Evaluation of the Causes of Halda River Bank Erosion &

Guiding its Cost Effective Protection Method

By

ABIR IMTIAZ OBIDUR RAHMAN

ID: 1701013 ID: 1701085

A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of

Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering

Department of Civil Engineering

CHITTAGONG UNIVERSITY OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY

May 2023
 Declaration

I hereby declare that the work contained in this thesis has not been

previously submitted to meet requirements for an award at this or any other

higher education institution. To the best of my knowledge and belief, the Thesis

contains no material previously published or written by another person except

where due reference is cited. Furthermore, the Thesis complies with

PLAGIARISM and ACADEMIC INTEGRITY regulation of CUET.

-------------------------------------------------
ABIR IMTIAZ, Student ID: 1701013
Department of Civil Engineering
Chittagong University of Engineering & Technology (CUET)

-------------------------------------------------
OBIDUR RAHMAN, Student ID: 1701085
Department of Civil Engineering
Chittagong University of Engineering & Technology (CUET)

Copyright © Abir Imtiaz and Obidur Rahman, 2023.

This work may not be copied without permission of the author or Chittagong University of
Engineering & Technology

i
 Approval by the Supervisor

This is to certify that Abir Imtiaz and Obidur Rahman has carried out this research
work under my supervision, and that they have fulfilled the relevant Academic Ordinance
of the Chittagong University of Engineering and Technology, so that they are qualified
to submit the following Thesis in the application for the degree of BACHELOR of
SCIENCE in Civil Engineering . Furthermore, the Thesis complies with the
PLAGIARISM and ACADEMIC INTEGRITY regulation of CUET.

------------------------------------------------------

Shyamal Acharya

Assistant Professor

Department of Civil Engineering

Chittagong University of Engineering & Technology

ii
 Acknowledgement

We want to extend my sincere gratitude and appreciation to everyone who

helped us throughout the writing of this thesis paper, which is titled “Evaluation
of The Causes of Hilda River Bank Erosion & Guiding its Cost Effective
Protection Method." This thesis would not have been achieved without their
amazing contributions.

We want to start by sincerely thanking our supervisor, Shyamal Acharya, for his
advice, knowledge, and continuous support. The direction and caliber of this
research have been greatly influenced by his astute comments, helpful criticism,
and persistent support. We sincerely appreciate his guidance and the way he
pushed us to excel in our academic endeavors.

We owe a debt of gratitude to the teachers at Civil Engineering, CUET for their
willingness to share their knowledge with us and for creating a stimulating
learning environment for us. Our desire to extensively examine this crucial
subject of riverbank erosion and its preventative strategies is a result of their
commitment to both teaching and research.

We want to express my appreciation to my family and friends for their never-

ending help, patience, and inspiration along this trip. Our dedication and resolve
to finish this thesis have been motivated by their love, patience, and faith in us.

Additionally, we would like to thank the local people, employees and researchers
who helped with data collection. Their collaboration and knowledge were
extremely helpful in assembling the essential data and confirming the reliability
of the results. Last but not least, we would like to thank all the authors,
researchers, and academics whose brilliant work we have cited in this thesis.
Their contributions have deepened our comprehension of the topic and laid the
groundwork for our study.

We would want to conclude by expressing our gratitude to everyone who helped

with this thesis. We appreciate all of your help and advice, and I feel privileged
to have had the chance to do this research with your help.

iii
 Abstract

This thesis aims to address the problem of riverbank erosion in the Halda River
of Bangladesh by exploring cost-effective protection measures. The Halda River
is a vital resource for the people of Bangladesh, providing water for irrigation,
fisheries, and other activities. However, the river is prone to severe erosion,
which poses a significant threat to the surrounding communities and their
livelihoods.

The research investigates the causes of riverbank erosion in the Halda River
including both natural processes such as water flow and sediment transport as
well as human activities such as deforestation, land-use changes, and
development activities. By understanding the contributing factors, the study
aims to identify potential solutions that can be implemented to mitigate
riverbank erosion.

The research then focuses on comparing two different protection measures: CC

blocks and Geobags. CC blocks are concrete blocks that are typically used for
riverbank protection, whereas geobags are sand-filled bags made of geotextile
material. The study evaluates the effectiveness and cost of both solutions, taking
into account factors such as installation time, durability, and sustainability.

The findings of the study indicate that geobags are a more effective and cost-
efficient protection measure compared to CC blocks. Geobags offer a more
flexible and customizable solution, allowing them to adapt to the specific needs
of the site. Furthermore, geobags have a lower carbon footprint and require fewer
resources for installation, making them a more sustainable and environmentally
friendly solution.

In conclusion, the study recommends the use of Geobags as a cost-effective and

sustainable solution for riverbank protection in the Halda River and other similar
environments. This study provides valuable insights into the causes of riverbank
erosion and offers practical recommendations for implementing effective and
long lasting riverbank protection measures. By protecting the riverbanks of the
Halda River, we can safeguard the livelihoods of the surrounding communities
and ensure the sustainable use of this vital resource for generations to come.

iv
 Table of Contents

Abstract ................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

Table of Contents…………………………………………………………………...v
List of Figures .......................................................................................................... vii
List of Tables ........................................................................................................... viii

Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION………………………………………………..11
1.1 General ...............................................................................................................1
1.2 Objectives ...........................................................................................................3
1.3 Scope ..................................................................................................................3
1.4 Limitations ..................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

Chapter 2: LITERATURE REVIEW .................................................................6

2.1 General .......................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.2 Causes of Halda River Bank Erosion ........ Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.3 Impact of Halda River Bank Erosion ......... Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.4 Possible Protective Measures ........................................................................10
2.5 Comprasion of Protective Measures ........................................................... 16

Chapter 3: MATERIALS AND METHODOLOGY ....................................17

3.1 Study Area ..................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
3.2 Laboratory experiments of Soil .................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
3.3 Data collection from BWDB ....................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
3.5 Laboratory Experiments Of CC Block and geotextile bagError! Bookmark
not defined.

v
Chapter 4: RESULTS ……………………………………………………..26

4.1 Soil Characteristics....................................................................................Error!

Bookmark not defined.
4.1.1 Moisture
Content.............................................................................Error!
Bookmark not defined.
4.1.2 Direct Shear Test
.............................................................................Error! Bookmark
not defined.

4.2 Laboratory Experiment ............................................................................Error!

Bookmark not defined.
4.2.1
Geobag...............................................................................................E
rror! Bookmark not defined.
4.2.2 C.C.
Block.........................................................................................,Error!
Bookmark not defined.

4.3 Cost Analysis………………………………………………………….…35

Chapter 5: Discussion..............................................................................38
5.1 General........................................................................................................Error!
Bookmark not defined.

Chapter 6: CONCLUSIONS.......................................................................40
6.1 General........................................................................................................Error!
Bookmark not defined.
6.2 Limitation of the Study.............................................................................Error!
Bookmark not defined.
6.3 Recommendation for Further Study ................................................................43

vi
References ………………………………………………………………………44

vii
 List of Figures
Fig. No. Figure Caption Page No.

Fig 3.1 Satellite Map of the different eroded spots of the village
……......Error! Bookmark not defined.

Fig 3.2 Spot-1: Gradual declination of field

area………………………….Error! Bookmark not defined.

Fig 3.3 Spot 2 : Failure of nearby structures

……………………….........Error! Bookmark not defined.

Fig 3.4 Spot 3 : Failure of nearby structures ……………………………....18

Fig 3.5 Spot 4 : Failure of nearby structures ……………………………...19

Fig 3.6 Spot 5: Failure of nearby structures………………………………...19

Fig 3.7 Revetment of Model Geobags……………………………………....24

Fig 3.8 Revetment of Model C.C. Blocks…………………………………...25

Fig 4.1 Shear stress vs. Displacement Graph of Soil Sample -1…………..27

Fig 4.2 Shear Stress vs. Normal Stress Graph of Sample-1……………….28

Fig 4.3 Shear stress vs. Displacement Graph of Soil Sample -2…………..29

Fig 4.4 Shear Stress vs. Normal Stress Graph of Sample-2……………….30

Fig 4.5 % Stability of Geobag vs. Froude Number................................…...32

Fig 4.6 Displacement of Geobags……………………………………………32

Fig 4.7 Physical Changes in Geobags……………………………………….32

Fig 4.8 % Stability of C.C. Blocks vs. Froude Number……………………34

Fig 4.9 Displacement of C.C. Blocks ……………………………….……….34

Fig 4.1 Physical Changes in C.C. Blocks…………………………………....34

viii
ix
 List of Tables

Table No. Table Caption Page No.

Table 3.1 Bank Protective Work in Arial Khan

River..……..……………..Error! Bookmark not defined.

Table 3.2 Bank Protective Work in Padma River..........................................20

Table 3.3 Structures along the right bank of the Jamuna

River..................Error! Bookmark not defined.

Table 3.4 Structures along the left bank of the Jamuna

River.....................Error! Bookmark not defined.

Table 4.1 Moisture Content of sample-1…………………………………………..26

Table 4.2 Moisture Content of sample-2…………………………………………..26

Table 4.3 Determination of Shear Stress of Sample-1……………………..27

Table 4.4 Determination of Normal Stress & Shear Stress of Sample-1...28

Table 4.5 Determination of Shear Stress of Sample-2 …………………….29

Table 4.6 Determination of Normal Stress & Shear Stress of Sample-2…30

Table 4.7 Stability of Geobag…………………………………………………31

Table 4.8 Stability of C.C. Blocks ……………………………………………33

Table 4.9 Cost Comparison between two protection measures…………..37

x
Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION

1.1 General

Bangladesh has a healthy ecology and is fortunate to have several rivers. Rivers

in Bangladesh have been playing a significant part in the people's life and means

of subsistence. Millions of people, particularly the poor, rely primarily on river

resources. However, rivers maintain a dynamic system, which continuously

change their way in passing (Mollah and Ferdaush, 2015), and in its natural

process, erosion and accrual is very common in the context of Bangladesh.

Erosion can happen on a regular or sporadic basis, in a floodplain or elsewhere.

In a study, Mollah and Ferdaush (2015) discussed how erosion frequently

outpaces accretion and severely damages lives and livelihoods, with the poor

being most likely to suffer and end up as the worst casualties.

However, to a certain extent, erosion can lead to positive results, such as the

creation of fruitful floodplains and alluvial terraces. Furthermore, Chatterjee and

Mistri (2013) confirmed that in this dynamic process, sediments are deposited on

one side of the bank while the concave side of the bank is affected.

As a result, the catastrophic river erosion in Bangladesh has put thousands of

people in danger. Iva et al. (2017) noted that the majority of the affected people

are experiencing numerous issues, including losing their homestead area and

house, struggling financially, changing their occupation, and migrating from one

location to another. A significant number of people are also unable to settle in

any new locations.

1
Riverbank erosion is a recurrent natural hazard in Bangladesh, particularly when

rivers enter the mature stage and become sluggish and meander or braid. This

results in massive erosion along the riverbanks. The causes of riverbank erosion

are categorized as continuous or intermittent erosion of soil particles from the

bank surface, sequential failures of small sections of bank material, or

destabilization of a single large section of bank. These causes of riverbank erosion

are identified by Przedwojski et al. (1995).

The Halda River, which rises in the Chittagong Hill Tracts, flows through various

districts and forms its basin. Its tributary, the Dhurung River, has carved out

several courses over the past century and now joins the Halda to the southwest

of the Fatikchhari upazila headquarters, leaving its original course to decay. The

Halda is also fed by several hill streams flowing down from the Chittagong Hill

Tracts to its east, irrigating the entire Halda basin up to Kalurghat, where it falls

into the Karnafuli River.

This river is prone to severe bank erosion in areas close to major bends and

nearby villages, especially during flash floods (Daily Star, 2011a; 2011b). Over

the past century, local inhabitants have cut down natural bends in the river, such

as Machuaghona, Barighona, Ankurighona, Sonaimuri, and Gorduara, to slow

down the river current and protect their homes and lands from erosion (Daily

Star, 2011a). A number of causes, including natural processes like river

meandering and anthropogenic activity like deforestation and haphazard

building along the riverbanks, have contributed to the serious problem of bank

erosion in the Halda River.

Loss of agricultural land, harm to homes and infrastructure, and eviction of local

residents are all results of bank erosion in the Halda River. A variety of bank

protection strategies have been used to address this issue, including the building

of embankment, C.C. blocks, Sand bags and vegetative bioengineering methods.

2
However, there is still a need for more thorough and long-lasting solutions to the

Halda River's bank erosion problem. In order to do this, strategies including

riverbank stability, reforestation, and the introduction of land-use guidelines

may be used. However, these traditional methods of strengthening the river

lacked engineering knowledge and failed to provide long-term solutions. As a

result, both protected and unprotected areas of the riverbank experience erosion

during flood seasons, and subsequent riverbank protection works are necessary.

1.2 Objectives

1. To finding out the main causes of Halda Riverbank erosion.

2. To evaluate the effectiveness of C.C. blocks and Geobags in

protecting riverbanks from erosion.

3. To determine the cost-effectiveness of these two protective

measures.

1.3 Scope

The scope of this study topic is focused on the causes of riverbank erosion in the

Halda River in Bangladesh and the comparison of two potential cost-effective

riverbank protection measures - CC blocks and Geobags. The study aims to

identify the primary causes of riverbank erosion in the Halda River, including

Category I, II, and III factors, as identified by Przedwojski et al. (1995). The study

will also examine the effectiveness of CC blocks and Geobags as potential

riverbank protection measures and compare their costs.

The study will involve both fieldwork and literature review to gather relevant

data and information. Fieldwork will include surveys and measurements of the

riverbank erosion and the application of the two protection measures in specific

areas of the Halda River. The literature review will involve reviewing and

3
analyzing previous research and studies on riverbank erosion and protection

measures, including the use of CC blocks and Geobags.

The study's geographic scope will focus primarily on the Halda River,

Chittagong, and surrounding areas, but the findings and recommendations may

have broader applicability to other rivers facing similar riverbank erosion issues.

The study will also consider the social and economic impacts of riverbank erosion

and the importance of protecting the riverbanks for the communities that rely on

the river for their livelihoods.

Overall, the study's scope is to provide a comprehensive analysis of the causes of

Halda Riverbank erosion and to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness

of two potential riverbank protection measures, CC blocks and Geobags. The

study aims to provide recommendations for riverbank protection strategies that

can be implemented by local authorities and communities to minimize the

adverse effects of riverbank erosion on people's livelihoods and the environment.

1.4 Limitations

Some possible limitations of this study topic could include:

Limited data availability: It may be challenging to gather sufficient and reliable

data on the causes of Halda Riverbank erosion and the effectiveness of different

riverbank protection measures, particularly in terms of cost-effectiveness.

Time and resource constraints: Conducting fieldwork and collecting data on the

Halda River and its surrounding areas may require significant time and

resources. This could limit the scope of the study and the number of locations

that can be included.

4
External factors: The Halda River ecosystem is subject to various natural and

anthropogenic factors that can influence erosion and riverbank protection

measures. For instance, changes in rainfall patterns, land use practices, and river

flow rates can all affect the study's results.

Technical expertise: Evaluating the effectiveness of different riverbank protection

measures requires technical expertise in areas such as geotechnical engineering

and hydrology. The study team may need to collaborate with experts in these

fields to design and execute the study effectively.

Generalizability: The findings of the study may not be generalizable to other

rivers or regions, as the causes of erosion and the effectiveness of protection

measures can vary depending on local conditions.

5
Chapter 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

Hilda River serves as a source of freshwater for many communities. However, in

recent years, the river has been experiencing severe bank erosion, which has

resulted in the loss of valuable land, crops, and infrastructure. Therefore,

identifying the causes of Hilda River bank erosion and exploring cost-effective

protection measures is of great importance. This literature review aims to

investigate the causes of Hilda River bank erosion and compare different cost-

effective protection measures.

2.1 Causes of Halda River bank erosion:

Several natural and human-made factors contribute to Hilda River bank erosion.

The natural factors include the river's hydrology, sediment load, and geology.

Human-made factors include the construction of bridges, embankments, and

other structures that alter the river's natural flow. Climate change has also played

a significant role in increasing the frequency and severity of floods, which

exacerbate bank erosion.

The following are some of the key causes of bank erosion, supported by

references:

The riverbank undergoes to erosion by hydraulic and geo-technical instability.

Hydraulic instability is caused by scour at the toe of a marginally stable bank,

flood propagation and flood recession, debris and vegetation, removal of bank

vegetation, detachment of coarse sediment by wave action, secondary current etc.

Besides, constricted bridge crossings or other encroachments that involve

acceleration and concentration of flood flows tends to cause ‘back eddies’ or

6
reverse circulation downstream, which can sometimes erode huge embankments

into river bends (Islam et., 2011).

Large scale eddying induced by bank irregularities can enlarge existing

embayment and increase the amplitude of projections, which become more

susceptible to subsequent attack. Geo-technical instability is caused by

detachment of more coarse grained layers in any given alluvial bank, by water

flowing out of the bank face, termed as ‘piping’ or ‘sapping’ (Hagerty and Hamel,

1989).

Hydrological Factors:

High Flow Velocity: The high velocity of water during peak flow periods

increases the erosive forces acting on the riverbanks, leading to erosion and

undercutting of the banks (Alam et al., 2020).

Sediment Transport: Sediment load and transport play a significant role in bank

erosion. Excessive sedimentation in the riverbed can lead to scouring of the banks

and subsequent erosion (Rahman et al., 2018).

River Morphology:

Meandering and Bend Erosion: Meandering channels with pronounced bends

are prone to bank erosion due to the helical flow pattern, which concentrates flow

and erosive forces on the outer bank of the bends (Sharker et al., 2017).

Bank Material Composition: The erodibility of bank materials, such as cohesion

less sands or fine-grained clays, can influence the susceptibility of the riverbanks

to erosion (Hoque et al., 2020).

7
Climate Change:

A study) found that climate change was likely to increase the frequency and

severity of bank erosion along the Hilda River in the future (Bhuiyan et al., 2018).

Increased Rainfall Intensity: Climate change-induced rainfall patterns with

increased intensity and frequency can contribute to higher runoff and stream

flow, exacerbating bank erosion (Mondal et al., 2019).

Sea Level Rise: Rising sea levels can lead to increased tidal influence and

saltwater intrusion, which may alter the river's hydraulic regime and exacerbate

erosion (Rahman et al., 2018).

Deforestation and Land Use Changes:

Loss of Riparian Vegetation: Deforestation and removal of vegetation along the

riverbanks reduce the stabilizing effect of roots and increase the vulnerability of

banks to erosion (Islam et al., 2020).

Changes in Land Use Practices: Conversion of forests or agricultural land to

urban or industrial areas can increase surface runoff and alter sediment

dynamics, contributing to bank erosion (Sharker et al., 2017).

Anthropogenic Activities:

Sand Mining: Unregulated sand mining activities in the riverbed can disrupt the

sediment balance, leading to increased erosion of riverbanks (Alam et al., 2020).

A study by Hossain et al. (2016) found that illegal sand mining activities were a

major cause of bank erosion along the Hilda River.

River Training Works: Improperly designed or executed river training works,

such as embankments or groynes, can redirect flow and intensify erosive forces

on the riverbanks (Hoque et al., 2020).

8
2.2 Impacts of Halda river erosion:

Bank erosion in the Hilda River can have significant impacts on the environment,

economy, and social well-being of the surrounding communities. Some of the key

impacts are:

Environmental impacts: Halda River erosion can lead to various negative

environmental effects, including:

Loss of habitat: Erosion can destroy riparian vegetation and undermine the

stability of riverbank ecosystems, resulting in the loss of habitats for aquatic and

terrestrial species.

Sedimentation and water quality degradation: Erosion contributes to increased

sedimentation in the river, which can adversely affect water quality by reducing

sunlight penetration, increasing turbidity, and impacting aquatic organisms.

Alteration of river morphology: Continuous bank erosion can change the course

and shape of the river, altering its natural morphology and disrupting the

ecological balance (Mitra, S., Shamsuddin, M., & Ahmed, B., 2018).

Socio-economic impacts: The impacts of Hilda River erosion on local

communities can be significant:

Displacement of communities: Bank erosion can lead to the displacement of

communities residing along the riverbanks, causing loss of homes, farmlands,

and infrastructure.

Loss of agricultural land: Erosion can result in the loss of fertile agricultural land,

impacting the livelihoods of farmers and agricultural productivity in the region.

Disruption of livelihoods: Fishing communities dependent on the river for their

livelihoods may face reduced fish populations and declining fishing

opportunities due to habitat loss and changes in the river ecosystem (Begum, S.,

Islam, R., & Rashid, M. A., 2016).

9
Infrastructure risks: Bank erosion can pose risks to infrastructure located near

the riverbanks:

Damage to roads, bridges, and buildings: Erosion can undermine the stability of

infrastructure located close to the river, leading to structural damage and

potential collapse.

Risk to human settlements: Erosion can threaten human settlements located

along the riverbanks, increasing the vulnerability of communities to flooding and

other hazards (Kibria, G., Rahman, M., & Akter, S., 2017)

2.3 Possible protection measures:

Various protection measures have been proposed to address Halda River bank

erosion. There are several cost-effective protection measures that can be

implemented to prevent Halda river bank erosion, such as:

Afforestation: Planting trees and vegetation along the riverbank can help

stabilize the soil and prevent erosion. The roots of trees and plants bind the soil

and hold it in place, reducing the impact of water currents and wave action. Here

are some references on using afforestation to safeguard riverbanks, notably in

relation to the Halda River:

The effects of afforestation on riverbank erosion control in Bangladesh are

thoroughly discussed along with the possible advantages and difficulties of

afforestation for safeguarding riverbanks, as well as the socio-economic and

ecological repercussions (Rahman, M. A., et al., 2021).

Eco-Friendly and Sustainable Riverbank Erosion Control can be obtained

through Forestry. (Hossain, S. M., et al. 2021).

10
A case study of the Brahmaputra River's riverbank protection by afforestation in

Bangladesh shows positive socioeconomic and environmental effects of

afforestation for riverbank protection (Adnan, N., et al., 2019).

Overall, afforestation can be a viable and efficient way for protecting riverbanks,

and it can also have ecological advantages including strengthening wildlife

habitat and water quality. The type of vegetation planted, the location and

geography of the riverbank, and the regional socioeconomic backdrop can all

affect how effective afforestation is at protecting riverbanks.

Gabion walls: Gabion walls are wire mesh baskets filled with stones or concrete

blocks that can be used to build a retaining wall along the river bank. They are

effective in preventing erosion and can be constructed at a lower cost compared

to other types of retaining walls. The following references, which include

information specific to the Halda River, deal with the use of gabion barriers for

riverbank protection:

Because of their inherent solidity and weight, gabion structures are frequently

used as permanent structures. Given that the surrounding lands are covered in

silt, the gabion apron portion of the retaining wall acts as though it were natural

ground. To avoid hydrostatic pressure from causing the structure's settlement,

the backfill material should be obtained from an authorized supplier and have

good drainage qualities (Utmani, Ahmed, Islam, 2019).

Gabions are an extension of the rock-fill principle of providing a protective lining

to river beds and banks. They can provide effective protection against the action

of moderate wave action (Chyun, Yung, 2011).

In different scenarios, like Bangladesh, where the Halda River is located, gabion

barriers have been utilized successfully to protect riverbanks. When creating and

implementing riverbank protection measures, it's crucial to take the river's

11
particular characteristics into account as well as any potential ecological effects

of gabion barriers.

Bamboo fencing: Bamboo fencing can be used to protect the river bank from

erosion. Bamboo is a fast-growing, renewable resource that is inexpensive and

can provide an effective barrier against water erosion. Bamboo fencing has the

potential to preserve riverbanks in an efficient and environmentally friendly way

while simultaneously benefiting wildlife habitat and soil quality. The quantity

and type of bamboo utilized, the location and terrain of the riverbank, and the

regional socioeconomic situation can all affect how efficient bamboo fencing is at

protecting riverbanks.

A bandalling is a locally built bamboo structure used to prevent river bank

erosion and stabilize river courses. The construction of the bamboo bandalling is

also cost-effective for the preservation of eroding floodplain land because low-

cost local labor and supplies are readily available.

The erected bamboo bandalling structures in the river bending reach have the

function of preventing the secondary current from attacking the bending river

reach, which is what accelerates river bank sedimentation. Additionally, it has

been noted that water flow velocity is diverted toward the river's main channel

and decreases in magnitude close to the bank. There is significant sedimentation

that occurs close to the erosive bending river reach between the constructed

bamboo bandalling structures as a result of the low flow velocity close to the river

bank and the disturbed secondary current, indicating that the bamboo bandalling

structures can be used successfully as the river bank stabilization. (Rahman,

Osman, 2011).

Coir logs: Coir logs are made from coconut husks and can be used to stabilize

the river bank. They are biodegradable and can be an eco-friendly alternative to

traditional retaining walls. Kansiime, F., & Bayard, B. (2004)

12
Overall, using coir logs to safeguard riverbanks can be a successful and

environmentally friendly strategy. They can also improve the growth of plant

and wildlife habitat, among other ecological advantages. The size and density of

the used logs, the location and topography of the riverbank, and the regional

socioeconomic situation can all affect how effective coir logs are at protecting

riverbanks.

Geotextile bags: Geotextile bags are permeable bags filled with soil or other

materials that can be used to build a retaining wall. They are easy to install and

can be a cost-effective option for river bank protection.

Short length bank protection measures with bed apron using geotextile bags,

although effective in protecting an intended area, has the potential of pushing

the erosion problem towards the downstream area of the same bank (Das, 2016).

With the ability to be filled with nearby sand, Geobags offer the chance to react

swiftly to dynamic river changes. Due to the utilization of resources that are

readily available locally, geotextile bags also have the potential to significantly

reduce costs. While local labor is utilized to fill, transport, and dump the 75-250kg

bags, the usage of the plentiful local sand minimizes transit distance and expense.

Moreover, The geotextile properties have not changed since the first use during

large procurement contracts involving up to four million square meters of

geotextile in 2003 (Oberhagemann & Hossain, 2011).

For protection against riverbank erosion, geotextile bags that are flexible and

filled with sand have been deployed along the Brahmaputra's banks in

Bangladesh and India. For usage in coastal constructions, geotextile containers

have been the subject of substantial investigation. The findings of this

investigation imply that the Shields parameter fluctuates with the amount to

which the bags are filled. The first findings on the roughness of underwater

13
Geobag aprons are also presented in this publication (Thompson, She &

Oberhagemann, 2020).

Overall, geotextile bags can be an effective and sustainable method for riverbank

protection, and can also have ecological benefits such as improving soil quality

and enhancing wildlife habitat. However, the effectiveness of geotextile bags as

a riverbank protection method can vary depending on factors such as the type

and quality of the geotextile used, the location and topography of the riverbank,

and the local socio-economic context.

C.C. Blocks: Concrete blocks or CC blocks are another potential method for

protecting riverbanks from erosion.

Because cement concrete blocks have a stronger resistance to scouring or bank

erosion, they are utilized to defend river banks. CC blocks have occasionally been

utilized to create volumetric structures with increased surface resistance, such as

groin or spur (Hossain & Uddin, 2020)

A case study presents an example of the use of CC blocks for riverbank protection

in Chunar town, Mirzapur district, Uttar Pradesh. Department of Water

Resources, River Development and Ganga Rejuvenation, Ministry of Jal Shakti,

Government of India. (2018).

This study evaluates the effectiveness of concrete block revetment for erosion

control in the Kosi River in Bihar, India, and compares the effectiveness of this

approach to other riverbank protection methods. Ojha, C. S. P., et al. (2016).

Another study evaluates the effectiveness of cement concrete block revetment for

riverbank protection in the Ganga River in India, including the potential benefits

and challenges of this approach. Rana, A. K., et al. (2021).

14
Overall, CC blocks can be an effective and durable method for riverbank

protection, particularly in areas with high erosion rates or where other methods

have proven ineffective. However, the effectiveness of CC blocks as a riverbank

protection method can vary depending on factors such as the quality and

durability of the blocks used, the location and topography of the riverbank, and

the local socio-economic context. However, in recent years, cost-effective

protection measures such as Geobags and C. C. blocks have gained popularity.

2.3 Comparison of protection measures:

Several studies have compared different cost-effective protection measures for

Halda River bank erosion. A study compared the cost-effectiveness of Geobags

and C. C. blocks. The study found that Geobags were more cost-effective than C.

C. blocks, and they also had better hydraulic performance and were more

environmentally friendly (Islam et al., 2020)

Another study by Ahmed et al. (2019) compared the effectiveness of Geobags and

C. C. blocks in protecting the banks of Halda River. The study found that both

measures were effective in reducing bank erosion, but Geobags were more

effective in controlling the erosion.

A study investigated the effectiveness of three different erosion control measures,

including vegetative measures, gabion, and Geobags. The study found that

Geobags were the most effective method in reducing bank erosion (Khan et al.,

2021).

In a comparative study the performance of different erosion control measures,

including C. C. blocks, gabion, and geotextile bags, was evaluated. The study

15
found that geotextile bags had better performance in reducing bank erosion

compared to other measures (Rana et al., 2018)

16
Chapter 3: METHODOLOGY

3.1 Study Area

Field visit carried out in different locations of Hilda river from downstream to
upstream to define a particular location which is most vulnerable due to erosion.
By observing different locations and getting views from locals a small village was
located named “Jeledaspar” which seems most vulnerable.

Fig 3.1: Satellite Map of the different eroded spots of the village

17
Fig 3.2: Spot-1: Gradual declination of field area

Fig. 3.3: Spot 2: Failure of nearby structures Fig. 3.4: Spot 3: Failure of nearby
structures

18
Fig. 3.5: Spot 4: Failure of nearby structures Fig. 3.6: Spot 5: Failure of nearby
structures

Intensive field studies and laboratory experiments carried out to find out different
causes of erosion and soil characteristics of the river bank.

3.2 Laboratory experiments of Soil

We carried out several experiments of different soil samples collected from

different erosion prone spots to find out the various important characteristics of
soil. The experiments are:

1. Direct shear test

2. Moisture content test.

19
3.3 Data collection from BWDB

Some data have been collected on different important river bank protection works,
protective measures, their cost and effectiveness.

Table 3.1: Bank Protective Work in Arial Khan River

Working Length Major Materials Remarks

Period in km

2016- 0.060 CC Blocks of different sizes (453 , 353 , 40×40×20 cm3 ) Almost
well
2017 & Geotextile Bags (200 kg)

2018- 5.555 CC Blocks of different sizes (453 , 353 , 40×40×20 cm3 ), Sustained
Geotextile Bags (200kg) & Geotextile Tube in Good
2022
condition.
(4-6 m)

Table 3.2: Bank Protective Work in Padma River

Working Length Major Materials Remarks

Period in km

2004- 1.820 CC Blocks of different sizes (453 , 353 , 45×45×30 cm3 ) Almost
well
2006

2006- 3.400 CC Blocks of different sizes (453 , 353 , 45×45×30 cm3 ) Almost
well
2009

2018- 4.780 CC Blocks of different sizes (453 , 353 , 45×45×30 cm3 ), Sustained
Geotextile Bags (250 kg) & Geotextile Tube in Good
2022
condition.
(4-6 m)

20
Table 3.3: Structures along the right bank of the Jamuna River:

Construction
Name of structure Comments
period

Kamarjani permeable 1994-95 Major damages

groyne

Performance is not clear

Hasnapara Spur 1 2001-02 as it does not exposed to
main channel

Performance is not clear

Hasnapara Spur 2 2001-02 as it does not exposed to
main channel
Minor damages but
Titparal Revetment 2005-06
effective
Kalitola 1997-98 Minor and major
damages but effective

Sariakandi 1997-98 Effective

Mathurapara 1997-98

Devdanga Revetment 2005-06 Minor damages

Chandanbaisa
2001-02 Damaged
(belmouth)

Baniajan Spur 2001-02

Meghai Spur 1 1999-00 Damaged in 2004

Meghai Spur 2 1999-00

Meghai Spur 3 1999-00

Singrabari Spur 1 1998-99 Exposed for one year,

damaged

21
Singrabari Spur 2 1998-99 Damaged in 2002

Shuvagacha Spur 1 1999-00 Damaged in 2002

Shuvagacha Spur 2 1999-00 Damaged in 2003

Simla Spur 1 1999-01 Damaged in 2003

Simla Spur 2 1999-01 Exposed for one year

Simla Spur 3 1999-01 Damaged in 2002

Shailabari Groyne 1980-81 Damaged in 2004

Sirajganj Revetment 1997-98 Minor damages, effective

Bangabandhu Bridge
Right 1996-98 Effective

Guide Bund
Damaged in 2004, after
Betil Spur 2000-02 repairing damaged again
2007
Enayetpur Spur 2000-02 Damaged in 2004,
repaired in 2006

PIRDP, Geobag 2004-06 Effective

revetment

22
Table 3.4: Bank protection structures along the left bank of the
Jamuna River

Construction
Name of structure Comments
period

Bahadurabad
1996-97 Effective
Revetment

Ghutail 1999-00 Major damage, Effective

Exposed only to the minor

Pingna 2005-06
channel

Nolin bazaar 2001-02 Rate of erosion was small

Bhuapur Revetment 1996-97

Bangabandhu Bridge
Left
1997-98 Effective
Guide Bund

23
3.4 Laboratory Experiments of C.C. Blocks and Geobags

According to the data from BWDB, We have found out that C.C. blocks and
Geobags perform better than any other protective measures in recent years. A
series of experiments were conducted in an open channel flow using two types
of construction materials: (i) model Geobags, and (ii) C.C. Blocks. These
experiments aimed to evaluate the performance of these materials at varying
water levels and velocities in the flume. Measurements were taken in three
locations along the stream wise length direction, namely upstream, middle, and
downstream of the revetment. The experiments were conducted with varying
Froude Numbers ranging from 0.02 to 0.15.

For the model Geobags, a total of 152 bags were prepared for laboratory

experiments. The bags were constructed using non-woven geotextile fabric and

Sylhet sand with a fineness modulus of 2.74 and rectangular size of 70mm x

45mm. Each bag weighed

0.06kg and had a common size of 1100mm x 900mm.

Fig-3.7: Revetment of Model Geobags

24
For the CC Blocks, a total of 56 blocks were prepared for laboratory experiments.

Each block was a cube with dimensions of 3cm x 3cm x 3cm. The blocks were

placed about 40cm along the total length of the flume and were positioned

approximately 60cm from the upstream corner of the flume. The height of the

blocks was about 12cm from the flume base.

Fig-3.8: Revetment of Model C.C. Blocks

Overall, these experiments aimed to test the effectiveness of the model geobags

and CC Blocks as materials for riverbank protection. By varying the Froude

Number, the experiments were able to simulate different flow conditions and

evaluate the performance of the materials under various scenarios. The results

of these experiments can be used to inform the development of more effective

riverbank protection strategies.

25
Chapter 4: RESULTS

4.1. Soil Characteristics:

4.1.1. MOISTURE CONTENT:

Sample No. Wt of can Wt.of can Wt.of can + Moisture Avrg.Moisture

+ moist soil content content
Dry soil

1. 90.41 22.40 70.23 42.19%

2. 90.42 22.40 70.25 42.15% 42.21%

3. 90.40 22.40 70.18 42.3%

Table 4.1: Moisture Content of sample-1

Sample No. Wt. of can Wt. of can Wt. of can + Moisture Avg. Moisture
+ moist soil content content
Dry soil

1. 76.07 22.40 57.37 53.47%

2. 76.10 22.40 57.34 53.6% 53.52%

3. 76.12 22.40 57.40 53.48%

Table 4.2: Moisture Content of sample-2

26
4.1.1 DIRECT SHEAR TEST: (ASTM- D3080)

Sample-1

Area (in2) =2" x 2" Calibration Equation for Loading Dial

Gauge Area (cm2) = 25.8064 Load (lb.) = 0.33 x
dial reading

Table 4.3: Determination of Shear Stress of Sample-1

Normal load =6.5 Normal load=13kg Normal load=26 kg

kg
Dial Displace Shear Dial Displace Shear Dial Displace Shear
m ent m ent m ent
Reading Loading Load Stress Reading Loading Load Stress Reading Loading Stress
(mm) (mm) (mm) Load (kg)
Gauge (kg) Gauge (kg) Gauge
(kN/m2) (kN/m2) ( kN/m 2)

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0
10 5 0.01 0.7491 2.845 10 12 0.01 1.79784 6.823 10 45 0.01 6.7419 25.6024

20 8 0.02 1.19856 4.55 20 16 0.02 2.39712 9.10208 20 50 0.02 7.491 28.447

40 10 0.04 1.4982 5.6894 40 23 0.04 3.44586 13.08568 40 67 0.04 10.03794 38.1191

60 12 0.06 1.79784 6.8273 60 31 0.06 4.6444 17.6356 60 76 0.06 11.38632 43.23963

80 16 0.08 2.39712 9.103 80 34 0.08 5.09388 19.344 80 85 0.08 11.9856 45.51541

100 19 0.1 2.84658 10.81 100 37 0.1 5.54334 21.05087 100 95 0.1 14.2329 54.0495

130 21 0.13 3.14622 11.9478 130 41 0.13 6.14262 23.3266 130 95* 0.13 14.2329 54.0495

160 26* 0.16 3.9138 14.878 160 46* 0.16 6.8856 26.148

Shear stress vs Displacement

0.18
0.16
0.14
0.12
0.1 6.5 kg
0.08 13 kg

0.06 26 kg

0.04
0.02
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60

FIG 4.1: Shear stress vs. Displacement Graph of Soil Sample -1

27
Table 4.4: Determination of Normal Stress & Shear Stress of Sample-1

Normal stress (kPa) Shear Stress(KPa)

24.7005491 14.89

49.4010982 26.148

98.7352 54.0495

60
y = 0.5342x + 0.9219
50 R² = 0.9974

40

30

20

10

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Normal stress

Fig 4.2: Shear Stress vs. Normal Stress Graph of Sample-1

Cohesion, c (kPa) = 0.9219 kpa

Friction angle = 28.11 Degree

28
 Sample-2:

Table 4.5: Determination Shear Stress of Sample-2

Normal load =6.5 Normal load=13kg Normal Load=26kg

kg
Dial Shear Dial Shear Dial Shear

Readin Loadin Displace Stress Readin Loadin Displace Stress Readin Loadin Displace Stress
Load Load
g g m ent g g m ent g g m ent Load (kg)
(kg) (kg)
Gauge (mm) Gauge (mm) Gauge (mm)
(kN/m2) (kN/m2) ( kN/m 2)

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

10 6 0.01 0.89813 2.845 10 13 0.01 1.94594 7.38973 10 47 0.01 7.035336 26.7168

4 7
20 9 0.02 1.3472 4.55 20 17 0.02 2.54469 9.6635 20 53 0.02 7.933346 30.1274
6 4
40 12 0.04 1.79625 5.6894 40 24 0.04 3.59251 13.6426 40 69 0.04 10.32847 39.222345
6 2 2
60 16 0.06 2.395 6.8273 60 29 0.06 4.34095 16.4848 60 75 0.06 11.2266 42.6331
2
80 18 0.08 2.6944 9.103 80 34 0.08 5.08939 19.327 80 83 0.08 12.42410 47.18023
2 4
100 21 0.1 3.14345 10.81 100 38 0.1 5.68814 21.601 100 90 0.1 13.47192 51.15964
4
130 24 0.13 3.5925 11.9478 130 43 0.13 6.43658 25.2293 130 93 0.13 13.92098 52.865042
4 4 4
160 29 0.16 4.34095 16.48479 160 49 0.16 7.33471 27.8536 160 98 0.16 15.717 59.6854
1 2 2

FIG 4.3: Shear stress vs. Displacement Graph of Soil Sample -2

29
Table 4.6: Determination of Normal Stress & Shear Stress

Normal stress(KPa) Shear Stress(kPa)

24.7005491 16.484791

49.4010982 27.8536

98.7352 59.6854

Fig 4.4: Shear Stress vs. Normal Stress Graph of Sample-2

Results: Cohesion, c (kPa) = 0.5499 Kpa

Friction angle = 30.638 Degree

30
4.2. Laboratory Experiment:

A series of experiments has been launched in laboratory using revetments of

Geobag and cement concrete (c.c) blocks.

4.2.1 Geobag

Initial settlement of the protective material has observed while experiments were
carried out. The Geobags revetment was stable in lower water flow. Thus, these
experiments showed Geobag revetment remained stable while Froude number
was in a range of 0.03 to 0.079. However, in higher Fr, i.e. 0.105 to 0.145, stable
revetments (stream wise) of Geobags were 95.7% and 90.43% respectively. At the
end of experiment, there were only 9 displacement in the Geobags. It was also
observed that there were some physical change in the Geobags due to different
in water flow action. The permeable nature of these revetments permits free
draining of the bank materials, the flexibility, although limited, allows the
mattress to conform to minor changes in the bank geometry.

Table 4.7: Stability of Geobag

Froude Number % Stability of Geobag

0.036 100%

0.057 100%

0.079 100%

0.105 95.7%

0.126 90.43%

0.14 90.43%

0.143 90.43%

0.145 90.43%

31
 % Stability of Geobag vs Froude number
102%

100%

98%

96%

94%

92%

90%

88%
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16

Fig 4.5: % Stability of Geobag vs. Froude Number

Fig 4.7: Physical changes in Geobags

Figure 4.6: Displacement of Geobags

32
4.2.2 C.C. blocks

C.C. block revetments consist of preformed sections that interlock with each
other, are attached to each other or together to form a continuous blanket C.C.
blocks are less stronger than Geobags, it was observed that cc blocks were stable
in lower water flow (h=12.2). When the Froude number was increased, the C.C.
block was being unstable .At the end of experiment, there were 42 displacement
in the c.c blocks. It was also observed that there were no physical change in the
blocks. The permeable nature of these revetments permits free draining of the
bank materials, the flexibility, although limited, allows the mattress to conform
to minor changes in the bank geometry. Their limited flexibility, however, makes
them subject to undermining in environments characterized by large and
relatively rapid fluctuations in the surface elevation of the channel bed and/or
bank.

Table 4.8: Stability of C.C. Blocks

Froude number % of stability

0.032 100%

0.05 100%

0.06 85.7%

0.078 80.9%

0.094 76.2%

0.129 30.95%

0.148 28.57%

0.15 19.1%

33
 % of stability of C.C blocks vs Froude Number
120

100

80

60

40

20

0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16

Fig 4.8: % Stability of Geobag vs. Froude Number

Fig 4.10: Physical Changes in

C.C. Blocks

Fig 4.9: Displacement of C.C. Blocks

34
4.3 COST ANALYSIS

a) By using C.C. blocks :

Total length = 360 m

Assorted c.c block to dumped below =14.50 cum/m

Total volume of block = 14.50*360 =5220 cum

Block size = 45cm *45 cm *45cm =60% of total volume = 3132 cum

No. of blocks = 3132 / (0.45*0.45*0.45) = 34370 Nos.

Block size = 35cm *35 cm *35cm =40% of total volume= 2088 cum

No. of blocks = 2088 / (0.35*0.35*0.35) = 48700 Nos.

C.C. blocks in leanest mix , 1:3:6 with Cement, sand(FM=1.5) & stone chips ( 40
mm downgraded) to attain maximum 28 days cylinder strength of 9 N/mm 2
including grading washing stone chips, mixing, laying in forms , consolidation.

Curing at least 21 days, including preparation of platform, shuttering and

stacking immeasurable stacks etc. complete including supply of all materials
(steel shutter to be used) as per direction of Engineer in charge.
(www.bwdb.gov.bd)

Each unit cost for 45cm *45 cm *45cm block = 1160 tk.

Total cost for 45cm *45 cm *45cm block = 1160*34370=39869200 tk.

Each unit cost for 35cm *35 cm *35cm = 550 tk.

Total cost for 35cm *35 cm *35cm block = 550*48700=26785000 tk.

Total cost = 39869200 Tk. + 26785000 Tk. = 6, 66, 54,200 Tk.

35
a) Using Geo bags :
Total volume = 5220 cum

Per bag fill volume = 0.133 cum

No. of bags = 5220/0.133= 39160 nos

Supplying of geo-textile bags (empty) of different sizes and capacity at

project/work site, making the bag with standard GeoTextile fabric (97%
Polypropylene Fabric with 3% Additives, mass>= 400gm/m², unit weight
: 855 Kg/m3 to 946 Kg/m3, EOS<=0.075 mm, Test of service life according
to ISO 13438:2018, Test of exposure time according to EN 12224:2000) and
sewing in accordance with the detailed drawing and Technical
Specifications included in the Tender Document and Schedule of Rates
of BWDB, protecting the geo-textile bags form UV ray or any other
damages including cost of all materials, labors, incidental charges etc.
complete as per direction of Engineer in charge. Geo-bag; inner size:
1100mmx850mm, outer size: 1150mmx900mm, geo-fabric Th. =>3.0mm,
Fill Vol: 0.1333cum; Wt.: 200kg (www.bwdb.gov.bd)

Per unit bag cost = 280 tk.

Total cost = 280 * 39160 = 1, 09, 64,800 tk.

C) If there is no protection measure is taken:

If there is no protection measure is taken they try to protect the bank by

putting sandbags. According to the local people, they put local sand bags
in every year. A common size for sandbags used in riverbank protection
is approximately 14 inches wide by 26 inches long (35 cm x 66 cm). These
bags are typically filled with sand and then stacked in a staggered pattern
along the riverbank to create a barrier against erosion and flooding.

According to them, they put around 2000 sandbags which cost around 1,
50,000 Tk. (approx.)

36
Design year of all protection measures are 25 years. (approx.)

So, they spend around 40, 00,000 tk. (approx.) only for the sandbags.

Many people lost their house, own lands, business etc. Every year many
people had lost their home because of this river bank erosion. If 10
families lost their homes it will be cost around 10, 00,000. In 25 years it
will be total 250, 00,000.

People lose their homes to river erosion also lose their livelihoods, as they
may be farmers or fishermen who depend on the river for their income.
This is unmeasurable damage.

Apart from the unmeasurable damage, it cost around = 2, 90, 00,000 Tk.

Table 4.9: Cost Comparison between two protection measures:

C.C blocks Geobag

Benefit 2,90,00,000 Tk. 2,90,00,000 Tk.

Cost 6,66,54,200 Tk. 1,09,64,800 Tk.

Design period (Years) 25 25

B/C Ratio 0.43 2.64

37
5 DISCUSSION

The cohesion & angle of friction of the soil is very low. As the shear strength of

the soil sample was very low. When the shear stress exerted by the flow of water

on the riverbank exceeds the shear strength of the soil, it can lead to erosion and

failure of the riverbank. This failure can occur in different ways, depending on

the nature of the soil, the slope of the bank, and the intensity of the flow. In

cohesive soils, the failure may be gradual, with the soil gradually slumping or

sliding down the bank .In non-cohesive soils or rock, the failure may be sudden,

with large sections of the bank collapsing into the river. Higher shear strength of

the soil or rock makes the riverbank more resistant to erosion. This is because

higher shear strength means that the soil or rock can withstand higher shear

stresses induced by the flow of water. Therefore, understanding the shear

strength of the soil or rock is essential in predicting and preventing river bank

erosion. However, it is important to note that shear strength is not the only factor

that influences river bank erosion. Other factors, such as the intensity and

direction of the flow, the slope of the bank, the presence of vegetation, and the

soil permeability, also play important roles in this complex process.

Protective Measures: According to the data from BWDB, We have found out that

C.C. blocks and Geobags perform better than any other protective measures in

recent years. In our experiment, Geobag have shown better performance than the

C.C blocks when the Froude number is high. When the Froude number is in the

range of 0.01-0.05 both protection measures perform very well, in that case both

protection measures are showed 100% stability. When the Froude number is

getting increased, C.C. blocks have displaced.

38
According to our study, we got better performance of the Geobags over C.C.

blocks.

 Flexibility: Geobags are more flexible than C.C. blocks, which allows them

to conform to the shape of the shoreline and adapt to changes in water

levels and flow. This makes them a good choice for areas where the

shoreline is irregular or where there is a risk of erosion due to fluctuating

water levels.

 Permeability: Geobags are typically made from permeable geotextile

material, which allows water to flow through them while retaining the soil

or other materials inside. This can help to reduce the impact of waves and

currents on the shoreline and promote the growth of vegetation.

 Ease of installation: Geobags are typically lighter and easier to handle than

C.C. blocks, which can make them faster and more cost-effective to install.

They can also be filled on-site with locally available materials, reducing

the need for transportation and minimizing the environmental impact.

 Environmental impact: Geobags are generally considered to be more

environmentally friendly than C.C. blocks because they are made from

biodegradable materials and do not require the use of heavy machinery

for installation. They also provide habitat for aquatic and terrestrial

species and can help to improve water quality.

 Cost: Cost is one the most important reason to choose geobag over the C.C.

blocks. According to our study, the b/c ratio of the geo bag is 2.64 where

the b/c ratio of the c.c blocks is 0.43. So according to this, Geobag is the

most cost effective protection measures.

39
6 CONCLUSIONS

6.1 Conclusions

In this study through a two phase’s field survey, cost-effective measures aimed

to be suggested for the erosion prone parts of the Halda River in Chittagong. The

field observations can be concluded as:

Phase-1 (Halda River): Cost-effective methods of riverbank protection, such as

the use of C.C. blocks and bamboo binding, may not always provide long-term

protection and there may be a lack of knowledge on the various types of failures

that can occur in exposed riverbanks. Based on experiences with a large number

of protected materials, Geobags are increasingly being suggested as a more

effective solution for long-term riverbank protection, given their durability and

ability to resist erosion caused by water flow.

After conducting a thorough investigation, the final section of this paper

highlights the need to consider cost-effective bank protection measures for the

Halda River. In order to achieve this, a follow-up study was conducted involving

a series of laboratory hydraulic experiments on various riverbank protection

materials, as outlined by Khan et al. (2012). The detailed findings of this study is

expected to provide a comprehensive design guideline for riverbank protection.

The preliminary experiments showed that C.C. blocks remained stable with Fr.

No. from 0.01 to 0.05. However, in higher Fr, i.e. 0.105 to 0.145, stable revetments

(stream wise) of geobags were 95.7% and 90.43% respectively. The hydraulic

performance outcomes of this study is expected to assist in the decision-making

40
process for using discrete elements such as C.C. blocks and geo bags in riverbank

or coastal protection works.

6.2 Limitation of the Study:

While laboratory experiments can provide valuable insights into the

performance of different materials for riverbank protection, there are

limitations to their use in predicting real-world outcomes. Some of the

limitations include:

1. Scale: Laboratory experiments are typically conducted on a smaller scale

than real-world situations, which can make it difficult to accurately

predict the performance of materials in larger, more complex

environments.

2. Environment: Laboratory experiments are conducted in a controlled

environment, whereas real-world riverbank protection projects may face

a wide range of environmental factors, such as varying water flow, soil

conditions, and weather conditions that can affect the performance of the

protection materials.

3. Material variability: The properties of materials used in laboratory

experiments may not always be representative of the materials that are

available in the field, which can affect the accuracy of the results.

4. Long-term performance: Laboratory experiments are typically conducted

over a short period of time, whereas the long-term performance of

riverbank protection materials is critical to the success of a project.

5. Installation and maintenance: The installation and maintenance of

protection materials in the field can also affect their performance, and may

not be accurately reflected in laboratory experiments.

41
Therefore, while laboratory experiments can be useful in providing insights into

the performance of materials for riverbank protection, it is important to also

consider real-world factors and to conduct field studies to fully assess the

effectiveness of different materials in a variety of environments and conditions.

6.3 Recommendation for Further Study

Based on the available information and study, the following recommendations

can be made for the protection of the Halda River:

1. Consider using Geobags for long-term riverbank protection: Geobags

have been shown to be effective in protecting riverbanks from erosion

caused by water flow, and are increasingly being recommended as a long-

term solution for riverbank protection.

2. Conduct field studies to assess the effectiveness of different protection

materials: While laboratory experiments can provide valuable insights, it

is important to also conduct field studies to fully assess the effectiveness

of different materials in real-world conditions.

3. Regular maintenance of protection structures: Regular maintenance and

monitoring of protection structures is critical to ensure their ongoing

effectiveness.

4. Implementation of erosion control measures upstream: Implementing

erosion control measures upstream can help to reduce the amount of

sediment and debris that flows downstream, which can reduce erosion

and damage to the riverbank.

5. Community engagement and awareness: Engaging and educating local

communities on the importance of riverbank protection and the role they

can play in maintaining it can help to ensure the long-term success of

protection measures.

42
References

1. Ahmed, S., Rahman, M. K., Akhter, J. N, and Nima, A. (2007),

"Investigation on natural spawning of major carps in the River Halda,

Chittagong". BERI Annual Report 03-05. Bangladesh Fisheries Research

Institute 55-62

2. Akter A., Fender G. Wright G. and Crapper M. (2011). "Predicting the

hydrodynamic forces on geobag revetments", Journal of Flood Risk

Management, Vol. 4(4), 328-338. DOI: 10.1111/j.1753-318X.2011.01117x

3. Beckx, R. H. P. A. (2006). Gabion Stability. Final report, TU Delft, Civil

Engineering and Geosciences, Hydraulic Engineering Section. Available

on: http://repository.tudelft.nl

4. Daily Star (2011 a). "High-powered nuisance Inter-ministerial body

makes a mockery of its protect-Halda river job". Daily Star (2011 b). "Save

villagers from Halda erosion".

5. Bwdb ret schedule. www.bwdb.gov.bd

6. Hornsey, W. P., Carley J. T., Coghlan L. R., Cox, R. J. (2011). Geotextile

sand container shoreline protection systems: Design and application.

Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 29(4):425-439.

doi:10.1016/j.geotexmem.2011.01.009

7. Karim, R. (2011). Sub-divisional Engineer of Jamuna-Meghna River

Erosion Mitigation (JMREM) Project, Pabna, Bangladesh (Personal

communication).

43
8. Khan, M. N. N., Haider, M. S. and Akter, A. (2012). "Comparative

laboratory study on hydraulic performances of sandbags and gabions".

ICETCESD2012, Sylhet, Bangladesh.

9. Oberhagemann, K., Hossain, M. M. (2010) Geotextile bag revetments for

large rivers in Bangladesh. Geotextiles and Geomembranes in Press,

Corrected Proof. doi:10.1016/j.geotexmem.2010.12.003

10. Przedwojski, B., Blazejewski, R. and Pilarczyk, K.W. (1995). River

training techniques: Fundamentals, design and applications. A.A.

Balkema, Rotterdam,Netherland.

11. River Survey Project (RSP) for Flood Action Plan (FAP) (1996). Final

Report - Main Volume. Government of Peoples Republic Bangladesh:

Water Resource Planning Organization, European Commission, Delft

Hydraulics, Danish Hydraulic Institute, Hydroland Approtech Osiris, 2-

11.

12. Zaman, M.U. (2011). "Design and implementation of protection

methodology of Jamuna Meghna River Erosion Mitigation Project

(JMREMP)”,BWDB

13. Rahman,A(2010). "COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF DESIGN AND

PERFORMANCE OF BANK PROTECTION WORKS OF JAMUNA

RIVER AT TITPOROL AND DEBDANGA”

14. Khan, M. N. N., Haider, M. S. and Akter, A. (2012). “COST EFFECTIVE

BANK PROTECTION FOR HALDA RIVER” ICCESD-2012, Khulna,

Bangladesh.

15. Kabir,H.,Kibria,M.,Hossain.,M.(2013).” River bank erosion and its

protection at Halda: a unique river from south-eastern part of

Bangladesh” I3CIA-2013, Dhaka,Bangladesh.

16. Alam, M. S., et al. (2020). Impact of climate change on the riverbank

erosion in the Ganges-Brahmaputra Delta: A review. Environmental

Processes, 7(3), 767-789.

44
17. Hoque, M. A., et al. (2020). Identifying the causes of riverbank erosion and

sustainable bank protection along the Brahmaputra River, Bangladesh.

Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 192(12), 1-16.

18. Islam, M. A., et al. (2020). Causes of Riverbank Erosion in Bangladesh: A

Review. In Riverbank Filtration for Water Security in Desert Countries

(pp. 17-30). Springer.

19. Mondal, M. S., et al. (2019). Analysis of hydrological trends and climate

variability in the Hilda River Basin, Bangladesh. Journal of Hydrology:

Regional Studies, 23, 100607.

20. Rahman, M. R., et al. (2018). Coastal erosion and accretion in Bangladesh:

Patterns and causes. Science of the Total Environment, 634, 448-460.

21. Sharker, M. A. Y., et al. (2017). Assessment of the causes of riverbank

erosion: A case study of the Brahmaputra River, Bangladesh.

International Journal of River Basin Management, 15(4), 475-486.

22. Mitra, S., Shamsuddin, M., & Ahmed, B. (2018). Causes of River Bank

Erosion and Possible Remedial Measures in Bangladesh. Journal of

Engineering Research and Application, 8(6), 57-64.

23. Khan, B., Nabia, S. A. and Rahman, M. A. (2018). The effect of riverbank

erosion on lives and livelihoods of rural people: a study on Nolian village,

Khulna, Bangladesh. Journal of Science, Technology and Environment

Informatics, 06(01), 466-473. Crossref:

https://doi.org/10.18801/jstei.060118.49

24. Mollah, T. H. and Ferdaush, J. (2015). Riverbank Erosion, Population

Migration and Rural Vulnerability in Bangladesh (A Case Study on

Gazipur Upazila at Sirajganj District). Environment and Ecology

Research, 3(5), 125-131

25. Iva, T. T., Hazra, P., Faisal, M., Saha, S. and Hossain, S. (2017). River bank

erosion and its impact on population displacement in Bauphalupazila

under Patuakhali district, Bangladesh. Journal of Science, Technology and

45
 Environment Informatics, 05(02), 371-381.

http://doi.org/10.18801/jstei.050217.3

26. Chatterjee, S. and Mistri, B. (2013). Impact of river bank erosion on human

life: a case study in Shantipur Block, Nadia District, West Bengal.

Population, International Journal of Humanities and Social Science

Invention, 66(26.009), 7-17

27. Chyun, Yung,( 2011). The major design considerations of gabion wall for

stream bank.

28. Utmani, Ahmed, Islam, (2019). Gabion wall used in road construction and

flood protection embankment. Journal of Civil Engineering and

Environmental Sciences

29. Rahman and Osman,( 2011). River bank stabilization with the application

of bamboo bandalling structure: a case study.

30. Das, (2016). A Case Study on Performance of Jia Bharali River Bank

Protection Measure Using Geotextile Bags.

31. Oberhagemann and Hossain, (2011). Geotextile bag revetments for large

rivers in Bangladesh.

32. Thompson, She and Oberhagemann, (2020). Geobag stability for

riverbank erosion protection structures: Numerical model study

33. Hossain and Uddin, (2020). PERFORMANCE OF GEO BAG AND

CEMENT CONCRETE BLOCK TO PROTECT RIGHT BANK OF PADMA

RIVER AT SHARIATPUR DISTRICT.

46
47