D-CORMIX Continuous Dredge Disposal Mixing Zone Water Quality Model

Laboratory and Field Data Validation Study

Robert L. Doneker1 and Gerhard H. Jirka2

 1997 Oregon Graduate Institute, All Rights Reserved

1
Assistant Professor, Department of Environmental Science and Engineering

Oregon Graduate Institute

PO Box 91000, Portland, OR 97291-1000

2
Director, Institute for Hydromechanics, University of Karlsruhe
Karlsruhe, D-76131, Germany

October 15, 1997

 Table of Contents

1. Objectives................................................................................................................................ 4

2. Background/Description.......................................................................................................... 4

Model Formulation...................................................................................................................... 6

3. Comparison with Published Laboratory Data ....................................................................... 12

3.1 General Appraisal of Published Laboratory Data.............................................................. 12

3.2 Hauenstein and Dracos (1983), Hauenstein (1982) Thesis ............................................... 13

3.2.1 Overall Remarks on the Data .................................................................................... 13

Limitations of the Data.......................................................................................................... 16

3.3 Alavian (1986)................................................................................................................... 17

3.3.1 Overall Remarks on the Data .................................................................................... 17

3.3.2 Limitations of the Data.............................................................................................. 18

3.4 Christodoulou and Tzachow (1994).................................................................................. 18

3.4.1 Overall Remarks on the Data .................................................................................... 18

3.4.2 Limitations of the Data.............................................................................................. 20

3.5 Luthi (1980, 1981)............................................................................................................. 20

3.5.1 Overall Remarks on the Data .................................................................................... 20

3.5.2 Limitations of the Data.............................................................................................. 27

4. Comparison with Field Data ................................................................................................. 28

4.1 Tyler’s Beach Field Data Set............................................................................................. 28

4.1.1 Overall Remarks on the Data .................................................................................... 28

4.1.2 Limitations of the Data.............................................................................................. 30

4.2 Mobile Bay Field Data Set ................................................................................................ 30

4.2.1 Overall Remarks on the Data .................................................................................... 31

2
 4.2.2 Limitations of the Data Set........................................................................................ 32

5. Conclusions/Recommendations ............................................................................................ 34

6. References ............................................................................................................................. 35

7. APPENDIX A: D-CORMIX (Previously called CD-CORMIX) THEORECTICAL

BACKGROUND........................................................................................................................... 37

8. APPENDIX B: Alabama Field Validation Data Set And D-CORMIX Predictions ............. 44

3
1. Objectives

This is a report of an initial validation of the D-CORMIX (Dredge-CORMIX) model for water
quality prediction in dredge disposal plumes. D-CORMIX is an extension of CORMIX, a
USEPA approved and widely validated model for point source initial mixing and water quality
prediction. D-CORMIX modifies and improves the physical density current model contained in
CORMIX to account for particle settling in dredge disposal plumes.

In this study, model predictions are compared with available laboratory and field data. The data
sets are evaluated for quality in validation of the model. Finally, recommendations are made for
additional validation and model development work.

2. Background/Description

D-CORMIX is a near and far field mixing zone model for negatively buoyant discharges with
suspended sediment loads resulting from continuous dredge disposal operations. The model uses
the same expert-system user-interface as CORMIX (Jirka, et. al., 1996) to input data, and follows
a similar classification scheme for submerged discharges as CORMIX1 (Doneker and Jirka,
1990) and for surface discharges as CORMIX3 (Jones et. al., 1997) to determine the near field
flow structure. The strength of the model lies in its classification scheme that determines the
flow regimes that are important in a given situation, and applies the correct jet-integral or length-
scale model appropriate to each regime. Central to the methodology is the ability to predict
dynamic boundary interaction of jets and plumes. Boundary interactions include near-field
attachments, fully mixed jets in shallow water, surface fall down (i.e. the plunge point), internal
trapping, and three-dimensional density current behavior on either a flat bottom, inclined bottom,
or trapped density level. Particle settling is accounted for once bottom contact has occurred. A
summary of ambient and discharge assumptions appears in Figures 1 and 2. The theoretical basis
for the density current model (formerly called CD-CORMIX) appears in Appendix A.

Several different discharge configurations are considered in D-CORMIX, including submerged,

surface, and above surface discharges. Above surface discharges can either be sprayed i) over a

4
 Figure 1: D-CORMIX ambient conditions assumptions.

large area, ii) sprayed in a single jet, or iii) sprayed onto a deflector plate. Below surface jet
discharges are restricted to the upper half of the water column. Shoreline discharges occur at the
surface of the ambient water body, issued from a pipe or discharge canal. Five sediment class
sizes are supported (large chunky solids, sand, coarse silt, fine silt, and clay) and sedimentation is
modeled using Stokes settling. The model can simulate hindered Stokes settling as an option, but
this process was not simulated in this study for initial model validation. The sediment size
classes and settling velocities are shown in Table 1. In addition, a conservative or non-
conservative tracer pollutant may be issued in the discharge. A non-conservative tracer pollutant
can be assigned a first order decay or growth. Furthermore, the model can also be run without
any sediment present in the discharge flow.

As shown in Figure 1, the ambient water body may have either one or two zones (near-shore and
offshore), where different ambient velocity ua, bottom slope S and Darcy friction factors f may be
entered. The offshore slope S2 may be either flat or inclined, while the near-slope S1 must have
some inclination. Ambient stratification, also shown in Figure 1, is described by a surface

5
 Figure 2: D-CORMIX discharge assumptions.
density value, and up to three density values (other than the surface) which are known at different
submergence levels below the water surface.

2.1 Model Formulation

As stated previously, the computational modules used in D-CORMIX are similar to those used in
CORMIX1 (Doneker and Jirka, 1990) and CORMIX3 (Jones et. al., 1997) with a number of
modifications and additions. Figure 3 shows the flow classification system of CORMIX and
representative sketches of resulting plumes. In general, D-CORMIX uses a classification scheme
that has been inverted from the CORMIX flow classifications. Whereas CORMIX1 is primarily
concerned with buoyant discharges near the bottom, D-CORMIX assumes a negatively buoyant
discharge near the water surface. Therefore, behavior of plumes simulated by D-CORMIX
would be represented by “mirror images” of the sketches shown in Figure 3. The water surface
replaced by the ambient bottom and vice-versa; plumes would sink towards the bottom rather
than rise to the surface as shown in Figure 3.

6
7

Figure 3A: CORMIX1 classification for internally trapped flows in ambient density stratification. The D-CORMIX DS flow
classes would be “mirror images” of these flows; dredge plumes would sink towards the bottom rather than rise towards the surface.
8

Figure 3B:CORMIX1 V, H flow classes. The corresponding D-CORMIX DV and DH flow classes would be mirror images of
these flows.
9

Figure 3C: CORMIX1 Dynamic bottom attachment flow classes. The D-CORMIX “mirror image” flows would
attach to the surface rather than the bottom as depicted here.
10

Figure 3D: CORMIX3 surface discharge flow classification. The D-CORMIX uses flow classes DFJ1 and DFJ3 to
characterize shoreline discharges.
In summary, the DS classes (inverted CORMIX1 S-classes, Figure 3A) represent flows where
stratification is important in the near field and trapping of the density current will occur. The DV
and DH classes (inverted from CORMIX1’s V and H classes, Figure 3B) represent flows issued
near vertically (DV) or near horizontally (DH) which do not trap within the density stratification,
and eventually create sediment depositing density currents which flow down the inclined (or flat)
ambient bottom. Two-dimensional flows may also be predicted where the ambient is considered
shallow (DH4, 5 and DV4-6). In addition, many of the above flows may exhibit dynamic
attachment to the water surface; these flows are further classified as attached cases (DA classes,
Figure 3C), which are simply inverted cases of the CORMIX1 A-classes. Two classes (DFJI and
DFJ3, Figure 3D) are used in characterizing the flows issued from the shoreline; these are similar
to the CORMIX3 system and represent the cases of free jets in deep and shallow receiving water,
respectively

Table 1: Particle Size Class and Settling Velocities

Sediment Size Class Particle Size (µm) Settling Velocity (mm/s)

Chunks (large non-suspended N/A N/A

solids and stones)

Sand > 62 320

Coarse Silt 16-62 6.28

Fine Silt 3.3-16 0.394

Clay < 3.3 0.0134

D-CORMIX allows for sedimentation to occur in all flows contacting the bottom. Thus the
modules 310-362 (used for positively buoyant spreading at the surface in CORMIX3) have been

11
modified so that they represent negatively buoyant density currents with sedimentation. In
particular, MOD310 of D-CORMIX predicts density current behavior on an inclined plane using
a three-dimensional integral model presented in Appendix A.

3. Comparison with Published Laboratory Data

After an exhaustive search of the available literature, a very limited set of published laboratory
data was found for model validation. However, this data can provide the basis for an initial
validation of the fundamental physical processes modeled by the D-CORMIX methodology. In
particular, these data sets will provide a verification of two fundamentally important physical
processes that the model simulates: 1) density currents with sedimentation, and 2) the behavior of
a density current along a sloping bottom.

3.1 General Appraisal of Published Laboratory Data

Most of the published experiments do not use sediment releases, but discharge saline solutions to
study density current behavior. Saline discharges will permit validation of general density
current trajectory and dilution, but will not allow for analysis of sedimentation effects. In
addition, several of the laboratory studies were formulated to study discharges at very low
velocity (and Reynolds numbers) which is not common for typical high velocity dredge discharge
scenarios. Discharges at low Reynolds numbers will produce laminar flow dominated by viscous
forces instead of the turbulent flow found in high velocity dredge discharges. None of the
experiments were conducted in the presence of an ambient crossflow. Because most of the
experiments occurred in confined laboratory tanks, steady-state conditions are often not achieved.

To summarize the overall quality of the available laboratory data for model validation:

• All experiments and laboratory data are limited to stagnant ambient conditions

• Only one experiment (Luthi, 1981) reported an actual sediment release

• Most experiments are limited in duration

• Most experiments do not achieve steady-state conditions

• Observations are mostly visual and limited to plan view of lateral spreading

12
3.2 Hauenstein and Dracos (1983), Hauenstein (1982) Thesis

Hauenstein and Dracos present a laboratory study of density current behavior, noting plume
characteristics such as width, depth, and velocity using saline density currents. The experiments
were performed in a 6-m x 10-m x 1-m tank with a bottom that could be inclined to study effects
of bottom slope.

3.2.1 Overall Remarks on the Data

In general, this study presented a comprehensive set of large-scale experiments with various
source characteristics and bottom slopes. Plots are given which show time evolution of the
unsteady advancing density current front. Detailed comparisons of data with D-CORMIX
predictions are presented for experiments U03 and W10. These experiments have a surface
discharge of a saline solution into a tank with a sloping bottom with no ambient crossflow.

The effect of bottom slope on plume behavior for discharges with similar Froude numbers is
shown in Figure 4. The bottom slope and initial Froude number for experiments U03 and W10
are S0 = 2.45o Fr = 4.69, and S0 = 16.6o Fr = 4.73, respectively. A steep bottom slope will cause
the density current to accelerate and thus limit lateral spreading. Figure 4 shows a plan view of
the visual outline of the plume boundaries for experiments U03 and W10 with the D-CORMIX
steady-state width predictions. For the shallow slope experiment U03, D-CORMIX predictions
appear to under-predict lateral plume spreading while width predictions for the steep slope
experiment W10 appear to be in good agreement with data.

Figure 5 shows the corresponding plume depth data and model predictions for experiments U03
and W10. For the shallow slope experiment U03 the model appears to over-predict plume depth.
Plume depth predictions for the steep slope experiment W10 appear to be in excellent agreement
with laboratory data.

Figure 6 shows temperature deficit decay along the plume centerline for experiment U03. In the
absence of heat transfer for the short time scales in these experiments, the temperature decay is
directly analogous to plume dilution. D-CORMIX prediction of temperature decay (dilution)
appears to agree very well with data. Perhaps the model under-prediction of plume width and

13
 Figure 4: Plan view of comparison of D-CORMIX width predictions with Hauenstein
(1983) outlines of visual plume boundaries.
over-prediction of plume depth compensate each other to produce an acceptable dilution. No
corresponding temperature decay data was available for experiment W10 for comparison.

In summary, the overall quality of the data for model validation include the following:

• Comprehensive, large scale experiments

• Large Reynolds number (Re > 10,000)

• Different Slopes (2.5o to 16o)

14
Figure 5: Side view of Hauenstein (1983) plume depth data and D-CORMIX predictions for
experiments U03 and W10.

15
 Figure 6: Temperature deficit decay along centerline for Hauenstein (1983) experiment U03.
Temperature deficit decay is analogous to dilution S.

3.2.2 Limitations of the Data

The comparisons presented above indicate good agreement as well as weak agreement with
observed data. Temperature decay (dilution) prediction appears to be in good agreement with
observed data, although plume dimensions for this experiment were not well predicted. In the
case where good agreement of plume dimension prediction and observed data was found, no
dilution data were available. The overall limitations of this data set for model validation are
summarized as follows:

• Not fully steady-state over large distances

• Very limited depth (thickness) measurements

• Very little concentration data

• No direct velocity measurements

16
3.3 Alavian (1986)

Alavian conducted a laboratory study on density current behavior with different source
characteristics and bottom slopes. Experiments were conducted in an experimental tank 1.5-m
deep, 1.5-m wide, and 3-m long. These studies do not include a source of suspended sediment,
but use a surface discharge of a saline solution with high, medium, and low buoyancy flux on
inclines with slopes of either 5o or 10o. The effects of different initial buoyancy flux and bottom
slopes on density current entrainment is reported.

3.3.1 Overall Remarks on the Data

The physical size of the experimental apparatus limited the study to small-scale experiments.
Because of the small scale, extrapolating results to larger time and space scales is difficult.
Mostly qualitative observations are reported. In this study, the medium buoyancy flux
experiments on the 10o slope are compared to D-CORMIX predictions. Figure 7 shows D-
CORMIX plume width predictions compared to experimental observations. In this case, for
short distances from the source, the model appears to initially under-predict plume width. At
larger distances from the source, the model appears to slightly over-predict width.

Figure 7: Alavian (1986) density current width and D-CORMIX predictions, S0= 10o,
Fr = 0.2.

17
3.3.2 Limitations of the Data

The use of this data set for model validation was severely limited because no complete discussion
was presented for a given set of experiments. The small scale of the experiments is likely to
produce strongly unsteady conditions. The very low discharge velocity and Reynolds numbers
indicate that viscous forces would dominate plume behavior. To summarize the limitations of
this data set for model validation:

• No detailed discussion of a given set of experiments

• Small scale experiments

• Mostly qualitative observations

• Strongly unsteady experiments

• No concentration, thickness, or velocity measurements are presented

• Very low Reynolds number (Re = 200 – 300)

• Viscous effects will limit spreading

• Unrealistic in field application

3.4 Christodoulou and Tzachow (1994)

Christodoulou and Tzachow present data collected in a 7-m x 5-m x 0.7-m laboratory tank.
Photographic and visual observations of 3-D plume behavior are presented. Saline solutions are
used to create density currents. Experiments were conducted using bottom slopes from 2o to 15o.
A surface discharge configuration was used.

3.4.1 Overall Remarks on the Data

This data set represents medium scale experiments with moderate Reynolds numbers. Figure 8
presents a case with a bottom slope S0 = 15o and medium buoyancy Fr = 0.53. In this case D-
CORMIX appears to slightly under-predict plume width near the discharge source. At larger
distances, the model appears to over-predict plume width. To summarize the overall quality of
this data set for model validation:

18
 • Medium scale experiments

• Moderate Reynolds numbers

• Mostly qualitative, visual observations

Plume Half-width b (m)

Figure 8: Christodoulou and Tzachow (1994) density current half-width vs. centerline
distance and D-CORMIX predictions. S0 = 15o, Fr = 0.53.

19
3.4.2 Limitations of the Data

Although 3-D experiments were conducted, only 2-D plan photographs of the density currents
were presented. Because of the limitations of space in the experimental setup, steady-state
conditions were not reached at larger distances away from the source. This probably accounts for
the model over-prediction of plume width at larger distances. In summary, the limitations of this
data set for model validation are the following:

• Not fully steady-state over sufficiently large distances

• No measurements on concentration, thickness, or velocity

3.5 Luthi (1980, 1981)

Luthi gives plume dimensions, density, and depositional thickness for a laboratory experiment
conducted in a 10-m x 6-m x 1-m tank. The experiment is conducted with a surface discharge
source of suspended sediment introduced into a tank with a bottom slope of 5 o.

3.5.1 Overall Remarks on the Data

The discharge source sediment consisted of predominantly coarse silt. The suspended sediment
had a mean grain size of 37 µm with a standard deviation of 0.52φ. Based on this description,
the sediment was calculated to consist of 16% sand, 68% coarse silt, and 16% fine silt for D-
CORMIX simulations.

Figure 9 illustrates several details of the experiment. The surface source discharged 3.5 L/s for
180 seconds. Figure 9a shows the propagation of the density current front and gives centerline
values of plume density. Details on the extent of the initial turbulent entry of the source and
sediment deposition pattern are show in Figure 9b. After the source stopped, the suspended
plume material was allowed to settle in the basin. After settling, the basin was drained and the
depth of the well-drained deposited sediment was measured. Figures 9c and 9d show isoline
plots of sediment depositional thickness and mean sediment grain size diameter of the layer,
respectively.

20
Figure 9: Plan view of Luthi (1981) experimental results. a) propagation of density current front and
centerline concentration values of suspended sediment, b) sediment deposition pattern, c) deposition
thickness of sediment, d) mean grain size diameter of deposited sediment
21
Figure 10 expands on Figure 9a and presents experimental results of visual plume width
compared to model predictions. In this case, D-CORMIX plume width predictions appear to
give acceptable agreement with data. Luthi also reports details on the flow height of the density
current as it travels away from the source.

Figure 11 shows model predictions of density current depth compared with data. D-CORMIX
depth prediction appears to be in excellent agreement with plume depth data.

Figure 12 shows model prediction of plume centerline suspended sediment concentrations

compared with data calculated from reported plume density values. Three values of the
suspended sediment data for each centerline location are plotted along with D-CORMIX
predictions to illustrate variations in reported data that may be influenced by the data collection
probe illustrated in Figure 13 and explained below.

Figure 13 indicates that the bottom probe density value may be 2 to 3 times greater than the
average of the density current layer due to internal stratification of suspended sediment within the
density current. Therefore, values 2 and 3 times lower than the reported centerline value are also
shown in Figure 12. Figure 12 shows that D-CORMIX appears to initially under-predict
suspended sediment concentrations close to the discharge source. At larger distances the model
appears to be in better agreement with reported suspended sediment data.

As a check on the quality of the data, the sediment deposition volume was determined from the
plot given in Figure 9c. The area of each sediment depth contour was determined by planimeter.
This data is summarized in Table 2. The data shown in column 1 represents the region of each
depth contour shown in Figure 9c. Column 6 shows the percentage of the deposited sediment
within the contour region as a fraction of the total discharge mass flux. Columns 7 and 8 give the
cumulative percentage of the total mass flux of the sediment deposited and remaining in the
plume, respectively. Column 9 shows an estimate of the centerline coordinate position for the
percentage of mass flux remaining in the plume. To calculate this value, the total volume of
deposited sediment up to the centerline coordinate was determined. Then the mass of this
volume was subtracted from the total discharge mass flux.

22
The plume sediment flux values calculated from the measured deposition data shown in column
9 are compared to D-CORMIX predictions in Figure 14. Plume dimension of width and depth,
given in Figures 10 and 11 respectively, appear to be in overall good agreement with
experimental results. At a centerline distance of 4-m, data shows a centerline density of 1.0017
g/cm3 which corresponds to a suspended sediment concentration of 7.12-g/L. D-CORMIX
3
predicts a density of 1.0009 g/cm and a suspended sediment concentration of 1.54-g/L, an
under-prediction by a factor of 4.6. However, as calculated in column 9 of Table 2 and shown in
Figure 14, an estimation of the remaining sediment flux in the plume would be 14% vs. a
predicted value of 16%, showing relatively good agreement. Since plume dimensions are in
good agreement, based on the principle of conservation of mass, the plume density data would
appear to be somewhat inconsistent- perhaps biased by the higher concentration values obtained
from the bottom probe as shown in Figure 13.

Figure 10: D-CORMIX plume width predictions compared to visual plume boundary as
reported by Luthi (1981).

23
Figure 11: Luthi (1981) density current depth and D-CORMIX predictions.

Figure 12: Luthi (1981) density current centerline suspended solids concentration vs.
downstream distance and D-CORMIX prediction. The reported centerline density values may
be biased by the bottom density probe shown in Figure 13.

24
Figure13: Luthi (1980) density probe and illustration of observed suspended sediment profile
within density current. The bottom probe (3A) measures a suspended sediment concentration
approximately 2 times the middle probe (3B) or 3 times the top probe (3c).

1 0 0 DD
90
80 É
70 D C D -C O R M IX
60 D
É DATA
50 É
40
D
30 D É
20 D D
ÉD D D D D
10 É
É
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
C e n te rlin e D is ta n c e x (m )

Figure 14: Luthi (1981) plume sediment mass flux determined from deposited sediment
vs. D-CORMIX predictions.

25
 Table 2: Measured volumes of sediment mass deposited from Luthi (1981) experiment.

1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9

Region Depth Measured Deposition % of Cumulative % of Mass Estimated

Area Total Accumulation Flux Position
(mm) Volume Remaining
Flow % X
(cm3)
(m)
R1 >10 2,300 2,300 5.5 5.5 94.5 0.4
R2 7.5 18,000 14,000 33.1 38.6 61.4 1.4

R3 3.5 29,000 10,200 24.1 62.7 37.3 2.4

R4 1.5 49,000 7,400 17.5 80.2 19.8 3.5
R5 0.75 58,000 4,400 10.4 90.6 9.4 5.0
R6 0.25 106,000 2,800 6.6 97.2 2.8 5.8
R7 <0.25* 88,000 1,200 2.8 100 0
TOTAL 350,000 42,000 100

*Assumes average depth = 0.125 mm

26
As an additional check on the deposited sediment volumes calculated in Table 2, the total
sediment mass discharged into the tank during the experiment is

Total Mass Released = 0 . 389 kg / s × 180 s = 70 kg

After the surface discharge source was discontinued, the sediment plume was allowed to settle.
The tank was drained, and the depth of the well-drained deposited sediment was measured.
Assuming the sediment was lightly consolidated with a void fraction of 0.4 when deposition
depth measurements were obtained, the average density of the deposited sediment ρave is

ρ ave ≈ ( 0 . 4 ) ρ air + (1 − 0 . 4 )∗ 2 . 7 = 1 . 62 g / cm 3

From Table 2, the total volume of sediment deposited during the experiment was measured to be
42,000 cm3, so the total mass deposited would be

Total Mass Deposited = 42 , 000 × 1 . 62 = 70 kg

a value which appears to validate the assumed void fraction of 0.4.

To summarize the overall quality of this data for model validation:

• Only available 3-D experiment with actual sediment release

• Large discharge Reynolds numbers

3.5.2 Limitations of the Data

Although this data set is the best laboratory study available for validation of D-CORMIX, some
drawbacks are still present. The data reports only one study with an actual sediment release. The
experiments are limited to 180 seconds of discharge, and fully steady-state conditions are not
reached for the sediment plume. Limited data is given for plume thickness, and velocities within
the plume are not reported. The plume density data reported (concentration of suspended
sediment) appears to be somewhat inconsistent. The limitations of this data set for model
validation include:

• Only one experiment (of three conducted) is documented in detail

• Limited duration experiments, not fully steady-state

27
 • Side wall effects might influence results

• Limited thickness data is presented

• Plume density measurements are limited and appear inconsistent

• Probably biased by near-bottom values

• No velocity measurements, only estimates are given

4. Comparison with Field Data

An exhaustive literature search was conducted to obtain field data from continuous dredge
discharges. Presently, no reasonably complete set of field data is available for full validation of
the methodology. Most field data collected was not intended for use in hydrodynamic model
validation; therefore critical parameters are often missing. In addition, it is difficult to assess
natural discharge, tidal, and spatial variations in parameters that can occur with field studies in
coastal areas.

4.1 Tyler’s Beach Field Data Set

As part of the Dredged Materials Research Program, the US Army, Corps of Engineers (USACE)
conducted a field data collection and monitoring study on a continuous pipeline dredge disposal
in Tyler’s Beach, Va. (Thevenot, et. al. 1991). The hydraulic cutter dredge Richmond was
discharging material into a derelict-shipping channel indicated by the deep local depths shown in
Figure 16. The focus of the study was to assess dredging impacts on the Point of Shoals shellfish
bed shown in Figure 17.

4.1.1 Overall Remarks on the Data

Figure 18 shows the sampling locations used to assess plume impacts on the Point of Shoals
shellfish bed. The submerged continuous pipleline discharge was located at Station 32. The
reported dredge discharge was 0.28-m3/s with a suspended solids concentration of 154,000-mg/L,
with a 20% coarse silt, 60% fine silt, and 20% clay fraction. At the end of the surface pipeline, a
90o elbow extended 15-ft below the water surface. The report states “ A conical diffuser was
affixed to the end of the vertical section and bent at an angle of 15o from the vertical to provide

28
Figure 16: Location and Bathymetry of Tylers Beach, Va. Study

Figure 17: Sampling Locations inTylers Beach Va. Study Area.

29
greater accuracy in depositing the dredged material . . .“. Dredging was conducted in 24-hr
operations.

Over the course of the study, Station 21 was the only downstream station to report increased
suspended sediment concentrations over background levels. Station 21, 70-m downstream from
the discharge point, reported a concentration of 11,070-mg/L. Assuming the discharge was
oriented in the direction of ambient flow, D-CORMIX predicts a suspended sediment
concentration of 9,860 mg/L and thus appears to give excellent agreement with this very limited
data. To summarize the quality of this data set for model validation:

• Bathymetry information in disposal location is available

• Good discharge sediment size partition information

4.1.2 Limitations of the Data

The study concluded little impact from sediment plume on the Point of Shoals. Because the
density currents are gravity driven and will follow the maximum downslope bottom gradients,
the plume will not travel upslope from the disposal location onto the Point of Shoals. Apparently
most of the sampling stations were not located at the deepest channel locations where the
sediment plume was likely to migrate. To summarize the limitations of this data set for model
validation:

• Monitoring stations did not track resulting sediment plume

• Detailed location and orientation of discharge port during plume measurements

are not available

4.2 Mobile Bay Field Data Set

Another field data set from the USACE Dredged Materials Research Program was collected in
Mobile Bay, Alabama (Clarke and Miller-Way, 1992). This study collected extensive data on the
discharge plume and benthic impacts of open water disposal. The pipeline dredge Louisiana was
discharging material 1,000-ft west of the navigation channel through a downward angled pipe
section, 30o from horizontal, 3-ft below the surface in 10 to 12-ft of water. The discharge was
moved every hour or two as the dredge moved up the channel.

30
4.2.1 Overall Remarks on the Data

The study did not report on sediment particle size distribution of the discharge. The data from
Nichols, et. al. 1979, indicates Mobile Bay sediments are generally 30% silt and 70% clay. For
D-CORMIX simulations the reported discharge of 2.039-m3/s containing 130,000 mg/L of
suspended sediment was assumed to be oriented in the direction of ambient flow. Furthermore,
suspended sediment was assumed to have 10% coarse silt, 20% fine silt, and 70% clay particle
size distribution.

Tables 1 through 5 in Appendix B summarize the results of plume monitoring for Tests 1
through 5, respectively, and D-CORMIX results. In this study, several tests included samples
taken at various water column depths for each location. For distances well away from the
discharge source, this data clearly shows the suspended sediment plume is restricted to sampling
locations near the bottom of the water column. To ensure the subsequent data comparison
accounts only for the actual sediment plume, Tables 1-5 include only collected data above a
threshold value of 1,000 mg/L of suspended sediment. Tests 1, 3, and 4 appear to be the most
consistent and useful for D-CORMIX model validation.

Test 2 includes Station 2 data averaging 158,000 mg/L at 30-m downstream from the assumed
discharge location, which is greater than the reported discharge concentration of 130,000 mg/L.
This probably indicates the discharge concentration was well above 130,000 mg/L, so the
simulation results for this case are not generally reliable. In addition, Test 5 indicates an average
suspended solids concentration of 39,744-mg/L at Station 4, at an assumed distance of 91-m
from the source. This value is well above all other data values reported at this distance from the
discharge. The high value may indicate the sampling location was located closer to the discharge
than was simulated.

For Test 1, 3, and 4 the correlation coefficient of D-CORMIX predicted versus the average
observed suspended sediment concentration for each station in all locations is 0.854, with D-
CORMIX slightly under-predicting suspended sediment concentrations. Including Test 5, (in
addition to Tests 1, 3, and 4) the correlation coefficient drops to 0.358. This is because the data
indicates very high suspended sediment concentrations recorded at Station 4 compared with

31
model predictions. The correlation coefficient for all tests (Tests 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5) rises to 0.850.
The improvement is due to the high suspended solids concentration reported at Station 2 during
Test 2, which increases the variance of the field data set.

Using the following definition of dilution S

C0
S =
C
where C0 is the discharge suspended sediment concentration and C is the concentration of
suspended sediment at a given point, the D-CORMIX predictions and station average data are
plotted in Figure 18. Figure 18 shows that overall, D-CORMIX appears to give reasonable, if
slight under-prediction, of suspended sediment concentration in plumes when compared to the
Mobile Bay data.

To summarize the quality of the data for model validation:

• Multiple plume suspended sediment values reported

• Reported data clearly indicate formation of a bottom density current

4.2.2 Limitations of the Data Set

The weakness of the Mobile Bay field data set for model validation is poor discharge source and
ambient site characterization. No information was directly reported on discharge suspended
sediment particle size distribution. The exact location and discharge port orientation was not
reported for each test. The vertical positions of the sampling at each station was limited, and at
times did not obtain enough samples at various depths to track the sediment plume. To
summarize the weaknesses of the Mobile Bay data set for model validation:

• Limited bathymetry information is available for the discharge location

• Limited vertical sampling position at each sampling station

• Poor discharge source characterizations

• Limited and conflicting information on source sediment mass flux

• No precise information on discharge location and orientation

32
30

25

20

15

10
Tests 1,3,4 Test 5

5 Test 2

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Observed Dilution S

Figure 18: Alabama Station Average Data and D-CORMIX Predictions

33
5. Conclusions/Recommendations

In general, D-CORMIX appears to capture the essential physical processes of dredge sediment
plume behavior. Compared to limited laboratory data, the model presents both very good and
weak agreement with data. Most laboratory data is difficult to evaluate for model validation
because of limited physical scales and poor approximation of dynamic parameters typical of
dredging operations.

Overall, D-CORMIX appears to give good results in comparison with limited field data available
on dredge sediment plumes. In general D-CORMIX appears to slightly under-predict suspended
sediment concentrations, especially for predictions near the source. Based on the limited field
data, overall the model appears to give good predictions of sediment plume behavior and dilution
in field environments.

D-CORMIX is formulated to simulate hindered settling, but this option was not employed in this
study. Researchers have reported hindered settling in plumes with concentrations greater than
10,000-mg/L (Henry et. al., 1978). Since the overall results of the laboratory and field data
suggest that D-CORMIX may slightly under-predict suspended sediment concentrations,
additional evaluations including simulation of hindered settling in D-CORMIX predictions
should be conducted.

To continue the validation of the D-CORMIX model for sediment plume prediction, additional
laboratory experiments should be conducted. Laboratory experiments are preferable to field data
collection because they allow for better control of the physical processes affecting sediment
density current behavior. A better understanding of the physical processes in sedimentation
plumes is essential for complete simulation model validation.

The laboratory experiments should include the following features:

• Large scale laboratory experiments

• 5 m x 10 m x 1m experimental tank minimum

34
 • Sediment releases with various particle size distributions

• Detailed observations of spreading mechanics

• Analysis of super- and subcritical transitions and discontinuities in density current

behavior

• Effect of ambient crossflow on plume trajectory and dilution

• Effect of bottom roughness on plume trajectory and dilution

• Effect of ambient density stratification on plume trajectory and dilution

• Detailed measurements of vertical and lateral flow structure

• Detailed measurement of plume concentrations and velocity distributions

6. References

Akar, P. J. and G. H. Jirka (1991), “CORMIX2: An Expert System for Hydrodynamic Mixing
Zone Analysis of Conventional and Toxic Discharges”, USEPA, Envr. Res. Lab, Athens, GA.,
Report EPA/600/3-91/073

Alavian, Vahid (1986), “Behavior of Density Currents On An Incline”, Journal of Hydraulic

Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 112, No. 1. Jan., pp. 27-42.

Christodoulou, G. and F. Tzachou (1994) “Experiments on 3-D Turbulent Density Currents”,

Fourth Annual International Symposium on Stratified Flows, Vol. 3., June 29-July 2, Grenoble,
France.

Clarke, D. and T Miller-Way, (1992), “An Environmental Assessment of the Effects of Open -
Water Disposal of Maintenance Dredge Material on Benthic Resources in Mobile Bay,
Alabama”, USACOE, Envr. Lab, WES, Vicksburg MS, Dredging Operations Technical Support
Program, Miscellaneous Paper D-92-1.

Doneker, R. L. and G. H. Jirka (1990), “Expert System for Mixing Zone Analysis of
Conventional and Toxic Single Port Discharges: CORMIX1”, USEPA, Env. Res. Lab., Athens,
GA. EPA/600/3-90/012.

Gilbert R. Jones, Jonathan D. Nash and Gerhard H. Jirka, (1996), “Cormix3: An Expert System
For Mixing Zone Analysis And Prediction Of Buoyant Surface Discharges,” Report of the
DeFrees Hydraulics Laboratory, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering Cornell
University, Ithaca, New York 14853-3501. To be published by USEPA, Office of Water, 1997.

Hauenstein, W. and T. Dracos (1983) “Investigation of Plunging Density Currents Generated by

Inflows in Lakes”, Journal of Hydraulic Research, Vol. 22., No. 3, pp. 157-179.

35
Hauenstein, W. (1982). “Zuflussbedingte Dichtestromugen in Seen”, ETA No. 7096.

Henry, G., R. Neal, and S. Greene, (1978) “Laboratory Investigation of the Dynamics of Mud
Flows Generated by Open Water Disposal Operations”, USACOE, Envr. Lab, WES, Vicksburg
MS, Dredging Operations Technical Support Program, Technical Report D-78-46.

Luthi, Stefan, (1981) “Experiments on Non-Channelized Turbidity Currents and Their Deposits,”
Marine Geology, Vol. 40 M59-68.

Luthi, S. (1980) “Die Eigenschaften nichtkanalisierter Trubestrome: Eine experimentelle

Untersuchung”, Eclogae Geologicae Helvetiae, Vol. 73, Nr.3, 1980.

Nichols, M. M., and G. S. Thompson, (1978) “A Field Study of Fluid Mud Dredged Material: Its
Physical Nature and Disposal”, USACOE, Envr. Lab. WES, Vicksburg MS, Dredging
Operations Technical Support Program, Tec. Rep. D-78-40.

Nash, J. D. and G. H. Jirka (1995), “Buoyant Discharges in Reversing Ambient Currents:

Experimental Investigation and Prediction”, DeFrees Hydraulics Laboratory Report, Cornell
University, Ithaca, N.Y.

Thevenot, M M., Prickett, T. L., and N. C. Kraus (1992), “Tylers Beach,, Virginia, Dredged
Material Plume Monitoring Project 27 September to 4 October 1991”, USACOE, Coastal Engr.
Res. Cntr, WES, Vicksburg MS, Dredging Research Program, Tec. Rep. DRP-92-7.

36
7. APPENDIX A: D-CORMIX (Previously called CD-CORMIX) THEORECTICAL
BACKGROUND

37
38
39
40
41
42
43
8. APPENDIX B: Alabama Field Validation Data Set And D-CORMIX Predictions

44