Planting more trees and plants in the flood plain can reduce the amount of water. The leaves intercept the rainfall delaying the run-off to the river that could reach potentially reach the river and raise the water level. Evapotranspiration means that the water caught by the leaves evaporates of them. Although only a small amount of water is prevented from getting to the river it can make a difference in water level. Roots can prevent the water from getting to the river by obstructing it. Also the roots take up large amounts of water to help the plants in photosynthesis.
How flooding is being controlled on the River Ash
In 1994-95, Thames Water Utilities commenced a major upgrading of the water treatment works at Ash Ford Common. The works discharge near the M3 motorway into the lower River Ash. A flood relief channel was proposed in order to reduce the risk of flooding to properties situated within Heriden Way and Old Charlton Road, Shepperton. This proposal was accepted and construction took place from Jan – May 1995; costing £450,000. Furthermore, the works included the construction of a lined channel through an old tip site, pipe layering and construction of bridges. The Flood Relief channel splits the river into two so there is more room for the water to pass through and it is easier for excess floodwater to pass through. Moreover, the authorities can control how much water is directed into both channels so if there is a high flood risk the water can be directed away from the houses and into the modified channel.
A grate has been put in place to sift the debris out of the modified channel and reduce clogging of the channel. If the debris was allowed to pass through it would increase the wetted perimeter so the velocity would decrease and it would take longer for the water to flow away from the houses. This would increase the flood risk to these houses.
Constant weather checks using the latest technology including rainfall radar and telemetry means that predictions can be made of when and how much the Ash will flood and possibly ways of reducing or preventing the flood. This gives people who will be affected by the flood time to prepare for the flood and warnings can be given to the emergency authorities.
A constant programme of maintenance is carried out on the Ash, especially as an increase in urbanisation and infustructure has increased the risk of flooding. The programme includes:
- Clearance of excessive growth from river banks and the channel which could slow the river current.
- Regular tree surgery to stop them collapsing into the river which would slow down the river current.
- Bank repairs and maintenance of flood banks to keep the river from flowing to its full potential.
Float time
We measured the float time of both the natural and modified channel to find out the velocity of the river. We did this to find out if the velocity was higher in the modified channel than the natural channel. If the velocity was higher in the modified channel then it means it can take away the water from the local homes quickly. This would result in a decrease in the risk of flooding to the houses near the natural channel.
Method
Firstly, we measured a distance of 5 metres using a 30 m. measuring tape on the right side of both the natural and modified channel. We then marked the distance with two ranging poles at the beginning and end of the distance. We dropped a cork just before the first pole and used a stopwatch to time how long a cork took to go from the first pole to the second. We repeated the experiment on the left side and in the middle of the channel.
Equipment
- 30 m. measuring tape
- 2 ranging poles
- A cork
- A stopwatch
Limitations
To make this experiment accurate we used the same cork in both channels. We also completed the experiment on the left; middle and right side of the channels to make sure the results were not affected by meanders, deposition and erosion. We used the distance of 5 m. so the cork had enough time to pick up speed.
My results may not be as accurate as they could be because the heavy rainfall may have speeded up the river’s flow rate and possibly pushed the cork down through gravity. Also, the cork got caught up in the vegetation which may add to the time taken.
Wetted perimeter
We measured the wetted perimeter of both the natural and modified channel to find out the amount of river bed in contact with the river water. We would expect to find a smaller wetted perimeter in the modified channel than the natural. A smaller wetted perimeter means that there is less friction between the bed and the water as there is less area for this to take place. This means the water can flow faster and more efficiently away from the local houses to reduce the risk of flooding.
Method
To begin with, we put a 30 m. measuring tape across the river channel and stood on it to keep it lying across the wetted perimeter. Next, we measured from the left side to the right side of the channel.
Equipment
Limitations
To make the experiment accurate we made sure the measuring tape didn’t float up by using lots of people to stand on it to weigh it down.
My results may not be as accurate as they could be because the measuring tape was hard to keep lying on the bottom of the river as it kept rising.
Depth of river
We measured the depth of both the natural and modified channel to find out how much water was in both channels. If the depth was greater in the modified channel then it is taking water away from the local houses effectively. This decreases the risk of flooding to the houses next to the natural channel.
Method
First of all, we measured the width of the river using a 30 m. measuring tape and then divided the measurement by ten. At each of the ten intervals across the channel, using a metre stick, we measured the depth of the river. While doing this we made sure the stick was at a 90◦ angle to the measuring tape.
Equipment
- 30 m. measuring tape
- A metre stick
Limitations
To make the experiment accurate we made sure the metre stick was at a 90◦ angle to the measuring tape while measuring. We measured the depth at ten intervals so we had a good picture of the depth of the whole river channel. We made sure that the metre stick did not sink into the sediment and that it was not resting on a pebble to prevent the results from being affected. We made sure that the metre stick was parallel to the river bank to make it more streamlined. We did this to prevent the water from pushing against it to make the water level rise.
Height of bank
We measured the height of the bank of both the natural and modified channel to find out how much water it could hold. If the bank was high it could hold more water. We would expect the modified channel to have a higher bank so it could carry more water away from the local homes. This would mean a decrease in the risk of flooding to the houses nearby.
Method
To start with, we put a ranging pole into the channel up against one of the banks. We then laid a 30 m. measuring tape across the river channel until the bank levelled out; making sure it was at a 90◦ angle to the ranging pole. Then we used a metre stick to measure the distance from the bottom of the ranging pole to where the measuring tape crossed it.
Equipment
- 30 m. tape
- Ranging pole
- Metre stick
Limitations
To make the experiment accurate we made sure the ranging pole was right up against the river bank and at a 90◦ angle to the measuring tape.
Bank to water
We measured the distance from the bank to the river water in both the natural and modified channel to find out if the bank is sloped or straight and smooth. We would expect the modified channel to have a smaller distance from bank to water and have straighter, smooth edges. This is relevant to my investigation because if the edges are straight and smooth it would be more efficient in carrying water away from the houses because of the reduction in friction. This would reduce the risk of flooding to local homes.
Method
To start with, we put a ranging pole into the channel up against one of the banks. We then laid a 30 m. measuring tape across the river channel until the bank levelled out; making sure it was at a 90◦ angle to the ranging pole. We then measured the distance from where the bank levelled out to where it made contact with the ranging pole.
Equipment
- 30 m. measuring tape
- Ranging pole
- Metre stick
Limitations
To make the experiment accurate we made sure the ranging pole was right up against the river bank and at a 90◦ angle to the measuring tape.
Gradient
We measured the gradient to find out the angle of how steep the river is. We would expect the modified channel to have a steeper gradient so the excess water can flow away from the local houses efficiently with the help of gravity. This would reduce the risk in flooding to local homes.
Method
We measured a distance of 5 m. using a 30 m. measuring tape and marked the distance with ranging poles resting on the surface of the water. We found a specific point on both poles and lined the clinometer up so it was level. We then measured the gradient.
Equipment
- 30 m. measuring tape
- Two ranging poles
- Clinometer
Limitations
To make the experiment accurate we made sure the poles were resting on the surface and that we levelled the clinometer accurately. We also made sure the clinometer was still before we measured the gradient.
My results might not be as accurate as they could be because the gradient of the river varies throughout the river.
Sediment size
We measured the sediment size to find out how long and spherical the sediment in the two channels was. Our results might link with the velocity of the river flow. If the river had a high velocity then more erosion would take place resulting in small, well rounded sediment. We would expect this to be the case in the modified channel though the channel is much newer than the natural channel so it hasn’t had as much time for erosion to take place.
Method
We chose ten pebbles from both the modified and natural channel, being careful not to pick up sharp or harmful objects. We then measured the long axis using a ruler and used the powers’ roundness index to measure the sphericity.
Equipment
Limitations
To make our experiment accurate we chose ten pebbles as opposed to one or two to give a larger selection and make the results more accurate.
Although we tried to pick as random pebbles as possible my experiment might not be as accurate as it could be because we had to be careful not to pick up dangerous objects. This meant the selection of pebbles was not as random as it could be.
Channel Width
We measured the width of both the natural and modified channels to find out how much water they could hold. We would expect the modified channel to have a wider channel than the natural channel so it could hold more water. If this was the case it could take more water away from the natural channel and the houses beside it. This would reduce the risk of flooding to the local homes.
Method
We stretched a 30 m. measuring tape across the channel and measured the distance from the right bank to the left bank.
Equipment
Limitations
To make the experiment accurate we had to keep the tape tight and hold it slightly above water level so it was not carried away by the current. This would add length to our results and make them inaccurate.
Data Analysis
Graph 1
Graph one shows that the natural channel has a larger water width of the modified channel that has a width of two point two metres. This is because the natural channel has been there longer so therefore has had longer to erode laterally. I expected to be able to link this with graph eleven where I expected the float time for the modified channel to be less than the natural. This would have proven that the water in the modified channel was quicker than the natural. This would have proven that the water in the modified channel was moving more quickly than the water in the natural channel so is doing its job properly to take water away from the houses quickly and efficiently. However, graph eleven clearly shows that the modified channel is slower at twelve point three seconds compared to the natural channel which had a float time of seven point nine. Consequently I cannot back this up.
Graph 2
From graph two I can see that the cross section of the natural channel has a smoother surface than the modified channel. This may be because the natural channel has been there longer and so has had longer for erosion such as attrition to take place to make a smoother surface.
I can also see from graph 2 that the modified channel has a slightly more rigid shape with sharper banks than the natural channel’s curved banks. This is because the modified channel is man made and built in this fashion so it will make the water from the houses flow away quickly and efficiently.
There are two anomalies in the modified channel cross section at the fourth and seventh metre reading to produce a jagged and angular shape. This could be due to the metre stick being caught on a rock or lump of sediment on the river bed.
Graph 3
Graph three shows that the modified channel is deeper with an average depth of zero point two metres than the natural channel with an average depth of zero point one seven metres. This is because the modified channel was built to have a deeper channel so it could hold more water to take as much floodwater away as possible from the local houses.
Graph 4
Graph 4 shows that the natural channel has higher banks of one point one two metres on the left bank and one point two three on the right than the modified channel which had a height of zero point eight three metres on the left bank and zero point seven three metres on the right. This is because the natural channel has existed for longer so there has been more time for vertical erosion to take place and thus make the banks taller.
However, I expected to find that the modified channel had higher banks as it was designed to take as much water away as possible and if the banks were taller more water would be able to fit into the channel to be taken away from the natural channel to avoid flooding.
Graph 5
Graph 5 shows the distance from both the right and left banks to water in both the natural channel. The graph shows a large difference in the difference of four metres for the right hand side and only zero point six two metres of the right side in the natural channel. This is because the deposition and erosion would have happened on the channel to make the left side more sloped and as a result, a larger distance from the left bank to the water.
In the modified channel the left side of the channel has a distance from bank to water of two point one five metres which is not much longer than the right bank to water (a distance of two point zero seven metres). This may be because the pattern of deposition and erosion is only just starting to take effect and make the left bank more sloped. Also, the channel is man made and so built in a more rectangular fashion to reduce the wetted perimeter and subsequently the area the water is touching to reduce friction and speed up the flow away from the local houses.
Graph 6
Graph 6 shows that the natural channel has a wider channel with a width of seven point six nine metres than the modified channel with a distance of six point four two metres. This is because the natural channel is older so has had longer to erode to form a wider channel. However, I would expect to find that the makers of the modified channel would make a wider channel to carry a lot of excess water away from the nearby homes.
Graph 7
Graph 7 shows that the modified channel has a much smaller wetted perimeter of two point five metres compared to the natural channel which had a wetted perimeter of three point nine metres. This is because the modified channel was built to move water away from the local houses quickly. The smaller the wetted perimeter the less area of ground the water is in contact so the less friction the water undergoes and so the water can move more quickly.
Graph 8
Graph 8 shows that the natural and modified channels both have a similar pattern of flow times- with a shorter time in the centre of the channel than on the outside. This is because the friction caused by the banks and vegetation and also the energy spent on deposition and erosion mean that the water towards the sides of the river may have a slower flow.
However, the water in the modified channel clearly moves slower with a time of nine point six seconds than the water in the natural channel which had a time of six point two seconds. This is not what we expected. We would have expected the water in the modified to move with a higher velocity and therefore have a quicker float time because it was built to move water quickly and even has a small wetted perimeter to help it do this. My results do not show this perhaps because we only took a small sample from one part of the channel. If we had done the experiment in several other parts of the river as well we would have been more likely to find the results we expected.
Graph 9
Graph 9 shows that the natural channel has a faster surface velocity of zero point six metres per second than the modified channel with a surface velocity of zero point four metres per second. We would have expected the modified channel to have a faster surface velocity because it was built to move water away quickly and has a smaller wetted perimeter to aid this. The grate also prevents large rocks and sediment from slowing down the flow.
Graph 10
Graph 10 shows that the modified channel has a longer float time of twelve point two nine seconds than the natural channel that had an average float time of seven point nine seconds. We would have expected the modifiec channel to have a shorter float time than the natural channel because it was built to move water rapidly. It even has a smaller wetted perimeter and a grate to reduce debris in the channel. We might not have got the results we expected because we only did this experiment in one section of the river. If we had also completed the experiment in other places in the channel as well we would have been more likely to get the results we expected.
Graph 11
Graph 11 shows that the natural channel had a larger amount of discharge of zero point eight three compared to the modified channel which had a discharge of one point three five. This is because the grate was put in place to prevent large amounts of large pebbles and rocks getting into the modified channel.
Graph 12
Graph 12 shows that the modified channel has a higher gradient of two degrees than the natural channel which has a gradient of zero degrees. We would not have expected such a drastic difference in gradient but the modified channel may have been built at a slight angle so gravity would help the floodwater flow away quickly from the local houses.
Graph 13
Graph 12 shows that pebbles in the modified channel were longer with an average long axis of two point four centimetres than pebbles in the natural channel which had an average long axis of two point three five centimetres. There is not a huge different in length but pebbles in the modified channel may be longer because they have been eroded less than the natural channel as the natural channel is older so has had longer for erosion like attrition to happen.
Graph 14
Graph 14 shows that pebble from both channels have an equal roundness of two point six on the roundness index. I had expected to find that the pebbles from the natural channel to have rounder pebbles because they have been in the river longer so have longer to become rounder due to erosion than in the modified channel. However, the pebbles in the modified channel have been put there and they might have put rounder pebbles in in the first place to reduce friction.
Graph 15
Graph 15 shows that a higher percentage (60%) of the pebbles in the modified channel had a high sphericity and 40% of the pebbles in the channel had a low sphericity. This is not what I would have expected. I would have expected more pebbles in the natural channel to have a low sphericity because the channel has had little time to erode and therefore make the pebbles smooth and round. This wasn’t the case possibly because the pebbles were put in by man and they put in rounder and smaller pebbles. Also, the grate only lets smaller and rounder pebbles into the modified channel.
Graph 16
Graph 16 shows that a higher percentage (60%) of the pebbles in the natural channel had a low sphericity and 40% of the pebbles had a high sphericity. This is not what we would have expected. We would have expected more pebbles in the channel to have a high sphericity in the natural channel because it has been there longer so has had longer to erode and make the pebbles round. If we had taken a wider selection of pebbles we would have been more likely to find the results we expected.
Graph 17 and 18
Graph 17 and 18 show that the speed of flow becomes slower as the gradient becomes higher in both the natural and modified channel. On the other hand, in the modified channel the line of best fit is affected by an anomaly. Apart from the anomaly at 35o, the pattern generally shows that the higher the gradient, the faster the speed of flow in the weak negative correlation. In the natural channel there is a strong positive correlation apart from the anomaly at 0o.
Graph 19 and 20
When the speed of flow was compared with the channel depth in the natural channel I noticed a negative correlation apart from an anomaly at zero point three two metres in depth. This means the larger the depth the faster the speed of flow. This may be because if the depth is large there is less friction created because most of the water is not in contact with the sides because there is so much water.
A similar message is shown in the modified channel. There is a positive correlation although an anomaly at the depth of zero point two nine. This shows the same message: the larger the depth the slower the speed of flow.
Graph 21 and 22
In these graphs comparing channel width and speed of flow there is not really any pattern in both the natural and modified channel. This proves that width does not affect the speed of flow.
Conclusion
From the graphs I can see that the natural channel was wider and had a smoother bank and bottom because the channel had had longer to erode. Although the wetted perimeter was smaller in the modified channel the velocity was smaller, so it could not take water away from the houses quickly enough. I noticed that the higher the depth the slower the flow. As the modified channel is deeper this could decrease the speed.
From these graphs I can conclude that the modified channel is not doing a very good job because it is flowing too slowly away from the houses despite the small wetted perimeter and the grate. However, if there were flood conditions it would channel water away and reduce the risk of flooding. The modified channel was not as efficient as I would have expected. The speed of flow was slower in the modified channel so the water would not move away quickly enough away from the natural channel in a flood.
GEOGRAPHY COURSEWORK EVALUATION
Using my data analysis I can make certain predictions about the natural and modified channels including:
- The Natural channel has a wider width than the Modified channel.
- The cross section was smoother in the Natural channel than in the Modified channel.
- The Natural channel had more sloped, curved banks and the Modified channel had more rigid sides.
- The Natural channel has higher banks than the Modified channel.
- The Modified channel has a smaller wetted perimeter than the Natural channel.
- In both channels the water moves at a quicker speed in the middle of the channel than at the sides.
- The Modified channel has a slower float time and moves at a slower surface velocity than the Natural channel.
- The Modified channel has less discharge than the Natural channel.
- The Modified channel has a higher gradient than the Natural channel.
- The pebbles in the Modified channel are longer and a higher percentage have a high sphericity.
- The pebbles in the Natural channel are shorter and a higher percentage have a low sphericity.
- The speed of flow became slower as the gradient became higher.
- The deeper the channel, the faster the velocity.
While completing the methods a number of things could have and did go wrong and may have affected my results.
For example, when measuring the sediment size human error and inaccurate measuring using the ruler and the different shapes of the pebbles would have made it difficult to measure the pebbles. However, looking at my results table I can see that all of the measurements are similar in size and no anomalies have occurred. Therefore, it is unlikely an error occurred when this method was carried out.
When measuring the depth of the channel, although we were careful to keep the metre stick at 90 o to the measuring tape, it is difficult to keep it at exactly these degrees. This would have made the measurements too short and inaccurate. Also, the metre stick could have sunk into the bed which would have produced deeper results. If the metre stick was resting on a pebble it would make the results too shallow. Looking at my results I can see that there are no anomalies so it is unlikely these problems occurred.
While finding the gradient even though we tried to keep the ranging poles resting on the surface of the water it could have been slightly above or below or at an odd angle. Furthermore, as the water is moving it is hard to tell where the surface of the water is so it would be hard to keep the poles on the surface. If this happened, the clinometer would not be at the right level, so inaccurate results would occur. I think this may have been the case when the modified channel gradient was recorded as I would not expect to find such a high gradient. If I carried out the investigation again I would measure the gradient at least three times and found the average, to make my results more reliable.
When the float time was measured in the natural channel the cork became tangled amongst the vegetation which would have increased the float time in the natural channel. Nevertheless, the natural channel still had a faster float time and we did complete this measurement 3 times to overwrite potential anomalies. Although, the heavy rainfall may have pushed the cork down and consequently increased the float time and slowed down the surface velocity. This may have occurred, because the results suggest that the modified channel was slower than the natural channel which other factors like the high gradient and smaller wetted perimeter suggest isn’t the case.
When the wetted perimeter was measured in both channels my results may have been affected because it was hard to keep the tape lying on the bottom of the river bed as the river flow caused it to try and rise. From my graph, I can see two anomalies at the fourth and seventh reading in the modified channel and fifth and ninth reading in the natural channel that may have been caused by the rising tape. Still, most of the results appear accurate. If I were to complete this experiment again I could put more people to hold the tape down, added weights to weigh the tape down or use a metre-wheel to measure the wetted perimeter.
The aim of my project was to find out if the modified channel was effective in diverting water away from the natural channel to reduce the risk of flooding to the local houses next to it. I think my experiment went well in that I found a number of valid conclusions e.g. the Modified channel has a smaller wetted perimeter than the Natural channel; the Modified channel has less discharge than the Natural channel- that supported the theory that the modified channel was effective in its duty. However, one of the most important piece of evidence that would have been helpful in enforce my overall conclusion was the speed of flow and unfortunately the results of this part of the experiment led me to draw to the conclusion that the modified channel did not work well in getting water away from the natural channel quickly. Yet I found this conclusion to be inaccurate and invalid so all my valid conclusions came to the overall idea that the modified channel was effective in reducing the risk of flooding to the local houses and therefore completing my aim.
To improve my experiment if I completed it again I could complete the methods more times to obtain more accurate results and form more valid conclusions. This would avoid anomalies and make the anomalies that were collected more predominant and I would be clearer that they were anomalies. I could extend my experiment and completed the methods further downstream to compare my findings at different points in the river and give a good representation of the whole river as opposed to one specific part of the river. It would be interesting to see if my results differed in different parts of the river. I could also complete the experiment in different weather conditions. The weather conditions were incredibly wet with heavy rainfall which may have affected my results in many ways e.g. the amount of water in the river channel would be greater and the speed of flow could have been slowed down. If I tried the experiment in dry weather conditions I would be more likely to achieve more accurate results and therefore valid conclusions. I could also carry out the experiment out in different times of the year to see how the season affects my results.
During this project I have gained a deeper understanding of rivers. I learnt about deposition and erosion and how they can affect river channels. I learnt how certain factors can speed up the flow of rivers including the wetted perimeter and grates. I learnt how to carry out a wide range of methods to collect results to help me draw a valid conclusion and I found out how to use new pieces of equipment like the clinometer to perform these investigations. Overall I performed a successful investigation that fulfilled the aim.