Apparent Friction Coefﬁcient Used for Flow Calculation in Straight Compound Channels With Trees On Floodplains

Kozioł, Adam; Kiczko, Adam; Krukowski, Marcin; Kubrak, Elżbieta; Kubrak, Janusz; Majewski, Grzegorz; Brandyk, Andrzej

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2024-74

Preprints

https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2024-74

Preprints

13 Mar 2024

| 13 Mar 2024

Status: a revised version of this preprint was accepted for the journal HESS and is expected to appear here in due course.

Apparent Friction Coefﬁcient Used for Flow Calculation in Straight Compound Channels With Trees On Floodplains

Adam Kozioł, Adam Kiczko, Marcin Krukowski, Elżbieta Kubrak, Janusz Kubrak, Grzegorz Majewski, and Andrzej Brandyk

Abstract. The interaction of water streams in channels with a complex cross-section, involving the exchange of water mass and momentum between slowly-flowing water in the floodplains and fast water in the main channel, significantly depends on the diversiﬁcation of the surface roughness between the main channel and ﬂoodplains. Additionally, trees strongly increase flow resistance on floodplains, but also significantly in the main channel by intensifying the interaction process. As a result, the water velocity and the discharge capacity of both parts of the channel decrease and at the same time, affecting the flow conditions in the main channel. The results of laboratory experiments were used to determine the effect of floodplain trees on the discharge capacity of the channel with diversiﬁed roughness. The reduction in velocity of the main channel caused by the stream interactions is described with the apparent friction coefﬁcients introduced at the boundary between the main channel and the ﬂoodplain. The values of resistance coefficients and their changes as a result of the significant influence of trees on the interaction process were determined for various roughness’s of the main channel bottom.

Received: 07 Mar 2024 – Discussion started: 13 Mar 2024

Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this preprint. The responsibility to include appropriate place names lies with the authors.

Download & links

Adam Kozioł, Adam Kiczko, Marcin Krukowski, Elżbieta Kubrak, Janusz Kubrak, Grzegorz Majewski, and Andrzej Brandyk

Status: closed

RC1:
'Comment on hess-2024-74', Anonymous Referee #1, 26 Mar 2024

Dear authors, dear publisher,
I find the article perfectly within the scope of the journal and of interest to the community. It deals with friction laws and coefficients for compound channels with experimental and theoretical parts.
However, for me, there is too much in common with the article "Kubrak et al., 2019, Apparent topography friction coefficient used for flow calculation in straight compound channels, Water, 11, 745; doi:10.3390/w11040745" that comes under the heading of plagiarism.
That's why I'm suggesting a major revision. The title of the article is too close to the one already published. Some section titles and content are exactly the same as the previously published article. This is not acceptable, so I suggest that the authors completely rewrite the article to eliminate all duplication.
Furthermore, I think that it is necessary to complete and improve the bibliography, particularly in terms of review of existing resaerchs on the topics, and to clearly highlight the new developments and the scientific obstacles raised in this work and more particularly in relation to their previous work. This will permit to give more in deep feedback.
Best regards

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2024-74-RC1
- AC1:
  'Reply on RC1', Adam Kozioł, 27 Mar 2024
  
  Dear Reviewer,
  thank you very much for reading our present manuscript, but even more so for our previous "Kubrak et al., 2019, Apparent topography friction coefficient used for flow calculation in straight compound channels, Water, 11, 745; doi:10.3390/w11040745".
  Referring to paragraph 2 of the reviewer comment, the present manuscript has a lot in common with our previous study (Kubrak et al., 2019) because it is a continuation of research on the same flume model. The first study concerned the flows and structure of turbulence in a compound channel without vegetation (trees) in floodplains. The next stage was to study the influence of trees in floodplains on the flow and structure of stream turbulence. The paper by Kubrak et al., (2019) refers to the first stage of the research - flow without vegetation, while the current one focuses primarily on the effect of trees on the drag coefficients in the main channel, for which data from studies on the structure of stream turbulence in the compound channel was used. Since the present article is the continuation of our research, after the analyses we finally decided to expand the title so that it is very easy to link the two studies. Admittedly, there was a proposal for another title: "The influence of floodplain trees on apparent friction coefﬁcient used for flow calculation in straight compound channels ", but we decided on the current title, emphasizing that it is a continuation of previous studies.
  Referring to the 3rd paragraph, as mentioned above, in our opinion, the title of the article should be similar to our previous article, it is a continuation of research on the same model. In fact, the titles and content of some sections are similar to those of a previously published article. This applies only to the basic methodology of determining drag coefficients, especially the description of the three formulas, and it is a small part of the article. Still, all the elements were made exclusively for this work and were never before published. The reviewer suggests eliminating any duplication. The authors believe that the elimination of even partial methodology, formulas and their descriptions is a great loss for the article itself, especially its completeness. It is very often the case that reviewers suggest supplementing the methodology, especially the basic one, and in many cases the formulas and their descriptions are repeated, even in the case of easily accessible articles. This is especially important for young scientists (as has been mentioned many times). The authors will rewrite the said content in the appropriate sections.
  Referring to the last paragraph:
  
  1) The literature on this topic and the influence of trees (including emergent vegetation) on the flow in compound channels, including computational methods, has been and is monitored. Before submitting the article, the bibliography was checked and updated. Of course, it is possible that some literature items have been omitted. In such a case, we would like to include them in the article revision.
  
  2) The main objective of the present study is to show the significant influence of trees in floodplains on the values of drag coefficients in the main channel, using measurement data from studies on the structure of turbulence. The work shows that extended and detailed research in this direction is necessary.
  
  3) Expanding the article with additional elements such as: new achievements, scientific difficulties appearing in the research work, especially in relation to the previous work, would require to extend already quite long article text. In our opinion, such elements would be much more suitable for the state-of-art article.
  Thank you very much for suggestions, we would like to include them in the article revision, especially eliminating the article parts that might be too similar to our precious article.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2024-74-AC1
  - RC2: 'Reply on AC1', Anonymous Referee #1, 04 Apr 2024
    
    Dear authors, dear editor,
    I fully understand that this article is a continuation of the previous one and that it focuses on vegetation.
    As you explain, you have to take up ideas from the previous article, and I completely agree with that. This allows the article to be self-contained. However, you cannot repeat paragraphs as they are in the previous article. That is plagiarism and raises copyright issues, especially as the two articles are not published by the same publisher.
    I suggest that you take up all the paragraphs concerned, either by summarising them, developing them or at least rewording them. I also maintain that you really emphasise the novelty, as this will also avoid the problem of plagiarism (few words in the introduction, different concerned paragraphs and conclusion).
    With regard to the bibliography, I was not just talking about taking vegetation into account, but also more generally about the composite coefficient. Since your previous article on the topic there have been other articles on the subject, some of which are giving reviews on the topic of friction and compound channels and should be cited. For example (not the only ones) :
    - Fernandes, J. N. (2021). Apparent roughness coefficient in overbank flows.
    - Zohreh Sheikh Khozani, Khabat Khosravi, Binh Thai Pham, Bjørn Kløve, Wan Hanna Melini Wan Mohtar, Zaher Mundher Yaseen; Determination of compound channel apparent shear stress: application of novel data mining models. Journal of Hydroinformatics 1 September 2019; 21 (5): 798–811. doi: https://doi.org/10.2166/hydro.2019.037
    I stand by my initial opinion regarding the good quality and interest of the article. The content is perfectly suited to the target journal. For me, the points I have mentioned are easy to address but essential, which justifies to keep my initial suggestion to the editor : "reconsidered after major revisions".
    Best regards
    
    Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2024-74-RC2
    
    AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Adam Kozioł, 05 Apr 2024
    
    Dear Reviewer,
    
    Thank you very much for your valuable suggestions and comments.
    
    We agree, that all remarks should be included in the revised manuscript.
    
    Sincerely,
    
    Authors
    
    Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2024-74-AC2
RC3:
'Comment on hess-2024-74', Anonymous Referee #2, 07 May 2024
Summary
The manuscript presents findings from laboratory experiments on the effect of trees on the friction coefficient in compound channels. This work is an extension of a previously published work by the same group in 2019 in the Journal Water (Kubrak et al. 2019, https://doi.org/10.3390/w11040745). The effect of different tree configurations was analyzed. The results demonstrated that the presence of trees increase the flow resistance and reduce the flow velocity both in the floodplain and the main channel.
Main comments / Conclusion
I share the opinion of the other reviewer that the paper is well written, and the topic is of interest for this Journal. However, I also agree that multiple parts of the paper are copied from Kubrak et al. (2019) without providing sufficient references. In some parts, the reference is added, but the wording of the sentence is not altered and the use of “…” is missing to highlight that an entire sentence has been copied. I understand that this is an extension of a previous study, and this paper should be readable on its own but there are multiple sections in this current version, where it is not clear if the results are from this or a previous study.
The novelty of this paper is the consideration of trees, but the majority of the conclusions still focus on results that have been presented in Kubrak et al. (2019). The paper needs to be thoroughly revised in order to be suitable for publication.
My main comments are:
Introduction: First sentence is copied 1:1, L20-22, and L26-28, Eq. 1, L65 lack reference to Kubrak et al. 2019,

Note that in L29, the paper starts to mention trees. I recommend starting with this right away and also provide context on why the consideration of trees is important. In addition, move L70 with the “main goal” further up and explicitly state what results are used from previous work.

Section heading 2 and 3 (this can easily be adapted) are the same as in Kubrak et al. (2019)

L107-L115: The first three variants are all included in Kubrak et al. and don’t need to be described in the methods section. The data can be used for comparison in the results section with a brief explanation on the characteristics. This should be removed.

Figure 2: Reference to Figure 3 in Kubrak et al. (2019) needed (subfigures a-c are the same as in Water – see comment above, these setups are not needed for this paper)

Table 1: Remove tests that have been included in Kubrak et al. (2019): 1.0.14, 2.0.7

L146: Remove W 1.0-3.0 or add reference and explicitly state that this stems from another study

Figure 4: Reference to Figure 4 in Kubrak et al. (2019) needed (for upper two plots)

Figure 5: see comment above (for upper plot)

L172-174: Text copied from Kubrak et al. (2019) without any modification; needs to be adapted.

Figure 7: Figure legend does not align with parameters used in text; please adapt. Not clear why results for W1.0 are needed, since no trees have been added and the results with respect to the bottom roughness are included in Kubrak et al. (2019). Please revise.

L192ff: This entire section is very difficult to follow. I recommend stating the main trend and then adding the relative changes for selected tests.

It would be useful to add images from the laboratory experiments. If dye has been added, the exchange processes could be at least discussed. This is mentioned in the abstract but the paper does not include results.

I recommend summarizing which average resistance factors result for the different setups (with and without trees). Are these values suitable to estimate the discharge? It would be interesting to show the determined vs. measured discharge for a given scenario.

Conclusion: Conclusion points 1, 2 and 4 all contain results from Kubrak et al. (2019) without providing a reference. It seems as these conclusions stem from this paper, which is not correct. The entire conclusions section needs to be revised to focus on the results of this study. I understand that a comparison to the previous paper is important, but the results from the previous work should be identified as such.

Based on my review, I recommend major revision in form and content in order to be considered for publication.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2024-74-RC3
- AC3: 'Reply on RC3', Adam Kozioł, 08 May 2024
  
  Dear Reviewer,
  We would like to thank the reviewer for their careful review and insightful comments. We particularly appreciate the recognition of the article's topic being of interest to the journal.
  We fully agree with the reviewer's comments, especially regarding the need to clearly differentiate this manuscript from our previous work (Kubrak et al., 2019). We will ensure the revised article minimizes overlap and emphasizes the novel aspects of the current study on the effect of tree configurations.
  Sincerely,
  
  Authors
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2024-74-AC3

Status: closed

RC1:
'Comment on hess-2024-74', Anonymous Referee #1, 26 Mar 2024

Dear authors, dear publisher,
I find the article perfectly within the scope of the journal and of interest to the community. It deals with friction laws and coefficients for compound channels with experimental and theoretical parts.
However, for me, there is too much in common with the article "Kubrak et al., 2019, Apparent topography friction coefficient used for flow calculation in straight compound channels, Water, 11, 745; doi:10.3390/w11040745" that comes under the heading of plagiarism.
That's why I'm suggesting a major revision. The title of the article is too close to the one already published. Some section titles and content are exactly the same as the previously published article. This is not acceptable, so I suggest that the authors completely rewrite the article to eliminate all duplication.
Furthermore, I think that it is necessary to complete and improve the bibliography, particularly in terms of review of existing resaerchs on the topics, and to clearly highlight the new developments and the scientific obstacles raised in this work and more particularly in relation to their previous work. This will permit to give more in deep feedback.
Best regards

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2024-74-RC1
- AC1:
  'Reply on RC1', Adam Kozioł, 27 Mar 2024
  
  Dear Reviewer,
  thank you very much for reading our present manuscript, but even more so for our previous "Kubrak et al., 2019, Apparent topography friction coefficient used for flow calculation in straight compound channels, Water, 11, 745; doi:10.3390/w11040745".
  Referring to paragraph 2 of the reviewer comment, the present manuscript has a lot in common with our previous study (Kubrak et al., 2019) because it is a continuation of research on the same flume model. The first study concerned the flows and structure of turbulence in a compound channel without vegetation (trees) in floodplains. The next stage was to study the influence of trees in floodplains on the flow and structure of stream turbulence. The paper by Kubrak et al., (2019) refers to the first stage of the research - flow without vegetation, while the current one focuses primarily on the effect of trees on the drag coefficients in the main channel, for which data from studies on the structure of stream turbulence in the compound channel was used. Since the present article is the continuation of our research, after the analyses we finally decided to expand the title so that it is very easy to link the two studies. Admittedly, there was a proposal for another title: "The influence of floodplain trees on apparent friction coefﬁcient used for flow calculation in straight compound channels ", but we decided on the current title, emphasizing that it is a continuation of previous studies.
  Referring to the 3rd paragraph, as mentioned above, in our opinion, the title of the article should be similar to our previous article, it is a continuation of research on the same model. In fact, the titles and content of some sections are similar to those of a previously published article. This applies only to the basic methodology of determining drag coefficients, especially the description of the three formulas, and it is a small part of the article. Still, all the elements were made exclusively for this work and were never before published. The reviewer suggests eliminating any duplication. The authors believe that the elimination of even partial methodology, formulas and their descriptions is a great loss for the article itself, especially its completeness. It is very often the case that reviewers suggest supplementing the methodology, especially the basic one, and in many cases the formulas and their descriptions are repeated, even in the case of easily accessible articles. This is especially important for young scientists (as has been mentioned many times). The authors will rewrite the said content in the appropriate sections.
  Referring to the last paragraph:
  
  1) The literature on this topic and the influence of trees (including emergent vegetation) on the flow in compound channels, including computational methods, has been and is monitored. Before submitting the article, the bibliography was checked and updated. Of course, it is possible that some literature items have been omitted. In such a case, we would like to include them in the article revision.
  
  2) The main objective of the present study is to show the significant influence of trees in floodplains on the values of drag coefficients in the main channel, using measurement data from studies on the structure of turbulence. The work shows that extended and detailed research in this direction is necessary.
  
  3) Expanding the article with additional elements such as: new achievements, scientific difficulties appearing in the research work, especially in relation to the previous work, would require to extend already quite long article text. In our opinion, such elements would be much more suitable for the state-of-art article.
  Thank you very much for suggestions, we would like to include them in the article revision, especially eliminating the article parts that might be too similar to our precious article.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2024-74-AC1
  - RC2: 'Reply on AC1', Anonymous Referee #1, 04 Apr 2024
    
    Dear authors, dear editor,
    I fully understand that this article is a continuation of the previous one and that it focuses on vegetation.
    As you explain, you have to take up ideas from the previous article, and I completely agree with that. This allows the article to be self-contained. However, you cannot repeat paragraphs as they are in the previous article. That is plagiarism and raises copyright issues, especially as the two articles are not published by the same publisher.
    I suggest that you take up all the paragraphs concerned, either by summarising them, developing them or at least rewording them. I also maintain that you really emphasise the novelty, as this will also avoid the problem of plagiarism (few words in the introduction, different concerned paragraphs and conclusion).
    With regard to the bibliography, I was not just talking about taking vegetation into account, but also more generally about the composite coefficient. Since your previous article on the topic there have been other articles on the subject, some of which are giving reviews on the topic of friction and compound channels and should be cited. For example (not the only ones) :
    - Fernandes, J. N. (2021). Apparent roughness coefficient in overbank flows.
    - Zohreh Sheikh Khozani, Khabat Khosravi, Binh Thai Pham, Bjørn Kløve, Wan Hanna Melini Wan Mohtar, Zaher Mundher Yaseen; Determination of compound channel apparent shear stress: application of novel data mining models. Journal of Hydroinformatics 1 September 2019; 21 (5): 798–811. doi: https://doi.org/10.2166/hydro.2019.037
    I stand by my initial opinion regarding the good quality and interest of the article. The content is perfectly suited to the target journal. For me, the points I have mentioned are easy to address but essential, which justifies to keep my initial suggestion to the editor : "reconsidered after major revisions".
    Best regards
    
    Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2024-74-RC2
    
    AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Adam Kozioł, 05 Apr 2024
    
    Dear Reviewer,
    
    Thank you very much for your valuable suggestions and comments.
    
    We agree, that all remarks should be included in the revised manuscript.
    
    Sincerely,
    
    Authors
    
    Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2024-74-AC2
RC3:
'Comment on hess-2024-74', Anonymous Referee #2, 07 May 2024
Summary
The manuscript presents findings from laboratory experiments on the effect of trees on the friction coefficient in compound channels. This work is an extension of a previously published work by the same group in 2019 in the Journal Water (Kubrak et al. 2019, https://doi.org/10.3390/w11040745). The effect of different tree configurations was analyzed. The results demonstrated that the presence of trees increase the flow resistance and reduce the flow velocity both in the floodplain and the main channel.
Main comments / Conclusion
I share the opinion of the other reviewer that the paper is well written, and the topic is of interest for this Journal. However, I also agree that multiple parts of the paper are copied from Kubrak et al. (2019) without providing sufficient references. In some parts, the reference is added, but the wording of the sentence is not altered and the use of “…” is missing to highlight that an entire sentence has been copied. I understand that this is an extension of a previous study, and this paper should be readable on its own but there are multiple sections in this current version, where it is not clear if the results are from this or a previous study.
The novelty of this paper is the consideration of trees, but the majority of the conclusions still focus on results that have been presented in Kubrak et al. (2019). The paper needs to be thoroughly revised in order to be suitable for publication.
My main comments are:
Introduction: First sentence is copied 1:1, L20-22, and L26-28, Eq. 1, L65 lack reference to Kubrak et al. 2019,

Note that in L29, the paper starts to mention trees. I recommend starting with this right away and also provide context on why the consideration of trees is important. In addition, move L70 with the “main goal” further up and explicitly state what results are used from previous work.

Section heading 2 and 3 (this can easily be adapted) are the same as in Kubrak et al. (2019)

L107-L115: The first three variants are all included in Kubrak et al. and don’t need to be described in the methods section. The data can be used for comparison in the results section with a brief explanation on the characteristics. This should be removed.

Figure 2: Reference to Figure 3 in Kubrak et al. (2019) needed (subfigures a-c are the same as in Water – see comment above, these setups are not needed for this paper)

Table 1: Remove tests that have been included in Kubrak et al. (2019): 1.0.14, 2.0.7

L146: Remove W 1.0-3.0 or add reference and explicitly state that this stems from another study

Figure 4: Reference to Figure 4 in Kubrak et al. (2019) needed (for upper two plots)

Figure 5: see comment above (for upper plot)

L172-174: Text copied from Kubrak et al. (2019) without any modification; needs to be adapted.

Figure 7: Figure legend does not align with parameters used in text; please adapt. Not clear why results for W1.0 are needed, since no trees have been added and the results with respect to the bottom roughness are included in Kubrak et al. (2019). Please revise.

L192ff: This entire section is very difficult to follow. I recommend stating the main trend and then adding the relative changes for selected tests.

It would be useful to add images from the laboratory experiments. If dye has been added, the exchange processes could be at least discussed. This is mentioned in the abstract but the paper does not include results.

I recommend summarizing which average resistance factors result for the different setups (with and without trees). Are these values suitable to estimate the discharge? It would be interesting to show the determined vs. measured discharge for a given scenario.

Conclusion: Conclusion points 1, 2 and 4 all contain results from Kubrak et al. (2019) without providing a reference. It seems as these conclusions stem from this paper, which is not correct. The entire conclusions section needs to be revised to focus on the results of this study. I understand that a comparison to the previous paper is important, but the results from the previous work should be identified as such.

Based on my review, I recommend major revision in form and content in order to be considered for publication.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2024-74-RC3
- AC3: 'Reply on RC3', Adam Kozioł, 08 May 2024
  
  Dear Reviewer,
  We would like to thank the reviewer for their careful review and insightful comments. We particularly appreciate the recognition of the article's topic being of interest to the journal.
  We fully agree with the reviewer's comments, especially regarding the need to clearly differentiate this manuscript from our previous work (Kubrak et al., 2019). We will ensure the revised article minimizes overlap and emphasizes the novel aspects of the current study on the effect of tree configurations.
  Sincerely,
  
  Authors
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2024-74-AC3

Adam Kozioł, Adam Kiczko, Marcin Krukowski, Elżbieta Kubrak, Janusz Kubrak, Grzegorz Majewski, and Andrzej Brandyk

Viewed

Total article views: 481 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)

HTML	PDF	XML	Total	BibTeX	EndNote
371	69	41	481	34	23

HTML: 371
PDF: 69
XML: 41
Total: 481
BibTeX: 34
EndNote: 23

Views and downloads (calculated since 13 Mar 2024)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Mar 2024	119	20	11	150
Apr 2024	67	10	11	88
May 2024	67	11	11	89
Jun 2024	20	6	2	28
Jul 2024	24	5	6	35
Aug 2024	17	1	0	18
Sep 2024	30	3	0	33
Oct 2024	11	4	0	15
Nov 2024	12	5	0	17
Dec 2024	4	4	0	8

Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 13 Mar 2024)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Mar 2024	119	20	11	150
Apr 2024	67	10	11	88
May 2024	67	11	11	89
Jun 2024	20	6	2	28
Jul 2024	24	5	6	35
Aug 2024	17	1	0	18
Sep 2024	30	3	0	33
Oct 2024	11	4	0	15
Nov 2024	12	5	0	17
Dec 2024	4	4	0	8

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 466 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 466 with geography defined and 0 with unknown origin.

Country	#	Views	%

Latest update: 13 Dec 2024

Short summary

Floodplain trees play a crucial role in increasing flow resistance. Their impact extends beyond floodplains to affect the main channel. The experiments reveal the influence of floodplain trees on the discharge capacity of channels with varying roughness. We determine resistance coefficients for different roughness levels of the main channel bottom. The research contributes to a deeper understanding of open-channel flow dynamics and has practical implications for river engineering.


Total:	0
HTML:	0
PDF:	0
XML:	0