• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Front Cover
 Title Page
 Acknowledgement
 Table of Contents
 List of Tables
 List of Figures
 List of symbols
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Trap efficiency modeling
 Field and laboratory informati...
 Model calibration
 Sedimentation and trap efficie...
 Conclusion
 Reference
 Biographical sketch














Title: Trapping organic-rich fine sediment in an estuary
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00091422/00001
 Material Information
Title: Trapping organic-rich fine sediment in an estuary
Series Title: Trapping organic-rich fine sediment in an estuary
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
Creator: Ganju, Neil Kamal
Publisher: Coastal & Oceanographic Engineering Dept. of Civil & Coastal Engineering, University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00091422
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.

Table of Contents
    Front Cover
        Front Cover
    Title Page
        Page i
    Acknowledgement
        Page ii
    Table of Contents
        Page iii
        Page iv
        Page v
    List of Tables
        Page vi
        Page vii
    List of Figures
        Page viii
        Page ix
        Page x
    List of symbols
        Page xi
        Page xii
        Page xiii
        Page xiv
    Abstract
        Page xv
        Page xvi
    Introduction
        Page 1
        Page 2
        Page 3
    Trap efficiency modeling
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
    Field and laboratory information
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
        Page 27
        Page 28
        Page 29
        Page 30
        Page 31
        Page 32
        Page 33
        Page 34
    Model calibration
        Page 35
        Page 36
        Page 37
        Page 38
        Page 39
        Page 40
        Page 41
        Page 42
        Page 43
        Page 44
        Page 45
        Page 46
        Page 47
        Page 48
        Page 49
        Page 50
        Page 51
        Page 52
        Page 53
        Page 54
        Page 55
        Page 56
        Page 57
        Page 58
        Page 59
        Page 60
        Page 61
        Page 62
        Page 63
        Page 64
    Sedimentation and trap efficiency
        Page 65
        Page 66
        Page 67
        Page 68
        Page 69
        Page 70
        Page 71
        Page 72
        Page 73
        Page 74
        Page 75
        Page 76
        Page 77
        Page 78
        Page 79
        Page 80
        Page 81
        Page 82
        Page 83
        Page 84
    Conclusion
        Page 85
        Page 86
        Page 87
        Page 88
        Page 89
    Reference
        Page 90
        Page 91
        Page 92
        Page 93
    Biographical sketch
        Page 94
Full Text




UFL/COEL -2001/007


TRAPPING ORGANIC-RICH FINE SEDIMENT IN AN ESTUARY







by




Neil Kamal Ganju





Thesis


2001















TRAPPING ORGANIC-RICH FINE SEDIMENT IN AN ESTUARY


By

NEIL KAMAL GANJU



















A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN
PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS
FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


2001














ACKNOWLEDGMENT

I would like to thank Dr. Ashish Mehta for his guidance in my education and

research, as well as the entire Coastal and Oceanographic Engineering Program faculty.

Also deserving praise for their assistance are Dr. John Jaeger, Dr. D. Max Sheppard,

Helen Twedell, Kim Hunt, Vernon Sparkman, Viktor Adams, Jim Joiner, Sidney

Schofield, Jaime MacMahan, and Justin Davis, as well as Leonid Parshukov for

analyzing ADCP and tidal data.

Fernando Marvin should receive recognition for the original development of the

models used in this study and for his support throughout the process. Diana Loomis

deserves kudos for her graphical wizardry and emotional support.

My mother and father merit unlimited praise for providing me with mind, body,

and soul, as do my sisters for helping me develop my mind and soul.

Last, but not least, I would like to thank the eternal and undying Self for

providing the basis for the Universe and everything contained within.














TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

ACKNOW LEDGM ENT............................................................................................... ii

LIST OF TABLES....................................................................................................... vi

LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................... viii

LIST OF SYM BOLS ................................................................................................... xi

ABSTRACT...................................................................................................................... xv

1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Problem Statement............................................................................................ 1
1.2 Problem Approach ............................................................................................ 3
1.3 Outline of Chapters ........................................................................................... 3

2 TRAP EFFICIENCY M ODELING .................................................. ....................... 4

2.1 Introduction....................................................................................................... 4
2.2 Flow M odeling.................................................................................................. 4
2.2.1 Governing Equations ....................................... .............. ......................... 4
2.2.2 M odel Operation ......................................... ................ ............................ 6
2.2.3 Flow Boundary Conditions ................................................................... 6
2.2.4 Flow M odel Input/Output Parameters ....................................... ............. 6
2.3 Sediment Transport M odeling ................................................. ....................... 7
2.3.1 Governing Advection-Diffusion Equation................................. ............. 7
2.3.2 Erosion Flux.............................................................................................. 7
2.3.3 Deposition Flux......................................................................................... 8
2.3.4 Suspended Sediment Boundary Conditions............................... ............. 9
2.3.5 Sediment M odel Input/Output Parameters................................ .............. 9
2.4 Sedimentation, Sediment Trap, and Trap Efficiency......................................... 10
2.4.1 Sedimentation ......................................................................................... 10
2.4.2 Definition of Trap ...................................................... ........................... 10
2.4.3 Definition of Trap Efficiency..................................................................... 10
2.4.4 Calculation of Trap Efficiency............................ ........................................ 11
2.4.5 Calculation of Trap Efficiency as a Function of Organic Content ............... 11








3 FIELD AND LABORATORY INFORMATION...................................... .......... 12

3.1 Site D escription............................................................................................... 12
3.2 Tributary Flow s............................................................................................... 18
3 .3 T ides...................................................................................................................... 2 1
3.4 C urrents........................................................................................................... 22
3.5 Sedim entation ................................................................................................. 24
3.6 Sediment Rating Curves ............................................................................... 25
3.7 Sediment Composition.................................................................................. 27
3.7.1 Organic Fraction Composition.............................................................. 27
3.7.2 Inorganic Fraction Composition............................................. ........... 28
3.8 Sedim ent Erodibility ....................................................................................... 30
3.9 Settling V velocity ............................................................................................ 32

4 MODEL CALIBRATION ..................................................................................... 35

4.1 Introduction..................................................................................................... 35
4.2 G rid D evelopm ent........................................................................................... 36
4.3 Flow Model Calibration................................................................................ 38
4.3.1 Initial and Boundary Conditions............................................. ........... 38
4.3.2 Comparison of Measured and Simulated Discharges............................... 44
4.3.3 Neap Tide Simulation ........................................................................... 46
4.3.4 Comparison with Analytical Solution for a Co-oscillating Tide .................. 49
4.3.5 Tributary Boundary Conditions............................................. ........... .... 51
4.4 Sediment Transport Model Calibration ........................................... .......... 52
4.4.1 Sediment Bed Properties............................................................................. 52
4.4.2 Suspended Sediment Boundary Conditions............................ ............ .. 53
4.4.3 Governing Transport Equation .............................................. ............ 54
4.4.4 Erosion Function Calibration.............................................................. 55
4.4.5 Deposition Function Calibration.......................................................... 55
4.4.6 Sensitivity Analysis for Longitudinal Dispersion Constant ..................... 57
4.4.7 Comparison with Analytical Solution for Advection-Diffusion................. 58
4.4.8 Comparison with Flume Data for Deposition Under Turbulent Flow.......... 61

5 SEDIMENTATION AND TRAP EFFICIENCY.................................... ........... 63

5.1 Historic Sedimentation Rates........................................................................ 63
5.2 Sediment Trap and Trap Efficiency Calculation ................................................ 63
5.2.1 Trap Efficiency as a Function of C-18 Canal Discharge ......................... 63
5.2.2 Trap Efficiency as a Function of C-18 Canal Sediment Concentration....... 63
5.2.3 Trap Efficiency as a Function of Organic Content................................... 63

6 CON CLU SION S...................................................................................................... 63

6.1 Sum m ary ......................................................................................................... 63
6.2 C onclusions..................................................................................................... 63








6.3 Recom m endations for Future W ork................................................. .............. 63

REFEREN CES ................................................................................................................. 63

BIO G RA PH ICA L SK ETCH ............................................................................................ 63














LIST OF TABLES


Table page

3.1 Basin areas in the Loxahatchee River estuary watershed....................................... 15

3.2 Chronology of hydrology-related events in the Loxahatchee River watershed, 1928-
19 8 0 ........................................................................................................................... 18

3.3 Median, high, and maximum flows in three tributaries.......................................... 20

3.4 Spring/neap tidal ranges and phase lags for three gauges....................................... 22

3.5 Selected transect discharges and times of discharge, 08/30/00 ............................ 24

3.6 Shoaling rates in three locations of the estuary .................................... ........... 25

3.7 Median and high flow concentration data and coefficients for Equation 3.3 ........... 26

3.8 Likely organisms in the Loxahatchee River and corresponding organic materials.. 28

3.9 Percent fines and percent organic content for combined samples ........................ 29

3.10 Density measurements of composite sample ....................................... ........... .. 30

3.11 PES test consolidation times, erosion rate constants, shear strengths .................. 32

3.12 Settling column testing parameters................................................................... 33

4.1 Fourier coefficients for tidal forcing at Jupiter Inlet............................. ............ 41

4.2 Comparison of measured (08/30/00) and simulated discharges at two transects ..... 46

4.3 Fourier coefficients for neap tidal forcing at Jupiter Inlet flow boundary ............ 47

4.4 Input sediment concentrations at the tributaries ............................................... 54

5.1 C-18 discharges and input concentrations for determination of sedimentation rate as
a function of discharge........................................................................................ 63

5.2 Sedimentation rate in the C-18 canal................................................. ............. 63









5.3 Flows and suspended sediment concentrations for trap efficiency as a function of C-
18 canal discharge..................................................................................................... 63

5.4 Removal ratio for three C-18 discharges, with two different trap locations............. 63

5.5 Simulation parameters for trap efficiency as a function of input sediment
concentration to the C-18 canal (Qc-18=1.7 m3/s)................................................... 63

5.6 Values used for coefficient a, dry density, and granular density, for simulation of
removal ratio as a function of organic content....................................... ....... 63














LIST OF FIGURES


Figure pae


3.1 Loxahatchee River estuary and tributaries........................................................ 12

3.2 Dredging plans for C-18 canal, 1956............................................................. 14

3.3 Loxahatchee River estuary watershed basins, estuarine limits, and central
em baym ent.......................................................................................................... 15

3.4 Normalized salinity in the Northwest Fork vs. normalized freshwater discharge to
the N orthw est Fork. ............................................................................................. 17

3.5a Cumulative frequency distribution of tributary flow, Northwest Fork ................... 19

3.5b Cumulative frequency distribution of tributary flow, North Fork........................ 19

3.5c Cumulative frequency distribution of tributary flow, Southwest Fork..................... 20

3.6 Tributary flow over a one month period, 10/10/81-11/10/81............................... 21

3.7 Locations of tide gauges (UFG#), current transects (T#), grab samples (GS#),
suspended sediment data locations (SSD). ........................................ ........... .. 22

3.8 Sample records of tidal measurements at three locations (09/14/00-09/15/00)....... 23

3.9 Poling depth bed thicknesses in the C-18 canal. .................................. ............ 25

3.10 Erosion rate vs. shear stress for beds with three pre-test consolidation times. ........ 31

3.11 Erosion rate constant vs. shear strength............................................. ........... .... 32

3.12 Settling velocity vs. concentration for composite fine sample ............................. 34

4.1 Bathymetry of Loxahatchee River estuary, as used in the flow/sediment transport
m o d el......................................................................................................................... 3 7








4.2 Computational grid, with flow boundaries in black cells, simulated tide gauge and
current transect locations. ...................................................... ........................... 38

4.3 Mid-tide elevation at UFG1 vs. average wind speed from two offshore buoys....... 40

4.4a Tidal data from UFG1, 09/14/00-10/13/00. Raw data ........................................... 42

4.4b Tidal data from UFG1, 09/14/00-10/13/00. After mid-tide trend is removed. ........ 42

4.5 Selection of Manning's n throughout model domain. ............................................ 44

4.6a UFG1 measured tide vs. model result, 09/20/00................................. ........... ... 45

4.6b UFG2 measured tide vs. model result, 09/20/00................................. ........... ... 45

4.6c UFG3 measured tide vs. model result, 09/20/00................................. ........... ... 46

4.7a UFG1 measured neap tide vs. model result, 10/02/00............................................ 47

4.7b UFG2 measured neap tide vs. model result, 10/02/00............................................ 48

4.7c UFG3 measured neap tide vs. model result, 10/02/00............................................ 48

4.8 Definition sketch for tide entering a channel with a reflecting wall..................... 49

4.9 Comparison of Equation 4.3 and model results for C-18 canal............................ 51

4.10 Variation of granular, bulk, and dry densities with organic content using data from
three Florida locations and the Loxahatchee River............................... ........... 53

4.1 la Variation of coefficient a (Equation 2.16) with organic content ........................ 56

4.1 lb Variation of settling velocity (Equation 2.16, with C=0.5 kg/m3) with organic
content.................................................................................................................................. 56

4.12 Sedimentation rate in C-18 canal as a function of longitudinal dispersion constant,
K L .............................................................................................................................. 5 8

4.13 Definition sketch for substance concentration in uniform 1-D channel, with barrier
separating zones of constant concentration and zero concentration at t=0............. 59

4.14 Comparison of analytical solution and numerical model prediction for concentration
in a 1-D channel, at t=750 s and 1500 s............................................................... 62

4.15 Comparison of flume data (Krone, 1962) with model result for deposition under
turbulent flow ...................................................................................................... 63









5.1 Sedimentation rate 480 m downstream of the S-46 structure in the C-18 canal as a
function of canal discharge. .................................................... .......................... 63

5.2 Sedimentation rate as a function of input suspended sediment concentration in the C-
18 canal, under a discharge of 1.7 m3/s. ........................................... ............. ... 63

5.3 Sedimentation rate as a function of discharge in the C-18 canal, with input
suspended sediment concentration of 0.014 kg/m3............................... ........... 63

5.4 Schematic diagram of a suspended sediment particle subjected to constant flow
velocity and settling velocity. .................................................. ......................... 63

5.5 Historical flow record for C-18 canal, from 03/01/81-01/18/91........................... 63

5.6 Assumed C-18 canal flow record obtained by pro-rating the measured record for the
Northwest Fork for the period 03/01/81-01/18/91............................................... 63

5.7 Cumulative deposition over ten-year period (03/01/81-01/18/91) for existing
regulated versus assumed unregulated C-18 canal discharge............................... 63

5.8 Portion of the computational grid. .................................................... ........ ..... 63

5.9 Removal ratio in the presence of trap as a function of C-18 canal discharge.......... 63

5.10 Schematic diagram of a particle passing over a trap at three different velocities..... 63

5.11 Removal ratio as a function of input suspended sediment concentration to the C-18
can al.......................................................................................................................... 6 3

5.12 Difference between influent and effluent loads (trapped load) as a function of input
suspended sediment concentration to the C-18 canal............................................. 63

5.13 Removal ratio as a function of organic content at a constant discharge of 1.7 m3/s. 63

5.14 Sedimentation (shoaling) rate in trap as a function of organic content at a constant
discharge of 1.7 m3/s, assuming uniform consolidation......................................... 63

5.15 Mass deposited in the C-18 canal (upstream of the trap, Figure 5.8) as a function of
organic content.................................................................................................... 63

5.16 Influent (qi) and effluent (qe) loads vs. organic content, and the difference (qi-qe).. 63

6.1 Experimental test pit configuration....................................... ............................ 63














LIST OF SYMBOLS


area


C

Co

Cz

Dx, Dxx, Dxy, Dyx, Dyy

H

He

Ho

K

KL, KT

L

M

Oc

P

Pe

Q

Qd

Qe

Qf

R


sediment concentration (kg/m3)

frictionless wave celerity related to Equation 4.3

Chdzy discharge coefficient

horizontal dispersion coefficients

depth (m)

equilibrium bed elevation related to Equation 6.1

datum bed elevation related to Equation 6.1

sedimentation coefficient related to Equation 6.1

longitudinal and transverse dispersion constants, respectively

channel length related to Equation 4.3

number of time steps in one ebb tidal period

organic content (%)

tidal prism (m3)

Peclet number

discharge (m3/s)

depositional flux (kg/m2-s)

erosional flux (kg/m2-s)

freshwater discharge (m3/s)

sediment removal ratio








R2 correlation coefficient

Rave ebb-tide averaged removal ratio

S sediment source/sink term

Sa salinity (ppt)

SR sedimentation rate (m/d)

T tidal period (s)

U depth-averaged, x-direction velocity (m/s)

Ua,b,bt,c,ct flow velocity related to Figures 5.4 and 5.10

V depth-averaged, y-direction velocity (m/s)

Ws settling velocity (m/s)

Wsf free settling velocity (m/s)

a empirical coefficient related to Equation 2.16

an Fourier coefficients related to Equation 4.2

as empirical coefficient related to Equation 3.2

b empirical coefficient related to Equation 2.16

bs empirical coefficient related to Equation 3.2

g acceleration due to gravity (m/s2)

h water depth

Ah deposit thickness

ht trap depth related to Figure 5.10

k damped wave number

ko frictionless wave number

m empirical coefficient related to Equation 2.16








n Manning's flow resistance coefficient

ns sediment bed porosity

nw empirical coefficient related to Equation 2.16

p probability of deposition

q sediment load (kg/s)

qe influent sediment load (kg/s)

qi effluent sediment load (kg/s)

t time

At time step

Ub bottom, x-direction velocity

Vb bottom, y-direction velocity

we sediment water content

x horizontal coordinate

xs pre-trap channel length related to Figure 5.10

xt trap length related to Figure 5.10

y horizontal coordinate

z vertical coordinate

a empirical coefficient related to Equation 5.1

as empirical coefficient related to Equation 2.13

P empirical coefficient related to Equation 5.1

Ps empirical coefficient related to Equation 2.13

Y bottom friction-dependent coefficient

EN erosion rate constant (kg/m2-s)








eNO limiting erosion rate constant (kg-N/s)

Ti water surface elevation

rIo water surface elevation correction related to Equation 4.1

rTHT water surface elevation at high tide related to Equation 4.1

TL water surface elevation at channel opening related to Equation 4.3

TILT water surface elevation at low tide related to Equation 4.1

Xs empirical coefficient related to Equation 3.5

ut damping coefficient related to Equation 4.3

v eddy viscosity

Pb sediment bulk density (kg/m3)

pd bottom sediment dry density (kg/m3)

ps sediment granular density (kg/m3)

pw water density (kg/m3)

C wave frequency related to Equation 4.3

Tb bed shear stress (Pa)

Td critical shear stress for deposition (Pa)

Ts bed shear strength (Pa)

D solids volume fraction

De limiting solids volume fraction

Xs empirical coefficient related to Equation 3.5














Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science

TRAPPING ORGANIC-RICH FINE SEDIMENT IN AN ESTUARY

By

Neil Kamal Ganju

August 2001

Chairman: Ashish J. Mehta
Major Department: Civil and Coastal Engineering

Trench-traps are frequently implemented to capture incoming sediment before it

can reach the main body of an estuary. Given the presence of organic matter in Florida's

humic estuarine environment, the effect of organic content on the efficiency of an

estuarine trap scheme is the focus of this study. The candidate location, the Loxahatchee

River estuary, is fed by tributaries which contribute organic-rich fine sediment. Flow and

sediment transport models were utilized and calibrated using collected field and literature

data. The calibrated models were first used to simulate historic sedimentation rates in the

flow-regulated C-18 canal, one of the main tributaries. A relation was developed for

sedimentation rate as a function of discharge in this canal. This relation was applied to a

ten-year flow record, to yield a total sedimentation of 0.15 m. To determine what effect

flow regulation has on sedimentation, a hypothetical unregulated C-18 canal flow record

was constructed using data from another feeder tributary. In this case the simulated

sedimentation was 47% higher, due to less variable discharge conditions.








A trap was incorporated in the C-18 canal, 120 m upstream of the confluence of

the canal and the central embayment of the estuary. Trap efficiency was calculated as a

sediment removal ratio, or the percentage by which influent sediment load to the trap is

reduced in the effluent load from the trap. Trap efficiency modeling was performed for

varying C-18 canal discharge, and a specific discharge (1.7 m3/s) was found to maximize

removal ratio. Trap efficiency simulations were also performed for varying input

sediment concentration to the C-18 canal, under a constant discharge. Removal ratio

increased with increasing concentration at concentrations below 0.25 kg/m3, but remained

constant above this value. The trapped load (difference between influent and effluent

loads), however, increased with concentration below values of 7 kg/m3, but decreased

above this value, due to the decreased settling velocity in this high-concentration regime.

Simulations were performed for varying organic content, and removal ratio

decreased with increasing organic content, due to decreasing settling velocity.

Sedimentation in the trap increased with organic content, due to decreasing density.

Influent load to the trap increased with organic content, since less sediment was able to

deposit upstream of the trap.

Future work should include characterizing the nature of organic-rich sediment

more comprehensively, as well as developing a monitoring scheme to determine actual

sedimentation rates in a test trap at this location.














CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

1.1 Problem Statement

Sedimentation due to the influx of fine-grained particles is an issue affecting

numerous waterways and coastal areas. Frequently, these particles originate far inland,

and are transported into the coastal zone by runoff and streamflow (Rusnak, 1967). In the

humic estuarine regime, inorganic sediment is often complemented by a measurable

organic fraction. This fraction can be produced by either autochthonous sources (e.g.,

native phytoplankton, submerged vegetation) or allochthonous sources (e.g., river-borne

phytoplankton, swamp vegetation, windblown material) (Darnell, 1967). The organic

fraction is transported in the same fashion as inorganic sediment, but the lower density

and therefore lower settling velocity renders the organic fraction highly susceptible to

resuspension even under relatively mild flow conditions (Mehta et al., 1997). While the

transport of inorganic fine fractions has been investigated, the effect of organic content in

fines on sedimentation is largely unstudied. In estuarial muds, the organic fraction tends

towards mixing with the other sediment types, thereby altering the transport behavior of

the inorganic fraction.

Given the presence of organic matter, any solution to the sedimentation problem

in a productive estuary must take into account the organic content of the sediment and the

associated transport behavior. One commonly employed solution to reduce sedimentation

is the implementation of a trap scheme by trenching the submerged bottom. To create a








trench-trap, the depth at the chosen location is increased by dredging. The increased

depth results in a decreased flow velocity, thereby allowing incoming sediment to settle

in the trap itself, instead of being carried further downstream. The sediment can then be

removed from the trap, rather than dredging the otherwise distributed deposit from a

broader area. Given this background, the objective of this study was to determine the role

organic content plays in the trap efficiency of a selected trap design. By holding the trap

depth and location constant and varying only the organic content of the sediment, the

efficiency of a trap can be assessed for different organic contents and flow discharges.

For the present purpose, efficiency will be determined by the sediment removal ratio,

which is the percentage by which the effluent sediment load (leaving the trap) is reduced

with respect to influent load (entering the trap).

The candidate estuary for this study is the Loxahatchee River, located in

Southeast Florida. Shoaling has occurred in the estuary in several spots, mainly at the

confluence of major tributaries in the central embayment of the estuary, where velocities

are typically low (Sonntag and McPherson, 1984). Several tributaries feed the estuary,

carrying freshwater, nutrients, and sediment. Due to the biologically productive terrain

upstream of the estuary, organic-rich sediment is present in the loads carried by the

tributaries. To prevent this sediment from accumulating in the central embayment, a "pre-

emptive" trap scheme is a viable option. For the present purpose, the trap scheme will be

implemented in one area of the estuary where a flow-regulated tributary feeds the central

embayment. The performance of this scheme will be evaluated with regard to the organic

content of the sediment and the flow hydrograph, in order to determine what role organic

content and discharge have on trap efficiency.








1.2 Problem Approach

Several tasks must be undertaken to determine the efficiency of a trap scheme.

These include:

1) Data collection from the field and from the existing literature to characterize the
nature of the flow. This includes measuring tidal elevations and current velocities
in the estuary, and obtaining streamflow data for major tributaries from the
literature.

2) Data collection to characterize the nature of the sediment. This includes collecting
sediment samples and performing laboratory tests on the samples. Historical
suspended sediment concentration data will also be examined.

3) Modeling the flow field via a hydrodynamic model, in order to determine the
velocities as well as the water surface elevations.

4) Development of a sediment transport model to determine suspended sediment
concentrations. This model will incorporate the sediment characteristics
determined from the laboratory tests.

5) A one-trap scheme will be introduced to the calibrated flow model, and the output
from that model will be applied to the calibrated sediment transport model. The
removal ratio of the trap will be indicative of the efficiency of the trap scheme.

6) The influent and effluent sediment loads through the trap will be recorded in order
to quantify trap efficiency.

1.3 Outline of Chapters

Chapter 2 describes the modeling scheme used to evaluate trap efficiency.

Chapter 3 contains the field and laboratory data collected for this study. Chapter 4

describes the calibration of the model, and Chapter 5 discusses the application of the

model to predict sedimentation and trap efficiency. Conclusions are made in Chapter 6,


followed by the bibliography and biographical sketch.













CHAPTER 2
TRAP EFFICIENCY MODELING

2.1 Introduction

Modeling sediment trap efficiency requires the use of flow and sediment transport

models. A flow model provides water velocities and surface elevations, and this output is

applied to the sediment transport model. These models and the method to calculate the

trap efficiency are described next.

2.2 Flow Modeling

2.2.1 Governing Equations

The Navier-Stokes equations govern the free surface flows of constant density

and incompressible fluids (Pnueli and Gutfinger, 1992). Applying the hydrostatic

pressure distribution assumption yields three-dimensional long-wave equations, and these

can be vertically integrated to produce the following two-dimensional equations (Casulli,

1990), where x and y are horizontal direction coordinates:

x-momentum:

a(HU) a(HUU) +(HUV) gi 9! ( + 9v}U a8 ( 'UU ( yU
_-/+ + = -gH +- vH- +- vH -yU
Bt ax ay x 8x x)x y Oy (2.1)

y-momentum:

a(HV) +(HUV) +(HVV) S 8 V ( yV
+t + = gH +- v- +- vH -y
at 8x y y ax 8x) Oy ) (2.2)





5


continuity:

oc a(HU) (HV)
at Nx ay (2.3)

where H is the water depth, U is the vertically-averaged horizontal x-direction velocity, V

is the vertically-averaged horizontal y-direction velocity, t is time, g is the acceleration

due to gravity, Tl is the water surface elevation measured from the undisturbed water

surface, v is the eddy viscosity, and y is the bottom friction dependent coefficient defined

as


g u +v2
C (2.4)

where ub and vb are the horizontal x and y bottom velocity components respectively, and

Cz is the Ch6zy discharge coefficient, which is related to Manning's n by

(H + 1)1/3
z n (2.5)

Solving this system of three partial differential equations (Equations 2.1, 2.2, and

2.3) for the three unknowns (U, V, iq) can be accomplished via a numerical method. The

numerical algorithm used is based on the method developed by Casulli (1990). First, a

characteristic analysis is performed on Equations 2.1-2.3, in order to determine which

terms must be discretized implicitly, such as the water surface elevation (Eqs. 2.1, 2.2),

and the velocity divergence (Equation 2.3). The advective terms are discretized explicitly

using an upwind scheme, which is unconditionally stable when a Eulerian-Lagrangian

method is used to discretize the terms. This method requires the solution of a 5-diagonal

matrix at every time step. It is used in conjunction with an alternating-direction implicit

(ADI) routine, which results in two simpler, linear tri-diagonal matrices (Casulli, 1990).








2.2.2 Model Operation

The 2-D vertically averaged hydrodynamic model reported by Marvan (2001) and

used in this study is operated through the MATLAB computational application. The use

of MATLAB allows for the generation of the necessary graphics and data output in a

simple fashion, though computational effort is intensive, due to the necessity of large

matrices. A rectangular grid with square elements is used, with numeric "ones" indicating

the body of water, and "zeros" representing land boundaries. A similar grid is needed for

the input bathymetry, with the depth at mean high water entered into each element.

2.2.3 Flow Boundary Conditions

Flow boundaries are indicated by extending water cells to the grid edge. If

freshwater inflow is desired, a permanent velocity can be imposed at the edge,

corresponding to the desired flow condition. If a non-steady state inflow is desired,

velocity as a function of time can be implemented. For a tidal flow boundary, a function

specifying the water surface elevation at the boundary can be applied. If no velocity or

elevation is specified at cells which terminate at the grid edge, they become no-flow

boundaries in the algorithm.

2.2.4 Flow Model Input/Output Parameters

The area and bathymetry grids described in Section 2.2.2 are required to specify

the domain to be modeled. Other required inputs are the tidal forcing function at the

seaward boundary, the calculation time step, the total simulation time, a file containing

Manning's n coefficient values for each cell, and velocities at the tributary flow

boundaries. The output is three matrices consisting of the water surface elevations, x-

direction velocities, and y-direction velocities, for every time step in the simulation.








2.3 Sediment Transport Modeling

2.3.1 Governing Advection-Diffusion Equation

Advection-diffusion is formulated using a finite-volume explicit method based on

the quadratic upstream interpolation method (QUIKEST) method by Leonard (1977):

aHC a(HUC) a(HVC) ( HC 5HCl 9( HC 9HC
--+ + D + Dxxy-- + Dyx +yy = S
at ax ay ax ax dy ay ax ay (2.6)

where C is the depth-averaged suspended sediment concentration, and Dij are the

dispersion coefficients calculated via Preston (1985) as follows:

KLU2 + KTV2-
Dxx = H
CU2 + V2 (2.7)

SKLV2+ KTU2
Dyy = Hf
CzU2 + V2 (2.8)

(KI KT)UV
Dxy = Dyx =---g
z U2 + V2 (2.9)

where KL and KT are the longitudinal and transverse dispersion constants, respectively.

The quantity S is a source/sink term, which accounts for erosion and deposition as the

algebraic sum of the upward and downward fluxes as follows:

S= Qe +Qd (2.10)

The erosion and deposition fluxes Qe and Qd are described in the following sections.

2.3.2 Erosion Flux

The upward erosionall) flux at the bed is computed from:

Qe= EN(Cb s) (2.11)

where EN is the erosion rate constant, zb is the bed shear stress, and zs is the bed shear

strength with respect to erosion. The bed shear stress is computed as








pwn2U2
b (H + r)A (2.12)


where pw is the density of water. The shear strength of the bed is calculated via Mehta

and Parchure (2001):

T, = a,(O- e)0 (2.13)

where as is an empirical coefficient dependent on sediment type, D is the solids volume

fraction, Oe is the limiting solids volume fraction (value of D when is=0), and Ps is an

empirical coefficient.

2.3.3 Deposition Flux

The depositional flux Qd is a function of probability, settling velocity, and

concentration, defined as (Krone, 1962):

Qd = -pWC (2.14)

where Ws is the settling velocity, and p is the probability of deposition, expressed as


I = d (2.15)

where rd is the critical shear stress for deposition. When the bottom shear stress is greater

than or equal to Td, sediment is unable to deposit. This condition is prevented in the

present analysis by setting -d above the highest observed shear stress in the flow model

output.

In general, the settling velocity of fine sediment is dependent on concentration. As

a result the settling velocity differs depending on three identifiable regimes: free settling,

flocculation settling, and hindered settling. In the free settling range, relatively low

concentrations permit the individual flocs to settle without interference from other flocs.








The settling velocity in this range is a function of the drag coefficient and the submerged

weight of the floc. As concentration increases, the collision frequency of flocs increases,

resulting in the formation of larger flocs. These flocs are able to settle quicker due to their

increased mass, and characterize the flocculation settling range. Eventually, the

concentration in the water column reaches a point where a floc is unable to settle quickly

due to significant interference from other flocs, and the limited pore space for the fluid.

This interference reaches a maximum when the water column resembles a bed of mud

with negligible settling (Mehta, 1994). Hwang (1989) formulated a fit of the flocculation

and hindered settling ranges, relating settling velocity to concentration as follows:

aCn"
W=
s (C2 +b2)m (2.16)

where a, b, m, and nw are empirical constants. At free settling concentrations (C<0.25

kg/m3) a constant settling velocity (Wsf) is prescribed. Laboratory tests performed in a

settling column are required to determine the site-specific constants.

2.3.4 Suspended Sediment Boundary Conditions

The boundary conditions at the tributary connections can be expressed as steady-

state concentrations, or sediment rating functions can be applied if unsteady tributary

flows are desired. This also holds true at the tidal entrance, where incoming

concentrations can be specified, varying with tidal stage and/or current velocity.

2.3.5 Sediment Model Input/Output Parameters

The flow output is the primary input for the sediment transport model. The user-

selected inputs are time step, total simulation time, dispersion constants, bed dry density

and granular density, fluid density, suspended sediment point sources, the coefficients for








Equation 2.16 (for settling behavior), and the coefficients for Equation 2.13 (for erosional

behavior). The area and bathymetry grids from the flow model are used as well.

2.4 Sedimentation, Sediment Trap, and Trap Efficiency

2.4.1 Sedimentation

Sedimentation at any point in the estuary can be calculated from the deposit

thickness Ah given by

ts
A At QdAt
Ah= = :
i=1 Pd (2.17)

where ts is the total simulation time, At is the time step, i is the time step index, Qdi is the

deposition flux, and Pd is the deposit dry density. The sedimentation rate is then

Ah
SR-
ts (2.18)

where SR is the sedimentation rate.

2.4.2 Definition of Trap

In this study, a sediment trap is defined as an area of the submerged bottom

deepened to a depth greater than the surrounding bottom, in order to reduce flow velocity.

The lower velocity should allow sediment to deposit in the trap rather than move past and

deposit elsewhere. This in turn allows for maintenance dredging to be performed at a

specific location (the trap) rather than over a broad submerged area.

2.4.3 Definition of Trap Efficiency

Trap efficiency is defined as the percent by which effluent suspended sediment

load is reduced with respect to the influent suspended sediment load (removal ratio). In a

tidal situation, the seaward edge of the trap will be the influent side during flood tide, and

the effluent side during ebb tide, and vice versa for the landward edge.








2.4.4 Calculation of Trap Efficiency

At each time step in the sediment transport simulation the concentration, the

velocity, and the water surface elevation will be calculated in each cell. The cells that

border the trap and are flow-normal are also of interest. Sediment loads can be calculated

for these border cells as follows:

q = UCHAx (2.19)

where q is the sediment load, U is the flow velocity, and Ax is the cell width. The

sediment load on each side of the trap will be used to compute the sediment removal ratio

as follows:

qi q
R=
qi (2.20)

where R is the removal ratio, qi is the influent sediment load, and qe is the effluent

sediment load. The removal ratio will be averaged over a tidal cycle, using the removal

ratio values from each time step.

2.4.5 Calculation of Trap Efficiency as a Function of Organic Content

Simulations will be run for differing organic content of the sediment. The average

removal ratio for the each organic content will be compared for a given flow discharge.

The native organic content will be used as the benchmark case by which to assess the

efficiency of the trap under the other organic content cases. The removal ratio as a

function of organic content will be plotted to determine what effect organic content has

on trap efficiency.
















CHAPTER 3
FIELD AND LABORATORY INFORMATION

3.1 Site Description

The Loxahatchee River estuary is contained within Palm Beach and Martin

counties in southeast Florida (Figure 3.1).














0 1 embaymenttl 0
a ,-n acce b_ Jupie
c jh aner la 12345 I I l
I Ponn
c 42 Turner Quay
ts 3Pmpano U
4 Dolphin
S-46 control structure 5 Marlin
Figure 3.1 Loxahatchee River estuary and tributaries.

The river empties into the Atlantic Ocean via Jupiter Inlet. Three main tributaries

feed the estuary: the Northwest Fork, the North Fork, and the Southwest Fork. Jones

Creek and Sims Creek, two lesser tributaries, also feed the estuary. The Southwest Fork's

upstream reach is referred to as the C-18 canal, which was created in 1957/58 to lengthen

the Southwest Fork and facilitate drainage of the westward swampland. Flow through the

C-18 canal and the Southwest Fork is regulated by the S-46 automated sluice gate

structure. The three forks converge on the estuary approximately 3 km west of the inlet,








at the central embayment. The Intracoastal Waterway (ICWW) intersects the estuary in a

dog-leg fashion, east of the Florida East Coast Railroad (FECRR) bridge. Five

navigation/access canals exist on the south shore of the central embayment.

Depths in the estuary range from under 1 m to over 5 m in some channel portions,

with an average depth of just over 1 m. The navigation channel (maintained by the Jupiter

Inlet District) runs westward from Jupiter Inlet, under the FECRR bridge, and through the

central embayment, approximately 14 km upstream from the inlet. Flood shoals exist in

the central embayment mainly due to the influx of sand from the ocean, and smaller

shoals exist at the termini of the three main tributaries. Small islands are located west of

the FECRR bridge, on both sides of the channel.

While the Northwest Fork and North Fork are natural tributaries, as mentioned the

Southwest Fork was lengthened westward in 1957/58 by the construction of the C-18

canal and S-46 control structure (Figure 3.1), in order to divert flow from the Northwest

Fork to the Southwest Fork. A channel was then constructed to allow for the diversion of

flow from the C-18 canal to the Northwest Fork. From this point on, the C-18 canal will

indicate the narrow channel section of the Southwest Fork, and the broader section will

be referred to as the Southwest Fork (Figure 3.1). Dredging plans for the C-18 canal from

1956 are shown in Figure 3.2 (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1956). The existing

bottom was deepened up to 3 m at some locations to facilitate drainage. The datum

(MSL) refers to the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD).

The Loxahatchee River estuary drains over 1,000 km2 of land through the three

main tributaries, the ICWW, and several minor tributaries. The individual basins that








comprise the watershed are shown in Figure 3.3 and listed in Table 3.1. The watershed

occupies residential areas, agricultural areas, and uninhabited marsh and slough areas.



Y+ Natural bottom (pre-1957)



E
.4-
o I Dredged canal bottom
/ (post-1957)


0 500 1000 1500 2000
Distance from S-46 structure (m)
Figure 3.2 Dredging plans for C-18 canal, 1956.

The creation of the C-18 canal has increased the drainage area of the Southwest

Fork. This canal drains the Loxahatchee Slough, a shallow swamp-like feature containing

diverse flora and fauna. Upstream of the Northwest Fork is the Loxahatchee River

proper, which meanders through typical South Florida swampland, all contained within

the Jonathan Dickinson State Park (JDSP). The North Fork drains the east section of

JDSP, which contains extensive swampland and scrubland. As a result of the biologically

productive nature of the watershed, organic-rich sediment is present in the runoff which

eventually reaches the estuary.

The freshwater nature of these tributaries ends where seawater mainly from

Jupiter Inlet intrudes. Estuarine conditions (Figure 3.3) persist for 8 km up the Southwest

Fork/C-18 canal, 9 km up the North Fork, and 16 km up the Northwest Fork (measured

from the inlet) (Russell and McPherson, 1984). Salinities above 1 ppt have been observed

during low-flow conditions in the Northwest Fork, more than 16 km from the inlet.








J" ,)TrA 1 ~-.:) n P Bn l
)IC n ':' 4 ..-


onafhdl Dickinson n ,,

---- j n --Ij^ -I. *
T ,TTE PAR

-i -1 IN





0 '1
" --- -4-^ ; l h *lle '


---











S/Intracoastal 545IR 4 inn






Basin--___ Area (k ,)

C-18 278
Jonathan Dickinson 155
South Indian River 65
Loxahatchee River 6
Loaace Rivr








During high freshwater flow the estuarine boundary naturally moves seaward;

during low-flow conditions the opposite is true. Figure 3.4 shows the salinity in the

Northwest Fork normalized by the salinity at Jupiter Inlet (SaNwF/SaJI), versus freshwater

discharge to the Northwest Fork normalized by the maximum flood tide flow rate

(QNWF/QJI). The flood tide flow rate is calculated as

71P
S T (3.1)

where P is the tidal prism, and T is the (semi-diurnal) tidal period.

The values used for salinity, tidal period (T), and tidal prism (P) at Jupiter Inlet

are 35 ppt, 12.42 hr, and 2.93 x 108 m3, respectively (Russell and Goodwin, 1987).

Salinity in the Northwest Fork was measured 11 km from Jupiter Inlet (Russell and

McPherson, 1984). The trend in Figure 3.4 implies that salinity in the tributaries can vary

greatly depending on the freshwater flow condition. This is especially relevant when the

tributary flow is regulated (e.g., Southwest Fork), and salinity is influenced by

management practices.

At the turn of the century the Loxahatchee River estuary was a pristine ecosystem

consisting of mangroves, salt marshes, and scrubland. Prior to World War II agricultural

interests transformed the area into a rural landscape with citrus groves and vegetable

farms. Significant residential development has occurred in the area since World War II.

In response to this development the estuary was designated an aquatic preserve in 1984.

Nonetheless, the construction of homes along the shoreline continues. Currently, the

entire estuarial shoreline in the central embayment as well as a significant portion of the

tributary shorelines is residentially occupied. A chronology of noteworthy events













0.8
QjI = 20,587 m3/s


0.7

0.6





0.3

0.2
0.1



0.0000 0.0002 0.0004 0.0006 0.0008 0.0010 0.0012 0.0014
QNWF/QJI

Figure 3.4 Normalized salinity in the Northwest Fork vs. normalized freshwater
discharge to the Northwest Fork.



influencing the hydrology of the Loxahatchee River during the 1928-1980 period is given

in Table 3.2.

Recreational boating is widely practiced in the estuary by local residents. Access

is necessary to the upstream areas for recreational activities, and also to the open sea and

the ICWW. Many of the natural and artificial access routes have shoaled in recent years

(Antonini et al., 1998), leading to hazardous boating practices such as high-speed

entry/exit to prevent grounding of the vessel. The canals adjacent to the south shore of the

central embayment (Figure 3.1) are especially susceptible to shoaling (Sonntag and

McPherson, 1984), directly affecting boaters who rely on these canals for access.

Aside from boating, the ecological health of the estuary is also sensitive to

shoaling. Seagrass plays an integral part in this environment (Mehta et al., 1990).
U 0.4 -- 1---------------------------------












































shoaling. Seagrass plays an integral part in this environment (Mehta et al., 1990).








Table 3.2 Chronology of hydrology-related events in the Loxahatchee River watershed,
1928-1980
Year Event
1928 Small ditch dredged to divert water from Loxahatchee Marsh to
Southwest Fork
1947 Jupiter Inlet permanently stabilized for navigation

1957-1958 C-18 canal created to divert water from Northwest Fork to
Southwest Fork
1970-1971 Severe drought throughout watershed

1974 C- 14 canal created to allow flow to be diverted from C- 18 to
Northwest Fork
1976-1977 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers dredged lower estuary

1977-1978 Oyster bars near FECRR Bridge dredged to improve navigation
and flushing in the central embayment
1978 Sewage treatment plant began discharging up to 2.5 m3/s to
Northwest Fork
1980 Operation of S-46 structure modified to allow for more water
storage in C- 18 canal
1980 Three channels dredged in central embayment for improved
navigation

Seagrass coverage maps (Jupiter Inlet District, 1999) indicate shifting and shrinking

seagrass communities in the central embayment.

3.2 Tributary Flows

Tributary flow data were obtained from USGS streamflow gage data, for all years

available (1971-2000 N.W. Fork, 1980-1982 N. Fork, 1959-2000 S.W. Fork). Cumulative

frequency distribution curves have been constructed (Figs. 3.5a-c) to designate the

median and extreme flow events (Table 3.3).

The Northwest Fork carries substantially more flow than the North Fork, while

the regulated C-18 canal/Southwest Fork carries more flow on average than both. Under

storm conditions the Northwest Fork discharges greater amounts than the other

tributaries.














1


0.9
1 J-- ------- ------------
0.8


0.7


0.6


0.5


0.4


0.3


0.2


0.1


0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Flow rate (m3Is)


re 3.5 Cumulative frequency distribution of tributary flow a) Northwest Fork.







0.9


0.8


0.7 -


0.6


0.5----


0.4


0.3 --


0.2


0.1


0


0.2 0.4


3 1 1.2

Flow rate (m3/s)


1.4 1.6 1.8 2


Figu











0



C,
.3
t-



0)
>



om
I




E
C)
0U

S
C.


0




b) North Fork.








The criterion for opening the gates of the S-46 structure is based on water level

behind the structure. When the level exceeds a predetermined mark, the sluice gates are


5 10 15 20 25 30
Flow rate (m3/s)


c) Southwest Fork.

Table 3.3 Median, high, and maximum flows in three tributaries
Tributary Median Flow High Flow Maximum Flow
(50%) (m3/s) (90%) (m3/s) (100%) (m3/s)
Northwest Fork 7.0 x 101 4.1 x 100 6.1 x 101
North Fork 1.0 x 10-1 2.1 x 10' 1.9 x 100
Southwest Fork 1.3 x 10 7.8 x 100 3.2 x 101


opened until the level recedes by 30 cm (Russell and McPherson, 1984), at which point

the gates are closed. This flow regulation has resulted in a discontinuous flow record;

there have been weeks when no flow has passed the structure, and days when storm flows

have been released. The flows from the North and Northwest Forks are by contrast more

continuous and more immediately responsive to the rainfall/runoff condition. During the

normal wet season, the level behind the S-46 structure may not be sufficiently high










enough to release flow, while the other tributaries are freely discharging to the estuary.

Figure 3.6 illustrates this point, showing flow data for a one-month period from the three

tributaries.




4.5

4

3.5


-- NWF
2.5 -NF
S-a- SWF
M 2

1.5







0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time (d)

Figure 3.6 Tributary flow over a one month period, 10/10/81-11/10/81.

3.3 Tides

Ultrasonic water level gauges (Model #220, Infinities USA, Daytona Beach, FL)

with stilling wells were installed to measure tidal elevations over more than a month's

time. The locations were chosen so as to span a large reach of the estuary, and also to

facilitate gauge placement and retrieval. Thus the eastern gauge was placed on a bridge

pier, as was the gauge in the Southwest Fork. The Northwest Fork gauge was attached to

a navigation post. The gauge locations are shown in Figure 3.7. Characteristic tidal

ranges are given in Table 3.4, and sample records from the three gauges are shown in

Figure 3.8. All tidal elevations use North American Vertical Datum 1988 (NAVD 88) as








the datum. NAVD 88 is the most recent datum, and replaces NGVD. The tidal ranges

indicate the total change in water surface elevation between high and low tide, while the

phase lag indicates the difference in time between high/low tide at gauge UFG1 and the

other gauges. The effect of bottom friction is manifested in reduced tidal range and lag

between UFG1 and the other two gauges.


Figure 3.7 Locations of tide gauges (UFG#), current transects (T#), grab samples (GS#),
suspended sediment data locations (SSD). A= tide gauge, -* = current transect, = grab
sample, m = suspended sediment data location.

Table 3.4 Spring/neap tidal ranges and phase lags for three gauges
Phase lag from
Gauge ID Spring tidal Neap tidal UFG1 (min)
range (m) range (m) high tide low tide
UFG1 0.90 0.66 0 0
UFG2 0.85 0.65 21 60
UFG3 0.86 0.64 28 60

3.4 Currents

An Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler (Workhorse 1200kHz ADCP, RD

Instruments, San Diego, CA) was used to profile current velocities at the transects shown

in Figure 3.7. The water velocity was profiled over most of the depth, while data from the

upper 72 cm were lost due to the need to submerge the device at all times.








Simpson and Oltmann (1993) provide a method to interpolate velocity

measurements throughout the water column using a power-law velocity profile, in which

the velocity (u) is a function of elevation above bottom (z) to the 1/6th power (i.e., u-z/6).


- UFG1
- UFG2
I -a-UFG3


Time (h)
Figure 3.8 Sample records of tidal measurements at three locations (09/14/00-09/15/00).
MSL datum is taken as NAVD 88.

The upper 72 cm were interpolated using this profile equation across an incremental

cross-sectional distance, and the resultant velocity profile was integrated vertically from

bottom to surface to yield a mean velocity. With a known cross-sectional area, the

discharge through the transect was then estimated. Table 3.5 contains the discharge

through two transects (Figure 3.7), at times after high tide at gauge UFG1. These values

are for ebb flow.


1 1 35 43 45




_ I I _ _ _ _ _








Table 3.5 Selected transect discharges and times of discharge, 08/30/00
Transect Transect Transect maximum Time after high tide Discharge
area (m2) depth (m) (gauge UFG1) (min) (m3/s)
3 472 4.2 233 416
4 398 3.8 260 326


3.5 Sedimentation

With reference to sedimentation, the central embayment is influenced mainly by

the daily flushing due to tide, while the upstream tributary locations are influenced

primarily by riverine discharge and rainfall events. Estimates of the net accumulation of

sediment have been made for three areas of the estuary.

Sonntag and McPherson (1984) estimated shoaling rates in the south shore access

canals (Figure 3.1) to be between 1.5-3.0 x 10-2 m/yr. They also estimated shoaling rates

in the central embayment to be as low as 2.5 x 104 m/yr, suggesting that circulation and

flushing in the embayment inhibit substantial accumulation. In the present study poling

depths (obtained by pushing a graduated pole into the bottom until a hard substrate is

reached) in the C-18 canal were determined to estimate sedimentation rates along the

length of the canal. Since the bottom was dredged at the time of the construction of the

canal in 1957/58, the bed thickness can be considered to represent the subsequent

accumulation in the interim 42 year period. Figure 3.9 shows these thicknesses along the

canal length. Table 3.6 compares the shoaling rates in the three areas. Sediment thickness

increases with distance from the S-46 structure, possibly due to the large erosional forces

near the structure (when flow is released), and the reduction of theses forces as the flow

moves along the canal, allowing more sediment to deposit.









Table 3.6 Shoaling rates in three locations of the estuary
Location Shoaling rate
(m/yr)
C-18 canal 2.1 x 10-2
Access canals 1.5-3.0 x 102
Central embayment 2.5 x 104


2c-----------------------------------------


E
UA

-.



"0 Mean value=0.92 m


0.5 -

S480 m from S-46 structure (Section 5.1)


0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
Distance from S-46 (m)

Figure 3.9 Poling depth bed thicknesses in the C-18 canal. Straight line indicates mean
trend.

3.6 Sediment Rating Curves

Sediment rating curves relating suspended sediment concentration to discharge

were developed using data from three locations in the estuary (Figure 3.7). Discharge

data from the three tributaries were compared to USGS suspended sediment data for the

same tributaries.

Sonntag and McPherson (1984) reported two values of suspended sediment

concentration (0.059 kg/m3, 0.017 kg/m3) with corresponding flow data for the C-18

canal (31 m3/s, 28 m3/s) and a mean concentration value for the duration (1980-82) of








their study (0.014 kg/m3). The median flow for the C-18 canal (1.3 m3/s) from Figure

3.5c was correlated to this mean value of concentration in the present study. For the

Northwest Fork mean and maximum concentration values were reported for the study

period without corresponding flows. The maximum flow during this period (11.2 m3/s)

was recorded by a USGS streamflow gauge and that value was correlated with the

maximum concentration (0.023 kg/m3), while the median flow for the entire flow record

(0.7 m3/s) was correlated with the mean concentration (0.016 kg/m3). The same

procedure was followed for the North Fork. The resulting points were connected to create

sediment rating curves. A fit in the form of

C = asQbs (3.2)

was used (Miiller and F6rstner, 1968), where as and bs are site-specific coefficients. The

values used and the rating curve coefficients are shown in Table 3.7.

Table 3.7 Median and high flow concentration data and coefficients for Equation 3.2
Median flow High flow (=99%) as bs
Tributary concentration concentration coefficient coefficient
(kg/m3) (kg/m3)
Northwest Fork 0.011 0.023 0.012 0.27
North Fork 0.010 0.018 0.018 0.02
Southwest Fork 0.014 0.059 0.012 0.49

The flows that correlate with the high flow concentrations were of differing

cumulative frequencies, but all were over 99%. Data for the upstream boundary of the

North Fork (JDSP) were not available; values only existed for a location at the opening to

the central embayment (Figure 3.7).

The coefficient as is, in a sense, indicative of the erodibility of the upstream

banks/bed. The North Fork data were obtained at a downstream location, so it is difficult

to make comparisons with the other two tributaries. However, between the Northwest








Fork and Southwest Fork one can infer that the degree of erodibility is equal, as

manifested by the as values.

The exponent bs is indicative of the intensity of the erosional forces present in the

river. These rating curves suggest that the erosional forces of the C-18 canal/Southwest

Fork are relatively higher than the Northwest Fork. The course of the Northwest Fork is

far more meandering than the C-18 canal/Southwest Fork, and the cross-section is wider

as well. This would indicate a less hydraulically efficient Northwest Fork that is less

capable of eroding and/or transporting sediment than the C-18 canal/Southwest Fork.

It is important to note that the transport of fine sediment is largely dependent on

the supply of sediment, which indicates that the rating curves are sensitive to the

availability of fine sediment. If the source of fine sediment for the C-18 canal was to be

depleted or enhanced, then the rating curve would be modified to represent, respectively,

less or more suspended sediment concentration for the same discharge.

3.7 Sediment Composition

3.7.1 Organic Fraction Composition

Possible sources of organic material in the Loxahatchee River range from simple

organisms such as protozoa to complex organisms such as vertebrates. As these organic

materials are degraded, they become mixed with the native inorganic sediment, especially

silts and clays. While the specific sources of organic material and their relative

contribution to the organic fraction are unknown, some of the likely sources are listed in

Table 3.8 (Twenhofel, 1950).








Table 3.8 Likely organisms in the Loxahatchee River and corresponding organic
materials
Organism Organic materials produced
Protozoans calcite, chitin, acanthin
Annelids calcite, phosphate, chitin
Mollusks calcite, chitin
Arthropods calcium carbonate, chitin
Vertebrates keratin, cellophane
Plants calcium carbonate, cellulose,
resins, fats, gums, waxes


3.7.2 Inorganic Fraction Composition

Grab samples collected within the estuary were visually classified as sand,

sand/mud mixture, and mud. Samples from the central embayment and the eastern reach

of the estuary were largely sand and shell, while samples from the western reaches

(Figure 3.7) were mainly mixtures of sand and mud. Samples from within the tributaries

and along the banks contained mostly fine sediment.

The inorganic sediment fraction was subjected to x-ray diffraction to determine

the dominant minerals. Other than the quartz sand fraction, kaolinite, smectite, illite,

pyrite, and rutile were present (in order of decreasing amounts).

Wet sieve analyses (Ingram, 1971) of the finer samples from the western reach of

the estuary were conducted to determine the percentage of fines (<74 microns). In order

to determine the organic content (loss on ignition) of the sediment, the samples were

dried at 550 C, ground in a mortar with a pestle, and heated at 5500 C. The difference in

mass between before and after the high-temperature heating is the mass of the organic

fraction of the sample (Gross, 1971).

Those samples which contained over 59% fines and 10% organic content were

combined as a composite sample representative of the western reach of the estuary. All of








the samples combined happened to be collected upstream of the central embayment,

suggesting that the finer sediments are present in the lower-energy locations of the

estuary. Table 3.9 contains the individual sample information for the composite sample.

A positive correlation between percentage of fines and organic content is suggested by

these data. The composite sample was tested for bulk (in situ) and dry (0% water content)

densities (Lewis and McConchie, 1994) (Table 3.10). Granular (or particle) density was

then calculated via the mass balance

PdPw
Pw +Pd -Pb (3.3)

Additional relations are given to compute the porosity, ns, and the water content, we.


n. =1 Pd
P, (3.4)

nsPw
S(1-n)ps (3.5)

Before the individual samples were combined, their mass was recorded (Table

3.8). The mass of each sample was then multiplied by the organic content. This value was

summed for all four samples, and divided by the total composite sample mass. This yields

the organic content for the composite sample (15%).


Table 3.9 Percent fines and percent organic content for combined samples
Sample Percent fines (<74 ulm) Percent organic content Mass contributed to
ID (by weight) (by weight) composite sample (kg)
1/2 59 13 0.98
3/4 63 13 0.92
5 69 18 0.76
6 87 19 0.72








Table 3.10 Density measurements of composite sample
Bulk density Dry density Granular density
(kg/m3) (kg/m3) (kg/m3)
1218 336 2559
1230 428 2038
1336 562 2367

3.8 Sediment Erodibility

The erosion behavior of fine-grained sediment in the upper reaches of the estuary

was determined via the Particle Entrainment Simulator (PES). The device, originally

designed by Tsai and Lick (1986), consists of a cylindrical column that is filled with a

slurry of the sediment. The slurry is allowed to settle and consolidate for a specified

period of time (in the reported tests, three consolidation times were used: 24, 72 and 96

hours). Once the requisite consolidation time is achieved, the cylinder is loaded onto the

apparatus, which consists of a perforated cylindrical disk that oscillates within the

cylinder, above the sediment-water interface. The period of oscillation is measured with a

digital tachometer, and converted to a shear stress value. Samples are taken from the

overlying water at specified time intervals, and analyzed for suspended sediment

concentration via gravimetric analysis. Tsai and Lick (1986) provide a description of the

PES testing procedure. Once the time-concentration-shear stress data are obtained, plots

of erosion rate or flux (kg/m2-s) versus shear stress (Pa) can be developed (Figure 3.10).

For each test, by extending the best-fit line to zero erosion rate, the shear strength

of the bed (with respect to erosion), rs, can be estimated. The data in Figure 3.10 indicate

that longer consolidation times result in a higher shear strength. The erosion rate

constant, EN, is the slope of the erosion rate vs. shear stress curve. An empirical

relationship between erosion rate constant and shear strength in the form


SN = ENOexp(-X;S)


(3.6)










0.0007


0.0004-
024 hr
0 ,072hr
/A96hr
0.0003

2
0.0002 -z 0
0 A

0.0001
0 0A

0-
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Shear stress (Pa)

Figure 3.10 Erosion rate vs. shear stress for beds with three pre-test consolidation times.
Intersection of each mean trend line with the shear stress axis gives the shear strength.
The slope of the line gives the erosion rate constant.


can be inferred (Mehta and Parchure, 2001), where ENO is the limiting (Ts=0) erosion rate

constant of 0.2 kg/N-s, and Xs and ks are sediment-specific coefficients. Equation 3.5 is

plotted in Figure 3.11 along with the results from the PES. The coefficients s and ,s were


found to be 14.0 and 0.44, respectively. Table 3.11 gives the parameters and results of the

tests. The trend in Figure 3.11 implies that sediment beds with higher shear strengths

have lower erosion fluxes than beds with lower shear strength for a given applied shear


stress, as would be expected (Mehta and Parchure, 2001).









I




a' 0.1
z


S 0- Eq. 3.6
o PES



S0.001




0.0001
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
Shear strength (Pa)

Figure 3.11 Erosion rate constant vs. shear strength.

Table 3.11 PES test consolidation times, erosion rate constants, shear strengths
Consolidation time Erosion rate constant EN Shear strength s
(hr) (kg-N/s) (Pa)
24 0.0012 0.110
72 0.00062 0.125
96 0.00060 0.140

3.9 Settling Velocity

The settling velocity can be modeled according to Equation 2.16, for which a

settling column is used to obtain data for the settling velocity at different initial

suspension concentrations. Accordingly, a slurry of native water and the composite fine

sample was vigorously mixed and poured into a 2 m tall and 0.1 m diameter cylindrical

settling column. Withdrawal tubes located at eight elevations allow for sampling of the

slurry through time, and the samples were gravimetrically analyzed for concentration.

The time-concentration-elevation data were entered into a MATLAB-based program








which uses a routine developed by Ross (1988) to calculate the settling velocity at each

elevation and time. The program presents a plot of settling velocity versus concentration,

and a fit of the above equation is obtained by varying the a, b, m, and nw coefficients in

Equation 2.16. Hwang (1989) provides a detailed description of the procedure. The

parameters of the testing performed here are given in Table 3.12. The data from all tests

were combined to yield Figure 3.12.

Table 3.12 Settling column testing parameters
Initial Sampling time Sampling tube
Concentration intervals elevations
(kg/m3) (min) (m from bottom)
18.33 0, 5, 15, 30, 60, 120, 180 0.05, 0.15, 0.3, 0.55, 0.8, 1.05, 1.3, 1.55
9.88 same as above same as above
3.40 same as above same as above

The coefficients used to fit Equation 2.16 to Figure 3.12 were a=0.189, b=6.4,

m=1.8, and nw=1.8. At concentrations below 0.25 kg/m3, a constant (free settling)

velocity (Wsf) is specified. Above that concentration, and below concentrations of 7

kg/m3, the flocculation settling zone is indicated, where particles collide, aggregate and

form larger, faster settling flocs, with increasing concentration. Above 7 kg/m3 the

hindered settling zone occurs, where interference from other flocs reduces settling

velocity with increasing concentration.













0.01






0.001






.2 0.0001 -

> /
0


SWs=1.8 x 10-5 ri/s
------ --------------

0.00001



Free settling zone Flocculation settling zone Hindered settling zone



0.000001 .
0.01 0.1 1 10 1(

Concentration (kglm3)


Figure 3.12 Settling velocity vs. concentration for composite fine sample.














CHAPTER 4
MODEL CALIBRATION

4.1 Introduction

Calibrations of the flow and sediment transport models are described in this

chapter. The development of the computational grid is addressed first, followed by the

flow model, including the initial and boundary conditions, and model calibration. The

final section describes the sediment transport model and its operation.

The objective of this development, as noted in Chapter 1, was to evaluate

sediment trap efficiency as a function of organic content. The C-18 canal was chosen for

the site of the trap, since this canal seemingly supplies much of the fine-grained deposit

found in the central embayment. The function of the trap would be to intercept the

incoming sediment before it reaches the wide region of the central embayment. Thus the

focus in the simulations will be sediment transport from the C-18 canal to the central

embayment.

Certain aspects of the estuary have been idealized in model formulation, in order

to minimize computational time and to avoid potential errors. These idealizations are as

follows:

1) Tidal variation in the ICWW is not considered, due to the complexity of
implementing multiple tidal forcing in the model, in the absence of synchronous
tidal data from the ICWW.








2) The north arm of the ICWW is extended to a distance of 420 m only, in order to
minimize computational time.

3) The two lesser tributaries, Sims Creek and Jones Creek, are retained, but not
considered as sources of freshwater input, which is likely to be minor.

4) The three islands west of the FECRR bridge (Figure 3.1) are excluded, since each
is smaller in area than a single cell. It is deemed more accurate to exclude the
islands rather than represent them in an really disproportionate manner.

5) The C-18 canal is "bent" to reduce total grid size, in order to reduce
computational time.

4.2 Grid Development

Due to the narrowness of the C-18 canal, which is approximately 75 m wide at the

junction with the Southwest Fork and less than 40 m wide at the S-46 structure, it was

decided to represent it as a single cell channel, with a cell size of 60 x 60 m. As a single

cell channel, the bending of the C-18 canal has no effect on computation. The same cell

size was then conveniently extended to the rest of the model domain. A bathymetry file

was created using available data (Mehta et al., 1990). Data from a 2000 survey (Cutcher,

2000) were compared to the bathymetry, and corrections were made for areas that had

shoaled or eroded during the period between the two surveys. The input bathymetry is

shown in Figure 4.1.

In the computational grid (Figure 4.2), each land cell was assigned the number

zero, while each water cell was assigned a one. Flow boundaries (black cells) were

extended to the edges of the grid, such that "ones" were at the edges of the grid. The

estuary entrance at Jupiter Inlet is a flow boundary, as are the three main tributaries, and












4.5
S4.0

3.5

3.0

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0 meters

Figure 4.1 Bathymetry of Loxahatchee River estuary, as used in the flow/sediment
transport model.

the two lesser tributaries. The south arm of the ICWW is also a flow boundary. The north

arm of the ICWW was not extended to the grid edge because of the aforementioned

reasons. Jupiter Inlet is at the bottom edge of the grid. The relative locations of the tide

gauges and ADCP current measurement transects are also shown in Figure 4.2.














Sims
Creek


Jones
Creek
















E


Iwest FoIII I I
hwestForklC-18 canal


Northwest Fork


* Gauge UPG3


Gaug


PUF


G1







Inn


- z


Abv~tranaect3



x Jupiter Inlet


Figure 4.2 Computational grid, with flow boundaries in black cells, simulated tide gauge
and current transect locations.


4.3 Flow Model Calibration


4.3.1 Initial and Boundary Conditions


At the beginning of a simulation, the water surface elevation was chosen to be


uniform, with all cells at high water. In reality the water surface is non-uniform, due to


GaugeUFG2


ADCP ansetFork





ADCP transact 4


ii i


M I i I I








amplitude change and phase lag. Velocities throughout the domain were correspondingly

set to zero at the start of each simulation. It was observed that a full tidal cycle was

required to be simulated before the water surface elevations reached a quasi-steady state.

This was verified by recording velocities and water surface elevations at the locations of

the three gauges over multiple tidal periods.

Since tidal forcing at the south arm of the ICWW was not considered, neither

velocity nor water surface elevation was specified at the grid edge. If no specification is

made at grid edge cells, the landward cell edge is treated as a wall in the model (i.e., a no-

flow boundary). The computational scheme uses velocity values from adjacent cells, but

also imposes a zero velocity node at the cell edge. The closed boundary of the north arm

of the ICWW (Figure 4.2) is a no-flow boundary as well, since land cells are adjacent.

Tidal forcing at Jupiter Inlet (Figure 4.2) is perhaps the most important boundary

condition in this system, because it is the mechanism by which the majority of the water

flows through the estuary. The data obtained from the three gauges (Figure 3.7) were

used to estimate this forcing. The raw data contained a trend in water surface elevation

that was also observed at a station on the northeast Florida coast. The trends followed

similar increases and decreases in mid-tide elevation, and it was hypothesized that

onshore winds may have created increased elevations in the estuary. The wind record

from two offshore sites (20 and 120 nm east of Cape Canaveral, Florida) was averaged

and correlated with the mid-tide elevation (Figure 4.3). The data show a positive

correlation between wind speed and mid-tide elevation.










0.3



0.2







S3 4 5 7 9 10 11 12
0*







-0.2



-0.3
*.





Wind speed (m/s)

Figure 4.3 Mid-tide elevation at UFG1 vs. average wind speed from two offshore buoys.



To obtain a tidal record without the effect of this variation, filtering was

performed. For each tidal cycle, the following calculation was made:


7=HT + TLT
-0 = 2 (4.1)


where rio is the mid-tide elevation, *RHT is the water surface elevation at high tide, and iTLT

is the elevation at low tide. The mid-tide elevation was subtracted from each measured

elevation within the same tidal cycle. The rio variation is also shown in Figure 4.4a.

Figure 4.4b shows the tidal record obtained from the raw data in Figure 4.4a, after

subtracting the mid-tide trend.

Tidal elevations and discharge measurements were used to calibrate and validate

the flow model. For the dischargeedata to be of use however, the tidal data must be


synchronous. The ADCP current data were obtained while only one gauge (UFG1) was








operating (08/30/00). Once all three gauges were functioning two weeks later (09/13/00),

the UFG1 data during the ADCP measurements were compared with the UFG1 data from

the fully functional period. An appropriately matching (i.e., equal tidal range) tidal record

from the later period was assumed to be representative of the earlier period.

A Fourier analysis (Ochi, 1990) of tidal representation of the form

Stcos2nnnt .si(2nnt I
n(t) = a0 + > a.cos bsn -
n=, ( Ndt) Ndt)) (4.2)

was performed on the entire tidal record (09/13/00-10/13/00). In Equation 4.2, rj is the

water surface elevation, ao is the offset elevation, subscript n is the harmonic constituent

index, an and bn are the harmonic coefficients, and dt is the time step. The resulting

equation, carried to N=4, was used as the forcing at Jupiter Inlet. The derived coefficients

are given in Table 4.1.

Table 4.1 Fourier coefficients for tidal forcing at Jupiter Inlet
n an (m) bn (m)
0 0.015 -------
1 0.416 -0.024
2 -0.012 -0.022
3 0.010 -0.0036
4 (=N) -0.0053 -0.0068




























E Raw data UFG1
o a
So o - Mid-tide trend


-0.2



-0.4



-0.6



-0.8

Time (h)

Figure 4.4 Tidal data from UFG1, 09/14/00-10/13/00. a) Raw data. Time origin is 12:00
am.

0.8



0.6



0.4



: 0.2




1 1 2 2 3 3 M41 4 0

I-
C -0.2



-0.4



-0.6



-0.8

Time (h)


b) After mid-tide trend is removed. Time origin is 12:00 am.








The tidal forcing was modified by an amplitude multiplier (1.17) and a phase

correction (0.62 h) until the simulated tide at the UFG1 location matched the UFG1

measured data. This procedure was carried out so that the simulated tidal record closely

matched the measured tidal record from the period of the ADCP current measurements.

For tidal simulation, Manning's n was assumed to be 0.041 throughout the

modeled domain as a first approximation (based on preliminary simulations). This

coefficient is manifested in Equations 2.4 and 2.5, representing the effect of bottom

friction in the vertically-integrated momentum equations (Eqs. 2.1-2.2). Chow (1959)

provides qualitative descriptions of waterways and their corresponding n values. For

major streams with irregular and rough sections, a minimum value of 0.035 and a

maximum value of 0.10 are prescribed for n.

In order to correctly simulate the measured tides at the gauge locations UFG2 and

UFG3, bottom friction had to be increased via Manning's n. First, the central embayment

was assigned a higher value (0.052), in order to account for the increased presence of

shoals and depressions in the central embayment. This increase in n enhanced agreement

of tidal elevations at gauge UFG2 (Northwest Fork), though the phase lag of the

simulated tide at UFG3 was not large enough. To increase the phase lag, bottom friction

was further increased by specifying an n value of 0.057 at the throat of the Southwest

Fork, and throughout the C-18 canal (Figure 4.5). The increased flow resistance caused

by the constriction of the Southwest Fork into the C-18 canal, as well as the presence of

shoals in the area, were represented in the higher n value.

The predicted tides are compared with those measured at the three gauge locations

in Figures 4.6a-c. Agreement is best at UFG1, while the simulations at the other two










. n.. O. 07


n=0.052



,All other cells n=0.041










Figure 4.5 Selection of Manning's n throughout model domain.

locations do not entirely agree in amplitude or phase. Also, the filtering process described

earlier introduced some irregularities, which can be seen in the measured data for gauge

UFG3 (Figure 4.6c). Overall, however, the model seems to perform reasonably well in

regard to water level simulation.

4.3.2 Comparison of Measured and Simulated Discharges

Once simulated tidal elevations were adjusted for at all three locations, simulated

discharges through the transects indicated in Table 3.5 and Figure 3.7 were compared

with the corresponding measurements. The transects used in the model domain are shown

in Figure 4.2. At each transect, the discharge through each of the cells were summed to

obtain the total discharge through the transect. The model results thus obtained are













0.5


0.4


0.3


0.2


0.1
E

0 0-
S5 10 15 2

W -0.1


-0.2


-0.3


-0.4


-0.5

Time (h)

Figure 4.6 Measured tide vs. model result, 09/20/00. a) UFG1



0.5


0.4 m


0.3


0.2


0.1

cU
0 0
B 5 1 15 21

W -0.1


-0.2


-0.3


-0.4


-0.5

Time (h)

b) UFG2.



















1 0.1 A Gauge UFG3
c Model results
S5 1 15 20 25
W -0.1

-0.2

-0.3

-0.4- VA AV
A A
-0.5
Time (h)
c) UFG3.



compared with the ADCP-derived data in Table 4.2. Differences between the two sets of

discharges can be attributed to the idealized cross-section in the model, as well as error

resulting from the interpolation process (for the upper 72 cm of water column) described

in Section 3.4.

Table 4.2 Comparison of measured (08/30/00) and simulated discharges at two transects
Transect Time after high tide Measured Simulated % difference*
at UFG1 (min) discharge (m3/s) discharge (m3/s)
3 233 416 455 +9
4 260 326 370 +14
*100% x (simulated-measured)/measured

4.3.3 Neap Tide Simulation

In order to validate the model, a similar filtering was carried out for a neap tidal

cycle, using the same amplitude multiplier and phase correction from the previous (spring

tide) analysis. The Fourier coefficients are given in Table 4.3, and the computed tidal








elevations are compared to the measurements (Figs. 4.7a-c). Though the simulated tides

are not wholly in phase with the observed tides, the amplitudes are predicted reasonably

well by the model.

Table 4.3 Fourier coefficients for neap tidal forcing at Jupiter Inlet flow boundary
n an (m) bn (m)
0 0.0155 ---
1 0.314 -0.058
2 -0.0088 0.022
3 0.0195 -0.000085
4 0.0026 0.012


Time (h)
Figure 4.7 Measured neap tide vs. model result, 10/02/00. a) UFG1.







48




0.5


0.4


0.3


0.2


0.1



5M \ 5 /10




-0.2
oj -0.1 ---,2--- i-----




-0.3


-0.4


-0.5

Time (h)

b) UFG2.



0.5


0.4



0.3


0.2


E 0
0.1
o\

0
I A 5 / 10
\A
-0.1

A
-0.2

A A
-0.3


-0.4

Time (h)

c) UFG3.








4.3.4 Comparison with Analytical Solution for a Co-oscillating Tide

In order to validate the predictive ability of the model, a scenario with a known

analytic solution was examined. When a tidal wave propagates into a one-dimensional

channel bounded by a wall at it's terminus (Figure 4.8), the wave is reflected back,

producing a co-oscillating tide. The horizontal velocity at the wall must remain zero,

while maximum velocity occurs at the open end of the channel. At a given location,

maximum velocities occur at one-quarter tidal period after high tide, and one-quarter tidal

period after low tide.



Reflecting wall



Tidal amplitude at_ ,
channel entrance L M I1

Total channel length -- L h Water deplh




Figure 4.8 Definition sketch for tide entering a channel with a reflecting wall.

The analytical solution for velocity in a one-dimensional channel with frictional

damping and a reflecting wall is (Ippen and Harleman, 1966):

Lu L ko [e-' cos(at kx) e" cost + kx)]
h 0 2 + k2 2(cos2kL + cosh 2L) (4.3)

where u is the velocity, 1TL is the mouth tidal amplitude, h is the mean water depth, Co is

the frictionless tidal wave celerity, ko is the frictionless wave number, k is the damped

wave number, ji is the wave damping coefficient [(k2-ko02)12], a is the wave frequency, x








is the channel axis coordinate, and L is the channel length (Figure 4.8). The values used

to solve Equation 4.3 are as follows: rlL=0.45 m, h=1.62 m, Co=4 m/s, ko=3.53 x 10-5

rad/m, V=2.19 x 10-5 rad/m, k=4.15 x 10"5 rad/m, L=2200 m, and a=1.405 x 104 rad/s.

The tidal amplitude at the mouth (T0L) was selected based on the observed tidal amplitude

at the mouth of the C-18 canal. The water depth was the actual mean depth in the C-18

canal, which was used to compute Co [=(gh)1/2] and ko (=o/Co). The length of the channel

was selected to be the actual length of the canal. The wave frequency corresponded to the

semi-diurnal (M2) tidal period of 12.42 h.

The damped wave number, k (and therefore t), was varied until the predicted

velocities matched the simulation performed with the flow model. A measure of the

damping is the ratio, ko/k. The selected value of this ratio was 0.85. For comparison,

models of the Panama Canal have yielded damping ratios between 0.79 and 0.91 (Ippen

and Harleman, 1966). Velocities through the channel were calculated at t=T/4.

Model simulation was performed by specifying a zero-flow condition at the S-46

control structure (Figure 4.2). The tidal forcing developed in Section 4.3.1 was applied.

The simulated velocities in the C-18 canal were recorded one-quarter tidal period after

high tide. The comparison between the analytical solution and simulated solution is

shown in Figure 4.9.

At the wall (Figure 4.8) there is no velocity, while the velocities in the canal

between the wall and the entrance to the canal are slightly underestimated by the model.

A lower damping ratio (i.e., more damping) would reduce the analytically solved

velocities at the intermediate canal locations and improve agreement, though the velocity

at the entrance would then be overestimated (in relation to the analytical solution).










0.1

0.09

0.08

0.07

0.06

0.05 _________________ -Eq. 4.3
/ Model
S 4 ts
S0.04

0.03

0.02

0.01

0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Distance from S-46 structure (m)

Figure 4.9 Comparison of Equation 4.3 and model results for C-1 8 canal.


Overall, this comparison shows that the flow behavior in the C-18 canal, under zero net

discharge, closely follows the analytical solution.

4.3.5 Tributary Boundary Conditions

The flow boundary conditions for the three main tributaries were formulated in an

identical manner. For example, the historical Northwest Fork flow data were compiled

and subjected to a frequency analysis, in order to develop a cumulative frequency

distribution (Section 3.2). The discharge (0.7 m3/s) corresponding to the 50% cumulative

frequency (median value) was converted to a velocity by dividing the discharge by the

flow cross-sectional area (753 m2). That velocity (0.00093 m/s) was then specified at the

flow boundary, at each boundary cell. The same process was repeated for the North Fork

and the Southwest Fork, with their respective 50% discharges. To obtain boundary








conditions for high-flow scenarios, the same process was done using the 100% discharge

(the highest observed value).

Sims Creek and Jones Creek were treated as no-flow boundaries, since no

velocity or elevation was imposed at the grid edge. This results in essentially a wall

condition. The short lengths of these tributaries (300 m for Sims Creek, 900 m for Jones

Creek) suggests that a wall condition may not be wholly inaccurate.

4.4 Sediment Transport Model Calibration

4.4.1 Sediment Bed Properties

In order to meet the objective of this study, the density of the bed as a function of

organic content was determined. Such a relation was developed for fine sediments from

three sites in Florida (Rodriguez et al., 1997, Mehta et al., 1994), as well as from the

Loxahatchee River. The three sites are the Lower Kissimmee River, the Taylor Creek-

Nubbin Slough basins, and the Rodman Reservoir. All locations harbor organic-rich fine

sediments mixed with sand, as does the Loxahatchee River.

The granular density of sediment was found to vary with organic content as

follows:

p, = -16.5(Oc) + 2650 (4.4)

yielding an appropriate density of 2,650 kg/m3 for a sediment with no organic content

(Oc=0%). The bulk density was found to vary according to:

Pb = 1568e-0.l8(c) 0.9(Oc)+1114 (4.5)

The dry density was then computed via the mass balance

(Pb -Pw)Ps
d (P -Pw) (4.6)









Equations 4.4, 4.5, and 4.6, and the data used to create them are shown in Figure 4.10,

including the samples analyzed in the present study (Oc=15%). The granular, bulk, and

dry densities decrease with increasing organic content, though the dry and bulk densities

level off to near constant values (112 kg/m3 and 1,051 kg/m3, respectively) at an organic

content greater than 70%.


3000


2500 + *----
/ ** *"t $

S2000

S* Granular density
1500 _
S 4. Bulk density

a 1000 oo Dry density
A + Loxahatchee River
500 4-------

^A A AA AA A A
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Organic content (%)

Figure 4.10 Variation of granular, bulk, and dry densities with organic content using data
from three Florida locations and the Loxahatchee River.

4.4.2 Suspended Sediment Boundary Conditions

To simulate the input of sediment into the estuary, suspended sediment

concentrations must be specified at the appropriate boundary cells. At the Southwest

Fork/C-18 canal flow boundary (Figure 4.2), Equation 3.2 with the appropriate

coefficients (Table 3.7) was applied. At the Northwest Fork the same equation was

similarly used. Sediment input from the North Fork was not considered, since the data








used to obtain the rating curve were from a central embayment location (Figure 3.7). Due

to the relatively low flow of the North Fork, it is reasonable to assume that the main

source of suspended sediment at the data location was the inlet, and not an upstream

source.

Sediment inputs at the Jupiter Inlet/ICWW boundaries were not considered, since

fine sand is the major component of the suspended sediment load at those locations

(Sonntag and McPherson, 1984). Sims Creek and Jones Creek (Figures 3.1, 4.2) were

assumed to contribute negligible fine sediment loads. Table 4.4 shows the locations

where sediment inputs were implemented, and the corresponding suspended sediment

concentrations for median and maximum flows.

Table 4.4 Input sediment concentrations at the tributaries
Tributary Median flow (50%) Maximum flow (100%)
concentration (kg/m3) concentration (kg/m3)
Northwest Fork 0.011 0.030
Southwest Fork 0.014 0.066
North Fork 0.000 0.000
Sims Creek 0.000 0.000
Jones Creek 0.000 0.000

4.4.3 Governing Transport Equation

The governing advection-diffusion transport equation (Equation 2.6) requires

values of the longitudinal and transverse dispersion constants, KL and KT. Marvin (2001)

selected values of 13 and 1.2, respectively, when modeling the Cedar/Ortega River

system in northern Florida. These values were adopted in the present study, and a

sensitivity analysis was performed by varying KL and simulating deposition in the C-18

canal under identical flows and input suspended sediment concentrations. This analysis is

described later in Section 4.4.5.








4.4.4 Erosion Function Calibration

The bed shear strength (with respect to erosion) is calculated via Equation 2.13

(Mehta and Parchure, 2001), with the coefficients related to organic content. Note

however that in what follows the erosion function has been disabled for all simulations,

since the organic-rich fine sediment was only present in the upstream reaches of the

estuary.

4.4.5 Deposition Function Calibration

The probability of deposition, p (Equation 2.15), requires a value for the critical

shear stress for deposition. This is set to the highest observed shear stress so that

deposition is possible at all times. In these simulations, Td was set to 20 Pa.

The settling velocity is characterized by Equation 2.16. The velocity scaling

coefficient, a, is used to account for the variation of organic content, with higher organic

content resulting in lower settling velocity. Using a-values from Lake Okeechobee

(Hwang, 1989), the Ortega River (Marvin, 2001), and the Loxahatchee River, the

variation of "a" with organic content (Oc in %) was formulated as follows:

a = -1.3 x 10-7(Oc)4 + 7.1 x 10-6(Oc) 1.7 x 10-4(Oc)2 + 6.6 x 10-4(Oc) + 0.2 (4.7)

Equation 4.7 is applicable in the range of Oc between 0 and 44% and is plotted in Figure

4.1 la. Values for the other coefficients of Equation 2.16 were found to be b=6.4, m=1.8,

and nw=1.8 (Section 3.9). The use of these coefficients in Equation 2.16 yields the

settling velocity in m/s. Figure 4.11b illustrates the variation of this velocity (at a

representative concentration C=0.5 kg/m3) with organic content. As expected, the settling























0
14-

3 0.1

o
0









0.01


'' *.



10 20 30 40 5

Organic content (%)


Figure 4.11 Variation of settling velocity parameters with organic content. a) coefficient a

8.00E-05


7.00E-05 "--


6.00E-05


E 5.00E-05 -----


S4.00E-05


3.00E-05


2 00E-05 -


0 5 10 15 20 25
Organic content (%)


30 35 40 45


- Eq. 4.7
B Hwang (1989)
* Marvan (2001)
+ Present study


1.00E-05


0.00E+00


_~WHi


b) Settling velocity.








velocity decreases with increasing organic content. For example, a two-fold increase in

organic content, from 20% to 40%, yields a 56% decrease in settling velocity.

4.4.6 Sensitivity Analysis for Longitudinal Dispersion Constant

The selection of the dispersion constants (Equations 2.7-2.9) was based on a

sensitivity analysis to determine if the values used by Marvin (2001) were reasonable for

this study. In the C-18 canal (Figure 4.2), only longitudinal dispersion has an effect on

the transport of sediment, because of the one-cell width of this canal. Sedimentation rate

was chosen as the result of interest, since it is the primary focus in the canal.

Sedimentation rate in the C-18 canal was calculated via Equations 2.17-2.18 for

three different values of KL, and the calculated rate is shown in Figure 4.12. The plot

shows that even with a 27-fold increase in KL, the sedimentation rate decreases only 7%

at the location (60 m) of the greatest difference between the results. This implies that the

results of a given simulation are not greatly affected by the value of KL, especially in this

range of values (2>KL>55). Therefore the original values of KL and KT were retained (13

and 1.2, respectively).

In order to explain the relatively minor differences in sedimentation rate with

varying KL, the Peclet number can be calculated for these simulations as

LU
Pe = LU
Dx (4.8)

where L is the channel length, U is the x-direction velocity, and Dxx is the dispersion

coefficient in the x-direction (Equation 2.7). This dimensionless number represents the

ratio of advection to diffusion. Therefore, for Pe>l, advection is the dominant transport

mechanism, and for Pe









m, U=0.014 m/s (median C-18 flow velocity), and the varying KL values to compute Dxx,


0.00012



0.0001



E 0.00008


--KL=2
O 0.00006
-U K,=13
d$-K1=55

M 0.00004



0.00002



0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Distance from S-46 structure (m)


Figure 4.12 Sedimentation rate in C-18 canal as a function of longitudinal dispersion
constant, KL.

Pe varies from 24 to 672, indicating that advection is dominant, under these values of KL.

Therefore the transport behavior is not greatly affected by KL.

4.4.7 Comparison with Analytical Solution for Advection-Diffusion

In order to verify the performance of the advection-diffusion mechanism of the

model, a comparison was made between an analytical solution and model prediction. The

transport of a conservative substance in a 1-D channel is governed by the equation

(Harleman, 1966):


ac ac a D
-+U -x Da a )
at ax ax ( ax (4.9)









where C is the concentration of the substance, U is the horizontal velocity, and Dx is the

x-direction turbulent diffusion coefficient. A relevant case is a channel separated by a

barrier, with the upstream end containing a steady substance concentration Co, and the

downstream end having no concentration (Figure 4.13). At time t=O the barrier is lifted

and the motion of the substance in the downstream direction at a velocity U is tracked.

The initial and boundary conditions are:

C(O,t)=Co t> 0

C(x,) = 0 x > 0

C(o, t) = 0 t 0






C=Co Barrier (at t=0)
I


-- _so r_"; = C -t




x=0 +x




Figure 4.13 Definition sketch for substance concentration in uniform 1-D channel, with
barrier separating zones of constant concentration and zero concentration at t=0.

which indicate a constant concentration at x=0, at all times. When the barrier is lifted (at

t=0), the solution for concentration at any distance and subsequent time is given by

(Harleman, 1966):








Ux
1 Dx X + Ut 1 x Ut
C(x, t) = Co -IeD erfc +t + -)erf (4.10)
2 2D^J 2 2VDt (4.10)

Using Co=0.066 kg/m3, U=0.32 m/s, and Dx=30 m2/s, the concentrations at t=750 s and

t=1,500 s were calculated for x=0 to 1,200 m. The concentration and velocity values

correspond to the maximum flow condition in the C-18 canal. The resulting concentration

profiles are plotted in Figure 4.14.

An analogous situation was simulated using the numerical model by eliminating

tidal forcing, and specifying a constant discharge (and hence velocity) and input

suspended sediment concentration at the S-46 structure. The deposition and erosion

functions were disabled so that strictly transport was modeled. The discharge was

maintained at 31 m3/s (100% flow), corresponding to a velocity of 0.32 m/s, and a

constant sediment concentration input of 0.066 kg/m3 was imposed on the C-18 canal

flow boundary, as computed via the sediment rating curve for the C-18 (Equation 3.2).

The model was run for 1,500 s, and the concentrations in the C-18 canal were recorded.

Figure 4.14 shows the comparison between the analytical solution and model prediction.

The t=750 s comparison shows that the numerical model allows the concentration front to

move quicker (0.08 m/s faster at C=0.007 kg/m3) than the analytical solution. The

comparison at t=1,500 s shows better agreement for the concentration predictions (no

difference at C=0.007 kg/m3).

The discrepancy between the model versus analytical results might be explained

by the numerical scheme, which causes oscillations in velocity, which deviate

approximately 4% from mean (at 100% C-18 discharge), at a frequency of 0.3077

cycles/h. While the dispersion coefficients (Equations 2.7-2.9) in the model are functions








of the Chdzy coefficient, velocity, depth, and the dispersion constants, the analytical

solution requires only a constant dispersion coefficient. Therefore an oscillating velocity

would also cause the dispersion coefficients to oscillate. Nevertheless, the dispersion

constant KL from the numerical model was modified for this comparison so that Dxx

(Equation 2.7) was equal to Dx from the analytical solution (30 m2/s).

4.4.8 Comparison with Flume Data for Deposition Under Turbulent Flow

The deposition algorithm of the model was used to compare the output with

laboratory data for deposition in a flume under turbulent flow, in order to validate the

algorithm.

Deposition of fine cohesive sediment under turbulent flow was investigated by

Krone (1962) in a re-circulating laboratory flume, using sediment from the San Francisco

Bay. Under high flow conditions (no deposition) and a water depth of 0.3 m, sediment

was suspended throughout the flume at the beginning of the test, and then the velocity

was reduced to a constant value so as to allow for deposition of the suspended material.

The suspension was re-circulated so that the sediment concentration at the beginning of

the flume was equal to the concentration at the end of the flume. Tests were conducted

for times up to 200 h. The suspended sediment concentration was measured in the return

flow through time, at five different flow velocities. At concentrations above 0.3 kg/m3,

two distinct deposition phases were observed, corresponding to differing suspension

concentrations. Each phase was characterized by a different deposition rate. Below 0.3

kg/m3 a linear relationship was found between deposition rate and bed shear stress (Tb).

This trend was extended to zero shear stress, to yield a deposition rate that corresponded










0.07


0.06


0.05


S0.04- ---Eq. 4.10, t=750 s
-- Eq. 4.10, t=1,500
-- 2-D model, t=750 s
0.03- -I--2-D model, t=1,500 s
0

0.02


0.01



0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Distance (m)

Figure 4.14 Comparison of analytical solution and numerical model prediction for
concentration in a 1-D channel, at t=750 s and 1500 s.

to a constant settling velocity, i.e., dC/dt -Ws/h. The sediment concentration through

time in this regime (<0.3 kg/m3) was related to a Ws as follows:



= C exp- Ph (4.11)


where C is the instantaneous concentration, Co is the initial concentration, p is the

probability of deposition (Equation 2.15), t is time, Ws is the (constant) settling velocity,

and h is the water depth. From data taken after concentrations had reached 0.3 kg/m3, the

settling velocity was found to be 6.6 x 10-6 m/s, and the probability of deposition was

found to be 1-(rb/0.06), where 0.06 Pa is the critical shear stress for deposition. One test

was used for comparison in the present study. In that test the flow velocity was 0.134








m/s, and a suspended sediment concentration of 0.3 kg/m3 was observed after 43 h of the

117 h test. Therefore only the last 74 h were used in this comparison.

To re-create the above laboratory conditions in the sediment transport model, the

depth in the C-18 canal was reduced to 0.3 m, the discharge was modified to produce a

flow velocity of 0.134 m/s, and initial concentration in the canal was selected to be 0.3

kg/m3. The value of rd was changed from 20 Pa (Section 4.4.5) to 0.06 Pa (Equation 2.15,

Section 2.3.3), and the erosion function was disabled. The value of tb (0.05 Pa) was

determined via Equation 2.12. After the first time step, the re-circulating aspect of the

flume was mimicked by using the concentration at the end of the canal as the input

concentration at the beginning of the canal for every successive time step. As noted, only

the constant settling velocity regime was modeled, by using the flume-derived value of

6.6 x 10-6 m/s. Concentrations were recorded for 74 h, which corresponds to the duration

of the flume test. The model result is plotted against flume data in Figure 4.15.

In Figure 4.15, the model result follows the exponential decay observed in the

flume tests, which should occur when a constant settling velocity is prescribed according

to Equation 4.12. It should be noted that if a concentration or time-dependent settling

velocity were introduced, the decay in sediment concentration would not be exponential.

The comparison does show that the sediment transport model accurately predicts

depositional behavior under turbulent flow, which is essential for the simulations

described next in Chapter 5.





















- Model results
* Flume data


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80


Time (h)

Figure 4.15 Comparison of flume data (Krone,
under turbulent flow.


1962) with model result for deposition














CHAPTER 5
SEDIMENTATION AND TRAP EFFICIENCY

5.1 Historic Sedimentation Rates

The calibrated flow and sediment transport models were applied to quantify the

sedimentation rate as a function of discharge in the C-18 canal. Flow velocities and water

elevations were obtained by running the flow model for various C-18 discharges. These

velocities and elevations were used in the sediment transport model to simulate

sedimentation rates at a selected location in the canal. The sediment rating curve for the

canal (Equation 3.2) was used to determine the input suspended sediment concentration

at the S-46 boundary (Figure 4.2). The selected flows and concentrations are given in

Table 5.1. The Northwest Fork and the North Fork were maintained at their respective

50% flow conditions (Table 3.3) along with the corresponding input concentrations

(Table 3.7). This was done because the S-46 structure frequently releases flows to the C-

18 canal that are not synchronous with the other tributaries (Figure 3.6).

Table 5.1 C-18 discharges and input concentrations for determination of sedimentation
rate as a function of discharge
C-18 discharge C-18 input suspended sediment
(m3/s) concentration (kg/m3)
1.5 0.012
10.5 0.038
19.0 0.051
37.0 0.070


The selected location to calculate the sedimentation rate (Equation 2.18) was 480

m (8 grid cells) downstream of the S-46 structure. This site was selected because the










poling depth data (Figure 3.9) contained a measurement (0.63 m) which fell near the

mean poling depth trend (0.67 m) at this approximate location. The simulations for the

eight discharges were run for 5 tidal cycles, and the sedimentation rate was calculated at

the end of each simulation. An equation was fit to the result, with the form


SR = [l exp(-pQc-s1)] (5.1)


where SR is the sedimentation rate in m/d, a and P are site-specific coefficients, and Qc-18

is the C-18 discharge in m3/s. Best-fit values of coefficients a and P were found to be 3.0

x 10-4 and 0.138, respectively. Figure 5.1 shows the model results and the best-fit

Equation 5.1.


3.50E-04


3.00E-04


2.50E-04


5 2.00E-04
C Model results
.9 --Eq. 5.1
r 1.50E-04
E
"0
C0 1.00E-04


5.00E-05


0.OOE+00
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
C-18 discharge (m3/s)

Figure 5.1 Sedimentation rate 480 m downstream of the S-46 structure in the C-18 canal
as a function of canal discharge.

The results in Figure 5.1 imply that as discharge increases the change in

sedimentation rate decreases. For example, a doubling of flow from 2.5 to 5 m3/s results








in a 71% increase in sedimentation rate, while a similar two-fold increase from 10 to 20

m3/s results in a 25% increase in sedimentation rate. At lower flows, the sedimentation

rate is much more sensitive to discharge than at higher flows. This is explained in the

following analysis.

In Figure 5.1, the trend of increasing sedimentation is evidently related to

discharge; however, increasing discharge also increases concentration via the sediment

rating curve (Equation 3.2). To separate the two effects, two scenarios were simulated.

Using the same C-18 discharge (1.7 m3/s), different input concentrations were

implemented in the C-18 canal, and the sedimentation rate curve was plotted against

concentration (Figure 5.2). As observed, the input concentration has a linear correlation

with sedimentation rate, due to the linear increase in depositional flux resulting from

increased concentration (Equation 2.14).

Simulations were then performed with constant input concentration (0.014

kg/m3), under differing flows. The results are shown in Figure 5.3. These simulations

show that at flows below 12 m3/s, increasing the discharge increases the sedimentation

rate, but above this discharge the sedimentation rate decreases. This trend can be

explained by taking an individual suspended particle, and tracking it under different

(constant) flow velocities (Figure 5.4).





















S1.20E-04


1.00E-04


8.00E-05




4.00E-05
42 .OOE-05





00.E+00
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06

Concentration (kglm3)

Figure 5.2 Sedimentation rate as a function of input suspended sediment concentration in
the C-18 canal, under a discharge of 1.7 m3/s.

9.00E-05


8.00E-05


7.00E-05


S 6.00E-05


2 5.00E-05
C-
4.00E-05 -
E

3.00E-05


2.00E-05


1.00E-05


0.OOE+00
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

C-18 discharge (m'/s)

Figure 5.3 Sedimentation rate as a function of discharge in the C-18 canal, with input
suspended sediment concentration of 0.014 kg/m3.










Particle


W,


x=O =a \ x=b x=C
Track of particle (under U=Ub

Figure 5.4 Schematic diagram of a suspended sediment particle subjected to constant
flow velocity and settling velocity.

As seen in Figure 5.4, as a particle at x=0 and suspended at the water surface

settles at a rate equal to the settling velocity Ws, it is moved longitudinally by the water

velocity U. Thus, for example, under a velocity Ua=0.051 m/s (corresponding to a C-18

discharge of 5 m3/s), a particle with settling velocity Ws=l x 10-5 m/s and at the water

surface will deposit 8,262 m downstream from it's original location, given the canal

water depth h=1.62 m. In contrast, under a velocity Uc=0.1 m/s (discharge=10 m3/s), the

same particle will deposit 16,686 m downstream. Finally, under velocity Ub=0.075 m/s

(discharge=7 m3/s), the particle will deposit 12,474 m downstream. Therefore if the

sedimentation rate is measured at x=b, then one can expect that this rate will be

maximum under a velocity of Ub.

Equation 5.1 was applied to a historical flow record for the C-18 canal (03/01/81-

01/18/91) using the daily discharge values (QC-18) to determine the daily sedimentation

rate (SR). The sum of daily sedimentation over ten years yields the ten-year

sedimentation. The flow record used is shown in Figure 5.5.

The regulation of the C-18 canal by the S-46 structure is manifested in the high-

frequency of zero-discharge periods (54% of the days) and spikes. The deposition rate









was found to be 0.15 m over the ten-year period (0.015 m/yr). The deposition rate

estimate made via poling depths in the C-18 canal (Section 3.5) was 0.021 m/yr (Table

3.6). The poling depth estimate accounted for the actual sediment bed thickness, which

contained a mixture of sand and fine sediment. If the value is corrected to account for

only fine sediment (using the average percent fines value from Table 3.8 of 70%), the




40 ------------


30

E 25
0
M 20
u
0 15
6
10

5

0


I j ____________ ___________ _____________________________________________

_ ILl ~i~ij


0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
Time from 03/01/1981 (d)

Figure 5.5 Historical flow record for C-18 canal, from 03/01/81-01/18/91.

ten-year fine deposition thickness would be 0.147 m (0.0147 m/yr), which is within 3%

of the model prediction. This procedure is based on the assumption that if only fine

sediment was present in the estuary, it would deposit at a thickness proportional to it's

mass fraction. This assumption does not account for the different bulk and dry densities

of the sand and fine fraction, however.

To compare sedimentation in a regulated tributary (C-18) versus one that is

hypothetically unregulated, the flow record for the Northwest Fork from the same period








as Figure 5.5 was pro-rated so the total discharge over the ten-year period was the same

as for the C-18 canal (Figure 5.6). This was done by summing the daily discharge over

the ten-year period in the C-18 canal (6,245 m3/s) and the Northwest Fork (7,217 m3/s),

and multiplying each daily discharge value for the Northwest Fork by the ratio (0.865) of

the ten-year cumulative discharges. As a result of this procedure, the ten-year cumulative

discharge in the Northwest Fork becomes equal to the ten-year cumulative discharge in

the C-18 canal. This procedure creates a hypothetical unregulated C-18 flow record, that

contains a prevalent background discharge as only 4.5% of the days had zero flow, as

compared to 54% for the existing (regulated) C-18 flow record.

Equation 5.1 was applied to the unregulated C-18 canal flow record, resulting in a

ten-year deposition thickness of 0.22 m (0.022 m/yr). This implies that episodic

discharges from the C-18 canal actually result in lower sedimentation rates than if the

flows were more evenly distributed, as in the Northwest Fork (Table 5.2). Figure 5.7

shows the cumulative deposition for the two flow records over the ten-year period.

The deposition under the unregulated flow record is greater than it is under

regulated flow. This is a consequence of the near-constant discharge present in the

unregulated flow record. As Figure 5.1 shows, sedimentation rate increases greatly with

discharge at lower values, but this increasing trend is attenuated at higher discharges.

Therefore the higher occurrence of low flows in the unregulated C-18 flow record allows

for relatively higher deposition as compared to the existing regulated flow record. This

can be illustrated by considering sedimentation over a sample period, such as two days. If

the first day had an average flow rate of 25 m3/s, and the second day had no flow, the

total two-day sedimentation would be 2.9 x 104 m (Equation 5.1). If, however, the flow










was divided evenly over the two days, resulting in 12.5 m3/s of flow each day, the total

sedimentation would be 4.9 x 10"4 m, a 70% increase.


av,
E
J 25
3 0)

C o
0) 20

E
m S 15

6
10


5


0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
Time from 03/01/1981 (d)

Figure 5.6 Assumed C-18 canal flow record obtained by pro-rating the measured record
for the Northwest Fork for the period 03/01/81-01/18/91.

Table 5.2 Sedimentation rate in the C-18 canal
Flow record Sedimentation rate (Eq. 5.1) (m/yr)
Existing (regulated) 0.015
Hypothetical (unregulated) 0.022



5.2 Sediment Trap and Trap Efficiency Calculation

Once the flow and sediment transport models were calibrated and tested (Chapter

4), a trap was incorporated in the C-18 canal (Figure 5.8). This location was chosen

because it is near the area of greatest post-dredging deposit thickness, with a poling depth

of approximately 1.2 m (Figure 3.9). A dredging depth of 3 m (from original bed depth),









width of 60 m (one cell), and length 180 m (3 cells) were chosen as sufficient to reduce

the velocity in the canal, and allow a measurable amount of sediment to settle. When


0.25





0.2 -

*. 0.15
S--C-18
L unregulated


0
aC ---18
___________________ regulated
_4 0.1



0.05--




0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Time (yr)
Figure 5.7 Cumulative deposition over ten-year period (03/01/81-01/18/91) for existing
regulated versus assumed unregulated C-18 canal discharge.

simulating a cumulative 50% flow magnitude (1.3 m3/s) and regular tidal forcing (Section

4.3.1) in the C-18 canal, the maximum velocity over the trap was found to be 0.04 m/s.

Over the same area, with no trap in place, the maximum velocity was 0.12 m/s, which

indicates a 67% decrease in velocity over the trap.

In order to incorporate the trap, the bathymetry file was modified at the selected

cells. The flow model was run with the trap in place, in order to generate the new

velocities and water surface elevations. The output from the flow model was then applied

to the sediment transport model. Sediment removal ratio, as defined in Equation 2.20,

was calculated from the influent and effluent sediment loads in units of kg/s (Equation









2.19) at the cells adjacent to the trap on the landward and ocean-side edges of the trap

(Figure 5.8).


Freshwater flow with input concentration


Flow direction
on ebb tide


i Influent cell

- Effluent cell


C-18 canal


Central embayment


I i I I IJ II


--I. + I I


Figure 5.8 Portion of the computational grid.
adjacent influent/effluent cells also shown.


Three trap cells are shown in black. Trap-


Influent and effluent sediment loads were calculated for each time step, and the

removal ratio averaged over one ebb tidal cycle as follows:

M
YRi
R av i=
ave M (5.2)


where Rave is the ebb tide-averaged removal ratio, i is the index for each time step At, Ri

is the removal ratio from a single time step, and M is the total number of time steps over

an ebb tidal period, as follows:


(5.3)


M=-
2At


where T is the tidal period.








Flood tidal data were not used to calculate the removal ratio because the effluent

load (landward edge) was affected by the input concentration at the C-18 canal. In

addition, the influent load (seaward edge) contained only the sediment which had escaped

the trap on the previous ebb tide. It was observed that C-18 canal 100% flow (31 m3/s)

was the only discharge that produced a constant seaward flow while the ocean tide was

flooding. In this case the removal ratio was calculated for the entire tidal period.

5.2.1 Trap Efficiency as a Function of C-18 Canal Discharge

If discharge through the S-46 control structure has an effect on trap efficiency,

then flow management practice will affect trap efficiency as well. To explore this,

simulations were performed using the sediment rating curves developed in Section 3.6,

and applied to 8 flow cases. Table 5.3 gives the flows used and the corresponding

sediment concentration. The organic content used was 15%, reflecting the mean organic

content of the native sediment. Removal ratios were calculated only during periods of ebb

flow through the trap (Section 5.2), and plotted against C-18 canal discharge (Figure 5.9).

Table 5.3 Flows and suspended sediment concentrations for trap efficiency as a function
of C-18 canal discharge
C-18 flow (ma/s) C-18 suspended sediment
concentration (kg/m3)
0.42 0.008
0.50 0.009
1.27 0.013
1.45 0.014
1.69 0.016
2.54 0.019
4.25 0.024
37.00 0.070











0.6



0.5


0.4



> 0.3
o
E

0.2


0.1



0
0.1 1 10 100
C-18 discharge (m3/s)

Figure 5.9 Removal ratio in the presence of trap as a function of C-18 canal discharge.

These simulations show that the removal ratio is maximum at a C-18 discharge of

approximately 1.7 m3/s. At a higher discharge (and thus velocity), particles are

transported past the trap. At a lower discharge, the same particles settle before the trap.

To illustrate this behavior, Figure 5.10 shows the tracks of a particle under three different

velocities U (with UaU
10-5 m/s, a particle under a flow velocity of Ua=0.012 m/s would deposit before the trap.

Under a flow velocity of Ub=0.018 m/s, the particle would arrive at the trap at a depth of

1.06 m, where it would then be subjected to a lower velocity (Ubt=0.006 m/s) caused by

the increase in depth over the trap. It would then fall 0.6 m between the entrance to the

trap and the end of the trap, and thus would be captured (at a depth of 1.66 m). A particle

under a flow velocity of Uc=0.03 m/s, however, would arrive at the trap at a depth of 0.62








m. At the trap the flow velocity would reduce to Uct=0.011 m/s, but the particle would

only fall another 0.34 m, which would leave it at a depth of 0.96 m when it left the trap,

still suspended in the flow. Therefore for this trapping scheme and sediment type, a

discharge of 1.7 m3/s results in the maximum removal ratio. Above this discharge

particles are moving at a velocity such that more of them are able to pass the trap, and

below this discharge more particles deposit before the trap.



Particle tracks under
different velocities

Particle a U b U U


7I h









Figure 5.10 Schematic diagram of a particle passing over a trap at three different
velocities.

This hypothesis can be tested by moving the trap further upstream. The trap was

moved 480 m upstream (1260 m from S-46 structure) from it's previous location, and the

removal ratio was calculated for three C-18 canal discharges (0.42, 1.45, and 4.25 m3/s).

Table 5.4 compares the removal ratios for the three discharges, for the two trap locations.

The two discharges below 1.7 m3/s, for which removal ratio is a maximum, had increased

removal ratios when the trap was moved upstream. The discharge above 1.7 m3/s had a








decreased removal ratio at the new trap location. These observations confirm the

mechanisms of Figure 5.10.

Table 5.4 Removal ratio for three C-18 discharges, with two different trap locations
C-18 discharge (m3/s) Removal ratio with Removal ratio with trap
original trap location 480 m further upstream
0.42 0.17 0.70
1.45 0.48 0.49
4.25 0.35 0.30


5.2.2 Trap Efficiency as a Function of C-18 Canal Sediment Concentration

The sediment rating curves developed in Section 3.6 were used in the previous

simulation to determine input concentrations at the C-18 canal. Note that all the

concentrations in Tables 5.1 and 5.3 correspond to the free settling range, within which a

constant settling velocity is prescribed (Section 3.9). In reality, high-concentration mud

suspensions are common just above the sediment bed, with concentrations that may rise

above 1 kg/m3 (Winterwerp, 1999). Under these conditions, settling would go beyond the

free range, and thus trap efficiency would be affected by the settling regime, e.g., free

settling versus flocculation settling. In order to quantitatively account for this effect using

depth-averaged modeling (in which a vertical profile in concentration does not occur),

concentration in the C-18 canal was increased under a constant flow (1.7 m3/s), and the

removal ratio calculated. Table 5.5 shows the selected input concentrations and the

resulting settling regime. Figure 5.11 shows the simulations.









Table 5.5 Simulation parameters for trap efficiency as a function of input sediment
concentration to the C-18 canal (Qc-18=1.7 m3/s)
C-18 input sediment Settling zone
concentration
(kg/m3)
0.014 free settling
0.10 free settling
0.25 free settling
0.75-7 flocculation settling
7-25 hindered settling


UAU 4U-
0.01 0.1 1 10
Concentration (kg/m3)

Figure 5.11 Removal ratio as a function of input suspended sediment concentration to the
C-18 canal.

The trend in Figure 5.11 implies that the removal ratio is not affected by

concentration at values greater than 0.1 kg/m3. Note however that the formula to calculate

removal ratio (Equation 2.20) normalizes the difference between influent and effluent

load by the influent load. To eliminate the effect of normalizing the difference between

influent and effluent loads, Figure 5.12 shows the non-normalized difference, qi-qe,


p










plotted against input concentration. As a result of not normalizing the load difference,

observe that increasing input concentration does result in higher load being trapped. The

rate of increase begins to decrease at concentrations above 5 kg/m3, which is just below

the hindered settling range (z7 kg/m3 for this sediment type, Section 3.9). In this range a

lower settling velocity decreases the amount of load that can be trapped. This simulation

also serves as a sensitivity analysis for the settling velocity in the model. Since settling

velocity is computed as a function of sediment concentration (Equation 2.16), Figure 5.12

also shows the variation of trapped load with settling velocity.


0.5

0.45

0.4

0.35

S 0.3

S 0.25

0.2

0.15

0.1

0.05

0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100

Concentration (kg/m3)

Figure 5.12 Difference between influent and effluent loads (trapped load) as a function of
input suspended sediment concentration to the C-18 canal.

5.2.3 Trap Efficiency as a Function of Organic Content

To determine the effect of organic content on trap efficiency, simulations were


performed at a C-18 canal discharge of 1.7 m3/s, and at an input suspended sediment








concentration of 1 kg/m3. This value was selected because the removal ratio is

independent of concentration in this range (Figure 5.11). Table 5.6 shows the a-values

(settling velocity scaling coefficient in Equation 2.16), and the sediment dry and granular

densities as functions of organic content. The results are shown in Figure 5.13.

The trend in Figure 5.13 indicates that sediment with a high organic content (and

therefore low density and settling velocity) is more difficult to remove from suspension

than sediment with relatively low organic content. To examine the trend of the amount of

sediment actually being trapped, sedimentation rate in the trap was calculated via

Equation 2.18. Marvin (2001) observed consolidation rates for an organic-rich Florida

sediment, where self-weight consolidation of the sediment resulted in a 64% decrease in

bed height after 200 h. This correction was applied to each sedimentation rate to account

for consolidation of the sediment bed in the trap. The resulting sedimentation (shoaling)

rate versus organic content plot is shown in Figure 5.14.

Table 5.6 Values used for coefficient a (Eq. 2.16), dry density, and granular density, for
simulation of removal ratio as a function of organic content
Organic content a-value Dry density (Eq. 4.6) Granular density (Eq. 4.4)
(%) (Eq. 4.7) (kg/m3) (kg/m3)
0 0.2000 2650 2650
5 0.1998 1210 2568
10 0.1954 590 2485
15 0.1890 331 2403
20 0.1812 220 2320
25 0.1700 172 2238
30 0.1532 149 2155
35 0.1240 138 2073
40 0.0760 131 1990
















0.9


0.8


0.7


.2 0.6
I-I
0 .5


S0.4


0.3


0.2


0.1


0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Organic content (%)


Figure 5.13 Removal ratio as a function of organic content at a constant discharge of 1.7

m3/s.




1.00E-03

9.00E-04

8.00E-04

0 7.00E-04



E





S3.00E-04

2.00E-04


1.00E-04

0.00E+00
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%

Organic content (%)

Figure 5.14 Sedimentation (shoaling) rate in trap as a function of organic content at a

constant discharge of 1.7 m I/s, assuming uniform consolidation.






83


The trend in Figure 5.14 implies that sediment with higher organic content shoals


at a higher rate than sediment with lower organic content. Two phenomena contribute to

this trend. Firstly, the decrease in dry density with increasing organic content (Figure 4.9)


leads to a greater deposition thickness (Equation 2.17). Secondly the influent load rises as


organic content is increased (due to less deposition upstream of the trap via lower settling

velocity), which increases the potential amount of sediment that can be trapped. The mass


deposited upstream of the trap (in terms of mass) versus organic content is shown in


Figure 5.15. As the trend shows, sediment with low organic content tends to deposit at a

higher rate upstream of the trap, due to the high settling velocity (and therefore


deposition flux, Equation 2.17).


35000


30000


g 25000








00
I 20000


o 15000
0C
a)
U)
cu 10000-


5000


0-
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Organic content (%)

Figure 5.15 Mass deposited in the C-18 canal (upstream of the trap, Figure 5.8) as a
function of organic content.




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs