water
Article
Mathematical Modeling-Based Management of a Sand Trap
throughout Operational and Maintenance Periods (Case Study:
Pengasih Irrigation Network, Indonesia)
Ansita Gupitakingkin Pradipta 1,2 , Ho Huu Loc 1, * , Sigit Nurhady 3 , Murtiningrum 2 , S. Mohanasundaram 1 ,
Edward Park 4, * , Sangam Shrestha 1 and Sigit Supadmo Arif 2
Citation: Pradipta, A.G.; Loc, H.H.;
Nurhady, S.; Murtiningrum;
Mohanasundaram, S.; Park, E.;
Shrestha, S.; Arif, S.S. Mathematical
Modeling-Based Management of a
Sand Trap throughout Operational
and Maintenance Periods (Case
Study: Pengasih Irrigation Network,
Indonesia). Water 2022, 14, 3081.
https://doi.org/10.3390/w14193081
Academic Editors: Edgardo
M. Latrubesse, Karla M. Silva de
Farias and Maximiliano Bayer
Received: 10 August 2022
Accepted: 24 September 2022
Published: 30 September 2022
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Water 2022, 14, 3081. https://doi.org/10.3390/w14193081
1 Water Engineering and Management, Department of Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, School of
Engineering and Technology, Asian Institute of Technology, Khlong Luang 12121, Pathum Thani, Thailand
2 Department of Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering, Faculty of Agricultural Technology,
Universitas Gadjah Mada, Sleman 55281, Special Region of Yogyakarta, Indonesia
3 Gama Tirtabumi Ltd., Sleman 55581, Special Region of Yogyakarta, Indonesia
4 National Institute of Education, Earth Observatory of Singapore and Asian School of the Environment,
Nanyang Technological University, Singapore 637616, Singapore
* Correspondence: hohuuloc@ait.ac.th (H.H.L.); edward.park@nie.edu.sg (E.P.)
Abstract: Surface irrigation networks in Indonesia are damaged by several factors, and sedimentation
is among the most severe challenges. Sand traps play a substantial role in improving irrigation
system efficiency by reducing sedimentation. There are two periods in sand trap operation: the
operational and maintenance periods. Pengasih is one of the irrigation schemes implemented in the
Progo Opak Serang (POS) River Basin, which has a high level of erosion. This study aimed to propose
an appropriate management strategy for the Pengasih sand trap as the first barrier in irrigation
network sedimentation based on mathematical modeling. The HEC-RAS simulation software was
used to simulate the sand trap hydraulic behaviour. The results show that the validated Manning’s
coefficient was 0.025. The optimal transport parameters were Laursen for the potential function,
Exner 5 for the sorting method, and Rubey for the fall velocity method. The recommended flushing
timeframe is 315 min, with a discharge of 2 m3 /s. We suggest that the sand trap flushing frequency
be performed twice a year, and it can be performed at the end of March and October. This coincides
with the end of the first and third planting seasons of the irrigation scheme.
Keywords: irrigation; sedimentation; sand trap; operational; flushing; modeling; HEC-RAS
1. Introduction
Water resources have become the most vital element for human survival. Humans
use water for numerous purposes, including agriculture, industry, housing, recreation, and
the preservation of the environment [1]. Agricultural production consumes more fresh
water than other human activity, estimated at approximately 70% [2–4]. Water resources for
agriculture and food production are either classified as surface or ground water. In humid
climates, surface water is the primary source of water for irrigation systems, while ground
water is the main source of water in sub-humid and arid climates [5]. In places where
expanding development necessitates agricultural expansion, irrigation water withdrawals
are necessary [6–8]. Irrigation is the regulated artificial application of water to the soil to
replace the water absorbed by crops [9]. Irrigation is essential for achieving food security
as irrigated crops comprise 40% of global food production [10,11].
Indonesia is one of the few countries that have extensive technical irrigation infras-
tructure to store and distribute surface water to agricultural land. The irrigated area in
Indonesia reaches around 7.3 million hectares, consisting of 48,000 schemes [12]. Based on
the report from the Directorate General of Water Resources, in 2018 the Ministry of Public
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/water
Water 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 2 of 26

Water 2022, 14, 3081

Indonesia reaches around 7.3 million hectares, consisting of 48,000 schemes [12]. Based on
2 of 25
the report from the Directorate General of Water Resources, in 2018 the Ministry of Public
Works and Housing of the Republic of Indonesia reported that 46% of the surface irriga-
tion network in Indonesia was damaged [13]. This damage was caused by several factors,
Works andaHousing
including of the Republic
lack of maintenance of Indonesia
of the reported that 46%
irrigation infrastructure of thepoor
services, surface irrigation
management
network in Indonesia was damaged [13]. This damage was
system, inappropriate rehabilitation system, and inadequate financing systems [14]. caused by several factors,
As it
including a lack of maintenance of the irrigation infrastructure services, poor management
pertains to the irrigation infrastructure, the current deterioration is a result of an environ-
system, inappropriate rehabilitation system, and inadequate financing systems [14]. As it
ment that significantly differs from the intended specifications. Sedimentation is one of
pertains to the irrigation infrastructure, the current deterioration is a result of an environ-
the most significant infrastructure issues, from weirs to tertiary level irrigation channels
ment that significantly differs from the intended specifications. Sedimentation is one of the
[15,16]. Sedimentation in the irrigation infrastructure can be caused by excessive erosion
most significant infrastructure issues, from weirs to tertiary level irrigation channels [15,16].
in the weir upstream due to inadequate conservation of the river basin [16,17]. Sedimen-
Sedimentation in the irrigation infrastructure can be caused by excessive erosion in the weir
tation reduces the irrigation canal conveyance efficiency, leading to inadequacy and ineq-
upstream due to inadequate conservation of the river basin [16,17]. Sedimentation reduces
uity in the water distribution to crops [18–20]. The government of Indonesia is implement-
the irrigation canal conveyance efficiency, leading to inadequacy and inequity in the water
ing an irrigation modernization program to deal with multiple issues, including sedimen-
distribution to crops [18–20]. The government of Indonesia is implementing an irrigation
tation. Irrigation modernization is an effort aimed at establishing a participatory irrigation
modernization program to deal with multiple issues, including sedimentation. Irrigation
management system
modernization capable
is an effort of providing
aimed irrigation
at establishing services in anirrigation
a participatory effective, management
efficient, and
sustainable manner [14,21,22].
system capable of providing irrigation services in an effective, efficient, and sustainable
manner The[14,21,22].
implementation of irrigation modernization is measured by several indicators,
including increased water of
The implementation productivity, improved irrigation
irrigation modernization services,
is measured byimproved irrigation
several indicators,
efficiency, increased financial sustainability, fewer disputes, and
including increased water productivity, improved irrigation services, improved irrigation reduced environmental
damage [21].
efficiency, To dealfinancial
increased with the sustainability,
indicator of improved irrigation
fewer disputes, efficiency,
and reducedaenvironmental
sedimentation
countermeasure is required. Sand traps are among the most effective
damage [21]. To deal with the indicator of improved irrigation efficiency, a sedimentation devices for removing
sediment particles
countermeasure from flowing
is required. Sandwater [23].among
traps are Sand traps playeffective
the most a significant
devices role
forinremoving
prevent-
ing or minimizing
sediment particles fromthe sedimentation
flowing water in theSand
[23]. canaltraps
and play
are generally used
a significant to in
role improve
preventingirri-
gation system efficiency [24]. As shown in Figure 1, a sand trap
or minimizing the sedimentation in the canal and are generally used to improve irrigation is positioned directly
downstream
system efficiencyof the irrigation
[24]. As shown intake and is 1,
in Figure equipped withisapositioned
a sand trap flushing gate [15,25].
directly The func-
downstream
of the irrigation intake and is equipped with a flushing gate [15,25]. The function ofitthis
tion of this structure is to deposit the sediment entering the irrigation intake before en-
ters the primary
structure irrigation
is to deposit channelentering
the sediment [26]. Periodically, theintake
the irrigation sediment
beforedeposited
it enters thein the sand
primary
trap is removed,
irrigation channel either
[26]. manually
Periodically,or hydraulically
the sediment[15,23,24].
depositedThe effort
in the sand spent
trapon is removing
removed,
sediment
either from aorsand
manually trap is termed
hydraulically the maintenance/flushing
[15,23,24]. period. The
The effort spent on removing interval
sediment frombe-
atween
sandthetrap two flushingthe
is termed phases is regarded as the operational/settlement
maintenance/flushing period. The interval between period. An theeffec-
two
tive sandphases
flushing trap is isindicated
regarded byasitsthe
capacity to hydraulically deposit
operational/settlement period.and Anflush sediment
effective sand dur-
trap
ingindicated
is periodic by flushing operations;
its capacity It allows the
to hydraulically sand and
deposit trap flush
to function
sedimenteffectively
during and sus-
periodic
tainably operations;
flushing [24,26]. It allows the sand trap to function effectively and sustainably [24,26].

Figure 1.
Figure 1. Sand
Sand trap
trap layout
layout in
in an
an irrigation
irrigation network.
network. A
A sand
sand trap
trap is
is positioned
positioned downstream
downstream ofof the
the
irrigation intake and is equipped with a flushing gate. Its function is to deposit sediment entering
irrigation intake and is equipped with a flushing gate. Its function is to deposit sediment entering the
the irrigation network before it enters the primary irrigation channel.
irrigation network before it enters the primary irrigation channel.

The Progo Opak Serang (POS) River Basin in Indonesia is one of the river basins with a
significant sedimentation potential [17]. The POS is a cross-provincial river basin covering
Water 2022, 14, 3081 3 of 25

a total area of 4994 km2 , including the Special Region of Yogyakarta (Daerah Istimewa
Yogyakarta/DIY) and Central Java Province, and is governed by the Large River Basin
Organization of Serayu Opak [17]. The POS River Basin plays a critical role in providing
the water needs in the DIY and Central Java Province, one of which is the requirement of
agricultural water, primarily supplied through surface irrigation networks. Concerning the
POS River Basin’s potential for sedimentation, 38% of the basin’s area was designated as
critical land, with an erosion rate of 235 tons/hectare/year [27]. The Pengasih irrigation
scheme is one of the irrigation schemes included in the scope of the WS POS, with an area of
2291 ha. It receives its water supply from the Serang River through the Pengasih Weir. The
Serang Watershed is one of the most critical potential watersheds from a landform and land
use perspective [28,29]. The slope length and steepness (LS) and soil erodibility (K) have
contributed most to the erosion in the Serang Watershed [28]. The high level of erosion
in the Serang watershed causes high sedimentation in the Pengasih irrigation scheme.
Sedimentation causes plenty of irrigation operation and maintenance (OM) problems.
Vast amounts of money are required to maintain the networks, which is often an issue in
developing countries, including Indonesia [30]. Therefore, this study aimed to propose
an appropriate management strategy for the Pengasih sand trap as the first barrier in
irrigation network sedimentation, both in the operational and maintenance periods, based
on mathematical modeling. This study can be used as a reference in the guidelines for the
operation and maintenance of the irrigation network.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Scope of Work
Pengasih is an irrigation scheme that draws the water from the Serang River [17,31].
The Serang Watershed, with the length of the main river reaching 28 km, is located in
the Kulon Progo Regency, Special Region of Yogyakarta, Indonesia. In 2009, the Serang
Watershed had a 9% critical land area, a slightly critical land area of 29%, a potentially
crucial land area of 55%, and a non-critical land area of 7% [32]. This indicated that the
Serang watershed was in a precarious state that could result in land degradation, erosion,
and landslides [33–35]. In the Kulon Progo Regency area, the Sermo Reservoir is currently
in operation and dams the Ngrancah River (a tributary of the Serang River) for the main
purposes of irrigation and drinking water [27]. Pengasih is one of the irrigation schemes
that receive an additional water supply from the Sermo Reservoir [31]. The Pengasih Weir,
located at 7◦ 500 08.88” S and 110◦ 100 16.73” E, supplies 2077 hectares of paddy fields via an
irrigation intake, primary irrigation channel, and nine secondary channels. The system
is thus called the Pengasih irrigation scheme, and the location is shown in Figure 2. This
study focused on the sand trap of the Pengasih irrigation scheme as the first barrier of
sedimentation in the network.

2.2. General Description of the Methodology

This study aimed to propose a management strategy of the Pengasih Weir sand trap
based on mathematical modeling. We aimed to model the sand trap hydraulic behaviour
during both the operational and flushing periods. During the operational phase, water
flows from the irrigation intake through the sand trap body towards the primary irri-
gation canal. During the flushing phase, the flow travels from the irrigation intake via
the sand trap body and exits through the natural channel downstream of the flushing
gate. The performance level of sand traps is highly reliant on the frequency of sediment
flushing [26]. According to the research flowchart, as illustrated in Figure 3, five sets of
field measurements were conducted for this study.
Water
Water2022, 14,14,3081
2022, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 25
4 of 26

Figure 2.
Figure 2. The
Theresearch
research focus waswas
focus on the
on sand trap of
the sand the of
trap Pengasih irrigation
the Pengasih network,network,
irrigation which is indi-
which is
cated by the red circle; it receives its water supply from the Serang River, which
indicated by the red circle; it receives its water supply from the Serang River, which is part of the Progo
is part of the
Opak Serang (POS) River Basin, Indonesia. The POS River Basin is one of the cross-provincial river
Progo Opak Serang (POS) River Basin, Indonesia. The POS River Basin is one of the cross-provincial
basins located in both the Special Region of Yogyakarta (63%) and Central Java Province (37%).
river basins located in both the Special Region of Yogyakarta (63%) and Central Java Province
Water 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of(37%).
26
2.2. General Description of the Methodology
This study aimed to propose a management strategy of the Pengasih Weir sand trap
based on mathematical modeling. We aimed to model the sand trap hydraulic behaviour
during both the operational and flushing periods. During the operational phase, water
flows from the irrigation intake through the sand trap body towards the primary irriga-
tion canal. During the flushing phase, the flow travels from the irrigation intake via the
sand trap body and exits through the natural channel downstream of the flushing gate.
The performance level of sand traps is highly reliant on the frequency of sediment flush-
ing [26]. According to the research flowchart, as illustrated in Figure 3, five sets of field
measurements were conducted for this study.
The one-dimensional mathematical model, HEC-RAS (Hydrologic Engineering Cen-
ter-River Analysis System) version 4.1, was used to simulate the sand trap during the
flushing period and for ensuring sediment and hydraulic calibration and validation. HEC-
RAS version 6.2 was utilized to simulate the sand trap throughout the operational period.
By comparing the simulated and observed water surface elevation, the hydraulic calibra-
tion and validation were used to establish the appropriate hydraulic parameter, which
was Manning’s roughness coefficient in this case. The calibration of the sediment was used
to build a modeling approach for sediment transport during the flushing and operational
periods of the sand trap. To estimate the appropriate operation of the sand trap, simula-
tions were conducted during both the operational and flushing periods. During the oper-
ational phase, the irrigation water requirements and sediment load data were utilized as
additional secondary data. This study recommends the frequency, discharge, and dura-
tion of flushing for the Pengasih Weir sand trap.

Figure 3. Research flowchart illustrating the datasets and procedure used to model the sand trap
Figure 3. Research
throughout flowchart
the operational illustrating
and the datasets
flushing period, and using
performed procedure used to software.
the HEC-RAS model the sand trap
throughout the operational and flushing period, performed using the HEC-RAS software.
2.3. Data Collection
There are two types of data collection in this study, namely secondary and primary.
Included in the secondary data needed are the irrigation water requirements and sedi-
ment load data. The analysis of the data was obtained from the researcher’s previous
study. The irrigation water requirement is determined biweekly based on the growing
Water 2022, 14, 3081 5 of 25

The one-dimensional mathematical model, HEC-RAS (Hydrologic Engineering Center-

River Analysis System) version 4.1, was used to simulate the sand trap during the flushing
period and for ensuring sediment and hydraulic calibration and validation. HEC-RAS
version 6.2 was utilized to simulate the sand trap throughout the operational period. By
comparing the simulated and observed water surface elevation, the hydraulic calibration
and validation were used to establish the appropriate hydraulic parameter, which was
Manning’s roughness coefficient in this case. The calibration of the sediment was used to
build a modeling approach for sediment transport during the flushing and operational
periods of the sand trap. To estimate the appropriate operation of the sand trap, simulations
were conducted during both the operational and flushing periods. During the operational
phase, the irrigation water requirements and sediment load data were utilized as additional
secondary data. This study recommends the frequency, discharge, and duration of flushing
for the Pengasih Weir sand trap.

2.3. Data Collection

There are two types of data collection in this study, namely secondary and primary.
Included in the secondary data needed are the irrigation water requirements and sediment
load data. The analysis of the data was obtained from the researcher’s previous study. The
irrigation water requirement is determined biweekly based on the growing phase of the
paddy crop. Aside from that, the sediment load data were calculated using the Meyer-
Peter and Müller equation, referencing a prior study [15]. The primary data collection
consisted of geometric measurements, discharge measurements, water surface elevation
measurements, sediment investigations, and flushing measures in the Pengasih Weir sand
trap. The following description applies to each form of data collection.

2.3.1. Geometric Measurement

Along the channel, cross-sections were obtained from the irrigation intake to the
commencement of the primary channel. Terrestrial measurements were conducted with
the aid of a total station and its auxiliary components. The arrangement for the cross-
Water 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 26
section measurement process is depicted in Figure 4. Between CSintake and CS13 , fourteen
cross-sections were measured.

Figure4.4.The
Figure Thelayout
layoutfor
formeasuring
measuringcross-sections,
cross-sections,which
whichcontains
containsfourteen
fourteencross-sections
cross-sectionsstarting
starting
from the irrigation intake until the beginning part of the irrigation primary channel.
from the irrigation intake until the beginning part of the irrigation primary channel.

2.3.2.
2.3.2. Discharge
Discharge Measurement
Measurement
The
The velocity
velocity was
was determined
determined usingusing aa cup-type
cup-type current
current meter.
meter. The
The cup
cup isis rotated
rotated inin
reaction to the flow velocity, and the amount of rotation is
reaction to the flow velocity, and the amount of rotation is converted converted to the flow velocity.
As
Asvelocity
velocity varies
varies with the depth and and width
width ofof the
theflow,
flow, the
themeasurement
measurementwas wastaken
takenatata
avariety
varietyofofdepths
depths(H)
(H) and
and was
was divided
divided into
into three
three width
width segments.
segments. As As
seenseen in Figure
in Figure 5,
5, the
the discharge
discharge was
was estimated
estimated using
using the thevelocity-area
velocity-areaapproach
approachas asindicated
indicated in
in Equations (1) (1)
and
and(2).
(2). As
As depicted
depicted inin Figure
Figure 5,
5, there
there were
werethree
threedepth
depthvariants,
variants,namely
namely 0.2H,
0.2H,0.6H,
0.6H,and
and
0.8H, as well as three width segments. Figure 6 displays the configuration
0.8H, as well as three width segments. Figure 6 displays the configuration of the velocity of the velocity
measurement
measurement system.
system. AsAs can
can be
be seen,
seen, the
the measurement
measurement location
location comprised
comprised ninenine points.
points.
There were three cross-sections for measuring the discharge to represent the flow up-
stream, midstream, and downstream.
 The velocity was determined using a cup-type current meter. The cup is rotated in
reaction to the flow velocity, and the amount of rotation is converted to the flow velocity.
As velocity varies with the depth and width of the flow, the measurement was taken at a
variety of depths (H) and was divided into three width segments. As seen in Figure 5, the
discharge was estimated using the velocity-area approach as indicated in Equations (1)
Water 2022, 14, 3081 6 of 25
and (2). As depicted in Figure 5, there were three depth variants, namely 0.2H, 0.6H, and
0.8H, as well as three width segments. Figure 6 displays the configuration of the velocity
measurement system. As can be seen, the measurement location comprised nine points.
There
Therewere
werethree cross-sections
three for for
cross-sections measuring the discharge
measuring to represent
the discharge the flow
to represent theupstream,
flow up-
midstream, and downstream.
stream, midstream, and downstream.

Figure5.5.The
Figure Theillustration
illustrationofofthe
thedischarge
dischargemeasurement,
measurement,consisting
consistingofofa aseparation
separationofofthe
thechannel
channel
Water 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEWcross-sectionarea
areainto
intothree
three segments
(A(A I, AII, and AIII). The velocity was measured at three different
7 of 26
cross-section segments I , AII , and AIII ). The velocity was measured at three different
depths (0.2H, 0.6H, and 0.8H).
depths (0.2H, 0.6H, and 0.8H).

Total discharge was calculated using the velocity-area method:

𝑉0.2𝐻 + 𝑉0.6𝐻 + 𝑉0.8𝐻
𝑉̅𝐼 , 𝑉̅𝐼𝐼 , 𝑉̅𝐼𝐼𝐼 = (1)
3
𝑄𝑡𝑜𝑡 = 𝑉̅𝐼 𝐴𝐼 + 𝑉̅𝐼𝐼 𝐴𝐼𝐼 + 𝑉̅𝐼𝐼𝐼 𝐴𝐼𝐼𝐼 (2)
where Qtot = total discharge, AI, AII, AIII = cross-sectional area of segment I, II, and III.
𝑉̅𝐼 , 𝑉̅𝐼𝐼 , 𝑉̅𝐼𝐼𝐼 = average flow velocity of segment I, II, and III; V0.2H, V0.6H, V0.8H = flow velocity
at a depth of 0.2H, 0.6H, and 0.8H from the water surface, B, b = channel top and bottom
width, and h = flow depth.

Figure6.6.The
Figure Thelayout
layoutfor formeasuring
measuringthe thevelocity
velocityshowing
showing nine
nine measurement
measurement points
points (10(10 , 10
L , L10 MM , 10
, 10 R ,R,
30 , 30 , 30 , 50 , 50 , and 50 ). L, M, and R denote the left, middle, and right parts of
30L , 30M , 30R , 50L , 50M , and 50R ). L, M, and R denote the left, middle, and right parts of the
L M R L M R the channel,
respectively.
channel, respectively.

2.3.3. Water
Total Surfacewas
discharge Elevation Measurement
calculated using the velocity-area method:
In the HEC-RAS model, the hydraulic calibration and validation were accomplished
V + V0.6H + V0.8H
utilizing the water surface V Ielevation. = 0.2Han automatic
, V I I , V I I I Using level and its associated equip-
(1)
3
ment, the measurement was performed. Figure 7 depicts the layout of the measurement.
Evidently, there were eightQcross-sections to be measured, beginning with CS0 and finish-
tot = V I A I + V I I A I I + V I I I A I I I (2)
ing with CS7. There were ten meters between the two cross-sections.
where Qtot = total discharge, AI , AII , AIII = cross-sectional area of segment I, II, and III.
V I , V I I , V I I I = average flow velocity of segment I, II, and III; V0.2H , V0.6H , V0.8H = flow
velocity at a depth of 0.2H, 0.6H, and 0.8H from the water surface, B, b = channel top and
bottom width, and h = flow depth.

2.3.3. Water Surface Elevation Measurement

In the HEC-RAS model, the hydraulic calibration and validation were accomplished
utilizing the water surface elevation. Using an automatic level and its associated equip-
ment, the measurement was performed. Figure 7 depicts the layout of the measurement.
Evidently, there were eight cross-sections to be measured, beginning with CS0 and finishing
with CS7 . There were ten meters between the two cross-sections.
Figure 7. The layout for measuring the water surface denotes eight measurement cross-sections with
10 m from each other.

2.3.4. Sediment Investigation

The sediment properties were used for sediment modeling, and they included infor-
mation about the current bed sediment in the Pengasih Weir sand trap. The sediment was
sampled using a sediment grab sampler. The bed sediment sample layout is similar to that
of the velocity measurement (as depicted in Figure 6); therefore, there were nine sampling
points. In a soil laboratory, a given sample’s specific gravity and particle size distribution
 2.3.3. Water Surface Elevation Measurement
In the HEC-RAS model, the hydraulic calibration and validation were accomplished
utilizing the water surface elevation. Using an automatic level and its associated equip-
Water 2022, 14, 3081
ment, the measurement was performed. Figure 7 depicts the layout of the measurement.7 of 25
Evidently, there were eight cross-sections to be measured, beginning with CS0 and finish-
ing with CS7. There were ten meters between the two cross-sections.

Figure7.7.The
Figure Thelayout
layoutfor
formeasuring
measuringthe
thewater
watersurface
surfacedenotes
denoteseight
eightmeasurement
measurementcross-sections
cross-sectionswith
with
10mmfrom
10 fromeach
eachother.
other.

2.3.4.
2.3.4.Sediment
SedimentInvestigation
Investigation
The
The sedimentproperties
sediment propertieswere
wereused
usedfor
forsediment
sediment modeling,
modeling, and
and they
they included
included infor-
infor-
mation
mation about the current bed sediment in the Pengasih Weir sand trap. Thesediment
about the current bed sediment in the Pengasih Weir sand trap. The sedimentwaswas
sampled
sampledusing
usingaasediment
sedimentgrab
grabsampler.
sampler.The
Thebedbedsediment
sedimentsample
samplelayout
layoutisissimilar
similarto
tothat
that
of
ofthe
thevelocity
velocitymeasurement
measurement(as (asdepicted
depictedininFigure
Figure6);
6);therefore,
therefore,there
therewere
werenine
ninesampling
sampling
points.
points.In
Inaasoil
soillaboratory,
laboratory,aagiven
givensample’s
sample’sspecific
specificgravity
gravityand
andparticle
particlesize
sizedistribution
distribution
was determined using the sieve and hydrometer techniques.
was determined using the sieve and hydrometer techniques.
2.3.5. Flushing Measurement
2.3.5. Flushing Measurement
Some of the measured components are the flushing mechanism’s discharge and dura-
Some of the measured components are the flushing mechanism’s discharge and du-
tion as well as the channel bed change. Observing the state of the channel’s bed before and
ration as well as the channel bed change. Observing the state of the channel’s bed before
after flushing, as measured by a total station, allows for the observation of changes in the
and after flushing, as measured by a total station, allows for the observation of changes in
channel’s bed. In the same cross-section, we conducted measurements for both situations.
the channel’s bed. In the same cross-section, we conducted measurements for both situa-
The bed change was employed as an input in the HEC-RAS sediment modeling.
tions. The bed change was employed as an input in the HEC-RAS sediment modeling.
2.4. Mathematical Modelling in Irrigation Network
2.4. Mathematical Modelling in Irrigation Network
The hydraulic simulation model can be a valuable tool for comprehending the hydraulic
Theofhydraulic
behavior irrigationsimulation model
systems; it also can be the
enhances a valuable
irrigationtool for comprehending
system the hy-
performance by investi-
draulic behavior of irrigation systems; it also enhances the irrigation system performance
gating the flow characteristics in a massive and diverse irrigation network under various
by investigating
design the flowscenarios
and management characteristics
[30]. Ain a massive and
mathematical diverse
model can irrigation
be used tonetwork
analyze aunder
vast
various design
irrigation and hydraulic
network’s management scenarios
properties and[30]. A mathematical
behavior, model and
directly analyzing can enhancing
be used to
the system performance [36]. Currently, technical advances allow academics to perform
mathematical modeling for various goals. Numerous mathematical models are available for
hydraulic modeling jobs, including the HEC-RAS, MIKE 11, CCHE1D, FLUVIAL-12, and
BRI-STARS models [37,38]. These models can estimate the appearance of a river or stream
after a flood, sediment transport, and clogging of reservoirs and stream channels.
This study replicates the flow and sedimentation models in a sand trap using a one-
dimensional flow mathematical model and HEC-RAS version 4.1 and 6.2 [39]. The HEC-
RAS model allows for the simulation of the one-dimensional water surface profile in stable
rivers, unsteady river flows, as well as allowing for the simulation of delivered sediment
load and river water quality [40]. The HEC-RAS one-dimensional model is extensively used
to simulate sediment transport [40–42]. It is appropriate for evaluating the canal hydraulic
steady state conditions [36]. Therefore, it can be used as a decision support system by
ensuring the irrigation systems’ optimal operation and maintenance [36]. The concept
of the one-dimensional energy equation was used to compute from one cross-section to
another (see Equation (3)) [43–45].

α2 V2 2 α V2
Z2 + Y2 + = Z1 + Y1 + 1 1 + he (3)
2g 2g
Water 2022, 14, 3081 8 of 25

where Z1 , Z2 = elevations of the main channel bed (m); Y1 , Y2 = depths of water at cross-
sections (m); V 1 , V 2 = average velocities (m/s); α1 , α2 = velocity weighting coefficients;
g = gravitational acceleration (m/s2 ); and he = energy head loss (m) due to friction and
estimated by Manning’s coefficient (Equation (4)) [36,43].

α2 V2 2 α V2
he = LS f + C − 1 1 (4)
2g 2g

where L = discharge weighted reach length (m); S f = representative friction slope between
the two sections; and C = contraction/expansion loss coefficient [46–48].

2.5. Performance Indicators

In order to analyze the various possibilities used in this study and select the optimal
option, performance indicators are required. A comparison of simulated and real-world
data was involved in each scenario. We must evaluate a scenario’s accurateness in the
context of the available data. To assess a recommender system’s accuracy, the root mean
square error (RMSE) and mean absolute error (MAE) are typically used [49]. The model is
better or the forecasts are more accurate when the RMSE and MAE are lower [50]. Equations
(5) and (6) provide illustrations of these formulas [49].
s
2
∑nN=1 (r̂n − rn )
RMSE = (5)
N

∑nN=1 |r̂n − rn |
MAE = (6)
N
where r̂n is the prediction rating, rn is the actual rating in the testing dataset, and N is the
number of rating prediction pairs between the testing data and prediction results.
Additionally, this study assessed the system utilizing the Nash–Sutcliffe efficiency in-
dex (NSE) and the coefficient of determination (R2 ). The correlation coefficient, abbreviated
as R, measures how strongly two variables that are either of linear or straight-line relation
to one another. As their linearity assumption is rarely verified, correlation coefficients
are commonly employed incorrectly [50]. The coefficient of determination (R2 ) normally
ranges from 0 to 1, with a value of 0 signifying a lack of a linear relationship and a value of
1 indicating a perfectly linear relationship [50]. In Equations (7) and (8), the coefficient of
determination is described.

coe f f icient o f determination = (coe f f icient o f correlation)2 (7)

n(∑ xy) − (∑ x )(∑ y)

coe f f icient o f correlation, R = rh ih i (8)
n ∑ x 2 − ( ∑ x )2 n ∑ y2 − ( ∑ y )2

where R is coefficient of correlation, x are values in the first set of data, y are the values in
the second set of data, and n is the total number of values.
Nash and Sutcliffe (1971) offered the efficiency index as a substitute goodness-of-
fit statistic in response to the efficiency coefficient’s limitations. The NSE statistic is a
frequently employed and perhaps reliable indicator of how well hydrologic models fit [51].
A linear model’s efficiency index will fall between 0 and 1 if its forecasts are unbiased. In
the case of biased models, the efficiency index may be algebraically negative. Even if the
model is unbiased, nonlinear models, which most hydrologic models are, can have negative
efficiencies. Under the premise of a linear model, the NSE is equal to R2 [51]. Equation (9)
shows how to calculate the NSE.

2
∑1n Ŷi − Yi
NSE = 1 −
2 (9)
∑in Yi − Y
Water 2022, 14, 3081 9 of 25

where Ŷi is the predicted value of the criterion (dependent) variable Y, Yi is the measured
value of the criterion (dependent) variable Y, Y is the mean of the measured values of Y,
and n is the sample size.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Data Collection Results
There were two stages to the primary data collection process. Sediment sampling (to be
tested in a soil laboratory), measurements of the discharge and water surface elevation under
normal flow circumstances (operational phase), measurements of the channel cross-section,
dimensional measurements of inline structures, and measurements of discharge and flushing
duration (flushing phase) comprised the first stage of data collection. Measurements of
the cross-section were made both before and after flushing. When the sand trap is flushed,
it indicates that the sediment has been removed from it and that it was previously full of
sediment. These two circumstances can be used to calculate the amount of sediment that
accumulates in the sand trap over the operational period. Discharge and water level mea-
surements comprised the second stage of data collection. In order to set up the geometry and
perform the hydraulic calibration, the first measurement datasets of discharge, water surface
elevation, and cross-section were used. The second measurement datasets of discharge and
water surface elevation were used for the hydraulic validation. Additionally, the sediment cal-
ibration used the dataset of the sediment sampling, bed change, and discharge and flushing
duration. Table 1 displays the results of the primary data collection in summary.

Table 1. Summary of the collected primary data.

No. Type of Data Results Note

1. Average discharge
From the first stage, under operational phase Average flow depth: 1.56 m; average velocity:
 2.03 m3 /s
0.19 m/s

From the second stage, under operational phase Average flow depth: 1.20 m; average velocity:
 0.53 m3 /s
0.08 m/s
2. Water surface elevation
 From the first stage, under operational phase 8 values From station 0–70: 96.416, 96.409, 96.401, 96.436,
(in meters) 96.435, 96.384, 96.383, 96.382

 From the second stage, under operational phase 8 values From station 0–70: 95.741, 95.730, 95.730, 95.724,
(in meters) 95.718, 95.702, 95.702, 95.702
3. Sediment
 Average specific gravity 2.66 Based on pycnometer test

 Grain size distribution Based on sieve and hydrometer test

# Upstream (Station 10) 9 values VFG: 99.58, VCS: 98.48, CS: 94.49, MS: 76.97, FS:
(in % finer) 48.86, VFS: 9.66, CM: 5.59, FM: 2.20, Clay: 0

# Midstream (Station 30) 9 values VFG: 99.08, VCS: 98.81, CS: 98.43, MS: 79.30, FS:
(in % finer) 60.11, VFS: 22.16, CM: 13.29, FM: 10.54, Clay: 0

# Downstream (Station 50) 9 values VFG: 95.87, VCS: 91.58, CS: 87.30, MS: 74.41, FS:
(in % finer) 60.54, VFS: 18.03, CM: 11.29, FM: 6.92, Clay: 0
4. Discharge and duration of flushing
Discharge Average flow depth: 0.30 m; average velocity:
 2.08 m3 /s
1.59 m/s

 Duration 90 min

Volume of sediment deposited during the operational period

6. 36.51 m3 based on cross-section measurement
at the time of measurement (within 80 days)
7. Capacity of sand trap 84.40 m3 based on cross-section measurement
8. Length of sand trap 100 m
Where VFG is very fine gravel, VCS is very coarse sand, CS is coarse sand, MS is medium sand, FS is fine sand,
VFS is very fine sand, CM is coarse silt, and FM is fine silt.
Water 2022, 14, 3081 10 of 25

3.2. Preparation of Model

Hydraulic modeling was performed to provide important information about the
performance of the Pengasih Weir sand trap during the operational and flushing periods.
A hydraulic simulation model is a mathematical representation of the physical hydraulic
processes that occur in the field. Such processes can be described by the conservation of
mass, conservation of momentum, and conservation of energy equations, posed in either
one, two, or three dimensions. In one-dimensional hydraulic modeling, the flow is assumed
to move in the longitudinal direction only, that is, downstream. This study employed the
one-dimensional HEC-RAS model version 4.1 and 6.2 to simulate the sand trap during
the operational and flushing periods. This is attributed to the sand trap being an artificial
channel with uniform lining and a narrow width; therefore, the predominant flow direction
is in the longitudinal direction.
The procedure for performing flow simulations using the HEC-RAS model consists of
five components [39]: model preparation, geometry modeling, flow modeling, hydraulic
computation, and presentation and interpretation of simulation results. This study used
geometry and flow datasets to estimate the operational and flushing phases. Figure 8 displays
the geometry in the operational and flushing periods. The green arrow denotes the flow
direction in the operational period. The geometry in this period was used for hydraulic
calibration and validation. The water flows from the irrigation intake through the body of the
sand trap and into the primary irrigation canal. The orange arrow depicts the flow direction
during the flushing period. The geometry in this period was used to calibrate the sediment.
The flow travels from the irrigation intake through the sand trap body and escapes through
the natural channel downstream of the flushing gate. The user must always replicate the
river reach in the upstream–downstream direction when using HEC-RAS. Consequently,
Water 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 26 the
most downstream segment of the reach is designated as river station 0.

Figure 8. Geometry in the operational and flushing periods. The green arrow denotes the flow di-
rection8.in Geometry
Figure in the
the operational operational
period. and flushing
The geometry periods.
in this period The for
was used green arrowcalibration
hydraulic denotes the flow
direction in the We
and validation. operational
modeled an period. The geometry
inline structure in this
in the form of aperiod
step andwas used for
equipped hydraulic
with calibration
gates before
entering
and the irrigation
validation. primaryan
We modeled channel.
inline Additionally, we placed
structure in the form of the
a ineffective flow area right
step and equipped withafter
gates before
the irrigation
entering intake andprimary
the irrigation step. Thechannel.
orange arrow depicts the
Additionally, weflow direction
placed during the flow
the ineffective flushing
areape-
right after
riod. The geometry in this period was used to calibrate the sediment. We modeled an inline structure
the irrigation intake and step. The orange arrow depicts the flow direction during the flushing period.
in the form of gate (flushing gate) before entering the natural channel to return the flow to the river.
The geometry in this period was used to calibrate the sediment. We modeled an inline structure in
the form
3.3. of gateCalibration
Hydraulic (flushing gate) before entering the natural channel to return the flow to the river.
and Validation
In both hydraulic calibration and validation, flow and water surface elevation data
from the two independent measurements obtained at different times were utilized. The
flow was treated as a steady flow as it takes place in a channel with a uniform shape, and
the discharge remains constant throughout time. As depicted in Figure 8, the operational
geometry was utilized for both hydraulic calibration and validation. A normal discharge
of 2.03 m3/s was utilized as an input for the steady flow data in the calibration process.
 Water 2022, 14, 3081 11 of 25

3.3. Hydraulic Calibration and Validation

In both hydraulic calibration and validation, flow and water surface elevation data
from the two independent measurements obtained at different times were utilized. The
flow was treated as a steady flow as it takes place in a channel with a uniform shape, and
the discharge remains constant throughout time. As depicted in Figure 8, the operational
geometry was utilized for both hydraulic calibration and validation. A normal discharge
of 2.03 m3 /s was utilized as an input for the steady flow data in the calibration process.
The condition at the downstream boundary was normal depth. In addition, the observed
water surface elevation was input into the flow model and compared with the estimated
elevation. There were eight points of data for the elevation of the water’s surface, with
values ranging from +96.382 m to +96.436 m.
Obtaining Manning’s bed roughness coefficient, which was used in the simulation,
was the initial step of the calibration process. According to field observations, the sidewalls
and bottom of the Pengasih Weir sand trap channel are composed of stone laid in mortar;
Manning’s coefficient table, which is accessible via the HEC-RAS model, does not fully
account for this type of configuration. As a strategic approach, we opted for a concrete
bottom float with random stone on the mortar sides, with minimum, average, and maxi-
mum values of 0.017, 0.020, and 0.024, respectively. As a result, the Manning coefficient
for the initial simulation was assigned at 0.015. Figure 9 depicts the hydraulic calibration
results. Various Manning coefficients were used to compare the observed and simulated
water surfaces. The upstream and downstream sections of the sand trap are on the right
and left sides of the diagram, respectively. The blue dashed lines illustrate the Manning
Water 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW coefficient-calculated water levels. We also plot the channel bed elevation in a 12 of 26
straight
black line to provide a sense of the channel depth during the simulation.

97.0

96.5

96.0
Elevation (m)

95.5

95.0

94.5

94.0
160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0
Station
Simulated Water Surface n=0.015 Simulated Water Surface n=0.020
Simulated Water Surface n=0.024 Simulated Water Surface n=0.025
Simulated Water Surface n=0.026 Simulated Water Surface n=0.030
Simulated Water Surface n=0.035 Observed Water Surface
Min. Channel Elevation

Figure
Figure9.9.Comparison
Comparisonbetween
betweenthe theobserved
observedand andsimulated
simulatedwater
watersurface
surfacewith
withseveral
severalManning’s
Manning’s
coefficient
coefficient values (0.015, 0.020, 0.024, 0.025, 0.026, and 0.030) in order to calibrate the model.The
values (0.015, 0.020, 0.024, 0.025, 0.026, and 0.030) in order to calibrate the model. The
upstream
upstreamand anddownstream
downstream sections
sectionsof the sand
of the traptrap
sand are on
arethe
onright and left
the right andsides
left of the of
sides diagram,
the dia-
respectively. The black line curve denotes the channel bed elevation. A normal discharge of 2.03
gram, respectively. The black line curve denotes the channel bed elevation. A normal discharge of
m3/s obtained from the first measurement was utilized as an input for the steady flow data in this
2.03 m3 /s obtained from the first measurement was utilized as an input for the steady flow data in
calibration process.
this calibration process.
As illustrated in Figure 9, the water surface elevation that was predicted using the
input Manning’s coefficient of 0.015 is underestimated, with the overall trend being below
the reported water level. The Manning’s coefficient was changed in the following simula-
tion to 0.020; however, the simulated water level elevation was still underestimated. The
simulation was then performed with a Manning’s coefficient of 0.025, and it can be seen
that the observed water surface conforms to the simulation’s water level elevation. The
Water 2022, 14, 3081 12 of 25

As illustrated in Figure 9, the water surface elevation that was predicted using the
input Manning’s coefficient of 0.015 is underestimated, with the overall trend being below
the reported water level. The Manning’s coefficient was changed in the following simulation
to 0.020; however, the simulated water level elevation was still underestimated. The
simulation was then performed with a Manning’s coefficient of 0.025, and it can be seen
that the observed water surface conforms to the simulation’s water level elevation. The
simulation was then conducted with a Manning’s coefficient of 0.030 to determine whether
the value of 0.025 is appropriate. It is absolutely noticeable that the findings are overstated.
We determined that the value of 0.025 for Manning’s coefficient appeared closest to the
observed water surface. Furthermore, we added two Manning values close to 0.025,
namely 0.024 and 0.026, to confirm the calibration results. We analyzed the accuracy of
the calibration results obtained using performance indicators such as the coefficient of
determination (R2 ), Nash–Sutcliffe efficiency index (NSE), root mean square error (RMSE),
and mean absolute error (MAE), as shown in Table 2 [49–51]. As can be seen, the outcomes
from the Manning’s value of 0.025 perform well across all indicators, even if compared with
those of 0.024 and 0.026. If we look at the comparison between the performance indicators
of Manning 0.025 and 0.026, only the RMSE value of Manning 0.026 was slightly better
than that of Manning 0.025. For the R2 and NSE values, the closer they are to one, the
better, while for RMSE and MAE, the smaller their error, the more accurate. When the
observed data are a better predictor than the model, particularly for NSE, an efficiency
below zero occurs. Negative efficiencies are possible with nonlinear models, of which most
are hydrologic [51]. As a result, a negative NSE value is permitted. Therefore, it can be
concluded that 0.025 is best suited for the Manning’s roughness coefficient of the channel
condition of the Pengasih Weir sand trap. This condition is referred to as the calibrated
Manning’s coefficient.

Table 2. Performance indicators of the calibrated Manning’s coefficient.

Value
No. Performance Indicator
n = 0.015 n = 0.020 n = 0.024 n = 0.025 n = 0.026 n = 0.030 n = 0.035
1 Coefficient of Determination (R2 ) 0.9379 0.9457 0.9369 0.9522 0.9474 0.9477 0.8051
Nash–Sutcliffe Efficiency
2 −282.7061 −68.1269 −4.8787 −0.6402 −0.5346 −38.6501 −166.5715
Index (NSE)
3 Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) 0.3505 0.1730 0.0504 0.0266 0.0258 0.1310 0.2693
4 Mean Absolute Error (MAE) 0.3497 0.1716 0.0456 0.0216 0.0224 0.1293 0.2685

After calibrating the Manning’s coefficient to the required accuracy of 0.025, the
second measurement dataset was utilized to validate the coefficient. The input for the
steady flow data was a normal discharge at a rate of 0.53 m3 /s. The condition at the
downstream boundary was normal depth. In addition, the observed water surface was
incorporated into the process of flow modeling, which would be compared with the
simulated water surface. There were eight points of data for the elevation of the water’s
surface, with values ranging from +95.702 m to +95.741 m. Figure 10 represents the results
of the hydraulic validation. It compares the observed and simulated water surfaces at
n = 0.025. The validated Manning’s coefficient generates a water surface that is compatible
with the observed data, as illustrated. As with the calibrated Manning’s coefficient, the
verified one was evaluated using performance metrics such as R2 , NSE, RMSE, and MAE
(see Table 3). The outcomes perform admirably across the board. Specifically, for NSE,
a sub-zero efficiency occurs when the observed data outperform the model’s forecast.
Consequently, 0.025 was declared as the validated Manning’s coefficient, and it can be
utilized in the simulation of sediment models. For defining water flow through the ground,
Manning’s roughness coefficient is one of the most significant quantities. Surface irrigation
field conditions widely vary, and it is not clear how to accurately measure this roughness
factor. This procedure can be used as a reference in dealing with the problem.
 The outcomes perform admirably across the board. Specifically, for NSE, a sub-zero effi-
ciency occurs when the observed data outperform the model’s forecast. Consequently,
0.025 was declared as the validated Manning’s coefficient, and it can be utilized in the
simulation of sediment models. For defining water flow through the ground, Manning’s
roughness coefficient is one of the most significant quantities. Surface irrigation field con-
Water 2022, 14, 3081 13 of 25
ditions widely vary, and it is not clear how to accurately measure this roughness factor.
This procedure can be used as a reference in dealing with the problem.

97.0

96.5
Elevation (m)

96.0

95.5

95.0

94.5

94.0
160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0
Station
Simulated Water Surface Observed Water Surface
Channel Bed Elevation

Figure
Figure 10. Comparison between
10. Comparison between thethe observed
observed and
and simulated
simulated waterwater surface withnn== 0.025
surfacewith 0.025 to
to validate
validate
the
the model.
model. The
The upstream
upstreamand anddownstream
downstreamsections
sectionsofofthe
thesand
sandtrap
trapare onon
are thethe
right and
right leftleft
and sides of
sides
the diagram,
of the respectively.
diagram, The The
respectively. blackblack
line curve denotes
line curve the channel
denotes bed elevation
the channel and theand
bed elevation bluethecircles
blue
circles indicate
indicate the observed
the observed waterThe
water surface. surface. Thethe
input for input
steady forflow
the data
steadyfor flow data for
this model this model
validation was
avalidation was a normal
normal discharge at a ratedischarge
of 0.53 mat a which
3 /s, rate ofwas
0.53obtained
m3/s, which
from was obtained
the second from the second
measurement.
measurement.
Table 3. Performance indicators of the validated Manning’s coefficient.

No. Performance Indicator Value, n = 0.025

1 Coefficient of Determination (R2 ) 0.8479
2 Nash–Sutcliffe Efficiency Index (NSE) −0.9833
3 Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) 0.0221
4 Mean Absolute Error (MAE) 0.0168

3.4. Sediment Calibration

A correct estimation of erosion and sedimentation at a stream cross-section depends on
the sediment transport equation selection and Manning roughness coefficient [37]. Using
the sediment transport concept, one can model the flushing in the sand trap of an irrigation
network. The intricacy of sediment transport modeling is well-known. The data utilized to
predict bed changes are uncertain, and the underlying theory is empirical and extremely
sensitive to a wide range of physical variables [47]. With sufficient data, however, it is
possible to calibrate regional sedimentation models to construct decision plans and assess
sedimentation issues. Before the HEC-RAS model can compute the sediment transport,
the sand trap hydraulics parameter must be established. The HEC-RAS model employs a
hydrodynamic simplification, which numerous sediment transport models also utilize. The
assumption of a quasi-unsteady flow is similar to a continuous hydrograph with several
different steady flow patterns.
The maximum amount of sediment that can leave the control volume depends on how
much sediment the water can transport. The term that refers to this is sediment transport
capacity. Sediment transport potential, which measures how much material of a particular
grain class a given hydrodynamic condition can carry, is a factor that must be determined
in order to compute the sediment transport capacity. Seven sediment transport potential
function equations, including the Ackers and White (1973), Engelund and Hansen (1967),
Laursen–Copeland (1968, 1989), Meyer-Peter and Müller (1948), Toffaleti (1968), and Yang
(1973, 1984) equations, are accessible in HEC-RAS version 4.1 [47].
The sediment transport potential is determined according to the grain size fraction,
enabling the simulation of hydraulic sorting and armoring. The bed sorting method (also
known as the mixing or armoring method) records the bed gradation that HEC-RAS uses to
compute the grain class specific transport capacity and simulate the supply-side armoring
procedures. The most common result of bed sorting is armoring, which occurs when a
Water 2022, 14, 3081 14 of 25

coarse cover layer forms on top of a more representative subsurface layer of the river bed
material. The active layer and Exner 5 are the two possible sorting methods in HEC-RAS
version 4.1. In addition, the fall velocity technique is believed to be consistent with the
evolution of the sediment transport function. The four selectable modes are the Rubey,
Toffaleti, Van Rijn, and Report 12 modes. The researcher must find the optimal sediment
transport model methodology for a given case, location, and environmental condition,
including sorting and velocity methodologies. In order to improve the prediction of the
sediment transport capacity, it is also essential to establish the correct transport potential
function. To overcome this issue of identifying the sediment transport modeling strategy,
calibration is essential. The calibration parameter can be found by looking at how the bed
changes when sediment is flushed.
In this study, we measured the changes to the bed following sand trap flushing.
A comparison was made between the simulated and observed bed changes for calibration.
The sediment transport simulation consists of eight scenarios, comprising the two sorting
and four fall velocity algorithms indicated in Table 4. Each scenario is represented by a
graph of seven potential transport functions. A plan in HEC-RAS represented the scenario;
hence, eight sediment transport plans were calculated. The HEC-RAS output that was
considered was a sediment spatial plot; it displayed the bed level after a specified duration
of flushing. The actual flushing of the Pengasih Weir sand trap took 90 min and generated
a flow at a rate of 2.08 m3 /s. Consequently, each simulation lasted 90 min.

Table 4. Scenarios for the sediment calibration.

Sediment Transport Parameter

Scenario
Sorting Method Fall Velocity Method
1 Active Layer Rubey
2 Active Layer Toffaleti
3 Active Layer Van Rijn
4 Active Layer Report 12
5 Exner 5 Rubey
6 Exner 5 Toffaleti
7 Exner 5 Van Rijn
8 Exner 5 Report 12

The elevation of the simulated channel bed after 90 min of flushing was compared
with the measured elevation using multiple transport functions available in HEC-RAS ver-
sion 4.1. We ran simulations of each transport function using the eight specified scenarios.
For each scenario, the combination of all transport functions was graphed. Then, it was
determined which of the simulated bed elevations produced by all of the combinations
was the one that came closest to matching the observed bed elevation following flushing.
We discovered that scenario five, specifically from the transport potential function of the
Laursen method, provided the most accurate bed elevation comparison. Figure 11 depicts
the comparison of the bed elevation from scenario five. The left side of the graph represents
the upstream region, while the right side indicates the downstream region. In Figure 11, the
dots represent the observed channel bed after flushing, whereas the purple line represents
the Laursen-simulated channel bed. The closest line to the dots is the purple one. We then
tested the simulation using the performance metrics listed in Table 5, specifically R2 , NSE,
RMSE, and MAE. According to Table 5, all values are acceptable. Consequently, using
Laursen for the potential function, Exner 5 for the sorting method, and Rubey for the fall
velocity method are the optimal approaches we determined for the modeling of sediment
movement in this scenario.
 Figure 11, the dots represent the observed channel bed after flushing, whereas the purple
line represents the Laursen-simulated channel bed. The closest line to the dots is the pur-
ple one. We then tested the simulation using the performance metrics listed in Table 5,
specifically R2, NSE, RMSE, and MAE. According to Table 5, all values are acceptable.
Consequently, using Laursen for the potential function, Exner 5 for the sorting method,
Water 2022, 14, 3081 and Rubey for the fall velocity method are the optimal approaches we determined for 15 ofthe
25

modeling of sediment movement in this scenario.

95.2

95.0
Channel Bed Elevation

94.8

94.6

94.4

94.2

94.0

93.8
170 150 130 110 90 70 50
Station
Simulated Channel Bed (Engelund and Hansen) Simulated Channel Bed (Meyer-Peter and Müller)
Simulated Channel Bed (Ackers-White) Simulated Channel Bed (Laursen)
Simulated Channel Bed (Toffaleti) Simulated Channel Bed (Wilcock)
Simulated Channel Bed (Yang) Measured Channel Bed After Flushing

Figure
Figure 11. Comparisonbetween
11. Comparison betweenthe
thesimulated
simulated channel
channel bedbed elevation
elevation afterafter 90 Min
90 Min of flushing
of flushing from
from several
several transport
transport functions
functions withwith
the the measured
measured elevation
elevation ininScenario
Scenariofive.
five. The
The upstream and
and
downstreamsections
downstream sectionsof
ofthe
thesand
sandtrap
trapare
areon
onthe
theleft
leftand
andright
rightsides
sidesof
ofthe
thediagram.
diagram.

Table 5. Performance indicators of the sediment calibration.

No. Performance Indicator Value

1 Coefficient of Determination (R2 ) 0.9986
2 Nash–Sutcliffe Efficiency Index (NSE) 0.9974
3 Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) 0.0163
4 Mean Absolute Error (MAE) 0.0114

When the actual condition is considered, using Laursen as a transport function makes
sense in this scenario. The Laursen equation was developed for gravel transport and
extended down into the silt range. None of the other functions currently included in the
HEC-RAS model are explicitly designed for silt-sized particles [47]. This investigation
determined the bed gradation, ranging from fine gravel to fine silt. It is consistent with
the Laursen equation of the transport function’s identification. In terms of sorting, Exner 5
armoring techniques have been successfully applied to various river systems. As a result, it
was also appropriate for this investigation. Rubey’s calculating fall velocity is also suitable
for silt, sand, and gravel grains. Furthermore, Rubey recommended particles with a specific
gravity of 2.65 as optimal for the equation [47]. From the laboratory test result, the specific
gravity of the sediment for this study is 2.66.

3.5. Simulation of Sand Trap Model in Flushing Period

The approach for modeling the sediment transport was determined in the previous
step. The subsequent analysis is a simulation of the flushing, which analyzes the efficacy
of various sand trap flushing discharges over 90 min. The flushed bed elevation from
the simulation was then compared with the observed dataset. The flushing process was
replicated for 90 min with five distinct discharges separated by increments of 0.5 m3 /s.
These discharges were 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0, and 3.5 m3 /s. The actual flushing discharge,
2.08 m3 /s as determined by the field measurement, serves as the reference for determining
the discharge values. Figure 12 depicts the results of the simulation. The left part of
Figure 12 shows the upstream region, whereas the right leg represents the downstream
region. Each scenario’s line terminates at station 66.6, the final stop before the flushing
Water 2022, 14, 3081 16 of 25

gate. This is due to the evaluation’s emphasis on the sand trap’s inside while ignoring
its downstream. The dotted black line represents the channel bed prior to flushing. At
Water 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW
station 133.6, where the bed slope bends, a substantial amount of sediment was deposited,
17 of 26
resulting in a sediment thickness of 10.57 cm; this value is determined by the difference in
bed elevation before and after flushing at that particular station.

95
Channel Bed Elevation (m)

94.9

94.8

94.7

94.6

94.5

94.4

94.3
180 160 140 120 100 80 60
Station

CB at the beginning of flushing, t0 CB at the end of flushing, Q=1.5 m3/s

CB at the end of flushing, Q=2.0 m3/s CB at the end of flushing, Q=2.5 m3/s
CB at the end of flushing, Q=3.0 m3/s CB at the end of flushing, Q=3.5 m3/s
Observed CB after flushing

Figure 12. Flushing simulation results (Discharge interval = 0.5 m3 3/s). There are five discharges
Figure 12. Flushing simulation results 3
(Discharge interval = 0.5 m /s). There are five discharges
compared:
compared: 1.5,
1.5, 2.0,
2.0, 2.5,
2.5, 3.0,
3.0, and
and 3.5
3.5mm3/s. The upstream
/s. The upstream and
and downstream
downstream sections
sections of
of the
the sand
sand trap
trap
are on the left and right sides of the diagram.
are on the left and right sides of the diagram.

As
As shown
shown inin Figure
Figure 12,
12, all
all discharges
discharges led
led to
to aa comparable
comparable decrease
decrease inin the
the amount
amount of
of
material dumped near station 133.6 and a rise in sediment deposition in the downstream of
material dumped near station 133.6 and a rise in sediment deposition in the downstream
station 133.6. Each simulated channel bed (after flushing) was compared with the observed
of station 133.6. Each simulated channel bed (after flushing) was compared with the ob-
channel bed using R2 , NSE, RMSE, and MAE as performance indicators. The performance
served channel bed using R2, NSE, RMSE, and MAE as performance indicators. The per-
indicators for the sediment simulation results are summarized in Table 6. As can be seen,
formance indicators for the sediment simulation results are summarized in Table 6. As
the performance of the 2.0 m3 /s discharge is3 superior to that of the 1.5 m3 /s discharge. The
can be seen, the performance of the 2.0 m /s discharge is superior to that of the 1.5 m3/s
values are all acceptable.
discharge. The values are all acceptable.
Table 6. Performance indicators of the sediment simulation results.
Table 6. Performance indicators of the sediment simulation results.
Performance Values from
Values the Discharge
from of
the Discharge of
Performance
Indicators Indicators
1.5 m3 /s1.5 m3/s2.0 m32.0
/s m3/s 2.5 m 3 /s 3 3.0 m 3 /s 3 3.5 33
2.5 m /s 3.0 m /s 3.5mm/s/s
R2 R2 0.9972 0.9972 0.99810.9981 0.9975 0.9975 0.9973
0.9973 0.9968
0.9968
NSENSE 0.9956 0.9956 0.99680.9968 0.9954 0.9954 0.9950
0.9950 0.9943
0.9943
RMSE 0.0212 0.0181 0.0217 0.0226 0.0241
RMSE 0.0212 0.0181 0.0217 0.0226 0.0241
MAE 0.0127 0.0117 0.0149 0.0156 0.0161
MAE 0.0127 0.0117 0.0149 0.0156 0.0161

The
The optimization
optimization procedure
procedure was then carried
was then carried out
out based
based on
on the
the simulation
simulation results.
results.
The
The flushing simulation lasted for 90 min with six distinct discharges ranging from 1.5
flushing simulation lasted for 90 min with six distinct discharges ranging from 1.5 to
to
2.0 m 3 /s. The interval was reduced from 0.5 to 0.1 m3 /s, thus the discharges became 1.5,
2.0 m /s. The interval was 3reduced from 0.5 to 0.1 m /s, thus the discharges became 1.5,
3 3
1.6,
1.6, 1.7,
1.7, 1.8,
1.8, 1.9,
1.9, and
and 2.0
2.0mm3/s. Figure 13
/s. Figure 13 depicts
depicts the
the results. As can
results. As can be
be seen,
seen, the
the graphs
graphs
provide almost identical results.
provide almost identical results. Compared
Compared with
with the
the bedbed changes
changes that
that were
were made
made after
after 90
90 min of flushing, the 0.1 m 3 /s difference in discharge is insignificant. Based on Figure 14,
min of flushing, the 0.1 m /s difference in discharge is insignificant. Based on Figure 14,
3

the red line shows that the channel bed caused by a 2.0 m 3/s discharge was the most sim-
ilar to the actual data, with the performance indicators shown in the second column of
Table 6.
 Water 2022, 14, 3081 17 of 25

Water
Water 2022,
2022, 14,
14, xx FOR
FOR PEER
PEER REVIEW
REVIEW 18 of
of 26
18similar
26
the red line shows that the channel bed caused by a 2.0 m3 /s discharge was the most
to the actual data, with the performance indicators shown in the second column of Table 6.

95
95

Channel Bed Elevation (m)

94.9
94.9
94.8
94.8
94.7
94.7
94.6
94.6
94.5
94.5
94.4
94.4
94.3
94.3
180
180 160
160 140
140 120
120 100
100 80
80 60
60
Station
Station
CB
CB at
at the
the beginning
beginning ofof flushing,
flushing, t0
t0 CB
CB at
at the
the end
end of
of flushing,
flushing, Q=1.5
Q=1.5 m3/s
m3/s
CB
CB at
at the
the end
end of
of flushing,
flushing, Q=1.6
Q=1.6 m3/s
m3/s CB
CB at
at the
the end
end of
of flushing,
flushing, Q=1.7
Q=1.7 m3/s
m3/s
CB
CB at
at the
the end
end of
of flushing,
flushing, Q=1.8
Q=1.8 m3/s
m3/s CB
CB at
at the
the end
end of
of flushing,
flushing, Q=1.9
Q=1.9 m3/s
m3/s
CB
CB at
at the
the end
end of
of flushing,
flushing, Q=2.0
Q=2.0 m3/s
m3/s Observed
Observed CB CB after
after flushing
flushing

Figure13. Flushingoptimization
13.Flushing optimizationresults
results(discharge
(dischargeinterval
interval===0.1
0.1m 3 /s). There are six discharges that
m33/s).
Figure
Figure 13. Flushing optimization results (discharge interval 0.1 m /s). There
There are
are six
six discharges
discharges that
that
werecompared:
compared:1.5,1.5,1.6,
1.6,1.7,
1.7,1.8,
1.8,1.9,
1.9,and
and2.0
2.0m 3
were
were compared: 1.5, 1.6, 1.7, 1.8, 1.9, and 2.0 mm /s./s.
33/s.
Channel Bed Elevation

94.94
94.94
94.92
94.92
94.90
94.90
94.88
94.88
(m)

94.86
94.86
94.84
94.84
94.82
94.82
94.80
94.80
00 100
100 200
200 300
300 400
400 500
500 600
600

Time
Time (Minutes)
(Minutes)
Figure
Figure14.
Figure 14.The
14. Thesediment
The sedimenttime
sediment time series
time series to flush
to flush the
flushthe sediment
thesediment deposited
sedimentdeposited inin
deposited station
station
in 133.6.
133.6.
station The
The
133.6. straight
straight
The line
straight
line
line of
of the
of the the curve
curve
curve suggests
thatthat
suggests
suggests all all
that of
of the
allthe
of the sedimenthashas
sediment
sediment has been
been
been flushed.
flushed.
flushed.

Accordingto 3 /s is acceptable for the

According
According totothe theobservations,
the observations,aaadischarge
observations, dischargerate
discharge rateof
rate of2.0
of 2.0 m
2.0 mm33/s
/s is is acceptable
acceptable for for the
the
flushing
flushing ofof the
the Pengasih
Pengasih Weir
Weir sand
sand trap.
trap. According
According to to
the
flushing of the Pengasih Weir sand trap. According to the measurements taken in the field, the measurements
measurements taken
taken in in
thethe field,
field,
thetheaverage
the averageflushing
average flushingoutflow
flushing outflowwas
outflow was2.083
was 2.083 m
2.083 mm333/s.
/s.The
/s. TheThepresent
presentmethods
present methodsfor
methods fordischarge
for dischargeand
discharge and
and
flushing
flushing
flushing could could
could be be argued
be argued
argued to to
to be be already
be already
already suitablesuitable
suitable and and practical.
and practical. Additionally,
practical. Additionally,
Additionally, considering considering
considering
thetheflushing
the flushingduration,
flushing duration,the
duration, themore
the moreefficient
more efficientthe
efficient theflushing
the flushingoperation,
flushing operation,the
operation, thetheshorter
shorterits
shorter itsitsduration.
duration.
duration.
Nevertheless,the
Nevertheless,
Nevertheless, thesediment
the sedimentwas
sediment wasnot
was notcompletely
not completelyflushed
completely flushedduring
flushed duringthe
during theactual
the actualtime
actual time(90
time (90min),
(90 min),
min),
especially
especially atat station
station 133.6.
133.6. Because
Because there
there is is
a a bend
bend ininthethebed
especially at station 133.6. Because there is a bend in the bed slope, this station represents bed slope,
slope, this
this station
station represents
represents
thethepredominant
the predominantcross-section,
predominant cross-section,where
cross-section, wherethe
where thethegreatest
greatestamount
greatest amountof
amount ofofsediment
sedimentwas
sediment wasdeposited
was depositedin
deposited inin
thethe Pengasih
the Pengasih
Pengasih sand sand
sand trap. trap.
trap. We We
We could could
could utilize utilize
utilize the the station
the station
station to to determine
to determine
determine the the duration
the duration
duration of of flushing
of flushing
flushing
untilthe
until
until theentire
the entiresediment
entire sedimentvolume
sediment volumeis
volume isiscleared.
cleared.
cleared.
Thetime
The
The timeseries
time seriesfor
series forthe
for theflushing
the flushingof
flushing ofofthe
thethesediment,
sediment,specifically
sediment, specificallythat
specifically thatwhich
that whichaccumulated
which accumulated
accumulated
ininstation
in station133.6,
station 133.6,is
133.6, isisdepicted
depictedin
depicted ininFigure
Figure14.
Figure 14.The
14. TheThestraight
straightline
straight lineof
line ofofthe
thecurve
the curvesuggests
curve suggeststhat
suggests thatall
that all
all
sediment
sediment
sediment has has
has beenbeen flushed.
been flushed. Therefore,
flushed. Therefore,
Therefore, the the recommended
the recommended
recommended flushing flushing timeframe
flushing timeframe
timeframe is is 315
is 315 min,
min,or
315 min,
or 5.25
or 5.25 h.
5.25 h. To
h. To regulate
To regulate
regulate thethe flushing
the flushing process,
flushing process,
process, we we must
we must consider
must consider
consider thethe amount
the amount
amount of of available
of available
available wa- water
wa-
terin the source river. If the minimum discharge of the river exceeds 2.0 mm3 /s,the the flushing
ter in
in the
the source
source river.
river. If If the
the minimum
minimum discharge discharge of of the
the river
river exceeds
exceeds 2.0 2.0 m33/s,
/s, the flushing
flushing
operation canbebecarried
operation carried out.The The institutionresponsible responsible forirrigationirrigation inthe the KulonProgo Progo
operation can can be carried out. out. The institution
institution responsible for for irrigation in in the Kulon
Kulon Progo
Regency,
Regency, which contains the Pengasih Weir, has installed a number of automatic water
Regency, which which contains
contains the the Pengasih
Pengasih Weir, Weir, has has installed
installed aa numbernumber of of automatic
automatic water water
level recorders (AWLRs) at present. They were built in various locations throughout the
level
level recorders
recorders (AWLRs)
(AWLRs) at at present.
present. They They were were builtbuilt inin various
various locations
locations throughout
throughout the the
Pengasih irrigation scheme, including one on the side of the weir. These help the operator
Pengasih
Pengasih irrigation
irrigation scheme,
scheme, including
including one one on on thethe side
side of of the
the weir.
weir. These
These helphelp the the operator
operator
flush the sand trap.
flush
flush thethe sand
sand trap.
trap.
In
In addition
addition to to the
the water
water availability
availability in in thethe source
source river,
river, we we must
must alsoalso consider
consider the the
irrigation
irrigation water requirements of the rice crop. Priority should be placed on water usage ifif
water requirements of the rice crop. Priority should be placed on water usage
they
they areare in in the
the cultivation
cultivation and and growth
growth stages. stages. Sedimentation
Sedimentation problems problems begin begin in in the
the
Water 2022, 14, 3081 18 of 25

In addition to the water availability in the source river, we must also consider the
irrigation water requirements of the rice crop. Priority should be placed on water usage
if they are in the cultivation and growth stages. Sedimentation problems begin in the
upstream portion of the irrigation system and continue throughout the network to the
downstream part. If upstream efforts to prevent sedimentation are still optimal, it is vital to
investigate the reasons and solutions of sedimentation issues that arise along the network.
This is essential for sustaining the long-term viability of the irrigation system, which is a
national strategic priority that would promote more remarkable agricultural production.
Good agricultural products can lead to food self-sufficiency, which contributes to achieving
Sustainable Development Goal 2: end hunger, achieve food security, improve nutrition,
and promote sustainable agriculture.

3.6. Simulation of Sand Trap Model in Operational Period

During the operational period, the flushing gate downstream of the sand trap is
closed, allowing the flow to enter the primary irrigation channel. In this period, the flow
of irrigation water is distributed through the primary, secondary, and tertiary irrigation
networks to meet the water needs of the crops in the paddy fields. At the same time,
sediment that enters through the irrigation intake will slowly settle in the sand trap. Sand
traps are designed with a specific capacity; if this capacity is met, the sediment will enter
the primary irrigation network. Obviously, this is not expected as it will reduce the channel
capacity and overall irrigation efficiency. As previously stated, the Indonesian government
has been executing an irrigation modernization program to address various problems,
and one of the indications of modernization is a better irrigation efficiency. Therefore,
it is necessary to assess the behavior of the sand trap in the operational period with the
indicator of flushing frequency.
The officer determines the frequency of flushing in the field solely based on the
adequacy of the river’s discharge and whether the rice plants require water at that time.
Therefore, it can be stated that the frequency of flushing in the field is only determined
on the basis of estimates and observations, not on the sand trap’s capacity. According to a
literature review, the Pengasih Weir sand trap has a capacity of 84 m3 [15]. Pradipta et al.
(2020) assessed the time required for the Pengasih Weir sand trap to attain the full condition
using analytical calculations based on the Meyer-Peter and Müller and Einstein sediment
transport equations [15]. Both equations can be applied to the properties of the bottom
sediment under the conditions of constant flow while disregarding the wash load [15].
Using the same input properties of flow, channel hydraulics, and sediment, the Meyer-Peter
and Müller and Einstein equations yielded different times to achieve the maximum capacity,
namely 162 (5.4 months) and 274 (9.1 months) days, respectively [15]. According to the
weir operator, the sand trap was flushed after 80 days in 2019. It can be claimed that the
frequency of draining was less efficient because it was performed before the sand trap had
reached full capacity.
The results of the analytical calculations from Pradipta et al. (2020) need to be validated
by mathematical modeling, which in this study was carried out using HEC-RAS version 6.2.
The reason for using the latest HEC-RAS version for modeling a sand trap in the operational
period is that it can provide a more diverse sediment output compared with version 4.1
(the version used in modeling a sand trap in the flushing period). There are three types
of sediment output in HEC-RAS version 4.1: sediment spatial plot, sediment time series
plot, and sediment–XS bed change plot. The three output types are sufficient to represent
the expected modeling results in the flushing period. In HEC-RAS version 6.2, there
are various sediment outputs, including Froude number channel, invert change, invert
elevation, longitudinal cumulative volume change, Manning’s n channel, shear stress,
cumulative bed volume change, etc. In both versions of the HEC-RAS mentioned, users
can also select sediment output options in groupings of output level, mass/volume, output
increment, etc.
Water 2022, 14, 3081 19 of 25

Similar to the modeling during the flushing period, we modeled the geometry, quasi-
unsteady flow data, and sediment data throughout the operational period. We employed
the geometry depicted in Figure 9. There are three boundary conditions for the quasi-
unsteady flow data: upstream, middle, and downstream. In line with the rice crop’s growth
phase, the upstream section (station 160) was fitted with a flow series containing data in
the form of irrigation water requirements for two weeks for one year. The water demand
for irrigation in Pengasih ranges from 0.4 to 2.22 m3 /s. The middle portion (station 55.6)
was specified as a time series gate opening, assuming that the gate is always fully open.
The downstream part (Station 0) was set to normal depth. There are two primary inputs
in the sediment data section: initial conditions and transport parameters and boundary
conditions. In the initial conditions and transport parameters, we employed the parameters
based on the calibration results stated in Section 3.4, where the transport function was
Laursen, sorting method was Exner 5, and fall velocity method was Rubey. Regarding
the initial conditions, we modeled the sand trap to the empty condition. In the section on
bed gradation, measurement results taken upstream of the sand trap were utilized. In the
section on boundary conditions, we provided two sets of flow-load rating curves. Based on
the field measurements, we acquired two flow rates of 2.03 and 0.53 m3 /s, which we also
utilized for the hydraulic calibration and validation. At the same time, the two total load
values were derived from the analytic calculations according to Pradipta et al. (2020).
Figure 15 represents the results of the sediment transport modeling during the opera-
tional period. The values are presented every two weeks according to the irrigation require-
ment discharge settings in the Pengasih irrigation scheme. From the intake (station 160)
to station 133.6, the upstream portion of the sand trap was modeled with “pass-through
nodes” in the sediment data setting option in HEC-RAS, indicating that no sediment is
permitted to deposit in this area. This is because the area is included in the ineffective
flow area due to the inflow from the irrigation intake. During the operational period, there
was no sediment deposition in this location, according to field observations. Figure 16
indicates that the sediment entering the sand trap via the Pengasih irrigation intake was not
uniformly deposited. Most sediment accumulates upstream towards the middle and down-
stream before entering the primary irrigation canal. It indicates that the greatest sediment
deposition occurred in the sand trap’s upstream region. In Section 3.4’s discussion, it was
reported that there was a bend in the slope of the channel bottom upstream of the sand trap,
precisely at station 133.6. This requires additional thought and consideration. The bend also
reduces the effectiveness of the flushing procedure as well as the operational of the sand
trap in general. It is recommended that the government in charge of irrigation in the Kulon
Progo Regency (where the Pengasih irrigation network is located) carry out a rehabilitation
program to solve the bending issue and improve the sand trap’s performance. Irrigation
network rehabilitation is the process of repairing or upgrading irrigation systems in order
to return or enhance irrigation capabilities and services for the purposes of expanding
planting area and/or intensifying agricultural production.
To determine how long it will take for the sand trap to achieve its maximum capacity,
we plotted the cumulative volume change every two weeks, as shown in Figure 16. As
can be observed, the cumulative volume deposited in the sand trap on September 30 is
83.18 m3 , whereas the cumulative amount for the subsequent biweekly period (October 16)
is 87.51 m3 . It can be observed that the sand trap nearly achieved its full capacity of 84 m3
by the end of September. If we compare it with the results of the analytical calculations
conducted by Pradipta et al. (2020), it was found that the sand trap will reach full capacity
after 9 months based on Einstein’s sediment transport equation. The results of these two
studies imply that the Pengasih irrigation network’s sand trap should be flushed roughly
every nine months or in September of each year.
Water 2022,14,
Water2022, 14,3081
x FOR PEER REVIEW 20 of
21 of 25
26
Water 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 21 of 26

95.3 1-Jan
(m)(m)

95.2
95.3 17-Jan
1-Jan
95.1
Elevation

95.2 1-Feb
17-Jan
95
95.1 15-Feb
Elevation

1-Feb
94.9
95 29 Feb
15-Feb
94.8
94.9 16-Mar
29 Feb
94.7 31-Mar
BedBed

94.8 16-Mar
94.6
94.7 15-Apr
31-Mar
Channel

94.5 30-Apr
15-Apr
94.6
16-May
Channel

94.4
94.5 30-Apr
31-May
16-May
94.3
94.4 15-Jun
31-May
94.2
94.3 30-Jun
15-Jun
94.2 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 16-Jul
30-Jun
160 140 120 100 80 Distance60(m)
Main Channel 40 20 0 31-Jul
16-Jul
Main Channel Distance (m) 31-Jul
Figure 15.
Figure 15. The
The bi-weekly
bi-weekly bed
bed configuration
configuration along
along the
the sand
sand trap
trap due
due to
to the
the incoming
incoming sediment
sediment
during
Figure the operational
15. operational
during the period.
The bi-weekly The
bed The
period. values are
configuration presented every
along the every
values are presented two
sand two weeks
trapweeks according
due toaccording to
the incoming the irrigation
to the sediment
irrigation
requirement
during
requirement dischargeperiod.
the operational
discharge settingsThe
settings inthe
in the Pengasih
values irrigation
are presented
Pengasih irrigation scheme.
every two weeks according to the irrigation
scheme.
requirement discharge settings in the Pengasih irrigation scheme.

Figure 16. The bi-weekly cumulative volume change along the sand trap due to the incoming sedi-
ment during
Figure 16. Thethe operational
bi-weekly period.volume
cumulative The values arealong
change presented every
the sand two
trap weeks
due to theaccording
incomingto the
sedi-
Figure The bi-weekly
16.requirement
irrigation cumulative
discharge volume
settings change along the sand trap due to the incoming
ment during the operational period. The in the Pengasih
values irrigation
are presented everyscheme.
two weeks according to the
sediment during
irrigation the operational
requirement discharge period.
settingsThe values
in the are presented
Pengasih irrigationevery two weeks according to the
scheme.
irrigation requirement discharge settings in the Pengasih irrigation scheme.
In addition to considering the sediment transport factor in the sand trap as modeled
in this
In study,
addition thetoflushing of the
considering thesand trap must
sediment also include
transport factor in thethe
following
sand trap factors: (i) the
as modeled
In addition to considering the sediment transport factor in the sand trap as modeled
demand
in for irrigation
this study, the flushing water in paddy
of the sand trap fields;
must andalso(ii)include
the availability
the followingof river water.
factors: (i) The
the
in this study, the flushing of the sand trap must also include the following factors: (i) the
Pengasih irrigation scheme is incorporated into Kulon Progo’s
demand for irrigation water in paddy fields; and (ii) the availability of river water. The Kalibawang irrigation in-
demand for irrigation water in paddy fields; and (ii) the availability of river water. The
terconnection
Pengasih system.
irrigation KulonisProgo
scheme is one ofinto
incorporated fourKulon
regencies in Indonesia’s
Progo’s Kalibawang Yogyakarta
irrigationSpe-in-
Pengasih irrigation scheme is incorporated into Kulon Progo’s Kalibawang irrigation
cial Region. In
terconnection KulonKulon
system. Progo,Progo
thereisare
one three
of fourgroups
regenciesof irrigation
in schemes
Indonesia’s governed
Yogyakarta Spe-by
interconnection system. Kulon Progo is one of four regencies in Indonesia’s Yogyakarta
three
cial different
Region. In authorities:
Kulon thethere
Progo, Kalibawang
are threeirrigation
groups scheme,
of which
irrigation falls under
schemes the juris-
governed by
Special Region. In Kulon Progo, there are three groups of irrigation schemes governed
diction
three of the central
different government;
authorities: the Sapon
the Kalibawang irrigation
irrigation scheme,
scheme, which
which falls
falls under
under thethe ju-
juris-
by three different authorities: the Kalibawang irrigation scheme, which falls under the
risdiction
diction
jurisdiction of
of the the provincial
ofcentral government;
government;
the central government; the Saponand
the Saponthe Small
irrigation irrigation
irrigationscheme,
scheme, schemes,
which which
fallsfalls
which under falls un-
the the
under ju-
der the
risdiction jurisdiction
of the of the
provincial district government.
government; and the As
Smallstated in Section
irrigation
jurisdiction of the provincial government; and the Small irrigation schemes, which falls 2.1,
schemes, the Pengasih
which falls irri-
un-
gation
der the area receivesofwater
jurisdiction from the
the district Serang River
government. As(with
stated aninaverage
Sectionannual
2.1, thedischarge
Pengasihofirri- 2.8
gation area receives water from the Serang River (with an average annual discharge of 2.8
Water 2022, 14, 3081 21 of 25
Water 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 22 of 26

under the jurisdiction of the district government. As stated in Section 2.1, the Pengasih
m3/s), with the part of the Serang River leading to Pengasih being supplemented by the
irrigation area receives water from the Serang River (with an average annual discharge
Kalibawang main canal. The Kalibawang main canal is the principal irrigation water sup-
of 2.8 m3 /s), with the part of the Serang River leading to Pengasih being supplemented
ply channel for the Kulon Progo Regency. The Kalibawang intake is the essential structure
by the Kalibawang main canal. The Kalibawang main canal is the principal irrigation
of the Kalibawang irrigation network as it collects water from the Progo River (with an
water supply channel for the Kulon Progo Regency. The Kalibawang intake is the essential
average annual discharge of 7 m3/s) for distribution to the rice fields via the main channel
structure of the Kalibawang irrigation network as it collects water from the Progo River
and tertiary canal. The planting design in the Kalibawang irrigation scheme applies a
(with an average annual discharge of 7 m3 /s) for distribution to the rice fields via the
groupchannel
main systemand based on thecanal.
tertiary availability of irrigation
The planting designwater
in thedischarge
Kalibawang andirrigation
the area, scheme
namely
group Iaand
applies groupII. Group
systemIIbasedincludes theavailability
on the Pengasih irrigation scheme
of irrigation waterindischarge
this instance.
and the area,
In group II, the first planting season, or MT-1 (paddy),
namely group I and II. Group II includes the Pengasih irrigation scheme begins in November 2021 and
in this instance.
completes
In group II, the first planting season, or MT-1 (paddy), begins in November 2021takes
at the end of March 2022; the second planting season, or MT-2 (paddy), and
place
completesfromatAprilthe end to July 2022. The
of March 2022;third plantingplanting
the second season, season,
or MT-3or(“palawija”
MT-2 (paddy), or vegeta-
takes
bles),from
place begins in August
April and finishes
to July 2022. The thirdatplanting
the endseason,
of October 2022,
or MT-3 accordingortovegetables),
(“palawija” the Kulon
Progo Regency
begins in August Regulation
and finishes Number
at the 39
end ofof
2021 regarding
October 2022,the annual to
according planting system
the Kulon Progofor
2021. It is to be noted that the term palawija comes from Sanskrit,
Regency Regulation Number 39 of 2021 regarding the annual planting system for 2021. which can be interpreted
asisa to
It second
be notedcropthat in the
thedry
termseason. On comes
palawija the basis of this
from cropping
Sanskrit, whichpattern,
can beirrigation water
interpreted as
requirements for one planting season can be determined. As previously
a second crop in the dry season. On the basis of this cropping pattern, irrigation water stated, flushing
the sand trap also
requirements for one takes into account
planting seasonthe irrigation
can water needs
be determined. and the availability
As previously of river
stated, flushing
discharge
the sand trap in addition
also takestointo theaccount
sediment thetransport
irrigationfactor,
water as welland
needs as the
thetime required
availability of to at-
river
tain full capacity.
discharge in addition Figure
to the17sediment
depicts the annualfactor,
transport wateras balance
well asfor
thethe Pengasih
time requiredirrigation
to attain
scheme.
full capacity. Figure 17 depicts the annual water balance for the Pengasih irrigation scheme.

8
7
Discharge (m3/s)

6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Jun-2
Jun-1

Jul-1
Jul-2

Oct-1
Oct-2
Nov-1
Nov-2
Mar-1
Mar-2
Apr-1
Apr-2

Dec-2
Jan-1
Jan-2
Feb-1
Feb-2

May-1
May-2

Aug-1
Aug-2

Dec-1
Sep-1
Sep-2

Bi-weekly period

Water Availability (10-year average of river discharge)

Irrigation Water Requirement
Requirement Discharge for Optimal Flusing

Figure 17. Annual

Figure 17. Annual water
water balance
balance for
for the
the Pengasih
Pengasih irrigation
irrigation scheme.
scheme. The
The green
green line
line indicates
indicates the
the
required
required discharge
discharge for
for the
the optimal
optimal flushing
flushing ofof the
the sand
sand trap,
trap, while
while the
the blue
blue and
and orange
orange line
line denote
denote
the
the water
water availability
availability and
and irrigation
irrigation water
water requirements,
requirements,respectively.
respectively.

Regarding
Regarding Figure
Figure 17,
17, the
the requirement
requirement for
for irrigation
irrigation water
water isis based
based on on calculations
calculations
performed by Negoro (2019) [52] while the availability of water is based
performed by Negoro (2019) [52] while the availability of water is based on the on the ten-year av-
ten-year
erage river discharge at Pengasih Station (2010–2020). Based on the discussion
average river discharge at Pengasih Station (2010–2020). Based on the discussion in in Section 3.4,
it has been
Section 3.4, determined that optimal
it has been determined flushing
that optimalofflushing
the Pengasih
of thesand trap can
Pengasih sandbe achieved
trap can be
with a minimum flow of 2 m 3 /s. Hence, the minimum available discharge in the river is
achieved with a minimum flow of 2 m3/s. Hence, the minimum available discharge in the
projected to meet these
river is projected demands.
to meet Figure 17Figure
these demands. demonstrates that therethat
17 demonstrates is nothere
minimum flow
is no mini-
rate of 2 m3 /s in September (when the full capacity of the sand trap is reached according to
mum flow rate of 2 m3/s in September (when the full capacity of the sand trap is reached
the modeling results in this section). Therefore, flushing can be shifted to the subsequent
according to the modeling results in this section). Therefore, flushing can be shifted to the
Water 2022, 14, 3081 22 of 25

month, October period 2 (Oct-II), as it coincides with the harvest time of the third planting
season (“palawija” or vegetables). Typically, irrigation canals are drained following the
harvest season to conduct surveys and maintenance.
The first planting season for the Pengasih irrigation scheme begins on November 1, not
in January. Therefore, an additional sand trap flushing must be scheduled beyond October.
We suggest that the supplemental flushing be conducted in March period 2 (Mar-II), which
coincides with the harvest period of the first planting season. It may be inferred that
the sand trap does not need to be flushed too frequently, and that two times per year is
sufficient. This is a result of the moderate sediment load entering through the Pengasih
intake. This is because, in addition to receiving water from the Serang River, the Pengasih
irrigation network also draws water from the Sermo Reservoir (as mentioned in Section 2.1).
According to Peni (2020), the water in the Sermo Reservoir is typically clean, odorless, and
tasteless [53]. The measured pH ranges from 6.1 to 8.4, whereas the TDS ranges from 108 to
660 ppm. Therefore, the water in the Sermo Reservoir is acceptable for use as a source of
water supply and for agriculture.
Lastly, finding the optimal frequency and schedule for sand trap flushing helps in-
crease irrigation water use efficiency. This could be introduced at the annual irrigation
commission meeting of the provincial government of the Special Region of Yogyakarta
(DIY) as a recommendation for the improved operation and maintenance of the Pengasih
irrigation network. The strategy of sand trap management presented in this paper can
also be explored for other irrigation networks in DIY, Indonesia, and for other agricultural
countries. In addition, effective sedimentation management in the irrigation network can
preserve the service life of the irrigation network infrastructure, allowing agricultural crops
to be supplied with water in a sustainable manner. Agriculture is a strategic sector that
plays an important role in Indonesia’s socioeconomic life; therefore, it is crucial. Proper irri-
gation management can raise agricultural production and contribute to the accomplishment
of food security in accordance with Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) number 2, which
aims to end hunger, achieve food security, improve nutrition, and promote sustainable
agriculture. Irrigation management will be enhanced if it is supported by an integrated
upstream-to-downstream water resources management. In the long-term, it will not only
be necessary to consider how to return sediment that enters the irrigation network (which
originates from the river) to the river but also to consider how to minimize sedimentation
from upstream, for instance, through watershed conservation. If implemented, this will
result in a sustainable agricultural system.

4. Conclusions
This study intended to propose an appropriate management strategy for the Pengasih
sand trap based on mathematical modeling using HEC-RAS. Hydraulic calibration and
validation were used to establish the appropriate Manning’s roughness coefficient by
comparing the observed and simulated water surface elevation. The sediment calibration
is intended to build a modeling approach for the sediment transport model with the
measured bed changes as an indicator. The results showed that the validated Manning’s
coefficient was 0.025. The optimal transport parameters were the Laursen equation for
the potential function, Exner 5 for the sorting method, and Rubey for the fall velocity
method with R2 , NSE, RMSE, and MAE values of 0.999, 0.997, 0.016, and 0.011, respectively.
The recommended flushing timeframe is 315 min at a discharge of 2 m3 /s. During the
operational period, we recommend that sand trap flushing frequency is set to two times
per year, where it can be performed at the end of March and October. This coincides with
the end of the irrigation scheme’s first and third planting seasons. This could be introduced
at the annual irrigation commission meeting of the provincial government of the Special
Region of Yogyakarta as a recommendation for the improved operation and maintenance
of the Pengasih irrigation network. The strategy of sand trap management presented in this
paper can also be explored for other irrigation networks in the Special Region of Yogyakarta,
Indonesia, as well as for other agricultural countries.
Water 2022, 14, 3081 23 of 25

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, A.G.P. and H.H.L.; methodology, A.G.P. and H.H.L.;
software, A.G.P. and S.N.; validation, A.G.P., H.H.L. and S.N.; formal analysis, A.G.P.; investigation,
A.G.P., S.N. and M.; writing—original draft preparation, A.G.P.; writing—review and editing, A.G.P.,
H.H.L., M., S.M. and E.P.; visualization, A.G.P.; supervision, H.H.L., M., S.M., E.P., S.S. and S.S.A.;
funding acquisition, A.G.P. and E.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of
the manuscript.
Funding: A.G.P. appreciates the Directorate of Research of Universitas Gadjah Mada for funding
the implementation of research under the Young Lecturer Researcher Capacity Building Grant
(3905/UN1/DITLIT/DIT-LIT/LT/2019 and 2403/UN1.P.III/DIT-LIT/PT/2020). E.P. would like to
acknowledge the Ministry of Education of Singapore for financing open access (#Tier1: 2021-T1-001-
056 and #Tier2: MOE-T2EP402A20-0001).
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Acknowledgments: The authors appreciate the River Basin Organization of Serayu Opak and the
Department of Public Works, Housing, and Residential Areas of Kulon Progo Regency for facilitating
data and field measurements.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Loucks, D.P.; van Beek, E. Water Resource Systems Planning and Management: An Introduction to Methods, Models, and Applications;
Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; ISBN 978-3-319-44234-1.
2. Pimentel, D.; Houser, J.; Preiss, E.; White, O.; Fang, H.; Mesnick, L.; Barsky, T.; Tariche, S.; Schreck, J.; Alpert, S. Water Resources:
Agriculture, the Environment, and Society. Bioscience 1997, 47, 97–106. [CrossRef]
3. FAO. AQUASTAT Main Database; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO): Rome, Italy, 2015.
4. Döll, P. Vulnerability to the Impact of Climate Change on Renewable Groundwater Resources: A Global-Scale Assessment.
Environ. Res. Lett. 2009, 4, 035006. [CrossRef]
5. Him-Gonzalez, C. Water Resources for Agriculture and Food Production. Water Interact. Energy Environ. Food Agric. 2009, 1, 148–159.
6. Starr, G.; Levison, J.; Starr, G.; Levison, J. Identification of Crop Groundwater and Surface Water Consumption Using Blue and
Green Virtual Water Contents at a Subwatershed Scale. Environ. Process. 2014, 1, 497–515. [CrossRef]
7. Munir, S. Role of Sediment Transport in Operation and Maintenance of Supply and Demand Based Irrigation Canals. Ph.D.
Thesis, Wageningen University, Delft, The Netherlands, 2011.
8. Paudel, K.P. Role of Sediment in the Design and Management of Irrigation Canals. Ph.D. Thesis, Wageningen University, Delft,
The Netherlands, 2010.
9. Díaz-González, V.; Rojas-Palma, A.; Carrasco-Benavides, M. How Does Irrigation Affect Crop Growth? A Mathematical Modeling
Approach. Mathematics 2022, 10, 151. [CrossRef]
10. Siebert, S.; Döll, P. Quantifying Blue and Green Virtual Water Contents in Global Crop Production as Well as Potential Production
Losses without Irrigation. J. Hydrol. 2010, 384, 198–217. [CrossRef]
11. Leng, G.; Leung, L.R.; Huang, M. Significant Impacts of Irrigation Water Sources and Methods on Modeling Irrigation Effects in
the ACME Land Model. J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst. 2017, 9, 1665–1683. [CrossRef]
12. Alaerts, G.J. Adaptive Policy Implementation: Process and Impact of Indonesia’s National Irrigation Reform 1999–2018. World
Dev. 2020, 129, 104880. [CrossRef]
13. Pradipta, A.G.; Murtiningrum, M.; Febriyan, N.W.D.; Rizqi, F.A.; Ngadisih, N. Prioritas Pengembangan Dan Pengelolaan Jaringan
Irigasi Tersier Di D.I. Yogyakarta Menggunakan Multiple Attribute Decision Making. J. Irig. 2020, 15, 55. [CrossRef]
14. Arif, S.S.; Pradipta, A.G.; Murtiningrum; Subekti, E.; Sukrasno; Prabowo, A.; Djito; Sidharti, T.S.; Soekarno, I.; Fatah, Z. Toward
Modernization of Irrigation from Concept to Implementations: Indonesia Case. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2019, 355, 012024.
[CrossRef]
15. Pradipta, A.G.; Maulana, A.F.; Murtiningrum; Arif, S.S.; Tirtalistyani, R. Evaluation of the Sand Trap Performance of the Pengasih
Weir during the Operational Period. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2020, 542, 012053. [CrossRef]
16. Gurmu, Z.A.; Ritzema, H.; de Fraiture, C.; Ayana, M. Stakeholder Roles, and Perspectives on Sedimentation Management in
Small-Scale Irrigation Schemes in Ethiopia. Sustainability 2019, 11, 6121. [CrossRef]
17. Sukardi, S.; Warsito, B.; Kisworo, H.S. River Management in Indonesia; Directorate General of Water Resources: Jakarta Pusat,
Indonesia, 2013.
18. De Sousa, L.S.; Wambua, R.M.; Raude, J.M.; Mutua, B.M. Assessment of Water Flow and Sedimentation Processes in Irri-
gation Schemes for Decision-Support Tool Development: A Case Review for the Chókwè Irrigation Scheme, Mozambique.
AgriEngineering 2019, 1, 100–118. [CrossRef]
Water 2022, 14, 3081 24 of 25

19. Revel, N.M.T.K.; Ranasiri, L.P.G.R.; Rathnayake, R.M.C.R.K.; Pathirana, K.P.P. Estimation of Sediment Trap Efficiency in
Reservoirs—An Experimental Study. Eng. J. Inst. Eng. Sri Lanka 2015, 48, 43. [CrossRef]
20. Ochiere, H.O.; Onyando, J.O.; Kamau, D.N. Simulation of Sediment Transport in the Canal Using the Hec-Ras (Hydrologic
Engineering Centre—River Analysis System) In an Underground Canal in Southwest Kano Irrigation Scheme—Kenya. Int. J. Eng.
Sci. Invent. 2015, 4, 15–31.
21. Arif, S.S.; Prabowo, A. Pokok-Pokok Modernisasi Irigasi Indonesia; Direktorat Jenderal Sumber Daya Air; Kementerian Pekerjaan
Umum: Jakarta, Indonesia, 2014.
22. Pradipta, A.G.; Pratyasta, A.S.; Arif, S.S. Analisis Kesiapan Modernisasi Daerah Irigasi Kedung Putri Pada Tingkat Sekunder
Menggunakan Metode K-Medoids Clustering. agriTECH 2019, 39, 1–11. [CrossRef]
23. Mustafa, M.R.; Tariq, A.R.; Rezaur, R.B.; Javed, M. Investigation on Dynamics of Sediment and Water Flow in a Sand Trap. In
Proceedings of the International Conference on Mechanics, Fluids, Heat, Elasticity, and Electromagnetic Fields, Venice, Italy,
28–30 September 2013; Volume 14, pp. 31–36.
24. Widaryanto, L.H. Evaluation on Flushing Operation Frequency of Sand Trap of Pendowo and Pijenan Weirs. J. Civ. Eng. Forum
2018, 4, 233. [CrossRef]
25. Richter, W.; Vereide, K.; Mauko, G.; Havrevoll, O.H.; Schneider, J.; Zenz, G. Retrofitting of Pressurized Sand Traps in Hydropower
Plants. Water 2021, 13, 2515. [CrossRef]
26. Paulos, T.; Yilma, S.; Ketema, T. Evaluation of the Sand-Trap Structures of the Wonji-Shoa Sugar Estate Irrigation Scheme, Ethiopia.
Irrig. Drain. Syst. 2006, 20, 193–204. [CrossRef]
27. Large River Basin Organization of Serayu-Opak. A Report: Pola Pengelolaan Sumber Daya Air Wilayah Sungai Progo Opak Serang;
Large River Basin Organization of Serayu-Opak Rencana: Special Region of Yogyakarta, Indonesia, 2016.
28. Arif, N.; Danoedoro, P.; Hartono, H. Remote Sensing and GIS Approaches to a Qualitative Assessment of Soil Erosion Risk in
Serang Watershed, Kulonprogo, Indonesia. Geoplan. J. Geomat. Plan. 2017, 4, 131. [CrossRef]
29. Arif, N.; Danoedoro, P. Hartono Analysis of Artificial Neural Network in Erosion Modeling: A Case Study of Serang Watershed.
IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2017, 98, 012027. [CrossRef]
30. Islam, A.; Raghuwanshi, N.S.; Singh, R. Development and Application of Hydraulic Simulation Model for Irrigation Canal
Network. J. Irrig. Drain. Eng. 2008, 134, 49–59. [CrossRef]
31. Purwantoro, D.; Nurrochmad, F. Analisa Pengembangan Daerah Irigasi Baru Di DAS Ngrancah Kabupaten Kulon Progo. Master’s
Thesis, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta, Indonesia, 2005.
32. Arif, N.; Danoedoro, P.; Hartono, H.; Mulabbi, A. Erosion Prediction Model Using Fractional Vegetation Cover. Indones. J. Sci.
Technol. 2020, 5, 125–132. [CrossRef]
33. Mahmud, M.; Joko, H.; Susanto, S. Assessment of Watershed Status (Case Study at Serang Sub Watershed). agriTECH 2009,
29, 198–207. [CrossRef]
34. Ayuningtyas, E.A.; Fahmi, A.; Ilma, N.; Yudha, R.B. Pemetaan Erodibilitas Tanah Dan Korelasinya Terhadap Karakteristik Tanah
Di DAS Serang, Kulon Progo. J. Nas. Teknol. Terap. 2018, 1, 136–146. [CrossRef]
35. Prabowo, A. Identifikasi Morfometri DAS Serang Dari Citra DEM SRTM. KURVATEK 2022, 7, 25–30. [CrossRef]
36. Serede, I.J.; Mutua, B.M.; Raude, J.M. Hydraulic Analysis of Irrigation Canals Using HEC-RAS Model: A Case Study of Mwea
Irrigation Scheme, Kenya. Int. J. Eng. Res. Technol. 2015, 4, 989–1005. Available online: https://www.academia.edu/download/6336
8271/hydraulic-analysis-of-irrigation-canals-using-IJERTV4IS09029420200519-4388-3dnb6n.pdf (accessed on 20 September 2022).
37. Hamzeh Haghiabi, A.; Zaredehdasht, E. Evaluation of HEC-RAS Ability in Erosion and Sediment Transport Forecasting. World
Appl. Sci. J. 2012, 17, 1490–1497.
38. Mohammed, H.S.; Alturfi, U.A.M.; Shlash, M.A. Sediment Transport Capacity in Euphrates River at Al-Abbasia Reach Using
HEC-RAS Model. Int. J. Civ. Eng. Technol. 2018, 9, 919–929.
39. Mehta, D.J.; Ramani, M.; Joshi, M. Application of 1-D Hec-Ras Model in Design of Channels. Int. J. Innov. Res. Adv. Eng. 2014,
1, 1883.
40. Ahmad, F.; Ansari, M.A.; Hussain, A.; Jahangeer, J. Model Development for Estimation of Sediment Removal Efficiency of Settling
Basins Using Group Methods of Data Handling. J. Irrig. Drain. Eng. 2021, 147, 04020043. [CrossRef]
41. Joshi, N.; Lamichhane, G.R.; Rahaman, M.M.; Kalra, A.; Ahmad, S. Application of HEC-RAS to Study the Sediment Transport
Characteristics of Maumee River in Ohio. In World Environmental and Water Resources Congress 2019: Hydraulics, Waterways, and
Water Distribution Systems Analysis—Selected Papers from the World Environmental and Water Resources Congress 2019; American
Society of Civil Engineers: Reston, VA, USA, 2019; pp. 257–267. [CrossRef]
42. Brunner, G.W.; Gibson, S. Sediment Transport Modeling in HEC RAS. In Impacts of Global Climate Change; American Society of
Civil Engineers: Anchorage, AL, USA, 2005; pp. 1–12.
43. Traore, V.B.; Bop, M.; Faye, M.; Giovani, M.; Boukhaly Traore, V.; Malomar, G.; Hadj, E.; Gueye, O.; Sambou, H.; Dione, A.N.; et al.
Using of Hec-Ras Model for Hydraulic Analysis of a River with Agricultural Vocation: A Case Study of the Kayanga River Basin,
Senegal “Using of Hec-Ras Model for Hydraulic Analysis OPV Modelling and Fabrication View Project Modelling for Hydraulic
Anal. Am. J. Water Resour. 2015, 3, 147–154. [CrossRef]
44. Serede, I.J.; Mutua, B.M.; Raude, J.M. A Review for Hydraulic Analysis of Irrigation Canals Using HEC-RAS Model: A Case
Study of Mwea Irrigation Scheme, Kenya. Hydrology 2014, 2, 1–5. [CrossRef]
Water 2022, 14, 3081 25 of 25

45. ShahiriParsa, A.; Noori, M.; Heydari, M.; Rashidi, M. Floodplain Zoning Simulation by Using HEC-RAS and CCHE2D Models in
the Sungai Maka River. Air Soil Water Res. 2016, 9, 55–62. [CrossRef]
46. Sisinggih, D.; Wahyuni, S.; Nugroho, R.; Hidayat, F.; Idi Rahman, K. Sediment Transport Functions in HEC-RAS 4.0 and Their
Evaluation Using Data from Sediment Flushing of Wlingi Reservoir—Indonesia. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2020,
437, 012014. [CrossRef]
47. USACE. HEC-RAS River Analysis Systems: Hydraulic Reference Manual, Version 4.1; USACE Hydrologic Engineering Center: Davis,
CA, USA, 2010.
48. Pokrajac, D.; Finnigan, J.J.; Manes, C.; McEwan, I.; Nikora, V. On the Definition of the Shear Velocity in Rough Bed Open Channel
Flows. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Fluvial Hydraulics—River Flow 2006, Lisbon, Portugal, 6–8 September
2006; Volume 1, pp. 89–98.
49. Wang, W.; Lu, Y. Analysis of the Mean Absolute Error (MAE) and the Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) in Assessing Rounding
Model. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2018, 324, 012049. [CrossRef]
50. Ratner, B. The Correlation Coefficient: Its Values Range between 1/1, or Do They. J. Target. Meas. Anal. Mark. 2009, 17, 139–142.
[CrossRef]
51. Mccuen, R.H.; Knight, Z.; Cutter, A.G. Evaluation of the Nash-Sutcliffe Efficiency Index. J. Hydrol. Eng. 2006, 11, 597–602.
[CrossRef]
52. Negoro, A.K. Estimasi Nilai Faktor K Daerah Irigasi Sistem Kalibawang Kabupaten Kulon Progo. Undergraduate Thesis,
University of Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta, Indonesia, 2019.
53. Peni, S.N. Kualitas Air Di Daerah Waduk Sermo Dan Sekitarnya, Desa Hargowilis, Kabupaten Kulon Progo. Master’s Thesis,
Institut Teknologi Nasional Yogyakarta, Yogyakarta, Indonesia, 2017.