Proceedings of the 5th Annual Paper Meet & 2nd Civil Engineering Congress, 29-30 July 2022, Dhaka,

Bangladesh ISBN:
Manzur, Serker, Majed, Murshed, Mutsuddy, Mahalder and Alam www.cecapm.iebbd.net

EXPERIMENTAL OBSERVATION AND COMPARISON OF SEDIMENT DYNAMICS

BEHAVIOR IN ARTIFICIAL CHANNEL USING HEC-RAS 2D

N. B. Nizam1, R. R. Das1 and B. Mahalder2

1
Student, Dept. of Water Resources Engineering, BUET, Dhaka-1000, Bangladesh
2
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Water Resources Engineering, BUET, Dhaka-1000, Bangladesh

ABSTRACT
Sediment dynamics are fundamental and inescapable aspects of riverine, estuarine, and coastal environments. This study
aims to integrate experimental and HEC-RAS morphological modeling to evaluate and predict the variation of bed level
change and sediment load concentration from a flume study. In a Mobile Bed Visualization Tank in Hydraulics and River
Engineering Laboratory of BUET, seven sets of experiments were conducted, each for a 6-hours duration with varying flow
velocity using a fine sand bed (d50 = 0.3 mm) to observe several morphological factors such as bed level change, bed and
suspended load concentration, sediment discharge for with and without structures. Experimental observation showed
maximum bed level change for low flow depth (5 cm) where approach velocity (3.35 cm/s) was high. Change in bed level
was found to a maximum of 5.15 cm & 4.15 cm from the initial level at 3.35 cm/s velocity for with & without structure, while
the HEC-RAS model exhibits a maximum value of 2.9 cm & 0.9 cm, respectively, mainly at the upstream side of the flume
area. A variation of 469-1906 ppm & 227-3750 ppm load concentration was seen decreasing respectively for with and
without structures, while a change in flow velocity from 3.35 cm/s to 1.52 cm/s came by. However, the HEC-RAS 2D
morphological model obtains total load concentration with 68-933 ppm & 17-2354 ppm variation along the channel.

INTRODUCTION

The motion of sediment particles throughout the formation, transport, and settling processes is known as sediment dynamics
(Zhang, 2014). Sediment, a mixture of organic and inorganic components (Czuba et al., 2011), is a burden that the moving
water must carry, hence referred to as sediment load in the form of bedload and suspended load (Southard, 2006). Flowing
water tends to scour from the bottom/bank of any channel and the flowing streams/rivers carry those dislodged particles
downstream, which is termed Sediment Transport (Garg, 1987). Sediment Transport analyses, therefore, assess the ability of
a channel to convey incoming sediment load and dynamic equilibrium behavior of the channel while designing flood control
or other measures of a watershed (Fondriest Environmental, 2014). The design and implementation of flood control schemes
are primarily influenced by peak flood levels, dependent on scour and sediment deposition (Siviglia, 2009). Existing
empirical equations for estimating sediment transport parameters have their limitations (García, 2008), which will therefore
influence the accuracy of morphological characteristics studies of a watershed.

Bedload and suspended load movement characteristics, consequently their erosion/deposing patterns prediction in a channel,
are key for sustainable integrated watershed management. Several formulae and numerical modeling software have been
developed for estimating bedload and suspended load transport for uniform and non-uniform sediments. For studying the
performance of morphological models, usually experimental results are tested and compared with model results. In
morphological models, several bedload and suspended load formulae are used, which are also dependent on the flow
velocity, concentration profile for suspended, bedload movement and complexity of natural flow pattern (Gibson and Cai,
2017). Therefore, the study of intricate interactions between flow and load gradation, sediment boundary condition selection,
and sediment rating curve analysis are key for uncovering the sediment dynamics of a channel.

Given the complexity of sediment transport dynamics, as a result, poses a slew of issues, is an important topic, and has plenty
of opportunity for more research and future improvements. Recently, Hydrologic Engineering Centre (HEC) has developed
2D sediment transport features to analyze morphological characteristics in their River Analysis System (RAS), such as Bed
Change, Load Concentration, and Transport capacity (Sánchez and Gibson, 2022). In this study, therefore, HEC-RAS 2D
sediment feature was used to study and compare the experimental measurements of sediment load, bed change, and sediment
yield data. In addition, this research also aims to study a generalized sediment transport behavior in an artificial channel.

433
METHODOLOGY

Seven sets of experimental runs were performed in a Mobile Bed Visualization Tank (4 m x 0.605 m x 0.20 m) in the
Hydraulics and River Engineering Laboratory, BUET. The duration of each experimental run was 6-hours. A plan view of
the flume is shown in Figure 1 with the necessary dimensions of the channel. A 6 cm thick sand bed was used for this study,
g
of 1.67, and median
diameter, d50 of 0.30 mm. The roughness factor was determined using Manning’s Strickler Formula, which was later used in
the 2D flow area (5 x 5 cm mesh) of HEC-RAS software (v6.2). A rectangular pier of 15 cm x 5 cm was used at 2.5 cm from
the upstream to study the effect of structure on morphological factors. The duration of experimentation, in this case, was 2.5
hours. Bed level change was measured using a point gauge by dividing the sand bed into a 20 cm x 10 cm grid. Seven
bedload and fifteen suspended load samples were collected at 2 and 6-hour intervals to calculate load concentrations and
sediment discharge.

Figure 1. A Plane Sketch of Visualization Flume with Necessary Dimensions (units are in cm).

After collecting all data, 2D morphological simulations were performed for each set of runs using user-defined custom grain
classes and the Wu transport function to later compare with experimental results. The rectangular pier was specified in the
geometry using a 2D area connector. Eq. 1 and 2 have been used in the HEC-RAS model to compute bedload and suspended
load.

(1)

(2)

where, , , , , U & wi are bed roughness, grain roughness, bed shear stress, critical shear stress,
mean flow velocity & settling velocity of sediment particles, respectively.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Comparison of Bed Level Change

Figures 2 and 3 represent a generalized comparison of contours generated using collected bed change data and HEC-RAS
model output. From Figure 2, it is noticed that erosion decrease, and deposition increase with decreasing flow velocity. The
upstream shows more variation in bed change than downstream in both experimental and model observations. The bed
change pattern along the flume does not match between experimental and model output, which may have occurred due to the
undeveloped upstream flow. Also, the model was simulated using equilibrium load boundary condition, which was not
possible to attain within 6 hours of experimentation. Therefore, zero load series were used separately for each simulation to
observe the difference between equilibrium load boundary conditions and sediment load series, which exhibited
insignificant differences. A maximum bed level change of 4.15 cm from the experiment and 0.9 cm from HEC-RAS results
was observed at 3.35 cm/s flow velocity. Comparing both results, bed changes obtained from HEC-RAS is negligible
compared to bed level change from experimental data.

434
 (a) (b)

(c) (d)

(e) (f)

(g) (h)

Figure 2. Contours from Experimental Data and HEC-RAS at different flow velocities without structures.

(a),(b) 3.35cm/s; (c),(d) 2.74 cm/s; (e),(f) 2.13 cm/s; (g),(h) 1.52 cm/s

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

(e) (f)

Figure 3. Contours from Experimental Data and HEC-RAS at different flow velocities with structures.

(a),(b) 3.35cm/s; (c),(d) 2.74 cm/s; (e),(f) 2.13 cm/s

Due to the presence of structure, an increase in the maximum value of 5.15 cm erosion value was observed compared to
without structures condition, as presented in Figure 3. However, the bed level changes at the downstream side decreased with
decreasing flow velocity. As a result, the bed change pattern was more pronounced at the upstream side of the pier compared
435
with downstream side. HEC-RAS 2D model results showed that the erosion value was 2.9 cm with structure condition
compared with 0.9 cm without structure. The change was also observed after performing each of the simulations using zero
load series condition, which did not show much variation compared to the equilibrium load boundary condition results.

Table 1. Temporal Variation of Sediment Load Concentrations at Different Flow conditions.

From Experiment From HEC-RAS

Flow Flow
Flow Suspended Sediment Sediment
Velocity x103 Bed load Total Load Total Load
Condition Load Discharge Discharge
(cm/s) (m3/s) Concentration Concentration Concentration
Concentration x103 x103
(mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)
(mg/L) (m3/s) (m3/s)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
@2- @4- @6- @2- @4- @6- @2- @4- @6-
@6-hrs
hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs
3.35 10.145 3561.98 187 175 162 3749 3737 3724 0.0010343 2354 2349 2335 0.0006813

Without 2.74 9.96 1598.94 172 165 145 1771 1764 1744 0.0004844 704 687 675 0.0002102
Structure 2.13 9.038 560.8 142 138 137 702 699 697 0.0001937 87 85 84 0.0000348
1.52 7.378 136.02 115 95 92 251 231 228 0.0000632 17 17 17 0.0000046

@2.5-hrs @2.5-hrs @2.5-hrs @2.5-hrs

3.35 10.145 1763.09 143 1906 0.0005295 925 0.0002569

With 0.0002154 0.0000984
2.74 9.96 680.67 95 776 354
Structure
2.13 9.038 432.9 37 470 0.0001304 70 0.0000194

Comparison of Sediment Load Concentration

Table 1 shows the load concentrations collected from the experiments and HEC-RAS results, which exhibit increased
bedload and suspended load concentrations with increasing flow velocity and discharge. From experimental results at
without structures condition, bedload concentration diverged from 136 ppm to 3562 ppm with an average of 65% variation
and suspended load concentration varied from 92 ppm to 187 ppm with an average of 16.67% variation as 1.52 cm/s to 3.35
cm/s flow velocity came by. Similarly, at with structure condition, the variation of bedload concentration was 432~1763 ppm
with 48.9% deviation and suspended load concentration was 37~143 ppm with 47.25% deviation at 2.13 cm/s to 3.35 cm/s
increasing flow velocity.

During the experiments as time elapsed, suspended sediment load concentration decreased at a rate of 8.12% on average,
whereas the variations of bedload transport was found negligible. Concentration values obtained from HEC-RAS are smaller
in both with structure (70~925 ppm) or without structure (17~2354 ppm) condition compared with experimental
observations with increasing flow velocity.

Comparison of Sediment Discharge

Two generalized rating curves have been developed using the values from the columns 11 & 15 from table 1 and plotted in
Figures 4 & 5 to investigate the relationship between flow and sediment yield from laboratory experiments, which showed
a good correlation closer to the regression coefficient value of unity between the obtained data from both experiments and
HEC-RAS. With the increase in flow velocity and discharge, the sediment yield increases exponentially with a variation of
92~214%. Another observation from figures 4 & 5 can be made that sediment discharge obtained from experimental
observation is larger than the values obtained from HEC-RAS. Due to structure, sediment yield decreased as an obstruction
occurred, which reduced the transport rate towards the downstream of the channel.

436
 Figure 4. Sediment Rating Curve With Structures Figure 5. Sediment Rating Curve Without Structures

Loss in Transported Sediment Volume from Experimental Observation

Figure 6 illustrates the loss in transported sediment while experimentation which has been computed from the bed level
change data collected after each experimental run using the trapezoidal formula and compared with calculated bed load
concentrations (Mahalder and Navera, 2010). It is seen that loss increases with increasing flow velocity, i.e., turbulence as a
percentage of 33.62.

Figure 6. Loss in transported sediment volume

CONCLUSIONS

This study concludes that maximum bed level change will occur at the lowest flow depth possible with the highest flow
velocity and discharge. Therefore, bed level change occurs mainly upstream of the test section with a maximum value of
4.15 cm & 0.9 cm at 3.35 cm/s approach velocity, and downstream did not significantly change in both experimental and
HEC-RAS model results. Also, total load concentration increases with a decrease in water depth and an increase in flow
velocity and discharge. From experimental observation, total load concentration varied between 227 ppm to 3750 ppm,
where the bedload concentration was between 136 ppm to 3562 ppm and suspended load concentration was between 92 ppm
to 187 ppm. However, the HEC-RAS model results showed total load concentration varied between 17 to 2354 ppm. Due to
structure, maximum bed level changed to 5.15 cm and 2.9 cm, respectively from experimental and HEC-RAS model result.
HEC-RAS model predicted lower total load concentration (68~933 ppm) compared with experimental results (469~1906
437
ppm). In the future similar experimental conditions can be tested with mixed sediment samples and extensive test data for
better results.

REFERENCES

Czuba, J.A. Magirl, C.S. Czuba, C.R., Grossman, E.E., Curran, C.A., Gendaszek, A.S., & Dinicola, R.S. (2011) “Sediment
Load From Major Rivers into Puget Sound and its Adjacent Waters”

Fondriest Environmental (2014) “Sediment Transport and Deposition”, Fundamentals of Environmental Measurements.

García, M. H. (Eds.). and Environmental and Water Resources Institute (U.S.) (2008). “Sedimentation Engineering:
Processes, Measurements, Modeling, and Practice”, American Society of Civil Engineers

Garg, S. K. (1987) “Irrigation Engineering and Hydraulic Structures”, Khanna Publishers

Gibson, S.A. and Cai, C. (2017) “Flow Dependence of Suspended Sediment Gradations”, Water Resources Research,
53(11), 9546-9563.

Mahalder, B. & Navera, U.K. (2010) “Cross-Shore Sediment Transport Due to Wave: A Laboratory Study” Proceedings of
MARTEC, 341-346.

Sánchez, A. & Gibson, S. (2022) “HEC-RAS Version 6.1 New Feature, 2D Sediment Transport Modeling”, USACE
Hydrologic Engineering Center.

Siviglia, A., Stocchino, A., & Colombini, M. (2009) “Case Study: Design of Flood Control Systems on the Vara River by
Numerical and Physical Modeling”, Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, 135.

Southard, J. (2006) “Introduction to Fluid Motions, Sediment Transport, and Current-Generated Sedimentary Structures”,
Course Textbook, MIT Open Courseware: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Zhang, W. (2014) “Sediment Dynamics”, Encyclopedia of Marine Geosciences.

438