A 2016 laboratory experiment on a degradational sand–gravel reach with no sediment supply showed that partial transport drives formation of a static armor whose downstream fining is governed by an M1 backwater, producing an abrupt break in slope and bed-surface grain size resembling a river gravel–sand transition. The accompanying active-layer morphodynamic model reproduced the adjustment and the final bed-surface texture but underpredicted the rapid early coarsening rate, and it cannot represent temporal changes in bed porosity or bed structure, which were not measured. The open questions are: how spatially and temporally evolving bed porosity and bed-structure state (matrix- versus clast-supported) control sand availability, pore-filling entrainment, and the coarsening time scale; which process omission explains the model's coarsening-rate underprediction; and whether the experimental mechanism is representative of natural gravel–sand transitions.

Background

In gravel-bed rivers carrying sand, the bed surface commonly coarsens when fine material is winnowed from the surface layer, a process called armoring; a static armor forms when the coarse surface layer becomes immobile because the flow can no longer move it, typically under a shortage of sediment supply. Under partial transport, only part of the bed surface (here, the sand and the finer gravel) is mobile while the coarsest grains never move. The bed surface texture is the grain size distribution of the bed surface, which Orrú et al. (2016) measured during flow with a new color-segmentation image analysis technique applied along a laboratory flume. Their experiment used a bimodal reach with a stepwise downstream-fining pattern of two fractions (sand and gravel), followed by a sand reach, with no sediment fed from upstream; this degradational (eroding, supply-limited) setting caused a static armor to form over the bimodal reach while the bed surface transition sharpened into an abrupt change in slope and mean grain size. A key hydromechanical finding is that this transition was governed by a backwater: an M1 backwater is a gradually varied flow profile in which depth increases in the downstream direction over a mild slope, so the bed shear stress and hence sand mobility decrease toward the transition; because the immobile gravel prevented the reach from adjusting to normal (uniform) flow, the morphodynamic steady state itself remained backwater-controlled. Downstream fining is the streamwise decrease in bed grain size; here it arose from erosion under this backwater rather than from deposition. An abrupt downstream transition from a gravel bed to a sand bed within a few channel widths is called a gravel–sand transition (GST), and natural GSTs have been attributed to several processes, including depositional downstream fining, gravel-wedge progradation, basin subsidence, base-level change, abrasion, washload deposition, and lateral sediment inputs. Orrú et al. (2016) interpreted their experiment with a one-dimensional numerical morphodynamic model based on the active layer concept (Hirano): the bed exchanges sediment with the flow only through a well-mixed surface layer of prescribed thickness LaL_a, under which a substrate stores the deposited or entrained sediment. Sediment transport was computed with the Ashida–Michiue bedload relation, in which the mobility of each fraction is modulated by a hiding function: fines sheltered behind coarse grains move less easily and exposed coarse grains move more easily, with the exponent mm (between 0, no hiding, and 1, equal mobility of all sizes) controlling the strength of grain-size selectivity; the critical condition for motion is expressed by a critical Shields stress τscg∗\tau_{scg}^{*}, a dimensionless threshold on the ratio of bed shear stress to submerged grain weight, and the flow resistance by a nondimensional friction coefficient CfqC_{fq}. Calibration against the measured bed elevations, water surface, bed-surface texture, and transport rate gave Cfq=0.011C_{fq}=0.011, τscg∗=0.035\tau_{scg}^{*}=0.035, and m=0.5m=0.5 (consistent with the range 0.3–0.7 proposed for strongly bimodal mixtures), with bed porosity pp (the void fraction of the bed, i.e. the fraction of bed volume not occupied by grains) fixed at 0.4. The model reproduced the hydrodynamic and morphodynamic adjustment and the final bed-surface texture, but the coarsening of the bed surface was predicted too slowly: in the experiment, rapid sand entrainment quickly produced a coarse surface, whereas the model's coarsening time scale was longer. The authors attribute this candidate discrepancy to the model's inability to represent temporal changes in bed porosity and in bed structure, the latter meaning whether the bed is clast-supported (grains in mutual contact, sand occupying the pores) or matrix-supported (gravel dispersed in a sand matrix); when sand constitutes the pore-filling load (sand stored in the pores between framework gravel), its entrainment from the pores changes porosity and limits morphodynamic change, as formalized for the River Rhine by Frings et al. (2008), who introduced a porosity-based discrimination between pore-filling and bed-structure load. Because the experiment excluded processes recognized as relevant to natural GSTs (progradation of a gravel wedge, basin subsidence, time-varying base level, abrasion, suspended load) and used a stepwise two-fraction initial bed, the authors explicitly hesitated to claim similarity between the experimental mechanisms and those governing a GST in the field. Subsequent GST research has grown but not converged: Dingle et al. (2021) reviewed GSTs and the associated grain-size gap (the widespread scarcity of 1–5 mm bed material), Dingle and Venditti (2023) formed GSTs in flumes by washload deposition (washload is fine sediment transported in suspension that interacts negligibly with the bed) with shear velocity near 0.1 m/s, and An et al. (2024) produced autogenic bimodality and a GST in a model with an abrupt floodplain-width increase while noting that no general morphodynamic model yet generates the grain-size gap and GST autogenically from unimodal feed; field studies such as He et al. (2023) on the Yangtze River attribute GST origin to shear-stress drops driven by width variability and distributaries and state that GST origin and migration remain difficult to explain.

Problem Statement

The source experiment and model define a coherent unresolved objective: to establish the mechanisms that control the rate and end state of static-armor formation and bed-surface coarsening in a degradational sand–gravel bed under sediment-supply limitation and partial transport, and to determine whether these mechanisms operate in natural gravel–sand transitions. Specifically, the following linked questions remain open: (1) How do spatially and temporally evolving bed porosity and bed-structure state (matrix-supported versus clast-supported, with sand acting as pore-filling load) govern sand availability, pore-filling entrainment, and the effective time scale of coarsening during static-armor formation in such a reach? (2) Can a mixed-sediment morphodynamic model that represents temporal changes in bed porosity and bed structure reproduce the rapid early coarsening rate observed in the Orrú et al. (2016) experiment, and is the original model's underprediction of that rate attributable to the neglected porosity/bed-structure dynamics suggested by the authors? (3) Is the experimental mechanism — a static armor governed by downstream fining induced by an M1 backwater under sediment-supply limitation and partial transport — representative of the formation mechanisms of natural gravel–sand transitions, which additionally involve gravel-wedge progradation, basin subsidence, time-varying base level, abrasion, and suspended load? An adequate answer to (1)–(2) requires new measurements and/or model development evaluated against the published experiment; an adequate answer to (3) requires evidence from nature or from experiments that include the excluded field processes. All three questions are required: a mechanistic answer to (1) does not discharge (2)'s model-reproduction test (or vice versa), and neither discharges (3).

References

  1. Orrú, C., Blom, A., Chavarrías, V., Ferrara, V., and Stecca, G. (2016), A new technique for measuring the bed surface texture during flow and application to a degradational sand-gravel laboratory experiment, Water Resources Research 52(9), 7005-7022, DOI 10.1002/2016wr018938, https://doi.org/10.1002/2016wr018938
  2. Orrú, C., Blom, A., and Uijttewaal, W. S. J. (2016), Armor breakup and reformation in a degradational laboratory experiment, Earth Surface Dynamics 4, 461-470, DOI 10.5194/esurf-4-461-2016, https://doi.org/10.5194/esurf-4-461-2016
  3. Chavarrías, V., Blom, A., Orrú, C., Martín-Vide, J. P., and Viparelli, E. (2018), A Sand-Gravel Gilbert Delta Subject to Base Level Change, Journal of Geophysical Research: Earth Surface 123, 1160-1179, DOI 10.1029/2017jf004428, https://doi.org/10.1029/2017JF004428
  4. Chavarrías, V., Arkesteijn, L., and Blom, A. (2019), A Well-Posed Alternative to the Hirano Active Layer Model for Rivers With Mixed-Size Sediment, Journal of Geophysical Research: Earth Surface 124, 2491-2520, DOI 10.1029/2019jf005081, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019JF005081
  5. Chavarrías, V., Stecca, G., Siviglia, A., and Blom, A. (2019), A regularization strategy for modeling mixed-sediment river morphodynamics, Advances in Water Resources 127, 291-309, DOI 10.1016/j.advwatres.2019.04.001, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advwatres.2019.04.001
  6. Frings, R. M., Kleinhans, M. G., and Vollmer, S. (2008), Discriminating between pore-filling load and bed-structure load: a new porosity-based method, exemplified for the river Rhine, Sedimentology 55, 1571-1593, DOI 10.1111/j.1365-3091.2008.00958.x, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3091.2008.00958.x
  7. Dingle, E. H., Kusack, K. M., and Venditti, J. G. (2021), The gravel-sand transition and grain size gap in river bed sediments, Earth-Science Reviews 222, 103838, DOI 10.1016/j.earscirev.2021.103838, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2021.103838
  8. Dingle, E. H., and Venditti, J. G. (2023), Experiments on Gravel-Sand Transitions: Behavior of the Grain Size Gap Material, Journal of Geophysical Research: Earth Surface 128, DOI 10.1029/2023jf007117, https://doi.org/10.1029/2023JF007117
  9. Dingle, E. H., and Venditti, J. G. (2023), Experiments on Gravel-Sand Transitions: Examination of Washload Deposition, Journal of Geophysical Research: Earth Surface 128, DOI 10.1029/2023jf007116, https://doi.org/10.1029/2023JF007116
  10. He, Z., Sun, Z., Zhou, W., Li, Y., and Hu, Y. (2023), Gravel-Sand Transition of the Yangtze River: Human Disturbances, Migration Processes, and Controlling Factors, Journal of Geophysical Research: Earth Surface 128, DOI 10.1029/2022jf006984, https://doi.org/10.1029/2022JF006984
  11. An, C., Parker, G., Venditti, J. G., Lamb, M. P., Hassan, M. A., Miwa, H., and Fu, X. (2024), Autogenic Formation of Bimodal Grain Size Distributions in Rivers and Its Contribution to Gravel-Sand Transitions, Geophysical Research Letters 51, DOI 10.1029/2024gl109109, https://doi.org/10.1029/2024GL109109
  12. Perera, C., Wu, W., and Knack, I. (2022), Porosity of bimodal and trimodal sediment mixtures, International Journal of Sediment Research 37, 258-271, DOI 10.1016/j.ijsrc.2021.09.008, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsrc.2021.09.008
  13. Fujita, M., Sulaiman, M., and Tsutsumi, D. (2017), A Method for Estimating the Porosity of Sediment Mixtures and Application to a Bed-Porosity Variation Model, in Gravel-Bed Rivers: Processes and Disasters, DOI 10.1002/9781118971437.ch21, https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118971437.ch21
  14. Iwami, S., and Fujita, M. (2023), Application of the porosity-bed variation model considering the sheltering effect of immobile sediment to the field experiment on sediment supply, Journal of JSCE 11, DOI 10.2208/journalofjsce.22-00342, https://doi.org/10.2208/journalofjsce.22-00342