12 Modeling With 2D Models

07/11/2015
Modeling with 2D Models
11/7/2015 Dr. Mostafa Ali, Associate Prof. WRE Dept., BUET. 1
Sediment Transport Modeling – 2D

Governing Equations: 1   p  z  q s

q s
0
t x y
Applications: Morphological modeling of River Jamuna to
find a sustainable navigational route.
N670 km
Nagarbar
i
Protabpu
r
Notakhol
a Kazirhat
N634 km Khayer Char Aricha

Naradhaha
Dr. Mostafa Ali, Associate Prof. WRE Dept.,

11/7/2015 2
BUET.
1
07/11/2015
Flow distribution in Western & Eastern Channels

Percentage of flows in the Western and Eastern Channels
averaged over 10 days near N670
90
80
70
Percentage of Flow
60 1st yr-west 3rd-yr west

Western Channel 5th-yr west 7th-yr west
50 1st-yr east 3rd-yr east
5th-yr east 7th-yr east
40 Eastern Channel
30
20
10
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
Monsoon Days

11/7/2015 3
BUET.
650
Study Area 645
640
635 Study Area
630
625
460 465 470 475 480
11/7/2015 4
BUET.
2
07/11/2015

RMA2
 RMA2 is a 2D depth averaged hydrodynamic model;
it computes water surface elevations and horizontal velocity
components for sub-critical flows;
SED2D
SED2D is a 2D depth averaged sediment model can be applied
to clay or sand bed;
It computes bed level changes (deposition/ erosion),
sediment concentrations, bed shear stress and water depth;
It needs hydrodynamic solutions from other model for water
surface elevations or velocities;
The model considers a single, effective grain size during each
run.
11/7/2015 5
BUET.

Model Development
Basic steps followed are:
The study area has been defined using a 17th November 2000
LANDSAT image; scanned image imported in the background
using Map Module and mesh is generated;
Bathymetry is interpolated to the mesh using Scatter Module

from scattered surveyed bathymetry data;
Once mesh is generated, various parameters such as boundary

conditions, material roughness, turbulence parameter, initial
condition, wetting/drying parameter, time step, sediment
characteristics etc. are assigned using Mesh Module.

11/7/2015 6
BUET.
3
07/11/2015
Land boundary

11/7/2015 7
BUET.

Generated mesh
Total nodes: 12,940
Total elements: 4185
Rectangular elements: 3983
Triangular elements: 202

11/7/2015 8
BUET.
4
07/11/2015

BWDB
X-Sections
Data from
Feb 1999
Bathymetry
Surveyed Lines
April 2001
BIWTA measured bathymetry overlain on satellite image of 17 November 2000

11/7/2015 9
BUET.
Interpolated
bathymetry

11/7/2015 10
BUET.
5
07/11/2015

Boundary Time series for 2001
70000 11
Upstream boundary-Ganges discharge
Upstream boundary-Jamuna discharge 10
60000 Dow nstream boundary-w ater level
9
50000 8
W ate r Le ve l , mPW D
Discharge, m 3/s
7
40000
6
5
30000
4
20000 3
2
10000
1
0 0
1-Jun 16-Jun 1-Jul 16-Jul 31-Jul 15-Aug 30-Aug 14-Sep 29-Sep 14-Oct
Date
11/7/2015 11
BUET.

Roughness Parameter:
Lower value of 0.025 is used when water depth is above
0.5m and 0.055 is used when water depth lower than 0.5m.
Turbulence Parameter:
 Eddy viscosity is assigned by Peclet No, here Pe = 20 used.
Wetting/drying Parameter:
Drying depth is provided 0.01m
Wetting depth is given 0.11m
Other Parameters:
Sediment size (average) is taken as 0.15 mm.
Time step is taken as 1 hour.
11/7/2015 12
BUET.
6
07/11/2015

Hydrodynamic calibration:
Computed Vs Observed Water Level at Aricha for the Year 2001
10.5
Water Surface Elevation (m PWD)
10
9.5
9
8.5 Simulated
8 Observed
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
04/06/01 04/07/01 03/08/01 02/09/01 02/10/01 01/11/01
Date
Computed vs. observed Dr.

water surface elevations for 2001 at Aricha
Mostafa Ali, Associate Prof. WRE Dept.,
11/7/2015 13
BUET.

Hydrodynamic validation
Computed vs observed water surface elevation
10.5
10
Water surface elevation (m
9.5
9
8.5
Simulated
PWD)
8
Observed
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
08/06/02 14/07/02 19/08/02 24/09/02 30/10/02
Date
Computed vs. observed water surface elevations for 2002 at Aricha

11/7/2015 14
BUET.
7
07/11/2015
650 650
645 645
640 640
635 635
630 630
625 625
465 470 475 480 465 470 475 480
Simulated bathymetry of 23rd Observed bathymetry of 23rd
August 2001 August 2001
Calibration of sediment model with observed bathymetry for bed elevations

11/7/2015 2.0 m PWD
Dr. Mostafa below Prof.
Ali, Associate andWRE
above
Dept.,
15
BUET.
650 650
645 645
640 640
635 635
630 630
625 625
465 470 475 480 465 470 475 480
Simulated bathymetry of Observed bathymetry of
October 2002 November 2002
Validation of sediment model with observed bathymetry for bed elevations

11/7/2015 16
2.0 m PWD below BUET. and above
8
07/11/2015
650 650
645 645
640 640
635 635
630 630
625 625
465 470 475 480 465 470 475 480
Simulated bathymetry of Observed bathymetry of
October 2003 November 2003
Validation of sediment model with observed bathymetry for bed elevations
2.0 m PWD below and above
11/7/2015 17
BUET.

Sediment Rating Curve at Baruria
140000
120000
Sediment Load (kg/sec)
100000
80000
Simulated
60000
Observed
40000
20000
0
0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000 120000
Dishcharge (m3/sec)
Simulated sediment rate vs. observed rate (FAP-24) at Baruria

11/7/2015 18
BUET.
9
07/11/2015
Bed elevation of
Year 2001
11/7/2015 Dr. Mostafa Ali, Associate Prof. WRE Dept., 19

BUET.
Navigable depth
One of the main objectives of this study is to find a
suitable route for navigational purpose;
According to BIWTA, minimum depth required for a
ferry is 2.3 m;
To obtain depths at lean periods, using lowest water
levels and corresponding discharges, several steady runs
generated for initial (April 2001) and simulated
bathymetries (for October 2001, October 2002, and
October 2003).

11/7/2015 20
BUET.
10
07/11/2015
650 650
645 645
640 640
635 635
630 630
deep pocket deep pocket
625 625
465 470 475 480 465 470 475 480
(a) April 2001 (b) End of October 2001
(initial navigable depth)
Initial (April 2001) and simulated 2001 to 2003 navigable depths (using
11/7/2015 21
depths 2.3 m below and above)
BUET.
650 650
645 645
640 640
635 635
630 630
deep pocket deep pocket
625 625
465 470 475 480 465 470 475 480
(c) End of October 2002 (d) End of October 2003
Initial (April 2001) and simulated 2001 to 2003 navigable depths (using
depths
Dr. Mostafa2.3 m below
Ali, Associate andDept.,
Prof. WRE above)
11/7/2015 22
BUET.
11
07/11/2015
650
645
640 shallow
channels
635
630
625
465 470 475 480
Simulated 2003 navigable depth

11/7/2015 (using 0.33 m orBUET. above water depths) 23
Options with the amount of capital dredging and their locations
Options Location Intervention Amount of

dredging, Mm3
Option 1 near Naradaha (635 Lat) dredging 3.57
(2438 m)
Option 2 near Natibpur (637.5 Lat) dredging 0.90
(1474 m)
Option 3 dredging in both Natibpur dredging and 4.47
and Naradaha, and spur at spur
Natibpur (3912 m)

11/7/2015 24
BUET.
12
07/11/2015
650 650
645 645
640 640
Option1
635 635
630 630
625 625
465 470 475 480 465 470 475 480
Navigable depth on to 2003 Navigable depth after 1-year
bathymetry (using depths 2.3 m simulation (using depths 2.0 m
below and above) below and above)
11/7/2015 25
BUET.
Average deposition = 2.5 m
Average length = 2438 m
Average width = 450 m
Maintenance dredging required

= 2.5×2438×450 m3
= 2.74 Mm3
Locations of different cross–section Arcs in Option1

11/7/2015 26
BUET.
13
07/11/2015
650 650
645 645
640 640
Option2
635 635
630 630
625 625
465 470 475 480 465 470 475 480
11/7/2015 27
BUET.
Average deposition = 0.35 m
Average length = 1474 m
Average width = 350 m
Maintenance dredging required

= 0.35×1474×350 m3 = 0.18 Mm3
Locations of different cross–section Arcs in the Option2

11/7/2015 28
BUET.
14
07/11/2015
650 650
645 645
640 Option3 640
635 635
630 630
625 625
465 470 475 480 465 470 475 480
11/7/2015 29
BUET.
650 650
645 645
640 640
635 635
630 630
625 625
465 470 475 480 465 470 475 480
(a) End of July 2003 (b) End of August 2003
Erosion/deposition in different months in Option3

11/7/2015 30
BUET.
15
07/11/2015
650 650
645 645
640 640
635 635
630 630
625 625
465 470 475 480 465 470 475 480
(c) End of September 2003 (d) End of October 2003
Erosion/deposition in different months in Option3

11/7/2015 31
BUET.
Average deposition in the

Right channel = 0.45 m
Locations of different cross–section Arcs in the Option3

11/7/2015 32
BUET.
16
07/11/2015
Location of
new ferry ghat

11/7/2015 33
BUET.

Conclusions
Three options are investigated to connect with the deep pocket,
which has been overlooked in the previous study (BIWTA, 2003);
In the first option, dredging of downstream channel shows huge
deposition, as a result blocked the dredged channel;
In the second option, dredging of upstream channel shows very
little deposition compared to Option1;
In the third option, dredging of both channels along with a spur
does not improve situation very much compare to Option2;
Therefore, option2 is considered for using a navigable channel
towards Khayerchar/Naradaha instead of Kazirhat. This new route
will be 3.3 km less than the route followed in Kazirhat;
Capital dredging for option2 is needed in the order of 0.9 Mm3 and
maintenance dredging are of the order of 0.18 Mm3.

11/7/2015 34
BUET.
17
07/11/2015
Modeling with 2D Models
Thank You!
Any Question?
11/7/2015 Dr. Mostafa Ali, Associate Prof. WRE Dept., BUET. 35
18

12 Modeling With 2D Models

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

12 Modeling With 2D Models

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

07/11/2015

Modeling with 2D Models

11/7/2015 Dr. Mostafa Ali, Associate Prof. WRE Dept., BUET. 1

Sediment Transport Modeling – 2D

N634 km Khayer Char Aricha

Dr. Mostafa Ali, Associate Prof. WRE Dept.,

Sediment Transport Modeling – 2D

Flow distribution in Western & Eastern Channels

60 1st yr-west 3rd-yr west

Dr. Mostafa Ali, Associate Prof. WRE Dept.,

Sediment Transport Modeling – 2D

Study Area 645

635 Study Area

Sediment Transport Modeling – 2D

Sediment Transport Modeling – 2D

Bathymetry is interpolated to the mesh using Scatter Module

Once mesh is generated, various parameters such as boundary

Dr. Mostafa Ali, Associate Prof. WRE Dept.,

Sediment Transport Modeling – 2D

Dr. Mostafa Ali, Associate Prof. WRE Dept.,

Sediment Transport Modeling – 2D

Dr. Mostafa Ali, Associate Prof. WRE Dept.,

Sediment Transport Modeling – 2D

BIWTA measured bathymetry overlain on satellite image of 17 November 2000

Sediment Transport Modeling – 2D

Dr. Mostafa Ali, Associate Prof. WRE Dept.,

Sediment Transport Modeling – 2D

Sediment Transport Modeling – 2D

Sediment Transport Modeling – 2D

Computed Vs Observed Water Level at Aricha for the Year 2001

Computed vs. observed Dr.

Sediment Transport Modeling – 2D

Computed vs. observed water surface elevations for 2002 at Aricha

Sediment Transport Modeling – 2D

Calibration of sediment model with observed bathymetry for bed elevations

Sediment Transport Modeling – 2D

Validation of sediment model with observed bathymetry for bed elevations

Sediment Transport Modeling – 2D

Sediment Transport Modeling – 2D

Simulated sediment rate vs. observed rate (FAP-24) at Baruria

Dr. Mostafa Ali, Associate Prof. WRE Dept.,

Sediment Transport Modeling – 2D

11/7/2015 Dr. Mostafa Ali, Associate Prof. WRE Dept., 19

Sediment Transport Modeling – 2D

Dr. Mostafa Ali, Associate Prof. WRE Dept.,

Sediment Transport Modeling – 2D

Sediment Transport Modeling – 2D

Sediment Transport Modeling – 2D

Simulated 2003 navigable depth

Sediment Transport Modeling – 2D

Options with the amount of capital dredging and their locations

Options Location Intervention Amount of

Dr. Mostafa Ali, Associate Prof. WRE Dept.,

Sediment Transport Modeling – 2D

Sediment Transport Modeling – 2D

Average deposition = 2.5 m

Average length = 2438 m

Average width = 450 m

Maintenance dredging required

Locations of different cross–section Arcs in Option1

Sediment Transport Modeling – 2D

Sediment Transport Modeling – 2D

Average deposition = 0.35 m

Average length = 1474 m