EAD 511 RIVER MANAGEMENT

Mini Project: Channelization Effects on River Morphology of Sungai Kulim, Kedah

Test Reach = 3km

20
Input data (given):

1. Geometry data: Radius of curvature, Reach lengths, Cross sections

2. Hydrology data: Year 1991 hydrograph (1 year), year 1991 stage-discharge rating curve

3. Sediment data: Sediment transport formula, Sediment samples (Upstream and

downstream)

Output data:

Width
Geometry Depth
Cross-sectional area Expected Results :

Slope Produce changes over time in water

Mean sediment size (d50) surface, bed elevation and thalweg
profiles, simulation of curvature
Bed material size fractions induced aggradation and
Sediment deposition. channel scour and fill,
Sediment concentration simulated water surface based on
input hydrograph for 3 KM study
Sediment yield reach
Water surface
Hydraulic
Mean velocity

21
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
+ MODEL

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

Journal of Hydro-environment Research xx (2008) 1e13

www.elsevier.com/locate/jher

Research papers

Sediment transport modeling for Kulim River e A case study

Chang Chun Kiat*, Aminuddin Ab Ghani, Rozi Abdullah, Nor Azazi Zakaria
River Engineering and Urban Drainage Research Centre (REDAC), Universiti Sains Malaysia, Engineering Campus,
Seri Ampangan, 14300 Nibong Tebal, Penang, Malaysia

Received 10 August 2007; revised 12 March 2008; accepted 9 April 2008

Abstract

Rapid urbanization has accelerated impact on the catchment hydrology and geomorphology. This rapid development which takes place in
river catchment will result in higher sediment yield and affect river morphology and river channel stability; it also becomes the main cause
for serious flooding in urban areas. Therefore, it is necessary to predict and evaluate the river channel stability due to the existing and future
developments. This study proceeds at Kulim River in Kedah state, a natural stream in Kedah, Malaysia. The FLUVIAL-12 model, an erod-
ible-boundary model which simulates inter-related changes in channel-bed profile, width variation and changes in bed topography was selected
for this study. Engelund-Hansen formula and roughness coefficient n ¼ 0.030 were found to be the best combination to represent the sediment
transport activity in the study reach, where good agreements were obtained for both water level and bed profiles between the measured data and
predicted results by FLUVIAL-12 model. The model simulation results for existing conditions, future conditions and long-term modeling show
that the sediment size and channel geometry in Kulim River changed significantly. However, modeled results show that future changes in cross
sectional geometry will be limited and erosion along the reach will slow down from 2006 to 2016, thus Kulim River was predicted to be stable at
most locations.
Ó 2008 Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of International Association for Hydraulic Engineering and Research, Asia Pacific Division.

Keywords: Alluvial river; Sediment transport; FLUVIAL-12 model; River channel stability; Long-term simulation

1. Introduction
River is a dynamic system governed by hydraulic and sed-
iment transport process. Over time, the river responses by
changing in channel cross section, increased or decreased sed-
iment carrying capacity, erosion and deposition along the
channel, which affect bank stability and even morphology
changes. Rapid urbanization has accelerated impact on the
catchment hydrology and geomorphology. This development
which takes place in river catchment areas will cause dramatic
increase in the surface runoff and resulting in higher sediment
delivery. Sediment delivery is defined as the cumulative
amount of sediment that has been delivered passing each cross
section for a specified period of time. When this happens, it
* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ604 594 1035; fax: þ604 594 1036;
E-mail address: redac10@eng.usm.my (C.K. Chang).
will not only affect river morphology but also cause instability
in the river channel and hence serious damage to hydraulic
structures along the river and reducing channel capacity to
convey the flood water to downstream.
Kulim River (Fig. 1) today is also changing, but mostly in
response to human activity. These activities include the
development to the year 2010 of the Kulim district based on
the Kulim Structure Plan, 1990e2010 (MDK, 1993), rapid
urbanization at Kulim River catchment especially construction
for housing estate, the on-going 145 km2 Kulim Hi-Tech In-
dustrial Park and sand mining activities. Frequently floods
that occur in Kulim River Catchment for the past 20 years
has caused extensive damage and inconvenience to the com-
munity especially October 2003 flood which was close to
the 100-year average recurrence interval (ARI). Finally, these
changes to the river hydrology and sedimentation will in turn
alter the channel morphology, which can include changes to
channel cross section, stability and capacity (Chang et al.,

1570-6443/$ - see front matter Ó 2008 Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of International Association for Hydraulic Engineering and Research, Asia Pacific Division.
doi:10.1016/j.jher.2008.04.002

Please cite this article in press as: Chun Kiat Chang et al., Sediment transport modeling for Kulim River e A case study, Journal of Hydro-environment Research
(2008), doi:10.1016/j.jher.2008.04.002
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
+ MODEL

2 C.K. Chang et al. / Journal of Hydro-environment Research xx (2008) 1e13

Fig. 1. Delineated Kulim River Catchment and Study Reach for FLUVIAL-12 Modeling.

2004, 2005). Therefore, river channel behavior often needs to modeling, or mathematical modeling, or both. Physical model-
be studied for its natural state and response to human regula- ing has been relied upon traditionally for river projects, but
tion. However, studies of river hydraulics, sediment transport, mathematical modeling is becoming more popular as its capa-
and river channel changes may be carried out through physical bilities expand rapidly (Chang, 2006b). In Malaysia, mathe-
matical modeling has been widely applied for study related
with sediment transport such as Sinnakaudan et al. (2003), Da-
Table 1 rus et al. (2004) and Ariffin (2004). Similar attempts were also
Range of Field Data for Kulim River Catchment (Chang, 2006a; Ab. Ghani
made from previous studies at Kulim River (DID, 1996; Ya-
et al., 2007)
haya, 1999; Lee, 2001; Ibrahim, 2002; Koay, 2004) which
Study Site CH 14390 CH 3014
were conducted to determine the river behaviors and the effec-
No. of Sample 10 12 tiveness of the flood mitigation projects due to rapid urbaniza-
Discharge, Q (m3/s) 0.73e3.14 3.73e9.98
tion. However, data available from previous studies, including
Water surface width, B (m) 9.0e13.0 13.0e19.0
Flow depth, yo (m) 0.20e0.54 0.36e0.58 river survey geometry data, sediment data and hydrology data
Hydraulic radius, R (m) 0.23e0.57 0.40e0.63 were limited and up to year 1999. Besides that, the study also
Water surface slope, So 0.001 0.001 was limited to a single storm event and river stability could not
Mean sediment size, d50 (mm) 1.00e2.40 1.10e2.00 be predicted. Hence, the objectives of this study are to exam-
Manning n 0.029e0.072 0.024e0.037
ine river stability for a long period due to changes made by na-
B/yo 23.4e44.8 26.0e52.5
yo/d50 126.9e369.01 240.0e550.9 ture or human activities by evaluating Kulim River sediment
R/d50 141.4e406.6 266.5e570.9 transporting capability (Table 1) and determining effect of
Bed load, Tb (kg/s) 0.06e0.33 0.11e0.36 flooding due to rapid urbanization at the study area. It is nec-
Suspended load, Ts (kg/s) 0.02e0.27 0.03e1.21 essary to evaluate and predict the river channel stability for the
Total load, Tj (kg/s) 0.09e0.56 0.27e1.35
purpose of river rehabilitation due to the existing and future
Please cite this article in press as: Chun Kiat Chang et al., Sediment transport modeling for Kulim River e A case study, Journal of Hydro-environment Research
(2008), doi:10.1016/j.jher.2008.04.002
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
+ MODEL

C.K. Chang et al. / Journal of Hydro-environment Research xx (2008) 1e13 3

50

45 3 June 1991, 4am

(Q = 43.74 m3/s)
40

Discharge, Q (m3/s) 35

30

25

20

15

10

0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000
Time (Hour)
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Fig. 2. Input Hydrograph for Year 1991.

developments in the river catchment. The historical data from headwaters, the Kulim River catchment is hilly and densely
1991 (Fig. 2), up to 2006 (Fig. 3) will be evaluated and used to forested and Kulim River arises on the western slopes of
predict river stability for future development and this will al- Gunung Bongsu Range and flowing in a north-westerly direc-
low evaluation of river stability over a 16-year period by con- tion. The river slopes are steep and the channel elevation drops
sidering the effect of changes in cross section and sediment from 500 m to 20 m average mean sea level over a distance of
load. This paper attempts to give an overview of the channel 9 km. The central area of the catchment is undulating with
changes and sediment transport phenomena which cause prob- elevations ranging from 100 m down to 18 m average mean
lems with river bank and bed stability in Kulim River. sea level. Currently, the catchment area is undergoing rapid
urban development with oil palm and rubber plantations being
2. Study area replaced by rapid urbanization. This is likely to increase the
magnitude of flood and will also result in discharge and bed
Kulim River catchment is located in the southern part of the erosion increment or scouring and deposition.
state of Kedah in the northwestern corner of Peninsular Malay- Frequently floods occur in Kulim River catchment and
sia with the total catchment area of 130 km2 (Fig. 1). At the cause extensive damage and inconvenience to the community.

100

90

80
Discharge, Q (m3/s)

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000 80000 90000 100000
Time (Hour)
1991 1992 1993 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Fig. 3. Input Hydrograph for Year 1991 to June 1993, 1997 to June 2006.

Please cite this article in press as: Chun Kiat Chang et al., Sediment transport modeling for Kulim River e A case study, Journal of Hydro-environment Research
(2008), doi:10.1016/j.jher.2008.04.002
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
+ MODEL

4 C.K. Chang et al. / Journal of Hydro-environment Research xx (2008) 1e13

15.00
1990/1991 1992
14.00 1993/1994 1995
1996 1998
1999 2000
13.00 3
Q = 0.7 x (yo-5.0)
2001 2002
Flood Rating
12.00

11.00
Stage (m)

10.00

9.00

8.00

7.00

6.00

5.00
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Discharge (m3/s)

Fig. 4. Flood Rating Curve at Ara Kuda (CH 0).

The effects of flooding are felt most in built-up areas such as flood discharges, high channel roughness, siltation and block-
residential and commercial areas within the urban confine ages by debris and refuse. There are several locations within
where property damage is more as compared with that in the urban confines which are repeatedly flooded. According
agricultural areas (Chang et al., 2004). Flood has been attrib- to the information given by the Department of Irrigation and
uted to overbank spill from river and arising from a number of Drainage Malaysia (DID) and DID flood reports, floods have
causes, such as undersized river channels and drains to cater occurred during 1 to 5 October 1989, 31 May to 2 June
1991, 24 April 1994, October 1997, 15 to 24 Nov 1998, Jan
2001, April 2001 and October 2003, which was close to the
Upstream (CH14390) 100-year ARI. Kulim River and its tributaries are generally
a 100.00 undersized relative to flood discharges and in many cases
90.00 channel roughness is high due to a combination of bank irreg-
6 March 2006
Percentage Passing (%)

80.00 ularity and in-river vegetation growth (Ab. Ghani et al., 2007).
70.00 The problem of flooding related to undersized river channels is
60.00 compounded by:-
50.00
40.00 - Siltation
30.00 - Partial blockage of bridges by debris during flood
20.00 - Increased flood discharges due to on-going urban
d50=1.50 mm development in the catchment area under Kulim Structure
10.00
0.00
Plan, 1990e2010 (MDK, 1993)
0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00
Size Particle (mm)
3. Field data collection
b Downstream (CH 0)
100.00
River surveys, flow measurement and field data collection
90.00
8 December 2004 provide the basic physical information such as sediment char-
Percentage Passing (%)

80.00
acteristics, discharge, water surface slope; which is needed for
70.00
the planning and design of river engineering. In addition to the
60.00
data needed for sediment transport studies, use of a sediment
50.00
transport model (Table 2) also requires field data such as chan-
40.00 nel configuration before and after the changes (Table 3), a flow
30.00 record (Fig. 4) and sediment characteristics (Fig. 5), which are
20.00
d50=0.75 mm generally used for test and calibration of a model. Field mea-
10.00 surements were obtained during October 2004 to January 2007
0.00 along the selected cross sections at Kulim River catchment by
0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00
using Hydrological Procedure (DID, 1976; DID, 1977) and re-
Size Particle (mm)
cent manuals (Yuqian, 1989; USACE, 1995; Edwards & Glys-
Fig. 5. Initial Bed Material Size Distributions. son, 1999; Lagasse et al., 2001; Richardson et al., 2001). The
Please cite this article in press as: Chun Kiat Chang et al., Sediment transport modeling for Kulim River e A case study, Journal of Hydro-environment Research
(2008), doi:10.1016/j.jher.2008.04.002
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
+ MODEL

C.K. Chang et al. / Journal of Hydro-environment Research xx (2008) 1e13 5

Table 2
Summary of Input and Output Parameter for FLUVIAL-12
Category Category Parameter Value Source
Input Geometry Cross section per section (Total of cross sections ¼ 120) CH 1900 e CH 14390 (DID 1991 Survey) CH 0
parameter (DID 1995 Survey)
Reach lengths per section (Total length ¼ 14.4 km) 1991 (DID 1991 Survey)
Roughness coefficient Same by cross section (n ¼ 0.020, 0.025, 0.030, Values static at all levels of flow.
0.035, 0.040 were evaluated during the
sensitivity analysis)
Radius of curvature per section 1991 (DID 1991 Survey)
Sediment Sediment samples 2 sediment size distributions of such samples are Data sampling at CH 14390 (Year 2006) and CH
required (upstream and downstream section) 0 (Year 2004)
Regular non-erodible bank Generally fix at left and right bank, varies by DID 1991 Survey
cross section
Sediment transport formula Seven sediment transport formulas were Graf’s sediment formula
evaluated during the sensitivity analysis Yang’s unit stream power formula
Engelund-Hansen sediment formula
Parker gravel formula
Ackers-White sediment formula
Meyer-Peter Muller formula
Singer-Dunne formula
Specific Gravity 2.65 Default (Soulsby, 1997)
Hydrology Discharge hydrograph Varies by hydrograph (Figs. 7 and 8) Historical hydrograph for Kulim River at Ara
Kuda streamflow station
Design Hydrograph from past study (DID, 1996)
Rating Curve Year 1991 to Year 2002 Developed by DID Hydrology Division
Output Geometry Width Changes over time in water surface, bed
parameter Depth elevation and thalweg profiles. Simulation of
Cross-sectional area curvature induced aggradation and deposition.
Slope
Sediment Mean sediment size (d50) Changes over time in sediment transport,
Bed material size fractions channel scour and fill, aggradation and
degradation
Sediment concentration Sediment delivery or the total bed material yield
Sediment yield during the study period
Hydraulic Water surface Simulated water surface based on input
hydrograph
Mean velocity Flow data sets for representative cross sections
Froude number in the study reach

data collection includes flow discharge (Q), suspended load selected cross sections (Fig. 6). A summary with ranges for
(Ts), bed load (Tb) and water surface slope (So). Besides hydraulics and sediment data collection is shown in Table 1
that, bed elevation, water surface and thalweg, the minimum (Chang, 2006a; Ab. Ghani et al., 2007). Low sediment trans-
bed elevation for a cross section were also carried out at the port rates occurred during the field measurements and the

Table 3
Comparison of Simulated Water Level and Bed Profile with Measured Data during 2 Nov 2004 for Roughness Coefficient n ¼ 0.025, 0.030 and 0.035
Roughness Location Water Level (m) Thalweg Level (m)
coefficient n
Measured Yang fomula Engelund-Hansen Measured Yang fomula Engelund-Hansen
fomula fomula
Predicted Difference Predicted Difference Predicted Difference Predicted Difference
0.025 CH 0 7.45 7.80 þ0.35 7.80 þ0.35 5.05 5.34 þ0.29 5.29 þ0.24
CH 3014 8.61 8.14 0.47 8.13 0.48 6.66 6.79 þ0.13 6.96 þ0.30
CH 8185 13.55 12.47 1.08 13.67 þ0.12 12.27 11.68 0.59 12.85 þ0.58
CH 14390 25.61 26.00 þ0.39 25.99 þ0.38 23.45 24.58 þ1.13 24.58 þ1.13
0.030 CH 0 7.45 7.80 þ0.35 7.82 þ0.37 5.05 5.40 þ0.35 5.27 þ0.22
CH 3014 8.61 8.36 0.25 8.29 0.32 6.66 6.57 0.09 6.69 þ0.03
CH 8185 13.55 13.00 0.55 13.36 0.19 12.27 11.87 0.40 12.16 0.11
CH 14390 25.61 26.17 þ0.56 26.14 0.53 23.45 24.58 þ1.13 24.58 0.00
0.035 CH 0 7.45 7.80 þ0.35 7.93 þ0.48 5.05 5.33 þ0.28 5.26 þ0.21
CH 3014 8.61 8.59 þ0.02 8.52 0.09 6.66 7.30 þ0.64 7.53 þ0.87
CH 8185 13.55 13.55 0.00 13.45 0.10 12.27 12.26 0.01 12.31 þ0.04
CH 14390 25.61 26.20 þ0.59 26.29 þ0.68 22.85 24.58 þ1.73 24.58 þ1.73

Please cite this article in press as: Chun Kiat Chang et al., Sediment transport modeling for Kulim River e A case study, Journal of Hydro-environment Research
(2008), doi:10.1016/j.jher.2008.04.002
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
+ MODEL

6 C.K. Chang et al. / Journal of Hydro-environment Research xx (2008) 1e13

30 30
Initial Bed (1991) Initial Bed (1991)
25 Water Surface (E-H, n = 0.025) 25 Water Surface (E-H, n = 0.030)
Bed Profile (E-H, n = 0.025)
Elevation (m)

Elevation (m)
Bed Profile(E-H, n = 0.030)
Measured Water Level (2 Nov 2004)
20 20 Measured Water Level (2 Nov 2004)
Measured Bed Level (2 Nov 2004) Measured Bed Level (2 Nov 2004)
15 15

10 10

5 5

0 0

0
00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

13 0
0

0
0
00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00
00

00
00

00

00

00

00

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90
10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

10

11

12

14
10

11

12

13

14
Chainage (m) Chainage (m)

30 30
Initial Bed(1991) Initial Bed (1991)
25 Water Surface (E-H, n = 0.035) 25 Water Surface (Yang, n = 0.025)

Elevation (m)
Elevation (m)

Bed Profile (E-H, n = 0.035) Bed Profile (Yang, n = 0.025)

20 Measured Water Level (2 Nov 2004) 20 Measured Water Level (2 Nov 2004)
Measured Bed Level (2 Nov 2004) Measured Bed Level (2 Nov 2004)
15 15

10 10

5 5

0 0

0
00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

0
0
00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00
00

00

00

00

00

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90
10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

10

11

12

13

14
10

11

12

13

14

Chainage (m) Chainage (m)

30 30
Initial Bed (1991) Initial Bed (1991)
25 Water Surface (Yang, n = 0.030) 25 Water Surface (Yang, n = 0.035)
Bed Profile (Yang, n = 0.030)
Elevation (m)
Elevation (m)

Bed Profile (Yang, n = 0.035)

20 Measured Water Level (2 Nov 2004) 20 Measured Water Level (2 Nov 2004)
Measured Bed Level (2 Nov2004) Measured Bed Level (2 Nov 2004)
15 15

10 10

5 5

0 0
0
00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

0
0
00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

14 0
0

00

00

00

00

00
00

00

00

00
00

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90
10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

10

11

12

13

14
10

11

12

13

Chainage (m) Chainage (m)

Fig. 6. Comparison of Water Level and Bed Profile for Roughness Coefficient n ¼ 0.025, 0.030 and 0.035 (2 Nov 2004).

100
100
90
90 5 October (1am)
80 Q = 92.90 m3/s
Actual Data 80
Discharge,Q (m3/s)

70 Prediction
70
Discharge, Q(m3/s)

60
60
50 19 October (10pm)
50 Q = 7.50 m3/s
40
40
30
30
20
20
10
10 3 October (9am)
0 Q = 8.80 m3/s
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 0
0

0
32

37

42

47

52

57

62

67

72

77

82

87

92

97

02

Weibull Probability
80

80

80

80

80

80

80

80

80

80

80

80

80

80

81

Time (Hour)
Fig. 7. Flood Frequency Analyses Using Gumbel Extreme Value Type-I
Distribution. Fig. 8. Hydrograph of the October 2003 Flood at Ara Kuda (CH 0).

Please cite this article in press as: Chun Kiat Chang et al., Sediment transport modeling for Kulim River e A case study, Journal of Hydro-environment Research
(2008), doi:10.1016/j.jher.2008.04.002
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
+ MODEL

C.K. Chang et al. / Journal of Hydro-environment Research xx (2008) 1e13 7

40000 Peak After Flood

Sediment Delivery (tons)

30000

20000

10000

0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000 13000 14000
Chainage (m)

Fig. 9. Spatial Variations of the Sediment Delivery during the October 2003 Flood.

mean sediment sizes (d50) show that Kulim River is sand-bed Committee on Hydraulics, Bank Mechanics, and Modeling of
streams where d50 ranges from 1.00 to 2.00 mm. The aspect River Width Adjustment (ASCE, 1998) and Federal Inter-
ratio for Kulim River was between 23 and 53 indicating that agency Stream Restoration Working Group (FISRWG,
it was a moderate-size channel. The water-surface slopes of 2001). In addition, applications of the several commonly
the study reaches were determined by taking measurements used sediment transport models have been described by Ab.
of water levels over a distance of 200 m where the cross sec- Ghani et al. (2003) and Chang (2006a). These applications
tion is located (FISRWG, 2001). In this study, the water-sur- illustrate various capabilities of different models and each sed-
face slopes were found to be mild, and an average value of iment transport model has its own limitations. The selection of
0.001 is adopted. the right model under certain constraints requires a comprehen-
sive knowledge of the capabilities and features of available
4. Software used models.
The sediment transport model, FLUVIAL-12 (Chang,
Studies of sediment transport, scour and fill, aggradation 1982, 1984, 1988), which was first developed in 1972, has
and deposition analyses can be performed by computer model been selected for the Kulim River study. FLUVIAL-12 is
simulation. The rapid pace of computer technology has been developed for water and sediment routing in natural and
a milestone for mathematical models in sediment transport. man-made channels. The combined effects of flow hydraulics,
As a result, the high demand on the models resulted in devel- sediment transport (Fig. 9) and river cross section changes are
opment of many models and the selection of the right model simulated for a given flow period. FLUVIAL-12 model is an
under certain constraints requires a comprehensive knowledge erodible-boundary model that includes the width adjustment
of the capabilities and features of available models. The component, which simulates inter-related changes in chan-
review of capabilities and performance of sediment transport nel-bed profile (Fig. 10), width variation (Fig. 11) and changes
models has been discussed by the National Research Council in bed topography induced by the curvature effect. Besides,
(1983), Fan (1988), American Society of Civil Engineers Task bank erosion, changes in channel curvature and river

30
Peak Water Surface Bed Profile before Flood
25 Bed Profileat Peak Flow Bed Profile after Flood
Elevation (m)

20

15

10

5
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000 13000 14000
Chainage (m)

Fig. 10. Prediction of Water surface and Bed Profile Changes during October 2003 Flood.

Please cite this article in press as: Chun Kiat Chang et al., Sediment transport modeling for Kulim River e A case study, Journal of Hydro-environment Research
(2008), doi:10.1016/j.jher.2008.04.002
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
+ MODEL

8 C.K. Chang et al. / Journal of Hydro-environment Research xx (2008) 1e13

26 350
25 300 306.6 m3/s
24

Discharge (m3/s)
250
Level (m)

23
22 200

21 150
20 100
CH 12490
19
50
18
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0
Distance (m) 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68 72 76 80 84
Initial Bed Level (Year 1991) Bed Level (Peak) Time (hrs)
Water Level (Peak) Bed Level (After Flood)
Fig. 12. Design Hydrograph for 2010 Landuse (DID, 1996).

15
14
13 meandering can also be modeled. While FLUVIAL-12 model
12 is for erodible channels, physical constraints; such as bank
Level (m)

11
10 protection, grade-control structures and bedrock outcroppings,
9 may also be specified (Chang, 2006b). Applications of FLU-
8 VIAL-12 model in several studies (Chang, 1997; Abu Hasan,
7 CH 5306
6
1998; Abdullah, 2002; Darus, 2002; Chang et al., 2002; DWR,
5 2004; Chang, 2004; Dong et al., 2005; Yazdandoost, 2005;
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Bahadori et al., 2006; Chang 2006a; Chang, 2008) showed
Distance (m)
that FLUVIAL-12 was capable to predict river changes caused
Initial Bed Level (Year 1991) Bed Level (Peak)
by nature and human activities, including general scour at
Water Level (Peak) Bed Level (After Flood)
bridge crossings, sediment delivery, channel responses to
sand and gravel mining and channelization.
15
14
13 5. Model simulation
12
Level (m)

11 5.1. Background
10
9
8 The study reach covers approximately 14.5 km of Kulim
7 CH 3014 River (Fig. 1), from the upstream (CH 14390) to the Ara
6 Kuda streamflow station (CH 0). The geometry data consists
5 of existing survey cross-sections in September 1991 between
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Distance (m) CH 1900 to CH 14390 at the upstream of Kulim River. These
Initial Bed Level (Year 1991)
data, consisting of lateral distance and elevations were pro-
Bed Level (Peak)
Water Level (Peak) Bed Level (After Flood) vided by Department of Irrigation and Drainage (DID)
Measured Bed Level (2 Nov 2004)
Kulim/Bandar Baharu. However, the survey of CH 0 cross sec-
tion in December 1995 was provided by DID Hydrology Divi-
sion for the FLUVIAL-12 modeling requirement. In this study,
11
a total of 120 existing survey cross sections were selected
10
along the study reach to define the channel geometry as the
9 input for FLUVIAL-12 model. The hydrograph for this study
Level (m)

8 was measured by DID Hydrological Division. The input

7 hydrograph at Ara Kuda for year 1991 (Fig. 2) was used for
6 model sensitivity analysis whilst model calibration and valida-
CH0 tion was using the hydrograph from year 1991 to June 2006
5
4
(Fig. 3). The rating curve which is used to define discharge
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 variation of stage (water surface elevation) for the downstream
Distance (m) boundary condition is shown in Fig. 4; the shifts in stage-
Initial Bed Level (Year 1991) Bed Level (Peak) discharge relationships reflect the variability at Ara Kuda
Water Level (Peak) Bed Level (After Flood)
Measured Bed Level (8 Dec 2004) streamflow station derived from the past 12-year rating curve
for Kulim River. The geometric mean of the bed material size
Fig. 11. Modeled Cross Section Changes before and after October 2003 Flood. fractions is adequately described from the sediment size
Please cite this article in press as: Chun Kiat Chang et al., Sediment transport modeling for Kulim River e A case study, Journal of Hydro-environment Research
(2008), doi:10.1016/j.jher.2008.04.002
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
C.K. Chang et al. / Journal of Hydro-environment Research xx (2008) 1e13
35
Peak Water Surface
30
Bed Profile at Peak Flow
Elevation (m)
25
20
15
10
5
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000 13000 14000
Fig. 13. Water Surface and Bed Profile Changes based on Design Hydrograph.
distribution. Two sediment size distributions of such samples
based on sieve analysis are required at the upstream
(d50 ¼ 1.50 mm) and downstream (d50 ¼ 0.75 mm) cross sec-
tions to specify initial bed material compositions in the river
bed (Fig. 5). The summary of the input and output parameter
for model FLUVIAL-12 are shown as Table 2.
5.2. Calibration and validation of FLUVIAL-12
The accuracy of a model is limited by the quality and quan-
tity of the input data. Therefore, using available geometry, sed-
iment and hydrology input parameter including cross section
spacing will affect the model output. Besides, selection of
the sediment transport formula, model calibration for rough-
ness coefficient is also essential. The simulation of the
FLUVIAL-12 was obtained using 1991 cross section survey
and hydrograph. Based on measured water levels, predictions
using both roughness coefficients are close to the observed
data during low flow. However, as the field data was not avail-
able from year 1991 to 2003, a long-term simulation has been
carried out to calibrate and validate the model based on the
recent measured water level and bed level data that were
obtained in 2004 and 2006. Therefore, the calibration of the
roughness coefficient using measured water level and bed level
in November 2004 is done. As a part of the calibration proce-
dure, the model was run for 12-year period between 1991
to1992 and 1997 to 2006. The results of the model simulation
during the calibration period agree very well (Table 3 and
Fig. 6), and it can be concluded that prediction using rough-
ness coefficient n ¼ 0.030 and Engelund-Hansen formula
were in good agreement with measured water levels and bed
profiles and used for model validation. As a part of validation,
measured water levels and bed profiles, during September
1991, January 2005 and March 2006 was compared to the pre-
dicted water levels and bed profiles by FLUVIAL-12. Long-
term simulations including of the historical flood events
showed very good results for both calibration and validation.
Good agreements were obtained for both water level and
bed levels between the measured and predicted by FLUVIAL-
12 model.
Please cite this article in press as: Chun Kiat Chang et al., Sediment transport modeling for Kulim River e A case study, Journal of Hydro-environment Research
(2008), doi:10.1016/j.jher.2008.04.002
+ MODEL
9
Bed Profile before Flood
Bed Profile after Flood
Chainage (m)
5.3. Simulation under existing condition
Two major floods have occurred in 2001 and 2003 within
the 46-year span. The review of ranking for the flood at Kulim
River catchment indicates that the discharge of 92.90 m3/s
measured on 5 October 2003 was the highest discharge
measured in a 42-year period since 1960. This value, which
is based on measurable peak discharges, is obtained from
a reliable and long period of record at Ara Kuda streamflow
station. A flood frequency analysis was carried out for the
42-year period of data using Normal Distribution, 2-parameter
Log-normal, 3-parameter Log-normal, Pearson Type-III, Log-
Pearson Type-III, Gumbel Extreme Value Type-I and
Generalized Extreme Value. It was found that the best result
was obtained by Gumbel Extreme Value Type-I (Fig. 7) which
shows the better agreement to the measured streamflow data
and the result showed that this flood event is slightly lower
than the 100-year ARI; the peak discharge at 92.90 m3/s of
the event is adopted as the design peak discharge. Conse-
quently, sediment transport modeling was carried out for this
flood event (3 to 19 October 2003) as shown in Fig. 8.
Spatial variations of the sediment delivery during the Octo-
ber 2003 flood are shown in Fig. 9. Sediment delivery gener-
ally decreased towards downstream especially near to the sand
mining site at CH 5064. This pattern indicated that erosion
occurred at upstream and more sediment deposited at down-
stream of Kulim River. Peak water surface and changes of
the channel geometry due to scour and fill were depicted by
the simulated changes in channel bed profile as illustrated in
Fig. 10. From the simulation results, flood level was higher
at the downstream compare to the upstream of Kulim River.
Whilst, the results also show that scour of the bed occurred
at upstream and the cross sections near to the sand mining
area (CH 5064) were subjected to greater changes than other
cross sections. Commonly, channel degradation was predicted
at most cross sections at Kulim River after the flood event.
Fig. 11 shows the example of cross section changes for several
locations along Kulim River. In general, the river is stable at
most locations after October 2003 flood with the exception
of CH 5306 and CH 12490 where lateral migration is pre-
dicted at these two locations.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
+ MODEL

10 C.K. Chang et al. / Journal of Hydro-environment Research xx (2008) 1e13

5.4. Simulation for future condition
The design flood hydrograph for the Kulim River based on
2010 landuse (DID, 1996) is shown in Fig. 12. The peak flow
of the event is 306.6 m3/s (18 hour rainfall duration). Simu-
lated peak water surface and channel bed changes for Kulim
River based on design hydrograph are shown in Fig. 13. The
cross sections especially near to the sand mining area and
few cross sections especially CH 10000 to CH 14390 were
subjected to greater changes than other cross sections. In spite
of this, channel degradation was predicted at most cross sec-
tions after the peak. Fig. 14 shows the cross section changes
for three locations along Kulim River.
Future changes for the next 10 years were simulated by
using hydrograph for year 1991 to 1992 and 1997 to 2006
(Fig. 3). Sediment delivery or the amounts of sediment moving
past each cross section predicted for the next 10 years (Year
2016) is shown in Fig. 15. The simulation results show that
with time. The pattern of the sediment delivery shows a sharp
decrease from upstream to downstream of Kulim River. The
selective sediment transport has resulted in the decreasing
trend of the sediment delivery which indicates that long
term sediment aggradation occurred at upstream and deposi-
tion occurred at downstream of Kulim River. FLUVIAL-12
model was run to predict the channel geometry changes and
sediment delivery for the next 10 years. In general, it is found
that Kulim River will be in equilibrium conditions with slight
degradation or erosion which deepen the river. The modeled
results show that future changes in cross sectional geometry
will generally be limited and erosion along the reach will be
slowed down in the simulation period from 2006 to 2016.
28
26
24

Level (m)
the amount of sediment delivery was twice for year 2016 com-
pared to the year 2006, but lesser sediment delivery at the 22
downstream of Kulim River. The decreasing trend of sediment 20
delivery indicates long-term sediment deposition at the down-
18 CH 12490
stream of Kulim River. Simulation for Kulim River based on
the time series illustrated the changes of the channel geometry 16
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
as shown in Fig. 16. The cross sections especially CH 10000 to Distance (m)
CH 14000 are subjected to change with sediment aggradation,
whilst sediment deposition occur at CH 6000 to CH 10000. Bed Level (Before Flood) Bed Level (Peak) Water Surface (Peak)
Bed Level (After Flood)
Fig. 17 shows the spatial variations of the predicted median
grain size in year 2006 and 2016. The model run shows a large
16
decrease in the sediment size at middle reach of Kulim River
between years 2006 to 2016; where the reach-average median 14
grain sediment size decrease from 0.77 mm to 0.58 mm. As 12
Level (m)

the channel bed became finer, more sediment was removed

10
by erosion. Fig. 18 shows the example of cross section
changes for three locations along Kulim River. In general, 8
the modeled results show that future changes in cross sectional 6 CH 5306
geometry will be generally limited and erosion along the reach
4
will be slowed down from 2006 to 2016; the Kulim River was 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
predicted to be stable at most locations. Distance (m)

Bed Level (Before Flood) Bed Level (Peak) Water Surface (Peak)
6. Conclusions
Bed Level (After Flood)

Rapid development in a river catchment will result in high

15
discharge, erosion and deposition which will cause river insta- 14
bility. FLUVIAL-12 has been used to simulate the channel 13
geometry, lateral and vertical elevation changes for the flood 12
Level (m)

events from 1991 to 2006. FLUVIAL-12 was calibrated and 11

10
validated for bed elevation and water surface profile using 9
a number of different sediment transport formulas and rough- 8
ness coefficient for several time period. Engelund-Hansen for- 7 CH 3014
6
mula and roughness coefficient n ¼ 0.030 were found to be the
5
best combination to represent the sediment transport activity 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
in the study reach. Good agreements were obtained for both Distance (m)
water level and bed profiles between the measured data and
Bed Level (Before Flood) Bed Level (Peak) Water Level (Peak)
predicted results by FLUVIAL-12 model. The model simula- Bed Level (After Flood)
tion for existing conditions, future condition and long-term-
modeling show the amount of sediment delivery will decrease Fig. 14. Modeled Cross Section Changes before and after Design Flood.

Please cite this article in press as: Chun Kiat Chang et al., Sediment transport modeling for Kulim River e A case study, Journal of Hydro-environment Research
(2008), doi:10.1016/j.jher.2008.04.002
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
+ MODEL

C.K. Chang et al. / Journal of Hydro-environment Research xx (2008) 1e13 11

3000000

2500000 Year 2006 Year 2016

Sediment Delivery (tons)

2000000

1500000

1000000

500000

0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000 13000 14000
Chainage (m)

Fig. 15. Spatial Variations of the Predicted Sediment Delivery.

30
Initial Bed (Year 1991)
Predicted Water Surface (Year 2016)
25
Predicted Bed Profile (Year 2006)
Predicted Bed Profile (Year 2016)
Elevation (m)

20

15

10

5
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000 13000 14000
Chainage (m)

Fig. 16. Water Surface and Bed Profile Changes based on Design Hydrograph.

Thus Kulim River was predicted to be stable at most on the water surface profile simulated from the three scenar-
locations. ios, it should also be considered that the proposed bund level
In summary, flooding in Kulim River is found to affect and bank protection should stay above the predicted water sur-
channel geometry, cross sectional geometry, sediment size face to avoid overtopping and reduce the flooding impact. The
and sediment delivery, which consists of scour and fill. Based present study provides an estimate of sediment transport in

1.5 Year2006 Year2016

d50 (mm)

0.5

0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000 13000 14000
Chainage (m)

Fig. 17. Spatial Variations of the Predicted Median Grain Size for Year 2006 and 2016.

Please cite this article in press as: Chun Kiat Chang et al., Sediment transport modeling for Kulim River e A case study, Journal of Hydro-environment Research
(2008), doi:10.1016/j.jher.2008.04.002
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
+ MODEL

12 C.K. Chang et al. / Journal of Hydro-environment Research xx (2008) 1e13

26 and REDAC’s staff for their involvement in completion of

25 this paper.
24
Level (m)

23
22 Notation
21
20 The following symbols are used in this paper:
CH 12490
19
18
B Water surface width (m)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 d50 Mean sediment size (mm)
Distance (m)
n Manning’s roughness coefficient
Initial Bed Level (Year 1991) Predicted Bed Level (Year 2006) Q Discharge (m3/s)
Predicted Bed Level (Year 2016)
R Hydraulic radius (m)
So Water-surface slope
16
15
Tb Bed load (kg/s)
14 Ts Suspended load (kg/s)
13 Tj Total bed material load (kg/s)
Level (m)

12 yo Flow depth (m)

11
10
9
8 CH 5306 References
7
6 Ab. Ghani, A., Zakaria, N.A., Abdullah, R., Chang, C.K., Sinnakaudan, S.K.,
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Distance (m) Mohd Sidek, L., 2003. River Sediment Data Collection and Analysis
Study, Contract Research No. JPS (PP)/SG/2/2000. Department of
Initial Bed Level (Year 1991) Predicted Bed Level (Year 2006)
Irrigation and Drainage, Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur.
Predicted Bed Level (Year 2016)
Ab. Ghani, A., Zakaria, N.A., Chang, C.K., Ariffin, J., Abu Hasan, Z., Abdul
Ghaffar, A.B., 2007. Revised equations for Manning’s coefficient for sand-
15 bed rivers. International Journal River Basin Management 5 (4), 329e346.
14 Abu Hasan, Z., 1998. Evaluation of Scour and Deposition In Malaysian Rivers
13 Undergoing Training Works: Case Studies of Pari and Kerayong Rivers.
12 MSc. Thesis. Penang : Universiti Sains Malaysia.
Level (m)

11 Abdullah, S., 2002. Simulation of River Bed Changes Due to Sand Mining
10 Operation at Muda River. MSc. Thesis. Penang : Universiti Sains Malaysia.
9 American Society of Civil Engineers or ASCE, 1998. River width Adjustment
8 II: Modeling, by the ASCE Task Committee on Hydraulics, Bank
7 CH 3014 Mechanics, and Modeling of River Width Adjustment. Journal of
6 Hydraulic Engineering 124 (9), 903e917.
5 Ariffin, J., 2004. Development of Sediment Transport Models for Selected
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Rivers in Malaysia Using Regression Analysis and Artificial Neural
Distance (m)
Network. Ph.D. Thesis. Penang : Universiti Sains Malaysia.
Initial Bed Level (Year 1991) Predicted Bed Level (Year 2006) Bahadori, F., Ardeshir, A., Tahershamsi, A., 2006. Prediction of alluvial river bed
Predicted Bed Level (Year 2016)
variation by SDAR model. Journal of Hydraulic Research 44 (5), 614e623.
Chang, C.K., Ab. Ghani, A. & Abdullah, R., 2004. Effect of a 100-year Flood
Fig. 18. Predicted Cross Section Changes for Year 2006 and 2016.
on River Stability: Case Study of Kulim River. 1st International
Conference on Managing Rivers in the 21st Century: Issues & Challenges,
21ste23rd September, Penang, Malaysia, pp. 473e478.
moderate sandy stream and serves as a reference for sediment Chang, C.K., Ab. Ghani, A., Zakaria, N.A., & Abdullah, R., 2005. Sediment
transport modeling of sandy streams in Malaysia and Transport in Kulim River, Malaysia. XXXI IAHR Congress: Water
Engineering for the Future - Choice and Challenges, 11the16th
overseas.
September, Seoul, Seoul, Korea, pp. 1154e1162.
Chang, C.K., 2006a. Sediment Transport in Kulim River, Kedah. M.Sc. Thesis.
Acknowledgements Penang : Universiti Sains Malaysia.
Chang, H.H., 1982. Mathematical Model for Erodible Channels. Journal of the
Hydraulics Division 108 (HY5), 678e689. ASCE.
The authors gratefully acknowledge Department of Drain- Chang, H.H., 1984. Modeling of River Channel Changes. Journal of Hydraulic
age and Irrigation (DID) Kulim/Bandar Baharu and Hydrology Engineering 110 (2), 265e267. ASCE157-172. Closure in 113(2), 1987.
Division for providing river survey data, hydrological data and Chang, H.H., 1988. Fluvial Processes in River Engineering. John Wiley and
relevant information for this research. Special thanks go to Sons, New York, NY. 432pp.
Prof. Howard H. Chang from San Diego State University, Chang, H.H., 1997. Modeling Fluvial Processes in Tidal Inlet. Journal of
Hydraulic Engineering 123 (12), 1161e1165. ASCE.
USA and Prof. Pierre Y. Julien from the University of Colo- Chang, H.H., Pearson, D., Tanious, S., 2002. Lagoon Restoration near
rado, USA for their advice and help. The authors would also Ephemeral River Mouth. Journal of Waterway, Port, Coastal, and Ocean
like to thank all undergraduate and postgraduate students Engineering 128 (2), 79e87. ASCE.

Please cite this article in press as: Chun Kiat Chang et al., Sediment transport modeling for Kulim River e A case study, Journal of Hydro-environment Research
(2008), doi:10.1016/j.jher.2008.04.002
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
+ MODEL
C.K. Chang et al. / Journal of Hydro-environment Research xx (2008) 1e13
Chang H.H., 2004. Fluvial Modeling Study of Feather River Responses to
Oroville Dam and Related Issues. Task 7- Hydraulic and Sediment
Transport Modeling of the Feather River. Draft Final Report prepared
for the Dept. Water Resources.
Chang, H.H., 2006b. Generalized computer program: FLUVIAL-12
Mathematical Model for Erodible Channel Users Manual. San Deigo State
University, San Deigo, California.
Chang, H.H., 2008. Case Study of Fluvial Modeling of River Responses to
Dam Removal. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering 134 (3), 295e302.
Darus, A., 2002. Conservation and Restoration of Urban Rivers: Case Studies
of Raia River and Pari River. MSc. Thesis, Universiti Sains Malaysia.
Darus, A., Ab. Ghani, A., Zakaria, N.A., Abdullah, R., 2004. Natural Stable
River Section Design using FLUVIAL-12 (May 2005). Bulletin Institution
of Engineers Malaysia, 24e27.
Department of Irrigation and Drainage Malaysia., 1976. River Discharge
Measurement by Current Meter e Hydrological Procedure No. 15.
Department of Irrigation and Drainage Malaysia., 1977. The Determination of
Suspended Sediment Discharge e Hydrological Procedure No. 19.
Department of Irrigation and Drainage Malaysia or DID, 1996. Study on Flood
Mitigation and Drainage Master Plan for Kulim and its Surroundings,
Kedah Darul Aman.
Department of Water Resources or DWR, 2004. Effects of Project Operations
on Geomorphic Processes Downstream of Oroville Dam: Task 7 e
Hydraulic And Sediment Transport Modeling With Fluvial-12. Draft Final
Report. Oroville Facilities Relicensing FERC Project No. 2100, The
Resources Agency, State of California.
Dong, Y.H., Lu, J.Y., Fan, B.L., Huang, Y., 2005. Research on Variations of Typ-
ical Lower Jingjiang River Reach after Three Gorges Project Operation.
Journal of Yangtze River Scientific Research Institute 22 (2), 9e12.
Edwards, T.K., Glysson, G.D., 1999. Field Methods for Measurement of
Fluvial Sediment. U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources
Investigations. Book, Chapter C2.
Fan, S.S., 1988. Twelve selected computer stream sedimentation models
developed in the United State. In: Proceeding of the Interagency
Symposium on Computer Stream Sedimentation Model, Denver,
Colorado. Published by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC.
Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group or FISRWG, 2001.
Stream Corridor Restoration: Principles, Processes, and Practices. Federal
Please cite this article in press as: Chun Kiat Chang et al., Sediment transport modeling for Kulim River e A case study, Journal of Hydro-environment Research
(2008), doi:10.1016/j.jher.2008.04.002
13
Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group (15 Federal agencies of
the US Government), Portland.
Ibrahim, N.A., 2002. Evaluation and Development of Sediment Transport
Equations for Kinta River Basins, Kulim River and Kerayong River.
MSc. Thesis. Penang : Universiti Sains Malaysia.
Koay, B.C., 2004. River Equilibium: Case Study of Kulim River Final Year
Project Thesis. Penang : Universiti Sains Malaysia.
Lee, C.B., 2001. Application of River Modeling (Fluvial-12): Case Studies of
Kulim River and Melaka River. Final Year Project Thesis. Penang :
Universiti Sains Malaysia.
Lagasse, P.F., Schall, J.D., Richardson, E.V., 2001. Stream Stability at
Highway Structures, US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway
Administration. Publication No. FHWA NHI 01-002 (Hydraulic Engineer-
ing Circular No. 20), 3rd Edition, Washington, D.C.
Majlis Daerah Kulim or MDK, 1993. Kulim Structure Plan, 1990e2010,
Kuala Lumpur.
National Research Council, 1983. An Evaluation of Flood-level prediction
using Alluvial River Model. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
Richardson, E.V., Simons, D.B., Lagasse, P.F., 2001. River Engineering for High-
way Encroachments e Highways in The River Enviroment, US Department
of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. Publication No. FHWA
NHI 01e004 (Hydraulic Design Series Number 6), Washington, D.C.
Sinnakaudan, S., Ab Ghani, A., S Ahmad, M.S., Zakaria, N.A., 2003. Flood risk
mapping for pari river incorporating sediment transport. Elsevier Science.
Journal of Environmental Modeling and Software 18 (2), 119e130.
Soulsby, R.L., 1997. Dynamics of Marine Sands: A Manual for Practical
Applications. Thomas Telford, London.
United States Army Corps of Engineers or USACE, 1995. Sedimentation
Investigations of Rivers and Reservoirs. USACE Engineering and Design
Manual. Publication No. EM 1110-2-4000, Washington, D.C.
Yazdandoost, F., 2005. Numerical Simulation of Sediment Transport in
Dynamic Flow Conditions. International Journal of Sediment Research
20 (4), 358e365.
Yahaya, N.K., 1999. Development of Sediment Rating Curves for Rivers In
Malaysia: Case Studies of Pari, Kerayong and Kulim Rivers. MSc. Thesis.
Penang: Universiti Sains Malaysia.
Yuqian, L., 1989. Manual on Operational Methods for the Measurement of
Sediment Transport. Operational Hydrology Report No. 29, World Meteo-
rological Organisation, Geneva, Switzerland, 169 p.