Analysis of Cost-Effective Rehabilitation: Principles and Tools for Reducing Uncertainty in Design Natasha Bankhead and Andrew Simon Cardno ENTRIX, Oxford, MS natasha.bankhead@cardno.com
Often the Questions are Basic Ones Is the bank/bed stable? How much will it erode over x number of years or for a given range of flows? Can erosion be reduced/stopped using various techniques? Can we allow for natural processes without threats to assets, infrastructure and human safety? Should we do nothing, use rock, engineered wood structures, flow deflectors, vegetation? What is the most effective? Is it affordable?
But My Stream is Different The physics of erosion are the same wherever you are no matter what hydro-physiographic province, stream type or river style you are in channel response is a matter of quantifying available force, and resistance of the channel boundary Channel adjustment is driven by an imbalance between the driving and resisting forces Differences in rates and magnitudes of adjustment, sediment transport rates and ultimate channel forms are a matter of defining those forces deterministically or empirically
The Processes: Force and Resistance Hydrologic: The principle driver (expressed as discharge over time); Hydraulic: How discharge is translated to a quantifiable force acting on the channel boundary (expressed as shear stress vs. critical shear stress); Geotechnical: Downslope gravitational force (resisted by cohesive and frictional strengths)
The Analytic Approach Static and Dynamic Numerical Modeling Collect field data to define the variables that control the processes (force and resistance); Use that data with physically-based analytic solutions/models to test plans and designs; Use the best available numerical models for prediction
Hydraulic Shear Force and Resistance τ o = γ w R S τ o = mean boundary shear stress γ w = unit weight of water R = hydraulic radius = A / 2y + w S = channel gradient = measured in the field τ* = τ o / [ (γ s γ w ) d] τ* = dimensionless shear stress γ s = unit weight of sediment d = characteristic particle diameter y and x axes of Shields diagram R e = ( U* d) / υ R e = boundary Reynolds number U* = shear velocity = (g R S) 0.5 υ = kinematic viscosity (function of water temperature)
Collect the Data Hydraulic Resistance (bed and banks): Non-cohesive: bulk particle size or particle count for τ c Cohesive: submerged jet-test device Equivalent to critical shear stress where rate of scour becomes 0.0 mm/min
Geotechnical: Force vs. Resistance Factor of Safety (F s ) = Resisting Forces Driving Forces If F s is greater than 1, bank is stable. If F s is less than 1 bank will fail. (We usually add a safety margin: F s >1.3 is stable.) Resisting Forces soil shear strength matric suction root reinforcement confining force Driving Forces (gravity) bank angle weight of soil mass weight of water in bank bank height
Components of Shear Strength (ie. for saturated conditions) τ f = c + (σ-µ w ) tan φ Where: τ f = shear strength (kpa); c = effective cohesion (kpa); σ = normal load (kpa); µ w = pore water pressure (kpa); and φ = effective friction angle (degrees) = measured in the field
Default values by soil type are available but increase uncertainty Collect the Data Geotechnical Resistance (banks): Coarse-grained, non-cohesive: particle count for φ ; c = 0.0 Cohesive: borehole shear tester (BST) or laboratory analysis for c and φ
Differentiate Between Hydraulic and Geotechnical Protection Hydraulic protection reduces the available boundary hydraulic shear stress, and increases the shear resistance to particle detachment Geotechnical protection increases soil shear strength and decreases driving forces Hydraulic Protection Geotechnical Protection
Vegetation as a River Engineer Above and below-ground biomass Process Domains Role of vegetation can be quantified Process Domain Geotechnical Hydrologic Hydraulic Above Ground Surcharge Interception Evapotranspiration Roughness Applied shear stress Below Ground Root reinforcement Infiltration Matric suction Critical shear stress
Benefits of Process-Based Approach Can test design scenarios for performance under a range of flow conditions before they are built; Can modify designs and re-test; Avoid under-design and reduce risk of project failure; Avoid over-design and cost over-runs; Can provide analysis of effectiveness of different designs; Can provide analysis of cost-effectiveness in real terms of cost per amount of reduction (ie. $/m 3 or $/m) Analysis as part of the design process has been shown to be cost effective by reducing risk and uncertainty (Niezgoda and Johnson, 2007) Technology is available and cost effective!!
FACTOR OF SAFETY of safety Factor of confining pressure Effect STAGE, IN METERS ABOVE RIVER LEVEL SEA For Bank Erosion: 2-D wedge- and cantilever-failures Tension cracks Search routine for failures Hydraulic toe erosion Increased shear in meanders Accounts for grain roughness Complex bank geometries Positive and negative pore-water pressures Confining pressure from flow Layers of different strength Vegetation effects: RipRoot Inputs: γ s, c, f, φ b, h, u w, k, τ c 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.0 Bank-Stability Model B Version 5.4 Confining pressure Stage Bank failures shear surface Tensiometers (pore pressure) 85 WATER LEVEL, M 84 83 82 81 0.9 80 12/29/97 01/05/98 01/12/98 01/19/98 01/26/98 02/02/98
Example: The Role of Toe Protection Toe Model Output Verify the bank material and bank and bank-toe protection information entered in the "Bank Material" and "Bank Vegetation and Protection" worksheets. Once you are satisfied that you have completed all necessary inputs, hit the "Run Toe-Erosion Model" button (Center Right of this page). Bank Material Bank Toe Material Layer 1 Layer 2 Layer 3 Layer 4 Layer 5 Moderate cohesive Moderate cohesive Moderate cohesive Moderate cohesive Moderate cohesive Moderate cohesive Material ELEVATION (M) 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 Critical shear stress (Pa) 0.045 0.045 0.045 0.045 0.045 0.045 Erodibility Coefficient (cm 3 /Ns) 6.00 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00-1.00-1.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 STATION (M) Base of layer 1 Base of layer 2 Base of layer 3 Base of layer 4 Base of layer 5 Eroded Profile Initial Profile Water Surface Run Toe-Erosion Model Account for: Stream Curvature Effective stress acting on each grain Average applied boundary shear stress 51.060 Pa Maximum Lateral Retreat 24.966 cm Eroded Area - Bank 0.232 m 2 Eroded Area - Bank Toe 0.423 m 2 Eroded Area - Bed 0.000 m 2 Eroded Area - Total 0.655 m 2 Export New (Eroded) Profile into Model Toe Model Output Verify the bank material and bank and bank-toe protection information entered in the "Bank Material" and "Bank Vegetation and Protection" worksheets. Once you are satisfied that you have completed all necessary inputs, hit the "Run Toe-Erosion Model" button (Center Right of this page). Bank Material Bank Toe Material Layer 1 Layer 2 Layer 3 Layer 4 Layer 5 Moderate cohesive Moderate cohesive Moderate cohesive Moderate cohesive Moderate cohesive Rip Rap (D50 0.256 m) Material 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 204.00 Critical shear stress (Pa) 0.045 0.045 0.045 0.045 0.045 0.007 Erodibility Coefficient (cm 3 /Ns) ELEVATION (M) 6.00 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00-1.00-1.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 STATION (M) Base of layer 1 Base of layer 2 Base of layer 3 Base of layer 4 Base of layer 5 Eroded Profile Initial Profile Water Surface Run Toe-Erosion Model Account for: Stream Curvature Effective stress acting on each grain Average applied boundary shear stress 51.060 Pa Maximum Lateral Retreat 24.159 cm Eroded Area - Bank 0.232 m 2 Eroded Area - Bank Toe 0.044 m 2 Eroded Area - Bed 0.000 m 2 Eroded Area - Total 0.276 m 2 Export New (Eroded) Profile into Model Slope = 0.0035 m/m Depth = 2.5 m Toe material: silt Eroded: 0.66 m 2 Slope = 0.0035 m/m Depth = 2.5 m Toe material: wood Eroded: 0.28 m 2
Process Channel-Modeling Capabilities BSTEM HEC- RAS SRH- 2D HEC+ BSTEM SRH- 2D+BSTEM Shear in meanders Bank-toe erosion Mass-failures Bed erosion Sediment transport Vegetation effects Hard engineering Channel evolution Rapid Assessments Alpha version of HEC-RAS/BSTEM is now being tested by CoE, Cardno ENTRIX and USDA-ARS
Sandy River, OR Objectives: 1. Predict migration of meander bend and timing of threats to park infrastructure; 2. Quantify reduction in retreat rates under various mitigation measures 30000 DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND 25000 June 1, 2000 - June 30, 2008 20000 15000 10000 5000 0 12/6/1999 4/19/2001 9/1/2002 1/14/2004 5/28/2005 10/10/2006 2/22/2008 DATE Flow series for calibration In cooperation with Brian Vaughn, Portland METRO
50-Year Simulation Results
y Timing of Associated Threats to Park Infrastructure Year Impacted Infrastructure Type (points) 2011 2022 2037 2047 2062 Play Structures (1 Point) Play Structure #1 X Play Structure #2 Group Picnic and Campgrounds (2 Points) Group Picnic A X Group Picnic B Group Picnic C X Group Picnic D X Group Picnic E Group Camp #1 Group Camp #2 X Restrooms and Showers (3 points) 2 Door Restroom #1 X 2 Door Restroom #2 X 4 Door Restroom #3 X 4 Door Restroom #4 2 Door Restroom #5 X 4-Door Showers #1 4-Door Showers #2 X Roads (4 points) Main Road X X X X X Boat Ramp X X X X X Essential Infrastructure (5 points) Sewer System X Total Score Cumulative Relocation Cost Score 11 20 16 19 14
Testing Alternative Treatments Modeled Conditions High GW case Fs (GW 9.31 m above bed) Bank top retreat (m) Geotechnical erosion (m 3 ) Existing (with stream curvature) 0.99 10.7 97.6 Grade to 1:1 (with stream curvature) 1.53 0 0 RipRap to 15% bank height (with stream curvature) 1.07 0 0 Grade + RipRap (with stream curvature) 2.18 0 0 Flow deflection (stream curvature turned off) 1.49 0 0 Flow deflection + riprap (stream curvature off) 1.50 0 0 Flow deflection + grade (stream curvature off) 1.67 0 0 Vegetation (with stream curvature) 1.00 10.7 97.6 Vegetation + grade (with stream curvature) 1.98 0 0 Vegetation + riprap (with stream curvature) 1.23 0 0 Vegetation + flow deflection (stream curvature off) 1.49 0 0 A range of alternative treatments would be successful here. Ultimate decision is a function of cost, permitting and policy
Bayou Pierre, MS Encroachment on Gas Pipeline
Simulated Retreat: 30 Years (Calibrated with 2-D Hydraulic Modeling) 8 ELEVATION ABOVE ARBITRARY DATUM, IN METERS 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Original Geometry 5 years 10 years 15 years 20 years 25 years 30 years Spoke 2-4 0-30 -25-20 -15-10 -5 0 5 10 15 DISTANCE FROM BANK EDGE, IN METERS ELEVATION ABOVE ARBITRARY DATUM, IN METERS 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Original Geometry 5 years 10 years 15 years 20 years 25 years 30 years Spoke 2-6 0-250 -200-150 -100-50 0 DISTANCE FROM BANK EDGE, IN METERS
Predicting Bend Migration E = Existing pipeline; A, A/B, B and D represent alternative routes
Burnett River, Queensland, AUS Objectives: January 2013 flood of record: RI at least 140 years 1. Protect local assets from bank erosion; 2. Determine costeffective treatments 3. Reduce fine loads to the Great Barrier Reef Bank erosion: 48 Mt over 3.8 years!!
Calibration: 2010-2013 Once calibrated, 10-year simulations for no action and alternative strategies were conducted
Erosion under Alternative Treatments ELEVATION, in meters ELEVATION, in meters 25 20 15 10 5 2013 START PROFILE END NO ACTION END with vegetated bank END with rock toe END with rock toe and bank vegetation END rock toe and bank END rock toe and bank, and vegetation END vegetation and bendway weir END vegetation, bendway weir, rock toe and bank 0 100.000-80 -30 20 70 120 10.000 STATION, in meters 25 20 15 10 5 No action END NO ACTION 0.001 START 32 degree bank START 2:1 bank END 2:1 bank with vegetation END 32 degree bank with vegetation 0-80 -30 20 70 120 DISCHARGE, IN CUBICMETERS PER SECOND 100000.000 10000.000 1000.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 10-year flow series BMRG-02 Includes 2011 and 2013 floods STATION, in meters
Estimate Costs (similar relations for wood structures; heavy machinery; plantings, etc.) 14 VERTICAL HEIGHT OF ROCK, IN METERS 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Horizontal placement Vertical placement 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 TONNES OF ROCK REQUIRED 100000 From D. Derrick, written comm., (2013) COST PER METER OF ROCK PLACEMENT* 10000 1000 100 $$ = 259.93 h 1.9528 r² = 0.9985 $$ = 187.91 h 1.4165 r² = 0.999 Bendway weirs Rock toe protection 0 5 10 15 VERTICAL HEIGHT (h) OF ROCK, IN METERS Assuming $81.50/t (AUS)
Cost Effectiveness (to hold the line or not) Scenario Protection Cost effectiveness Unit Cost Unit Cost Total Cost Height Length By volume By retreat (m) (m) ($/m) ($/m 3 ) ($/m) ($) No Action - - $0 $0 $0 $0 With vegetation 13.2 530 $ 66 $81 $1,230 $35,000 Rock at toe 4.1 530 $ 1,360 $988 $15,200 $722,000 Rock toe with vegetation 4.1 530 $ 1,430 $1,020 $15,600 $757,000 Rock toe and bank face 11.1 530 $ 5,680 $3,890 $61,600 $3,012,000 Rock toe and lower bank with vegetation 6.6 530 $ 2,790 $1,930 $30,200 $1,480,000 2:1 battering with vegetation 13.2 530 $ 186 $259 $2,440 $98,600 32 degree bank with vegetation 13.2 530 $ 186 $308 $2,710 $98,600 Vegetation with bendway weirs 13.2 530 $ 1,560 $1,080 $2,700 $824,000 Vegetation with ELJs 13.2 530 $ 260 $181 $30,300 $138,000 Vegetation with bendway weir and rock toe 13.2 530 $ 2,920 $1,990 $30,300 $1,550,000 Vegetation with ELJs and rock toe 4.1 530 $ 1,620 $1,110 $16,800 $860,000
Cost Effectiveness
Summary and Conclusions Gravity and the physics of erosion and sediment transport are a constant, allowing us to quantify force and resistance mechanisms. We can collect all of the data we need at a site/reach to quantify driving and resisting forces operating on the channel boundary Using principles of hydrology, hydraulics and geotechnics we can use our field data to inform numerical tools and models. Analyses and models can then be used to quantify performance and effectiveness of a range of alternative strategies By applying a cost basis to each strategy, we can provide a range of cost-effective options to be considered.