You are on page 1of 114

Properties of Dredged

Material

Final Report

Report SR 517
January 2000
Properties of Dredged Material

Final Report

Report SR 517
January 2000

abcd
Address and Registered Office: HR Wallingford Ltd. Howbery Park, Wallingford, OXON OX10 8BA
Tel: +44 (0) 1491 835381 Fax: +44 (0) 1491 832233

Registered in England No. 2562099. HR Wallingford is a wholly owned subsidiary of HR Wallingford Group Ltd.
ABCD ii SR 517 13/09/02
Contract

This report describes work funded by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and
Food under Contract CSA 3112. Publication implies no endorsement by the
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food of the report’s conclusions.

The MAFF project code was AE0228. The HR Wallingford Job Number was
DDS 0006. The work was carried out by Mr Nigel Feates, Ms Helen Mitchener
and Dr Jeremy Spearman. The Project Manager was Dr Mike Dearnaley. The
Ministry’s Nominated Project Officers were Dr Lindsay Murray and Dr Paul
Gurbutt. HR’s Nominated Project Officer was Dr Stephen Huntington.

Prepared by ..........................................................................................

(name)

..........................................................................................

(Title)

Approved by ..........................................................................................

(name)

..........................................................................................

(Title)

Date ...........................................

© Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food 2002

ABCD iii SR 517 13/09/02


ABCD iv SR 517 13/09/02
Executive Summary

Properties of Dredged Material

Final Report

Report SR 517
January 2000

HR Wallingford was commissioned by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and


Food (MAFF) to carry out a study aimed at investigating the physical properties of
dredged material and the importance of these properties with regards to disposal at
offshore locations.

Since the winter of 1995/1996 minipods have been deployed at various locations
around the periphery of disposal sites offshore of Harwich and the River Tees on
the east coast of England. A minipod is a multi-parameter bottom lander
developed by CEFAS (Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture
Science), an agency of MAFF. The purpose of the minipod deployments was
primarily to measure the hydrodynamic conditions that exist at the sites as an aid
to predicting the likely level of dispersion of the material being placed at the
disposal site. The duration of the minipod deployments was typically five to six
weeks.

The physical properties of the dredged material at the two sites was measured for
each of the three phases of the dredging cycle i.e. pre-dredging, dredging and post-
dredging. Measurements of the physical properties were made both in the field
and in the laboratory. In the field, specially designed instruments were used to
measure the critical erosion threshold in-situ. The instruments used to make these
measurements were ISIS (Instrument for Shear Stress In-Situ) and its development
SedErode (Sediment Erosion device). Laboratory measurements were made on
bulk samples obtained from each of the sites.

The results of the field studies at the Harwich disposal site were considered of
sufficient interest and value to be worthy of comparing predictive modelling
techniques for the dispersion of placed material with the field observations.

This Final Study Report brings together an extensive programme of research


undertaken under this contract. Supporting information is provided in a series of
Technical Reports which give details of the various studies carried out.

For further information on this study please contact Dr Mike Dearnaley or


Mr Nigel Feates in the Dredging and Sedimentation Group at HR Wallingford.

ABCD v SR 517 13/09/02


ABCD vi SR 517 13/09/02
Contents
Title page i
Contract iii
Executive Summary v
Contents vii

1. Introduction ................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Background.................................................................................... 1
1.2 Objectives ...................................................................................... 1
1.3 Approach ....................................................................................... 1
1.4 Technical Report Source List ........................................................ 2
1.5 Report structure ............................................................................. 2

2. Knowledge Enhancement ........................................................................... 3


2.1 Literature review............................................................................ 3
2.2 Issues associated with dispersion from offshore disposal sites ..... 3
2.3 Consolidation of dredged material................................................. 4
2.4 Beneficial use of dredged material ................................................ 4

3. Previous information on properties of dredged material ............................ 4


3.1 Processes of erosion and deposition of sediment........................... 4
3.2 Dispersion of dredged material...................................................... 5
3.3 Laboratory tests on mud ................................................................ 6
3.4 Laboratory tests on sand ................................................................ 6
3.5 Laboratory tests on mud/sand mixtures ......................................... 6
3.6 Erodability tests on mudflats ......................................................... 7
3.7 In-situ erosion flumes .................................................................... 7
3.8 Anecdotal evidence........................................................................ 7

4. Field Measurements.................................................................................... 7
4.1 Minipod deployments .................................................................... 8
4.1.1 Instrumentation................................................................. 8
4.1.2 Data logging configuration............................................... 9
4.2 In-situ erosion threshold measurements ........................................ 9
4.2.1 NIOZ corer sampling methodology.................................. 9
4.2.2 Hopper sampling methodology....................................... 10
4.2.3 Critical shear stress measurement procedure.................. 11
4.2.4 Other measurements and observations ........................... 11
4.3 Summary of field measurements ................................................. 11

5. Measurements at the River Tees............................................................... 12


5.1 Tees physical properties .............................................................. 13
5.1.1 Summary of data............................................................. 13
5.1.2 Analysis of data .............................................................. 14
5.2 Tees hydraulic environment ........................................................ 15
5.2.1 Summary of data............................................................. 15
5.2.2 Analysis of data .............................................................. 16

6. Measurements at Harwich ........................................................................ 17


6.1 Harwich physical properties ........................................................ 17
6.1.1 Summary of data............................................................. 18

ABCD vii SR 517 13/09/02


Contents continued
6.1.2 Analysis of data.............................................................. 20
6.2 Harwich hydraulic environment .................................................. 20
6.2.1 Summary of data ............................................................ 21
6.2.2 Analysis of data.............................................................. 22
6.3 Coring at the WD Fairway placement site .................................. 23

7. Findings and their Application ................................................................. 23


7.1 Sediment variability .................................................................... 24
7.2 Probability of erosion .................................................................. 24
7.3 Application in numerical modelling............................................ 25
7.3.1 Introduction .................................................................... 25
7.3.2 Description of the placement.......................................... 26
7.3.3 Methodology .................................................................. 26
7.3.4 Results ............................................................................ 26
7.3.5 Discussion and conclusions............................................ 27

8. Conclusions and recommendations .......................................................... 27


8.1 Field measurements..................................................................... 27
8.2 Measurements at the River Tees.................................................. 28
8.2.1 Pre-dredging phase ......................................................... 28
8.2.2 Dredging phase............................................................... 28
8.2.3 Post-dredging phase ....................................................... 28
8.2.4 Minipod measurements .................................................. 29
8.3 Measurements at Harwich ........................................................... 29
8.3.1 Pre-dredging phase ........................................................ 29
8.3.2 Dredging phase............................................................... 30
8.3.3 Post-dredging.................................................................. 30
8.3.4 Minipod measurements .................................................. 31
8.4 Findings and their Application .................................................... 31
8.5 Recommendations ....................................................................... 31

9. Acknowledgements .................................................................................. 32

10. References ................................................................................................ 33

Tables
Table 1 Timetable of field measurements
Table 3 Surface sediment properties – Dredging phase
Table 4 Surface sediment properties : Post-dredging phase
Table 5 Surface sediment properties – Pre-dredging phase
Table 6 Surface sediment properties – Dredging phase
Table 7 Surface sediment properties – Post-dredging phase

Figures
Figure 1 Location Plan
Figure 2 Silt content versus critical shear stress - Tees
Figure 3 Bulk density versus critical shear stress - Tees
Figure 4 Silt content versus bulk density - Tees
Figure 5 Tees disposal site

ABCD viii SR 517 13/09/02


Contents continued
Figure 6 Example of turbidity and wave data - Tees
Figure 7 Dredged material placements at the Tees disposal site
Figure 8 Particle vector diagram for a placement at the Tees disposal site
Figure 9 Example ABS burst data from the Tees disposal site
Figure 10 Harwich Harbour and disposal site
Figure 11 Silt content versus bulk density - Harwich
Figure 12 Bulk density versus critical shear stress - Harwich
Figure 13 Silt content versus bulk density - Harwich
Figure 14 Example of turbidity and wave data - Harwich
Figure 15 Turbidity levels before, during and after dredging - Harwich
Figure 16 Particle vector diagram for a placement at the Harwich disposal site
Figure 17 Example ABS burst data from the Harwich disposal site
Figure 18 Probability of shear stress exceedance at the disposal sites
Figure 19 Predicted suspended sediment concentration and observed turbidity at
Threshold, simulation of dispersion of fine material initially released
in water column
Figure 20 Predicted suspended sediment concentration and observed turbidity at
Threshold, simulation of dispersion of fine material resuspended from
the bed
Figure 21 Comparison of observed turbidity and observed wave conditions
during placement by W.D.Fairway
Figure 22 Comparison of observed turbidity and observed near bed tidal current
speed during placement by W.D.Fairway

Plates
Plate 1 Minipod aboard RV Corystes prior to deployment
Plate 2 Minipod instrumentation
Plate 3 Syringe water samplers
Plate 4 The NIOZ corer being deployed from RV Cirolana
Plate 5 ISIS head unit positioned on a typical core sample
Plate 6 SedErode being deployed in both sleeve and tray modes
Plate 7 Sediment surfaces as collected and after surface smoothing
Plate 8 An example of bed layering at the Tees disposal site
Plate 9 Interface between material types - Landguard Fort
Plate 10 Example of exposed surface following WD Fairway placement

Appendices
Appendix 1 ISIS – Instrument for Shear stress In-Situ
Appendix 2 SedErode – Sediment Erosion Device

ABCD ix SR 517 13/09/02


ABCD x SR 517 13/09/02
1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background
Little is known about the physical properties of dredged material once placed at an offshore disposal site.
Few specific measurements have been made, particularly of maintenance dredged muddy material and the
main source of information tends to arise from anecdotal information from Port Authorities and Dredging
Contractors during the course of their management of disposal activities.

Dredged material is likely to consist of a mixture of mud, sand, gravel and stone in varying proportions.
The dredging process itself will change many of the in-situ bed sediment properties of the material. This
may be by mixing (so any 3-D structure will be lost), the addition of water, loss of fine material, or a
change in the chemical environment (e.g. anoxic to an oxic state) or break-up of biological algal growth,
burrows, and/or secretions. Other changes may include pH, salinity, pore water pressure, temperature,
density, texture and colour.

HR Wallingford was commissioned by MAFF in 1995 to carry out a study aimed at investigating the
physical properties of dredged material and the importance of these properties with regards to disposal at
offshore locations. This report summarises the work done as part of this project.

1.2 Objectives
Prediction of the behaviour and ultimate fate of dredged material placed on the sea or estuary bed is
required if informed decisions are to be made concerning legislation and licensing of disposal methods and
sites. The purpose of the research undertaken for this study is to improve knowledge of the properties of
real dredged material. This information will allow predictive methods to be made more reliable in their
representation of erosion and transport. This, in turn, will enable those responsible for legislation and
licensing to make informed decisions concerning the environmental impact of disposal in a wide range of
situations. Most, if not all, existing models assume homogeneous material, either cohesive (mud) or
cohesionless (sand and gravel). In reality much of the material dredged around the UK is a mixture of
material types ranging from a slurry arising from maintenance dredging in silts to mixtures of rock and
clay generated with bucket dredgers. The physical properties of these mixtures, particularly the erodibility
after placement, are little known. Determining the erosion and consolidation characteristics of the
material, once place on the bed, is an important step in predicting the environmental impact of the
placement of the material.

From the MAFF dredging licence database for the UK (1985 to 1994) approximately 85% of the total
tonnage of material placed at disposal sites is generated from maintenance dredging. The remaining 15%
is the result of capital dredging work. For this reason the research undertaken during the course of this
study focuses on the behaviour of maintenance material.

1.3 Approach
In order to obtain the best measurement of the critical erosion threshold of a surface layer the measurement
should be made in-situ. At the time of writing the proposal for this study there were no devices available
for making sub-tidal measurements of the critical erosion threshold. It was therefore originally proposed
that large bulk samples of dredged material be transported from the dredging site to HR for investigation in
a flume.

A concern regarding the flume type experiment was the likelihood that the physical properties of the
material may have significantly changed as a result of being handled and transported over a period of time.
For this reason alternative approaches were investigated. During the course of early minipod deployments
a large diameter NIOZ corer was deployed and was found to provide a suitable in-situ sample of material
on which to use the ISIS instrument for measuring erodibility of material. This combination of instruments

ABCD 1 SR 517 13/09/02


proved to be highly flexible and the large scale laboratory experiments were replaced with on board ship
measurements which were able to represent more closely the in-situ physical properties of the material.

It was thus agreed that the investigations should be based around obtaining large undisturbed seabed cores
from an area over and surrounding the disposal site of interest. The critical erosion threshold of the
exposed surface would be measured by use of the HR in-situ erosion bell. The physical properties of the
material were determined prior to dredging, within the hopper of the trailer dredgers used for the dredging
and post placement at the disposal site. For material collected from the pre-dredging and post-dredging
phases of the dredging cycle the HR erosion bell ISIS (Appendix 1) and its development SedErode
(Appendix 2) would be used. For material collected during the dredging phase, from the hopper of the
dredger, SedErode was to be used.

In parallel with the measurement of the physical properties of dredged material a series of field
measurements were carried out at the disposal sites. These were undertaken by CEFAS, Lowestoft to
examine the nature of the hydrodynamic and sediment environments that occur at the disposal sites at
which the physical properties of the placed material were being measured.

1.4 Technical Report Source List


The studies summarised in this report have been described in more detail in previous Technical Reports.
The full list of these reports is as follows:

TR 14 Properties of Dredged Material. Erosion shear stress measurements on seabed cores taken from
Sellafield mud patch 26 May – 31 May 1996.

TR 17 Development of SedErode, Instrument for in-situ mud erosion measurements

TR 21 Properties of Dredged Material. Review of available measurement techniques for determining


physical properties.

TR 44 Shear stress measurements on seabed cores taken from Lowestoft Harbour.

TR 46 Properties of Dredged Material, Measurement of sediment properties of dredged material from


Harwich Harbour.

TR 47 Properties of Dredged Material, Minipod deployments at the Roughs Tower disposal site.

TR 53 Properties of Dredged Material, Harwich minipod deployments – Winter 1997.

TR 54 Properties of Dredged Material, Measurement of sediment properties of dredged material from the
Tees estuary.

TR 61 Properties of Dredged Material, Minipod deployments at the Tees disposal site.

TR 63 Measurement of sediment properties of reclamation material from Parkstone Yacht Club.

TR 72 Beneficial Use of Dredged Material, North Shotley.

1.5 Report structure


The remainder of this report is in six chapters. The importance of the study in terms of knowledge
enhancement is described in Chapter 2. The state of knowledge of sediment properties is discussed in
Chapter 3. In Chapter 4 the instrumentation and methodology used in the study is described. The results

ABCD 2 SR 517 13/09/02


of the field measurements are presented in Chapter s 5 and 6. Chapter 7 describes some applications of the
field measurement results. The conclusions arising from the study are presented in Chapter 8.

2. KNOWLEDGE ENHANCEMENT

2.1 Literature review


As part of this study a review of available measurement techniques for determining the physical properties
of sediments (including dredged material) was carried out (Reference 3). The objectives of the literature
review were to review the techniques and methods that are presently used to evaluate sediment properties
and to evaluate laboratory and field measurements that relate to dominantly cohesive or mixed cohesive
sediments. The review also aimed to highlight any changes that may result during dredging of cohesive
based sediments and to relate this to any relevant literature.

In the review the laboratory and field measurement of the physical properties of dredged material are
divided into two categories, inherent properties and behavioural properties. In the inherent properties
category the measurement of density, density profile, vertical structure, grain size distribution, chemical
compound and environment and rheological parameters are discussed. In the behavioural properties
category the measurement of erosion, settling and consolidation are discussed.

Finally the review summarises a number of other studies undertaken relating to dredged material.

• The use of radioactive sediment tracers to study the release, transfer properties and distribution over
the seabed of dredged materials at sites in France and Belgium.

• Stiff or highly plastic clays often form clay balls, which slow down the transport process. Tests were
carried out to simulate of the degradation of clay balls in dredge pipes by exposing clay lumps to
agitation in a rotating drum.

• The geotechnical properties needed for a complete and adequate evaluation when considering dredging
requirements are widespread. A computer program providing guidance of sampling and testing
techniques that can be used at a single exploration site during a subsurface investigation for dredging
projects has been written.

• A study that defines the standard dredging related descriptors that may be used to give an indication of
the dredging requirements of in-situ sediments.

2.2 Issues associated with dispersion from offshore disposal sites


Offshore disposal sites are generally monitored by regular bathymetric surveys. The results of such a
survey may indicate that dredged material disposed of at the site is remaining on the seabed and that the
site is non-dispersive for that particular material. Alternatively the survey may show that the bathymetry
has not significantly changed since the previous survey despite the disposal of a large volume of dredged
material. In this case the site is deemed dispersive and the material has dispersed from the disposal site
either during the disposal process or from the seabed some time after disposal.

Dredged material that disperses from a disposal site is likely to be re-deposited elsewhere. It may take
some time to find the new deposition site and during this period may influence local suspended solids
concentrations significantly, possibly leading to the smothering of nearby shellfish beds. The rate of
dispersion of material from a site is therefore of particular interest as is the potential for material to
disperse from a site under extreme conditions.

ABCD 3 SR 517 13/09/02


2.3 Consolidation of dredged material
From bulk density measurements carried out on the surface layer of cores retrieved from the seabed an
indication of the level of consolidation of dredged material placed at the site can be obtained. Given the
dynamic nature in which the dredged material is normally placed at a site the issue of consolidation is only
likely to be important at low energy sites.

2.4 Beneficial use of dredged material


Beneficial uses of dredged material may include use for coastal defence, nature conservation initiatives or
habitat creation. Before any decisions are made regarding beneficial use applications the suitability of the
supply material must be determined. If, for example, the dredged material is to be used for a habitat
creation scheme information relating to the physical and chemical properties of the material (density,
resistance to erosion, contaminants etc.) must first be sought. The potential for dispersion of material from
the site also needs to be considered.

3. PREVIOUS INFORMATION ON PROPERTIES OF DREDGED MATERIAL

Historically, sediments have been treated as either muds or sands because the characteristics and resultant
behaviour are very different. As a result there are well-established sediment transport formulas for non-
cohesive sediments, and some for muddy sediments, but few parameterisations exist for true sediment
mixtures. Most literature references to mixed sediment behaviour is incidental and describes the effect of
adding sand to mud or vice versa, but still treating the sediment as if it were a mud or a sand.

3.1 Processes of erosion and deposition of sediment


The amount of sediment carried in suspension in the water column is principally dependent on two factors:

• The ability of the currents (and/or waves) to resuspend material from the bed
• The ability of the currents (and/or waves) to keep material in suspension

For non-cohesive sediments the first of these factors can be examined by considering the sum of forces on
an individual grain. Such a procedure leads to the conclusion that when the drag force exerted on the fluid
by the grain exceeds a certain threshold, the grain will move. The point at which the grain moves can be
calculated analytically for different grain sizes, assuming certain packing and grain geometry, to give a
threshold function dependent on grain size. This function is classically stated in terms of a threshold of
bed shear stress. Shields (Reference 4) conducted a large number of laboratory experiments over a variety
of sediment types, and produced the well known graphical results linking non-dimensional flow conditions
to non-dimensional erosion threshold.

For cohesive sediments classical theory adopts the same approach to the threshold of erosion of material.
However, for cohesive material the balance of forces is not between the weight of particle and the drag
force, but between the attractive physico-chemical forces imposed on a particle by its neighbours and the
drag force. The cohesive attraction experienced by an individual particle is not well described by science
and therefore the threshold at which erosion can occur tends to be obtained through laboratory, or more
recently in situ, experiments on mud samples.

Once the critical threshold has been exceeded, classical theory (e.g. Reference 5) gives the rate of erosion
of sediment (by mass) of both non-cohesive and cohesive material to be proportional to excess bed shear
stress above the threshold,(τ-τe), with the constant of proportionality again dependent on the substance in
question, and therefore empirically determined. The coarser sand particles do not tend to move very far
upwards through the water column, because of their higher settling velocities, and sediment transport for
these particles cannot be thought of as strict suspension but as a series of leaps and jumps. For this reason
the transport of such sediment along the bed has often been described by holistic empirically-based

ABCD 4 SR 517 13/09/02


equations which lump together the processes of erosion/deposition and advection of such particles – e.g.
Van Rijn (References 6 and 7).

In an analogous manner, the settling of material from suspension onto the bed is also described by classical
theory using a critical threshold of bed shear stress for deposition. Once bed shear stress falls below this
threshold, the rate of deposition (by mass) to the bed is proportional to the product of the settling velocity
and the concentration field. Krone (Reference 8) gives the constant of proportionality as (1-τ/τd).
Essentially this is a linear interpolation between the state of no flow (τ=0) when material settles at the rate
determined by the concentration and the settling velocity and the threshold state when no settling can occur
(τ=τd).

The principal of a threshold for deposition is open to question in the physical sense. Its use prescribes the
deposition of material at levels of bed shear stress greater than the erosion threshold, which observations
have shown not to be the case. This discrepancy results from the use of bed shear stress to describe
resuspension/deposition, rather than turbulence. It can be demonstrated that bed shear stress is
proportional to the intensity of turbulence at the bed under clear water conditions. However, use of bed
shear stress as the fundamental parameter describing deposition does not allow for the damping effect of
increasing concentration on the turbulence field itself. A more physics-based approach is to consider the
turbulence-induced movement of sediment particles near the bed, the so-called gradient diffusion
approach.

For sand suspensions, the settling flux of grains near the bed can be equated to the counterbalancing
upward turbulent diffusion. If some simplifying assumptions are made about the variation of eddy
diffusivity with distance from the bed, then a “saturation” through-depth concentration profile can be
derived. Different assumptions produce different types of profile, such as the well known Rouse profile or
that proposed by Van Rijn (Reference 7). The shape of such profiles is further (empirically) dependent on
the erosion threshold of bed shear stress. This approach gives different behaviour to the classical approach
since if a saturated concentration experiences any reduction in current speed, even at very high speeds,
there will be reduced concentrations in the water column and therefore deposition. Using the same
approach to derive a similar concentration profile for mud is prevented by the uncertainty concerning the
processes that occur in muds very near to the bed. However recent work by Galland et al (Reference 9)
and Winterwerp (Reference 10) has shown that the depth-averaged “saturated” concentration can be
derived which increases with bed shear stress and decreases with depth and settling velocity.

The approach of equating upward turbulent diffusion with the settling flux is itself a simplification of the
real system as it represents a time and space averaged view of turbulent diffusion “events” and assumes
that the scale of these events is small compared to the scales of the relevant situation. In reality the system
consists of a series of discrete random turbulent “bursts”, which carry sediment away from the bed,
followed by a compensating “inrush” of fluid towards the bed. Hogg et al (Reference 11) have shown that
by considering the processes involved in individual “bursts”, the gradient-diffusion approach can be re-
derived.

3.2 Dispersion of dredged material


Studies have been undertaken to track the dispersion of material in suspension away from a dredging
operation. Methods of plume tracking have included adding tracers to the load prior to disposal, using
water-sampling techniques and using a vessel mounted Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler (ADCP). An
ADCP, when used in backscatter mode, can give a visual indication of plume size and concentration.
These approaches have been reviewed in a recent CIRIA study (Ref RP600).

Computer models can be used to predict the dispersion of dredged material from a point source. The
ability of such models to make an accurate prediction is limited by the reliability of the dispersion
algorithms within the model. Such algorithms are based on information acquired from measurements
made in the field. Further field measurements of plume dispersion will provide information that will allow

ABCD 5 SR 517 13/09/02


computer models to be made more reliable in their predictions of erosion and transport. The Consortium
of Dutch Dredging Contractors (VBKO) are funding research and field measurements in this area
(Reference 12).

3.3 Laboratory tests on mud


The vast majority of laboratory tests on mud have been aimed at measuring the three principal physical
properties of settling, consolidation and erosion.

In general settling and consolidation tests have been carried out using settling columns whereby the mud is
mixed into a suspension before being introduced to the top of the column filled with water. From the
extraction of small water samples at various heights in the column over a period of time information
relating to the settling characteristics can be obtained. From the regular measurement of the height of the
settled mud/water interface information relating to the consolidation characteristics can be obtained.
Information relating to the density structure of the settled mud bed can be obtained from sampling or
profiling with a non-intrusive device such as a nuclear transmission probe.

Laboratory measurements of critical erosion threshold have been made in straight, annular and wave
flumes. There are many methods for forming a mud bed in the working section of a flume. Essentially
these consist of either physically shovelling and levelling the mud bed or settling it out of suspension by
first filling the flume with a mud slurry. Both of these methods have drawbacks in terms of how
representative they are of a naturally deposited and consolidated mud bed. Mud beds settled from
suspension have low bulk densities unless left to consolidate for long periods. Mud beds of this type are
generally untypical of a natural exposed mud surface, but may more closely represent dredged material on
the bed that has been recently disposed of from a dredger. Higher mud densities may only be achieved by
the shovelling and levelling technique, the process of which invariably changes the structure of the
sediment. Where it is not practicable to obtain large bulk samples of material it may be possible to use a
box corer to obtain smaller samples that may be investigated in a modified flume. However, erosion of the
mud surface in a box core may often be controlled by the box core itself unless a sub area of the core
surface can be isolated.

3.4 Laboratory tests on sand


Laboratory tests carried out to measure the physical properties of sand are similar to those carried out on
mud, as briefly described above. As sand is non-cohesive the settling, consolidation and erosion properties
are quite different to those of mud. In an erosion flume, flowing water over a bed of sand will tend to
generate bed load transport in the form of sand waves that move downstream rather than the sand particles
being lifted in suspension, as would be the case for mud.

3.5 Laboratory tests on mud/sand mixtures


Natural sediments rarely consist uniformly of either mud or sand and the majority of estuarine sediments
are comprised of a combination of grain sizes comprising sands, silts and clays, and even gravels. The
mineralogical make-up is also varied as sand is primarily quartz, but clay particles are comprised of metal
silicates in different chemical forms. Other sediment constituents may include organic particles and
polymers, oil, and shell fragments.

The fabric of the sediment becomes important when considering sediment mixtures because these
sediments are commonly deposited in layers, with a degree of vertical sorting. This means that natural
undisturbed sediment may be comprised of layers of mud and sand and thus its sediment transport
properties will reflect it’s structural composition. The sediment may then undergo mechanical and
biological reworking which will break up the vertical structure, as well as compaction, consolidation,
erosion and further deposition. Mixed sediments are thus classified as homogeneous or layered sediment
and are in practice a complex, three-dimensional combination of textural and sedimentological
constituents.

ABCD 6 SR 517 13/09/02


Few laboratory tests have been carried out to measure the physical properties of mud/sand mixtures. Test
procedures for measuring properties relating to deposition, consolidation and erosion would be similar to
those described for mud above.

3.6 Erodability tests on mudflats


Devices used for carrying out erodability tests on inter-tidal mudflats are generally portable devices that
can make a measurement relating to erodability within a few minutes. Some instruments measure the
critical shear stress directly by pumping an eroding medium over the exposed surface at progressively
higher discharges. From the measurement of the turbidity of the eroding medium the point at which
erosion begins can be identified by a turbidity jump. From the associated discharge the critical shear stress
can be determined.

Other devices measure the erodability indirectly. For example the bed strength may be determined by the
measurement of the acoustic shear wave velocity. Though this is not a direct measurement of the critical
erosion threshold the measured data can be calibrated in order that it can be inferred.

3.7 In-situ erosion flumes


An in-situ erosion flume tends to be a larger, less portable device that is placed on an inter-tidal mud bed at
low water and left in place until the following low water when it may be recovered. Generally these
devices have the disadvantage that only one measurement of critical shear stress can be made during each
tidal cycle. They do however have the advantage that they cover larger areas of the bed than truly portable
devices.

3.8 Anecdotal evidence


Most licensed disposal sites around the coast of the UK have been used on a regular basis for decades. It is
common for these sites to be surveyed regularly to ensure that any placements of material are not posing a
threat to navigation. The majority of these sites show only very small changes in bathymetry despite the
placement of large quantities of maintenance dredged material. This indicates that the sites are dispersive.
An example of such a site is the Roughs Tower at Harwich. Disposal of material arising from capital
dredging may lead to significant changes and even the eventual filling of a site.

4. FIELD MEASUREMENTS

Prediction of the behaviour and ultimate fate of dredged material placed on the sea or estuary bed is
required if informed decisions are to be made concerning legislation and licensing of disposal methods and
sites.

The purpose of the field measurements undertaken for this study is to improve knowledge of the properties
of real dredged material. This information will allow predictive methods to be made more reliable in their
predictions of erosion and transport. This, in turn, will enable those responsible for legislation and
licensing to make informed decisions concerning the environmental impact of disposal in a wide range of
situations.

Two primary methods were used in the collection of the field measurements during the course of this
study. Firstly, data was collected relating to the physical properties of dredged material during the three
phases of the dredging cycle i.e. before, during and after dredging. Secondly the hydrodynamic and
suspended sediment regimes that existed at the disposal sites were measured.

In the case of the measurement of the physical properties of dredged material the field data collected was
based on obtaining large undisturbed seabed cores from an area over and surrounding the disposal site of
interest. The critical erosion threshold of the exposed surface was measured by the application of the HR
in-situ erosion bell, ISIS and its development SedErode

ABCD 7 SR 517 13/09/02


Field measurements to examine the nature of the hydraulic environment that occurs at the disposal sites
were undertaken by CEFAS, Lowestoft using a specially developed seabed lander called a ‘minipod’.

The timetable of fieldwork carried out during the course of this study is provided in Table 1. The field
measurements are described in detail in References 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18, and summarised in Sections
4.1 and 4.2 below. The results of the field measurements are provided in Chapter 5.

4.1 Minipod deployments


This section describes the MAFF CEFAS minipod and its associated instrumentation.

The minipod is a bottom lander developed by CEFAS (Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture
Science, an agency of MAFF (Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Foods). The minipod was originally
designed to enable an estimate of the sediment concentration near to the seabed to be made. The purpose of
the minipod deployments made during this study was primarily to characterise the hydrodynamic
conditions that exist at the site as an aid to predicting the likely level of dispersion of the material being
placed at the disposal site. The duration of the minipod deployments was typically five to six weeks.
Plate 1 shows a minipod aboard the MAFF research vessel RV Corystes prior to deployment.

4.1.1 Instrumentation
Each minipod was fitted with a set of sensors to provide information relating to the hydrodynamic
conditions that exist at the deployment site. Generally all deployments were fitted with the same set of
instruments. Different logging regimes may be triggered by changes in significant wave height. Each of
the minipod instruments are briefly described below.

Current meter
A single Marsh McBirney electromagnetic current meter was used to measure current speeds in the X and
Y horizontal planes. From this information, and knowing the orientation of the minipod, current velocities
and directions can be derived. The current meter was typically fixed at a height of about 0.4 m above the
bed. The current meter is shown fitted to a minipod in Plate 2.

Suspended sediment sensor


Point measurements of the suspended sediment concentration were obtained by the use of a Miniature
Optical Backscatter Sensor (MOBS). For each of the minipod deployments two MOBS were fitted to the
minipod to measure the suspended sediment concentration at two heights above the bed. The MOBS were
typically fixed at heights of 0.54 m and 0.72 m above the bed. The MOBS are shown fitted to a minipod in
Plate 2.

Acoustic backscatter sensor


A two-frequency (1 MHz and 6 MHz) Acoustic Backscatter Sensor (ABS) was used to measure the
vertical profile of suspended sediment concentration between the sensor and the bed. The data provided by
the ABS, which is in terms of nominal backpressure, may also be used to make an estimate of the sediment
size distribution. The ABS was typically fixed at a height of 0.8 m above the bed. The ABS is shown
fitted to a minipod in Plate 2.

Pressure sensor
Tidal elevation and wave statistics (significant wave height, wave period and bed orbital velocity) were
derived from a Digiquartz pressure sensor installed at a height of 1.76 m above the bed.

Syringe water sampler


To provide water samples with which to aid the calibration of the optical sensors a number of syringe
water samplers were fitted to the minipod. The samplers, which have a capacity of 1.8 litres, operate by

ABCD 8 SR 517 13/09/02


moving a piston within a cylinder to draw water from an intake nozzle fixed to one of the minipod legs at
the same height above the bed as the MOBS are fitted. The control system allows each syringe to be
programmed independently, firing when a certain criteria is met. Plate 3 shows syringe water samples
mounted on a minipod.

Sediment trap
To provide a sample with which to calibrate the acoustic backscatter sensors sediment traps have been
used. The sediment traps (mini booner tubes) are fixed to one of the minipod legs close to the bed. The
tubes are designed to trap any suspended sediment passing through the tube. Once the minipod has been
recovered from the seabed the sediment may be removed.

The more recent minipod deployments have utilised timed booner tubes. These have only lately been
developed and are able to collect many discrete samples during the period of the deployment. The tube
incorporates a number of plastic discs that may be released to descend to the surface of the existing
sediment layer in the tube. Any subsequent trapped material is therefore isolated from samples from above
and below. The instrument may be programmed to release a disc either at a certain time, or following an
event of a certain magnitude. Levels of wave height, current speed and suspended solids concentration
may be used to trigger the release of a disc. A timed booner tube is shown in Plate 2.

Auxiliary sensors
All minipod deployments incorporated a standard set of auxiliary sensors for measuring the alignment of
the minipod on the seabed i.e. pitch, roll, and compass orientation. Water temperature was also recorded.
The pitch and roll sensors can be used in conjunction with the compass to determine if the minipod has
moved on the seabed during a deployment. The true current direction is determined from the current meter
u and v components of velocity corrected based on the measured compass reading i.e. corrected for the
minipod orientation.

4.1.2 Data logging configuration


The data recorded by a minipod is stored on an internal hard disk that is downloaded following recovery
from the seabed. The duration of the deployment, the number and type of instruments fitted and the size of
the data storage disk are all factors that determine the frequency at which data is stored. Each of the
instruments can be configured to switch on and off at pre-determined intervals. In most cases the burst
interval was 10 minutes every 30 minutes (i.e. switched off for 20 minutes). Whilst an instrument was
switched on, the frequency at which measured data was recorded varied between 1Hz and 5Hz.

4.2 In-situ erosion threshold measurements


This section describes the methods of sample collection and the measurement of the critical erosion
threshold.

4.2.1 NIOZ corer sampling methodology


For the measurement of the critical shear stress of material relating to the pre-dredging and post-dredging
phases of the dredging cycle a NIOZ corer was used to collect undisturbed bed samples.

The NIOZ corer, which is owned by CEFAS, is unique in terms of being capable of collecting large
undisturbed seabed samples. The core sleeves are approximately 325mm in diameter and 555mm deep.
The size of the corer itself is 2.5m long, 1.5m wide by 2.6m high and has a weight in excess of 460kg. In
order to deploy the corer over the side of a vessel a clearance of at least 8.5m is required between the deck
and the main lifting boom.

ABCD 9 SR 517 13/09/02


During the course of this study over 100 seabed samples were collected with the NIOZ corer deployed
from the MAFF research vessels RV Cirolana and RV Cirolana. The NIOZ corer is shown being deployed
from RV Cirolana in Plate 4.

The procedure adopted for the measurement of the critical shear stress of the exposed surface of the core
sample is to first siphon off any overlying water prior to planting one of the two HR erosion bell devices
ISIS or its development SedErode. These devices are briefly described in the sections below and in detail
in Appendices 1 and 2 and References 1 and 2.

The NIOZ corer was first used to collect undisturbed bed samples during a trial carried out at the Sellafield
mud patch in May 1996 (Reference 3). The trials showed that the sampling and shear stress measurement
methodology briefly described above was practical. Previous trials carried out by MAFF have shown that
this procedure of retrieving bed samples caused minimal disturbance to the exposed surface. At present
the use of the NIOZ corer is believed to be the only means whereby large surface area undisturbed samples
can be obtained from sub-tidal sites.

The cores were generally retrieved from the seabed in batches and then stockpiled. This meant that in
some cases the instrument was not planted on the test surface for up to six hours after the core had been
retrieved from the seabed. This was not considered to have any significant effect on the determination of
the critical shear stress, as the ambient water that covered the test surface upon retrieval remained in place
up until a few minutes before the test commenced.

The use of ISIS within NIOZ core tubes was achieved by the development of a specially designed support
frame. This frame allowed the ISIS head unit to be supported and positioned within the NIOZ core sleeve.
The design of the frame also allowed for different depths of sediment within the cores to be accessible to
the ISIS head unit. Plate 5 shows the ISIS head unit positioned on a typical core sample, and the same
sample after testing with the core sleeve removed.

The use of SedErode on seabed material collected with the NIOZ corer was achieved by one of two
methods depending on whether or not the retrieved core sample was full or not. As the diameter of the
SedErode flange was greater than the diameter of the core sleeves, SedErode could only be applied directly
on full cores. In these cases the sediment surface was skimmed level with the rim of the sleeve. This
provided a flat surface onto which SedErode was planted, the rim of the sleeve acting as a support for the
instrument. If, on the other hand, the core sample was not full then a representative sample was transferred
from the sleeve into a specifically designed test tray and carefully smoothed. The SedErode instrument
was then planted on the resulting surface. Plate 6 shows SedErode being deployed in both sleeve and tray
modes.

Where a surface was to be tested with both ISIS and SedErode the SedErode test was generally carried out
first on full core samples. If the core was not full then the ISIS test was carried out first.

4.2.2 Hopper sampling methodology


For the measurement of the critical shear stress of material relating to the dredging phase of the dredging
cycle samples were collected from the dredger hopper.

Samples were collected from the hopper of the dredger by suspending galvanised steel buckets in the
hopper prior to the commencement of dredging. When dredging had finished the buckets were retrieved
from the hopper and carried to the area of the ship where SedErode was set up. In most cases two bucket
samples were collected from each dredging load. Prior to each SedErode measurement the bucket sample
was transferred into a specially designed test tray and carefully smoothed.

ABCD 10 SR 517 13/09/02


4.2.3 Critical shear stress measurement procedure
During the course of this study both ISIS and its development SedErode were used for the measurement of
critical shear stress. The measurement procedure was very similar for both instruments.

Local ambient seawater was used as the eroding medium for each of the tests. A bulk sample of this water
was collected and where possible, left overnight to allow any sediment to settle out of suspension and to
deaerate. Clearer water was then decanted from the bulk sample prior to use in the instruments as and
when required. The basic test procedure for the critical erosion measurement runs was as follows:

1. The test surface was prepared for measurement by first removing any large surface debris and
overlying water. Some samples required varying degrees of surface smoothing which was done very
carefully by hand to minimise the disturbance, whilst ensuring an even representative sediment surface
for testing. Overfull core samples were skimmed level with the top of the core sleeve. Plate 7 shows
an example of the sediment surfaces as collected, and after surface smoothing.

2. The instrument was then positioned onto the test mud surface, and the system was filled with ambient
seawater. In the case of ISIS the head unit was manually positioned close to the bed, with the gap
between the two ranging between about 7 and 10 mm. The distance between the ISIS bell head and
the mud surface was measured accurately (to within ±0.25 mm) using 2 ultrasonic transducers located
within the head unit and positioned over 2 different areas of the test surface. The gap was taken as the
average of these 2 measurements. In the case of SedErode the gap is fixed at 5.8 mm, the distance
between the underside of the support flange and the head unit. The nephelometer turbidity sensor was
then zeroed, and logging commenced.

3. The flow of water through the system was then increased in controlled steps to apply increasing shear
stress steps to the mud surface. The lowest discharge setting (i.e. the lowest applied shear stress) was
applied for 3 to 4 minutes to allow the water within the recirculating system to become fully mixed,
and a baseline turbidity to be established prior to applying increased shear stresses and monitoring the
erosion response. Higher applied shear stresses then resulted in increasingly larger amounts of bed
material being removed from the test surface and therefore an increased turbidity within the system.
This confirmed that surface bulk erosion had occurred.

Each ISIS measurement run took between 40 minutes to 1 hour to complete. In comparison a SedErode
measurement was generally completed within 20 minutes.

4.2.4 Other measurements and observations


Prior to an erosion measurement being made a photographic record was taken of the test surface and a
small scrape of the top 2mm of the sediment was taken (typical sample mass 25-50 g). The sediment
sample was taken from the outer edge so as not to interfere with the test surface. The sediment samples
were double-bagged in polythene and returned to HR Wallingford for subsequent laboratory analysis for
bulk density, mud and sand content and determination of particle size distribution. Finally, when
applicable, a series of five shear vane measurements were taken from around the perimeter of the core
surface using a Pilcon hand shear vane. The shear vane, which was 33mm in diameter and 50mm long,
was pushed into the test surface to a depth of 70mm. Generally, shear vane measurements were not
possible as the material was either too coarse (in the case of the disposal site cores), or of insufficient
density to register a reading (in the case of the harbour and hopper samples).

4.3 Summary of field measurements


Field measurements undertaken during the course of this study were primarily carried out at the River Tees
and at Harwich, both on the East Coast of England. The main reason for this choice was because the
maintenance dredging operations at the two sites were quite different. At the River Tees, the Tees and

ABCD 11 SR 517 13/09/02


Hartlepool Port Authority (THPA) operate two trailing suction hopper dredgers and a smaller grab dredger.
Dredging is carried out on a more or less daily basis, with regular placements of small amounts of material
at the disposal. In contrast at Harwich, dredging does not take place continually but as campaigns 5 to 6
times a year. In this case larger amounts of material tend to be placed at the disposal site in relatively short
periods of time. Harwich Haven Authority (HHA), who do not have their own dredging fleet, utilise
Dredging Contractors to undertake the work. During the course of this study all dredging undertaken at
Harwich was carried out by Westminster Dredging.

Other reasons for choosing these two sites were: -

• Both sites are on the East Coast of England and within two days sailing of Lowestoft, the base port for
the MAFF research ships.

• The water depths at the two sites are quite different. At the Tees disposal site the depth of water is
about 33m. At Harwich the water depth at the Roughs Tower disposal site is about 13m. This
difference in water depth, and hence current speeds, was considered likely to give quite different
results in terms of dispersion at the two sites.

Sediment properties
In-situ measurements of the critical erosion threshold of material collected from various locations around
Harwich Harbour and the River Tees have been made. The material was collected from various locations
to represent the three phases of the dredging cycle i.e. pre-dredging, dredging and post-dredging.

Seabed cores were taken from the MAFF research vessels RV Cirolana and RV Corystes during six short
cruises that took place between April 1996 and December 1997. In addition to seabed cores samples of
dredged material were taken from a dredger hopper at each of the sites. During the course of the sampling
campaigns at Harwich and the Tees a total of 123 sediment samples were obtained. From these 123
samples a total of 94 critical shear stress measurements were obtained. Some of the measurements were
not made on the exposed surface but on sub-samples taken from different levels within the core.

Hydraulic environment
During the course of the study minipod deployments were made at the Tees Inner disposal site (2
deployments) and at the Harwich Roughs Tower disposal site (7 deployments). The duration of the
minipod deployments was typically five to six weeks.

In the following chapter the results of the field measurements made at Harwich and the Tees are
summarised. For clarification the results are divided into for sub-sections.

• Tees physical properties (Section 5.1)


• Tees hydraulic environment (Section 5.2)
• Harwich physical properties (Section 6.1)
• Harwich hydraulic environment (Section 6.2)

5. MEASUREMENTS AT THE RIVER TEES

A comprehensive set of results from each of the field measurement exercises is provided in detail in the
associated technical reports (References 16 and 18). In this report selected examples of the measured data
are presented. In the following sub-sections the measurements are described, summarised and
relationships discussed where appropriate.

ABCD 12 SR 517 13/09/02


5.1 Tees physical properties
Seabed cores were taken from the River Tees and the inner disposal site from the MAFF research vessel
RV Cirolana during cruises in December 1996, January 1997 and November 1997. During the three
sampling campaigns a total of 35 core samples were obtained. Of these 35 samples 23 were considered to
have surfaces suitable for testing with ISIS, i.e. of sufficient depth and reasonably planar. During
November 1997 a further 11 surface shear stress measurements were made with SedErode, a development
of ISIS. In most of these cases measurements were also made with ISIS in order to provide a comparison
of results obtained from the two instruments. During September 1997 a total of 23 erosion threshold
measurements were made on material taken from the hopper of the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority
(THPA) trailer dredger Heortnesse using the SedErode instrument.

SedErode, which is a more recently developed miniaturised version of ISIS, was not available for use
during the December 1996 and January 1997 cruises. The two instruments were used side-by-side during
the November 1997 cruise only. Each instrument has its own particular application. ISIS was specifically
modified in March 1996 to allow surface shear stress measurements to be made directly onto the bed
material collected with the NIOZ corer operated by CEFAS. SedErode, which is principally designed to
operate on exposed inter-tidal mud banks, was modified in August 1997 to allow materials collected in a
specially designed erosion tray to be tested. This was particularly useful aboard the dredger where the
material collected from the hopper was fluid and so could be readily poured from the collecting vessel into
the erosion tray.

5.1.1 Summary of data


A brief summary of the results are provided in each section below with appropriate references to tables and
figures where more detailed results may be found.

Pre-dredging phase
For measurements on material representing the pre-dredging phase of the dredging cycle core samples
were collected from within the navigation channel of the lower River Tees in an area adjacent to the ICI
Petrochemicals No 2 jetty (typically 54° 35.787′ N, 01° 10.364′ W). This is an area of the river that
requires regular dredging to remove accumulations of silt. During the coring exercise it was noted that the
penetration depth of the corer was quite variable suggesting that some areas of the channel are more
susceptible to accretion than others. It is also understood that this reach of the river had recently been
dredged by THPA. The material collected from the bed of the river was observed to be black/brown in
colour and very gelatinous in consistency.

The results of the erosion tests and subsequent laboratory analyses are given in detail in Appendix 4 of
Reference 16 and summarised below and in Table 2.

Critical shear stress measurements made on this material gave results varying between 0.03 N/m2 and 0.37
N/m2. The material collected generally composed 95% silt (particles less than 63 microns). The bulk
density of the samples tested varied between 1380 kg/m3 and 1520 kg/m3. The median grain size of the
samples was about 7 µm and the mud/sand mixture varied between about 87% and 97% mud.

Dredging phase
The hopper measurements (i.e. the dredging phase of the dredging cycle) were made aboard the THPA
trailing suction dredger “Heortnesse”, whilst dredging off of South Bank No 6 jetty, a region of the River
where the bed is predominantly silt. This area of the river, which also requires regular dredging to remove
accumulations of silt, is some 700m further upstream than the pre-dredging coring locations discussed
above. During the period of the measurements seven hopper loads were sampled. The hopper samples
were observed to be fluid and gelatinous in composition. This gelatinous consistency was also observed
during the pre-dredging measurements, although these appeared to be more consolidated and of a higher
bulk density.

ABCD 13 SR 517 13/09/02


The results of the erosion tests and subsequent laboratory analyses are given in detail in Appendix 4 of
Reference 16 and summarised below and in Table 3.

The critical erosion shear stress (τcr) of the hopper material, measured using SedErode, ranged between
0.29 N/m2 and 0.69 N/m2. The bulk density of the samples tested with SedErode varied between 1400
kg/m3 and 1660 kg/m3. The average bulk density of the samples tested was about 1480 kg/m3. The
median grain size ranged between about 5 µm and 20 µm and the mud/sand mixture varied between about
65% and 90% mud.

It is interesting to note that the measured ranges for both the density and the τcr are slightly higher than
measured on the pre-dredging samples described above. This is despite the observation that the pre-
dredging samples appeared to be more consolidated. However, the material was dredged from a different
site.

Post-dredging phase
In order that the best targeting of dredged material placements at the Inner Tees disposal site could be
made information was provided by THPA regarding the location of recent placements of dredged material.
Despite having this information to hand very little cohesive sediment was found at the site. The reason for
this may be due to a large proportion of the fine material being dispersed from the site before reaching the
seabed and the very weak strength of the material once it accumulated on the bed. On a few occasions a
very thin film of cohesive sediment was observed on the surface of the core sample. Due to the very low
density of this material it is possible that the intrusive action of the coring procedure was disturbing this
thin sediment layer causing it to be washed into suspension.

The surface of the cores retrieved from the disposal site generally comprised fine sand, silt and small
particles of coal. Sectioning the cores clearly showed layers of fine sand separated by thinner layers of
small granules of coal. This feature of bed structuring was observed to varying degrees in all of the
disposal site cores. An example of the bed layering is shown in Plate 8. It is assumed that the coal is now
naturally present offshore in Tees Bay rather than the dredgers transporting it to the site from the estuary.

The results of the erosion tests and subsequent laboratory analyses are given in detail in Appendix 4 of
Reference 16 and summarised below and in Table 4.

From the measurements made on surface material found at the disposal site (i.e. the post-dredging phase of
the dredging cycle) the critical shear stress for the initiation of erosion was found to vary between about
0.04 N/m2 and 0.24 N/m2. Generally the material found was a mixture of fine sand, silt and small
fragments of coal. Although this was not a particularly cohesive surface, erosion threshold measurements
were successfully carried out nevertheless. The bulk density of the samples tested varied between 1400
kg/m3 and 2150 kg/m3. The median grain size ranged between about 110 µm and 395 µm and the
mud/sand mixture varied between about 4% and 35% mud.

The measurements of critical shear stress on the post-dredging samples were generally lower than those
measured on the samples representing the pre-dredging and the dredging phases of the dredging cycle.
This was due to the low level of cohesion of the samples. The average mud content of these samples was
14% compared with 95% mud and 78% mud for the river and hopper samples respectively.

5.1.2 Analysis of data


Figure 2 shows the determined silt content plotted against the measured critical shear stress for the Tees
samples. Generally the higher the silt content of the sample the greater was the resistance to erosion. The
material that was least resistant to erosion were the seabed samples collected from the disposal site. The
highest resistance to erosion was encountered with the samples taken from the dredger hopper. The
material with the highest silt content was that collected from the bed of the River. In this case the

ABCD 14 SR 517 13/09/02


resistance to erosion was not as great as that measured on material from the dredger hopper. The reason
for this being the case is not clear. As mentioned in the section above the hopper material was observed to
be particularly gelatinous though still fluid in composition. It is believed that it was this gelatinous
property that enhanced the natural resistance of the material to erosion.

Figure 3 shows the sample bulk density plotted against critical shear stress for each of the Tees samples.
As the physical characteristics of the samples from each of the three material groups are different no
overall relationship may be identified. Within each of the individual groups there is a large variability in
critical shear stress with respect to bulk density. This variability is greater for those samples collected
from the dredger hopper.

During the pre-dredging measurements three erosion tests were carried out with both ISIS and SedErode
on the same bulk sample. The comparative results, which are shown in Figure 3, show that ISIS was
consistently returning a higher critical shear stress than SedErode. Further inspection of the test details
showed that for the two samples with a bulk density of about 1400 kg/m3, the ISIS test was in fact carried
out over 24 hours after the SedErode test. In the case of the sample with a bulk density of about 1500
kg/m3 the SedErode test was carried out 17 hours after the ISIS test, but was a remould of the surface
material in the erosion tray. This limited comparison data suggests two things. Firstly, that leaving the
sample overnight results in the exposed surface having a greater resistance to erosion, and secondly that
the process of transferring a sample into the erosion tray and subsequent remoulding has the effect of
reducing the resistance to erosion.

Figure 4 shows the relationship between bulk density plotted against percentage silt as determined from
laboratory analysis. This demonstrates the effect of the high sand content (65% to 95%) increasing the
density at the disposal site (1400 to 2200 kg/m3). The composition of the material collected from the
hopper of the dredger varied between about 60% and 90% silt. The dredging operation itself had very
little effect on the bulk density of the material, this being about 1450 kg/m3 for both the harbour and
hopper samples. In the case of the pre-dredged material collected from within the river the silt content was
consistently about 95%.

5.2 Tees hydraulic environment


During the course of this study two minipods were deployed from the MAFF research vessel RV Cirolana
at the Tees Inner disposal site. The deployments were left on the seabed for a period of six weeks during
the winters of 1995/1996 and 1996/1997. The minipods were located to the north west of the disposal site
some 2.25km from the general placement area as shown in Figure 5.

5.2.1 Summary of data


At each of the sites there was a repeating pattern in terms of the level of turbidity during the tidal cycle
demonstrating the natural variability of the suspended load at the site. The data also shows that during
spring tide periods the suspended solids concentrations were higher than those during neap tide periods.
The data shows very clearly that the major influencing factor on the level of near-bed suspended solids
concentration are the associated wave conditions. Figure 6 shows the recorded Miniature Optical
Backscatter Sensor (MOBS) and wave data for the winter 1995/1996 deployment. The MOBS data shows
that the sensor that is lower in the water column (closer to the bed) consistently records a higher level of
turbidity. The figure shows that the largest waves recorded during the period of the deployment had a
significant wave height of about 0.5m.

During each of the periods of minipod deployment dredged maintenance material from the River Tees was
placed within the general placement area of the disposal site. On only one occasion was there a possibility
that the effect of material placement may have been detected at the minipod site some 2.25km away. This
was during the winter 1996/97 deployment when the minipod detected an increase in the level of
suspended solids over a period of about 4 hours with no substantial increase in the associated significant

ABCD 15 SR 517 13/09/02


wave height. This period of increased concentration coincided with the passage of a plume of placed
material based on current speeds and directions measured by the minipod.

During the period of the winter 1996/97 deployment it was found that the majority of the plumes tracked
from the disposal site were passing well south of the minipod location. Therefore, prior to the winter
1997/98 deployment a special request was made to the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority to place a
limited number of loads in the northern corner of the disposal site, some 1 km to the north of the general
placement area. During the 10 days after deployment six loads of dredged material were placed at the
requested location. Analysis of the recorded suspended solids data showed no evidence of passing plumes
of dredged material being detected.

A likely reason for the passing plumes not being detected by the minipod instrumentation is the relatively
short burst length in relation to the burst interval. For the Tees minipod deployments the burst length was
8½ minutes with an interval between bursts of 1 hour i.e. recording for 14% of the time. It therefore
follows that it is quite possible that in some cases the passage of the plume of dredged material was simply
missed by the instrumentation. Advances in computer technology meant that minipod deployments at
Harwich in November 1997 were able to utilise larger storage disks that allowed the burst length to be
increased to 10 minutes with a reduced interval of 30 minutes (i.e. recording for 33% of the time).

5.2.2 Analysis of data


The data recorded by the Miniature Optical Backscatter Sensors (MOBS) from the River Tees deployments
is presented in terms of an output voltage as no calibration between voltage and suspended solids
concentration was available. Nevertheless the time series plots of suspended solids concentration
presented in Reference 18 demonstrate that the magnitude of the suspended load varies considerably
depending on the stage of tidal cycle, the stage of the spring/neap cycle and the associated wave
conditions. This is the natural variability that exists at the site.

Figure 6 shows the turbidity and wave data recorded by the winter 1995/1996 deployment. The figure
clearly demonstrates the relationship between turbidity and wave activity.

Of particular interest is the magnitude of the turbidity generated by a particular height wave occurring at
the site where the water depth is about 36 m. Prior to the occurrence of the largest waves on 19/02/96 the
recorded turbidity had not been over scale. The effect of the orbital velocity associated with the largest
waves was to create a shear stress at the bed that was high enough to erode and resuspend bed material that
would not normally be disturbed by smaller waves. As the wave height reduced the suspended material
was allowed to settle back onto the bed as a fresh, low density, deposit. As the density of the new deposit
is low it is a source of material that may now be resuspended by much smaller waves than those that
originally eroded it from the seabed. Figure 6 shows that the height of the next group of notable waves is
only about 0.1m. These waves, though fairly small, suspend sufficient material from the seabed to give off
scale readings on both of the MOBS sensors. Prior to the arrival of the large waves of 19/02/96 there
would not have been sufficient material on the seabed in the form of a new deposit for these smaller waves
to give an over scale reading. This illustrates an important mechanism of untypical large waves to generate
a sediment source that remains available for resuspension by smaller waves for 3 to 4 weeks before either
being dispersed from the site or having undergone sufficient consolidation to resist erosion.

During each of the periods of minipod deployment dredged maintenance material from the River Tees was
placed within the general placement area of the disposal site. The Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority
(THPA) provided HR with details of the dredging and disposal activity at the site during the period of each
of the deployments. Figure 7 gives details of each of the dredged material placements made during the
period of the winter 1995/1996 deployment in terms of hopper volume. The figure shows that the majority
of the 190,000 m3 of maintenance material was placed at the disposal site by the THPA trailing suction
dredger Heortnesse and that the typical dredger load is between 200 m3 and 1,700 m3. It is interesting to
note that during the period of the large wave activity discussed above no material was placed at the

ABCD 16 SR 517 13/09/02


disposal site. The reason for this is simply that the sea conditions were too severe for the dredging fleet to
operate.

Using the current speed and direction data measured by the minipod a progressive vector diagram (PVD)
was generated for each load of dredged material placed at the disposal site. Each PVD gave a particle
track covering a period of 5 to 7 hours after its release at the disposal site.

From the analysis of the PVD tracks and the associated turbidity records from the two Tees minipod
deployments there was only one occasion that was identified where the effect of a placement may have
been detected. During the winter 1995/96 deployment the minipod instrumentation detected an increase in
the level of suspended solids over a period of about 4 hours with no substantial increase in the associated
significant wave height. This period of increased concentration coincided with the passage of a plume of
placed material based on current speeds and directions measured by the minipod. The derived PVD for
this placement of material and the associated turbidity and wave data is shown in Figure 8. In this case the
dredger log describes the load to be sand. In this case the released plume of dredged material will have
been subject to dispersion by waves and currents for between 5 and 6 hours prior to passing the minipod
site. By making some basic assumptions and applying simple theory an estimate of the distance over
which the dredged material will have dispersed may be made. Assuming a constant current speed of
0.1 m/s, a water depth of 33 m and a settling velocity of 5 mm/s, fine sand (d50=0.1 mm) would take about
2 hours to reach the bed and would be dispersed over a longitudinal distance of about 650 m. This is
considered to be an overestimate as samples taken from the Tees disposal site suggest that the median
particle size of the bed material is significantly larger that that assumed above. Based on this simple
assessment it is unlikely that any sand placed in the central area of the disposal site would still be in
suspension by the time that the plume passed the minipod site.

The direction of the main flood and ebb tide is shown in Figure 5. This shows that it is unlikely that any
material released within the general placement area will be carried past the minipod sites by the main run
of the ebb tide. With this in mind, during the winter 1996/97 minipod deployment, a special request was
made to the THPA to place a limited number of loads in the northern corner of the disposal site, some 1 km
to the north of the general placement area. During the 10 days after deployment six loads of dredged
material (both sand and silt) were placed at the requested location. Analysis of the recorded suspended
solids data showed no evidence of passing plumes of dredged material being detected.

Figure 9 shows an example of the ABS burst data recorded during the winter 1996/97 deployment. In this
case the burst mean significant wave height is about 0.55m in a water depth of about 38m. The effect of
the wave-generated near-bed turbulence on the suspended solids concentration is quite marked even in this
depth of water. The ABS data shows that for larger waves the associated near-bed orbital velocity lifts
more material into the water column than for smaller waves. The effect of each individual wave can be
seen as a separate peak in the ABS record.

6. MEASUREMENTS AT HARWICH

A comprehensive set of results from each of the field measurement exercises is provided in detail in the
associated technical reports (References 14, 15 and 17). In this report selected examples of the measured
data are presented. In the following sub-sections the measurements are described, summarised and
relationships discussed where appropriate.

6.1 Harwich physical properties


Seabed cores were taken from Harwich Harbour and the Roughs Tower disposal site from aboard the
MAFF research vessels RV Cirolana and RV Corystes during cruises in April 1996, December 1996,
January 1997, November 1997 and December 1997. In addition to seabed cores samples of dredged
material were taken from the hopper of the Westminster Dredging trailing suction dredger Sospan whilst
working in the Harbour in December 1997. During the six sampling campaigns a total of 67 sediment

ABCD 17 SR 517 13/09/02


samples were obtained. From these 67 samples a total of 43 critical shear stress measurements were
obtained using the HR erosion bell ISIS and its development SedErode. In some cases a shear
measurement was not possible as the corer failed to yield sufficient material. In other cases the exposed
surface of the core was not considered to be sufficiently planar.

SedErode, which is a more recently developed miniaturised version of ISIS, was not available for use until
the December 1997 cruise. Each instrument has its own particular application. ISIS was specifically
modified in March 1996 to allow surface shear stress measurements to be made directly onto the bed
material collected with the NIOZ corer operated by CEFAS. SedErode, which is principally designed to
operate on exposed inter-tidal mud banks, was modified in August 1997 to allow materials collected in a
specially designed erosion tray to be tested. This was particularly useful aboard the dredger where the
material collected from the hopper was fluid and so could be readily poured from the collecting vessel into
the erosion tray. During the December 1997 measurements in Harwich Harbour both instruments were
used, though not on the same samples. ISIS was deployed on the exposed surface of the cores and
SedErode was used on a sub-sample of material taken from a lower layer.

6.1.1 Summary of data


A brief summary of the results are provided in each section below with appropriate references to tables and
figures where more detailed results may be found.

Pre-dredging phase
During each of the two visits to Harwich Harbour three cores were taken from each of three sites. The
harbour locations were adjacent to Trinity Berth 7 at Felixstowe, 100m off shore of Trinity Berth 7 and to
the side of the navigation channel adjacent to Landguard Fort. The 3 Harbour coring sites are shown in
Figure 10.

Critical shear stress measurements were carried out on the exposed surface of all 18 of the harbour
samples. Two of the measurements failed due to poor sealing between the ISIS head and the test surface.
Due to the relatively low density of the material several of the cores were overfull upon retrieval. These
cores required the surface to be skimmed level with the top of the sleeve prior to testing with ISIS.

Several of the retrieved cores showed a distinct interface between two material types of quite different
densities. On these occasions, where possible, critical shear stress and subsequent laboratory measurements
were made on the exposed surface with ISIS and on the underlying denser layer with SedErode. An
example of this feature is shown in Plate 9. This core (Core F7) was retrieved from the Landguard Fort
site in January 1997. The density of the surface layer varied between 1225 kg/m3 and 1504 kg/m3 in
contrast with that of the lower layer, which varied between 1350 kg/m3 and 1610 kg/m3.

The results of the erosion tests and subsequent laboratory analyses are given in detail in Appendix 4 of
Reference 14 and summarised below and in Table 5.

The grain size analysis of the harbour samples yielded mud fractions (particles less than 63 microns)
ranging between about 91% and 99% by weight. The bulk densities reflected the variability in the sample
composition, with values between about 1230 kg/m3 and 1610 kg/m3. The median grain size ranged
between about 5 µm and 11 µm.

The critical erosion shear stress (τcr) of the exposed surface measured using ISIS ranged between about
0.005 N/m2 and 0.075 N/m2. The SedErode measurements carried out on material from the lower layer
yielded a τcr ranging between 0.16 N/m2 and 0.32 N/m2. It should be noted that the SedErode
measurements were generally carried out on higher density, sub-surface layers. The measured stresses are

ABCD 18 SR 517 13/09/02


typical for soft to medium consistency marine cohesive sediment, and the range reflects the differences in
density, sand content and biological activity within the sediment.

The results of the laboratory analysis showed that regardless of the sample density the composition in
terms of particle size was very similar from one sample to another. The results generally showed a
tendency for greater silt content by weight for higher density samples. Where the carbon content was
measured by loss on ignition the results showed that the carbon content was generally higher by 1% or 2%
in those samples taken from beneath the exposed surface.

Dredging phase
The erodability measurements relating to the dredging phase of the dredging cycle at Harwich were made
on samples collected from the hopper of the trailing suction hopper dredger Sospan during December
1997. During the period of the measurements the vessel, operated by Westminster Dredging, was carrying
out foreshore recharge works at Shotley Point in Harwich Harbour. This placement is being monitored
under another MAFF funded research study at HR (Reference 19). The Sospan was dredging in the
Felixstowe berths. This is an area that is subject to maintenance dredging 5 to 6 times a year to remove
accumulations of silt.

The hopper samples were observed to be very similar in composition to the pre-dredged samples retrieved
by coring. The main difference between the two material types was the fluidity. The hopper material
resembled thick soup that could readily be poured whereas the core samples had an appearance more
typical of an in-situ cohesive material.

The results of the erosion tests and subsequent laboratory analyses are given in detail in Appendix 4 of
Reference 14 and summarised below and in Table 6.

The grain size analysis of the hopper samples yielded mud fractions ranging between about 96% and 99%
by weight. The bulk densities reflected the variability in the sample composition, with values between
1260 kg/m3 and 1450 kg/m3. The median grain size for all samples tested in the laboratory was about 5
µm.

The critical erosion shear stress (τcr) measured using SedErode ranged between 0.06 N/m2 and 0.29 N/m2.
This range of shear stresses is similar to that measured on the pre-dredged material (0.005 N/m2 to 0. 0.32
N/m2).

Post-dredging
Over the course of the four visits to the Roughs Tower disposal site 39 seabed cores were collected. The
location of the disposal site is shown in Figure 10. The coring locations were generally chosen based on
information from Harwich Haven Authority and from sidescan sonar surveys.

Of the 39 cores retrieved from this site only 7 critical shear stress measurements were made. The primary
reason for the small number of erodability measurements was that most of the exposed surfaces retrieved
were unsuitable for the measurement devices to be planted on. The surface of the cores retrieved from the
disposal site generally comprised clean sand and gravel with some shell fragments. On occasions dense
clay was interspersed with the sand and gravel.

Sectioning the cores often revealed dense cohesive material beneath the exposed surface. The reason for
absence of significant amounts of cohesive sediment is probably due to a large proportion of the fine
material being dispersed from the site before reaching the seabed. For material that does reach the seabed
dispersion is also rapid. The relatively shallow water depths and high current speeds that exist at the site
support the theory that the site is highly dispersive.

ABCD 19 SR 517 13/09/02


The results of the erosion tests and subsequent laboratory analyses are given in detail in Appendix 4 of
Reference 14 and summarised below and in Table 7.

The grain size analysis of the surface samples retrieved from the disposal site varied immensely. Mud
fractions (particles less than 63 microns) ranged between about 0.5% and 85% by weight. The bulk
density of the samples ranged between about 1600 kg/m3 and 2500 kg/m3. The median grain size ranged
between about 5 µm and 21500 µm, again reflecting the variability in the surface material.

The limited number of erosion measurements made using ISIS on materials from the disposal site gave
critical erosion shear stresses (τcr) ranging between about 0.09 N/m2 and 1.26 N/m2.

6.1.2 Analysis of data


Figure 11 shows the measured silt content plotted against critical shear stress (τc) for each of the Harwich
samples. The figure shows that the material from the three phases of the dredging cycle falls into two
distinct groups. The material collected from the Harbour and from the dredger hopper shows similar
properties, particularly in terms of silt content, which varies between about 90% and 100%. The figure
also shows the large variability in the physical properties of the material found at the disposal site.
Generally this material comprised greater than 80% sand interspersed with fine silt and shell fragments.

The material that was least resistant to erosion was the exposed surface layer of the Harbour samples, the
average τc being about 0.05 N/m2 measured with ISIS. The material collected from the hopper of the
dredger had an average τc about 0.17 N/m2 measured with SedErode. The material group with the highest
resistance to erosion was the sub-surface layer of the Harbour samples, the average τc being about 0.30
N/m2 measured with SedErode.

Figure 12 shows the bulk density plotted against critical shear stress (τc) for each of the Harwich samples.
The figure shows that although there is no overall relationship, within the four distinct groups of data
points there is generally a trend for τc to increase with bulk density. The obvious exception to this is the
material collected from the disposal site where, for the limited data provided, no relationship appears to
exist. The τc for the disposal site samples, measured with ISIS, varied between about 0.1 N/m2 and 0.4
N/m2 with only a small variation in the bulk density.

Figure 13 shows the bulk density plotted against silt content for each of the Harwich samples. The figure
again demonstrates the strong similarity between the Harbour and dredger hopper samples in terms of both
density and composition. Compared to materials tested from other locations, such as the Tees (Figure 4)
there is very little scatter. In the case of the Harwich samples the dredging operation appears to have had
the effect of reducing the bulk density of the material. For the hopper samples the bulk density was
typically 1350 kg/m3 compared to 1500 kg/m3 for the harbour samples.

6.2 Harwich hydraulic environment


During the course of this study seven minipods have been deployed around the periphery of the Roughs
Tower disposal site from the MAFF research vessels RV Cirolana and RV Corystes. The deployments
were left on the seabed for a period of between six and ten week during the winters of 1995, 1996 and
1997. The minipods were located around the periphery of the disposal site, between about 1km and 5km
from the general placement area as shown in Figure 10.

There were a number of problems encountered at Harwich during the minipod deployments. The first two
minipods were deployed for a period of about 9 weeks during early 1996. Soon after the data had been
downloaded from the minipods it was clear that both minipods had fallen over within an hour of each other
during a large storm in the early hours of 6 February. The significant wave height at the time was
measured by the minipods to be about 1.8 m. This was particularly unfortunate, as the Harwich

ABCD 20 SR 517 13/09/02


maintenance dredging campaign had only started the day before. For future deployments at Harwich the
minipod footplates were enlarged and additional lead weight fitted to provide a more stable platform.

A second problem was encountered during the winter 1995 and 1996 deployments with the MOBS
turbidity sensors reading over-scale for a short period during most tides. Readings were continually over-
scale, particularly on the lower sensor, during periods of large wave activity. For the three winter 1997
deployments improved MOBS hardware was installed that allowed the sensor gain to switch automatically
between two different ranges depending on the magnitude of the suspended solids concentration at any
given time.

6.2.1 Summary of data


At each of the Harwich minipod sites there was a repeating pattern in terms of the level of turbidity during
the tidal cycle demonstrating the natural variability of the suspended load at the site. The data also shows
that during spring tide periods the suspended solids concentrations were higher than those during neap tide
periods. The data shows very clearly that the major influencing factor on the level of near-bed suspended
solids concentration is the associated wave conditions. Figure 14 shows the recorded Miniature Optical
Backscatter Sensor (MOBS) and wave data for a winter 1997 deployment. The MOBS data shows that the
sensor that is lower in the water column (closer to the bed) consistently records a higher level of turbidity.
The figure shows that the largest waves recorded during the period of the deployment had a significant
wave height of about 2.5m.

During each of the periods of minipod deployment maintenance dredging material from Harwich Harbour
was placed at the Roughs Tower disposal site. The only occasion when the effect of material placement
was detected was during the winter 1997 deployments. In this case the Threshold minipod, which was
deployed some 5km downstream of the disposal site (Figure 10), measured concentrations during the
period of material placement that were consistently higher than the normal background level.

This dredging campaign was untypical for Harwich in terms of the amount of material placed at the site
during each disposal event. The hopper volume of the type of ship normally used in a harbour
maintenance dredging exercise is between about 3,500 m3 and 6,500 m3. In comparison the hopper volume
of the vessel WD Fairway used during December 1997 is about 23,500 m3. The total amount of material
placed was about 128,000 TDS (Tonnes Dry Solids). At this time the WD Fairway was the largest and
fastest dredger of its type in the world.

The effect of the disposal activity was clearly seen in the turbidity data record as shown in Figure 15. Prior
to and soon after disposal activities the level of turbidity measured was relatively low with little variation
through the tidal cycle.

The increase in turbidity was only detected at the end of the ebb tide and during the early flood tide. No
increases were detected at high water slack which would be expected if the plume passed back again on the
subsequent flood tide, suggesting that the material within the plume disperses to background levels within
a single tide.

The most likely reason for the majority of the passing plumes not being detected by the minipod
instrumentation is the relatively short burst length in relation to the burst interval, particularly for the
earlier deployments. For the winter 1995 minipod deployments the burst length was 10 minutes with an
interval between bursts of 1 hour i.e. recording for 17% of the time. It is therefore likely that in many
cases the passage of the plume of dredged material was not seen by the recording instrumentation. For the
winter 1996 deployments the burst length was 8½ minutes with a burst interval of 1 hour. Advances in
computer technology meant that the winter 1997 deployments were able to utilise larger storage disks that
allowed a burst length of 10 minutes with a reduced interval of 30 minutes (i.e. recording for 33% of the
time).

ABCD 21 SR 517 13/09/02


6.2.2 Analysis of data
The data recorded by the Miniature Optical Backscatter Sensors (MOBS) from the Harwich deployments is
presented in terms of an output voltage as no calibration between voltage and suspended solids
concentration was available. Nevertheless the time series plots of suspended solids concentration
presented in Reference 15 demonstrate that the magnitude of the suspended load varies considerably
depending on the stage of tidal cycle, the stage of the spring/neap cycle and the associated wave
conditions. This is the natural variability that exists at the site. As described in Section 6.2 above much of
the MOBS data recorded during the early deployments at Harwich was over-scale for a short period during
most tides. Readings were continually over-scale, particularly on the lower sensor, during periods of large
wave activity. For the three winter 1997 deployments improved MOBS hardware was installed that
allowed the sensor gain to switch automatically between two different ranges depending on the magnitude
of the suspended solids concentration at any given time.

Figure 14 shows the turbidity and wave data recorded during a winter 1997 deployment at the Roughs
Tower disposal site where the water depth is about 12 m. The figure clearly demonstrates the relationship
between turbidity and wave activity. The figure also shows that the near-bed suspended solids
concentration is unaffected by waves with a significant wave height of less than about 1m. This gives an
indication of the composition of the exposed surface of the seabed.

During each of the periods of minipod deployment dredged maintenance material from Harwich Harbour
was placed within the general placement area of the disposal site. Harwich Haven Authority (HHA)
provided HR with details of the dredging and disposal activity at the site during the period of each of the
deployments. During the maintenance dredging campaigns that took place during the winter of 1995, 1996
and 1997 approximately 425,000 TDS, 95,500 TDS and 128,000 TDS respectively was placed at the
disposal site.

Using the current speed and direction data measured by each of the minipods a progressive vector diagram
(PVD) was generated for each load of dredged material placed at the disposal site. Each PVD gave a
particle track covering a period of 5 to 7 hours after its release at the disposal site. The PVD analysis
showed that material placed at the disposal site would be unlikely to pass the minipod sites, as the
minipods were not in line with the general direction of the main flood and ebb tide. An exception to this
was the winter 1997 minipod deployment at Threshold, which did appear to detect the dispersion of
maintenance material from the disposal site.

During four days in December the WD Fairway dredger placed 23 loads of maintenance silt at the Roughs
Tower disposal ground. The vessel is a trailing suction hopper dredger with a hopper capacity of 23,425 m3
and is currently one of the largest and fastest of its type in the world. The total amount of material placed
was about 128,000 TDS (Tonnes Dry Solids) giving an average load of about 5,500 TDS. For previous
maintenance dredging campaigns smaller dredgers have been used with hopper volumes of about 8,000 m3.
The material was placed at the location shown in Figure 10.

Figure 15 shows that prior to the disposal commencing the turbidity is generally low with little variation
through the tidal cycle. The exception to this is the peak observed at low water at midday on 8 December.
This peak, which was also detected by the other minipods, is considered to be due to the large waves that
occurred earlier in the day on the previous rising tide. Any material resuspended from the bed during this
time will have settled back to the bed during the slack water period around low water.

Within hours of the first material placement the turbidity can be seen to increase to a peak level during the
late ebb tide. Detailed analysis of the background turbidity data showed that for this tide type the level of
turbidity at the Threshold site normally peaks during the early flood tide. This suggests that the
concentration increase is not due to the natural variability that exists at the site. The near-bed turbidity
continued to be high until about 12 hours after the last of the 23 placements at which time it returned to a
level similar to that observed before the dredging had started. Figure 14 shows that the significant wave

ABCD 22 SR 517 13/09/02


heights measured during the period of material placement were no greater than those measured during the
preceding 14 days. This gives confidence to the theory that the observed increases in turbidity are due to
the material placements rather than any other hydrodynamic forces existing at the time.

During the period of disposal both the magnitude and variability of the turbidity was significantly
increased to a level not dissimilar to that generated by the large storm that occurred the following week.
During this storm significant wave heights of 3.2 m were measured in a water depth of 13-15 m. The near-
bed orbital velocity was about 1 m/s.

Figure 16 shows a progressive vector diagram (PVD) based on the Threshold minipod current meter data
for a material placement released at the disposal site at 2 hours before high water. The track shows that the
plume would be carried close to the minipod site. Since the minipod is approximately 5 km from the
disposal site it must be assumed that small local variations in current speed and direction would exist
between the two sites. The PVD also demonstrates the south-easterly residual current that exists at the
minipod site. The tidal excursion from the minipod site can be seen to be about 10 km. Based on this
information any material being placed at the disposal site would be carried towards, and past, the minipod
site during the late ebb tide. The data recorded by the minipod indicates that the plume is not carried back
again on the following flood tide. There are two possible reasons for this. Firstly, the material within the
plume may have dispersed to background levels within a single tide. Secondly, the plume may have been
carried away from the minipod site by the residual current.

Figure 17 shows an example of the ABS burst data recorded by the Threshold minipod during the winter of
1997. The ABS data shows what is assumed to be a sand wave moving past the minipod during the 10
minute burst. During this period of large waves on and around 16 December sand waves were often
observed at the Threshold site in particular.

6.3 Coring at the WD Fairway placement site


Sampling has never been undertaken immediately after placement for logistical reasons (ie a suitable
vessel was not available on site at the same time that disposal operations were occurring). The shortest
interval between a significantly large placement and sampling at the placement site was about 9 days.
Fortunately this occasion was after the placements by the trailing suction hopper dredger WD Fairway.
NIOZ core samples taken at the WD Fairway placement site showed no evidence that the recently dredged
material was still at the site. In general the samples collected showed the exposed surface material to be
clean gravel with some coarse sand and shell fragments. This type of material is typical of the natural
seabed at the site as opposed to the remnants of an old maintenance material placement. An example of
the surface material is shown in Plate 10.

Laboratory analysis of the surface samples showed the composition of the material to be about 98% sand
and 2% silt. The median particle size of the samples was about 8.5 mm.

7. FINDINGS AND THEIR APPLICATION

The aim of the research undertaken for this study is to improve knowledge of the properties of dredged
material with particular regards to the manner in which it may disperse form offshore disposal sites. This
information will allow predictive methods to be made more reliable in their representation of erosion and
transport. Most, if not all, existing models assume homogeneous material, either cohesive (mud) or
cohesionless (sand and gravel). In reality much of the material dredged around the UK is a mixture of
material types ranging from a slurry arising from maintenance dredging in silts to mixtures of rock and
clay generated with bucket dredgers. The physical properties of these mixtures are little known.
Determining the erosion and consolidation characteristics of the material, once place on the bed, is an
important step in predicting the environmental impact of the placement of the material.

ABCD 23 SR 517 13/09/02


7.1 Sediment variability
The measurements relating to the physical properties of dredged material have shown that there is
considerable variability in the critical shear stress for erosion of an exposed surface. This is not only the
case for one site to another but also for successive samples collected from a given site. For this reason it is
difficult to derive any definitive relationships between, for example, bulk density and critical shear stress
for erosion.

In terms of the overall findings of this study it is evident that making assumptions about the erodability of
dredged material placed at a disposal site is difficult without making measurements in the field similar to
those presented in this report. The hydrodynamic conditions that exist at the Roughs Tower disposal site at
Harwich result in the site being particularly dispersive, i.e. the vast majority of the dredged material placed
at the site is transported away before the material even reaches the bed. Furthermore, the majority of
material that does reach the bed is resuspended and transported away from the site within a few days.
Based on the measurements of critical erosion stresses on the in-situ material and the material within the
hopper these observations are not surprising. The question being whether there would be any significant
differences in terms of dispersion and potential impact if the material were considerably weaker at the
disposal site than in its previous states. At the Roughs Tower site the hydrodynamic regime is such that
this is probably not that significant at a different site, where a more benign regime existed then this might
be a sensitive issue.

7.2 Probability of erosion


From the current speed data recorded by the minipods at each of the disposal sites and the predicted annual
wave climate the probability of a given combined wave and current induced bed shear stress being
exceeded was determined. Figure 18 shows the probability of exceedance graphically for each of the two
sites.

In the case of the Tees disposal site the maximum measured critical erosion shear stress (τc) was 0.24
N/m2. It can be seen from the graph that this shear stress is exceeded about 8% of the time. In the case of
the Harwich disposal site the maximum measured shear stress (1.26 N/m2) is exceeded about 35% of the
time. It should be noted that for the Harwich measurements the maximum of 1.26 N/m2 was untypical and
not representative of the maintenance material placed at the site. Generally the measured τc was less than
0.5 N/m2 which can be seen to be exceeded about 75% of the time. It is therefore not surprising that little
evidence of recent material placements at the disposal sites was found.

Although definitive quantitative relationships may not be readily derived from the measurements made at
Harwich and the Tees, from the critical shear stress measurements made, an indication of the current
speeds likely to be required to resuspend the dredged material may be determined. For example, the shear
stress required to erode the exposed surface at the Harwich disposal site varies between about 0.09 N/m2
and 1.26 N/m2, and between 0.04 N/m2 and 0.24 N/m2 at the Tees site. From these shear stresses an
associated near-bed current speed can be calculated.

Minipod deployments at each of the sites included instrumentation for measuring the current speed. The
current meters were generally installed at a height of 0.4 m above the bed. The algorithm for calculating
the current speed at 0.4 m above the bed for a given measured shear stress is shown below.

τ c = ρU * 2

Where τ c = Measured shear stress


ρ = Water density = 1025 kg/m3

ABCD 24 SR 517 13/09/02


kU
U* =
⎛ z⎞
ln⎜⎜ ⎟⎟
⎝ z0 ⎠
2
⎡ ⎤
⎢ ⎥
⎢ k ⎥ 2
Therefore τc = ρ U
⎢ ⎛ z ⎞⎥
⎢ ln⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ ⎥
⎣⎢ ⎝ z0 ⎠ ⎦⎥

Where k = Bed roughness = 0.4


z = Height above bed = 0.4m
z0 = 0.0003

τc
Therefore U=
3.17

It therefore follows that for a measured τc of 0.09 N/m2 at the Harwich disposal site the current speed at a
height of 0.4 m above the bed of 0.17 m/s would be required to erode the exposed surface. This
calculation assumes a water density of 1025 kg/m3. For a measured τc of 1.26 N/m2 the required current
speed at a height of 0.4 m above the bed is 0.63 m/s. The Harwich minipod data presented in Reference
15, shows that for the lower critical shear stress the equivalent current speed is exceeded on all tides. The
current speed required to generate the higher critical shear stress was exceeded for up to one hour during
the early flood of most large spring tides.

In the case of the shear stresses measured at the Tees the associated current speeds at 0.4 m above the bed
would be 0.11 m/s and 0.27 m/s respectively. The likely occurrence of these current speeds are similar to
that observed at Harwich in that the lower current would be experienced on nearly all tides but the higher
current would be exceeded only on large spring tides (Reference 18).

The primary reason for the variability in the measured τc, particularly at the Harwich site, is the
composition of the bed material both in terms of silt/sand content and bulk density. On most occasions
three seabed cores were obtained from each targeted location. Both the erodability and the laboratory
measurements often showed significant variations from one sample to another. This shows that the
composition of the exposed surface at the disposal site can vary considerably within a small sampling area.

This is more the case at the disposal site than within either the river or the harbour (pre-dredged material)
where the spatial variability in composition and density was far less. Consequently there was little
variability in the measured critical shear stress of these samples. This was also the case for the material
taken from the dredger hopper, which was naturally well mixed.

7.3 Application in numerical modelling

7.3.1 Introduction
During the dredging December 1997 campaign described in Chapter 6 the W.D. Fairway placed a total of
128,000 TDS (Tonnes dry solids) at the Roughs Tower disposal site over a period of four days. A
proportion of the placed material was released into the water column, forming a plume of sediment which
then dispersed under the influence of the hydrodynamic conditions. A Minipod deployed some 5km to the
NE at Threshold (Figure 10) was recording during the placement, and took measurements of wave height,

ABCD 25 SR 517 13/09/02


current speed and direction, water level and suspended sediment concentration, although the latter is at
present uncalibrated. HR had previously established flow and plume models for the Roughs Tower site and
these tools have been used to predict the observed turbidity variations at the minipod site.

7.3.2 Description of the placement


The method of placement of material by the Fairway consisted of the opening of the bottom doors of the
dredger, the material descending to the bed under the force of gravity. The method usually results in the
majority of sediment reaching the sea bed, unless the water depth is particularly deep, but there will always
be some loss of material into the water column, say of the order of 5%. In effect there are two sources of
material – the plume of sediment initially lost into the water column, and the sediment on the bed which
will be resuspended by waves and currents over a longer time frame, depending on the hydrodynamic
conditions on the sea bed. The rates of release of either of these two sources are generally not predictable
with any certainty as the current state of knowledge of the processes occurring during bottom disposal is
not sufficient.

The Fairway placement consisted of 23 placements of 23,500m3 over 4 days. Although the cycle time
varied over the course of the operation, on average placement occurred every 3.5 hours.

7.3.3 Methodology
The hydrodynamic information for the sediment transport model came from a 3D flow model of the Outer
Thames. Two simulations of dispersion from the Fairway placements were carried out. Both simulations
modelled the dispersion of the 23 individual placements over a period of 10 mean spring tides.

The first simulation modelled the dispersion of sediment initially lost into the water column and assumed
that 5% of the placed material was released into the water column on each placement with this material
being released over the course of 1 minute. The second simulation modelled the release of the remaining
sediment sediment resuspended from the bed under the combined action of waves and currents. It was
assumed that the sediment resuspension from the material at the sea bed was proportional to the (combined
wave and current) bed shear stress minus the critical shear stress for erosion, with the average rate of
resuspension such that a single placement load would be resuspended over the course of a single tide.

7.3.4 Results
Figure 19 shows the suspended sediment concentrations predicted at Threshold for the material released
into the water column together with the MOBS uncalibrated voltage output from the Minipod for the
period of the simulation. The Figure shows two The model reproduces the observed peaks in suspended
sediment seen at Low Water. However, it can be seen that the results of the model show a steady increase
in concentrations over the first part of the simulation and a decline over the latter half while the observed
concentrations appear to vary erratically over the period simulated. The simulated concentrations at
Threshold appear to drop away less rapidly than the observations at the end of the placement operations
(approximately tide 7).

Figure 20 shows the suspended sediment concentrations predicted at Threshold for the material
resuspended from the bed together with the Mobs uncalibrated voltage output from the Minipod for the
period of the simulation. The figure shows that that again the model reproduces the observed peaks in
suspended sediment concentration seen at Low Water. The response of the simulated concentrations still
does not reproduce any of the erratic nature of the observations well, but the initial increase in
concentrations at the start of the simulation and the die off of concentrations after placement stops
(approximately tide 7.0) are reproduced well.

ABCD 26 SR 517 13/09/02


7.3.5 Discussion and conclusions
The model results reproduced the general behaviour of the observations – the peaks at Low Water, the rise
and fall of the peaks with the start/end of the placement operations – but were not able to reproduce the
detail of the observations.

One possibility is that the observed variation in suspended sediment concentrations at Threshold is caused
by wave action, either causing rapid resuspension in a way not reproduced by the model or generally
increasing background concentrations. Figure 21 shows the variation in wave height and suspended
sediment activity over the placement period at Threshold. It can be seen that there is little correlation
between wave action and observed suspended sediment concentrations.

A further consideration is the variation in current patterns in the vicinity of Roughs Tower and Threshold
over the course of the placement operations. The variation in speed measured at the Threshold Minipod
near the bed over the placement period is shown in Figure 22. The low peaks in suspended sediment
concentrations at approximately 6:00 am on the 11 and 12 of December (at tide 3.5 and 5.5 in the model)
are matched by correspondingly low peak speeds on the ebb tide just before the Low Water. Similarly, the
higher peaks are generally matched by higher peak ebb speeds. The exception to this is the peak in
concentrations at 2:00 am on the 10 December (tide 1.5 in the model) which corresponds to a previous
relatively small ebb tide peak speed. This temporal variation in current speed between tides would
influence both the advection of suspended sediment and the resuspension of deposited material and may in
part account for the variation in observed turbidity. In the model a repeating tide was used.

Although the general behaviour of sediment can be reproduced by the methodology described above, the
variation of observed suspended sediment concentrations at Threshold appears to be linked with processes
not represented within the model simulation such as the variation in current speeds between tides. Future
research into this type of study would benefit from the incorporating the observed tidal fluctuations over
the placement period rather than the use of repeating tides of a single type.

8. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

8.1 Field measurements


1. Field measurements undertaken during the course of this study were primarily carried out at the River
Tees and at Harwich, both on the East Coast of England. These two sites represented quite different
maintenance dredging operations and hydrodynamic conditions.

At the River Tees, the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority (THPA) operate two trailing suction hopper
dredgers and a smaller grab dredger. Dredging is carried out on a more or less daily basis, with regular
placements of small amounts of material at the disposal. The depth of water at the disposal site is
about 33m.

At Harwich, dredging does not take place continually but as campaigns 5 to 6 times a year. In this
case larger amounts of material tend to be placed at the disposal site in relatively short periods of time.
Harwich Haven Authority (HHA), who do not have their own dredging fleet, utilise Dredging
Contractors to undertake the work. At Harwich the water depth at the Roughs Tower disposal site is
about 13m.

2. Seabed cores were taken from the MAFF research vessels RV Cirolana and RV Corystes during six
short cruises that took place between April 1996 and December 1997. In addition to seabed cores
samples of dredged material were taken from a dredger hopper at each of the sites. During the course
of the sampling campaigns at Harwich and the Tees a total of 123 sediment samples were obtained.
From these 123 samples a total of 94 critical shear stress measurements were obtained using the ISIS

ABCD 27 SR 517 13/09/02


and SEDERODE in-situ erosion instruments. Some of the measurements were not made on the
exposed surface but on sub-samples taken from different levels within the core.

3. During the course of the study minipod deployments were made at the Tees Inner disposal site (2
deployments) and at the Harwich Roughs Tower disposal site (7 deployments). The duration of the
minipod deployments was typically five to six weeks.

4. Also obtained as part of the field studies were photographic records, analysis of samples of the top
sediment layer for bulk density, mud /sand content and particle size distribution and shear vane
measurements.

8.2 Measurements at the River Tees

8.2.1 Pre-dredging phase


5. Core samples were collected from within the navigation channel of the lower River Tees in an area that
requires regular dredging to remove accumulations of silt. The material collected from the bed of the
river was observed to be black/brown in colour and very gelatinous in consistency.

6. Critical shear stress measurements made on this material gave results varying between 0.03 N/m2 and
0.37 N/m2. The material collected generally composed 95% silt (particles less than 63 microns). The
bulk density of the samples tested varied between 1380 kg/m3 and 1520 kg/m3. The median grain size
of the samples was about 7 µm and the mud/sand mixture varied between about 87% and 97% mud.

8.2.2 Dredging phase


7. The hopper measurements (i.e. the dredging phase of the dredging cycle) were made aboard the a
trailing suction dredger whilst dredging a region of the River where the bed is predominantly silt.
During the period of the measurements seven hopper loads were sampled. The hopper samples were
observed to be fluid and gelatinous in composition.

8. The critical erosion shear stress (τcr) of the hopper material, measured using SedErode, ranged between
0.29 N/m2 and 0.69 N/m2. The bulk density of the samples tested with SedErode varied between 1400
kg/m3 and 1660 kg/m3. The average bulk density of the samples tested was about 1480 kg/m3. The
median grain size ranged between about 5 µm and 20 µm and the mud/sand mixture varied between
about 65% and 90% mud.

9. The measured ranges for both the density and the τcr were slightly higher than measured on the pre-
dredging samples. This is despite the observation that the pre-dredging samples appeared to be more
consolidated. However, the material was dredged from a different site.

8.2.3 Post-dredging phase


10. Very little cohesive sediment was found at the site. The surface of the cores retrieved from the
disposal site generally comprised fine sand, silt and small particles of coal.

11. From the measurements made on surface material found at the disposal site (i.e. the post-dredging
phase of the dredging cycle) the critical shear stress for the initiation of erosion was found to vary
between about 0.04 N/m2 and 0.24 N/m2. The bulk density of the samples tested varied between 1400
kg/m3 and 2150 kg/m3. The median grain size ranged between about 110 µm and 395 µm and the
mud/sand mixture varied between about 4% and 35% mud.

12. The measurements of critical shear stress on the post-dredging samples were generally lower than
those measured on the samples representing the pre-dredging and the dredging phases of the dredging
cycle. This was due to the low level of cohesion of the samples. The average mud content of these

ABCD 28 SR 517 13/09/02


samples was 14% compared with 95% mud and 78% mud for the river and hopper samples
respectively.

13. Generally the higher the silt content of the sample the greater was the resistance to erosion. The
material that was least resistant to erosion were the seabed samples collected from the disposal site.
The highest resistance to erosion was encountered with the samples taken from the dredger hopper.
The reason for this being the case is not clear although the gelatinous nature of the hopper material
may have enhanced the natural resistance of this material to erosion.

14. Within each of the individual groups there is a large variability in critical shear stress with respect to
bulk density. This variability is greater for those samples collected from the dredger hopper. As the
physical characteristics of the samples from each of the three material groups are different no overall
relationship may be identified.

15. Leaving the sample overnight was found to result in the exposed surface having a greater resistance to
erosion. Furthermore the process of transferring a sample into the erosion tray and subsequent
remoulding has the effect of reducing the resistance to erosion.

16. The dredging operation itself had very little effect on the bulk density of the material.

8.2.4 Minipod measurements


17. For each of the minipod deployments sites there was a repeating pattern in terms of the level of
turbidity during the tidal cycle demonstrating the natural variability of the suspended load at the site.
The data also shows that during spring tide periods the suspended solids concentrations were higher
than those during neap tide periods.

18. The data shows very clearly that the major influencing factor on the level of near-bed suspended solids
concentration are the associated wave conditions. The largest waves recorded during the period of the
deployment had a significant wave height of about 0.5m.

19. During each of the periods of minipod deployment dredged maintenance material from the River Tees
was placed within the general placement area of the disposal site. On only one occasion was there a
possibility that the effect of material placement may have been detected at the minipod site some
2.25km away. This may be due to the relatively short burst length in relation to the burst interval.

20. The field measurements illustrated a mechanism whereby storm waves generate a sediment source that
remains available for resuspension by smaller waves for 3 to 4 weeks before either being dispersed
from the site or having undergone sufficient consolidation to resist erosion.

8.3 Measurements at Harwich

8.3.1 Pre-dredging phase


21. Cores were taken from locations adjacent to Trinity Berth 7 at Felixstowe, 100m off shore of Trinity
Berth 7 and to the side of the navigation channel adjacent to Landguard Fort.

22. The grain size analysis of the harbour samples yielded mud fractions (particles less than 63 microns)
ranging between about 91% and 99% by weight. The bulk densities reflected the variability in the
sample composition, with values between about 1230 kg/m3 and 1610 kg/m3. The median grain size
ranged between about 5 µm and 11 µm.

23. The critical erosion shear stress (τcr) of the exposed surface measured using ISIS ranged between about
0.005 N/m2 and 0.075 N/m2. The SedErode measurements carried out on material from the lower layer

ABCD 29 SR 517 13/09/02


yielded a τcr ranging between 0.16 N/m2 and 0.32 N/m2. It should be noted that the SedErode
measurements were generally carried out on higher density, sub-surface layers. The measured stresses
are typical for soft to medium consistency marine cohesive sediment, and the range reflects the
differences in density, sand content and biological activity within the sediment. The ISIS
measurements indicated a very weak, readily eroded overlying surface layer.

24. The results of the laboratory analysis showed that regardless of the sample density the composition in
terms of particle size was very similar from one sample to another. The results generally showed a
tendency for greater silt content by weight for higher density samples.

8.3.2 Dredging phase


25. The erodability measurements relating to the dredging phase of the dredging cycle at Harwich were
made on samples collected from the hopper of the trailing suction hopper dredger Sospan while
dredging in Felixstowe berths.

26. The hopper samples were observed to be very similar in composition to the pre-dredged samples
retrieved by coring. However, while the hopper material resembled thick soup that could readily be
poured, the core samples had an appearance more typical of an in-situ cohesive material.

27. The grain size analysis of the hopper samples yielded mud fractions ranging between about 96% and
99% by weight. The bulk densities reflected the variability in the sample composition, with values
between 1260 kg/m3 and 1450 kg/m3. The median grain size for all samples tested in the laboratory
was about 5 µm.

28. The critical erosion shear stress (τcr) measured using SedErode ranged between 0.06 N/m2 and 0.29
N/m2. This range of shear stresses is similar to that measured on the pre-dredged material (0.005 N/m2
to 0. 0.32 N/m2).

8.3.3 Post-dredging
29. Cores were collected from locations at Roughs Tower targetted using information from Harwich
Haven Authority and from sidescan sonar surveys.

30. The surface of the cores retrieved from the disposal site generally comprised clean sand and gravel
with some shell fragments. On occasions dense clay was interspersed with the sand and gravel. The
grain size analysis of the surface samples retrieved from the disposal site varied immensely. Mud
fractions (particles less than 63 microns) ranged between about 0.5% and 85% by weight. The bulk
density of the samples ranged between about 1600 kg/m3 and 2500 kg/m3. The median grain size
ranged between about 5 µm and 21500 µm, again reflecting the variability in the surface material.

31. The limited number of erosion measurements made using ISIS on materials from the disposal site gave
critical erosion shear stresses (τcr) ranging between about 0.09 N/m2 and 1.26 N/m2.

32. The results generally displayed a trend for τc to increase with bulk density. The exception to this was
the material collected from the disposal site where, for the limited data provided, no relationship
appeared to exist. The τc for the disposal site samples, measured with ISIS, varied between about 0.1
N/m2 and 0.4 N/m2 with only a small variation in the bulk density.

33. There was a strong similarity between the Harbour and dredger hopper samples in terms of both
density and composition. Compared to materials tested from other locations, such as the Tees there
was very little scatter.

ABCD 30 SR 517 13/09/02


34. In the case of the Harwich samples the dredging operation appeared to have had the effect of reducing
the bulk density of the material. For the hopper samples the bulk density was typically 1350 kg/m3
compared to 1500 kg/m3 for the harbour samples.

8.3.4 Minipod measurements


35. At each of the Harwich minipod sites there was a repeating pattern in terms of the level of turbidity
during the tidal cycle demonstrating the natural variability of the suspended load at the site. The data
also showed that during spring tide periods the suspended solids concentrations were higher than those
during neap tide periods. The major influencing factor on the background level of near-bed suspended
solids concentration was the associated wave conditions.

36. During each of the periods of minipod deployment maintenance dredging material from Harwich
Harbour was placed at the Roughs Tower disposal site. The only occasion when the effect of material
placement was detected was during the winter 1997 deployments when a higher rate of input occurred.
In this case the Threshold minipod, which was deployed some 5km downstream of the disposal site
measured concentrations during the period of material placement that were consistently higher than the
normal background level.

37. NIOZ core samples taken at the WD Fairway placement site showed no evidence that the recently
dredged material was still at the site. In general the samples collected showed the exposed surface
material to be clean gravel with some coarse sand and shell fragments. This type of material is typical
of the natural seabed at the site as opposed to the remnants of an old maintenance material placement.

8.4 Findings and their Application


38. The measurements relating to the physical properties of dredged material have shown that there is
considerable variability in the critical shear stress for erosion of an exposed surface. This is not only
the case for one site to another but also for successive samples collected from a given site. For this
reason it is difficult to derive any definitive relationships between, for example, bulk density and
critical shear stress for erosion.

39. It is evident that making assumptions about the erodability of dredged material placed at a disposal site
is difficult without making measurements in the field similar to those presented in this report.
However, it has been observed that the form of silty maintenance material after placement at open
water disposal sites is substantially weakened compared to its in-situ or in-hopper state. This implies
that rapid dispersion of this material may be expected at open water sites.

40. By characterising placed sediment using representative parameters, numerical dispersion modelling
can be used effectively to provide the targetted positioning of minipods. Furthermore, the use of
numerical dispersion tools in conjunction with field data can produce important information regarding
the nature of the short and long term dispersion of material from placement.

8.5 Recommendations
1. Minipod monitoring is proposed for use at other sites where a requirement to monitor exists or as a
basis for research. The technique can be expensive but provides a long term record of information at
present unmatched by other monitoring approaches. The deployment of minipods should be supported
by targetted observations and numerical modelling.

2. The work undertaken in this study has shown that for dispersion studies regarding the placement of
soft muddy maintenance material at open water sites, it should be assumed that the material
immediately after placement has a very low critical shear stress for erosion.

3. It is recommended that similar studies be undertaken to obtain the nature of properties immediately
after placement at non-dispersive sites where significant amounts of material can be found on the bed.

ABCD 31 SR 517 13/09/02


4. It is further recommended that research into the properties of placed material at dispersive sites be
considered. In particular, investigation of the nature of the near bed layer found immediately after
placement would be most useful in aiding the prediction of dispersion of plumes resulting from
maintenance disposal.

9. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

HR would like to thank the staff of MAFF EG CEFAS, the crews of the MAFF research vessels RV
Cirolana and RV Corystes for their invaluable assistance, co-operation and hospitality during the course of
this study. Similar thanks are also due to the crews of the dredgers Heortnesse (Tees and Hartlepool Port
Authority) and Sospan (Westminster Dredging).

ABCD 32 SR 517 13/09/02


10. REFERENCES

1. Williamson H J and Ockenden M C (1996). ISIS: An instrument for Measuring Erosion Shear Stress
In-Situ. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 42, pp1-18.

2. Development of SedErode, Instrument for in-situ mud erosion measurements. HR Wallingford. Report
TR 17.

3. Properties of Dredged Material. Review of available measurement techniques for determining


physical properties. HR Wallingford. Report TR 21.

4. Shields A (1936). Application of similarity principles and turbulence research to bed-load movement.
Translated from: "Anwendung der Aehnlichkeitsmechanik und der Turbulenzforschung auf die
Geschiebebewegung", Mitteilungen der Preussischen Versuchsanstalt fur Wasserbau und Schiffbau,
Berlin, 1936, by W P Ott and J C van Uchelen, Soil Conservation Service, Cooperative Laboratory,
California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California.

5. Partheniades E., Erosion and Deposition of cohesive soils, Journal of the Hydraulics Division, ASCE,
volume 91, No.HY1, pp105-139, 1965.

6. Van Rijn L.C.,Sediment Transport: Part I: bed load transport, Proceedings of the ASCE Journal of
Hydraulics Division, volume 110, HY10, 1431-1456, 1984.

7. Van Rijn L.C., Sediment Transport: Part II: suspended load transport, Proceedings of the ASCE
Journal of Hydraulics Division, volume 110, HY11, 1613-1641, 1984.

8. Krone R.B., Flume studies of the transport of sediment in estuarial shoaling processes, Final Report,
Hydraulic Engineering and Sanitary Engineering Research Laboratory, University of California,
Berkely, USA, 1962.

9. Galland J.C., Laurence D. and Teisson C., Simulating turbulent vertical exchange of mud with a
Reynolds stress model, In: Proceedings of the 4th Nearshore and Estuarine Conhesive sediment
Transport Conference, INTERCOH’94, Wallingford, UK, ed. T.N. Burt, W.R. Parker and J.Watts,
John Wiley and Sons, pp417-428.

10. Winterwerp J.C., Uittenbogaard R.E. and de Kok J.M., Rapid Siltation from saturated mud
suspensions, Proceedings of the 5th Nearshore and Estuarine Cohesive sediment Transport Conference,
INTERCOH’98, in press.

11. Hogg, A.J., Huppert E.H., and Soulsby R.L., The dynamics of particle-laden fluid elements, IN:
Sediment transport Mechnisms, In: Coastal Environments and Rivers, Euromech 310, ed. Belogey M.,
Rajaona R.D. and Sleath J.F.A., World Scientific, Singapore, pp64-78, 1994.

12. Model Development for the Assessment of Turbidity caused by Dredging, Volume 1, Technical
Report, HR Wallingford Report EX 3998, 1999.

13. Properties of Dredged Material. Erosion shear stress measurements on seabed cores taken from
Sellafield mud patch 26 May – 31 May 1996. HR Wallingford. Report TR 14.

14. Properties of Dredged Material, Measurement of sediment properties of dredged material from
Harwich Harbour. HR Wallingford. Report TR 46.

ABCD 33 SR 517 13/09/02


15. Properties of Dredged Material, Minipod deployments at the Roughs Tower disposal site. HR
Wallingford. Report TR 47.

16. Properties of Dredged Material, Measurement of sediment properties of dredged material from the
Tees estuary. HR Wallingford. Report TR 54.

17. Properties of Dredged Material, Harwich minipod deployments – Winter 1997. HR Wallingford.
Report TR 53.

18. Properties of Dredged Material, Minipod deployments at the Tees disposal site. HR Wallingford.
Report TR 61.

19. Beneficial Use of Dredged Material, North Shotley. HR Wallingford. Report TR 72.

ABCD 34 SR 517 13/09/02


Tables

ABCD SR 517 13/09/02


ABCD SR 517 13/09/02
Table 1 Timetable of field measurements

1996 1997
J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D

ABCD
Minipod 122 - Tees Disposal Site

Minipod 139 - Tees Disposal Site

Minipod 120 - Harwich Roughs Tower South

Minipod 121 - Harwich Roughs Tower North

Minipod 137 - Harwich Roughs Tower North

Minipod 138 - Harwich Roughs Tower South

Minipod 157 - Harwich Roughs Tower West

Minipod 158 - Harwich Sledway

Minipod 159 - Harwich Threshold

Sellafield ISIS Trials

Parkstone SedErode

Lowestoft ISIS

Harwich Pre-Dredging Phase ISIS / SedErode

Harwich Dredging Phase SedErode

Harwich Post-Dredging Phase ISIS / SedErode

Tees Pre-Dredging Phase ISIS / SedErode

Tees Dredging Phase SedErode

Tees Post-Dredging Phase ISIS / SedErode

SR 517 13/09/02
Table 2 Surface sediment properties – Pre-dredging phase

ISIS / Bulk Density


Date Site τa Nm-2 τb Nm-2 τcr Nm-2 %carbon d50 (µm) %sand %mud
Sed (Kg.m-3)
24/01/97 F1 I 1339 0.034 0.046 0.040 - 7.1 4.9 95.1
24/01/97 F2 I 1227 - - - - 7.6 6.3 93.7
24/01/97 F3 I 1397 0.033 0.043 0.048 - 7.2 5.4 94.6
24/01/97 F4 I 1472 0.045 0.049 0.047 - 10.0 8.3 91.7
24/01/97 F5 I 1482 0.039 0.046 0.042 - 9.4 7.8 92.2
24/01/97 F6 I 1476 0.040 0.052 0.046 - 10.2 8.1 91.9
24/01/97 F6B** I No sample 0.049 0.051 0.050 - - - -
24/01/97 F7 I 1439 0.041 0.047 0.044 - 8.6 7.7 92.3
24/01/97 F7B** I 1535 0.034 0.047 0.041 - 6.8 4.0 96.0
24/01/97 F8 I 1469 0.045 0.065 0.055 - 7.6 6.5 93.5
24/01/97 F9 I 1504 0.057 0.093 0.075 - 11.1 8.3 91.7
19/12/97 19H1 I 1500 0.051 0.057 0.054 9.83 6 4.4 95.6
19/12/97 19H1B** S 1610 0.15 0.24 0.20 9.85 6 5.5 94.5
19/12/97 19H2 I 1420 0.007 0.008 0.008 7.06 7 6.6 93.4
19/12/97 19H2B** S 1520 0.24 0.30 0.27 11.68 6 4.6 95.4
19/12/97 19H3 I 1450 - - - 8.63 5 2.6 97.4
19/12/97 19H3B** S 1550 0.31 0.34 0.32 10.53 6 4.1 95.9
19/12/97 19T1 S 1450 0.14 0.23 0.18 11.74 5 1.6 98.4
19/12/97 19T2 I 1270 0.072 0.079 0.076 10.11 5 1.1 98.9
19/12/97 19T2B** S 1350 0.26 0.29 0.28 13.90 5 0.9 99.1
19/12/97 19T3 S 1340 0.23 0.28 0.26 12.03 5 1.1 98.9
19/12/97 19T3B** S 1440 0.14 0.18 0.16 12.01 5 0.9 99.1
19/12/97 19L1 I 1460 0.000 0.007 0.004 11.97 5 2.8 97.2
19/12/97 19L1B** S 1500 0.26 0.36 0.31 12.31 6 4.9 95.1
19/12/97 19L2 I 1440 0.070 0.080 0.075 12.24 6 4.8 95.2
19/12/97 19L2B** S 1460 0.24 0.29 0.27 11.98 5 2.7 97.3
19/12/97 19L3 I 1420 0.055 0.062 0.059 9.46 6 5.5 94.5
19/12/97 19L3B** S 1410 0.29 0.35 0.32 11.17 6 4.7 95.3

Key: * denotes poor measurement resolution (high shear stress steps)


- no measurement made
B** denotes core base sample

ABCD SR 517 13/09/02


Table 3 Surface sediment properties – Dredging phase

ISIS / Bulk Density


Date Site τa Nm-2 τb Nm-2 τcr Nm-2 %carbon d50 (µm) %sand %mud
Sed (Kg.m-3)
15/12/97 151A S 1420 0.00 0.14 0.07 6.56 6 2.2 97.8
15/12/97 151B S 1350 0.14 0.17 0.15 8.59 5 1.9 98.1
15/12/97 151C S 1390 0.16 0.23 0.20 6.80 6 4.1 95.9
15/12/97 151D S 1260 0.13 0.22 0.17 9.76 5 3.4 96.6
16/12/97 161A S 1450 0.17 0.25 0.21 9.03 5 1.7 98.3
16/12/97 162A S 1400 0.00 0.13 0.07 9.76 5 2.0 98.0
16/12/97 162B S 1290 0.27 0.32 0.29 11.82 5 1.9 98.1
16/12/97 163A S 1450 0.16 0.23 0.19 10.93 5 0.8 99.2
16/12/97 163B S 1370 0.00 0.12 0.06 10.44 5 1.1 98.9
16/12/97 164A S 1360 0.15 0.22 0.19 11.23 5 0.9 99.1

Key: * denotes poor measurement resolution (high shear stress steps)


- no measurement made
B** denotes core base sample

ABCD SR 517 13/09/02


Table 4 Surface sediment properties : Post-dredging phase

ISIS / Bulk Density


Date Site τa Nm-2 τb Nm-2 τcr Nm-2 %carbon d50 (µm) %sand %mud
Sed (Kg.m-3)
03/04/97 MP22 I - 0.90 1.62 1.26* - - - -
02/12/96 H1 I 1960 - - - - 190 97.1 2.9
02/12/96 H2 I 2220 - - - - 496 84.8 15.2
02/12/96 H3 I 1960 - - - - 329 69.8 30.2
02/12/96 H4 I 2130 - - - - 783 90.9 9.1
02/12/96 H5 I 2380 - - - - 5055 39.1 0.9
02/12/96 H6 I 1650 0.07 0.163 0.12 - 60 47.7 52.3
02/12/96 H7 I 2050 - - - - 2834 99.5 0.5
02/12/96 H8 - - - - - - - - -
02/12/96 H9 - - - - - - - - -
04/12/96 RT1(R) I 1690 - - - - 45 47.0 53.0
04/12/96 RT1(S) I 2180 - - - - 6225 86.1 13.9
04/12/96 RT2(R) I 1650 0.74 1.25 1.00 - 23 34.6 65.4
04/12/96 RT2(S) I 1960 - - - - 237 95.4 4.6
04/12/96 RT2 6cm I 1760 - - - - 19 30.9 69.1
25/01/97 C1 I 1914 - - - - 4 15.7 84.3
25/01/97 C2 I 1941 - - - - 4 14.6 85.4
25/01/97 C3 I 2069 - - - - 6 29.9 70.1
25/01/97 S1 I 1959 - - - - 333 59.5 40.5
25/01/97 S1B** I 1697 0.05 0.13 0.09 - 30 36.5 63.5
25/01/97 S2 I 2125 - - - - 8756 90.9 9.1
25/01/97 S2B** I 1808 - - - - 40 39.7 60.3
25/01/97 S3 I 2092 - - - - 1626 99.1 0.9
25/01/97 S3B** I 1990 - - - - 9250 64.5 35.5
12/11/97 RT61A I 2480 - - - 0.61 1115 98.9 1.1
12/11/97 RT61B I 2100 - - - 1.10 816 98.9 1.1
12/11/97 RT61C I 2420 - - - 0.29 881 99.7 0.3
12/11/97 RT62A I 1630 0.39 0.43 0.41 8.79 10 22.9 77.1
12/11/97 RT62B I 1680 0.27 0.30 0.29 8.66 21 37.5 62.5
12/11/97 RT62C I 1610 0.25 0.28 0.26 11.28 15 28.2 71.8

Key: * denotes poor measurement resolution (high shear stress steps)


- no measurement made
B** denotes core base sample

ABCD SR 517 13/09/02


Table 4 Surface sediment properties : Post-dredging phase Continued

ISIS / Bulk Density d50


Date Site τa Nm-2 τb Nm-2 τcr Nm-2 %carbon %sand %mud
Sed (Kg.m-3) (µm)
21/12/97 TRA - - - - - - 21452 99.3 0.7
21/12/97 TRB - - - - - - 9315 98.2 1.8

21/12/97 TRB*** - - - - - - 735 61.1 38.9

21/12/97 TRC - - - - - - 6683 87.8 12.2

21/12/97 PATCH2A - - - - - - 9393 98.1 1.9

21/12/97 PATCH2B - - - - - - 6948 99.5 0.5

21/12/97 FDPOSA - - - - - - 134 53.0 47.0

21/12/97 FDPOSA*** - - - - - - 5 2.8 97.2

21/12/97 FDPOSB - - - - - - - - -

21/12/97 FDPOSC - - - - - - 6598 96.5 3.5

21/12/97 FDPOSD - - - - - - 7795 96.9 3.1

21/12/97 FDPOS2A - - - - - - 9457 99.4 0.6


21/12/97 FDPOS2B - - - - - - 4609 97.8 2.2

21/12/97 FDPOS2B*** - - - - - - 16 46.4 53.6

21/12/97 FDPOS2C - - - - - - 8802 98.1 1.9

21/12/97 CLAY2A - - - - - - 7909 98.3 1.7

21/12/97 CLAY2A*** - - - - - - 5 16.5 83.5

21/12/97 CLAY2B - - - - - - 1261 80.1 19.9

21/12/97 CLAY2B*** - - - - - - 5 19.8 80.2

21/12/97 CLAY2C - - - - - - 1997 98.1 1.9

21/12/97 CLAY2C*** - - - - - - 8 27.6 72.4

Key: * denotes poor measurement resolution (high shear stress steps)


- no measurement made
B** denotes core base sample
*** denotes clay sub-sample

ABCD SR 517 13/09/02


Table 5 Surface sediment properties – Pre-dredging phase

ISIS / Bulk Density % d50


Date Site τa Nm-2 τb Nm-2 τcr Nm-2 % sand %mud
Sed (Kg.m-3) carbon (µm)
09/11/97 TB1 S 1380 0.13 0.17 0.15 17.8 7 5.9 94.1
09/11/97 TB2 - 1450 - - - 16.6 8 12.5 87.5
09/11/97 TB3 I 1460 0.26 0.26 0.26 18.0 7 5.9 94.1
09/11/97 TB3 S 1440 0.33 0.36 0.34 14.4 7 2.7 97.3
09/11/97 TB4 S 1400 0.16 0.21 0.19 17.9 7 5.1 94.9
09/11/97 TB5 I 1490 0.23 0.27 0.25 15.0 7 7.9 92.1
09/11/97 TB5 S 1490 0.14 0.21 0.18 17.1 7 7.2 92.8
09/11/97 TB6 I 1280 0.03 0.03 0.03 15.8 7 4.1 95.9
09/11/97 TB6 S 1450 0.14 0.23 0.18 15.5 6 3.7 96.3
09/11/97 TB7 I 1520 0.17 0.18 0.18 15.4 7 4.9 95.1
09/11/97 TB7 S 1520 - - - 15.4 7 4.9 95.1
09/11/97 TB8 I 1410 0.28 0.34 0.31 14.8 7 4.5 95.5
09/11/97 TB8 S 1410 0.13 0.21 0.17 14.8 7 4.5 95.5
09/11/97 TB9 I 1390 0.35 0.39 0.37 18.9 7 3.3 96.7
09/11/97 TB9 S 1390 0.19 0.23 0.21 18.9 7 3.3 96.7

Key: - no measurement made

ABCD SR 517 13/09/02


Table 6 Surface sediment properties – Dredging phase

Bulk
ISIS / % d50
Date Site Density τa Nm-2 τb Nm-2 τcr Nm-2 %sand %mud
Sed carbon (µm)
(Kg.m-3)
09/09/97 9Drag1* - 1970 - - - 9.37 32 45.2 54.8
09/09/97 9M1 S 1520 0.34 0.37 0.35 16.14 10 20.9 79.1
09/09/97 92A S 1440 0.47 0.53 0.50 16.12 9 23.0 77.0
09/09/97 92B S 1420 0.23 0.42 0.32 17.43 7 13.3 86.7
09/09/97 92C S 1410 0.51 0.57 0.54 17.37 7 11.5 88.5
09/09/97 92E S 1460 0.67 0.71 0.69 18.56 8 18.6 81.4
09/09/97 92F S 1560 0.25 0.34 0.30 14.03 13 17.0 83.0
09/09/97 93A S 1500 0.25 0.33 0.29 15.21 17 35.6 64.4
09/09/97 93E S 1410 0.27 0.31 0.29 16.93 8 13.8 86.2
09/09/97 93F S 1450 0.28 0.39 0.34 18.22 9 18.1 81.9
*
10/09/97 101Drag S 1480 0.28 0.36 0.32 18.16 7 9.66 90.34
10/09/97 101A S 1560 0.29 0.36 0.33 17.00 15 33.7 66.3
10/09/97 101B S 1510 0.30 15.91 14 30.7 69.3
10/09/97 101E S 1500 0.31 0.37 0.34 16.80 9 20.3 79.7
10/09/97 101F S 1660 0.31 0.38 0.35 15.23 10 23.0 77.0
10/09/97 102AB S 1520 0.43 0.45 0.44 16.84 11 29.2 70.8
10/09/97 102D S 1420 0.45 0.48 0.47 16.99 8 15.6 84.4
10/09/97 102E S 1490 0.30 0.42 0.36 17.05 11 24.8 75.2
10/09/97 102F S 1400 0.29 0.35 0.32 17.69 8 16.2 83.8
10/09/97 103AC S 1490 0.40 0.47 0.44 16.52 10 25.0 75.0
10/09/97 103DE S 1400 0.61 0.66 0.64 16.69 8 16.2 83.8
10/09/97 104A S 1470 0.55 0.59 0.57 18.38 8 24.0 76.0
10/09/97 104B S 1380 0.31 18.59 8 18.9 81.1
10/09/97 104C S 1500 0.30 16.99 11 29.3 70.7
*
10/09/97 104Drag - 1440 - - - 18.46 6 3.4 96.6

Key: - no measurement made


*
indicates bulk sample retrieved from draghead – otherwise hopper sample

ABCD SR 517 13/09/02


Table 7 Surface sediment properties – Post-dredging phase

ISIS / Bulk
τa Nm- τb Nm- τcr D50
Date Site Sed Density 2 2 %carbon %sand %mud
Nm-2 (µm)
(Kg.m-3)
05/12/96 T1 I 1600 0.21 0.26 0.24 - 135 81.6 18.4
05/12/96 T2 I 1810 0.19 0.29 0.24 - 130 89.6 10.4
05/12/96 T3 I 1380 0.06 0.14 0.10 - 395 82.9 17.1
06/12/96 T4 I 1810 0.07 0.09 0.08 - 160 85.6 14.4
06/12/96 T5 I 1730 0.12 0.16 0.14 - 100 66.1 33.9
06/12/96 T6 - - - - - -
06/12/96 TA I 2150 0.17 0.29 0.23 - 220 90.2 9.8
06/12/96 TB I 1940 0.03 0.07 0.05 - 190 89.0 11.0
06/12/96 TC I 1900 - - - - 150 96.9 3.1
20/01/97 T1B I 1776 0.07 0.21 0.14 - 112 82.6 17.4
20/01/97 T2B I 1558 0.10 0.22 0.16 - 122 87.5 12.5
20/01/97 T3B I 1471 0.15 0.21 0.18 - 168 83.9 16.1
21/01/97 T4B I 1857 0.06 0.07 0.06 - 133 93.5 6.5
21/01/97 T5B I 1741 0.06 0.09 0.08 - 146 95.9 4.1
21/01/97 T6B - 1511 - - - - 145 95.6 4.4
21/01/97 T7B - 1754 - - - - 151 91.0 9.0
22/01/97 T8B I 1746 0.05 0.11 0.08 - 136 85.9 14.1
22/01/97 T9B I 1750 0.06 0.07 0.06 - 128 89.5 10.5
22/01/97 T10B I 1405 0.14 0.23 0.18 - 148 66.0 34.0
22/01/97 T11B I 1772 0.06 0.11 0.09 - 128 88.8 11.2
22/01/97 T11Bmud I 1707 - - - - 75 57.8 42.2
08/11/97 Target1/1 I 1640 0.05 0.07 0.06 - 156 89.0 11.0
08/11/97 Target1/2 S 1830 0.00 0.14 0.07 - 153 89.4 10.6
08/11/97 Target2/1 S 1880 0.14 0.21 0.17 - 160 95.2 4.8
08/11/97 Target2/2 - 1840 - - - - 144 94.4 5.6
08/11/97 Target3/1 S 1790 0.13 0.20 0.17 - 148 90.0 10.0
08/11/97 Target3/2 - 1740 - - - - 197 83.0 17.0

Key: - no measurement made

ABCD SR 517 13/09/02


Figures

ABCD SR 517 13/09/02


Figure 1 Location Plan

ABCD SR 517 13/09/02


Figure 2 Silt content versus critical shear stress - Tees

ABCD SR 517 13/09/02


Figure 3 Bulk density versus critical shear stress - Tees

ABCD SR 517 13/09/02


Figure 4 Silt content versus bulk density - Tees

ABCD SR 517 13/09/02


Figure 5 Tees disposal site

ABCD SR 517 13/09/02


Figure 6 Example of turbidity and wave data - Tees

ABCD SR 517 13/09/02


Figure 7 Dredged material placements at the Tees disposal site

ABCD SR 517 13/09/02


Figure 8 Particle vector diagram for a placement at the Tees disposal site

ABCD SR 517 13/09/02


Figure 9 Example ABS burst data from the Tees disposal site

ABCD SR 517 13/09/02


Figure 10 Harwich Harbour and disposal site

ABCD SR 517 13/09/02


Figure 11 Silt content versus bulk density - Harwich

ABCD SR 517 13/09/02


Figure 12 Bulk density versus critical shear stress - Harwich

ABCD SR 517 13/09/02


Figure 13 Silt content versus bulk density - Harwich

ABCD SR 517 13/09/02


Figure 14 Example of turbidity and wave data - Harwich

ABCD SR 517 13/09/02


Figure 15 Turbidity levels before, during and after dredging - Harwich

ABCD SR 517 13/09/02


Figure 16 Particle vector diagram for a placement at the Harwich disposal site

ABCD SR 517 13/09/02


Figure 17 Example ABS burst data from the Harwich disposal site

ABCD SR 517 13/09/02


Figure 18 Probability of shear stress exceedance at the disposal sites

ABCD SR 517 13/09/02


Figure 19 Predicted suspended sediment concentration and observed turbidity at Threshold, simulation of
dispersion of fine material initially released in water column

ABCD SR 517 13/09/02


Figure 20 Predicted suspended sediment concentration and observed turbidity at Threshold, simulation of
dispersion of fine material resuspended from the bed

ABCD SR 517 13/09/02


Figure 21 Comparison of observed turbidity and observed wave conditions during placement by
W.D.Fairway

ABCD SR 517 13/09/02


Figure 22 Comparison of observed turbidity and observed near bed tidal current speed during placement
by W.D.Fairway

ABCD SR 517 13/09/02


Plates

ABCD SR 517 13/09/02


Plate 1 Minipod aboard RV Corystes prior to deployment

ABCD SR 517 13/09/02


Plate 2 Minipod instrumentation

ABCD SR 517 13/09/02


Plate 3 Syringe water samplers

ABCD SR 517 13/09/02


Plate 4 The NIOZ corer being deployed from RV Cirolana

ABCD SR 517 13/09/02


Plate 5 ISIS heas unit positioned on a typical core sample

ABCD SR 517 13/09/02


Plate 6 SedErode being deployed in both sleve and tray modes

ABCD SR 517 13/09/02


Plate 7 Sediment surfaces as collected and after surface smoothing

ABCD SR 517 13/09/02


Plate 8 An example of bed layering at the Tees disposal site

ABCD SR 517 13/09/02


Plate 9 Interface between material types – Landguard Fort

ABCD SR 517 13/09/02


Plate 10 Example of exposed surface following WD Fairway placement

ABCD SR 517 13/09/02


ABCD SR 517 13/09/02
Appendices

ABCD SR 517 13/09/02


Appendix 1

ISIS – Instrument for Shear stress In-Situ

ABCD SR 517 13/09/02


ABCD SR 517 13/09/02
ABCD SR 517 13/09/02
ABCD SR 517 13/09/02
ABCD SR 517 13/09/02
ABCD SR 517 13/09/02
Appendix 2

SedErode – Sediment Erosion Device

ABCD SR 517 13/09/02


SedErode - Sediment Erosion Device

1. SedErode Instrument

SedErode comprises a head unit and a control box. The instrument is used to apply a known
applied shear stress to a planar surface of cohesive sediment and detect the onset of surface
erosion.

The head section comprises a recirculating system which generates radial flow with a known
shear stress, across a 0.09m diameter area of sediment surface, via the specially designed bell
head. The recirculating system is mounted on a 0.4m diameter baseplate, with a short thin-walled
tube which is pushed into the sediment to position the bell head above the mud surface. A
nephelometer is used to continuously monitor the recirculating water turbidity.

The control box contains a rechargeable battery supply, discharge (ie applied shear stress) control,
and logging ports for applied shear stress and turbidity monitoring. Figure A1.1 shows the
SedErode instrument being deployed on a typical mudflat.

The applied shear stresses generated by SedErode under different operating conditions have been
measured using hot film shear stress probes (Graham et al, 1992) at the University of Plymouth.
This data has been used to generate a calibration equation relating the discharge though the
system and the gap to the applied shear stress.

2. Operation

The head unit is carefully positioned over a typical planar area of sediment under investigation.
The unit is filled with clear local water and the recirculating system is bled of any air. The
nephelometer is zeroed, and shear stress and turbidity logging is commenced. The water is
recirculated over the test site first at a very low shear stress to allow even mixing of the
recirculating water and establish a turbidity baseline prior to erosion testing. A series of
controlled increasing shear stress steps are then applied, typically 1-2 minutes duration whilst
monitoring of the turbidity. The onset of erosion occurs when there is a sharp increase in the
turbidity, which corresponds to the removal of surface material into the recirculating water. The
measurement time typically takes about 15 minutes.

3. Results and Interpretation

The output from the SedErode measurements is a time series of applied shear stress and turbidity
in the system. Figure A1.2 shows a typical example of the results obtained using SedErode. The
turbidity can be directly calibrated against the concentration of the mud under test, and this record
gives the sediment response to the applied shear stress steps. Analysis of the time series data then
yields the onset of surface erosion, and the erosion rate as material is removed from the surface.
The interpretation as to the definition of erosion depends on the application of the results, but for
most engineering purposes it is practical to consider that erosion occurs when there is "bulk
surface rupture", which continues when a higher shear stress is applied. Another definition of
cohesive sediment erosion is "benign erosion", when loose surface deposits are removed and this
type of erosion results in small discontinuous turbidity increases. The use and interpretation of
the SedErode instrument and results can be chosen by the user and varied to investigate specific
erosion characteristics of cohesive sediments.

ABCD SR 517 13/09/02


4. Applications

SedErode can be used on any cohesive-based sediment to measure the surface erosion shear
stress. Measurements have enabled the relationship between erosion shear stress and simpler
measures of sediment properties, such as density and sand content, to be investigated. The critical
surface erosion shear stress is a fundamental parameter for input into predictive models of coastal
and estuarine cohesive sediments. Example of sites are:

- intertidal mudflats
- river banks
- coastal areas
- sewer and drainage systems
- saltmarshes
- reservoirs

To date SedErode (and its predecessor ISIS) have been used to measure in excess of 130
measurements of surface critical erosion shear stress at sites covering the Dollard Estuary
(Netherlands), 3 sites in Severn Estuary (UK), Humber Estuary (UK), Tollesbury Creek, Essex
(UK), and Mersea Island, Essex (UK).

6. References

Graham D I, James P W, Jones T E R, Davies J M, Delo E A. (1992). Measurement and


prediction of surface shear stress in an annular flume. ASCE Journal of Hydraulic Engineering,
Vol 118, No 9, 1992.

ETSU (1992). In-Situ Erosion of Cohesive Sediment. Energy Technology Support Unit,
Harwell, UK, Report No. ETSU-TID-4112.

Williamson H J and Ockenden M C (1996). ISIS: An Instrument for Measuring Erosion Shear
stress In-Situ. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science Vol 42, pp1-18.

ABCD SR 517 13/09/02


ABCD SR 517 13/09/02
ABCD SR 517 13/09/02

You might also like