RoughnessReviewFinal July07

Reducing Uncertainty in River Flood
Conveyance

Roughness Review

Project W5A-057
July 2003

R&D ROUGHNESS REVIEW
i
DEFRA / Environment Agency
Flood and Coastal Defence R&D Programme

Roughness Review
By Karen Fisher and Hugh Dawson

W5A-057

DEFRA
Flood Management Division and Science Directorate
Ergon House Cromwell House
17 Smith Square Dean Stanley Street
London SW1P 3JR London SW1P 3JH

Environment Agency
Rio House
Waterside Drive
Aztec West
Almondsbury
Bristol BS32 4UD

July 2003

ii
Publishing organisation

DEFRA
c/o RCEG
Ceres House, 2 Searby Road,
LINCOLN, LN2 4DW

Peter Allen - Williams,
R & D Coordinator, Flood Management Division,
Tel: 01522 528297 (GTN 6209 224)
Email: peter.allen-williams@defra.gsi.gov.uk
Crown Copyright July 2003

All rights reserved. No part of this document may be produced, stored in a retrieval
system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical,
photocopying, recording or otherwise without the prior permission of the DEFRA and
the Environment Agency.

Statement of use
This document provides information for DEFRA and Environment Agency Staff about
consistent standards for flood defence and constitutes an R&D output from the Joint
DEFRA / Environment Agency Flood and Coastal Defence R&D Programme.

Contract Statement

iii
CONTENTS

Summary vii

1. Introduction 1
2. Review of literature - methods 2
2.1 Methods considered for roughness evaluation 2
2.2 Methods traditionally used for vegetated channels 8
2.3 Other vegetation roughness relationships 12
2.4 Use of roughness coefficients for vegetation 15
3. Review of literature - data 16
3.1 Channel substrate 16
3.2 Channel features and obstructions 16
3.3 Alluvial roughness 20
3.4 Channel irregularities 24
3.5 Tidal reaches 25
3.6 Vegetative features 25
3.7 Vegetation growth and maintenance 27
3.8 Woody debris 29
4. Review of field data 31
4.1 Data availability and usefulness 31
Data gaps 33
4.2 Further data collection and research 33
4.3 Concurrent research projects 34
5. Identification of river types and vegetation morpho-types 36
5.1 River Habitat Survey - hydromorphological features 36
5.2 River Habitat Survey - vegetation morpho-types 37
5.3 Conclusions 44
6. Roughness advisor 45
6.1 Methods and data used in the roughness advisor 45
6.2 Limitations of the proposed method 47
6.3 Definition of types 48
6.4 Vegetation growth and maintenance 63
6.5 Derivation of roughness values 63

iv
6.6 Upper and Lower Uncertainty bands 68
6.7 Justification of approach 68
6.8 Summary of testing of summation method 68
6.9 Use of the Roughness Advisor in the Conveyance Estimation System 70
7. River maintenance procedures 71
7.1 Basic principles of plant biology and management 71
7.2 The flowing-water habitat 72
7.3 Consideration of traditional and alternative techniques 76
7.4 Weed cutting 78
7.5 Indirect control 82
7.6 Techniques used 85
8. Uncertainty 87
9. Bibliography 88

Tables
Table 1 Typical examples of the effects of vegetation on water flow 9
Table 2 Summary of equations for floating/submerged vegetation 10
Table 3 Outline of methods to deal with the hydraulic effect due to groynes 20
Table 4 Grass cover retardance classes (US Soil Conservation Service, 1954) 26
Table 5 List of available field data sites and sources 31
Table 6 List of available field data sites from the RHS 32
Table 7 Types of channel and likely vegetation in those channels 38
Table 8 Description of RHS vegetation morpho-types 39
Table 9 Generalised critical lower velocity for plant growth, typical mean velocity and
upper washout mean in-channel velocities for RHS vegetation morpho-types44
Table 10 Values of roughness for different types of bed material 49
Table 11 Values of unit roughness for irregularities such as boulders and pools and
riffles 51
Table 12 Values of unit roughness for irregularities such as urban trash and groyne
fields 52
Table 13 Table of roughness values for aquatic vegetation by RHS morpho-type 53
Table 14 Values of total channel resistance for North American channels 54
Table 15 Values of unit roughness for man-made bank materials 55
Table 16 Values of roughness for bankside vegetation 56
Table 17 Values of roughness for floodplain ground material 57

v
Table 18 Values of roughness for floodplain irregularities and obstructions 58
Table 19 Values of roughness for grass at different retardance classes 59
Table 20 Alternative values of roughness for grass 60
Table 21 Values of roughness for a range of different crops 60
Table 22 Values of roughness for clean and dirty hedgerows on the floodplain 61
Table 23 Values of roughness for trees and shrubs 62
Table 24 Current Control techniques for aquatic and marginal vegetation by RHS
vegetation morpho-type, with comments on consequences and recovery 80

Figures
Figure 1 The variation in Mannings n values for bankfull discharges in English and
Northern Ireland rivers 7
Figure 2 At-a-site variations of (8/f)
1/2
with relative submergence if d/D
84
for four
combinations of channel slope and standard deviation of bed material size
distribution for boulder-bed rivers (Bathurst, 1994) 18
Figure 3 Bed forms, as categorised by Simon and Richardson (1960) 23
Figure 4 Distribution of RHS channel vegetation types and species 43
Figure 5 Example of a sandbank 46
Figure 6 Variations in roughness values with depth for the River Blackwater in
Northern Ireland 47
Figure 7 Example of a typical weed growth curve with and without weed cutting 79

Appendices
Reference Tables of data used 134
Explanation of variation of roughness with depth 198
Full Abstracts River Flow 2002 200

vi
LIST OF SYMBOLS

A Channel cross sectional area (m
2
)
C Chezy coefficient (m
1/2
/s)
D Pipe diameter (m)
d Water depth (m)
d
16
Sediment size by which 16% by weight is finer than (mm)
d
35
d
50
d
84
d
90
f Friction factor
g Gravitational acceleration (m/s
2
)
k
k
s
Roughness height (mm)
K
va
Vegetation coverage coefficient
N Mannings roughness coefficient
n
b
Rough boundary coefficient
Q Discharge
R Hydraulic radius
Re Reynolds number
S
f
Energy slope
S
w
Water surface slope
V Mean flow velocity (m/s)
U
*
Shear velocity

Dynamic viscosity

Density of water (kg/m
3
)

vii
SUMMARY

Under their joint R&D programme for Flood and Coastal Defence,
DEFRA/Environment Agency are funding a Targeted Programme of research aimed at
obtaining better predictions of flood water levels. In order to achieve this, advances in
knowledge and understanding made over the past three or four decades in the estimation
of river conveyance will need to be introduced into engineering practise.

The project relates particularly to water level estimation, leading to a reduction in the
uncertainty in the prediction of flood levels and hence in the flood risk, and
consequently facilitating better targeting of expenditure. The project will equally benefit
the targeting of maintenance by providing better estimates of the effects of vegetation
and its management. It is expected that the application of this knowledge from UK
engineering research will have an international impact through improving the methods
available to consultants.

The above objectives will be achieved through two core components of the new
Conveyance Estimation System (CES) that will be developed: the Conveyance
Generator and the Roughness Advisor. The CES is to be designed so that new
knowledge from a parallel Strategic Programme of research can be integrated into the
CES in due course.

This report is the designated output for Task T4 of the Targeted Programme of research.
The Task objective is to gather, validate and catalogue knowledge on the boundary
roughness of UK rivers. The information obtained will then be incorporated in the
CES, comprising the Roughness Advisor component. The techniques and underlying
assumptions used by the Roughness Advisor in determining the boundary roughness of
UK rivers are described in this report.

A review of the information identified in the expert paper in the Scoping Study of this
project is provided. In addition a wider range of papers are reviewed including papers
that have been published or sourced since the expert paper was completed.

There are a number of key references where the hydraulic data available is extensive.
These papers have been identified and the data within the papers forms the basis of the
roughness review. Some of the data sets also have associated vegetation data and this is
used alongside the hydraulic data to determine the roughness of vegetated and non-
vegetated channels.

The report also incorporates a large body of knowledge related to vegetation in and
around UK waterways and the effect of this vegetation on water flow. The various river
types and vegetation morpho-types have been identified along with any information
provided on substrate characteristics.

This roughness review document reviews the various methods and techniques of
estimating roughness. The approach selected for use within the roughness advisor is
based on Mannings n roughness. A unit roughness is applied for different types across
the channel and floodplain and combines them in a suitable manner within a type. The
combined roughness value is then fed in to the conveyance generator. The processes

viii
and justifications for selection of this technique and the data used in the roughness
advisor are given. Data gaps and further research needs are suggested.

In addition to the review of channel and vegetative roughness, information is also
incorporated on river maintenance procedures. This includes the basic principles of
plant biology and management; traditional and alternative techniques of plant control,
along with advice on weed cutting.

Overall this roughness review report provides the technical background information for
the Roughness Advisor.

1
1. INTRODUCTION

This document gives the background to the papers and information accessed, collated
and collected as part of the roughness review, component T4 of the project W5A-057
Reducing uncertainty in river flood conveyance funded by the Environment Agency
(EA) and Department for Environment and Rural Affairs (DEFRA).

The activities under this component of the project are to:

Review information identified in the expert paper in the Scoping Study (Fisher and
Dawson, 2001)
Review other existing data sets for sites with significant vegetation and physical
features
Identify morpho-type groups using the RHS database and include substrate
characteristics.

A review of information identified in Fisher and Dawson (2001), did not include all the
papers in the area of roughness but rather concentrated on the core texts, and those
which could be included in the space and time constraints for that document. This
document covers a wider range of papers including papers that have been published or
sourced since the expert paper was completed. This roughness review includes papers
from the general field of hydraulics which may not ultimately be used but have been
considered and the information not used for reasons which will be given.

Many of the papers under review have little hydraulic data published and the
information is more descriptive. There are some key references where the hydraulic
data is extensive. These papers have been identified and the data within the papers will
form the backbone of the information in the roughness review. Some of the data sets
have associated vegetation data and these will be used alongside the data from important
reviewed papers to determine the roughness of vegetated and non-vegetated channels.
The sites where there is no vegetation will be used in the roughness review and the data
from these sites will give a sound basis for prediction of hydraulic roughness in a
variety of situations. The data and other associated information from the important
papers are given on, mainly, single sheets in Appendix A. These are not a summary of
the full reference rather a selection of the data used to develop the database of roughness
values.

Information is provided on the identification of river types and vegetative morphotypes,
based on data collected for the River Habitat Survey (Raven et al, 1998). There is data
on the expected river and plant types in the UK, roughness information for the different
types, and where available, data on substrate materials.

In addition to the information on roughness, the report also addresses the issue of river
maintenance. The basics of plant biology and management are described along with a
review of the various methods used to control plant and weed growth.

This roughness review document reviews the data and papers covered and how they
have been used. The methods, data and techniques considered are documented. The
processes and justification for selection of techniques and data used in the roughness
advisor is given. Data gaps and further research needed are suggested.

2
2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE - METHODS

This literature review (Sections 2 and 3) forms part of the requirements for the
roughness review and roughness advisor in the Environment Agency/DEFRA funded
project on Reducing Uncertainty in Flood Conveyance Estimation. This project was
developed in response to work from an EPSRC funded network. Several expert papers
were written from that network to look at the state of the art in roughness estimation
which included a review on vegetation, Fisher and Dawson (2001). This literature
review extends the previous work and investigates a wider body of knowledge, in
addition to the techniques mentioned in the previous review. This review will extend
and update a previous extensive bibliography of Dawson and Charlton (1988) which is
incorporated in the annotated Appendix A. An international conference in 1989,
Manning Centennial meeting, brought together many Manning n practitioners and
researchers, as do other annual or triennial symposia for hydraulic engineers. However
freshwater ecologists use other journals particularly the European Weed Research
Society triennial symposium on Aquatic Weeds to publish data relevant to this study.

2.1 Methods considered for roughness evaluation

2.1.1 Introduction
A wide range of techniques has been considered for use in the roughness advisor. These
include:

Chezy
In the past 200 years considerable research has been undertaken into the resistance to
flow. Early equations were empirical, fitting only the data from which they had been
derived. Chezy (1768) was the first to derive a more generally applicable equation,
relating flow velocity to the channel characteristics:

2 / 1
f
2 / 1
S CR V= (1)

where C = Chezys coefficient (m
1/2
/s)
R = hydraulic radius = area/wetted perimeter
S
f
= energy slope

Darcy Weisbach friction factor
In the 19
th
century Darcy and Weisbach produced an equation for pipes flowing full
which was similar to Chezys equation taking the form:

1/2
f
1/2
1/2
S D
f
2g
V
|
\
|
= (2)

where D = pipe diameter (m)
f = friction factor

By replacing the pipe diameter with the hydraulic radius this becomes (asuming D=4R):

3
2 / 1
f
2 / 1
2 / 1
S R
f
g 8
V
|
\
|
= (3)

This equation is in common use today and the only significant development has been in
the selection of the appropriate value of friction factor f.

Blasius, Nikuradse and relationship with Reynolds number
Van Mises (1948, 1951, 1953), in the early 20th century, analysed the experimental data
of other research workers and identified the significant parameters for the friction factor
to be the Reynolds number and the roughness ratio, k
s
/D where k
s
is the roughness
height and D is the pipe diameter. Blasius derived an equation, relating f, the friction
factor, to the Reynolds number (for smooth pipes).

4 / 1
Re
316 . 0
= f (4)

In the 1930s Nikuradse (1933) carried out experiments on a series of pipes. The
experiments covered a wide range of Reynolds number and examined not only the
effects of variation in the roughness ratio but also compared the roughness of pipes of
different diameters with the same roughness ratio.

Nikuradse revealed the relationship between friction factor and Reynolds number,
which is defined in three phases.

1. Friction factor independent of pipe roughness and solely a function of the Reynolds
number - laminar flow region and smooth turbulent flow
2. Friction factor solely dependent on the roughness ratio and independent of the
Reynolds number - viscous effects predominant; fully rough-turbulent flow
3. In the transition region between the smooth-turbulent pipe law and the rough-
turbulent pipe law - the friction factor gradually departs from the value given by the
smooth pipe law falling to a minimum value as the Reynolds number increases
before rising to the rough-turbulent value at high values of the Reynolds number.

The limits of the transition zone are given by

60 3
*

s
k U
(5)

where U
*
= shear velocity.

Outside these limits the flow is either smooth-turbulent or rough-turbulent. The work of
Nikuradse was not practical for engineering use as it did not use standard engineering
variables such as pipe diameter, flow and hydraulic gradient. In the 1940s Moody
developed a plot of friction factor against Reynolds number for commercial pipes
following the work of Colebrook and White (1937, 1939). The result was the familiar
friction factor versus Reynolds diagram, known as the Moody diagram.

4
Colebrook and White - pipe flow
Colebrook and White (1937, 1939) extended the work of Nikuradse by carrying out
experiments on pipes which had been artificially roughened by sand of two distinct and
different sizes. The results agreed with Nikuradse in the smooth-turbulent and rough
turbulent regions but some of their experiments showed a different form of friction
factor versus Reynolds number relationship in the transition zone. The friction factor
gradually fell until it reached the rough turbulent value in contrast to falling to a
minimum value and then rising up to the rough-turbulent value.

Based on the theoretical work that had been done by Prandtl (Prandtl, 1904) and von
Krmn (1934), Colebrook and White derived an equation which fitted the data for
commercial pipes in the transition zone. At low Reynolds numbers the Colebrook-
White equation approaches the smooth-turbulent law and at high Reynolds numbers it
approaches the rough-turbulent law.

|
\
|
+ =
f Re
2.51
3.7D
k
2log
f
1
s
(6)

Because of its complexity, the Colebrook-White equation was slow to find favour but
this disadvantage has been overcome by the development of charts and tables
(HR Wallingford and Barr 1998, volumes 1 and 2).

Mannings equation
In river engineering Mannings equation is usually used to represent channel resistance
and is given by the relationship:

V
S R
n
1/2
f
2/3
= (7)
where n = Mannings roughness parameter (s/m
1/3
)
R = hydraulic radius (m)
S
f
= energy slope [note that in practice, where flow is approximately
uniform the water surface slope S
w
is often used in place of S
f
]
V = mean flow velocity (m/s)

The equation provides a means of estimating discharge for steady uniform flow in open
channels from:

n
S AR
Q
1/2
f
2/3
= (8)

where Q = discharge (m
3
/s)
A = channel cross sectional area (m
2
)

The main difficulty in using Mannings equation is estimating accurately a value of the
roughness parameter n. Each channel exhibits its own characteristics and the roughness
parameter is dependent on the size and shape of channel, the bed substrate, the different

5
features within the channel e.g. vegetation, boulders, and the depth of water within the
channel. Field observations have shown that, at a given cross-section, the Mannings n
varies with depth.

Equating the Chezy and Manning equations gives:

C
R
n
6 / 1
= (9)

Equating the Darcy and Manning equations leads to:

2 / 1
6 / 1
g 8
f
R n
|
|
\
|
= (10)

Plotting the friction factor against k
s
/D for flow in the rough-turbulent region indicates
that:

3 / 1
) / ( R k f
s
(11)

In terms of the Colebrook-White equation, the range of relative roughness values in
which this applies is given by:

130 7
s
k
R
(12)

In this range Mannings n is related to the roughness height in metres by:

6 / 1
038 . 0
s
k n= (13)

2.1.2 Visual comparison with photographs
Barnes (1967) states that Familiarity with the appearance, geometry and roughness
characteristics will improve the engineers ability to select roughness coefficients for
other channels. Similarly Hicks and Mason (1991, 1998) states that Values of
roughness coefficient estimated using the visual comparison approach can be
employed in their own right in hydraulic calculations; alternatively, and preferably, they
can be used to either verify, or as base values for estimates of roughness coefficients
obtained by more quantitative methods.

There are a number of sources from which photographic evidence of rivers and their
associated hydraulic roughness coefficients can be obtained. Chow (1959) is probably
the most familiar of these sources and although the channels in Chow are all from
America and the photographs are black and white, they cover a wide range of channels
and a list of tables is also supplied with the photographs which provide a good initial
source of roughness values. The tables are given in Appendix 1. The photographic
method of estimating Mannings n was adopted by the United States Geological Survey.
Photographs of river channels of known resistance were presented by Barnes (1967),

6
with a brief description and summary of the geometry and hydraulic parameters which
define the channel. Hicks and Mason (1991) provide similar details of channels in New
Zealand.

All the above references are a good source of data, if no other information is available.
A global estimate of roughness can be determined using these sources but care must be
taken as roughness values given are not applicable for a range of discharges.

Field measurement
The most effective method for determining the Mannings n roughness coefficient
within a river is by measurement. This may involve field survey over an extended
period of time but will enable the most accurate assessment of the roughness coefficient
to be determined. At a number of sites, field measurements have been undertaken.
Figure 1 shows the variation of measured Mannings n values for bankfull discharges in
English and Northern Ireland rivers with the indication of the range of values
recommended by Chow (1959) for these types of rivers.

Measured Roughness at different flows for eight sites within the Severn-Trent Region
Assessment of the roughness coefficient either from site inspection or reference books is
frequently based on engineering judgement. This was recognised by the then Severn-
Trent Water Authority (STWA) who in 1984 commissioned a study to produce a direct
measure of the Mannings n for a range of flows up to bankfull at sixteen open channel
sites in the Severn - Trent Region already functioning as accurate flow measurement
sites.

Data from 66 measurements of bankfull discharge, water surface slope and channel
characteristics at six of the sites were made available by the Severn-Trent Region of the
National Rivers Authority (1991). The sites had channel widths at bankfull ranging
between 20m and 80m, bankfull hydraulic radii between 1m and 3.5m, water surface
slopes between 1 in 300 and 1 in 3000 and bankfull discharges from 20 cumecs to 350
cumecs.

Eight sites in the Severn-Trent region are given in Appendix A for which roughness
coefficients have been determined at bankfull flow. The pictures, cross-sections,
hydraulic characteristics and a description of the channels are given and they can be
used to establish the roughness coefficients for similar channels.

7

Figure 1 The variation in Mannings n values for bankfull discharges in English
and Northern Ireland rivers

8
Measured Roughness at various sites for a range of flows and depths
Hydraulic field data collected from several river sites along the River Blackwater
catchment in Northern Ireland have provided valuable information on the relationship
between Mannings n and discharge and depth for a range of flows and depths. The
information can be used to establish the roughness coefficients of similar channels.

Data collected by the Institute of Hydrology relating to verification work on the habitat
simulation model PHABSIM has been analysed and graphs showing Mannings n
roughness against flow for a range of inbank flow conditions have been established for
two sites: River Wey and Mill channel.

Butler et al (1978) and Richards and Hollis (1980) show details of the variation of
Mannings n with discharge for two urban streams, and for a number of gauging station
positions on Scottish rivers respectively. The urban streams have typical cross-sections
for each site with the measured Mannings n roughness values for a range of discharges
but there are no typical cross-sections or photographs given for the Scottish rivers.

Cowans method
An alternative to Chows method of estimating Mannings n involves the use of a
procedure, as presented by Cowan (1956) also known as the Soil Conservation Method
(US Soil Conservation Service, 1963). This method involves the selection of a basic
value of Mannings n for a uniform, straight and regular natural channel. The basic
value is then adjusted for the effects of surface irregularities, shape and size of channel
cross section, obstructions, vegetation and flow conditions and the meandering of the
channel. By this method the value of n may be calculated by:

n = (n
0
+ n
1
+ n
2
+ n
3
+ n
4
)m
5
(14)

n
0
= base value for a straight, uniform channel in natural materials.
n
1
= value added to n
0
to correct for the effect of surface irregularities.
n
2
= value for variations in shape and size of the channel cross section.
n
3
= value for obstructions.
n
4
= value for vegetation and flow conditions.
m
5
= correction factor for meandering of the channel.

A description of the different factors is given in Table A17 in Appendix A.

2.2 Methods traditionally used for vegetated channels

2.2.1 Introduction
The growth of plants in river channels is dependent on many factors, e.g. Leonov
(1966). The literature on roughness due to vegetation must be considered in the light of
the fact that vegetation growth is dependent on factors such as light, water quality,
temperature and sediment size in addition to location and type of channel and may
produce a range of effects as water plants, large and small, are to be found in all flowing
waters (Table 1). Their sizes range from the large and obvious which can be expected
to modify the rate of flow of waters to the smallest which grow on measuring flumes
and may even enhance flow by smoothing the water flow over the rough concrete

9
surfaces. The principal factors that may affect flow conditions, the progressive series of
structural changes through which a generalised plant passes and the phases of flow are
summarised by Hydraulics Research (1985) prior to a series of flume trials.

Table 1 Typical examples of the effects of vegetation on water flow
Reduce water velocity and raise water levels.
Moderate the flood hydrograph
Increase, progressively, the flooding or overbank spill particularly during summer when
aquatic vegetation may be at its maximum (i.e. increase flood risk).
Encourage the deposition of suspended sediment which may have to be removed to
maintain adequate flow discharge capacity; this is supply dependent and seasonal.
Change the magnitude and direction of currents within a channel causing local erosion
or reducing erosion, depending on the location, extent and density of the vegetation.
Interfere with the use of water for conveyance, navigation, fishing and swimming.

Plants and flow may then be involved in a range of interactions which vary seasonally.
Different species of vegetation can change in form and habit and these are influenced by
many factors. Typical responses of species groups (see RHS vegetation morpho-types,
Chapter 5) include aspects such as:

Height of the emergent vegetation relative to depth of flow and its velocity - reeds in
channel, grass-covered or tree-covered plain.
Diameter, shape, surface texture, specific gravity i.e. floatation, of plant stems and
leaves.
Flexibility or stiffness of stems or of whole plant stands (affecting the deflection and
frequency of vibration of a stem).
Form resistance, water approach angle and dimensions of plant stand.
Distribution of stems within the plant stand, their areal or numeric density, and the
degree of stem compaction caused by increasing velocity and the resulting change in
stand permeability (i.e. the tendency of water to flow round rather than through
stands), and
Distribution of plant stands, their frequency and pattern per unit area of watercourse.

2.2.2 Visual comparison with photographs
Traditionally one of the methods used for determining the roughness of a channel with
vegetation has been using photographic evidence of rivers linked with roughness, as
mentioned previously.

Freshwater ecologists have normally used more detailed methods. These are based on
an assessment of the area occupied by vegetation, either in the water column or more
often at the surface i.e. cover, either by mapping or by determining presence or
absence at numerous points e.g. Dawson (1974), Ham et al. (1981). Such methods are
discussed in the IBP handbook (Vollenweider and Westlake, 1980).

2.2.3 Empirical methods
Many of the methods developed for determining the impact of vegetation on the
roughness of the channel are based on data collected on a particular river over one
season or a number of seasons. Much of this data is very valuable in allowing the large
variations in roughness which vegetation can cause to be recognised.

10
2.2.4 Qualitative relationships
Some studies, Powell (1978) Dawson and Robinson (1984), have provided useful
qualitative data on the seasonal behaviour of the vegetation and roughness. Powell
(1978) measured data on the River Bain over a ten-year period where Potamogeton was
the predominant vegetation. Although detailed vegetation measurements were not taken
the hydraulics of the channel were measured in detail over the seasons. The roughness
changed substantially with discharge variations and the roughness reached a peak in
July. From the measurements that Powell carried out the complex relationship between
roughness and vegetation can be seen as the roughness also varies substantially with
depth (or discharge).

2.2.5 Semi-quantitative relationships
Other studies have shown some other interesting effects. These include the differing
impacts which vegetation can have for different sizes of channel and the percentage
increases in roughness when vegetation is present, Brooker et al (1978), Bakry et al,
(1992), Watts and Watts (1990). Stephens et al (1963) undertook a study on flat water
course in the US which suggested that floating vegetation can raise the value of
Mannings n to more than twice its clear channel value. For submerged vegetation the
figure can be as high as twenty fold! Shih and Rahi (1982) discovered that during the
growing season the value of n increased by 300%. Pitlos research on canals in the
Netherlands (Pitlo 1978, 1979, 1982) showed that increases in roughness during the
growing season depended on the size of the channel. In a small canal the Mannings n
value almost doubled whilst in a large canal the increase was 14%.

The semi-quantitative method, which is regularly used by engineers and scientists to
determine the roughness of a vegetated river channel, is the US Soil Conservation
Service Method (1963). As mentioned previously, the roughness is built up from a
number of factors, channel shape, irregularity, substrate, obstructions, vegetation and
sinuosity.

2.2.6 Quantitative relationships
This relationship between the Mannings n roughness and the product of the velocity V
and the hydraulic radius R and the coverage of vegetation K
va
is a common theme
through many of the studies undertaken. A number of the studies are mentioned in
Table 2 and the relationships between the factors of roughness, velocity, hydraulic
radius or depth and vegetation coverage are given.

Table 2 Summary of equations for floating/submerged vegetation
Authors VR (m
2
/s)
range
Discharge Q
(m
3
/s)
Area
(m
2
)
Equation
Pepper (1971) 0.58 to 8.46 2.4
VR
K
0.17 + 0.06 = n
va

Wessex (1987) 0.24 to 1.3 15 43
Vd
K
0.027 + 0.032 = n
va

Wessex (1987) 0.15 to 1.1 15 43
Vd
K
0.022 + 0.041 = n
va

Wessex (1987) 0.15 to 1.1 15 43
Vd
K
0.022 + 0.029 = n
va

11
Authors VR (m
2
/s)
range
Discharge Q
(m
3
/s)
Area
(m
2
)
Equation
Marshall and
Westlake (1990)
0.24 to 1.3 0.2 1
VR
K
0.153 + 0.1 = n
va

Larsen at al
(1991, 1990)
0.025 to 0.15 0.1 0.7
VR
K
0.0036 + 0.057 = n
va

Hydraulics
Research (1992)
0.04 to 0.11 4 3.5
VR
K
0.0239 + 0.035 = n
va

Pepper (1970) measured Manning's n values on the River Ousel over a period of a year
and also made a measure of the weed growth. The results show a strong correlation
between Manning's n and the ratio of weed volume to water volume in the test reach.

Marshall and Westlake (1990) measured water velocities around vegetation in a chalk
stream. A relationship between roughness, velocity, and depth and vegetation coverage
can be found from their data.

There have been some studies undertaken where no obvious relationship between flow
resistance and vegetation biomass has been determined. Dawson (1978a) made
measurements in the shallow upper Bere stream, a tributary of the River Piddle (Dorset),
and related flow resistance to both cover and biomass. Subsequent re-examination of
the data in more detail did not find any clear relationship with cover as it varied by a
factor of three whereas a seasonal, slightly cyclic, but clear relationship was found with
biomass. Experimental studies in flumes confirm good VR to n relationships for a range
of biomass for several common species but although field measurements were made, the
seasonal change in plant morphology was not apparently undertaken. Discussion on the
relationship of cover and biomass lead on to the bulk ratios e.g. Pepper (1971) and
blockage factors e.g. Dawson & Charlton (1988), as method of assessing plant volumes,
whereas stand structure may be of more importance, Dawson (1979).

This method is based on the assumption that for a particular vegetation type there is a
unique relationship between the Manning's n roughness coefficient and the product of
the mean area velocity (V) and hydraulic radius (R), regardless of the relative values of
V and R. There is little scientific justification for the n-VR approach, other than it
seems to fit many situations in Europe and further afield, Bakry (1992). Kouwen et al
(1977) showed that for the same vegetation type and height, plots of Manning's n versus
VR do not fall on a single line and hence this empirical approach may be seriously
flawed. The practical relationship between roughness n and the product VR is
unsatisfactory. The empirical relationships are not ideal in that velocity is calculated
using a coefficient which itself depends on the velocity. The same values of VR may be
obtained from different values of V and R and the relationship is not independent of
slope, Smith et al. (1990). It is obviously not correct to assume that the Mannings
roughness should be the same for a rapid, shallow partly submerged flow and a slow,
deep completely submerged flow, which have the same VR product. Kouwen and Li
(1980) further claimed that the n-VR method is invalid when the vegetation is short and
stiff or when the slope is smaller than 0.05, which is encountered in many UK rivers
prone to flood inundation.

12
2.3 Other vegetation roughness relationships

Those roughness relationships described above are the methods traditionally used and
on the whole are based on empirical data. In more recent years there have been greater
moves into the use of numerical models to describe the interactions between vegetation
and water flows. The following sections outline how the roughness is assessed by
different relationships, which try to describe the nature of the vegetation and its
interaction with flow in a more scientific rather than descriptive or empirical manner.

2.3.1 Roughness Coefficient as a function of flow depth
There have been a number of studies in the recent past where the way in which the
roughness varies through the vertical column has been investigated. These studies have
included channels with no or little vegetation where the roughness has been dominated
by the bed form or plan form, Negri et al. (1999). Other studies have shown how the
vegetation and physical characteristics can influence the variations in roughness in the
vertical plane, Fisher and Knight (2002). In situations where vegetation is present, the
amount of plant submerged or emerging and plant type are both important parameters in
defining the relationship between roughness coefficient and flow depth. Temple (1987)
observed that the roughness coefficient tends to be constant for deeply submerged
vegetation. Wu et al. (1999) concluded that, under laboratory conditions, Mannings n
decreased when the plant was emergent but when the plant is completely submerged the
Mannings n significantly decreased tending to an asymptotic constant. Wilson and
Horritt (2002) also observed an asymptotic relationship between roughness and depth
for a fully submerged grass canopy and Wu et al. (1999) have further shown that the
asymptotic constant is a function of the vegetation height. Other work carried out at the
River Blackwater, Hampshire has provided extensive data on the variation of Mannings
n roughness coefficient with seasonality (Wilson & Sellin 1999, Sellin et al., 2001), and
similar work on the River Cole in Birmingham, Fisher and Knight (2002). Other
approaches along a similar route show the relationship between roughness and other
parameters such as discharge, Green and Garton (1983).

2.3.2 Force-Equilibrium Approach and the Drag Force Approach
Ree (1958) and Petryk and Bosmajian (1975) addressed the problem that the Mannings
friction coefficient is a function of flow depth and vegetation density. The latter
researchers used a force-equilibrium approach where they postulated that the gravity
force is equal to the boundary shear and the drag forces on the emergent vegetation. For
conditions where the energy losses due to vegetation dominate, Manning's n is
proportional to the square root of the plant density and the drag force increases as the
square of the area mean velocity. However Fathi-Maghadam & Kouwen (1997),
through their experimental work on non-submerged pine and cedar saplings and
branches, found that the relationship between drag force and flow velocity is probably
linear. This was also observed by Wilson and Horritt (2002) for a flexible grass canopy
and this is possibly due to these plants flexibility when subject to shear. Other
researchers have used experimental data sets to validate a drag force approach. James et
al. (2001) showed that there is a direct relationship between stem drag and vegetation
resistance. Rahmeyer et al. (1996) showed that non-rigid features increase the
streamlining effect, reducing the drag coefficient and the momentum absorbing area.
This highlights the significance of taking the rigidity of the feature into account. Knight
(1988) assessed the energy losses associated with friction, eddies, and form including
vegetation and combined them. Querner (1994) takes a similar approach but because of

13
momentum, sums the forces in the longitudinal direction and equates them to zero and
uses an estimate for the drag coefficient for vegetation from Li and Shen (1973) or van
Ieperen and Herfst (1986).

2.3.3 Relative Roughness Height Approach
Ree (1949), Kouwen, (1989), Kouwen and Li, (1980), have advocated the roughness
height approach originally developed for flow in pipes lined with rigid forms of
roughness, for representing the flow resistance of submerged vegetation. The deflected
roughness height is related to the undeflected height of the grass, local boundary shear,
flow depth and the MEI (is the product of the stem density M, stem modulus of
elasticity E, and the stem areas second moment of inertia I). This was defined from
laboratory experiments over flexible plastic strips of vegetation where MEI was a
measurable parameter. In natural vegetation the parameter MEI is more difficult to
define and quantify, and Temple (1987) undertook laboratory experiments on grasses
correlating MEI to undeflected vegetation height and found a large disparity between
growing and dormant grass.

2.3.4 Turbulent Structure
More recent work has focused on detailed examination of the flow field and turbulence
structure within a plant canopy. These studies have involved modelling vegetation as an
array of rigid cylinders of the same height and diameter at regular spacing (Pasche,
1984, Tsujimoto et al., 1991, Dunn et al., 1996, Meijer and van Velzen, 1999, Nepf,
1999). For example Nepf (1999) has tested a physically-based model which links
vegetation form drag, turbulence intensity and turbulent diffusion and uses Raupach and
Shaws (1982) spatial and temporal averaging approach to account for the
heterogeneous nature of the flow field and to present the problem in a 1D context. For
both rigid and flexible vegetation types in emergent conditions, the Reynolds stresses
within the flow are negligible and the streamwise turbulence fluctuations are found to be
small. However when the vegetation becomes submerged, a horizontal shear layer
forms in the surface flow region above the canopy and which also penetrates to some
depth within the plants. The Reynolds stress profile reaches a peak at the interface and
decays within and above the canopy. It seems that this characterises the flow
irrespective of the vegetation being rigid or flexible (Tsujimoto et al., 1992, Dunn et al.,
1996, Nepf and Vivoni, 1999, Wilson et al., 2002). Wilson et al. (2002) examined the
effect of two forms of flexible vegetation, with foliage plants and the equivalent plant
without foliage, on the turbulence structure. The addition of the plant foliage at the top
of the stems inhibits the turbulent mixing between the two flow regions, the canopy
layer and the surface flow layer, and shifts the turbulent stress peak to a level above the
canopy top surface. The sway of the vegetation affects the turbulence in flows, Murota
et al. (1984). Hino (1981) investigates the ecological effects of turbulence. Organised
vortices above short flexible plants were studied in 3-D both visually and in terms of
velocities. This showed the intensity and stress was highest just below the top of
vegetation layer (Ikeda & Kanazawa, 1996).

2.3.5 Boundary of vegetation
There has been much effort made to understand the fundamental principles of
momentum exchange at the boundary between vegetated and non-vegetated areas, Nepf
and Vivoni (1999), Dittrich et al (1999), Fukuoka and Fujita (1990). In the latter paper
the authors quantitatively clarify the influence of the lateral velocity difference between
flow in a vegetated and non-vegetated area. The laboratory experiments lead to an

14
expression for momentum transfer represented by a boundary mixing coefficient, which
indicates the degree of mixing between the flow inside and outside the vegetation. On
this theme, Fukuoka and Fujita (1993) have developed an equation of momentum that
incorporates increases in resistance caused by different configurations of vegetation in a
river channel.

Flow in a deep open channel with vegetated banks was investigated by Hasegawa et al
(1999). The principles resulting from that research show:

Where there was comparatively deep water with high vegetation density on the
bank, large scale eddies which usually develop along the vegetation boundary were
not found.
Near the vegetation boundary, strongly deformed velocity distributions including the
maximum velocity, occurred at one-third water depth from bed.
Near the vegetation boundary, the main flow velocity in the non-vegetation area is
reduced.
The resistance force increases due to the different components of lateral Reynolds
stress on the vegetation boundary, the momentum transport and the base shear
stress, in that order.

2.3.6 Higher-Dimensional Modelling Approaches
More complex methods for multi-dimensional flow problems have been developed by
Burke and Stolzenbach (1983), Nakagawa et al. (1992), Shimizu and Tsujimoto (1994)
and Lopez and Garcia (1997) using a two-equation turbulence closure approach. This
was first introduced by Wilson and Shaw (1977) to model atmospheric flows over plant
canopies. A modified k- turbulence closure model was used, introducing drag related
sink terms into the momentum as well as into the turbulent transport equations.
Laboratory experiments, conducted at Kanazawa University, Japan (Tsujimoto et al.,
1991) have been used to validate the model.

Shimizu and Tsujimoto (1994) calibrated their model by adjusting two additional
weighting coefficients that appear by introducing the vegetative sink into the turbulence
equations, to reproduce observed mean velocities and Reynolds stresses.

Lopez and Garcia (1997) numerically modelled similar test cases and modified the same
weighting factors of the k- model but reported calibrated values which differed by
about 500% from those of Shimizu and Tsujimoto (1994).

More recently Lopez and Garcia (2001) again tested the k- model and compared the k-
turbulence formulation (Wilcox, 1988) and no appreciable difference was found
between the numerical performances of either turbulence model.

A constant C
D
, the front-end or form resistance value of 1.13, was used by Dunn et al.,
1996 in the drag force sink term in the momentum equations and no modifications were
made to the five standard constants of the k- model. However values for the weighting
coefficients for the drag-related source terms for the k and equations (C
fk
= 1.0 and C
f

= 1.33) were found again to be inconsistent with those previously reported.

To eliminate the calibration from the validation procedure, Fischer-Antze et al. (2001)
developed a similar drag-force approach but only introduced sink terms into the Navier-

15
Stokes equations and hence made no modification to the k- model. The turbulence
closure thus used the standard values for the weighting coefficients (after Rodi, 1980)
and a C
D
equal to unity. The model was used to simulated rigid and emergent
vegetation in simple-section and compound section channel arrangements
(experimentally conducted by Tsujimoto et al., 1991 and Pasche, 1984 respectively) and
good agreement was found between the computed and observed streamwise velocity
distributions.

Nao et al. (1996) were the first who have used a higher order anisotropic closure, the
Reynold's Stress model (RSM), to simulate the flow through rigid submerged vegetation
elements. However these higher order turbulence approaches are outside the realm of
practicality for application within the field.

The functional relationships and numerical methods outlined herein, with the exception
of Klassen and Van Der Zwaard (1974) and Klassen and van Urk (1985), have been
based on experimental investigation at a laboratory scale with simplified models of
plant canopies and have not yet been upscaled and tested at field scale. Some of these
methods involve the quantification of parameters that are non-measurable within natural
vegetation and parameters (e.g. deflected height, flexural rigidity) and which are
difficult to characterise both in the laboratory and field. Furthermore, higher
dimensional numerical approaches where modifications have been made to the
turbulence transport equations have highlighted inconsistencies in weighting coefficient
values.

2.4 Use of roughness coefficients for vegetation

Roughness coefficients are used in many different places especially when the water
levels for a particular discharge are required. The roughness impacts on the stage
discharge relationship and the presence of vegetation can increase the roughness and the
water level thereby substantially changing the stage discharge relationship, Darby and
Thorne (1996), Gurnell and Midgley (1994), Turner et al, (1978) and Benovitsky et al
(1990).

Within channel design there has been a shift towards river restoration or rehabilitation,
which requires environmentally sensitive design. The roughness characteristics and
velocity distributions need to be predicted more accurately in order for the requirements
for flora and fauna to be determined. In addition roughness variations will allow the
water levels for flood alleviation to be predicted more accurately. The use of
environmentally sensitive design can cause a conflict of interest between ecology, flood
alleviation, economics and geomorphology, Dawson and Brabben (1991), Brookes
(1988), Hey et al (1994). More work is required in this area to try and define the
hydraulic characteristics of environmentally sensitive designs, Ferguson et al (1998),
Fisher (2002).

16
3. REVIEW OF LITERATURE - DATA

3.1 Channel substrate

The main source of information on the roughness of channel substrate has been found
traditionally in Chow (1959). The main understanding has been that the greater the
relative size of the bed material the higher the roughness factor. A number of different
publications have shown pictures of different rivers with a variety of substrates, Hicks
and Mason (1991) and Barnes (1967) in particular. These publications are for different
countries, New Zealand and US, and give the roughness for the river at a particular
moment rather than just the value for the substrate. In the rivers selected, however, the
substrate would have been the dominant factor.

3.1.1 Roughness, sediment and channel shape and size
The relationship between roughness and sediment size and distribution of sediment has
been studied and the best relationships can be shown to be between roughness and the d
84

sediment size (the sediment size equal to or exceeding that of 84 % of the stream bed
particles by weight) or d
w
(the size obtained by assigning a weight of 0.1 to d
16
, a weight of
0.3 or d
50
and a weight of 0.6 to d
84
), Limernos (1970). Resistance to flow is intimately
related to bed configurations: ripples, dunes, antidunes, chutes, pools, Knoroz (1959). A
relationship between stream power, diameter of bed material and bed configuration has
been developed by Simons and Richardson (1966). Haldar et al (1981) developed a
relationship between the roughness coefficient, the hydraulic radius and the material size.
The resistance in fully developed turbulent flow at a constant depth increases with the
square of the mean velocity when the boundary conditions remain unchanged. However, in
natural rivers this is not always so, especially in sinuous channels when the free surface is
disturbed due to the channel curvature, Leopold et al (1960).

3.2 Channel features and obstructions

3.2.1 Boulders
The use of large-scale roughness in environmental channels is generally for the creation
of rock pools to improve the spawning and nursery areas for fish. The size of sediment
is of a similar order of magnitude to or greater than the depth of flow of the channel in
which it is placed. However, large-scale roughness of this magnitude in a natural
channel is usually only to be found in steep streams. Standard equations for small-scale
roughness do not apply to large-scale roughness. Locally, the flow is nonuniform with
zones of separation, acceleration, and deceleration around the roughness elements.

Research by Bathurst (1978) has shown the flow resistance for channels with large-scale
roughness to be a function of channel shape, roughness spacing and relative roughness.
Thompson and Campbell (1979) related resistance solely to relative roughness. Both
approaches are presented as a means of estimating the resistance of large-scale
roughness, however the use of the Colebrook-White formula with k
s
=3*d
90
or k
s
=3*d
85
is recommended
.

The determination of the size of material on the bed of a stream is based on an analysis
of the relative area covered by particles of given sizes after Wolman (1954).

17
Caution, however, must be expressed in proposing both the method of determination of
bed material size and estimation of roughness coefficient. The former due to the
artificial frequency distribution generated when large-scale roughness elements are
introduced into an environmental channel; the latter as the resistance equations have
been derived from channels with steep slopes lined with coarse but relatively uniform
bed material.

Bathurst, Li and Simons (1981) investigated the effects of large-scale roughness on the
resistance equation where the boulders are the same order of magnitude as the depth of
flow. They discovered from flume experiments that flow resistance of large-scale
roughness depends on the form drag of the elements and their location within the
channel. The flow processes are functions of Reynolds number, Froude number,
roughness geometry and channel geometry. The equations produced are semi-empirical
with a basic theoretical equation but without a full mathematical quantification of the
functions.

Figure 2 shows examples of observed variations in flow resistance but the field data is
not available in sufficient quantities to make a good calculation of resistance from the
complex relationships. There is a semi-logarithmic relationship from Hey (1979) given
below:

(
=
(
84
2
1
5 . 3
log 75 . 5
8
d
aR
f
(15)
But as the vertical logarithmic velocity relationship breaks down when there are
boulders present this equation does not apply except at relative submergences of less
than 1.5, Thorne and Zevenbergen (1985). At higher relative submergences the semi-
logarithmic relationship significantly overestimates the flow resistance coefficient as
seen in Figure 2.

18

Figure 2 At-a-site variations of (8/f)
1/2
with relative submergence if d/D
84
for four
combinations of channel slope and standard deviation of bed material
size distribution for boulder-bed rivers (Bathurst, 1994)

Bathurst (1985) suggests an empirical approach with the resistance calculated from the
following equation:

4 log 62 . 5
8
84
2
1
+
(
=
(
d
d
f
(16)
This is for channel slopes in the range 0.4-4% and d/d
84
<10. As this equation is
representative rather than for individual sites it tends to underestimate resistance at low
flows and overestimate resistance at high flows.

Jarrett (1984) gives another empirical equation where:

16 . 0 38 . 0
32 . 0

= R S n
f
(17)

for channel slopes of 0.2-4%. Again this represents the average line through an
envelope of values from a range of sites rather than individual sites. Both of the above
equations from Bathurst (1985) and Jarrett (1984) can give errors of 30%.

More recently Bathurst (1996) has measured in the field the drag force on individual
boulders on the river bed which showed much higher values of drag coefficient, 0.36,
than those measured in the laboratory, 1.1-1.5, for cubes. More tests are required to test
the conditions in which the method can be used before this method can be transferred
and used in a more natural environment.

19
Values of roughness coefficients for gravel and cobble surfaces were related to surface
cover and Reynolds number by Gilley et al (1992) in a laboratory environment. The
diameter of the cobbles extended to 25cm, which could be erring into the small boulders
region. This data could be used for small boulders and is related to the coverage of the
cobbles in addition to the Reynolds number.

Macro-roughness simulated using marbles was investigated by Dubois and Schleiss
(1999), in order to determine the relationship between the velocity and the variable
parameters, such as the object size, slope of the surface, and the flow. This has led to a
new relation for head loss for shallow flows over macro-roughness that is valid for
laminar and turbulent flows.

The presence of woody debris within a channel can have a significant effect on the
resistance to flow. The debris can reduce the average velocity, and locally elevate the
water surface profile. The significance of the debris is scale dependent with the
hydraulic effects typically being drowned out in a larger flood or large river, Gippel
(1995). Shields and Gippel (1995) produced a simple technique for predicting the
friction factor for river channels with varying amounts of large woody debris. In two
rivers studied the removal of debris reduced the friction factor by 20-30% increasing
bank-top flow capacity by 5-20%.

3.2.2 Groynes
Much work has been carried out to optimise the design of groynes for the purpose of
providing bank protection, see for example Jansen et al (1979), McCollum et al (1987),
Bhargava and Singh (1981), Ahmad (1951) and Miller et al (1983). Guidelines were
developed by Seed (1997) on the geometry of groynes for river training. This work has
concentrated on investigating the effect of varying the length, crest height, angle and
spacing of groynes on their efficiency as bank protectors.

No work has been identified which investigates the effect of current deflectors and
groynes on the overall hydraulic performance of the channel. Procedures are proposed
below for analysing the effect of groynes on the hydraulics of the channel. These are
based solely on knowledge of river hydraulics from work done at HR Wallingford.
These procedures should be used with extreme caution until they are validated against
both laboratory and field data.

The hydraulic effect of groynes on the channel will depend on two factors. Firstly
whether there is a single groyne or whether there are a number of groynes, and,
secondly the size of the groyne relative to the channel.

20
Table 3 Outline of methods to deal with the hydraulic effect due to groynes
Water level in
relation to
groyne
Groyne width as
a function of
channel width
Suggested approach
Water level above
the groyne crest
Single groyne,
length < 20% of
the channel width
Under these circumstances any hydraulic
impact of the groyne will be localised and will
have a minimal effect on the overall hydraulics
of the channel. Suggested approach is to
consider this as a boulder obstruction with the
appropriate obstruction level of <20%.
Single groyne,
length >21%, <
50% of the
channel width
AND
Single groyne,
length > 50% of
the channel width
Under these circumstances the effect of the
groyne on the channel hydraulics will be
significant. It is suggested that the groyne be
treated as a low weir, which extends across the
complete width of the channel. Therefore it
cannot be considered as a roughness unit and
may be affected by backwater and a backwater
calculation is required.
Multiple groynes

Under these circumstances the channel should
be treated as a compound channel. The limit
of the low flow channel should be taken as the
outer limit of the groyne and the elevation of
the upper stage the crest level of the groyne.
The conveyance should be calculated in the
conveyance generator accordingly.

Water level below
groyne crest
Single groyne Treat as an area of zero conveyance.
Multiple groynes The zone of the channel between the groynes
will be dominated by recirculatory motion and
will contribute little to the conveyance of the
cross-section. The limit of the channel should
be taken as the outer limit of the groyne, and
the cross-section amended to take account of
these effects in the conveyance generator.

3.3 Alluvial roughness

3.3.1 Introduction
In channels in which sediment on the bed is mobile, the bed of the channel may be
deformed by the flow resulting in so called bed features. These bed features can affect
the hydraulic roughness of the bed and so influence the flow in the channel. The bed
features are themselves dependent upon the flow and vary in nature and magnitude with
the flow. Thus in those situations where bed forms can occur the problem of
determining the hydraulic roughness becomes intertwined with that of determining the
flow.

21
An important aspect of alluvial resistance is the way that it varies with flow conditions.
As flow conditions vary the size and shape of bed features may vary, leading to
significant variations in hydraulic roughness. For fixed roughness elements it is
commonly found that the effective roughness reduces with increasing discharge. In
alluvial channels an increase in discharge may lead to an increase in the size and shape
of bed features. This change in the bed features may lead to increased form losses and
hence increased roughness. Thus in alluvial channels it is quite possible for the
hydraulic roughness to increase substantially with discharge, in contrast to the normal
behaviour of fixed-bed roughness elements. This type of behaviour is by no means
universal, for some flow conditions bed features may reduce in size with increasing
discharge. This reduces form losses and leads to more rapid reductions in hydraulic
roughness than one would expect for fixed-bed channels. In situations where a
component of the hydraulic roughness arises from alluvial resistance it is important,
therefore, to be able to predict the variation of alluvial resistance with flow conditions.

3.3.2 Description of bed forms
Bed forms occur on differing spatial scales ranging from tens of millimetres to
thousands of metres, with the different scales of bed forms having different properties.
The physical mechanisms responsible for the formation of such bed forms are not
completely understood but, presumably, different physical mechanisms are involved for
the different spatial scales.

Definitions of the various bed forms are given below. As was indicated above, bed
forms arise from a range of physical mechanisms and, as a result, behave in a variety of
different ways. Unfortunately the terminology that has developed does not always
distinguish precisely the different possible types of behaviour. Perhaps the most
obvious example is of the use of the term bars. This can be used, as in alternate bars,
to describe a system that is mobile and progresses downstream, or, as in point bars, to
describe stationary features determined by the channel plan form geometry, or to
describe transitory features which appear and disappear in braided rivers. Thus
unfortunately the term bar does not give a precise indication of the nature of the bed
feature alluded to.

For a given flow condition the type of bed feature that will be developed on the bed also
depends upon the nature of the sediment on the bed and in particular its size.

Ripples: Ripples are small bed forms that are usually less than 0.3m long, in the
direction of flow, and less than 0.03m in height. In longitudinal section, ripples vary
from triangular to sinusoidal in shape and their size is not dependent upon flow
depth.

Dunes: Dunes are intermediate in size, between bars and ripples. Their upstream
slope is very shallow and their downstream slope is close to the angle of repose of
the bed material. Their height is depth related, typically 10% of the depth. Any
surface waves that occur are out of phase with the dunes, that is, minimum water
surface elevations occur over the crests of the dunes.

The flow over dunes frequently separates just downstream of the crest, resulting in a
re-circulation zone downstream of the dune. The flow reattaches to the upstream
face of the next dune downstream. This separation and re-attachment can be

22
important in both the energy dissipation and hence resistance induced by the dune
and also can have important implications for the movement of pollutants.

Antidunes: Antidunes occur usually in supercritical flow and form a regular, almost
sinusoidal, train of bed forms. Individual antidunes migrate upstream whereas
sediment movement is high and in the downstream direction. A train of surface
waves occurs in phase with the antidunes. Under certain circumstances these waves
break in the upstream direction.

Bars: Bars are major bed forms sometimes covering the full channel width and
having lengths, in the direction of flow, usually in excess of the channel width and
heights comparable with the mean depth of flow. Point bars are deposits on the
inside of channel bends and alternate bars emanate from the left and right bank of
the channel in sequence. Alternate bars, or parts of them, have also been referred to
as unit bars, linguoid bars, side bars, transverse bars, cross-channel bars and
diagonal bars and riffles.

Alternate bars: In otherwise straight reaches of rivers a sequence of bars may form,
known as alternate bars. Each bar is attached to the bank, with successive bars
attached to opposite banks. As a result, the low flow channel follows a sinuous
course from one bank to the other.

Plain bed / transitional bed: When flow conditions are in transition from
subcritical to supercritical the bed forms are confused but mainly small in
magnitude. The bed may be devoid of bed forms or it may display an array of low-
amplitude ripples and dunes or a mixture of all three.

Pool - riffle sequences: The development of alternating areas of deep (pool) and
shallow (riffle) flow is characteristic of channels with coarse bed material from
approximately a few millimetres upwards. Pools are frequently associated with the
outside of bends while on the inside of the bends and extending downstream point
bars are often found.

Steps and step pool sequences: In steep, particularly small streams the bed is
formed by a sequence of steps, often with associated pools, the height of the step
being in excess of the normal water depth. The sediments forming the steps are
normally too large to be mobilised by the flow. This form of bed feature is common
in the headwaters of many upland UK rivers.

The length scales of ripples are related to the sediment size, the length scales for dunes
are related to the flow depth while the length scales for bars is related to the channel
width. Bars (excluding point bars), ripples and dunes all move slowly in the
downstream direction. Flow conditions are usually subcritical.

Simons and Richardson (1960) first categorised bed forms as shown in Figure 3.

23

Figure 3 Bed forms, as categorised by Simon and Richardson (1960)

In practice bed features may take a long time to develop and, in natural streams, where
the flows vary continuously, the bed features are rarely in equilibrium with the
instantaneous flow. However, it is useful to interpret the Simons and Richardson
categories in terms of the relationship between certain types of bed feature and the
corresponding steady flow.

At low flows, where the tractive shear on the bed is less than that required to initiate
movement of the sediment, there is no correlation between the flow and the bed forms.
At flows that are high enough to cause modest sediment transport rates, the bed forms
are either ripples or dunes. At higher flows washed out dunes or a plain bed situation
occurs. At flows which generate very high sediment transport rates antidunes may occur
in sand bed channels. The chutes and pools indicated by Simons and Richardson are
mainly restricted to some steep gravel rivers and today would be referred to as pools and
riffles.

3.3.3 Methods of prediction
In general there are two classes of prediction for alluvial resistance. One class of
methods predicts the size and shape of bed features and then uses this to determine the
hydraulic resistance, see for example van Rijn (1984). Another class of methods
predicts the hydraulic resistance but they do not, however, define explicitly what bed
forms are present. Instead, they predict resistance based on the physics of sediment
movement in terms of sediment and flow properties, see for example, Brownlie (1983),
Engelund (1966 and 1967) and White et al (1982).

Information on estimating roughness values for the alluvial resistance of pool-riffle
sequences is contained in Section 3.4.

3.3.4 Development of bed forms
When bed forms develop from a plane bed there is normally no change in average bed
level. Thus the volume of sediment above the average bed level in the crests of the
features is compensated by the volume of the troughs below the average bed level. This

24
has implications for the speed of development of bed features. For bed features such as
dunes and ripples to develop then all that is needed is for the appropriate volume of
sediment within the bed feature to be re-arranged on the bed. This volume is normally
quite small in comparison with the total volume of sediment transport and so changes in
the size of bed features occurs rapidly, for example, during a flood event. The re-
arrangement of sediment on the bed still takes some time and so if the flow is changing
rapidly then it may be that the equilibrium bed form is never achieved.

In a laboratory the time to go from a flat bed to the fully developed dune height can be
of the order of 1 hour while the development of dune length takes of the order of 2
hours (Wijbenga and Klaasen, 1981 and Klaasen et al, 1986). Van Urk (1982) reported
that on the lower Rhine the time lag between flow and dune height was 4 days, with a
longer period for dune length.

3.3.5 Spatial variation of alluvial resistance within a cross-section
The bed form that develops depends at a particular location on the bed depends upon the
local flow depth and velocity. Where conditions vary significantly across a cross-
section it is possible that the type and size of bed features may vary across the cross-
section. Thus the hydraulic roughness may vary across the cross-section.

3.3.6 Conclusion
The information detailed in this section on alluvial roughness is provided as a guide to
understanding what alluvial roughness is. This review has not attempted to develop the
roughness parameters to characterise alluvial roughness in terms of Mannings n as the
underlying understanding of bed features is an area for further research. However, some
useful information has been obtained for pools and riffles and these bed features are
treated separately in the following section. For more detailed information on alluvial
roughness characterisation and estimation see Sediment transport and alluvial
resistance in rivers, EA R&D Report (in preparation).

3.4 Channel irregularities

3.4.1 Pools and riffles
Numerous research studies have been undertaken into pool and riffle sequences in river
channels with the emphasis on the morphology and sediment characteristics of the
bedform, e.g. Leopold et al (1964), Richards (1976), Keller and Melhorn (1978), Milne
(1982) and Hey and Thorne (1986). Less emphasis has been placed on understanding
and predicting the natural location and spacing of riffles and pools, e.g. Sephton (1983)
and Higginson and Johnston (1989).

Pools and riffles in a river channel locally cause the channel slope to deviate from the
average channel slope for a reach. This results in marked changes from steep to shallow
longitudinal slopes. At low river flows this change in profile can lead to shallow
cascade flow over riffles leading to deeper tranquil flow in the pools.

Higginson and Johnston illustrated the problems associated with determining the
roughness coefficient of a pool riffle sequence using the average channel slope for a
reach of river. At low river flows the calculated value of Manning's n changed
markedly both with discharge and position. If low flows are important in the design of

25
a channel this pronounced variation in roughness coefficient would need careful
consideration.

However, research by Higginson and Johnston in Northern Ireland, by Richards (1976)
on the River Fowey in Cornwall and Pimperton and Karle (1993) has shown that as the
discharge increases these changes become less marked. At higher flows, such as
bankfull conditions, the bed formation has little or no effect on the Manning coefficient
indicating that uniform flow may be assumed.

A major design criterion for environmental channels or improvement of existing
channels is the ability of the channel to convey flood flows. Determination of the flood
conveyance of a channel as set out in this report is dependent upon knowledge of the
roughness coefficient at bankfull flow.

Data collected at ten sites on the River Blackwater (University of Ulster, 1995) was
analysed to give a range of roughness values for pools, riffles and nursery areas. The
range of values given is wide in range and is dependent on the discharge and depth at
which the roughness coefficient is measured. At low discharges there is a great
discrepancy between the roughness values along the reach. The data is also relevant to
boulders within channels.

3.4.2 Other irregularities
Bends are also irregularities within the channel. The resistance due to bends is dealt
with in the Conveyance Estimation System and not within the roughness advisor.

In non-prismatic channels there is a resistance due to the form loss which is not
incorporated into the conveyance calculation. This form of roughness has not been
addressed in this report due to a lack of data available to make any useful contributions
to the database.

3.5 Tidal reaches
In tidal channels the roughness values are changing much more rapidly over a 12-hour
period as the tide ebbs and flows and the water level changes. Knight (1981)
demonstrated this with measurements in the Conwy estuary where the Mannings n
roughness coefficients varied significantly with stage. Over a 4m range the Mannings
roughness values varied from approximately 0.03 to 0.11. A later study, Wallis and
Knight (1984), showed three main trends in the data a strong stage dependence, a flow
directional dependence due to flood or ebb dominated bed forms and a high variability
with location along the estuary especially where sand banks were exposed at low water.

3.6 Vegetative features

3.6.1 Grass cover
Extensive tests undertaken on grass cover Palmer (1946), Ree (1949), Ree and Palmer
(1949) resulted in a Handbook of Channel Design, US Soil Conservation Service,
(1954).

The result of the work has been to define a series of relationships between Mannings n
and the product VR, where V is the mean flow velocity and R is the hydraulic radius.
The relationship is expressed as a family of curves, each curve defining the other

26
principal variable, the physical characteristic of the vegetation. The main physical
characteristic is judged to be the height but other factors such as density and uniformity
are influential and a value judgement has to be made. Accepting that the vegetation is
an organic cover of almost endless variability, the n-VR relationship gives sound results
in the majority of field cases, Stephens et al (1963), and experimentally, Kao and
Barfield (1978). Table 4 gives guidance on retardance categories.

Table 4 Grass cover retardance classes (US Soil Conservation Service, 1954)
Stand Average Length Retardance
Longer than 30 inches A
11 in to 24 in B
6 in to 10 in C
2 in to 6 in D
Good
less than 2 in E
Longer than 30 inches B
11 in to 24 in C
6 in to 10 in D
2 in to 6 in D
Fair
less than 2 in E

Green and Garton (1983) give equations for the calculation of the Mannings roughness
coefficient in each of the retardance classes. Other publications show a similar trend in
roughness characteristics with grass, Chen (1976), Fisher (2002), Graf and Chun (1976).

3.6.2 Trees and Shrubs
Individual trees or stands of trees can result in a significant head loss. There have been
a number of publications where this has been investigated.

Petryk and Bosmajian (1975) theoretically analysed flow through trees and shrubs. In
carrying out this analysis they made the following assumptions:

the velocity is small enough to prevent a large degree of plant bending;
the vegetation is relatively uniformly distributed in the lateral direction;
large variations in average velocity do not occur across the channel;
the maximum flow depth is less than or equal to the maximum height of vegetation;
and
large variations in flow velocity do not occur over the flow depth.

Li and Shen (1973) present an analysis of flow through tall vegetation by considering
the drag due to cylinders in the flow. This study is not of direct applicability to the
estimation of flow resistance due to vegetation but it does draw some conclusions which
are of relevance. The most important of these is that staggered patterns of tall
vegetation (trees) are much more effective in reducing the flow than any other
configuration with the same number of tall vegetation. Other studies include Komora
(1981).

27
Klassen and Van Der Zwaard (1974) carried out laboratory experiments to investigate
the effect of orchards and hedges on the roughness coefficient of vegetated flood berms.
The analysis of Klassen and Van Der Zwaard considered hedges which were not
submerged by the flow. Klassen and Van Urk (1985) extended this work by
investigating the resistance of drowned hedges. They concluded that in order to
calculate the flow through/over submerged hedges, the method of Klassen and Van Der
Zwaard should be used for flow through the hedge. The flow over the hedge should be
estimated using a short crested weir equation with a discharge coefficient equal to 1.0.

There are some excellent publications in different countries for the practical
management of trees and shrubs on floodplains: Technology Research Centre, (1994)
and Environment Agency (undated).

3.6.3 Floodplains
There are several methods for determining the effects of trees and grasses that can be
used on the floodplains. Freeman et al (1998) produced an improved methodology for
the determination of roughness values for shrubs and woody vegetation. Pasche et al
(1983) and Pasche and Rouve (1985) used roughness elements in laboratory tests and
investigated the flow characteristics on a vegetated floodplain. Pasche and Rouve
(1985) gave particular attention to the problem of non-submerged floodplain roughness.
Weltz et al (1992) developed a reference table of effective roughness coefficients for
shallow overland flow with a description of site characteristics. There was no trend
apparent in effective roughness coefficient associated with type of vegetation or soil
texture. Thornton et al (2000) produced a predictive expression to permit the estimation
of the apparent shear stress, average velocity, and depth in both the main channel and
floodplain and the blockage caused by the floodplain.

3.7 Vegetation growth and maintenance

Part of the issue in assessing and controlling vegetation is the difficulty in predicting the
types of vegetation which will be present in the river from season to season and year to
year. Fox (1992) gives a recent general review of aquatic plant growth seasonality and
ecological interactions. Vegetation maintenance is an important issue for flood defence
(Robson 1968, Westlake 1968, Westlake and Dawson 1982). The re-growth of
vegetation after cutting has been investigated and some semi-quantitative and
descriptive advice can be determined from this research (e.g. Dawson 1989).

The maximum biomass reached for some species in unmanaged waters may be less than
in waters where the weed is cut regularly, and may be below the level at which cutting
becomes necessary. If weed could be removed earlier in the year, well before the
maximum is reached, this may reduce the initiating biomass, delay the time of the
maximum and therefore lower the maximum biomass achieved (Dawson 1978a). The
cycle of cutting and rapid regrowth is similar to that observed with the typical English
lawn. If, however, taller plants and a slightly higher standing crop could be tolerated the
vegetation could reach a self-limiting maximum biomass.

Regular plant removal continually synchronizes the growth of individual plants, causing
the times of each plants maximum biomass to coincide over the whole population,
Dawson (1978b). In the unmanaged situation, the natural and somewhat erratic decline
in the standing crop creates less favourable conditions for regrowth in the autumn. By

28
contrast, the removal of plant material in summer allows regrowth in the autumn,
producing a higher and better-adapted overwintering plant population. This leads to
rapid and more advanced growth in the following season, resulting in a higher biomass
at flowering times.

For emergent vegetation Haslam (1978) states:

Urtica dioica regrows quickly during the growing season and there is no long term
effect of cutting;
Glyceria maxima and Typha angustifolia regrow quickly during the growing season
but next years crop is reduced by 30%;
Phragmites communis regrowth is quick after cutting during the period of rapid
growth (in spring and early summer), and there are no long term effects;
Cutting in late summer means little regrowth and a substantially lower crop in the
following year.

For submerged and floating vegetation this advice has been given:

no cutting required during the winter as these plants die-back either partially or
completely;
cutting may be required any time between late spring and early autumn when the
plants grow thickly;
Early-growing species in Southern England such as Ranunculus may need cutting in
April, Haslam (1978);
Spring cut of Ranunculus during its growing period may in fact stimulate further
growth rather than control it, Westlake (1968) ;
Spring cut of Callitriche to remove established beds would be very beneficial in its
control during the growing season, Soulsby (1974);
Late-growing species such as Sagittaria sagittifolia may not become dense until
early July, Haslam (1968);
Guidelines given by Haslam and Wolseley (1981) indicate that for floating or
submergent weeds the usual time for recovery after cutting is 2-4 weeks to replace
the area cover, longer to reproduce the same biomass;
Cutting in late summer leads to little regrowth of strongly seasonal species (e.g.
Potamogeton pectinatus) although non-seasonal species (e.g. Callitriche) in suitable
temperatures are unaffected by the date of cutting.

The impact of maintenance on the water levels has been demonstrated on a compound
channel of the River Roding, University of Bristol (1988). Stage discharge relationships
were produced with and without vegetation on the berms. The stage discharge
relationship for the cut berm (Mannings n values 0.05 to 0.06) gives a bankfull
discharge of 40m
3
/s, whilst for the uncut berm (Mannings values 0.05 to 0.09) the
bankfull discharge is 25m
3
/s.

Hearne and Armitage (1993) investigated the implications of the annual macrophyte
growth on habitat in rivers. During the investigation they highlighted some important
issues:

29
The depth in narrow channels is more sensitive to changes in macrophyte biomass
than wider channels
The influence of macrophytes on depth and velocity is not as great with steeper
gradients
The discharge required to maintain a constant depth reduces by up to a third in the
chalk streams monitored as macrophytes become established.

Experimental work jointly undertaken by HR Wallingford and the Centre for Aquatic
Plant Management (CAPM) investigated the hydraulic impact of vegetation and the
impact of cutting Eloda and Potamogeton and its subsequent re-growth, Smailes (1996).
The results showed:

difference in the re-growth rates for the different plants; and
different roughness characteristics for the different plants.

Fisher (1995) assessed the impact of cutting aquatic vegetation on the hydraulic
performance on two rivers, Candover Brook and the River Kennet. The results from
these two sites are site specific but they do give an indication of the likely scale of
hydraulic impact of a river of a similar size, shape and discharge capacity. Even though
the results may not necessarily be transferable to other rivers the techniques and
procedures used can be applied to other river sites.

Measurements taken on the Winterbourne stream during the summer showed very high
values of Mannings n, up to values of 1.3 in the reach that was almost 100% choked
with vegetation. The vegetation was cut down the centre of the channel by 30%, then
60% and then 100% of the vegetation was removed.

There are some general principles that can be applied to vegetation maintenance and the
quantitative impact it has on the performance on river channels, Fisher (1996):

Cutting the vegetation down the central part of the channel is hydraulically more
efficient than cutting the same percentage amount from one side;
Cutting 80% of the channel vegetation gives almost the same hydraulic benefits as
cutting 100% of the vegetation;
The above is generally true for most channels. For channels with a high
width/depth ratio e.g. of >10, cutting 65% of the channel vegetation gives almost
the same hydraulic benefits as cutting 100% of the vegetation. For channels with a
small width/depth ratio e.g. <2 the difference between cutting 66% and 100% of
the vegetation would double the percentage reduction in water level.

The Environment Agency in the UK publishes guidelines on aquatic weed control and
the function and management of water plants (e.g. Environment Agency 1998). In
addition they offer guidelines on river maintenance, which investigate the impact of
maintenance on flora and fauna, Ward et al (1999).

3.8 Woody debris

Large woody debris has created greater habitat and is incorporated into environmentally
sensitive design. Hydraulically debris act as large roughness elements that provide a
varied flow environment, reduce average velocity and locally elevate the water surface

30
profile, Gippel (1995) and Linstead (2000). The impact of the woody debris on
roughness coefficients has been investigated resulting in a method, Shields and Gippel
(1995) whilst Linstead (1999) analyses the frequency and effects of such debris for the
UK using data from the RHS survey (et al 1998).

31
4. REVIEW OF FIELD DATA

4.1 Data availability and usefulness

From the literature there are some papers where valuable data sources have been used
following in the steps of Mannings summary (1895). The data from these current
papers that have been selected and used in the roughness advisor is detailed in the
alphabetically arranged tables in Appendix A. These tables have been referenced before
in the previous sections but the tables give a short synopsis of the paper and the data or
figures which have been used to generate data for the roughness advisor. The data
given is not an exclusive set of the data but it is the data that is considered as being
useful for this project.

In addition to the data from the literature, data from field study sites to which the
authors have had access has also been used. This data has been collected for research
studies or PHABSIM studies or for verification purposes for models. Table 5 shows the
field data available, the type of data and the source of the data.

Table 5 List of available field data sites and sources
River and site
Individual readings or
over a season
Source of data
River Severn, Bewdley
One day HR Wallingford/EA
River Derwent
River Trent
River Avon
River Ilam at Manifold
River Tanat
River Vrynwy
River Severn, Montford
Bawns Burn, NI
One/two seasons University of Ulster/ MAFF
Abels bridge, River Blackwater, NI
Lisdoart Mill, River Blackwater, NI
Lisdoart Bridge, River Blackwater,
NI
Forthill Bridge, River Blackwater, NI
Caledon Bridge, River Blackwater,
NI
Omagh Road, River Blackwater, NI
Burn's Bridge, River Blackwater, NI
Oona River, NI One/two seasons University of Ulster/ MAFF
River Fury, NI
Livery Hill, River Bush, NI
One/two seasons University of Ulster
Conagher Bridge, River Bush, NI
Stranocum Bridge, River Bush, NI
Clontyfinnan, River Bush, NI
Stracam, River Bush, NI
Moss side, River Bush, NI
Doughery Water, River Bush, NI
River Noe, River Bush, NI
Upper Derwent Several flow conditions University College Worcester/EA
PHABSIM data
River Tavy Several flow conditions University College Worcester/EA

32
River and site
Individual readings or
over a season
Source of data
PHABSIM data
River Cole, Birmingham
Several flow conditions University of Birmingham
River Tame, Birmingham
Several flow conditions University of Birmingham
River Cole, Swindon
Several flow conditions HR Wallingford
River Blackwater, Hampshire
Several flow conditions University of Bristol/EA
River Thames Buscot to Reading
Data Mining exercise (see report)
River Medway
River Eden
River Cherwell, Banbury to Oxford
River Teme, Knighton to Bransford
Bridge
River Cam

These sites have been linked with RHS sites whose details are given in Table 6

Table 6 List of available field data sites from the RHS
National grid
reference
National
grid ref.
RHS site no.
(nearest)
Distance
from
nearest
RHS site
Relative
position to
RHS site
(US/DS)
Relative
hydraulic
resistance
Cole SP172879 6732 1564.16 DS 6.2
Cole SP175876 6732 965.91 DS 6.2
Cole SU234935 1111 1736.72 DS 3.9
Blackwater SU882549 4233 694.10 US 7.6
Blackwater SU878568 14000 1384.65 DS 3.9
Jaggers SK162867 23364 1289.51 DS 0.2
Jaggers SK162863 23364 905.12 US 0.2
Noe SK146859 381 542.02 US 7.6
Ashop SK141895 355 2416.92 DS 2.1
Ashop SK164876 355 6041.21 US 2.1
Alport SK156864 23364 238.08 DS 0.2
Alport SK162863 23364 905.12 US 0.2
Tavy 1 SX546822 21703 67.78 US 0.5
Tavy 1 SX532804 20599 326.78 US 0.8
Tavy 2 SX531803 22234 158.71 US 2.3
Tavy 2 SX509784 20646 280.79 US 0.3
Tavy 3 SX482743 21705 1050.21 DS 1.2
Tavy 3 SX466717 21536 461.39 US 2.5
Tame SP029927 692 2331.89 DS 4.8
Tame SP030925 692 2062.39 DS 4.8
Thames -B SU23009810 13105 694.52 US 2.2
Thames-R SU71807410 7176 1243.38 US 2.6
Medway -CH TQ51704050 13721 572.47 US 0.9
Medway_coll TQ52184128 10800 1.89 DS 1.7
Eden- pen TQ55201437 1395 1270.91 DS 2.5
Cherwell-Ban SP45804100 6945 5763.46 DS 14.0
Cherwell-Oxfd SP52100610 1078 2213.51 DS 1.1
Teme-
Knighton
SO290724 6762 3758.16 US 0.5
Teme-BransBr SO803533 6849 3104.88 US 2.7
Cam TL46605060 6866 158.78 DS 13.6

33

Data gaps

The gaps in data which have been identified whilst undertaking this review can be
summarised by the points below.

Field data on variations with roughness with depth are lacking and this area needs
further exploration;
Data on temporal variations of vegetation is lacking;
There is extensive data on some kinds of vegetation but the information on the
impact of, particularly, emergent vegetation is very sparse;
Further data is required on the relationship between coverage, biomass and blockage
of different types of vegetation and the roughness coefficient;
Some types of floodplain vegetation e.g. clumps of hedges and their impact
downstream needs to be more widely explored;
Alternative methods for estimating roughness need to be more widely considered
and backed up with field data, especially roughness due to vegetation e.g. blockage
of vegetation, drag coefficients, turbulence modelling.

The elements which need to be measured to gain a better understanding of roughness
are as follows:

Topographic data including accurate measurement of water surface slope;
Flow and level data over a good range of inbank and out-of-bank conditions;
Details of vegetation including type, coverage, blockage, biomass, and sketches of
locations both through the vertical and lateral axes;
Details of growth patterns of vegetation through the season and after different
cutting patterns in subsequent seasons;
Details of how the growth of vegetation is affected and how the vegetation moves
with the water flows including waving stands of floating vegetation.

4.2 Further data collection and research

Further data collection is essential especially on the different vegetation types. The links
between the growth of vegetation, its coverage, blockage, biomass and the form
resistance of the vegetation needs much greater research which will require extensive
field data collection programmes.

Research into the area of floodplain vegetation and the interaction between different
vegetation types is required. This would include:

Seasonal variations in floodplain vegetation
Impact of hedges and fences, and their different orientation, on head losses across a
floodplain
Downstream influences due to turbulence of different types of vegetation e.g.
wooded areas, shrubs, and mixed vegetation. This would include extent of
influence, influence on other vegetated areas within the wake of the obstruction,
and influence under different flow conditions
Building and other macro-roughness elements on the floodplain

34
Investigation of relationship between slope, grain size distribution, size of channel
and the resistance of a channel using field data.

Many of the methods developed more recently have investigated the force balances
within a vegetated channel. Scientifically this method is more robust than the use of the
empirically developed n-VR relationship. Most of the work within this area has been
undertaken in the laboratory using rods to represent vegetation. The ideas should now
be developed within 2D models, field data collected to verify laboratory experiments,
and field trials undertaken to develop existing methods using real river data.

Two-dimensional models are increasingly being used in this area especially to
understand the fundamental mechanisms behind the interactions of flow and vegetation.
Models have been used effectively in describing and understanding the lateral
momentum transfer across vegetation in different locations within the channel. Data
collected in the field as described above would be useful for verification and calibration
of these models. Links with sediment movement and the ability of sediment to be
trapped within vegetated regions could be explored using 2D modelling techniques.

Mannings equation is used internationally for predicting roughness values in non-
vegetated and vegetated channels. It is difficult to determine the roughness other than
by measurement and the values change with depth. It may be that we can find a more
appropriate way of describing the roughness of the channel. It would be difficult to try
and change a universal concept and international culture but it may be that we need to
investigate a more appropriate index for the impact of vegetation

The resistance of a channel to flow is due to a number of different types of resistance
including skin friction and form friction. This review has concentrated on these two
aspects, as they are the most significant. The skin friction is due to the bed surface and
the form friction due to any obstructions such as boulders or vegetation. The Mannings
n roughness coefficient is a measure of the total roughness of the channel and
includes elements of the skin and form friction. This report separates out the different
types of friction from the total roughness values given in the literature. This has not
been an easy task and has often been based on experience rather than on exact research
that shows how each part, skin or form, contributes to the whole. The research in this
area is needed to demonstrate how the overall or total roughness is made up from the
constituent parts.

4.3 Concurrent research projects

There are a number of current research projects in the area of flood plain vegetation that
will provide improved information on roughness. As information from the projects has
not yet been reviewed and published it has not been included in this present review.
However, some information on two of the relevant EC funded research projects is
provided below and it is expected that the results of these and other projects will be
included in future updates of the roughness report and roughness advisor.

4.3.1 ECOBAR2 Project
The EC funded ECOBAR project is currently examining:

The link between hydrology and biodiversity on flood plains;

35
The resistance of woody vegetation on flood plains;
Socio-economic and institutional issues which influence biodiversity and river
restoration.

The project has so far shown that judicious afforestation of the catchment and flood
plain has flood defence benefits. Further work is being undertaken to assess the
consequences of allowing such vegetation to develop. This involves a field
measurement programme, two-dimensional modelling, and flume experiments.

A group at Cambridge University in the Department of Geography and the Department
of Plant Sciences coordinates the project. The lead contacts are Professor Keith
Richards and Dr Francine Hughes. The project website can be found at:
http://www-flobar.geog.cam.ac.uk/members/cambridge.html

4.3.2 RIPFOR Project
The EC funded RIPFOR project Hydraulic, sedimentological and ecological
problems of multifunctional riparian forest management is a collaboration between a
number of European universities and institutions including the Freie Universitaet Berlin,
University of Agricultural Science Viena, and the Universitaet Karlsruhe.

The project is concerned with the optimisation of Riparian Forest Management, with
special emphasis on hydraulic and sedimentary problems occurring in floodplains. The
influence of riparian forest vegetation on the overall flow field and sediment
transportation/ deposition is being studied. Guidelines will be worked out for the
implementation of new floodplain forests and the management of existing ones:
retention of high floods, protection of river banks, improvement of water quality,
habitats for plants and animals, recreational areas for the local population.

The work is being performed in a number of stages including field studies, laboratory
studies, numerical and physical modelling, and ecological fieldwork. Further
information can be found on the project website at:
http://www.geog.fu-berlin.de/~ripfor/project.htm

36
5. IDENTIFICATION OF RIVER TYPES AND VEGETATION
MORPHO-TYPES

Rivers and streams which are similar in their physical characteristics and their
vegetation can be associated using the national data set obtained through the national
survey of river habitats (River Habitat Survey, Raven et al 1998). This national
assessment includes data on in-channel and bank-side aquatic vegetation together with
flood-plain land uses. Data is also available on physical parameters, substrates and in-
channel sediment or erosion features such as sandbars or eroding cliffs. In the absence
of surveys for reaches on which hydraulic planning or assessment is required, this
supporting data can be used to predict the likely type of vegetation or other features
typical of the reach under consideration. It is able to do this through the detailed
surveys that were performed and an extensive analysis of the common
geomorphological parameters for similar types of stream or river and morphologically
similar vegetation group. This data is made available in the Roughness Advisor as the
basis for advice in the absence of a site survey.

5.1 River Habitat Survey - hydromorphological features

The physical habitats of British rivers have been sampled on the stratified basis of
random 500m river segments from within all 10 by 10 km grid squares within the UK.
Surveys recorded some 25 items in cross-section separated at 50m intervals. This
included the predominance of flow-types, bank and bed substrates, fluvial features, and
any modifications. This was combined with the morphological types, aquatic
vegetation, the structure of bank vegetation, and land use, together with an overall
assessment of the 500m reach of the general habitat features within 100m, including
channel features, management and adjacent land use. Three sites per grid square were
chosen in England and Wales and the survey was undertaken in 1994-96 (totalling 4530
sites). Two sites per grid square were surveyed in Northern Ireland for 1995-96(246)
and one site per grid square was surveyed in Scotland over two years 1995-96 (778).
Comparisons were presented on a one-site per square basis. However, since the initial
survey additional surveys have continued on a regular basis although they have been
targeted at particular schemes and investigations and there are now some 18,000 surveys
available for reference on a national database.

Grouping and classification of the physical habitats of the rivers of Britain during the
development of River Habitat Survey (RHS) was considered necessary as a framework
upon which to associate the probability and frequency of occurrence of their respective
characteristics or typical natural physical habitats, in contrast to the results and
consequences of modification. Following several attempts using a range of modern
multivariate and principal component analyses and various combinations of data, a
system was selected (Jeffers 1998). Thus current classification is based upon data sets
for each RHS site obtainable nationally from maps which include the position, altitude,
gradient, deep and surface geology. These are surrogates for the availability, quantity
and timing of delivery of water, and for stream power from variables such as stream
size, height of and distance from source. Analysis of the main drivers and their
derivation from available data, mainly the map-derived data, was analysed to give an
awareness of the errors and limits of predictability within each classification system.
The relative advantages and usefulness of the classification system in the development
of comparative systems for habitat modification and habitat quality is still undergoing

37
development for general applications, such as for quality classification use within the
EU Water Framework Directive.

In addition, two indices have been developed allowing classification of the modification
of a channel and also the quality of natural features in each reach. One is the Habitat
Modification Index. This is a transparent count of the numbers of modifications to each
bank or the channel at each of the 10 spot transects or in the absence of any
modifications recorded then it is a check on the occupance of modification from the
assessment of the full 500-m. The Habitat Quality Index (HQA) and its banded Habitat
Quality Assessment (HQA), is currently based upon subjective rules of the occupance or
absence of features typical of the particular type or class of river. These two indices are
of use for assessing any engineering work undertaken in a section. They can be linked
with the assessment of nationally funded channel modification and maintenance, which
were called the MAFF Capital Works Schemes, undertaken between 1930s-1980 and
mapped by Brookes at al (1983). Thus historic and probably ongoing schemes that have
affected channels and changed them from near natural, with the associated typical
changes to vegetation etc, can be incorporated in channel redesign schemes. There is
scope to incorporate further developments to separate the re-naturalisation of higher
energy channels from those of lower or relatively stable channels especially those in
clay and some lowland areas.

5.2 River Habitat Survey - vegetation morpho-types

Vegetation was assessed by the RHS survey as the presence or extensiveness of
vegetation morpho-types at the time of survey i.e. late spring or early summer, in 10
regularly-spaced transects of 10m in width. Vegetation cover when present represents
>1% cover of the streambed in the 10m broad transect across the channel whilst
extensive cover is >33%. The distribution of vegetation morpho-types are expected at
the national level whilst most groups are reasonably well represented by type.

There are ten broad vegetation morpho-types of aquatic and marginal plant species of
similar form or function in the river or riparian corridor. These groups are not those
with similar morphological character as described in textbooks and used for taxonomy
(Table 8). For example, rooted plants elongate in form with finely-divide or elongate
leaves living mainly submerged and rooted in the main river bed in medium or high
water flows are grouped together, but separated from those with, for example, broad
leaves which float at or near the water surface in slower flows but are otherwise rooted
in the main channel. In RHS, the purpose of the recording is to provide information on
the range of functional habitats, which the vegetation may be providing for invertebrates
and other animals (this is especially important in rivers with limited structural
diversity).

In the absence of surveys for a particular river reach, the prediction of the likely
morpho-type of vegetation typical of the reach is achieved using the PCA relationship of
geomorphological driving variables (above) to determine the nearest 100 sites in this
PCA space nearest the actual survey site for that 10 by 10km square, and tally the mean
numbers of each morpho-type of vegetation when present or extensive. This is repeated
for each 10 by 10km square to give the probabilities for each vegetation morpho-type
group (as a percentage for each group) for all 10 by 10 km squares in the UK and

38
incorporated in the Roughness Advisor. The southwest corner of the regular 10km
divisions of the NGR map is used to mark typical values for that grid square.
Initially, a complementary way of investigating the effects of vegetation had been
proposed based upon a tabular system which would enable the presence of different
types of vegetation known or likely at a particular site based on the RHS data and
possibly linked to channel type (Table 7).

The types of vegetation a to i are detailed further in Figure 4. These categories of
the types of vegetation frequently found in different channel types did not have such a
high probability as the aforementioned method but normally reproduced the broad
picture whereby particular vegetation combinations were more closely associated with
some river types and not with others. Clear divisions are not apparent and were difficult
to incorporate in the table. Although more river types could be added into these tables
and more dominant types represented by shading in darker colours, the use of the PCA
method was clearer and closer to the best estimate, although it is more complex.

Table 7 Types of channel and likely vegetation in those channels
Vegetation type
Channel type
a b c d e f g h i
Steep streams
Mountain valley
rivers

Chalk rivers
Lowland riffle
dominated

Vegetation types:
a. liverworts, mosses, or lichens
b. emergent broad leaved herbs
c. emergent reeds, sedges, or rushes
d. rooted floating-leaved
e. free floating
f. amphibious
g. submerged broad leaved
h. submerged fine leaved
i. filamentous algae

Future developments could extend the predictive potential to stream and river size, as
there is sufficient data in the database to enable this analysis

An area for further research is to look at combining the vegetation database with a
chemical database to look at the effects of water quality.

39
Table 8 Description of RHS vegetation morpho-types
Proposed
Relative
Hydraulic
Resistance
channel
vegetation -
morpho-
types
Description of vegetation type
[based on RHS Manual with examples
of typical species]
Occurrence
of type in
UK
present/
extensive
0 None OR No vegetation present
Not visible Submerged plants not visible in very
turbid water.
OR channel not visible (e.g. culvert)

1

Free-floating

Plants free-floating at or under, the water
surface. Often in the margins or less
commonly across channels in very slow
flowing or near static watercourses. Not
rooted to the channel bed and easily
washed out but may accumulate on
instream structures restricting flow.
Examples include Duckweeds (Lemna
spp.), Frogbit (Hydrocharis), Hornwort
(Ceratophyllum) and Water Soldier
(Stratiotes).
2 0.3
2 Filamentous
algae
Obvious areas of filamentous alga either
attached to channel bed or attached or
coating aquatic plants. Often easily
washed out. Often in nutrient-rich water.
Little known about hydraulic effects on
restricting flow, but algal films may
possibly smooth boundaries and enhance
flow.
Examples include Blanketweed
(Cladophora), Mole Pelt (Enteromorpha)
etc.
32 3
3 Mosses Smaller plants attached to larger more
stable substrates in channel and typical of
in-stream boulders in higher energy
streams. Also on more vertical shaded
banks in slower flowing streams.
Examples include mosses (e.g.
Fontinalis), liverworts (e.g. Scapania)
and lichens (e.g. Collema).
32 3

40
Proposed
Relative
Hydraulic
Resistance
channel
vegetation -
morpho-
types
of typical species]
Occurrence
of type in
UK
present/
extensive
4 Amphibious Rooted at edge of river, or on the bank.
Shoots or leaves trail into, or across, the
water. More common in slower flowing
stream cp tree roots.
Examples include Amphibious Bistort
(Persicaria amphibium), Creeping Bent
grass or Fiorin (Agrostis stolonifera),
Sweet-grass (Glyceria fluitans), Marsh
Foxtail (Alopecurus geniculatus), Water
For-get-me-not (Myosotis scorpioides).
8 0.4
5 Emergent
Reeds
Emergent narrow-leaved monocotyledons
(reeds, sedges & rushes) rooted below
water. Normally on channel margins and
adjacent wetlands. Often inundated in
floods. Occasionally overhanging in
deeper water.
Examples include Branched Bur-reed
(Sparganium erectum), Reedmace
(Typha), Norfolk Reed (Phragmites),
Reed Sweet-grass (Glyceria maxima),
Sedges ( Carex spp.), Rushes (Juncus
spp.) and Bulrush (Schoenoplectus spp.).
22 4
6 Floating-
leaved -
rooted
Plants with floating surface leaves only
and rooted in the channel bed. Typified
by water lilies in deeper slower more
turbid rivers. Can rapidly increase
hydraulic resistance for small increases in
flow. Examples include either broad-
leaved e.g. Yellow Water Lily (Nuphar
lutea), Broad-leaved Pondweed
(Potamogeton natans) or linear or strap-
like leaved e.g. Un-branched Bur-red
(Sparganium emersum).
3 1

41
Proposed
Relative
Hydraulic
Resistance
channel
vegetation -
morpho-
types
of typical species]
Occurrence
of type in
UK
present/
extensive
7 Emergent
broad-leaved
Broad-leaved or herbaceous plants with
leaves and flowers typically found rooted
in shallower lowland rivers. Grow out of
the water above normal water levels
predominantly in the summer and
autumn. Extending outwards from the
channel margins or more centrally in the
main channel if shallow, and also
colonising other submerged plants. More
often in managed channels or nutrient-
rich waters with mean flows less than
0.5 m/s.
Examples include. Fools Water-cress
(Apium nodiflorum) and Water-
speedwell (Veronica spp.).
17 2
8 Submerged
broad-leaved

or
Vegetation with underwater leaves no
more than four times longer than they are
broad. Rooted in the main riverbed.
Some part of the plant, or some leaves,
may reach the surface but the majority is
submerged. Typical of deeper water with
slow or moderate water flow and a stable
river bed which may be overlain by
organic material. These channels are
often managed. Examples include the
submerged cabbage leaves of Yellow
Water-lily (Nuphar lutea), Perfoliate and
several other broad-leaved pondweeds
(Potamogeton perfoliatus, lucens, alpinus
etc.), Canadian Pondweed (Elodea
canadensis), Starworts (Callitriche).
5 1
Submerged
linear-leaved
Submerged plants with narrow,
unbranched, laminar leaves
(blade/strap/belt shaped) that are either
totally submerged or have just their tips
or upper parts floating on the surface,
while rooted in the main river bed. The
most typical examples are Unbranched
Bur-reed (Sparganium emersum) and the
underwater variations in the leaves of
Arrowhead (Sagittaria), Bulrush
(Schoenoplectus spp.) and Flowering
Rush (Butomus umbellatus).
12 3

42
Proposed
Relative
Hydraulic
Resistance
channel
vegetation -
morpho-
types
of typical species]
Occurrence
of type in
UK
present/
extensive
9 Submerged
fine-leaved
Rooted submerged plants with fine AND
branched leaves. Often in large stands
elongated in direction of flow.
Predominantly growing in spring and
summer. Typical of lowland streams
with moderate or high flows in summer.
Examples include the feathery leaves of
Milfoil (Myriophyllum spp.), tough, short
and sparse branching of Hornwort
(Ceratophyllum), and the elongate stems
of most crowfoot (Ranunculus) species
and Fennel Pondweed. (Potamogeton
pectinatus).
38 8

43

Figure 4 Distribution of RHS channel vegetation types and species
a) liverworts, mosses or lichens b) emergent broad-leaved herbs; c) emergent
reeds, sedges or rushes; d) rooted floating-leaved; e) free-floating f)
amphibious; g) submerged broad-leaved; h) submerged fine-leaved; i)
filamentous algae; o = present 5%, = 33% extensive

Plant biomass changes not only seasonally, but also following flood events. It is
therefore important during re-design to establish at the planning stage if the velocity
excess above the design level is exceeded. If it is, then this velocity should occur at a
time of the year that produces only a minimal effect. Alternatively, another species with
a higher velocity tolerance may be present and would cope with the conditions.
Conversely, intermittent higher than normal velocities could be used as a technique to
control biomass although practical problems could arise with this scenario as well as the
obvious ecological ones.

General values have been given for the environmental effects or tolerances of water
(Butcher 1933, Westlake 1975, Lejmbach 1977), for specific studies on stressed mixed
communities of instream rooted morpho-types (Barrat-Segretain 2001), and for a
comparison of broad morpho-groups (Biggs 1996). The largest data set however has
been made available by further analysis of data on aquatic macrophytes collected
concurrently by CEH during several thousand RHS surveys. This dataset has been
partly analysed to determine the velocity requirements and tolerances for examples of

44
the species in each RHS vegetative morpho-type group. The analysis indicates that a
rider should be applied to the use of seasonal data on hydraulic roughness following
larger flood events (Table 9). Data for indicative levels of the critical lower velocity for
plant growth, typical mean velocity and upper washout mean in-channel velocity,
should be applied when testing such scenarios because there may be major changes in
overall channel resistance.

Table 9 Generalised critical lower velocity for plant growth, typical mean
velocity and upper washout mean in-channel velocities for RHS
vegetation morpho-types
Mannings n roughness
values RHS vegetation morpho-type
lower mean Washout
Not visible 0 5.0 5.0
Free-floating plants typically algae or duckweeds - 0 0.1 0.6
Filamentous algae -attached shallow nutrient rich waters 0 0.2 0.5
Mosses etc, attached to bed or banks 0 0.5 2.0
Trailing bank-side plants 0 0.3 0.6
Emergent reeds, rushes, flag and large grasses
[above ground parts]
0 0.05 [0.3]
Floating-leaved rooted, typically water lillies in deeper
slower waters
0 0.1 0.3
Emergent broad-leaved rooted plants, like water cress or
water parsnip
0 0.3 0.5
Submerged broad-leaved, Pondweeds (0.6-1.2m) 0 0.2 0.5
Submerged fine-leaved, chalk streams, shallow water
crowfoot, pondweeds 0.2-0.6m
0.2 0.35 0.75
medium depth rivers 0.6 -1.2m deep, regular
management
0.2 0.35 0.75
medium depth rivers > 1.2m deep, some management 0.2 0.4 0.8

5.3 Conclusions

For more precise determination of hydraulic resistance, exact procedures should be
established to record the position and extent (density) of larger in-channel plants, as
plants may vary from moment in their position in the water column. Similarly, an exact
methodology should be established for the depth and position of vegetated boundaries
for smaller plants e.g. algae in as similar way to that for large sediments e.g. boulders.

In the future, issues such as the effects of mixed species may need to be refined for
some stream or smaller river types. For instance, mixed species of similar morphotypes
and mixed stands of different morphotypes of vegetation seasonally overgrow each
other (e.g. water Crowfoot and Water Cress) and influence each others potential growth
and thus hydraulic resistance and management requirements (Dawson at al 1978).

45
6. ROUGHNESS ADVISOR

6.1 Methods and data used in the roughness advisor

The method adopted in the roughness advisor is to give unit roughness values for
different components in different types across the channel and to combine them in a
suitable manner within a type. The combined value is then fed into a conveyance
generator which divides the section representing a reach into panels, uses the roughness
given in each type, and adds in factors for turbulence, secondary currents and sinuosity,
especially at the interfaces between the channel, bank and floodplain zones.

From the literature we can see that there are many different techniques which have been
developed for the determination of roughness characteristics in channels. Many of the
approaches in the literature have been developed for a particular aspect of river channels
or floodplains, for example vegetation, boulders, or large-scale roughness elements.
There are one or two methods which try and cover and combine all different aspects of
roughness (Chow 1959, and Cowans, 1956). These methods give and combine values
of roughness with values for the contributions which are made by features within the
channel and floodplain. Many of the measured values of roughness given in the
literature are combined values of roughness. Trying to disaggregate the combined
roughness values into unit components due to different features such as substrate,
vegetation etc is a difficult task. Since Cowans and Chow, then there have been many
more studies which give us greater insight into the roughness of different features
especially vegetation.

The approach within the roughness advisor for selection of unit roughness values is via
a large database of roughness values based on Mannings n roughness. The values of
roughness for the database have been extracted from various sources in the literature
and this is explained in more detail in Section 2 of the report. The values extracted from
the literature are given as an upper and lower value also. The mid, upper and lower
values cover the range of roughness values expected within these natural systems.

For a channel reach, the three roughness types bed, bank and floodplain have been
established. Within each type there can be subdivisions to account for differences
across the type. Each type will be given a description with users able to add their own
descriptions. Within each type or panel subdivision the roughness will be made up
from the different components. For the bed and bank types the three components are
material, irregularities and vegetation. The components for the floodplain will be
similar with bed material being replaced by ground material. The three components
have different properties which can be selected and these give a description of the
channel, and the mid, lower and upper values of roughness for that roughness property.
For each component a photograph will be shown to illustrate the component. For
example when the component was a sand bank the picture shown in Figure 6 would be
displayed:

46

Figure 5 Example of a sandbank

A roughness type may be divided into different panels with different roughness values if
there are different features across the reach. For example, these panel divisions might
be where there are areas of clear channel where the substrate is the only roughness
influencing parameter and then sections where there is vegetation which is contributing
to the roughness value.

In the situation where there is a mixed population of vegetation present the user may
split the roughness type into panels at the boundary of the vegetation type and assign
different roughness values to the different panels. If the vegetation is mixed with no
clear boundary laterally, the roughness value for the dominant vegetation type will be
selected.

Each mid roughness value given is nominally for a depth of water of 1m within that
channel. This has been selected as being a representative depth for channels in the UK.
The roughness within the channel varies with depth. In general, and from the data
collected, the roughness increases as the depth decreases according to a power law
relationship along the lines of

( )
b
roughness a depth = (18)
where a and b are constants.

From Mannings equation and the data collected in the field we get the relationship

2
3
1
d
n
n
d
= (19)
where n
1
is the roughness value at a depth of 1m, and n
b
is the boundary roughness
coefficient.

This means that the values of a and b in the above equation are: a is the value of the
roughness at 1m raised to the power of 2/3 and b is (-2/3). Appendix B gives some of
the background and data to the variation in roughness with depth.

47
The upper and lower values of roughness are also varied in the same manner with depth.
The variation of the roughness values with depth have been checked against measured
data and Figure 6 shows the result for a reach of the River Blackwater in Northern
Ireland with cobble bed river with boulders.

0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0 0.05 0.1 0.15
roughness
d
e
p
t
h

(
m
)
mid lower upper

Figure 6 Variations in roughness values with depth for the River Blackwater in
Northern Ireland

The values of roughness used in the roughness advisor are given in the following
sections. These are divided into the four components of bed material, man-made,
irregularities and vegetation.

The values given for each component in a type are unit roughness values and are
therefore to be combined. The approach to be used for combining the roughness is a
root mean square approach where the unit roughness values can be combined by the
square root of the sum of the squares of the unit roughness values.

( )
5 . 0
1
2
(
=

=
n
i
i
n n
(20)

The combined value for a zone or a panel within a zone will be termed the local
roughness. For example if within a type, or a panel within a type, there is a gravel bed
river with 50% boulder coverage, the values of roughness for a gravel bed river and for
an irregularity of 50% boulder coverage will be combined to give an overall
roughness value for that zone.

6.2 Limitations of the proposed method

The method in the roughness advisor is to give unit roughness values for different
components in different zones (bed, bank and floodplain) across the channel and to
combine them in a suitable manner within a zone. The combined value, which is called
the zone roughness, is then fed into a conveyance generator. The conveyance generator
divides the section, representing a reach, into panels, uses the roughness given in each
zone or sub-zone, and accounts for turbulence, secondary currents and sinuosity
especially at the interfaces between the channel, bank and floodplain zones.

48
The combination of the unit roughness values within a zone is still under discussion
and a decision is required on the method(s) to be used. The various options are outline
here.

Several methods of combining unit roughness values have been considered

(i) direct addition of n values
n
n n n n + + = .....
2 1
(21)
This is similar to the Cowans method (Cowans, 1956), where the different unit values
from contributions such as substrate, vegetation, irregularities, obstructions are
summed. This method has merits in that it is simple to understand and apply. There are
differing opinions on whether it over or under estimates the combined roughness. This
may depend on the depth of water in the channel or the size of channel under
investigation. It may be possible to adjust the unit roughness values to overcome this
problem.

(ii) The unit roughness values can be combined by the square root of the sum of the
squares of the unit roughness values
( )
5 . 0
1
2
(
=

=
n
i
i
n n
(22)

(iii) Method based on the roughness being inversely proportional to the velocity, and
the friction loss being related to the velocity squared

|
|
\
|
=

=
n
i
i
n n
1
2
1 1
(23)

The field data from the literature and collected by the authors or sources known to them
calculates a zone roughness value or an engineering roughness value. The data has
been disaggregated to give unit values and then must be summed again according to one
of the methods above.

The first method gives roughness values which under estimate at low flow and over
estimate at high flows. It gives equal weighting to each roughness element. It was
decided to discard the first method. The second method gives more priority to the most
dominant roughness element and gives good matching with measured values see
Section 6.6. Method three gives high or low values if more extreme roughness values
are included. Therefore Method ii) was chosen for combining unit roughness values.

6.3 Definition of types

6.3.1 Bed type

Material
The values for the channel substrate roughness are based on data and information from a
wide range of references. The data from these references has been extracted and
collated into a consistent pattern in which all the values given in the references lie
within the upper and lower bounds. The database of roughness values is given below in

49
Table 10. This section will describe from where the data has been extracted to produce
these values.

Table 10 Values of roughness for different types of bed material
Mannings n roughness values Channel substrate
(with d
50
values) Mid Lower Upper
Bedrock 0.025 0.023 0.028
Cobbles (64-256mm) 0.055 0.04 0.07
Coarse Gravel 0.035 0.022 0.04
Gravel (2-64mm) 0.03 0.028 0.035
Fine gravel 0.024 0.02 0.028
Sand (0.2mm) 0.012 0.01 0.016
Sand (0.3mm) 0.017 0.015 0.022
Sand (0.4mm) 0.02 0.017 0.025
Sand (0.5mm) 0.022 0.018 0.027
Sand (0.6mm) 0.023 0.02 0.03
Sand (0.8mm) 0.025 0.023 0.032
Sand (1.0mm) 0.026 0.024 0.033
Coarse sand (1-2mm) 0.028 0.026 0.035
Silt 0.022 0.02 0.025
Clay 0.02 0.018 0.023
Peat 0.02 0.018 0.023
Earth 0.02 0.018 0.023
Firm soil 0.02 0.018 0.023
Concrete 0.02 0.018 0.022

The values in Chow (1959) form the backbone of the substrate values chosen. These
values are given in the reference sheet in Appendix A. The values given are wide
ranging especially for different finishes of concrete and these could be used in the
roughness advisor if a more detailed description were required. Cowans (1956) also
gave a description of the bed substrate and values for those substrates can be found in
the reference sheet in Appendix A.

Butler et al (1978), show a range of roughness values with discharge (see Appendix A)
in an urban channel with a variety of substrate. The range of roughness values when the
depth would have been at around 0.15m are from 0.02 to 0.06, depending on the type of
substrate. The lower values fit well within the bounds in Table 10, although the value
of 0.06 is much higher due to influences of other roughness factors and irregularities
within the channel. The values in this paper are higher as the depth in the original study
was much lower than the 1m depth for which the substrate values given above are
intended.

Barnes (1967) gives a wide range different river types for river channels in the USA.
Roughness values range from 0.024 to 0.075 for rivers with different substrates and
obstructions/irregularities. The Barnes reference sheet in Appendix A shows the values
and the descriptions for the channels in this reference. In a similar way Hicks and
Mason (1991) give values for rivers in New Zealand which are given in the reference
sheet in Appendix A.

50
Limernos (1970) measured roughness and bed material size in eleven natural streams in
California. This was to test the hypothesis that the value of Mannings roughness
coefficient may be related to some characteristic size of streambed particles and to the
distribution of particle size. The reference sheet for Limernos in Appendix A shows the
Mannings n roughness coefficient and the d
50
particle size for the streambed particles.
In addition the type of sediment (sand, gravel etc) has been added to show the values
from Limernos compare with those to be used in the roughness advisor given in Table
10. The values given in the Limernos reference show that in some instances the data
would fit well with that suggested in Table 10. For sites where the roughness values
measured by Limernos are higher than those in the table, the rivers may have had some
boulders or other elements of roughness such as irregularities, which are not defined
within the paper.

Hey and Thorne (1986) obtained data from 62 stable gravel bed river reaches in the
United Kingdom. The data was used to derive equations relating reach average and
riffle values of width, mean and maximum depth, slope, velocity, sinuosity and riffle
spacing to bankful discharge and bed and bank material characteristics. Some of the
channels had some vegetation on the banks which was classified in types 1 to 4 with
type1 being grassy banks with no tree cover, type 2 being 1-5% tree/shrub cover, type 3
being 5-50% tree/shrub cover and type 4 being over 50% tree/shrub cover. The
reference sheet for Hey and Thorne, showing the data, can be found in Appendix A
where the sediment type has been added according to the d
50
type measured.

Irregularities
These values which are included in this component are those features which are in the
channel naturally and cause an obstruction to the flow. Boulders can be in the channel
because they have been placed there by man so the values for boulder coverage will also
appear in the man-made section. This component also includes pools and riffles which
cause variation in the flow in a longitudinal direction and therefore have a variation
from a typical flow pattern in terms of roughness.

There have been various sources of data for irregularities in channels due to boulders.
There are many examples within Hicks and Mason (1991) and Mason (1967), and the
University of Ulster (1995) of channels with boulder coverage. Cowans (1956) gives a
contribution to the overall roughness value due to boulders. Bathurst (1978) has shown
the flow resistance for channels with large scale roughness to be a function of channel
shape, roughness spacing and relative roughness and Thompson and Campbell (1979)
related resistance solely to relative roughness. The data from these papers has been
collated and values determined for the actual contribution due the boulder obstruction
on the overall, combined roughness value. It is the unit roughness value due to the
coverage of boulders, which has been included in Table 11 below.

51
Table 11 Values of unit roughness for irregularities such as boulders and pools
and riffles
Range of unit roughness values
Type of
irregularity
Description
Mid Lower Upper
0-20% of bed covered 0.017 0.005 0.03
21-50% of bed covered 0.037 0.015 0.055
Exposed
boulders
Over 50% of bed covered 0.045 0.02 0.06
Pools and riffles 0.02 0.01 0.03

The values for pool and riffle sequences given in Table 11 have been determined from
the following papers: Higginson and Johnston (1989), Richards (1976) on the River
Fowey in Cornwall and Pimperton, Karle (1993) and University of Ulster, (1995).

Values have also been suggested as guidance for irregularities such as ripple, dunes and
antidunes. The data source for these values is Simons and Richardson, 1961.

In addition the values in this component are those features which are in the channel due
to human interferences and cause an obstruction to the flow. The types of obstruction
are urban trash and groynes of a variety of types, Table 12. The data for determining
these values in virtually non-existent but much work has been done on optimising the
design of groynes for the purpose of providing bank protection. See for example Jansen
et al (1979), McCollum et al (1987), Bhargava and Singh (1981), Ahmad (1951), and
Miller et al (1983). Guidelines were developed by Seed (1997) on the geometry of
groynes for river training. This work has concentrated on investigating the effect of
varying the length, crest height, angle and spacing of groynes on their efficiency as bank
protectors. The values given in the roughness advisor have been determined from
knowledge of the how groynes perform and the impact on an obstruction on the overall
roughness when compared with data on large scale roughness elements.

52
Table 12 Values of unit roughness for irregularities such as urban trash and
groyne fields
Range of unit
roughness values
Type of obstruction Description
Mid Lower Upper
Low 0.01 0.007 0.015
Med 0.035 0.035 0.05
Urban Trash
High 0.045 0.035 0.06
<20% channel width 0.015 0.01 0.02
21% to 50% of channel width Treat as low stone weir
Single Groynes with
water level above
>50% channel width Treat as low stone weir
Single
Groyne
Water level above groyne crest Zero conveyance very
high roughness value
Multiple groynes Treat as a compound
channel in CES

Alluvial roughness
Values of n for alluvial roughness are presently not included in the Roughness
Advisor. Advice is provided to the user if they wish to include such information in their
model and they are referred to Sediment transport and alluvial resistance in rivers, EA
R&D Report (in preparation).

Vegetation
n hydraulic resistance values for aquatic vegetation have been grouped into the RHS
morpho-type grouping as supporting data both on national distribution and by physical
dimension is available. These groups are also sufficiently detailed to match the variation
and the numbers of studies available i.e. current knowledge. Seasonal data is
incorporated in the Roughness Advisor.

Filamentous algae when attached in shallow nutrient rich waters may be considered to
reduce the resistance, if the correct standard methodology for depth measurement is
used (e.g. Dackombe & Gardiner 1982). Such effects on bed roughness for larger
substrates have been analysed by Nikora (2001), conversely Nikora et al (1998) report
that the presence of periphyton i.e. fine non-visually filamentous layer may increase the
bulk flow resistance by 20-50% which may relate to increased flow heterogeneity
shown from turbulence analysis.

53
Table 13 Table of roughness values for aquatic vegetation by RHS morpho-type
Mannings n roughness values
Aquatic vegetation by RHS morpho-type
minimum mean maximum
None
or IF none visible - Check prediction from RHS
dataset

1. Free-floating plants typically algae or duckweeds
-

medium deep drainage channel
[d = 1.1 - 2.5m, v = 0.1-0.6ms ]
0.01 0.03 0.04
2. Filamentous algae -attached shallow nutrient rich
waters

d = 0.05 - 0.5m, low velocities 0 0.015 0.05
Mosses etc, attached to bed or banks
d = ~ 1m 0 ~ 0.03
Trailing bank-side plants
d = 0.5 - 3+ m 0 0.05 0.1
Emergent reeds, rushes, flag and large grasses
0.02 0.15 0.2
Floating-leaved rooted, typically water lillies in
deeper slower waters

0.03 0.10 0.14
Emergent broad-leaved rooted plants, like water
cress or water parsnip

0.05 0.15 0.5+
Submerged broad-leaved, Pondweeds (0.6-1.2m)
d = 0.06-1.2m, v = .2-.9 m/s 0.02 0.1 0.2
Submerged fine-leaved - shallow rivers,
(chalk streams), water crowfoot, pondweeds

d = 0.2-0.6m deep, v = 0.2-.0.7m/s 0.02 0.3 0.45+
Submerged fine leaved -medium depth rivers
regular management

d = 0.6-1.2m deep, v = 0.3-.0.8m/s 0.021 0.1 0.249
Submerged fine leaved medium to deep rivers
some management

d = >1.2m deep, v = 0.3-1m/s 0.01 0.08 0.12

A range of hydraulic resistances for total channel resistance for North American
channels has been reported and is included for comparison with data derived from the
roughness advisor, Table 14

54
Table 14 Values of total channel resistance for North American channels
Additional hydraulic
resistance as
Mannings n values
Channel
description
Depth
m
Velocity
m s
-1

Min Mean Max
Comments
Source(s)

Vegetal lining
0.30
- 0.5 extreme
range - aid
to determine
maximum
permissible
velocities
Chow 1982
T5.6
Grass- lined
channels
intermittent
flows
0- 1 intermittent 0.03
0.06 N.American
grasses
Aken &
Higler
2001
Chen &
Cotton
Range from
cut to re-
establishment
VR
relationship
0.04
0.4 long term
changes
with
encroachme
nt of bushes
Gwinn &
Ree 1980
Excavated or
dredged
channels
(RS &
realigned)
A. earth,
i) short grass,
few
plants
ii) dense
aquatic
iii) bushes on
banks

deep

deep
deep

sluggish

sluggish
sluggish

0.022
0.025
0.030
0.035

0.027
-
0.030
0.035
0.050

0.033

0.040
0.060

Chow 1982
T5.6 C a4
& b2

Chow 1982
T5.6 C.b3
Chow 1982
T5.6 C.c2
B. Non-
maintained
1 weeds and
brush uncut
i) dense weeds
high as flow
depth clean iia)
bushes on sides
iib) brush on
sides iii)
dense brush

full
depth
normal
flood
flood

0.050

0.040
0.045
0.080

0.080

0.050
0.070
0.100

0.120

0.080
0.110
0.140
Chow 1982
T5.6 C.e1-
4
C. natural
streams
(<30m), low

normal
normal

0.030
0.035

0.035
0.045

0.040
0.050
Chow 1982
T5.6
D1.a2-8

55
Additional hydraulic
resistance as
Mannings n values
Channel
description
Depth
m
Velocity
m s
-1

Min Mean Max
Comments
Source(s)

slope
1. few plants
2.some plants
3. weedy
4. very weedy
or
flood ways
with trees and
bushes
deep

deep
pools
sluggish 0.050

0.075
0.070

0.100
0.080

0.150

6.3.2 Bank type

Material
The values given in section 6.3.1 for bed material for the channel zone are the basic
values to be used in the roughness advisor if there is just a basic sand, silt, clay etc bank
material.

The range of man-made bank materials is very extensive and the following table covers
a wide range of unit roughness values. For each bank material a unit roughness value
representing mid (M), lower (L), and upper (U) likely value are given. The mid value
represents the average unit roughness, while the upper and lower values provide a likely
range of unit roughnesses.

Table 15 Values of unit roughness for man-made bank materials
Bank
material
Rock Boulder Earth Clay Sheet piling
M L U M L U M L U M L U M L U Mid,lower,
upper n
values
0
.
0
2
5

0
.
0
2
3

0
.
0
2
8

0
.
0
3
3

0
.
0
3

0
.
0
3
8

0
.
0
2

0
.
0
1
8

0
.
0
2
3

0
.
0
2

0
.
0
1
8

0
.
0
2
3

0
.
0
2
8

0
.
0
2
5

0
.
0
3

Bank
material

Grass Bushes Trees Stone Block Hazel
hurdles
M L U M L U M L U M L U M L U Mid,lower,
upper n
values
0
.
0
3
5

0
.
0
3

0
.
0
4

0
.
0
4
5

0
.
0
3
8

0
.
0
5

0
.
0
4
5

0
.
0
4

0
.
0
5

0
.
0
3
5

0
.
0
3

0
.
0
4

0
.
0
2
5

0
.
0
2

0
.
0
3

Bank
material

Gabion Concrete Rip rap Wood piling
U M L U M L U M L U M L

Mid,lower,
upper n
values
0
.
0
3
8

0
.
0
3
5

0
.
0
4

0
.
0
1
8

0
.
0
1
5

0
.
0
2
2

0
.
0
4

0
.
0
3
7

0
.
0
4
3

0
.
0
2
8

0
.
0
2
5

0
.
0
3

56
Bank
material

Matting Masonry Brick Fibrerolls
without
vegetation

U M L U M L U M L U M L

Mid,lower,
upper n
values
0
.
0
2
3

0
.
0
1
9

0
.
0
2
7

0
.
0
2
5

0
.
0
1
7

0
.
0
3

0
.
0
1
5

0
.
0
1
2

0
.
0
1
8

0
.
0
2
2

0
.
0
1
8

0
.
0
2
6

Irregularities
The values to be used for irregularities on the bank are those that are found in Tables 11
and 12 in section 6.3.1

Vegetation

Table 16 Values of roughness for bankside vegetation
Hydraulic
resistance
Mannings n
value
Floodplain
vegetation
type
Description
and equivalent
RHS land-use
classes 97/03
Depth m
Min Max
Comments & source(s)
BANKSIDE
bare stream
banks
BE
stable earth
cliff to stream
with some
mosses
SC
vegetated
point- &/or
side-bars
VP & VS
vegetated
islands
MI
bankside
bushes

A.1-2 year, dormant
B. 1 year bushy, in
leaf
C.1 year in leaf
D. I year dense
leafy bushes
E. leafy bushes,
trees,etc
0.01
0.025
0.025
0.05

0.05
0.025
0.05
0.05
0.1

0.1
moderate
ly dense
Chow 1982,
p107 2(c)
Chow 1982,
p107 3(c)
Chow 1982,
p107 3(b)
Chow 1982,
p107 4(b)
Chow 1982,
p107 4(c)
unmanaged
channels

tree seedlings
submerged
0 - x 3-4
height deep
0 - x 2-3
height deep
.005-
.01
0.01-
0.025
e.g. willow
whips
moderately
dense cover
Chow 1982,
p107 1(b)
Chow 1982,
p107 2(b)
marginal
wetlands
artificial open
water (natural/
artificial)
WT

OW

57
6.3.3 Floodplain type
The floodplain data has been divided into unit values in a similar manner to the values
for the channel. The contributing factors are from the ground material, just as the bed
material in the channel, but with more categories such as ploughed fields etc,
irregularities, obstructions and vegetation. There is much less information on the
roughness of floodplains and especially the contribution to roughness of individual
items such as buildings or different crops. However the tables which have been
developed for the roughness advisor contain the set of comprehensive data as given in
the literature.

Material
The values used for the ground material are essentially the same values that are used in
the channel and are given below in Table 17

Table 17 Values of roughness for floodplain ground material
Roughness values Channel substrate
Mid Lower Upper
Bedrock 0.025 0.023 0.028
Cobbles 64-256mm 0.055 0.04 0.07
Coarse Gravel 0.035 0.022 0.04
Gravel 2-64mm 0.03 0.028 0.035
Fine gravel 0.024 0.02 0.028
Sand, 0.2mm 0.012 0.01 0.016
Sand, 0.3mm 0.017 0.015 0.022
Sand, 0.4mm 0.02 0.017 0.025
Sand, 0.5mm 0.022 0.018 0.027
Sand, 0.6mm 0.023 0.02 0.03
Sand, 0.8mm 0.025 0.023 0.032
Sand 1.0mm 0.026 0.024 0.033
Coarse sand 1-2mm 0.028 0.026 0.035
Silt 0.022 0.02 0.025
Clay 0.02 0.018 0.023
Peat 0.02 0.018 0.023
Earth 0.02 0.018 0.023
Firm soil 0.02 0.018 0.023
Concrete 0.02 0.018 0.022
Bare ploughed soil 0.025 0.022 0.028

There are some additions to that table for different type of land cover such as ploughed
fields with furrows running parallel, perpendicular or at an angle to the river. The
values given are based on those given in Chow and from the experience of the authors
and other individuals contacted. Turner and Chanmeersi (1984) give values for bare
soil, bare crop stems and a dense crop of wheat, these values are given in the reference
sheet in Appendix A and the values for bare soil have been incorporated into Table 17.
Weltz, Arslan and Lane (2000) give values of hydraulic roughness coefficients for
native rangelands, which are given in Appendix A. Although the vegetation is not
representative of the flora found in the UK, the values for bare soil given have been
used in deriving the values found in Table 17.

58
Arcement and Schneider (1989) give base values of Mannings n taken from Chow
(1959), and Benson and Dalrymple (1967) and Aldridge and Garrett (1973). The data
given in Appendix A show that from the two sources the values for base n do not
necessarily agree. The values have been evaluated and used in deriving the values
found in Tables 16 and 17.

Irregularities
Irregularities on the floodplain will involve irregularities due to undulations in the
ground form, hollows and depressions in the floodplain, and ridges due to ploughed
fields. There has been little information found on any roughness factors due to these
types of irregularities so a table has been assembled, Table 18. This table contains
estimated data for different irregularities based on experience and knowledge of
floodplains and from data obtained from Acement and Scheider (1989) who modified
data from Aldridge and Garrett (1973).

The main obstructions on the floodplain will be structures such as walls, fences,
buildings, and bridges. Soft obstructions such as hedges will be dealt with under the
section on vegetation. Behind such obstructions local area of non-flow will be found,
which may be classified as a deadzone. The location of the deadzone will depend on the
alignment of the obstruction to the flow. The obstruction will cause a backwater effect
and account should be taken of this when performing hydraulic calculations.

Table 18 shows the unit roughness values which should be combined with the unit
roughness values from Tables 17 to 23 in the way described in section 6.1 to give values
of roughness for the floodplain.

Table 18 Values of roughness for floodplain irregularities and obstructions
Roughness values
Irregularities
Mid Lower Upper
Ridges on ploughed field 0.0017 0.0015 0.002
Undulations on floodplain 0.002 0.0015 0.0025
Minor irregularities a few dips and sloughs 0.003 0.001 0.005
Moderate irregularities more rises and dips with
some sloughs and hummocks
0.008 0.006 0.01
Severe irregularities floodplain irregular in
shape, many rises and dips/sloughs visible.
Irregular ground surfaces in pasture land and
furrows perpendicular to flow.
0.015 0.011 0.02
Roughness values
Obstructions
Mid Lower Upper
Negligible - Few scattered obstructions which
include debris deposits, stumps, exposed roots,
logs, piers or isolated boulders that occupy less
than 5 percent of the cross-sectional area.
0.002 0.001 0.004
Minor- Obstructions occupy less than 15 percent
of the cross-sectional area.
0.0045 0.004 0.005
Appreciable - Obstructions occupy from 15
percent to 50 percent of the cross-sectional area.
0.025 0.02 0.03

59
Vegetation
Grass cover
Extensive tests undertaken on grass cover (Ree, 1949 and Ree and Palmer, 1949)
resulted in a Handbook of Channel Design in 1954, (US Soil Conservation Service,
1954). The result of the work has been to define a series of relationships between
Mannings n and the product VR, where V is the mean flow velocity and R is the
hydraulic radius. The relationship is expressed as a family of curves, each curve
defining the other principal variable, the physical characteristic of the vegetation. The
main physical characteristic is judged to be the height but other factors such as density
and uniformity are influential and a value judgement has to be made. The family of
curves and classification of retardance classes are given in Appendix A

Green and Garton (1983) give equations for the calculation of Mannings roughness
coefficient in each of the retardance classes. These equations are presented in Appendix
A. The equations relating Mannings n and VR developed by US Soil Conservation
Service (1954) and Green and Garton (1983) are widely used and appear to be very
consistent with other studies undertaken, HR Wallingford (1992) and Kouwen (1992).
It is suggested therefore that the form of roughness taken for grassed floodplain follow
the curves and formulae. The formulae and values have been incorporated into a table
linking the retardance class and VR or Vd values, which are given below.

Table 19 Values of roughness for grass at different retardance classes
n values for Retardance class
VR (m
2
/s) A B C D E
0.025 0.3995 0.31961 0.218 0.118 0.057
0.05 0.359 0.23622 0.126 0.078 0.043
0.075 0.3185 0.1686 0.095333 0.064667 0.038333
0.1 0.278 0.1366 0.079 0.058 0.036
0.2 0.1575 0.0929 0.0535 0.044 0.03
0.3 0.120333 0.073733 0.045 0.039333 0.0275
0.4 0.10175 0.06415 0.04075 0.037 0.02625
0.5 0.0906 0.0584 0.0382 0.0356 0.0255
0.6 0.083167 0.054567 0.0365 0.034667 0.025
0.7 0.077857 0.051829 0.035286 0.034 0.024643
0.8 0.073875 0.049775 0.034375 0.0335 0.024375
0.9 0.070778 0.048178 0.033667 0.033111 0.024167
1 0.0683 0.0469 0.0331 0.0328 0.024

The Technology Research Centre in Japan gives an alternative for grass cover. The
relationship is for different types of grass and the roughness is a function of the relative
height of the water depth (h) and grass height (h
v
). The table for the values is shown in
the reference for Technology Research Centre (1994) in Appendix A. The values can
be used as an alternative to the table above when the product VR is difficult to estimate.
The values are given in the following table:

60
Table 20 Alternative values of roughness for grass
Mannings n roughness values
Description
Average Lower Upper
Stiff grass height hv= 1.8m h/hv=1.4 0.1 0.08 0.12
Grassland height hv=1.0m h/hv=2 0.08 0.07 0.09
Stiff grass height hv=1.8m, h/hv= 2.5 0.047 0.04 0.055
Grassland height hv = 50cm, h/hv= 5 0.04 0.035 0.045
Grassland height hv = 10-20cm, h/hv= 16 0.026 0.022 0.028
Flat golf course with turf several cm high,
h/hv= 90
0.021 0.018 0.024

A difficulty with applying the VR method is that V and R are derived for a channel
section and not a local value as applied in the conveyance generator.

Crops
There are a number of publications that have details of the impact of crops in different
phases of growth. Smith et al, 1990 give stage discharge relationships for different
crops including different types of grass, wheat and sorghum under different conditions.
These values are based on data from other sources such as Turner and Chameersi (1984)
which are detailed in Appendix A. Gilley and Kottwitz (1994) give Darcy Weisbach
friction factor values for different crop types: corn, cotton, sorghum, sunflowers and
wheat, both parallel and perpendicular to the flow. The values have been converted to
Mannings n roughness values in Appendix A and added to the table below. Petryk and
Bosmajian (1975) looked at flow characteristics for wheat, sorghum and for a range of
field sites with a variety of vegetation types on the floodplain. The values for wheat and
sorghum are added to the table below.

Table 21 Values of roughness for a range of different crops
Roughness values Crop description
Mid Lower Upper
Wheat in 15cm of water 0.06 - -
Wheat Stems in 10cm of water 0.035 - -
Wheat stems in 15cm of water 0.04 - -
Wheat, with density of 1.2 stalks per m, in 30cm
of water
0.11 0.1 0.125
Sorghum, with a density of 0.3 stalks per m, in
30cm of water
0.06 0.04 0.11
Corn, rows parallel to flow 0.11 0.036 0.24
Cotton, rows parallel to flow 0.06 0.008 0.14
Sorghum, rows parallel to flow 0.12 0.019 0.26
Soybeans, rows parallel to flow 0.095 0.05 0.21

61
Roughness values Crop description
Mid Lower Upper
Sunflower, rows parallel to flow 0.115 0.046 0.25
Corn, rows perpendicular to flow 0.05 0.012 0.134
Cotton, rows perpendicular to flow 0.045 0.017 0.082
Sorghum, rows perpendicular to flow 0.047 0.015 0.093
Soybeans, rows perpendicular to flow 0.08 0.037 0.149
Sunflower, rows perpendicular to flow 0.07 0.012 0.120
Wheat, rows perpendicular to flow 0.075 0.015 0.13

Hedges
Klassen and van der Zwaard (1974) carried out laboratory experiments to investigate the
effect of orchards and hedges on the roughness coefficient of vegetated flood berms.
The data from the paper is shown in Appendix A.

The analysis of Klassen and van der Zwaard considered hedges that were not submerged
by the flow. Klassen and van Urk (1985) extended this work by investigating the
resistance of drowned hedges. They concluded that in order to calculate the flow
through/over submerged hedges the method of Klassen and van der Zwaard should be
used for the flow through the hedge. The flow over the hedge should be estimated using
a short crested weir equation with a discharge coefficient equal to 1.0.

As a results of this research and the values shown in Appendix A under the Klassen and
van der Zwaard reference, the values for roughness due to hedges on the floodplain,
perpendicular to the flow are given in the table below where the hedge separation is in
the streamwise direction.

Table 22 Values of roughness for clean and dirty hedgerows on the floodplain
Hedgerow
separation
(m)
Mannings n roughness coefficient for clean or dirty
hedgerows with varying flow depths
0.25m 0.50m 1.00m 1.50m 2.00m

Clean Dirty Clean Dirty Clean Dirty Clean Dirty Clean Dirty
50 0.038 0.072 0.045 0.089 0.053 0.091 0.054 0.086 0.051 0.080
100 0.032 0.053 0.032 0.064 0.042 0.067 0.042 0.063 0.041 0.060
250 0.029 0.040 0.031 0.045 0.029 0.045 0.032 0.045 0.032 0.041
500 0.028 0.035 0.028 0.036 0.029 0.037 0.027 0.036 0.029 0.034
1000 0.027 0.031 0.027 0.032 0.027 0.031 0.025 0.029 0.027 0.027

Trees and Shrubs
Chow (1959) has some roughness values associated with trees and shrubs, which are
summarised in the Table 23. Petryk and Bosmajian (1975) theoretically analysed flow
through trees and shrubs and gave some examples from field sites, Appendix A. There
are a number of other sources of data from field sites including: Kouwen and Fathi-
Moghadam (2000) and (1997) for coniferous trees and non-rigid, nonsubmerged
vegetation, Arcement and Schneider (1989) and (2002) with examples of different types
of trees on floodplain, and Technology Research Centre (1994) with details of trees in

62
different patterns. All the relevant data from these papers are detailed in Appendix A
and the data has been combined to develop the table below which gives more
generalised information rather than specific tree densities and types. The exception is
for coniferous trees where there is more detailed data from Kouwen and Fathi-
Moghadam (2000).

Table 23 Values of roughness for trees and shrubs
Mannings n values
Description
Average Minimum Maximum
Small amounts of vegetation supple trees saplings e.g.
willow
0.005 0.0001 0.05
Scattered brush 0.02 0.015 0.03
Light brush and trees in winter 0.02 0.015 0.03
Light brush and trees in summer 0.025 0.015 0.05
Medium to dense brush in winter 0.04 0.02 0.07
Medium to dense brush in summer 0.045 0.01 0.
Dense willows, summer 0.1 0.07 0.13
Cleared land with tree stumps, no sprouts 0.01 0.005 0.015
Cleared land with tree stumps, heavy growth of sprouts 0.025 0.015 0.04
Moderate to dense brush. Depth is below branches 0.06 0.05 0.1
Heavy stand of timber, a few down trees, little undergrowth,
flood stage below branches
0.07 0.05 0.13
Heavy stand of timber, a few down trees, little undergrowth,
flood stage reaching branches
0.15 0.1 0.2
Coniferous trees
Velocity 0.1m/s. Totally submerged, total area coverage by
trees
0.2 - -
Velocity 1m/s. Totally submerged, total area coverage by
trees
0.118 - -
Velocity 2m/s. Totally submerged, total area coverage by
trees
0.1 - -
Velocity 0.1m/s. 75% submerged, total area coverage by trees 0.22 -
Velocity 1m/s. 75% submerged, total area coverage by trees 0.13 - -
Velocity 2m/s. 75% submerged, total area coverage by trees. 0.12 - -
Velocity 0.1m/s. 50% submerged, total area coverage by trees 0.28 - -
Velocity 0.1m/s. 25% submerged, total area coverage by trees 0.4 - -
Velocity 2m/s. 25% submerged, total area coverage by trees. 0.2 - -
Velocity 0.1m/s. Totally submerged, 75% area coverage by
trees
0.175 - -
Velocity 1m/s. Totally submerged, 75% area coverage by
trees
0.1 - -
trees
0.087 - -
Velocity 0.1m/s. 75% submerged, 75% area coverage by trees 0.2 - -
Velocity 1m/s. 75% submerged, 75% area coverage by trees 0.117 - -
Velocity 2m/s. 75% submerged, 75% area coverage by trees. 0.1 - -

63
Mannings n values
Description
Average Minimum Maximum
trees
0.14 - -
trees
0.08 - -
trees
0.07 - -
trees
0.1 - -
trees
0.06 - -
trees
0.05 - -

6.4 Vegetation growth and maintenance

Detailed information on vegetation growth and maintenance is contained in Chapter 7.

6.5 Derivation of roughness values
This section details the exact approach taken to the selection of the values in the
roughness advisor for the different components and which literature, or expert
judegment or field tests were used in deriving the unit roughness values.

Bed materials

Bedrock
Unit values used in roughness advisor: Avg Lower Upper
0.025 0.023 0.028
Values derived from literature: Chow(1959), Cowans(1956), Barnes (1967) and
adjusted using expert judgement and checking against Hicks and Mason (1991).

64

Cobbles (64-256mm)
0.055 0.04 0.07

Values derived from literature: Chow(1959), Cowans(1956), Barnes (1967), Limernos
(1970) and adjusted using expert judgement and checking against Hicks and Mason
(1991), Hey and Thorne (1986)

Tested and checked through back-calculation with data from Heathcote at Sloan
Terrace, Waiwakaiho at SH3 bridge and Ngunguru at Dugmores Rock (New Zealand),
Hicks and Mason (1991).

Coarse gravel
0.035 0.022 0.04


Tested and checked through back-calculation with data from River Trent at Drakelow
(HRWallingford course data)

Gravel
0.03 0.028 0.035


Tested and checked through back-calculation with data from River Main, Northern
Ireland, River Cole, Birmingham, River Severn, Montford Bridge, Abels Bridge, NI.

Fine Gravel
0.03 0.028 0.035


Tested and checked through back-calculation with data from Omagh Road, River
Blackwater, NI

Sand
Values taken from literature Acrement and Schneider (1989/2002), Barnes (1967)

Other bed material

65
Values taken from Chow (1959) and modified from expert judgement for unit roughness

Irregularities

Boulders
The values for boulders combined with different substrates were taken from Hicks and
Mason (1991), Mason (1967) and Cowans (1956) and combined in table 3. These were
all recorded at different depths but needed to be standardised for the roughness advisor
and unit roughness for values at depths of 1.0m. Expert judgement was applied to these
values and plots of roughness against depths using a relationship of the form y=ax
b
.
A table was produced, table 11, with the range of roughness values, for a combination
of channel substrate and boulders. There were some gaps in the data but these were
interpolated using expert judgement. The impact of the irregularity was then separated
out from the overall roughness and a unit roughness value created as shown below. The
unit roughness values were then re-combined with the unit roughness values for the
substrate and tested for consistency against University of Ulster (1995) data.

The unit roughness were refined by expert judgement and checked for consistency
tested against the Northern Ireland data from the University of Ulster (1995) by back
calculating roughness values and creating a stage-discharge relationship using the CES
methodology and comparing this with measured values.

Abels Bridge, River Blackwater: 0-20% of bed covered
Omagh Road, River Blackwater and River Main: 21-50% of bed covered
Waiwakaiho at SH3 bridge (New Zealand) and River Fury: >50% of bed covered.

Pools and riffles
Values of roughness for pool and riffle sequences have been determined from the
following papers: Higginson and Johnston (1989), Richards (1976) on the River Fowey
in Cornwall and Pimperton, Karle (1993) University of Ulster, (1995) and adjusted to
unit roughness values using expert judgement.

Other irregularities
These are urban trash and groynes. There are no references for the roughness of urban
trash so these unit roughness values are based on expert judgement. For groynes there
are very few references and no examples on roughness of groynes so the unit roughness
values are based on expert judgement.

Bank material
The unit roughness values for bank materials rock, boulder, earth and clay were sourced
from the same literature and references as the bed material values, see above.

Values for Stone Block, Concrete, Rip-rap, Masonry, Brick were taken directly from
values suggested in Chow (1959).

Values for Hazel hurdles, wood piling and fibrerolls were taken from the expert
judgement of the advisors based on their work and the general information available
within the literature.

66
For bankside bushes and small trees the values with sources were used as described in
Table 16.

There is little information on roughness of banks. The banks make up a relatively small
part of the overall cross-section. For these two reasons the values suggested in Chow
have not been modified by the technical advisors and have been used directly as the unit
roughness values within the roughness advisor.

Floodplain
Ground material
The values used for floodplain ground material and the sources for these values in the
literature are the same as for bed material. There are number of additional substrate
categories of firm soil and bare ploughed soil. These values are based on the values
given in Chow (1959), Turner and Chanmeersi (1984) and Weltz, Arslan and Lane
(2000). In Turner and Chanmeersi, the values are for a range of different depths and the
technical advisor took these values and averaged them, comparing them with the other
sources of information and making sure that the range of upper and lower limits covered
the entire range of values. These engineering roughness values and the range were then
modified by the technical advisors to be unit roughness values by lowering the values
according to their experience and judgement of how much the turbulence and secondary
flows would add to the unit roughness to be equivalent to the engineered roughness.

The roughness values used were also checked against other sources in the literature
Arcement and Schneider (1989), Benson and Dalrymple (1967) and Aldridge and
Garrett (1973), which although they did not always agree with values selected were
within the range of values in these papers.

Irregularities
The unit roughness values for different irregularities were based on experience of the
technical advisors and knowledge of floodplains and from data obtained from Acement
and Scheider (1989) who modified data from Aldridge and Garrett (1973).

Vegetation
The vegetation on a floodplain has been split into several different categories due to the
different nature of the types of vegetation and the literature available which is more
extensive perhaps than literature in the other categories. The catetgories were split into:
Grass;
Crops
Hedges; and
Trees and shrubs.

Grass
Roughness values were found in a number of sources: Ree, 1949 and Ree and Palmer,
1949, US Soil Conservation Service, 1954, Green and Garton,1983, HR Wallingford
(1992) and Kouwen (1992), Technology Research Centre, 1994.

The roughness data for grass is presented in the literature is related to length, and
condition, of grass and the product of the velocity and hydraulic roughness. Data was
loaded into a spreadsheet and graphs of the variations between length of grass and
product of velocity and hydraulic radius were considered. Based on the literature data

67
analysed, equations relating these factors were produced for each grass length in the
form

y = a+bx
c

where y = roughness, x is the product of velocity and hydraulic roughness and a, b and c
are coefficients given from the literature. There are different conditions of the product
VR and the coefficients vary with these differing conditions.

These variations are included in the roughness advisor for different lengths of grass.

Crops
The values used in the roughness advisor are based on values in the literature from
references: Turner and Chameersi (1984) and Gilley and Kottwitz (1994) who give
Weisbach Darcy friction factor values for different crop types: corn, cotton, sorghum,
sunflowers and wheat, both parallel and perpendicular to the flow. The values have
been converted to Mannings n roughness values. Petryk and Bosmajian (1975) looked
at flow characteristics for wheat, sorghum and for a range of field sites with a variety of
vegetation types on the floodplain. The values for wheat and sorghum were added to
the roughness advisor. For the wheat the roughness values are for wheat in different
depths of water. The roughness values given for wheat were plotted against the depth of
water and then roughness values were taken from the plots and used in the roughness
advisor for different depths.

Hedges
Data taken from the literature: Klassen and van der Zwaard, 1974 and Klassen and van
Urk, 1995. The data was represented in tabular form for dirty or clean hedges,
separated along the floodplain for a variety of distances in a certain depth of water.
These could have been represented by equations but were identified in the roughness
advisor by individual values for a range of circumstances ie the value for say a hedge in
1m of water separated by 100m form surrounding hedges has a roughness value of
0.042. The range used is the range in the table for clean or dirty hedge conditions.

Trees and shrubs
The trees have been divided into coniferous trees and deciduous trees under a variety of
conditions. The values of roughness for the deciduous trees were taken from
Chow,1959, Petryk and Bosmajian, 1975, and Technology Research Centre, 1994 with
values being averaged for different conditions and ranges being used from the values in
these papers. For coniferous trees the roughness values were taken from Kouwen and
Fathi-Moghadam (2000). These values were included and analysed in a spreadsheet
where the relationships for coniferous trees under different submerged conditions and
percentage ground coverage were considered. The values as given in table 23 were
combined using equations relating roughness to velocity in the form of an equation:

y = ax
2
+bx+c

where y is roughness, x is velocity and a, b and c are coefficients based on the data
given in Kouwen and Fathi-Moghadam, 2000 for different submergence and ground

68
coverage of trees. These values for roughness were then included in the roughness
advisor for the different conditions.

6.6 Upper and Lower Uncertainty bands

The roughness advisor gives a mid value and an upper and lower value of unit
roughness. These values demonstrate that there is uncertainty in the estimation of
roughness values due to a number of reasons:
Mannings roughness values are empirical so the site and conditions may not be
the same as those measured
The roughness values vary with depth, higher for lower depths and vice versa.
The unit roughness values in the Roughness Advisor are for depths of water of
1.0m
Roughness values are estimated from a number of different sources
The roughness values in the literature are engineered roughness values and they
have been adjusted in the roughness advisor to be unit roughness values.

These sources of uncertainty can lead to roughness values with a range. The upper and
lower values are intended to represent that range and unit roughness values are assumed
to be within that range.

The upper and lower bounds of the unit roughness values were taken from the range of
values found in the literature or from known measured values for each component from
sites described in Appendix A. The source of the unit roughness values are found in
section 6.5.

6.7 Justification of approach

The approach taken has been driven by a desire to keep the roughness advisor as simple
as possible. A consistent approach was required which would use all the data available
to its maximum potential. The maximum amount of data which can be extracted from
the literature, field and experimental data is that which is expressed in terms of
Mannings n values in a similar manner to the values expressed in Chow. The
advantages of this approach are that:

Data can be extracted from many different sources to add to the values in Chow
The data can be expressed as a unit roughness
The unit roughness values can be combined to give a type roughness value
The type roughness values can be used in the conveyance generator with values of
turbulence, secondary flow parameters and sinuosity to give stage discharge
relationships from which an engineering roughness can be determined
The Mannings n value is well known and well used internationally.

6.8 Summary of testing of summation method

The measured roughness from various sites given in Table 5 were compared with those
predicted from the roughness advisor. In addition sites from Barnes (1967), Hicks and
Mason (1991) publications and Chow (1981), were checked against those predicted
from the Roughness Advisor.

69
There are some limitations with doing this before having the conveyance generator.
The roughness advisor splits the roughness into bed, bank and floodplain whereas the
measured sites are usually for the entire channel or channel and floodplain. Some of the
roughness elements are contained in the Conveyance Generator, for example the
resistance due to turbulence and sinuosity. Realistically only the measured and predicted
values can be checked once the Conveyance Generator has been implemented in the
conveyance estimation system (CES) and the stage-discharge relationship can be
produced. A depth-roughness relationship can therefore be calculated and checked
against measured data.

The main points that arose from checking of results from the Roughness Advisor
against measured data were:

The roughness advisor values checked well with Chow.
For the larger rivers on the Severn-Trent site, the measured values for the Severn at
Bewdley were lower and outside the range of the minimum value. This may be due
to the fact that the Severn is deeper than the nominal 1m for the roughness values
given in the advisor. The measured value for the Tanat at Llanyblodwel were higher
than the maximum value.
The comparison between values given by Barnes for US rivers and the roughness
advisor was generally good with most of the values measured being close to the mid
value and at least within the range of max to min.
The comparison between values measured for the River Tame and the roughness
advisor was generally good with most of the values measured being close to the mid
value and at least within the range of max to min. The exception to this was
Brookvale Road where the measured values were much less than those predicted.
This is due to the fact that the site is in an area of backwater from the bridge which
means the water is deeper and the roughness less than would be predicted. In fact
the Mannings equation does not apply in this region where there is not uniform
flow.
For the data from the River Blackwater in Northern Ireland, the predicted values,
based on the bed information only is generally less than the measured values. This
is generally to be expected as the roughness values for the banks will have an impact
and until the CES is used to predict the overall roughness values these cannot be
compared accurately.
The comparison between values given by Hicks and Mason, 1991, for NZ rivers and
the roughness advisor was generally good with most of the values measured being
close to the mid value and at least within the range of max to min.

From the checks against real data, the majority of sites matched well or were within the
envelope of maximum and minimum values. For sites not within this envelope there
was generally a reasonable explanation which could be given. Until the sites can be
fully tested using the Roughness Advisor and CES to gain a picture of the engineering
roughness or total roughness, which includes contributions to resistance due to
turbulence, secondary flows and bends, it is difficult to test accurately the values in the
roughness advisor.

70
6.9 Use of the Roughness Advisor in the Conveyance Estimation System

The Conveyance Generator determines the stage-discharge relationship through solution
of the depth-integrated Reynolds-Averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) equations. These
equations include four calibration coefficients; local friction f, dimensionless eddy
viscosity , secondary flow mixing coefficient and meandering coefficient C
uv
(details
in Interim Report 2). For the latter three, models are encoded for their approximation.
However, the local friction factor is based on advice from the Roughness Advisor.

The Conveyance Generator receives the local roughness n-value from the Roughness
Advisor. This is converted to an equivalent k
s
roughness value, through a simplified
form of the Colebrook-White rough law, associated with a depth of 1m. For the case of
sediment, this k
s
value is similar to the sediment dimension as defined by Nikuradse
(1933) in his analysis of pipe flow. For the case of vegetation, this k
s
value can be
interpreted as an equivalent turbulence length scale. The assumption is that the value of
k
s
does not vary with depth. This k
s
value is then used for solution of the Colebrook-
White equation at each depth, to determine for the lateral distribution of f.

71
7. RIVER MAINTENANCE PROCEDURES

7.1 Basic principles of plant biology and management

Aquatic plants grow and interact with their environment. The dominance of a particular
species of plant or a plant community results from this interaction but this may be
changed from the near natural condition as a result of human activity. Such activity has
unforeseen consequences and often results in the need for continued human input e.g.
dredging, to maintain this unnatural condition. Combinations of activities such as
discharging waters richer in nutrients than the natural condition in combination with
channel modification or abstraction elsewhere upstream may cause complex interactions
with unforeseen results.

Aquatic plants have basic requirements for growth, thus any plant, large or small,
requires light and a source of inorganic carbon for photosynthesis to build themselves,
nutrients to assist this and other life processes, a suitable environment in which to grow
and also the absence of toxic compounds. Thus plants need:

1. Light at their leaf surfaces, no light - no growth. Light reduction may be a result of
shade by marginal vegetation, especially trees, by absorption of light passing
through the river water especially by intermittently or frequently turbid water, or by
the overgrowth of leaves by films of algae. Thus, the reduction of light may provide
a simple method for the control of excessive growth of water plants (e.g. Dawson,
1989). Conversely, the use of nutrients to suppress plant growth would produce
strong adverse reactions in the whole aquatic ecosystem, such as reduced oxygen
levels, which result in fish kills.
2. Suitable water chemistry, which primarily includes inorganic carbon (carbon
dioxide in solution). Plant species selection relates broadly to this. Faster-growing
plants are found in water with higher calcium levels and are therefore more often
considered for a regime of plant management. Plants often develop more slowly in
acidic waters as the source rocks in the river catchment are more resistance to
dissolution and thus the water is more likely to reflect prevailing rainfall quality.
3. Availability of macro- & micro-nutrients such as nitrate or phosphate and iron and
other trace metals which are required for healthy plant growth. They are generally
never a limiting condition in rivers although excess of some metals may locally limit
plant growth.
4. A suitable environment (called habitat) is needed for growth. This includes a stable
area of river and suitable substrate for rooting (or attachment) and an acceptable
range of water flows during much of the growth period, which allows for the normal
growth form of the plant to develop. The absence of toxic compounds such as
organic compounds e.g. pesticides, toxic metals etc.

As plants grow they interact and modify their environment. The influence of the
physical parameters, particularly the seasonal periodicity of water and substrate, is
paramount in the selection of which species is potentially dominant in any river
situation provided a source of the plant is present or available as seed or fragment to
colonise the river reach.

72
7.1.1 Water flow and the vegetation of running waters
The vegetation of running waters is predominantly defined and determined by the effect
and interactions of a single physical factor, water flow, which governs plant-form,
dominates the growth-controlling factors and defines the habitat. Thus:

1. Very high or turbulent flows will directly determine the presence or absence of in-
stream vegetation and even light becomes subordinate to its influence.
2. For high but less extreme flows aquatic vegetation may be confined to the margins
and to islands where it is in direct competition with terrestrial vegetation.
3. Very low flows allow the development of vegetation characteristic of static water
bodies, i.e. pond and lakes.

Between these extremes of water flow, the physical and chemical factors can control
growth, and interact with fluviatile plants to regulate seasonal biomass and to create
flowing water communities. Plants are still subject to the broad environmental limits of
high and low temperature (Whitton, 1972). Such communities can vary during the year
influenced either by seasonal changes in their physical environment, particularly by
water flow, or by competition between species.

The plant community at a site therefore reflects the balance achieved between the
physicochemical environment and the plants tolerance, adaptation to or their
modification of these conditions by their presence. The species present within the
community reflect those available and able to colonise. The dominance of a species may
occur through the rapidity of its development during favourable growth periods which
may result in a change of dominant species even seasonally. The spatial variation of
fluviatile aquatic vegetation is naturally high and mosaics of plant associations often
result, primarily from the turbulent nature of water flows in combination with the
immediate or long-term history of its interaction with the bed or underlying rocks.
Interaction by man, particularly mechanical 'weed' control and channel reconstruction,
often increases the uniformity of the habitat and reduces the size and stability of surface
substrates. Such changes may increase the recovery tolerance of the system to frequent
but not to catastrophic events. The vegetation which results is more likely to be limited
to the more invasive and fast growing plants and is likely to be less varied in its species
composition.

7.2 The flowing-water habitat

The physical interaction of plants with the energy possessed by the water flowing past
them governs and selects suitable plant species through their vegetative hydraulic
resistance. Thus a successful plant must be able to resist this energy. The size, form and
stand structure of the plant, together with the strength of its stems and the security of its
method of anchoring to the substratum, are major factors in maintaining its presence. In
waters with seasonal changes in flow e.g. snow melt or tropical dry season, a
herbaceous perennial growth cycle is frequently advantageous. This growth cycle is
characterised by dieback of the plant or the shedding of the majority of its shoots to
reduce its resistance to flow, thus avoiding the wash-out of its basal stems and
particularly its roots or rhizomes.

The power of the flowing water is governed by gradient which in combination with the
surface rocks creates the environment into which plants invade and frequently modify.

73
Such interactions include the moderation of flows through growth that increases the
water levels thus reducing fluviatile or stream power and the stabilisation of silt banks.
However through this moderation and encroachment the plant may destroy the habitat
required by the plant itself.

Fluviatile habitats have growth forms but not always taxa in common. The variety of
habitats is large and ranges from sources with rapid runoff such as mountain torrents,
snow melt, or constantly flowing springs, through streams and rivers with slow, rapid or
alternating flow, to large deep sluggish sometimes turbid rivers of enormous size.
Water velocities in smaller streams are frequently more turbulent and thus appear faster
than those of placid but higher flow large rivers with fully developed velocity profiles.
The studies of fluviatile habitats have been undertaken in various ways and to varying
degrees of detail e.g. Haslam & Wolseley (1981), Holmes (1983). There are common
factors between habitats but the great variety of other interacting physical and chemical
factors are frequently incidental and serve only to confuse fundamental studies of
distribution, community and growth controlling factors.

However, generalising about habitats can provide some insight. Thus, for example, fast
flows characterised by substrates of stones or boulders are frequently colonised by the
smaller plants, particularly Bryophytes. The latter are characterised by being small in
size, with numerous tenacious rhizoids in mosses, flattened shoots in liverworts and thin
layers in algae and aquatic lichens. Bryophytes, in particular, are very adaptable to
stress and some may tolerate factors such as low light levels, drying out and freezing,
abrasion by particles or the accumulation of toxic metals (Glyme & Carr 1974, Lewis
1973, Wehr & Whitton 1986). Small lowland streams originating in springs or seepages
are, by contrast, frequently dominated by emergent macrophytes (Michealis 1976). At
the other extreme of the habitat range, large rivers which are characteristically deeper
with relatively less turbulence, allow the development of higher water velocities and
more frequently have algal dominated communities. This is in part due to the length of
time (retention time) available for their multiplication and development but also due to
the lower light levels at the substratum through physical absorption and turbidity of the
water preventing macrophyte growth. The seasonal deposition of silts or soft sediments
also inhibits colonisation and affects the permanence of macrophytes. Fluviatile
macrophytes having rhizomes are thus limited to the margins, backwaters or shallows,
depending upon the seasonal flows and morphology of the river and its substrate.

A particular fluviatile habitat is not limited to large characteristic areas but may occur
spasmodically in other areas. Thus, the very high energy or mountainous-torrent habitat
may occur as rapids in otherwise large sluggish rivers. The fitness of a particular
growth-form for a particular type of habitat and the associated features of the structure
of the community may reappear under recurring habitat conditions almost irrespective
of the particular species present. The habitat is restricted by physical factors,
particularly flow, such that at high energies only larger stones and boulders are stable
and remain but at low energies in slow water, then sediment may fill the crevices but
unless dramatic climatic changes have occurred boulders are unlikely to be present.

Thus in summary, the volume of water flowing regulates fundamentally the parameters
of width, depth, velocity and turbulence, which in combination with the constraints of
surface geology determines the permissible vegetation-range. The grouping or
classifying of plants can lead to a better understanding of the competitive and other

74
interrelationships of the species and identification of common growth controlling factors
through an understanding of the interaction of associated plant groups with their
environment. The classification of freshwater macrophyte habitats has produced a
variety of systems but only the ecological zonation developed for fluviatile freshwater
macrophytes by Butcher (1933) and modified by the addition of seasonal changes in
discharge as the frequency and severity of spates by Westlake (1975).

7.2.1 Communities, succession and climax
Fluviatile communities reflect water conditions. In the large long rivers, planktonic algal
communities develop, but such rivers are also usually deep and subject to particular
conditions in smaller rivers, which preclude the establishment and growth of
macrophytes (Kofoid, 1908). In shallow, small, running waters the communities are
more dependent for high biomass upon nutrient conditions in particular. Increasing or
high nutrient-status favours epiphytic algal growth or attached algal communities in
preference to a submerged macrophyte community, although large rhizomatous plants
with surface leaves or emergent stems may overcome this (e.g. Golterman & Kouwen,
1980).

7.2.2 Plant growth and environmental growth controlling factors
Fluviatile macrophytes, in common with other plants, have certain general requirements
for growth. Although several other authors have considered the general characteristics
of the aquatic environment for water plants (Gluck 1905) it was left to Butcher (1933) to
review them and to extend this line of approach. He introduced many of the special or
particular characteristics of the fluviatile habitat, the fundamental characteristic of
which is the normal existence of a continuous flow of water in one direction.
Interactions with this flow lead to the selection of a community of plants that can
tolerate the prevailing conditions. Butcher also outlined several topics of importance,
which has been the basis of further study for half a century.

The maximum biomass or crop, which fluviatile macrophytes achieve at a particular
site, is the result of a balance between the conditions available for growth such as light,
inorganic nutrients and carbon, water temperature and water velocity and the plants'
physiological responses at its current state of growth (Westlake 1967, Mitchell 1974,
Westlake et al 1998). The turbidity and light penetration of the water has been noted as
particularly important (e.g. Ham et al 1981) especially during the early growth of
submerged plants before they reach the surface. Plant growth also requires the supply of
several other elements in suitable chemical forms in addition to inorganic carbon of an
acceptable type (Raven et al. 1982). In particular, the macro-nutrients nitrate, phosphate
and potassium together with other minor and trace elements which are often available in
the water and/or sediments (Denny 1985). The absence of toxic or growth-inhibiting
compounds is also a requirement.

If the general growth conditions are met, then plants, either large or small, will be able
to grow in the majority of aquatic sites. For example, in the smaller rivers and streams
fluviatile macrophytes are more likely to be abundant in shallower locations (<3m;
Dawson 1976). They may however be limited in their ability to invade, become
established or remain because of an unsuitable stream bed or water flow during either
the whole or part of the year at particular sites. Invasion is often by turion or by
vegetative propagule, i.e. pieces of plant stem or "root", but less frequently by seed (e.g.
Coffey and McNabb 1974, Castellano 1977, Sastroutomo et al. 1979). The slow flow of

75
water may reduce the potential for spread by propagule and favour seed dispersing
plants, or plants which can reinvade from the banks or marginal areas. Once established,
plants may be unable to survive competition with other macrophytes or algae. Many
fluviatile macrophytes overwinter as buried stems or small rhizomes as in Batrachian
Ranunculacae, or as tubers in Potamogeton spp. (Dawson 1976, van Wijk 1983, Madsen
1986).

Planktonic algae are favoured in downstream sections of large rivers as mentioned
previously. This is partly due to increasing depth, and partly by limiting large plants
through the increase of depth as river channel dimensions increase, but also because
sufficient time elapses for the development of an algal population during the
downstream passage of water.

The length of the period available for development is also of importance to large plants
for unless large food reserves are available, even fast growing plants have modest and
finite growth rates (Westlake 1966). As plants increase in bulk, self-shading develops
and the supply of inorganic carbon and nutrients may become progressively more
limited. When considering individual plant biomasses, space for growth and growth
strategy may become of paramount importance (Castellano 1977, Howard-Williams
1982). The biomass achieved and annual production in various aquatic sites together
with errors in their determination, have been reviewed again by Westlake (1982).

Seasonal cycles. Changes in biomass in the late winter or spring are often initiated by a
herbaceous-type development from over-wintering storage organs, or by redevelopment
of over-wintering stems, to produce the seasonal biomass which is then acted upon by
the environment. The latter has for decades been discussed by authors e.g. Butcher
(1933), who have produced sets of factors which are undoubtedly likely to control
plants, particularly in rivers, but few have produced quantitative evidence on single or
even related factors. This work followed a detailed study of sections on two lowland
English rivers and illustrated the importance of several factors to the growth of river
plants and the interaction between species and the physico-chemical environment.
Amongst the features Butcher introduced, he particularly emphasised the persistence of
some species of plants throughout the year whilst others decay in the autumn and also
the impermanence of aquatic vegetation. The constant movement of vegetation to
unoccupied areas, leaving other areas barren demonstrated the latter.

Studies on fluviatile macrophytes have investigated the seasonal changes in the biomass
of the emergent macrophyte Nasturtium officinale (Castellano 1977) and of the
submerged macrophyte Ranunculus penicillatus (Dawson 1976a) and their year-to-year
interactions in relation to discharge cycles (Dawson et al, 1978). The latter, with their
seasonal variation, is probably one of the most important of the between-site variables
governing biomass difference. Such a relationship was also demonstrated by Brooker et
al (1978), who showed an inverse relationship between the flow of water in the April-
June period and the intensity of plant growth. A more extreme case of discharge
variation for a shaded section of a lowland chalk stream has been described by Ham et
al. (1982a). The affected species were of the genera Ranunculus, Berula and Callitriche.

Limited studies on the growth rate and seasonal cycle have also been undertaken in
artificial systems in defined conditions to estimate the uptake of nutrients, for example

76
Eichenberger (1983) estimated these conditions for Ranunculus fluitans and the effects
of grazing by invertebrates.

Year-to-year variation of either the mean rate of growth or the maximum biomass
achieved can occur, dependent upon the time for which there is sufficient light available
to the plant because of fluctuations in light-penetration through the water (Westlake
1966b). The effects of rainfall and turbidity of the water are often far more prolonged in
larger and deeper streams. Seasonal boat traffic also has a similar effect (Murphy and
Eaton 1982).

If the light levels are below the light compensation of growth balance point for extended
periods, then growth is not possible and the biomass achieved by the time of flowering
is reduced. Other species which develop later, or have large overwintering storage
organs and short growing seasons, may become dominant if this situation continues for
several years e.g. Nuphar spp in larger rivers. Even under relatively similar discharge
cycles, changes occur, as shown during the 4-year monitoring of the biomass of
Ranunculus calcareus in an unshaded section of a stream (Dawson 1976).

The Dawson (1976) study showed that the maximum summer biomass in the four
seasons declined to half that initially found, but this resulted primarily from the plants
not being subjected to annual mid-summer plant removal by cutting. It was suggested
that the decline occurred as much from the suppression of autumnal regrowth by
moribund plant material overlying the shoots giving a low overwintering biomass, as
from the release from the synchronising influence of regular cutting on plant regrowth.

This suggestion was confirmed by the study of Ham et al (1981), who also found a
similar response to cutting. Over several seasons on this same site, different species and
cycles of biomasses were found between shaded and unshaded sites. This illustrates the
effects of competition between an aggressively growing species Ranunculus and other
less aggressive ones Callitriche and Berula.

These differences also indicate the degree of shade tolerance or adaptation amongst
these species. A long-term study of the biomass variations (determined by examining
the total weight of weed removed from a managed river) divided the cause equally
between the environment in the early part of the year, the timing and extent of
management in the previous year, and the inherent growth cycle of the plant (Westlake
and Dawson 1982).

In a subsequent study on the river in which pre-emptive removal of material in the
previous autumn was undertaken, the importance of management was confirmed
because reductions of up to a third were found in comparison with the expected biomass
(Westlake and Dawson 1986).
7.3 Consideration of traditional and alternative techniques

Conventional irrigation and drainage channels are designed and operated to transport
water to and from an area of land at minimal direct cost. In consequence channels are
often straight for long lengths, trapezoidal in cross-section and devoid of large
vegetation in the channel and on the banks. This design condition can rapidly deteriorate
as sediments are deposited in the channel and as the water flow is progressively
obstructed as vegetation overgrows from the banks or within the channel. Expensive

77
vegetation removal and dredging and reshaping of the channel is required and is
undertaken to varying degrees, with success judged only in terms of water supplied to
the irrigated area and not by reference to regular measurement of meaningful hydraulic
parameter during its passage along the channel. There is evidence that the design and
construction of artificial channels can exacerbate the maintenance requirement. For
example, unlined channels with moderate flows and shallower than 3 m can make
excellent habitats for most aquatic vegetation.

Traditional channel engineering emphasises the simplicity of form of channels in
combination with the ability to produce these structures by labour or heavy machinery.
The straight channel is based upon the concept that water should and will flow quickest
in a straight line and that the speed is enhanced by the shortest route. Many studies have
shown that flows above quite a low velocity rarely obey this premise and the initiation
of mass water flow readily results in the maximum velocities moving from side to side
in any straight channel. This incipient sinuosity of the channel tends to create erosion
and deposition in channels and even in lined channels where sediment is available.

Once alteration of flow is initiated, it is difficult, and some say unnecessary, to remedy
it for a dynamically stable situation exists. The trapezoid cross sectional design
requirement is primarily related to the stability of worked bank materials i.e. soils, sands
etc, but such a shape is rare in nature. Near vertical slopes are most common except
where erosional slumping or block-fall changes create shallow shores frequently
observed in low flow conditions in large rivers. Vegetated margins when allowed to
develop naturally and reach a stable plant population frequently create vertical faces to
the flow, except under highly variable flows. Channels are frequently designed without
consideration for the development of vegetation or its associated effects e.g. seasonally
enhanced siltation.

The potential for changes in morphology that may moderate plant growth is related to
the size and stability of the static or flowing water, although there is more scope when
channels are being designed or refurbished. Morphological adaptations by themselves
do not solve macrophyte problems but must be used in combination with other
techniques.

Morphological design criteria for environmentally sound channels which are expected
to contain vegetation should primarily be based on reducing the light climate for growth
which includes:

1. A minimum surface area consistent with the self balancing ratio of depth to width
for the flowing water because submerged macrophyte growth is related to the
water surface area (not volume).
2. A maximum water depth (within the same above constraint) because shallow water
is conducive to earlier and denser macrophyte growth and may be accompanied by
overgrowth of marginal or emergent macrophytes (Dawson et al. 1978).

Over wide, and thus shallow, lowland rivers which are often open and unshaded, have a
high potential for macrophyte growth which disproportionately increases water levels
and the risk of flooding adjacent land. Seasonally early fine-leaved submerged
macrophyte development may also accumulate more sediments as seasonal flows
moving such material are often higher early in the year (Ladle & Casey 1971, Dawson

78
1976a, Onslow 1982, Welton 1980). Absolute water velocity and its rate of change
during the seasons is also important, for although turbulence is high in shallow flows,
water velocity is generally not as high when compared to deeper water flows. Similarly,
washout in the latter may be higher (Dawson 1976a).

Broad recommendations for new lowland rivers in Northern Europe which are
consistent with hydraulic criteria are beginning to emphasise channel form and assume
that vegetation will develop and that regular removal is undesirable. The
recommendations include:

1. Variation in plan form. This requires that the natural sinuosity or curves (exhibited
by natural adjusted rivers) be allowed to develop; imposed or fixed sinuosity or
straight channels create problems (e.g. Brookes 1984, 1985).
2. Variation in longitudinal bed-slope to match the natural development of natural
sequences of pools and riffles and the associated variation in width.
3. Variation in transverse vertical section includes variation in channel width and
bankslope together with asymmetric `handing' of steep and shallow slopes but should
also include emergent and submerged vegetation near the margins to protect and
stabilise river banks with planting of the preferred emergent bank macrophyte during
its growing seasons.
4. The planting of suitable trees or bushes on the tops of flood berms (but not raised
banks) to moderate plant growth on both the berms and in the water; roots will
stabilise the banks.

7.4 Weed cutting

Weed cutting of submerged plants is frequently undertaken when flow reduction and its
associated processes, such as enhanced sedimentation, have already occurred and
natural environmental controls are beginning to act. For example, a species of fine-
leaved rooted submerged plant which grows in a channel, has been selected given the
environment of the channel, for its ability to colonise and make better use of the initial
conditions than other species, when overall conditions allow any plant growth to occur
at all.

In natural systems, the biological factors may include the timing of the plants growth
during the season to avoid excessive flows, turbid water, excessive summer
temperatures or other factors as yet unidentified. One factor frequently not considered is
the size of the food storage organs, e.g. rhizomes, by which the plant carries over a good
reserve of building materials from one growing season to the next. For example in
Nuphar, large storage organs allow both rapid growth when turbid water conditions
restrict other submerged plant growth, and the production of large surface leaves which
often shade-out other submerged species.

The maximum biomass which is achieved at any site is the result of the combination of
environmental driving variables which may act in common or in opposition. Thus light
may be increasing which linearly increases gross photosynthesis but increasing water
temperatures may exponentially elevate respiration reducing the net photosynthetic
gain. During the seasonal growth, increased biomass increases hydraulic resistance
reducing the flow capacity of the channel and also reducing the supply of inorganic
carbon to the plants, slowing their growth. Higher biomass increases the proportion of

79
self-shading amongst the plants. Thus even under steady flow conditions a balance can
be achieved with the prime driving variable, light. It is however unusual for water flow
or discharge to be constant and in cold temperate zones it is likely to decrease
significantly during summer and for a lower maximum or equilibrium biomass to be
achieved. In warm temperate zones, there is likely to be little inhibition of growth in
winter and maximum biomass may occur earlier in the year, e.g. spring, followed by
environmental growth suppressing factors such as elevated temperatures or very low
flows later in the year.

Traditional weed cutting is the major factor in species selection in managed rivers and
channels. It is associated with reductions in species diversity, rapid and resynchronised
regrowth, elevated biomasses by comparison to natural cycles, and accentuated
hydraulic effects such as increases in vegetative hydraulic resistance.

One study for a species of Ranunculus indicates that regular weed cutting doubled the
potential seasonal maximum biomass (Dawson 1976). Conversely, this result shows
that when management ceased for this species the maximum biomass halved over a four
year period. Similar but less extreme reductions in several submerged species have also
been noted in natural rivers (Dawson & Kern-Hansen 1979). However in the region of
southern England in which this study was undertaken, there was still a significant and
unacceptable risk of flooding during the two critical months in summer.

0 5 10
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
month
b
i
o
m
a
s
s
cut
weed
curve
typical growth
growth
potential for
maximum

Figure 7 Example of a typical weed growth curve with and without weed cutting

80
Table 24 Current Control techniques for aquatic and marginal vegetation by
RHS vegetation morpho-type, with comments on consequences and
recovery
RHS vegetation
morpho-type
Control technique Comment and
consequences
Recovery
Free-floating plants
typically algae or
duckweeds -
Rarely controlled
(may be skimmed-off if de-
oxygenation and fish-
stocks are threatened).
Usually lost with
small increases in
flow.
Follows subsequent
lower flow
conditions.
Filamentous algae
-attached shallow
nutrient rich waters
Rarely controlled (can be
skimmed-off if threatening
fish-kills).
Usually moved
downstream with
increases in flow.
Follows subsequent
lower flow
conditions.
Mosses
attached to bed or banks
Not known to be
controlled.
Very slow if lost.
Trailing bank-side plants Physical control by flail
mower or hand scythe.
Regularly lost in
winter flood events.
Rapid but seasonal.
Emergent reeds, rushes,
flag and large grasses
Physical control by flail
mover or removal of
underlying sediment bank
(or herbicide).
Cutting of underwater
stems is most effective.
Removal releases
finer sediments, and
destabilises banks
[encroachment is a
river re-naturalising
process and limited
by balance with
increasing water
velocities and
sediment supply].
Regrowth may be in
the early growing
season but later
regrowth is slow and
regrowth in the next
season may be
reduced by a third.

Floating-leaved rooted,
typically water lillies in
deeper slower waters
Physical control by weed-
cutting boat (or herbicide).
Some sediment
movement.
Effectiveness may
increase with
removal in the early
part of growing
season.
Emergent broad-leaved
rooted plants, like water
cress or water parsnip
Physical control by
dragline or excavator.
Suspends sediments
with much moving
downstream.
Regrowth starts
immediately after
the velocities reduce.
Submerged broad-
leaved, Pondweeds (0.6-
1.2m)
cutting boats.
Regrowth starts
immediately.
Submerged fine-leaved,
like water crowfoot,
pondweeds
a) shallow streams,
0.2-0.6m, regular
management
Physical control by
dragline or excavator,
or often managed
selectively by hand
[gardened] in fisheries
e.g. chalk streams.
Often releases of
large quantities of
plant and silt.
Regrowth often
starts immediately
especially growth
becomes
resynchronised but
regular cutting
declines if left uncut
for three years.
b) medium depth rivers
0.6 -1.2m deep, regular
management
Regular control physical
by weed-cutting boats
OR occasionally by drag-
line in association with
maintenance dredging.
Often releases of
large quantities of
plant to be collected
on booms and some
silt.
Regrowth almost
starts immediately,
with growth
stimulated by more
favourable velocity
conditions.
c) medium depth rivers
>1.2m deep, some
management
cutting boats or drag-line
in association with
maintenance dredging.
Regrowth starts
immediately but is
slow

81
7.4.1 Modifications and refinements to weed cutting regimes
Fine leaved submerged
1. No cutting. The initial proposal for the management of submerged vegetation in
channels must be the `no cut' scenario which has been shown to produce
significant reductions in maximum biomass for some species. However it cannot
be considered in isolation especially in smaller channels and involves some
channel redesign to allow for application.
2. Selective cutting of only part of a channel, such as the centre, reduces weed
cutting effort and provides some protection for the banks by the remaining
marginal bands of aquatic vegetation. Uncut plants remaining would be at a
physiological disadvantage because of self-shading and through the reduction of
water levels, which, in turn, would reduce water flows and thus limit the supply of
inorganic carbon and nutrient supplies. Conversely the remaining shoots and roots
of the cut central plants would be exposed to higher than normal velocities which
is also likely to restrict their growth and incidentally reduce sedimentation.
Within-channel water capacity would also be increased during flow and thus this
technique is likely to facilitate the passage of floods. Watson (1986) tested the
effects on hydraulic resistance on progressive cutting showing that removal of a
quarter of the stand reduced resistance slightly but that the removal of three-
quarters of the stand reduced resistance disproportionately lower.
3. Pre-emptive cutting. Following determination of the growth cycle of the species
of aquatic plant causing a problem, alterations to the timing of weed cutting during
its growing season can be attempted. As discussed above, traditional weed cutting
seeks to remove the problem once it has developed; however it is advantageous in
terms of cost, labour and logistics, to pre-empt the developing problem by early
cutting. Thus knowledge of the biology of the species is important. For example,
species of Ranunculus that have traditionally been removed as biomass grows
rapidly prior to flowering time. Early cutting therefore stimulates plants to regrow
to satisfy a reproductive need whereas if cutting was undertaken after flowering
there is fewer tendencies to regrow.

Observations by a local river engineer in Southern England who commented that light
autumn dredging, with minimal disturbance to the stable riverbed, suppressed plant
growth for many months was linked to the exploration of the four-year effect, which is:

1. The late summer suppression of growth as plant biomass declined naturally,
2. The consequent low biomass in winter which reduced the potential for growth in
the next season, and
3. The encouragement of plants adapted to maintaining a presence rather than those
with capacity for more rapid regrowth.

Together these observations led to trials of a weed-cut late in the year to reduce
overwintering biomass and thus `pre-empt' growth in the subsequent season. This has
been shown to be an economically advantageous improvement to accepted weed cutting
practices (Westlake & Dawson 1986). When pre-emptive cutting, called locally `close
autumn weed cutting', was tested over three years for the Wessex Water Authority in the
River Frome, it indicated that the biomass in the lower river was on average 28% lower
than expected at normal cutting time. Direct assessment of plant biomass, and
measurements of water level changes related to the resistance to flow offered by plants,
confirmed the effect (Westlake & Dawson 1986, 1988). Detailed study of the

82
relationship of spring plant biomass to water depth, in autumn-cut and autumn-uncut
sections, indicates that the benefit of autumn cutting may be limited to water deeper
than 0.7 m, or to only the lower half of the 50 km river (Westlake & Dawson 1986).
Although the experiment required spring cutting to proceed as previously, it became
progressively less necessary, and almost ceased in the third year.

Immediate benefits of pre-emptive control included reductions in the weed removed,
and consequential reductions in the logistic problems of time and labour needed and in
the need for a further summer cut. A decrease in spring flooding gave an agricultural
benefit. Ecological benefits accrued through the reduction in the need for a spring cut,
the encouragement of less vigorously growing plants and the `four-year effect', an
increase in the numbers of large plants, and a change in their form. Such changes in the
structure of individual plant stands require investigation. It has been observed that few,
larger plants have less hydraulic resistance than many, small ones (Dawson & Robinson
1984; Westlake & Dawson 1988). Also their removal and capture on weed removal
booms may well be more effective (when cutting control is necessary). These benefits
were only demonstrated for one dominant plant, a species of Ranunculus and other
species may act in a different manner or indeed be selected for, by this change in
management.

7.5 Indirect control

7.5.1 Direct versus Indirect macrophyte control
Direct management i.e. plant removal, is effective but the results are normally only
short term. It is therefore best undertaken on a local basis. Indirect management aims to
produce long-lasting effects and stability through modifying the environmental growth
controlling factors, but is slow. Eradication of plants is not practical or ecologically
desirable. Achieving this in natural water bodies would require extreme measures with
far-reaching consequences.

Direct techniques if used, should be undertaken early in the growing season or
collectively, the former requires early identification or prediction of macrophyte
biomass. Such pre-emptive control delays the development of plants reducing the
human or machine effort needed for their cutting and removal or the amelioration of the
effects of plant decomposition in the system. The timing of control operations can also
be more flexible and this is ecologically beneficial just as local or selective control e.g.
for fishing areas or boat passages, in contrast to the extensive clearance of large areas.

7.5.2 Alternatives to the traditional techniques of river plant management
Shading by bankside vegetation.
Observations of the plant biomass of open and shaded sections of streams, combined
with the study showing the equal importance of terrestrial and aquatic organic material
to the stream system, led to the proposal that some shade could be a useful alternative to
weed cutting (Dawson 1979a & b). Field experiments demonstrated that the biomasses
of three dominant and problem species of macrophyte were directly proportional to the
light reaching the water surface in both artificially and naturally shaded sections of
stream (Dawson & Kern-Hansen 1979; Dawson 1981a). These results were refined and
led to the development of a proposal for management by `half-shade', with
recommendations for the size of vegetation for streams and rivers of differing size
(Dawson & Haslam 1983).

83
The theme of half-shade has been developed because marginal vegetation along a river
bank does provide shade from sunlight, and therefore provides an economical way of
controlling the excessive growth of water plants in water courses. However excessive
shade is just as ecologically undesirable as excessive plant growth. It is likely to limit
fish populations by reducing cover and invertebrate food. There are however no direct
data on the correlation of fish and plants, for these interrelationships are complex.

Further examinations of the management of river vegetation by shade has:

1. Developed the theme of the `riverscape' in which the role of trees alongside rivers
is considered to enhance both the aesthetics and economics of lowland river
management (Dawson & Haslam 1983),
2. Produced data on the transverse distribution of light across rivers under varying
degrees of shade, and on the degree of shade under the major compass orientations
of artificial shade. This incorporates the principle of half-shade by riparian
vegetation. This concept is that the height of the shade should be equal to the width
of the stream when the vegetation is growing on the south bank or otherwise
marginal shade should interrupt direct light in summer, and
3. The proposal that trees should be part of a planned cycle of planting and cropping
to avoid tree fall to the river and to provide economic benefits.

Opaque materials
One short-term solution, designed particularly to control critical areas of streams and
rivers, during the growth period require the development of shade by marginal
vegetation, is the use of lightweight opaque material which is both strong for ease of
handling and gas-permeable to prevent gas accumulation (Dawson & Hallows 1983).

Trials using a medium-weight geo-textile material sheeting indicated that the time for
optimum control was around 6 weeks for areas of emergent plants with rhizomes.
Shorter periods gave some control, but extended periods eradicated plants and required
plants to reinvade. The build-up of detritus on the surface of submerged sheets enhanced
the shading effect and allowed the use of less optically dense material. A planned cycle
of movement of sheets of material was most important to the technique and, in fact,
made it economically competitive with other methods. This material can be applied to a
variety of sites and two people can readily handle areas of 400 m. The basic problem in
application is that it does not give instantaneous results (unlike weed cutting), and
therefore has user-resistance. There is also concern by river engineers that material
could be lost downstream, be caught on hatches and lead to flooding. This has not
occurred in five years of stream trials.

Reduction in light penetration of water
Reducing light penetration can be achieved by increasing light scatter from particles in
the water (turbidity) or by absorption by compounds such as dyes. Dyes added to static
waterbodies early in the growing season have proven successful.

The major disadvantages include the displeasing visual effect, the fast rate at which
some dyes fade, settle, or are diluted, and, the toxicity to man or fish (Dawson 1981).
Suspension of other very fine materials (e.g. suitably prepared clays, Bentonite (4 )) if
applied early in the growing season and kept in suspension for several weeks, could
usefully delay plant growth. Further study of such techniques is necessary before field

84
trials are undertaken. The choice of fine material is important because some information
available indicates that phosphate absorption by clays is not unusual (Lake & MacIntyre
1977). This may be advantageous in enriched natural waters but may be undesirable loss
in irrigation systems.

The suspension of natural sediments, for example, stocking lakes with high densities of
bottom-feeding Cyprinid fish, could be assessed for use in deeper irrigation channels.
In Northern Europe their use is controversial but documented evidence is limited. The
common carp (Cyprinus carpio L.) is normally considered to destroy vegetation directly
by uprooting plants. However, its activity is expected predominantly in shallow
marginal areas which are the carp's preferred feeding and spawning habitat (Mathis,
1965, Crivelli 1983, Fletcher et al. 1985).

Intermittent artificial suspension of sediments will increase turbidity but may also raise
nutrient load and increase algal growth. Despite the usefulness of artificial suspension
in fishponds (Huet 1972), it must be considered with caution in irrigation channels
because of the potential for undesirable side effects.

Large irrigation channels could be redesigned to maintain or naturally resuspend fine
particles and to extend periods of suspension of fine incoming particles. Short sections
of channel could be enlarged (deepened) or delta regions (widened) constructed and
vegetated to enhance the settlement of coarse material but not the fine material which
would pass downstream to inhibit aquatic plant photosynthesis. Obstacles only in the
direction of the prevailing wind (e.g. trees) could be removed to increase wind fetch or
turbulence (Thomas & Compston 1980). In Northern Europe some alternative
techniques simultaneously increase light penetration and transparency to encourage the
development of macrophyte communities rather than algal-dominated ones and are
reviewed in Dawson (1986).

In conclusion, aquatic macrophytes will normally be present in natural waters if light,
nutrients and suitable sites are available. Their growth depends primarily upon the
intensity and duration of sunlight which they receive but also upon the physical
conditions of the water, its movement, temperature, clarity and chemistry (and the
absence of growth inhibiting compounds). However, as they grow in response to their
environment, their growth produces changes to this environment, creating their typical
habitat. Thus as growth proceeds during the season, and stands of plants develop,
progressive changes in the environment occur which can adversely restrict further plant
growth, e.g. reductions in water velocity with increases in depth or decreasing water
transfer capacity. Their growth depends upon the daily balance between photosynthesis
and respiration which they can achieve within these environmental conditions and leads
to the seasonal cycles of growth, maximum biomass and eventual decline. Sudden or
catastrophic changes in the plants' environment, e.g. flood or `weed cutting', can also
affect plant populations, either altering them when the changes are intermittent or
perpetuating them when the changes are regular.

When favourable growth conditions prevail, dense macrophyte growths may occur
especially in shallower water (<2 m), and reduction in biomass or weed management
may be undertaken. Such direct removal of excess plant is rapid and effective but
short-term, as the effects of cutting can stimulate synchronised regrowth accentuating
the original problem for future years.

85
In the current economic climate improvements to plant control techniques are more
likely to be considered, such as reduced, retimed or selective removal, or the
introduction of indirect techniques which moderate biomass through growth-controlling
factors. Control by light is a prime example of such techniques. It is direct in effect,
with a good practical chance of success, as opposed to other factors, such as water
velocity or nutrient limitation, which may have disproportionate or low limiting
thresholds.

Thus it can be seen from the examples of natural river channels, modification of the
environment required by the vegetation (e.g. such as shading, elevated water velocities,
increased water depths, modification weed cutting regimes, or the introduction of
environmentally aware dredging practices) can reduce maintenance budgets when used
in combination with existing techniques. Environmental policies and practices can be
used to minimise maintenance and to improve the channel behaviour and the benefits of
their application has been discussed. However, research is still necessary to resolve the
potential conflicts of interest between the requirements of transferring water
inexpensively in conventionally engineered channels, and the future needs to design and
construct self sustaining channels with minimal maintenance requirements.

7.6 Techniques used

Current best-practice guidelines for physical and chemical control are given in Aquatic
weed Control Operations and concentrates on basic procedures for algae, floating-
leaved submerged and emergent weeds (by CAPM for Environment Agency 1998).

Waterway Bank Protection: A guide to erosion assessment and management details and
illustrates bank erosion and it causes, assessment, remedial work and engineering and
alternative strategies, and appraisal with methodology and evaluation (Cranfield
University for Environment Agency 1999). A design manual by Escarameia (1998)
covers river and channel revetments. Environmental options with specifications for
flood defence maintenance works are profusely illustrated in annotated diagrams which
cover weed cutting, dredging, moving, bushing and some enhancements operations
(Environment Agency 1997). There are many other pro-environment options including
Lachat (1994)

Control of invasive plants is becoming as area of concern and a few species are
especially invasive and alter the general riparian environment in way which are not yet
not fully explored or understood. These species include:

Japanese knot weed which continues to make expansive stands of dense bushy
vegetation which shades out ground cover plants which hold together bankside soils
reducing erosion
Giant Hogweed which similarly produces large densely covered areas and has a
phyotoxic sap causing large photosensative skin blisters.

Stands of Rhodendron and Asian laurel also continue to expand. Comparisons made
with natives show that in a few recent decades these few invasive plants have expanded
to occupy lengths of river bank similar to native plants such as bramble (Dawson &
Holland 1999). Other non-native species are occasionally found but apart from
Australian Swamp Stonecrop (crassula helmsii) found increasingly on and in slow

86
flowing stream and Hydrocotyle ranunculoides a very vigorous plant of slow-flowing
drainage ditches, none are so far of imminent concern. Former invasive plants are now
almost considered part of the normal situation in slower rivers e.g. Canadian and Nuttall
Pondweed.

87
8. UNCERTAINTY

The context of uncertainty for rivers in the national context has been broadly discussed
in Learning to live with rivers (ICE 2001) in which many aspects of floods and their
management are introduced. These vary from flood estimation, in a historic and current
context, risk assessment and definition and best practice, through strategic management
and catchment modelling to solutions by planning, engineering, cost and sustainability,
improvements in forecasting, use of natural processes and the international perspective.

Specific areas of uncertainty within the project range from the general aspects of
hydraulic applications such as that of measurement of water volume and movement,
physical dimension of channels, to the specifics of vegetation biology, growth variation
in response to environmental driving factors to the detail simply of position in channels.
A paper on uncertainty estimation in the Conveyance Estimation System, which
includes issues of roughness, is currently being developed and will be included in the
final project report.

88
9. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abbe TB & Montgomery DR (1996). Large woody debris jams, channel
hydraulics and habitat formation in large rivers. Regulated Rivers 12, 201-221.
Abbott, M.B. (1991). Hydroinformatics: Information Technology and Aquatic
Environment. Avebury Technical Press. 145 pp.
Abbott, M.B., and A.W. Minns (1998). Computational Hydraulics: Elements of the
Theory of Free Surface Flows. Longman Scientific and Technical Press. 326
pp.
Abdelsalem M.W., Khattab A.F., Khalifa A.A.M. & Bakry M.F. (1991). Effect of
submerged weeds on the hydraulic properties of earthen Egyptian canals.
Resumes of 7th World Congress on Water resources B- Water Resources
Managent, 13-18 May 1991 Rabat, Marocco, 9 pp.
Acement, G.R. & Schneider, V.R. (1984). Guide for selecting Manning's roughness
coefficients for natural channels and flood plains. Us Department of
Transportation Federal Highway Administration, Report FWHA-TS-84-204,
1-62.
Acement, G.R. & Schneider, V.R. (1987) Roughness coefficients for densely
vegetated flood plains. US Geological Survey Water Resources Investigation
83-4247, 68pp.
Acement GJ & Schneider VR, (1989). Guide for selecting Mannings roughness
coefficient for natural channels and flood plains. Water resources paper 2339,
US Geological survey, Washington DC. (updated 2002)
Ackers, P. and Charlton, F.G. (1970) The slope and resistance of small meandering
channels. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, supplement 15, paper
7362S.
Ackers, P., White, W.R., Perkins, J.A. and Harrison, A.J. (1978, 1984) Weirs and
flumes for flow measurement. J. Wiley & Sons, Winchester, 327pp.
Ackers, P. (1991). Hydraulic Design of Straight Compound Channels. H.R.
Wallingford, UK, Report SR-281
Ahmad M (1951) Spacing and projection of spurs for bank protection. Civil
Engineering and Public Works Review, March/April, p 1-37.
Akan AO & Hager WH. (2001). Design aid for grass lined channels. Journal of
Hydraulic Engineering 127, p 236-237.
Albertson, M.L. and Simons, D.B. (1959) Fluid mechanics. In: Handbook of
applied hydrology (ed. V.T. Chow), 7.1-7.48. McGraw-Hill Book Co. New
York.
Aldridge and Garrett (1973) Roughness coefficients for stream channels in
Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report, 87 p.
Allain, C. (2001). Relations between vegetation, flow and sediment in river beds.
EGS XXVI General Assembly, Session HSA2.02 Hydrology of rivers and
estuaries: Vegetation and channel feature controls on water flow and sediment
and contaminant transport in rivers. Nice, France, March 2001.
Allen, C.M. and Taylor, E.A. (1923) The salt velocity method of water
measurement. Transactions of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers
45, 285-341.
Al'tshul', AD & Nguen TAY. (1973). Hydraulic drag during infiltration of water in
a soil vegetative layer (gidravlicheskiye soprotivleniya pri fil'tratsii vody v
rastitel'nom sloye pochvy) Meteorologiya i Gidrologiya, 12, 77-84, 1973. [In
Russian]

89
Allen J.A. (1992). Nile basin water planning. The Nile: policies, politics and legal
issues, P.P. Howell & J.A. Allen, eds, Cambridge University Press.
Allen, J. and Shahwan, A. (1954) The resistance to flow along a tortuous stretch of the
River Irwell (Lancashire) - an investigation with the aid of scale model
experiments. Journal of the Institution of Civil Engineers Part III, 3(1), p.144.
Ambhl, H. (1959) Die Bedeutung der Strmung als kologicher Factor. Schweize
Zhurnal Hydrobiologie 21, 133-264.
Anderson, S.M. and Charters, A.C. (1982) A fluid dynamics study of seawater flow
through Gelidium nudifrons. Limnology and Oceanography 27, 399-412.
Andreasen, J-O. (1979) Grdens hydrauliske virkning. Laboratory for Physical
Geography, Geological Institute, rhus University, Report No. 3, 64pp. [In
Danish]
Anselm, R. (1976) Analyse der Ausbauverfahren, Schden und Unterhaltungskosten
von Gewassern. Mitteilungen des Institutes fur Wasserwirtschaft, Hydrologie
und landwirtschaftlichen Wasserbau der Technische Universitat, Hannover 36,
11-189. [in German]
Anon (1992) Technical session 6 - Environmentally sound technologies.
Proceedings of an African Regional Symposium on Techniques for
Environmentally Sound Water Resources Development, Alexandria, Egypt
17-19 February 1991 held 28-30 September 1991 Volume II (ed. R.
Wooldridge), 135-154. Hydraulics Research Ltd, Wallingford, England; Water
Research Centre, Cairo, Egypt; Regional Coordination Unit, African Water
Resources Network, WRC and ODA, London. Pentech Press, London. 88-89.
Arber A (1920). Water plants. CUP, Cambridge, England, 436pp.
Arrignon, J. (1976) Amnagement cologique et piscicole des eau douces. Gauthier
Villars, Paris, 320pp. [in French]
ASCE (1963) Frictional factors in open channels. Journal of the Hydraulics Division,
Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers 89, 97-143. (Discussion
1963, 89 (July), 283; 1963, 89 (Sept), 169; 1964, 90 (July), 223.
Babovic V and Keijzer M, (1999). Computer supported knowledge discovery- a
case study in flow resistance induced by vegetation. XXVII IAHR Biennial
Congress, Graz.
Bailey, R.Y. (1939) Kudzu for erosion control in the southeast. US Department of
Agriculture, Farmers Bulletin No. 1840, 32pp.
Baitsch, B. and Radermacher, H. (1972) Hydraulische Bemessung von verkrauteten
Grben geringer Dimensionen im landwirtschaftlichen Bereich.
Gewsserunterhaltung 4, 1-76. [in German]
Baker, J.H. and Orr, D.R. (1986) The distribution of epiphytic bacteria on freshwater
plants. Journal of Ecology 74, 155-165.
Bakry MF (1992). Effect of submerged weeds on the design: Procedure of earthen
Egyptian canals. Irrigation and Drainage systems 6, 179-188, 1992.
Bakry MF, Gates TK and Khattab AF (1992). Field measured hydraulic resistance
characterisitcs in vegetation infested canals. Journal of Irrigation and
Drainage Engineering. 118, p256-274.
Barnes, H.H. (1967). Roughness characteristics of natural channels. US Geological
Survey, Water-Supply Paper No. 1849, 214pp. Washington, D.C.
Bartley, T.R. and Gangstad, E.O. (1974) Environmental aspects of aquatic plant
control. Journal of the Irrigation and Drainage Division, Proceedings of the
American Society of Civil Engineers 100, 231-244. (Discussion: 1975,101,
230-234; 1977, 103, 281.)

90
Bates, K. (1992). Fishway Design Guidelines for Pacific Salmon. Washington
Department of Fish & Wildlife. Olympia, Washington.
Bates PD, Anderson MG, Hervouet J-M & Hawkes JC (1997). Investigating the
behaviour of two-dimensional finite element models of compound channel
flow. Earth Surface Processes & Landforms 22, 3-17.
Barrat-Segretain M-H (2001). Biomass allocation in three macrophyte species in
relation to the disturbance level of their habitat. Freshwater Biology 46, 935-
945.
Barros AP & Colello JD (2001). Surface roughness for shallow overland flow on
crushed stone surfaces. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering 127, 38-52.
Bathurst J C (1978) Flow resistance of large-scale roughness, Journal of the
Hydraulics Division, ASCE, 104, HY12, 1587-1603.
Bathurst JC (1985). Flow resistance estimation in mountain rivers. Journal of the
Hydraulics Division, ASCE, 114, HY4, 625-643.
Bathurst JC (1996). Field measurement of boulder flow drag. Journal of the
Hydraulics Division, ASCE, 122, 167-169.
Bathurst, J.C., Li, R-M. and Simons, D.B. (1981) Resistance equation for large scale
roughness. Journal of the Hydraulics Division, Proceedings of the American
Society of Civil Engineers 107, 1593-1613.
Bathurst, JC (1997). Environmental River Flow Hydraulics, in Applied Fluvial
Geomorphology Ed: CR Thorne, Wiley, 69-93.
Beschta RL & Platts WS (1986). Morphological features of small streams:
significance and function. Water Resources Bulletin 22, 369-379.
Beaumont, P. (1975) Hydrology. In: River ecology (ed. B.A. Whitton), Studies in
Ecology 2, 1-38. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford.
Bedient, P.B., and W.C. Huber (1992). Hydrology and Floodplain Analysis.
Addison-Wesley Publishing Co. 692 pp.
Begeman, W. (1980) Lebendverbau an Gewssern. Forschungen Institutet
Senckenberg 41, 247-257.
Benovitsky EL, Modzalevsky AI, Sherenkov IA. (1990). Bank vegetation effect on
river channel discharge capacity. International conference on River Flood
Hydraulics, Wallingford.
Benovitsky EL. (1992). Hydraulic friction factor and boundary between stand of
tall aquatic vegetation and open channels. Water Resources 18, 258-262.
Benson, M.A. and Dalrymple, T. (1967) General field and office procedures for
indirect discharge measurements. US Geological Survey Techniques of Water-
Resources Investigation, Book 3, Chapter A1, 30pp.
Beshir M.E. & Koch W. (Eds) (1979). Weed research in Sudan - Proceedings of a
Symposium. Berichte aus dem Fachgebeit Herbologie der Universitat
Hohenheim 18, 200 pp.
Bhargava A. N. and Singh H (1981) Prototype behaviour of long spurs, Irrigation
and Power, 38, 367 - 372.
Biggs B.J.F. (1996). Hydraulic habitat of plants in streams. Regulated Rivers:
research & management 12, 131-144.
Bilby, R. (1977) Effects of a spate on the macrophyte vegetation of a stream pool.
Hydrobiologia 56, 109-112.
Bilby R.E. (1984). Removal of woody debris may affect stream channel stability.
Journal of Forestry 82,609-613.
Bishop J.E. (1973). Limnology of a small Malayan River Sungai Gombak.
Monographiae Biologicae 22, Dr W Junk, The Hague, 385 pp.

91
Bittmann, E. (1967) Uferbewuchs and Uferform. Symposium on River
Morphology. Bern 1967, International Association of Scientific Hydrology
Publication 75, 297-308.
Blackburn, R.D., Sutton, D.L. and Taylor, T. (1971) Biological control of aquatic
weeds. Journal of the Irrigation and Drainage Division, Proceedings of the
American Society of Civil Engineers 97, 421-432.
Blanchaert K & Graf WF. (2001). Mean Hydraulic flow and turbulence in open
channel bend. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering 127, 835-847.
Blench, T. (1969) Mobile bed fluviology. (2nd. Edition). The University of Alberta
Press, Edmonton, 168pp.
Boesch, D, F, & Turner R. E. (1984). Dependency of fish species on saltmarshes:
The role of food and refuge. Estuaries 7(4A). 460-468.
Bogart, D.G. (1949) The effect of aquatic weeds on flow in everglades canals.
Proceedings of the Soil Science Society of Florida 9, 35-52.
Bolton P. & Dawson F.H. (1992) The use of a check-list in assessing possible
environmental impacts in planning watercourse improvements. Proceedings of
the International Symposium on Effects of Watercourse Improvements:
Assessment, Methodology, Management Assistance, 10-12 September 1991,
Wepion, Namur, Belgium. Department for non-navigable watercourses of the
Walloon Region. Volume I, 29-42.
Bon, J. (1976) [Maintenance classes: arrangement classification of dykes and drains.
[in Dutch.]
Bonetto A.A. (1975). Landscapes of River Basins (South America). Ecological
Studies 10. Coupling of land and water systems. Ed. A.D. Hasler. Springer,
New York. 173-197.
Bonham, A.J. (1974) Storm drainage system design and new city planning. Civil
Engineering Transactions of the Institution of Engineers, Australia CE16, 67-70.
Bonham, A.J. (1975) The influence of alternative stormwater drainage systems on
flood discharges. Institution of Engineers, Australia, Hydrology Symposium,
Armidale 1975, 188-192.
Bonham, A.J. (1978) A role for flood retarding vegetation in urban stormwater
management and creek preservation. Institution of Engineers, Australia,
Hydrology Symposium, Canberra 1978, 174-175.
Bonham, A.J. (1980) Bank protection using emergent plants against boat wash in
rivers and canals. Hydraulics Research Station, Wallingford, England, Report
No. IT 206, 34pp.
Booker, D.J., Sear, D.A. and Payne, A.J. (2001). Modelling three-dimensional flow
structures and patterns of boundary shear stress in a natural pool-riffle
sequence. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 26, 553-576.
Botma, H and Struyk, A.J. (1970) Errors in measurements of flow by velocity-area
methods. International Association of Scientific Hydrology, Symposium,
Koblenz 1970, 2, 771-784.
Boulet, G; Kalma, JD; Braud, I; Vauclin, M. (1999). An assessment of effective
land surface parameterisation in regional-scale water balance studies, Journal
of Hydrology (Amsterdam) 217, 225-238.
Bowie, A.J. (1982). Investigations of vegetation for stabilising eroding streams banks.
Transactions of the Soil and Water Division of the American Society of
Agricultural Engineers 25, 1-12.
Brabben, T.E. (1984). Weed control and canal maintenance: Review of Mansouria
Canal Study (October 1983 to May 1984). Hydraulics Research Ltd,

92
Wallingford, England, Technical Note OD/TN 4, 14pp.
Brabben T.E. (1986). Monitoring the effects if aquatic weeds in Egyptian Irrigation
Systems. Proceedings of the 7th. Symposium on Aquatic Weeds, European
Weed Research Society / Association of Applied Biologists, Loughborough
1986, p 1-51
Brabben T.E. & Bolton P. (1988). Aquatic weed problems in irrigation systems.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Conference of the Weed Science Society of
Nigeria, 27 Nov - 1 Dec. 1988 Ile-Ife, Nigeria, 24 pp.
Brabben T.E. (1989) Report on a visit to Egypt, 5-11 August 1889. Report ODV 397,
Hydraulics Research Ltd, Wallingford. 9 pp + Appendices.
British Standards Institution. Methods for measurement of liquid flow in open
channels. (BS 3680).
(1993) Part 3Q. Stream flow measurement. Code of practice for safe practice
in stream gauging
(1983) Part 1. Vocabulary and symbols.
(1974) Part 2A Dilution methods. Constant rate injection. (1983) Part 2C
Dilution methods. Radioisotope techniques. (1980) Part 3A Velocity area
methods.
(1980) Part 3D Moving boat method.
(1981) Part 4A Weirs and flumes. Thin plate weirs and Venturi flumes.
(1969) Part 4B Weirs and flumes. Long base weirs. (1981) Part 4C Weirs and
flumes. Flumes.
(1980) Part 4E Weirs and flumes. Rectangular broad crested weirs. (1981) Part
4G Weirs and flumes. Flat V weirs.
(1990). BS3680: Part 4F:ISO 4374: Measurement if Liquid Flow in Open
Channels, Part 4: Weirs and flumes. Part 4F: Round nose horizontal
broad-crested weirs.
(1970) Part 5 Slope area method.
(1973) Part 6 Tidal channels. [under revision]
(1971) Part 7 The measurement of liquid level (stage). (1973) Part 8A Current
meters - current meters incorporating a rotating element.
(1973) Part 8B Current meters - suspension equipment. (1980) Part 8C Current
meters - current meter calibration.
(1971) Part 9A Water level instruments - specification for the instillation and
performance of pressure actuated liquid level measuring equipment.
(1980) Part 10B Methods of measuring sediment load.
(1980) Part 10C Bed material sampling.
British Standards Institution (1980). BS 5844. Calculation of uncertainty of a
measurement of flow.
Brodsky K.A. (1980). Mountain torrent of the Tien Shan. Monographiae
Biologicae 39, Dr W. Junk, The Hague. 311 pp.
Brooker, M.P., Morris, D.L. and Wilson, C.J. (1978). Plant flow relationships in the
R. Wye catchment. Proceedings of the European Weed Research Society, 5th
Symposium on Aquatic Weeds, Amsterdam 1978, 63-70.
Brookes, A. (1981). Channelization in England and Wales: Discussion Paper No. 11.
Department of Geography, University of Southampton, 49pp.
Brookes, A. (1983). River channelization in England and Wales. Downstream
consequences for the channel morphology and aquatic vegetation, 458pp.
University of Southampton. Ph.D Thesis.
Brookes, A., Gregory, K.J. and Dawson, F.H. (1983) An assessment of river

93
channelization in England and Wales. The Science of the Total Environment 27,
97-111.
Brookes, A. (1985) River channelization: Traditional engineering methods, physical
effects and alternative practices. Progress in Physical Geography 9, 44-73.
Brookes A (1987). Recovery and adjustment of aquatic vegetation within
channelised works in England and Wales. Journal of Environmental
Management 24, 365-382
Brookes A (1988). Channelized Rivers. Perspectives for environmental
management. John Wiley and Sons Ltd.
Brookes, A., Shields, F.D. eds. (1996). River Channel Restoration: Guiding
Principles for Sustainable Projects. John Wiley and Sons, 458 pp.
Brooks, N.H. (1975). Mechanics of Stream with Movable Beds in Fine Sand.
Procs. ASCE, September, No. 668.
Brownlie, W.R. (1981). Prediction of Flow Depth and Sediment Discharge in Open
Channels. Report KH-R-43A, California Institute of Technology.
Brownlie W.R. (1983). Flow depth in sand-bed channels. ASCE Journal of
Hydraulic Engineering, Vol 109, pp959-990
Bruk, S. and Oef, Z. (1975). Determination of roughness coefficients for very
irregular rivers with large flood plains. Proceedings of the 12th Congress of the
International Association for Hydraulic Research, Paper A.12, 95-99.
Burke RW., Stolzenbach KD. (1983). Free surface flow through salt marsh grass.
MIT-Sea Grant Report MITSG 83-16, Cambridge, MA. USA.
Burman, R.D. and Black, R.D. (1970). The inference of intake and hydraulic
roughness parameters from plot runoff using kinematic wave theory.
Transactions of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers 13, 479-481.
Butcher R.W. (1933). Studies on the Ecology of Rivers. I. on the distribution of
macrophyte vegetation in the rivers of Britain. Journal of Ecology 21, 58-91.
Bussmann, P. (1978). Eine weitere Mglichkeit der Bercksichtigung des
Verkrautungseinflusses auf den Abfluss. Deutsche Gewsserkundliche
Mitteilungen 22, 57-61.
Butcher, R.W. (1933). Studies on the ecology of rivers. 1. On the distribution of
macrophyte vegetation in the rivers of Britain. Journal of Ecology 21, 58-91.
Butler, D., Rock, S.P. and West, J.R. (1978). Friction coefficient variation with flow
in an urban stream. Journal of the Institution of Water Engineers and Scientists
32, 227-232.
Butterworth, B. (1981). Biofilm growth and hydraulic performance. Journal of the
Hydraulics Division, Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers
107, 629-649.
Capblancq J. and Dauta A. (1978). Phytoplankton et production primaire de la
riviere Lot. Annals de Limnologie 14, 85-112.
Carling, PA; Glaister, MS; Flintham, TP (1997). The erodibility of upland soils and
the design of preafforestation drainage networks in the United Kingdom
Hydrological Processes 11, 15, 1963-1980.
Carling, P. A. (1992). The nature of the fluid boundary layer and the selection of
the parameters for benthic ecology. Freshwater Biology 28: 273-284
Carstens, T. (1968) Wave forces on boundaries and submerged bodies. Sarsia 34,
37-60. (Second European Symposium on Marine Biology.)
Carter, R.W., Einstein, H.A., Hinds, J., Powell, R.W. and Silberman, E. (1963)
Frictional factors in open channels. Journal of the Hydraulics Division,
Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers 89, 97-143. (Discussion:

94
1963, 89 (July), 283; 1963, 89 (Sept.), 169; 1964, 90 (July), 223.
Casey H. and Westlake D.F. (1974). Growth and nutrient relationships of
macrophytes in Sydling Water, a small unpolluted chalk stream. Proc. Eur.
Weed Res. Counc. 4th int. Symp. Aquatic Weeds 1974, 69-76.
Caspar, J. (1983) Circulation in reed-overgrown lakes. Proceedings of the 20th
Congress of the International Association for Hydraulic Research, Moscow V,
536-542. VINITI, Moscow.
Chang, HH, Graf, WL, Grissinger, EH, Guy, HP, Osterkamp, WR (1982)
Relationships Between Morphology of Small Streams and Sediment Yield.
Journal of the Hydraulics Division, Proceedings of the American Society of
Civil Engineers 108, 1328-1365.
Chang, H.H. (1985) River morphology and thresholds. Journal of Hydraulic
Engineering 111, 503-519.
Chang, H.H. (1988). Fluvial processes in river engineering. Wiley-Interscience,
432 pp.
Chanson, H. (1999). The Hydraulics of Open Channel Flows: An Introduction.
Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, UK, 512 pp
Charlton, F.G. (1977). An appraisal of available data on gravel rivers. HR Report INT
181, Hydraulics Research Station, Wallingford, UK, 82pp
Charlton, F.G. (1978). Measuring flow in open channels: a review of methods.
Construction Industry Research and Information Association, London, Report
No. 75, 160pp.
Chaudry, M.H. (1993). Open-Channel Flow. Prentice Hall, New Jersey, 483 pp
Chen, C-L (1975). Urban storm runoff inlet hydrograph study. 2. Laboratory studies
of the resistance coefficient for sheet flow over natural turf surfaces. Utah Water
Research Laboratory, College of Engineering, Utah State University, Logan,
Utah. Final Report No. PRWA 106-2, 56pp. or NTIS as PB 263 986. OAND
also same title Report FHWA-RD-76-117, march 1976. 104 pp.
Chen, C-L (1976). Flow resistance in broad shallow grassed channels. Journal of the
102, 307-322. (Discussion: 1977, 103, 90-91; 1977, 103, 1356-1357)
Chen, YH., Cotton, GK (1988). Design of Roadside Channels with Flexible
Linings. Hydraulic Engineering Circular No. 15, Report No. FHWA-IP-87-7,
April 1988. 112pp, [NTIS PB89 122584]
Chezy A, (1768). In: On the origin of the Chezy formula by C Herschel. Journal
Association of Engineering Societies, 18 363-368. (Discussion: 1897, 368-
369.)
Choi, S-U., Kang H. (2001). Reynolds Stress Modeling of Vegetated Open Channel
Flows. XXIX IAHR Congress Conference Proceedings. Beijing, China.
Chow, VT (Editor) (1959, 1984) Handbook of applied hydrology. McGraw-Hill Book
Co. New York, 680pp.
Chow, Ven Te (1981). Hydraulic exponents. Journal of the Hydraulics Division,
Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers 107, 1489-1499.
Chow VT (1981). Open Channel Hydraulics. McGraw-Hill Limited, London. 680
pp. [Editions 1959, 1969]
Church M (1972). Baffin Island Sandurs; a study of Arctic Fluvial Processes.
Geological Survey of Canada, Bulletin 216, 1972.
Church, M.A. (1974). Electrochemical and fluorometric tracer techniques for
streamflow measurements. British Geomorphological Research Group, Technical
Bulletin No. 12, 73pp.

95
Coffey B.T. and McNabb C.D. (1974). Eurasian water-milfoil in Michigan. The
Michigan Botanist 13, 159-165.
Colebrook, C.F and White, C.M. 1937. Experiments with fluid friction in roughened
pipes, Proceedings of the Royal Society A, Vol 161, p367-379.
Colebrook, C.F. 1939. Turbulent flow in pipes with particular reference to the
transition region between the smooth and rough pipe laws, Journal of the
Institution of Civil Engineers, Vol 11, p133-156.
Cole, J.A. (1969). Dilution gauging by inorganic tracers, notably the plateau method.
In: Institution of Water Engineers, Symposium on River Flow Measurement,
Loughborough 1969, 111-154.
Conboy, D.A. and Glime, J. M. (1971). Effects of drift abrasives on Fontinalis novae-
angliae Sull. Castanea 36, 111-114.
Cook C.D.K. (1990). Aquatic plant book. SPB Academic Publishing, The Hague,
The Netherlands 228 pp.
Cook, H.L. (1938) Spartanburg Outdoor Hydraulic Laboratory. Journal of the Civil
Engineering Division, Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers 8,
653-655.
Cook, H.L. and Cambell, F.B. (1939). Characteristics of some meadow strip
vegetations. Agricultural Engineering 20, 345-348.
Cornish, B.A., Yong, K.C. and Stone, D.M. (1967). Hydraulic characteristics of low
cost surfaces for farm dam bywash spillways. University of New South Wales,
Water Research Laboratory, Report No. 93.
Cowan, W.L. (1956). Estimating hydraulic roughness coefficients. Agricultural
Cox, M.B. (1942). Tests on vegetated waterways. Oklahoma Agricultural and
Mechanical College, Agricultural Experimental Station, Stillwater, Oklahoma,
Technical Bulletin No. T-15, 23pp.
Cox, M.B. and Palmer, V.J. (1948). Results of tests on vegetated waterways and
method of field application. Oklahoma Agricultural Experimental Station,
Stillwater, Oklahoma, Miscellaneous Publication No. MP-12, 43pp.
Cox, R.G. (1973). Effective hydraulic roughness for channels having bed roughness
different from bank roughness: a state of the art report. US Army Engineers
Waterways Experimental Station, Miscellaneous Paper H-73-2, 64pp. (AD-757
138)
Cunge, J.A., F.M. Holley, and A. Verwey (1980). Practical Aspects of
Computational River Hydraulics, Monographs and Surveys in Water
Resources Engineering, Vol. 3, Pitman. 240 pp.
Dackombe, R.V. and Gardiner, V. (1982) Fluvial processes. In: Geomorphological
field manual, (eds. V.Gardiner & R.V. Dackombe) 127-156. George Allen and
Unwin, London.
Dane, B.G. (1978). Culvert Guidelines: Recommends for the Design & Installation
of Culverts in British Columbia to Avoid Conflict with Anadromous Fish.
Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Fisheries & Marine Service Technical
Report No. 811. Vancouver, British Columbia.
(Det) Danske Hedeselskab (1976) Data for Q-H-Kurver, Bilag i Viborg Amtskomme
afstrmningsmalinger 1976. Report of Det Danske Hedeselskab Slagelse,
Denmark, 53pp. [in Danish.]
Darby, SE; Thorne, CR (1992). Impact of channelization on the Mimmshall brook,
Hertfordshire, UK. Regulated Rivers: Research & Management, 7, 193-204.
Darby, SE, Thorne, CR (1995). Fluvial maintenance operations in managed alluvial

96
rivers. Aquatic Conservation, 5, 37-54.
Darby, SE; Thorne, CR (1996). Predicting stage-discharge curves in channels with
bank vegetation. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering 122, 583-586.
Darby, SE; Thorne, CR (1996). Numerical simulation of widening and bed
deformation of straight sand-bed rivers. I: Model development. Journal of
Hydraulic Engineering, 122, 184-193.
Darby, SE, Thorne, CR, & Simon, A, (1996). Numerical simulation of widening
and bed deformation of straight sand-bed rivers. In: Model evaluation Journal
of Hydraulic Engineering, 122, 194-202.
Darby, SE (1999). Effect of Riparian Vegetation on Flow Resistance and Flood
Potential. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering 125, 443-454.
D'Arcy, H. (1857). Sur recherches exprimentales relatives au mouvement des eaux
dans les tuyaux. Compte Rendus des Sances de L'Acdemie des Sciences 1857,
1109-1121.
Davidian, J. and Cahal, D.I. (1963) Distribution of shear in rectangular channels. US
Geological Service, Professional Paper No. 475-C. Washington.
Davies B.R. and Walker K.F. (1986). The Ecology of River Systems, Editors
Monographiae Biologicae 60, Junk, Dordrecht, 793 pp.
Davies, J.T. (1972) Turbulence phenomena. Academic Press, London, 402pp.
Dawson, F.H. (1973) The production ecology of Ranunculus penicillatus
var.calcareus in relation to the organic input into a chalk stream, 356pp.
University of Aston in Birmingham, Ph.D Thesis.
Dawson F.H. (1976). The annual production of the aquatic macrophyte Ranunculus
penicillatus var. calcareus (R.W. Butcher) C.D.K. Cook. Aquat. Bot. 2, 51-73.
Dawson F.H., Castellano E. and Ladle M. (1978). The concept of species
succession in relation to river vegetation and management. Verhandlung
international Vereinung theorotische angewante Limnologiae 20, 1451-1456.
Dawson F.H. (1978a). Seasonal effects of aquatic plant growth on the flow of water in
a small stream. Proceedings of the European Weed Research Society, 5th
Symposium on Aquatic Weeds, Amsterdam 1978, 71-78.
Dawson FH (1978b). Aquatic plant management in semi-natural streams: the role
of marginal vegetation. Journal of Environmental Management, 6, 213-221.
Dawson, F.H., Castellano, E. and Ladle, M. (1978) The concept of species succession
in relation to river vegetation and management. Verhandlungen der
internationalen Vereiningung fr theoretische und angewandte Limnologie 20,
1451-1456.
Dawson F.H. (1979) Ranunculus calcareus and its role in lowland streams. Annual
Report of Freshwater Biological Association, 47, 60-69.
Dawson F.H. and Kern-Hansen U. (1979). The effect of natural and artificial shade
on the macrophytes of lowland streams and the use of shade as a management
technique. Int. Revue gesampten Hydrobiologie und Hydrographie 64 (4),
437-455.
Dawson F.H. (1980). The origin, composition and downstream transport of plant
material in a small chalk stream. Freshwater Biology 10, 419-435.
Dawson F.H. (1980). The flowering of Ranunculus penicillatus var. calcareus in
the River Piddle, Dorset. Aquatic Botany 9, 145-157.
Dawson, F.H. (1981) The reduction of light as a technique for the control of aquatic
plants - an assessment. Association of Applied Biologists, Weed Group,
Proceedings of a Symposium, Aquatic Weeds and their Control, Oxford, 1981,
157-164.

97
Dawson, F.H., Kern-Hansen, U. and Westlake, D.F. (1981). Water plants and
temperature and oxygen regimes of small lowland streams. In: Studies on aquatic
plants (eds. J.J. Symoens, S.S. Hooper and P. Compre), 214-221. Royal
Botanical Society of Belgium, Brussels.
Dawson F.H. & Robinson W.N. (1984). Submerged macrophytes and the hydraulic
roughness of a lowland chalkstream. Verhandlungen der internationalen
Vereinungen theoretische und angwandte Limnologie 22, 1944-1948.
Dawson F.H. (1988). Water flow and the vegetation of running waters. In:
Handbook of Vegetation Sciences series, 15, Vegetation of Inland Waters (ed.
J.J. Symoens), 283-309. Junk, The Hague.
Dawson F.H. & Charlton F.G. (1988). A bibliography on the hydraulic resistance
or roughness of vegetated watercourses. Freshwater Biological Association
Occasional Publication 25, 50 pp.
Dawson F.H. (1989). Ecology and management of water plants in lowland streams.
Annual Rep. of the Freshwater Biological Association 57, 43-60.
Dawson F.H. & Brabben T.E. (1991). Conflicts of interest in designing
environmentally sound channels. Proceedings of an African Regional
Symposium on Techniques for Environmentally Sound Water Resources
Development, Alexandria, Egypt 17-19 February 1991 held 28-30 September
1991 (ed. R. Wooldridge), 135-154. Hydraulics Research Ltd, WRC, Cairo,
African Water Resources Network, WRC and ODA, London.
Dawson F.H., Clinton E.M.F. & Ladle M. (1991). Invertebrates on cut-weed
removed during a weed-cut operations along an English river, the River
Frome, Dorset. Aquaculture & Fisheries Management 22, 113-121. [weed
cutting effects, level changes & consequences]
Dawson F.H., P.J. Raven & Gravelle M.G. (1999). Distribution of the
morphological groups of aquatic plants for rivers. Hydrobiologia 415: 123-
130.
Dawson F.H., & Holland D. (1999). The distribution in bankside habitats of three
alien invasive plants in the UK in relation to the development of control
strategies. Hydrobiologia 415: 193-201.
Dawson, F.H., Raven, P.J. & Gravelle, M.J. (1999) Distribution of the
morphological groups of aquatic plants for rivers in the U.K. Hydrobiologia
415 123-130.
Dawson F.H. (in press). Management and construction effects on vegetation in
British rivers. In: Water Management (eds B.G. de Bikua & I. Benito).
Proceedings of a conference on water management, October 2-4 1990 Vitoria,
Spain. Basque Government, Associcin Espaola de Limnologa and Sociedad
de Recurs Naturales SIRNSA, 47 pp.
Denny, M.W. (1985). Wave forces on intertidal organisms: A case study. Limnology
and Oceanography 30, 1171-1187. [Biology - effects of braking waves]
Denny, M.W., Daniel, T.L. and Koehl, M.A.R. (1985). Mechanical limits to size in
wave-swept organisms. Ecological Monographs 55. 69-102.
Department of the Environment (1977). Weed growth on river flow measuring
structures. UK Department of the Environment, Water Data Unit Technical
Memorandum 15, 22pp.
den Hartog C. (1982). Architecture of macrophyte-dominated aquatic communities.
in Studies on Aquatic Vascular plants (eds J.J. Symoens, S.S. Hooper & P.
Compere), 222-234. Proceedings International Colloquium on Aquatic
Vascular Plants, Brussels, 23-25 January 1981. Brussels, Royal Botanical

98
Society of Belgium.
Dillenius JJ c1700 A treatise on plants in water plants.
Dittrich, Hartmann and Gottauf (1999). Validation of resistance formulas of
compound channels with field data, IAHR congress, Graz 1999.
Dunn C., Lopez F., Garcia M. (1996). Mean flow and turbulence strucure induced
by vegetation: Hydraulic Engineering Series No. 51, UILU-ENG 96-2009,
Dept. of Civil Eng., University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana,
Illinois, USA
Dobbie, C.H. and Partners (1980). Report on bank protection in rivers and canals.
Hydraulic Research Station, Wallingford, England.
Doubt, P.D. (1955). Chute spillways. In: National Engineering Handbook. US
National Soil Conservation Service.
Dubois J, Schleiss A, (1999). Hydraulic behaviour of surface flow in and over
macro-roughness, IAHR congress, Graz
Duff, D.A. and Wydoski, R.S. (1982) Indexed bibliography on stream habitat
improvement. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Intermountain Region, 143pp.
Dudley, SJ; Bonham, CD; Abt, SR; Fischenich, JC (1998). Comparison of methods
for measuring woody riparian vegetation density. Journal of Arid
Environments 38, 77-86.
Dudley, SJ; Fischenich, JC; Abt, SR (1998). Effect of woody debris entrapment on
flow resistance. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 34,
1189-1198.
Dumas, H. (1952). La mthode chemique pour la mesur de dbit des cours d'eau. La
Houille Blanche 5, 690-701. 86.
Duncan, M.J.; Smart, G.M.; Walsh, J.M. (1999). A review of techniques for
calculating hydraulic parameters and flow resistance at high relative
roughness. Gravel-bed Rivers Workshop, NZ Hydrological Society
Symposium, Napier, 2326 November, 121.
Dunn C., Lopez F., Garcia M. (1996). Mean flow and turbulence strucure induced
by vegetation: Hydraulic Engineering Series No. 51, UILU-ENG 96-2009,
Dept. of Civil Eng., University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana,
Illinois, USA
Eastgate, W.I. (1966) Vegetated stabilization of grassed waterways and dam
bywashes. University of Queensland. MSc Eng Thesis.
Eastgate, W.I. (1969). Vegetated stabilization of grassed waterways and dam
bywashes. Water Research Foundation of Australia, Bulletin No. 16. Sydney.
Edwards, R.V. and Dybbs, A. (1984). Refractive index matching for velocity
measurements in complex geometries. TSI Quarterly X(4), 3-5.
Edwards R.W. and Brooker M.P. (1982). The ecology of the Wye. Monographiae
Biologicae 50, Dr W. Junk, The Hague. 164 pp.
Edwards, D. (1969). Some effects of siltation upon aquatic macrophyte vegetation in
rivers. Hydrobiologia 34, 29-37.
Edwards, R.W. and Owens, M. (1962). The effects of plants on river conditions. IV.
The oxygen balance of a chalkstream. Journal of Ecology 50, 207-220.
Eichenberger E. (1983). The effect of the seasons on the growth of Ranunculus
fluitans Lam. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Aquatic
Macrophytes, Nijmegen 18-23 September, 63-67.
Einstein, H A (1950). The bed-load function for sediment transportation in open
channel flows, Technical Bulletin No. 1026, United States Department of

99
Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Washington, D.C.
Ekzertzev V.A. (1979). The higher aquatic vegetation of the Volga in The River
Volga and its life. Ed Ph. D. Mordukhai-Boltovskoi, Monographiae Biologicae
33, 271-194. Dr W. Junk, The Hague.
Emmett, W.W. (1970). The hydraulics of overland flow on hillslopes. U.S. Geological
Survey Professional Paper 662-A, 68pp.
Engelund, F. (1966). Hydraulic resistance of alluvial streams. Proceedings of the
American Society of Civil Engineers. Journal of the Hydraulics Division, 92(2) 315
326.
Engelund, F. (1967). Hydraulic resistance of alluvial streams. (Closure to
discussion). Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers. Journal
of the Hydraulics Division, 93(4) 287 296.
Environment Agency (1997). Environmental options: specifications for flood
defence maintenance works. Environment Agency, 50pp.
Environment Agency (1998). Aquatic weed control operation: best practice
guidelines. Environment Agency R&D Report W111, Report to IACR Centre
for Aquatic Plant Management, 132pp.
Environment Agency. Water plants their function and management.
Escarameia M (1998). River and channel revetments: a design manual. Thos
Telford, London 245pp.
Escarameia M, Gasowski Y and May R (2002). Grassed drainage channels
hydraulic resistance characteristics. Proc of Institution of Civil Engineers.
Water and Maritime Engineering 154, December 2002, Issue 4. pp 333-341
Evers, P. (1983). Untersuchung der Strmungsvorgnge in gegliederten Gerinnen mit
extremen Rauheitsunderschieden. Mitteilungen aus dem Institut fr Wasserbau
und Wasserwirtschaft, Rheinisch Westflische Technische Hochschule, Aachen
45, 222pp.
Evers, P. and Rouv, G. (1980). Basic model investigations on hydraulic effects of
bank and flood-plain vegetation. International Association for Hydraulic
Research, Symposium on River Engineering and its Interaction with
Hydrological and Hydraulic Research, Belgrade 1980, paper D14, 8pp.
Fasken, G.B. (1963). Guide to selecting roughness coefficient 'n' values for channels.
US Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service, 33pp. [ns & channel
pictures]
Falconer, R.A., P. Goodwin, and R.G.S. Matthew (1989). Hydraulic and
Environmental Modelling in Coastal, Estuarine and River Waters. 712 pp.
Fathi-Moghadam M and Kouwen N, (1997). Non-rigid, non-submerged vegetation
roughness in flood plains. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering 123, 51-57.
Faust, O. (1933). Basis of a method for ascertaining the events involved in the rate of
flow for stretches of river with weed growth., Baltic States Fourth Hydrological
Conference, Leningrad, 1933. [In German.]
Fenzl, R.N. (1962). Hydraulic resistance of broad shallow vegetated channels.
University of California, Davis. Ph D Thesis.
Fenzl, R.N. and Davies, J.R. (1964). Hydraulic resistance relationships for surface
flows in vegetated channels. Transactions of the American Society of
Agricultural Engineers 7, 46-51, 55.
Ferguson RM, Lyness JF, Myers WRC and OSullivan JJ, (1998). Hydraulic
performance of environmental features in rivers. Journal of CIWEM, 12, 286-
291.
Finnigan, J.J. (1979). Turbulence in waving wheat I. Mean statistics and Honami.

100
Boundary-Layer Meteorology 16, 181-121. [Short flexible vegetation in air, for
comparison,]
Finnigan, J.J. (1979). Turbulence in waving wheat II. Structure of momentum
transfer. Boundary-Layer Meteorology 16, 213-236.
Finnigan, J. (2000). Turbulence in plant canopies. Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics
32, 519-571.
Fisher KR, (1992). Morphological effects of River Improvement works:
recommended procedures. HR Wallingford Report SR 300.
Fisher KR (1993). Modelling the hydraulic impact of vegetation in river channels.
HR Wallingford Report SR 346, March 1993.
Fisher KR, Reeve CE. (1994). Impact of aquatic vegetation cutting. 2
nd

International Conference on River Flood Hydraulics, March.
Fisher KR, Dunderdale JAL, Morris J. (1994). The Longevity of River
Maintenance. XII CIGR World Congress and Agricultueral Engineering
Conference on Agricultural Engineering.
Fisher KR and Hollinrake PG, (1995). Environmentally preferable River
Improvements. An Engineering Guide. HR Wallingford Report SR 433.
Fisher KR, (1993). Modelling the hydraulic impact of vegetation in river channels.
. HR Wallingford Report SR 346, HR Ltd Wallingford.
Fisher KR, (1995). Manual of sediment transport in rivers. HR Wallingford Report
SR 359.
Fisher KR, (1995). River Maintenance Evaluation. HR Wallingford Report EX
2961. August 1995.
Fisher KR (1995). The impact of temporal and spatial variations in vegetation in
rivers. HR Wallingford Report SR 393, March 1995.
Fisher KR (2002). Handbook for the assessment of hydraulic performance of
environmentally acceptable channels. HR Wallingford SR490.
Fisher KR, Myers R, Lyness J, OSullivan J. (1996). Monitoring of fisheries on the
River Blackwater. 2
nd
International Symposium on Habitat Hydraulics.
Quebec, June 1996.
Fisher KR, Ramsbottom DM. (1996). Design of environmentally acceptable river
channels. 31
st
MAFF Conference of River and Coastal Engineers. Keele, July
1996.
Fisher KR, Lavedrine IA, Millington RJ, Samuels PG, (1996). Hydraulic
improvements for PHABSIM. HR Wallingford Report SR 486.
Fisher KR and Dawson FH, (2001). Parameters affecting conveyance (vegetation).
Review paper for EPSRC network on Conveyance in River/Floodplain
systems. (ncrfs.civil.gla.ac.uk/fisher.pdf)
Fisher KR and Knight DW, (2002). Improved roughness and velocity prediction
for instream habitats- development and comparison of methods. 4
th

International Ecohydraulics Symposium, Cape Town, South Africa.
Fischer Antze, T., Stoesser, T., Bates, P.B., Olsen, N.R. (2001). 3D Numerical
Modelling of Open-Channel Flow with Submerged Vegetation. Journal of
Hydraulic Research, 39(3) 303-310.
Fonseca, M.S., Fisher, J.S., Zieman, J.C. and Thayer, G.W. (1982). Influence of the
seagrass, Zostera marina L., on current flow. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf
Science 15, 351-364.
Fonseca, M.S., Zieman, J.C., Thayer, G.W. and Fisher, J.S. (1983). The role of current
velocity in structuring eelgrass (Zostera marina L.) meadows. Estuarine, Coastal
and Shelf Science 17, 367-380.

101
Fox AM (1992)
Francis, T.R.D. (1962). A textbook of fluid mechanics for engineering students.
Edward Arnold, London, 340pp.
Fread, DL (1989). Flood Routing Models and the Manning n. Proceedings of the
International Conference on Channel Flow and Catchment Runoff: Centennial
of Manning 's Formula and Kuichling's Rational Formula. University of
Virginia, Charlottesville VA. 699-708
Fredenhagen, V.B. and Doll, E.H. (1954). Grassed waterways. Agricultural
Freeman GE, Rahmeyer W, Derrick, DL, and Copeland RR, (1998). Mannings n
for floodplains with shrubs and woody vegetation. USCID Conference on
Shared Rivers, Park City, Utah, October
Ferguson RM, Lyness JF, Myers WRC and OSullivan JJ, (1998). Hydraulic
performance of environmental features in rivers. Journal of CIWEM, 12
pp286-291
Frutiger, A. (1984). A versatile flow channel for laboratory experiments with running
water macroinvertebrates. Schweizerische Zeitschrift fur Hydrologie 46,
301-306.
Fukuoka S and Fujita K (1990). Flow resistance due to lateral momentum transport
across vegetation in the river course. International conference on Physical
Modelling of Transport and Dispersion, ASCE, 12B, 25-30.
Gardiner, JL (Ed) (1990). River projects and conservation. John Wiley & Sons,
Chichester 236pp.
Gardner, H.H. and Freyburger, E. (1949). Grass waterways. US Department of
Agriculture, Leaflet 257.
Gaudet J.J. (1974). The normal role of vegetation in water. in Aquatic vegetation its
use and control, Ed. D.S. Mitchell. 24-37, UNESCO, Paris.
Gessner (1955). Hydrobotanic. Part I Energiehaushalt. (1959) Part II Stoffhaushalt.
Veb Deutscher Verlag der Wissenschaften, Berlin, 517pp and 701 pp.
[InGerman]
Giles, R.V. (1977). Fluid mechanics and hydraulics (2nd. ed.), Schaum Outline Series.
McGraw-Hill, New York, 275pp.
Gilley, JE, Kottwitz, ER, Wieman, GA (1992). Darcy-Weisbach Roughness
Coefficients for Gravel and Cobble Surfaces Journal of Irrigation and
Drainage Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineers 118, 104-112
Gilley, JE, Kottwitz, ER (1994). Darcy-Weisbach roughness coefficients for
selected crops Transactions of the American Society of Agricultural
Engineering, 37, 467-471.
Gils, H. (1962). Die wechselnde Abflusshemmung in verkrauteten Gewssern.
Deutsche gewsserkundliche Mitteilungen 6, 102-110.
Gils, H. (1966). Der Abfluss in verkrauteten Gewssern: eine Gegenberstellung den
Verfahren von Prantle, Gils und Schenk. Deutsche gewsserkundliche
Mitteilungen 10. 44-51.
Gippel CJ, (1995). Environmental hydraulics of large woody debris in streams and
rivers. ASCE Journal of Environmental Engineering, Vol 121, No 5 pp388-
395.
Gimmingham C.H. and Birse E.M. (1957). Ecological studies on growth forms in
Bryophytes I. correlations between growth form and habitat. Journal of
Ecology 45, 533-545.
Gluck (1905-1924). Biologische und morphologische untersuchungen uber Wasser

102
und Sumpfgewasser Volumes I-IV, Jena. [in German]
Glyme J.M. and Carr R.E. (1974). Temperature survival of Fontinalis novae-
angliae Sull. The Bryologist 77, 17-22.
Goldsmith, H. (1985). Hydraulic effects of aquatic weeds: Reappraisal of
measurements - Mansouria Canal, Egypt. Hydraulics Research Ltd, Wallingford,
U.K. Technical Note OD/TN 12.
Golterman and Kouwen (1980)
Gopal B. and Sharma K.P. (1981). Water Hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) the most
troublesome weed of the world. Hindasia Publications, Delhi, India.
Gore, J.A. ed. (1985). The Restoration of Rivers and Streams; Theories and
experience. Ann Arbour Science Book, Butterworth, 280 pp.
Government of Canada, Fisheries and Oceans, (1980). Stream Enhancement
Guide.
Gray DH 7 MacDonald A (1989). The role of vegetation in river bank erosion.
Hydraulic Engineering, Proceedings of the 1989 conference on Hydraulic
Engineering, 218-223.
Graf, W.H. and Ko, S.C. (1971). Tests on cylinders in turbulent flow. Journal of the
Hydraulics Division, Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers 97,
1265-1267.
Graf, W.H. and Chhun, V.H. (1976). Manning's roughness for artificial grasses.
Journal of the Irrigation and Drainage Division, American Society of Chemical
Engineers 102, 413-423.
Graf, W.H. (1998). Fluvial Hydraulics: Flow and Transport Processes in Channels
of Simple Geometry. In collaboration with M.S. Altinakar, John Wiley and
Sons, England, 681 pp.
Gran Olsson, R. (1936). Geschwindigkeits- und Temperatur-verteilung hinter einem
Gitter bei turbulenter Strmung. Zeitschrift fr Angewandte Mathematik und
Mechanik 16, 245-274.
Green JEP and Garton JE (1983). Vegetation lined channel design procedures.
Transactions of the American Society of Agricultural Engineering, 26, 437-
439.
Gregory, K.J. ed. (1977). River Channel Changes. John Wiley and Sons, 448 pp.
Gregory KJ, Gurnell AM & Hill CT (1985). The permanance of debris dams
related to river channel process. Hydrological Sciences Journal 30, 371-381.
Grover, N.C. and Harrington, A.W. (1949). Stream flow. J. Wiley and Sons, London,
363pp.
Goldman, S. J., K. Jackson, and T.A. Bursztynsky, (1986). Erosion and Sediment
Control Handbook. McGraw-Hill, Inc. New York.
Gurnell AM and Midgley P, (1994). Aquatic weed growth and flow resistance:
influence on the relationship between discharge and stage over a 25 year river
gauging station record. Hydrological processes, 8, 63-73.
Gwinn, W.R. and Ree, W.O. (1980). Maintenance effects on the hydraulic properties
of a vegetation-lined channel. Transactions of the American Society of
Haber, B. (1982). ber den Erosionsbeginn bei der berstrmung von flexiblen
Rauheitselementen, Mitteilungen des Leichtweiss Institut fr Wasserbau,
Technische Universitt, Braunschweig 74, 212pp.
Hahn, A. (1942). Rate of flow in water courses covered with ice or with weed growth.
Deutsche Wasserwirtschaft 7, 419-451.
Haldar SK, Sohani SS, Singh KP, (1981). Determination of Mannings roughness

103
coefficient from measured bed material size and hydraulic radius. Irrigation
and Power, 38, 27-32.
Ham S.F., Wright J.F. and Berrie A.D. (1981). Growth and recession of aquatic
macrophytes on an unshaded section of the River Lambourn, England, from
1971 to 1976. Freshwater Biology, 381-390.
Ham, S.F., Cooling, D.A., Hiley, P.D., McLeish, P.R., Scorgie, H.R.A. and Berrie,
A.D. (1982). Growth and recession of aquatic macrophytes an a shaded section
of the River Lambourn, England, from 1971 to 1980. Freshwater Biology 12,
1-15.
Ham S.F., Cooling D.A., Hiley P.D., McLeish P.R., Scorgie H.R.A. and Berrie
A.D. (1982a). Growth and recession of aquatic macrophytes on a shaded
section of the River Lambourn, England, from 1971 to 1980. Freshwater
Biology 12, 1-15.
Ham S.F., Wright J.F. and Berrie A.D. (1982b). The effect of cutting on the growth
and recession of the freshwater macrophyte Ranunculus penicillatus (Dumort.)
Bab. var. calcareus (R.W. Butcher) C.D.K. Cook, J. Environ. Manage. 15,
263-271.
Hamill, L. (1983.) Some observations on the time of travel of waves in the River
Skerne, England, and the effect of aquatic vegetation. Journal of Hydrology 66,
291-304.
Haque, M.I. and Mahmood, K. (1983). Analytical determination of form friction
factor. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering 109, 590-610.
Harrod J.J. (1964). The distribution of invertebrates on submerged aquatic plants in
a chalkstream. J. Animal Ecology 33, 335-348.
Hasegawa K, Asai S, Kanetaka S and Baba H (1999). Flow properties of a deep
open experimental channel with a dense vegetation bank. Journal of
Hydroscience and Hydraulic Engineering, 17, 59-70.
Haslam SM (1978). River Plants: The Macrophytic Vegetation of Watercourses.
Cambridge University Press Cambridge, 396 pp.
Haslam SM and Wolseley PA (1981). River Vegetation: its identification,
assessment and management. Cambridge University Press, 154pp.
Hayes, J.C., Barfield, B.J. and Albrecht, S. (1981). Techniques for modeling and
monitoring the effects of vegetative strips on sediment yield from disturbed
areas. International Association of Hydrological Sciences, Proceedings of the
Symposium on Erosion and Sediment Transport Measurement, Firenze 1981, Ist.
Ing. Civ. 1981, 241-248.
Hearne JW and Armitage PD (1993). Implications of the annual macrophyte
growth cycle on habitat in rivers. Regulated Rivers: Research and
Management, 8, 313-322.
Helmioe, T (1998). Kasvillisuuden aiheuttaman virtausvastuksen arviointi
avouomassa [Estimating vegetation-induced resistance in open-channel flow],
[in Finish] Vesitalous, 2, 10-13.
Henderson, F.M. (1966). Open channel flow. Macmillan, London, 522pp.
Henry CP, Ameros C & Bornette G (1996). Species traits and recolonisation
processes after flood disturbances in riverine macrophytes, Vegetatio 122, 13-
27.
Heerman DF Wenstrom RJ & Evans NA (1969). Prediction of flow resistance in
furrows from soil roughness. Transactions, American society of Agricultural
Henriques PR (1987). Aquatic Macrophytes in Aquatic biology and hydro-electric

104
power development in New Zealand (Ed. PR Henriques), Oxford University
Press, Auckland, pp 207-222.
Herschel, C. (1897). On the origin of the Chezy formula. Journal of the Association of
Engineering Societies 18, 363-369.
Herschy, R.W. (Editor) (1978). Hydrometry. Principles and practices. Wiley,
Chichester, 542pp.
Hey, R.D., Bathurst, J.C., Thorne, C.R eds. (1982). Gravel-Bed Rivers: Fluvial
Processes, Engineering and Management. John Wiley and Sons, 875 pp.
Hey R D and Thorne C R (1986). Stable channels with mobile gravel beds, Journal
of Hydraulic Engineering, ASCE, 112, 671-689.
Hey RD, Heritage GL and Patteson M, 1994. Impact of flood alleviation schemes
on aquatic macrophytes. Regulated rivers: Research and Management, Vol 9,
103-119.
Hey RD (1979). Flow resistance in gravel bed rivers. Proceedings of the
American Society of Civil Engineers, Journal of the Hydraulic Division,
105(HY4), 365-379.
Hickin EJ (1984).Vegeation and river channel dynamics. Canadian Journal of
Geography 28,111-126.
Hicks DM and Mason PM (1991). Roughness characteristics of New Zealand
Rivers, Water Resources Survey DSIR Marine and Freshwater, New Zealand.
Hicks, M.; Nikora, V.; Goring, D.; Smart, G. (1998). Some new developments in
gravel-bed river mechanics: an overview of NIWAs research programme.
Abstracts, Joint Conference of the Meteorological Society of New Zealand and
the New Zealand Hydrological Society, Dunedin, 2427 November, p 47.
Hicks, D.M.; Mason P.D. (1998). Roughness characteristics of New Zealand
Rivers. NIWA, Christchurch. 329pp
Higginson N N J and Johnston H T (1989) Riffle-pool formations in Northern
Ireland Rivers, Proc. of Intl. Conf. on Channel Flow and Catchment Runoff,
University of Virginia, Charlottesville, May, pp 638-647.
Higginson NNJ (1992). Evaluation of hydraulic resistance in single and two-stage
rivers. A PhD thesis submitted to The Queen's University of Belfast.
Hill, A.R. (1976). The environmental impacts of agricultural land drainage. Journal of
Environmental Management 4, 251-274. [Refs.]
Hillebrand, D. (1950). Verkrautung und Abfluss. Deutsche Gewsserkundliche
Jahrbuch 2, 1-30. [in German, DSIR translation]
[Early classic study on R. Eder, Germany; hydraulic effects at varying conditions of
weed growth, tall flexible vegetation, Ranunculus and Potamogetons]
Hino, M. & Utahara H (1977). Hydraulic characteristics of flow with aquatic plants.
Proceedings Japan Society Civil Engineering 266, 84-97. (in Japanese)
Hino, M. (1977). Eco-hydraulics, an attempt. Hydraulic Engineering for Improved
Water Management, 17th Congress of International Association of Hydraulic
Research, Baden-Baden 1977 6, 178-208. [Biology]
Hino, M. (1981). Eco-hydrodynamics. Advances in Hydroscience 12, 143-193.
Hoerner, S.F. (1965). Fluid-dynamic drag (2nd ed.). Publ. S.F. Hoerner, Midland
Park, N.J. 450pp.
Holmes N.T.H. (1983). Typing British rivers according to their flora. Focus on
Nature Conservation No. 4. Nature Conservancy Council, Huntingdon,
Cambridgeshire, 194 pp.
Holtorff, G. (1982). Resistance to flow in alluvial channels. Journal of the
Hydraulics Division, American Society of Civil Engineers 108, 1010-1027.

105
Horton, R.E. (1916). Some better Kutter's formula coefficients. Engineering News,
75, 373-374 (24 Feb.) [Discussion by Scobey FC and Horton 75, 862-3 (4 May).
Horton, R.E. (1933). Separate roughness coefficients for channel bottom and sides.
Engineering News Record 3 or 111, 22 (30 Nov).
Hosia, L. (1980). Manningin kertoimen muuttuminen vesisyvyyden ja hydraulisen
sateen mukaan. Vesitalous 21 (5), 8-11. [in Finish]
Hosia, L. (1980) Pieten uomien virtausvastuskerroin. Vesitalous 21 (2), 17-21. [in
Finish]
Howard-Williams C., Davies J. and Pickmere S. (1982). The dynamics of growth,
the effects of changing area and nitrate uptake by watercress Nasturtium
officinale R. Br. in a New Zealand stream. Journal Applied Ecology 19, 589-
601.
Hsieh, T. (1964) Resistance of cylindrical piers in open-channel flow. Journal of the
Hydraulics Division, Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers 90
(Jan.), 161-173.
(Discussion: 1964, 90 (Sept.), 223; 90 (Nov.), 269; 1965, 91 (July), 276.)
Huang, HQ; Nanson, GC (1997). Vegetation and channel variation: A case study of
four small streams in southeastern Australia. Geomorphology 18, 237-249.
Htterott, K. (1976). Biologischer Uferschutz an fliessenden und stehenden
Gewssern. Wasser und Boden 9, 234-237.
Hydraulics Research Ltd (1985). The hydraulic roughness of vegetation in open
channels. Report IT 281 (SR36). Hydraulics Research Ltd, Wallingford. 39 pp.
Hydraulics Research Ltd (1985). The hydraulic roughness of vegetation in open
channels. Hydraulics Research Ltd Wallingford, England. Report IT 281 (SR36),
48pp.
Hydraulics Research (1992). The hydraulic roughness of vegetated channels.
Report No SR 305, March 1992. Hydraulics Research Ltd, Wallingford.
HR Wallingford and Barr DIH, (1998). Tables for the hydraulic design of channels
and pipes. 7th Edition. Volumes 1 and 2 pp252
Hynes H.B.N. (1970). The Ecology of Running Waters, Liverpool University
Press. 555 pp.
Ikeda S & Kanazawa M (1996). Three-dimensional organised vortices above
flexible water plants. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering 122, 634-640.
Ieperen, H. van and Herfst, M.S. (1986). Laboratory experiments on the flow
resistance of aquatic weeds. Proceedings 2nd International Conference on
Hydraulic Design in Water Resources Engineering: Land Drainage, 1986.
Indlekofer, H. and Rouve, G. (1981). On hydraulic capacity of rivers with vegetated
banks and flood-plains. International Association for Hydraulic Research,
Symposium on River Engineering and its Interaction with Hydrological and
Hydraulic Research, Belgrade 1981, paper D15, 8pp.
International Standards Organization
(1978) Calculation of uncertainty of a measurement of flow. ISO 5168.
(2000) Velocity area methods. ISO 748.
(1981) Establishment and operation of a gauging station. ISO 1100/I
(1998) Stage discharge relation. ISO 1100/II.
(1983) Errors in velocity area station. TR 7178, (1985) Data for determination of
errors. ISO 1088.
Isaacs, L.T. (1965). Hydrodynamic forces on surface piercing circular cylinders and
flat plates. University of Queensland, St. Lucia, Brisbane. MSc Eng Thesis.
Jain, S.C. (2001). Open-Channel Flow. John Wiley and Sons, New York, 328 p

106
James CS, (1994). Evaluation of methods for predicting bend loss in meandering
channels, Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, 120, 245-253.
James, C S (1998). The role of hydraulics in understanding river processes,
National Rivers Initiative, Southern African Society of Aquatic Scientists,
Pietermaritzburg, South Africa, 29 June - 1 July.
James CS, Liu W, and Myers WRC, (2001). Conveyance of meandering channels
with marginal vegetation. ICE, Water & Maritime Engineering 148, 97-106.
Jamme, G. (1974). Travaux Fluviaux. Collection de la Direction des Etudes et
Recherches d"Electricit de France, Eyrolles.
Jansen, P.Ph., L. van Bendegom, J. van den Berg, M. de Vries & A. Zanen (1979).
Principles of River Engineering; The Non-Tidal Alluvial River. Pitman,
London.
Jarrett, R.D. (1984). Hydraulics of high gradient streams. Journal. Hydraulic
Engineering. 110, 1519-1539.
Jarrett, R.D., (1985). Determination of roughness coefficients for streams in
Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 85-
4004, 54 p.
Jarrett, R.D., and Petsch, H.E., Jr., (1985). Computer program NCALC user's
manual--verification of Manning's roughness coefficient in channels: U.S.
Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 85-4317, 27 p.
Jeffers (1998)
Jenkins, J.T. (1982). Effects of flow rate on the ecology of aquatic bryophytes.
University of Exeter, April 1982. 164pp. Ph.D Thesis.
Jenkins J.T. and Proctor M.C.F. (1985). Water velocity, growth-form and diffusion
resistances to photosynthetic CO uptake in aquatic bryophytes. Plant, Cell and
Environment 8, 317-323.
John, P.H. (1978). Discharge measurement in lower order streams. Internationale
Revue der gesamten Hydrobiologie 63, 731-755. [As title, range of methods
including tracers]
Jorga W. and Weise G. (1978). Biomasseenwichlung submerser Makrophyten in
langsam fliessenden Gewassern in Bezehung zum Sauerstoffhaushalt.
Internationale Revue der gesammten Hydrobiologie 62, 209-234.
Julien, P.Y. (2002). River Mechanics. Cambridge University Press, 375 pp.
Jumars, P.A. and Nowell, A.R.M. (1984). Fluid and sediment dynamic effects on
marine benthic community structure. American Zoologist 24, 45-55.
[Microbial community dynamics and textural roughness.]
Kadlec, RH 2000 The inadequacy of first-order treatment wetland models. Journal
of Hydraulic Engineering 125, 443-454.
Kao, D.T.Y. and Barfield, B.J. (1976). Hydraulic resistance of grass media on
shallow overland flow. Kentucky Water Resources Research Institute.
Research Completion Report, Project (A 049 KY).
Kao, DTY & Barfield BJ (1978). Prediction of Flow Hydraulics for Vegetated
Channels. Transactions of the American Society of Agricultural Engineering
21, 489-494.
Kao, D.T., Barfield, B.J., Lyons, A.E. and Austin, E. (1977). Hydraulic resistance
of grass media on shallow overland flows. Water Resources Research Institute,
Research Report 107, October 1977, 116pp. Office of Water Research and
Technology (Lexington, University of Kentucky). (PB-275 219 4ST)
Karasev, I.F. (1969). Influence of the banks and flood plain on channel conveyance.
Soviet Hydrology, Selected Papers 5, 429-442.

107
Krmn, T. von. (1934). Turbulence and skin friction. Journal of Aeronautical
Science 1, 1-24.
Karovicova, M. and Kosorin, K. (1981). Experimental research of flow structure in
vegetated channels. Vodohospodrsky casopis 29. 309-319. [See Civil
Engineering Hydraulic Abstracts 14, 1780 CH 14.]
Keller, E.A. (1976). Channelization: environmental geomorphic and engineering
aspects. In: Geomorphology and Engineering (ed. D.R. Coates), 115-140.
Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross Inc. London.
Keller, E.A. (1978). Pools, riffles and channelisation. Environmental Ecology 2,
119-127.
Keller E A and Melhorn W N (1978). Rhythmic spacing and origin of pools and
riffles, Geological Society of America Bulletin, Vol 89, pp 723 - 730.
Keller, E.A. and Brookes, A. (1984). Consideration of meandering in channelization
projects: selected observations and judgements. In: River meandering (ed. C.M.
Elliot), Proceedings of the Conference,'Rivers '83,' New Orleans 1983, 384-397.
American Society of Civil Engineers, Vicksburg.
Kelly, W.E. and Gularte, R.C. (1981). Erosion resistance of cohesive soils. Journal of
the Hydraulics Division, American Society of Civil Engineers 107, 1211-1224.
Kennedy, J.F. and N.H. Brooks (1963). Laboratory study of an Alluvial Stream at
Constant Discharge. Paper 37. Procs. of Federal Inter Agency Sedimentation
Conferences. US Dept. of Agriculture.
Keown, M.P., Oswalt, N.R., Perry, E.B. and Dardeau, E.A. (1977). Literature
survey and preliminary evaluation of stream bank protection methods. US
Army Engineer Waterways Experimental Station, Hydraulics Laboratory,
Vicksburg, Mississippi, Technical Report No. H-77-9, 262pp.
Kern-Hansen U. and Dawson F.H. (1978). The standing crop of aquatic plants of
lowland streams in Denmark and the inter-relationships of nutrients in plant,
sediment and water. Proceedings of the 5th European Weed Research Council
Symposium on Aquatic Weeds. 143-150.
Kern-Hansen, U., Holm, T.F., Madsen, B.L., Thyssen, N. and Mikkelsen, J. (1980).
Vedligeholdelse af vandlb. Milj-projekter No. 30, Miljministeriet
Copenhagen, 162pp. 41pp. in data supplement. (Additional Technical Report
(1984) No. 4 Undersgelser, vedrrende vedligeholdelseof vandlb, 1979-82.)
[in Danish]
Kern-Hansen, U., Holm, T.F., Thyssen N, Mortensen, Hunding, C and Brostrup, V.
(1983). Vedligeholdelse og restaurering af vandlb. Miljstyrelsens
Ferskvandslaboratorium, Silkeborg, 47pp.
Khattab A.F. & El-Gharably Z. A. (1982). Some activities of the Research Institute
of Weed Control and Channel Maintenance. J. Egypt.Soc of Engs, 21, 11-16.
Khattab A.F. & El-Gharably Z. A. (1986). Some aspects of the effects of aquatic
weeds management in irrigation and drainage systems on controlling Bilharzia.
Proceedings ICID, special session, Lahore, 2, 95-107. INCLUDE?
Khattab A.F. & El-Gharably Z. A. (1987). Problems of aquatic weeds in irrigation
systems and methods of management. Proc. 6th Afro Asian Regional
Conference, Cairo, Egypt, 2, B6.1-17.
Khattab A.F. & El-Gharably Z. A. (1990). Aquatic weeds and their effect on channel
roughness. Proc. 8th EWRS Symposium on Aquatic Weeds, Upsalla, Sweden
August 145-149.
King, H.W. and Brater, E.F. (1963). Handbook of hydraulics, 5th.edition. McGraw-
Hill Book Co. Inc. New York, c.350pp.

108
Kinori, B.Z. and Mevorach, J. (1984). Manual of surface drainage engineering II.
Stream flow engineering and flood protection. Elsevier, Amsterdam 523pp.
[Practical guide to small river engineering and design, includes stream channel
morphology, hydrometric measurement, roughness calculation and optimisation
for varied flow regimes, bed form variation, sediment transport, flood protection
and stream outlet design. Also Vol. I 1970,pp.131-135. Kinori, B.Z. on
vegetative lining of channels.]
Kite, D. (1980). Getting to the root of river ecology. The Surveyor 10 July, 24-25.
Klassen GJ and van der Zwaard (1974). Roughness coefficients of vegetated
floodplains. Journal of Hydraulics Research. 12, 43-63.
Klassen GJ and van Urk A (1985). Resistance to flow of floodplains with grasses
and hedges. Proceedings 21st IAHR Congress, Melbourne. 3, 468-473.
Klaasen, G.J. and van Urk, A., (1986). Testing expressions for the resistance to
flow of bedforms, Delft Hydraulics Lab, Rijkswaterstaat, TOW Rivers, Report R
657-XVI.
Knight, ACE, (1988). Rationalised Energy-loss parameters for channels. Journal
of Hydaulic Engineering 114, 757-765.
Knight D.W (1981). Some field measurements concerned with the behaviour of
resistance coefficients in a tidal channel. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science
12, 303-322.
Knight, D.W. and Macdonald, J.A. (1979) Hydraulic resistance of artificial strip
roughness. Journal of Hydraulics Division, Proceedings of the American Society
of Civil Engineers 105, 675-695. (Discussion: 1980, 106, 1142; 106, 1257; 1981
107, 140.)
Knight, D.W. and Hamed, M.E. (1984) Boundary shear in symmetrical compound
channels. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering 110, 1412-1430.
Knighton, D. (1998). Fluvial Forms and Processes: A New Perspective. Arnold,
UK, 383 pp.
Knoroz VS, (1959). The effect of the channel macro-roughness on its hydraulic
resistance. Trudy Laboratorii Plotin I Gidrouuzlov, 62 p 75-96.
Knutson, P.L. (1977). Designing for bank erosion control with vegetation. Coastal
sediments 77, 716-733. or US Coastal Engineering Research Centre 78-2
(1978) 78/5/41.
Koch EW & Gust G (1999). Wave flow in tide- and wave-dominated beds of the
seagrass Thalassia testidinium. Marine Ecology Progress Series 184,63-72.
Koehl, M.A.R. (1977). Effects of sea anemones on the flow forces they encounter.
Journal of Experimental Biology 69, 87-105.
Koehl, M.A.R. (1977). Mechanical organization of cantilever-like sessile
organisms: sea anemones. Journal of Experimental Biology 69, 127-142.
Koehl, M.A.R. (1982). Mechanical design of spicule-reinforced connective tissue:
stiffness. Journal of Experimental Biology 98, 239-267. [Biology]
Koehl, M. A. R. (1982). The interaction of moving water and sessile organisms.
Scientific American 247, 110-120.
Koehl, M.A.R. (1984). How do benthic organisms withstand moving water?
American Zoologist 24, 57-70.
Kofoid C.A. (1908). The plankton of the Illinois River 1984-1899. Part III
constituent organisms and their seasonal distribution. Bulletin of the Illinois
State Laboratory of Natural History VIII Article 1, 1-361.
Kohler, A., Pensel, T. and Zeltner, G.-H. (1980). Vernderungen von Flora und
Vegetation in den Fliessgewssern der Friedberger Au (bei Augsberg) zwischen

109
1972 und 1978. Verhandlungen der Gesellschaft fr kologie (Freising-
Weihenstephan 1979), 8 343-350.
Kolessar, M.A. (1967). Aquatic plants in Maryland - a growing menace. Journal of
Waterways and Harbour Division, Proceedings of the American Society of
Civil Engineers 93, 1-8.
Kolkman, P.A. (1984). Vibrations of hydraulic structures. In: Developments in
hydraulic engineering 2, (ed. P. Novak), 1-53. Elsevier Applied Science,
London.
Koloseus, H.J. (1971). Rigid boundary hydraulics for steady flow. In: River
mechanics 1, (ed. H.W. Shen), 3-1 to 3-51.
Komura, J. (1976). Hydraulics of slope erosion by overland flow. Journal of the
102, 1573-1586. (Discussion: 1977 103, 679-680; 103, 1115-1118; 1978, 104,
802-803.)
Komora, J. (1977). Hydraulicke odpory stromovych Porastov v inundovanych
zemiach riek. Vyskumny Ustav Vodneho Hospodarstva 87, 82pp.
Komora, J. (1981). Vplyv stromovych porastov na odvdzanie povodni v
inundovanych zemiach riek. Vodohospodrsky casopis 29, 514-537. [in
Slovak]
Kopecky, K. (1965). Einfluss der Ufer und Wassermakrophyten-Vegetation auf die
Morphologie des Flussbettes einiger tschechoslowakischen Flsse. Archiv fr
Hydrobiologie 61, 137-160.
Kopecky, K. (1969). Klassifikationvorschlag der Vegetationsstandorte an den Ufern
der tschechoslowakischen Wasserlufe unter hydrologischen Gesichtspunkten.
Archiv fr Hydrobiologie 66, 326-347.
Kosorin, K. (1977). On turbulent shear stress and velocity distribution in vegetated
streams. Vodohospodrsky casopis 25, 352-356. [In Slovak]
Kosorin, K. (1981). Struktura prudenia v zarastenej zone otvoreneho koryta.
Vodohospodarsky casopis 29, 63-70. [in Slovak]
Kosorin, K. (1983). Turbulent shear stress and velocity distribution in vegetated zone
of open channel. Proceedings of the 20th Congress of the International
Association for Hydraulic Research, Moscow 1983, V, 572-579. VINITI,
Moscow.
Kouwen N, (1992). Modern approach to design of grassed channels. Jrnl of
Irrigation and Drainage, Vol 118, No 5: 733-743
Kouwen, N., Unny, T.E. and Hill, H.M. (1969). Flow retardance in vegetated
channels. Journal of the Irrigation and Drainage Division, Proceedings of the
American Society of Civil Engineers 95, 329-342. (Discussion: Gourlay MR,
1970, 96, 351-357; 1970, 96, 101; 1971, 97, 321.)
Kouwen, N. (1970). Flow retardance in vegetated open channels. University of
Waterloo. PhD Thesis.
Kouwen N and Unny TE (1973). Flexible roughness in open channels. Journal of
the Hydraulics Division. ASCE. 99, 713-728.
(Discussion: 1974, 100, 699-700; closure by authors: 1975, 101, 194-196.)
Kouwen, N. and Harrington, R.A. (1974). A criterion for vegetation stiffness.
American Society of Civil Engineers, Symposium on Agricultural and Urban
Considerations in Irrigation and Drainage, 273-284.
Kouwen N and Li R-M (1980). Biomechanics of vegetated channel linings.
Journal of the Hydraulics Division. ASCE. 106, 1085-1103.
Kouwen, N., Li, R-M and Simons, D.B. (1980). Velocity measurements in a channel

110
lined with flexible plastic roughness elements. Technical Report CER 79-80 N
K-RML-DBS11, Department of Civil Engineering, Colorado State University,
Fort Collins, Colorado.
Kouwen, N., Li R-M and Simons, D.B. (1981). Flow resistance in vegetated
waterways. Transactions of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers 24,
684-690, 698.
Kouwen N. (1989). Field estimation of the biomechanical properties of grass,
Journal of Hydraulic Research, 26, 1988, 559-568
Kouwen N, (1992). Modern approach to design of grassed channels. Journal of
Irrigation and Drainage, 118, 733-743
Kouwen N and Fathi-Moghadam M, (1996). Friction factors for vegetation.
Ecohydraulics conference, 1996, Quebec, A251-257.
Kouwen N and Fathi-Moghadam M, (2000). Friction factors for coniferous trees
along rivers. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, 126, 732-740
Kowobari, T.S., Rice, C.E. and Garton, I.E. (1972). Effect of roughness elements on
hydraulic resistance for overland flow. Transactions of the American Society of
Kronvang B, Svendsen Lm, Brookes A, Fisher K, Moller B, Ottosen O, Newson M
and Sear D, (1999). Effects of river restoration: Channel morphology,
hydrodynamics and transport of sediment and sediment-associated substances.
Kruse, E.G., Huntley, C.W. and Robinson, A.R. (1965). Flow resistance in simulated
irrigation borders and furrows. Agricultural Research Service, US Department of
Agriculture, Conservation Research Report 3.
Kutija V and Hong HTM, (1996). A numerical model for assessing the additional
resistance to flow introduced by flexible vegetation. Journal of Hydraulic
Research 34, 99-114.
Lachat, B. (1994). Guide de Protection des Berges de Cours dEau en Techniques
Vgtales. In collaboration with Philippe Adam, Pierre-Andr Frossard, Ren
Marcaud. Ministre de LEnvironment, Diren Rhone Alpes, 143 pp.
Ladle M. and Casey H. (1971). Growth and nutrient relationships of Ranunculus
penicillatus var. calcareus in a small chalk stream. Proceedings of the
European Weed Research Council 3rd international Symposium on Aquatic
Weeds 1971, 53-63. [Interaction of two plants and sediment accumulation.]
Lal, R. and Pandya, A.C. (1971). Flow retardation on irrigated surfaces. Journal of
Institution of Civil Engineers of India 51, 159-164. [Experimental work on tall
vegetation to partition loss between surface ground roughness and stem or
vegetal roughness.]
Larsen T, Frier J, and Vestergaard K (1990). Discharge/stage relations in vegetated
Danish streams. International Conference on River Flood Hydraulics, Paper
F1, September 1990, John Wiley & Sons Ltd. 187-195.
[See Green and Richards notes]
Lates, M. (1965). Bank and slope protection against wave action by means of grass
and water vegetation. Hidrotechnica, Gospodarirea apelor Meterologia,
Bucharest, Rumania 10, 304-309.
Lebreton, J.C. (1974). Dynamique Fluviale. Collection de la Direction des Etudes
et Recherches d Electicit de France, Eyrolles.
Leclerc M, Secretan Y and Boundreau, P. (2000). Integrated two dimensional
macrophyte-hydrodynamic modelling. Journal of Hydraulic Research Vol 38,
No 3.
LeCren E.D. and Lowe-McConnell R.H. (1980). The functioning of freshwater

111
ecosystems IBP 22 Eds. Cambridge Univ. Press, 588 pp.
Leitman, H.M., Sohm, J.E. and Franklin, M.A. (1982). Wet-land hydrology and tree
distribution of Apalachicola River flood plain, Florida. US Geological Survey,
Open-File Report 82-251, 92pp
Lejmbach, B. (1977). The influence of flowing water velocity on the structure of
underwater phytocenosis. Fragmenta Floristica et Geobotanica 22, 355-362.
[in Polish]
Leonard LA & Luther ME (1995). Flow hydrodynamics in tidal marsh canopies.
Limnology & Oceanography 40, 1474-1484.
Leonov AY (1966). Factors responsible for the growth of aquatic vegetation.
Collection of papers on Hydrology, State Hydrologic Institute.
Leopold LB, Bagnold RA, Wolman MG, and Brush LM, (1960). Flow resistance
in sinuous or irregular channels. Geologic Survey Professional Paper 282-D.
Leopold, L.B., Wolman, M.G. and Miller, J.P. (1964) Fluvial processes in
geomorphology. Freeman and Co. San Francisco, 522pp.
Leopold, L.B. (1994). A View of the River. Harvard Press, USA, 298 pp.
Leutheusser, H.J. and Chisholm, W.O. (1973). Extreme roughness of natural river
channels. Journal of the Hydraulics Division, Proceedings of the American
Society of Civil Engineers 99, 1027-1041. (Discussion: 1974, 100, 1079-1080;
100, 1484-1487; 1975, 101, 538-539; 101, 1275.)
Levich, V. (1962). Physico-chemical hydrodynamics. Prentice Hall Inc. Englewood
Cliffs, N.J. 700pp.
Lewis, G. and Williams, G. (1984). Rivers and wildlife handbook: a guide to practices
which further the conservation of wildlife on rivers. Royal Society for the
Protection of Birds, Royal Society for Nature Conservation, Sandy, Beds, 295pp.
Lewis, K. (1973). The effect of suspended coal particles on the life forms of the
aquatic moss Eurhynchium ripariodes (Hedw.) I. The gametophyte plant.
Freshwater Biology 3, 251-257.
Lewis K. (1973). The effect of suspended coal particles on the life forms of the
aquatic moss Eurhychium ripariodes (Hedw.) II. The effect on spore
germination and regeneration of apical tips. Freshwater Biology 3, 391-396.
Leyton, L. (1975). Fluid behaviour in biological systems. Oxford University Press,
Oxford, 235pp.
Li, R-M and Shen, H.W. (1973). Effect of tall vegetation on flow and sediment.
Journal of the Hydraulics Division, Proceedings of the American Society of Civil
Engineers 99, 793-814. (Discussion: 1974, 100, 255-256; 1974, 100, 495-497;
1974, 100, 1484-1488.)
Limerinos, J.T. (1970). Determination of the Manning coefficient from measured
bed roughness in natural channels. US Geological Survey, Water Supply Paper
1898B.
Linde, DT; Watschke, TL; Jarrett, AR; Borger, JA (1995). Surface runoff
assessment from creeping bentgrass and perennial ryegrass turf. Agronomy
Journal 87, 176-182.
Lindner, K. (1982) Der Strmingswiderstand von Pflanzenbestnden, Mitteilungen
des Leichtweiss Institit fr Wasserbau, Technische Universitt, Braunscheig 75,
262pp.
Linstead, C. (1999). The influence of large woody debris on British headwater
streams. PhD Thesis, University of Birmingham
Lopez, F, Garcia, MH (1997). Open Channel Flow Through Simulated Vegetation:
Turbulence Modelling and Sediment Transport. Hydrosystems Laboratory,

112
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Illinois.
Lopez F and Garcia MH, (2000). Mean Flow and turbulence structure of open-
channel flow through non-emergent vegetation. Journal of Hydraulic
Engineering, 127, 392-402.
Lowe R.L. (1979). Phytobenthic Ecology and Regulated streams. Proceeding First
International Symposium on Regulated Streams, Erie Pennsylvania April 18-
20. Eds J.V. Ward & J.A. Stanford. 25-34.
Lyatkher, V.M. and Gurin, I.N. (1978). Hydraulic characteristics of flows over a
surface covered with herbaceous vegetation. Vodnye Resursy, 3, 159-168. [In
Russian, translation of journal available; see Water Resources 5,445-454]
Maccaferri SPA (1981). Flexible gabion structures in river and stream training
works. Section 1. Weirs for river training and water supply.
Madsen J.D. (1986). The production and physiological ecology of the submerged
aquatic macrophyte community in Badfish Creek, Wisconsin. PhD Thesis,
Dept of Botany, Univ. of Wisconsin- Madison.
Madsen, T.V. and Warncke, E. (1983). Velocities of currents around and within
submerged aquatic vegetation. Archiv fr Hydrobiologie 97, 389-394.
Madsen, T.V. and Sndergaard, M. (1983). The effect of current velocity on the
photosynthesis of Callitriche stagnalis Scop. Aquatic Botany 15, 187-193.
Maheshwari B & McMahon T (1992). Modelling shallow overland flow in surface
irrigation. Journal ofIrrigation and Drainage Engineering, 118, 201-217.
Maizels, J.K. and students (1984). A teacher/student commentary on a field test of
Manning's roughness coefficient. Journal of Geography in Higher Education 8,
137-150.
Manz DH & Westhoff DR (1987/8). Numerical analysis of the effects of aquatic
weeds on the performance of irrigation conveyance systems. Canadian Journal
of Civil Engineering. 15, 1-13.
Malek E.A. (1975). Effect of the Aswan High dam on prevalence of schistosomiasis
in Egypt. Tropical and Geographical Medicine 27, 359-364.
Mangelsdorf, J., Scheurmann, K., Weiss, F.-H. (1990). River Morphology: a Guide
for Geoscientists and Engineers. Springer-Verlag, Germany.
Manning, R, (1891). On the flow of water in open channels and pipes. Transactions of
the Institute of Civil Engineers of Ireland 20, 161-207. (Also supplementary
paper (1895) 24,179-207.)
Marati, P. and Adrian, R.J. (1984). Directional sensitivity of single and multiple
sensor probes. TSI Quarterly 10 (2), 3-11.
Marklund O, Blindow I & Hargeby A (2001). Distribution and diel migration of
macroinvertebrates within dense submerged vegetation. Freahwater Biology 46,
913-924.
Markstein, B. and Sukopp, H. (1980). Die Ufervegetation der Berliner Havel 1962-77.
Garten und Landschaft, 1/80, 30-36. [Design and management - waterside
vegetation changes]
Marshall E.J.P. and Westlake D.F. (1978). Recent studies on the role of aquatic
macrophytes in their ecosystem. Proceedings of the European Weed Research
Council 5th international Symposium on Aquatic Weeds, 43-51.
Marshall EJP and Westlake DF (1990). Water velocities around water plants in
chalk streams. Folia Geobotanica Phytotaxonomica 25, 279-289.
and/or In: Proceedings First International Workshop on Aquatic Plants, Illmitz, 1981
(ed. L. Hammer). Cramer, Braunschweig. CHECK
Mason P J (1984). Erosion of plunge pools downstream of dams due to the action

113
of free-trajectory jets, Proc. Institution of Civil Engineers, Paper 8734, 76,
523-537.
McCollum R A, O'Neal C W and Glover J E (1987). Bank protection, Bass
location, Williamette River, Oregon. Hydraulic model investigation. US Army
Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experimental Station, Vicksburg,
Massachusetts. Technical Report HL-87-7.
McKenney, R; Jacobson, RB; Wertheimer, RC (1995). Woody vegetation and
channel morphogenesis in low-gradient, gravel-bed streams in the Ozark
Plateaus, Missouri and Arkansas. 26th Binghamton Symposium in
Geomorphology, (n.p.), 6-8 Oct 1995 eds: Hupp, CR; Osterkamp, WR;
Howard, AD, Geomorphology, Terrestrial & Freshwater Systems, 1995, 175-
198, [in Geomorphology: Terrestrial & Freshwater Systems, 13, 1-4.]
McWhorter, J.C., Carpenter, T.B. and Clark, R.W. (1968). Hydraulic characteristics
of channels with artificial liners. Transactions of the American Society of
Agricultural Engineers 68, 207.
Meijer DG and van Velzen EH, (1999). Prototype scale flume experiments on
hydraulic roughness of submerged vegetation. IAHR congress 1999, Graz.
Mellquist P. (1984). Summaries from the weir project information bulletins.
Norwegian Water Resources and Electricity Board 41pp.
Mertens W (1994). Hydraulic resistance in naturalised channels. Wasserwirtschaft
84 138-141.
Michioku K, Takemoto O & Hirota M (1999). Flow resistance in an open channel
with an alternative riffle-pool arrangement. Journal of Hydroscience and
Hydraulic Engineering 17, 87-101.
Miers RH, (1973). The Civil Engineer and Field Drainage. Presented at a meeting
if the River Engineering Section of the Instiution of Water and Environmental
Managers.
Miers, R.H. (1979). Land drainage - its problems and solutions. Journal of the
Institution of Water Engineers and Scientists 33, 547-579.
Miles, W.D. (1976). Land drainage and weed control. British Crop Protection
Council, Symposium on Aquatic Herbicides, Oxford 1976, Monograph 16, 7-13.
Millar RG & Quick MC (1998). Stable width and depth of gravel bed rivers with
cohesive banks. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering 124, 1005-1013.
Miller A C et al (1983). Physical modelling of spurs for bank protection,
Proceedings, Rivers '83, River Meandering, ASCE, New Orleans, October,
996-1007.
Mills C.A. (1981). The spawning of roach Rutilis rutilis L. in a chalk stream.
Fisheries Management 12, 49-54.
Milne J A (1982). Bed-material size and the riffle-pool sequence, Sedimentology,
29, 267-278.
Ming, Li, R. and Shen, H.W. (1973). Effect of tall vegetations on flow and sediment.
Engineers 99, 793-814 (Discussion: 1973, 99, 793-814; 1974, 100, 255-256;
1974, 100, 495-497; 1974. 100, 1484.)
Mirtskhoulava, TE (1973). Scour in river basin and in its bed mechanism, forecast.
In: Sediment Transportation, 1; Proceedings of the International Association
for Hydraulic Research Symposium on River Mechanics, Bangkok, Thailand,
January 9-12, 1973. 81-91.
Mohamood YM (1992). Evaluating Mannings roughnes coefficients for tilled

114
soils. Journal Hydrology 135, 143-156.
Montes, J.S. (1998). Hydraulics of Open Channel Flow. ASCE Press, New York,
USA, 712 pp.
Morris, J and Sutherland DC. (1992). The evaluation of river maintenance. MAFF
River and Coastal Engineers Conference, Loughborough.
Murota, A., & Fukuhara, T. (1983). Experimental study on turbulence structure in
open channel flow with aquatic plants. Proceedings Japanese Society Civil
Engineering 338, 97-103. [In Japanese, not read]
Murota, A., Fukuhara, T. and Sato, M. (1984). Turbulence structure in vegetated
open channel flows. Journal of Hydroscience and Hydraulic Engineering 2,
47-61.
Murphy K.J. and Eaton J.W. (1982). The management of aquatic plants in a
navigable canal system used for amenity and recreation. 6th International
Symposium on Aquatic Weeds, 20-25 September 1982. European Weed
Research Society 141-151.
Murphy K.J. and Eaton J.W. (1983). Effects of pleasure-boat traffic on macrophyte
growth in canals. Journal of Applied Ecology 20, 713-729.
Myers, W R C and Elsawy, E.M. (1975). Boundary shear in channel with flood
plain. Journal of the Hydraulics Division, Proceedings of the American
Society of Civil Engineers 101, 933-946. (Discussion: 1974, 102, 542; 102,
802; 102, 1769.)
Myers, W.R.C. (1982). Flow resistance in wide rectangular channels. Journal of
108, 471-482.
Nakagawa H., Tsujimoto T., Shimizu Y. (1992). Sediment Transport in Vegetated
bed Channel. 5
th
International Symposium on River Sedimentation. Karlsruhe
1992.
Nalluri, C, Judy, ND (1989). Factors Affecting Roughness Coefficient in Vegetated
Channels. Proceedings of the International Conference on Channel Flow and
Catchment Runoff: Centennial of Manning 's Formula and Kuichling's
Rational Formula. University of Virginia, Charlottesville VA., 1989, 589-598
National Rivers Authority - Severn-Trent (NRA-ST), (1991). Mannings
Roughness Study - Second Interim Report
Naot, D., Nezu, I., Nakagawa, H. (1996). Hydrodynamic Behaviour of partly
vegetated open-channels. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, 122, 625-633.
Naot, D., Nezu, I., Nakagawa, H. (1996). Unstable patterns in partly vegetated
channels. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering. Vol. 122, 671-673.
National Academy of Sciences (1976). Report of an ad-hoc panel of the advisory
committee on technology, Innovation Board on science and technology for
International Development Commission on Intertational Relations, National
Academy of Sciences, Washington, 175 pp.
National Rivers Authority (1995). The New Rivers and Wildlife Handbook. The
Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, 426 pp.
Natural Environment Research Council (1975). Flood Studies Report; Vol. III
Flood Routing Studies. Whitefriars Press. 76 pp.
Negri P, Fisher KR and Wheeldon J, (1999). Monitoring and analysis of hydraulic
data on the River Cole. HR Wallingford Report TR75.
Nepf, H. M. (1997). Drag, Turbulence, and Diffusion in Flow Through Emergent
Vegetation. Water Resources Research 35, 479-489.
Nepf HM, Sullivan JA & Zavistoski RA (1997). A model for diffusion within

115
emergent vegetation. Limnology & Oceanography 42, 1735-1745.
Nepf HM & Vivoni ER (1999). Turbulence structure in depth-limited, vegetated
flow: transition between emergent and submerged regimes, XXVIII IAHR
Congress Graz Conference Proceedings, p217 [on CD]
Newall, A, (1993). The microflow environments of aquatic plants- an ecological
persepective. Dept of Geography, University of Reading. Pers comm.
Newall AM, (1995). The microflow environments of aquatic plants an ecological
perspective. The ecological basis for river basin management. Edited by DM
Harper and AJD Ferguson.
Newbury, R. W. and M. N. Gaboury, (1993). Stream Analysis and Fish Habitat
Design, A Field Manual. Newbury Hydraulics Ltd. British Columbia, Canada,
VON 1V0.
Newcombe, C.L., Morris, J.H., Knutson, P.L. and Gorbico, C.S. (1979). Bank erosion
control with vegetation, San Fransisco Bay, California. US Corps of Engineers,
Miscellaneous Report No. 79-2, 33pp.
Nezu I and Naot D (1999). Partly vegetated open channels; new experimental
evidence. IAHR conference Graz
Nikuradse, J. (1933). VDI Forschungschaft 361
Nikora, V.I.; Goring, D.G.; Biggs, B.J.F. (1998). On gravel-bed roughness
characterisation. Water Resources Research 34(3): 517-527.
Nikora, V.I.; Goring, D.G.; McEwan, I., and Grifiths, G. (2001). Spatially averaged
open channel flow over roughened bed. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering,
ASCE, Vol 127, No. 2 p123-133
Nnaji, S. and Wu, I.P. (1973). Flow resistance from cylindrical roughness. Journal of
the Irrigation and Drainage Division, Proceedings of the American Society of
Civil Engineers 99, 15-26. (Discussion: 1974, 100, 390-393.)
Novak, P. (1981). Communication on variation of Manning's 'n' roughness coefficient
with flow in open river channels. Journal of the Institution of Water Engineers
and Scientists 35, 94-95.
NRA (1991). Mannings roughness study second interim report (Personal
communication with HR Wallingford
Obendorf, K. (1978). Abflussverhalten offener Gerinne unter besonderer
Bercksichtigung lebender Bauelemente, 131pp. Rheinisch-Westflischen
Technischen Hochschule, Aachen. Dr. Eng. Dissertation.
Obendorf, K. (1978). Rauhigkeitsverhalten und Ermittlung von Rauhigkeitsbeiwerten
beim naturnahen Ausbau der Gewsser. Mitteilungen aus dem Institut fr
Wasserbau und Wasserwirtschaft Rheinisch-Westflischen Technischen
Hochschule, Aachen 25, 49-202. [Roughness behaviour and determination of
roughness parameters in river regulation with natural revegetation.]
Ohkawa, H. and Ohkuma, T. (1978). Effects of aquatic weeds with long leaves on
flow and turbulence in open channels. Proceedings 22nd Japanese Conference on
Hydraulics, 1978, 43-48. [In Japanese - not read.]
Oksiyuk, O.P., Merezhko, A.I. and Volkova, T.F. (1978). Use of higher aquatic
vegetation for improving water quality and stabilizing canal banks. Water
Resources 5, 556-562.
Omerod, S. (1977). A study of vegetative linings for earth channels and waterways,
76pp. B Sc Special Study Report. National College of Agricultural Engineering,
Silsoe.
Onslow, C. (1982). Some effects of seasonal river weed and its removal, upon river
flow characteristics, 163pp. Department of Geography, Birmingham. B.A. Diss.

116
Osborne, N.F. (1976). Hydraulic characteristics of weeds in watercourses, 41pp.
National College of Agricultural Engineering, Silsoe, BSc Special Study Report.
OSullivan JJ, Lyness JF and Myers WRC, (1996). Post Project Monitoring of fish
habitats on the River Blackwater. University of Ulster Report.
Owens M and Edwards RW (1961). The effects of plants on river conditions III.
Further crop studies and estimates of net productivity of macrophytes in four
chalk streams in Southern England. Journal of Ecology 157-162.
Palmer, V.J. (1945). A method for designing vegetated waterways. Agricultural
Palmer, V.J. (1946). Retardance coefficients for low flow in channels lined with
vegetation. Transactions. American Geophysical Union 27, 187-197.
[Experimental low flow studies on grass lined channels, tall vegetation, no
submergence of plants, early introduction of n/vr relationship.]
Palmer, V.J. and Law, W.P. (1947; revised 1954) Handbook of channel design for soil
and water conservation. US Soil Conservation Service Technical Paper 61,
187-197. Stillwater Outdoor Hydraulic Laboratory, Stillwater, Oklahoma, US
Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service, Washington DC.
Parker, G. and Anderson, A.G. (1977). Basic principles of river hydraulics. Journal of
the Hydraulics Division, Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers
103, 1077-1087. (Discussion: 1978, 103, 941-942; 103. 1113-1115; 103, 1202;
1979, 104, 158.)
Parsons, D.A. (1963) Vegetative control of streambank erosion. Agricultural Research
Service, Jackson, Mississppi, Proceedings Federal Inter-Agency Sedimentation
Conference, Miscellaneous Publications No. 970, paper 20, 130-136.
Pasche, E., Evers, P. and Rouv, G. (1983). Investigations on hydraulic effects of
vegetated floodplains in compound cross-sections and their influence on
discharge capacity. Proceedings of the 20th Congress of the International
Association of Hydraulic Research, Moscow 1983, V, 489-497. VINITI,
Moscow.
Pasche E and Rouve G (1985). Overbank flow with vegetatively roughened flood
plains. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, 111, 1262-1278.
Pasche, E, 1984. Turbulence mechanism in natural streams and the possibility of its
mechanical representation, Mitteilungen Institut fr Wasserbau and
Wasserwirtschaft, No. 52. RWTH Aachen. [in German]
Paudyal, GN, Panigrahi, B (1989). Determination of Manning 's n and Friction
Factor in Vegetated Waterways. Proceedings of the International Conference
on Channel Flow and Catchment Runoff: Centennial of Manning 's Formula
and Kuichling's Rational Formula. University of Virginia, Charlottesville VA.
1989, 579-588
Pepper, A.T. (1971). Investigation of vegetation and bend flow retardation of a stretch
of the River Ousel, 64pp. National College of Agricultural Engineering, Silsoe.
BSc Dissertation.
Pepper, A.T. and Waterhouse, J. (1971). A teaching project in agricultural engineering
relating channel roughness to vegetation. Education in Fluid Mechanics
(Armfield Engineering Journal) 7, 11-13. [As Pepper 1971.]
Peter, P. (ed.) (1982). Canals and river leves, Developments in Geotechnical
Engineering 29. Elsevier, Amsterdam, 540pp.
Petersen, M.S. (1986). River Engineering. Prentice Hall, 580 pp.
Petryk, S. (1969). Drag on cylinders in open channel flow. Colorado State University,
Fort Collins, Colorado. Ph D Thesis.

117
Petryk, S. and Bosmajian, G. (1975). Analysis of flow through vegetation. Journal of
101, 871-884.
Petryk, S. and Grant, E.U. (1978). Critical flow in rivers with flood plains. Journal
of the Hydraulics Division, Proceedings of the American Society of Civil
Engineers 104, 583-594. (Discussions: 1978, 105, 287; 105, 433.)
Pettit NE, Froend RH and Davies PM, (2001). Identifying the natural flow regime
and the relationship with riparian vegetation for two contrasting Wesern
Australian rivers. Regulated Rivers: Research and Management 17:201-215.
Petts, G.E. (1984). Impounded rivers. Perspectives for ecological management.
Wiley, Chichester, 344pp. [See pp.138-9.]
Peyras L, Royet P and Degoutte G (1992). Flow and energy dissipation over
stepped gabion weirs, Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, ASCE, 118, 707-717.
Phelps, H.O. (1970). The friction coefficient for shallow flows over a simulated
turf surface. Water Resources Research 6, 1220-1226.
Phelps, H.O. (1975). Friction coefficients for laminar sheet flow over rough surfaces.
Proceedings Institution of Civil Engineers 59, 21-41.
Phelps, H.O. (1975). Shallow laminar flows over rough granular surfaces. Journal
Engineers 101, 367-384.
Pickels, G.W. (1931). Runoff investigations in central Illinois. University of Illinois
Engineering Department Experimental Station Bulletin 232.
Pimperton AJ and Karle ML (1993). The variation of roughness coefficient with
flow in natural channels, NRA-ST Region.
Pitlo, R.H. (1978). Regulation of aquatic vegetation by interception of daylight.
European Weed Research Society, Proceedings of the 5th Symposium on
Aquatic Weeds, Amsterdam 1978, 91-100.
Pitlo, R.H. (1979). Biologisch slootonderhoud met behulp van drijvende vegetaties.
Waterschapsbelangen 13, 283-290. [in Dutch]
Pitlo, R.H. (1982). Flow resistance of aquatic vegetation. European Weed Research
Society, Proceedings 6th Symposium on Aquatic Weeds, Novi Sad, 1982,
255-234.
Pitlo RH (1986). Towards a larger flow capacity of vegetated channels.
Proceedings EWRS/AAB 7th Symposium on Aquatic weeds, 1986.
Pitlo R.H. & Dawson F.H. (1989). Flow resistance by aquatic vegetation. In:
Aquatic Weeds (eds A.H. Pieterse & K.J Murphy) 74-84, Oxford University
Press.
Plate E.J., Quraishi A. A., (1965). Modeling of Velocity Distributions Inside and
Above Tall Crops, Journal of Applied Meteorology, 4, 400-408
Podmore, T.H. and Huggins, L.F. (1980). Surface roughness effects on overland
flow. Transactions of the American Society Agricultural Engineers 23,
1434-1439 and 1445.
Poff, N L, Allan, J D, Bain, M B, Karr, J R, Prestegaard, K L, Richter, B D, Sparks,
R E and Stromberg, J C (1997). The natural flow regime: a paradigm for river
conservation and restoration, BioScience, Vol.47, No. 11, pp 769-784.
Ponce, V.M., H. Indlekofer, and D.B. Simons (1978). Convergence of Four-Point
Implicit Water Wave Models. Journal of Hyd. Div., ASCE HY7 104, pp. 947-
958.
Pond R.H. 1903 (1905). The Biological relation of aquatic plants to the substratum.
U.S. Commission of Fish and Fisheries, report of the commissioner 24, 484-

118
526.
Powell, K.E.C. (1972). The roughness characteristics of the reach of the River Bain at
Fulsby Lock. Lincolnshire River Authority, Report of the Hydrological Section,
25pp.
Powell, K.E.C. (1978). Weed growth - a factor in channel roughness. In: Hydrometry.
Principles and practices, (ed R.W. Herschy), 327-352. John Wiley and Sons,
Chichester.
Prandtl, L. (1904). ber Flssigkeitsbewegung bei sehr kleiner Reibung. Verhandlung
III Internationaler Mathematische Kongress, Heidelberg 1904.
Prandtl, L. (1965). Fhrer durch die Strmungslehre(6th ed.) (eds K. Oswatitsch and
K. Weighardt). Vieweg, Braunschweig, 523pp.
Prantle, R. (1956). Aufstau und Verkrautung. Wasser und Boden 3, 78-80.
Przedwojski, B., Blazejewski, R., Pilarczyk, K.W. (1995). River Training
Techniques: Fundamentals, Techniques and Applications. Balkema, The
Netherlands, 686 pp.
Pygott JR (1995). The effects of boat traffic on canal ecosystems. PhD Thesis,
University of Liverpool, England.
Querner EP (1994). Aquatic weed control within an integrated water management
framework. Report 67, Agricultural Research Department, Wageningen,
Netherlands.
Quinton, WL; Gray, DM; Marsh, P (2000). Subsurface drainage from hummock-
covered hillslopes in the Arctic tundra. Journal of Hydrology (Amsterdam)
237, 113-125.
Rabeni, C.F. and Minshall, G.W. (1977). Factors affecting microdistribution of stream
benthic insects. Oikos 29, 33-43.
Rahmeyer W, Werth D and Freeman GE, (1996). Flow resistance due to vegetation
in compound channels and floodplains, Semi-Annual Conference on Multiple
solutions to Floodplain Management, Utah, Nov 1996.
Rkczi, L. (1983). Effects of vegetation on flow conditions in shallow reservoirs.
Proceedings of the 20th Congress of the International Association for Hydraulic
Research, Moscow 1983, II, 35-43. VINITI, Moscow.
Ramamurthy AS, Tim US and Rao MVJ (1988). Characteristics of square-edged
and round-nosed broad crested weirs. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering,
ASCE 114, 61-73.
Ramser, C.E. (1929). Flow of water in drainage channels. US Department of
Agriculture, Technical Bulletin No. 129. 102pp. [Supersedes Departmental
Bulletin 832. See abstract in Chow 1981.]
Raudkivi, A.J. (1998). Loose Boundary Hydraulics. Balkema, The Netherlands,
512 pp.
Raupach, M.R and Shaw (1982)
Raupach, M.R. and Thom, A.S. (1981). Turbulence in and above plant canopies.
Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics 13, 97-129.
Raven J., Beardall J. and Griffiths H. (1982). Inorganic C-sources for Lemnaea,
Cladophora and Ranunculus in a fast-flowing stream: measurements of gas
exchange and of Carbon Isotope ratio and their ecological implications.
Oecologia (Berlin) 53, 68-78.
Raven P.J., Holmes, H.T.H., Dawson F.H., Fox P.J.A., Everard M., Fozzard, I. &
Rouen K.J. (1998). River Habitat Quality The physical character of rivers and
stream in the UK and Isle of Man. River Habitat Survey Report No. 2.
Environment Agency, 90 pp.

119
Rawlence D.J. and Whitton J.S. (1976). An elemental survey of the aquatic
macrophytes, water and plankton from the Waikato River, North Island, New
Zealand. Mauri-ora 4, 121-131.
Ree, W.O. (1939). Some experiments on shallow flows over a grassed slope.
Transactions. American Geophysical Union 4, 653-656.
Ree, W.O. (1941). Hydraulic tests of Kudzu as a conservation channel lining.
Agricultural Engineering 22, 27-29.
Ree WO (1949). Hydraulic characteristics of vegetation for vegetated waterways.
Agricultural Engineering, 30, 184-189.
Ree, W.O. and Palmer, V.J. (1949). Flow of water in channels protected by vegetative
linings. US Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service Technical
Bulletin No. 967, 115pp.
Ree, W.O. (1958). Retardation coefficients for row crops in diversion terraces.
Ree, W.O. (1960). The establishment of vegetation lined waterways. Department of
Landscape Architecture, Ohio State University, 19th Short Course on Roadside
Development, 54-65.
Ree, W.O. and Crow, F.R. (1977). Friction factors for vegetated waterways of small
slope. US Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Publication
S-151, 56pp.
Ree, W.O., Winberley, F.L. and Crow, F.R. (1977). Manning 'n' and the overland flow
equation. Transactions of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers 20,
89-95.
Ree, W.O. (1985). Retardation coeficients for row crops in diversion terraces.
Rehkugler, G.E. and Buchele, W.F. (1969) Biomechanics of forage watering.
Reiter, M.A. and Carlson, R.E. (1986). Current velocity in streams and species
composition of benthic algal mats. Canadian Journal of Fish and Aquatic Science
43, 1156-1162.
Richards, K. ed. (1987). River Channels: Environment and Process. The Institute of
British Geographers, Special Publication Series, 391 pp.
Richards K S (1976). The morphology of riffle-pool sequences, Earth Surface
Processes, 1, 71-88.
Richards, G. and Hollis, G.E. (1980). Relationship of the roughness coefficient
Manning's 'n' and discharge in an urban river. Journal of the Institution of Water
Engineers and Scientists 34, 357-360. (Responses and reply, idid. pp. 452-3.)
Richards, K.S. (1982). Rivers: Form and Processes in Alluvial Channels. Methuen,
358 pp.
Ridenour, GS, Giardino, JR (1995). Log ratio linear modelling of hydraulic
geometry using indices of flow resistance as covariates Geomorphology, 14,
65-72.
Ritterbach, E, Rouve, G (1989). Backwater Computation of Natural Rivers with
Extreme Bank or Floodplain Roughness. Proceedings of the International
Conference on Channel Flow and Catchment Runoff: Centennial of Manning
's Formula and Kuichling's Rational Formula. University of Virginia,
Charlottesville VA. 1989, 468-477.
Roberson, J.A. (1961). Surface resistance as a function of the concentration and size
distribution of roughness elements. University of Iowa, Iowa City. Ph D Thesis.
Robertson, J.A. (1968). Surface resistance of plane boundaries roughened with

120
discrete geometric shapes. Washington State University, College of Engineering
Research Division, Bulletin No. 308.
Robson, T.O. (1968). The control of aquatic weeds. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries
and Food Bulletin No. 194, 54pp.
Rodi, W (1980). Turbulence models and their application in hydraulics., IAHR,
June
Rouse, H. (ed.) (1965). Sections G Surface resistance & H Form resistance. In:
Engineering hydraulics. John Wiley and Sons Inc. New York, 99-135.
Rouse, H. (1965). Critical analysis of open-channel resistance. Journal of the
Hydraulics Division, Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers 91,
(July) 1-25. (Discussion: 1965, 91 (Nov), 247; 1966, 92 (March), 387; 91 July,
154.)
Rousseau J, (1962). The connection between vegetation and high water levels in
rivers. La Houille Blanche, No 5.
Rutherford, J.C. (1977). Modeling effects of aquatic plants in rivers. Journal of the
Environmental Engineering Division, American Society of Civil Engineers,
575-591.
Salama MM and Bakry MF (1992). Design of earthen, vegetated open channels.
Water Resources Management 6, 149-159.
Samuels, P.G. (1989). Characteristic Backwater Lengths. Proceedings on ICE:
Research and Theory. pp. 571-582.
Sand-Jensen k (1999). Influence of submerged macrophytes on sediment
composition and near-bed flow in lowland stream. Freshwater Biology 39,
663-679.
Sand-Jensen K& Pedersen O (1999). Velocity gradients and turbulence around
macrophyte stands in streams. Freshwater Biology 42, 315-328.
Sand-Jensen K & Ruggard Mebus J (1996). Fine-scale patterns of water velocity
within macrophyte patches in streams. Oikos 76, 169-180.
Saowapon, C, Kouwen, N (1989). A Physically Based Model for Determining Flow
Resistance and Velocity Profiles in Vegetated Channels. Proceedings of the
International Conference on Channel Flow and Catchment Runoff: Centennial
of Manning 's Formula and Kuichling's Rational Formula. University of
Virginia, Charlottesville VA. 1989, 559-568.
Sargent, R.J. (1979). Variation of Manning's 'n' roughness coefficient with flow in
open river channels. Journal of the Institution of Water Engineers and
Scientists 33, 290-294.
Sastroutomo S.S., Ikusima I., Numata M. and Izumi S. (1979). The importance of
turions in the propogation of pondweed (Potamogeton crispus L.). Ecological
Review 19, 75-88.
Say P.J. (1978). Le Riou-Mort, affluent du Lot pollue par meteaux lourdes. I Etude
preliminaire de la chemie et des algues benthiques. Annals de Limnologie 14,
113-131.
Sayer, W.W. and Albertson, M.L. (1961). Roughness spacing in rigid open
channels. Journal of the Hydraulic Division, Proceedings of the American
Society of Civil Engineers 87, 121-150. (Discussion: 1961, 87, 249-270; 1962,
88, 97-107; 88, 249-264.)
Schenk, E. (1965). Die Ermittlung eines objectiven Verkrautungs und Entkrautungs
Factoren fr die Flusslufe. Deutsche gewsserkundliche Mitteilungen, 9,
101-110.
Schlichting, H. (1979). Boundary layer theory, (7th edition). McGraw-Hill Co. New

121
York, 817pp.
Schmitz, W. (1961). Fliessgewsserforschung: Hydrographie und Botanie.
Verhandlungen der internationale Vereiningung fr theoretische und angewandte
Limnologie 14, 541-586.
Schneider, V.R. and Druffel, L.A. (1975). Computing backwater and discharge at
width constrictions in wide, heavily-vegetated flood plains. Modern
Developments in Hydrometry: Proceedings of an International Seminar, Padua
1975, II, 83-93. World Meteorological Association, Geneva. (Also, 1977, US
Geological Survey Water Resources Investigations 76-129, 64pp..) [as title]
Scobey, F.C. (1939). The flow of water in irrigation and similar channels. US
Department of Agriculture, Technical Bulletin No. 652, 79pp.
Schumm, S.A. (1977). The Fluvial System. John Wiley and Sons, 338 pp.
Schumm, S.A., Mosley, M.P., Weaver, W.E. (1987). Experimental Fluvial
Morphology. John Wiley and Sons, 413 pp.
Sculthorpe C.D. (1967). The Biology of Aquatic Vascular Plants. E. Arnold, 610
pp
Schutten J & Davey AJ (2000). Predicting the hydraulic forces on submerged
macrophytes from current velocity, biomass and morphology. Oecologia 123,
445-452
Scott A. (1985). Distribution, growth and feeding of postemergent grayling
Thymallus thymallus in an English river. Transactions American Fish. Society
114, 525-531.
Sear, DA; Darby, SE; Thorne, CR; Brookes, AB (1994) Geomorphological
approach to stream stabilization and restoration: case study of the Mimmshall
brook, Hertfordshire, UK. Regulated Rivers: Research & Management, 9, 205-
223.
Seed DJ, (1997). Guidelines on the geometry of groynes for river training, HR
Wallingford Report SR 493.
Seginer, I., Mulhearn, P.J., Bradley, E.F. and Finnigan, J.J. (1976). Turbulent flow
in a model plant canopy. Boundary-Layer Meteorology 10, 423-453.
Seginer, I. and Mulhearn,P.J. (1978). A note on vertical coherence of streamwise
turbulence inside and above a model plant canopy. Boundary Layer
Meteorology 14, 515-523.
Seibert, P. (1968). Importance of natural vegetation for the protection of the banks
of streams, rivers and canals. Council of Europe, Nature and Environment
Series, Munich, 35-67.
Sellin, RHJ; Giles, A; van Beesten, DP (1990). Post-Implementation Appraisal of a
Two-Stage Channel in the River Roding, Essex. Journal of the Institution of
Water and Environmental Management 4, 119-130. CHECK FOR ns
Sellin R, Wilson CAME and Naish C, (2001). Model and prototype results for a
sinuous two-stage river channel design. J. CIWEM 15, 207-216.
Sephton E P (1983). The effect of flood alleviation works on gravel bed rivers, Int.
Conf. on the Hydraulic Aspects of Floods and Flood Control, London,
England, September 1983, Paper B1, 37-45.
Severn FR (1982). The conflict of interest between land drainage and habitat
conservation: the effects of water course vegetation on channel capacity. MSc
Report, Centre for Environmental Technology Imperial College of S & T,
119pp.
Shapiro, A.H. (1961). Shape and flow: The fluid dynamics of drag. Heinemann,
London, 187pp.[interesting background esp. for biologists]

122
Sharp, W.C. (1970). 10 year report on sloping techniques used to stabilize eroding
tidal river banks. Shore and Beach 38, 31-35.
Shen, H W (1973) Flow resistance over short simulated vegetation and various tall
simulated vegetation groupings on flow resistance and sediment yield. In:
Environmental impact on rivers. (ed. H.W. Shen), 3-1 to 3-51. Colorado State
University, Fort Collins.
Shen, HW (1972). Sedimentation and contaminant criteria for watershed planning
and management. Completion Report O.W.R.R. Project B-014-COLO.
Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado (PB211-6651).
Shen, H.W. (1979). Chapter 1. Introduction, flow resistance, sediment transport. In:
Modeling of rivers (ed. H.W. Shen), 1-30. Wiley Interscience, New York.
Shields, FD; Nunnally, NR (1984). Environmental Aspects of Clearing and
Snagging Journal of Environmental Engineering 110, 152-165.
Shields, FD; Gray, DH (1992). Effects of Woody Vegetation on Sandy Levee
Integrity. Water Resources Bulletin 28, 917-931.
Shields FD and Gippel CJ, (1995). Prediction of effects of woody debris removal
on flow resistance. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering. 121, 341-354.
[Discussion by Marriott MJ, 122, 471; and closure 122, 471-472].
Shih SF and Rahi GS (1982). Seasonal variations of Mannings roughness
coefficient in a subtropical marsh. American Society of Agricultural
Engineers, Vol 25, No. 1, 116-119.
Shimizu, Y., Tsujimoto, T. (1994). Numerical Analysis of Turbulent Open Channel
Flow Over a Vegetation Layer Using a k- Turbulence Model. Journal of
Hydroscience and Hydraulic Engineering, 11, 57-67.
Silvester, N.R. and Sleigh, M.A. (1985). The forces on microrganisms at surfaces in
flowing water. Freshwater Biology 15, 433-448. [biologists overview related to
microrganisms]
Shimizu, Y., Tsujimoto, T. (1994). Numerical Analysis of Turbulent Open Channel
Flow Over a Vegetation Layer Using a k- Turbulence Model. Journal of
Hydroscience and Hydraulic Engineering. Vol. 11(2): 57 67.
Simons DB and Richardson EV, (1966). Resistance to flow in alluvial channels.
US Geological Survey, Professional Paper 422-J.
Simons, D.B. and Richardson, E.V. (1962). The effect of bed roughness on depth-
discharge relations in alluvial channels. US Geological Survey, Water-Supply
Paper No. 1498-E, 26pp.
Simons, D.B. and Richardson, E.V. (1966). Resistance to flow in alluvial channels.
US Geological Survey, Professional Paper No. 422-J.
Simons, D. B. and Richardson, E. V. (1960). Resistance to flow in alluvial
channels. Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers, Volume
86, No. HY5.
Singer J (1964). Square-edged broad-crested weirs as a flow measurement device.
Water and Water Engineering, 28, 229 -235.
Sirjola, E. (1969). Aquatic vegetation of the River Teuronjoki, South Finland and
its relation to water velocity. Annales botanici Societatis zoologicae-botanicae
fennicae Vanamo 6, 68-75.
Slack K.V. and Feltz H.R. (1968). Tree leaf control on low-flow water quality in a
small Birginia stream. Environmental Science and Technology 2, 126-131.
Ska B. and Van de Borght P. (1986). The problem of Ranunculus development in
the river Samois. Proceedings, EWRS/AAB 7th Symposium on Aquatic
Weeds, 307-314.

123
Smailes EL (1996). Hydraulic effects of vegetation management. HR Wallingford
Report TR3, May.
Smart, G.M. (1999). Turbulent velocity profiles and boundary shear in gravel-bed
rivers. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, ASCE 125(2): 106-116.
Smart, G.M. (1999). Coefficient of friction for flow resistance in alluvial channels
with granular beds. Water Maritime & Energy 136(4): 205-210.
Smart, G.M. (2000). Review of "Gravel Bed Rivers in the Environment". Journal of
Hydraulic Engineering, ASCE 126(1): 94-95.
Smart, G.; Walsh, J.; Duncan, M. (1999). Roughness and flow resistance. NZ
Hydrological Society Symposium, Napier, 2326 November, Symposium
Abstracts, 73.
Smith, R J, Hancock, N H and Ruffini, J L (1990). Flood flow through tall
vegetation, Agricultural Water Management, 18, 317-332.
Soulsby, P.G. (1974). The effect of a heavy cut and the subsequent regrowth of
aquatic plants in a Hampshire chalk stream. Journal of the Institute of Fisheries
Management 5, 49-53.
Soulsby PG (1974). The effect of a heavy cut on the subsequent growth of aquatic
plants in a Hampshire chalk stream. Journal of the Irrigation and Drainage
Division, ASCE, 89 31-56.
Smith, I.R. (undated, about 1975) The effect of aquatic weeds on water flow - a
working paper to be used in consideration of a proposed project. Agricultural
Research Council, Weed Research Organisation, Internal Report, 8pp.
Smith, I.R. (undated, about 1975) The effect of vegetation on the hydraulic behaviour
of channels. Agricultural Research Council, Weed Research Organisation,
Internal Report, 22pp. [Results of hydraulic effects of vegetation on Rivers
Wissey, Blackwater, Lugg and Harpers Brook.]
Smith, R. (1975). Turbulence in lakes and rivers. Scientific Publications of the
Freshwater Biological Association No. 29, 79pp.
Smith RJ, Hancock NH and Ruffini JL (1990). Flood flow through tall vegetation.
Agricultural Water Management 18, 317-332.
Sokolov, YN 1980 Hydraulic Resistance of Floodplains Water Resources (English
Translation) 7, 563-572, Translated from Vodnye Resursy, 6, 143-154.
Sokolov, YN. (1982). Determination of the hydraulic roughness of a vegetated flood
plain. Hydrotechnical Construction 16, 96-100.
Song, C.C.S. and Yang, C.T. (1979). Velocity profiles and minimum stream power.
Engineers 105, 981-998. 365.
Soulsby PG (1974). The effect of a heavy cut on the subsequent growth of aquatic
plants in a Hampshire chalk stream. Journal of the Irrigation and Drainage
Division, ASCE. 89, 31-56.
Sperling, W. (1938). Evaluation of flow measurement, particularly with allowance for
ice conditions and weed growth. Baltic States Sixth Hydrological Conference,
Germany 1938.
Spillett, P.B. (1981). The use of groynes and deflectors in river management.
Association of Applied Biologists, Proceedings of the Conference on Aquatic
Weeds and Their Control, 1981, Oxford 189-198.
Sridharan, K. and Kumar, M.S.M. (1981). Parametric study of floodwave
propagation. Journal of the Hydraulics Division, Proceedings of the American
Society of Civil Engineers 107, 1061-1076. (Discussion: 1982, 108, 469; 108,
973.)

124
Starosolszky, Oe. (1983). The role of reeds in the shaping of currents. Proceedings of
the 20th Congress of the International Association of Hydraulic Research
Moscow V, 498-509. VINITI, Moscow.
Statzner, B. (1981). The relation between "hydraulic stress" and microdistribution of
benthic macroinvertebrates in a lowland running water system, the
Schierenseebrooks (N. Germany). Archiv fr Hydrobiologie 91, 192-218.
Statzner, B. and Higler, B. (1986). Stream hydraulics as a major determinant of
benthic invertebrate zonation patterns. Freshwater Biology, 16, 27-139. [As title.]
Stephens, J.C. (1950). Flow of water in drainage channels. US Department of
Agriculture, Soil Conservtion Service, Annual Report, Everglades Project, Fort
Lauderdale, Florida, 1949-1950.
Stephens, J.C., Blackburn, R.D., Seaman, D.E. and Weldon, L.W. (1963). Flow
retardance by channel weeds and their control. Journal of the Irrigation and
Drainage Division, Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers 89,
31-53. or 56 [Discussion: 1963, 89 (Dec.), 65; 1964, 90 (June), 111.]
Stevens, G.T., Meuller, D.S. and Strauser, C.N. (1983). A new approach to the elusive
Manning's 'n'. In: River meandering, (ed C.M. Elliot), Proceedings of the
Conference, 'Rivers 83', New Orleans 1983, 586-597. American Society of Civil
Engineers, Vicksburg.
Stephenson, D. (1981). Storm water hydrology and drainage. Elsevier, Amsterdam,
423pp.
Sternberg, R.W. (1968). Frictional factors in tidal channels with differing bed
roughness. Marine Geology 6, 243-260.
Strand VV, 2002. The influence of ventilation systems on water depth penetration
of emergent macrophytes. Freshwater Biology 47, 1097-1105.
Streeter, V.L. and E.B. Wylie (1983). Fluid Mechanics. McGraw-Hill. p. 562
Sturm, T.W. (2001). Open Channel Hydraulics. McGraw-Hill Series in Water
Resources and Environmental Engineering, New York, 493 pp.
Sukopp, H. and Kunich, W. (1969). Die Ufervegetation der Berliner Havel. Natur und
Landschaft (Basel) 44, 287-292.
Sukopp, H. (1973). Conservation of wetlands in central Europe. Polskie Archiwum
Hydrobiologii 20, 223-228.
Szczpanski A. (1976). Limiting factors and productivity of macrophytes. Folia
Geobotanica et Phytotoxanomica 11, 337-432.
Szemes G. (1967). Systematisches Verzeichnis der Pflanzenwelt der Donau mit
einer zusammenfassenden Erlauterung Limnologie der Donau Ed. Liepolt R.
(V) 70-131. E. Schweizerbartsche Verlagsbuchhandlung, Stuttgart.
Tansley A.G. (1911). Types of British Vegetation. Cambridge University Press,
416 pp.
Tansley A.G. (1953). The British Islands and their vegetation. Cambridge
University Press, 930 pp.
Task Force on Friction Factors in Open Channels (1963). Friction factors in open
channels. Journal of the Hydraulics Division, Proceedings of the American
Society of Civil Engineers 89, 97-143.
Taubaev T. (1970). Flora of Middle Asiatic waterbodies and its value for the
national economy. Institute of Botany, Akadamy Nauk Uzbek. SSR, FAN,
Taskent, 491 pp.
Taube, C.M. (1967). Stabilization of an eroded river bank. Journal of Soil and
Water Conservation 22, 6-7.
Technology Research Center for riverfront development, (1994). Proposed

125
guidelines on the clearing and planting of trees in rivers. Japan
Temple, D.M. (1980). Tractive force design of vegetated channels. Transactions of the
American Society of Agricultural Engineers 23, 884-904.
Temple DM, (1982). Flow retardance of submerged grass channel linings.
Temple DM, (1983). Design of Grass-line open channels. Transactions of the
American Society of Agricultural Engineers 26, 1064-1069.
Temple DM, (1986). Velocity distribution coefficients for grass-lined channels.
Journal of Hydraulic Engineering 112, 193-205.
Temple D. M. (1987) Closure of Velocity Distribution Coefficients for Grass Lined
Channels, Journal of the Hydraulics Division, ASCE, 113, 1224-1226
Temple DM (1999). Flow resistance of grass-lined channel banks. Journal of the
Soil and Water Division, ASCE, 15, 129-133.
Thomann, R.V. (1987) Principles of Surface Water Quality Modeling and Control.
Harper & Row, New York, 644 pp.
Thommen G.H. and Westlake D.F. (1981). Factors affecting the distribution of
populations of Apium nodiflorum and Nasturtium officinale in small chalk
streams. Aquat. Bot. 11, 21-36.
Thompson, G.T. (1974). A theory of flow resistance for vegetated channels.
Washington State University, Pullmann. PhD Thesis.
Thompson, G.T. and Robertson, J.A. (1976). A theory of flow resistance for vegetated
channels. Transactions of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers 19,
288-293.
Thompson S M and Campbell P L (1979). Hydraulics of a large channel paved with
boulders, Journal of Hydraulic Research, 17, (4), p341-354.
Thorne, C.R. (1998). Stream Reconnaissance Handbook: Geomorphological
Investigation and Analysis of River Channels. John Wiley and Sons, England,
133 pp.
Thorne CR and Zevenbergen LW, (1985). Estimating mean velocity in mountain
rivers. Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers, Journal of
Hydraulic Engineering, 111(4), 612-624.
Thornton CI, Abt SR, Morris CE and Fischenich JC, (2000). Calculating shear
stress at channel-overbank interfaces in straight channels with vegetated
floodplains. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, 126, 929-936.
Thyssen N. (1982). Aspects of the oxygen dynamics of a macrophyte dominated
lowland stream in Studies on Aquatic Vascular Plants (eds J.J. Symoens, S.S.
Hooper & P. Compere), 2 _213. Proceedings International Colloquium on
Aquatic Vascular Plants, Brussels, 23-25 January 1981. Brussels: Royal
Botanical Society of Belgium.
Tnsman, F. and Mockenhaupt, L. (1981). Einfluss von Pflanzformen an Ufern und
Vorlndern auf die Wasserspiegellagen bei Hochwasser. Wasser und Boden
33(2), 72-76. [in German]
Tollner, E.W., Barfield, B.J. and Hayes, J.C. (1982). Sedimentology of erect
vegetal filters. Journal of the Hydraulics Division, Proceedings of the
American Society of Civil Engineers 108, 1518-1531.
Tominaga A, Nagao M and Nezu I, (1999a). Flow structures and momentum
transport processes in curved open channels with vegetation. IAHR Congress,
Graz.
Tominaga A, Nagao M and Nezu I, (1999b). Effects of vegetation on flow
structures and bed profiles in curved open channels. In: Environmental

126
Hydraulics, edited by Lee, Jayawardena and Wang, Balkema, Rotterdam.
Tracy HJ and Lester CM, (1961). Resistance coefficients and velocity distribution
smooth rectangular channels. US Geological Survey Water Supply, Paper
1592-A.
Tsujimoto T, Kitamura T and Okada T, (1991). Turbulent structurte of flow over
rigid vegetation-covered bed in open channels. KHL communication
Hydraulics Laboratory, Kanazawa University, 2, 1-14.
Tsujimoto T, Kitamura T and Shimizu Y, (1991). Application of the k-e model to
turbulent flow over rigid vegetation-covered bed in open channels. KHL
Communication Hydraulics Laboratory, Kanazawa University, 2, 15-24.
Tsujimoto T, Ouji Y, and Kitamura T , (1991). Flow in vegetated and non-
vegetated zones in a cross-section of open channel. KHL Communication
Hydraulics Laboratory, Kanazawa University, 2, 41-58.
Tsujimoto T., Shimizu Y., Kitamura T., Okada T. (1992). Turbulent Open-Channel
Flow over Bed Covered by Rigid Vegetation. Journal of Hydrology &
Hydraulic Engineering 10, 13-25.
Tsujimoto T (1999). Fluvial process in streams with vegetation. Journal of
Hydraulic research, 37, 789 -803
Turner, A.K. and Chanmeesri, N. (1984). Shallow flow of water through non-
submerged vegetation. Agricultural Water Management 8, 375-385.
Turner, A.K., Langford, K.J., Win, M. and Clift, T.R. (1978) Discharge-depth
equation for shallow flow. Journal of the Irrigation and Drainage Division,
Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers 104, 95-110.
University of Bristol (1988). Department of Civil Engineering. Two stage channel
flow.
University of Ulster (1995). Post project monitoring of fish habitats on the River
Blackwater. University of Ulster Report
Urbonas, P.A. (1982). Experimental study of the coefficients of hydraulic resistance
in a bundle of twisted pipes. Mezhvuzovskiy Sbornik Nauchnykh Trudov
Vsesoyuznogo Zaochnogo Mashinostroitelnogo Instituta 11, 78-82. [In Russian.]
Urk, A. van (1981). Hydraulische ruwheid grasland in uiterwaarden. Directorate
Waterhuishoudelijk en Waterbeweging, Dist. Zuidoost Arnhem, Nota WWZO
81.21, 47pp.
Urk, A. van (1983). Weerstand begroeiingen in uiterwaarden. Directorate
Waterhuishoudelisk en Waterbeweging, Dist. Zuidoost Arnhem 1981, Nota
WWZO 83.11, 91pp.
Urk, A., van (1982). Bedforms in relation to hydraulic roughness and unsteady
flow in the Rhine branches, in Mechanics of sediment transport edited by
B.M. Sumer and A. Muller, Proc Euromech 156, Istanbul, pp151-157.
Usherwood JR, Ennos AR & Ball DJ (1997). Mechanical and anatomical
adaptations in terrestrial and aquatic buttercups to their respective
environments. Journal Experimental Botany 48, 1469-1475.
US Army Engineer Waterways Experimental Station (2000). Streambank
US Soil Conservation Service, (1954). Handbook of channel design for soil and
water conservation. Publication SCS-TP61.
US Soil Conservation Service, (1963). Guide for selecting roughness coefficient
n values for channels, US Department of Agriculture, Washington DC.
Van Ieperen HJ and Herfst, (1986). Laboratory experiments on the flow resistance
of aquatic weeds. Int conference on Hydraulic Design in Water Resources
Engineering: Land Drainage, Southampton: 281-292.

127
Van Mises, R. and von Karman, T. (Eds.) Advances in Applied Mechanics. Vol 1
(1948), Vol 2 (1951), Vol 3 (1953), Academic Press
Van Rijn, L.C. (1984). Sediment Transport: Part III, Bed Forms and Alluvial
Roughness, Journal of Hyd. Engng., ASCE, 110 HY12, pages.
van Rijn, L. C. (1984). Sediment transport: Part 1: Bed load transport; Part 2:
suspended load transport; Part 3: Bed forms and alluvial roughness.
Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers, Volume 110, No.s
HY10, HY11and HY12.
Van Schayck C.P. (1986). The effect of several methods of aquatic plant control on
two Bilharzia-bearing snail species. Aquatic Botany 24, 303-310.
Van Wijk (1983)
Vanoni, V. (1976). Sedimentation Engineering, ASCE Manual No. 54, 745 pp.
Vennard, J.K. (1961). Elementary fluid mechanics. J. Wiley and Sons, London,
570pp.
Vassilios AT, (2001). Variation of roughness coefficients for unsubmerged and
submerged vegetation. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering 12, 241-245.
Vincent J & Strauss V (1975). Calculation of woods in floodplains oflarge rivers
and its effect on the run-off of high flood discharges. Proceedings IAHR 3 Sao
Paulo 1975 516-523.
Vogel, S. (1981). Life in moving fluids. The physical biology of flow. Willard Grant
Press, Boston, MA, 368pp.
Vogel, S. (1984). Drag and flexibility in sessile organisms. American Zoologist 24,
37-44.
Vollenweider and Westlake (1980)
de Waal, L.C., Wade, P.M., Large, A. eds. (1998). Rehabilitation of Rivers:
Principles and Implementation. John Wiley and Son, 344 pp.
Wade, P.M. and Edwards, R.W. (1980). The effect of channel maintenance on the
aquatic macrophytes of the drainage channels in the Monmouthshire Levels,
South Wales, 1840-1976. Aquatic Botany 8, 307-322.
Wakhlu, O.N. (1973). Obtaining overland flow resistance by optimisation. Journal
Engineers 99, 274-277.
Walker, K F, Sheldon, F and Puckridge, J T (1995). A perspective on dryland river
ecosystems, Regulated Rivers: Research & Management, Vol. 11, pp 85-104.
Wallis S.G and Knight D.W (1984). Calibration studies concerning a one-
dimensional numerical tidal model with particular reference to resistance
coefficients. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 19, 541-562.
Ward DE, Holmes NTH, Andrews JH, Gowing DJG and Kirby P, (1999).
Guidelines for River Vegetation Maintenance, Environment Agency R&D
note 511.
Warming E. (1909). Ecology of Plants. Oxford, 422 pp.
Wasantha Lal AM (1995). Calibration of river bed roughness. Journal of Hydraulic
Water Space Amenity Commission (1984). Conservation and land drainage
guidelines, 2nd ed., 121pp. Water Space Amenity Commission, London.
[See also 1st ed. 1980 and Conservation and Land Drainage Working Party Report,
WSAC London 1980, 27pp.]
Watson, D. (1982). River channel roughness. Department of Geography, University
of Southampton. Discussion Paper No. 17, 57pp.
Watson, D. (1986). The effects of aquatic macrophytes on channel roughness and

128
flow parameters. Department of Geography, University of Southampton,
England. PhD Thesis.
Watson D (1987). Hydraulic effects of aquatic weeds in UK rivers. Regulated
Rivers: Research and Management, 1, 211-227.
Watts JF and Watts GD, (1990). Seasonal change in aquatic vegetation and its
effect on river channel flow. Vegetation and Erosion Edited by JB Thornes,
Wiley.
Wehr J.D. and Whitton B.B. (1986). Ecological factors relating to the
morphological variation in the aquatic moss Rhynchostegium riparoides
(Hedw.) c. Jens. Journal of Bryology 14, 269-280.
Weisbach, T. (1850). Lehrbuch dur Ingeniew-und Maschinen-Mechanik.
Braunschweig, Germany.
Weltz MA, Arslan AB and Lane LJ, (1992). Hydraulic roughness coefficients for
native rangelands. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage, 118, 776-790
Werkgroep Afvoerberekeningen (1982.) Richtlynen voor het berekenen van
afwateringsstelsels in landetyke gebieden. Sectie en Studiekring voor
Cultuurtechniek, 155pp.
Wessles, W.P.J. and Strelkof, T. (1968). Established surge on an impervious vegetated
bed. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Division, Proceedings of the American
Society of Civil Engineers 94, 1-22. (Discussion: 1969, 95, 231-237; 1969, 95,
587-588.)
Westlake, D.F. (1960). Waterweed and water management. Journal of the Institute of
Public Health Engineers 59, 148-164.
Westlake, D.F. (1966). A model for quantitative studies of photosynthesis by
higher plants in streams. Air & Water Pollution International Journal 10, 883-
896.
Westlake D.F. (1966b). The light climate for plants in rivers. in Light as an
ecological factor (eds R. Bainbridghe, G.C. Evans & O. Rackham). British
Ecological Society Symposium 6, 99-120.
Westlake D.F. (1967). Some effects of low velocity currents on the metabolism of
aquatic macrophytes. Journal of Experimental Biology 18, 187-205.
Westlake D.F. (1968). The biology of aquatic weeds in relation to their
management. Proceedings 9th British Weed Control Conference, British Crop
Protection Council, 372-379.
Westlake D.F., Casey H., Dawson F.H., Ladle M., Mann R.H.K. and Marker
A.F.H. (1972). The chalk-stream ecosystem. in Productivity problems of
freshwaters. Procedings of IBP/UNESCO Symposium, Kazimierz-Dolny,
Poland, May 6-12 1970 (eds Z. Kajak & A. Hillbricht- Ilkowska), 615-635.
Westlake D.F. (1975). Macrophytes. In River Ecology (ed. B.A. Whitton),
Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford, 106-128.
Westlake D.F. (1981). The development and structure of aquatic weed populations.
Proceeding Aquatic Weeds and their Control, 33-47.
Westlake D.F. (1982). The primary productivity of water plants. in Studies on
aquatic vascular plants (eds J.J. Symoens, S.S. Hooper & P. Compere), 165-
180. Proceedings International Colloqium on Aquatic Vascular Plants,
Brussels, 23-25 January.
Westlake D.F. and Dawson F.H. (1982). Thirty years of weed cutting on a chalk
stream. Proceedings European Weed Research Society 6th Symposium.
Aquatic Weeds, 132-140.
Westlake D.F. and Dawson F.H. (1986). The management of Ranunculus

129
calcareus by pre-emptive cutting in southern England. European Weed
Research Society, Association of Applied Biologists, 7th International
Symposium on Aquatic Weeds, September 1986, 395- 400.
Westlake D.F. & Dawson F.H. (1988). The effects of autumnal weed cuts in a
lowland stream on water levels and flooding in the following springs.
Verhandlung international Vereinung theoretische angewante Limnologiae 23,
1273-1277.
White, F.M. (1974). Viscous fluid flow. McGraw Hill, New York, 640pp.
Whitehead, E., Schiele, M. and Bull,W. (1976). A guide to the use of grass in
hydraulic engineering practice. Construction Industry Research and Information
Association, Technical Note No. 71, London, 117pp.
Whitehead, E., Brown, P., and Hollindrake, P. (1992). The hydraulic roughness of
vegetated channels., SR305, HR Wallingford Ltd, Wallingford
Whitton B.A. (1972). Environmental limits of plants in flowing waters. in
Conservation and Productivity of Natural Waters. Ed. R.W. Edwards & D.J.
Garrod. Symposia of the Zoological Society of London 29, 3-19.
Wilby NJ, Pygott JR & Eaton JW (2001). Interrelationships between standing crop,
biodiversity and trait attributes of hydrophytic vegetation in artificial
waterways. Freshwater Biology 46 883-902.
Willetts, B.B., and R.I. Hardwick (1993). Stage Dependency for Overbank Flow in
Meandering Channels. Proceedings Institution Civil Engineers: Water,
Maritime & Energy, 101, 45-54.
White, F.M. (1974). Viscous fluid flow. McGraw Hill, New York, 640pp.
White WR, Bettess R and Paris E, (1982). Analytical approach to river regime,
ASCE, J of Hydraulics Division, Vol 108, HY 10, pp1179-1193
Wijbenga, J.H.A. and Klaasen, G.J., (1981). Changes in bedform dimensions under
steady flow conditions in a straight flume, Delft Hydraulics Lab,
Communications Publ. No. 260.
Wilcock, R.J., Champion, P.D., Nagels, J.W. and Croker, G.F. (1999). The
influence of aquatic macrophytes on the hydraulic and physico-chemical
properties of a New Zealand lowland stream. Hydrobiologia 416, 203-2
Williams, C.C. (1910). Notes on the flow of water in irrigation ditches. University
of Colorado Studies, Boulder, Colorado 7, 237-247
Williams, GP; Costa, JE (1988). Geomorphic Measurements after a Flood. Flood
Geomorphology. John Wiley & Sons New York, 65-77.
Williams, PB (1989). Rethinking Flood-Control Channel Design. CRC Critical
Reviews in Environmental Control 19, 57-59.
Wilson CAME and Sellin RHJ, (1999). A field investigation of vegetation effects
in a doubly meandering compound channel. IAHR Congress, Graz.
Wilson C. A. M. E., Stoesser T., Bates P. D., Batemann Pinzen A. (2002). Open
channel flow through different forms of submerged flexible vegetation. ASCE
Division of Hydraulic Engineering
Wilson, K.V. (1973). Changes in flood flow characteristics of a rectified channel
caused by vegetation, Jackson, Mississippi. Journal of Research of U.S.
Geological Survey 1, 621-625.
Wilson C. A. M. E., Bates P. D. Hervouet J.-M. (2002). Comparison of Turbulence
Models for Stage-Discharge Rating Curve Prediction in Compound Channel
Flows using Two-Dimensional Finite Element Methods, Journal of Hydrology
257, 42-58.
Wilson C. A. M. E., Horritt M. S. (2002). Measuring the hydraulic resistance of

130
grass", Forthcoming in Hydrological Processes.
Wilson C. A. M. E., Stoesser T., Bates P. D., Batemann Pinzen A. Accepted. Open
channel flow through different forms of submerged flexible vegetation.
Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, ASCE.
Witcomb D.M. (1968). The fauna of aquatic plants. Proceedings 9th British Weed
Control Conference. British Crop Protection Council, 382-391.
Wohl EE (1998). Uncerntainty in flood estimates associated with roughness
coefficient. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering 124, 219-223
Wolman M G (1954). A method of sampling coarse river-bed material,
Transactions, American Geophysical Union, 35, 951-956.
Woolhiser, D.A., Hanson, C.L. and Kuhlman, A.R. (1970). Overland flow on
rangeland watersheds. Journal of Hydrology, (NZ) 9, 336-356.
Woo, D.C. and Brater, E.F. (1961). Laminar flow in rough rectangular channels.
Journal of Geophysical Research 66, 4207-4217.
Wormleaton, P.R., Allen, J. and Hadjipanos, P. (1982). Discharge assessment in
compound channel flow. Journal of the Hydraulics Division, American Society
of Civil Engineers 108, 975-994. (Discussion: 1983, 109, 1559-1567.)
Wormleaton, P.R. and Hadjipanos, P. (1985). Flow distribution in compound
channels. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, 111, 357-361.
Wright, R. (1980). Variation of Manning's roughness coefficient 'n' with discharge in
natural improved and artificial river channels, 50pp. Department of Geography,
University College, London. B Sc Diss.
Wright, S.J. (1973). A theory for predicting the resistance to flow in conduits
roughened with non-uniform roughness, Washington State University, Pullman.
M Sc Thesis.
Wu F-C, Shen H W and Chou Y-T (1999). Variation of roughness coefficients for
unsubmerged and submerged vegetation. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering
125, 934-942.
Wyatt VE & Nickling WG (1997). Drag and shear stress partitioning in sparse
desert creosote communities. Canadian Journal of Earth Science 34, 1846-149
Wylie, E.B. and V.L. Streeter (1993). Fluid Transients in Systems. Prentice Hall. p.
463
Xia R (1997). Relation between mean and maximum velocities in a natural river.
Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, 123, 720-723.
Yamamoto, T. (1976). Hydrodynamic forces on multiple circular cylinders. Journal of
102, 1193-1210.
Yang, C.T. (1976). Minimum unit stream power and fluvial hydraulics. Journal of the
102, 919-934.
Yang, C.T. (1976). Applicability of unit stream power equation. Journal of the
102, 559-568.
Yates, G.T. (1986). How microorganisms move through water. American Scientist 74,
358-
Yano, M. (1966). Turbullent diffusion in simulated vegetation cover, Colorado
State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. Ph D Thesis.
Yen, B.C. (1965). Discussion on 'Large scale roughness in open channel flow'. Journal
Engineers 91 (Sept), 257.

131
Yen, CL & Overton, D.E. (1973). Shape effects on resistance in flood plain channels.
Journal of Hydraulics Division, Proceedings of the American Society of Civil
Engineers 99, 219-238.
Yong, K.C. (1968). Scour resistance of farm dam spillways with grass dormant.
University of New South Wales, Water Research Laboratory, Report No. 104.
Yong, K.C. and Stone, D.M. (1967). Resistance of low cost surfaces for farm dam
spillways. University of New South Wales, Water Research Laboratory, Report
No. 95.
Yong, K.C. and Stone, D.M. (1967). Resistance of low cost surfaces for farm dam
spillways. University of New South Wales, Water Research Laboratory, Report
No. 95.
Yulistiyanto B, Zech y & Graf WH (1997). Flow around a cylinder: shallow-water
modeling with diffusion-dispersion. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering 124,
419-429.
Yulistiyanto B (1997). Flow around a cylinder installed in a fixed bed open
channel. PhD thesis no. 1631, Polytechnique Federale, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Zieman, J.C. (1976). The ecological effects of physical damage from motor boats on
turtle grass beds in Southern Florida. Aquatic Botany 10, 383-388.

132
APPENDICES

133

134
Appendix A

Reference Tables of data used

Acement and Schneider (1989/2002)

Table A1 Base values of Mannings n, modified from Aldridge and Garnett (1973).
Base n value Bed material Median size of bed
material in mm Straight uniform
channel
Smooth channel
Sand channels
Sand 0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.8
1.0
Stable channels and flood plains
Concrete - 0.012-0.018 0.011
Rock cut - - 0.025
Firm soil - 0.025-0.032 0.020
Coarse sand 1-2 0.026-0.035 -
Fine gravel - 0.024
Gravel 2-64 0.028-0.035 -
Coarse gravel - - 0.026
Cobble 64-256 0.03-0.05 -
Boulder >256 0.04-0.07

Table A2 Data from photographs of flood plains
Site Description Depth of
water on
floodplain
(m)
Vegetation
density
Cd
value
for
trees
Mannings
n value
Cypress Creek
Primarily trees with base
of firm soil and slight
surface irregularities
0.8 0.0067 12 0.1
Bayou de
Loutre
1.1 0.0067 8.8 0.11
Bayou de
Loutre
1.1 0.0075 7.7 0.11
Bayou de
Loutre
1.1 0.0072 8 0.11
Coldwater
river
of silty soil and slight
surface irregularities.
Few obstructions, ground
cover of short weeds and
grass
0.9 0.0077 10.2 0.11
Coldwater
of silty soil and slight
0.9 0.0090 8.6 0.11

135
river
surface irregularities.
Few obstructions, ground
cover of short weeds and
grass
Yockanookany
river
Primarily trees with many
small trees (0.1 to 0.2ft
diam). Base of firm soil
and slight surface
irregularities
1.2 0.0082 7.6 0.12
Flagon Bayou
Mixture of large and
small trees. Base of firm
soil and minor surface
irregularities with some
rise
0.98 0.0087 11.5 0.13
Pea Creek
irregularities, rises and
depressions
0.88 0.0085 15.6 0.14
Tenmile Creek
depressions
1.25 0.0067 14.4 0.15
Sixmile Creek
Large trees. Base firm
depressions
1.5 0.0084 13.3 0.18
Thompson
Creek
small trees. Base firm soil
and minor surface
irregularities
0.88 0.0115 22.7 0.2

Table A3 Adjustment values for factors that affect the roughness of floodplains
Flood plain
conditions
Mannings
n value
adjustment
Description
No irregularity 0 Smoothest, flattest floodplain attainable in given bed
material
Minor
irregularity
0.001-0.005 A few rises and dips or sloughs visible on the flood
plain
Moderate 0.006-0.01 More rises and dips, sloughs and hummocks may
occur
Severe 0.011-0.02 Flood plain very irregular in shape. Many rises and
dips or sloughs are visible. Irregular ground surfaces
in pasture land and furrows perpendicular to the flow.
Negligible
obstructions
0.000-0.004 Few scattered obstructions which include debris
deposits, stumps, exposed roots, logs, piers or
isolated boulders that occupy less than 5 percent of
the cross-sectional area.
Minor
obstructions
0.004-0.005 Obstructions occupy less than 15 percent of the cross-
sectional area.
Appreciable
obstructions
0.02-0.03 Obstructions occupy from 15 percent to 50 percent of
the cross-sectional area.
Small amount
of vegetation
0.001-0.01 Dense growths of flexible turf grass, such as
Bermuda or weeds growing where the average depth
of flow is at least two times the height of the
vegetation. Supple tree seedlings such as willow,

136
cottonwood, and arrow-weed growing where the
average depth of flow is at least three times the height
of vegetation.
Medium
amount of
vegetation
0.01-0.025 Turf grass growing where the average depth of flow
is from one to two times the height of vegetation.
Moderately dense stemy grass, weeds or tree
seedlings growing where the average depth of flow is
from two to three times the height of the vegetation.
Brushy, moderately dense vegetation, similar to 1-
2year old willow trees in the dormant season.
Large amount
of vegetation
is about equal to the height of the vegetation. 8-10
years old willow or cottonwood trees intergrow with
some weeds and brush (none of the vegetation in
foliage) where the hydraulic radius exceeds 0.607m.
Alternatively, mature row crops such as small
vegetables or mature field crops where depth flow is
at least twice the height of the vegetation.
Very large
vegetation
is less than half the height of the vegetation, or
moderate to dense brush or heavy stand of timber
with few fallen trees and little undergrowth where
depth is below branches, or mature field crops where
depth of flow is less than the height of vegetation
Extreme 0.1-0.2 Dense bushy willow or heavy stands of timber, few
fallen trees, depth reaching branches.

137
Barnes (1967)

Table A4 Data from Barnes (1967)
River name Description Manning n
roughness
Columbia river at
Vernite
Slime covered cobbles and gravel 0.024
Indian Fork below
Atwood Dam
Clay bed, some grass and exposed roots
on banks
0.026
Champlin Creek nr
Colorado City, Texas
Gravel and rock bed. Grass banks 0.027
Clark Fork at St Regis Well-rounded boulders, d50=135mm.
Banks of gravel/boulders with tree and
brush cover
0.028
Clark Fork above
Missoula
Bed of sand/gravel and boulders
d50=175mm. Thick undergrowth on right
bank
0.03
Columbia River at the
Dalles, Oreg.
Left bank sand, gravel, boulders with
light brush. Right bank basalt cliffs.
Bed material graded from boulders to
sand
0.03
Esopus Creek at
Coldbrook
Coarse gravel bed. Banks covered with
trees and brush
0.03
Salt Creek at Roca,
Nebr.
Sand and clay bed, banks smooth 0.03
Blackfoot River near
Ovando, Mont.
Gravel and boulder d50=155mm bed and
banks
0.031
Coeur dAlene River
near Pritchard
Bed rock on left and gravel and boulders
elsewhere d50=103mm. Left bank -steep
bedrock. Right bank sand/gravel with
heavy growth of trees and brush
0.032
Rio Chama near
Chamita
Sand/gravel bed. Left bank rock, right
bank gravel.
0.032, 0.036
Salt River Arizona Bed and bank smooth cobbles
d50=150mm
0.032
Beaver Kill at Cooks
Fall, NY
Bed coarse gravel and cobbles with
scattered boulders. Light brush on both
banks with a few trees
0.033
Clearwater River at
Kamiah, Idaho
Bed gravel/boulders with some exposed
bedrock. Banks gravel/rock with light
vegetation cover
0.033
Etowah River near
Dawsonville Ga
Bed sand/gravel with some fallen trees.
Lined banks with overhanging trees/brush
0.041, 0.039,
0.035
West Fork Bitterroot
River near Conner,
Mont.
Bed gravel/boulders d50=172mm. Left
bank lined with overhanging bushes.
Right bank coniferous trees
0.036
Yakima River at
Umtanum, Wash.
Bed gravel/boulders. Left bank rock
riprap with bushes. Right bank has some
boulders, brush and weed
0.036
Middle Fork Bed gravel and small cobbles. Banks 0.037

138
Vermillion River near
Danville, Ill.
lined with trees and small brush
Wenatchee River at
Plain, Wash.
Bed boulders d50=162mm. Banks lined
with trees and bushes
0.037
Moyie River at
Eastport, Idaho
Bed of gravel and small boulders. Right
bank steep with trees and brush, left bank
tree and brush cover
0.038
Spokane River at
Spokane, Wash.
Bed gravel/boulders d50=195mm. Banks
lined trees and brush
0.038
Tobesofkee Creek near
Macon, Ga.
Bed sand/gravel with a few outcrops.
Banks with overhanging trees and
underbrush
0.043, 0.041,
0.039
Bull Creek near Ira,
Tex.
Bed sand/gravel/small boulders with
scattered angular rocks. Banks are
irregular and eroded with sparse cover of
grass and scattered small trees
0.041
Middle Fork Flathead
River near Essex,
Mont.
Bed boulders d50=142mm. Banks
gravel/boulders with trees/brush along
tops
0.041
Middle Oconee River
near Athens, Ga.
Bed sand/gravel with several outcrops.
Banks steep and lined with trees/bushes
0.042, 0.041,
0.044
Beaver Creek near
Newcastle, Wyo.
Bed sand/silt. Banks irregular with
thick growth of brush
0.043
Catherine Creek near
Union, Oreg
Bed of cobbles and small boulders. Banks
lined with small trees and brush
0.043
Chiwawa River near
Plain, Wash.
Bed of bedrock with cover of boulders of
up to 0.45m. Banks have trees along tops
0.043
Esopus Creek at
Coldbrook, NY
Bed coarse gravel to large boulders.
Banks lined with boulders and scattered
trees/brush
0.043
Grand Ronde River at
La Grande, Oreg.
Bed boulders d50=93mm. Right bank
steep with dense overhanging bushes
0.043
Murder Creek near
Monticello, Ga.
Bed of sand/gravel. Banks lined with
trees above low waterline
0.045
Provo River near
Hailstone, Utah
Bed/banks smooth rounded rocks up to
0.3m diam
0.045, 0.073
Rolling Fork near
Boston Ky.
Bed clay/silt. Banks overhanging trees 0.046, 0.097
Sth Beaverdam Creek
near Dewy Rose, Ga.
Bed sand. Banks irregular with
trees/bushes down to waterline
0.052, 0.047
Deep River at
Ramseur, NC
Bed coarse sand with some gravel. 3
small islands with dense stand of small
birch trees. Banks steep with medium
growth of brush and large trees
0.049
Clear Creek near
Golden, Colo.
Bed/banks of angular boulders up to 0.6m
diam.
0.05
Chattahoochee River
near Leaf, Ga.
Bed rock, irregular. Banks covered with
thick rhododendron and small trees
0.051, 0.074
South Fork Clearwater Bed rock/boulders d50=250mm. Banks 0.051

139
River near Grangeville,
Idaho
boulders with trees/brush along tops
Cache Creek near
Lower Lake, Calif
Bed large angular boulders. Banks
rock, boulders and some trees
0.053, 0.079
East Branch Ausable
River at Au Sable
Forks, NY
Bed gravel, rock and boulders up to
1.5m. Banks lined with boulders, small
trees and bushes
0.055
Middle Branch
Westfield River at
Goss Heights, Mass.
Bed rocks/coarse gravel with boulders
up to 1.5m diam.
0.056
Mission Creek near
Cashmere, Wash.
Bed angular boulders up to 0.3 diam.
Banks lined with overhanging bushes
0.057
Haw River near
Benaja, NC
Bed coarse sand with few outcrops.
Banks heavily lined with overhanging
birch trees
0.059
North Fork Cedar
River nr Lester, Wash.
Bed large boulders. Banks irregular
lined with brush, tree stumps and roots
0.059
Hominy Creek at
Candler NC.
Bed sand/gravel, some boulders up to
0.5m diam Banks overhanging trees
and bushes
0.06
Rock Creek Canal near
Darby, Mont.
Bed/bank of boulders d50=210mm 0.06
Merced River at Happy
Isles Bridge near
Yosemite, Calif.
Bed boulders, d50=253mm. Bank
topped with trees
0.065
Pond Creek near
Louiseville, Ky
Bed fine sand/silt. Banks irregular,
heavy growth of 5 to 20cm trees above
waterline
0.07
Boundary Creek near
Porthill, Idaho
Bed boulders, d50=210mm. Banks
boulders with trees/brush along top
0.073
Rock Creek near
Darby, Mont.
Bed boulders, d50=220mm. Banks
boulders with trees/brush
0.075

140
Bathurst (1978)

Research by Bathurst has shown the flow resistance for channels with large scale
roughness, ie boulders and large rocks is a function of channel shape, roughness spacing
and relative roughness. The determination of the size of material on the bed of a stream
is based on an analysis of the relative area covered by particles of given sizes using the
technique suggested by Wolman (1954). The method applies to data for which the
relative roughness R/D
84
<3.

If using the Bathurst equation determine the frontal concentration of the roughness
elements using
|
\
|
R
D
1.91 log 0.139 =
84
10 1
(A1)
where
D
84
= size of median axis in sample of sediment that is bigger than or equal to 84% of
median axes of sample by count (m)
R = hydraulic radius (m)
and
1
= frontal concentration, the ratio of the frontal cross section area of an element to
the area of boundary per element
The expression for the frontal concentration in equation 3.6.3 was derived from just 2
field sites and should only be applied to other sites with caution.

The frontal concentration of roughness elements is then substituted in the resistance
equation
( )
|
\
|
|
|
\
|
|
\
|

d
w

0.365
R
=
f
8
0.08 7
84
2.34
2 / 1
1
d
(A2)

where w = surface width of flow (m)
d = mean depth of flow (m)
from which the Darcy-Weisbach resistance coefficient can be determined. This
coefficient can then be translated into a Mannings n value using the equation
1/2
8g
f
R = n
6
1
|
|
\
|
(A3)

141
Butler et al (1978)

Three reaches of an urban stream, Bourn Brook, were studied in part of its course
between the Worcester and Birmingham canal and the Bristol Road in Birmingham. The
reaches of the stream were surveyed during low and medium flows. Velocity, level and
channel cross-section data were used to investigate the variation of Mannings n with
flow for each reach, Figure A1

Figure A1 Variation in Mannings n with discharge for the Bourn Brook

142
Datasets at CEH Dorset (ISF)

Table A5 Definition of datasets available from CEH Dorset
Hydraulic
NGR River/Stream Site Discharge/Depth/width/(velocity?)
R.Frome Dorset
ST566004 R.Frome Sandhills 73 (occ), '74(2/m), 76(1/m), 77(occ),
SY624949 R.Frome Southover Br. 73 (occ),76(occ)
SY700908 R.Frome Greys Br. 73 (occ), '74(2/m)
SY708903 R.Frome Louds Mill Guaging weir records not held
SY769909 R.Frome Woodsford Br. 73 (occ), '74(2/m)
SY806893 R.Frome Morton Ford
SY867868 R.Frome East Stoke Guaging weir records not held
SY891868 R.Frome W.Holme Br Very seldom
SY924872 R.Frome Wareham Quay
R.Frome Tributaries. Dorset
ST567004 Wraxall Brook Sandhills 73 (occ), '74(2/m), 76(1/m), 77(occ),
ST537000 R.Hooke Hooke G.W.
73 (occ), '74(2/m), 76(occ<1/m),
77(occ)
ST593976 R.Hooke At M. Newton 73 (occ), '74(2/m), 76(1/m), 77(occ)
SY637947 Sydling Water Grimstone R.Br. 73 (occ), '74(2/m), 76(1/m), 77(occ),
SY678935 R. Cerne Charminster (ford) 73 (occ), '74(2/m), 76(1/m), 77(occ),
SY712889 S. Winterbourne Came Rd Br. 73 (occ), '74(2/m)
SY770862 Tadnol Brook Road Bridge(upper) 70-72(occ) 74(2/m), 76(1/m), 77(occ)
SY793871 Tadnol Brook
at end grass Rd
(Mill) ? 70-72(occ)
SY811881 Tadnol Brook Broomhill Br.
72(3/m) 73(occ), 74(2/m), 76(1/m),
77(occ),
SY827868 Win Stream Burton Cross
73 (occ), '74(2/m), 76(occ 1/m),
77(occ)
R.Piddle
ST700024 R. Piddle
Alton Pancras
(culvert) 73 (occ), '74(2/m), 76(1/m)
SY705997 R. Piddle
Piddletrenthide
(foot Br.) 73 (occ), '74(2/m)
SY714972 R. Piddle
Piddlehinton (US
Rd Br.)
SY743952 R. Piddle
L.Waterstone (Rd
Br.) 73 (occ), '74(occ 2/m)
SY757947 R. Piddle
Puddletown (DS Rd
Br.) 73 (occ), '74(2/m)
SY829933 R. Piddle Throop Ford 73 (occ), '74(2/m), 76(1/m)
SY865906 R. Piddle
Hyde Br. (DS Rd
Br.) 73 (occ), '74(occ 2/m), 76(1/m)
SY920877 R. Piddle
N.Mill Wareham
US Foot Br. 73 (occ), '74(v. occ ), 76(v.occ)
73 (occ), '74(2/m)
R.Piddle Tributaries. Dorset
SY774003 Devils Brook Bramblecombe (Rd

143
Br.)
SY777983 Devils Brook
Dewlish Foot Br.
(DS) 73 (occ), '74(2/m), 76(occ<1/m)
ST803013 The Milbourne
Milton Abbas
(cottage) 73 (occ), '74(2/m)
??? The Milbourne
Milbourne st
Andrew (by Rd)
ST813955 The Milbourne
Ashley Barn (US
Rd Br)
SY835962 Bere Stream
Millum Head
outflow
Above Rd Br. In
Wood
Above foot Br.
Holly bush
72(3/m) 73(occ), 74(2/m), 76(dry from
June), 77(occ).
SY83? 957 Bere Stream
Below cressbed
inflow 73 (occ),
SY851955 Bere Stream Doddings Farm
SY856930 Bere Stream Snatsford Br.(DS)
72(3/m) 73(occ), 74(2/m), 76(1/m),
77(occ)
SY Bere Stream
BereHeath
Maidenfoot weir
SY859920 Bere Stream Lower Rd Br. (DS)

144
Chow (1959)

Table A6 manning n values from Chow (1959)
Roughness values
Type of Channel and Description
Minimum Normal Maximum
Natural streams - minor streams (top width at
flood stage < 100 ft)

Streams on plain
clean, straight, full stage, no rifts or deep pools 0.025 0.030 0.033
same as above, but more stones and weeds 0.030 0.035 0.040
clean, winding, some pools and shoals 0.033 0.040 0.045
same as above, but some weeds and stones 0.035 0.045 0.050
same as above, lower stages, more ineffective
slopes and sections
0.040 0.048 0.055
same as two up, more stones 0.045 0.050 0.060
sluggish reaches, weedy, deep pools 0.050 0.070 0.080
very weedy reaches, deep pools, or floodways
with heavy stand of timber and underbrush
0.075 0.100 0.150
Mountain streams, no vegetation in channel, banks
usually steep, trees and brush along banks
submerged at high stages

bottom: gravels, cobbles, and few boulders 0.030 0.040 0.050
bottom: cobbles with large boulders 0.040 0.050 0.070
Natural streams - floodplains
Pasture, no brush
short grass 0.025 0.030 0.035
high grass 0.030 0.035 0.050
Cultivated areas
no crop 0.020 0.030 0.040
mature row crops 0.025 0.035 0.045
mature field crops 0.030 0.040 0.050
Brush
scattered brush, heavy weeds 0.035 0.050 0.070
light brush and trees, in winter 0.035 0.050 0.060
light brush and trees, in summer 0.040 0.060 0.080
medium to dense brush, in winter 0.045 0.070 0.110
medium to dense brush, in summer 0.070 0.100 0.160
Trees
dense willows, summer, straight 0.110 0.150 0.200
cleared land with tree stumps, no sprouts 0.030 0.040 0.050
same as above, but with heavy growth of sprouts 0.050 0.060 0.080
heavy stand of timber, a few down trees, little
undergrowth, flood stage below branches
0.080 0.100 0.120
same as above, but with flood stage reaching
branches
0.100 0.120 0.160
Natural streams - major streams (top width at
flood stage > 100 ft); the n value is less than that
for minor streams of similar description because
banks offer less effective resistance

145
regular section with no boulder or brush 0.025 0.060
irregular and rough section 0.035 0.100
Excavated or dredged
Earth, straight, and uniform
clean, recently completed 0.016 0.018 0.020
clean, after weathering 0.018 0.022 0.025
gravel, uniform section, clean 0.022 0.025 0.030
with short grass, few weeds 0.022 0.027 0.033
Earth winding and sluggish
no vegetation 0.023 0.025 0.030
grass, some weeds 0.025 0.030 0.033
dense weeds or aquatic plants in deep channels 0.030 0.035 0.040
earth bottom and rubble sides 0.028 0.030 0.035
stony bottom and weedy banks 0.025 0.035 0.040
cobble bottom and clean sides 0.030 0.040 0.050
Dragline-excavated or dredged
no vegetation 0.025 0.028 0.033
light brush on banks 0.035 0.050 0.060
Rock cuts
smooth and uniform 0.025 0.035 0.040
jagged and irregular 0.035 0.040 0.050
Channels not maintained, weeds and brush uncut
dense weeds, high as flow depth 0.050 0.080 0.120
clean bottom, brush on sides 0.040 0.050 0.080
same as above, highest stage of flow 0.045 0.070 0.110
dense brush, high stage 0.080 0.100 0.140
Lined or built-up channels - metal
Smooth steel surface
unpainted 0.011 0.012 0.014
painted 0.012 0.013 0.017
Lined or built-up channels - nonmetal
Cement
neat surface 0.010 0.011 0.013
mortar 0.011 0.013 0.015
Wood
planed, untreated 0.010 0.012 0.014
planed, creosoted 0.011 0.012 0.015
unplaned 0.011 0.013 0.015
plank with battens 0.012 0.015 0.018
lined with roofing paper 0.010 0.014 0.017
Concrete
trowel finish 0.011 0.013 0.015
float finish 0.013 0.015 0.016
finished, with gravel on bottom 0.015 0.017 0.020
unfinished 0.014 0.017 0.020
gunite, good section 0.016 0.019 0.023
gunite, wavy section 0.018 0.022 0.025
on good excavated rock 0.017 0.020

146
on irregular excavated rock 0.022 0.027
Concrete bottom float finish with sides of:
dressed stone in mortar 0.015 0.017 0.020
random stone in mortar 0.017 0.020 0.024
cement rubble masonry, plastered 0.016 0.020 0.024
cement rubble masonry 0.020 0.025 0.030
dry rubble or riprap 0.020 0.030 0.035
Gravel bottom with sides of:
formed concrete 0.017 0.020 0.025
random stone mortar 0.020 0.023 0.026
dry rubble or riprap 0.023 0.033 0.036
Brick
glazed 0.011 0.013 0.015
in cement mortar 0.012 0.015 0.018
Masonry
cemented rubble 0.017 0.025 0.030
dry rubble 0.023 0.032 0.035
Dressed ashlar 0.013 0.015 0.017
Asphalt
smooth 0.013 0.013
rough 0.016 0.016
Vegetal lining 0.030 0.500

Extract of Mannings n roughnesses, for channels with vegetation from Chow (1981)
which includes data from observations by Horton 1916 and on artificial channels from
King 1954.

Comment: variable use of the word weedy - infers terrestrial ruderal species if on banks
but sometimes normal aquatic plants when in water

Table A7 Mannings n values for different types of channel
Values of Mannings n Type of channel and description
min mid max
B. LINED OR BUILT-UP CHANNELS
a. vegetal linings 0.030 0.500
C. EXCAVATED OR DREDGED
a. Earth, straight and uniform
1. With short grass, few weeds 0.022 0.027 0.033
b. Earth, winding and sluggish
2. grass,some weeds 0.025 0.030 0.033
3. dense weeds or aquatic plants in deep channels 0.030 0.035 0.040
5. stony bottom and weedy sides 0.025 0.035 0.040
c. Dragline excavated or dredged
2. light brush (-wood - bushes) on banks 0.035 0.050 0.060
e. Channels not maintained, weeds and brush uncut
1. dense weeds high as flow depth 0.050 0.080 0.120
2. clean botton, brush on sides 0.040 0.050 0.080
3. clean botton, brush on sides - highest stage of flow 0.045 0.070 0.110

147
4. dense brush, high stage 0.080 0.100 0.140
D NATURAL STREAMS
D1. minor streams - width at flood stage <30m
a. streams on plain - (=low gradient or lowland)
2. clean, straight, full stage, no rifts/deep pools,some
stones & weeds
0.030 0.035 0.040
4. clean, winding, some pools & shoals, some weeds
and stones
0.035 0.045 0.050
7. sluggish reaches, weedy, deep pools 0.050 0.070 0.080
8. very weedy reaches, deep pools
or (?) floodways with heavy stand of timber and
underbrush
0.075 0.100 0.150
D2. Flood plains
1. short grass 0.025 0.030 0.035 a. pasture, no brush
2. tall grass 0.030 0.035 0.050
1. no crop 0.020 0.030 0.040
2. mature row crops 0.025 0.035 0.045
b. cultivated areas

3. mature field crops 0.030 0.040 0.050
1. scattered brush (heavy) dense
weeds
0.035 0.050 0.070
2. light brush and trees - winter 0.035 0.050 0.060
3. light brush and trees - summer 0.040 0.060 0.080
4. medium to dense brush - winter 0.045 0.070 0.110
c brush

5. medium to dense brush -
summer
0.070 0.100 0.160
1. dense willows, summer, straight 0.110 0.0150 0.200
2. cleared land with tree stumps,
no sprouting
0.030 0.040 0.050
3. densely sprouting 0.050 0.060 0.080
4. dense stands of trees,
occasionally fallen, flood stage to
below branches
0.080 0.100 0.120
d. trees

5. flood stage at level of branches 0.100 0.120 0.160
D3. Major streams - width at flood stage >30m. (n values are lower than minor
streams as proportionally less resistance)
a. regular section without boulders or brush 0.025 0.060
b. irregular and rough section 0.035 0.100

Mannings unit ns for vegetation roughnesses based on the text for n4 groups for
computation using the additive relationship combined and revised from Chow (1981).

Comment: no natural in channel vegetation except for Bullrush.
No clear indication of measurements - deep, shallow etc., re. difference between UK
and US rivers.

Brush assumed to be short and tall bushes

148
Table A8 Effects of vegetation of unit n values
Effect of vegetation
(for conditions comparable to examples):
Ratio of
average depth of
water flow : height
of vegetation

unit ns

min max
1. Low
a) dense growths of flexible turf
grasses or weeds (?)
b) flexible tree seedlings/whips eg
willow
Very deep
2-3 : 1
3-4 : 1
+0.005 +0.010
2. Medium
a) turf grasses
b) stemmy grasses, weeds or tree
saplings with
moderate cover
c) bushes, moderately dense, as 1-2
year old dormant
willow along channel sides, no bed
vegetation and
HR >0.6m
deep
1-2 : 1
2-3 : 1

bankside
+0.010 +0.025
3. High
a) turf grasses
b) dormant 8-10 year old willow trees
with weeds and
brush (not in leaf), HR >0.6m
c) bushy willows 1 year old, in leaf
and with weeds in
leaf, no bed vegetation and HR
>0.6m
Medium
1 : 1
+0.025 +0.050
4. Very high
a) turf grasses
b) growing bushy willows of 1 year(?)
with weeds in
leaf along bankside slopes
or dense growth of Bulrush (Typha) on
channel bed
with HR <3-4m
c) trees, bushes and weeds in leaf and
HR <3-4m
shallow
<0.5 : 1
+0.050 +0.100

149
Cowans (1956)

This method involves the selection of a basic value of Mannings n for a uniform,
straight and regular natural channel. The basic value is then adjusted for the effects of
surface irregularities, shape and size of channel cross section, obstructions, vegetation
and flow conditions and the meandering of the channel. By this method the value of n
may be calculated by:

n = (n
0
+ n
1
+ n
2
+ n
3
+ n
4
)M
5

n
0
is a basic value for a straight, uniform smooth channel in the natural materials
involved
The conditions of straight alignment, uniform cross-section and smooth side and bottom
surfaces should be kept in mind. The basic Mannings n will only vary with the
materials forming the sides and bottom of the channel.
n
1
is a value added to n
0
to correct for the effect of surface irregularities
This selection is based on the degree of roughness or irregularity of the channel sides
and bottom
n
2
is a value for variations in shape and size of the channel cross-section
Selection of a modifying value for variations in shape and size of the cross-section will
depend primarily on the frequency with which large and small sections alternate and
secondarily on the magnitude of the changes.
n
3
is a value for the obstructions
The selection is based on the presence and characteristics of obstructions such as debris
deposits, stumps, exposed roots, boulders, fallen and lodged logs.
n
4
is a value for vegetation and flow conditions
The retarding effect of vegetation is probably due primarily to the turbulence induced as
the water flows around and between the limbs, stems and foliage and secondarily to a
reduction in cross section. In judging the retarding effect of vegetation, critical
consideration should be given to the following: height of vegetation in relation to depth
of flow; capacity of vegetation to resist bending; the degree to which the cross-section is
occupied or blocked out; the transverse and longitudinal distribution of vegetation of
different types, densities and heights in the reach under consideration.
M
5
is a correction factor for meandering of channel
The sinuosity of a meander is defined as the ratio of the of the length along the channel
centre line (between two points) to the straight line distance between the points.
Values for n
0
to n
4
and M
5
may be selected from Table below according to the given
conditions.

150

Channel
condition
Values
Earth 0.02
Rock cut 0.025
Fine gravel 0.024
Material involved
Coarse gravel
n
0

0.028
Smooth 0.000
Minor 0.005
Moderate 0.010
Degree of
irregularity
Severe
n
1

0.020
Gradual 0.000
Alternating occasionally 0.005
Variations of
channel cross-
section
Alternating frequently
n
2

0.010 to 0.015
Negligible 0.000
Minor 0.010 - 0.015
Appreciable 0.025 - 0.050
Relative effect of
obstructions
Severe
n
3

0.040 - 0.060
Low 0.005 to 0.010
Medium 0.010 to 0.025
High 0.025 to 0.050
Vegetation
Very High
n
4

0.050 to 0.1
Minor (sinuosity 1.0 to 1.20) 1.000
Appreciable ( sinuosity = 1.2 to 1.5) 1.150
Degree of
meandering
Severe (sinuosity = 1.5 and greater)
M
5

1.300

151
Dawson & Henville (draft paper)

Hydraulic flow-resistance and the fine-leaved submerged plant Oenanthe fluviatilis in
the lower River Piddle, Dorset, UK

The mean depth, width and hydraulic roughness (as Manning `n' and equivalent sand-
grain roughness) before (2.1 m
3
s
-1
, 9 June 1986) and after (1.45 m
3
s
-1
14 July 1986)
removal of Oenanthe fluviatilis and in the following spring ( .68 m
3
s
-1
12 May 1987)
following `light' dredging in the previous autumn for sections of the lower River Piddle,
Wareham, Dorset, UK and towards the end of the year with fully developed vegetation
(1.13 m
3
s
-1
27 October 1988).

Table A10 Hydraulic flow resistance of a fine leaved submerged plant in the lower
River Piddle, Dorset, UK
Sections
Reach X-A
1
A-B
2
C-D
3
D-E
4
Length, m 620 230 220 520
Mean water depth:-
before weed cut 9.6.86
after weed cut 14.7.86
after dredging 12.5.87

-
-
0.88
0.95

0.93
0.86
0.93
0.85

0.74
0.54
0.55
0.51

0.94
0.86
0.84
0.78
Mean width:-
before weed cut
after weed cut
after dredging

-
-
9.0
8.5

8.7
8.3
9.0
8.2

14.7
12.0
12.2
11.3

10.5
9.2
8.4
7.8
Mean velocity:-
before weed cut
after weed cut
after dredging

-
-
0.34
0.14

0.26
0.20
0.30
0.16

0.19
0.22
0.48
0.20

0.21
0.18
0.41
0.19
Mannings `n' (0.070)
-
0.026
0.126
0.090
0.089
0.036
0.210
0.17
0.11
0.060
0.147
0.11
0.098
0.040
0.083
Sand Grain Roughness (1.9)
-
0.09
4.06
2.7
2.7
0.34
5.89
4.3
2.4
0.93
2.49
3.8
3.4
0.36
2.20

152
Gilley and Kottwitz (1993)

Darcy-Weisbach roughness coefficients were measured for corn, cotton, sorghum,
soybeans, sunflower and wheat vegetation. Different orientations of the crops, parallel
and perpendicular to the flow were tested which gave some very useful results as
detailed in the tables below.

A11 Darcy Weisbach roughness coefficients for rows parallel to the flow
Friction factor values Mannings n
roughness
Description
Upper Lower Upper Lower
Corn 0.081 0.0018 0.24 0.036
Cotton 0.03 0.0001 0.14 0.008
Sorghum 0.094 0.0005 0.26 0.019
Soybeans 0.059 0.005 0.21 0.05
Sunflower 0.089 0.003 0.25 0.046
Wheat 2.2 0.11 1.26 0.28

A12 Darcy Weisbach roughness coefficients for rows perpendicular to the flow
Friction factor values Mannings n
roughness
Description
Upper Lower Upper Lower
Corn 0.025 0.0002 0.134 0.012
Cotton 0.0094 0.0004 0.082 0.017
Sorghum 0.012 0.0003 0.093 0.015
Soybeans 0.031 0.0019 0.149 0.037
Sunflower 0.02 0.0002 0.120 0.012
Wheat 0.024 0.0003 0.13 0.015

153
Green and Garton (1983)

A13 Grass cover retardance class equations
Retardance
Class
Equation Limits of VR (m
2
/s)
1.62VR - 0.44 = n VR < 0.1542
A
VR
0.0223
+ 0.046 = n 0.1542 < VR
3.3356VR - 0.403 = n VR < 0.0535
VR
0.0096
+ 0.046 = n
0.0535 < VR <
0.1792 B
VR
0.0115
+ 0.0354 = n 0.1792 < VR
VR
0.0046
+ 0.034 = n VR < 0.0833
C
VR
0.0051
+ 0.028 = n 0.0833 < VR
VR
0.002
+ 0.038 = n VR < 0.100
D
VR
0.0028
+ 0.03 = n 0.100 < VR
VR
0.0007
+ 0.029 = n VR < 0.123
E
VR
0.0015
+ 0.0225 = n 0.123 < VR

154
Hey and Thorne (1986)

A14 Data from Hey and Thorne, 1986
River Location
depth
(m)
Mannings
n
d50
(mm)
Sediment type
Veg
type
Otter Dotton 1.58 0.03 56.5 Coarse gravel/cobbles 3
Exe Thoverton 1.46 0.028 60.6 Cobbles 2
Exe Stoodleigh 1.77 0.034 82.9 Cobbles 3
East Dart Bellever 1.07 0.05 109 Cobbles 2
Camel Denby 1.39 0.033 24 Med gravel 3
Fowey Restormel 1.46 0.027 61 Coarse gravel/cobbles 4
West Dar Dunnabridge 1.25 0.06 176 Boulders 2
Teign Preston 2.07 0.024 41 Coarse gravel 4
Erme Ermington 1.64 0.035 46 Coarse gravel 4
Neath Resolven 2.33 0.027 70 Cobbles 4
Usk Llandetty 2.5 0.027 66 Cobbles 3
Yscir Pontaryscir 1.51 0.042 67 Cobbles 3
Hirnant Rhiwaedog 1.14 0.05 60 Cobbles 4
Dyfrdwy NewInn 1.11 0.026 43 coarse gravel 2
Glaslyn Beddgelert (1) 1.06 0.032 75 Cobbles 2
Glaslyn Beddgelert (2) 1.22 0.044 71 Cobbles 2
Alwen Druid 1.18 0.031 45 Coarse gravel 2
Ceidog Llandrillo 1.23 0.032 65 Cobbles 4
Lugg Byton (1) 0.86 0.035 48 Coarse gravel 2
Lugg Byton (2) 0.96 0.047 35 Coarse gravel 1
Frome Yarkhill 1.75 0.048 19 Med gravel 4
Pinsley Brook Cholstrey Mill 0.82 0.031 14 Med gravel 4
Dove Izaak Newton 0.5 0.046 48 Coarse gravel 1
Burbage Brook Burbage 0.72 0.041 11 Med gravel 4
Manifold Hulme End (1) 1.12 0.041 43 Coarse gravel 2
Hamps Waterhouses 1.07 0.04 55 Coarse gravel/cobbles 2
Churnet Rocester 1.96 0.042 27 Med gravel 3
Rye
Broadway Foot
(1)
1.68 0.034 81 Cobbles 4
Rye
Broadway Foot
(2)
1.9 0.033 84 Cobbles 4
Snaizeholme
Beck
Low Houses
(1)
0.51 0.047 55 Coarse gravel/cobbles 1
Snaizeholme
Beck
Low Houses
(2)
0.59 0.039 86 Cobbles 1
Nidd Birstwith 1.92 0.031 79 Cobbles 4
Wylye Norton Bavant 0.82 0.036 17 Med gravel 2
Alwin Clennel 0.5 0.04 66 Cobbles 1
Bottom's Beck
Bottoms Beck
Flume
1 0.042 68 Cobbles 4
Coquet Bygate 0.87 0.07 74 Cobbles 1
Croasedale Beck Croasedale 1.29 0.04 77 Cobbles 4
Eden
Temple
Sowersby
Eden
Warwick
Bridge
Esk
Cropple How
(1)
Esk
Cropple How
(2)
1.34 0.037 28 Med gravel 2

155
Glendaranmaken Threlkeld 1.22 0.037 42 Coarse gravel 2
Hindurn Wray (1) 1.73 0.042 81 Cobbles 4
Hindurn Wray (2) 1.28 0.042 91 Cobbles 1
Hodder Hodderplace 2.61 0.035 66 Cobbles 4
Irthing Greenholme 1.34 0.029 36 Med gravel 1
Kielderburn Kielder 1.05 0.06 64 Coarse gravel/cobbles 1
Mint Mint Bridge 1.62 0.048 58 Coarse gravel/cobbles 4
Rede Rede's Bridge 1.44 0.038 130 Cobbles/boulders 2
Sprint Sprint Mill 1.29 0.038 70 cobbles 3
Tarset Burn Greenhaugh 1.85 0.042 123 Cobbles/boulders 4
Teviot Hawick 2.13 0.05 71 Cobbles 3
Tweed Bokside 2.05 0.028 60 Coarse gravel/cobbles 1
Tweed Lyneford 1.47 0.028 41 Coarse gravel 2
Tweed Peebles 2.09 0.027 69 Cobbles 3
North Tyne Tarset 2.14 0.041 92 cobbles 3
Usway Burn Shillmoor 0.78 0.03 114 Cobbles/boulders 4
Yarrowater Phillip-Haugh 1.75 0.036 84 cobbles 3
Asker Bridport 1.22 0.038 183 Boulders 3
Frome Loudsmill 0.65 0.025 20 Med gravel 1
Chittern Codford 0.68 0.035 23 Med gravel 2
Manifold Hulme End (2) 1.32 0.027 49 Coarse gravel 3

156
Hicks and Mason (1991)

A15 Data from Hicks and Mason (1991)
Site Description
Flow
range
(m3/s)
Hydaulic
radius
range
(m)
Roughness
range
Poutu at Ford Bed eroded lava flow. Banks
grasses and broom
2.31-
6.36
0.28-0.36 0.015-0.017
Ngaruroro at
Chesterthorpe
Bridge
Bed med/fine gravel. Banks
and berms are grassed
151-563 1.69-2.01 0.015-0.019
Wanganui at Te
Whaiau Canal
Man-made channel with bed
and banks sand/gravel. Banks
have grasses and flaxes
6.75-
13.5
0.81-1.04 0.018-0.022
Loganburn at
Gorge
Bed gravel with small
cobbles. Banks lined with
grass
1.85-
5.82
0.35-0.48 0.02-0.039
Wanganui at
Wairehu Canal
Man-made channel.
Bed/banks of uniformly sized
cobbles. Broom along banks
6.15-
31.9
0.83-1.5 0.022-0.025
Waipaoa at
Kanakanaia
Bed fine gravel/silt. Banks
lined with willows
19.8-672 0.55-3.06 0.023-0.029
Waiau at
Sunnyside
Bed large cobbles, boulders
and bedrock. Banks native
brush
21.5-527 1.03-3.08 0.016-0.029
Hakataramea
above main
highway bridge
Bed of cobbles with small
boulders. Left bank willows.
Right bank tussock
1.36-
22.8
0.18-0.75 0.022-0.031
Clutha at
Lowburn
Bed fine gravel to boulders ~
300mm diam. Banks of
cobble-boulder 100 to 300mm
diam
126-247 1.37-1.89 0.027-0.033
Maruia at Falls Bed sand with some
silt/gravel. Banks of
overhanging trees, dense scrub
69.5-511
1.58-3.12
0.026-0.029
Orere at Bridge Bed smooth boulders to
small pebbles and some sand.
Banks grassed with some scrub
on right bank
9.41-
50.6
0.64-1.12
0.023-0.032
Grey at Dobson Bed cobbles. Right bank
bedrock, cobbles and soil with
sparse bush cover. Left bank
cobbles, silt and soil with thick
bush cover, overhanging trees
73-3220 0.67-3.9 0.025-0.031
Avon at
Gloucester
Street bridge
Bed angular cobbles and
small boulders in muddy base.
Left bank steep and grassed.
Right bank lower grassy
berm
1.83-
17.3
0.4 1.01 0.026 0.04

157
Monowai below
Control Gates
Bed coarse gravel and
cobbles. Banks lined with flax
and overhanging willows
5.64-24.1 0.47-0.88 0.026-0.03
Piako at
Paeroa-Tahuna
Bridge
Bed mud and sand. Banks
lined with grass
2.82-18.9 0.51-1.66 0.022-0.032
Waikato at
Ngaruawahia
Cableway
Bed sand/gravel with mud.
Banks lined with willows
except for small patches of
other trees and gorse
237-874 2.24-4.32 0.028-0.039
Heathcote at
Sloan Terrace
Bed angular cobbles and
gravel mixed with mud and
silt. Banks steep with long
grass
1.22-8.21 0.37-1.27 0.028-0.034
Taieri below
Patearoa Power
Station
Bed coarse gravel and small
cobbles. Banks lined with
grass.
0.78-27.1 0.3-0.96 0.02-0.047
Taieri at
MacAtamneys
Bed boulders and bedrock.
Banks grassy with tussocks.
Few willows on each bank
0.92-14.3 0.18-0.61 0.026-0.033
Ongarue at
Taringamotu
Bed gravel/cobbles.
Farmland grasses line both
banks
10.5-241 0.87-3.03 0.022-0.05
Pomahaka at
Burkes Ford
Bed coarse gravel/large
cobbles. Right bank
willows, left bank - grass
4.58-114 0.59-1.68 0.029-0.039
Waikohu at No.
1 bridge
Bed gravel to large cobbles
with some exposed bedrock.
Banks overhanging trees
18.7-19.1 1.02-1.04 0.032-0.033
Mangaheia at
Willowbank
Bed ranges from gravel to
large boulders. Banks grassed
with overhanging willows
7-60 0.86-2.06 0.029-0.044
Oakdean Canal
at Oakdean
Culvert
Large man-made canal with
bed/banks of compacted
gravel/boulders with areas of
silt/weeds
4.9-20.5 1.77-1.85 0.027-0.037
Waiau Water
race at Lateral 2
Man-made lined irrigation
channel with bed of
cobbles/gravel. Banks long
grass
0.33-2.52 0.18-0.38 0.027-0.045

158
Higginson and Johnston (1989)

The variation in Manning n through a pool riffle sequence is shown in Figure A2 to
establish the range of Manning n for a range of discharges.

Figure A2 Variation in Mannings n through a pool riffle sequence for a range of
discharges

This figure shows that there is a considerable variation in n between pool and riffle at
low discharges. The differences decreased with increasing discharges and the effect of
the pool riffle became insignificant at higher flows. At these high flows the effect of the
pool or riffle on the hydraulic mean depth became small.

The Stickler formula relates the roughness properties of the channel n, to the grain
roughness k
s
in mm by the formula

6
1
s
0.01355k = n (A4)

Higginson and Johnson related the measured values of n in the rivers assessed with the
values of n calculated. The difference in n and n
s
, Sticklers roughness value, can be
plotted against velocity. Regression analysis of the data gave the following
relationship:

|
|
\
|
V d
R I
log = n - n
0.1025 0.0063
35
0.03978 0.02922
10 s
(A5)

where d
35
is the grain size in mm, I is the slope of the channel in cm per 100m of
channel and n
s
is the Sticklers estimated roughness value.

The Higginson and Johson approach was developed in specific rivers and the technique
application should only be applied to similar rivers. If the method is applied to
dissimilar rivers the plan form of the channel must be considered.

159
Klassen and Van Der Zwaard (1974)

Figure A3 which is reproduced from Klassen and Van Der Zwaards paper, shows the
effect of prototype hedge spacing and water depth on the Chezy roughness coefficient.
Two sets of curves are shown; one set without organic trash trapped by the hedges and
one set with organic trash and a decrease in the Chezy coefficient i.e an increase in
roughness. The curves presented in the figure below are for an unvegetated flood berm
roughness height of 0.07m. The hedges simulated by Klassen and Van Der Zwaard
were perpendicular to the flow direction.

Figure A3 Effect of prototype hedge spacing and water depth on Chezy roughness
coefficient

Figure A4 also reproduced from Klassen and Van Der Zwaard, illustrates the effect of
tree density and prototype water depth on Chezy coefficient. The tree density, n, is
defined as the number of trees per unit area. An increase in tree density results in a
decrease in Chezy coefficient and thus an increase in resistance. The curves presented
in Figure A4 are for an unvegetated flood berm roughness height of 0.07m.

160

Figure A4 Effect of tree density and prototype water depth on Chezy coefficient

The values for Chezy coefficient given in the above can be converted to Mannings n
using the formula
C
R
n
6 / 1
= to give the table below.

Table A16 Manning roughness coefficients for clean and dirty hedgerows

Hedgerow
separation
(m)
Mannings n roughness coefficient for clean or dirty
hedgerows with varying flow depths
0.25m 0.50m 1.00m 1.50m 2.00m

Clean Dirty Clean Dirty Clean Dirty Clean Dirty Clean Dirty
50 0.038 0.072 0.045 0.089 0.053 0.091 0.054 0.086 0.051 0.080
100 0.032 0.053 0.032 0.064 0.042 0.067 0.042 0.063 0.041 0.060
250 0.029 0.040 0.031 0.045 0.029 0.045 0.032 0.045 0.032 0.041
500 0.028 0.035 0.028 0.036 0.029 0.037 0.027 0.036 0.029 0.034
1000 0.027 0.031 0.027 0.032 0.027 0.031 0.025 0.029 0.027 0.027

161
Kouwen N and Fathi-Moghadam M (2000)

The paper investigates the friction factors for coniferous trees along rivers with the
purpose of modelling the trees to help engineers estimate the Darcy-Weisbach friction
factor and Mannings n for non-sumerged, flexible vegetation in the vegetated zones of
river cross-sections.

The paper gives a table of Estimated Mannings n values for the vegetated zone of rivers
and floodplains for just-covered and just submerged conditions. The depth of water is
2m and the height of trees are on average 3m. The first table gives the Mannings
values for just-submerged conditions with the total area covered. The subsequent tables
give values for 75%, 50% and 25% submergence with full, 75% 50% and 25% area
covered.

162
Table A17 Mannings n values for vegetatel zones of rivers and floodplains

Total area total submergence
Mannings n
Velocity
m/s
Cedar Spruce
White
pine
Austrian
pine
0.1 0.19 0.201 0.198 0.208
0.2 0.162 0.171 0.169 0.178
0.3 0.148 0.156 0.154 0.162
0.4 0.138 0.146 0.144 0.151
0.5 0.131 0.139 0.137 0.144
0.6 0.126 0.133 0.131 0.138
0.7 0.122 0.129 0.127 0.133
0.8 0.118 0.125 0.123 0.129
0.9 0.115 0.121 0.12 0.126
1 0.112 0.118 0.117 0.123
1.1 0.11 0.116 0.114 0.12
1.2 0.107 0.114 0.112 0.118
1.3 0.105 0.111 0.11 0.115
1.4 0.104 0.11 0.108 0.113
1.5 0.102 0.108 0.106 0.112
1.6 0.101 0.106 0.105 0.11
1.7 0.099 0.105 0.103 0.109
1.8 0.098 0.103 0.102 0.107
1.9 0.097 0.102 0.101 0.106
2 0.096 0.101 0.1 0.105

Total area 75% submergence
Mannings n
Velocity
(m/s)
Cedar Spruce
White
pine
Austrian
pine
0.1 0.219 0.232 0.228 0.2401
0.2 0.187 0.197 0.195 0.2055
0.3 0.170 0.180 0.177 0.1870
0.4 0.159 0.168 0.166 0.174
0.5 0.151 0.160 0.158 0.1662
0.6 0.145 0.153 0.151 0.1593
0.7 0.140 0.148 0.146 0.1535
0.8 0.136 0.144 0.142 0.1489
0.9 0.132 0.139 0.138 0.1454
1 0.129 0.136 0.135 0.1420
1.1 0.127 0.133 0.131 0.1385
1.2 0.123 0.131 0.129 0.1362
1.3 0.121 0.128 0.127 0.1327
1.4 0.120 0.127 0.124 0.1304
1.5 0.117 0.124 0.122 0.1293
1.6 0.116 0.122 0.121 0.1270
1.7 0.114 0.121 0.118 0.1258
1.8 0.113 0.118 0.117 0.1235
1.9 0.112 0.117 0.116 0.1223
2 0.110 0.116 0.115 0.1212

Mannings n
Velocity
(m/s) Cedar Spruce
White
pine
Austrian
pine
0.1 0.268 0.284 0.280 0.294
0.2 0.229 0.241 0.239 0.252
0.3 0.209 0.220 0.218 0.229
0.4 0.195 0.206 0.204 0.214
0.5 0.185 0.196 0.194 0.204
0.6 0.178 0.188 0.185 0.195
0.7 0.172 0.182 0.180 0.188
0.8 0.166 0.176 0.174 0.182
0.9 0.162 0.171 0.170 0.178
1 0.158 0.166 0.165 0.174
1.1 0.155 0.164 0.161 0.170
1.2 0.151 0.161 0.158 0.167
1.3 0.148 0.156 0.156 0.163
1.4 0.147 0.155 0.153 0.160
1.5 0.144 0.152 0.150 0.158
1.6 0.142 0.149 0.148 0.156
1.7 0.140 0.148 0.146 0.154
1.8 0.138 0.145 0.144 0.151
1.9 0.137 0.144 0.143 0.145
2 0.135 0.142 0.141 0.148

Mannings n
Velocity
(m/s) Cedar Spruce
White
pine
Austrian
pine
0.1 0.38 0.402 0.396 0.416
0.2 0.324 0.342 0.338 0.356
0.3 0.296 0.312 0.308 0.324
0.4 0.276 0.292 0.288 0.302
0.5 0.262 0.278 0.274 0.288
0.6 0.252 0.266 0.262 0.276
0.7 0.244 0.258 0.254 0.266
0.8 0.236 0.25 0.246 0.258
0.9 0.23 0.242 0.24 0.252
1 0.224 0.236 0.234 0.246
1.1 0.22 0.232 0.228 0.24
1.2 0.214 0.228 0.224 0.236
1.3 0.21 0.222 0.22 0.23
1.4 0.208 0.22 0.216 0.226
1.5 0.204 0.216 0.212 0.224
1.6 0.202 0.212 0.21 0.22
1.7 0.198 0.21 0.206 0.218
1.8 0.196 0.206 0.204 0.214
1.9 0.194 0.204 0.202 0.212
2 0.192 0.202 0.2 0.21

163

75% area total submergence
Mannings n
Velocity
(m/s) Cedar Spruce
White
pine
Austrian
pine
0.100 0.165 0.174 0.171 0.180
0.200 0.140 0.148 0.146 0.154
0.300 0.128 0.135 0.133 0.140
0.400 0.120 0.126 0.125 0.131
0.500 0.113 0.120 0.119 0.125
0.600 0.109 0.115 0.113 0.120
0.700 0.106 0.112 0.110 0.115
0.800 0.102 0.108 0.107 0.112
0.900 0.100 0.105 0.104 0.109
1.000 0.097 0.102 0.101 0.107
1.100 0.095 0.100 0.099 0.104
1.200 0.093 0.099 0.097 0.102
1.300 0.091 0.096 0.095 0.100
1.400 0.090 0.095 0.094 0.098
1.500 0.088 0.094 0.092 0.097
1.600 0.087 0.092 0.091 0.095
1.700 0.086 0.091 0.089 0.094
1.800 0.085 0.089 0.088 0.093
1.900 0.084 0.088 0.087 0.092
2.000 0.083 0.087 0.087 0.091

75% area 25% submergence
Mannings n
Velocity
(m/s) Cedar Spruce
White
pine
Austrian
pine
0.100 0.329 0.348 0.343 0.360
0.200 0.281 0.296 0.293 0.308
0.300 0.256 0.270 0.267 0.281
0.400 0.239 0.253 0.249 0.262
0.500 0.227 0.241 0.237 0.249
0.600 0.218 0.230 0.227 0.239
0.700 0.211 0.223 0.220 0.230
0.800 0.204 0.217 0.213 0.223
0.900 0.199 0.210 0.208 0.218
1.000 0.194 0.204 0.203 0.213
1.100 0.191 0.201 0.197 0.208
1.200 0.185 0.197 0.194 0.204
1.300 0.182 0.192 0.191 0.199
1.400 0.180 0.191 0.187 0.196
1.500 0.177 0.187 0.184 0.194
1.600 0.175 0.184 0.182 0.191
1.700 0.171 0.182 0.178 0.189
1.800 0.170 0.178 0.177 0.185
1.900 0.168 0.177 0.175 0.184
2.000 0.166 0.175 0.173 0.182

Mannings n
Velocity
(m/s) Cedar Spruce
White
pine
Austrian
pine
0.100 0.233 0.246 0.242 0.255
0.200 0.198 0.209 0.207 0.218
0.300 0.181 0.191 0.189 0.198
0.400 0.169 0.179 0.176 0.185
0.500 0.160 0.170 0.168 0.176
0.600 0.154 0.163 0.160 0.169
0.700 0.149 0.158 0.156 0.163
0.800 0.145 0.153 0.151 0.158
0.900 0.141 0.148 0.147 0.154
1.000 0.137 0.145 0.143 0.151
1.100 0.135 0.142 0.140 0.147
1.200 0.131 0.140 0.137 0.145
1.300 0.129 0.136 0.135 0.141
1.400 0.127 0.135 0.132 0.138
1.500 0.125 0.132 0.130 0.137
1.600 0.124 0.130 0.129 0.135
1.700 0.121 0.129 0.126 0.133
1.800 0.120 0.126 0.125 0.131
1.900 0.119 0.125 0.124 0.130
2.000 0.118 0.124 0.122 0.129

Mannings n
Velocity
(m/s) Cedar Spruce
White
pine
Austrian
pine
0.100 0.190 0.201 0.198 0.208
0.200 0.162 0.171 0.169 0.178
0.300 0.148 0.156 0.154 0.162
0.400 0.138 0.146 0.144 0.151
0.500 0.131 0.139 0.137 0.144
0.600 0.126 0.133 0.131 0.138
0.700 0.122 0.129 0.127 0.133
0.800 0.118 0.125 0.123 0.129
0.900 0.115 0.121 0.120 0.126
1.000 0.112 0.118 0.117 0.123
1.100 0.110 0.116 0.114 0.120
1.200 0.107 0.114 0.112 0.118
1.300 0.105 0.111 0.110 0.115
1.400 0.104 0.110 0.108 0.113
1.500 0.102 0.108 0.106 0.112
1.600 0.101 0.106 0.105 0.110
1.700 0.099 0.105 0.103 0.109
1.800 0.098 0.103 0.102 0.107
1.900 0.097 0.102 0.101 0.106
2.000 0.096 0.101 0.100 0.105

164

Mannings n
Velocity
(m/s) Cedar Spruce
White
pine
Austrian
pine
0.100 0.134 0.142 0.140 0.147
0.200 0.115 0.121 0.120 0.126
0.300 0.105 0.110 0.109 0.115
0.400 0.098 0.103 0.102 0.107
0.500 0.093 0.098 0.097 0.102
0.600 0.089 0.094 0.093 0.098
0.700 0.086 0.091 0.090 0.094
0.800 0.083 0.088 0.087 0.091
0.900 0.081 0.086 0.085 0.089
1.000 0.079 0.083 0.083 0.087
1.100 0.078 0.082 0.081 0.085
1.200 0.076 0.081 0.079 0.083
1.300 0.074 0.078 0.078 0.081
1.400 0.074 0.078 0.076 0.080
1.500 0.072 0.076 0.075 0.079
1.600 0.071 0.075 0.074 0.078
1.700 0.070 0.074 0.073 0.077
1.800 0.069 0.073 0.072 0.076
1.900 0.069 0.072 0.071 0.075
2.000 0.068 0.071 0.071 0.074

Mannings n
Velocity
(m/s) Cedar Spruce
White
pine
Austrian
pine
0.100 0.269 0.284 0.280 0.294
0.200 0.229 0.242 0.239 0.252
0.300 0.209 0.221 0.218 0.229
0.400 0.195 0.206 0.204 0.214
0.500 0.185 0.197 0.194 0.204
0.600 0.178 0.188 0.185 0.195
0.700 0.173 0.182 0.180 0.188
0.800 0.167 0.177 0.174 0.182
0.900 0.163 0.171 0.170 0.178
1.000 0.158 0.167 0.165 0.174
1.100 0.156 0.164 0.161 0.170
1.200 0.151 0.161 0.158 0.167
1.300 0.148 0.157 0.156 0.163
1.400 0.147 0.156 0.153 0.160
1.500 0.144 0.153 0.150 0.158
1.600 0.143 0.150 0.148 0.156
1.700 0.140 0.148 0.146 0.154
1.800 0.139 0.146 0.144 0.151
1.900 0.137 0.144 0.143 0.150
2.000 0.136 0.143 0.141 0.148

Mannings n
Velocity
(m/s) Cedar Spruce
White
pine
Austrian
pine
0.100 0.190 0.201 0.198 0.208
0.200 0.162 0.171 0.169 0.178
0.300 0.148 0.156 0.154 0.162
0.400 0.138 0.146 0.144 0.151
0.500 0.131 0.139 0.137 0.144
0.600 0.126 0.133 0.131 0.138
0.700 0.122 0.129 0.127 0.133
0.800 0.118 0.125 0.123 0.129
0.900 0.115 0.121 0.120 0.126
1.000 0.112 0.118 0.117 0.123
1.100 0.110 0.116 0.114 0.120
1.200 0.107 0.114 0.112 0.118
1.300 0.105 0.111 0.110 0.115
1.400 0.104 0.110 0.108 0.113
1.500 0.102 0.108 0.106 0.112
1.600 0.101 0.106 0.105 0.110
1.700 0.099 0.105 0.103 0.109
1.800 0.098 0.103 0.102 0.107
1.900 0.097 0.102 0.101 0.106
2.000 0.096 0.101 0.100 0.105

Mannings n
Velocity
(m/s) Cedar Spruce
White
pine
Austrian
pine
0.100 0.155 0.164 0.162 0.170
0.200 0.132 0.140 0.138 0.145
0.300 0.121 0.127 0.126 0.132
0.400 0.113 0.119 0.118 0.123
0.500 0.107 0.113 0.112 0.118
0.600 0.103 0.109 0.107 0.113
0.700 0.100 0.105 0.104 0.109
0.800 0.096 0.102 0.100 0.105
0.900 0.094 0.099 0.098 0.103
1.000 0.091 0.096 0.096 0.100
1.100 0.090 0.095 0.093 0.098
1.200 0.087 0.093 0.091 0.096
1.300 0.086 0.091 0.090 0.094
1.400 0.085 0.090 0.088 0.092
1.500 0.083 0.088 0.087 0.091
1.600 0.082 0.087 0.086 0.090
1.700 0.081 0.086 0.084 0.089
1.800 0.080 0.084 0.083 0.087
1.900 0.079 0.083 0.082 0.087
2.000 0.078 0.082 0.082 0.086

165

Mannings n
Velocity
(m/s) Cedar Spruce
White
pine
Austrian
pine
0.100 0.095 0.101 0.099 0.104
0.200 0.081 0.086 0.085 0.089
0.300 0.074 0.078 0.077 0.081
0.400 0.069 0.073 0.072 0.076
0.500 0.066 0.070 0.069 0.072
0.600 0.063 0.067 0.066 0.069
0.700 0.061 0.065 0.064 0.067
0.800 0.059 0.063 0.062 0.065
0.900 0.058 0.061 0.060 0.063
1.000 0.056 0.059 0.059 0.062
1.100 0.055 0.058 0.057 0.060
1.200 0.054 0.057 0.056 0.059
1.300 0.053 0.056 0.055 0.058
1.400 0.052 0.055 0.054 0.057
1.500 0.051 0.054 0.053 0.056
1.600 0.051 0.053 0.053 0.055
1.700 0.050 0.053 0.052 0.055
1.800 0.049 0.052 0.051 0.054
1.900 0.049 0.051 0.051 0.053
2.000 0.048 0.051 0.050 0.053

Mannings n
Velocity
(m/s) Cedar Spruce
White
pine
Austrian
pine
0.100 0.190 0.201 0.198 0.208
0.200 0.162 0.171 0.169 0.178
0.300 0.148 0.156 0.154 0.162
0.400 0.138 0.146 0.144 0.151
0.500 0.131 0.139 0.137 0.144
0.600 0.126 0.133 0.131 0.138
0.700 0.122 0.129 0.127 0.133
0.800 0.118 0.125 0.123 0.129
0.900 0.115 0.121 0.120 0.126
1.000 0.112 0.118 0.117 0.123
1.100 0.110 0.116 0.114 0.120
1.200 0.107 0.114 0.112 0.118
1.300 0.105 0.111 0.110 0.115
1.400 0.104 0.110 0.108 0.113
1.500 0.102 0.108 0.106 0.112
1.600 0.101 0.106 0.105 0.110
1.700 0.099 0.105 0.103 0.109
1.800 0.098 0.103 0.102 0.107
1.900 0.097 0.102 0.101 0.106
2.000 0.096 0.101 0.100 0.105

Mannings n
Velocity
(m/s) Cedar Spruce
White
pine
Austrian
pine
0.100 0.116 0.123 0.121 0.127
0.200 0.099 0.105 0.103 0.109
0.300 0.091 0.096 0.094 0.099
0.400 0.085 0.089 0.088 0.092
0.500 0.080 0.085 0.084 0.088
0.600 0.077 0.081 0.080 0.085
0.700 0.075 0.079 0.078 0.081
0.800 0.072 0.077 0.075 0.079
0.900 0.070 0.074 0.073 0.077
1.000 0.069 0.072 0.072 0.075
1.100 0.067 0.071 0.070 0.073
1.200 0.066 0.070 0.069 0.072
1.300 0.064 0.068 0.067 0.070
1.400 0.064 0.067 0.066 0.069
1.500 0.062 0.066 0.065 0.069
1.600 0.062 0.065 0.064 0.067
1.700 0.061 0.064 0.063 0.067
1.800 0.060 0.063 0.062 0.066
1.900 0.059 0.062 0.062 0.065
2.000 0.059 0.062 0.061 0.064

Mannings n
Velocity
(m/s) Cedar Spruce
White
pine
Austrian
pine
0.100 0.095 0.101 0.099 0.104
0.200 0.081 0.086 0.085 0.089
0.300 0.074 0.078 0.077 0.081
0.400 0.069 0.073 0.072 0.076
0.500 0.066 0.070 0.069 0.072
0.600 0.063 0.067 0.066 0.069
0.700 0.061 0.065 0.064 0.067
0.800 0.059 0.063 0.062 0.065
0.900 0.058 0.061 0.060 0.063
1.000 0.056 0.059 0.059 0.062
1.100 0.055 0.058 0.057 0.060
1.200 0.054 0.057 0.056 0.059
1.300 0.053 0.056 0.055 0.058
1.400 0.052 0.055 0.054 0.057
1.500 0.051 0.054 0.053 0.056
1.600 0.051 0.053 0.053 0.055
1.700 0.050 0.053 0.052 0.055
1.800 0.049 0.052 0.051 0.054
1.900 0.049 0.051 0.051 0.053
2.000 0.048 0.051 0.050 0.053

166
Li and Shen (1973)
Li and Shen (1973) present an analysis of flow through tall vegetation by considering
the drag due to cylinders in the flow. This study is not of direct applicability to the
estimation of flow resistance due to vegetation but it does draw some conclusions which
are of relevance. The most important of these is that staggered patterns of tall
vegetation (trees) are much more effective in reducing the flow than any other
configuration with the same number of tall vegetations. This conclusion is in agreement
with the estimates of Mannings roughness coefficient made by Bruk and Volf (1967).

167
Limernos (1970)

Table A18 Summary of basic data
Stream and
location
Discharge
Hydraulic
radius
Mannings
n
d
50

sediment
size
sediment type
143.00 1.80 0.036 10.97 Med Gravel
38.79 0.82 0.036 10.97 Med Gravel
24.15 0.61 0.036 10.97 Med Gravel
Austin Creek
nr Cazadero
19.03 0.57 0.038 10.97 Med Gravel
61.73 1.30 0.02 3.96 Fine gravel
26.73 0.80 0.022 3.96 Fine gravel
Cache Creek
at Yolo
7.84 0.31 0.023 3.96 Fine gravel
254.85 1.49 0.035 14.63 Med Gravel Middle Fork
Eel River 38.23 0.47 0.043 14.63 Med Gravel
29.73 0.65 0.071 106.68 Cobbles
24.61 0.59 0.067 106.68 Cobbles Kaweah River
11.47 0.44 0.083 106.68 Cobbles
104.49 1.13 0.064 106.68 Cobbles
103.64 1.09 0.059 106.68 Cobbles
90.61 1.06 0.064 106.68 Cobbles
Kings River
69.09 1.04 0.066 106.68 Cobbles
37.94 1.10 0.044 85.34 Coarse gravel
52.10 1.10 0.035 85.34 Coarse gravel
46.72 1.06 0.036 85.34 Coarse gravel
27.84 0.97 0.052 85.34 Coarse gravel
33.13 0.90 0.05 85.34 Coarse gravel
18.86 0.82 0.068 85.34 Coarse gravel
Merced River
at Clarks
Bridge
17.61 0.80 0.064 85.34 Coarse gravel
55.22 1.34 0.06 173.74 Cobbles/boulders
Merced River
at Happy Isles
430.42 3.32 0.033 16.46 Med Gravel
125.16 2.25 0.036 19.20 Med Gravel
159.71 1.83 0.035 19.20 Med Gravel
33.98 1.21 0.029 19.20 Med Gravel
34.26 1.19 0.028 19.20 Med Gravel
45.59 1.02 0.028 19.20 Med Gravel
32.00 0.98 0.025 19.20 Med Gravel
15.35 0.93 0.036 19.20 Med Gravel
Outlet Creek
near Longvale
9.85 0.78 0.038 19.20 Med Gravel

168
84.95 1.19 0.042 97.54 Cobbles
55.22 1.01 0.044 97.54 Cobbles
Middle Fork
Smith River
44.46 0.92 0.047 97.54 Cobbles
Van Duzen
River near
Bridgeville 52.10 0.84 0.039 67.06 Coarse gravel
150.36 1.61 0.088 94.49 Cobbles
101.09 1.38 0.107 94.49 Cobbles
Van Duzen
River near
Dinsmores 71.08 1.10 0.098 94.49 Cobbles

169
Petryk and Bosmajian (1975)
Petryk and Bosmajian (1975) theoretically analysed flow through vegetation. In
carrying out this analysis they made the following assumptions:

the velocity is small enough to prevent a large degree of plant bending;
the vegetation is distributed relatively uniformly in the lateral direction;
large variations in average velocity do not occur across the channel
the maximum flow depth is less than or equal to the maximum height of vegetation;
and
large variations in flow velocity do not occur over the flow depth.

Petryk and Bosmajian derived the following equation (in metric units) for Mannings
roughness coefficient:

)
AL
A C
(
gn 2
R
+ 1
n
= n
i dr
2
b
3
4
b

(A6)

where: n
b
is the boundary roughness coefficient
R is the hydraulic radius
C
dr
A
i
/AL represents the vegetation characteristics.

The expression C
dr
A
i
/AL represents the density of vegetation in the channel. C
dr
is
the drag coefficient of the vegetation which Petryk and Bosmajian suggest is of the
order of 1.0. A
i
is the projected area of the vegetation in the streamwise direction, in a
channel of length L, with a cross-sectional area of flow A.

The paper also includes some examples of vegetated floodplains and the roughness
values associated with them. The table below summarises these field sites where the
density of vegetation is represented as described above:

Table A19 Decription of Manning n values for various field sites
Manning n roughness values
Description
Average Upper Lower
Third coverage of willows, two thirds coverage of
weeds, willows, poplars of 2.5 to 15cm diameter,
vegetation density~ 0.055 per m summer, 1m
depth of water
0.08 0.01 0.06
Third coverage of willows, two thirds coverage of weeds,
willows, poplars of 2.5 to 15cm diameter, vegetation density
0.06 per m, summer, 2m depth of water
0.11 0.14 0.08
Third coverage of willows, two thirds coverage of weeds,
willows, poplars of 2.5 to 15cm diameter, vegetation density
0.075 per m, summer, 3m depth of water
0.15 0.18 0.12
Large sized growth of trees, mainly willows in full foliage
summer, vegetation density 0.015 per m, 1.3m depth of water
0.055
Large sized growth of trees, mainly willows in full foliage
summer, vegetation density 0.02 per m, 2m depth of water
0.07 0.09 0.045
Large sized growth of trees, mainly willows in full 0.12 0.15 0.1

170
foliage summer, vegetation density 0.035 per m,
3m depth of water
Oak gum and cypress trees, very little undergrowth, summer,
vegetation density 0.03 per m, depth 1.3m
0.087 0.11 0.075
vegetation density 0.03 per m, depth 2m
0.11 0.12 0.1
0.155 0.17 0.14
Oak gum and cypress trees, very little
undergrowth, winter, vegetation density 0.03 per
m, depth 2.5m
0.12 0.13 0.11
Oak gum and cypress trees, very little undergrowth, winter,
0.14 0.155 0.125
Willow trees of 5cm to 30cm diameter, large weeds, summer,
vegetation density 0.03 per m, depth 1.3m
0.065 0.08 0.055
0.078 0.085 0.07
0.103 0.115 0.095

171
Powell (1972)

Table A20 Decription of data
Country Exp or
field data
Catchment
area
Length
of reach
Ht above sea
level
Times in
year of data
collection
UK Field River Bain,
Fulsby Lock
1549m Fulsby weir
10.08mODN
Haltham
12.96m ODN
Jan 1967 to
Jan 1968
Jan 1968 to
Sept 1971

172
Ree, Wimberly and Crow (1977)
Mannings n values for the overland flow surfaces of a grassed watershed were derived
by hydrograph analysis and by using average watershed slope and overland flow length
values determined by geomorphic methods. These values are compared with Manning
n values from laboratory tests on channels having similar grass covers. Close
agreement was found for poor grass but not for fair and good grass cover. The table
below gives values for three watersheds with three cover conditions.

Table A21 Mannings n values for grassed watersheds
Watershed Cover condition
W1 W3 W4
Good 0.21 0.31 0.62
Fair 0.35 0.31 0.51
Poor 0.26 0.28 0.25

173
Richards (1976)
Richards was investigating the channel geometry in the pool-riffle sequence with field
observations on the River Fowey, Cornwall, UK. As part of the investigation the mean
flow characteristics were recorded, as given in the table below.

Table A22 Data from a field investigation of pool-riffle sequences on the River
Fowey, Cornwall, UK
Variable Curved pool Straight pool Curved riffle Straight riffle
Depth (m) 0.42 0.41 0.15 0.19
Velocity (m/s) 0.19 0.17 0.44 0.39
Manning n 0.05 0.05 0.07 0.12
Slope * 10
-3
0.3 0.2 11 18
Width (m) 4.85 5.4 5.71 5.29
Average discharge
(m
3
/s)
0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38

174
Sargent (1979)
Survey data from five gauging sites from the Forth River Purification Board were
selected. The data was combined using Mannings equation to obtain estimates of
Manning n roughness coefficients. The gauging station summary data and calculated
roughness values are given in the table below.

Table A23 Survey data from the Forth River Purification Board
Station Gauge height (m) Discharge (m
3
/s) Mannings n
1.125 17.914 0.0255
1.4 29.8 0.0209
1.713 44.007 0.01975
River Almond at Craigiehall
2.1 67.213 0.0193
0.878 8.15 0.0257
0.975 10.839 0.02375
1.3 19.612 0.0203
1.59 30.875 0.0193
1.981 44.714 0.02
Water of Leith at Murrayfield
2.133 52.214 0.0201
0.732 14.235 0.0438
0.896 22.442 0.0314
1.521 62.543 0.0275
River Esk at Musselburgh
1.829 92.258 0.0265
0.75 5.943 0.049
1.045 11.745 0.043
1.219 16.697 0.0402
1.503 26.574 0.0383
River Tyne at East Linton
1.753 35.969 0.0382
1.14 17.035 0.0291
1.426 26.376 0.0258
1.536 28.866 0.0257
River Tyne at Spilmersford
1.75 32.507 0.0254

175
Severn Trent Field sites
1. River Severn at Bewdley

Figure A4 River Severn at Bewdley

Bankfull hydraulic and geometric characteristics 5/1/88 see Figure A5.

Manning's n roughness coefficient = 0.022

Discharge = 358m
3
/s

Water surface slope = 0.000203 (1:4926)

Average cross sectional area = 249m
2

Average flow width = 78m
(information available for xs 1 and 2)

Average hydraulic radius = 3.24m

Description of channel
Bed material gravel at upstream end, otherwise unknown. Banks grass with scattered
willow, alder and hawthorn trees; undergrowth of nettle and brambles. Left and right
flood plains are short grass pasture.

176

Figure A5 Plan and cross-sections, River Severn at Bewdley

177
2. River Vyrnwy at Llanymynech

Figure A6 River Vyrnwy at Llanymynech

Bankfull hydraulic and geometric characteristics 14/2/88 see Figure A7.


Discharge = 167.7m
3
/s


Average cross sectional area = 131.6m
2

Average flow width = 46.4m


Bed material unknown. Right bank grass covered with scattered mature alders. Left
bank lined with alder and willow. Left flood plain sown with crops, right flood plain is
short grass pasture.

178

Figure A7 Plan and cross-sections, River Vyrnwy at Llanymynech

179
3. River Severn at Montford

Figure A8 River Severn at Montford

Bankfull hydraulic and geometric characteristics 12/11/87 see Figure A9


Discharge = 151m
3
/s


Average cross sectional area = 139m
2



Bed material unknown. Left and right banks grass with occasional small willow trees.
Flood plains of short grass pasture with hawthorn hedgerows and fences.

180

Figure A9 Plan and cross-section, River Severn at Montford

181
4. River Trent at Drakelow

Figure A10 River Trent at Drakelow



Discharge = 169m
3
/s


2



Bed material unknown. Left bank grass with horse chestnut trees at downstream limit
of reach. Right bank with horse chestnut and beech trees. Left flood plain is a golf
course with occasional oak, yew, hawthorn, horse chestnut and poplar tree coppice.
Right bank formed by steep wooded bank lowering to flood plain at downstream limit
with beech and chestnut trees with bank grass undergrowth.

182

Figure A12 Plan and cross-sections, River Trent at Drakelow

183
5. River Derwent at Chatsworth

Figure A13 River Derwent at Chatsworth



Discharge = 94.5m
3
/s


2



Bed material gravel with shallow rock step. Banks grass with mature alder, sycamore
and ash trees. Left and right flood plains are short grass pastures.

184

Figure A14 Plan and cross-sections, River Derwent at Chatsworth

185
6. River Manifold at Ilam

Figure A15 River Manifold at Ilam



Discharge = 52.8m
3
/s


2



Bed material is gravel and boulders. Bank vegetation of alder, ash, hazel, beech,
sycamore and hawthorn traces with grass, scattered undergrowth of bramble. Flood
plains of short grass pasture with hedgerows and wire fencing.

186

Figure A16 Plan and cross-sections, River Manifold at Ilam

187
7. River Avon at Evesham

Figure A17 River Avon at Evesham



Discharge = 110m
3
/s


2



188

Figure A18 Plan and cross-sections, River Avon at Evesham

189
8. River Tanat at Llanyblodwel

Figure A19 River Tanat at Llanyblodwel



Discharge = 54.8m
3
/s


2



Bed gravel and boulders. Banks lined with mature alders, ash and willow, undergrowth
of bramble, nettle, wild rose and rank grass. Left flood plain is sown with crops, right
flood plain is short grass pasture. Field boundaries delimited by hedgerows.

190

Figure A20 Plan and cross-sections, River Tanat at Llanyblodwel

191
Technology Research Centre, 1994

Grass
The results of survey results of grass on floodplain is given in the following table which
has used results from Fig 2.26 of the report Proposed guidelines on the clearing and
planting of trees in rivers

Table A24 Survey results for Mannings n roughness values for grass on a
floodplain
Mannings n roughness
Description
Average Upper Lower
Stiff grass height hv= 1.8m h/hv=1.4 0.1 0.12 0.08
Grassland height hv=1.0m h/hv=2 0.08 0.09 0.07
Stiff grass height hv=1.8m, h/hv= 2.5 0.047 0.055 0.04
Grassland height hv = 50cm, h/hv= 5 0.04 0.045 0.035
Grassland height hv = 10-20cm, h/hv= 16 0.026 0.028 0.022
Flat golf course with turf several cm high,
h/hv= 90
0.021 0.024 0.018

Trees

Table A25 Survey results for Mannings n roughness values for different tree
diameters and densities
Mannings n values at different tree diameters
Water depth
(m)
No of
trees/m2
Diameter of
0.5m
Diameter of
1m
Diameter of
2m
0.5 1 0.022 0.043 0.086
0.5 2 0.043 0.086 0.173
1 1 0.031 0.061 0.122
1 2 0.061 0.122 0.245
1.5 1 0.037 0.075 0.149
1.5 2 0.075 0.15 0.3

192
Thompson and Campbell (1979)
Relates resistance solely to relative roughness. If using the Thompson and Campbell
equation then the Darcy-Weisbach resistance coefficient is determined from

( )
|
|
\
|
|
|
\
|
k
R 12
log 2 R / k 1 . 0 1 = f
s
10 s
2
(A7)

where

k
s
= 4.5d, and d is the median (d
50
) sediment size (m) determined from the frequency
distribution of bed material size.

The Darcy-Weisbach resistance coefficient can be translated into a Mannings n value
using
2 / 1
6 / 1
g 8
f
R n
|
|
\
|
= (A8)

193
Turner and Chanmeersi (1984)
The shallow movement of water flowing through dense crops of wheat was studied for
different crop densities and sowing patterns and ages. Using Mannings equation and
field data, values for Manning n were calculated at different depths and crop densities.
The values given below are those recorded in the paper.

Table A26 Mannings n values for wheat crops
Depth of water
(cm)
Bare Soil Stems only Wheat
10 0.035
12 0.032
15 0.04 0.06
18 0.03 0.048
20 0.028 0.07
22 0.026
24 0.025 0.05
28 0.023 0.053 0.073
33 0.053 0.079
40 0.096
42 0.1
45 0.105
48 0.11
50 0.113

194
University of Ulster (1995)
Data collected at ten sites on the River Blackwater was analysed to give a range of
roughness values for pools, riffles and nursery areas. The table below gives the range of
roughness values for seven of these sites. The range of values given is wide in range
and is dependent on the discharge and depth at which the roughness coefficient is
measured. At low discharges there is a great discrepancy between the roughness values
along the reach. The sites given are described in more detail in Appendix 2 with
photographs, dimensions and plan views of each site.

Table A27 Range of Mannings n values for pools, riffles and nursery areas, R.
Blackwater
Range of Mannings n values
Pool Spawning Ground
(Riffle)
Nursery
Site
Max Min Max Min Max Min
Bawns Burn - - 0.199 0.028 0.141 0.019
Abels Bridge 0.0481 0.0215 - - 0.067 0.028
Lisdoart Mill - - 0.088 0.025 0.067 0.023
Lisdoart
Bridge
- - - - 0.067 0.023
Forthill Bridge 0.053 0.037 - - 0.069 0.025
Omagh Road 0.053 0.031 0.13 0.032 0.080 0.034
River Fury 0.304 0.059 0.105 0.03 - -

195
US Soil Conservation Service (1954)
The figure below shows the retardance class against flow parameter (VR) for grass
cover as given by USDA (1954).

Figure A21 Graph of retardance class versus VR, USDA (1954)

Experimental research on the hydraulic impact of grass cover was undertaken over a
nine-year period at the Stillwater Outdoor Laboratory of the US Soil Conservation
Service. A general handbook was prepared in 1947, further supplemented in a revised
edition in 1954.

The result of the work has been to define a series of relationships between Mannings n
and the product VR, where V is the mean flow velocity and R is the hydraulic radius.
The relationship is expressed as a family of curves, each curve defining the other
principal variable, the physical characteristic of the vegetation. The main physical
characteristic is judged to be the height but other factors such as density and uniformity
are influential and a value judgement has to be made. Accepting that the vegetation is
an organic cover of almost endless variability, the n-VR relationship gives sound results
in the majority of cases. The above figure shows the chart given in the USDA
handbook of 1954, converted to metric, and the table below gives guidance to
retardance catagories.

196
Table A28 Grass cover retardance classes (USDA, 1954)
Stand Average Length Retardance
Longer than 30 inches A
11 in to 24 in B
6 in to 10 in C
2 in to 6 in D
Good
less than 2 in E
Longer than 30 inches B
11 in to 24 in C
6 in to 10 in D
2 in to 6 in D
Fair
less than 2 in E

197
Weltz, Arslan and Lane (1992)
Data were collected from 14 different native rangeland areas in the western United
States. Hydraulic roughness coefficients were calculated for surfaces ranging from
smooth bare soil to gravely bare soil and sparsely to densely vegetated rangeland areas.
A reference table of effective roughness coefficients is presented with a description of
site characteristics.

Table A29 Range of Mannings n values for rangeland areas in western United
States
Soil texture/vegetation type Standing
biomass
(kg/ha)
Mannings n
roughness
value
Range
Bare soil, sand - 0.01 0.01-0.016
Bare soil, loam - 0.037 -
Bare soil, clay-loam - 0.041 -
Bare soil, clay-loam eroded - 0.02 0.012-0.033
Bare soil, silt - 0.043
Bare soil, clay - 0.048
Gravel surface - 0.02 0.012-0.03
Shrublands, Chihuahuan desert - - 0.03-0.2
Shrublands, Chihuahuan desert 770 0.25 0.11-0.29
Shrublands, Chihuahuan desert - 0.13 0.01-0.32
Shrublands, Mohave desert 490 0.15 0.14-0.16
Shrublands, Salt Desert 1,580 0.62 0.52-1.0
Shrublands, Sagebrush 3,950 0.48 -
Shrublands, Sagebrush - 0.51 0.01-2.6
Shrublands, Oak savanna 1,450 0.4 0.3-0.52
Shrublands, Pinyon-juniper 420 0.44 0.31-0.56
Native grasslands, desert 750 0.64 -
Native grasslands, shortgrass
prairie
620 0.42 0.15-0.73
Native grasslands, shortgrass
prairie
- 0.15 0.1-0.2
Native grasslands, mixedgrass
prairie
1,620 0.52 0.31-0.78
Native grasslands, tallgrass
prairie
3,080 0.79 0.16-0.97
Native grasslands, tallgrass
prairie (burned)
- 0.23 0.19-0.29
Pasture, Bermuda grass - 0.41 0.3-0.48
Pasture, bluegrass sod - 0.45 0.39-0.65
Grassed waterways, tallgrasses 0.6 0.45-0.75

198
Appendix B

Explanation of variation of roughness with depth

Based on empirical data from over 25 sites we collated the depth and the roughness and
plotted the data as can be seen on the graph below. There is some scatter on the data but
it does show a trend with the roughness decreasing as the depth increases. It is
noticeable that above 1m depth the roughness decrease is quite small and the line is
tending towards an asymtoptic value of 0.02 roughness which is what would be
expected in a natural river system. The equation for this part of the curve can be
expressed as
2
1
|
\
|
=
=
n
n
depth
d
(B1)
where n is the roughness value at depth of 1m

Below a value of 1m depth the roughness varies in a different way, with large increases
in roughness for small decreases in depth. The relationship below 1m is
3
2
1
|
\
|
=
=
n
n
depth
d
(B2)

0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
roughness
d
e
p
t
h

(
m
)

Figure B1 Variation in roughness with depth

199

200
Appendix C

Full Abstracts River Flow 2002
(http://www.gc.ucl.ac.be/riverflow/home.html)

Paper 13 - Abstract

Velocity profiles on vegetated flood plains
Pawel M. Rowinski
Institute of Geophysics, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland
Janusz Kubrak
Faculty of Land Reclamation and Environmental Engineering
Warsaw Agriculture University SGGW, Poland

Numerical computations of the vertical profiles of mean streamwise velocities in the
channels vegetated with trees are presented. The given model applies particularly to
vegetated flood plains of a two-stage channel cross-section. Sensitivity of the results to
the changes of the model parameters is discussed and it concerns the density of the
trees, the tree diameter, bed slope of the channel and the artificially introduced
parameter dividing the channel depth into two zones: one for which the mixing length is
a linear function of the distance from the bed and the other one for which the mixing
length is constant. The computational results are compared to the data obtained within
experimentation in a compound laboratory flume.

Paper 17 - Abstract

The influence of floodplain width on the stage-discharge relationship for
compound channels
S. Atabay & D. W. Knight
School of Civil Engineering, The University of Birmingham, UK.

Some stage-discharge relationships are presented for flow in compound channels, based
on experimental results from the UK Flood Channel Facility (FCF) and elsewhere. The
influence of floodplain width and main channel aspect ratio on these relationships has
been examined for compound channels comprising one main river channel and one or
two symmetrically disposed floodplains. Simple empirical relationships between stage
& total discharge and stage & zonal discharge have been derived for all the FCF
channel cases with uniform roughness and varying floodplain width ratio (B/b). The
influence of the main channel aspect ratio has also been examined. The results indicate
the broad effect that channel geometry has on the stage-discharge relationship (H v Q)
for compound channels.

Paper 46 - Abstract

Modeling of lateral flow distribution in compound channels
Y.Guan &M.S.Altinakar
Laboratoire de Recherches Hydrauliques (LRH) Ecole Polytechnique Fderale de
Lausanne (EPFL),Switzerland
B.G.Krishnappan

201
National Water Research Institute,Burlington,Ontario,Canada

A numerical model based on the longitudinal momentum-conservation equation has
been developed to predict the lateral variation of depth-averaged longitudinal velocity
for steady flows in compound channels. The model takes into account the influence of
the secondary flow on the lateral momentum transfer in the interface region between the
main channel and the floodplain by expressing the lateral depth-averaged velocity as a
percentage of the depth-averaged longitudinal velocity. The model has been verified
using velocity data from experiments in laboratory flumes with asymmetrical compound
cross-sections. Comparisons between the predicted velocity profiles and the
measurements show that the proposed model provides an accurate prediction of the
lateral flow distribution for compound channels.

Paper 54 - Abstract

Velocity Distribution and Scouring in Steep-Curved Channels
R. Feurich and W. Khner
Water Resources Institute (IWI), University of Innsbruck, Austria

At the Water Resources Institute of the University of Innsbruck experiments have been
performed in an S-shaped trapezoidal channel with two bends and a slope of S = 0,01 -
with both fixed and erodible beds. Gravel with a mean diameter between 4,2mm and
6,4mm was used as bed material and for sediment feeding. Velocities were measured by
means of a two-dimensional electromagnetic current meter. The analysis of the
experiments yields a new function for the radial distribution of the depth-averaged
longitudinal velocities that differs from the forced vortex approach. It is also shown that
in the case of an erodible bed the redistribution of flow - as a consequence of the
evolution of scour on the outer and deposition on the inner bank - leads to completely
different radial velocity distributions compared with the initial bed.

Paper 56 - Abstract

A practical method for predicting the total discharge in mobile and rigid boundary
compound channels
M.A. Haidera & E.M. Valentine
University of Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom

Mobile boundary laboratory channels were used to develop a new method for predicting
the total flow in compound channels. This method considers a compound channel
between two extreme states. The first is the channel at the threshold of inundation (at
relative depth of zero) and the second when the channel is inundated to a maximum
level (relative depth approaches unity). At these two extremes the total flow can be
calculated by the single channel method and between them this method assumes that the
total flow is partially calculated by the single channel method and partially by the
traditional divided channel method. The portions of flow calculated by the single and
the divided channel methods rely on two adjustment factors. These factors are functions
of two dimensionless parameters, the relative depth and the channel coherence and
hence this method is termed the Dimensionless Total Flow Adjustment Method. The
method was tested using mobile boundary and rigid boundary data and compared with
Ackers (1993) Coherence method and the Lambert and Myers (1998) weighted divided

202
channel method. The results show that this simpler method provides improved estimates
of total discharge and it may be applied to symmetric or asymmetric channels with
homogeneous or non-homogeneous roughness.

Paper 77 - Abstract

Determination of flow resistance of vegetated channel banks and floodplains
J. Jrvel
Laboratory of Water Resources, Helsinki University of Technology, Finland

Flow resistance due to vegetation may greatly affect the conveyance of a channel, and
thus evaluating the resistance is a critical task in river engineering and restoration.
Therefore, flow resistance of natural willows and sedges was studied in a laboratory
flume. The aim was to investigate, how type, density and combination of vegetation,
flow depth and velocity influence vegetal drag or friction losses. Friction factors, f, and
vegetal drag coefficients, C'd, were determined for a selection of 170 test runs. The
results showed large variations with depth of flow, velocity, Reynolds number and
vegetal characteristics. E.g. the vegetal drag coefficient for the leafy willows was three
to seven times that of the leafless willows. The experimental drag coefficients for the
leafless willows were compared to the values predicted by four methods, which were
developed based on theory and experiments on rigid cylinders.

Paper 81 - Abstract

Overbank flood routing analysis applying jointly variable parameter diffusion and
depth-averaged flow finite element models
J. B. Abril
Honorary Research Fellow University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15
2TT, UK Email: jabril@az.pro.ec Tel: +593 7 839593

This paper presents the joint application of two finite element models called RFMFEM
and RFRFEM to the hydrodynamic analysis of floods in rivers flowing in an overbank
condition. The RFMFEM model predicts the hydraulic characteristics of the river
through the solution to the momentum equation for depth-averaged flow. Based upon
this information, the RFRFEM model then generates the wave speed and attenuation
coefficients versus discharge, and accomplish the flood routing analysis through the
solution to the variable parameter convection-diffusion equation derived from the
upwind Petrov-Galerkin formulation. It includes and heuristic algorithm to reduce the
numerical error and oscillations generally introduced when dealing with convection
dominated problems. This finite element scheme is compared against another scheme
based on the COH and MVPMC3 models, being respectively coherence and variable
parameter finite difference schemes, applied to overbank flood routing in a hypothetical
river with a symmetric compound channels.

Paper 99 - Abstract

Reducing Uncertainty in Conveyance Estimation
Dr P. G. Samuels,
HR Wallingford Ltd., Howbery Park, Wallingford, Oxon OX10 8BA, UK
Dr M. E. Bramley

203
Environment Agency, Rio House, Waterside Drive, Aztec West, Almondsbury, Bristol,
BS32 4UD, UK
E. P. Evans
Consultant, Care of HR Wallingford Ltd.

Estimation of conveyance is a core component of flood management, water level
prediction and flood defence design. All river modelling software includes one or more
methods for conveyance estimation, usually based upon methods dating from research
completed more than 50 years ago with little or no account taken of recent advances in
knowledge and understanding. In 2001 the British Environment Agency commissioned,
as a research project, a scoping study to define actions for reducing uncertainty in
conveyance estimation. The paper describes some of the conclusions of that scoping
study including the needs of different users, the diversity of current knowledge and the
outline of the targeted programme of research that is now underway to produce an
improved conveyance estimation system. Particular issues of concern are the effects of
riverine vegetation, the influence of natural shaped (and re-naturalised) channels and the
interaction between river channels and flood plain flows.

Paper 116 - Abstract

Predictions of velocity and boundary shear stress in compound meandering
channel
P. Rameshwaran
Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, Crowmarsh Gifford, Wallingford, Oxfordshire, OX10
8BB, UK
K. Shiono
Department of Civil and Building Engineering, Loughborough University,
Loughborough, LE11 3TU, UK

Predictions of depth-averaged velocity and boundary shear stress in a compound
meandering channel are carried out using a commercially available finite element
computer code TELEMAC-2D. The TELEMAC-2D code solves the depth-averaged
continuity and Navier-Stokes equations with the depth-averaged form of the turbulence
model for free surface flow. The model results are compared with the experimental data
obtained from the UK Flood Channel Facility. The simulated depth-averaged velocity,
boundary shear stress and depth-averaged turbulent kinetic energy are used to
investigate the accuracy of the TELEMAC-2D prediction. The results show that the
depth-averaged velocity and the boundary shear stress are predicted reasonably well
along the meandering channel.


Quasi-Three-Dimensional Computation and Laboratory Tests on Flow in Curved
Compound Channels
S. Ikeda
Tokyo Institute of Technology, Tokyo, Japan
K. Kawamura
Hewlett-Pakard Japan, Tokyo, Japan
Y. Toda
Tokyo Institute of Technology, Tokyo, Japan

204
I. Kasuya
Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries of Japan, Tokyo, Japan

For curved compound channels, cross-sectional secondary flow appears in the main
channel, and horizontal vortices induced by shear instability are generated at the
junctions of the main channel and the flood plains. A quasi-three-dimensional
computation was performed in the present study to calculate the secondary flow and the
horizontal vortices, simultaneously. The results of the computation were compared with
the laboratory tests, and it was found that the present model is appropriate to simulate
the entire flow field except for the inner junction of the main channel and the flood
plain, at which three-dimensional turbulence associated with boils is predominant. The
numerical calculations were performed for various water depth, main channel width and
curvature of the channel. The results show that the lateral transport of fluid momentum
associated with horizontal vortices becomes relatively larger, compared with that by the
secondary flow, as the water depth becomes shallower.


Land-form features in compound meandering channels and classification diagram
of flood flows based on sinuosity and relative depth
S. Okada
Graduate student, Graduate School of Engineering, Hiroshima University, Higashi-
Hiroshima City, Japan
S. Fukuoka
Professor, Graduate School of Engineering, Hiroshima University, Higashi-Hiroshima
City, Japan

Using several Japanese rivers, flow characteristics in compound meandering channels
were investigated by conducting a series of experiments where sinuosity and relative
depth were changed. Laboratory results were then compared with results of flood flow
analysis using aerial photographs. Representative parameters governing flow
characteristics were studied in order to make sense of the results of experimental
channel and river flows. Landform parameters were considered from field data from 10
Japanese compound meandering rivers. Finally, classification diagram of the occurrence
of the flood flows in compound meandering channels was presented on the basis of
these representative parameters (such as sinuosity, relative depth, location of the
maximum velocity filament and the maximum scouring depth at the meander apex
section.)


Berm vegetation and its effect on flow resistance in a two-stage river channel: an
analysis of field data
R. H. J. Sellin
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Bristol, UK
D. P. van Beesten
Department of the Environment, DEFRA, UK

A two-stage river channel with a managed floodplain has been studied since 1994.
During this time water levels at 5 sections as well as the discharge have been measured

205
and recorded at 15 minute intervals. Analysis of this data reveals that the resistance
coefficient for this reach varies both annually and with the seasons. These variations are
shown to be due to the annual cycle of vegetation growth both in the channel and on the
floodplain. Some 100 storm events have been recorded in all. The results of this analysis
will enable engineers to design river restoration projects with greater confidence as
Manning n values are evaluated for overbank, bankfull and low flows in the channel,
thus enabling a quasi-quantitative relationship to be established for different flow depths
as well seasonal variation.


Periodical turbulent structures in compound channels
D. Bousmar & Y. Zech
Civil and Environmental Engineering, Universit catholique de Louvain, 1348 Louvain-
la-Neuve, Belgium

In a compound-channel flow, periodical turbulent structures develop in the shear layer
between main-channel and floodplain. Those structures, which are typically horizontal
vortices, generate a significant momentum transfer and, accordingly, affect considerably
the channel conveyance. In this paper, such structures are investigated experimentally,
analytically and numerically to quantify their periodical characteristics. Experiments
were performed in an asymmetric compound channel, with the flow structures measured
by Particle Tracking Velocimetry (PTV), using surface tracers. Some results from an
hydrodynamic stability analysis are then reported. A numerical simulation was
performed using an Unsteady-RANS model to reproduce the development of the
vortices in the shear layer. The estimated vortex wave lengths are similar for the three
approaches.


Estimation of longitudinal dispersion coefficient for streams
I.W. Seo
Assoc. Prof., Dept. of Civil Eng., Seoul National Univ., Seoul, Korea
K.O. Baek
Grad. Student, Dept. of Civil Eng., Seoul National Univ., Seoul, Korea

In this study, a theoretical method for predicting the longitudinal dispersion coefficient
is developed based on the transverse velocity distribution in natural streams. Equations
of the transverse velocity profile for irregular cross sections of the natural streams are
analyzed. Among velocity profile equations tested in this study, the beta distribution
equation, which is a probability density function, is considered to be the most
appropriate model for explaining the complex behavior of the transverse velocity
structure of irregular natural streams. The beta function can fit various types of the
velocity profile, i.e., parabolic, flattened, sharp-peaked and skewed distributions,
whereas other empirical equations fail to fit various types of velocity distributions. The
comparisons of the proposed equation, which is based on the beta function for the
transverse velocity profile, with the existing equations and the observed longitudinal
dispersion coefficient reveal that the proposed equation shows better agreement with the
measured data than other existing equations.

206

Estimate of hydraulic resistance of river flow by physical modelling
E.N.Dolgopolova
Water Problems Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia
E.Tesaker
SINTEF Civil & Environment Engineering, Trondheim, Norway

Different methods of calculation of hydraulic resistance for nature flows are discussed.
Two types of rivers are under consideration: (i) plane rivers with sand bottoms for
which bottom roughness is much less than the depth, and (ii) shallow rivers with gravel
bottom with the bottom roughness comparable with the depth. We discuss also
dependence of habitat conditions on the bottom substratum and regime of hydro-
peaking.


Relevance of 1D flow modelling for compound channels with a converging
floodplain
Rivire N.1, Proust S.1,2, Bousmar D.3, Paquier A.2, Morel R.1, Zech Y.3
1Laboratoire de Mcanique des Fluides et d'Acoustique, UMR CNRS 5509, INSA de
Lyon, France
2CEMAGREF, Lyon, France
3Unit de Gnie Civil et Environnemental, Universit catholique de Louvain, Louvain-
La-Neuve, Belgium

Experiments in an asymmetric compound channel with a strongly converging floodplain
are presented. The results are compared to predictions given by two different 1D
programmes. Each programme uses a particular method to account for the momentum
transfer that occurs in compound channels, due to the velocity gradient between the
main channel and the floodplain. The first one is based on the DEBORD formula, which
is an empirical correction of the Divided Channel Method. The other one is based on the
Exchange Discharge Model, which computes momentum and discharge exchanges at
the interface between the two subsections. In the studied situation, where significant
three-dimensional phenomena are detected, both numerical models exhibit some
weaknesses. Particularly, it is difficult to get simultaneously correct results for the water
depth, the discharge distribution in the compound section, and the subsection mean
velocities. The analysis of the momentum balance of the flow provides information on
the additional phenomena that exist in the experimental situation. These phenomena
should be taken into account in the 1D models when such strong conveyance decrease is
considered.


On the influence of shape on resistance to flow in open channels
M.Mohammadi
BSc., MSc., PhD, CEng., MIRCOLD, MIAH
Dept. of Civil Eng., Faculty of Eng., The University of Urmia, P O Box 165, Urmia
57169-33111, Iran.
e-mail: m.mohammadi@mail.urmia.ac.ir

207
url: http://www.urmiacity.com/Dr.mohammadi

Water flow in open channels is always subject to the resistance to flow and energy
dissipation. For design purposes, one of the needed variables is the hydraulic resistance
coefficient. The influence of cross-sectional shape together with secondary flow cells
and lateral distribution of true boundary shear stress have not yet been fully explored.
This paper highlights the effect of cross sectional shape on resistance to flow. A
particular emphasis has been focused on a certain V-shaped bottom channel with
vertical walls, and its resistance coefficient evaluation. The experimental results show
that albeit the channel has a smooth boundary, but the resistance coefficients cannot be
applied for this channel. The difference may be arisen by the effect of shape. It can also
be seen that the Darcy-Weisbach friction factor, f, is more sensitive than the Manning n.
A Karman-Prandtl smooth pipe flow type friction formula was developed for this
channel shape. Keywords: Resistance to flow, open channel, cross-sectional shape,
boundary shear stress, friction factor.

208
Appendix D

Glossary of Terms

Table E1 Glossary of terms used
Term Description
Accuracy The precision to which measurement or calculation is carried out;
potentially, accuracy can be improved by better technology
Repeat measurements can be precise and repeatable but not
necessarily accurate.
Conveyance Channel conveyance is a measure of the discharge carrying
capacity of a channel K m
3
/s, defined as
2 / 1
S
Q
K =
Conveyance
width

Depth-averaged
lateral
turbulent viscosity
Parameter representing the momentum exchange
t
(m
2
/s), defined
as
t
= U
*
D which relates viscosity to the bed shear stresses. U
*
is
the shear velocity, D is the depth.
Discharge The volume of water that passes through a channel section per unit
of time
Error Errors are mistaken calculations or measurements with quantifiable
differences
Flow A general term for the movement of volumes of water at a speed
Grid element Discretisation element for solving the conveyance equation
Mannings n
e
A coefficient that incorporates losses due to local friction, C
uv
,
shearing flows, form losses and lateral shear stresses (as listed in
Ven te Chow - historic/engineering n). Derived for use in
medium to large non-vegetated rivers with fully developed flow
profiles.
Mannings pure n
l
A coefficient that approximates the local friction losses due to bed
features i.e. substrate/vegetation.
MaximumDepth The vertical distance of the lowest point of a channel section from
the free water surface.
Mean Depth The average vertical depth of a channel section from the free wter
surface.
Measurement
Reach
channel length between two consecutive cross-sections
Morpho-types See the note below and Table 8 in the main text.
Non-dimensional
eddy
viscosity
Calibration coefficient to account for lateral shear (NB in the
Wark equation it is termed the lateral eddy viscosity so it is
actually
t
)
Panels Flow zones within the section e.g. inbank, out of bank etc
Risk
Roughness The effect of impeding the normal water flow of a channel by the
presence of a natural or artificial body or bodies, biotic eg
vegetation, abiotic/mineral eg bank.bed substrate
Resistance As roughness but defined as flow-, form-, frictional or turbulent......
Stage The vertical distance of the free surface from an arbitrary or

209
defined datum
(i) ratio of the length along the channel between two sections to the
linear distance between these two sections can be either of regular
or irregular amplitude
Sinuosity
(ii) ratio of the length along the channel between two sections to
the linear distance along the valley between these two sections
Study reach The length of a study reach OR of a section underr investigation
Unit conveyance
Conveyance per metre width of channel k (m
2
/s), defined as
2 / 1
S
q
k =
Unit discharge
flow rate per metre width of channel section q (m
2
/s), defined as
=
D
udz q
0

(1) Uncertainty is defined through two terms
(i) natural variability
(ii) knowledge uncertainty
Uncertainty
(2) Uncertainty arises principally from lack of knowledge or of
ability to measure or to calculate which gives rise to potential
differences between assessment of some factor and its true value

Note
Table 8 in the main text presents a simplified form of morpho-types of channel
vegetation. The RHS records channel vegetation types to assess the habitat structure
they provide at the time of the survey, not their morphological character as described in
textbooks. The purpose of the recording is to provide information on the range of
functional habitats the flora may be providing for invertebrates and other animals. This
is especially important in rivers with limited structural diversity. To be recorded, the
channel type must occupy at least 1% of the channel area within the 10m RHS Spot
transect.

RoughnessReviewFinal July07

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

RoughnessReviewFinal July07

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Reducing Uncertainty in River Flood

Potrebbero piacerti anche