilst quasi‐regular periods of incision cause temporary channelized flow. Incision is followed by channel backfilling, after which the fan returns to sheet flow. The channelization and backfilling in alluvial fans is markedly less pronounced and more prone to autogenic disturbance than in fan deltas. The difference is caused by morphodynamics at the downstream boundary. In a fan delta, the flow expansion of the channel causes deposition of all the sediment, which forms a mouth bar and causes strong backfilling. In an alluvial fan, on the other hand, the slope break at the fan perimeter causes some deposition, but transport is not reduced to zero. Consequently, the backfilling in alluvial fans is less pronounced than in fan deltas. Other published experiments support this trend: removal of the mouth bar by a river leads to permanent channelization, whilst pronounced mouth‐bar formation in highly channelized deltas promotes backward sedimentation. The experimental results for this study predict that, when alluvial fans prograde into lakes or deep rivers, they transition to fan deltas with increasingly deeper channels and thicker backfill deposits. 相似文献
2.
3.
A second‐generation, source‐to‐sink cellular automaton‐based model presented here captures and quantifies many of the factors controlling the evolution of aeolian dune‐field patterns by varying only a small number of parameters. The role of sediment supply, sediment availability and transport capacity (together defined as sediment state) in the development and evolution of an aeolian dune‐field pattern over long time scales is quantified from model simulations. Seven dune‐field patterns can be classified from simulation results varying the sediment supply and transport capacity that control the type and frequency of dune interactions, the sediment availability of the system and, ultimately, the development of dune‐field patterns. This model allows predictions to be made about the range of sediment supply and wind strengths required to produce the dune‐field patterns seen in the real world. A new clustered dune‐field pattern is identified from model results and used to propose an alternative mechanism for the formation of superimposed dunes. Bedforms are hypothesized to cluster together, simultaneously forming two spatial scales of bedforms without first developing a large basal dune with small superimposed dunes. Manipulation of boundary conditions produces evolving dune fields with different spatial configurations of sediment supply. Trends of spacing and crest length increase with decreasing variability as the dune field matures. This simple model is a valuable tool which can be used to elucidate the dominant control of aeolian sediment state on the construction and evolution of aeolian dune‐field patterns. 相似文献
4.
5.
1