Sediment Management and Control Plan in River Basin

SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT AND CONTROL PLAN IN RIVER BASIN

Profesor Dr Aminuddin Ab. Ghani

Invited LectureNational Hydraulic Research Institute Malaysia

(NAHRIM)

7 May 2015

W e l e a d

CURRENT ISSUES

W e l e a d

W e l e a d

2007 Sungai Pahang Flood

9

15 December 2007 (Second time after 1971 flood)

W e l e a dPotential Scour in River

Type of scour

Local scourContraction scourGeneral scour

W e l e a d

Pier scour Pier scour

Pier scour

Bridge Failure

W e l e a d

Abutment scour Abutment scour

Bridge Failure

W e l e a d

Bridge Failure

Sungai Nenggiri, Gua Musang

Destroyed by floating debris during Dec 2014 flood

W e l e a d

Bridge Failure

Sungai Tanum, Kuala Lipis

Abutment scour during Dec 2014 flood

W e l e a dLocal Scour at Piers

W e l e a d

Uniform Abutment (Without Foundation)

Local Scour at Abutment

W e l e a d

Compound Abutment (With Foundation)

Local Scour at Abutment

W e l e a dIn‐stream Sand Mining

Sungai Muda @ Jeniang

Bank Erosion Riverbed Degradation

W e l e a d

SEDIMENT TRANSPORT IN RIVERS

W e l e a d

The Fluvial System

W e l e a d

Links and interactions between sediment processes and fluviallandforms

W e l e a d

Natural and anthropogenic catchment and river processesaffecting sediment dynamics

W e l e a d

Sediment movement through the system

W e l e a d

Sediment sources througha river catchment

W e l e a dMeandering River

W e l e a d

Sungai Pahang, Pekan

Mississippi river

Sand Deposition

W e l e a d

Sand Deposition

W e l e a d

A stream may then be classified as either stable or unstable. Achannel that has adjusted dependent variables to accommodatethe basin inputs (independent variables) is said to be stable.Mackin (1948) gave the following definition of a graded or stablestream:

A graded stream is one in which, over a period of years,slope is delicately adjusted to provide, with availabledischarge and with prevailing channel characteristics,just the velocity required for the transportation of theload supplied from the drainage basin. The gradedstream is a system in equilibrium.

Stable or Graded River

W e l e a dStable or Graded River

W e l e a dRiver Equilibrium

Bed Material

Bed Load

Suspended Load

Wash Load

Total Bed Material Load

Total Load

Modes of Sediment Transport

W e l e a dIncipient Motion ‐ Shields Diagram(Nalluri & Featherstone 2001)

o = co = c

o = gRSo

W e l e a d

Lower Flow Regime Upper Flow Regime

Types of Bed Form

W e l e a dBed Form in Natural Waterways

W e l e a d

Bed FormSungai Jelai, Batu Kurau

W e l e a dSuggested Manning’s n

W e l e a d

Critical Velocity (Vc) for various materials

W e l e a dPencerapan Data Endapan Sungai

River Mouth CH0

Kg Rantau Panjang CH9.05

Kg Sg Deraka CH1.40

River Mouth CH0.80

Kg Pulau Mertajam CH2.90

New Barrage CH10.74

Merdeka Bridge CH12.96

(a) Bed & Bank Materials Data(50 Sites at Sungai Muda)

Kuari 1 CH13.30Kuari 3 CH19.70

Kuari 2 CH13.9

Kuari 4 CH21.0

Kg Matang Berangan CH23.10

Kuari 5 CH23.60

Kg Lahar Tiang CH21.90

(a) Bed & Bank Materials Data(50 Sites at Sungai Muda)

Pinang Tunggal Bridge CH25.20

Kuari Kg Pinang Tunggal CH25.60

Kuari Kg Seberang Tok Soh CH27.00

Kuari Kg Terong CH29.80

Kg Pantai Perai CH30.80

Kuari Kg Pantai Perai CH31.00

Kg Lubok Ekor CH34.00

(a) Bed & Bank Materials Data(50 Sites at Sungai Muda)

W e l e a d

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100Size Particle (mm)

Perc

enta

ge P

assi

ng (%

)

MU01 MU02 MU03 MU04 MU05 MU06 MU07 MU08 MU09 MU10MU11 MU12 MU13 MU14 MU15 MU16 MU17 MU18 MU19 MU20MU21 MU22 MU23 MU24 MU25 MU26 MU27 MU28 MU29 MU30MU31 MU32 MU33 MU34 MU35 MU36 MU37 MU38 MU39 MU40MU41 MU42 MU43 MU44 MU45 MU46 MU47 MU48 MU49 MU50

Bed Material Sediment Size Distributions

Sungai Muda

W e l e a d

River Mouth

Kg Sawah

Banting Bridge

Tesco Bantng

Kg Rinching Hilir

Sg Tenang, Semenyih

Sg Batangsi, Semenyih

Sg Semenyih

(a) Bed & Bank Materials Data(30 Sites at Sungai Langat)

Jalan Kacau, Sg Semenyih

W e l e a d

(a) Bed & Bank Materials Data

(30 Sites at Sungai Langat)

Putrajaya (Water Intake)

Taman Permata DengkilStesen Hidrologi

DengkilSg Langat-Sg Labu

Kg Bkt Serdang

Kg Paya Rumput

Kg Labohan Dagang

JPS Kuala Langat Jetty

Sg Beranang Sg Rinching

Sg Machang

W e l e a d

(a) Bed & Bank Materials Data(30 Sites at Sungai Langat)

Hanson Quarry Bridge

Bt 14, Cheras

Sg Long Quarry Bridge

Bandar Mahkota Bridge, Cheras

Kg Sg Balak, CherasBt 18, Kajang

Sg Tangkas (UKM)

Kg Teras Jernang

Jenderam Hilir

Kg Jenderam

W e l e a d

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100Size Particle (mm)

Perc

enta

ge P

assi

ng (%

)

LA01 LA02 LA03 LA04 LA05 LA06 LA07 LA08 LA09 LA10

LA11 LA12 LA13 LA14 LA15 LA16 LA17 LA18 LA19 LA20

LA21 LA22 LA23 LA24 LA25 LA26 LA27 LA28 LA29 LA30

Sungai Langat

Bed Material Sediment Size Distributions

W e l e a d

Main Sg Kurau

Sg Kurau

(a) Bed & Bank Materials Data(23 Sites at Sungai Kurau)

Kg Pondok QuinBaharu

Bt 14, Sg Kurau

Sg Kurau, Pondok Tanjong

Kg Relau BerdiriSg Kurau

W e l e a d

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

80.00

90.00

100.00

0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00Size Particle (mm)

Perc

enta

ge P

assi

ng (%

)

KU1 KU2 KU3 KU4 KU5 KU6 KU7 KU8KU9 KU10 KU11 KU12 KU13 KU14 A1 A2A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9

Sungai Kurau

Bed Material Sediment Size Distributions

0.01

0.1

1

10

1 10 100 1000

Tota

l Bed

Mat

eria

l Loa

d, T

j(K

g/s)

Discharge, Q (m3/s)

Jambatan Ladang VictoriaJambatan Dato Syed OmarJambatan TeloiJambatan JeniangJambatan Gajah PutihJambatan Nami

Sungai Muda

Sediment Rating Curve

0.1

1

10

100

1000

1 10 100 1000

Tota

l Bed

Mat

eria

l Loa

d, T

j(K

g/s)

Discharge, Q (m3/s)

Dengkil

Jemderam

Jalan Tangkas

Kg Dusun Nanding

Jambatan Bt 14 Cheras

Jambatan Kg Rinching, Semenyih

Present Study

Sediment Rating Curve for Dengkil Reach

Sungai Langat

0.01

0.1

1

10

0.1 1 10 100

Tota

l Bed

Mat

eria

l Loa

d, T

j(K

g/s)

Discharge, Q (m3/s)

KU1 KU2 KU6

KU11 KU12 A5

Sungai Kurau

Sediment Rating Curve

Replenishment Rate

Comparison of Replenishment Rate for three rivers

0.01

0.1

1

10

100

1000

10000

1 10 100 1000 10000

Tota

l Bed

Mat

eria

l Loa

d, T

j(K

g/s)

Discharge, Q (m3/s)

Sungai MudaSungai langatSungai Kurau

Transport Modes EquationRange of

Sediment Size/Flow

Bed Load

Shields 1.56 < d50(mm) < 2.47

Meyer-Peter-Muller 3.17 < d50(mm) < 28.6

Einstein – Brown < 10

Einstein 0.785 < d50(mm) < 28.6

Total Bed Material Load

Graf 0.09 < d50(mm) < 2.78

Engelund & Hansen 0.19 < d50(mm) < 0.93

Yang0.137 < d50(mm) < 1.71yo(m) < 1.0 m

Ackers & White 0.04 < d50(mm) < 4.94

Existing Sediment Transport Equations

W e l e a d

Existing Sediment Transport Equations

Yang

S

ST W

UdWC log457.0log286.0435.5log 50

S

OC

S

O

S

S

WSV

WVS

WUdW loglog314.0log409.0799.1 50

Engelund-Hansen

2/51.0 f

2

2VgRS

f o

Detailed of the equations in Professor Talk booklet.

0.01

0.1

1

10

1 10 100 1000

Tota

l Bed

Mat

eria

l Loa

d, T

j(Kg

/s)

Discharge, Q (m3/s)

Present Study Data

Engelund-Hansen

Yang

Sungai Muda

Assessment of Yang and Engelund-Hansen Equations

0.1

1

10

100

1000

1 10 100 1000

Tota

l Bed

Mat

eria

l Loa

d, T

j(Kg

/s)

Discharge, Q (m3/s)

Present Study Data

Engelund-Hansen

Yang

Sungai Langat

Assessment of Yang and Engelund-Hansen Equations

0.01

0.1

1

10

0.1 1 10 100

Tota

l Bed

Mat

eria

l Loa

d, T

j(K

g/s)

Discharge, Q (m3/s)

Present Study Data

Engelund-Hansen

Yang

Sungai Kurau

Assessment of Yang and Engelund-Hansen Equations

W e l e a d

Latest Sediment Transport Book

Contains all the latest research developments in hydrodynamics of sediment transport

W e l e a d

Sediment Transport Equation for Malaysia

Sinnakaudan, S. K., Ab. Ghani, A., Ahmad, M. S. S., & Zakaria, N.A.(2006). Multiple Linear Regression Model for Total Bed Material Load Prediction, Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 132, No. 5, May, pp. 521-528. ISSN 0733-9429

W e l e a d

CASE STUDIES 

W e l e a d

HEC-RAS Modeling

HEC-RAS Modelling

Sungai Muda Model Set-up

W e l e a d

CAD of Sungai Muda (2001)

Natural Cross Sections

W e l e a dSediment Input

Sungai Muda

W e l e a d

Selection of Sediment Transport Equation

Sungai Muda

W e l e a dSediment Deposition after October 2013 Flood (50-yr ARI)

Sungai Muda 2003 Hydrograph

Deposition

Original Bed Level

W e l e a d

FLUVIAL-12 Modeling

Sediment Delivery

• Sediment delivery is defined as the accumulated amount ofsediment that has been delivered passing a certain channelsection for a specified period of time.• The spatial variation of sediment delivery depicts the erosionand deposition along a stream reach.• A decreasing delivery in the downstream direction, i.e. negativegradient for the delivery-distance curve, signifies that sedimentload is partially stored in the channel to result in a netdeposition.• On the other hand, an increasing delivery in the downstreamdirection indicates sediment removal from the channel boundaryor net scour.• A uniform-sediment delivery along the channel indicatessediment balance.

Sediment Delivery

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300 325 350 375Distance (m)

Lev

el (m

)

Initial Bed Level Predicted Bed Level (Dec 2003) Water Level (Dec 2003)

CH 25.40

-2

02

46

810

12

0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300 325 350 375 400Distance (m)

Lev

el (m

)

Initial Bed Level Predicted Bed Level (Dec 2003) Water Level (Dec 2003)

CH 33.60

Cross Sections with Sediment Deposition

Sungai Muda (FRCP)

Reach Volume of Deposition (tons) Volume of Deposition (m3)

1. CH 33.40 – CH 31.60 76,400 49,506

2. CH 30.00 – CH 23.00 97,900 63,438

** Assume sand density = 1400 kg/m3

1 tons = 907.18474 kg

Sediment Delivery

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

140000

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42

Sedi

men

t Del

iver

y (to

ns)

Chainage no.

Peak (6th October 2003)End of Simulation (25th December 2003)

 Reach 1

Reach 2

ErosionDeposition

Sungai Muda

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

-200 -150 -100 -50 0 50Distance (m)

Ele

vatio

n (m

)

Predicted Bed Level (Design: ARI-50) Predicted Water Level (Design: ARI-50)Predicted Bed Level (Design: ARI-100) Predicted Water Level (Design: ARI-100)Predicted Bed Level (JPZ: ARI-50) Predicted Water Level (JPZ: ARI-50)Predicted Bed Level (JPZ: ARI-100) Predicted Water Level (JPZ: ARI-100)Existing Bed Level

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

-200 -150 -100 -50 0 50Distance (m)

Ele

vatio

n (m

)

Predicted Bed Level (Design: ARI-50) Predicted Water Level (Design: ARI-50)Predicted Bed Level (Design: ARI-100) Predicted Water Level (Design: ARI-100)Predicted Bed Level (JPZ: ARI-50) Predicted Water Level (JPZ: ARI-50)Predicted Bed Level (JPZ: ARI-100) Predicted Water Level (JPZ: ARI-100)Existing Bed Level

Cross Section Changes (n=0.025)

(a) Ch. 39.50 (M8‐Ladang Victoria Bridge) 

(b) Ch 31.60 (Kuari Kg Pantai Perai )

-8

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

-200 -150 -100 -50 0 50Distance (m)

Ele

vatio

n (m

)

Predicted Bed Level (Design: ARI-50) Predicted Water Level (Design: ARI-50)Predicted Bed Level (Design: ARI-100) Predicted Water Level (Design: ARI-100)Predicted Bed Level (JPZ: ARI-50) Predicted Water Level (JPZ: ARI-50)Predicted Bed Level (JPZ: ARI-100) Predicted Water Level (JPZ: ARI-100)Existing Bed Level

Cross Section Changes (n=0.025)

(c) Ch. 25.20 (M7-Pinang Tunggal Bridge )

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

-400 -350 -300 -250 -200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100Distance (m)

Ele

vatio

n (m

)

Predicted Bed Level (Design: ARI-50) Predicted Water Level (Design: ARI-50)Predicted Bed Level (Design: ARI-100) Predicted Water Level (Design: ARI-100)Predicted Bed Level (JPZ: ARI-50) Predicted Water Level (JPZ: ARI-50)Predicted Bed Level (JPZ: ARI-100) Predicted Water Level (JPZ: ARI-100)Existing Bed Level

(d) Ch. 23.00 (Kg Lahar Tiang) 

W e l e a d

SWAT ModelingThe predictions of suspended load fromthe catchment and in-stream were madeusing SWAT (Soil and Water AssessmentTool) model.

Subbasin for Upper Sungai Langat Basin

0

20

40

60

80

100

06/14/97 06/19/97 06/24/97 06/29/97 07/04/97 07/09/97 07/14/97

Date (day)

Flow

rate

, Q (m

3 /s)

Q observed

Q Predicted

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

06/14/97 06/19/97 06/24/97 06/29/97 07/04/97 07/09/97 07/14/97

Date (day)

Susp

ende

d Se

dim

ent (

ton/

day) SS Observed

SS PredictedPredicted and Observed Suspended Sediment

Predicted and Observed Flow

Sungai Langat

Tj = 1.2419Q1.68

1

10

100

1000

10000

100000

1 10 100 1000Flow, Q (m3/s)

Susp

ende

d Se

dim

ent (

tons

/day

)

PredictedObserved

Sediment Rating Curve year 2003

Sungai Langat

W e l e a d

RIVER SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT AND CONTROL PLAN

W e l e a d

-Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE) or-Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE)

A = R. K. L. S. C. P

A – Annual soil loss in tonnes/ha/yearR – Rainfall/Runoff Erosivity Index in MJmmha‐1h‐1K – Soil Erodibility Factor in tones/ha/(MJmmha‐1h‐1) L – Slope length FactorS – Slope steepness FactorC – Ground Cover‐management FactorP – Supporting practices Factor/erosion control practice factor

Annual Soil Loss Estimation

W e l e a dESC Manual

W e l e a d

Peninsular Map is for display of Erosivity spatial distribution only. 

R Factor should be extracted from blown‐up maps

W e l e a d

Table 6.15: Support Practice, P factor for BMPs at construction/ developing sites1 (Adapted from Layfield, 2009; Troehet al., 1998; Mitchell and Bubenzer, 1980; ECTC, 2003; Israelsen et al. 1980; HDI, 1987; SCS, 1978; Weischmeier andSmith, 1978; Kuenstler, 2009)

Erosion control treatment PFactor Figure

Bare soil 1.00

Disked bare soil (rough or irregularsurface)

0.90

Bertam, Cameron Highland

Support Practice Factor, P

W e l e a dWired log / Sand bag barriers 0.85

Check Dam 0.80

Grass buffer strips (to filter sedimentladen sheet flow)

Basin slope (%)0 to 10

11 to 24

0.600.80

Bertam, Cameron Highland

Kolej Universiti Islam Malaysia,Nilai

Sime Darby,Sepang Sarawak

Support Practice Factor, P

W e l e a dErosion control treatment P

Factor Figure

Contour furrowed surfaceSlope (%) Max. length

1 to 2 1203 to 5 906 to 8 609 to 12 40

13 to 16 2517 to 20 20> 20 15

0.600.500.500.600.700.800.80

Silt fence 0.55

Sediment containment systems(Sediment basin/Trap)

0.50

Bertam, Cameron Highland

Bertam, Cameron Highland

KUIM, Nilai

Support Practice Factor, P

W e l e a d

Berm drain and Cascade 0.50

TerracingSlope (%)1 to 23 to 89 to 12

13 to 1617 to 20> 20

0.120.100.120.140.160.18

Taiping, PerakBertam, Cameron Highland

Tawau,SabahGua Musang, Kelantan

Support Practice Factor, P

W e l e a d

Evaluation of Water Resources with SWAT

SPECIAL ISSUE 2015

W e l e a d

Detailed spatial analysis of SWAT-simulated surface runoff andsediment yield in a mountainous watershed in China (Bieger et al. 2015)

Xiangxi catchment (Yangtze Basin)

W e l e a d

W e l e a d

W e l e a d

Changjiang River basin. Water issues are droughts and floods in the upper reach; floods in the middle reach due to its low elevation and the sudden change from mountain areas to flood plains; and floods and navigation issues in the lower reach.

Integrated water resources management using engineering measures

W e l e a d

Integrated water resources management using engineering measures

W e l e a d

Combination of engineering measures for flood management of Changjiang River

The water level for gauge stations (which are also very important cities/towns) of Shashi, Chenglingji, Hankou and Hukou will not exceed 45.0 m, 34.4 m, 29.73 m and 22.5 m, respectively, corresponding to the 50~100 year return period safety level

W e l e a d

W e l e a d

Major hydraulic works and reservoirs in the case study regions

W e l e a d

Comparison of sediment yields and trends in sediment discharge

W e l e a d

Modelling Techniques Used

Dam construction

W e l e a d

Priority Sediment‐related Issues in each River Basin.

W e l e a dPolicy Recommendations

W e l e a dPolicy Recommendations

W e l e a dPolicy Recommendations

W e l e a dPolicy Recommendations

W e l e a dPolicy Recommendations

W e l e a dPolicy Recommendations