1 / 21

Lower Susquehanna River Watershed Assessment

S1. Lower Susquehanna River Watershed Assessment. SedFlume Findings and Initial 2D Sediment Model Results. Conowingo Pond. Conowingo Dam. Susquehanna Flats. S2. Lower Susquehanna River Watershed Assessment. Topics: SedFlume Field Activities and Data Analysis

Download Presentation

Lower Susquehanna River Watershed Assessment

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. S1 Lower Susquehanna River Watershed Assessment SedFlume Findings and Initial 2D Sediment Model Results Conowingo Pond Conowingo Dam Susquehanna Flats

  2. S2 Lower Susquehanna River Watershed Assessment • Topics: • SedFlume Field Activities and Data Analysis • Preliminary Sediment Transport Results with SedFlume Data

  3. S3 Lower Susquehanna River Watershed Assessment • SedFlume Description • Field – Portable Laboratory Flume • Used to Evaluate Erosion Rate and Critical Shear of Cohesive Sediments

  4. S4 Lower Susquehanna River Watershed Assessment SedFlume Operations

  5. S5 Lower Susquehanna River Watershed Assessment Description of Sediment Coring Process

  6. S6 Lower Susquehanna River Watershed Assessment Sampling Locations in Conowingo Reservoir

  7. S7 Lower Susquehanna River Watershed Assessment • SedFlume Analysis • Core Lengths Varied From Approximately 6 – 12 inches • The Entire Core was Analyzed • Erosion Rate Coefficients and Exponents Evaluated by Layer • Along with Critical Shear Stress for Erosion • Core Bulk Density and Particle Size Distribution Evaluated

  8. S8 Lower Susquehanna River Watershed Assessment SedFlume Analysis Results

  9. S9 Lower Susquehanna River Watershed Assessment Example of SedFlume Results

  10. S10 Lower Susquehanna River Watershed Assessment • Core Physical Properties • Bulk Density Range – 1320 kg / m3 to 1500 kg / m3 • Sediment Fractions • Sand: 10% - 45% • Silt: 50% - 82% • Clay: 5% - 9%

  11. S11 Lower Susquehanna River Watershed Assessment • SedFlume Data Assigned by Material Type in Model • Model Domain Divided into Areas Based on Change in Properties • Three Layers Assigned in Model Using Average SedFlume Data • Average Sediment Size Fractions Assigned to Layers

  12. S12 Lower Susquehanna River Watershed Assessment Material Designation in AdH Model

  13. S13 Lower Susquehanna River Watershed Assessment 2D Model Development – 2008 Bathymetry

  14. S14 Lower Susquehanna River Watershed Assessment • Preliminary Sediment Transport Simulation • Evaluate the 2008 – 2011 Susquehanna River Flows • Period of Record Includes the September 2001 Tropical Storm Lee Event • Sediment Inflows Estimated From Previous HEC-6 Modeling

  15. S15 Lower Susquehanna River Watershed Assessment 2008 – 2011 Susquehanna Flow Record

  16. S16 Lower Susquehanna River Watershed Assessment Sediment Rating Curve for 2008 – 2011 Simulation

  17. S17 Lower Susquehanna River Watershed Assessment Simulated Sediment Load in and out of Conowingo Reservoir: 2008 – 2011 Assumptions: Top 1 ft layer critical Shear = 2 Pa Below 1 ft layer critical shear = 4 Pa Total In: 12 million tons Total Out: 16.6 million tons Net Scour: 4.6 million tons

  18. S18 Lower Susquehanna River Watershed Assessment Computed Bed Shear Stress for 300,000 cfs

  19. S19 Lower Susquehanna River Watershed Assessment Computed Bed Shear Stress for 400,000 cfs

  20. S20 Lower Susquehanna River Watershed Assessment Computed Bed Shear Stress for 600,000 cfs

  21. S21 Lower Susquehanna River Watershed Assessment Bed Change After the 2008 – 2011 Simulation

More Related