International Journal of River Basin Management

ISSN: 1571-5124 (Print) 1814-2060 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/trbm20

Manning's roughness coefficient for ecological

subsurface channel with modules

Reza Mohammadpour, Muhammad Kashfy Zainalfikry, Nor Azazi Zakaria,

Aminuddin Ab. Ghani & Ngai Weng Chan

To cite this article: Reza Mohammadpour, Muhammad Kashfy Zainalfikry, Nor Azazi Zakaria,
Aminuddin Ab. Ghani & Ngai Weng Chan (2019): Manning's roughness coefficient for ecological
subsurface channel with modules, International Journal of River Basin Management, DOI:
10.1080/15715124.2019.1672704

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/15715124.2019.1672704

Accepted author version posted online: 24

Sep 2019.
Published online: 06 Oct 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 83

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=trbm20
INTL. J. RIVER BASIN MANAGEMENT
https://doi.org/10.1080/15715124.2019.1672704

Manning’s roughness coefficient for ecological subsurface channel with modules

a,b
Reza Mohammadpour , Muhammad Kashfy Zainalfikryc, Nor Azazi Zakariac, Aminuddin Ab. Ghani c
and
Ngai Weng Chand
a
Teaching fellow at School of Civil Engineering, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang, Malaysia; bDepartment of Civil Engineering, Islamic Azad
University, Estahban, Iran; cRiver Engineering and Urban Drainage Research Centre (REDAC), Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang, Malaysia; dSchool of
Humanities, Universiti Sains Malaysia Penang, Malaysia

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

The ecological subsurface module is the main part of the environmental system to manage storm Received 1 June 2019
water, pollution and runoff in urban areas. The novelty of this research is to consider total porosity Accepted 18 August 2019
(Pt ) and the number of modules (mt ) for estimation of Manning’s roughness in the modular
KEYWORDS
channel. To consider the effect of blocks and backwater at the end of the channel, the Ecological subsurface
experimental test was carried out in two conditions of Gate Fully Open (GFO) and Gate Partially module; Manning’s
Open (GPO). The results indicate that the hydraulic performance of the modular channel is very roughness; hydraulic
similar to vegetated channel and Manning’s n in the GFO (0.011–0.068) is lower than those in the performance; porosity;
GPO conditions (0.025–0.20). The three-single modular is able to reduce flow discharge in the modules
range of 13.68% to 17.44%. A sensitivity analysis indicated that of the Manning roughness was
greatly affected by the four studied parameters in the following order, Fr (Froude number) > S
(slope) > Pt > mt > depth ratio(y/B). Finally, two equations with high accuracy were developed to
predict Manning’s n in both conditions of GFO and GPO.

1. Introduction
The ecological subsurface module is applied to different
environmental systems to manage stormwater, pollution,
and runoff in urban areas. During the stormwater runoff,
the particulate pollutant is absorbed by vegetation and por-
ous media at the top of the module. Afterward, the module
conveys the flow into downstream, and at the same time,
the flow penetrates into surrounded gravels and feeds the
groundwater. The application of subsurface module in
urban areas plays a major role in controlling the pollution
urban runoffs (Ayub et al. 2005) leading to better environ-
mental sustainability (Chan et al. 2019). In the subsurface
module, the drainage cells trap water at the source where
it can be retained in the drainage module. By collecting
contaminated runoff at the source, the flow discharge is
decreased from upstream to downstream resulting in pollu-
tants and toxic chemicals not discharged into the environ-
ment (Zakaria et al. 2003). The subsurface modules were
recommended by the River Engineering and Urban Drai-
nage Research Center (REDAC) as the main part of Bio-
Ecological Drainage Systems (BIOECODS) and sustainable
urban drainage system to manage both water quantity
and quality in urban and industrial areas (Zakaria et al.
2003, Ab. Ghani et al. 2004, Kee et al. 2011, Chan et al.
2019). A typical ecological swale with subsurface modules
used in Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM) is shown in Figure
1a. Muhammad et al. (2018) reported that three types of
subsurface modules have been used in ecological swales
based on the number of subsurface modules. Types A, B,
and C include one, two and three single sub-surface mod-
ule, respectively (Figure 1b).
In ecological swale, estimation of the roughness coefficient
is a complex problem due to the effect of the subsurface mod-
ule on the three-dimensional flow. The ecological swale grass
consists of a channel with grass, subsurface modules, and per-
meable geotextile materials. Grassed swales are low-cost
stormwater best management practices (BMPs) which were
extensively employed to improve the groundwater recharge,
remove runoff pollutants as well as to decrease the peak
flow of surface runoff (Lai et al. 2009). Kee et al. (2011)
reported that the subsurface module roughness is the main
parameter used to design ecological swales which affect
both flow attenuation and purification. Zakaria et al. (2003)
showed that attenuation of runoff flow in modular channel
promotes pollutant removal. The Manning’s roughness
coefficient (n) is recommended as a fundamental parameter
to estimate roughness in different channels (Ab. Ghani
et al. 2007, Pradhan and Khatua 2018b). Recently, several
studies have been conducted to determine the flow resistance
and Manning’s n at the channel with submerged and unsub-
merged vegetation (Kubrak et al., 2008, Chen et al. 2009,
Wynn-Thompson and Hall, 2012, Conesa-García et al.
2018). Furthermore, the soft computing technique has been
used as a robust method to predict Manning’s n in grassed
channel, high Gradient Streams channel and other environ-
mental problems (Lyra et al. 2010; Azamathulla and Jarrett,
2013, Huai et al. 2013, Mohammadpour et al. 2015, 2016a,
b, 2017, 2018, Ghani and Mohammadpour 2016; Moham-
madpour 2017). In the vegetated channel, Manning’s coeffi-
cient is known as the retardance coefficient and the plant’s
height is recognized as a significant parameter to estimate
roughness (Chow 1959, Mahbub and Suzuki 1988). Garcia
Diaz (2005) found a strong correlation between Manning’s
n and Froude number in the vegetated channel. He reported
that the power relationship between the two mentioned par-
ameters can be applied in both small depths and steep slope
conditions. Bakry (1992) reported a relationship between
Manning’s n with velocity and hydraulic radius in a

CONTACT Reza Mohammadpour reza564@gmail.com

© 2019 International Association for Hydro-Environment Engineering and Research
2 R. MOHAMMADPOUR ET AL.
Figure 1. Three types of ecological subsurface modular (Zakaria et al. 2003).
submerged weed channel. In summary, Manning’s n was
observed to decrease with the increase in Froude number, vel-
ocity, and hydraulic radius. Chen et al. (2009) estimated the
Manning’s coefficient at the irrigation channel with consider-
ation of the shape of the channel. They showed that the Man-
ning coefficient in a convex channel is bigger than those at the
concave channel. Wynn-Thompson and Hall (2012) devel-
oped an empirical equation to estimate the effect of clumping
vegetation on the flow resistance in herbaceous emergent wet-
lands. Muhammad et al. (2018) employed gene expression
programming (GEP) and artificial neural network (ANN)
for prediction of the Manning coefficient at grassed swale.
They indicated that both ANN and GEP methods provide a
better prediction in comparison to the regression model.
Pradhan and Khatua (2018a) used GEP to estimate Man-
ning’s n in meandering channels. The results indicated that
GEP predicts discharge and channel roughness with much
higher accuracy than the traditional models.
Some studies have been undertaken on the channel with
the module but very few studies are available in the litera-
ture for determining the effect of the module on Manning’s
coefficient (Muhammad et al. 2018). Mohd Sidek et al.
(2002) investigated the flow pattern in a modular channel
using several experimental tests. They reported that module
changes the distribution of velocity in the channels and the
average, maximum and minimum velocities beside the mod-
ules are higher than those inside the modules. They con-
cluded that the subsurface module effectively increases the
dissolved oxygen with respect to time, distance and velocity.
Lai et al. (2010) investigated the performance of subsurface
module in managing urban stormwater runoffs. Their
results showed that the module reduces the flood peak but
increases groundwater recharge. Kee et al. (2011) developed
several equations to predict Manning coefficient in subsur-
face one single modular channel using Genetic Program-
ming (GP) and the regression method. They deduced that
the accuracy of GP is higher than regression in the predic-
tion of Manning’s n. Muhammad et al. (2018) experimen-
tally investigated the effect of the module on upstream
and downstream of the flow. They reported that in a chan-
nel with a slope in the range of 0.001–0.002 and discharge
0.001–0.05 m3/s, the Manning’s n is between 0.01–0.2.
They also concluded that the modules are able to reduce
average discharge by 30% - 38%, indicating that in the mod-
ular channel the flow attenuation occurred from upstream
to downstream.
In previous studies, only the parameters related to channel
geometry and the flow have been employed to estimate Man-
ning coefficient in the subsurface modular channels such as
the hydraulic radius, channel width, flow depth, and channel

slope. It should be noted that subsurface modular channel
porosity and density (or number) of modules are two par-
ameters which directly affect the channel roughness. There-
fore, in addition to the above parameters, the module
parameters such as porosity and the number of the modules
are significant parameters for estimating the Manning
coefficient. Moreover, Muhammad et al. (2018) reported
that most previous studies concentrated on the one-single
modular channel and there is a gap in the study on the
three-single modular channel. More importantly, the novelty
of this research is to estimate Manning’s n and hydraulic
performance of the module in the three-single modular
channels.
The main objective of this research is to develop an
approach for the prediction of the Manning coefficient in
the three-single modular channel with consideration of the
module parameters such as porosity and number of the mod-
ule. The hydraulic performance of modules was investigated
in terms of the flow depth, Froude number, and velocity dis-
tribution. An extensive dataset was collected from the present
experimental test and previous studies. To investigate the
effect of backwater at the end of the modular channel, all
datasets were collected in two conditions of the Gate Fully
Open (GFO) and the Gate Partially Open (GPO). The GFO
was selected for free flow without gate and GPO for flow
with gate and backwater effect. A sensitivity analysis was con-
ducted to find the significant parameters on the Manning
coefficient. Finally, two equations were developed to predict
Manning’s n in the modular channel with GFO and GPO
conditions.
2. Calculation of Manning’s n and dimensional
analysis
Previously, the equation of Chezy was suggested as a famous
relation to estimate velocity in open-channel, with the
equation written as:
V = CR1/2 S1/2 , (1)
where V = velocity, C = Chezy resistance coefficient, S =
hydraulic slope and R = hydraulic radius. Furthermore, both
Manning and Darcy Weisbach equations were developed
based on the Chezy equation and extensively used in different
fields of hydraulic engineering which can be respectively
expressed as:
1 1
C = R1/6 ⇒ V = R2/3 S1/2 , (2)
n n







8g 8g 1/2 1/2
C= ⇒ V= R S , (3)
f f
where n = Manning coefficient, f = Darcy–Weisbach rough-
ness coefficient and g = gravity acceleration. Yen (1992) stated
that Manning’s equation can be rewritten as the following
equation with a comparison between Eq. (2) and Eq. (3):


√

√


f 1/6 n g g 2/3 1/2
R = = ng ⇒ V = R S , (4)
8 Kn ng
where ng = modified Manning’s coefficient with a dimension
of L1/6 and Kn is 1 and 1.486 for SI and English unit, respect-
√


ively. It can be concluded that in metric system ng = n g .
Rouse (1965) indicated that in an open channel, the
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RIVER BASIN MANAGEMENT 3
retardance coefficient is a function of the following par-
ameters:
f = function(Fr, Re, U, K, N, j), (5)
√



where f = friction factor, Fr = the Froude number (V/ gy);
Re = Reynold’s number (VL/n); U = degree of unsteady
flow; K = relative roughness, that is the ratio of water depth
and roughness height; N = the parameter for channel non-
uniformity in both plan and profile; and j = the parameter
for the shape of cross-sectional geometric. By comparing
Eq. (4) and (5), the following equation can be concluded:
ng
= function(Fr, Re, U, K, N, j). (6)
R1/6
The parameters of N and j can be ignored for the straight
regular channel (Chen et al. 2009). Moreover, for practical
purposes when the flow is fully developed, the parameter of
Re can also be ignored (Mohammadpour et al., 2016, 2017).
Muhammad et al. (2018) and Chen et al. (2009) stated that
for practical purpose in steady flow conditions, the parameter
of the degree of unsteady flow (U ) can be replaced with both
channel slope (S) and the ratio of flow depth (y/B). Therefore,
for a straight rectangular channel under steady flow con-
dition, Eq. (6) may be expressed as:
ng  y 
= function Fr, S, ,K . (7)
R1/6 B
In this study, the roughness of the module is defined based on
two module parameters, total module porosity (Pt) and a total
number of module per meter (mt). Therefore, the relative
roughness (K ) depends on these two mentioned parameters
and Eq. (7) can be express as:
ng  y 
= function Fr, S, , Pt , m t . (8)
R1/6 B
3. Materials and methods
In this research, both original laboratories derived data and
previous data have been used to investigate the hydraulic per-
formance and roughness of modular in the channel.
3.1. Experimental setup
All experiments have been conducted in a rectangular straight
flume with perspex walls and floor measuring 20.0 m long,
1.5 m wide and 1.0 m deep. The flume is located at
REDAC, in Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM). A new tank
module suggested by REDAC with a dimension of
400 mm × 435 mm × 710 mm and thickness of 17.5 mm
was selected to be installed in the flume (Figure 2). The orig-
inal module was produced by RainSmart (2016). The vertical
part (400 mm × 435 mm), hydraulically acting as the flow
resistance, of the original module by RainSmart was modified
and replaced with a Bunga Cengkih design to obtain Man-
ning’s n representative of the grassed channel with Manning’s
n between 0.022 and 0.050 (Julien 2018). With the Bunga
Cengkih design, the swale would act as a single channel
with Manning’s n of typical grass channel (Julien 2018).
As shown in Figure 3, three single-modules were installed
systematically in the experimental flume in order to investi-
gate the hydraulic characteristics of the modular channel.
4 R. MOHAMMADPOUR ET AL.

S and Manning’s n. From Manning’s formula, the average

discharge at open channel can be estimated by:
1 2/3 1/2
Q= R S A1 , (9)
n1 1
1 2/3 1/2
Q= R S A2 , (10)
n2 2
where subscripts 1 and 2 denote the inflow and outflow
respectively. The Manning’s n was calculated from the follow-
ing equation:

R2/3 A √

n=S, (11)
Q
√








√









where R = R1 × R2 and A = A1 × A2 .
Figure 2. Single REDAC module with Bunga Cengkih vertical part.

This arrangement is similar to the Type C of the ecological

swale in BIOECODS (Figure 1).
Figure 4 shows the schematic diagram of the experimental
flume. The modules were located at x = 6.25 m until x =
9.80 m. A stainless steel gate attached at the downstream
end of the flume was used to control the flow depth. As
shown in Figure 3b, to improve the attenuation of runoff in
the modular channel, the stones and blocks are installed at
the channel outlet in which they are a reason for backwater
and delay in discharge. Therefore, to consider the effect of
blocks and backwater, the laboratory tests were conducted
in two conditions, with and without gate at the flume outlet.
The first condition namely, the GFO was selected for free flow
without the gate and the second GPO for flow with gate and
to consider the effect of backwater. An Acoustic Doppler
Velocimeter or ADV, (SonTek 16 MHz MicroADV Model)
was used to measure the velocity for both GFO and GPO con-
ditions with the precision of 0.001 m/s.
The experiments were conducted in three-bed slopes of 1/
1000 (0.001), 1/750 (0.0013) and 1/500 (0.002) comprising
various discharges. Three observation stations were chosen
at the modular flume with five points at each station to
measure the velocity. At each point, the measurements of vel-
ocity were taken at 0.8y, 0.4y and 0.2y from the water surface,
where y is flow depth.
The slope-area method recommended by Chang et al.
(2010) was used for calculation of Manning’s n. This method
is based on uniform flow equation involving channel charac-
teristics such as reach length L, inflow, and outflow area
(A1 , A2 ), flow discharge Q, hydraulic radius (R1 , R2 ), slope
3.2. Calculation of single module porosity
As shown in Figure 2, the single REDAC module is similar to
a box, while the shape of the screens is different. In the pre-
sent study, two different shapes were used for the construc-
tion of the module. Table 1 shows the shape and porosity
of screens around the bottom, middle and front of the single
REDAC module. It should be mentioned that two extra
screens were used in the middle of a module similar to BIOE-
CODS ecological swale which improved the flow attenuation.
As mentioned in the last section, the module porosity is the
main parameter affecting modular channel roughness. The
following equation was used to calculate the porosity of
screens at each side of a single- module:
Vv
P= , (12)
Vt
where Vv = volume of void and Vt = total volume.
As shown in Table 1, the porosity of the back, middle and
front screens is 0.85 and the other sides are 0.75. To estimate
the total porosity of a single module, the following equation is
recommended:

Pi mi
Pt = , (13)
m
where Pt is total module porosity, Pi is screen porosity, mi is
number module per meter for screens with the same porosity
and m is a total number of screens per meter. In the present
study, the total module porosity is 0.79.

Figure 3. (a) Three single-modules arrangement in flume test section and (b) BIOECODS ecological swale type C at USM.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RIVER BASIN MANAGEMENT 5

Figure 4. Sectional drawing of experimental channel.

3.3. Data collection Table 2 shows the shape and porosity of modules used by
Kee et al. (2011) and Muhammad et al. (2018). A summary of
In addition to the present experimental test, two previous
data and total module porosity (Pt) is shown in Table 3.
studies, Kee et al. (2011) and Muhammad et al. (2018),
In this study, the three statistical parameters, namely the
were selected to collect more data. Kee et al. (2011) conducted
coefficient of correlation (R2 ), Mean Absolute Error (MAE)
all the experiments in the GFO conditions at REDAC’s flume
and Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) were used to evaluate
with a dimension of 6.0, 0.6 and 0.6 m for length, width, and
and compare the results, the expressions for these measures
depth, respectively. Figure 5 shows the modular screen and
are given in the following equations:
flume used by them. A length of 3.43 m in the middle of
p
the channel was selected and covered by the module. They (Oi − ti )2
have employed only vertical intermediate module with differ- R = 1 − pi=1
2
2 (14)
i=1 (Oi − Oi )
ent spaces such as 14.88, 20.43 and 31.55 cm in the middle of
the flume. 
















p

i=1 (Oi − ti )
2
Muhammad et al. (2018) conducted all their experiments RMSE = , (15)
in the flume of Figure 4. A length of 5.0 meter was covered by nd
modules in three rows (three single-modules) as shown in
1 p
Figure 6. The results in GFO conditions were used in this MAE = |Oi − ti |, (16)
nd i=1
study.
where Oi = observed value, ti = predicted value and Oi = aver-
age of the observed values and nd = number of samples.
Table 1. Shape and porosity of module in the present study.
Screens at front, middle and
Item back Screens at round, bottom and top 4. Results and discussions
Shape As described in the last section, the present experimental test
on the modular channel was conducted in two conditions.
The GFO presents the flume without the gate and the GPO
was used for the channel with the gate to determine the
effect of the backwater. A total of 98 experimental runs
were carried out on various slopes and discharges to investi-
Porosity P1 = 0.85 P2 = 0.75
gate the performance of REDAC modular channel (Figure 3).

Figure 5. (a) Modular screen (b) modular flume used by Kee et al. (2011).
6 R. MOHAMMADPOUR ET AL.

Figure 6. (a) RainSmart single modular tank and (b) modular flume used by Muhammad et al. (2018).

Table 2. Shape and porosity of module in the previous study.

Item Front, middle and back screen Sides, bottom and top screen
Kee et al. (2011) Shape Without module

Porosity P1 = 0.82 P2 = no value

Muhammad et al. (2018) Shape

Porosity P1 = 0.75 P2 = 0.75

Out of 98 experimental sets, of which 45 and 27 sets are in the
GPO and GFO modular channel, respectively and 27 sets are
in the GFO conditions without a module in the channel.
Table 4 shows a summary of experiments with and without
module in the flume. In general, REDAC modular channel
under the GFO condition gives n values in the range of
0.018–0.036 while for GPO condition the range was between
0.025–0.20. A new range can be obtained by adding the pre-
vious study to the GFO condition. As shown in Table 3, a
range of 0.012–0.02 and 0.011–0.068 was reported by Kee
et al. (2011) and Muhammad et al. (2018), respectively.
Clearly, GFO condition gives lower Manning’s n values
(0.011–0.068) compared to GPO condition (0.025–0.20).
Figure 7 shows the velocity distribution around the middle
of the modular channel for GPO and GFO conditions. For
both conditions, the channel slope is 0.001 and roughly
with the same discharge. The range of velocity in GPO and
GFO modular channel is 9–24 cm/s and 14–52 cm/s, respect-
ively. The results indicated that, due to the effect of back-
water, the velocity at GPO conditions is lower than those at
the GFO modular channel. The gate at the end of the flume
increases the flow depth at downstream of GPO modular
channel (Figure 8) and as a result, the velocity is decreased
in this region. The maximum velocity appears at the upper
centre of the modular channel. Due to the effect of modules,
the velocity is minimum near to wall and bed which reduce
the possibility of erosion at these regions. Figure 8 shows
the water-free surface for both GFO and GPO conditions in
a modular channel with the same slope. The results indicate
that in GPO conditions, the flow depth at downstream is

Table 3. Range of data collected from previous study.

Modular channel Modular channel Submerged plant Emerged plant
Flow and module Parameters Kee et al. (2011) Muhammad et al. (2018) Chen et al. (2009) Chen et al. (2009)
Flow rate, Q (m3/s) 0.0025–0.0216 0.005–0.061 0.002–0.040 0.003–0.026
Velocity, V (m/s) 0.141–0.511 0.08–0.47 0.024–0.370 0.043–0.239
Flow depth, Y (m) 0.03–0.097 0.04–0.08 0.14–0.27 0.17–0.27
Hydraulic radius, R (m) 0.027–0.073 0.011–0.073 0.082–0.115 0.093–0.114
Channel slope, S 0.001–0.002 0.001–0.002 Not Given Not Given
Reynolds number, Re 17,853–136,368 3418–31,951 Not Given Not Given
Manning’s coefficient, n 0.012–0.03 0.027–0.121 0.050–0.706 0.067–0.261
Total module porosity (Pt) 0.82 0.75 Not Given Not Given
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RIVER BASIN MANAGEMENT 7

Table 4. Summary of flow parameters in the present study.

Depth Velocity Discharge Manning’s n
Case Slope y (m) V (m/s) Q (m3/s) Range Mean
Without module GFO 0.001 0.05–0.1 0.19–0.44 0.015–0.066 0.0142–0.0211 0.0170
0.0013 0.05–0.11 0.23–0.47 0.017–0.074 0.0147–0.0208 0.0176
0.002 0.05–0.11 0.29–0.61 0.023–0.096 0.0147–0.0215 0.0172

Modular channel GFO 0.001 0.07–0.17 0.21–0.39 0.020–0.076 0.0182–0.0261 0.0217

0.0013 0.06–0.17 0.21–0.40 0.021–0.082 0.0181–0.0302 0.0244
0.002 0.07–0.17 0.22–0.41 0.023–0.085 0.0202–0.036 0.0281

GPO 0.001 0.08–0.4 0.07–0.22 0.022–0.041 0.025–0.1711 0.0785

0.0013 0.1–0.39 0.08–0.23 0.024–0.042 0.0311–0.1701 0.0879
0.002 0.1–0.42 0.08–0.23 0.024–0.042 0.0387–0.236 0.1093

Figure 7. Velocity distribution in modular channel (a) Q = 0.035 m3/s, S = 0.001 in GFO condition and (b) Q = 0.036 m3/s, S = 0.001 in GPO condition.

higher than those at upstream of the channel. It can be con-
cluded that the most impact of backwater occurs on the flow
downstream. A similar result was observed for the slope of
0.0013 and 0.002 with different discharge.
4.1. Velocity and -Manning’s n (V-n) relationship
In the present study, in order to understand the effect of mod-
ules in the channel, the flow parameters such as velocity (V ),
flow depth ratio (y/B), and Froude number(Fr) in down-
stream of modules were presented in terms of Manning’s n
(Table 5). Figure 9 indicates the variation of flow velocity in
terms of Manning’s n in the channel with and without mod-
ular. The experimental data in the present study are com-
pared to the data of Kee et al. (2011) and Muhammad et al.
(2018). The results showed that the velocity non-linearly
decreases with increasing Manning coefficient. A similar
trend was observed by Chang et al. (2010), Fathi-Moghadam
and Drikvandi (2012) and Conesa-García et al. (2018).
The results indicate that in the channel without module
(WM), the velocity and Manning’s n (V-n) appear to vary lin-
early for collected data with the equation of n = −0.017 V +

Table 5. Suggested equations for modular channel.

Relation between Case Equation R2
Velocity and n WM n = −0.017 V + 0.023 R = 0.65
2

GFO n = 0.0073 V−0.93 R 2 = 0.68

GPO n = 0.0027 V−1.68 R 2 = 0.91
Fr and n WM n = 0.0078 Fr −0.993 R 2 = 0.95
GFO n = 0.0078 Fr −0.993 R 2 = 0.95
GPO n = 0.0078 Fr −0.993 R 2 = 0.95
Flow depth ratio (y/B) and n WM n = 0.0.0037 (y/B)−0.706 R 2 = 0.61
GFO n = 0.004 (y/B)−0.456 R 2 = 0.78
GPO n = 0.723 (y/B)1.202 R 2 = 0.95
Figure 8. Water free surface in modular channel with S = 0.001. WM = without module in GFO condition.
8 R. MOHAMMADPOUR ET AL.
Figure 9. Relation between velocity and Manning’s n.
0.023 and R 2 = 0.65 (Table 5), as shown in dotted line in
Figure 9. Moreover, the data collected by Kee et al. (2011)
in GFO modular channel with only vertical screen and poros-
ity of Pt = 0.82 is close to the results of flume without the
module. It can be concluded that this kind of effect of the
module on the Manning coefficient is low. The variation of
V-n in the modular channel with GPO conditions is displayed
in a solid line in Figure 9. The Manning’s n has a power
relation with velocity as n = 0.0027 V−1.68 and R 2 = 0.91
(Table 5). The long dash line shows the linear variation of
V-n in the GFO modular channel. Comparing results between
the present study and Muhammad et al. (2018) in GFO con-
ditions, it was found that V-n has a power relation in the
range of 0.0–0.2 m/s and then for velocity bigger than
0.2 m/s, the variation tends to be linear. However, a power
equation of n = 0.0073 V−0.93 with R 2 = 0.68 was developed
for variation of V-n in all range of velocity. Furthermore, in
the GFO modular channel with the same velocity, the Man-
ning’s n increases with decreasing total module porosity
(Pt). As shown in Figure 9, at V = 0.4 m/s, the Manning’s n
is 0.014, 0.03 and 0.06 for Kee et al. (2011) with Pt = 0.82
(Table 3), present study with Pt = 0.79 and Muhammad
et al. (2018) with Pt = 0.75, respectively. Similar trends can
be observed for other velocities.
A comparison between the modular channel and vegetated
channels is shown in Figure 10. The vegetated channel, in two
conditions of submerged and emerged plant, is collected from
Chen et al. (2009) and reported in Table 3. Similar trends can
be observed between the variation of velocity and Manning’s
n at modular and vegetated channels. Basically, the Manning
Figure 10. A comparison between vegetated and modular channel.
coefficient decreases with increasing velocity. Regardless of
the type of modules, the Manning coefficient tends to be a
definite value when the velocity increases to a certain point.
4.2. Froude number and Manning’s n (Fr-n)
relationship
The variations of flow in an open channel are represented by
Froude number (Fr) in a wide range of studies (Chen et al.
2009; Fathi-Moghadam and Drikvandi, 2012). Figure 11
shows a variation of Fr-n for collected data in the channel
with and without the module. In both GFO and GPO modu-
lar channel, with increasing Fr in range of 0.0–0.3, the Man-
ning coefficient decreases rapidly and subsequently, the
decreasing rate subsides. The variation of Fr-n for the modu-
lar channel with high porosity (Kee et al. 2011 with Pt = 0.82)
is very close to the channel without the module. Furthermore,
the Manning’s n gradually reaches to non-modular channel
as Fr increases. Also for the high value of Fr, the Manning’s
n gradually closes to a constant value for both channels
with and without the module. As shown in Table 5, a
power equation with n = 0.0078 Fr−0.993 and R 2 = 0.95 is
developed using all collected data to estimate Fr-n relation
in modular and non-modular channel.
A similar relation was reported by Chen et al. (2009) on a
vegetated channel with the submerged and emerged plant. A
comparison between the vegetated and the modular channel
is presented in Figure 12. Regardless of the type of plant and
modules, with increasing Fr, the manning coefficient reaches
a constant value.
4.3. Effect of flow depth ratio (y/B) on Manning
coefficient
Understanding the effect of flow depth to channel width ratio
(y/B) towards the roughness coefficient of the modular chan-
nel would help in its design and construction (Chang et al.
2010). Figure 13 exhibits the relationship between n and the
depth ratio (y/B) at downstream of both GFO and GPO mod-
ular channel. In the GFO conditions, the flow depth ratio
rapidly decreases with increasing the Manning’s n (Figure
13a). A similar variation is reported by Chen et al. (2009)
at the vegetated channel. Since the modules increase the Man-
ning roughness, therefore they are able to reduce the flow
depth and flow discharge at downstream of the channel. As
a result, the module decreases the peak of flood and is able
Figure 11. Relation between Froude number and Manning’s n.

Figure 12. A comparison between the vegetated and modular channel.
to control stormwater quantity in urban drainage. Table 5
shows that in GFO conditions, the Manning coefficient has
a non-linear variation with flow depth ratio. The equation
of n = 0.0.0037(y/B)−0.706 (R 2 = 0.61) and n = 0.004(y/
B)−0.456 (R 2 = 0.78) was found for the GFO conditions in
channels with and without modular, respectively.
As indicated in Figure 13b, in the GPO conditions, unlike
the GFO, the flow depth rises at downstream of modules with
increasing Manning’s n (Figure 8). It is due to the effect of the
gate at the end of flume which leads to the formation of back-
water and increasing the flow depth at the downstream of the
channel. A similar trend was observed in meandering chan-
nels by Nayak (2010) and Dash and Khatua (2016). They
Figure 13. Variation of Manning’s n in terms of depth ration (y/B), (a) the GFO
conditions; (b) the GPO conditions.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RIVER BASIN MANAGEMENT 9
reported that, in the meandering channel, the Manning’s n
increases with increasing depth ration (y/B) because of chan-
nel sinuosity which consumes more energy. An equation was
developed in GPO conditions to predict the variation of n in
terms of y/B as n = 0.723 (y/B)1.202 with R 2 = 0.95.
4.4. Effect of porosity and number of modules on
Manning coefficient
The porosity and number of modules are two main par-
ameters that are able to change the Manning coefficient in
the modular channel. To find the effect of porosity on Man-
ning’s n, different porosities were chosen from present and
previous studies. As illustrated in Figure 14a, at V =
0.225 m/s, the Manning’s n is 0.02, 0.025 and around 0.047
for Pt equal to 0.82, 0.79 and 0.75, respectively. Therefore,
the Manning coefficient increases with the reduction of
total porosity (Pt). Figure 14b shows that the Manning’s n
rises with decreasing Pt at the same discharge.
Figure 15 indicates that with increasing the number of
module per meter (mt) the coefficient of Manning increases.
For instance, when the flow velocity is 0.225 m/s, the Man-
ning’s n is 0.018, 0.021 and 0.027 for mt equal to 3.2, 5.0 and
14.5, respectively. In the GFO modular channel, the drai-
nage cells trap water at the source where it can be retained
in drainage module. The subsurface modules are able to
reduce the peak of flood and can be used as runoff attenu-
ation tools during intensive rain storms in the urban and
industrial area. As mentioned, both the total numbers of
Figure 14. Evaluation of total porosity and Manning’s n in terms of (a) velocity,
(b) discharge.
10 R. MOHAMMADPOUR ET AL.

of the Manning roughness. In this study, the leave-one-out

Figure 15. Effect of number of module per meter (mt) on Manning roughness in
the GFO conditions.
module per meter and porosity have a significant effect on
trapping water in the subsurface module. In this study, the
percentage of discharge reduction is estimated and summar-
ized in Table 6. The result shows that the suggested REDAC
modules are able to reduce flow discharge from upstream to
downstream in the range of 13.68% to 17.44%. This finding
suggests that the GFO subsurface module will be able to con-
trol stormwater quantity up to 17.44% in urban drainage
and can recommend being used for the BMP in sustainable
stormwater management.
4.5. Estimation of Manning’s roughness coefficient, n
As mentioned in Eq. (8), the Manning roughness is a function
of several parameters such as Fr, S, y/B , Pt and mt . A sensi-
tivity analysis was carried out using Non-Linear Regression
(NLR) to determine the main parameter in the prediction
Table 6. Percentage reduction of discharge from in the modular channel.
Percentage reduction of flow
(%) 1/1000
Max. 48.18
Min. 2.07
Average 13.68
technique, recommended by Ha and Stenstrom (2003) was
employed to estimate the effect of parameters on the Man-
ning’s n, In the NLR technique, the parameters in the right
side of Eq. (8) were chosen as independent variables or
input dataset while ng /R1/6 is selected as a dependent par-
ameter. Two indicators were estimated namely ratio of NLR
error and its rank by removing one parameter from the
input dataset at each time. To determine the NLR error
ratio, the error due to removing an individual parameter is
divided by the error obtained using all parameters. The
high value of NLR error ratio is interpreted as the high signifi-
cance of individual parameter and vice versa. Table 7 indi-
cates the results of a sensitivity analysis using the leave-
one-out technique. The results indicate that the Froude num-
ber (Fr) is a significant parameter to predict Manning rough-
ness while the importance of depth ratio (y/B) is less than
other variables.
Generally, simple formulas with a few variables are more
useful and functional in addressing the ecological and
environmental problems. In this study, to reduce the num-
ber of variables, different equations are developed and in
each case one of the independent parameters is removed
in order of its importance (Table 8). The developed
equation using all parameters provides the highest accuracy
with R 2 = 0.981, RMSE = 0.0032 and MAE = 0.0010. The
performance of NLR decreases by removing one of the
independent variables in the next rows. It can be observed
that with removing depth ration (y/B), the accuracy of the
new equation is very close to the last one (R 2 = 0.980,
RMSE = 0.0034 and MAE = 0.0012). The results indicate
that with removing other parameters the accuracy of
equation decreases and the last equation with only one
variable of Fr yields the lowest accuracy (R 2 = 0.879,
RMSE = 0.0086 and MAE = 0.0049). Therefore, the second
equation in Table 8 with variables of Fr, S, Pt and mt is
selected as a simplified equation to forecast Manning
roughness in the GFO modular channel. This equation is
√


Slope developed in terms of ng where ng = n g , therefore the
1/750 1/500 following equation is recommended to estimate Manning’s
24.13 26.84 √


n by dividing the second to g :
6.32 6.24
14.04 17.44
n
= 0.134(Fr−0.99 )(S0.44 )(Pt−3.53 )(mt−0.13 ). (18)
R1/6

Furthermore, the following equation was developed for the

Table 7. Sensitivity analysis using NLR.
GPO modular channel using NLR technique with the same
All variable without Ratio Rank
method and high accuracy (R 2 = 0.999, RMSE = 0.0011 and
Fr 1.338 1
S 1.097 2 MAE = 0.0009):
Pt 1.006 3
mt 1.003 4 n
y/B 1.001 5 = 0.14(Fr−0.89 )(S0.44 )(Pt−0.58 )(m0.25
t ). (19)
R1/6

Table 8. Development of different equation for GFO modular channel.

Variables Developed equation R2 RMSE MAE
ng y −0.55
Fr, S, Pt, mt, y/B = 0.40(Fr−0.97 )(S0.44 )(Pt−2.96 )(m−0.11
t ) 0.981 0.0032 0.0010
R 1/6 B
ng −0.99 0.44 −3.53 −0.13
Fr, S, Pt, mt = 0.42(Fr )(S )(Pt )(mt ) 0.980 0.0034 0.0012
R1/6
ng
Fr, S, Pt = 0.47(Fr−0.99 )(S0.46 )(Pt−2.19 ) 0.976 0.0039 0.0015
R1/6
ng
Fr, S = 0.60(Fr−1.11 )(S0.43 ) 0.965 0.0054 0.0029
R1/6
ng
Fr = 0.38(Fr−1.08 ) 0.879 0.0086 0.0049
R1/6

Figure 16. Comparison between observed and predicted n/R1/6 ; (a) GFO mod-
ular channel (b) GPO modular channel.
In order to evaluate the performance of the recommended
equations, scatter plots for both GFO and GPO are pre-
sented in Figure 16. In scatter plots, a total of 144 and 44
datasets were used for the GFO and GPO conditions,
respectively. In the GFO modular channel, the suggested
equation (Equation18) predicts 89% of data within ±15%
error lines. Whereas, for GPO conditions, the rec-
ommended equation (Equation 19) is able to forecast
100% of data within the error lines.
The Performance of NLR method and proposed equations
in both GFO and GPO modular channel are assessed by
residual graph and box plot of error (Figure 17). In GFO con-
ditions, all residual value fluctuates around zero and the mean
value is 0.00. It can be concluded that the recommended
equation for GOP is able to predict Manning roughness
with a minimum error. In GFO conditions, the suggested
equation predicts most of the dataset with a very low error.
However, some outlier error can be observed in box plot.
As shown in Figure 17a, for dataset between 86 and 101,
the proposed GFO equation could not predict the Manning
roughness as well as other parts. The mean value of residual
on (n/R1/6 ) in the box plot is −0.001 which indicates that the
Equation (8) underestimates the Manning’s n. The whisker’s
distance in the box plot indicates the error bound of the pro-
posed equation. As indicated in Figure 17b, the whisker’s dis-
tance in the GPO conditions is smaller than those for GFO,
which shows that the accuracy of Equation (19) is higher
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RIVER BASIN MANAGEMENT 11
Figure 17. (a) Residual graph (b) box plot of error.
than that of Equation (18). The statistical parameters (Table
8) and residual graphs indicate that although Equations
(18) and (19) are able to forecast the value of n/R1/6 with
high accuracy and low error, the accuracy of Equation (19)
is higher than Equation (18).
In light of this research, it can be concluded that accurate
prediction of Manning roughness in modular channel
requires two parameters of porosity and the number of the
module. Moreover, in the modular channel, the variation of
Manning’s n in terms of velocity and Froude number is
very similar to the vegetated channel. The developed
equations in this study can be used to estimate roughness
and discharge at the subsurface modular channel in both
GFO and GPO conditions. The results indicated that the
modules are able to increase Manning’s n and trap water at
the source. As a result, the modules are considered effective
in solving flash floods in urbanized catchments. However,
further studies are required to investigate the performance
of modular channel on water quality and eco-hydraulics of
flow.
5. Conclusions
To control and manage pollution and storm water, differ-
ent environmental systems such as ecological subsurface
module can be used in urban areas. Since the module
plays a major role in the ecological channel, the estimation
of Manning roughness is very necessary to design modular
channels. In this study, for the first time, two new par-
ameters namely total porosity (Pt ) and the number of
12 R. MOHAMMADPOUR ET AL.
modules pre meter (mt ) are suggested for the estimation of
Manning roughness in the modular channel. To consider
the effect of blocks and backwater at the end of the channel,
the present experimental test was carried out in two con-
ditions of GFO and GPO. The results indicate that the
Manning’s n in the GFO conditions (0.011–0.068) is
lower than those in the GPO channel with the value of
0.025–0.20. To understand the effect of modules in the
channel, the flow parameters such as velocity (V ), flow
depth ratio (y/B), Froude number(Fr) was presented in
terms of Manning’s n (Table 5). A comparison between
results indicates that in the modular channel, the variation
of Manning’s n in terms of velocity and Froude number is
similar to the vegetated channel. Furthermore, the porosity
and number of modules are two main parameters that
should be used for accurate estimation of the Manning
coefficient in the modular channel. The suggested
REDAC modules are able to reduce flow discharge from
upstream to downstream up to 48%. This finding suggests
that the GFO subsurface module will be able to control
stormwater quantity up to 48% in urban drainage and
can be recommended to be used for the BMP in sustainable
stormwater management. A sensitivity analysis indicated
that the Manning roughness was greatly affected by the
four studied parameters in the following order, Fr (Froude
number) > S (slope) > Pt > mt and the significance of
depth ratio(y/B) is less than other variables. Finally, two
equations with high accuracy were developed to predict
Manning’s n in both conditions of GFO (R 2 = 0.980,
RMSE = 0.0034 and MAE = 0.0012) and GPO (R 2 = 0.999,
RMSE = 0.0011 and MAE = 0.0009).
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge grant number 311.PRE-
DAC.4403901 funded by the Ministry of Education, Malaysia under
HiCOE’s Niche Area of Sustainable Urban Stormwater Management.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Funding
The authors would like to acknowledge grant number 311.PRE-
DAC.4403901 funded by the Ministry of Education, Malaysia under
HiCOE’s Niche Area of Sustainable Urban Stormwater Management.
ORCID
Reza Mohammadpour http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7940-5101
Aminuddin Ab. Ghani http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8912-9569
References
Ab. Ghani, A., et al., 2007. Revised equations for Manning’s coefficient
for Sand-Bed Rivers. International Journal of River Basin
Management, 5 (4), 329–346.
Ayub, K.R., et al., 2005. Storm water Treatment using Bio-ecological
drainage system. International Journal of River Basin Management,
3 (3), 215–221.
Azamathulla, H.M. and Jarrett, R.D., 2013. Use of gene-expression pro-
gramming to estimate manning’s roughness coefficient for high gra-
dient streams. Water Resources Management, 27, 715–729.
Bakry, M.F., 1992. Effect of submerged Weeds on the design: Procedure
of earthen Egyptian canals. Irrigation and Drainage Systems, 6 (3),
179–188.
Chan, N.W., et al., 2019. Sustainable urban drainage as a viable measure of
coping with heat and floods due to climate change. 9th International
Conference on Future Environment and Energy, Osaka, Japan. IOP
Publishing.
Chang, T.-H., et al., 2010. Estimation of manning roughness coefficients
on precast ecological concrete blocks. Journal of Marine Science and
Technology, 18, 308–316.
Chen, Y.-C., et al., 2009. Retardance coefficient of vegetated channels
estimated by the Froude number. Ecological Engineering, 35 (7),
1027–1035.
Chow, V.T., 1959. Open-channel hydraulics. New York: Mc-Graw-Hill.
Conesa-García, C., et al., 2018. Spatial variation of the vegetative rough-
ness in Mediterranean torrential streams affected by check dams.
Hydrological Sciences Journal, 63, 114–135.
Dash, S.S. and Khatua, K.K., 2016. Sinuosity dependency on stage
discharge in meandering channels. Journal of Irrigation and
Drainage Engineering, 142, 04016030.
Fathi-Moghadam, M. and Drikvandi, K., 2012. Manning roughness
coefficient for rivers and flood plains with non-submerged vegetation.
International Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, 1, 1–4.
Garcia Diaz, R., 2005. Analysis of Manning coefficient for small-depth
flows on vegetated beds. Hydrological Processes, 19 (16), 3221–3233.
Ghani, A.A., et al., 2004. Bio-ecological drainage system (BIOECODS):
concept, design and construction. International Conference on
Hydroscience and Engineering, Brisbane, Australia.
Ghani, A.A. and Mohammadpour, R., 2016. Temporal variation of clear-
water scour at compound Abutments. Ain Shams Engineering
Journal, 7, 1045–1052.
Ha, H. and Stenstrom, M.K., 2003. Identification of land use with water
quality data in stormwater using a neural network. Water Research,
37, 4222–4230.
Julien, P.Y., 2018. River mechanics. 2nd ed. London: Cambridge
University Press.
Huai, W., Chen, G., and Zeng, Y., 2013. Predicting apparent shear stress
in prismatic compound open channels using artificial neural net-
works. Journal of Hydroinformatics, 15, 138–146.
Kee, L.C., et al., 2011. Determination of manning’s n for subsurface
modular channel. 3rd International Conference on Managing Rivers
in 21st Century: Sustainable Solutions for Global Crisis of Flooding,
Pollution and Water Scarcity (Rivers 2011), Penang, Malaysia,
pp. 266–273, December 6–9, Penang, Malaysia.
Kubrak, E., Kubrak, J., and Rowiński, P. M., 2008. Vertical velocity dis-
tributions through and above submerged, flexible vegetation.
Hydrological Sciences Journal, 53, 905–920.
Lai, S., et al., 2009. Flow pattern and hydraulic characteristic for subsur-
face drainage module. In International Conference on Water
Resources (ICWR 2009), Langkawi, Kedah, Malaysia.
Lai, S., Kee, L., and Zakaria, N., 2010. Subsurface drainage module per-
formance study in managing urban stormwater (Case Study: Taiping
Health Clinic Type 2). World Engineering Congress, Kuching,
Sarawak, Malaysia.
Lyra, G.B., et al., 2010. Manning roughness coefficient for Paracatu river,
Brazil. Revista Brasileira de Engenharia Agricola e Ambiental, 14,
343–350.
Mahbub, A.K.M.R. and Suzuki, S., 1988. Flow retardance in open chan-
nels due to artificial Flexible vegetation. Journal of Irrigation
Engineering and Rural Planning, 1988 (13), 5–17.
Mohammadpour, R., et al., 2015. Prediction of water quality index in
constructed wetlands using support vector machine. Environmental
Science and Pollution Research, 22, 6208–6219.
Mohammadpour, R., et al., 2016a. Prediction of temporal scour hazard
at bridge abutment. Natural Hazards, 80 (3), 1891–1911.
Mohammadpour, R., et al., 2016b. Prediction of water quality index in
free surface constructed wetlands. Environmental Earth Sciences, 75, 1–12.
Mohammadpour, R., 2017. Prediction of local scour around complex
piers using GEP and M5-Tree. Arabian Journal of Geosciences, 10
(18), 416.
Mohammadpour, R., et al., 2017. Predicting scour at river bridge abut-
ments over time. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers -
Water Management, 170, 15–30.
Mohammadpour, R., et al., 2018. A hybrid of ANN and CLA to predict
rainfall. Arabian Journal of Geosciences, 11, 533.

Mohd Sidek, L., et al., 2002. Bio-Ecological Drainage System
(BIOECODS): an integrated approach for urban water environmental
planning. Seminar on water environmental planning: technologies of
water resources management 15th–16th October.
Muhammad, M.M., et al., 2018. Hydraulic performance of subsurface
drainage module. 37th IAHR World Congress, 13–18 August, Kuala
Lumpur, Malaysia.
Nayak, P.P., 2010. Meandering effect for evaluation of roughness
coefficients and boundary shear distribution in open channel flow.
Master thesis, Technology National Institute of Technology,
Rourkela.
Pradhan, A. and Khatua, K.K., 2018a. Assessment of roughness coeffi-
cient for meandering compound channels. KSCE Journal of Civil
Engineering, 22, 2010–2022.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RIVER BASIN MANAGEMENT 13
Pradhan, A. and Khatua, K.K., 2018b. Gene expression programming to
predict Manning’s n in meandering flows. Canadian Journal of Civil
Engineering, 45 (4), 304–313.
RainSmart, 2016. Technical datasheet for Stormwater modules, Cirtex,
New Zealand.
Rouse, H., 1965. Critical analysis of open-channel resistance. Journal of
the Hydraulics Division, 4, 4387–4411.
Wynn-Thompson, T. and Hall, K., 2012. Predicting friction factor in
herbaceous emergent wetlands. Washington, DC: AGU.
Yen, B.C., 1992. Dimensionally homogeneous Manning’s formula.
Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, 118, 1326–1332.
Zakaria, N.A., et al., 2003. Bio-ecological drainage system (BIOECODS)
for water quantity and quality control. International Journal of River
Basin Management, 1 (3), 237–251.