48
RLTERNRTIYES(U) ARMY ENGINEER ATERWAYS EXPERIMENT STATION VICKSBURG NS HYDRAULICS LAB N J TRANLE ET AL. p UNCLASSIFIED AUG 86 RES/NPHL96-5 F/O 13/2 ML
RLTERNRTIYES(U) ARMY ENGINEER ATERWAYS EXPERIMENTSTATION VICKSBURG NS HYDRAULICS LAB N J TRANLE ET AL.p UNCLASSIFIED AUG 86 RES/NPHL96-5 F/O 13/2 ML
i
U. I
1111 ________1111 25" I36 IIII•I g2
1111 * .4 111112.0l! iiil I ititn>
j
MICROCOPY RESOLUTION TEST CHART
NATIONAL BURElAU
i,
-iAN[R A
'4
UP'
_.'.42
a,:
.. ..- i . .~ . . .
MISCELLANEOUS PAPER HL-86-5
%
PUGET SOUND GENERIC DREDGEDMATERIAL DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVES
(V~ by
Michael J. Trawle, Billy H. Johnson__ Hydraulics Laboratory
_ _ DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMYWaterways Experiment Station, Corps of Engineers
PO Box 631, Vicksburg, Mississippi 39180-0631
D)TICELECTEOCT 2l8f
Im0
August 1986
Final Report
Approved For Public Release; Distribution Unlimited
U.~
HYLKALIC C.
LABORTORYPrepared for US Army Engineer District, SeattleLABORATOR
Seattle, Washington 98124-2255
8B6 1'1).......................... V..-. .
Destroy this report when no longer needed. Do not returnit to the originator.
The ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .fidnsihsrpr r o t ecntuda nofca
The indings in this report are not to be ntuase anoffcaadertmeint oftheArmyn positiootunles sordesigaeds.
byuche auommried prdocets.
P-a
r-.
3%%a
-
T.P.. Jr .
SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE[I )REPORT IForm Approved
REOTDOCUMENTATION PAGE 0648 N~o 0704 0188______________________________________________Emp Date Jun 30 1986
la REPORT SECURITY CLASSIFICATION lb RESTRICTIVE MARKINGS. ''
* Unclassified* 2a SECURITY CLASSIFICATION AUTHIORITY 3 DISTRIBUTION /AVAILABILITY OF REPORT *
___________________________________ Approved for public release; distribution2b DECLASSIFICATION I DOWNGRADING SCHEDULE unlimited 0
4 PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER(S S MONITORING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER(S) -
Miscellaneous Paper HL-86-56NAME OF PERFORMING ORGANIZATION 6bOFFICE SYMBOL 7a NAME OF MONITORING ORGANIZATION
USAEWES (if applicable)Hydauicabotr oJWES HL
'a6c. ADDRESS (City, State. and ZIP Code) 7b ADDRESS (City, State. and ZIP Code)
P0 Box 631*Vicksburg, Mississippi 39180-0631
Ba NAME OF FUNDINGI/SPONSORING 8b OFFICE SYMBOL 9 PROCUREMENT INSTRUMENT IDENTIFICATION NUMBER%OJIGANI TIOV(iaplcbe
8 c. ADDRESS (City, State, and ZIP Code) 10 SOURCE OF FUNDING NUMBERS
PROGRAM IPROJECT ITASK WVORK UNIT*Seattle, WA 981241-2255 ELEMENT NO NO NO ACCESSION NO
11 TITLE (include Security Classification)
PUGET SOUND GENERIC DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVES (U)
RSONAL AUTHOR(S)irawle, Michael .. , Johnson, Billy H.
V TY~PVF REPORT 13b TIME COVE ~ 4 DATE OF REPORT (Yeor, Month, Day) 15 PAGE COUNTrinal Rpot FROM May 9?g5"Feb 198 August 1986 4
* ~16 SUPPLEMENTARY NOTATION I*
Available from National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, %VA 22161.17 COSATI CODES 18~ SUBJECT TERMS (Continue on reverse if necessary and identify by block number)
*FIELD GROUP SUB3-GROUP Drudged material. disposal__________________________ athematical modl.-,
?u~el .,ound%19 ABSTRACT (Continue on reverse if necessary and identif by block number)
% Results from a series of numerical model runs predicting the short-term fate of dredged*material disposed in open water are presented. These results cover a wide range of water
depths and ambient currents. The range of conditions tested are intended to represent* typical conditions for material to be disposed in Puget Sound. Because the maximum limits -,f-. material dispersion were of interest, dredged material with a high percentage of readily
dispersed clay and silt was used in most of the disposal simulations. General conclusionsare that for the typical maintenance material containing both sand and clay/silt, the
* disposed material will completely deposit within one hour for most conditions tested. The
only tests which indicated that a portion of the material remained in suspensionl after anhour were those in 800 ft of water with currents of I kn:.t or greater. In general, thodeposition patterns were a fonctioi of' both dejpth and ambient currents. ~f
S.20 DISTRIBUTION, AVAILABILITY OF ABSTRACT 21 ABSTRACT SECURITY CLASSIFICATION
-0 IJNCLASSIFIFD'LINLIMITEO E± SAME AS RPT ELI IC .JSER, LIn clIa ss If ied Ifp% %-. 22a NAME OF RESPONSIBLE N,NOViOuAL .2b IL I, PHOM' (Irnclde Arri Code) 2.cOFFI(,E SIM6FI
DOF R 4 3 4MAR 83 APR ed.1.onla'.y bI, .Avd ..iI I r-FS.Fsted SIC R ( C . SFt-ATION OF P. A14All othe, edt ~o~s are onorrer c ls IfeF DO FOR 1473.84eS
dO.I.do-
K.- r.- ~ ~
...........-
PREFACE _
The estimation of short-term fate for the open-water disposal of dredged
material in Puget Sound, documented in this report, was performed for the US i
Army Engineer District, Seattle. r %F
The study was conducted in the Hydraulics Laboratory (HL) of the US Army
Engineer Waterways Experiment Station (WES) during the period from May 1985 to e
February 1986. This accomplishment was under the direction of Messrs. F. A.. 00. ,
Herrmann, Jr., and R. A. Sager, Chief and Assistant Chief, respectively, of
the HL; W. H. McAnally, Chief of the Estuaries Division; and M. B. Boyd, Chief
of the Hydraulics Analysis Division.
The work was performed and the report prepared by Mr. M. J. Trawle and - .-.Dr. B. H. Johnson, HL, WES. This report was edited by Mrs. Gilda Shurden with
Ms. Frances Williams, Information Products Division, WES, arranging and .-.
coordinating the final layout.
COL Allen F. Grum, USA, was the previous Director of WES. COL Dwayne G. 0
Lee, CE, is the present Commander and Director. Dr. Robert W. Whalin is
Tenhnicil Director. ...... ;
fi.
° ,° %'.% .*%
-- ,. -,. .
:, , I:! ,r " ' "
-, ...,..
. , . -]
/- 4 . .- .
%
CONTENTS
Page
PREFACE..................................................................... 1
CONVERSION FACTORS, NON-SI TO SI (METRIC) :
UNITS OF MEASUREMENT.....................................................3.
PART I: INTRODUCTION.....................................................I 4--
Background ......................... ... 4Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Approach ......................... .... 4ON.QP
PART II: THE NUMERICAL MODEL, DIFID...................................... 5
Description...................................................................-. -:Required Input Data.................................................. 8Model Verification - Elliott Bay, Washington......................... 10
*PART III: TEST PROGRAM AND RESULTS........................................ 13
Test Conditions...................................................... 13'U Test Results......................................................... 13
PART IV: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS......................................... 16
Summary............................................................... 16Conclusions.......................... ................................ 16
REFERENCES.................................................................. 18*-
TABLES 1-3
PLATES 1-21 sr
U.2
CONVERSION FACTORS, NON-SI TO SI (METRIC) '
UNITS OF MEASUREMENT
Non-SI units of measurement used in this report can be converted to SI
(metric) units as follows:
Multiply By To Obtain
cubic feet 0.02831685 cubic metres
cubic yards 0.761455'49 cubic metres
feet 0.30148 metres
feet per second 0.30148 metres per second
p..0
IiIt
• - .-o . . ....-
V%'
PUGET SOUND GENERIC DREDGED MATERIAL
DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVES
PART I: INTRODUCTION
Bac kground
1. The US Army Engineer District, Seattle (NPS) is assessing Puget
Sound dredged material disposal site alternatives for future dredged material
derived from new work and maintenance dredging activities. The potential open
water sites are located in water depths ranging from about 100 to 800 ft.*
Currents range from still water (0.1 fps) to as great as 2 knots (3.38 fps). -
A key factor in the feasibility of disposal at each site is the ability to
place the material within the defined boundaries of each site without sig- -"-
nificant dispersal beyond these limits. .
Obj ective , , 1.
2. The objective of this investigation was to predict the short-term -
(less than one hour) fate of any dredged material from the Puget Sound area
and barge dumped into the open water sites described in paragraph 1.
Approach
3. The approach used to simulate the barge disposal of the dredged
material was the numerical dump model DIFID (Disposal from Instantaneous
Dump). The model predicted the deposition pattern of disposed material for
each of the conditions tested as well as suspended sediment concentrations in
the water column.
* A table of factors for converting non-ST units of measurement to SI OS
(metric) units is presented on page 3.
• " °~~'.• , - "•
*-4*4...*.~-.*... . * .,.*.-,. . k."-"-".'. . .... • . . - - .- . ... ..... " "... .. . . .. .
PART II: THE NUMERICAL MODEL, DIFID
Description
~4. DIFID was developed by Brandsma and Divoky (1976) for the US
Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station (WES) under the Dredged Material
Research Program. Much of the basis for the model was provided by earlier
model development by Koh and Chang (1973) for the barge disposal of wastes
in the ocean. The work was conducted under funding by the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) in Corvallis, Oreg. Modifications to the original
model have been made by Johnson and Holliday (1978) and Johnson (in
preparation).
5. The model requires that the dredged material he broken into various
solid fractions with a settling velocity specified for each fraction. In many
cases, a significant portion of the material falls as "clumps" that may have a
settling velocity of' perhaps 1 to 5 fps. This is especially true for, the
Puget Sound area, where much of the dredging is done by clamshell. This can
also be true in the case of hydraulically dredged material if consolidation
takes place in the hopper during transit to the disposal site. However, in
order to evaluate the "worst case" and to determine the maximum extent of
dispersal frcm a disposal operation, all model tests assumed that the dredged
material was a slurry of uniform density.
6. The behavior of the disposed material is assumed to be separated
into three phases: convective descent, during which the dump cloud or dis-
charge jet falls under the influence of gravity; dynamic collapse, occurring-
when the descending cloud impacts the bottom; and long-term passive diffusion,
commencing when the material transport and spreading are determined mo-re by
ambient currents and turbulence than by the dynamics of the dispr5al opera-
t ion. Figure 1 illustrates these phaopes.
7. During convective descent, the dumped material Kodgro)ws as a
result -), entr.arinment. The mo- .4"e r that n -n- u> uin>- m" "r_ -
is- lost to the water .l-y diing tis phase. Tis i : -- -- c i upp-. rt-1 --. '..
_4.4 ' . I
by dr'edgod m~ito-i'illsoa moilt.w:int ir.;c1' O
198?), in w-iceh nio mcci ;c [In :;:3<'d. iTWst Jtr 'o~L, r. ,70.'., "!
-O.....: .
. ..r..p i n ..,
0 0< <00
'- 4- LL
'.3 45'0 - Z CO
I~ 0
~cr -
L- >- OC
co 0H 0d0 0)0
-. 0 00)< hbo
0 (1
0 0
F- LL z 0.~
0z u z 4-U LL 0
A4 004-
I.-4 Lij L
00j < 0 -jQ M Ww0
0
4 A9L *
'. -*• • -- -°
dump site.* The fact that nothing was detectable indicates that Ioss to the
water column during descent was minimal. This is further supported by Gordon
(1973, 1974) who estimated from observed data from a static bottom dump, that
the turbidity cloud in the vicinity of the falling cloud contained less than 0
1 percent of the dumped material. Eventually, the material reaches the bottom
or a neutrally buoyant position in the water column. The vertical motion is
arrested and a dynamic spreading or collapse in the horizontal direction.-.-
occurs. In 100 ft of wat-, the convective descent phase for typical main-
tenance material is completed in a few seconds after dumping. However, in 800
ft of water, the convective descent lasts about two minutes. The basic shape
assumed for the collapsing cloud in the water column is an oblate spheroid.
For the case of collapse on the bottom, the cloud takes the shape of a general
ellipsoid and a frictional force between the bottom and the collapsing cloud
is included. When the rate of horizontal spreading or vertical collapse in
the dynamic collapse phase becomes less than an estimated rate of change due
to turbulent diffusion, the collapse phase is terminated and the long-term O
transport diffusion begins. During collapse, solid particles can settle as a
result of their fall velocity. As these particles leave the main body of
material, they are stored in small clouds that are assumed to have a Gaussian
s tbution. Thc small clouds are then advected hon zontally h the imposed
current field. In addition, the clouds grow both horizontally and vertically
as a result of turbulent diffusion. Since settling of the suspended solids
occurs at each grid point, the amount of solid material deposited on the bot-
tom and a corresponding thickness are determined. The model assumes that no
subsequent erosion of material from the bottom occurs. A detailed description
of the theoretical aspects of DIFID is given by Brandsma and Divoky (1976).
8. The deposition of material (solids volume) predicted by the model is
converted to thickness of deposition by the use of an aggregate voids ratio. .
The equation used by the model to convert solids volume deposited to thickness
of deposition (Brandsma and Divoky 1976) is
I + AV19"O - qTH : I VOL
ARE A
* Personal communication between Dave orfuldt of t~i: IIo Army Kr:inr
District, Seattle, and Dr. James Phipps, Tesar'tment If iec< yv-J)'. .,>1 52,, .L '
Grays Harbor College, 20 March 1996.
Zo'!.- .- -. . . . . . . . - . . - ,
]°' : 1 "'c " ' ."". ". "--- . ' . .--. ': '-]-:' "f0 '""L:L:J ' Li' ": 44 4'.'4' " ] .''-...'*.-.- .*' "L .- .'"- 'N L"" " L : L i- * . --
7 .W *
where
TH = average grid cell thickness (ft)
AVR = aggregate voids ratio
AREA = grid cell size (400 x 400 ft2) ....
VOL solids volume (cu ft)
9. If the material being dumped is cohesive, and particle aggregation
can be expected to occur during the disposal operation, the model has the capa-
bility to use aggregate, rather than particle, settling velocities. The ag-
gregate settling velocity for the clay/silt (cohesive) fraction is determined
in the model by the following set of equations (Johnson and Holliday 1978).
0.0017 if C < 25 mg/l
V 0.0000233 C if 25 < C < 300 mg/lS
0.047 if C > 300 mg/1
.0
Required Input Dataata-.
10. The required input data to DIFID can be grouped into (a) a descrip-
tion of the ambient environment at the disposal site, (b) characterization of
the dredged material, (c) data describing the disposal operation, and (d) model
coefficients.
!I. The first t Jk s tha t of const-ructing a horizontal grid ovr thcdisposal site. The model grid used in this study is shown in Figure 2. The
ambient conditions imposed on the grid model for these tests were represented
by a constant water depth and density and a depth-averaged time invariant cur-
rent velocity. The model has the capability to handle a time varying depth-
averaged flow field or a time varying three-dimensional flow field, but
neither of these options was used. In all cases, a single water density pro-
file at the deepest point on the grid must be prescribed.
12. Although the model has the capability to handle dredged material
composed of as many as 12 fractions, th:e dredged material for these tests was
characterizel by two solid fractions. For each solid fraction, its concentra-
tion by volume, density, fall velocity, voids ratio, and an indicator as to
whether or not the fra(tion i:s cohesive must be spe(, fied. In addition, the
bulk d en ity rid aggr'egu-te voids ratio of' the materiail must be prescribed. The
8
%-. "
S. 71.5ie . . ..; "IT.tA~. ... -. . . . . . .
....."" :" , " " , " " " .L.'2 v L< ,L ,L,' , ." ," :L. .4.,"- ".".".'- .- "" " - -.. . . . . . . . .. ..-....... . ...-.".". . ..".v.-.v.v. . . . ..". . ..• "" :.
N 7 0 7f-s
Q.DUMP LOCATION FOR
TESTS USING 0a85, 169,
--- AND 3.38 FPS CURRENTS-
*---- ---- ---- --- ---- - -- ---- -- CELL SIZE0
400 FTx 400 FT
DUMP LOCA TION FORTESTS USING 0. 10 FPSlod
- -- -- - CURRENTS
- - -r - - - - -
CURRENT -------
'DIRECTION -- - - - - - - - - - -
F-igurle 2.Pugtt Sound model gr id
*%
bulk density is the density of the slurry in the barge. As discussed in para-
graph 8, the aggregate voids ratio is actually a bulking factor used to convert
the mass of deposited material to a thickness of deposition. '.
13. Disposal operations data required include the position of the barge
on the horizontal grid, the volume of material dumped, and the loaded and
unloaded draft of the disposal vessel.4... , .. ,%
14. There are 14 model coefficients in DIFID. These required coeffi- ,te.,
cients include entrainment, drag, and turbulent diffusion. Default values O
that reflect the model developer's judgment are contained in the code. Com-
puter experimentation, such as that presented by Johnson and Holliday (1978),
has shown that results appear to be fairly insensitive to many of the coeffi- . ,
cients. The most important are drag coefficients in the convective descent 0
and collapse phases as well as those coefficients governing the entrainment of
ambient water into the dredged material cloud. The values selected for the
convective descent entrainment and drag coefficients in this study were based
upon experimental work done by Bowers and Coldenblatt (1978).15. Model limitations should be considered in the interpretation and
use of model results. These limitations include: (a) limited knowledge of - ,appropriate values for the various model coefficients; (b) imprecise specifi-
cation of settling velocities for the dumped material; (c) representation of
real disposal operations in an idealized fashion, e.g., an instantaneous dumpin this case; and (d) limited model verification with no field observations at - -
the depths to which the model is being applied in some tests.
16. Discussion of a model application using field observationo at a -
disposal site located in Elliott Bay where the average water depth is approxi-
mately 200 ft is presented below. The main reason that field tests have not
been conducted in water deeper than 200 ft is expense. To observe the bottom -
behavior of a collapsing cloud in 800 or even 400 ft of water depth would be
extremely costly. Until such data are available, the assumption is that if .. -
the model behaves properly in 200 ft of water depth, the extrapolation of
model applications to greater depths is valid. .--
Model Verification - Elliott Bay, Washington
17. During February 1976, personnel from Yale University (Bokuniewicz
et al. 1978) monitored a barge disposal operation at the Duwamish disposal
10%
......-. '" •.°......... -.. .-............ .~ . . ..... ..... . ..
site in Elliott Bay near Seattle, Wash. The dump was made from a 530-cu-yd -
stationary barge. The material possessed an average bulk density of 1.50 g/cc,
with the solid material composed of 55 percent fine material and 45 percent
sand. Although the data collected for comparison with computed results from
DIFID were very limited, the model application and comparison to field data in
an area physically near the present disposal site of interest will increase
confidence in the model's predictive capability in these areas.
18. When attempting to apply any of the dredged material models (DIFID
for instantaneous barge dumps, DIFCD for continuous discharges, or DIFHD for
hopper dredges) to real disposal operations, a basic problem is that of deter- -
mining how to apply these models so that an actual operation can be repre-
sented by the idealized methods of disposal considered in the models. For
example, there are no dredged material disposals in which all of the material
leaves the disposal vessel instantaneously. However, for the case of a barge
dump such as that monitored at the Duwamish disposal site in Elliott Bay, all
of the material left the barge fairly quickly. Also, the water was of such
depth that a dump did resemble a hemispherical cloud falling through the water
column by the time the bottom was encountered. Thus, the instantaneous dump
model, DIFID, is the appropriate model for barge dumps at the Duwamish dis-
posal site in Elliott Bay.
19. The water depth at the Duwamish disposal site was 197 ft with the
ambient current near the bottom measuring about 0.3 fps. ...
20. During the Duwamish disposal site dump operation, a time of 25 sec
was observed for the leading edge of the disposal cloud to strike the bay
bottom. The model, DIFID, computed a descent time of 23 sec, thus comparing -
closely with the observed descent time. The speed of the front of the bottom
surge at 160 ft from the point of the dump was measured to be 20 cm/sec. The
speea of the bottom surge computed by the model at 160 ft from the point of
dump was 22 cm/sec, again comparing well with the field observation. During
field monitoring, suspended solids concentrations were measured at 3 ft above
the bottom at a location 300 ft downstream of the dump point. Within 60 sec
following the dump, the measured suspended sediment concentration was 64 mg/i.
The corresponding concentration computed from the dump model was 75 mg/i,
again demonstrating reasonable behavior.
21. Proper material ,characterization is extrrmely important in oh-
tamning realistic model predictions. The riesalts discussed above were
*- . • , .
obtained by assuming that 30 percent of the fine material behaved as con-
solidated clumps, 65 percent of the fine material behaved as a cohesive
flocculating sediment, and the remaining 5 percent of the fine material
retained individual particle characteristics.
22. In summary, with proper material characterization and selection of
* values for the more sensitive model coefficients, the model, DIFID yielded ~
results which compared favorably with the field observations made at the ..
Duwamish disposal site in Elliott Bay, Wash.
A- .
S.12
PART III: TEST PROGRAM AND RESULTS - -.
Test Conditions
23. The water depth, ambient current, material dumped, and barge bulk
density used in each of the tests are as shown in Table 1. The remainder of
the required model input for each series is shown in Table 2.
Grid size
24. The model grid used for all tests is shown in Figure 2, which
represents an area of 12,000 by 12,000 ft. Each grid cell represented an area
of 400 by 400 ft.
Dump size .
25. To be representative of a typical barge operating in the Puget
Sound area, the dump size used in all tests was 1,500 cu yd.
Duration of simulations
26. The duration of each test was intended to be 3,600 sec (1 hr) after ,0
the barge dump. However, in the tests with the 3.38-fps ambient current velo-
city, dumped material remaining in suspension reached the model boundary
* within one hour, which automatically ended the test.
*. Dump spot
27. The locations of the dumps for each test are shown in Figure 2.
Model coefficients.
28. The model coefficients used in this study, as well as the default
values, are given in Table 3. The default values for coefficients were - 9
established during the original model development. ..-
Material type
29. The dumping of two types of material was modeled in these tests.
The primary material tested consisted of 25 percent fine sand and 75 percent
clay/silt. The clay/silt fraction was modeled as both cohesive and noncohe-
sive materials. The second material consisted of 50 percent fine sand and
50 percent medium sand with no clay/silt.I, . uq
Test Results *
30. Results from the model tests are shown as deposition patterns in
Plates 1 to 21. These deposition patterns demonstrate the predicted extent
13
. " " -° °
. . %. °
~A7
and thickness of material deposited from a single 1,500-cu-yd disposal opera-
tion. For the tests (Plates 13-19) in which all the material had not been .
deposited after 60 min, the patterns represent the deposition extent and .
thickness for that portion of the dumped material which had deposited after **.
60 min.
Tests 1-15
31. The material simulated in Tests 1-15 represents a typical main-
tenance material in the Puget Sound area, consisting of 25 percent fine sand
and 75 percent cla It.i thtae Le3La, Lhe clay/sIlt fraction was allowed
to aggregate, resulting in aggregate settling rates which are significantly
greater than the particle settling velocity. For fine-grained silts and
clays, it is reasonable to assume that particle aggregation will occur as the 0
material ,ettles, resulting in accelerated settling velocities.
32. For Tests 1-12, in depths of water ranging from 100 to 600
ft, all of the dumped material deposited within the 60-min simulation
S period (Plates 1-12). For Test 13, in 800 ft of water and with an ambient .- J.- 1;~.--..',
current speed of 0.1 fps, almost all the material deposited within one hour
" (Plate 13). However for Test 14, in 800 ft of water and a current speed of
* 1.69 fps, a portion of the clay/silt fraction of dumped material was still in
suspension after one hour (Plate 14). For Test 15, in 800 ft of water and
with a current speed of 3.38 fps, the duration of the test was limited to
30 min, at which time a portion of the clay/silt fraction remained in
suspension (Plate 15). The 30-min limit was imposed because at that time
sediment had reached the model boundary. A longer simulation would have re- •
quired extending the grid.
Tests 16-18 .,.
33. Tests 16-18 were identical to Tests 7-9 except that the clay/silt
fraction was not allowed to aggregate. Therefore, only particle settling
velocities were used in the model computations. Comparison of Tests 7-9 with
Tests 16-18 demonstrates that the deposition pattern is much more dispersed if
aggregate settling is not considered. However, as stated earlier, the results "-.-'4.
which include aggregate settling for the cohesive fraction of material should
be more realistic than results which do not. .-. ,*.
Test 19 N.
34. Test 19 is identical to Test 18 except that the barge bulk density
was increased from 1.35 to 1.43 g/cc. As can be seen by comparison of
14
. -.
Plates 18 and 19, the impact of the increased bulk density with regard to the
extent of the deposition pattern was negligible under these conditions.
Tests 20 and 21
35. Test 20 used a material which consisted only of fine and medium
sands dumped in water 800 ft deep with an ambient current of 1.69 fps -
(Plate 20). Test 21 (Plate 21) was identical to Test 20 except that the water -
depth was only 100 ft. As can be seen, the resulting deposition patterns for
these two tests are more compact than for the equivalent tests (Tests 2 and
14) using a large clay/silt fraction.
4.0
.Are
.. 15
. . .. .
p-...o
I%°°. --'•%
4.-.-.. **.~*. .4.-.. *. 4.v-. . . . . . . . . .-....-. .-..4,.~~.- - .*.*...*...*-..~. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .
~ .i.*~.4 £'J~? ~ *~ .. . - ~ ... e ..... . :. . -'.:.
PART IV: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ,..-,-,
Summary .
0
36. A numerical model for predicting the short-term fate of dredged .- ..'e..
material dumped into open water has been applied over a range of disposal site%. ,..v
conditions representative of those encountered in Puget Sound. The water " " '
depths ranged from 100 to 800 ft with current speeds ranging from essentially
zero to over 3 fps. Two different disposal materials were tested; the first
consisting of 25 percent fine sand and 75 percent clay/silt; and the second
50 percent fine sand and 50 percent medium sand. Tests were conducted using
bulk densities of 1.35 and 1.48 g/cc. The clay/silt fraction of material was .
tested as both cohesive and noncohesive. Model coefficients were generally
selected to be the values determined during the model development (default
values). However, coefficients pertaining to the convective descent of the0
material through the water column were determined from tank test data
collected by JBF Scientific (Bowers and Goldenblatt 1978).
Conclusions
37. The results presented should be viewed in a qualitative sense since
field date were not available for model adjustment. In addition, various
assumptions ini the modeL development should he considered in an analysis of
the model results. These include: •
a. The model treats each of the sediment fractions separately. In'in actual settling process there would be interaction of the
va''ious so!lid fractions. This interaction would probably -
-- itt in more rapid settling than depicted by the model.
b. The ability of tne model to accurately portray water columnconcentrations decrea:ses as the percent of material in suspen-sion decreases and as the time into the simulation increases.At the point where the percent suspended becomes less than
percent and tho' time exr'eeds perha.s 1 800 seC, other uncer-tainities become extremely important factors. ,Such inconsis-tend es inolaAe how muech mate-ri,il di.ssoci ates from the cloudsin the Jescenmt pha;, an.1 the influence :-,f turtbulent diffusion
in the vertical" -
c . In an ictuC I i iI ) p i 'rt i , the material leaving the barge
may differ n I l1e ritly fr'')m that beirig modeled. Factors such .
is the r" f , ,t., 11,1!Lt i tic f the various fra t i o n f ma-ter i ai , water c ntent, the percent of clumps, and time for the
--.7<..........................
. . -- .- ' -
-. material to leave the barge, all significantly affect the,- spread of material on the bottom. The conditions assumed for
this study represent a "worst case" or "maximum dispersal"situation.
38. Results from the model tests are presented in such a manner as to 0
show the amount and physical limits of dredged material deposited on the
bottom within one hour after the dump occurred. In the tests for which the .- '.clay/silt was treated as cohesive (Tests 1 to 15), all of the material was W.
deposited within one hour after dumping except for Tests 13, 14, and 15. ir iO .
800 ft of water along with a current speed of 0.1 fps (Test 13), only a small ' -
fraction of the dumped material remained in suspension after one hour. In
800 ft of water along with a current speed of 1.69 fps (Test 14), a portion of
the dumped material was still in suspension after cne hour. In 800 ft of 0
water along with a current speed of 3.38 fps (Test 15), the test duration was
limited to 30 min, at which time a portion of the dumped material remained in
suspension. Tests 16 to 18 demonstrated that if the cohesive nature of the
dumped material is not considered, the deposition pattern is significantly O
more dispersed than for the equivalent tests with the cohesive option invoked.
Test 19 demonstrated that the impact of increased bulk density (from 1.35 to
1.48 g/cc) on the overall deposition pattern was negligible for the condition
tested. Finally, Tests 20 and 21 showed that the dumping of a sandy material
containing no clay/silt resulted in deposition patterns that were more compact .
than the patterns for material containing a large clay/silt fraction, given
equivalent recurring water body conditions.
l .
t
17.. .. .
"'9
•17.,.-%-..
. .. .
• 4,.. -
J7" .. , ' .
.. .-.J... .- ,-.-.. , '. .-.. - .'. . . .,-. '. ... -.. .. : - .. . . - . .. .. .. - . .
REFERENCES
Bokuniewicz, H. J., et al. 1978. "Field Study of Mechanics of the Placementof Dredged Material at Open-Water Disposal Sites, Volume II: Appendixes J-O,"-Technical Report D-78-7, US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,Vicksburg, Miss.
Bowers, G. W., and Goldenblatt, M. K. 1978. "Calibration of a PredictiveModel for Instantaneously Discharged Dredged Material," EPA-600/3-78-089, USEnvironmental Protection Agency, Corvallis, Oreg. .
Brandsma, M. G., and Divoky, D. J. 1976. "Development of Models for •Prediction of Short-Term Fate of Dredged Material Discharged in the EstuarincEnvironment," Contract Report D-76-5, US Army Engineer Waterways ExperimentStation, Vicksburg, Miss.
Gordon, R. B. 1973 (Oct). "Turbidity Due to Dredge Operations at the CokeWorks Site, New Haven Harbour, Connecticut," Yale University.
1974. "Dispersion of Dredge Spoil in Near-Shore Waters,"Estuarine and Coastal Marine Science 2, pp 349- 35 8.
Johnson, B. H., and Holliday, B. W. 1978. "Evaluation and Calibration of the
Tetra Tech Dredged Material Disposal Models Based on Field Data," Technical
Report D-78-47, US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg,
Miss.
Johnson, B. H. "User's Guide for Dredged Material Disposal Models for
Computing the Short-Term Physical Fate at Open Water Sites," Instruction
Report HL-86- , in preparation, US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment
Station, Vicksburg, Miss.
Koh, R.C.Y., and hang, Y C 1973. "Mathematical Model for Barged OceanDisposal of Waste," Environmental Protection Technology Series EPA 660/2-73-029, US Environmentil Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
-.
... - -. .. - .--
.. -.... -. . . . . . . .... . . . . . .
- - . .
Table 1
Test Conditions
Water Material Bulk Aggregated SettlingTest Depth Current %%Density Velocities forNo. (ft) (fps) Fine Sand Clay/Silt (g/cc) Clay/Silt Fraction
1 ~ ~~~~~~ 10 .02-513 e
1 100 0.10 25 75 1.35 Yes
2 100 1.69 25 75 1.35 Yes
4 200 0.10 25 75 1.35 Yes .-..
5 200 0.85 25 75 1.35 Yes
6 200 1.69 25 75 1.35 Yes "7 400 0.10 25 75 1.35 Yes
8 400 0.85 25 75 1.35 Yes -
9 ~ 400 1.69 25 75 1.35 Yes
10 600 0.10 25 75 1.35 Yes
11 60 0.8 25 7 1 .5 .e
12 600 0.89 25 75 1.35 Yes
13 80 0.1 25 5 1.5 Ye
12 600 1.69 25 75 1.35 Yes
13 800 0.10 25 75 1.35 Yes
16 400 0.10 25 75 1.35 No
17 400 0.85 25 75 1.35 No
18 400 1.69 25 75 1.35 No
19 400 1.69 25 75 1.148 No
20 800 1.69 50 50 1.148 Not Applicable
21 100 1.69 50 50 1.48 Not Applicable
,7777 - - q. 07- 7 07- 1 1--. -77 - -- 7--. --..
Table 2
Model Input Information
Tests Tests Test Tests 01-15 16-18 19 20-21
Medium sand concentration '.
by volume (cu ft/cu ft) ...... 0.15
Fine sand concentrationby volume (cu ft/cu ft) 0.05 0.05 0.07 0.15
Clay/silt concentration
by volume (cu ft/cu ft) 0.16 0.16 0.22 --
Sand density (g/cc) 2.60 2.60 2.60 2.60
Clay/silt density (g/cc) 2.60 2.60 2.60 --
Fluid density (g/cc) 1.018 1.018 1.018 1.018
Medium sand fall velocity (fps) ..... 0.03
Fine sand fall velocity (fps) 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
Clay/silt fall velocity (fps) 0.0013 0.0013 0.0013 --
Dredged material bulk density (g/cc) 1.35 1.35 1.48 1.48
Aggregate voids ratio 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.50
Cohesive aggregate option Notfor clay/silt fraction ON OFF OFF Applicable
V. . .•
-' .-.
'Si
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ...-.
WNt
Table 3
Values for Model Coefficients
Default Value 0
Coefficient Descr iption Value Used "_.,
0 Convective descent entrainment 0.235 0.275 ' --
Settling coefficient 0.0 0.0 .,
CM Apparent mass coefficient .0 0.40 .-
CD Drag coefficient of sphere 0.50 0.21
* Relates cloud density gradient to -
ambient density gradient 0.25 0.25 .O -
CDRAG Drag coefficient of oblate spheroid 1.0 0.50
CFRIC Skin friction of oblate spheroid 0.01 0.01 - .
CD3 Drag coefficient of ellipsoidal wedge 0.10 0.10 ,
a Collapse entrainment coefficient 0.001 0.02
FRICTN Bottom friction coefficient 0.01 0.01 .
FI Modification factor in bottom A4friction force 0.10 0.10
ALAMDA Dissipation parameter 0.005 0.005
AKYO Maximum value of vertical diffusioncoefficient 0.05 0.005 q
. .:.-:-:-" . * '. o, ..
. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. ,,-. -,- -. ,-
CELL SIZE7400 FTx 400 FTI II UT 1 I I I1 I~
[ U4RET'f~ V l I D~ WTw EPTH = 00 FT] I_DIRECTIONI(0.1 FPS) z
777 N FN AN EOSTD 1S
PERCENTFCAINANDEPOSITED: 100
0Q INDICATES DUMP SPOT*ALL MATERIAL DEPOSITED WITHIN 10 MIN AFTER DUMP
SCALE
80 0 00 1600 2400 FT
DEPOSITION PATTERN(IN THOUSANDTHS OF A FOOT)
TEST No. 1
PLAT[ 1 -
%
CELL SIZE400 FTx 400FT
1r~r1=1U :lI I ~Z~II I1I hURRENT II ~ tl t-WATER DEPTH =100 FT1
UIH Cl IUN L ~~~ --I .69 FPS) 1-0601
10 60J 1
I- f 777
4111
------------ ELAPSED- AFE DM 6'I-
PECN FINE-- - - SAN DEOIE 10
PECN-LYSL EOIE G
0 INDICA- - - - - - --U- - - - - - - - -
SCALE
CASTDEPOSI PATER10
Q~~~TS INICTE DUPSO
PLLAAERATEOSTDETIN1 I ATRDM
40F' 404F
1404
152'.
CURRENT FIN WATER DEPOST D = 00 DIRECTIO 10YSLTDPSIE 0
13.38 FPS ~~~~1 -- - - - 1:z __ _ - - - - - -1
INDICAES DUP S40
ALLMATRIA DEOSIED ITHN 1 MI AFER5UM
52%
LCA 50
Roo 0 oo 160 36
- -------- ---- --- ONi.-------
(I THUADH-O OTTEST NO.
---- ---- ---- --- PLAT-----
CELL SIZ
(0. 1 FPS)
:212 221212
CURRENTET C A------------- LTEDEPITE D200T
DEPORECTIONTER
~i2~IK~TEST NO 4..
PLATE 4
i .. . -
'p .~
CELL SIZE .. .i't " ~400 FT x 400 FT ""'"'
1 11 . I VLFVVI IfCURRENT WATFR DEPTH 200TDIRECTION "'"(0.85 FPS) 28
28 28 28
12 28 28 1 1 1 I 1
... . . . . . . .,, , d
* F I F _ : P I 100
INIC FESK IIM SOAL MA IRA DEOS Ti iVV TH IN 10 MI Nj ;\ E
Ii v.-----oo 0 8,t ,
f .
. .L E. 5- - I - '. i i i-.. ," .
-- -- - - - - . TIME ELAPSE0A!-TER DUMP 60MIN* -,%%t.:
-- - - -- - 44 ERQFCNT F-+NE SAND) rDF PSITED 100 .'% '-
Q INDICATES Di)IMP SPOT "': i£
•ALL MATERIAL DEPOSITID )WITHIN I(;MIN ,AFTER LIMP , .".
SCALE rtl II
*DEPOSITION PATTERN ,.'.,,..
'IN THOUSAN DTHS OF A FOOT) " 1lIS£T NO,[ .-.1.
PLATE 5 ".%,;
• o° • .. -4%
2. 1?J
CEL L SIZE400n FTx0 FT%%
CUR1RENT'i W.ATER DEPTH,= 200 FT '
DIRECTION 20No* .
0.69 FPS)---------------------------1 1 1711[
70 ' '
70
1444
0- - - - - ---- PECEN CLA SITDPSIE 0
INDICTES DMPSPO
ALL-M-ERI-L-EPOS--D-WITIN110 IN-A-TR-DUM
S1,c Lr
--Q---1-----
-- - - ---z- ii -
PLT 6.IEEASDATRDM aI
PECNFNSNDEOIE 0
CELL SIZE400 FTx 400FT % IF
I H -i:i
CURRENT WATER DEPTH 400 FTDIRECTIO(01 F PS)---------------------------------
3 1 3 1 13 31 3 11 1191 9 3 1 11 1
3 19 197 19 3 I. -
3 119127119 3 1I
3 198 19 19 3 1 1 1
- - -- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - -ERDUAP 0 11,N
-ERCE - LA SI L FO I
0- - - -TM E ASD EE INDIATP DUMPSPO
*ALL MATERIAL DEPOSITED WITHIN 10 MIN AFTER DUMP
SI:A LL
DEPOSITION PATTERN .
IN THOUSANDTHS OF A FOOT)TEST NO 7
P LATL 7
N7..
CELL SIZE400 FT x 400 FT
CUR RENT _W.ATER DEPTH, =4.00.
DIRECTION 5 75(0.85 FPS) 37-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
32 32 32
0:.
%-------------------------------~**
%------------------------------------- - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PEREN FIESN EPSTD 0
PECN CLA SIL DEPOSIED 10
TEST NO.4
------------------------------ 4
CELL SIZL400 FT 7- 400 F T
CUR RENT WAER DEPTH 400 TDIRECTION _
(1.69 FPS) 2 1412 1 - -
-~2 2424 1t~~22 2322k
-2222122
2 2 -- -- -2*
22F Ap, ,A RO'll 0 I N-HEN I. -~ -0,lL 4 11
-fl -Wl %;z CLAY - -
H___ _ -H -
I i )EP S 10% RF A: TA T F~ R9 )N
L1~~~~~. -Jih. 1I : 1
_7 ,; .- _
CELL SIZ
1? L
CURRENT zzz I 6rxDIRECTION------------------------ 90.__ _
F(O.1 FPS)- - - - - - - - -
J~~1 17 7- 1--- -- -- -- -
0~~ 1 - - - - - 13 13 13 7
P R 1T 1IN 1AN 1EO IE 10
AL MAERA DEOIE -IHI 60 MIN T APE AFTER DUMP MN
PECN INE OSANDTEPOE A OOT-- PERCENT CLAY ST DEOSIE 100
QLT INIATSDMPSO
1 03
[I 9
CURCENT W N ATD REPST= 6 00,
IDICATON DUM SPOTt
17S 23. 17
232-PLATi i IP- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-------------------------------.---------
-jill 4
Nv.
•. -. .- .. '-
• .. ,-..- . °
t . , . .'
CELL SIZE .. 2%...W t
~2IV~III -III~ PTH 600 T
CURRENTDIRECTION -;
(1 69 FPS) ".",-,-.'9 f 1 1 .13 11. F
[1;11119 -12 11
"- -t---- -. -- - - - - -"- -
1, 11 9.
i ---- --- - - -'-% . % °
- "
I ' ---------
S..TIME ELAPSED AF TER DU
qECENT F INE SAND nEPOSITED 1001PRCENT CLAY SI LT DEPOSI TE D 100
O INDICATES DUMP SPOTALL MATEFIAt DEPOSITED WITHIN 60 MIN AFTER DUMP
DEPOSITION PATTERN(IN THOUSANDTHS OF A FOOT)
TEST NO. 12
P A -...
. d . ~ -. . . .. . .-,..'.-.....,,,-
CELL SIZE400 FT x 400 FT
CURRENT 1- -- -- -- -- WATERDEPTH 8.00 FT-P ~~~DIRECTION ---- --
1.1FPS) - - - - - - - * ~
- - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
9 1303139
9 14114149 3 1
19-- - 9101101109 1 .~ 1 1 1 -
- - - - -- --- - TIME ELAPSED AFTER DUMP 60OMIN'
PERCENT FINE SAND DEPOSITED. 1U0tz1I11 VIPERCENT CLAY/SILT DEPOSITED 93
INDICATES DUMP SPOTALL FINE SAND DEPOSITED WITHIN 30 MIN AFTER DUMP7 PERCENT CLAY SILT STILL IN SUSPENSION AFTER 60 MIN
SCALEvl0 '600 .'400 7
DEPOSITION PATTERN(IN THOUSANDTHS OF A FOOT)
TEST NO. 13
PLATE 13
...v- . . o -. -I o1-. . - -u--.i---.--.- ... , .-.,.- .. ,.w , --.. .. . . . . .. . . . . . .,. .-... . . . . . . .",.. . . .-.. . '. . ,. . . . . .'-w,
-0
CELL SIZE
400 FTx 400 FT
CURRENT WATER DEPTH' 800 FTDIRECTION(1 69FPS) - .: -
~25 6 5 2
, ,- -, .44 2....-....:.
4 4O 4
2 7 7 --
2
6 6" 2"
;-5~1 4 4 ! i i ,'
..- 4_ 4_ 4 11 5 1 1 5 1
2 I 2 2ii ! L I -. .. . '
I -*-.---------* "
to ,
- PERCENT ------- ----- S.. .-.. . .,
7 ~ ~ ~ _ PERCENT FINE SAND DEOSTE 93PRETCAYSL TL
-- , ",,,L
IN SUSPENSION AFTER 60 MIN
DEPOSITION PATTERN
(IN THOUSANDTHS OF A FOOT)TEST NO. 14
0PLATE 14
* ECN IESA DA D3 ECNTCA /ITSIL.""°"'- .
INSSE SO FE 0MN-.-.- ''
CELL SIZE400 FT x 400 FT . -
CURRENT WATER DEPTH 800FDIRECTION(3.38 FPS) t -
1 4 44
2112
2-- - - K 23 33 2
11 111
NDICAE1 1UM SPO134 PECN FINE- - - - - - - .SA D- - - - - - - --',T LA ;
STILL-~ -N SUPNSO AFE 30 MTINLPSDATRDUP D
-~PECETCLY TDEPOSI PATERN5
INICTN THUMPNTH OF A FOOT
STILL~~~~ES IN. SUPNIO1FER5
PLAT[ 15
CELL SIZE400FTx,400FT
CURRENT .j f--WATE R DEPTH' 400 FTDI R ECT ION R~---- -
0.1 FPS, -I- - - I
4 4- 4-4-4
4 11 1
__ _ _ _ 1 4 717 7-4 1
I I I I i i- 4 -
---.- ~~t±--~4TIME ELAPSED AFTER DUMP 60 MINPEFRCENT FINE SAND DEPO',ITED 100
PERCENT CIAy SILT DEPOSITED 53
O N)(iCA T FS DUM kpspoAL 1, F INE SANI I)FPOSIT 1 D VI I IN 10) MIN AF I ER D)UMP11 PEN;(x rI ,,y ILT 1TI. IN SWWSI'SIDN AFTER G0 MIN
DEPOSITION PATTERN(IN THOUSANDTHS OF A FOOT)
TEST NO 16
PLAT[ 1
TS% ~ . ~ .. *~ ~~i .-
,-CELL SIZE/400 FT x 400FT
WATER DEPTH.= 400 FT1
DIRECTION 4-(0.85 FPS)
21 21 2
11 11art
1 TM E11EAFEDM 6MN-PECN FIESN -EPSTD 0- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - :- 18
82 PEREN 11Y L STL 2NSSESO ATR6 I
TEST'N NO 1
PLATE 1
S--'I%
% C
CURENTWATER DEPTH 400 FT-DIRECTION
-F( 69FPSI - - - - - - - - - - - -
2
51 55
5 55
Se3 313 .
31 113
.4 111
- - - TIM ELPE FTRD M 6 I
-PRCN FIESN EPSTD 10
----- ---- -4.-----------------------------------------------------------
IN~fCATES Du p spo
AL IESN EOITE WTI 0MNATRDM
I AL loo '
C.
- - .----------- TIMEELAPEOAFTRN DPATTEMRN~ ~ ERCNT(INE OSANDTEPOSITEDO100
-. I PERCENT CLAY/SIT EOSIED 148
LAE IK__QNNIAF5DM P
. . . . .... . .
CELL SIZE400 FT x 400 FT
CURRENT WATER DEPTH 400 FTDIRECTION(1.69 FPS)
3
8 88
4-- 1414
- - --- ---- --- TIME ELAPSED AFTER DUMP: 60 MIN
-PERCENT FINE SAND DEPOSITED. 100
SPERCENT CLAY/SILT DEPOSITED: 15
Q INDICATES DUMP SPOT
ALL FINE SAND DEPOSITIED WITHIN 30 MIN AFTER DUMP....85 PERCENT Ct.AY/SI LT S IILL IN SUSPENSION AFTER 60 MIN
SCALE800 1) 800 1600 240 r j
* ~DEPOSITION PATTERN ...
(IN THOUSANDTHS OF A FOOT)TEST NO,.19 ~
PLATE 19
- do-
THA -- 00F
* . V . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .-. -- , -Til ..
° .
CELL SIZE " .400 FT x 400 FT °
CURRENT WATER DEPTH 800 FT .9DIRECTION --- " -
- (1.69 FPS) --- ' ",. " [
- 3t I+t 7 7 5 33 6 7 8 7 6 3
I~ ~ + 111 69 19 9 9 7'
.%7
- --- 4---------------------------
-.- t--4.4 _ 4 4 4 4 4 - ,-------------,
1 t I4.4t J, .'
1 4 14. 4 4
IME ELAPSED AVTER DUMP: 60 MIN - --.- ziPF RCEN T FINE SAND DEPOSITED 100
-- T -- ,RCENT MEDIJM SAND DEPOSITED. 100
Q INDICATES DUMP SPOTALL MATERIAL DEPOSITED WVITHIN .,C MIN AFTER DUMP
. -,.. -, SIN
THICKNESS OF DErOSIT MAP(THOUSANDTHS OF A FOOT) e".
TEST NO. 20
PLATE 20 .....
• .,,.,?,..".
,. !e.e..
-CELL SIZE7400 F Tx 400 F T
DIRECTION-- - 30 3
%F(1.69 FPS)302 0 I
- ~-4
-F~ V-- - -14 .- ~- -PDATRDM:6 I
---------- FINE-S-N-----O-ITED-1-0
- - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - ME IU SAN DEPOSITED 100
0 INDIA-E DUP PO*ALL - - - - - - - - - - -MAEIL EOITL VIH. 0 I FTRD M
SCALE
- 4 - _ _PECETHFICNE S AN DEPOSIT 100
( IRETHEDUMSANDTH DEOSITEDO100
Q~~~ INICTT DUM SPO
-W.
PLATE 2
- .... ~ *
L
4.
~
'4
.1
4
".4
-4-----
-4
~ -'-s.................................................-..4 ~ ~ .&. ~
