single and multidimensional sediment yield and transport tools · urban development issues – 2-d...
TRANSCRIPT
Advanced Tools
Single and Multidimensional Sediment Yield and Transport Tools
US Army Corpsof EngineersDetroit District
Great Lakes Hydraulics and Hydrology Office
US Army Corpsof EngineersDetroit District
Sediment Yield
Definition: The total sediment outflow from a drainage basin during a specific time (tons/year)
Precipitation
Sediment Out
US Army Corpsof EngineersDetroit District
Sediment Transport
Definition: Sediment moving downsteam by the action of flowing water, including the quantification of scour and deposition.
US Army Corpsof EngineersDetroit District
Advantages
• High spatial resolution • Ability to model individual processes• Increased confidence
US Army Corpsof EngineersDetroit District
Disadvantages
• High level of modeling expertise required • Extensive calibration/validation data required • Time intensive • Expensive
US Army Corpsof EngineersDetroit District
When do we need a more sophisticated tool?
• When the processes are very complicated
• When a simple tool doesn’t give the correct answer
US Army Corpsof EngineersDetroit District
What makes a tool more complex?
• Adding Dimensions1-d model2-d model3-d model
• Adding more physics-based processes
• Increasing spatial and temporal resolution
US Army Corpsof EngineersDetroit District
What does a 1-d model mean?
Model Input: Q=100 ft3/s
Model Determines: Area = 25 ft3
Velocity = Q/A = 100/25= 4 ft/s
Velocity is the same everywhere in the x-section (HEC-RAS is 1-d)
US Army Corpsof EngineersDetroit District
Another way to look at 1-d limitations
Ave (1-d) velocity
Velocity ProfileNo Friction With Friction
Under-estimating velocity
Over-estimating velocity
US Army Corpsof EngineersDetroit District
From Rosgen 1996
Measured VelocitiesNote Multi-dimensional Nature
US Army Corpsof EngineersDetroit District
Flow with strong 3-dimensional nature
Shiono and Knight, 1991
US Army Corpsof EngineersDetroit District
Hydrology/Sediment Yield Model LimitationsLumped vs. Distributed Models
Lumped Models Distributed Models
US Army Corpsof EngineersDetroit District
Hydrology/Sediment Yield Model LimitationsLumped vs. Distributed Models
Lumped Models Distributed Models
• Time consuming to set up• Models are sometimes unstable and require considerable messaging• Slow running models• Can provide high-resolution answers• Typically used on smaller catchments
SWATGSSHACASC2D
• Simple to set up and run• Can be used by non-modelers• Used on large watersheds
SCS MethodRUSLERational MethodWCS
US Army Corpsof EngineersDetroit District
Creating the lumps in a lumped model
US Army Corpsof EngineersDetroit District
Lumped vs Distributed Model
DistributedLumped
US Army Corpsof EngineersDetroit District
Examples of model applications
• Clinton River
Urban development issues – 2-d sediment yield model
Shoaling problem – 3-d sediment transport model
• Sheboygan River
Contaminated sediment capped by clean sand – 3-d sediment transport model
• Saginaw RiverFeasibility of sediment trap – 1-d sediment transport model
Erosion of agricultural field – 2-d sediment yield model
Distributed Parameter ModelClinton River
• Urbanization- Landuse change- Effect of buffer strips- Effect of lot size- Effect of retention basins- Wetland loss- Distance from river- Controlling Rooftop Runoff- Controlling Construction Runoff
• Contribution from bank erosion• Effect of spillway and inflatable weir
US Army Corpsof EngineersDetroit District
Clinton River SubwatershedsUS Army Corpsof EngineersDetroit District
Detailed Model Area
Development of GSSHA GridUS Army Corpsof EngineersDetroit District
Integration of Aerial Photography,DEM and Parcel Data
Orion Rd.Adam
s Rd.
US Army Corpsof EngineersDetroit District
Integration of Land Uses and Buffer Strips
Buffer strip
Apply Precipitation
Sediment Flux Gage Locations
0.000
0.001
0.002
0.003
0.004
0.005
0.006
0.007
0.008
0 100 200 300 400 500
time (min)
sedi
men
t flu
x (m
3 /s)
Short GrassLong Grass
ForestBermuda grass
Bare FieldRange
0.000
0.001
0.002
0.003
0.004
0.005
0.006
0.007
0.008
0.009
0 100 200 300 400 500
time (min)
sedi
men
t flu
x (m
3 /s)
Short Grass
Long GrassForest
Bermuda grassBare FieldRange
0.000
0.001
0.002
0.003
0.004
0.005
0.006
0.007
0.008
0.009
0 100 200 300 400 500
time (min)
sedi
men
t flu
x (m
3 /s)
Short GrassLong Grass
ForestBermuda grass
Bare FieldRange
10m buffer. 20m buffer. 30m buffer.
Sediment Flux at Buffer Strips of Varying Width
Clinton River
• Urbanization- Landuse change- Effect of buffer strips- Effect of lot size- Effect of retention basins- Wetland loss- Distance from river- Controlling Rooftop Runoff- Controlling Construction Runoff
• Contribution from bank erosion• Effect of spillway and inflatable weir
US Army Corpsof EngineersDetroit District
Small Scale Application
Effect of Lot Sizes
1 acre
1/2 acre
1/3 acre
1/4 acre
1/5 acre
1/8 acre
1/10 acre
1/10 acre lots
1/3 acre lots
US Army Corpsof EngineersDetroit District
Effect of Lot Size
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Time (min)
00.050.10.150.20.250.30.350.40.450.50.550.6
Dis
char
ge (m
3 /s)
0
0.004
0.008
0.012
0.016
0.02
Susp
ende
d se
dim
ent l
oad
(m3 /
s)
1 AcreSediment LoadDischarge
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Time (min)
00.050.10.150.20.250.30.350.40.450.50.550.6
Dis
char
ge (m
3 /s)
0
0.004
0.008
0.012
0.016
0.02
Susp
ende
d se
dim
ent l
oad
(m3 /
s)
1/2 AcreSediment LoadDischarge
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Time (min)
00.050.10.150.20.250.30.350.40.450.50.550.6
Dis
char
ge (m
3 /s)
0
0.004
0.008
0.012
0.016
0.02
Susp
ende
d se
dim
ent l
oad
(m3 /
s)
1/3 AcreSediment LoadDischarge
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Time (min)
00.050.10.150.20.250.30.350.40.450.50.550.6
Dis
char
ge (m
3 /s)
0
0.004
0.008
0.012
0.016
0.02
Susp
ende
d se
dim
ent l
oad
(m3 /
s)
1/4 AcreSediment LoadDischarge
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Time (min)
00.050.10.150.20.250.30.350.40.450.50.550.6
Dis
char
ge (m
3 /s)
0
0.004
0.008
0.012
0.016
0.02
Susp
ende
d se
dim
ent l
oad
(m3 /
s)
1/5 AcreSediment LoadDischarge
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Time (min)
00.050.10.150.20.250.30.350.40.450.50.550.6
Dis
char
ge (m
3 /s)
0
0.004
0.008
0.012
0.016
0.02
Susp
ende
d se
dim
ent l
oad
(m3 /
s)
1/8 AcreSediment LoadDischarge
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Time (min)
00.050.10.150.20.250.30.350.40.450.50.550.6
Dis
char
ge (m
3 /s)
0
0.004
0.008
0.012
0.016
0.02
Susp
ende
d se
dim
ent l
oad
(m3 /
s)
1/10 AcreSediment LoadDischarge
US Army Corpsof EngineersDetroit District
Clinton River
• Urbanization- Landuse change- Effect of buffer strips- Effect of lot size- Effect of retention basins- Wetland loss- Distance from river- Controlling Rooftop Runoff- Controlling Construction Runoff
• Contribution from bank erosion• Effect of spillway and inflatable weir
US Army Corpsof EngineersDetroit District
Small Scale Application
Small Scale Contributions
Rooftop runoff
Rooftop infiltration Tanks
Clinton River
• Urbanization- Landuse change- Effect of buffer strips- Effect of lot size- Effect of retention basins- Wetland loss- Distance from river- Controlling Rooftop Runoff- Controlling Construction Runoff
• Contribution from bank erosion• Effect of spillway and inflatable weir
US Army Corpsof EngineersDetroit District
Controlled Runoff from Construction Sites
Scenarios
No control
Sand bags
Rock
Silt fences
Furrowed
Terracing
Controlled Runoff from Construction Sites
P (conservation practice factor) Values Obtained from the Alberta Transportation Department (Alberta Transportation, 2003).
Model scenario Variable No
control Sand Bags
Rock Silt fences Furrowed Terracing
P value 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.1 Volume of infiltrated water (m3) 17100 17100 17100 17100 17100 17100 Volume of discharge (m3) 7000 7000 7000 7000 7000 7000 Net sand eroded from surface (m3) 980 890 810 640 560 220 Net silt eroded from surface (m3) 180 170 150 120 100 40 Net clay eroded from surface (m3) 61 56 51 40 35 14 Total sand into channels (m3) 5 5 5 5 5 5 Total silt into channels (m3) 5 16 16 16 16 16 Total clay into channels (m3) 5 5 5 5 5 5
US Army Corpsof EngineersDetroit District
US Army Corpsof EngineersDetroit District
SummaryClinton River Sediment Yield
• The resolution needed to model issues such as lot size, roof-top runoff, construction practices, etc. is only possible using a distributed (2-d) model
Clinton River
• Urbanization- Landuse change- Effect of buffer strips- Effect of lot size- Effect of retention basins- Wetland loss- Distance from river
• Contribution from bank erosion• Effect of spillway and inflatable weir
US Army Corpsof EngineersDetroit District
River BathymetryUS Army Corpsof EngineersDetroit District
US Army Corpsof EngineersDetroit District
Inflatable Weir
FlowFl
ow
Inflatable Weir and Shoal
Inflatable WeirUS Army Corpsof EngineersDetroit District
Curvilinear Model GridUS Army Corpsof EngineersDetroit District
Modeling Flows with EFDC
Storm Event Bed Change
Modeling Sediments with EFDC
US Army Corpsof EngineersDetroit District
Examples of model applications
• Clinton River
Urban development issues – 2-d sediment yield model
Shoaling problem – 3-d sediment transport model
• Sheboygan River
Contaminated sediment capped by clean sand – 3-d sediment transport model
• Saginaw RiverFeasibility of sediment trap – 1-d sediment transport model
Erosion of agricultural field – 2-d sediment yield model
US Army Corpsof EngineersDetroit District
Lake Michigan
Native Material
Sand
Sheboygan River
PCBs
US Army Corpsof EngineersDetroit District
Sheboygan River Bathymetry
US Army Corpsof EngineersDetroit District
CH3D-SED Modeling Grid
US Army Corpsof EngineersDetroit District
Bed Characterization
US Army Corpsof EngineersDetroit District
Bed Change
A 1-d model would not be able to represent this complex flow structure
US Army Corpsof EngineersDetroit District
Examples of model applications
• Clinton River
Urban development issues – 2-d sediment yield model
Shoaling problem – 3-d sediment transport model
• Sheboygan River
Contaminated sediment capped by clean sand – 3-d sediment transport model
• Saginaw RiverFeasibility of sediment trap – 1-d sediment transport model
Erosion of agricultural field – 2-d sediment yield model
US Army Corpsof EngineersDetroit District
Sub-basin Map
Model Domain, Hydrodynamics and Hydrology Links
Sediment Transport Model HEC-6
GIS
+AGNPS
Hydrodynamics
+
US Army Corpsof EngineersDetroit District
Feasibility of Sediment Traps
US Army Corpsof EngineersDetroit District
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000
Q (cfs)
Perc
enta
ge (%
Clay
Silt
Sand
Feasibility of Sediment Traps
Percent exiting sediment trap
US Army Corpsof EngineersDetroit District
Summary
• Simple models can be very useful, but the user must understand their limitation
• More-complex models allow insight into processes unresolvable with simple models, but are often very time consuming, data intensive and expensive
• By clearly identifying the problem to be solved, an appropriate model can be selected
Questions?
Contact:Dr. Jim Selegean, P.E., P.H.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Detroit DistrictGreat Lakes Hydraulics and Hydrology Office
477 Michigan AveDetroit, MI 48226
313.226.6791
US Army Corpsof EngineersDetroit District