UNIVERSITI PUTRA MALAYSIA
MANAL M. ABOOD
FK 2005 128
EFFECTS OF NAPIER AND CATTAIL GRASSES ON OPEN CHANNEL FLOW CHARACTERISTICS
© COPYRIG
HT UPM
EFFECTS OF NAPIER AND CATTAIL GRASSES ON OPEN CHANNEL FLOW
CHARACTERISTICS
By
MANAL M. ABOOD
Thesis Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies, Universiti Putra Malaysia, in
Fulfilment of the Partial Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science
October 2005
© COPYRIG
HT UPM
ii
DEDICATION
I dedicate this work
To My Country Iraq,
© COPYRIG
HT UPM
iii
Abstract of the thesis presented to the Senate of Universiti Putra Malaysia in fulfilment
of the partial requirement for the degree of Master of Science
EFFECTS OF NAPIER AND CATTAIL GRASSES ON OPEN CHANNEL
FLOW CHARACTERISTICS
By
MANAL M. ABOOD
October 2005
Chairman : Badronnisa Yusuf
Faculty : Engineering
Laboratory study has been conducted to analyze the effects of two types of vegetations
namely Napier grass and Cattail grass on the characteristics of flow in an open channel.
The main objectives of this study are to determine the effects of vegetations on
Manning’s roughness coefficient and velocity distribution, and to develop relationships
between the characteristics of vegetation (density, degree of submergence and
distribution) with the properties of flow (Manning roughness coefficient, velocity and
Reynolds number).
The resistance properties for each of vegetation were examined in the flume which is
rectangular in cross section and has dimensions of 12m length, 0.32m width and 0.32m
height.
© COPYRIG
HT UPM
iv
The results show that the presence of vegetations increases the values of Manning’s
roughness coefficient, n, and affected significantly the vertical velocity profiles. The
effects depend on factors such as flow depth, degree of submergence, density and
arrangement of plant.
The Manning’s roughness coefficient, n, for flows with Napier grass increased with the
increased in flow depth for both submerged and unsubmerged situations, and this
increments varied from 0.017 to 0.065 with flow depth for high vegetation density (100
veg/m2) and from 0.0058 to 0.0427 for low vegetation density (20 veg/m
2). In the
presence of Cattail grass, the effects were reversed. The increased in flow depth leads to
reduction in the roughness coefficient, and this decrements varied from 0.031 to 0.022
for the high density and from 0.024 to 0.0157 for the low density. This may be due to
the physical characteristics of the cattail, which has no branching stems and leaves.
Manning’s n in the case of low density (20 veg/m2) of Napier grass decreased with the
increase of Reynolds number, Re for both submerged and unsubmerged vegetations.
However, for higher density (100 veg/m2), this phenomenon only occurred for
submerged vegetation. In the case of unsubmerged vegetation the n values increased
with the increased of Re. For cattail, the n values decreased with Re for all densities of
vegetation.
© COPYRIG
HT UPM
v
The dependence of n on density of vegetation was found to be represented by a linear
relationship (R2=0.93-0.96) for both submerged and unsubmerged vegetations. The
results indicate a tendency for n to increase with increasing values of density for the
same value of flow depth. Napier grass increased the Manning’s, n with the increased of
density by 35%, while the Cattail grass increased the value of n with the increased of
density by 25%. Increment in Manning’s, n with the density of vegetation is not only
with the flow depth but also with the different types of vegetation. The Manning
roughness coefficient, n was also found to be affected by the vegetation arrangement.
The results show that the arrangement where the vegetations were at both sides of the
channel gave the highest values of n followed by the vegetations at the channel center
and then the vegetations were randomly distributed. The n value increased almost
linearly with the depth of flow in three types of arrangements.
The effects of vegetations in the vertical velocity distribution of flow were examined,
the results showed that the present of vegetation change the shape of velocity
distribution and reduced the velocity by 61.5% inside the canopy and 36% above the
canopy.
© COPYRIG
HT UPM
vi
Abstrak tesis dikemukakan kepada Senat Universiti Putra Malaysia sebagai memenuhi
sebahagian keperluan Ijazah Master Sains
KESAN TUMBUHAN (RUMPUT NAPIER DAN CATTAIL) KE ATAS CIRI
ALIRAN DALAM SALURAN TERBUKA
Oleh
MANAL M. ABOOD
October 2005
Pengerusi : Badronnisa Yusuf
Fakulti : Kejuruteraan
Kajian makmal telah dilakukan untuk menganalisis kesan dua jenis tumbuhan yang
berbeza, iaitu rumput Napier dan Cattail, ke atas ciri-ciri aliran dalam saluran terbuka.
Objektif utama kajian ialah untuk mendapatkan kesan tumbuhan ke atas pekali
kekasaran Manning dan profil halaju, dan untuk membangunkan hubungan antara ciri-
ciri tumbuhan (ketumpatan, tahap ketenggelaman dan agihan/susunan) dengan sifat-
sifat aliran (pekali kekasaran Manning, dan nombor Reynolds).
Sifat rintangan untuk setiap tumbuhan kepada aliran telah kaji di dalam flum terbuka
segiempat yang berdimensi 12 m panjang, 0.32 m lebar dan 0.32 m tinggi.
© COPYRIG
HT UPM
vii
Keputusan menunjukkan tumbuhan meningkatkan nilai pekali kekasaran Manning dan
memberi kesan yang ketara terhadap profil tegak aliran. Kesan ini bergantung kepada
faktor seperti kedalaman aliran, tahap ketenggelaman, kepadatan serta agihan dan
susunan tumbuhan.
Pekali kekasaran Manning, untuk aliran dengan rumput Napier didapati meningkat
dengan peningkatan kedalaman aliran dalam keadaan tenggelam dan juga separa
tenggelam. Peningkatan ini berubah dari 0.017 ke 0.065 untuk kepadatan tumbuhan
tinggi (100veg/m2) dan dari 0.0058 ke 0.0427 untuk kepadatan tumbuhan rendah (20
veg/m2). Manakala rumput Cattail memberi kesan yang berbeza. Peningkatan
kedalaman aliran menyebabkan penurunan pekali kekasaran. Penurunan ini berubah
dari 0.031 ke 0.022 untuk kepadatan tumbuhan tinggi dan dari 0.024 ke 0.0157 untuk
kepadatan rendah. Ini berlaku mungkin kerana ciri-ciri fizikal rumput Cattail yang tiada
batang dan daun bercabang.
Manning n, untuk aliran dengan rumput Napier berkepadatan rendah didapati menurun
dengan peningkatan nombor Reynolds, Re, di dalam kedua-dua keadaan, iaitu
tenggelam dan separa tenggelam. Walaubagaimanapun, pada kepadatan tinggi
pemerhatian ini hanya benar dalam kes tumbuhan tenggelam. Dalam kes tumbuhan
separa tenggelam, nilai n meningkat dengan peningkatan Re. Untuk aliran dengan
rumput Cattail, nilai n menurun dengan Re pada semua kepadatan tumbuhan.
© COPYRIG
HT UPM
viii
Kebergantungan nilai n kepada kepadatan tumbuhan, didapati mempunyai hubungan
linear (R2=0.93-0.96) untuk kedua-dua keadaan, tenggelam dan separa tenggelam.
Rumput Napier meningkatkan nilai n dengan peningkatan kepadatan tumbuhan.
Keputusan menunjukkan pada kedalaman aliran yang sama nilai kekasaran meningkat
sebanyak 35% dengan peningkatan kepadatan tumbuhan sebanyak 33.3%.. Manakala
rumput Cattail dengan peningkatan kepadatan tumbuhan yang sama telah meningkatkan
nilai n sebanyak 25%. Peningkatan nilai Manning n, dengan kepadatan tumbuhan tidak
hanya dengan bergantung kepada kedalaman aliran tetapi juga dengan jenis tumbuhan.
Pekali kekasaran Manning’s juga didapati dipengaruhi oleh agihan tumbuhan.
Keputusan menunjukkan agihan tumbuhan pada kedua-dua sisi saluran memberi
rintangan tertinggi, diikuti dengan agihan tumbuhan ditengah saluran dan kemudian
agihan tumbuhan rawak. Nilai n meningkat hampir linear dengan kedalaman aliran
untuk semua jenis agihan tumbuhan.
Kesan tumbuhan kepada profil menegak juga di kaji. Keputusan menunjukkan
kehadiran tumbuhan telah merubah bentuk profil halaju dan menurunkan halaju
sebanyak 61.5% di dalam tumbuhan dan 36% di aliran di atas tumbuhan.
© COPYRIG
HT UPM
ix
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
All praise to supreme almighty Allah swt. The only creator, cherisher, sustainer and
efficient assembler of the world and galaxies whose blessings and kindness have
enabled the author to accomplish this work successfully.
I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my supervisor, Puan Badronnisa Yusuf,
for her kind supervision and for accepting me as her thesis student. Her cheery nature
and her unfailing patience has been a great motivation for me to excel in my work.
Without her guidance, this thesis would not have been completed successfully. Sincere
appreciation is also due to Assoc. Prof. Dr. Abdul Halim Ghazali and Assoc. Prof. Dr.
Thamer Ahmed Mohammed for their constructive suggestions and guidance during the
execution of this project, as well as for critical reviewing of the manuscript.
The gratitude also goes to the Department of Agriculture and Biological and
Engineering for providing the facilities to accomplish this project. Not forgetting to the
technician En. Muhamed Hafiz Ramli for lent me his helping hands.
I would never forget my mother's continuous sacrifice, advice and prays for my success.
I would like to thank my wonderful husband Mohamad A. Hussain for his unbelievable
support and understanding during the work of this thesis; his encouragement to me
during that time was invaluable.
© COPYRIG
HT UPM
x
I would like also to thank my daughter Marwa and my son Mustafa for their support,
encouragement, immense help and cooperation during the whole period of study.
Last but not least, special appreciation goes to my friend, Mr. Sivanesan Nadaraja who
helps me a lot in providing information related to this study.
© COPYRIG
HT UPM
xi
I certify that an Examination Committee met on 7th October 2005 to conduct the final
examination of Manal M. Abood on her Master thesis entitled “effects of Napier and
Cattail grasses on open channel flow characteristics” in accordance with Universiti
Pertanian Malaysia (Higher Degree) Act 1980 and Universiti Pertanian Malaysia (Higher
Degree) Regulation 1981. The Committee recommends that the candidate be awarded the
relevant degree. Members of the Examination Committee are as follows:
Mohd Amin Mohd Soom, PhD,Ir Faculty of Engineering
Universiti Putra Malaysia
(Chairman)
Lee Teang Shui, PhD Associate Professor Faculty of Engineering
Universiti Putra Malaysia
(Internal Examiner)
Katayon Saed, PhD Faculty of Engineering Universiti Putra Malaysia
(Internal Examiner)
Othman A. Karim, PhD
Associate Professor
Faculty of Engineering Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia
(External Examiner)
________________________________
HASANAH MOHD.GHAZALI, PhD
Professor/Deputy Dean School of Graduate Studies
Universiti Putra Malaysia
Date:
© COPYRIG
HT UPM
xii
This thesis submitted to the Senate of Universiti Putra Malaysia and has been accepted as
fulfilment of the requirement for the degree of Master of Science. The members of the Supervisory Committee are as follows:
Badronnisa Yusuf, Msc
Faculty of Engineering
Universiti Putra Malaysia (Chairman)
Abdul Halim Ghazali, PhD AssociateProfessor
Faculty of Engineering
Universiti Putra Malaysia
(Member)
Thamer Ahmed Mohammed, PhD
AssociateProfessor Faculty of Engineering
Universiti Putra Malaysia
(Member)
_______________________
AINI IDERIS, PhD
Professor/Dean School of Graduate Studies
Universiti Putra Malaysia
Date:
© COPYRIG
HT UPM
xiii
DECLARATION
I hereby declare that the thesis is based on my original work except for quotations and
citations, which have been duly acknowledged. I also declare that it has not been
previously or concurrently submitted for any other degree at UPM or other institution.
--------------------------
MANAL M. ABOOD
Date:
© COPYRIG
HT UPM
xiv
TABLE OF CONTENT
Page
DEDICATION
ABSTRACT
ABSTRAK
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
APPROVAL
DECLARATION FORM
LIST OF TABLES
LIST OF FIGURES
LIST OF SYMBOLS
ii
iii
vi
ix
xi
xiii
xvi
xvii
xix
CHAPTER
1 INTRODUCTION 1.1
1.1 General 1.1
1.2 Effect of Vegetation 1.2
1.3 Statement of Problem 1.3
1.4 Objective 1.4
1.5 Scope of Study 1.5
2 LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1
2.1 Uniform Flow in Open Channel 2.1
2.2 Empirical Formula for Uniform Flow Computation 2.2
2.3
2.4
Resistance Coefficient in Vegetated Channel Prediction
of Flow Resistance for Vegetated Channel
2.4
2.4.1 Theoretical Analysis to Predict Resistance
Coefficient
2.9
2.4.2
2.4.3
Field study to Predict Resistance Coefficient
Laboratory Experiments to predict Resistance
Coefficient
2.12
2.14
2.5 Vertical Velocity Distribution in Vegetated Channel 2.21
3 METHODOLOGY 3.1
3.1 Introduction 3.1
3.2 Material and Equipments 3.1
3.2.1 Open Channel 3.1
3.2.2 Vegetation 3.3
3.2.2.1 Napier Grass 3.3
3.2.2.2 Cattail Grass 3.4
3.2.3 Velocity meter 3.6
3.3 Experimental Design 3.9
3.3.1 Investigation the Relationship Between Flow 3.10
© COPYRIG
HT UPM
xv
Depth and Manning’s, n
3.3.2 Investigation the Effects of Vegetation Density
on the Manning’s, n
3.11
3.3.3 Investigation the Effects of Vegetation
Arrangement on the Manning’s, n
3.11
3.3.4 Investigation the Effects of Vegetation in the
Velocity Distribution
3.12
3.4 Velocity Measurement 3.13
3.4.1 Points of Measurement 3.13
3.4.2 Determination of the average velocity 3.14
3.4.3 Determination of vertical velocity 3.14
3.5 Calculation of Roughness Coefficient 3.14
3.5.1 Roughness Coefficient with vegetation 3.14
3.5.2 Roughness coefficient Contributed by the
Vegetation
3.16
3.6 State of flow and Reynolds Number 3.17
3.7 Analysis of data 3.17
4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 4.1
4.1 Introduction 4.1
4.2 Mean Velocity and Roughness Coefficient, n
(with vegetation)
4.1
4.3 Vegetation Roughness coefficient, n veg 4.4
4.4 Roughness Coefficient for Different Arrangement of
Vegetation
4.6
4.5 Vertical Velocity Distribution 4.7
4.6 Effects of Napier and Cattail grass on hydraulic
roughness
4.7
4.6.1 Influence of Degree of Submergence (Y/H) of
vegetation on Manning Roughness coefficient, n
4.7
4.6.2 Influence of Vegetation Density on Manning
Roughness Coefficient, n,
4.12
4.6.3 Influence of Vegetation Arrangement on
Manning Roughness Coefficient, n
4.14
4.7 Variation Of Roughness Coefficient, n, With Reynolds
Number, Re
4.16
4.8 Influence of Vegetation on the Velocity Distribution 4.18
5 CONCLUSION 5.1
REFERENCES
BIODATA OF THE AUTHOR
© COPYRIG
HT UPM
xvi
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
2.1 Summary of previous studies
2.6
2.2 Summary of previous studies
2.7
2.3 Summary of previous studies
2.8
2.4 Different Methods To Modify Prandtl's Log Law (Stephan and
Guthnecht, 2002)
2.26
3.1 Napier and Cattail grasses details 3.3
3.2 Details Of Experiments (Napier grass)
3.9
3.3 Details Of Experiments (Cattail grass)
3.10
4.1 Average Velocity and Roughness Coefficient, n for channel with
Cattail Grass
4.2
4.2 Average Velocity and Roughness Coefficient, n for channel with
Napier Grass
4.3
4.3 Vegetation Roughness Coefficient (Cattail Grass)
4.4
4.4 Vegetation Roughness Coefficient (Napier Grass) 4.5
4.5 Roughness Coefficient Of The Channel With Different
Arrangement Of Napier Grass
4.6
4.6 Vertical Velocity Distribution With And Without Vegetation 4.7
4.7 Increment Of Manning Roughness For Napier Grass 4.10
© COPYRIG
HT UPM
xvii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
2.1 Flow Resistance Model (Petryk, and Bosmajian, 1975) 2.9
2.2 Vertical velocity profile above aquatic vegetation (Stephan and
Guthnecht, 2002)
2.24
3.1 Open channel flume
3.2
3.2 Schematic Diagram of Experimental Setup (Not to scale)
3.2
3.3 Napier grass in the flume 3.4
3.4 Cattail grass in the field 3.5
3.5 Cattail grass in the flume 3.5
3.6 View of Area-velocity flow meter (ISCO 4250,USA) 3.7
3.7 Current Meter (BRAYSTOKE, BFM001, UK) 3.7
3.8 Vegetation arrangement; Vegetations at the (a) center of the channel,
(b) both sides of the channel, (c) staggeredly distributed across the
channel section
3.12
3.9 Locations of mean velocity measurement points
3.13
4.1 Relation of degree of submergence, Y/H and Manning’s n for Napier
grass
4.8
4.2 Relation of degree of submergence, Y/H and Manning’s n for Napier
grass: Comparisons with Jarvela, 2002 and Maghdam, 1997
4.9
4.3 Relation of degree of submergence, Y/H and Manning’s n for
Cattailgrass: Comparisons with Wu et al (1999) and Reza Mahbub
(1998)
4.11
4.4 Roughness coefficients, n vs. density of plant for Napier grass 4.13
© COPYRIG
HT UPM
xviii
4.5 Roughness coefficients, n vs. density of plant for Cattail grass 4.13
4.6 Roughness coefficient vs vegetation density for both submerged and
unsubmerged vegetation (Napier grass)
4.14
4.7 Roughness coefficient vs Y/H for three different vegetation
arrangements (Napier grass)
4.15
4.8 Roughness coefficient vs Re for different densities, Dv for Napier
grass
4.17
4.9 Roughness coefficient vs Re for Napier grass: Comparison with
Wu et al (1999) and Jarvela (2002)
4.17
4.10 Roughness coefficient vs. Re for different densities, Dv for Cattail
grass
4.18
4.11 Velocity distribution to describe flow in three zones (El Hakim and
Salama, 1992)
4.19
4.12 Comparison of velocity inside and above submerged Napier
(staggered distribution) with El Hakim and Salama (1992) and
Kouwen et al (1969)
4.20
4.13 Velocity distribution inside and above Cattail grass (staggered
distribution)
4.21
© COPYRIG
HT UPM
xix
LIST OF SYMBOLS
A Flow cross- sectional area normal to direction of flow.
Ai Projected area of ith plant in upstream direction
C Chezy coefficient
Cd
Drag coefficient vegetation
Cd ΣAi/AL
Density of vegetation
D Mean water depth (assumed as R for wide channel)
Di
Drag force on ith plants
Dv
Density of plant (veg/m2)
E Modulus of elasticity
Fx
Force in x direction
G Gravitational constant
h Roughness height
I Second moment of area
k Roughness height (deflected)
L Length of channel
m Number of roughness elements
© COPYRIG
HT UPM
xx
n Manning roughness coefficient including boundary and vegetation effect
n (ave)
Equivalent Manning’s roughness coefficient
nb
Manning boundary roughness coefficient which excludes influence of
vegetation
nveg Vegetative roughness coefficient
P Wetted perimeter
R Hydraulic radius defined as a ratio of cross- sectional area of flow to the
wetted perimeter
Re Reynolds number
S Bed slope of channel
Sw Water surface slope (cm/cm)
So Bed slope
U*
Shear velocity
V Mean velocity
Vi
Average approach velocity to ith plant
γ
Specific weight of liquid
τw Shear force per unit area on channel boundary
© COPYRIG
HT UPM
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 General
Vegetations present in many rivers, streams, and man made channels throughout the
country. Vegetations can be found growing naturally on the bed of the channel or on the
riverbanks or have been purposely planted. They are often classified by their shape and
the locations where they grow. Vegetations that grow on the river floodplains typically
comprises of various combination of trees, herbs, shrubs, hedges, bushes and grasses.
The in-channel vegetations usually consist of aquatic plants and these may be divided
into four categories: emergent, submerged, floating-leaf, and free-floating.
Emergent plants are rooted in the soil close to or below the water level but stems,
flowers and most of the mature leaves are protruding above the water surface. They are
generally found by the banks of the river. Submerged aquatic plants have flexible stems
and leaves, are rooted in the soil, and are completely covered by water. The floating-
leaf plants are rooted in the submerged soil with many of their leaves floating on the
water surface. These are usually seen along the margin of river that is not fast flowing.
The last group is free-floating plants, most of their leaf and stem tissue are at or above
© COPYRIG
HT UPM
1.2
the water surface. They obtain their nutrients directly from the water, since they are not
rooted to the soil.
The presence of vegetations in river channel provides both benefits and problems. From
environmental point of view, aquatic plants are essential parts of natural aquatic
systems and form the basis of a waterbody’s health and productivity. From engineering
point of view, vegetation can improve the strength of bank materials through buttressing
and root reinforcement. However, invariably aquatic plants become over abundant or
unsightly and require control. The obvious problem related to excessive growth are flow
retardment , flow capacity reduction and causing flood. Although the flow capacity can
be increased by complete or partial removal of vegetation, this is a costly procedure. A
complete removal of the vegetation in channels can lead to erosion of the banks and
turbidity of the water. Unrestricted growth of such vegetation can lead to a nearly
complete loss of capacity to convey water. Therefore, it is essential that the balance
between risk and benefit of having vegetation in the channel is weighed and proper
engineering judgement be made.
1.2 Effects of Vegetation
The vegetations in a channel influence the flow across the channel and the degree of
influence depends on vegetations characteristics such as vegetations species,
© COPYRIG
HT UPM
1.3
distribution, flexibility, degree of submergence and density as well as flow
characteristics, including flow area, depth and boundary characteristics (Jarvela, 2002).
The effect of vegetation in the channel is mainly on the velocity of flow. The average
water velocity at a cross section tends to decrease, because of roughness presented by
the stems and leaves of the plants. Vegetation generally increases roughness or flow
resistance (Frschenich, 2000). Increases in roughness due to vegetation can be as much
as higher than that due to channels particle size alone (Chow, 1959). According to
Thompson and Roberson (1976), the growth of thick vegetation in channel can reduce
capacity by up to 50% in less than a year. Righetti and Armanini (2002) reported that
the vegetations effect varies seasonally. Vegetations in wet season give less resistance
to flow compared with vegetations that are partially submerged during dry season. Shih
and Rahi (1982) discovered that during the growing season the value of Manning
roughness coefficient, n increased by 300%.
1.3 Statement of the Problem
An understanding of flow resistance is the most fundamental and essential to hydraulics
engineers and the effects of vegetations on overall flow resistance are significant and
cause difficulties in many hydraulic designs (Jarvela, 2004). The planning, design and
operation of water resources projects often require knowledge of discharge in a given
channel as a function of flow depth. In area where flow occurs through vegetation, the
© COPYRIG
HT UPM
1.4
flow depth may be largely determined by the roughness and resistance provided by the
vegetation.
Well-established flow resistance formulas, such as the Manning, Darcy– Weisbach, and
Chezy equations, have long been used to analyze river flows but yet the accounts on the
effect of vegetation on the resistance are still widely studied. Research on vegetative
resistance in open-channel flows has been motivated by an increase in awareness of the
importance of the ecological and environmental effects of vegetation in a river system.
Advances in understanding the behavior of flow over vegetation will improve both the
knowledge of flow-velocity profiles and flow resistance. This will lead to the
development of better way in estimating resistance or roughness due to vegetations.
In Malaysia, there are many kinds of tropical vegetation and aquatic plants and their
effects on the channel flow yet to be studied. Research in this area played important role
in determining the flow capacity and water surface elevation in vegetated channel or
wetland.
1.4 Objectives
The general objective of this study is to determine the effect of vegetations on the
characteristic of flow in an open channel. The specific objectives are to analyze the
effects of Napier and Cattail grasses on hydraulic roughness and velocity distributions
© COPYRIG
HT UPM
1.5
as well as to develop empirical relationship between characteristics of vegetation and
flow.
1.5 Scope of the Study
The study involved collecting data through experimental works. Two types of
vegetation (Napier and Cattail grass) were tested. The effects of the vegetation on the
velocity profile and hydraulic roughness were analysed and empirical equations that
relate these parameters with the various characteristics of vegetation were developed.
© COPYRIG
HT UPM
REFERENCES
Abdelsalam, M.W, Khatab, A. F , Khalifa, A.A and Bakry, M. F. (1992). Flow capacity
through wide and submerged vegetation channels. Journal of Irrigation and
Drainage ASCE, Vol. 118. pp 25-44.
Backry, M. A. (1992). Field measured hydraulic resistance characteristics in vegetation
invested canals. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineer. ASCE. Vol 118.
No2. pp 256-273.
Chanson, H. (1999). The Hydraulic of Open Channel Flow. John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Chow, V.T. (1959). Open Channel Hydraulics. New York: Mc Graw Hill .
Christensen, B.A.(1985). Open Channel and sheet flow over flexible roughness,
proceedings of the 1st IAHR congress in Melbourne, Australia, 462-467.
Copeland, R.R.(2000).Determination of flow resistance coefficient due to shrubs and
woody vegetation. Technical Notes, US Army Engineer Research and
Development Centre, Vicksburg, MS.
El Hakim, O. and Salama, M.M (1992). Velocity distribution inside and above branched
flexible roughness. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage. ASCE. Vol.118. No. 6.
pp 914-927.
Frschenich G. (2000). Resistance due to vegetation. EMRRP Technical Notes
Collection(ERDC TN-EMRRP-SR-07),U.S. Army Engineer Research and
Development Center, Vicksburg, MS.
French, R. H. (1985). Open Channel Hydraulic. New York:Mc Graw Hill.
Hwang, N.H.C. and Hita, C.E. (1987). Fundamental of Hydraulic Engineering System.
Second Edition, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.
Jarvela, J. (2002). Flow resistance of flexible vegetation, a flume study with natural
plants. Journal of Hydrology. 269. pp 44-54.
Jarvela, J. (2004). Flow resistance due to lateral momentum transfer in partially vegetated
rivers. Water Resources Research. Vol. 40, W05206.
Kao D.T.Y. and Barfield B.J. (1978). Properties of flow hydraulics for vegetated
channels. Transaction of the ASAE, pp 489-494.
Kouwen, N., Unny, M. and Hary M. H. (1969). Flow retardance in vegetated channel.
Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Division. ASCE. Vol.95, No.1, pp 329-343.
© COPYRIG
HT UPM
Kouwen, N and Unny, T. E.(1973). Flexible roughness in open channels. Journal of
Hydraulic Division. ASCE. Vol. 99. No. 5. pp 713-729.
Maghdam, F. and Kouwen, N. (1997). Nonrigid, nonsubmerged vegetation roughnes on
flood plains. Journal of Hydraulics Engineering. ASCE. Vol.123. No.1. pp
51- 56.
Nnaji,S. and Wu, I. (1973) Flow resistance from cylindrical roughness. Journal of
Irrigation and Drainage Division. 99 (IRI), 15-26.
Petryk, S. and Bosmajian, G. (1975). Analysis of flow through vegetation. Journal of
Hydraulic Division, ASCE. Vol.101. No.7. pp 871-884.
Righetii, M. and Armanini, A. (2002). Flow resistance in open channel flows with
sparsely distribution bushes. Journal of Hydrology. No.269. pp 55-64.
Raju, G. Ranga (1993). Flow Through Open Channel. 2nd
Edition. New Delhi: Tata Mc
Graw –Hill.
Reza Mahbub, A.K.M. and Suzuki, S. (1998) Flow retardance in open channel due to
artificial flexible vegetation. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering.
No.13 pp5-7
Sellin Robert H. J., (1969). Flow in Channels. London, Macmillan.
Shih, S.F. and Rahi, G.S. (1982). Seasonal variations of Manning’s roughness
coefficient in subtropical marsh, Transaction of ASAE, pp116-119.
Stephan, U. and Guthnecht, D. (2002). Hydraulic resistance of submerged flexible
vegetation. Journal of Hydrology. No. 269. pp 27-43.
Thompson, G.T. and Roberson, J.A. (1976). Theory of flow resistance for vegetated
channels. Transaction of the ASAE. pp 288-293.
Templet,D. (1986). Velocity distribution coefficient for grass lined channel. Journal of
Hydraulic Engineering. 112(3). 193-205.
Wu, F.C., Shen, H.W. and Chou, Y.J (1999). Variation of roughness coefficient for
unsubmerged and submerged vegetation. Journal of Hydraulics Engineering.
ASCE. Vol.125. No.9, pp 934-942.