Hydraulic Model Prediction of the Total Load of Sediment Transport in The Euphrates River at The Upstream Ramadi Barrage

Abstract

Examining river engineering properties and bed erosion is one of the most challenging but crucial issues in river engineering and sediment hydraulics, so preventing erosion and sedimentation is one of the primary goals of river management and prediction of river behavior. This research aims to give hydraulic engineers and decision-makers an accurate and dependable sediment transport equation that could be utilized to govern river engineering and modify river morphology. This study evaluated the carried sediments and their estimated quantity upstream of the Ramadi Barrage on the Euphrates River in the Anbar area of western Iraq. Six formulas, including Yang, Shen, Hung, Ackers and White, Engelund and Hansen, and Bagnold's and Toffaleti's, were used to evaluate the applicability of sediment transport in the study area. The performance of these models was assessed based on the precision of the actual sediment load relative to a specified deviation ratio. The analyses indicated that the Engelund-Hansen formula is the most applicable for this section of the river; that concludes, field data indicated an annual total sediment flow of roughly 1, 536, 337 tons.

Full text

Hydraulic Model Prediction of the Total Load of Sediment Transport in
The Euphrates River at The Upstream Ramadi Barrage
Abdulhaleem A. Hammad1,a * and Sadeq O. Sulaiman1,b
1 Dams and Water Resources Engineering Department, University of Anbar, Ramadi, Iraq.
aabd21e4002@uoanbar.edu.iq and bsadeq.sulaiman@uoanbar.edu.iq
*Corresponding author
Abstract. Examining river engineering properties and bed erosion is one of the most challenging but crucial
issues in river engineering and sediment hydraulics, so preventing erosion and sedimentation is one of the
primary goals of river management and prediction of river behavior. This research aims to give hydraulic
engineers and decision-makers an accurate and dependable sediment transport equation that could be utilized
to govern river engineering and modify river morphology. This study evaluated the carried sedi ments and their
estimated quantity upstream of the Ramadi Barrage on the Euphrates River in the Anbar area of western Iraq.
Six formulas, including Yang, Shen, Hung, Ackers and White, Engelund and Hansen, and Bagnold's and
Toffaleti's, were used to evaluate the applicability of sediment transport in the study area. The performance of
these models was assessed based on the precision of the actual sediment load relative to a specified deviation
ratio. The analyses indicated that the Engelund-Hansen formula is the most applicable for this section of the
river; that concludes, field data indicated an annual total sediment flow of roughly 1,536,337 tons.
Keywords: Bed load, empirical equations, Euphrates River, sediment transport, suspended load.
1. INTRODUCTION
Understanding river conditions, such as erosion and sedimentation, is a priority in engineering projects
since rivers are an important water source for many uses. As a dynamic system, the river is constantly
changing. The river also functions as a self-regulatory system since it modifies its properties in response to
environmental changes. The changes in the environment could be the result of artificial activities like damming,
river training, river diversion channelization, bank protection, and bridge and highway construction, or they
could be the result of natural changes brought on by climate change, such as variations in vegetation cover]1 [ .
Sediment accumulation and movement result in numerous issues. The channel's bed deforms more due to
erosion and deposition of solid material on its banks and bed, affecting the waterway's ability to function
hydraulically or for navigation. However, the deposit of materials raises the river bed, thereby expanding the
flood range. Large quantities of money must, therefore, be spent on keeping the river's course appropriate for
the hydraulic requirements. Thousands of tons of sediment are carried by rivers each year in various sizes and
types of deposits, including coarse, soft, stone, sand, clay, and silt, each with its own set of characteristics[2,3].
Hydraulic characteristics, such as water velocity, flow, depth, and other control aspects, impact the amount
and volume of these deposits and the river's ability to transport them. Particularly, hydraulic structures change
a river's natural flow. For instance, a hydroelectric power plant's or weir's higher flow velocity causes the river
bed's sediment to be subjected to more force, increasing the erosion rate. Additionally, sediment is deposited
upstream of the structure, leaving a resource deficiency downstream]4[. Since a large portion of the sediment
load comes from the channel's bottom and sides, rivers that flow through soft material often have higher
sediment loads than rivers exposed to bedrock[5,6].
The effects of bed load and suspended sediment transport on aquatic life and water quality are one of the
main problems in managing water resources]7[. Additionally, most building projects near or in the watercourse
can potentially lessen nearby riverbanks' stability and increase suspended sediment and bed load transit. Most
equations for sediment transport are created assuming that the main hydraulic variables may be used to
calculate the sediment transport rate. When using such equations for flow conditions other than those they
were developed, compatibility is frequently poor due to the inconsistent nature of the underlying
assumptions[8,9].
This research aims to quantify the total sediment transport rate of the Euphrates River in the upstream
Ramadi Barrage, in addition to other hydraulic characteristics, and to select the most effective prediction model
for this rate from among including Yang, Shen, Hung, Ackers, and White, Engelund and Hansen, and Bagnold's
and Toffaleti's. A major cause for concern is the ongoing process of erosion and sedimentation along the
Euphrates River in the study area, especially following each release of large flows from Haditha Dam upstream
in the study area. The numerous commercial and industrial buildings developed along the river's banks will be
influenced in some way by transportation, sedimentation, and erosion of sediments. Because the
geomorphological dynamics of the river basin directly affect the processes of erosion, sedimentation, and
transportation that take place in the River path, it is necessary to improve our understanding of the mechanisms
of sediment transport and management as well as the equations that can be applied with tolerable accuracy
to obtain satisfactory results.
© The Authors, published by EDP Sciences. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution License 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
E3S Web of Conferences 427, 04005 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202342704005
ICGEE 2023

2. STUDY AREA
Ramadi is a city in central Iraq, about 110 km west of Baghdad(Latitude: 33° 26' 40" N, Longitude: 43° 15'
44" E), as shown in Figure 1. It is the governorate's capital and the largest city and borders Jordan, Syria, and
Saudi Arabia. The Ramadi city extends along the Euphrates. Ramadi is located in a very strategic location on
the Euphrates and the route into Syria and Jordan to the west. Due to its status as a major hub for trade and
transportation, the city has experienced substantial economic growth. This investigation focuses on the part of
the Euphrates River in the upstream Ramadi Barrage. The diversion dam's northern and southern sections,
known as Ramadi Barrage, were built on the Euphrates River in the 1950s. The main job of the north of Barrage
is to raise the river's water level if needed so that water can flow through the southern Barrage [10, 11,12]. The
Euphrates is controlled by the Warrar Regulator, which dumps extra floodwater into Habbaniyeh Lake. The
Barrage has 24 apertures, each measuring 6 by 8 meters, and is made of concrete. Its iron gates can be raised
and lowered manually or electronically. The Barrage's ship channel and fish ladder are 6 meters wide and 40
meters long. A 7 m wide bridge has been constructed over the Barrage to accommodate large vehicles. At an
elevation of 51.50 meters above sea level, the Barrage is designed to have a dischar ge of 3600 3/s. On the
upstream left is the Warrar Regulator, composed of 24 gates with dimensions of (6×8) m. The maximum
discharge of the regulator is 2800 3/s[13, 14, 15]. There is an urgent need to determine how much sediment
transport is transmitted via this portion of the river and to come up with remedies because the sand islands
and sedimentation in front of the upstream Ramadi Barrage have become an issue]16 [ .
Figure 1: The study area.
3. MATERIALS AND METHODS
3.1. Field Measurements
The total sediment discharge is the total volume of sediment particles in motion over time. It includes the
sediment transfer by bed load motion, the suspended load, and the wash load ]17 [ . Bed load refers to sediment
in almost continuous contact with the bed, carried forward by rolling, sliding, or hopping. The bed load creation
process begins when the flow velocity increases to a point where the material may be detached and moved
from its initial position. The particles will continue to move If the hydrodynamic force is sufficient to maintain
the transportation. Furthermore, as soon as the hydrodynamic forces are reduced to the point where they can
no longer move the particles, the sediment particles will cease moving and come to rest [18,19]. The majority
of the wash load material in the Euphrates River within the study area originates from surface runoff following
the intense rainstorms that fall on the catchments in the desert upstream of the study area. Any rainfall did not
precede the days during which the sediment samples were taken; therefore, no washing load material is
expected among the suspended load materials. Because the study area is in an arid region and the river's flow
is controlled by the Haditha dam, which is located about 150 km upstream of the study reach and traps the
wash load of the river. Either directly or indirectly, it is possible to estimate the amount of sediment that passes
through a section. The direct method seeks to calculate the volume or weight of sediment that passes through
a section over time ] 20[. The fieldwork aims to collect the necessary data such as suspended load, bedload,
the particle size of the bed material, flow rate, water temperature, the river's width, water depth, and the level
of the Euphrates River upstream of Ramadi Barrage in Anbar. The total river width (W) was divided into five
vertical widths (Wi) ]21 [ .
The location of the measurement point is in the middle distance for each of the five verticals. The bed load
transport is measured using the BLS30 bed load sampling instrument, as shown in Figure 2. Measured bed
load movement for a period of (30 minutes) at each measurement sample. The suspended sediment was
quantified Using a depth-integrated suspended sediment sampler Figure 3. The filling rate is intended to be
proportional to the flow rate to depict the average concentration and particle size in each vertical. For this
study, there are (350) samples of bed load and (350) samples of suspended load taken from the study area's
cross-section. Bed load sampling, the suspended load, and the hydraulic parameters, such as flow depth and
2
E3S Web of Conferences 427, 04005 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202342704005
ICGEE 2023

velocity, are simultaneously measured at every vertical section. The Euphrates River's longitudinal slope in
the study area was calculated to be 0.0001[22,23].
Figure 2: Bed load sampler BLS30 in the study
area.
Figure 3: Depth-integrating suspended sediment
sampler.
The bed load transmission rate for the measured cross-section is calculated using the equations below
]24[.
󰇛
󰇜

 (1)

 (2)
The concentration of suspended sediment was calculated using the following Equation.
Sediment Concentration =󰇛󰇜
󰇛󰇜 (3)
Where  is concentration in mg/L; M is mass in mg; V is the volume in liter.
The grain size distribution is one of the most important characteristics of sediments. A soil sample's (soil
particle gradation) river bed's particle size analysis aims to identify the relative characteristics of the various
grain sizes that make up the sample. A stainless steel Van Veen Grab instrument was used for sampling the
river bed, as shown in Figure 4. Van Veen Grab. The particle distribution curve was plotted after the bed
material's particle size was measured by sieve analysis in the laboratory. The particle size distribution curve is
displayed in Figure 5.
Figure 4: Van Veen Grab device.
Figure 5: Particle size distribution curve.
3
E3S Web of Conferences 427, 04005 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202342704005
ICGEE 2023

Table 1: Summary of field and laboratory measurements.
n Month Bed load (g/30 min) The concentration of suspended
load (g/L)
Average
velocity
(m/s)
Depth
(m)
Water
Temp.
(
°
)
V1
V2
V3
V4
V5
V1
V2
V3
V4
V5
1
Jun. 2022
129.8
594.9
252.1
803.4
13.0
0.113
0.138
0.125
0.131
0.119
0.390
4.0
28.4
2
Jun. 2022
7.1
164.0
297.6
174.6
15.0
0.131
0.125
0.163
0.150
0.094
0.362
4.04
27.9
3
Jun. 2022
227.7
14.2
618.1
105.2
22.1
0.113
0.131
0.144
0.138
0.125
0.400
3.84
28.4
4
Jun. 2022
61.3
123.6
240.9
434.9
8.5
0.119
0.138
0.138
0.144
0.106
0.434
3.86
28.9
5
Jun. 2022
12.8
525.5
322.8
681.5
366.4
0.100
0.138
0.144
0.131
0.094
0.391
4.02
29.6
6
Jun. 2022
278.0
140.1
308.0
204.0
5.4
0.106
0.131
0.131
0.144
0.131
0.339
3.9
29.3
7
Jun. 2022
87.0
191.9
18.1
740.2
51.6
0.094
0.088
0.131
0.150
0.119
0.387
4.16
28.9
8
Jun. 2022
340.0
298.1
4.1
72.0
66.8
0.094
0.094
0.119
0.125
0.100
0.436
3.98
29.6
9
Jun. 2022
234.4
216.0
640.7
16.4
178.6
0.106
0.100
0.125
0.125
0.094
0.401
4.08
29.8
10
Jun. 2022
147.4
249.5
8.3
223.4
39.1
0.088
0.100
0.131
0.138
0.094
0.403
4.04
30.1
11
Jun. 2022
148.0
330.5
434.6
386.1
6.7
0.106
0.113
0.125
0.138
0.100
0.404
4.06
30.4
12
Jun. 2022
234.1
182.4
240.9
142.3
19.1
0.131
0.131
0.138
0.144
0.081
0.398
4.06
29.3
13
Jun. 2022
1.4
75.7
148.0
572.1
40.3
0.094
0.119
0.138
0.113
0.088
0.417
4.04
30.2
14
Jun. 2022
8.5
75.8
124.5
249.5
149.0
0.100
0.125
0.131
0.144
0.113
0.376
4.16
30.9
15
Jul. 2022
24.2
71.3
75.5
417.9
219.3
0.094
0.106
0.125
0.125
0.088
0.361
4.02
31.6
16
Jul. 2022
194.3
179.3
124.2
405.9
3.8
0.100
0.113
0.113
0.119
0.094
0.381
4.06
31.8
17
Jul. 2022
636.7
282.5
456.9
17.5
139.7
0.113
0.131
0.088
0.119
0.119
0.397
4.14
30.8
18
Jul. 2022
884.0
241.5
622.5
729.6
28.9
0.125
0.138
0.150
0.119
0.131
0.408
4.2
31.6
19
Jul. 2022
644.4
67.1
317.0
164.9
41.0
0.131
0.144
0.138
0.125
0.125
0.406
4.02
32.2
20
Jul. 2022
634.7
187.2
510.3
440.3
65.0
0.113
0.156
0.144
0.125
0.106
0.434
3.94
32.3
21
Jul. 2022
233.2
98.2
408.0
320.1
124.6
0.119
0.131
0.163
0.131
0.138
0.392
4.14
31.9
22
Jul. 2022
19.4
317.3
241.2
79.4
29.0
0.113
0.131
0.131
0.156
0.144
0.398
4.08
30.8
23
Jul. 2022
67.4
822.5
364.7
432.6
8.1
0.125
0.131
0.150
0.144
0.094
0.400
4.08
32.0
24
Jul. 2022
26.7
228.7
435.9
372.7
9.3
0.131
0.088
0.144
0.113
0.119
0.431
4.0
31.6
25
Jul. 2022
148.6
434.7
568.7
388.6
162.7
0.094
0.138
0.138
0.125
0.088
0.424
3.72
30.4
26
Jul. 2022
38.5
5.3
378.7
436.7
128.7
0.106
0.119
0.138
0.131
0.088
0.416
4.04
30.9
27
Jul. 2022
122.7
74.4
314.3
196.3
32.8
0.113
0.131
0.144
0.138
0.100
0.403
3.94
31.0
28
Jul. 2022
38.7
248.3
178.7
202.5
6.5
0.131
0.125
0.125
0.138
0.081
0.384
3.88
32.4
29
Aug. 2022
218.6
28.6
240.5
817.0
7.0
0.131
0.131
0.125
0.138
0.119
0.431
3.86
30.5
30
Aug. 2022
79.3
5.8
262.0
588.8
33.8
0.106
0.125
0.131
0.138
0.094
0.390
4.02
30.43
31
Aug. 2022
34.5
238.7
266.2
380.0
122.5
0.131
0.138
0.138
0.150
0.125
0.470
3.84
30.0
32
Aug. 2022
174.2
234.3
190.0
622.8
26.0
0.125
0.131
0.138
0.131
0.131
0.434
3.9
30.0
33
Aug. 2022
224.0
188.6
235.3
267.3
4.1
0.125
0.144
0.138
0.144
0.131
0.419
4.02
30.4
34
Aug. 2022
47.6
220.0
192.9
168.3
38.6
0.131
0.125
0.144
0.138
0.131
0.439
4.06
30.5
35
Aug. 2022
294.7
243.6
422.7
374.9
82.5
0.119
0.156
0.131
0.138
0.138
0.404
4.06
29.8
36
Aug. 2022
178.2
284.6
386.5
528.7
194.5
0.125
0.131
0.138
0.150
0.131
0.406
4.06
29.7
37
Aug. 2022
196.9
235.2
592.6
332.2
62.1
0.125
0.138
0.150
0.138
0.094
0.427
4.1
30.7
38
Aug. 2022
122.1
214.7
439.5
392.7
28.7
0.138
0.138
0.169
0.144
0.131
0.439
4.08
30.1
39
Aug. 2022
36.7
138.1
333.9
302.4
58.7
0.125
0.150
0.163
0.156
0.131
0.431
4.02
30.8
40
Aug. 2022
528.7
324.2
542.8
240.7
23.9
0.119
0.138
0.131
0.144
0.119
0.421
4.02
31.0
41
Aug. 2022
368.8
128.8
382.9
264.5
79.6
0.125
0.138
0.144
0.138
0.131
0.439
3.96
31.1
42
Aug. 2022
58.5
247.1
408.3
296.7
12.4
0.113
0.131
0.150
0.144
0.125
0.435
3.98
31.0
43
Sep. 2022
314.0
282.8
422.7
250.9
187.3
0.144
0.144
0.138
0.131
0.131
0.426
4.04
29.8
44
Sep. 2022
440.7
243.3
522.7
448.7
132.3
0.119
0.138
0.138
0.131
0.125
0.439
3.92
29.7
45
Sep. 2022
22.7
247.3
353.7
368.7
35.2
0.131
0.131
0.150
0.138
0.131
0.424
3.78
29.7
46
Sep. 2022
167.1
345.7
332.7
168.5
214.2
0.125
0.138
0.144
0.138
0.113
0.412
3.94
29.1
47
Sep. 2022
28.7
273.0
348.4
247.3
148.7
0.106
0.131
0.144
0.125
0.119
0.369
4.04
28.7
48
Sep. 2022
192.3
197.5
218.5
172.7
72.5
0.131
0.125
0.138
0.138
0.100
0.406
3.96
28.3
49
Sep. 2022
169.4
384.2
508.9
270.9
82.0
0.125
0.131
0.138
0.138
0.113
0.409
3.92
28.0
50
Sep. 2022
228.5
178.0
246.2
128.5
42.3
0.094
0.131
0.125
0.125
0.094
0.422
4.0
28.0
51
Sep. 2022
258.7
148.7
428.3
165.5
262.5
0.125
0.138
0.138
0.125
0.131
0.425
3.92
27.6
52
Sep. 2022
158.1
344.7
368.5
174.7
248.4
0.131
0.125
0.131
0.138
0.119
0.404
3.96
27.4
53
Sep. 2022
224.4
388.5
579.2
418.6
130.0
0.138
0.144
0.150
0.131
0.131
0.388
4.06
27.6
54
Sep. 2022
125.6
252.5
428.7
371.3
40.0
0.119
0.125
0.131
0.138
0.113
0.441
3.9
27.8
55
Sep. 2022
196.7
98.2
294.7
171.3
247.3
0.138
0.131
0.150
0.138
0.131
0.438
3.92
27.0
56
Sep. 2022
77.9
207.3
122.1
207.4
132.6
0.125
0.125
0.138
0.131
0.125
0.417
3.88
27.6
57
Oct. 2022
160.4
233.1
296.8
374.6
110.8
0.131
0.125
0.131
0.138
0.119
0.379
4.08
27.1
58
Oct. 2022
98.6
251.7
338.8
402.7
67.3
0.125
0.150
0.138
0.138
0.131
0.423
4.08
27.0
59
Oct. 2022
34.7
228.1
269.3
242.4
78.3
0.131
0.131
0.138
0.131
0.119
0.436
4.06
27.3
60
Oct. 2022
141.3
195.7
254.7
159.8
8.6
0.131
0.125
0.144
0.150
0.125
0.393
3.98
26.4
61
Oct. 2022
32.1
322.7
232.4
260.1
24.9
0.125
0.131
0.138
0.144
0.100
0.432
3.98
26.92
62
Oct. 2022
42.0
172.3
208.4
188.7
26.1
0.131
0.131
0.144
0.138
0.113
0.414
4.04
26.4
63
Oct. 2022
63.5
214.6
264.0
223.8
36.3
0.125
0.131
0.150
0.138
0.106
0.428
3.88
26.3
64
Oct. 2022
240.6
188.0
434.7
298.0
46.3
0.131
0.138
0.156
0.144
0.125
0.408
3.9
26.9
4
E3S Web of Conferences 427, 04005 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202342704005
ICGEE 2023

Table 1: (Continued), Summary of field and laboratory measurements.
n Month Bed load (g/30 min)
The concentration of suspended
load (g/L)
Average
velocity
(m/s)
Depth
(m)
Water
Temp.
()
V1
V2
V3
V4
V5
V1
V2
V3
V4
V5
65
Oct. 2022
158.3
87.3
388.6
236.2
102.9
0.125
0.144
0.150
0.144
0.131
0.412
3.98
26.8
66
Oct. 2022 222.6 122.3 480.7
417.5 19.3 0.138 0.163 0.163 0.150 0.138 0.437 3.96 25.6
67
Oct. 2022
196.9
228.5
264.2
243.7
67.3
0.144
0.144
0.150
0.138
0.131
0.434
3.8
25.8
68
Oct. 2022
148.4
179.2
290.4
188.2
16.8
0.125
0.150
0.156
0.144
0.138
0.432
3.94
25.9
69
Oct. 2022
231.1
254.2
526.0
402.8
48.2
0.113
0.144
0.150
0.150
0.138
0.419
3.98
25.5
70
Oct. 2022
168.3
175.3
340.7
248.9
122.4
0.131
0.150
0.138
0.150
0.100
0.450
4.0
25.4
Min.
1.4
5.3
4.1
16.4
3.8
0.088
0.088
0.088
0.113
0.081
0.339
3.720
25.5
Avg.
182.0
223.1
333.1
320.6
78.7
0.120
0.131
0.139
0.137
0.116
0.413
3.991
29.3
Max.
884.0
822.5
640.7
817.0
366.4
0.144
0.163
0.169
0.156
0.144
0.470
4.200
32.4
3.2 Sediment Transport Equations
The suspended and bed loads make up a river's total load. Most sediment transport equations are derived
based on theoretical and empirical foundations. There isn't a universal formula that can be deemed suitable to
determine a sediment transport rate for all rivers because these equations include a boundary condition and
shouldn't be used as a general rule ]25[. This justification points to the necessity for more research in this area.
Some of the empirical equations used in this study to determine total loads are listed below. Yang's Equation
]26[.


󰇣

󰇤󰇟

󰇠 (4)




 (5)


  (6)
In which C is the total concentration (mg/L); is the fall velocity; d50 is the particle size;  is the kinematic
viscosity (ft2/s); u* is the shear velocity (fps); S is the slope (ft/ft); V is the mean velocity (fps); Vcr is the crucial
flow velocity at the motion's beginning (fps); D is the water depth. Ackers and White (1973) ]27[.
x= 
󰇡
󰇢 (7)
(
󰇜 (8)
In which is the sediment transport parameter; d is the particle diameter average (m); D is the effective
depth (m); V is the average velocity(m/s); n is the exponent of transition, which varies depending on the size
of the sediment; C is the Coefficient; is the sediment mobility parameter; A is the crucial sediment mobility
parameter;  is the shear velocity (m/s); Gs is the Sediment Specific Gravity; x is the sediment flow by fluid
weight, in parts per million. Engelund and Hansen's ]27[.

󰇡
󰇢󰇡
󰇛󰇜󰇢 (9)
In which is total sediment discharge in weight per unit width; S is the energy slope; V is the flow velocity;
 is the respective specific weights of sediment and water.; is the median particle diameter; g is the
gravitational acceleration;  is the shear stress along the bed. Bagnold's Equation ] 27[.

󰇛 

󰇜 (10)
In which  is the total sediment transport rate by weight per unit channel width; specific weight of sediment
and water, respectively;is the ratio of tangential to normal shear force;  is the shear force acting along
the bed; V is the average flow velocity;  is the efficiency coefficient.
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
In this study, Yang, Ackers and White, Engelund and Hansen, Shen and Hung, Bagnold, and Toffaleti
equations were chosen to assess sediment transport in The Euphrates River. Table 2 summarizes the values
for the measured and computed total load. For the analysis in the present study, various statistical measures
are calculated to compare the performance of the selected equations , as discussed below. To assess the
5
E3S Web of Conferences 427, 04005 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202342704005
ICGEE 2023

applicability of sediment load equations. The discrepancy ratio (DR) is defined as the ratio of computed total
load to measured total load. The discrepancy ratio is scheduled in the range (0.5-2) [28, 29]. The results are
presented in Table 3. The deviation of predicted values from the observed values is obtained graphically
utilizing sediment load equations, as shown in Figure 6.
Table 2. The total load calculated and measured
Vertical
Measured
ton/day
Yang
ton/day
Ackers and
White ton/day
Engelund and
Hansen ton/day
Shen and Hung
ton/day
Bagnold
ton/day
Toffaleti
ton/day
V1 312.35 40.61 44.83 375.76 4.21 101.90 35.52
V2 762.16 150.49 112.34 752.69 18.76 189.89 34.50
V3 1516.13 388.61 327.75 2414.19 32.08 134.85 212.49
V4
1281.79
338.43
349.36
2304.01
78.39
361.58
218.54
V5 388.90 53.49 50.96 530.67 6.11 105.27 11.71
Table 3. Summary of accuracies of different formulas.
Formulas
Percentage of data in the range
Yang
11
Ackers and White
8
Engelund and Hansen
94
Shen and Hung
0
Bagnold
20
Toffaleti
0
The discrepancy ratio must be one to achieve a complete correlation between  and . To test the
reliability of preliminary results obtained based on DR, further statistical measures like mean absolute
percentage error (MAPE), root mean squared error (RMSE), and scatter index (SI) were calculated and
compared. These statistical measures are calculated as given by Equations 12 and 13. The standard deviation
is calculated using Equation 14, and the averaged variation coefficient is calculated using Equation 15. Table
4 presents the results of statistical measures and correlations of computed and observed sediment load
transport.
DR= 
 (11)
RMSE= 󰇛󰇜

  (12)
SI=
󰇛






󰇛





󰇜󰇜

 


 (13)
σ = 󰇛
󰇜󰇛󰇜

 (14)

= 


 (15)
Where  is the measured sediment discharge and  is the computed value,  is the predicted total load,






is the mean predicted total load,  is observed total load, 





is the mean observed total load, and n is
the total number of observations.
Table 4. Comparison using statistical methods
Formula SI RMSE
Average of variation
coefficient
The standard deviation of
the variation coefficient
Yang
0.16
675
0.19
0.076
Ackers and White
0.15
691
0.17
0.095
Engelund and Hansen
0.37
496
1.36
0.386
Shen and Hung
0.18
854
0.01
0.013
Bagnold
0.17
692
0.24
0.088
Toffaleti
0.16
771
0.09
0.087
Figure 6. Total load rate calculated and observed.
The results given by the various formulas are different, and there is very poor agreement between them.
The large deviation between measured sediment transport and calculated is a consequence of each Equation
being derived under conditions specific to each study area and cannot be applied to other study areas with
conditions different from the conditions from which these equations were derived. This illustrates how specific
the presumptions underlying these calculations are. From statistical measures and graphical comparison, it
can be said that the Englund and Hansen equation gives more reliable results than the other equations used
Ϭ
ϱϬϬ
ϭϬϬϬ
ϭϱϬϬ
ϮϬϬϬ
ϮϱϬϬ
Ϭ ϱϬϬ ϭϬϬϬ ϭϱϬϬ ϮϬ ϬϬ ϮϱϬϬ
ĂůĐƵůĂƚĞĚ;ƚŽŶĚĂLJͿ
KďƐĞƌǀĞĚ;ƚŽŶĚĂLJͿ
zĂŶŐΖƐ;ϭϵϳϯͿ
Ϭ
ϱϬϬ
ϭϬϬϬ
ϭϱϬϬ
ϮϬϬϬ
ϮϱϬϬ
Ϭ ϱϬϬ ϭϬϬϬ ϭϱϬϬ ϮϬϬϬ Ϯϱ ϬϬ
ĂůĐƵůĂƚĞĚ;ƚŽŶĚĂLJͿ
KďƐĞƌǀĞĚ;ƚŽŶĚĂLJͿ
ĐŬĞƌƐĂŶĚtŚŝƚĞΖƐ;ϭϵϳϯͿ
Ϭ
ϳϱϬ
ϭϱϬϬ
ϮϮϱϬ
ϯϬϬϬ
Ϭ ϳϱϬ ϭϱϬϬ ϮϮϱϬ ϯϬϬϬ
ĂůĐƵůĂƚĞĚ;ƚŽŶĚĂLJͿ
KďƐĞƌǀĞĚ;ƚŽŶĚĂLJͿ
ŶŐĞůƵŶĚĂŶĚ,ĂŶƐĞŶΖƐ;ϭϵϳϮͿ
Ϭ
ϱϬϬ
ϭϬϬϬ
ϭϱϬϬ
ϮϬϬϬ
ϮϱϬϬ
Ϭ ϱϬϬ ϭϬϬϬ ϭϱϬϬ ϮϬϬϬ ϮϱϬϬ
ĂůĐƵůĂƚĞĚ;ƚŽŶĚĂLJͿ
KďƐĞƌǀĞĚ;ƚŽŶĚĂLJͿ
^ŚĞŶĂŶĚ,ƵŶŐΖƐ;ϭϵϳϮͿ
Ϭ
ϱϬϬ
ϭϬϬϬ
ϭϱϬϬ
ϮϬϬϬ
ϮϱϬϬ
Ϭ ϱϬϬ ϭϬϬϬ ϭϱϬϬ ϮϬϬϬ ϮϱϬϬ
ĂůĐƵůĂƚĞĚ;ƚŽŶĚĂLJͿ
KďƐĞƌǀĞĚ;ƚŽŶĚĂLJͿ
ĂŐŶŽůĚΖƐ;ϭϵϲϲͿ
Ϭ
ϱϬϬ
ϭϬϬϬ
ϭϱϬϬ
ϮϬϬϬ
ϮϱϬϬ
Ϭ ϱϬϬ ϭϬϬϬ ϭϱϬϬ ϮϬϬϬ ϮϱϬϬ
ĂůĐƵůĂƚĞĚ;ƚŽŶĚĂLJͿ
KďƐĞƌǀĞĚ;ƚŽŶĚĂLJͿ
dŽĨĨĂůĞƚŝΖƐ;ϭϵϲϵͿ
6
E3S Web of Conferences 427, 04005 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202342704005
ICGEE 2023

Figure 6. Total load rate calculated and observed.
The results given by the various formulas are different, and there is very poor agreement between them.
The large deviation between measured sediment transport and calculated is a consequence of each Equation
being derived under conditions specific to each study area and cannot be applied to other study areas with
conditions different from the conditions from which these equations were derived. This illustrates how specific
the presumptions underlying these calculations are. From statistical measures and graphical comparison, it
can be said that the Englund and Hansen equation gives more reliable results than the other equations used
Ϭ
ϱϬϬ
ϭϬϬϬ
ϭϱϬϬ
ϮϬϬϬ
ϮϱϬϬ
Ϭ ϱϬϬ ϭϬϬϬ ϭϱϬϬ ϮϬ ϬϬ ϮϱϬϬ
ĂůĐƵůĂƚĞĚ;ƚŽŶĚĂLJͿ
KďƐĞƌǀĞĚ;ƚŽŶĚĂLJͿ
zĂŶŐΖƐ;ϭϵϳϯͿ
Ϭ
ϱϬϬ
ϭϬϬϬ
ϭϱϬϬ
ϮϬϬϬ
ϮϱϬϬ
Ϭ ϱϬϬ ϭϬϬϬ ϭϱϬϬ ϮϬϬϬ Ϯϱ ϬϬ
ĂůĐƵůĂƚĞĚ;ƚŽŶĚĂLJͿ
KďƐĞƌǀĞĚ;ƚŽŶĚĂLJͿ
ĐŬĞƌƐĂŶĚtŚŝƚĞΖƐ;ϭϵϳϯͿ
Ϭ
ϳϱϬ
ϭϱϬϬ
ϮϮϱϬ
ϯϬϬϬ
Ϭ ϳϱϬ ϭϱϬϬ ϮϮϱϬ ϯϬϬϬ
ĂůĐƵůĂƚĞĚ;ƚŽŶĚĂLJͿ
KďƐĞƌǀĞĚ;ƚŽŶĚĂLJͿ
ŶŐĞůƵŶĚĂŶĚ,ĂŶƐĞŶΖƐ;ϭϵϳϮͿ
Ϭ
ϱϬϬ
ϭϬϬϬ
ϭϱϬϬ
ϮϬϬϬ
ϮϱϬϬ
Ϭ ϱϬϬ ϭϬϬϬ ϭϱϬϬ ϮϬϬϬ ϮϱϬϬ
ĂůĐƵůĂƚĞĚ;ƚŽŶĚĂLJͿ
KďƐĞƌǀĞĚ;ƚŽŶĚĂLJͿ
^ŚĞŶĂŶĚ,ƵŶŐΖƐ;ϭϵϳϮͿ
Ϭ
ϱϬϬ
ϭϬϬϬ
ϭϱϬϬ
ϮϬϬϬ
ϮϱϬϬ
Ϭ ϱϬϬ ϭϬϬϬ ϭϱϬϬ ϮϬϬϬ ϮϱϬϬ
ĂůĐƵůĂƚĞĚ;ƚŽŶĚĂLJͿ
KďƐĞƌǀĞĚ;ƚŽŶĚĂLJͿ
ĂŐŶŽůĚΖƐ;ϭϵϲϲͿ
Ϭ
ϱϬϬ
ϭϬϬϬ
ϭϱϬϬ
ϮϬϬϬ
ϮϱϬϬ
Ϭ ϱϬϬ ϭϬϬϬ ϭϱϬϬ ϮϬϬϬ ϮϱϬϬ
ĂůĐƵůĂƚĞĚ;ƚŽŶĚĂLJͿ
KďƐĞƌǀĞĚ;ƚŽŶĚĂLJͿ
dŽĨĨĂůĞƚŝΖƐ;ϭϵϲϵͿ
7
E3S Web of Conferences 427, 04005 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202342704005
ICGEE 2023

in this study, as shown in Figure 6, to estimate the amount of sediment transported in the Euphrates River
upstream of Ramadi Barrage in Iraq.
Numerous academics discussed the likely causes of variations in the sediment load projected by different
formulas. This variation in the forecast can be explained by the irrational behavior of some relevant factors,
including flow velocity, fall velocity, shear stress, particle exposure, etc. Another element that requires more
research is the impact of turbulence on the bed load transport separation of the flow across the bed forms ,
which also contributes to the turbulence[30, 31]. It is believed that the presence of surface organization such
as clusters, imbrications, or protuberant clast may act as a source or sink to incoming sediment particles ] 32 [ .
Most existing formulas for sediment transport were developed with the idea that stream characteristics like
velocity, boundary shear stress, etc., could adequately describe sediment transport, while vertical elements
like water depth (pressure) variance across time and space were left out ]33[. One further crucial element is
bed shape, which directly impacts other random characteristics and can result in a n entirely different
scenario ] 34[.
5. CONCLUSIONS
The current study aimed to determine how well some empirical equations may be used to predict sediment
flow. Given the absence of measurement processes in the study area, it is crucial to specify the sediment
transport equations that can be used to obtain satisfactory results for monitoring the erosion, sedimentation,
and transport processes. This will save time and effort when evaluating and monitoring the processes of
erosion and sedimentation. Used various empirical formulas, including Yang, Ackers, and White, Engelund
and Hansen, Shen and Hung, Bagnold's, and Toffaleti's methods. According to the results obtained by this
study, the following conclusions may be drawn:
• The average total sediment rate in the study is 4267.60 tonnes/day.
• The particle size of bed load material analysis showed that the Euphrates River bed load comprises
100% sand in the study area.
• The Engelund and Hansen (1967) model is the most appropriate from a practical engineering
standpoint when considering hydraulic design and sustainability for this site from the river.
REFERENCES
[1] Rice SK. Suspended Sediment Transport In The Ganges-Brahmaputra River System, Bangladesh.
Ятыатат [Internet]. 2007;вы12у(235):245.
[2] Mustafa AS, Sulaiman SO, Al_Alwani KM. Application of HEC-RAS Model to Predict Sediment Transport
for Euphrates River from Haditha to Heet 2016. J Eng Sci. 2017;20(3):570–7.
[3] Sulaiman SO, Al-Ansari N, Shahadha A, Ismaeel R, Mohammad S. Evaluation of sediment transport
empirical equations: case study of the Euphrates River West Iraq. Arab J Geosci. 2021;14(10).
[4] Salih SQ, Sharafati A, Khosravi K, Faris H, Kisi O, Tao H, et al. River suspended sediment load prediction
based on river discharge information: application of newly developed data mining models. Hydrol Sci J.
2020;65(4):624–37.
[5] Yadav SM, Yadav VK, Gilitwala A. Evaluation of bed load equations using field measured bed load and
bed material load. ISH J Hydraul Eng [Internet]. 2021;27(S1):113–23. Available from:
https://doi.org/10.1080/09715010.2019.1594417
[6] Aude SA, Mahmood NS, Sulaiman SO, Abdullah HH, Al Ansari N. Slope Stability and Soil Liquefaction
Analysis of Earth Dams With a Proposed Method of Geotextile Reinforcement. Int J GEOMATE.
2022;22(94):102–12.
[7] Tao H, Keshtegar B, Yaseen ZM. The feasibility of integrative radial basis M5Tree predictive model for
river suspended sediment load simulation. Water Resour Manag. 2019;33(13):4471–90.
[8] Afan HA, El-shafie A, Mohtar WHMW, Yaseen ZM. Past, present and prospect of an Artificial Intelligence
(AI) based model for sediment transport prediction. J Hydrol. 2016;541:902–13.
[9] Sharafati A, Haghbin M, Motta D, Yaseen ZM. The application of soft computing models and empirical
formulations for hydraulic structure scouring depth simulation: a comprehensive review, assessment and
possible future research direction. Arch Comput Methods Eng. 2021;28(2):423–47.
[10] Abdulhameed IM, Sulaiman SO, Najm ABA. Reuse Wastewater by Using Water Evaluation and Planning
(WEAP) (Ramadi City-Case Study). IOP Conf Ser Earth Environ Sci. 2021;779(1).
[11] Noon AM, Ahmed HGI, Sulaiman SO. Assessment of water demand in Al-Anbar province- Iraq. Environ
Ecol Res. 2021;9(2):64–75.
[12] Kosaj R, Alboresha RS, Sulaiman SO. Comparison between Numerical Flow3d Software and Laboratory
Data, for Sediment Incipient Motion. IOP Conf Ser Earth Environ Sci. 2022;961(1).
[13] Sayl KN, Sulaiman SO, Kamel AH, Muhammad NS, Abdullah J, Al-Ansari N. Minimizing the Impacts of
Desertification in an Arid Region: A Case Study of the West Desert of Iraq. Adv Civ Eng. 2021;2021(June
2009).
[14] Sulaiman SO, Kamel AH, Sayl KN, Alfadhel MY. Water resources management and sustainability over
the Western desert of Iraq. Environ Earth Sci [Internet]. 2019;78(16):1 –15. Available from:
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-019-8510-y
[15] Sulaiman SO, Rajaa AI. Cost-benefit analysis of suggested Ramadi Barrage hydroelectric plant on the
Euphrates River. Int J Comput Aided Eng Technol. 2022;17(1):34–44.
[16] Mahmood NS, Aude SA, Abdullah HH, Sulaiman SO, Ansari N Al. Analysis of Slope Stability and Soil
Liquefaction of Zoned Earth Dams Using Numerical Modeling. Int J Des Nat Ecodynamics.
2022;17(4):557–62.
[17] Weber LJ. The Hydraulics of Open Channel Flow: An Introduction. J Hydraul Eng. 2004;127(3):246–7.
[18] Hassan AO, Mohammed YF, Sadiq QS. A model for removing sediments from open channels. Int J Phys
Sci. 2014;9(4):61–70.
[19] van Rijn L. SEDIMENT TRANSPORT, Part I: Bed load transport. J Hydraul Eng. 1984;110(10):1431 –56.
[20] Addab H, Al-Saadi SIK. Estimation of Sediment Quantity of the Al-Meshkab Regulator Channel. Kufa
University; 2011.
[21] Manual R. Volume 5 sediment transport measurements. 2003;5.
[22] Mhmood HH, Yilmaz M, Sulaiman SO. Simulation of the flood wave caused by hypothetical failure of the
Haditha Dam. Journal of Applied Water Engineering and Research. 2022.
[23] Sulaiman SO, Najm ABA, Kamel AH, Al-Ansari N. Evaluate the optimal future demand of water
consumption in Al-Anbar province in the west of Iraq. Int J Sustain Dev Plan. 2021;16(3):457–62.
[24] Sun Z, Donahue J. Statistically derived bedload formula for any fraction of nonuniform sediment. J
Hydraul Eng. 2000;126(2):105–11.
[25] Bunte K, Abt SR, Potyondy JP, Ryan SE. Measurement of coarse gravel and cobble transport using
portable bedload traps. J Hydraul Eng Vol 130, no 9 (Sept 2004) p 879-893. 2004;
[26] Yang CT, Molinas A. Sediment transport and unit stream power function. J Hydraul Div. 1982;108(6):774–
93.
[27] Yang CT. Sediment Transport. 1996.
[28] Khassaf SI, Safaa K.Hashim A, Sharba NM. Development of New Formula for Computing Total Sediment
Loads at Upstream of AlShamia Barrage. 2016;1(November):1–8.
[29] Khassaf SI, Jaber Abbas M. Modeling of Sediment Transport Upstream of Al-Shamia Barrage. 2015;
[30] Nakagawa H, Zhang H. Modeling of Total Sediment Load Transport in Alluvial Rivers. Proc Hydraul Eng.
2004;48:931–6.
[31] Isabel L, Ramon L. 2D numerical modelling of sediment transport with non uniform material.
2013;(June):1–103.
[32] Zaidan K, Khassaf SI. Sediment Transport Upstream of Reservoir of Haditha Dam. J Eng Dev Vol 9, No
4, 2005. 2005;(December 2005).
[33] Al-Ansari NA, Asaad NM, Walling DE, Hussan SA. The suspended sediment discharge of the river
Euphrates at Haditha, Iraq: an assessment of the potential for establishing sediment rating curves. Geogr
Ann Ser A, Phys Geogr. 1988;70(3):203–13.
[34] Gomez B, Church M. An assessment of bed load sediment transport formulae for gravel bed rivers. Water
Resour Res. 1989;25(6):1161–86.
8
E3S Web of Conferences 427, 04005 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202342704005
ICGEE 2023

[14] Sulaiman SO, Kamel AH, Sayl KN, Alfadhel MY. Water resources management and sustainability over
the Western desert of Iraq. Environ Earth Sci [Internet]. 2019;78(16):1 –15. Available from:
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-019-8510-y
[15] Sulaiman SO, Rajaa AI. Cost-benefit analysis of suggested Ramadi Barrage hydroelectric plant on the
Euphrates River. Int J Comput Aided Eng Technol. 2022;17(1):34–44.
[16] Mahmood NS, Aude SA, Abdullah HH, Sulaiman SO, Ansari N Al. Analysis of Slope Stability and Soil
Liquefaction of Zoned Earth Dams Using Numerical Modeling. Int J Des Nat Ecodynamics.
2022;17(4):557–62.
[17] Weber LJ. The Hydraulics of Open Channel Flow: An Introduction. J Hydraul Eng. 2004;127(3):246–7.
[18] Hassan AO, Mohammed YF, Sadiq QS. A model for removing sediments from open channels. Int J Phys
Sci. 2014;9(4):61–70.
[19] van Rijn L. SEDIMENT TRANSPORT, Part I: Bed load transport. J Hydraul Eng. 1984;110(10):1431 –56.
[20] Addab H, Al-Saadi SIK. Estimation of Sediment Quantity of the Al-Meshkab Regulator Channel. Kufa
University; 2011.
[21] Manual R. Volume 5 sediment transport measurements. 2003;5.
[22] Mhmood HH, Yilmaz M, Sulaiman SO. Simulation of the flood wave caused by hypothetical failure of the
Haditha Dam. Journal of Applied Water Engineering and Research. 2022.
[23] Sulaiman SO, Najm ABA, Kamel AH, Al-Ansari N. Evaluate the optimal future demand of water
consumption in Al-Anbar province in the west of Iraq. Int J Sustain Dev Plan. 2021;16(3):457–62.
[24] Sun Z, Donahue J. Statistically derived bedload formula for any fraction of nonuniform sediment. J
Hydraul Eng. 2000;126(2):105–11.
[25] Bunte K, Abt SR, Potyondy JP, Ryan SE. Measurement of coarse gravel and cobble transport using
portable bedload traps. J Hydraul Eng Vol 130, no 9 (Sept 2004) p 879-893. 2004;
[26] Yang CT, Molinas A. Sediment transport and unit stream power function. J Hydraul Div. 1982;108(6):774–
93.
[27] Yang CT. Sediment Transport. 1996.
[28] Khassaf SI, Safaa K.Hashim A, Sharba NM. Development of New Formula for Computing Total Sediment
Loads at Upstream of AlShamia Barrage. 2016;1(November):1–8.
[29] Khassaf SI, Jaber Abbas M. Modeling of Sediment Transport Upstream of Al-Shamia Barrage. 2015;
[30] Nakagawa H, Zhang H. Modeling of Total Sediment Load Transport in Alluvial Rivers. Proc Hydraul Eng.
2004;48:931–6.
[31] Isabel L, Ramon L. 2D numerical modelling of sediment transport with non uniform material.
2013;(June):1–103.
[32] Zaidan K, Khassaf SI. Sediment Transport Upstream of Reservoir of Haditha Dam. J Eng Dev Vol 9, No
4, 2005. 2005;(December 2005).
[33] Al-Ansari NA, Asaad NM, Walling DE, Hussan SA. The suspended sediment discharge of the river
Euphrates at Haditha, Iraq: an assessment of the potential for establishing sediment rating curves. Geogr
Ann Ser A, Phys Geogr. 1988;70(3):203–13.
[34] Gomez B, Church M. An assessment of bed load sediment transport formulae for gravel bed rivers. Water
Resour Res. 1989;25(6):1161–86.
9
E3S Web of Conferences 427, 04005 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202342704005
ICGEE 2023