70
3 Normal flow

As classified by Henderson (1966), the flow is hydraulically smooth if

V ks
54 ð3:5Þ
v

transitional if

V  ks
45 5100 ð3:6Þ
v

and fully rough if

V  ks
1005 ð3:7Þ
v

where v ¼
/ is kinematic viscosity of water and V ¼ shear velocity, defined as
rffiffiffiffi
0 pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
V ¼ ¼ gRSf ð3:8Þ


3.1.2 THE DARCY–WEISBACH EQUATION

The Darcy–Weisbach equation was originally developed for pipe flow (Chow,
1959). It is adopted for open-channel flow by replacing the pipe diameter d0 with
4R, where R is hydraulic radius. (Note that for a pipe with flow A ¼ d20 =4,
P ¼ d0, and thus R ¼ A/P ¼ d0/4.) The Darcy–Weisbach equation for open-
channel flow is

f V2
Sf ¼ ð3:9Þ
R 8g

where f is a dimensionless factor called the friction factor. The friction factor is
evaluated differently depending on whether the flow is laminar, turbulent and
hydraulically smooth, transitional, or fully rough turbulent. A chart, called the
Moody diagram, can be found in many fluid mechanics books to determine the
friction factor for pipe flow. Although a Moody diagram for open-channel flow
has not been reported, there are semi-empirical equations to calculate the
friction factor (Henderson, 1966).

For laminar flow

64
f ¼ ð3:10Þ
Re

For hydraulically smooth flow with Re5100 000

0:316
f ¼ ð3:11Þ
R0:25
e
 3.1 Flow resistance
71

while for hydraulically smooth flow with Re4100 000

!
1 2:5
pffiffi ¼ 2 log pffiffi ð3:12Þ
f Re f

For transitional flow

!
1 ks 2:5
pffiffi ¼ 2 log þ pffiffi ð3:13Þ
f 12R Re f

and for fully rough turbulent flow

 
1 ks
pffiffi ¼ 2 log ð3:14Þ
f 12R

Although the Darcy–Weisbach formula has some theoretical basis, it is rarely

used in practice for open-channel flow. Perhaps the main reason is that the use of
the equations given for f requires a trial-and-error procedure (we need to know R
and/or Re to find f, but R and Re depend on f ). However, these equations clearly
demonstrate that viscosity is the dominant factor in flow resistance at low
Reynold numbers, while the surface roughness affects the flow resistance in fully
rough flow. Also, even for fully rough flow, unlike pipes flowing full, the friction
factor is not constant for a given open channel; it depends on the hydraulic radius
as well as the channel roughness.

3.1.3 THE CHEZY EQUATION

Chezy, a French engineer, introduced the expression
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
V ¼ C RSf ð3:15Þ

for turbulent open-channel flow as early as 1769, where C ¼ Chezy coefficient

(Henderson, 1966). This coefficient has the dimensions of (length)1/2/(time).
Although the Chezy equation appears to be simple, it has limited use in practice
since the Chezy coefficient depends on the flow conditions as well as the channel
roughness, and it is difficult to evaluate. To demonstrate the dependence of C on
flow conditions, let us rewrite the Chezy equation as

V2
Sf ¼ ð3:16Þ
RC2

Comparing Equations 3.9 and 3.16, we can see that there is a direct relationship
between the Darcy–Weisbach friction factor, f, and the Chezy coefficient, C, as

C 1
pffiffiffiffiffi ¼ pffiffi ð3:17Þ
8g f
72
3 Normal flow

0.5
n(8g)0.5/(knks1/6)

n(8g)0.5/(knks1/6) or C/[20(8g)0.5]
0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1 C/[20(8g)0.5]

FIGURE 3.3 0
Variation of Chezy 1 10 100 1000 10 000
C and Manning n
with R/ks R/ks

Therefore, Equations 3.11 to 3.14 given for f in the preceding section can also be
utilized for evaluating C. For example, for fully rough flow,
 
C ks
pffiffiffiffiffi ¼ 2 log ð3:18Þ
8g 12R

Clearly, the Chezy coefficient depends on both the roughness height, ks, and the
hydraulic radius, R. Variation of C with the R/ks ratio is demonstrated in
Figure 3.3.

3.1.4 THE MANNING FORMULA

The Manning formula, also known as Strickler’s equation, was first introduced
in 1891 by Flamant (Henderson, 1966). It has found widespread use in
engineering practice. The Manning formula, meant for fully rough turbulent
flow, is written as

kn 2=3 1=2
V ¼ R Sf ð3:19aÞ
n

or

kn
Q¼ AR2=3 S1=2
f ð3:19bÞ
n

where kn ¼ 1.0 m1/3/s ¼ 1.49 ft1/3/s, and n ¼ Manning roughness factor. In practice,
for a given channel, the Manning roughness factor is assumed not to vary with
the flow conditions.
 3.1 Flow resistance
73

We can demonstrate the validity of this assumption. Let us first rewrite the
Manning formula as

V 2 n2
Sf ¼ ð3:20Þ
k2n R4=3

For fully rough turbulent flow, from Equations 3.9, 3.14, and 3.20, we can obtain
the relationship
pffiffiffiffiffi
n 8g ðR=ks Þ1=6
¼ ð3:21Þ
kn k1=6
s 2 logð12ðR=ks ÞÞ

Note that in this expression, g, kn, and ks are constant. Therefore, if the left-hand
side of the expression remains constant, we can conclude that n is also constant.
Figure 3.3 displays a graphical representation of Equation 3.21. An inspection
of Figure 3.3 reveals that although n varies with R/ks, the variations are less
than 5% over the average value within the range 45(R/ks)5600. Therefore,
we can assume that the Manning roughness factor for a given channel is
constant within this range. Similar observations were previously reported by
Yen (1992), Hager (2001), and Sturm (2001). Most practical open-channel
flow situations fall within this range. For example, for a trapezoidal earth channel
(ks ¼ 0.01 ft) with a bottom width of 5 ft and side slopes of m ¼ 3 (3H : 1V),
the corresponding flow depth range is about 0.04 ft to 16 ft. We should note
that this justification for using a constant Manning roughness factor is based on
the assumption that the flow is fully rough. By using Equation 3.7, the reader can
easily show that the flow is indeed fully rough for most practical open-channel
flow situations.

The Manning roughness factor is well documented and published in the

literature. Chow (1959) presented an extensive table of minimum, normal, and
maximum n values for a variety of channel materials. Chow’s table was also
reported by French (1985), Sturm (2001), and the US Army Corps of Engineers
(2002). The Federal Highway Administration (Chen and Cotton, 1988) is the
main source for the Manning roughness factors listed here in Table 3.1. However,
these values are in general agreement with those of Chow (1959) and Henderson
(1966). The lower values in this table are recommended for depths greater than
2.0 ft or 60 cm.

Selecting a Manning’s n for a natural stream is not easy unless some field data
are available to determine the roughness factor by calibration. Chow (1959),
Barnes (1967), and Sturm (2001) presented photographs of various streams with
calibrated n values. Table 3.2 summarizes the characteristics of selected streams
calibrated and reported by Barnes (1967), where d50 ¼ mean diameter of the
streambed material. Cowan (1956) presented a procedure to account for the
surface irregularities, variations in channel shape and size, obstructions,
vegetation, and meandering in selecting a roughness factor. This procedure
was reviewed and expanded later by Arcement and Schneider (1989).
74
3 Normal flow

TABLE 3.1 Manning roughness factor

Channel material Manning roughness factor n

Concrete 0.013–0.015
Grouted riprap 0.028–0.040
Soil cement 0.020–0.025
Asphalt 0.016–0.018
Bare soil 0.020–0.023
Rock cut 0.025–0.045
Fiberglass roving 0.019–0.028
Woven paper net 0.015–0.016
Jute net 0.019–0.028
Synthetic mat 0.021–0.030

TABLE 3.2 Manning roughness factor for various streams and rivers
Location Bed material and condition Depth (ft) d50 (mm) n

Salt Creek at Roca, Nebraska Sand and clay 6.3 0.030

Rio Chama near Chamita, Sand and gravel 3.5 0.032
New Mexico
Salt River below Smooth cobbles, 4 to 1.8 0.032
Stewart Mountain Dam, Arizona 10 inch diameter
West Fork Bitterroot Gravel and boulders 4.7 172 0.036
River near Conner, Montana
Middle Fork Vermilion Gravel and small cobbles 3.9 0.037
River near Danville, Illinois
Wenatchee River at Plain, Washington Boulders 11.1 162 0.037
Etowah River near Sand and gravel with several 9.0 0.039
Dawsonville, Georgia fallen trees in the reach
Tobesofkee Creek near Macon Georgia Sand, gravel and few rock outcrops 8.7 0.041
Middle Fork Flathed Boulders 8.4 142 0.041
River near Essex, Montana
Beaver Creek near Newcastle, Sand and silt 9.0 0.043
Wyoming
Murder Creek near Monticello, Sand and gravel 4.2 0.045
Georgia
South Fork Clearwater Rock and boulders 7.9 250 0.051
River near Grangeville, Idaho
Missouri Creek near Angular shaped boulders as 1.5 0.057
Cashmere, Washington large as 1 ft in diameter
Haw River near Banja, Coarse sand and a few outcrops 4.9 0.059
North Carolina
Rock Creek near Darby, Montana Boulders 3.1 220 0.075

3.2 NORMAL FLOW EQUATION

Normal flow refers to steady open-channel flow in which the flow depth,
area, and velocity remain constant at every cross-section along the channel.
The momentum and energy equations for steady flow were derived in Chapter 1
 3.2 Normal flow equation
75

(see Equations 1.49 and 1.50). If the velocity and the depth do not vary along the
flow direction, then Equations 1.49 and 1.50 are, respectively, reduced to

Sf ¼ S 0 ð3:22Þ

and

Se ¼ S0 ð3:23Þ

where Sf ¼ friction slope and Se ¼ energy slope. Also, as discussed in Section 1.6.6,
Sf and Se are interchangeable for practical purposes, and the term ‘friction slope’
refers to either. Indeed, in Section 2.2.1 we indicated that Sf, represents the slope
of the energy grade line. Then, for normal flow, the energy grade line is parallel
to the channel bottom. This also implies that the water surface is parallel to the
channel bottom, since the flow depth and velocity are both constant.

Substituting Equation 3.22 into Equation 3.1, and simplifying, we obtain

Ff ¼ ð
XÞAS0 ð3:24Þ

The left-hand side of this equation is the friction force acting on a channel
segment that has a length
X, flow area A, and a bottom slope S0. The right-
hand side is the component of the weight of water (gravitational force) in the
flow direction. Therefore, normal flow occurs when the gravitational force
component in the flow direction is balanced by the flow resistance.

A qualitative inspection of Equation 3.24 will also reveal that, with everything
else remaining the same, the flow area A (and therefore the depth y) will increase
with increasing Ff . Therefore, the normal flow depth will be greater in rougher
channels. Likewise, with everything else remaining the same, the flow area A
(and depth y) will decrease with increasing S0. In other words, with everything
else remaining the same, the normal flow depth is smaller in steeper channels.

The Manning formula is the most commonly used flow-resistance equation for
open-channel flow calculations. Substituting Equation 3.22 into Equation 3.19,
the Manning formula for normal flow becomes

kn 2=3 1=2
V ¼ R S0 ð3:25Þ
n

or

kn
Q¼ AR2=3 S1=2
0 ð3:26Þ
n

Two types of problems are encountered in analyzing channels under normal flow
conditions. The first involves the calculation of normal flow velocity and
discharge given the normal flow depth and the channel characteristics. This is
a simple problem to solve. We first calculate A and R using the expressions in
76
3 Normal flow

Table 1.1, and then determine V and Q from Equations 3.25 and 3.26,
respectively. The second type of problem involves the determination of normal
flow depth given the discharge and channel characteristics. This is more difficult
to solve, because it may involve a trial-and-error procedure.

EXAMPLE 3.1 A concrete, trapezoidal channel has a bottom slope of

S0 ¼ 0.0009 and a Manning roughness factor of n ¼ 0.013. The bottom width
of the channel is b ¼ 2.5 m, and the side slopes are m ¼ 2 – that is, 2H : 1V.
Determine the velocity and discharge when the flow is normal at a depth of 1.8 m.

For trapezoidal channels, from Table 1.1

A ¼ ðb þ myÞy
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
P ¼ b þ 2y 1 þ m2

and

ðb þ myÞy
R¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
b þ 2y 1 þ m2

Therefore, for the given channel,

A ¼ ½2:5 þ ð2:0Þð1:8Þð1:8Þ ¼ 10:98 m2

qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
P ¼ 2:5 þ 2ð1:8Þ 1 þ ð2:0Þ2 ¼ 10:55 m
10:98
R¼ ¼ 1:04 m
10:55

Substituting these into Equations 3.25 and 3.26, and noting that kn ¼ 1.0 for the
unit system used, we obtain

1:0
V ¼ ð1:04Þ2=3 ð0:0009Þ1=2 ¼ 2:37 m=s
0:013
1:0
Q¼ ð10:98Þð1:04Þ2=3 ð0:0009Þ1=2 ¼ 26:00 m3 =s
0:013

3.3 NORMAL DEPTH CALCULATIONS

IN UNIFORM CHANNELS
The normal depth is the flow depth that satisfies Equations 3.25 and 3.26, and is
denoted by yn. We often need to calculate the normal depth given the discharge
and the channel properties. For uniform channels, that is for prismatic channels
made of uniform channel material, we can assume that the Manning roughness
factor is constant. Also, for such channels, the cross-sectional relationships are
available as presented in Table 1.1.