Laserfiche WebLink
<br />CONTENTS <br /> <br />Page <br /> <br />Symbols and units--------------------------------------------------- V <br />Introduction-------------------------------------------------------- 1 <br />Methods examined---------------------------------------------------- 3 <br />Vegetation density------------------------------------------------ 3 <br />Roughness concentration------------------------------------------- 6 <br />Estimating procedure---------------------------------------------- 8 <br />Regression analysis----------------------------------------------- 9 <br />Summary of methods-------------------------------------------------- 11 <br />Collection of data-------------------------------------------------- 12 <br />Analysis of data---------------------------------------------------- 16 <br />Discussion of results----------------------------------------------- 21 <br />Conclusions--------------------------------------------------------- 29 <br />References cited---------------------------------------------------- 31 <br />Other literature reviewed------------------------------------------- 33 <br />Hydrologic data----------------------------------------------------- 35 <br />ILLUSTRATIONS <br /> <br />Figure I. <br /> 2. <br /> 3. <br /> 4. <br /> 5. <br /> 6. <br /> 7. <br /> 8. <br /> 9. <br /> 10. <br /> II. <br /> 12. <br /> 13. <br /> 14. <br /> 15. <br /> 16. <br /> 17. <br /> 18. <br /> 19. <br /> 20. <br /> <br />Flow resistance model----------------------------------- 3 <br />Pea Creek near Louisville, Ala., cross section 2-------- 15 <br />Plot of effective-drag coefficient versus hydraulic <br />radius for wide, wooded flood plains using <br />verified n values------------------------------------ 21 <br />Plot of computed n by vegetation-density method versus <br />verified n values------------------------------------- 24 <br />Plot of n versus roughness concentration using Tseng's <br />flume data and field data----------------------------- 26 <br />Plot of effective resistance using field data and a <br />C* = 1.25--------------------------------------------- 28 <br /> <br />Plot of effective-drag coefficient versus hydraulic <br />radius using Tseng's flume data and field data-------- 29 <br />Pea Creek near Louisville, Ala., cross section 4-------- 37 <br />Pea Creek near Louisville, Ala., cross section 5-------- 38 <br />Yellow River near Sanford, Ala., cross section 2-------- 39 <br />Yellow River near Sanford, Ala., cross section 12------- 40 <br />Poley Creek near Sanford, Ala., cross section 2--------- 41 <br />Poley Creek near Sanford, Ala., cross section 3--------- 42 <br />Poley Creek near Sanford, Ala., cross section 4--------- 43 <br />Poley Creek near Sanford, Ala., cross section 5--------- 44 <br />Yockanookany River near Thomastown, Miss., <br />cross section 300------------------------------------ 45 <br />Yockanookany River near Thomastown, Miss., <br />crosS section 400------------------------------------- 46 <br />Yockanookany River near Thomastown, Miss., <br />crosS section 500------------------------------------- 47 <br />Coldwater River near Red Banks, Miss., <br />cross section 2, sample area 1------------------------ 48 <br />Coldwater River near Red Banks, Miss., <br />croSS section 2, sample area 2------------------------ 49 <br /> <br />III <br />