WATER QUALITY MODELLING OF RIVER INDUS USING

HEC-RAS

By

Kamran Khan (UET-19F-CE-048)

Dost Muhammad (UET-19F-CE-016)
Amir Zaib (UET-19F-CE-094)
M Saud Ulhaq (UET-19F-CE-034)

Supervisor

Engr Ghulam Abbas

MSc Civil Engineering

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

SWEDISH COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND

TECHNOLOGY WAH CANTT AFFILIATED WITH UET
TAXILA

September 2023
 WATER QUALITY MODELLING OF RIVER INDUS USING

HEC-RAS

Kamran Khan (UET-19F-CE-048)

Dost Muhammad (UET-19F-CE-016)
Amir Zaib (UET-19F-CE-094)
M Saud Ulhaq (UET-19F-CE-034)

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of

B.Sc. CIVIL ENGINEERING

_____________________
Thesis Supervisor
Engr Ghulam Abbas

____________________ ___________________
Engr. Kiffayat Ullah Engr. Dr. Tariq Ali
FYDP Committee Head of Department
Head

CIVIL ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT

SWEDISH COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY

WAH CANTT AFFILIATED WITH UET TAXILA

September 2023
 ABSTRACT

Water resources are facing quality threats due to continuous urbanization, which
changes water quality and affects the aquatic ecosystem. Eutrophication occurs when
high levels of nutrients cause algal bloom, and water quality modeling can assess
water bodies. River Indus is water body in Pakistan, which has been adversely
affected by rapid urbanization. The study aimed to develop a hydrodynamic model
with a water quality model for the river Indus to assess and understand the processes
affecting the river. A 1D hydrodynamic model was constructed using HEC-RAS
software and coupled with a water quality model to evaluate the amount, source, and
distribution of algae, dissolved oxygen, nitrate, and orthophosphate. This thesis
presents a study on water quality modelling of the River Indus using HEC-RAS, a
widely used software for hydraulic modelling. The models were calibrated and
validated using historical water levels and available data. The main objective of this
study is to develop a comprehensive understanding of the water quality parameters of
the river Indus and their impact on the river's ecology and human health. The study
utilizes HEC-RAS to simulate the river's flow and water quality under various
scenarios, such as different pollution levels, river discharges, and meteorological
conditions. The results of the simulation are compared with the measured data from
the river to validate the accuracy of the model. The study also discusses the
importance of water quality monitoring and management in the context of sustainable
river management. The findings of this study are significant for policymakers and
stakeholders, as they provide insights into the river's water quality and the potential
impacts of human activities on it. The study also highlights the importance of
integrating water quality modelling with hydraulic modelling for better
river management.

Keywords: HEC-RAS; 1D Model; Water Quality Modeling; River Indus.

i
ii
 UNDERTAKING

I certify that research work titled “Water Quality Modeling of River Indus Using
HEC-RAS” is our own work. The work has not been presented elsewhere for
assessment. Where material has been used from other sources it has been properly
acknowledged and referred.

Kamran Khan (UET-19F-CE-048)

_______________

Dost Muhammad (UET-19F-CE-016)

_______________

Amir Zaib (UET-19F-CE-094)

_______________

M Saud Ulhaq (UET-19F-CE-034)

_______________

iii
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Write I would like to express my sincere gratitude to all those who have supported me
in completing my thesis. First and foremost, I extend my heartfelt thanks to my
supervisor, Engr. Ghulam Abbas, whose guidance and expertise have been invaluable
throughout the research process. His constructive criticism and insightful feedback
helped me to improve my work significantly.

I also want to acknowledge my parents for their unwavering support, love, and
encouragement. Their constant motivation kept me going during the tough times, and
I would not have been able to complete this thesis without their support.

I am also grateful to my group members for their collaboration and assistance during
the project. Their contributions were instrumental in achieving the research
objectives, and I have learned a great deal from working with them.

I would like to extend my appreciation to the faculty members of Swedish College of

Engineering and Technology Wah Cantt for providing me with the knowledge, skills,
and resources necessary for conducting this research. Their teachings and guidance
have been critical in shaping my academic and professional development.

Lastly, I would like to thank all those who have contributed to this thesis, directly or
indirectly. Your support and encouragement have been invaluable, and I am grateful
for your help in making this research a success.

iv
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT...................................................................................................i
UNDERTAKING..........................................................................................ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS..........................................................................iii
LIST OF FIGURES......................................................................................vi
LIST OF TABLES.....................................................................................viii
1 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................1
1.1 Background....................................................................................................1
1.2 Problem Statement.........................................................................................2
1.3 Aims and Objectives......................................................................................2
1.3.1 Aims.........................................................................................................2
1.3.2 Objectives................................................................................................2
1.4 Study Area.....................................................................................................3
2 LITERATURE REVIEW......................................................................................4
2.1 Water Quality.................................................................................................4
2.1.1 Water Quality Parameters........................................................................6
2.1.1.1 Algae................................................................................................7
2.1.1.2 Dissolved Oxygen............................................................................7
2.1.1.3 Nitrogen............................................................................................8
2.1.1.4 Phosphorous.....................................................................................8
2.2 Water Quality Modeling................................................................................9
2.3 Water Quality Case Studies.........................................................................10
2.4 HEC-RAS Commercial Software................................................................13
2.4.1 Steady and unsteady state simulation....................................................13
2.4.2 Multi Environment cases.......................................................................14
2.4.3 Data storage and management...............................................................14
2.4.4 Comprehensive analysis components....................................................14
2.5 Water Quality Modelling with HEC-RAS...................................................15
3 Materials and Methodologies..............................................................................16
3.1 Materials......................................................................................................16
3.1.1 Geometric Information..........................................................................16
3.1.2 Water Quality Parameters......................................................................16

v
 3.2 Methodologies.............................................................................................17
3.2.1 Development of Geometric Profile in HEC-RAS.................................17
3.2.2 Development of Cross section in HEC-RAS.........................................18
3.2.3 Development of Water Quality Profile in HEC-RAS............................19
3.3 Assumptions................................................................................................19
4 Results and Discussions.......................................................................................20
4.1 Observed Water Quality Parameters...........................................................20
4.1.1 Algae......................................................................................................20
4.1.1.1 Algae Input vs Output graphs.........................................................21
4.1.2 Ammonia...............................................................................................23
4.1.2.1 Ammonia Input vs Output Graphs.................................................24
4.1.3 Nitrate....................................................................................................26
4.1.3.1 Nitrate Input vs Output Graphs......................................................27
4.1.4 Organic Nitrogen...................................................................................29
4.1.4.1 Organic Nitrogen Input vs Output Graphs.....................................30
4.1.5 Organic Phosphorus...............................................................................32
4.1.5.1 Organic Phosphorus Input vs Output Graphs.................................33
4.1.6 Dissolved Oxygen..................................................................................35
4.1.6.1 Dissolved Oxygen Input vs Output Graphs....................................36
4.1.7 Carbonaceous biological Oxygen Demand...........................................38
4.1.7.1 CBOD Input vs Output Graphs......................................................39
4.2 Water Quality Index....................................................................................41
4.2.1 Water Quality Index For DI Khan Station.............................................41
4.2.2 Water Quality Index For Taunsa Station...............................................42
4.2.3 Water Quality Index for Layyah Station...............................................43
4.3 Summary of Water Quality Index................................................................44
5 Conclusion and Recommendations......................................................................46
5.1 Conclusions..................................................................................................46
5.2 Recommendations........................................................................................47
REFERENCES............................................................................................................48
ABBREVATIONS.......................................................................................................50

vi
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.1: River Indus Map..........................................................................................3

Figure 3.1: River Indus Geometry in HEC-RAS.........................................................18
Figure 3.2:River Indus Cross Section in HEC-RAS....................................................18
Figure 3.3:Water Quality Input Data in HEC-RAS.....................................................19
Figure 4.1: Algae Schematic Plot................................................................................20
Figure 4.2:Algae Input vs Output Data at DI Khan.....................................................21
Figure 4.3:Algae Input vs Output Data at Taunsa.......................................................22
Figure 4.4:Algae Input vs Output Data at Layyah.......................................................22
Figure 4.5: NH 4Schematic Plot..................................................................................23
Figure 4.6:Ammonia Input vs Output Data at DI Khan...............................................24
Figure 4.7:Ammonia Input vs Output Data at Taunsa.................................................25
Figure 4.8:Ammonia Input vs Output Data at Layyah................................................25
Figure 4.9: NO 3 Schematic Plot.................................................................................26
Figure 4.10:Nitrate Input vs Output Data at DI Khan.................................................27
Figure 4.11:Nitrate Input vs Output Data at Taunsa....................................................28
Figure 4.12:Nitrate Input vs Output Data at Layyah...................................................28
Figure 4.13:Org N Schematic Plot...............................................................................29
Figure 4.14:Organic N Input vs Output Data at DI Khan............................................30
Figure 4.15:Organic N Input vs Output Data at Taunsa..............................................31
Figure 4.16:Organic N Input vs Output Data at Layyah..............................................31
Figure 4.17:: Org P Schematic Plot.............................................................................32
Figure 4.18:Organic P Input vs Output Data at DI Khan............................................33
Figure 4.19:Organic P Input vs Output Data at Taunsa...............................................34
Figure 4.20:Organic P Input vs Output Data at Layyah..............................................34
Figure 4.21:DO Schematic Plot...................................................................................35
Figure 4.22:DO Input vs Output Data at DI Khan.......................................................36
Figure 4.23:DO Input vs Output Data at Taunsa.........................................................37
Figure 4.24:DO Input vs Output Data at Layyah.........................................................37
Figure 4.25:CBOD Schematic Plot..............................................................................38

vii
Figure 4.26:CBOD Input vs Output Data at DI Khan.................................................39
Figure 4.27:CBOD Input vs Output Data at Taunsa....................................................40
Figure 4.28:CBOD Input vs Output Data at Layyah...................................................40
Figure 4.29:Overall Water Quality Index....................................................................45

viii
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.1Water Quality Parameters(mg/l) Input Values.............................................17

Table 4.1: Algae Input Data vs Output Data................................................................21
Table 4.2: NH 4 Input Data vs Output Data................................................................23
Table 4.3: NO 3 Input Data vs Output Data.................................................................26
Table 4.4: Org N Input Data vs Output Data...............................................................29
Table 4.5: Org P Input Data vs Output Data................................................................32
Table 4.6: DO Input Data vs Output Data...................................................................35
Table 4.7: CBOD Input Data vs Output Data..............................................................38
Table 4.8: Water Quality Index Status.........................................................................41
Table 4.9: Water Quality Index of Station DI Khan....................................................42
Table 4.10:Water Quality Index for Taunsa Station....................................................43
Table 4.11: Water Quality Index for Layyah Station..................................................44
Table 4.12: Overall Water Quality Index of Indus River............................................45

ix
 CHAPTER NO 1
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
Surface water bodies, including rivers, lakes, and oceans, are essential to human life
as they provide food, transportation, and recreational opportunities. However, these
water sources are also highly vulnerable to pollution, with human activities
accounting for about 77% of environmental pollution. Water is a precious natural
resource that is essential for human survival and supporting economic growth.
However, increasing population, industrialization, agriculture, and urbanization have
contributed to a significant decline in the availability of fresh water. Rivers, in
particular, are important freshwater systems that support various forms of life, but
their sustainability is threatened by declining water quality.
River Indus is a case in point, where the rapid growth of industries and population
has led to concerns over the river's water quality. The entire region surrounding the
river depends on it for agriculture, domestic, and industrial purposes. To address these
issues, water quality modeling has become an essential tool for predicting the impact
of human activities on the river's water quality and developing effective management
strategies. HEC-RAS (Hydrologic Engineering Center's River Analysis System) is a
widely used software tool for hydraulic and hydrologic modeling, including water
quality modeling, that provides comprehensive simulations of water quality
parameters such as dissolved oxygen, temperature, nutrients, and contaminants.
This study focuses on water quality modeling of the river Indus using HEC-RAS,
which involves developing a numerical model of the river's water quality and
simulating different scenarios to evaluate the impact of various factors on water
quality. The study aims to assess the effectiveness of HEC-RAS for water quality
modeling in the Indus River and to identify the major factors contributing to water
pollution.

1
1.2 Problem Statement
The deteriorating water quality of River Indus due to the rapid increase in
industrialization and population growth has caused concerns over the sustainability
of the river as a crucial source of water for agricultural, domestic, and industrial
purposes. Despite various initiatives taken to address this issue, the current state of
River Indus's water quality remains a significant concern. In this context, the
problem statement for the project of water quality modelling of River Indus using
HEC-RAS software is to develop a comprehensive water quality model that can
accurately simulate the river's water quality, identify the main sources of pollution
and assess their impact, and suggest effective management strategies to improve the
river's water quality and ensure its sustainability for the long term. The project aims
to provide decision-makers with the necessary information to make informed
decisions on water management and policy development to ensure a sustainable and
healthy water supply for the region.

1.3 Aims and Objectives

1.3.1 Aims

 To forecast the concentrations of specified water quality parameters from the

simulation model, including algae, DO, CBOD, ammonium nitrogen, organic
nitrogen, nitrite nitrogen, nitrate nitrogen, organic phosphorous, and
orthophosphate.
 To study different international research and compare out findings with it.
1.3.2 Objectives

 Developed water quality model of river Indus.

 Study and assess the factors such as algae, DO, CBOD, ammonium nitrate,
nitrate nitrogen and organic phosphorous affecting the pollution of river
Indus.

2
1.4 Study Area
The stretch of the Indus River from Dera Ismail Khan (DI Khan) to Bakhri Ahmad
Khan Layyah is approximately 150 kilometers long and runs through the Punjab and
Khyber Pakhtunkhwa provinces of Pakistan as shown in Figure 1.1. The flow and
depth of the Indus River can vary widely depending on the season and upstream
water releases from dams. At the DI Khan bridge, the maximum flow velocity of the
river has been reported to be around 4.35 meters per second (source: Pakistan
Meteorological Department). The river can reach a maximum depth of
approximately 24 meters (source: WWF Pakistan). Three different stations is
selected from which water samples is collected which is Dera Ismail Khan Bridge
which is our upstream station, our intermediate station is Bhoi village Dera Ismail
Khan while our downstream station selected is Bohkri Ahmad Khan Layya Punjab.

Figure 1.1: River Indus Map

3
 CHAPTER NO 2

2 LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Water Quality
The availability and quality of water exert a profound influence on the
environment, owing to its pivotal role as a fundamental resource for all life forms on
Earth[1]. The demand for fresh water is steadily on the rise owing to factors such as
population growth, economic development, and land use changes. However, the
future availability of fresh water faces a significant threat from climate change. [2].
Ensuring the survival of all living organisms hinges on the critical need to secure an
adequate water supply. Despite Earth's reputation as the "Blue Planet," the escalating
rise in water levels presents a pressing concern. Interestingly, existing regulations
tend to treat surface and land waters as distinct systems, even though they are
intricately interconnected. Water, often dubbed the "lifeblood of our planet," is an
indispensable resource for all living beings. It serves as the foundation for various
ecosystems, supports countless species, and sustains human civilizations. Thus,
safeguarding our water resources is of paramount importance [1]. Only about 2.5%
of the Earth's water is fresh and accessible, with the remainder stored as glaciers or
groundwater [3].

A watershed is defined as the elevated terrain encompassing a body of water, from

which all surface runoff within its boundaries naturally flows towards that specific
water body. This arrangement implies that surface water bodies are susceptible to
receiving contaminants from various directions within the watershed. The level of
pollution in land surface water bodies areas is significantly influenced by the patterns
of land use within the watershed. [1]. Natural and human-induced pollution represent
the two primary categories of contamination in our environment, with the latter,
regrettably, assuming a more pervasive and impactful role. While natural pollution
stems from naturally occurring processes, such as volcanic eruptions or wildfires,
human-induced pollution, often stemming from industrial activities, transportation

4
emissions, and improper waste disposal, has become alarmingly prevalent and
detrimental to our planet. Its far-reaching consequences, including air and water
pollution, deforestation, and climate change, highlight the urgent need for concerted
global efforts to address this escalating crisis and safeguard the health of our
ecosystems and the well-being of future generations [4]. Human activities,
encompassing practices like industrial and domestic wastewater disposal, septic tank
discharges, and accidental hazardous spills, wield a profound influence on the
transformation of water quality, spanning alterations in its chemical, physical,
biological, and radiological attributes. These pollution sources are broadly
categorized into two key groups: point-source and non-point source pollution.
Notably, pollutants originating from wildlife are not classified as contaminants in
this context [5]. Our survival on earth depends upon main three basic resources of
the earth which is water, air and soil. Among the three water is more important and
valuable gift for mankind. Presently the annual requirements of water globally are
around 6000 to 7000 Cusic Kilometers. For the last few years due to limited rainfall
leads to lowering of water table. [6]. The acceptability of surface-water body water
quality hinges on its current and future applications, vital for safeguarding human
health, sustaining aquatic ecosystems, and facilitating recreational pursuits like
swimming and fishing. The term "water quality" encompasses water's capacity to
cater to diverse user requirements and activities. To assess its influence on humans,
experiments are undertaken, employing factors like dose-response relationships and
risk thresholds. In parallel, the assessment of water quality for aquatic life entails
subjecting organisms to differing contamination levels over extended periods. This
comprehensive evaluation process ensures that surface water remains conducive to
the multifaceted needs of society and the environment it supports [1]. Over the past
decade, significant strides have been made in enhancing water quality through
proactive environmental management practices. Faced with the pressing issue of
dwindling environmental resources, policymakers and stakeholders have been driven
to adopt cost-effective strategies and harness advanced modeling tools to
meticulously guide their efforts towards achieving optimal water quality. This
concerted approach underscores the commitment to safeguarding our vital water

5
resources while also recognizing the imperative of efficient resource allocation and
sustainable solutions [7]. The process of monitoring water quality entails the
meticulous measurement of physical, chemical, and biological parameters to
ascertain alterations in the diverse components of water. This analysis enables the
investigation of how the aquatic system impacts not only human health but also the
wellbeing of aquatic ecosystems. By meticulously assessing these parameters, we
gain valuable insights into the intricate interplay between environmental factors and
the quality of water, thereby facilitating informed decisions and aimed at preserving
the health of our water bodies and safeguarding the delicate balance of aquatic life
[8].

To effectively manage and enhance surface water quality, environmental managers

should harness a diverse array of tools at their disposal for analyzing, designing,
implementing, and monitoring sustainable water quality management programs. By
employing robust scientific methodologies, such as water quality sampling and
analysis, hydrological modeling, and GIS-based spatial analysis, managers can gain
invaluable insights into the current state of surface water ecosystems. These insights
inform the development of targeted strategies and action plans, ensuring that
interventions, such as best management practices and pollution control measures, are
precisely tailored to the unique needs of each watershed. Continuous monitoring and
assessment, aided by modern technology and data-driven decision-making, further
enable the adaptation and improvement of these programs over time, ultimately
safeguarding our precious surface water resources for future generations [9].

2.1.1 Water Quality Parameters

Surface water quality can be influenced by a multitude of factors

encompassing physical, chemical, and biological parameters. Physical parameters
encompass the observable characteristics of water, including its temperature, color,
clarity, and turbidity. Meanwhile, chemical parameters pertain to the detection and
quantification of diverse chemicals and compounds, encompassing nutrients, metals,
pesticides, and industrial chemicals, among others. Lastly, biological parameters
concern the presence and abundance of microorganisms, such as bacteria, viruses,
6
and algae, which can significantly impact the overall health and quality of surface
water [10].

2.1.1.1 Algae
Algae, a diverse group of simple organisms within the Protista kingdom,
exhibit the remarkable ability to conduct photosynthesis for sustenance, despite their
distinction from plants as they lack roots and leaves. They inhabit a wide range of
aquatic environments, including oceans, lakes, rivers, and ponds. Nonetheless, when
certain algae species like Anabaena flos-aqua, Microcytic aeruginosa, and
Aphanizomenon flos-aqua proliferate, they release toxins that pose threats to both
aquatic life and humans, leading to the formation of harmful algal blooms (HABs).
These blooms can trigger fish die-offs and wreak havoc on ecosystems and human
health. Furthermore, elevated nutrient levels in coastal waters can trigger red tides, a
subtype of HAB characterized by discolored water, with hues varying from red to
white or brown depending on the algae involved. Red tides too carry adverse
consequences, including fish fatalities and the release of harmful toxins detrimental
to human well-being and the environment [11].

2.1.1.2 Dissolved Oxygen

Dissolved oxygen (DO) plays a pivotal role in water quality, being vital for the
survival of aquatic organisms, such as fish. It represents the amount of molecular
oxygen present in water and serves as a crucial parameter. However, the discharge of
organic substances into water bodies can deplete DO levels, posing severe threats to
aquatic life, including fish mortality and reproductive issues. Particularly worrisome
is the potential depletion of DO in deeper water layers, which can trigger the
solubilization of iron and manganese, resulting in unpleasant odors and tastes due to
the generation of anoxic and anaerobic decay byproducts. Elevated temperatures
further exacerbate this issue, as DO levels tend to decrease with rising temperatures,
intensifying the adverse effects of organic discharges. In general, a DO concentration
of 5mg/L is deemed sufficient to support a diverse range of aquatic life. Dissolved
Oxygen (DO) stands as a pivotal parameter in assessing water quality, wielding
profound influence over aquatic ecosystems, from fish mortality to reproductive

7
processes. The discharge of organic substances poses a significant threat, as it can
lead to a depletion of DO concentrations within water bodies, thereby posing an
environmental hazard. Vigilant monitoring and effective management of DO levels
are paramount to safeguarding aquatic life, mitigating adverse impacts, and
preserving the overall health and balance of the ecosystem [11].

2.1.1.3 Nitrogen
Nitrogen is a crucial nutrient for the growth of algae, but an excessive influx
of nitrogen into water bodies can result in eutrophication and detrimental effects on
water quality. Various forms of nitrogen coexist in water, including organic nitrogen,
ionized and non-ionized ammonia, nitrite, nitrate, and dissolved nitrogen gas.
Organic nitrogen can be broken down by decomposers, releasing Ammonia through
processes like ammonification or deamination. Nitrification, driven by nitrifying
bacteria, but this consumes oxygen, potentially depleting oxygen levels in water
when excessive nitrogen is present. The pH of the water plays a crucial role in the
presence of Ammonia; a pH of 7 or lower forms ionized ammonium, while a pH
greater than 9 forms non-ionized ammonia. Notably, non-ionized ammonia is toxic
to fish, while ionized ammonium serves as a nutrient for aquatic plants, highlighting
the intricate balance required to maintain water quality and ecosystem health [11]

2.1.1.4 Phosphorous
Phosphorus exhibits low solubility in water, predominantly manifesting as
phosphates or organophosphates. Among these, orthophosphates, derived from
phosphoric acid, encompass various soluble, reactive inorganic species crucial for
algae and plant nutrition. While phosphorus is an essential nutrient for aquatic flora,
its excessive presence can trigger eutrophication—a detrimental phenomenon
marked by excessive algae and aquatic plant proliferation. Eutrophication leads to
reduced dissolved oxygen levels, endangering aquatic life and fostering the creation
of oxygen-depleted dead zones. Moreover, phosphorus can fuel the growth of
harmful algal blooms, releasing harmful toxins detrimental to both human health and
the environment. Consequently, managing phosphorus levels in water is paramount
for preserving a thriving aquatic ecosystem [11]

8
2.2 Water Quality Modeling
Water quality modeling serves as a pivotal instrument for comprehending and
effectively managing our precious water resources, particularly in the face of
escalating water scarcity challenges. This essential tool employs advanced scientific
techniques to simulate and predict the dynamics of water quality parameters,
enabling us to assess the impact of various pollutants, climate change, and land use
practices on water bodies. By harnessing the power of water quality modeling,
policymakers, researchers, and water resource managers can make informed
decisions and develop sustainable strategies to safeguard our freshwater ecosystems,
ensure the availability of clean drinking water, and promote the responsible
utilization of this finite resource [2]. Models serve as invaluable tools for probing
intricate systems, facilitating the exploration of both existing states and projected
scenarios while enabling the assessment of potential consequences. These
representations, grounded in mathematics and data, provide a structured framework
to dissect and analyze complex systems, offering insights that would otherwise
remain elusive. Whether applied to environmental ecosystems, economic landscapes,
or technological advancements, models empower researchers and decision-makers to
make informed choices, anticipate outcomes, and craft strategies to navigate the
ever-evolving terrain of our world. In doing so, they contribute to our understanding
of intricate systems, foster innovation, and guide responsible actions for the
betterment of society [8]. Due to the significant variability observed in water quality
parameters, the development of effective models necessitates a high level of
complexity and the utilization of well-trained expert controllers. The intricate nature
of water quality dynamics, influenced by various factors such as weather patterns,
pollution sources, and ecological processes, demands sophisticated modeling
approaches that can capture these nuances accurately. Moreover, the inclusion of
well-trained expert controllers is essential to ensure that the models can adapt and
respond effectively to changing conditions, thereby enhancing their reliability in
monitoring and managing water quality for various applications, from environmental
conservation to public health [4]. Water quality management encompasses two
fundamental domains of inquiry: hydrology and ecology. Hydrology delves into the

9
examination of the presence and flow of water within natural systems, elucidating its
distribution and movement. Ecology, on the other hand, centers on elucidating the
intricate interplay between living organisms and their abiotic environments,
exploring how these relationships shape ecosystems. Hydrologic connectivity serves
as the crucial bridge between these two realms, describing the intricate web of
connections that link the movement and quality of water with the health and
dynamics of ecological communities, highlighting the profound influence each field
has on the other, and underlining the necessity of a holistic approach in effective
water quality management strategies [12]. Water quality models serve as valuable
tools for forecasting the state of water in various receiving bodies, drawing from
available data on both non-point and point sources of contamination. The
hydrodynamic and water quality attributes of these receiving waters exhibit temporal
and spatial variability. These models effectively synthesize diverse parameters,
including water levels, flows, and biochemical characteristics, with the ultimate
objective of anticipating the transport and dispersion patterns of water quality
constituents [4].

2.3 Water Quality Case Studies

Numerous studies have been conducted to model the water quality of various rivers,
and the findings from these investigations have been summarized below:

C. Fan, C.-H Ko and W.-S Wang conducted a case study of Keelung River, located
in the Taipei area of Taiwan, plays a significant role in the region. Over the past few
years, there has been a notable increase in population and substantial developments
in urban and economic sectors surrounding the river. Unfortunately, this growth has
led to the introduction of contaminated loads and sewage discharges into the river,
posing a threat to its water quality. To address this issue, water quality modeling has
been employed as an effective tool for managing water quality. In this case, an
innovative approach utilizing QUAL2K and HEC-RAS was adopted. QUAL2K was
chosen due to its user-friendly interface and widespread use in water quality
modeling. This software allows for the simulation of various elements such as

10
biological oxygen demand (BOD), ammonia nitrogen (NH3-N), total phosphorus
(TP), and sediment oxygen demand (SOD). Additionally, HEC-RAS, another
modeling tool, was employed to assess the influence of tidal effects on the river. The
combined use of QUAL2K and HEC-RAS provided valuable insights into the
dynamics of the Keelung River, particularly in relation to water pollution. According
to the model's findings, BOD emerged as the most significant source of pollution,
which aligns with the observed data. This information can help guide water quality
management efforts and inform strategies for mitigating pollution in the Keelung
River [12].

R. Paliwal, P. Sharma and A. Kensal conducted a case study of Yamuna River,

located in Delhi, India, is an important water resource for drinking water supply to
the surrounding cities. However, over the past few decades, the quality of the river
water has deteriorated due to the discharge of both treated and untreated wastewater.
In 1993, the Indian Government's Ministry of Environment and Forests initiated the
Yamuna Action Plan to address the issue and improve the water quality of the river.
To assess and evaluate the water flow quality, computer software called QUAL2E
was used for modeling purposes. The study focused on four main approaches.
Firstly, QUAL2E was applied to measure the impact of loading points on water
quality, specifically in terms of dissolved oxygen (DO) and biological oxygen
demand (BOD), between the cities of Wazirabad and Okhla, which are located along
the Yamuna River. Secondly, the study analyzed the results of uncertain simulations
to enhance the model's performance and identify crucial parameters affecting water
quality. Thirdly, the study examined the effects of variations in point loads and flow
rates. Finally, the results obtained from QUAL2E were integrated with a
Geographical Information System (GIS) to identify and locate areas of contamination
along the river. The outcomes of the study were presented through maps generated
by GIS, along with text provided by QUAL2E. However, the results revealed that the
Yamuna River faces significant water quality issues, including depletion of dissolved
oxygen and high concentrations of biological oxygen demand. In summary, the study
utilized the QUAL2E software and GIS integration to assess the water quality of the
Yamuna River. The results highlighted the presence of water quality problems,

11
specifically low levels of dissolved oxygen and high concentrations of biological
oxygen demand. These findings emphasize the need for further measures and
interventions to revive the river's water quality and ensure its suitability for drinking
water supply [13].

L. Zhao, Y. Li, J. Wang and Y. Zhu conducted a case study in Lake Yalong, one of
China's largest lakes, to assess its water quality. Over the past few years, the lake has
been grappling with a significant issue known as eutrophication. The problem
escalated in 2009 when an unexpected surge in chlorophyll levels and turbidity was
observed. To better understand and address this issue, researchers developed a three-
dimensional hydrodynamic and water quality model. They employed the
Environmental Fluid Dynamics Code (EFDC) as the computational foundation for
the model. This simulation tool enabled them to analyze the flow motion, water
temperature, pollution distribution, and the interactions among nutrients,
phytoplankton, and macrophytes within the lake. The study encompassed three
different scenarios to explore various load reduction possibilities. The aim was to
determine the impact of nutrient reduction on the lake's ecosystem. The findings
revealed that even with a 77% decrease in nutrient levels, the concentration of
Chlorophyll A (a measure of algae and phytoplankton biomass) could be reduced by
50%. In summary, the case study conducted in Lake Yalong shed light on the
challenges posed by eutrophication. By employing a comprehensive hydrodynamic
and water quality model, researchers were able to evaluate different load reduction
scenarios and determine that a substantial decrease in nutrient levels could
significantly mitigate the Chlorophyll A concentration in the lake [14]

J. E. Saunders, K. M. Al Zahid and D. M. Paterson conduct pollution survey in

Dubai Creek, specifically focusing on the water quality and environmental status of
the creek. The study aimed to evaluate the presence of organic waste and heavy
metal contamination in the water. The researchers noted that previous studies in the
Gulf region had recorded low organic levels and heavy metal contamination in the
water surfaces. However, those studies neglected to examine the organic waste
within Dubai Creek due to the creek's topography. The topography of Dubai Creek

12
plays a role in the flow of water, with tidal velocities increasing toward the mouth of
the creek and decreasing towards the upper part. As a result, the creek is divided into
two zones: the lower creek and the upper creek. The sources of pollution in Dubai
Creek include discharges from the Dubai Ship Docking Yard industrial waste, dhows
(traditional wooden boats), untreated discharges, and the Aware Sewage Treatment
Plant. In 1997, the Dubai Municipality reported that over 100,000 m3 of discharges
per day, containing 22.6 mg/L phosphate and 11.6 mg/L nitrate, were being released
into the upper part of the creek. The pollution survey conducted during December
15-27, 2005, and January 15-22, 2006, measured various aspects, including organic
pollution, water characteristics, and the benthic macrofaunal community.
Conversely, the lower zone was found to be less contaminated and had beneficial
macrofaunal communities. The increased organic pollution in the upper zone of the
creek was attributed to the low tidal flow and high residence time in the lagoon,
allowing pollutants to accumulate. Overall, the study highlighted the presence of
organic pollution and its impact on the ecological health of Dubai Creek, with the
upper zone being more affected compared to the lower zone [15].

2.4 HEC-RAS Commercial Software

HEC-RAS stands as a versatile and robust software tool essential for conducting in-
depth hydraulic analyses of rivers, channels, and various water flow systems. It
empowers engineers and hydrologists to meticulously model a wide spectrum of
hydraulic scenarios, encompassing both natural watercourses and engineered
channels, all while seamlessly integrating essential hydraulic structures like bridges,
culverts, weirs, and levees. Its capabilities facilitate the precise assessment of water
flow dynamics, aiding in critical decision-making processes related to floodplain
management, infrastructure design, and environmental conservation. With its
advanced features and user-friendly interface, HEC-RAS remains an indispensable
resource for professionals seeking to comprehend and manage the complexities of
hydraulic systems effectively [16],here are some advantages of HEC-RAS are:

13
2.4.1 Steady and unsteady state simulation

HEC-RAS offers a versatile platform for hydraulic analysis by accommodating both

steady flow conditions, characterized by a consistent and unchanging water flow
over time, and unsteady flow conditions, where flow dynamics evolve with time.
This dual simulation capability enhances the comprehensiveness of hydraulic
behavior analysis. This software's flexibility enables engineers and researchers to
explore a wide range of scenarios and assess how water behaves in various
situations, ultimately contributing to more informed and effective decision-making in
the field of hydraulic engineering. [17].

2.4.2 Multi Environment cases

HEC-RAS is a versatile and robust software tool engineered to accommodate a

diverse array of hydraulic settings, encompassing single reaches as well as intricate
interconnected networks. Its capabilities extend to modeling a wide spectrum of
channel types, comprising rivers, streams, canals, and pipelines, making it a valuable
resource for engineers and hydrologists seeking to analyze and simulate the
hydraulic behavior and characteristics of these water conveyance systems. [18].

2.4.3 Data storage and management

HEC-RAS incorporates robust features for efficiently managing and organizing input
data, streamlining the storage and retrieval of critical information essential for
conducting hydraulic analyses. Its user-friendly interface and data management tools
enable engineers and hydrologists to maintain a structured and accessible repository
of river geometry, cross-sections, boundary conditions, and other hydraulic
parameters, ensuring seamless access to pertinent data when configuring and running
hydraulic models. This streamlined data organization not only enhances workflow
efficiency but also fosters a more comprehensive understanding of the hydraulic
system, ultimately contributing to more accurate and informed hydraulic analyses.
[19].

14
2.4.4 Comprehensive analysis components

HEC-RAS consists of four main components for river analysis: steady flow water
surface profile computation, unsteady state simulation, movable boundary sediment
transport computation, and water quality analysis. These components allow for a
thorough investigation of hydraulic behavior and its associated processes. It's
important to note that since my knowledge is based on information available up until
September 2021, there may have been updates or new versions of HEC-RAS
released since then. It's always a good idea to refer to the official HEC-RAS website
or other reliable sources for the most up-to-date information on the software [20].

2.5 Water Quality Modelling with HEC-RAS

In HEC-RAS, the water quality component provides users with the capability to
comprehensively analyze water quality by incorporating a diverse range of
parameters including temperature, algae concentration, dissolved oxygen,
biochemical oxygen demand, nitrates, nitrites, organic nitrogen, organic phosphate,
orthophosphate, and ammonium. This versatile feature allows for a holistic
assessment of the aquatic environment, enabling researchers, engineers, and
environmental analysts to gain valuable insights into the health and condition of
water bodies while considering the intricate interplay of these critical water quality
variables [12].

15
 CHAPTER NO 3
3 Materials and Methodologies

3.1 Materials
3.1.1 Geometric Information

In this study, a map was created by compiling geographic data using ArcGIS.
ArcGIS was utilized to develop geometric data of the River Indus in HEC-RAS,
incorporating 14 station points that represented the river's centerline along with the
corresponding depth below the water surface in meters. The depth of the river varied
between 7.2 m and 3.1 m, and the width of the river varied at different station
points . The information in ArcGIS was obtained by extracting the bathymetry of the
River Indus from satellite imagery, specifically from high-resolution satellite images.
Bathymetry, which refers to the bed topography or water depth, can be obtained
using various methods such as echo-sounding, hydrographic Light Detection and
Ranging (LiDAR) mapping, and satellite remote sensing. Due to the cost and
complexity of echo-sounding and hydrographic LiDAR mapping, remote sensing has
become increasingly popular due to its relatively low cost, simplicity, and efficiency.
In this study, the bathymetry of the river was derived from multispectral satellite
images.

3.1.2 Water Quality Parameters

We have collected Samples from three station of river Indus, the sample collected
from following stations

 Upstream Station (DI Khan Bridge)

 Intermediate Station (Taunsa Barrage)
 Downstream Station (Bohkri Ahmad Khan,Layyah)
The following tests were performed on the samples whose result is given below in
the Table 3.1

16
  Algae concentration (Ap)
 Ammonia concentration ( N H 4 )
 Nitrates concentration ( N O3)
 Organic Nitrogen concentration (Org N)
 Organic Phosphorus concentration (Org P)
 Dissolved Oxygen Test (DO)
 Carbonaceous Biochemical Oxygen Demand (CBOD)

Table 3.1:Water Quality Parameters(mg/l) Input Values

Ap N H4 N O3 Org N Org P DO CBOD

STATION (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l)

S

DI KHAN 0.00297 0.0879 0.15 13.6 0.0181 6.98 2.96

TAUNSA 0.0034 3.2 2.39 10.4 1 6.5 4.8

LAYYAH 0.017 11 0.1 19.7 0.98 7.5 3

3.2 Methodologies
3.2.1 Development of Geometric Profile in HEC-RAS

A geometry of 17 stations of river Indus is created in the geometry option, the river
plan is assumed to be straight as given below in Figure 3.2.

• Upstream input values station is 13.6

• Intermediate input values station is 10.2
• Downstream Input values Station is 5.95

17
 Figure 3.2: River Indus Geometry in HEC-RAS
3.2.2 Development of Cross section in HEC-RAS

After the geometric profile, a rectangular cross section were assumed whose cross
section is developed in the HEC-RAS entering its elevation in Figure 3.3. The
manning coefficient n value is assumed as 0.7.

Figure 3.3:River Indus Cross Section in HEC-RAS

18
3.2.3 Development of Water Quality Profile in HEC-RAS

For water quality modelling in HEC-RAS temperature and nutrients option were
selected. Inter Initial Values for water quality parameters were entered as we
calculated by performing different tests as shown below in Figure 3.4.

Figure 3.4:Water Quality Input Data in HEC-RAS

3.3 Assumptions
• The geometry of the river is assumed to be straight.

• The maximum distance between two station is assumed to be more than

800m.

• The manning coefficient n value is assumed as 0.08.

• Contraction and expansion co-efficient were assumed to be 0.1 and 0.3.

• Bridges along the Indus River were neglected because it had no effect on

water level.

19
 CHAPTER NO 4

4 Results and Discussions

4.1 Observed Water Quality Parameters

After putting input Data in the HEC-RAS run the project, after running the
project the input data and observed data is compared below of each station and
each parameter. The errors between the input and output values are also
calculated with each parameter by using formula given below.

Input Value−Simulated Value

Error (%)=( )x 100 ( 4.1)
Input value
4.1.1 Algae

Results which are given in Table 4.2 shows that the highest Algae concentration
is present in the upstream station and intermediate station and lowest in the
downstream station. Simulated values is calculated from Algae schematic plot
below in Figure 4.5.

20
 Figure 4.5: Algae Schematic Plot
Table 4.2: Algae Input Data vs Output Data

River Station Station Name Input Algae Simulated Error (%)

(mg/l) Algae (mg/l)

13.6 DI Khan 0.00297 0.0030 1.01

10.2 Taunsa 0.0034 0.0031 8.82

5.95 Layyah 0.017 0.00318 81.29

4.1.1.1 Algae Input vs Output graphs

The comparison between the input values which is the values of tests and the
simulated values which is software generated values at DI Khan station is given in
the Figure 4.6 below.

21
 Algae Input vs Output Data at DI Khan
0.0035

0.0034

0.0033
mg/l

0.0032

0.0031

0.003

0.0029

INPUT ALGAE SIMULATED ALGAE

Figure 4.6:Algae Input vs Output Data at DI Khan

The comparison between the input values which is the values of tests and the
simulated values which is software generated values at Taunsa station is given in the
Figure 4.7.

Algae Input vs Output Data at Taunsa

0.0035

0.0034

0.0033
mg/l

0.0032

0.0031

0.003

0.0029

INPUT ALGAE SIMULATED ALGAE

Figure 4.7:Algae Input vs Output Data at Taunsa

22
The comparison between the input values which is the values of tests and the
simulated values which is software generated values at Layyah station is given in the
Figure 4.8

Algae Input vs Output Data at Layyah

0.018

0.016

0.014

0.012

0.01
mg/l

0.008

0.006

0.004

0.002

INPUT ALGAE SIMULATED ALGAE

Figure 4.8:Algae Input vs Output Data at Layyah

4.1.2 Ammonia

Results in Table 4.3 shows that the highest N H 4 concentration is in the downstream
station and lowest in the upstream station. Simulated values is calculated from N H 4
schematic plot below in Figure 4.9.

23
 Figure 4.9: N H 4 Schematic Plot

Table 4.3: N H 4 Input Data vs Output Data

River Station Station Name Input N H 4 Simulated Error (%)

(mg/l) N H 4 (mg/l)

13.6 DI Khan 0.0879 0.0875 0.45

10.2 Taunsa 3.2 2.32 27.5

5.95 Layyah 11 10.4 5.45

4.1.2.1 Ammonia Input vs Output Graphs

The comparison between the input values which is the values of tests and the
simulated values which is software generated values at DI Khan station is given in
the Figure 4.10 below.

24
 Ammonia Input vs Output Data at DI Khan
0.088

0.0879

0.0878

0.0877
mg/l

0.0876

0.0875

0.0874

0.0873

0.0872

INPUT AMMONIA SIMULATED AMMONIA

Figure 4.10:Ammonia Input vs Output Data at DI Khan

The graphical comparison between the input values which is the values of tests and
the simulated values which is software generated values at Taunsa station is given in
the below Figure 4.11 which shows that the difference or error is 27.5 percent as we
calculated in Table 4.3.

25
 Ammonia Input vs Output Data at Taunsa
3.5

2.5

2
mg/l

1.5

0.5

INPUT AMMONIA SIMULATED AMMONIA

Figure 4.11:Ammonia Input vs Output Data at Taunsa

The graphical comparison between the input values which is the values of tests and
the simulated values which is software generated values at Layyah station is given in
the below Figure 4.12

Ammonia Input vs Output Data at Layyah

11.1

11

10.9

10.8

10.7
mg/l

10.6

10.5

10.4

10.3

10.2

10.1

INPUT AMMONIA SIMULATED AMMONIA

Figure 4.12:Ammonia Input vs Output Data at Layyah

26
4.1.3 Nitrate

Results which are given in Table 4.4 shows that the highest Nitrate concentration is
higher in the intermediate station and lowest at upstream and downstream station.
Simulated values is calculated from Nitrate schematic plot below in Figure 4.13.

Figure 4.13: N O3 Schematic Plot

Table 4.4: N O3 Input Data vs Output Data

River Station Station Name Input N O3 Simulated Error (%)

(mg/l) N O3 (mg/l)

13.6 DI Khan 0.15 0.15 0

10.2 Taunsa 2.39 1.174 50.87

5.95 Layyah 0.10 0.15 50

27
4.1.3.1 Nitrate Input vs Output Graphs
The graphical comparison between the input values which is the values of tests and
the simulated values which is software generated values at DI Khan station is given
in the below Figure 4.14.

Nitrate Input vs Output Data at DI Khan

0.16

0.14

0.12

0.1
mg/l

0.08

0.06

0.04

0.02

INPUT NITRATE SIMULATED NITRATE

Figure 4.14:Nitrate Input vs Output Data at DI Khan

The graphical comparison between the input values which is the values of tests and
the simulated values which is software generated values of the water quality
parameter named Nitrate at Taunsa station is given in the below Figure 4.15.

28
 Nitrate Input vs Output Data at Taunsa
3

2.5

2
mg/l

1.5

0.5

INPUT NITRATE SIMULATED NITRATE

Figure 4.15:Nitrate Input vs Output Data at Taunsa

The graphical comparison between the input values which is the values of tests and
the simulated values which is software generated values at Layyah station is given in
the below Figure 4.16

Nitrate Input vs Output Data at Layyah

0.16

0.14

0.12

0.1
mg/l

0.08

0.06

0.04

0.02

INPUT NITRATE SIMULATED NITRATE

Figure 4.16:Nitrate Input vs Output Data at Layyah

29
4.1.4 Organic Nitrogen

Results in Table 4.5 shows that the highest concentration of Organic Nitrogen is
increasing below, highest value is at downstream which is 16.9 mg/l. Simulated
values is calculated from Org N schematic plot below in Figure 4.17

Figure 4.17:Org N Schematic Plot

Table 4.5: Org N Input Data vs Output Data

River Station Station Name Input Org N Simulated Org Error (%)
(mg/l) N (mg/l)

13.6 DI Khan 13.6 13.41 1.40

10.2 Taunsa 10.4 13.51 29.90

5.95 Layyah 19.7 16.9 14.21

30
4.1.4.1 Organic Nitrogen Input vs Output Graphs

The graphical comparison between the input values of Organic Nitrogen which is the
values of tests and the simulated values which is software generated values at DI
Khan station is given in the below Figure 4.18

Organic N Input vs Output Data at DI Khan

13.65

13.6

13.55

13.5
mg/l

13.45

13.4

13.35

13.3

INPUT ORGANIC NITROGEN SIMULATED ORGANIC NITROGEN

Figure 4.18:Organic N Input vs Output Data at DI Khan

The graphical comparison between the input values of Organic Nitrogen which is the
values of tests and the simulated values which is software generated values at Taunsa
station is given in the below Figure 4.19 which shows that the input value is less than
the simulated value which is software generated of Organic Nitrogen.

31
 Organic N Input vs Output Data at Taunsa
16

14

12

10
mg/l

INPUT ORGANIC NITROGEN SIMULATED ORGANIC NITROGEN

Figure 4.19:Organic N Input vs Output Data at Taunsa

The graphical comparison between the input values of Organic Nitrogen which is the
values of tests and the simulated values which is software generated values at
Layyah station is given in the below Figure 4.20

Organic N Input vs Output Data at Layyah

20

19.5

19

18.5

18
mg/l

17.5

17

16.5

16

15.5

15

INPUT ORGANIC NITROGEN SIMULATED ORGANIC NITROGEN

Figure 4.20:Organic N Input vs Output Data at Layyah

32
4.1.5 Organic Phosphorus

Results in Table 4.6 shows that the highest concentration of Organic Phosphorus is
higher in the downstream station which is 0.98 mg/l and lowest in the upstream
station and intermediate station which is 0.0077mg/l and 0.0135 mg/l respectively.
Simulated values is obtained from schematic plot in Figure 4.21.

Figure 4.21:: Org P Schematic Plot

Table 4.6: Org P Input Data vs Output Data

River Station Station Name Input Org P Simulated Org Error (%)
(mg/l) P (mg/l)

13.6 DI Khan 0.0181 0.0077 57.46

10.2 Taunsa 1 0.0135 98.65

5.95 Layyah 0.98 0.98 0

33
4.1.5.1 Organic Phosphorus Input vs Output Graphs

The graphical comparison between the input values of Organic P which is the values
of tests and the simulated values which is software generated values at DI Khan
station is given in the below Figure 4.22

Organic P Input vs Output Data at DI Khan

0.02

0.018

0.016

0.014

0.012
mg/l

0.01

0.008

0.006

0.004

0.002

INPUT ORGANIC P SIMULATED ORGANIC P

Figure 4.22:Organic P Input vs Output Data at DI Khan

The graphical comparison between the input values of Organic Phosphorous which is
the values of tests and the simulated values which is software generated values at
Taunsa station is given in the below Figure 4.23 which shows that the Input values is
higher than the software generated values at intermediate station.

34
 Organic P Input vs Output Data at Taunsa
1.2

0.8
mg/l

0.6

0.4

0.2

INPUT ORGANIC P SIMULATED ORGANIC P

Figure 4.23:Organic P Input vs Output Data at Taunsa

The graphical comparison between the input values of Organic Phosphorous which is
the values of tests and the simulated values which is software generated values at
Layyah station is given in the below Figure 4.24.

Organic P Input vs Output Data at Layyah

1.2

0.8
mg/l

0.6

0.4

0.2

INPUT ORGANIC P SIMULATED ORGANIC P

Figure 4.24:Organic P Input vs Output Data at Layyah

35
4.1.6 Dissolved Oxygen

Results in Table 4.7 shows that the concentration of DO is not varied that much just
slight difference in values. The concentration in upstream, intermediate and
downstream station is 7.017,7.05 and 7.23 respectively. Simulated values is obtained
from DO schematic plot below in Figure 4.25.

Figure 4.25:DO Schematic Plot

Table 4.7: DO Input Data vs Output Data

River Station Station Name Input DO Simulated DO Error (%)

(mg/l) (mg/l)

13.6 DI Khan 6.98 7.017 0.53

10.2 Taunsa 6.5 7.05 8.46

5.95 Layyah 7.5 7.23 3.6

36
4.1.6.1 Dissolved Oxygen Input vs Output Graphs

The graphical comparison between the input values of Dissolved Oxygen which is
the values of tests and the simulated values which is software generated values at DI
Khan station is given in the below Figure 4.26

DO Input vs Output Data at DI Khan

7.02

7.01

7
mg/l

6.99

6.98

6.97

6.96

INPUT DISSOLVED OXYGEN SIMULATED DISSOLVED OXYGEN

Figure 4.26:DO Input vs Output Data at DI Khan

The graphical comparison between the input values of Dissolved Oxygen which is
the values of tests and the simulated values which is software generated values at
Taunsa station is given in the below Figure 4.27 which shows that the input
Dissolved Oxygen has less value than the Simulated Dissolved Oxygen which is
software generated value.

37
 DO Input vs Output Data at Taunsa
7.1

6.9

6.8

6.7
mg/l

6.6

6.5

6.4

6.3

6.2

INPUT DISSOLVED OXYGEN SIMULATED DISSOLVED OXYGEN

Figure 4.27:DO Input vs Output Data at Taunsa

The graphical comparison between the input values of Dissolved Oxygen which is
the values of tests and the simulated values which is software generated values at
Layyah station is given in the below Figure 4.28

DO Input vs Output Data at Layyah

7.55

7.5

7.45

7.4

7.35
mg/l

7.3

7.25

7.2

7.15

7.1

7.05

INPUT DISSOLVED OXYGEN SIMULATED DISSOLVED OXYGEN

Figure 4.28:DO Input vs Output Data at Layyah

38
4.1.7 Carbonaceous biological Oxygen Demand

Results in Table 4.8 shows that the highest concentration of CBOD is in the
intermediate station which is 3.96 and lowest in the upstream station and
downstream station which is 2.94 and 2.92 respectively. Simulated values is obtained
from DO schematic plot below in Figure 4.29

Figure 4.29:CBOD Schematic Plot

Table 4.8: CBOD Input Data vs Output Data

River Station Station Name Input CBOD Simulated Error (%)

(mg/l) CBOD (mg/l)

13.6 DI Khan 2.96 2.94 0.67

10.2 Taunsa 4.8 3.96 17.5

5.95 Layyah 3 2.92 2.67

39
4.1.7.1 CBOD Input vs Output Graphs

The graphical comparison between the input values of CBOD which is the values of
tests and the simulated values which is software generated values at DI Khan station
is given in the below Figure 4.30

CBOD Input vs Output Data at DI Khan

2.965

2.96

2.955

2.95
mg/l

2.945

2.94

2.935

2.93

2.925

INPUT CBOD SIMULATED CBOD

Figure 4.30:CBOD Input vs Output Data at DI Khan

The graphical comparison between the input values of CBOD which is the values of
tests and the simulated values which is software generated values at Taunsa station is
given in the below Figure 4.31 which shows that there is not that much difference in
the values but the input CBOD value is somehow greater than the software generated
value.

40
 CBOD Input vs Output Data at Taunsa
6

4
mg/l

INPUT CBOD SIMULATED CBOD

Figure 4.31:CBOD Input vs Output Data at Taunsa

The graphical comparison between the input values of CBOD which is the values of
tests and the simulated values which is software generated values at Layyah station is
given in the below Figure 4.32.

CBOD Input vs Output Data at Layyah

3.02

2.98

2.96
mg/l

2.94

2.92

2.9

2.88

INPUT CBOD SIMULATED CBOD

Figure 4.32:CBOD Input vs Output Data at Layyah

41
4.2 Water Quality Index
The Water Quality Index (WQI) is a numerical rating used to assess the overall
health and safety of water bodies. It takes into account various physical, chemical
and biological parameters to determine the water’s quality and potential risks to
human health and environment. The index value ranges from 0 to 100, with higher
values indicating poor water quality as shown in Table 4.9:

Table 4.9: Water Quality Index Status

Water Quality Index (WQI) Water Quality Status

0 to 25 EXCELLENT WATER QUALITY

26 to 50 GOOD WATER QUALITY

51 to 75 POOR WATER QUALITY

76 to 100 VERY POOR WATER QUALITY

Greater Than 100 UNSUITABLE FOR DRINKING

4.2.1 Water Quality Index For DI Khan Station

To calculate Water Quality Index (WQI) we have to calculate the unit weight (Wn)
of each parameter using the equation below:

K
W n= ( 4.2)
Sn

The value of the K is calculated using the below equation:

1
K=
1 ( 4.3 )
∑
sn

The overall water quality is calculated in the below table using the above equations.

42
 Table 4.10: Water Quality Index of Station DI Khan
Parameters Values Standard 1 1 K Vn W n ×Q n
K= W n= Q n= × 100
Sn 1 Sn Sn
Vn Value ∑
sn
Sn

Ap 0.00297 1 1 0.0700 0.0700 0.297 0.02079

NH 4 0.0875 1.5 0.67 0.0700 0.0467 44.67 2.086

NO 3 0.15 10 0.1 0.0700 0.007 1.5 0.0105

Org N 13.14 10 0.1 0.0700 0.007 87.6 0.6132

Org P 0.0077 0.1 10 0.0700 0.7 7.7 2.39

DO 7.017 6.5 0.2 0.0700 0.014 140.34 1.97

CBOD 2.94 5 2 0.0700 0.14 588 50.32

∑ SUM -------- -------- 14.27 --------- 0.9217 ------------ 55.41

∑ W n Qn
WQI = ( 4.4)
∑W n

55.41
WQI= 0.9217

WQI= 60.11 (POOR WATER QUALITY)

4.2.2 Water Quality Index For Taunsa Station

Overall Water Quality Index (WQI) for the Taunsa station which is the intermediate
station is calculated below in Table 4.11

43
 Table 4.11:Water Quality Index for Taunsa Station
Parameters Value Standard 1 1 K Vn W n ×Q n
K= W n= Q n= × 100
s Sn 1 Sn Sn
Value ∑
sn
Vn
Sn

Ap 0.0034 1 1 0.0700 0.0700 0.34 0.024

NH 4 2.32 1.5 0.67 0.0700 0.0467 154.66 7.223

NO 3 1.174 10 0.1 0.0700 0.007 11.74 0.082

Org N 13.51 15 0.1 0.0700 0.007 90.066 0.630

Org P 0.0135 0.1 10 0.0700 0.7 13.5 9.45

DO 7.05 5 0.2 0.0700 0.014 141 1.974

CBOD 3,96 0.5 2 0.0700 0.14 792 110.88

∑ SUM -------- -------- 14.27 --------- 0.9217 ------------ 130.263

130.263
WQI= 0.9217

WQI= 141.33 (UNSUITABLE FOR DRINKING)

4.2.3 Water Quality Index for Layyah Station

Overall Water Quality Index (WQI) for the Layyah station which is the most
downstream station of Indus River is calculated below stepwise in the Table 4.12

44
 Table 4.12: Water Quality Index for Layyah Station
Parameters Values Standard 1 1 K Vn W n ×Q n
K= W n= Q n= × 100
Sn 1 Sn Sn
Vn Value ∑
sn
Sn

Ap 0.017 1 1 0.0700 0.0700 1.7 0.119

NH 4 10.4 1.5 0.67 0.0700 0.0467 693.3 12.377

NO 3 0.15 10 0.1 0.0700 0.007 1.5 0.0105

Org N 16.9 10 0.1 0.0700 0.007 112.67 0.787

Org P 0.98 0.1 10 0.0700 0.7 980 68.6

DO 7.23 6.5 0.2 0.0700 0.014 144.6 2.024

CBOD 2.92 5 2 0.0700 0.14 584 81.76

∑ SUM -------- -------- 14.27 --------- 0.9217 ------------ 165.68

165.68
WQI= 0.9217

WQI= 179.75 (UNSUITABLE FOR DRINKING)

4.3 Summary of Water Quality Index

After calculating the WQI of each station we summarized the overall water quality of
the three station which state that the water quality of DI Khan station is poor water
quality, Taunsa station water quality is unsuitable for drinking and also the water
quality of Layyah is unsuitable for drinking. Overall water quality index is given in
Table 4.13. Also graphically represented in Figure 4.33.

45
 Table 4.13: Overall Water Quality Index of Indus River

STATION WQI VALUE WATER STATUS

DI Khan 60.11 Poor Water Quality

Taunsa 141.33 Unsuitable For Drinking

Layyah 179.75 Unsuitable For Drinking

OVERALL WATER QUALITY INDEX

190 179.75
170
150 141.33
130
WQI VALUES

110
90
70 60.11
50
30
10

Figure 4.33:Overall Water Quality Index

46
 CHAPTER NO 5

5 Conclusion and Recommendations

5.1 Conclusions
 According to the results the Upstream station which is DI Khan bridge which
have water quality index of 60.11 means poor water quality, main reason is
high concentration of Org N and Org P.
 Water quality degradation increases when we move downstream of river, the
Taunsa barrage station WQI is 141.33 mean unsuitable for drinking, main
reason is high concentration of Org P and Org N.
 The most downstream station has the lowest water quality, whose WQI value
which is 179.75 indicates that it is unsuitable for drinking, main reason is high
concentration of Org P and Org N.
 The main reason is high concentration of Org P and Org N in the river Indus,
which comes from:
 Agriculture runoff: When excess fertilizers is applied to agriculture field
thus the runoff water contains high amount of Org P and Org N which
discharges to rivers and polluted it.

 Wastewater Discharge: Industrial and domestic waste water contains high

amount of Org P and Org N; this waste water is discharge into river Indus
without treatment thus cause it to pollute and make water unsuitable for
drinking

47
5.2 Recommendations
 The main sources of organic phosphorus and organic nitrogen in the Indus
River at DI Khan, Taunsa, and Layyah stations is waste water discharge
from houses and industries and agriculture runoff therefore it must be
treated before discharge to the Indus
 Use potential nutrient management strategies to reduce organic
phosphorus and organic nitrogen levels. This may involve implementing
best management practices in agricultural areas, wastewater treatment
improvements, or promoting eco-friendly farming practices.
 Used of riverbank filtration techniques to remove organic pollutants from
the water before it is used for drinking. This natural treatment method can
be effective in improving water quality.
 Required public awareness regarding water pollution and its impact on
health in the affected regions. Develop educational programs to raise
awareness about the importance of water quality and conservation.
 Investigate and use advanced water treatment technologies such as
adsorption, oxidation, or bioremediation to remove organic phosphorus
and organic nitrogen more effectively.

REFERENCES

48
[1] J. L. Schnoor, "Environmental modeling: fate and transport of pollutants in
water, air, and soil.," Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
1996.

[2] S. P. S. Evan G.R. Davies a, "Global water resources modeling with an

integrated model of the social–economic–environmental system," Advances in
Water Resources, 2011.

[3] T. O. A. S. KANAE, "Global Hydrological Cycles and World Water

Resources," Science, 2006.

[4] B. M. D. Palmer, Water Quality Modeling: A Guide to Effective Practice,

2001.

[5] S. Moran, "Water Pollution," 2001.

[6] A. K. Dwivedi, "RESEARCHES IN WATER POLLUTION: A REVIEW,"

International Research Journal of Natural and Applied Sciences, 2017.

[7] M. C. H. Eileen P. Poeter, "Inverse Models: A Necessary Next Step in Ground-

Water Modeling," ground water, 2005.

[8] F. H. Brian Morse, "Advances in river ice hydrology," hydrological processes,

2005.

[9] I. B. A. A.-H. E.S. Hassan, "Post-Gulf-War nutrients and microbial

assessments for coastal waters of Dubai, Sharjah, and Ajman Emirates (UAE),"
Environment International, 1995.

[10] A. P. Walid Elshorbagy, "OVERVIEW OF MARINE POLLUTION IN THE

ARABIAN GULF WITH," Civil and Environmental Engineering
Department , 2005.

[11] D. A. Chin, Water-Quality Engineering in Natural Systems: Fate and Transport

Processes, 2012.

[12] C.-H. K. b. W.-S. W. c. Chihhao Fan a, "An innovative modeling approach

using Qual2K and HEC-RAS integration to assess the impact of tidal effect on
River Water quality simulation," Journal of Environmental Management,
2009.

49
[13] P. S. A. K. Ritu Paliwal 1, "Water quality modelling of the river Yamuna
(India) using QUAL2E-UNCAS," Journal of Environmental Management,
2007.

[14] Y. L. b. R. Z. c. B. H. d. X. Z. d. Y. L. b. J. W. d. Y. Z. a. Lei Zhao a d, "A

three-dimensional water quality modeling approach for exploring the
eutrophication responses to load reduction scenarios in Lake Yilong (China),"
Environmental Pollution, 2013.

[15] K. M. A. Z. b. D. M. P. a. James E. Saunders a, "The impact of organic

pollution on the macrobenthic fauna of Dubai Creek (UAE)," Marine Pollution
Bulletin, 2007.

[16] *. Kaveh Ostad-Ali-Askari1, "Usage of Rockfill Dams in the HEC-RAS

Software for the purpose of controlling flood," American Journal of Fluid
Dynamics 2015, 2015.

[17] b. r. armas andrei, "Numerical Limitations of 1D Hydraulic Models Using

HEC RAS software," Materials Science and Engineering 2017, 2017.

[18] D. A. &. B. Abderrazak, "Coupling HEC-RAS and HEC-HMS in rainfall–

runoff modeling and evaluating floodplain inundation maps in arid
environments," Environmental Earth Sciences, 2019.

[19] S. K. V. B. A. W. Sunil Kute1, "FLOOD MODELING OF RIVER

GODAVARI USING HEC-RAS," International Journal of Research in
Engineering and Technology, 2015.

[20] *. T. 2. K. 1. X. S. 1. C. 1. a. M. 2. Emmanouil Psomiadis 1, "Potential Dam

Breach Analysis and Flood Wave Risk Assessment Using HEC-RAS and
Remote Sensing Data: A Multicriteria Approach," water, 2021.

ABBREVATIONS
WQM: Water Quality Modeling
50
RIV: River

INDUS: River Indus

HEC-RAS: Hydrologic Engineering Center's River Analysis System

TSS: Total Suspended Solids

BOD: Biochemical Oxygen Demand

CBOD: Carbonaceous Biochemical Oxygen Demand

DO: Dissolved Oxygen

COD: Chemical Oxygen Demand

TP: Total Phosphorus

Org P: Organic Phosphorous

Org N: Organic Nitrogen

Ap: Algae

TN: Total Nitrogen

EC: Electrical Conductivity

RMA: Riverine Morphology Assessment

TMDL: Total Maximum Daily Load

GIS: Geographic Information System

CFD: Computational Fluid Dynamics

CE-QUAL-W2: A water quality modeling software

QUAL2E: Enhanced Stream Water Quality Model

51
EPA: Environmental Protection Agency

NHD: National Hydrography Dataset

WQI: Water Quality Index

OWQI: Overall Water Quality Index

52