The Effectiveness of River Morphologycal Modification …(Asep Sulaeman dan Galih Habsoro Sundoro)

The Effec�veness of River Morphologycal Modifica�on …(Asep Sulaeman dan Galih Habsoro Sundoro)

THE EFFECTIVENESS OF RIVER MORPHOLOGYCAL MODIFICATION

TO SOLVE SEDIMENTATION PROBLEM
AT SAMPORA WATER TREATMENT PLANT FREE INTAKE

EFEKTIFITAS MODIFIKASI MORFOLOGI SUNGAI UNTUK MEMECAHKAN

PERMASALAHAN SEDIMENTASI DI INTAKE BEBAS WTP SAMPORA
Asep Sulaeman1), Galih Habsoro Sundoro2)
1,2 Researcher at Research Center for Water Resources, Ministry of Public Work
(Jl. Solo – Kartasura KM 7 No. 159 Surakarta – 57101, Indonesia)
Email : [email protected]

Diterima: 17 Januari 2016; Direvisi: Januari 2016; Disetujui: 2 Juni 2016

ABSTRACT

Sampora Water Treatment Plant (WTP) free intake has been suffering from problems due to sediment and
trash deposition at the intake pond that disrupt the water collection process through the intake pump. In this
study, several technical approaches were carried out to overcome the related problems such as riverbank
cutting, intake length addition, and combination of both approaches. A Physical Hydraulic Model Tests was
conducted in order to assess the effectiveness of each approach before it is applied in the field. The Physical
Hydraulic Model Tests was performed into four series examinations, there is the existing condition, riverbank
cutting at the upstream and downstream of intake, intake length addition, and combination between
riverbank cutting and intake length addition. The results showed that riverbank cutting has been directing
the river main flow from right to the left side of river with an average flow velocity at in front of intake above
0.70 m/s. The main flow shifting causes the suspended load sediment deposition in front of intake reduced
significantly. This condition also causes bed load sediments in front of intake area almost completely scoured.
Riverbank cutting chosen as the best approach because the flow pattern is smoother and more streamlines
than the other series.
Key words: Sedimentation, river morphology, Sampora WTP free intake, physical hydraulic model test, flow
velocity distribution.

ABSTRAK
Intake WTP Sampora saat ini mengalami permasalahan sedimentasi dan masuknya sampah ke dalam kolam
intake yang mengganggu proses pengambilan air melalui pompa pengambilan. Dalam penelitian ini,
beberapa pendekatan teknis dilakukan untuk mengatasi permasalahan tersebut, antara lain: pemotongan
tebing sungai, penambahan panjang mulut intake, serta kombinasi kedua pendekatan tersebut. Uji Model
Hidraulik (UMH) Fisik dilakukan untuk menilai efektivitas setiap pendekatan tersebut sebelum diterapkan di
lapangan. UMH Fisik dalam penelitian ini dilakukan dalam empat seri yang meliputi model sesuai kondisi
eksisting, pemotongan tebing sungai di hulu dan hilir intake, penambahan panjang mulut intake, dan
kombinasi antara pemotongan tebing sungai dan pendekatan penambahan panjang mulut intake. Hasil
penelitian menunjukkan bahwa pemotongan tebing sungai telah mengarahkan aliran utama sungai dari sisi
kanan ke sisi kiri sungai dengan kecepatan aliran rata-rata di depan intake lebih dari 0.70 m/s. Bergesernya
aliran utama menyebabkan endapan sedimen tersuspensi di depan intake berkurang secara signifikan.
Kondisi ini juga menyebabkan sedimen dasar di depan area intake hampir sepenuhnya tergerus.
Pemotongan tebing sungai terpilih sebagai pendekatan terbaik karena pola alirannya lebih halus dan lebih
steramline dibandingkan dengan seri lainnya.
Kata Kunci: Sedimentasi, perubahan morfologi, Intake WTP Sampora, uji model hidraulik fisik, distribusi
kecepatan aliran
77

77
Jurnal Teknik Hidraulik Vol.7 No. 1, Juni 2016: 77-86
Jurnal Teknik Hidraulik, Vol. 7 No. 1, Juni 2016: 77 - 86

INTRODUCTION prototypes scale parameter may occur because of

the scale and/ or the effects of measurement
Sampora WTP was built to provide clean (Heller, 2011).
water, especially for residents at Bumi Serpong To obtain accurate simulation results on a
Damai (BSD), Tangerang, Banten which inhabited physical hydraulic model required certain
by around 20.525 households, or about 100,000 dimensionless parameters that describe the
people. Sampora WTP service area is quite properties of geometric and dynamic flow. This
extensive covering approximately 6.200 hectares requirement usually is not fully achieved, because
which consists of residential, commercial, of natural limitations in fluid properties and the
educational, and business areas. lower size of cohesionless sediment. Consequently,
Raw water source for Sampora WTP is taken judicious compromises need to be made in order
from Cisadane River by free intake which is that the dominant processes are replicated in the
located in Sampora Village. Sampora WTP Free model. (Muste & Ettema, 2000)
Intake suffered problems due to sediment and In determining the scale of the model, some
trash deposition in intake pond. Sedimentation basic similitude requirements for modeling free-
around the intake culvert caused flow disruption surface flow references are used as follows:
into intake pond, and even can made culvert
closedd. Due to this reason, it is important to 1 Geometric Similitude
restore Sampora WTP Intake function as optimum
The model should be geometrically similar to
as the original design.
the full-scale flow. If L represents some
The objective of this study is to determine the characteristic length, then
effectiveness of river morphologycal modification
݊௅ ൌ ‫ܮ‬௣ Τ‫ܮ‬௠ ……………………………………………………. 1)
to solve sedimentation problem at Sampora WTP
free intake. The study location area of this research
is located at Sampora WTP free intake, Sampora in which n is the scaling factor for the quantity
Village, Bumi Serpong Damai. The physical symbolized by its suffix; subscripts m and p refer
hydraulic model test was performed at the to model and prototype (full scale) values,
Experimental Station of River Laboratory in the respectively
Research Center for Water Resources
Development in Surakarta. 2 Dynamic Similitude
The basic requirement for dynamic similarity
LITERATURE REVIEW of fully turbulent, free-surface flow is satisfied if
the model and full-scale flows have the same
A physical hydraulic model represents a real- Froude number, Fr.
world prototype and is used as a tool for finding Frm = Frp ……………………………………………………………………………….. 2)
technically and economically optimal solution of
hydraulic problems (Novak, 1984 in Heller, 2011).
The criterion Frm = Frp is applied in open-
Hydraulic physical model is a model reproduces
channel hydraulics. Froude similarity is especially
dominant hydraulic forces in correct proportion to
suited for models where friction effects are
the real world. Modeling goal is to reproduce the
negligible (e.g. deep-water wave propagation) or
real world in the model without losing something
for short, highly turbulent phenomena (e.g.
important. Its useful to seek qualitative insight
hydraulic jump) since the energy dissipation of the
about a physical process, obtain measurements to
latter depends mainly on the turbulent shear
verify or disprove a theoretical result, and obtain
stress terms. These are statistically correctly
measurements of phenomena that are beyond
scaled in a Froude model even though the
theoretical approach. Model has many advantages,
turbulent fine structures and the average velocity
such as: no simplifying of governing equations,
distribution differ between the model and
allows complex boundary conditions, easy data
prototype flows (Le Me´haute´ 1976, Hughes
collection compared to field work, control of
1993).
forcing conditions, reproduces phenomena that
cannot be mathematically described, and visual A moveable bed model is one which models
feedback contributes to physical insight. loose boundary flow. Its have been used to model
(Thornton, 2013) rivers, streams, coastal zones and estuaries
(Ettema et al., 2000). The sediment material is
One of the most important factor in conducting
scaled such that the material will move in the same
of physical hydraulic model is scaling factor.
manner for both the prototype and the model.
Considerable difference between models and
78

78
 The Effectiveness of River
The Effec�veness Morphologycal
of River Modification
Morphologycal …(Asep
Modifica�on Sulaeman
…(Asep dan
Sulaeman Galih
dan Habsoro
Galih HabsoroSundoro)
Sundoro)

Three techniques are often used in modeling hydraulic model test around intake is made of
sediment to obtain model Shield parameters that movable bed, and for other river model area made
equal or greater (which defines the sediments fix bed material. The Hydraulic physical model is
transport) is: use a lightweight sediment, vertical created with three-dimensional models without
scale distortion, and increased model slope distortion (undistorted model) using Eq. (3), with
(Waldron, 2008). same vertical and horizontal scale, at 1: 25 (1
Selander (2102) mentioned that the amount meter in prototype equal to 4 cm in model).
and size of sediment that a river can carry are ௡೗ ሺଵȀଶହሻ
Distortion Number ൌ ൌ ൌ ͳ ……………. 4)
௡೓ ሺଵȀଶହሻ
determined by discharge and channel slope
through the relationship: Where: vertical scale (݊l) = 1 : 25
τb = ρwgH*sin(α) …………………………………………… 3) horizontal scale (݊h) = 1 : 25

τb is the shear stress on the bed of the channel Consider that the model to be created is an
required for sediment motion (N/m2), ρw is the open channel model, where the inertial forces that
density of water (kg/m2), H is the height of the affect the water movement is dominated by the
water column (m) (used as a proxy for discharge, earth's gravity acceleration, so conversion of the
an increase in discharge directly relates to an prototype scale into a model scale was conducted
increase in H), and sin(α) is the local channel slope. using Froude equation (5a) (5b) (5c).
In a broad sense, increasing discharge and flow Froud Number (Fr) = v ................................... 5a)
velocity increase the amount of shear stress gh
imposed on the channel bed and the amount of
sediment that is transported via bed load or v model = v prototype .......................... 5b)
entrained. gh gh
Water discharge is the most important
element of sediment transport process. Water
vp
=
 gh  p or nv = ng ½ . nh ½ ............ 5c)
discharge is responsible for picking up, moving vm  gh m
and sediment deposition in waterways. Without
flow, sediment might remain as suspended or
settle out – but it will not move downstream. Flow Gravity acceleration at prototype and at
is required to initiate the transport (Kemker, model are same, then ng = 1, so the velocity scale
2014). Relationship between velocity and grain (nv) =nh½ . where v = flow velocity (m/s) h = depth
size that influence on sediment transport of flow (m); g = gravity acceleration (m/s2).
phenomena can be seen in Sunborg graph or Parameter model scale showed in Table 1:
Figure 1.
Table 1 Scale Physical Hydraulic Model Test
Parameters
METHODOLOGY
Three dimensional physical hydraulic model Hydraulic Model
test was applied in order to analyze the sediment parameter Notation Pattern Scale
deposition at Sampora WTP Intake. The first step Length, L nL nL 25
that must be done to make the model is to height, h nh nh = nL 25
determine the model scale. Model scale is a
comparison between prototype with the model Area, A nA nA = nL2 625
parameter dimensions. Model scale is determined Volume, V nV nV = nL3 15625
based several factors such as: objective of time,t nt nt = nL1/2 5
hydraulic model test; prototype size (width, depth,
length); availability of laboratory field area; and velocity, v nv nv = nL1/2 5
water supply capacity. discharge, Q nQ nQ = nL5/2 3125
Hydraulic physical model test of WTP Sampora
Intake is made of approximately 500 m to Manning nn nn = nL1/6 1,709976
upstream from intake, and approximately 200 m to coefficient, n
downstream direction from intake. River model for

79

79
Jurnal Teknik Hidraulik Vol.7 No. 1, Juni 2016: 77-86
Jurnal Teknik Hidraulik, Vol. 7 No. 1, Juni 2016: 77 - 86

Figure 1 Relationship between velocity and grain size material (Sunborg Graph).

Sediment materials are difficult to scale. If the 1 SNI 3411: 2008: procedure for water level
sand is made with the same ingredients in measurement in the physical model
prototypes (weight of the same type), the model 2 SNI 03-3408-1994: flow velocity measurement
will consist of sediment grains are very fine. To fit method on a physical model with flow
this constraint, model sediment is made of coal measuring devices proppeler type
powder material with specific gravity of 1.56 to 3 SNI 3410:2008: procedure for flow patterns
obtain a sediment grain size model larger. measurement in the physical model
Due to the difficulty in modeling sediment that 4 Work Instruction of Research Centre for River
similar to the prototype condition, so the sediment (IK-MU-07) and Research Centre for River
material in model is made with lightweight Laboratory Report of Validation Method of
aggregates from flyash with very fine diameter Sedimentation Pattern Observation:
that produced by stone crusher. sedimentation patterns observation
Sampora WTP Intake culvert model shape and
dimension are made based on exsiting condition. 20
18.85
There are 5 culverts in which dimension of each 18 17.45
Elevation (m)

culvert is 1.25 m x 2.00 m with bed elevation at +

16
10.00 m. Geometry and hydraulic data are
obtained from PT Indokoei International. 14 13.75
The discharge and water level data was used 12 12.25

to make rating curve as the basis for model 10

calibration. Rating curve data of cisadane river is 0 200 400 600 800 1000
shown at Figure 2. For the simulation series, Discharge (m3/s)
discharges that applied in the model based on
bankfull discharge as highest value. Then model
Figure 2 Rating curve of Cisadane River
simulation were used low flow, moderate flow and
bankfull flow discharges as follows: 87 m3/s, 150
1 Model calibration
m3/s, 220 m3/s, 300 m3/s, 375 m3/s. Several
parameters were observed in order to get In practice, the physical model difficult to fit
sedimentation characteristics, among others: between roughness at model with roughness at
longitudinal profile of water level, flow pattern, prototype (Webber, 1971). The roughness
flow velocity, and sediment pattern. Situation of coefficients and water depth are generally over-
prototype that was modeled showed in Figure 3. predicted by the new dynamic roughness model,
The measurement method used the reference compared to the calibrated model, especially for
as follows: low discharge (Paalberg et.al.).

80

80
 The Effectiveness of River Morphologycal Modification …(Asep Sulaeman dan Galih Habsoro Sundoro)
The Effec�veness of River Morphologycal Modifica�on …(Asep Sulaeman dan Galih Habsoro Sundoro)

Therefore, a physical hydraulic model must be RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

calibrated to ensure the relationship between flow
conditions and water level accordingly. In this way 1 Results
the satisfactory performance of model is verified
(Webber, 1971). a. Similarity Model Test
Calibration is done by comparing the water Similarity model test is shown in Table 2. It
level – discharge relation in the model with the can be seen that in the first observation, the water
observed data. To obtain similar value with the level in the STA 2 to STA 12 have a water level
observed data, the channel bank roughness was difference to the observed data of more than -0.05
adjusted by trial and error until the water level in m, so it is necessary to increase roughness of
model simulation similar to the observations model. From the second observation, the value of
water level on certain discharge. having different water level approximately ± 0,05
m, the physical model data can be considered
2 Model test scenario similar to conditions on the field.
Hydraulic physical model test of Sampora WTP b. Series-0: Existing Condition
Intake was done with the following series: Series- Conditions of physical models used for Series-
0, in the form of existing conditions; Series-1 a test 0 is the existing condition in the field with the base
of existing conditions with cutting riverbank at line with the basic model fixed (fixed bed). Types
upstream and downstream intake from +9.50 to of observations made are observation of water
+12.5 contour lines; Series-2, a test of existing surface elevations, flow velocities, flow patterns
conditions with the addition of 2.5 m length of the and sediment movements at discharges of 87 m3/
intake; Series-3, a modification of combined s, 150 m3/s, 220 m3/s, 300 m3/s, and 375 m3/s.
cutting riverbank at upstream and downstream Water level is observed in the longitudinal
intake at +9.50 to +12.5 contour lines addition of direction of the river ranging from STA 2 to 15, at
2.5 m length of the intake (a combination of series- discharges of 87 m3/s, 150 m3/s, 220 m3/s, 300
1 and series-2). m3/s, and 375 m3/s. The observation of water
levels series-0 can be seen in Table 3.

Intake position

Source: Experimental station for river laboratory 2013

Figure 3 Intake WTP Sampora situation

81

81
Jurnal TeknikHidraulik,
Jurnal Teknik HidraulikVol.
Vol.7 No.
7 No. 1, Juni
1, Juni 2016:
2016: 77 -77-86
86

Table 2 Water Level observation on Similaritas Test

Test 1 (physical model) Test 2 (Physical Model)

Water Level
(Numerical Model) Height Height
STA Water level Water level
difference difference
(m) (m)

(Q = 375 m3/s) (m) (m)

1 ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
2 15.25 15.10 -0.15 15.22 -0.03
3 15.23 15.08 -0.15 15.2 -0.03
4 15.26 15.05 -0.21 15.23 -0.03
5 15.20 15.03 -0.17 15.17 -0.03
6 15.21 15.00 -0.21 15.18 -0.03
7 15.18 14.99 -0.19 15.15 -0.03
8 15.17 14.98 -0.19 15.14 -0.03
9 15.14 14.97 -0.17 15.11 -0.03
10 15.09 14.93 -0.16 15.06 -0.03
11 15.00 14.93 -0.07 15.05 0.05
12 15.04 14.92 -0.12 15.08 0.04
13 14.94 14.95 0.01 14.99 0.05
14 14.93 14.94 0.01 14.97 0.04
15 14.95 14.94 -0.01 14.95 0.00
Source: Experimental station for river laboratory 2013

Table 3 Water level observation on Series-0

Water Level Elevation
Sta 3
375 m /s 300 m3/s 220 m3/s 150 m3/s 87 m3/s
1 ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
2 15.22 14.58 13.95 13.17 12.43
3 15.20 14.55 13.95 13.16 12.42
4 15.23 14.54 13.94 13.15 12.38
5 15.17 14.53 13.93 13.13 12.36
6 15.18 14.53 13.92 13.10 12.32
7 15.15 14.52 13.89 13.08 12.30
8 15.14 14.51 13.85 13.06 12.29
9 15.11 14.51 13.83 13.04 12.28
10 15.06 14.52 13.80 13.02 12.27
11 15.07 14.49 13.78 12.99 12.26
12 15.08 14.48 13.75 12.96 12.25
13 14.99 14.48 13.74 12.95 12.24
14 14.97 14.45 13.71 12.93 12.23
15 14.95 14.41 13.69 12.92 12.20
Source: Experimental station for river laboratory 2013

82

82
 The Effec�veness
The Effectiveness of River
of River Morphologycal
Morphologycal Modifica�on
Modification …(Asep
…(Asep Sulaeman
Sulaeman dan
dan GalihHabsoro
Galih HabsoroSundoro)
Sundoro)

Model Series-0 simulation results indicates that the generally the main flow occurs in the middle of the
water surface slope in the discharge of 375 m3/s is river, but in front of intake area the main flow
equal to 0.00037. The average flow velocity around shifted toward the right side of the river (move
intake is greater than the average velocity in away from intake). The main flow shifts are
upstream intake. As can be seen in Table 4, the flow starting from STA 10 to 13. Sediment transport
velocity at STA A (around intake) was 1.13 m/s, simulation result indicates that sedimentation
while the flow velocity at STA 4 and 7 that located occurred in front of intake (left side of river), while
in the upper intake are 0.62 m/s and 0.67 m/s. on the right side of river occurred scour.
Flow velocity in the downstream intake is almost Sedimentation in front of intake occurs because the
equal to the flow velocity around intake. Flow flow velocity in the left side are lower than the flow
pattern observations results shows that in velocity in the right side of the river.

Table 4 Average flow velocity on series-0

Flow Velocity (m/s)

STA 375 300 220 150 87
m3/s m3/s m3/s m3/s m3/s
4 0.62 0.47 0.40 0.33 0.26
7 0.67 0.64 0.58 0.47 0.43
11 1.07 0.90 0.98 0.85 0.77
A 1.13 0.86 0.84 0.74 0.62
12 0.91 0.85 0.73 0.61 0.55
B 0.87 0.85 0.82 0.58 0.53
14 0.95 1.02 0.82 0.70 0.54
Source: Experimental station for river laboratory 2013

Riverbank cutting area

CR-16
CR-14
CR-11 CR-13

CR-10
CR-9

CR-8

CR-14 CR-16
CR-15
CR-7 CR-13
CR-12
CR-6 CR-11
CR-10

CR-9

CR-8

Source: Experimental station for river laboratory 2013

Figure 4 Riverbank cutting situation
CR-6
c. Series-1 side. Velocity distribution occurs evenly in front of
intake (STA12) with velocities range from 0.4 m/s
Physical hydraulic model tests series-1 was
to 0.9 m/s (see Table 5).
performed by cutting riverbank elevation at +12.5
m to +9.50 m on the upstream and downstream Suspended sediment didn’t settle in front of
intake (see Fig.4). Model series-1 result show that the intake, and the river bed around intake was
main flow pattern occurred in middle of river with scoured. This conditions can be seen from bed level
uniform flow distribution from left side to right
83

83
Jurnal Teknik Hidraulik Vol.7 No. 1, Juni 2016: 77-86
Jurnal Teknik Hidraulik, Vol. 7 No. 1, Juni 2016: 77 - 86

observation which show that the river bed area around the intake mouth occurs a little
elevation lower than initial elevation. sediment depositions. While the riverbed
d. Series-2 observations result in front of intake indicate the
occurrence of scour.
Hydraulic physical model test series-2 was
performed by addition of 2.5 m length of culvert Table 6 Average flow velocities on series -2
box towards the middle of the river. Addition of
Flow Velocity (m/s)
long box culvert can be seen in Figure 5. The
STA 375 300 220 87
observations carried in this series are water level,
flow velocity, flow patterns and sediment m3/s m3/s m3/s m3/s
movement observation in the discharge of 87 m3/s, 11 1.00 0.93 0.80 0.59
150 m3/s, 220 m3/s, 300 m3/s, and 375 m3/s. A 0.86 0.79 0.61 0.50
12 0.95 0.87 0.64 0.46
B 0.86 0.75 0.60 0.47
Table 5 Average flow velocity on series-1 Source: Experimental station for river laboratory 2013

Flow Velocity (m/s)

e. Series-3
STA 375 300 220 150 87
m3/s m3/s m3/s m3/s m3/s Hydraulic physical model test series-3 is
11 0.80 0.71 0.64 0.57 0.41 performed by combined cutting riverbank at
A 0.76 0.75 0.63 0.53 0.42 upstream and downstream intake at +9.50 to +12.5
12 0.73 0.72 0.67 0.53 0.42 contour lines addition of 2.5 m length of the intake
B 0.76 0.71 0.63 0.49 0.41 (Figure 6).
Source: Experimental station for river laboratory 2013

Series-2 simulation results indicate that the

main flow occurs in the middle of river at both low,
medium, or high discharge conditions. At locations
around intake occurs eddys flow which result a
flow velocity nearly equal to 0 m3/s.

Source: Experimental station for river laboratory 2013

Figure 6 Combined cutting riverbank at upstream
and downstream intake at +9.50 to +12.5
contour lines with addition of 2.5 m length
of the intake situation

The Series-3 simulation results show that main

Source: Experimental station for river laboratory 2013 flow occurs on the left side of river near the intake
Figure 5 Additional Box Culvert Length mouth both in low, medium, or high discharge.
Eddy flow occurs around the intake structure at
Flow velocity distribution accurs after the addition upstream, downstream and above the structure.
of the intake length 2.50 m, can be seen in Table 6. The observation result of flow distribution showed
Flow velocity at intake mouth (STA 12) ranged that at discharge of 375 m3/s the average flow
from 0.8 m/s to 1.1 m/s and evenly distributed at velocity at the intake mouth is 0.75 m/s, at
discharge 375 m3/s. Flow velocity at upstream upstream intake (STA 11) is 0.86 m/s and and at
intake (STA 11) ranged from 0.2 m/s to 1.0 m/s. At downstream intake (STA B) is 0.74 m/s (see Table
STA A, flow velocity ranged from 0.7 m/s to 0.9 7). The sedimentation pattern obtained in the
m/s and evenly distributed. While at downstream series-3 simulation shows that a little amount of
intake (STA B) flow velocity distribution ranged suspended load material was settled down at in
from 0.3 m/s to 1.0 m/s. Sediment pattern front of intake mouth. While scouring occurred at
observation resulted in Series-2 shows that the around of the intake area.

84

84
 The Effec�veness
The Effectiveness of River
of River Morphologycal
Morphologycal Modifica�on
Modification …(Asep
…(Asep Sulaeman
Sulaeman dan
dan GalihHabsoro
Galih HabsoroSundoro)
Sundoro)

Table 7 Average flow velocity on series-3 spinning closest to intake position. At series-1, the
Flow Velocity (m/s) average flow velocity that occurred in front of
STA intake mouth is 0.72 m/s which will prevent
375 300 220 150 87
m3/s m3/s m3/s m3/s m3/s
sedimentation in front of the intake mouth.
11 0.86 0.86 0.63 0.49 0.43
c. Sediment patterns in each series
A 0.81 0.82 0.63 0.48 0.46 Sediment patterns in Series-0 indicates that
12 0.75 0.73 0.75 0.62 0.53 the sedimentation occurred in front of intake area.
B 0.74 0.58 0.65 0.45 0.42 Sedimentation in front of intake occurred because
of the flow velocity in the left side of river is slower
Source: Experimental station for river laboratory 2013
than in the right side of the river. While on the
2 DISCUSSION right side of the river tends to occur riverbed
scour. Sediment patterns in Series-1 shows that
From the data that has been obtained from the there wasn't suspended load deposition in front of
test show changes characteristic of flow and intake. Suspended load was flushed away by the
sediment in each series. Comparison of river flow due to riverbank cutting. Riverbank
characteristics can be seen as follows: cutting caused main flow shifted to the left with
velocity greater than 0.5 m/s. In Series-1, the
a. Average flow velocity in each series riverbed scouring occurred in front of intake.
The observation of flow velocity that occurs in Sediment pattern in Series-2 show that a little
the discharge of 375 m3/s on each model series are suspended load settled at intake mouth and the
shown in Table 8. The highest average flow velocity riverbed scouring occurred in front of intake.
in front of intake (STA 12 left) occur in Series-3. While sediment pattern in Series-3 show that a
From Table 8 it can also be seen that the average little suspended load settled at intake mouth and
flow velocity in front of intake on Series 1 (0.72 the riverbed scouring occurred at area around
m/s) is almost equal to the highest average flow intake.
velocity in front of intake on Series-3. Most of suspended load flow into pumps pond.
Flow velocity at pumps pond. almost zero, so it will
Table 8 Average Flow Velocity in Each Series make suspended load materials become settle. In
Position at cross section
the long periods, the sedimentation will increase
Series STA and interfere the pump performance. Therefore it’s
Left Middle Right needs an effort to maintain pumps pond from
A 0.35 0.96 1.01 sediment disturbance.
12 0.51 0.91 0.97
0
B 0.48 0.98 0.93 d. Best Series
Based on study results, it can be recommended
A 0.54 0.90 0.80
that the Series-1 is the best series in terms of the
1 12 0.72 0.83 0.77 average flow velocity in front of intake. Average
B 0.75 0.92 0.85 flow velocity that occurred in front of intake mouth
A 0.35 0.94 0.90 is 0.72 m/s which will prevent sedimentation in
front of the intake mouth.
2 12 0.55 0.93 1.02
The riverbank cutting can shift the main flow
B 0.35 0.88 0.98
to the left side closer to intake mouth compared to
A 0.65 0.87 0.96 the existing condition. Moreover, flow patterns at
3 12 0.76 0.87 0.72 Series-1 are more streamline than Series-2 and 3,
B 0.65 0.82 0.80 where at Series-2 and 3 occurred Eddy flow. Eddy
Source: Experimental station for river laboratory 2013 flow that occcurs can lower flow velocity in that
area to almost zero, and potentially depositing the
b. Flow patterns in each series sediment material.
Comparison of flow patterns is done by Sediment patterns in Seris-1 shows that
observing the beginning of flow. It was observed by suspended load deposition not occurs in front of
measuring the current meter position since it intake. Suspended load flushed away by the river
starts to spin from the reference point on the left flow due to riverbank cutting that caused the main
bank of the river. From Table 9, it can be seen that flow shifted to the left. In this series, the riverbed
series-1 shows the current meter position began scouring occurs in front of intake.

85
85
Jurnal Teknik Hidraulik Vol.7 No. 1, Juni 2016: 77-86
Jurnal Teknik Hidraulik, Vol. 7 No. 1, Juni 2016: 77 - 86

Table 9 Distance of flow start to spin from reference point

SERIES 0 1 2 3
Flow Flow Flow Flow
Water’s Water’s Water’s Water’s
No. Sta begin to begin to begin to begin to
edge edge edge edge
spin spin spin spin
(m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m)
11 17.25 17.25 17.25 18.50 17.25 19.25 17.25 18.25
G 13.25 13.25 13.25 18.50 13.25 19.25 13.25 17.75
E 13.75 18.25 13.75 17.75 13.75 19.00 13.75 17.25
C 16.00 18.25 16.00 18.00 16.00 18.25 16.00 17.25
A 12.25 19.50 12.25 19.00 12.25 20.25 12.25 19.50
12 8.75 20.50 8.75 18.00 8.75 21.25 8.75 22.50
B 11.00 19.50 11.00 18.00 11.00 20.00 11.00 21.50
D 14.25 193.25 14.25 18.00 14.25 18.75 14.25 19.75
Source: Experimental station for river laboratory 2013

CONCLUSION Muste, M and Ettema, R. 2000. River-Sediment

Control at Conesville Station, On The
Riverbank cutting in the upstream and Muskingum River, Ohio. Iowa Institute of
downstream of intake at elevation of +12.5 m to Hydraulic Research, College of Engineering,.
+9.5 m, causes main flow position shifted closer to The University of Iowa.
intake mouth than the existing condition. This Paarlberg, A.J., Dohmen-Janssen, C.M., Hulscher, S.J
modification also increased flow velocity up to Schielen, R. and Termes. A.P.P. 2008.
about 0.7 m/s and caused no suspended load Modelling dynamic roughness in rivers during
deposition in front of intake. Riverbed scour still floods. Downloaded from https://www.
occures in front of intake. This modification needs utwente.nl/ctw/wem/staff/schielen/marid200
to be done to shift main flow closer to intake 8.pdf at November 1st, 2016.
mouth and increase flow velocity to avoid a greater
Selander, J.A. 2012. Influence on River Morphology in
sedimentation both suspended load also bed load
depisition. A Sediment- Dominated System. California:
Department of Geology, University of
California.
REFERENCES Thornton, Christopher I. 2013. Modeling in a
Heller, Valentin. 2011. Scale Effects in Physical Hydraulic Laboratory Steady Overflow and
Hydraulic Engineering Models. Journal of Wave Overtopping. Technical Seminar No. 20:
Hydraulic Research Vol. 49, No. 3, pp. 293-306 Overtopping of Dams.
Hughes, S.A. 1993. Physical models and laboratory Waldron, Ryan. 2008. Physical Modeling of Flow And
techniques in coastal engineering. Advanced Sediment Transport Using Distorted Scale
series on ocean engineering 7. London: World Modeling. The Department of Civil and
Scientific. Environmental Engineering, Louisiana:
Kemker, Christine. 2014. Sediment Transport and Louisiana State University.
Deposition. Fundamental of Environmental Webber, N.B. 1971. Fluid Mechanics for Civil
Measurement. Fondriest Environmental Inc. Engineers. London: Chapman and Hall.
Web <http://www.fondriest.com/environmen
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
tal_measurments/parameters/hydrology/sedi
ment-transport-deposition/> This research was funded by Indokoei
Le Me´haute´, B. 1976. An introduction to International Co.Ltd. The writers would like to
hydrodynamics and water waves. New York: acknowledge DR. Isdiyana who has given a lot of
Springer. ideas and guidance for this research also to Mr.
Kirno who responsible for conducted the hydraulic
model test and sharing ideas.

86

86