2013
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2013.10.005
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Experimental study of the water depth and rainfall intensity effects on the bed roughness coefficient used in distributed urban drainage models

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
22
0
2

Year Published

2015
2015
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

2
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 28 publications
(25 citation statements)
references
References 28 publications
1
22
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…The presence of different types of vegetation and microtopography features which are not resolved by the DTM increase the value of the effective roughness coefficient, which has to account for all these unresolved features. Manning numbers much larger than those commonly used in river hydraulics applications, and which depend on the vegetative cover, the microtopography, the rainfall intensity and the water depth have been previously reported in computations involving rainfall‐runoff transformation over rough terrains [ Engman , ; Fraga et al ., ; Muñoz‐Carpena et al ., ; Wilson et al ., ]. Since no calibration data are available for this test case, the same Manning coefficient was used with all the schemes, which was fixed to a value of 0.15, constant in the whole catchment.…”
Section: Test Cases and Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The presence of different types of vegetation and microtopography features which are not resolved by the DTM increase the value of the effective roughness coefficient, which has to account for all these unresolved features. Manning numbers much larger than those commonly used in river hydraulics applications, and which depend on the vegetative cover, the microtopography, the rainfall intensity and the water depth have been previously reported in computations involving rainfall‐runoff transformation over rough terrains [ Engman , ; Fraga et al ., ; Muñoz‐Carpena et al ., ; Wilson et al ., ]. Since no calibration data are available for this test case, the same Manning coefficient was used with all the schemes, which was fixed to a value of 0.15, constant in the whole catchment.…”
Section: Test Cases and Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…where g is the gravitational acceleration and s f is the energy slope vector. Various formulations have been proposed for s f [18,25,24,38,34]. Numerical experiments and simulations of eld-scale hydraulic transients show that energy losses are best described by introducing two types of momentum source terms [24].…”
Section: Solidmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As far as the bottom friction model (16b) is concerned, a constant n M as used in Equation (16b) is deemed insucient. The eect of rainfall and small water depths are known to inuence the roughness coecient signicantly [7,18,27,44]. Experimental studies indicate threshold eects with respect to the water depth and Reynolds number for the roughness coecient, with a predominant eect of the Reynolds number [18].…”
Section: Momentum Source Termsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The calibrated parameters are shown in Table . The order of magnitude of the Manning coefficient, which oscillates between 0.2 and 0.8 sm −1/3 , is consistent with values reported in the literature for overland flows (Engman, ; Muñoz‐Carpena et al ., ; Wilson and Horritt, ; Fraga et al ., ), which depend on the vegetative cover, micro‐topography, rainfall intensity and water depth. The differences in the calibrated Manning coefficient from one event to another might be explained by differences in the characteristics of the micro‐topography during the 4 years in which the five events took place, as well as by the fact that its numerical calibration might account for all sorts of model deficiencies (Lane, ).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%