Nile River Sediment Modelling: Challenges and Opportunities

Abdalla A. Ahmed 1 H. Sersawy2 4 Usama. H. Ismail V. Vanacker3

2- Mathematical Modeling Dep., Nile Research Institute, Elqanater El-Khiria, P.O. Box 13621, Egypt, hossam_elsersawy@yahoo.com 3- Flemish Counterpart of STWMC, Belguim, vanacker@geog.ucl.ac.be 4- Theme Researcher of DLFAC, UNESCO Chair in Water Resources, Sudan uhamid@talk21.com

Abstract Alluvial river system is a dynamic one, which goes into complex responses where subject to changes in flow hydraulics and sediment loads. Sediment modelling proved to be a useful tool in providing effective mitigation measures for problems related to sediment transport and disposition. These models are also used to improve our understanding of river morphology processes. In this paper the concept of sediment modelling is addressed. The major categories of sediment transport models are discussed and the limitations are pointed out. Moreover, the difficulties and constraints facing the sediment modelling in the Nile Basin are discussed taking into consideration the four years experience with sediment transport and watershed management within the FRIEND/ Nile project. Specifically, the problems and constraints faced the implementation of Surface Water Modelling System (SMS) are highlighted and thoroughly discussed. Introduction The Nile drainage basin represents the longest route of sediment transport on the world as it extends to 6671 km, Ahmed and El Daw, 2004. The production and transportation of sediment in river basins are influenced by a complex set of geomorphic processes that vary in time and space. There are various sources of sediment, such as upland rill erosion and interrill erosion, gully erosion, landslides, debris flows, channel bank erosion and wind erosion. Land use practices such as logging and clearing, grazing, road construction, agriculture, and urbanization activities also affect sediment production and delivery. On small spatial and temporal scales, the erosion rate is roughly equivalent to sediment yield. However, for larger

1 2

UNESCO Chair in Water Resources - Sudan Nile Research Institute - Egypt 3 Catholic University of Leuven Belgium 4 UNESCO Chair in Water Resources - Sudan

basins, like the Nile Basin, as the area and time scale s increase transport and deposition processes influence the sediment delivery, Fig (1). The study of sediment transport of the Nile River is essential for the evaluation of the socioeconomic and environmental impacts of sediment processes in the river basin, not only to understand the soil loss characteristics in the upstream catchments area but also to assess the socio-economic and environmental impacts of sediment transport and disposition in the downstream region. The importance of such activities is especially important where the socio-economic activities of a large number of people are directly linked to the Nile River. A reliable and accurate sediment model is needed to assess sediment transport and disposition so that management practices can be evaluated and downstream problems can be identified. Numerical methods for simulating sediment transport processes are useful management tools for planning and assessing mitigation measures. Typically, these tools are applied for a relatively short time span to provide necessary information for predicting impacts of changing hydraulic and sediment transport conditions. The objective of this paper is to give an overview of present sediment transport models, and to present the characteristics of the SMS software, which was chosen within the FRIEND/Nile project as an effective tool to model sediment transport and disposition in the Nile River. Moreover, it reflects the main constraints and problems faced the implementation of SMS Model. The Concept behind Sediment Modelling in River Channels All models that deal with sediment transport in river channels share the basic notion of creating conceptions of physical reality that results in quantitative predictions. They are a set of mass balance equations designed to quantitatively represent the processes that determine the erosion and/or the transport of sediment. The equations of models are based on the conservation of mass to properly account for all the inputs, transformations, outflows of the water, solids, and contaminants in the surface water system. The study areas in the models are divided into grids using either finite difference or finite elements methods for solving the involved equations. Most sediments models are uncoupled. First they solve the flow e quations and use the results as input for sediment modeling. There exist currently two major techniques for solving flow equations. The first one is analytical and the other is numerical. Three numerical methods are generally used in modeling (i) - finite difference (ii) - finite element and (iii) - The method of characteristics. Sediment modelling is complex, and suffers common limitations mainly due to the estimation of channel roughness or friction slope as they are difficult to measure in the field. The roughness can be approximated by using either Mannings (n) or Weisbachs (f-coefficient). However, most of the existing formulas to calculate the channel roughness are derived for steady uniform flow.

The Sediment Transport Modeling Framework The framework that will be used to evaluate water flow and sediment transport requires generally the following two types of model formulations: (i) hydrodynamic models and (ii) Sediment models. Table (1) gives some examples of hydraulic and hydrodynamic models, Summer and Walling, 2002. The hydrodynamic model is an important component of sediment transport models because it simulates not only the stream velocity and stage height, but also the bottom shear stress that in turn, controls the entrainment, transport and/or deposition of material. Table (1) Examples of Hydraulic and Hydrodynamic Models
Model HEC-2 CE-QUAL-RIVI FLDWAV2.0 RIVMOD MIKE11 EFDC-ID MIKE21 MODFLOW-HMS TABS-2 HSCTM-2D RMA-2 FESWMS-2D BFHYDRO POM ECOM-3D CH3D-WES EFDC FLOW-DELFT3D MIKE3 RMA-10 TRIM3D GEMSS-HDM Type of Model 1D 1D 1D 1D 1D 1D 2D 2D 2D 2D 2D 2D 3D 3D 3D 3D 3D 3D 3D 3D 3D 3D Source USACE Hydrologic Engineering Center; HEC(1982) USACE/ WES;ERL (1995) NOAA; NWS (2001) EPA CEAM; Hosseinipour & Martin (1993) DHI Water & Environment EPA Region IV; Tetra Tech (2001) DHI Water & Environment;<www.dhisofiware.com> Hydro Geologic; Huyakorn (2000) USACE/ WES; Thomas &Mac Nally (1985) EPA CEAM; Hayter et al. (1999) Resource Management Assoc. USGS; Froelich (1989) Applied Science Assoc; <www. Appsci.com> NOAA Geophysical; Blumberg& Mellor (1987) HydroQual; Blumberg & Mellor (1987) USACE/WES; Johnson et al. (1991, 1993) EPA OS&T/Tetra Tech; Harmrick (1992, 1996) Delft Hydraulics lab; <www. wldelft.nI> DHI Water & Environment Resource Management; King & DeGeorge (1996) USGS; Cheng et al. (1993) J.E. Edinger & Associates; Edinger (2002a) Availability Public domain/ Intermediate Public domain/ Intermediate Public domain/ Intermediate Public domain/advanced Proprietary/ advanced Public domain/advanced Proprietary/ advanced Proprietary/ Intermediate Public domain/advanced Public domain/advanced Proprietary/ advanced Public domain/advanced Proprietary/ Intermediate Public domain/advanced Public domain/advanced Public domain/advanced Public domain/advanced Proprietary/ advanced Proprietary/ advanced Proprietary/ advanced Proprietary/ advanced Proprietary/ advanced

1D = One-dimensional

2D= Two- dimensional

3D= Three- dimensional

The sediment transport model represents the entrainment, transport and deposition of sediment both as suspended load and bed load within a water column.

Common Feature of Sediment Transport Models In his famous paper, Show -shan, 1994, reviewed eleven different sediment models. He concluded that all models may have different sediment distribution assumptions, and that models may produce significantly different results, even when run with the same set of inputs. Most sediment models are uncoupled, in the sense that they solve the flow equation first and consider the sediment transport later. Mathematically, they solve a boundary value problems and partial differential equations with finite difference, finite elements or the method of characteristics. Table (2) summarizes the famous sediment transport models used nowadays throughout the world as an effective tool for solving sediment problems. Table (2) Examples of Sediment Transport Models
Model CTAP SLSA SMPTOX3 MICHRIV HEC-6 RIVMOD WASPSTOX 15 HSPFRCH RES SSFATE SEDZL ECOMSED EFDC EFDC-ID CE-QAULICM HSCTM-2D CH3D-SED WAQDEL FT3 D MIKE3-WQ RMA11 Type of Model 1D 1D 1D 1D 1D 1D 3D Source HydroQual; EPA(1984) HydroQual; EPA(1984) EPA CEAM; Limno-Tech (1993) EPA CEAM; EPA (1984) USACE/ Hydrologic Engineering Center; HEC (1993) EPA CEAM; Hosseinpour and Martin(1993) EPA CEAM; Ambrose et al. (1993) Availability Public domain / Screening Public domain / Screening Public domain / Screening Public domain/ Intermediate Public domain/ Intermediate Public domain/ Intermediate Public domain/ Intermediate Public domain/ Intermediate Proprietary/ Intermediate Public domain/advanced Public domain/advanced Public domain/advanced Public domain/advanced Public domain/advanced Public domain/advanced Public domain/advanced Proprietary/ advanced

1D 3D 2D 3D 3D 1D 3D 2D 3D 3D

EPA OS& T; Bicknell et al. (1997-2001) Applied Science Assoc; w ww.appsci.com Ziegler & Nesbit (1994-1995) HydroQual; Ziegler & Nesbitt (1994,1995) EPA OS & T; Tera Tech (1999a) EPA Region IV; Tera Tech (2001) USACE/WES EPA CEAM; Hayter et al. (1999) USACE/WES; Spasojevic & Holly (1994) Delft Hydraulics Lab;< www.wldelft.nl>

3D 3D

TRIM2D 2D GEMSS-STM 3D 1D = One-dimensional

Delft Water & Env; Proprietary/ advanced <www.dhisoftware.com > Resource Management; King Proprietary/ advanced &DeGeorge(1996) USGS; McDonald & Cheng (1997) Proprietary/ advanced J.E Edinger & Assoc; Edinger (2002a) Proprietary/ advanced 2D= Two- dimensional 3D= Three- dimensional

Generally, most models deal with steady flow conditions and with the following four main hydraulic aspects: (i) the equation of motion for water (ii) the continuity equation for water and sediment (iii) one or more sediment transport functions and (iv) a relationship for channel resistance. Thus, most models deal with unsteady flow conditions as steady one, and use sediment transport functions which are not applicable to wash load or unsteady flow
4

conditions. Only a few models in limited ways can model bank erosion, armoring effects on channel geometry and morphology changes. Application of Sediment Transport Models in the Nile Basin i- Selection of a Sediment Transport Model for the Nile Basin The selection of sediment transport function is a matter of professional judgment. At present, the sediment transport functions included in the stream sedimentation models for predicting sediment transport capacity have mostly been developed from limited data for non-cohesive sediment transport in ideal steady and uniform flows. More importantly, the sediment transport functions were derived with the assumptions that there are close relations between sediment transport capacity and one or more hydraulics variables, such as stream flow or/and velocity. It has been proved that such correlation is often weak. Therefore, at present, few sediment transport functions are applicable to wash load or unsteady flow conditions. Sediment transport models are still in developing stage. These models are an approximation of the reality, but are no true representation. Therefore at present times they cannot substitute the professional experience. The interpretation of the model output by experts is highly required for a successful application of those models. Computer modeling is a useful tool for scientists and engineers, but it can also be a source of mis-information for those who do not know all the assumptions, capabilities, and limitations of the models. Based on a comprehensive review of available sediment transport models, the Surface Water Modelling System (SMS) was selected as a tool to model and analyze sediment transport in the Nile River Basin. For this review, the available models were classified in terms of (i) functionally ; grouped into five major categories, watershed, stream, reservoir, estuarine, and coastal sedimentation (ii) dimensionally ; classified as one dimension, two dimensions and three dimensional models. Table (3) illustrates the main components of SMS model in brief.

Model Type Dimensio nal

Table (3) Gives Detailed Information of SMS Model Components RMA2 SED-2D FESWMS Flow Sediment Flow / Sediment 2D RMA2 developed by Norton, King &Orlob, 1973. Further development carried by Resource Management Associates (RMA) and USAERDC culminating in the current TABS-MD. 2D Developed by R. Ariathurai (l974) and extended to include the vertical plane by MacArthur & Krone ,l977, then modernized by WES ,1993 to create SED2D. SED2D can be applied to clay or sand bed sediments where flow velocities can be considered 2D in the horizontal plane. It is useful for both deposition and erosion studies. Model treats noncohesive & cohesive. 2D FESWMS-2DH developed for FHWA and USGS, Wat. Res. Division, 1978. Similar to TABS-MD Coded by David C. Froehlich. Flow patterns and levels in: Bridges, River junctions and contracting. Design of rip rap based on computed bed shear. Easy modeling of weirs, culverts, drop inlets & piers. Direct computation of shear stresses. Variable wall roughness. Model both super and subcritical flow regimes.

Origin of the model

Flow patterns and levels in:Rivers, reservoirs and estuaries Bridges River junctions. Applicatio Hydropower plants n User selectable turbulence, roughness, temperature, etc. Model up to 5 different types of flow control structures

RMA2 operates under hydrostatic assumption i.e. accelerations in vertical direction are negligible. 2D in the horizontal plane. It is not intended to be used for Limitation near field problems where vortices, vibrations, or vertical accelerations are of primary interest. It can not simulate the critical flow.

Model considers a single, effective grain size during each simulation. Hence, a separate model run is required for each Free-Surface calculation effective grain size. model for sub-critical Model doesn't compute flow problems water surface elevations or velocities; data must be provided from an external calculation of the flow field.

In the case study of the Nile Basin, the selection of the model was based on the following criteria: - Usefulness of documentations. - User friendly (easy to interact with through Guide User Manual). - Reliability (verified / tested). - Technical support and after sale service. - Purpose of modeling to serve the specific aims of the study. - Degree and quality of required data input. - Flexibility. - Reasonable cost / and efficiency.
6

ii- Modeling Approach in the Nile Basin Sediments transport is a complex process in the Nile Basin. Soil erosion patterns in the basin are heterogeneous; therefore, patterns of soil erosion and sediment transport are difficult to model and predict particularly when data availability becomes a second constraint. The fact that, the river basin lying across ten countries has made the system analyses significantly a complex task. Currently, research activities are undertaken in different watersheds of the Nile Basin countries. The Sediment and Watershed Management Component within the framework of the FRIENF/Nile Project agreed on the catchments and/or rivers to be studied as case studied in each country as shown in, Fig (2) and Fig (3), STWMC 2nd Annual Year Report, 2003. 12345Kenya Tanzania Ethiopia Sudan Egypt Sondu River Basin.. Simiyu River Basin Awash River Basin. Blue Nile Basin. Aswan High Dam Reservoir.

AHD

Blue Nile Awash R.

Sondu R

Simiyu R

Fig (2) Locations of the STWMC

Discussion One of the most important factors affecting the sediment modelling results is data availability. A comprehensive set of data covering morphology and hydraulics is vital for any study area being modeled. Furthermore, in modeling stream sedimentation problems, there are two types of mathematical limitations i) convergence and ii) solution procedures. The application of SMS model in the Nile Basin faced several constraints and problems, which are briefly described below. i- Model Scale Multiple scales of analysis (local, sub-regional, and regional scales) are needed for modelling sediment transport in the Nile Basin. For example at the local scale, erosion models can be used to simulate the sediment yield at the catchment, including impacts of land management practices. At the sub-regional scale, flow and sediment are transported through a system of channels. At present there are several models to evaluate sediment transport and channel response using one, two and multi dimensional sediment transport models. Regional scale analysis consists of the entire river basin watershed and associated channels. At this scale, simulations include sediment and water routing and channel response through the entire sediment region.

a- Sondu River Basin (Kenya)

Awash B asin

Addis ababa
# Y

T $ Gauging sta tio ns Y # T $

# Y

T $
#

# Y

Met Sta tion s

T $

Y #

T $

T $

Koka Reserv oir

b- Awash River Ethiopia

c- Simiyu River-

d- Aswan High Dam -

Wad Madani

Wad El Naw

e- The selected reach in the Blue Nile- Sudan

f- The Blue Nile catchment area inside Ethiopia

Fig (3) Detailed locations of the case studies in the Nile River Basin and Awash River Analysis capabilities include channel stability and geomorphic response for all watershed channels, distributaries, the main channel and receiving waters bodies (including reservoirs and estuaries). Using these scales for sediment transport modeling in the Nile Basin gives flexibility in assessing the sediment process throughout the basin.

ii- Data Availability A basic impediment to successful sediment modeling is the lack of adequate input data. Model calibration and verification require independent field data sets, preferably reflecting different field conditions, for calibration and verification. The lack of proper sediment data in the Nile Basin has been realized. The main reasons are (i) lack of trained manpower (ii)-lack of laboratory facilities (iii)-lack of logistic supports and unavailability of the facilities for maintaining sophisticated laboratory equipment (iv)- lack of appropriate fund in the Nile Basin. The quality of the data is always affected by the condition of the equipment and the methodology of data collection. In this respect, the authors of this paper urge the Nile Basin countries to give more attention to the collection of sediment data of good quality. This is vital for the water resources management within the Nile Basin. iii- Model Formulation Similar to most of the sediment transport models, the SMS models incorporate certain simplifying assumptions and approximations. Several difficulties are identified in model formulation, particularly regarding the creation of the computational mesh. - Finding an appropriate geo-referenced satellite image with a good resolution (for the base map) is difficult to obtain. - Mesh creation requires a lot of experience and time consuming. - The eddy viscosity parameter is highly sensitive and affects the model convergence. iv- Model Calibration Regardless of the formulation chosen for the sediment model, model calibration is a key step in model application. Adequate data regarding the flow and channel characteristics are of primary importance for a successful model calibration. The SMS model was tested and calibrated using the data collected from Tuti area where the two main tributaries meet at nd Khartoum City. The results obtained were fairly acceptable, for more details see STWMC 2 Annual Year Report, 2003. v- Model Application The application of SMS model on steep rivers flow conditions (e.g. in Ethiopian, and Kenya cases studies) require special professional experience and precaution regarding the concepts on which the hydrodynamic and sediment transport models used in SMS are based on. On the other hand, large numbers of cross-sections with short intervals are required to provide suitable results when SMS models are implemented. - Sudden falls in the longitudinal section (e.g. Awash River) complicate things and make the application of the model more difficult. - Model convergence is one of the difficulties facing the model application. - Intensive training on SMS application is required. - the SMS model developers failed to provide technical support in time. vi- Predictive Capability The experience of SMS model application in the Nile River and Awash River showed difficulties in proofing to be a truly predictive tool, particularly when dealing with river floods. The applications of SMS model in Egypt and Sudan case studies raised some

difficulties. For example, modeling of the sediment transport in Aswan High Dam Reservoir showed that the predicted bed levels are higher than the measured ones in the whole inlet zone as shown in Fig (4) for years 2001 and 2003. Also, in the modeling of the sediment transport in the Blue Nile in Sudan, it is noted that both the computed water level and bed level are higher than the measured ones for the entire selected reach Fig (5) & Fig (6), STWMC 3rd Year Annual Report, 2004. Regarding the other case studies in Kenya, Tanzania and Ethiopia even more problems faced the application of SMS model as a predictive tool.

Comparison Between Longitudinal Sections For (AHDR) at 2001

Comparison Between Longitudinal Sections For (AHDR) at 20 03

Comparison of Calculated and Observed Water Surface Elevations in AHDR (199)

Fig (4) Measured and Computed longitudinal Water Surface

400 399
Water Level (M)

406 405 404 403 402 401 400 399 398 397

Water Level (M)

398 397 396 0 5 10 15

Distance (KM )

-15000

-10000

-5000

5000

10000

20

25

30

35

15000

20000

Distance (KM)

Fig (5) Measured Water Surface Profile Medani Wad Elnaw Reach

Fig (6) Computed Water Surface Profile Wad Medani Wad Elnaw Reach

10

Conclusions Sediment models although are based on well-known flow equations, however, most of them select sediment functions without any good justification for this selection. Therefore, professional experience plays the major role in this. The use of SMS to simulate sediment process in the Nile Basin River and Awash River within the FRIEND/ Nile Project has encountered some difficulties and problems. This could be attributed to the different topography of the countries involved and the suitable data availability. Application of SMS model in the steep rivers as it can be seen from the Kenyan, Tanzanian and Ethiopian case studies showed difficulties in obtaining straightforward results. It requires high professional experience on the nature of these rivers. Modelling sediment is an effective tool in solving several water management problems; however, it may be a misleading one if not properly analyzed. This paper without any hesitation recommends the Nile Basin countries should give more attention to data collection in the field of water resources management, specially the sediment data for better and efficient water management. Acknowledgments This paper was prepared based on the research activities of the FRIEND/Nile Project which is funded by the Flemish Government of Belgium through the Flanders-UNESCO Science Trust Fund cooperation and executed by UNESCO Cairo Office. The authors would like to express their great appreciation to the Flemish Government of Belgium, the Flemish experts and universities for their financial and technical support to the project. The authors are indebted to UNESCO Cairo Office, the FRIEND/Nile Project management team, overall coordinator, thematic coordinators, themes researchers and the implementing institutes in the Nile countries for the successful execution and smooth implementation of the project. Thanks are also due to UNESCO Offices in Nairobi, Dar Es Salaam and Addis Ababa for their efforts to facilitate the implementation of the FRIEND/Nile activities. References Show -Shan Fan, 1994, An Interagency Overview of Selected Stream Sedimentation Models, Interagency Sedimentation Group, Washington, D. C, USA. Summer . W & Walling D. E, 2002: Modeling Erosion, Sediment Transport and Sediment yield, IHP VI, Technical Document in Hydrology No 60, UNESCO, Paris, France. STWMC 2nd Annual Report, 2003, Sediment Transport and Watershed Management Component, FRIEND/ Nile Program, Khartoum, Sudan. STWMC 3rd Annual Report, 2004, Sediment Transport and Watershed Management Component, FRIEND/ Nile Program, Khartoum, Sudan.

11

Ahmed A, A & Eldaw A. K, 2004, An Overview on Cooperation of Transboundary Water: Case of the Nile River Basin, 2nd Regional Arab Water Conference, Cairo, Egypt.

12