Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://hdl.handle.net/11681/7357
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorSharp, Jeremy A. (Jeremy Allen), 1982--
dc.contributor.authorScott, Stephen H.-
dc.date.accessioned2016-05-06T14:32:08Z-
dc.date.available2016-05-06T14:32:08Z-
dc.date.issued2015-05-
dc.identifier.govdocERDC/CHL TR-15-4-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11681/7357-
dc.descriptionTechnical Report-
dc.description.abstractThree proposed alternatives intended to reduce shoaling at Jackson Bar, Alabama were investigated. A two-dimensional (2-D) hydrodynamic and sediment model was used to simulate hydraulic conditions at Jackson Bar, located on the Black Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway (BWT) in the vicinity of Jackson, Alabama. Jackson Bar, a sand bar, is located on the left descending bank upstream of a railroad bridge. Located in a bend in the BWT at Jackson, AL the railroad bridge presents a navigation hazard. Annual dredging provides the clearance necessary for tows to properly align with the bridge pass. The hydrodynamic model was validated with gage data from the USGS 02470050 Tombigbee River at Steamplant near Leroy, Al gage (Leroy gage), a previously-constructed HEC-2 model, and a previously-constructed WES physical model from 1987. Three alternatives were modeled in an attempt to reduce shoaling / eliminate dredging at Jackson Bar by using one or more river training structures (bendway weirs, dikes, kickers). A three-fold screening approach was applied to determine the feasibility of each alternative. The selected alternative was a variation of Plan D that used a kicker and transverse dikes.-
dc.description.sponsorshipUnited States. Army. Corps of Engineers. Mobile District.-
dc.description.tableofcontentsAbstract .......................................................................................................................................................... ii Figures and Tables.........................................................................................................................................v Preface........................................................................................................................................................... ix Unit Conversion Factors ...............................................................................................................................x 1 Introduction............................................................................................................................................1 2 Background............................................................................................................................................4 2.1 Navigation ...................................................................................................................... 4 2.2 Dredging......................................................................................................................... 4 2.3 1987 Physical model study........................................................................................... 6 3 Field Data ...............................................................................................................................................8 4 Modeling Approach ............................................................................................................................13 5 Model Development ...........................................................................................................................15 5.1 Boundary Conditions ...................................................................................................15 5.1.1 Hydrodynamic............................................................................................................... 15 5.1.2 Sediment load ..............................................................................................................16 5.2 Mesh construction.......................................................................................................19 5.2.1 Bathymetry data...........................................................................................................19 5.2.2 Mesh materials ............................................................................................................19 5.2.3 Upstream and downstream limits...............................................................................21 5.2.4 Bed gradation............................................................................................................... 21 5.3 Implementation of AEC Power Plant...........................................................................22 6 Validation..............................................................................................................................................24 6.1 Leroy Gage ...................................................................................................................24 6.2 Model-to-model comparison .......................................................................................25 6.2.1 HEC-2 slope .................................................................................................................. 27 6.2.2 1987 WES physical model (PM)..................................................................................31 6.3 Sediment validation.....................................................................................................35 6.4 Comparison of the AEC Power Plant existing conditions model ...............................35 7 Alternatives ..........................................................................................................................................41 7.1 Plan B........................................................................................................................... 41 7.2 Plan C ...........................................................................................................................43 7.3 Plan D...........................................................................................................................44 7.4 Additional plans ...........................................................................................................45 8 Results ..................................................................................................................................................47 8.1 Existing conditions models ......................................................................................... 47 8.1.1 Existing conditions model............................................................................................47 8.1.2 AEC existing conditions model ....................................................................................47 8.2 Plan B........................................................................................................................... 51 8.3 Plan C ...........................................................................................................................58 8.4 Plan D...........................................................................................................................65 8.5 Plan D AEC Power Plant...............................................................................................70 8.6 Deposition at AEC Power Plant ...................................................................................78 9 Discussion ............................................................................................................................................80 9.1 Plan B...........................................................................................................................81 9.2 Plan C ...........................................................................................................................82 9.3 Plan D...........................................................................................................................83 9.4 Plan D AEC Power Plant variation ...............................................................................84 9.5 Alternative selection....................................................................................................85 9.5.1 Dredging ....................................................................................................................... 85 9.5.2 Velocity.......................................................................................................................... 85 9.5.3 Volume of rock for each plan ......................................................................................86 10 Recommendations..............................................................................................................................87 10.1 Recommended alternative implementation...........................................................87 10.2 Future analysis.........................................................................................................87 10.3 Monitoring ................................................................................................................88 10.4 Concerns ..................................................................................................................88 References ...................................................................................................................................................89 Appendix.......................................................................................................................................................91 Report Documentation Page-
dc.format.extent104 pages / 13.85 Mb-
dc.format.mediumPDF-
dc.publisherCoastal and Hydraulics Laboratory (U.S.)-
dc.publisherEngineer Research and Development Center (U.S.)-
dc.relationhttp://acwc.sdp.sirsi.net/client/en_US/search/asset/1043509-
dc.relation.ispartofseriesTechnical Report (Engineer Research and Development Center (U.S.)) ; no. ERDC/CHL TR-15-4-
dc.rightsApproved for public release; distribution is unlimited.-
dc.sourceThis Digital Resource was created in Microsoft Word and Adobe Acrobat-
dc.subjectBendway wiers-
dc.subjectBlack Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway-
dc.subjectAlabama-
dc.subjectDikes-
dc.subjectNumerical modeling-
dc.subjectNumerical models-
dc.subjectMathematical modeling-
dc.subjectMathematical models-
dc.subjectRivers-
dc.subjectSediment-
dc.subjectTraining works-
dc.subjectHydraulic structures-
dc.subjectDesign-
dc.subjectSedimentation-
dc.subjectDeposition-
dc.subjectShoaling-
dc.subjectSediment transport-
dc.titleJackson Bar training structure study-
dc.typeReport-
Appears in Collections:Technical Report

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
ERDC-CHL-TR-15-4.pdf14.19 MBAdobe PDFThumbnail
View/Open