Computational Model for Gradually Varied Flow

in Channel Networks with Hydraulic Structures

Félix L. Santiago-Collazo 1 and Walter F. Silva-Araya, Ph.D. 2

Abstract: There is a need for regulation and control of irrigation conveyance systems for sustainable agriculture. Design and analysis
of hydraulic structures within complex channel systems are essential for conservation and efficient use of irrigation water. An improved
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Newcastle University on 04/02/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

computational model based on gradually varied flow assumptions and capable of solving discharges and water levels in complex channel
network systems to include lateral weirs is presented. Results include water levels, discharge distribution, and computation of flow over or
dimensions of lateral structures. The model uses the simultaneous solution method (SSM) to solve the continuity and energy equations at
several channels reaches, in addition to the lateral weir equation. The nonlinear system of equations produced when applying this method is
solved with the Newton-Raphson procedure. A series of successive approximations leading to the solution requires the solution of a set of
linear equations. The biconjugated gradient stabilizer with preconditioner method (BiCGSTAB) is used to solve the linear system formed by
large sparse matrices occurring in channel networks. Comparison of the SSM results with the standard step method (StdSM) as included in
Hydrologic Engineering Center-River Analysis System (HEC-RAS) for parallel channel systems, with and without lateral structures, was
excellent. The capabilities of the SSM are demonstrated solving a channel network in which three lateral weirs are designed and two more are
analyzed during the same program execution. The model is easy to use, converges in a few iterations, and can be applied for design or analysis
of lateral structures in irrigation engineering. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)IR.1943-4774.0001388. © 2019 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Irrigation channel network; Gradually varied flow; Lateral weir design and analysis; Simultaneous solution method;
Newton-Raphson method.

Introduction
Food production is a global concern in a world of growing pop-
ulation and limited resources. Sustainability of food production
depends on sound and efficient water-use and conservation practi-
ces consisting mainly of irrigation development and management
(United Nations Sustainable Development 1992). Because one-
sixth of irrigated croplands produce one-third of the world’s harvest
of food crops (Michael 2008), it is of upmost importance for farm-
ers to efficiently control water distribution in irrigation systems.
These systems, which usually show steady, nonuniform flow with
gradual changes in the water depth, are typically described by
gradually varied flow (GVF) conditions.
Several numerical techniques have been developed to determine
water levels and discharges for gradually varied flows in complex
irrigation channel networks, including hydraulic structures to con-
trol water distribution. For example, Chaudhry and Schulte (1986)
developed an algorithm for parallel channels to solve for water
depths and discharges at different cross sections employing the
Newton-Raphson method. To increase accuracy and reduce com-
puter time and storage, they transformed the resulting Jacobian
1
Graduate Student, Dept. of Civil Engineering and Surveying, Univ.
of Puerto Rico at Mayagüez, P.O. Box 9041, Mayagüez, PR 00681.
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2084-5161. Email: felix.santiago10@
upr.edu
2
Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering and Surveying, Univ. of Puerto
Rico at Mayagüez, P.O. Box 9041, Mayagüez, PR 00681 (corresponding
author). ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7366-9018. Email: walter
.silva2@upr.edu
Note. This manuscript was submitted on November 17, 2017; approved
on December 27, 2018; published online on April 2, 2019. Discussion per-
iod open until September 2, 2019; separate discussions must be submitted
for individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Irrigation and
Drainage Engineering, © ASCE, ISSN 0733-9437.
matrix into a banded matrix for series and parallel channels. Later,
they extended their algorithm to solve GVF conditions in a channel
network; however, the matrix became sparse and more difficult to
solve (Chaudhry and Schulte 1987). Naidu et al. (1997) presented
an algorithm for GVF computations by decomposing the channel
network into smaller units, which could be solved by employing the
fourth-order Runge-Kutta method. The shooting method was then
used to update the values of each iteration until convergence. This
was computationally more efficient than the simultaneous solution
procedure; however, it could not be applied to parallel networks.
Similarly, Reddy and Bhallamudi (2004) developed an algorithm to
compute water surface profiles in channel networks, but it did not
perform adequately when hydraulic structures were introduced into
the system. Their model was tested with the idealized channel net-
work presented by Chaudhry and Schulte (1987) and Naidu et al.
(1997). The efficiency of their algorithm was comparable with that
of Naidu et al.’s (1997) technique.
In summary, these algorithms (1) require steady-state, subcriti-
cal, gradually varied flow conditions; (2) do not consider hydraulic
structures within the channel system; and (3) were only tested
on idealized channel networks (Chaudhry and Schulte 1986, 1987;
Naidu et al. 1997; Reddy and Bhallamudi 2004).
On the other hand, several models have been developed for
steady and unsteady flow in channel networks using St. Venant
equations, which employ the finite-difference method to solve the
system of equations for all branches of the network simultaneously
(Sen and Garg 2002; Islam et al. 2005; Zhu et al. 2011). Islam et al.
(2008), extending their previous effort (Islam et al. 2005), devel-
oped a hydraulic simulation model for irrigation channel networks.
The model used the same discretization technique for the St. Venant
equations as their previous work (Islam et al. 2005), but solved the
nonlinear matrix system using sparse matrix solution techniques.
Islam et al.’s (2008) study was the only algorithm found in literature

© ASCE 04019007-1 J. Irrig. Drain. Eng.

J. Irrig. Drain Eng., 2019, 145(6): 04019007

 that included analysis of hydraulic structures such as weirs, sluice
gates, drops/falls, pipe outlets, and imposed discharge. Even though
Islam et al. (2008) stated that their algorithm was able to solve com-
plex channel networks, the results presented only considered four
channels connected in series from the Kangsabati irrigation project
in West Bengal, India. Their results were similar to the ones com-
puted with a Hydrologic Engineering Center-River Analysis System
(HEC-RAS) model and performed satisfactorily for most of the ir-
rigation events at the irrigation project. That case does not represent a
challenging example for other solution procedures.
Besides the several algorithms developed using the simultane-
ous solution techniques, none have focused on solving practical
engineering problems, particularly those found in irrigation sys-
tems containing weirs, gates, or inverted siphons. This paper aims
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Newcastle University on 04/02/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
at breaching that gap by introducing a computer model to deter-
mine the water levels and discharges in complex channel networks
containing hydraulic structures that are typical in large irrigation
systems. This will certainly provide farmers with information
on flow levels and volumetric discharges, helping them make in-
formed decisions on irrigation water for their crops.
Governing Equations
GVF occurs when the rate of variation of depth with respect to dis-
tance is small. The analysis of GVF is usually done for long chan-
nels; therefore, friction losses must be considered. The following
assumptions are common in GVF theory: (1) the slope of the channel
bottom is small; therefore, the flow depth measured vertically or
Fig. 1. (a) Definition sketch for the governing equations; and (b) three-dimensional sketch of a trapezoidal channel with water flowing through
a lateral structure.
© ASCE 04019007-2
J. Irrig. Drain Eng., 2019, 145(6): 04019007
normal to the bottom are approximately the same; (2) the channel
could have lateral outflows through lateral weirs or other structures;
(3) the pressure distribution is hydrostatic at all channel sections, and
the streamlines are straight and parallel; and (4) the head loss is
determined using Manning’s equation (Chaudhry 2008).
Similar to a pipe network, channel networks require specialized
solution techniques that are not available in many commonly used
hydraulic solvers because incorporation of hydraulic structures in
channel networks presents additional complexities for both analysis
and design. The governing equations take into account the energy
equation between two consecutive sections of the same channel and
the continuity equation between two consecutive channels or junc-
tions. Eqs. (1) and (2) show the discretized form of the energy and
continuity equation between two channel cross sections. Fig. 1(a)
shows the notation, and Fig. 1(b) illustrates a three-dimensional
sketch of a trapezoidal channel with a lateral weir
Qi;jþ1 jQi;jþ1 j Qi;j jQi;j j
Fi;k ¼ zi;jþ1 − zi;j þ yi;jþ1 − yi;j þ αi − αi
2gA2i;jþ1 2gA2i;j


1 Qi;jþ1 jQi;jþ1 jn2i Qi;j jQi;j jn2i
þ ðxi;jþ1 − xi;j Þ þ 2 2 1.33 ¼ 0
2 C2o A2i;jþ1 R1.33
i;jþ1 Co Ai;j Ri;j
ð1Þ
Fi;kþ1 ¼ Qi;jþ1 − Qi;j ¼ 0 ð2Þ
where Q = rate of discharge (m3 =s); z = elevation of the chan-
nel bottom above a specified datum (m); y = flow depth (m);
J. Irrig. Drain. Eng.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Newcastle University on 04/02/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 2. Example of a parallel channel network.
α = velocity-head coefficient; g = acceleration due to gravity
(m=s2 ); x = horizontal distance (m); A = flow area (m2 ); n =
Manning’s roughness coefficient; R = hydraulic radius (m); Co =
dimensional coefficient of Manning’s equation (1.0 for SI units,
and 1.49 for English units); i = number of the channel; j = section
number of the channel i; and k = equation number on the matrix
system.
The last term on the right side of Eq. (1) is an approximation of
the head loss computed by the average of the friction slopes. Also,
to be able to account for the reverse flow, the discharge term on the
energy equation must be expressed as Qi;j jQi;j j instead of Q2i;j .
The energy equation [Eq. (1)] and continuity equation [Eq. (2)],
plus equations for hydraulic structures within the irrigation system,
are assembled for a simultaneous solution. The problem is as-
sembled as a system of nonlinear equations to be solved by the
Newton-Raphson method (Burden and Faires 2005).
Parallel Channel Networks
In parallel networks, the discharge in each individual channel is
unknown, whereas in a series channel, the discharge is, in fact,
known. Consequently, in a generalized channel network model, the
continuity equation Eq. (2) for each reach must be included to ob-
tain the necessary number of equations to solve the system. A reach
is a segment between two successive channel sections. A channel
could have several reaches between two junctions. The matrix of
flow depths and discharge corrections is represented by
AΔ ¼ F ð3Þ
where A is the Jacobian matrix; Δ is the vector of flow depth and
discharge corrections; and F is the vector of energy and continuity
equations. The Jacobian matrix A consists of the partial derivatives
of the energy and continuity equations with respect to the flow
depth and discharge (Chaudhry and Shulte 1987). Fig. 2 shows
a parallel channel network with two branches and two junctions.
Lateral Weir Design and Analysis
Lateral weirs (LWs) are commonly found in irrigation systems as
structures to divide flow in a controlled manner and provide water
to crop parcels (Silva-Araya and Vargas 2014). Two cases are pos-
sible: (1) determining the necessary length and height of the crest to
© ASCE 04019007-3
J. Irrig. Drain Eng., 2019, 145(6): 04019007
provide a predetermined discharge to a parcel, or (2) determining the
amount of water that an existing structure is distributing into a parcel.
Case 1 is the design problem, and Case 2 is the analysis problem.
Hager’s equation (Hager 1987) was selected for the design or
analysis of lateral weirs. This equation is included in HEC-RAS
version 5.0.3 (Brunner 2016) and is solved using Eqs. (4)–(8)
H ¼ Y w − Pw ð4Þ
 0.5   0.5 
3 pffiffiffi 1−W 3ð1 − GÞ
Cd ¼ C0 g 1 − ðβ þ S0 Þ ð5Þ
5 3 − 2G − W G−W
Pw
W¼ ð6Þ
H t þ Pw
H þ Pw
G¼ ð7Þ
H t þ Pw
Qw ¼ Cd Lw H3=2 ð8Þ
where Qw = flow through the lateral weir (m3 =s); Lw = length of the
lateral weir (m); H = head above the lateral weir (m); H t = height
of the energy grade line above the weir (m); Cd = discharge coef-
ficient (m1=2 =s); Pw = height of the weir crest above the ground (m);
Y w = average flow depth between the upstream and downstream
section of the lateral weir; β = main channel contraction angle
(radians); S0 = channel bottom slope (m=m); C0 = base discharge
coefficient (1.0 for sharp-crested weir); and g = acceleration of
gravity (m=s2 ).
The design of a lateral weir consists of determining the height
and length of the weir crest. These parameters depend on the flow
depth available at the weir location. To determine the appropriate
height of the crest (Pw ), an initial estimate for this value is set equal
to the ratio of the wetted area to the top width, Pw ¼ Aw =T w (May
et al. 2003). The height of the crest of a suppressed rectangular weir
should be at least equal to three times the maximum head (Hmax )
at the weir (US Bureau of Reclamation 2001). In addition, the
sidewalls of the weir must extend at least a distance of 0.3 Hmax
(US Bureau of Reclamation 2001). Fig. 3(a) shows the cross-
section view of a suppressed rectangular lateral weir, and Fig. 3(b)
shows the top view of the same lateral weir dividing flow through
the weir, Qw , and flow on the channel, Qch .
A lateral weir produces a division of the existing channel into two
channels, usually with the same geometric properties. This junction
is modeled combining the weir equation with the continuity
J. Irrig. Drain. Eng.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Newcastle University on 04/02/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 3. Schematic of a lateral weir: (a) longitudinal view; and (b) plan
view.
equation. The desired weir flow is provided to the model as a per-
centage of the discharge upstream of the weir location. An initial
estimate of the height of the crest is also given as input. The dis-
charge coefficient is computed using Eq. (5). The length of the crest
is obtained from Eq. (8). The solution is verified according to the
criteria proposed by the US Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) in
2001 (US Bureau of Reclamation 2001). If the solution does not
meet the USBR criterion, then the initial height of the crest is ad-
justed, and the process is repeated. The analysis of an existing lateral
weir consists of determining the amount of flow and water elevations
given the weir dimensions and crest elevation. The height of the crest
and length of the weir are given to the algorithm as input. No initial
value of Cd has to be provided because the program uses Eq. (5) to
compute Cd from the flow and channel conditions. Finally, the flow
through the weir is computed using Eq. (8).
Numerical Solution
The numerical solution for the system of nonlinear equations is
performed using the Newton-Raphson method. This procedure
requires an initial estimate of the values of all the variables
(discharges and flow depths). An improved solution is obtained by
computing corrections to the initial estimates. A first-order Taylor
series expansion is used to obtain the corrections, which requires
the solution of the linear system containing the matrix of partial
derivatives (Jacobian) presented in Eq. (3). Those corrections are
© ASCE 04019007-4
J. Irrig. Drain Eng., 2019, 145(6): 04019007
added to the previous estimates to obtain an improved solution. The
process is repeated until the corrections are less than a specified
tolerance (Burden and Faires 2005). The success of a general-
purpose algorithm for complex channel systems depends on the
numerical technique used to solve the linear system generated as
part of the Newton-Raphson procedure. The biconjugate gradient
stabilizer (BiCGSTAB) method with preconditioning solver proved
to be appropriate for nonsymmetric positive definite systems
with large-sparse matrices such as those found in this application
(Saad 2003).
Typical parallel channel systems, like the one shown in Fig. 2,
can be solved using most of the iterative [i.e., generalized minimum
residual method, quasi-minimal residual algorithm, and conjugate
gradient squared (CGS)] and direct (i.e., Gauss elimination method,
Gauss-Jordan elimination, and Thomas algorithm) solution tech-
niques found in the literature (Gerald and Wheatley 1992; Hoffman
2001). However, as the channel configuration gets more complex
(i.e., from a parallel channel system to a channel network system
with hydraulic structures), the sparsity of the matrix increases pro-
portionally. In these cases, direct solution techniques may not con-
verge and some of the iterative solution techniques converge only
with a preconditioner. The BiCGSTAB method with preconditioner
implemented in the proposed approach provides a solution for sev-
eral channel configurations with structures.
The BiCGSTAB is a variation of the CGS method and is
categorized as an iterative solution technique. Both methods
use the square of the residual polynomial; however, CGS could
lead to a substantial buildup of rounding errors and possibly even
overflow (Saad 2003). BiCGSTAB removes this limitation and
solves nonsymmetric positive definite systems with large sparse
matrices. It introduces a new polynomial defined recursively at
each step with the goal of stabilizing or smoothing the conver-
gence behavior of the original CGS algorithm (Saad 2003).
According to Babaoğlu (2003), BiCGSTAB often converges twice
as fast as the CGS, and the convergence behavior is considerably
smoother because the residual vector is minimized. The conver-
gence ability of the method strongly depends on the condition
number of the interaction matrix. The number of iterations to
reach a desired level of error varies with the properties of the
matrix (Babaoğlu 2003).
The system of equations representing a channel network
configuration forms an ill-conditioned non-diagonally-dominant
system, so a preconditioner was introduced with the BiCGSTAB
method. Typically, an ill-conditioned system is difficult to handle
because when solving systems where round-off errors occur, a
small change in the constant coefficients results in a large change
in the solution (Holzmann 2015). On the other hand, a non-
diagonally-dominant system is characterized by not having an
inverse matrix, which requires preconditioning of the system before
solving it. According to Yuvashankar et al. (2016), preconditioning
is a key factor in iterative methods, and its purpose is to make
solvers converge faster using fewer iterations. A good precondi-
tioner should be easy to solve and cheap to construct and apply
(Yuvashankar et al. 2016). The preconditioner selected for the
solver is the incomplete lower-upper (LU) factorization (iLU) with
threshold and pivoting. iLU produces a lower unit triangular matrix
as well as an upper triangular matrix in which the zeros of the origi-
nal matrix are kept, preserving the sparsity of the system. This is
important because if the sparsity of the system is preserved, the
matrix system will occupy less space in the computer memory.
The pivoting of the iLU prevents zeros in the main diagonal. The
simultaneous solution method (SSM) algorithms and the numerical
solution subroutines were programmed in the computational lan-
guage MATLAB version R2015a (Moler 2004).
J. Irrig. Drain. Eng.
 Methodology for Model Application
The capabilities of the new SSM are demonstrated with three differ-
ent channel systems. The first system consists of two parallel chan-
nels without structures. The second is similar but includes the
design of one lateral weir structure within the parallel channel. Both
channel systems were solved using HEC-RAS (Brunner 2016) and
compared with the SSM method. The third system is a channel net-
work with simultaneous design and analysis several weir structures.
Parallel Channels without Lateral Weirs
Fig. 4 is a schematic of a parallel channel system. It has four
trapezoidal channels of different sizes. This channel system encom-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Newcastle University on 04/02/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
64 × 64 matrix. Table 1 presents details of the geometry and rough-
ness for each channel. Each channel is identified with the letter C
and a number. The upstream boundary conditions were selected as
a specified water depth (5.0 m) and discharge (250 m3 =s) at the
upstream end channel. The initial flow depths were assumed to
be equal in all sections for all the channels as a first trial for the
SSM. The initial discharges were split equally between the chan-
nels by means of the continuity equation at each junction as a first
trial for the SSM. A loss coefficient of zero was specified for energy
losses at junctions due to changes in channel cross sections.
Parallel Channels with Lateral Weirs
This system is similar to the previous one, except for the addition of

passes 64 unknowns, of which half refer to water depths and the a lateral weir in one branch (Fig. 5). The channel properties are the
other half to discharges. Therefore, the Jacobian for this system is a same presented in Table 1. The weir was located on Channel C3 at

Fig. 4. Example 1: parallel channel system without lateral weirs.

Table 1. Geometric and roughness properties for both parallel channel systems
Channel Channel Bottom Manning’s Bottom Lateral Number of Channel bottom
ID length (m) slope (m=m) roughness coefficient width (m) slope (m=m) reaches elevation (m)a
C1 100 0.0005 0.0120 50 1:1.5 4 100.0
C2 1,500 0.0004 0.0125 30 1:1.5 10 99.95
C3 500 0.0012 0.0130 20 1:1.5 10 99.95
C4 100 0.0005 0.0135 40 1:1.5 4 99.75
a
Channel bottom elevation at the upstream end section of the channel.

Fig. 5. Example 2: parallel channel system with lateral weirs.

© ASCE 04019007-5 J. Irrig. Drain. Eng.

J. Irrig. Drain Eng., 2019, 145(6): 04019007

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Newcastle University on 04/02/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 6. Example 3: channel network with lateral weirs.

Table 2. Geometric and roughness properties for the channel network system
Channel Channel Bottom Manning’s Bottom Lateral Number of Channel bottom Distance to
ID length (m) slope (m=m) roughness coefficient width (m) slope (m=m) reaches elevation (m)a lateral weir (m)b
C1 200 0.0001 0.013 47.5 1:1.5 4 99.87 100
C2 300 0.0005 0.012 27.5 1:1.5 4 99.85 200
C3 200 0.0005 0.013 40 1:1.5 4 99.85 NA
C4 250 0.0002 0.013 25 1:1.5 4 99.75 NA
C5 200 0.0005 0.014 20 1:1.5 4 99.70 100
C6 300 0.0005 0.014 32.5 1:1.5 4 99.75 200
C7 200 0.0001 0.015 20 1:1.5 4 99.60 100
Note: NA = no lateral weir located on the channel.
a
Channel bottom elevation at the upstream end section of the channel.
b
Distance measured from the beginning of the channel to the location of the lateral weir.

250 m from the beginning of the channel. The design of this lateral Table 3. Summary of the design data and analysis of the lateral weirs for
weir was conducted using a crest height of 4.5 m and a percentage the channel network system
of the discharge upstream of the weir location of 15%, thus result- Crest Weir Flow
ing in a lateral weir length of 17.05 m. In this paper, lateral weirs Lateral weir ID in height length Weir flow through
are identified with the letter W and the number of the channel where second case study Type (m) (m) (m3 =s) weir (%)
it is located. The subscript A is added when it is an existing weir W1 Design 4 26.62a 37.5 15
and the discharge through it is computed. The subscript D is used W2 Design 4.5 9.41a 8.51 10
when the weir discharge and crest elevation is given and the weir W5 Analysis 4.5 11.51 12.91 14a
length is required. For example, W3D refers to a weir in Channel 3 W6 Design 4.5 10.97a 12.27 11
that is to be designed. The upstream boundary conditions were W7 Analysis 4.5 18.23 21.07 11.8a
identical with those of the previous example. The initial distribution a
Values output from the simultaneous solution method.
of flow depths and discharges was the same used in the previous
example. A loss coefficient of zero was specified for energy losses
at junctions due to changes in channel cross sections.
examples. A loss coefficient of zero was also specified for energy
losses at junctions due to changes in channel cross sections.
Channel Network with Lateral Weirs
The third system is the channel network shown in Fig. 6 and con-
tains the addition of a channel that divides the upper and lower Implementation in HEC-RAS
branch of the parallel system. This system consists of seven trap-
ezoidal channels with different geometric characteristics and bot- HEC-RAS uses the standard step method (StdSM) to solve for flow
tom slopes plus five lateral weirs. Three weirs were designed by the depths and discharges (Brunner 2016). In subcritical flow condi-
computer model and two were analyzed as part of the same pro- tions, HEC-RAS computes the water depths one reach at a time,
gram execution. Table 2 provides the input data for each channel, starting at the downstream end and moving to the next upstream
and Table 3 gives the input data and output result for each lateral cross section until reaching the upper boundary. For parallel chan-
weir. Values are denoted as output from design or analysis, depend- nels, HEC-RAS has an optimization procedure for split-flow con-
ing on each case. This channel system encompasses 70 unknowns. ditions and for flow-through lateral weirs (Jensen et al. 2000). This
The upstream boundary conditions and initial distribution of flow procedure compares the energy of the two cross sections in the split
depths and discharges were the same as for the previous two channels closer to the junction. Therefore, continuity and energy

© ASCE 04019007-6 J. Irrig. Drain. Eng.

J. Irrig. Drain Eng., 2019, 145(6): 04019007

 Table 4. Computed water surface elevation and water depth for each channel of the parallel system without lateral weirs using SSM and standard step method
(HEC-RAS model)
SSM Standard step
Channel Section Distance (m) Depth (m) WSE (m) Depth (m) WSE (m)
1 (Q ¼ 250.00 m3 =s) 1 0 5.000 105.000 5.000 105.000
2 25 5.012 105.000 5.012 105.000
3 50 5.025 105.000 5.025 105.000
4 75 5.037 104.999 5.037 104.999
5 100 5.049 104.999 5.049 104.999

2 (Q ¼ 116.01 m3 =s) 1 0 5.068 105.018 5.067 105.017

2 150 5.127 105.017 5.126 105.016
3 300 5.186 105.016 5.186 105.015
4 450 5.246 105.016 5.245 105.015
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Newcastle University on 04/02/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

5 600 5.305 105.015 5.304 105.014

6 750 5.364 105.014 5.363 105.013
7 900 5.424 105.014 5.422 105.013
8 1,050 5.483 105.013 5.482 105.012
9 1,200 5.542 105.012 5.541 105.011
10 1,350 5.602 105.012 5.601 105.011
11 1,500 5.661 105.011 5.660 105.010

4 (Q ¼ 250.00 m3 =s) 1 0 5.633 104.983 5.631 104.981

2 25 5.645 104.982 5.640 104.980
3 50 5.657 104.982 5.655 104.980
4 75 5.669 104.982 5.667 104.980
5 100 5.682 104.982 5.680 104.980

3 (Q ¼ 133.99 m3 =s) 1 0 5.040 104.990 5.038 104.988

2 50 5.100 104.990 5.098 104.988
3 100 5.160 104.990 5.158 104.988
4 150 5.220 104.990 5.218 104.988
5 200 5.280 104.990 5.278 104.988
6 250 5.340 104.990 5.338 104.988
7 300 5.400 104.990 5.398 104.988
8 350 5.460 104.990 5.458 104.988
9 400 5.520 104.990 5.518 104.988
10 450 5.580 104.990 5.579 104.988
11 500 5.640 104.990 5.638 104.988

Fig. 7. Water surface elevation profile at the upper branch of the parallel channel system without lateral weirs.

© ASCE 04019007-7 J. Irrig. Drain. Eng.

J. Irrig. Drain Eng., 2019, 145(6): 04019007

 are satisfied at the upstream junction. If energy is not satisfied, the two consecutive cross-sections. Results were compared with the
program adjusts the flows in each branch and computes the back- actual distance used as input in SSM. The error in these calculations
water elevations again until the energy converges to a tolerance of was computed using Eq. (9)
0.006 m (Jensen et al. 2000). The model also has the capability of

estimating discharge through lateral weirs; therefore, it was ideal Lcomp − Lgiven
EL ¼ × 100 ð9Þ
to compare with the SSM. The water and flow tolerances in Lgiven
HEC-RAS were set to 0.0001, which was the same tolerance for
convergence of the SSM model. Both models were run with iden- where Lcomp = computed reach length using the DSM (m); Lgiven =
tical lateral weir dimensions. Water depths and discharges were reach length given to both methods (SSM and StdSM) (m); and
compared. EL = percent error for the reach length of each channel.
This test was particularly useful to verify results from SSM
when the complexity of the network did not allow direct compari-
Comparison Using Direct Step Method son with HEC-RAS.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Newcastle University on 04/02/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

HEC-RAS presents limitations to model channel networks with

structures beyond the simple split-flow case. Therefore, the authors Continuity Check at Each Junction
used the following comparison to check the accuracy of the results.
The computed water depths output from the SSM model were input The mass conservation at each junction was computed by means of
in the direct step method (DSM) to solve for the distance between the continuity equation, which is given by Eq. (10). If Eq. (10)

Fig. 8. Water surface elevation profile at the lower branch of the parallel channel system without lateral weirs.

Fig. 9. Percent error for reach length of both methods for the parallel channel system without lateral weirs.

© ASCE 04019007-8 J. Irrig. Drain. Eng.

J. Irrig. Drain Eng., 2019, 145(6): 04019007

 equals or is very close to zero, the mass is conserved at the channels where Qnet = net discharge in the parallel junction, which repre-
junction. Any model must satisfy continuity within the system sents the mass conservation; Qin = discharge that enters the parallel
junction; and Qout = discharge that exits the parallel junction. The
X X convention for flow direction dictates that if the flow enters the
Qnet ¼ Qin − Qout ð10Þ
parallel junction, it is positive, whereas if it exits the parallel junc-
tion, it is negative.
Table 5. Percent error for reach length of each channel for the case study of
the parallel channel system without lateral weirs using SSM and standard
step method (HEC-RAS model) Analysis of Results
SSM Standard step The comparison criteria described in the previous sections were
Channel Reach Lcomp (m) EL (%) Lcomp (m) EL (%) implemented for three systems: parallel channels without lateral
1 1 24.9996 −0.0016 24.9653 −0.1386 weirs, parallel channels with lateral weirs, and channel network
2 24.9996 −0.0016 25.1648 0.6594 with lateral weirs, as described in the subsequent subsections.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Newcastle University on 04/02/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

3 24.9996 −0.0016 24.9585 −0.1660

4 24.9996 −0.0015 24.9552 −0.1793
Total 99.9984 −0.0016 100.0439 0.0439 Parallel Channels without Lateral Weirs
2 1 149.9984 −0.0011 149.8600 −0.0933 The water surface elevations (WSEs) at each channel section in the
2 149.9985 −0.0010 150.2778 0.1852 parallel system computed with the SSM and with HEC-RAS are
3 149.9985 −0.0010 150.1931 0.1287 presented in Table 4. Three decimal places were used for accurate
4 149.9986 −0.0010 149.3536 −0.4309 comparison. The WSE profiles are presented in Figs. 7 and 8 for
5 149.9986 −0.0009 150.0371 0.0247 the upper and lower branch, respectively. The continuous line
6 149.9986 −0.0009 149.9648 −0.0235 represents the results obtained with SSM, whereas the dotted line
7 149.9987 −0.0009 150.4017 0.2678
indicates the results obtained with HEC-RAS. The WSE from both
8 149.9987 −0.0008 149.8308 −0.1128
9 149.9988 −0.0008 150.2739 0.1826
methods is very similar with differences of less than 2 mm. The
10 149.9988 −0.0008 149.9622 −0.0252 vertical axis has been exaggerated to appreciate the differences.
Total 1,499.9862 −0.0009 1500.1550 0.01033 Both models show a small increase in water depth when passing
from C1 to the Branch channel C2 (Fig. 7). The opposite occurs
4 1 24.9995 −0.0021 19.2507 −22.9974
2 24.9995 −0.0021 30.7133 22.8530
in the lower branch between Channel C1 and Channel C3 (Fig. 8).
3 24.9995 −0.0021 24.9748 −0.1006 This behavior is due to the difference in channel properties and
4 24.9995 −0.0021 24.9702 −0.1194 split flow along each branch. Both models satisfy the continu-
Total 99.9979 −0.0021 99.9089 −0.0911 ity equation at the junctions for the parallel channels without
3 1 49.9995 −0.0010 49.97023 −0.0595
structures.
2 49.9995 −0.0010 50.13506 0.2701 Fig. 9 shows very small relative errors in reach lengths (EL )
3 49.9995 −0.0009 49.96698 −0.0660 from both models. However, the SSM produces a lower percent
4 49.9995 −0.0009 49.88238 −0.2352 of error. The relative error for each computed reach length in
5 49.9996 −0.0009 49.96452 −0.0710 the system is given in Table 5 for the SSM and HEC-RAS results.
6 49.9996 −0.0008 49.96353 −0.0729 Negative and positive errors in Fig. 9 indicate underestimation and
7 49.9996 −0.0008 50.12923 0.2585 overestimation of reach lengths, respectively. The maximum per-
8 49.9996 −0.0008 49.96198 −0.0760 cent of error for reach length in both models (SSM and StdSM)
9 49.9996 −0.0008 50.12793 0.2559 occurred at the channels located upstream and downstream of the
10 49.9996 −0.0007 49.96091 −0.0782
junctions (Channels C1 and C4). For practical purposes, both mod-
Total 499.9956 −0.0009 500.0627 0.012549
els produced essentially the same results.

Fig. 10. Water surface elevation profile at the lower branch of the parallel channel system with a lateral weir.

© ASCE 04019007-9 J. Irrig. Drain. Eng.

J. Irrig. Drain Eng., 2019, 145(6): 04019007

 Table 6. Computed water surface elevation and water depth for each chan- Table 7. Computed water surface elevation and water depth for each chan-
nel of the parallel system with one lateral weir using the simultaneous nel of the parallel system with one lateral weir using the standard step
solution method method (HEC-RAS model)
Channel Section Distance (m) Depth (m) WSE (m) Channel Section Distance (m) Depth (m) WSE (m)
1 (Q ¼ 250.00 m3 =s) 1 0 5.000 105.000 1 (Q ¼ 250.00 m3 =s) 1 0 5.000 105.000
2 25 5.012 105.000 2 25 5.012 105.000
3 50 5.025 105.000 3 50 5.025 105.000
4 75 5.037 105.000 4 75 5.037 105.000
5 100 5.049 104.999 5 100 5.049 104.999
2 (Q ¼ 111.39 m3 =s) 1 0 5.070 105.020 2 (Q ¼ 111.43 m3 =s) 1 0 5.069 105.019
2 150 5.129 105.019 2 150 5.128 105.018
3 300 5.188 105.018 3 300 5.187 105.017
4 450 5.247 105.017 4 450 5.247 105.017
5 600 5.307 105.017 5 600 5.306 105.016
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Newcastle University on 04/02/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

6 750 5.366 105.016 6 750 5.365 105.015

7 900 5.425 105.015 7 900 5.425 105.015
8 1,050 5.485 105.015 8 1,050 5.484 105.014
9 1,200 5.544 105.014 9 1,200 5.543 105.013
10 1,350 5.604 105.014 10 1,350 5.603 105.013
11 1,500 5.663 105.013 11 1,500 5.662 105.012
4 (Q ¼ 229.21 m3 =s) 1 0 5.641 104.991 4 (Q ¼ 228.72 m3 =s) 1 0 5.639 104.989
2 25 5.653 104.990 2 25 5.649 104.989
3 50 5.665 104.990 3 50 5.664 104.989
4 75 5.677 104.990 4 75 5.676 104.989
5 100 5.690 104.990 5 100 5.688 104.988
3 (Q ¼ 138.61 m3 =s 1a 0 5.036 104.986 3 (Q ¼ 138.57 m3 =s 1a 0 5.035 104.985
or Q ¼ 117.82 m3 =s) 2a 50 5.096 104.986 or Q ¼ 117.29 m3 =s) 2a 50 5.095 104.985
3a 100 5.156 104.986 3a 100 5.155 104.985
4a 150 5.216 104.986 4a 150 5.215 104.985
5a 200 5.276 104.986 5a 200 5.275 104.985
6b 250 5.349 104.999 6b 250 5.348 104.998
7b 300 5.409 104.999 7b 300 5.408 104.998
8b 350 5.469 104.999 8b 350 5.468 104.998
9b 400 5.529 104.999 9b 400 5.528 104.998
10b 450 5.589 104.999 10b 450 5.588 104.998
11b 500 5.649 104.999 11b 500 5.648 104.998
a
Q ¼ 138.61 m3 =s. a
Q ¼ 138.57 m3 =s.
b
Q ¼ 117.82 m3 =s. b
Q ¼ 117.29 m3 =s.

Table 8. Comparison of lateral weir parameters computed using the SSM

Parallel Channels with Lateral Weirs and HEC-RAS model
Fig. 5 shows Lateral weir W3D located along Channel C3 in the Parameter SSM HEC-RAS Differencea (%)
lower branch of the parallel channel. Fig. 10 illustrates the profile
Cd (m1=2 =s) 1.783 1.788 0.26
obtained by both models in the lower branch of the parallel channel. H (m) 0.78 0.79 1.75
Both models present an increase in the water surface profile at Qw (m3 =s) 20.79 21.29 2.37
the weir location. This corresponds to a typical profile in subcrit-
Note: Cd = discharge coefficient for lateral weirs; H = head above the
ical flow characterized by tranquil flow in the main channel with
lateral weir; and Qw = discharge through the lateral weir.
flow depth increasing along the weir section (Frazer 1957; May a
Difference percent of both parameters was computed as the fraction of the
et al. 2003). absolute difference between the arithmetic average, multiplied by 100.
The WSEs at each channel section in the parallel system with
one lateral weir computed with the SSM and with HEC-RAS are
presented in Tables 6 and 7, respectively. Both models satisfy the The SSM produces excellent results with percent errors in the
continuity equation at the junctions. The discharge through the lat- order of 1=10,000 in most cases. Table 8 presents the discharge
eral weir computed with the SSM was 20.79 m3 =s, whereas the coefficient, head over the weir, and discharge through the weir
value computed by HEC-RAS was 21.28 m3 =s. The difference be- computed by both models. They show excellent agreement be-
tween the lateral weir discharges is 0.49 m3 =s, which is considered tween the SSM and HEC-RAS. The next example shows the
within the expected accuracy. capabilities of the SSM to solve channel networks with several
In this case, errors in distance from both models were small. The structures.
maximum relative error in reach length occurred at the first and last
channels, Channel C1 and C4, respectively. The relative error ob-
tained with HEC-RAS in Channel C1 was 0.044% and that in Channel Networks with Lateral Weirs
Channel C4 was 0.12%. The relative error obtained with SSM The next level of complexity consists of channel networks with
was −0.0016% in Channel C1 and −0.0018% in Channel C4. several parallel channels and hydraulic structures anywhere in

© ASCE 04019007-10 J. Irrig. Drain. Eng.

J. Irrig. Drain Eng., 2019, 145(6): 04019007

 Table 9. Computed water surface elevation and water depth for channel the system. The system in Fig. 6 has these characteristics. A new
network system using the simultaneous solution method channel splits the island into two parts and more lateral weirs were
Channel Section Distance (m) Q (m3 =s) Depth (m) WSE (m) added through the entire system. Tables 2 and 3 present the geom-
etry and roughness of each channel and the parameters of five lat-
1 1 0 250.00 5.000 104.870
2 50 250.00 5.004 104.869
eral weirs. Three weirs were designed and two were analyzed. The
3 100 212.50 5.020 104.880 results obtained with SSM are presented in Table 9. Fig. 11 shows
4 150 212.50 5.024 104.879 the WSE profile for the upper branch of the channel network, con-
5 200 212.50 5.029 104.879 taining two lateral weirs, W2D and W5A , where one was designed
and the other was analyzed. Water surface rise at the locations of
2 1 0 85.13 5.047 104.897
the lateral weirs was as expected for subcritical flow (Frazer 1957;
2 75 85.13 5.084 104.897
3 150 85.13 5.122 104.897 May et al. 2003). This behavior was observed in both WSE profiles
4 225 76.62 5.161 104.899 (lower branch not shown here). The WSE decreased at the junction
5 300 76.62 5.198 104.898 due to changes in the channel’s geometry and local energy losses.
The continuity equation was satisfied at all channel junctions.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Newcastle University on 04/02/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

3 1 0 127.37 5.044 104.894 Table 10 presents the computed reach length using the DSM
2 50 127.37 5.069 104.894
with the SSM results and the percent error per reach length. Similar
3 100 127.37 5.094 104.894
4 150 127.37 5.119 104.894 to the parallel channel system examples, the channels with the
5 200 127.37 5.144 104.894 highest percent error in reach length are those located before and
after the upstream and downstream parallel channel junctions
4 1 0 15.85 5.157 104.907 (Channels C1 and C7). In addition, the SSM underestimates the
2 62.5 15.85 5.169 104.907
computed reach length using the DSM. The maximum percent error
3 125 15.85 5.182 104.907
4 187.5 15.85 5.194 104.907
for the computed reach length was 0.07% at the channel after the
5 250 15.85 5.207 104.907 downstream parallel junction (Channel C7) and the minimum per-
cent error of 0.0001% occurred at the channel that crosses the upper
5 1 0 92.47 5.186 104.886 and lower branch of the parallel channels (Channel C4).
2 50 92.47 5.211 104.886
3 100 79.57 5.241 104.891
4 150 79.57 5.266 104.891
5 200 79.57 5.290 104.890 Conclusions
6 1 0 111.51 5.143 104.893 A new algorithm using the SSM was developed. A robust
2 75 111.51 5.180 104.892 BiCGSTAB linear system solver incorporated into the Newton
3 150 111.51 5.217 104.892 Raphson method allowed for the efficient simultaneous solution
4 225 99.25 5.257 104.894
of many equations contained in sparse matrices. This property al-
5 300 99.25 5.294 104.894
lowed the extension of the SSM capabilities for the solution of large
7 1 0 178.81 5.228 104.828 channel systems with hydraulic structures.
2 50 178.81 5.230 104.825 The SSM proved to be accurate and efficient for determining
3 100 157.74 5.250 104.840 water depths, flow velocities, and diverted lateral flow through
4 150 157.74 5.253 104.838 weirs. The model results were compared with results from HEC-
5 200 157.74 5.256 104.836
RAS for parallel channels with and without lateral structures.

Fig. 11. Water surface elevation profile at the upper branch of the channel network system with lateral weir using the simultaneous solution method.

© ASCE 04019007-11 J. Irrig. Drain. Eng.

J. Irrig. Drain Eng., 2019, 145(6): 04019007

 Table 10. Percent error for reach length of each channel for the case assistantships during the project duration. The authors would also
study of the channel network system using the simultaneous solution like to thank Dr. Jorge Gustavo-Gutiérrez and Mr. Michael Chavez
method for their support and advice on numerical solution techniques. This
Channel Reach Lcomp (m) EL (%) material is based upon work supported by the National Science
1 1 49.9938 −0.0124 Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship Program under Grant
2 49.9949 −0.0103 No. 1452778. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recom-
3 49.9959 −0.0083 mendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s)
4 49.9959 −0.0082 and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science
Total 199.9804 −0.0098 Foundation.
2 1 74.9996 −0.0005
2 74.9996 −0.0005
3 74.9997 −0.0004 Notation
4 74.9997 −0.0004
Total 299.9987 −0.0004 The following symbols are used in this paper:
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Newcastle University on 04/02/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

3 1 49.9997 −0.0007 A = cross-sectional flow area;

2 49.9997 −0.0007 A = Jacobian matrix;
3 49.9997 −0.0007 C0 = base discharge coefficient;
4 49.9997 −0.0007 Cd = discharge coefficient for lateral weirs;
Total 199.9987 −0.0007
Co = dimensional coefficient of Manning’s equation;
4 1 62.5000 −0.0001 D = percent difference between discharge flow through the
2 62.5000 −0.0001 lateral weir or through the main channel;
3 62.5000 −0.0001
4 62.5000 −0.0001
EL = percent of error for the reach length of each channel;
Total 249.9999 −0.0001 F = vector of energy and continuity equation;
g = acceleration due to gravity;
5 1 49.9994 −0.0012
2 49.9995 −0.0011 H = head above the lateral weir;
3 49.9995 −0.0010 Ht = height of the energy grade line above the weir;
4 49.9995 −0.0010 i = subscript that refers to the number of the channel;
Total 199.9979 −0.0011 j = subscript that refers to the section number of the
6 1 74.9994 −0.0008 channel i;
2 74.9994 −0.0008 jn1 = subscript that refers to the upstream junction;
3 74.9994 −0.0008 jn2 = subscript that refers to the downstream junction;
4 74.9995 −0.0007 k = subscript that refers to the equation number on the
Total 299.9977 −0.0008
matrix system;
7 1 49.9561 −0.0877 Lcomp = computed reach length using the direct step method;
2 49.9619 −0.0761 Lgiven = reach length given to both methods (simultaneous
3 49.9668 −0.0664 solution method and standard step method);
4 49.9669 −0.0662
Total 199.8518 −0.0741 Lw = length of the lateral weir;
N = reach between two successive channel sections;
Note: EL = percent of error for the reach length of each channel; and
n = Manning’s roughness coefficient;
Lcomp = computed reach length using the direct step method.
Pw = height of the lateral weir crest;
Q = rate of discharge;
Qin = discharge that enters the parallel junction;
Both models produced small percent errors for the reach lengths
when compared with DSM. The SSM consistently produced very Qnet = net discharge in the parallel junction for mass
similar results to HEC-RAS, including lateral weir discharges, conservation;
coefficient of discharge, and water head over the weir. Qout = discharge that exits the parallel junction;
The SSM has capabilities for design and/or analysis of several QSSM = computed discharge flow through the lateral weir or
lateral structures at any location inside a network and solves for all through the main channel using the simultaneous
the unknowns simultaneously. Changes in the system configuration solution method;
can be tested with small modifications in the input data providing QStdSM = computed discharge flow through the lateral weir or
quick results. With the new capabilities, the SSM was expanded through the main channel using the standard step
to solve practical irrigation engineering problems. It also has the method;
potential for a wide range of applications including series, parallel, Qu = specified discharge at the upstream end channel i;
branched channels, channel networks with lateral structures, and Qw = flow through the lateral weir;
braided rivers. R = hydraulic radius;
S0 = channel bottom slope;
T = top width of flow area;
Acknowledgments
x = horizontal distance;
The authors acknowledge the support of the Puerto Rico Water Y w = average flow depth between the upstream and
Resources and Environmental Research Institute by providing downstream section of the lateral weir;
computers to support this research, as well as the support of the y = flow depth;
Caribbean Coastal Ocean Observing System for granting research yu = specified flow depth at the upstream end channel i;

© ASCE 04019007-12 J. Irrig. Drain. Eng.

J. Irrig. Drain Eng., 2019, 145(6): 04019007

 z = elevation of the channel bottom above a specified
datum;
α = velocity-head coefficient;
β = main channel contraction angle;
Δ = vector of flow depth and discharge corrections; and
ϗ = head-loss coefficient.
References
Babaoğlu, B. 2003. “Application of biconjugate gradient stabilized method
with spectral acceleration for propagation over terrain profiles.” M.S.
thesis, Dept. of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, Bilkent Univ.
Brunner, G. W. 2016. HEC-RAS river analysis system hydraulic reference
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Newcastle University on 04/02/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
manual, Ver. 5.0. Davis, CA: USACE Hydrologic Engineering Center.
Burden, R. L., and J. D. Faires. 2005. Numerical analysis. 8th ed. Pacific
Grove, CA: Thomson Brooks/Cole.
Chaudhry, H. M. 2008. “Computation of gradually varied flow.” In
Open-channel flow, 150–197. 2nd ed. New York: Springer.
Chaudhry, M. H., and A. M. Schulte. 1986. “Computation of steady-state,
gradually varied flow in parallel channels.” Can. J. Civ. Eng. 13 (1):
39–45. https://doi.org/10.1139/l86-006.
Chaudhry, M. H., and A. M. Schulte. 1987. “Gradually-varied flows in
open-channel network.” J. Hydraul. Res. 25 (3): 357–371. https://doi
.org/10.1080/00221688709499276.
Frazer, W. 1957. “The behaviour of side weirs in prismatic rectangular
channels.” Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. 6 (2): 305–328.
Gerald, C. F., and P. O. Wheatley. 1992. “Solving sets of equations.”
In Applied numerical analysis. 4th ed. New York: Addison-Wesley.
Hager, W. H. 1987. “Lateral outflow over side weirs.” J. Hydraul. Eng.
113 (4): 491–504.
Hoffman, J. D. 2001. “Systems of linear algebraic equations.” In Numerical
methods for engineers and scientists. 2nd ed. New York: Marcel
Dekker.
Holzmann, W. 2015. “Ill-conditioned matrices.” Accessed April 2, 2018.
http://www.cs.uleth.ca/∼holzmann/notes/illconditioned.pdf.
Islam, A., N. S. Raghuwanshi, and R. Singh. 2008. “Development and ap-
plication of hydraulic simulation model for irrigation canal networks.”
J. Irrig. Drain. Eng. 134 (1): 49–59. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)
0733-943(2008)134:1(49).
Islam, A., N. S. Raghuwanshi, R. Singh, and D. J. Sen. 2005. “Comparison
of gradually varied flow computation algorithms for open-channel net-
work.” J. Irrig. Drain. Eng. 131 (5): 457–465. https://doi.org/10.1061
/(ASCE)0733-9437(2005)131:5(457).
© ASCE 04019007-13
J. Irrig. Drain Eng., 2019, 145(6): 04019007
Jensen, M. R., S. S. Piper, and G. W. Brunner. 2000. “Lateral weir and split
flow optimization with the Hydrologic Engineering Center’s river
analysis system (HEC-RAS).” In Proc., Joint Conf. on Water Resources
Engineering and Water Resources Planning and Management, 1–7.
Reston, VA: ASCE.
May, R. W. P., B. C. Bromwich, Y. Gasowski, and C. E. Rickard. 2003.
“Design considerations.” In Hydraulic design of side weirs, 15–23.
1st ed. London: Thomas Telford.
Michael, A. M. 2008. “Utilization of water resources and irrigation devel-
opment.” In Irrigation: Theory and principles. 2nd ed. Jangpura, India:
Vikas.
Moler, C. 2004. “The origins of MATLAB.” Accessed October 26, 2017.
https://www.mathworks.com/company/newsletters/articles/the-origins
-of-matlab.html.
Naidu, B. J., S. M. Bhallamudi, and S. Narasimhan. 1997. “GVF com-
putation in tree-type channel networks.” J. Hydraul. Eng. 123 (8):
700–708. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9429(1997)123:8(700).
Reddy, H. P., and S. M. Bhallamudi. 2004. “Gradually varied flow com-
putations in cyclic looped channel networks.” J. Irrig. Drain. Eng.
130 (5): 424–431. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9437(2004)
130:5(424).
Saad, Y. 2003. “Krylov subspace methods part II.” In Iterative methods
for sparse linear system, 229–258. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Society for
Industrial and Applied Mathematics.
Sen, D. J., and N. K. Garg. 2002. “Efficient algorithm for gradually varied
flows in channel networks.” J. Irrig. Drain. Eng. 128 (6): 351–357.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9437(2002)128:6(351).
Silva-Araya, W. F., and V. M. Vargas. 2014. “Computer design of lateral
weirs system for irrigation on vegetative strips.” In Proc., World Conf.
on Computers in Agriculture and Natural Resources. San Jose, CA:
Univ. of Costa Rica.
United Nations Sustainable Development. 1992. “Agenda 21.” In Proc.,
United Nations Conf. on Environmental and Development. Rio de
Janeiro, Brazil: United Nations.
US Bureau of Reclamation. 2001. “Weirs.” In Water measurement manual,
7.1–7.30. 3rd ed. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.
Yuvashankar, V., M. S. Nejad, and A. Lui. 2016. “Understanding the
bi-conjugate gradient stabilized method (Bi-CGSTAB).” Accessed
September 10, 2017. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/55ade
5ebe4b0d3eba632821b/t/576ebb166a4963e8802f5d67/1466874648553
/Yuvashankar_Nejad_Liu.pdf.
Zhu, D., Y. Chen, Z. Wang, and Z. Liu. 2011. “Simple, robust, and efficient
algorithm for gradually varied subcritical flow simulation in general
channel networks.” J. Hydraul. Eng. 137 (7): 766–774. https://doi.org
/10.1061/(ASCE)HY.1943-7900.0000356.
J. Irrig. Drain. Eng.