1.

0 INTRODUCTION
The drainage system is an infrastructure system which is so important, especially in urban
areas. Planning the construction of systematic drainage system must be designed to function
properly in order to reduce the risk of flooding. Increased rapid development will give effect to
the existing drainage system. The impact of development will result in the reduction of permeable
surfaces, increased runoff flows towards the catchment area, increased the peak flood discharge,
and declined the water quality. Besides that, deposition and disposition waste and pollutants will
occur when it rains.
The rise of technology has created a system that is more environmentally-friendly drainage
system using concrete drainage channel and grassed swale drainage system. These drainage
systems are widely used in Malaysia for example, at a Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia
(UTHM). The benefits derived from this study which are able to reduce the quantity of runoff,
improve the water quality that flows into the catchment area, reduce the risk of clogging
drainage, and thus reduce the flood risk.
This study was conducted at the UTHM campus and focus on the effectiveness of wet
grassed swale and concrete drainage channel as well as and its hydraulic performance. The
location that we have chosen Pusat Kokurikulum and FKAAS UTHM.

1.1 Objectives

I.

To identify the effectiveness of drainage system at Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia

II.

(UTHM).
To determine the hydraulic characteristics in grassed swale drainage system and concrete
drainage system at Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia (UTHM).
1.2 Assumptions used

The assumption we used in this study is Manning equation and the hydraulic parameters involved
1

in this study are flow depth, flow velocity, flow discharge, and cross-sectional area. Data was
observed by using the Mannings equation. Mannings equation was adopted to determine the
value of hydraulic coefficients for the two types of channel to be considered, which are lined and
unlined.
1.3 Limitation of the project
The limitations of study are included two selected channel must has width in ranged of 50-80
cm and 3 m length. There are two types of channel to be considered, which are lined and unlined.
This study was conducted at the UTHM campus and the duration of this study are within four
weeks.
2.0 STUDY AREA
2.1 Description on channel location, topography and channel characteristics and other
important information.
There are two surface channels are chosen in UTHM for this project. The following are the
description for the channels.
Channel 1
Location: Pusat Kokurikulum UTHM
Type of channel: Lined concrete channel
Topography: The channel is straight and uniform in shape.
Shape of cross section of the channel: The shape across the channel is trapezium shape. The
cross section along the channel is uniform and linear.
Channel 2
Location: FKAAS UTHM
2

Type of channel: Unlined channel

Topography: The channel is a little bend in shape along the channel.
Shape of cross section of the channel: The cross sectional shape of channel is almost in
trapezium shape. The cross section along the channel is
non-uniform and hence it is measured as 3 sections and
each section is 1m long.
3.0 METHODS OR EQUATION
3.1 Variables
[ ] indicates dimensions, [L] = length, [T] = time
A

= Flow cross-sectional area, determined normal (perpendicular) to the bottom surface [

2
L .

b = Channel bottom width [L]

n = manning coefficient, n is a function of the channel material, such as grass, concrete,

earth, etc. Values for n can be found in the table of Mannings Coefficients (refer
appendix Table 1).
P

= Wetted parameter [L],

is the contact length between the water and the channel

bottom
and sides.
Q = Discharge of flow rate, [ L3 /T
R = Hydraulic radius of the flow cross-section [L]
S

= Slop of the channel bottom or water surface [L/L]. Vertical distance divided by
Horizontal..

= Top width of the flowing water [L].

= Average velocity of the water [L/T].

= Water depth measured normal (perpendicular) to the bottom of the channel [L].

z 1 , z 2 = side slop for each bank of the channel. These slopes are computed ad horizontal
distance divided by vertical distance.

3.2 Equations
3.2.1 Determination of Mannings Roughness Coefficient.
In applying the Manning equation, the greatest difficulty lies in the determination of the
roughness coefficient, n; there is no exact method of selecting the n value. Selecting a value of
n actually means to estimate the resistance to flow in a given channel, which is really a matter
of intangibles. (Chow, 1959). The factors that exert the greatest influence upon the roughness
coefficient in both artificial and natural channels are surface roughness, vegetation, channel
irregularity channel alignment, silting and scouring, obstruction, size and shape of the channel,
stage and discharge, and also seasonal change.
By referring the roughness coefficient on Table 1 (refer appendix), we can know the value of
manning coefficient, n. The value of n depending on the channel characteristics. (French,
1994). In this experiment, for the grassed swale channel and concrete lined, n coefficient is
taken as 0.017 and 0.0185 respectively.
3.2.2 Hydraulic radius
Hydraulic radius plays a prominent role in the equations of open-channel flow and therefore,
the variation of hydraulic radius with depth and width of the channel becomes an important
consideration.
By considering the variation of hydraulic radius with width in trapezoidal channel width B, the
equation use is;
2

R=

Area , A( m )
Wetted Parameter , P (m)

Since both locations are trapezoidal channel, the area formula are;
1
Area , A= ( topwidth bottom width)(average flow depth)
2
While the wetted parameter is calculated as follow;
P=B+2 y 1+ z 2

3.2.3 Geometrical properties and channel slope

The channel slope,

S0

have a profound effect on the velocity of flow in the channel and

consequently on the flow characteristics of runoff from drainage basin. Table 2 shows the
channel slope for two locations of the study area.

Table 2: The channel slope, S 0

Location

Channel slope, S 0

Site 1- in front of FKAAS

1:500

Site 2- beside Pusat KOKO

0.0167

3.2.4 Uniform flow depth

The equations that used calculate the uniform flow calculations are;
a) Continuity equation
Q= AV
b) Manning velocity equation
2
1
1 3 2
V = R S0
n
2
1
1
Q= AV = A R 3 S0 2
n

4.0 RESULT AND CALCULATION

4.1 Results and calculations
Open channel type: Concrete channel
Location

: Beside Pusat KOKO

Length

:3m

Result
Top Width ( m )

0.240 m

Weir Opening ( m )

0.300 m

Upstream Flow Depth yo ( m )

0.214 m

Downstream Flow Depth y3 ( m )

0.208 m

Bottom Width ( m )

0.160 m

Channel Width ( m )

0.300 m

Times ping pong ball complete a flow ( s )

Average times ( s )

T1

T2

T3

73

68

60

( 73+ 68+60 ) s
3
= 67 s

Calculation

Area ( m2 )

1
2

(y3 + yo ) ( average flow depth )

1
2

( 0.16m + 0.24m ) ( 0.211m )

= 0.0422 m2

Velocity ( m/s ) =

distance , m
time , s
7

3m
67 s

= 0.047 ( m/s )
Flow Rate , Qnormal

= Area x Velocity
= 0.0422 m2 x 0.047 ( m/s )
= 1.983 x 10-3 m3 / s

Wetted Perimeter , P ( m ) = B + 2y

1+ z 2

= 0.16+ 2 ( 0.214 )

1+ 0.042

= 0.588 m
Hydraulic Radius , R ( m ) =
=

Area , m2
Wetted Perimeter , m
0.0422m 2
0.588 m

= 0.072 m
Slope , So =
=

Upstream Flow Depth y oDownstream Flow Depth y 3

Channel Width(m)

( 0.2140.208 ) m
3m

= 2 x 10-3
Manning roughness coefficient, n = 0.017 0.020
Assume n = 0.0185
Manning Equation, Q max =

1
AR2/3 So1/2
n

1
( 0.0422 )(0.072 )2/3 (2 x10 -3 )1/2
0.0185

1
( 3.27 x 10-4 )
0.0185

= 0.0178 m3 / s
Q max > Qnormal = 0.0178 m3 / s > 1.983 x 10-3 m3 / s

So, when flood occurs, storm water will not overflow the drain. Therefore, we can conclude that
the channel is effective.

Open channel type: Grass swale

Location: In Front of FKAAS Building
Length of the swale: 3m
SECTION 1

SECTION 2

SECTION 3

Time, s

Top Width, cm

Bottom Width, cm

Depth of water, cm

1st TRIAL

18

73

62

14

2nd TRIAL

17

61

53

12

3rd TRIAL

19

60

51

Average

17.33

Calculation

Velocity, v =
=

distance
time average
3
17.33

= 0.173 m/s

Area 1=

1
( 73+62 )( 14 )
2

= 945 cm2
Area 2=

1
( 61+ 53 )( 12 )
2

= 684 cm2
Area 3=

1
( 60+51 )( 9 )
2
10

 499.5 cm 2
Area Average = 7.095 m2
Flow rate, Qnormal=AV
= 7.095 (0.173)
= 1.227m3/s

Upstream-downstream =0.14-0.09
= 0.05m

So =

0.05
3

= 0.0167m

Mannings roughness coefficient = 0.025-0.033

Assume n = 0.029
Wetted perimeter ,P = 0.55+2(0.1167)

1+ 0.14

= 0.79m

Hydraulic radius, R=

7.095
0.79

Manning Equation, Qmax =

=8.98m

1
(7.095)(8.98)2/3(0.0167)1/2
0.029

= 136.59 m3/s
Qmax > Qnormal
136.59 m3/s >1.227m3/s

11

So, when flood occurs, storm water will not overflow the swale. Therefore, we can conclude that
the channel is effective.

4.2 Comparison between Grassed Swale and Concrete Channel

Properties of channel
Mannings roughness coefficient
Maximum cross sectional area, m2
Maximum hydraulic radius, Rmax (m)
Normal flow rate, Qnormal (m3/s)
Maximum flow rate, Qmax (m3/s)

Grass swale
0.029
7.095
8.98
1.227
136.59

Concrete channel
0.0185
0.0422
0.072
1.983 x 10-3
0.0178

Mannings roughness coefficient

0.04
0.03
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.01
0
Grass swale

concrete channel

Mannings roughness coefficient of grassed swale is 0.029 while Mannings roughness coefficient
of concrete is 0.0185.. The Manning formula is an empirical formula estimating the average
12

velocity of a liquid flowing in a conduit that does not completely enclose the liquid which is open
channel flow. All flow is called open channels and it is driven by a gravity.

Maximum cross sectional area, m2

8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Grassed Swale

Concrete Channel

Maximum cross sectional area, m2 of grassed swale is 7.095 m2 while for concrete channel is
0.0422 m2. This is because the diameter of the swale are bigger than the diameter of the concrete
channel.

13

Maximum hydraulic radius, Rmax (m)

10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
grass swale

concrete channel

Maxi

mum hydraulic radius, Rmax (m) for grassed swale is 8.98 m while for concrete channel is 0.072
m. This is because the wetted perimeter and the area of the grassed swale more bigger than
concrete channel.

Normal flow rate, Qnormal

(m3/s)
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Grass Swale

Concrete Channel

14

Normal flow rate, Qnormal (m3/s) for grassed swale is 1.227 ( m 3/ s ) while for concrete channel
is 1.983 x 10-3 ( m3/ s ). The flow rate of grassed swale is more higher than concrete channel
because the velocity of the flow in grassed swale more faster and higher.

Maximum flow rate, Qmax (m3/s)

160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Grassed Swale

Concrete Channel

Maximum flow rate, Qmax (m3/s) for grassed swale is 136.59 ( m 3/ s ) while for concrete
channel is 0.0178( m3/ s ). This is because the slope for grassed swale more higher than concrete
channel. The slope for grassed swale is 0.0167 while for concrete channel is 2 x 10-3
5.0 Conclusion

In conclusion, the effectiveness of lined and unlined drainage system can be used to avoid
flooding occurred, but the both of it must be well designed with proper construction. This is
because, based on the study, it shows that both of it has appropriate profile depth and profile area,
then it increase the effective to be used as a drainage system. For unlined channel which is
grassed swale it is an important factor to act as an agent to slow down the flow velocity, thus
reduced the flow discharge within the swale. Maintenance of grassed swale and lined channel is

15

required to ensure that the intended use of the drainage system can be achieved, which are
controlling the volume of surface runoff and avoiding flooding.

5.1 Recommendation
5.1.1 Design and Installation
The first essential in the preparation of a drainage design is a proper site investigation.
This should include the following:
(a) Check the adequacy of the existing outfall. If it is inadequate, can it be improved? If not
can a new outfall be provided at reasonable cost?
(b) Verify the site levels. These are necessary to establish the major and minor field gradients
which determine the drainage layout and the capacity of the drains.
(c) Investigate the drainage problem. Where a high water table or seepage occurs, deep trial
holes are necessary to verify the soil conditions at depth. For water table design the depth
of the impermeable layer must be established. For seepage investigations, piezometers
should be installed.
(d) Where an impervious soil occurs, trial holes are needed to examine the soil variations
through the profile and the soil water conditions. Physical tests may also be required to
determine the most suitable reclamation technique for that particular soil.
(e) Measure the permeability of the subsoil.
(f) Verify the nature of the topsoil and whether it could be improved by mixing with the
subsoil.

16

17