1

NUMERICAL SIMULATION OF FLOW AND LOCAL SCOUR

AROUND SRANDAKAN BRIDGE PIERS
1
Wakhidatik Nurfaida

2
Abstract

Riverbed degradation in Progo River had caused the failure of Srandakan Bridge I,
which is located in Bantul Regency, Yogyakarta Special Province, in April 2000.
Simulations were performed to simulate the supercritical flow in one-dimensional model.
As the velocity variation in the transverse are more important than the vertical direction,
this work simulates the supercritical flow in two-dimensional depth-averaged using
FESWMS module in the SMS software. Besides the river flow simulation, the pier scour
depth was also predicted in FESWMS using CSU equations. The simulation shows that
the existence of Srandakan Bridge I will not deepen the scour depth in Srandakan
Bridge II.
Keywords: numerical simulation, FESWMS, pier scour
INTRODUCTION
Problems in river hydraulic can be brought into either analytical or numerical
solutions. Analytical solutions are more intellectually satisfying, but they are tend to be
restricted to a simple boundary condition (simple geometry). Problems in natural channel
are complex and require disproportional amount of effort to be solved analytically.
Numerical method approximates the mathematical method or the analytical method in the
form of computable set of parameters describing the flow at a set of discrete points using
the finite element method.
Environmental Modeling Research Laboratory (EMRL) at the Brigham Young
University has developed the SMS (surface water modeling system) software for a one-,
two-, or three-dimensional hydrodynamic model in cooperation with the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station (USACE-WES), and the U.S. Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA). The software includes the hydrodynamic models
(RMA2, FESWMS, and HIVEL2D), water quality models (RMA4 and SED2D), and the
coastal modelling (ADCIRC and CGWAVE).
This work introduces the FESWMS, which is applied as a hypothetic analysis of
the local scour around Srandakan Bridge piers, which is located in Bantul Regency,
Yogyakarta Scpecial Province, across the Progo River.
The scouring, the increasing traffic load, and the riverbed degradation had caused
settlement of the two piers and failure of the three spans of Srandakan Bridge I in

1
Presented in final project seminar prior to final exam for S-1 degree under supervision
of Dr. Ir. Istiarto, M.Eng
2
Student of S-1 program at the Dept. of civil and Environmental Engineering, Faculty of
Engineering, Gadjah Mada University
2
April 2000. Bailey bridge was constructed above the failed spans keeping the two sides of
the bridge connected. To prevent the worse effect of the riverbed degradation, the
government built Srandakan groundsill in 2001-2003, and to accommodate the increase
of traffic number, Srandakan Bridge II has been constructed since April 2006 to substitute
Srandakan Bridge I.
The government predicted that the existence of Srandakan Bridge I would affect
and deepened the local scouring around Srandakan Bridge II and they planned to
demolish Srandakan Bridge I. The prediction has not been proven by the analysis and
simulation performed in 2005. The simulation was undertaken using RMA2 in SMS and
HEC-RAS software to compute the hydraulic parameters. The local scour around
Srandakan bridges were then calculated using formulas according to CSU, Froehlich,
Shen, Breuser, and Raudviki (Istiarto, 2006).
FLOW SIMULATION AND SCOUR DEPTH PREDICTION
Progo River has a large transversal extend instead of its vertical, thus velocity
distribution in the transverse direction is more important than the vertical. The two-
dimensional depth-averaged analysis is applied to perform the calculation by using
FESWMS.
Hydrodynamic Equations in FESWMS
The governing equations of two-dimensional flow are based on the conservation
of mass (continuity equation) and the conservation of momentum. The law of mass
conservation says that matter cannot be created nor destroyed, but it can be converted.
The continuity equation in two-dimensional depth-averaged flow is
m
w
q
y
q
x
q
t
z
=

2 1
(1)
where:
- q
1
= UH = unit flow rate in the x direction (H = water depth, U = averaged
velocity in the x direction),
- q
2
= VH = unit flow rate in the y direction (V = averaged velocity in the y
direction),
- q
m
= mass inflow or outflow rate per unit area.
The moving body cannot gain or loose momentum, unless react to the external
forces conform to the Newtons second law. The following equations describe the
momentum transport in the x and y directions, respectively:
3
( )
( )
0
1
2
1
2
2 1 2
2
1 1
=
(

+
|
.
|

\
|

+
|
|
.
|

\
|
+

y
H
x
H
q
x
p H
x
z
gH
H
q q
y
gH
H
q
x t
q
xy
xx
sx bx
a b

(2)
and
( ) ( )
0
1
2
1
1
2
2
1 2 1 2
=
(
(

+
+

+
|
|
.
|

\
|
+

+
|
.
|

\
|

y
H
x
H
q
y
p H
y
z
gH gH
H
q
y H
q q
x t
q
yy yx
sy by
a b

( 3)
where:
- = isotropic momentum flux correction coefficient that account for the
variation of velocity in the vertical direction,
- g = gravitational acceleration,
- = water mass density,
- p
a
= atmospheric pressure at the water surface,
- = Coriolis parameter,
-
bx
and
by
= bed shear stresses acting in the x and y directions, respectively,
-
sx
and
sy
= surface shear stresses acting in the x and y direction,
respectively,
-
xx,

xy,

yx,
and

yy
= shear stresses caused by turbulence (e.g.
xy
= shear
stress acting in the x direction on a plane that is perpendicular to the y
direction).
Coefficient of momentum flux correction describes the velocity variation in the
vertical direction. In the two-dimensional depth-averaged flow, the vertical velocity
variation is neglected, and the coefficient is set to one ( =1).
Effect of the Earths rotation on water movement is taken into account by the
Coriolis parameter. For most shallow water with the large ratio of the horizontal extend to
depth, the Coriolis Effect is small and can be safely ignored.
The bed shear coefficient in the two-dimensional flow is determined according to
one-dimensional flow approximation. Both Manning and Chezy coefficients represent the
bed shear coefficient in the simulation.
Element wetting/drying and storativity depth
The water surface elevation of a river flow could be lower than some parts of the
riverbed. In the simulation, when the calculated water surface elevation is lower than the
node elevation, those node points become dry. Elements that contain at least one dry node
are turned off at the start of an iteration. Those elements are checked, and can be turned
back on at the other iteration. The stability of the computation can be affected by the
4
elements switching on and off, especially when the transition is comparatively large and
only small portion of those elements are actually dry. Those dry elements can be retained
in calculation by the concept of element storativity. Bed storativity coefficient is ratio of
changes in stored water per unit element area with respect to changes in water elevation.
It represents the ability of elements to store water when water depth is less than the
storativity depth.
River Flow Simulation
The simulation was undertaken according to three scenarios. Scenario A
simulates the river flow before the construction of Srandakan Bridge II. Scenario B
simulates the river flow in the existing condition. Scenario C simulates the river flow
without Srandakan Bridge I. The area of interest in the simulation is shown in Figure 1.
The present work simulates the river flow as steady flow. Large difference of the
bed elevation between upstream and downstream of the domain resulting too many
changes in elements turning on and off in the simulation. Changes of elements status of
wetting and drying in a computation lead to numerical instability, especially in low flow
and unsteady flow simulation.
The specified water surface elevation in the downstream boundary (8.0 m) is
lower than the highest bed elevation of the computational model (15.794 m). Hence,
simulations with a higher water surface elevation were performed to obtain an
intermediate solution. The intermediate solution was then used as the initial condition for
the hot start simulation with a lower water surface elevation until the desired water
surface elevation (23 m to 8 m).

Figure 1 The model domain and the area of interest in the simulation
Effect of boundary conditions in the simulation altered the water surface at the
groundsill. Thus preliminary runs with different downstream length (La = 2500 m,
Lb = 2000 m, Lc = 1500 m; with L is the distance between the groundsill and the
5
downstream boundary) were executed to determined the downstream length. The
simulation shows that the model with a longer downstream length (La) yields more stable
solutions as shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2 Water surface above the groundsill in the three preliminary model runs
(La = 2500 m, Lb = 2000 m, Lc = 1500 m)
Due to numerical instability, the present work did not simulate Srandakan
Groundsill in each scenario as a broad crested weir, but it was represented by the mesh
geometry. The downstream slope of the groundsill in the model was assumed milder than
the existing condition and the cross section in the downstream area was simplified to
rectangular shape as shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3 Srandakaan Groundsill and the cross section in the downstream area
Figure 4 shows the time series graphics of river flow parameters in some nodes,
and depicts a continuous curve. The figure indicates the differentiable equations and
numerical stability.
wse
6

Figure 4 Time series graphics in some nodes
The preceding figures shows that the model is well posed. The numerical
computations were executed with the convergence criteria, which expresses the accuracy
of the numerical computation, ranging from 0.002 to 0.015.
General Flow Pattern
Figure 5 shows the velocity vectors and describes the flow pattern in the
watercourse. The water flows through the main channel of the river as shown in grey
(velocity vector). The general flow patterns of the three scenarios were similar because
the changes in the watercourse were not significant.

Figure 5 The general velocity vectors and flow pattern in the model domain
The water surface profile of the simulation with Q
100
and Q
50
are shown in
Figure 6.
Velocity vectors
7
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
x
-
2
2
5
8
.
4
-
2
1
4
7
.
5
-
2
0
7
0
.
3
-
1
9
5
5
.
3
-
1
8
3
3
.
1
-
1
6
6
6
.
1
-
1
5
9
3
.
6
-
1
4
9
4
.
9
-
1
3
8
0
.
5
-
1
2
8
5
.
1
-
1
1
5
2
.
6
-
9
9
1
.
6
-
8
9
1
.
4
-
7
4
0
.
5
-
5
8
6
.
6
-
4
8
6
.
4
-
4
1
5
.
8
-
3
2
6
.
3
-
2
5
4
.
2
-
1
5
2
.
7
-
6
2
.
2
3
9
.
9
1
0
0
.
1
2
0
0
.
0
3
2
5
.
8
4
9
0
.
8
6
6
7
.
6
8
4
5
.
9
9
3
2
.
1
1
0
9
4
.
1
1
3
8
6
.
5
1
5
7
7
.
5
1
8
9
9
.
7
2
1
4
1
.
3
2
4
6
3
.
3

Figure 6 Water surface profile along the channel with the river discharge
Q
100
= 2516.17 m
3
/s and Q
50
= 2125 m
3
/s
Flow Pattern around Srandakan Groundsill
The water surface profile around Srandakan Groundsill resulted from the
simulation is shown in Figure 7. Abrupt change in mesh geometry caused difficulties in
the simulation, especially the flow pattern around Srandakan Groundsill, as mentioned
before.

Figure 7 Water surface profile around Srandakan Groundsill in the simulation
Flow pattern around Srandakan Groundsill is shown in Figure 8. A rapid change
in velocity and the depth of flow from a high stage to a low stage is caused by an abrupt
change in the channel slope.
Figure 9 illustrates the Froude number around Srandakan Groundsill. The figure
depicts the change of the state of flow from sub critical to supercritical flow in the
downstream of the groundsill. Change in depth and state of flow happens in the
downstream as an undular jump.

Q=2516.17 m
3
/s
Q=2125 m
3
/s
8

Figure 8 Flow pattern around Srandakan Groundsill

Figure 9 Froude number around Srandakan Groundsill
Flow Pattern around Srandakan Bridge Piers
FESWMS provides pier feature to represent the bridge piers in the computational
domain. As the feature was used, the present work did not simulate the bridge piers in the
disabled elements. As a result, the bridge piers in the simulation did not affect the flow
pattern as shown in the following figure.

Figure 10 Velocity vectors (left) and flow pattern (right) around the bridge piers
Figure 11 shows the water depth around the bridges. Elements with the water
surface bellow the bed elevation were not considered dry in the computation because of
water surface elevation
river bottom
Froude number
9
the effect of the depth tolerance for drying and the storativity depth. The assigned
storativity depths lower the bed elevation of the quasi-dry nodes. The new bed elevation
was then used to calculate the effective depth. The calculated effective depth was used in
the numerical computation, but it was not used as the numerical solution.

Figure 11 Water depth around the bridges
Scour Depth Prediction
FESWMS calculates the pier scour depth and the hydrodynamics separately,
especially when the sedimentation was not simulated. During the flow simulation, the
riverbed is assumed to be fixed. This approach is a common practice as the different
period of the water flow and the sediment motion.
FESWMS calculates local pier scour by computing approach flow velocity,
approach flow depth, and the degree of alignment of the pier and approach flow at the
center of the pier. The model uses the CSU equations to calculate the scour depth.
The CSU equation is valid for live-bed or clear water scour. Richardson and
Davis (1995) in the FWHA Hydraulic Engineering Circular 18 (HEC-18) suggest the
equation as
d
sl
= 2.0 K
1
K
2
K
3
K
4
b
0.65
y
a
0.35
Fr
a
0.43
(2. 1)
where
- K
1
= pier shape factor,
- K
2
= flow alignment factor,
- K
3
= bed condition factor,
- K
4
= bed armoring factor,
- b = pier width,
- y
a
= approach flow depth,
- Fr
a
= approach Froude number,
Local scour is a complex phenomenon where the various parameters interact.
According to Hoffmans and Verheij (1997) when dealing with the local scour problems,
only the maximum scour depth in the equilibrium phase is relevant.
Negative
water depth
10
Srandakan Bridge I was simulated as 56 bridge piers; while Srandakan Bridge II
was simulated as 14 bridge piers. The other bridge piers were not simulated because they
are beyond the computational domain as shown in Figure 12. Therefore, the failed piers
of Srandakan Bridge I were modeled as pier #29 and pier #30.

Figure 12 The simulated bridge piers
As shown in Figure 13, the calculated water surface at the right bank is bellow
the bed elevation. As a result, the velocity magnitude is zero, so do the local pier scour.

Figure 13 Water surface profile in Srandakan bridge I
11
The scour depth prediction around Srandakan Bridge I in each scenario is shown
in the following figures.
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56
pier number
s
c
o
u
r

d
e
p
t
h

(
m
)
Q100 Scene A Q100 Scene B Q 50 Scene A Q 50 Scene B

Figure 14 Scour depth prediction around Srandakan Bridge I at the condition
before (Scene A) and after (Scene B) the construction of Srandakan Bridge II under
Q
100
= 2516.17 m
3
/s and Q
50
= 2125 m
3
/s
Figure 15 shows the water surface profile at Srandakan Bridge II across the river
following the bridge alignment.

Figure 15 Water surface profile in Srandakan bridge II
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
pier number
s
c
o
u
r

(
m
)
Q100 Scene B Q100-Scene C Q50 Scene B Q50 Scene C

Figure 16 Scour depth prediction in Srandakan Bridge II at the existing condition
(Scene B) and without Srandakan Bridge I (Scene C)
under Q
100
= 2516.17 m
3
/s and Q
50
= 2125 m
3
/s
12
The preceding figures show that the scour depths around the bridge piers were
not significantly changed in each scenario. The existence of Srandakan Bridge I will not
affect the scour depth around Srandakan Bridge II.
DISCUSSION
Simulation of Progo River in the study reach using FESWMS has represented the
existing condition. However, difficulties in numerical instability were found while
simulating super-critical flow around Srandakan Groundsill. A rapid change in mesh
geometry caused an abrupt change in the flow parameter, and this led to numerical
instability.
In particular cases, boundary and initial conditions are needed to be modified. In
this present work, the modification was made to handle the large differences of elevation
between the upstream nodes and the downstream nodes.
The velocity magnitude and the water depth around Srandakan Bridge I and
Srandakan bridge II under the condition of river discharge of Q100 = 2516.17 m
3
/s and
Q
50
= 2125 m
3
/s, respectively are:
i Srandakan Bridge I
- Velocity magnitude variation : 0.105 m/s to 2.805 m/s (Q
100
) and
0.044 m/s to 2.65 m/s (Q
50
)
- Maximum water depth : 4.75 m (Q
100
) and 4.44 m (Q
50
)
ii Srandakan Bridge II
- Velocity magnitude variation : 0.115 m/s to 3.393 m/s (Q
100
) and
0.0601 m/s to 3.22 m/s (Q
50
)
- Maximum water depth : 4.19 m (Q
100
) and 3.92 m (Q
50
)
The velocity around Srandakan Groundsill reaches the highest under the
simulation of the condition before the construction of Srandakan Bridge II, that is 5.38
m/s for Q
100
= 2516.17 m
3
/s and 5.39 m/s for Q
50
= 2125 m
3
/s.
The maximum pier scour depth prediction around Srandakan Bridge I in the
condition before the construction of Srandakan Bridge II and the existing condition,
under Q
100
= 2516.7 m
3
/s, respectively are 3.41 m and 3.40 m; while the simulation under
the condition of river discharge Q
50
= 2125 m
3
/s yields the same value, that is 3.28 m in
each scenario.
The pier scour depth around Srandakan Bridge II was predicted under the
existing condition and without Srandakan Bridge I. The maximum scour depth around
13
Srandakan Bridge II are 4.46 m in each scenario under Q
100
= 2516.7 m
3
/s, and 4.30 m in
each scenario at the given discharge, Q
50
= 2125 m
3
/s.
The simulation shows that the existence of Srandakan Bridge I will not deepen
the scour depth around Srandakan Bridge II.
RECOMENDATIONS
FESWMS module is able to handle more complex problems in open channel than
RMA2 module because this module has the ability to simulate sub-critical and super-
critical flow, and sedimentation as well.
FESWMS module provides features to facilitate the simulation of hydraulic
structures, such as pier, weir, channel link, drop inlet, and bridge culvert in one-
dimensional flow structure simulation between nodes of two-dimensional network. The
present work includes pier structure in the modeling. Other approaches can be used for
further simulations, and the following steps can be performed.
a. Simulate other types of hydraulic structure to analyze the ability of FESWMS
in calculating the flow around the hydraulic structures,
b. Perform the sedimentation analysis.
c. Perform the sensitivity analysis to recognize the model sensitivity to several
river parameters, and
d. Perform calibration and verification for a simple channel case. It can be
expected that the perfect results are difficult to attain because many factors
involved which cannot be modeled exactly through a numerical simulation. To
simplify the numerical simulation and to decrease the factors involved,
physical model in a laboratory flume can be used to calibrate the numerical
simulation.
REFERENCES
Chow, V.T., 1959, Open-Channel Hydraulics, McGraw-Hill Kogakusha, Ltd., Tokyo.
Froehlich, D. C., 2002, Users Manual for FESWMS Flo2DH, Two-dimensional Depth-
averaged Flow and Sediment Transport Model, Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways
Experiment Station (USACE-WES), Environmental Modeling Research
Laboratory (EMRL), Brigham Young University, Virginia, USA.
Graf, W.H. and Altinakar, M.S., 1998, Fluvial Hydraulics, John Wiley and Sons, London.
Hoffmans, G.J.C.M., and Verheij, H.J., 1997, Scour Manual, Balkema, Rotterdam
14
Istiarto, 2006, Pengaruh Jembatan Srandakan I terhadap Gerusan Lokal di Sekitar Pilar
Jembatan Srandakan II, Buku Kumpulan Extended Abstract, PIT XXII HATHI,
TS3: 28, Manado
Narayan, R, and Novak, P et.al., 2001, Hydraulic Structures, Spon Press, New York,
USA.
Nipppon koei Co., Ltd. And Associates., Final Report: Hydraulic model Test of Sapon
Weir, Sapon Irrigation Sub-Project PTSL-II (JBIC Loan No. IP-505), Dept. of
Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Gadjah Mada University,
Yogyakarta.