Advertisement

River Bed Sediment Management by the Winged Bandal-Like Structure and Selection of Optimum Structure Using Ranking of SAW and TOPSIS Methods

  • Abdollah Sardasteh
  • Seyed Ali AyyoubzadehEmail author
  • Mahmood Shafai Bejestan
  • Jamal Mohammad Vali Samani
Research Paper
  • 8 Downloads

Abstract

This experimental study investigated the physical model of a 180-degree river bend to introduce a new measure called as winged bandal-like (WBL) structure for river bed sediment management. The new structure is a combination of bandal-like (BL) and triangular vane structures. Nine different alternatives of the WBL structure, including three dimensionless vane effective lengths and three different vane angles, were tested in non-submerged and clear water conditions. A total of 18 attributes were then defined in accordance with the resulting river bed scouring and deposition. The multiple-attribute decision-making, simple additive weighting, and TOPSIS methods were employed to rank the alternatives. Baseline tests were also carried out for the BL and the impermeable spur dike (ISD) structures under similar flow conditions. Results revealed that the maximum scour depth, as the main cause of failure around the considered WBL structure, decreased by 31% compared to the scour around the ISD. The maximum deposition height behind the considered WBL structure showed an increase of 47% and 96% in comparison with ISD and BL structures, respectively. In the WBL structure, a longer, better-shaped sedimentary stack was developed along and close to the outer bank.

Keywords

Impermeable spur dike structure Bandal-like structure Winged bandal-like structure SAW method TOPSIS method 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to appreciate Tarbiat Modares University for its supports in terms of this research as a part of first author PhD thesis and the Faculty of Water Engineering of Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz and the Water and Power Organization of Khuzestan for their support.

References

  1. Ahmadi MM, Ayyoubzadeh SA, Montazeri Namin M, Mohammad Vali Samani J (2009) A 2D numerical depth-averaged model for unsteady flow in open channel bends. J Agric Sci Technol 11:457–468Google Scholar
  2. Andreica ME, Dobre I, Andreica MI, Resteanu C (2010) A new portfolio selection method based on interval data. Stud Inform Control 19:253–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bahrami Yarahmadi M, Shafai Bajestan M (2016) Sediment management and flow patterns at river bend due to triangular vanes attached to the bank. J Hydro-environ Res 10:64–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bhuiyan F, Hey RD, Wormleaton PR (2010) Bank-attached vanes for bank erosion control and restoration of river meanders. J Hydraulic Eng 136(9):583–596CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Copeland RR (1983) Bank protection techniques using spur dikes. Hydraulics Laboratory, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MississippiGoogle Scholar
  6. Dashore K, Singh Pawar S, Sohani N, Singh Verma D (2013) Product evaluation using entropy and multi criteria decision making methods. Int J Eng Trends Technol 4(5):2183–2187. ISSN: 2231-5381, http://www.ijettjournal.org
  7. DHI (1992) Hydraulic manual of mike 11 mode, a microcomputer based modelling system for rivers and channels. Danish Hydraulic Institute (DHI), HørsholmGoogle Scholar
  8. Hosseinzadeh Lotfi F, Fallahnejad R (2010) Imprecise Shannon’s entropy and multi attribute decision making. J Entropy 12:53–62.  https://doi.org/10.3390/e12010053 CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. Hwang CL, Yoon K (1981) Multiple attribute decision making methods and application. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Karami A, Johansson R (2014) Utilization of multi attribute decision making techniques to integrate automatic and manual ranking of options. J Inf Sci Eng 30:519–534Google Scholar
  11. Masjedi A, Shafai Bajestan M, Kazemi H (2010) Effects of bridge pier position in a 180 degree flume bens on scour hole depth. J Appl Sci 10(8):670–675CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Morshedi J, Alavi Panah SK (2010) Change prediction of Karoon river lengths by using historical and quantitative geomorphologic data (From Shoshtar to Arvandrod). Q Geogr J Territ Islamic Azad Univ Sci Res Branch 6(22):43–58Google Scholar
  13. Nakagawa H, Teraguchi H, Kawaike K, Baba Y, Zhang H (2011) Analysis of bed variation around bandal-like structures. Annu Disaster Prev Res Inst Kyoto Univ 54B:497–510Google Scholar
  14. Odgaard AJ, Bergs MA (1988) Flow processes in a curved alluvial channel. Water Resour Res 24(1):45–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ozdagoglu A, Yakut E, Bahar S (2017) Machine selection in a dairy product company with entropy and SAW methods integration. Dokuz Eylul Universitesi Iktisadi ve Idari Bilimler Fakultesi Dergisi 32(1):341–359Google Scholar
  16. Perdok UH (2002) Application of timber groynes in coastal engineering. M.Sc. thesis, TU Delft University of TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  17. Rahman MM, Nakagawa H, Ishigaki T, Khaleduzzaman ATM (2003a) Channel stabilization using bandalling. Annu Disaster Prev Res Inst Kyoto Univ 46B:613–618Google Scholar
  18. Rahman MM, Nakagawa H, Khaleduzzaman ATM, Ishigaki T (2003b) Flow and scour-deposition around bandals. In: Proceeding Fifth International Summer Symposium, Japan Society of Civil Engineers, Tokyo, JapanGoogle Scholar
  19. Rahman MM, Nakagawa H, Khaleduzzaman ATM, Ishigaki T (2005) Formation of navigational channel using bandal-like structures. Annu J Hydraulic Eng JSCE 49:997–1002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Rahman MM, Nakagawa H, Ito N, Haque A, Islam T, Rahman MR, Hoque MM (2006) Prediction of local scour depth around bandal-like structures. Annu J Hydraulic Eng JSCE 50:163–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Rajaratnam N, Nwachukwu BA (1983) Flow near groyne-like structures. J Hydraulic Eng ASCE 109(3):463–480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Sardasteh A, Ayyoubzadeh SA, Shafai Bajestan M, Mohammad Vali Samani J (2017) Introduction of winged bandal-like structure and comparison of bed topography changes to bandal-like and impermeable spur dike structures at a 180-degree bend in non-submerged conditions. In: 16th Iranian Hydraulic Conference, Ardabil, IranGoogle Scholar
  23. Shahrokhnia MA, Sepaskhah AR, Javan M (2004) Estimation of hydraulic parameters for karoon river by cokriging and residual kriging. Iran J Sci Technol Trans B 28(B1):153–163Google Scholar
  24. Shannon CE (1948) A mathematical theory of communication. Bell Syst Tech J 27:379–423MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Teraguchi H (2011) Study on hydraulic and morphological characteristics of river channel. Ph.D Thesis, Kyoto University Research Information Repository, 146 ppGoogle Scholar
  26. Teraguchi H, Nakagawa H, Kawaike K, Baba Y, Zhang H (2011) Alternative method for river training works: bandal-like structures. Annu J Hydraulic Eng Jpn Soc Civ Eng 55:151–156Google Scholar
  27. Zhang H, Nakagawa H (2008) Scour around spur dyke: recent advances and future researches. Annu Disaster Prev Res Inst Kyoto Univ Jpn 51B:633–652Google Scholar
  28. Zhang H, Nakagawa H, Baba Y, Kawaike K, Teraguchi H (2010) Three-dimensional flow around bandal-like structures. Annu J Hydraulic Eng Jpn Soc Civ Eng 54:175–180Google Scholar
  29. Zhang H, Nakagawa H, Ogura M, Mizutani H (2013) Experiment study on channel bed characteristics around spur dykes of different shapes. Int J Sedim Res 28:489–499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Zhang Y, Wang Y, Wang J (2014) Objective attributes weights determining based on Shannon information entropy in hesitant fuzzy multiple attribute decision making. Hindawi Publishing Corporation Mathematical Problems in Engineering, Article ID 463930, http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/463930, pp 1–7Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Shiraz University 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Water StructuresTarbiat Modares UniversityTehranIran
  2. 2.Department of Water StructuresShahid Chamran UniversityAhvazIran

Personalised recommendations