DETERMINATION OF FLOW RESISTANCE AND EFFECTIVENESS

OF GRASS CHANNEL IN UTHM CAMPUS

Muhammad Nur Aiman Bin Adnan, Puan Noor Aliza Binti Ahmad
Department Water and Environmental Engineering, University Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia
Corresponding E-mail: DF150045@siswa.uthm.edu.my, aliza@uthm.edu.my

Abstract
Grass channel is a manmade open channel to convey water runoff that is used as an alternative to concrete
drainage. The grass channel function is to dissipate energy in water forcing it to flow at a slower rate and to
promote water infiltration. The purpose of this study is to determine the flow resistance and effectiveness of the
grassed channel in terms of Manning’s coefficient and flow discharge. Location of this study was conducted on
two sites of grass channel in University Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia (UTHM) main campus. The data collected
from site are according to the hydraulic parameter such as channel cross-section area, hydraulic radius, wetted
perimeter and velocity of water are analyzed to obtain the hydraulic profile of the grass that is flow discharge
and flow resistance. The Manning’s roughness coefficient of the grassed channel at FKMP were range from
0.103 to 0.524 while the grassed channel at ORICC ranged from 0.056 to 0.221 where there are within range of
Manning’s roughness coefficient provide by CHOW, (1959) where the minimum n value are 0.030 and
maximum n value are 0.5 for constructed vegetated grass channel. It is determined that flow discharge decrease
when Manning’s coefficient is increase. The effectiveness of flow discharge in grassed channel using Manning’s
at site FKMP is 0.125 𝑚3 /s and at site ORICC is 0.145 𝑚3 /s are lower compared to flow discharge using
Rational Method where the total flow discharge at FKMP are 0.533 𝑚3 /s and at ORICC are 0.627 𝑚3 /s. This
shows that the grass channel effectively to reduce water discharge of the water runoff from the surrounding area.

Keywords: word, term, phrase

1.0 Introduction

The flood was one of the most occurred natural disasters in Malaysia as it received heavy rain
throughout the year this resulting in many places affected by flood especially lowland area such as
UTHM or any plain area that are near to the lake or river. The likelihood of flood occurrence in the
area also influences by increasing the development of housing projects, facilities, public
infrastructure, and as well as the decline in the forest in the area. Flood occur when the maximum
flow rate of the drainage system surpass the discharge capacity of the river cause overflow of water
[1].
A grassed channel is a manmade open drainage system which mainly linen up with vegetation
such as grass which covering the side slopes and bottom of the drainage. The channel was designed to
promote movement of stormwater at a slower rate, act as a filter medium to reduce pollutant in water,
allow runoff to infiltrate into the ground and prevent soil erosion. The grass channel was classified as
sustainable and environmental friendly because it allows more water contact with soils and help with
infiltration and as well to reduce pollutant in the water. Grass channel was more preferable because it
provides low cost for maintenance and aesthetic value which is great for landscaping other than
conventional drainage system. To cope with the flood problem a different drainage system was used
other than conventional drainage which mainly used concrete.
The drainage system such as grass channel was constructed in multiple places in Universiti Tun
Hussein Onn Malaysia main campus. This study is to determine the current flow resistance of the
grassed channel and its flow characteristic and to determine its effectiveness as water conveyance
system in reducing water discharge.
 Figure 1: Grass channel at FKMP Figure 2: Grass channel at ORICC

2.0 Literature Review

Grass channel is a wide and gently sloping open channel that is lined with vegetation or grass at its
base and side slopes. The grassed channel are shallow grass-lined channels, which is used as a
stormwater control measure originally designed for stormwater conveyance [2]. The grassed channel
are mainly used on highway projects. It is also stated that the grass channel represent a simple,
aesthetically pleasing technique for conveying runoff along linear systems. Unlike concrete gutter, the
grassed channel provide with pollution removal, reduce runoff volume and velocity when the water
convey into the system [3].
The grass reduces the velocity of the water as grass surface roughness provides with flow
resistance or drag force that lower the speed of the water. The further reduction depends on the grass
channel roughness coefficient and the flow characteristics such as flow velocity and flow rate of
water. Grass channel was one of the sustainable alternatives to reduce the flow velocity, peak flow
and minimize the causes of the flood [4].

2.1 Flow Resistance

Flow resistance occurs when there is a contact between water and channel surface which producing
frictional resistance. Frictional resistance depends on the smoothness of the channel surface, the
smoother the surface the faster the water flow through the channel. Manning’s roughness coefficient,
n is multifactorial dependent coefficient where n variations were dependent on variation in depth
caused by discharge, slopes, and width. In addition, it also stated that the rougher the surface the
higher Manning, n variation with depth and bottom width [5]. The drag on the vegetation in grass
channel increase the overall flow resistance and reduces the shear stress act on the channel bed. This
resulting in a reduced capacity of bed load and increase the chances for deposition, trapping, and
stabilization of sediment which overall function as water treatment system [6].

2.2 Roughness coefficient

The grassed channel was broad and shallow channels designed to store and convey runoff at a
non-erosive velocity, as well as enhance its water quality through infiltration, sedimentation, and
filtration. The open channel may be covered by dense vegetation, usually lining up the grass to slow
down flows which usually consider as surface roughness, n and to trap particles and remove
pollutant.The roughness coefficient, n, varies with the type of vegetative cover, longitudinal slope,
and average flow depth. The n value must be adjusted for varying to the flow depths of the grassed
channel.
 Table 1: The standard values of Manning’s roughness coefficient, n according to MSMA,
(2012)
Drain/Pipe Manning’s roughness, n
Grassed drain
Short grass cover (<150mm) 0.035
Tall grass cover (≥150mm) 0.050

Table 2: Manning roughness coefficient from Chow, (1959)

Type of Channel and Description Minimum Normal Maximum
Natural streams - minor streams (top width at flood stage < 100 ft.)
5. Lined or Constructed Channels
j. Vegetal lining 0.030 0.500

The roughness coefficient, n value of the cow grass used in the grassed channel is range from
0.110 to 0.756. However, the result they obtain were higher than recommended n value by Urban
Stormwater Management Manual for Malaysia MSMA, (2012) [4]. The findings are affected by
several factors other than grass such as grass channel cross-section, flow depth, irregularities of the
grassed channel and the velocity of water flow. MSMA, (2012) stated that the recommended value for
grass channel were 0.050 while short grass the n value is 0.035.

3.0 Materials and Methods

This study focused on the flow resistance of the grassed channel and its effectiveness on reducing the
velocity of water in UTHM water conveyance system. The site selected for this study was the grassed
channel located at FKMP and ORICC. To conduct this study a series of data should be obtained to
determine the roughness coefficient using Manning equation. Using Manning equation method the
data required to determine flow resistance n, are cross-section area of the grassed channel, velocity of
water, hydraulic radius, flow rate and slope of the energy.
The study were conducted on two separated location of grass channel. Each grass channel
section length were 50 meters apart. The water runoff from surrounding area flow into the grassed
channel and convey into the nearest lake during rain. Therefore the data could be collected and
analyzed using the standard Manning equation to obtain the flow resistance. Moreover using Manning
method the flow rate could be calculated and compare it to the Rational Method to determine its
effectiveness of the grassed channel.The area for this study can be as shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3: Site 1 located at FKMP and site 2 at ORICC

3.1 Manning’s Roughness Coefficient
Manning equation are mostly use in open channel flow. The Manning’s equation is an empirical
equation that assumes the open channel flow as a uniform flow and is a function of water velocity,
area, and channel slope. The Manning equation used in this study is to determine the flow resistance
or surface roughness of the grassed channel. The Manning equation to calculate the flow resistance is
shown below:
2
1
n = Q AR3 √S0 (1)
Where,
Q = discharge (𝑚3 /𝑠)
A = cross-section area of the grass channel (𝑚2 )
R = hydraulic radius (m)
𝑆0 = channel slope (m/m)
n = flow resistance coefficient

3.2 Rational Method

The Rational Method is a simple method for estimating the water discharge in a small watershed area.
It is the most frequent technique used to estimate peak runoff in Malaysia and other parts of the world.
The determination of peak runoff for small drainage area is expressed as below:

𝐶. 𝑖. 𝐴
𝑄= (2)
360
Where,
Q = peak flow of water (𝑚3 /𝑠)
C = coefficient of runoff based on Table 2.2
i = Average rainfall intensity (mm/hr)
A = watershed or drainage area (𝑚2 )

The coefficient of runoff C is a coefficient based on the characteristic of the surface in the catchment
area. When precipitation occurs the water evaporate and other was infiltrate into the soil which causes
the actual runoff to be reduced. Runoff coefficient was much higher on an impervious surface such as
building compared to the surface with grass or forest cover. The limitation for the Rational Method is
that to assume the rainfall intensity should be constant for at least time of concentration. It is difficult
to obtain an accurate runoff coefficient of surface area as it depends on moisture condition of the soil,
types of vegetation, the degree of compaction and as well as permeability of the soil [7].
MSMA, (2012) stated that the design rainfall intensity is in (mm/hr) depends on duration
(minute or hour) while ARI depends in (month or year). The manual recommended that the
performance of the designed drainage system must be examined for a range of ARIs and storm
duration to ensure that the system function to its full capacity. The empirical equation used to
determined the average rainfall intensity (mm/hr) from the IDF curves expressed as below:

λ𝑇 κ
𝑖= (3)
(𝑑 + 𝜃)η
Where,
i = Average rainfall intensity (mm/hr)
T = Average recurrence interval – ARI (0.5≤T≤12 month and 2≤T≤100 years)
d = Storm duration (hours), 0.8333≤T≤72
λ, κ, θ, η = Fitting constant dependent on the raingauge base on site location
 According to MSMA, (2012) Rational Method are most favorable because of its simplicity.
There are other methods that have the same purpose such as using computerized procedures for
hydrograph generation where making computation and design using designated software are simpler.
But rather than that Rational Method are good at estimating the runoff coefficient C. For a large area
with many variabilities in land use and other parameters, it can be easily estimated using DEM or
digital elevation method using computer software such as AutoCAD, GIS, and Surfer.

4.0 Results and Discussions

The data were collected using the current meter and measuring tape while the data analysis was
calculated according to the equation stated in the methodology. Flow characteristic parameter analyze
and computed which is the depth, velocity, flow rate, channel slope, wetted perimeter, hydraulic
radius and the cross-section area of the channel can be used to determine the roughness coefficient in
each section of the grassed channel. The efficiency and flow resistance of the grassed channel can be
determined at the end of this chapter.The channel slope for both grass channel FKMP and ORICC
were 0.0017 and 0.0003 respectively.

Table 3: Overall results of water velocity, flow discharge and Manning’s roughness coeffient at
FKMP grassed channel
Section A - Inlet
Date Velocity (m/s) Discharge ( 𝑚3 /s) Manning’s, n
21/10/2018 0.273 0.011 0.103
27/10/2018 0.130 0.021 0.454
28/10/2018 0.260 0.057 0.234
Section B - Middle
Date Velocity (m/s) Discharge ( 𝑚3 /s) Manning’s, n
21/10/2018 0.150 0.006 0.291
27/10/2018 0.113 0.013 0.524
28/10/2018 0.137 0.024 0.469
Section C - Outlet
Date Velocity (m/s) Discharge ( 𝑚3 /s) Manning’s, n
21/10/2018 0.237 0.030 0.233
27/10/2018 0.150 0.033 0.417
28/10/2018 0.157 0.044 0.467

Table 4: Overall results of water velocity, flow discharge and Manning’s roughness coeffient at
ORICC grassed channel
Section A - Inlet
Date Velocity (m/s) Discharge ( 𝑚3 /s) Manning’s, n
21/10/2018 0.197 0.008 0.056
27/10/2018 0.180 0.015 0.082
28/10/2018 0.170 0.028 0.122
Section B – Middle
Date Velocity (m/s) Discharge ( 𝑚3 /s) Manning’s, n
21/10/2018 0.127 0.004 0.103
27/10/2018 0.227 0.019 0.080
28/10/2018 0.247 0.036 0.095
Section C - Outlet
Date Velocity (m/s) Discharge ( 𝑚3 /s) Manning’s, n
21/10/2018 0.223 0.028 0.108
27/10/2018 0.380 0.079 0.147
28/10/2018 0.293 0.081 0.221
 Based on the result obtained, the Manning’s roughness coefficient or flow resistance of the
grassed channel at FKMP were range from 0.103 to 0.524 while the grassed channel at ORICC ranged
from 0.056 to 0.221. Grassed channel in front of FKMP has high Manning’s roughness coefficient
because of the grass channel surface are completely covered with high densities of grass while the
grassed channel at ORICC which has lower Manning’s value were due lack of grass at the bottom of
the channel and the surface were mostly smooth with little vegetation. The Manning’s roughness n are
higher than Manning’s roughness coefficient set by MSMA, (2012) which is 0.035 to 0.050. MSMA,
(2012) Manning’s roughness coefficient, n are only standardized for all open channel lining with
grass. While based on Chow, (1959) Manning’s roughness coefficient for specifically constructed
vegetated open grass channel the range of n value are minimum is 0.030 and maximum value is 0.5.
Therefore the result of Manning’s roughness coefficient of n value obtain from site are within
range and acceptable. The total flow discharge of the grassed channel using Manning method was
0.125 𝑚3 /s for the grassed channel at FKMP and 0.145 𝑚3 /s for the grassed channel at ORICC
which is lower than the flow discharge obtain using the Rational Method for the surrounding area
which is 0.533 𝑚3 /s at FKMP and 0.627 𝑚3/s at ORICC. This shows that the grassed channel
successfully decrease the flow discharge of water runoff from the surrounding area and thus the
objective of this study is achieved.

4.1 Flow depth vs discharge

Figure 4: Flow rating curve of grassed channel at FKMP

The graph in Figure 4 shows flow rating curve of grass channel where flow depth against flow
discharge. The graph shows that when the depth flow of the section increases the water flow discharge
through the section also increase. Hence with deeper water flow contribute to larger cross-sectional
area and the volume flow through it.
 Figure 5: Flow rating curve of grassed channel at ORICC

The graph in Figure 5 shows the flow rating curve of grass channel where flow depth against
flow discharge. The graph shows that section A, B, and C has the same flow rating curve shape. Like
grass channel at FKMP, the graph plotted shows that the water discharge increase when the flow
depth increase. Thus the flow depth has influenced the water flow discharge through a section of the
channel.

4.1 Discharge vs mannings’s roughness

Figure 6: Graph of water flow discharge against Manning’s roughness coefficient at site FKMP

The graph plotted in Figure 6 shows the curve line does not have uniform line shape between
section A, B, and C. From the Figure 6 it indicates that the water flows discharge decrease when the
Manning’s roughness coefficient increase. The flow resistance of grass channel was mainly
contributed by the surface of the channel which is grass cover where the grass leaf disrupts the
flowing water velocity and slowing its flow rate. Water discharge was decreased, when the Manning’s
coefficient roughness is increase [8].
 Figure 7: Graph of water flow discharge against Manning’s roughness coefficient at site ORICC

The graph in Figure 7 shows the curve section B does not have the same curve line in grassed
channel section A and C. This shows that there was an error occur during observation of data or
channel irregular shape that affects the flow rate of water through the section A and C. The curve line
of section B shows that when the discharge decrease the flow resistance of grass channel were
increased.

4.1 Flow depth vs velocity

Figure 8: Graph of water flow discharge against velocity at site FKMP

From the Figure 8 it shows that the depth of the water flows has effect on the velocity of the
water. When the flow depth decrease the velocity of the water increase. Mustaffa et al., (2016) has the
same result where its findings stated that decrease in flow depth, increase the velocity of the water.
This shows that the flow depth can affected the velocity of the grassed channel
 Figure 9: Graph of water flow discharge against velocity at site ORICC

Based on Figure 9 it shows that the graph does not have the same curve between each section
where graph line B and C were upwards. The higher velocity increase in grass channel section B and
C were due to lack of vegetation that can slow the flowing water. This shows that the depth of the
water flows has a low effect on the velocity of the water at the grassed channel located in ORICC
which when the flow depth decrease the velocity of the water should increase.

5.0 Conclusions

Based on the result and analysis of each three section of the grassed channel at both site shows the
difference in terms of the flow parameter and computational value. This is caused by different of flow
depth, grass channel profile and rainfall intensity. The result obtained shows that when the flow depth
of water profile increases the flow rate discharge were also increased due to higher cross-sectional
area.The Manning’s roughness coefficient of the grassed channel has an influence on water discharge.
This study shows that when the Manning’s roughness coefficient increase, the water flow rate
discharge was decreased and the grassed channel with lower Manning’s value give maximum flow
discharge.
There is the difference in discharge between grass channel at FKMP and ORICC where the
total flow discharge at ORICC are higher than flow discharge at grass channel at FKMP. This caused
by the condition of grass channel surface where the grassed channel at ORICC has low vegetation at
the bottom of its channel while the grassed channel at FKMP was fully covered with grass.The total
discharge of grassed channel determined using Manning method it is lower than the flow discharge
computed using the Rational Method. Therefore it shows that the grassed channel effectively reduced
flow discharge of the water runoff from its surrounding drainage area.The importance of reducing the
discharge of water by the grassed channel is to prevent the overflow of water directly into the main
drainage which is water stream or river and prevent flooding from occurs. The grass channel not only
functions as a drainage system but also give aesthetically pleasing image compared to concrete gutter
system. Therefore from this study the determination of the grassed channel flow resistance and its
effectiveness in reducing the flow discharge has been achieved.

References
[1] Mazlan, M., Adib, M., Razi, M., Adnan, M. S., Ahmad, M. A., & Tan, L. W. (2014). Hydrodynamic
Modelling and Flood Mapping of Sembrong Catchment Area, (September).
[2] Davis, A. P., Stagge, J. H., Jamil, E., & Kim, H. (2011). Hydraulic performance of grass swales for
managing highway runoff. Water Research, 46(20), 6775–6786.
[3] Lucke, T., Ansaf, M., Mohamed, K., & Tindale, N. (2014). Pollutant Removal and Hydraulic Reduction
Performance of Field Grassed Swales during Runoff Simulation Experiments, 1887–1904.
https://doi.org/10.3390/w60
[4] Mustaffa, N., Ahmad, N. A., & Razi, M. A. M. (2016). Hydraulic performance of grassed swale as
stormwater quantity control. ARPN Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences, 11(8), 5439–5444.
[5] Mauricio, G., Melecio, I., & Eduardo, R. (2015). Roughness Manning Coefficient Variation in Irrigation
Open Channels by Changing Width and Roughness Surface in the Armfield C4MKII Equipment.
[6] Wu, W., & He, Z. (2010). Effects of vegetation on flow conveyance and sediment transport capacity.
International Journal of Sediment Research, 24(3), 247–259. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1001-6279(10)60001-
7
[7] Parmar, P., Kalsariya, J., & Beble, D. (2017). Estimation of Storm Runoff Quantity Using Rational Method
and, 5–8.
[8] Muhtar, B., Mohsen, M., & Abayati, A. (2016). Determination Of Chezys And Mannings Coefficient For
Different Aggregate Bed Using Different Notches In Hydraulic Bench, (April).