This article was downloaded by: [New York University]

On: 09 December 2014, At: 13:59

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer
House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Hydraulic Research

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tjhr20

Exact solutions for normal depth problem

a
Tommy S.W. Wong
a
School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Nanyang Technological University,
Nanyang Avenue, Singapore 639798, Singapore
Published online: 26 Apr 2010.

To cite this article: Tommy S.W. Wong (2007) Exact solutions for normal depth problem, Journal of Hydraulic Research,
45:4, 567-571, DOI: 10.1080/00221686.2007.9521793

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00221686.2007.9521793

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of
the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied
upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall
not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other
liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or
arising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
 Journal of Hydraulic Research Vol. 45, No. 4 (2007), pp. 567–571
© 2007 International Association of Hydraulic Engineering and Research
Discussion
Exact solutions for normal depth problem
By PRABHATA K. SWAMEE and PUSHPA N. RATHIE, Journal of Hydraulic Research, Volume 42, 2004, Issue 5, pp. 541–547
Discusser:
TOMMY S.W. WONG, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Nanyang Technological University, Nanyang Avenue,
Singapore 639798, Singapore
The Authors are commended on developing exact solutions
for the normal flow depth. As an alternative, the normal depths
for the triangular, trapezoidal, parabolic and circular channels
Downloaded by [New York University] at 13:59 09 December 2014
can be determined by means of the software “Excel”. The pro-
cedure is described in Wong and Zhou (2004). For the triangular
and trapezoidal channels, the normal depths can be determined
for channels with unequal side slopes.
Reference
1. Wong, T.S.W. and Zhou, M.C. (2004). “Determination of
Critical and Normal Depths using Excel”, Critical Transi-
tions in Water and Environmental Resources Management.
In: Sehlke, G., Hayes, D. F. and Stevens, D. K. (eds),
Proceedings of the 2004 World Water and Environmental
Resources Congress (CD-ROM), Salt Lake City, UT, USA.
ASCE, Reston, VA, USA, pp. 1–8.
Discussers:
SALAH KOUCHAKZADEH and ALIREZA VATANKHAH,
Irrigation and Reclamation Engineering Department, University
of Tehran, P. O. Box 4111, Karaj, 31587-77871, Iran
The Writers would like to thank the Authors for presenting direct
solutions for normal depths in different open channel cross-
sections, which are of great practical interest. Some points,
however, should be taken into account regarding the application
of the proposed formulae.
The βn ratio used in practice is usually less than 1. The
Authors presented two formulae for rectangular cross-section
and because of the errors associated with each formula the
user should be aware which one to use within the men-
tioned practical βn range. For rectangular section the writers
proposed Eq. (74), which is applicable within the practical
range of βn ratio as follows (Vatankhah and Kouchakzadeh,
2001):
The correct form of Eq. (74) is

0.4
βn = 1 + 2Nb0.6 (1 + 0.86Nb0.6 ) Nb0.6 (74)
567
Equation (74) yields reliable results for the same βn -ratio range
with fewer numbers of calculations compared to Eqs (28) and
(32). The results of Eqs (28), (32) and (74) are depicted in Fig. 1
and the errors associated with each formula, i.e., ε = [(βexact −
βn )/βexact × 100], are presented in Fig. 2.
Figure 1 shows that for Nb -values less than about 1.1, Eq. (28)
should be used and for higher Nb -values Eq. (32) should be
applied, while the proposed equation is applicable over the entire
Nb range.
For the trapezoidal section, the third term of Eq. (51) should
be corrected as follows:
√
0.00781m2 [5 + 20m2 + 15m4 − m(15 + 17m2 ) 1 + m2 ]
(1 + m2 )5/2 Pb
3/2
Also, the results of Eqs (48) and (51) with the specified number
of terms for side slope values of 0.5, 1, 2 and 3 are presented in
Fig. 3 and the errors associated with each case is determined and
depicted in Fig. 4. These figures reveal that the choice of either
equation for the most widely used βn range should be based on
βn -value as well as the side slope of the channel, which
complicates their applications.
The wetted perimeter of the circular section (Eq. (53)) takes
the form:
P = D cos−1 (1 − 2ηn )
Hence, it seems that applying erroneous wetted perimeter for-
mula affected all the subsequent relations and spoiled the results,
i.e., Eqs (58), (62), (67) and (71). It could simply be shown
that none of these equations yields satisfactory results. To deter-
mine the normal depth in a circular section the Writers proposed
Eq. (75) (Vatankhah and Kouchakzadeh, 2001):
2)
(0.51+0.5ND −2.5ND
yn = 1.32 D ND (75)
The errors associated with this equation for the practical range of
yn /D is depicted in Fig. 5 and limited to 1.2%.
 568 Swamee and Rathie

4 1
m=0.5
3 0.8

2
0.6

βn
Rectangular Eq (48)
βn

Eq (28) 0.4 Eq (51)

1
Eq (32) Exact
0.2
Eq (74)
0
Exact 0
-1 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 Pb
Nb
1
Figure 1 Results of Eqs (28), (32) and (74) for the practical range
m=1.0
of βn . 0.8
0.6
0.2
Downloaded by [New York University] at 13:59 09 December 2014

βn
0.4
0
0.2
-0.2
0
ε%

-0.4 Rectangular
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
Eq (28)
-0.6 Pb
Eq (32)
-0.8 1
Eq (74)
-1
m=2.0
0 1 2 3 4
0.8
βn 0.6
βn

Figure 2 Errors associated with Eqs (28), (32) and (74). 0.4
0.2
Reference
0
1. Vatankhan, A.R. and Kouchakzadeh, S. (2001). “Explicit 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Equations for Normal Flow Depth in Open Channels”. J. Agri. Pb
Sci. Nat. Res. 8(3), 173–182 (in Persian).
Reply by the Authors 1
m=3.0
The Authors are very much grateful to the Discussers for their 0.8
discussions. As pointed out by Wong, numerical solutions of the
normal depth problem can always be obtained. However, such a 0.6
βn

numerical solution is devoid of any physical interpretation. On the

0.4
other hand, a closed form solution involves all the input variables
in functional form; and the dependence of normal depth on each 0.2
variable can be interpreted.
Kouchakzadeh and Vatankhah have presented an empirical 0
equation for normal depth for a rectangular section. For βn → 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
both Eqs (24) and (74) reduce to same form. However, for Pb
βn → ∞ Eq. (74) reduces to the form:
Figure 3 Comparison of βn against Pb for different side slopes of
βn = 1.72Nb1.8 (76) trapezoidal section.
 Discussion: Exact solutions for normal depth problem 569

18 1.2
Eq (48)
12 Eq (51) 0.8
6 0.4
ε%

ε%
0.0
-6
m=0.5 -0.4
-12
-18 -0.8
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 -1.2
βn 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
ηn
15
Figure 5 Error associated with Eq. (75) for circular cross-section.
10
5
ε%
Downloaded by [New York University] at 13:59 09 December 2014

0 whereas Eq. (24) reduces to

-5
βn = 22/3 Nb (77)
m=1.0
-10
-15 Thus, applicability of Eq. (74) is limited. A better explicit form
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 for normal depth in rectangular channel section that agrees with
small and large βn is obtained as
βn
 0.5
βn = Nb1.2 + 24/3 Nb2 (78)
12
8 The maximum error involved in the use of Equation (78) is less
4 than 2.25%. Equation (78) can be reduced to
ε%

0  6/5  4/3   1/2

Qn 2 Qn 2
yn = √ + √ (79)
-4 b S0 b b S0
m=2.0
-8
Defining percentage error E = 100(ηn fitted − ηn exact )/ηn exact ,
-12 Fig. 6 depicts the error E involved in the use of Eqs (74) and (78).
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 From a perusal of Fig. 6 it can be seen that whereas the percent-
βn age errors involved in Eq. (78) are contained in the bandwidth
−2.25 ≤ E ≤ 1.5, the errors involved in Eq. (74) goes on
increasing exponentially. Thus, the errors depicted in Fig. 2 are
12 incorrect.
8 Using Braaksma (1964), Eq. (28) converges for Nb ≤
0.966998, whereas Eq. (32) converges for Nb ≥ 0.966998. At
4 Nb = 0.966998 both the equations give the same value. As pointed
ε%

0 out by the Discussers there is an error in Eq. (51). The error has
been corrected in the errata.
-4 Equations (48) and (51) hold good for small and large Pb ,
m=3.0
-8 respectively. This fact has also been depicted in Fig. 3. Similarly,
Fig. 4 shows the same fact with the unknown parameter βn taken
-12
on the abscissa.
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 The incorrect wetted perimeter equation was discovered at
βn very late stage when it was not possible to make any changes
Figure 4 Errors associated with Eqs (48) and (51) for different side in the paper. Taking the correct perimeter and adopting the
slopes of trapezoidal section. similar procedure the following equation is obtained for the
 570 Swamee and Rathie

14

12
Eq.(74)

Percentage Error, E
10

8 Calculated based on
[ 1 + 2N b0.6 (1 + 0.86N b0.6 )]0.4 N b0.6
6
which is not the proposed form.
4

2
Eq. (78)

-2

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10

Nb
Downloaded by [New York University] at 13:59 09 December 2014

Figure 6 Errors involved in Eqs (74) and (78).

1.0 Eq. (82)

Percentage Error, Ε

0.5

Eq.(83)

0.0

-0.5

Eq. (75)
-1.0

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

Nondimensional Normal Depth, ηn

Figure 7 Errors involved in Eqs (75), (82) and (83).

small MD : given by
   
1 1 π3 3π2 π3
 1/3 ηn = − cos − sin + ··· (81)
1 1 2 2 512MD2 512MD2 256MD2
ηn = − cos 32πMD2
2 2 In its range of applicability 0.8 ≤ ηn ≤ 1, the maximum error

1 22/3 MD
2/3
 1/3 involved in the use of Eq. (81) is less than 0.4%. Similarly, using
+ − sin 256πMD2 + ··· (80)
4 3π2/3 Manning’s equation the normal depth equation for small ND is
1 1  
3/2 2/5
ηn = − cos 16πND
2 2
Though Eq. (80) is meant for small depths, however the maximum    
1 2 2ND 3/5  
error incurred in the entire range 0 ≤ ηn ≤ 1 is less than 0.8%. 3/2 2/5
+ − sin 213/2 πND + · · · (82)
On the other hand, for large MD , the normal depth equation is 4 5 π
 Discussion: Exact solutions for normal depth problem 571

whereas for large ND , the normal depth equation is Reference

1 1 π5/2
ηn = − cos √ 3/2 1. Braaksma, B.L.J. (1964). “Asymptotic Expansions and
2 2 128 2ND Analytic Continuations for a Class of Barnes-integrals”.

5π3/2 π5/2 Compositio Math., 15, 239–341.

− √ 3/2 sin √ 3/2 + · · · (83)
256 2ND 64 2ND
Figure 7 depicts errors involved in Eqs (75), (82) and (83). For Errata
comparing Fig. 7 with Fig. 4 the unknown parameter ηn has been
taken as the abscissa. It can be seen that Eq. (82) is applicable for The following correction should be made in the original paper: 1. In
ND ≤ 0.25, or approximately ηn ≤ 0.7. On the other hand Eq (83) Eq. (51), read 171 as 17.
is applicable for ηn > 0.7. A perusal of Fig. 6 further reveals that
whereas the errors involved in Eqs (82) and (83) are less than 0.8%
and 0.5%, the errors involved in Eq. (75) are considerably high. For
near full flow condition the error is 19.4%.
Downloaded by [New York University] at 13:59 09 December 2014