Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Chapter 4
Here in Chapter 4 we begin to explore some of the ways in which river scientists have
found it useful to deal with the reality that water does not move as an ideal frictionless
fluid. Real flows resist motion in various ways and in doing so they consume energy
and do work. Again, it will be useful at the outset to take a simple approach to
understanding these resisting forces and we will here consider only the mean flow
properties. Variations in the forces acting within the flow is a topic we will put off until
later in Chapter 5.
Water is impelled downstream by the force of gravity acting against the opposing
frictional force or shear stress exerted against it by the boundary. If the flow is uniform,
velocity does not change downstream and one may conclude from Newton's first law of
motion (a body will continue to move with constant velocity in a straight line unless
acted on by some net force) that the impelling and resisting forces must be in balance.
These conditions allow a formulation of the boundary shear stress, o (the subscript o
Chapter 4: Mean flow and flow resistance in open channels
denotes 'at the boundary'). The relevant forces are (see Figure 4.1 for further definition
of terms):
L
v L
v
A Ws
bed
p
Ws = W sine
profile W
The ratio A/P is known as the hydraulic radius, Rh (m). Making this substitution in
equation (4.4), and noting that sine = tan = slope, s, for small values of (< 5o),
and that g = , we can write:
o = Rhs ds ..............................................(4.5)
Equation (4.5) defines the mean boundary shear stress and often is simply referred to as
the 'depth-slope product' because it turns out that this expression can be simplified
further in application because the hydraulic radius normally is approximated by the
mean depth (d) of the channel in most rivers (see Sample Problem 4.1).
4.2
Chapter 4: Mean flow and flow resistance in open channels
Sample Problem 4.1: A 2.00 m-deep uniform flow discharges through a 100.00 m-wide rectangular
channel at a slope of 0.001 (1.000 m drop for every horizontal km). If the water temperature is 10oC,
calculate the mean shear stress (a) based on the hydraulic radius, and (b) based on the mean flow
depth.
A 2.00 x 100.00
Solution: (a) In this rectangular channel, Rh = = = 1.92 m. Figure 2.1 indicates
p (2.00 +100.00 + 2.00)
that the specific weight of water at 10oC is 9.804 Nm-3; substituting the appropriate values in equation
(4.5) yields: o = Rhs = 9804 x 1.92 x 0.001 = 18.8 = 19 Nm-2.
(b) The corresponding calculation using the mean depth y rather than Rh, yields:
Although it is useful to consider this classical derivation of boundary shear stress as the
downstream component of the weight of the water body within the channel, we should
note also that equation (4.5) can simply be regarded as a special case of the momentum
equation. Where flow is steady and uniform (y1 = y2 and v1 = v2), equation (3.7) reduces
to:
Vosin - oAb = 0
Vo
so that o = sin = Rhsin, or for low slopes where sin = tan = s, o = Rhs.
Ab
It is important to remember that o in equation (4.5) is a measure of the mean boundary
shear stress for a channel cross section and that it tells us nothing about the variation of
shear stress within the section. Furthermore we must not forget that equation (4.5) is
strictly valid only for uniform flow. Now as it turns out, this assumption can be relaxed to
some extent because o also applies reasonably well to gradually varied flow in which,
at least for short reaches of channel, the flow approximates uniform conditions.
Nevertheless, the further the streamlines diverge from uniform flow conditions, the
greater the error in equation (4.5).
4.3
Chapter 4: Mean flow and flow resistance in open channels
Given a certain impelling force (shear stress) in a flow, the equilibrated mean velocity
will depend on the level of resistance to flow encountered as the water moves through
the channel. High levels of resistance mean that large amounts of energy are being bled
from the flow system leaving less to maintain motion; thus, velocity will be relatively low.
Similarly, low resistance means that only a small amount of the total energy is being
consumed per unit channel length and the larger available energy balance means that
velocity will be correspondingly higher. Although the general concept of energy
conservation and loss is a straightforward notion, the particular mechanisms of loss -
flow resistance - are quite complex.
Defining flow resistance, the relationship between the mean shear stress and the mean
flow velocity in rivers, has been a central problem in river studies for a very long time,
but it continues to defy a complete analytical solution. The French engineer A. de
Chezy perhaps was the first (in 1775) to address this problem for uniform flow
conditions and he reasoned on the basis of common observation that:
o = kv2 ..........................................................................(4.6)
o = av2 ........................................................................(4.7)
where a may be any other dimensionless property of the fluid or the boundary (o/v2 is
conveniently dimensionless). Actually, regardless of whether shear stress is assumed
to be a function of velocity, or of velocity and water density (or specific weight of water),
dimensional analysis (see Chapter 1) inevitably leads us to the conclusion that o v2.
Later we will see that the variable a in equation (4.7) is a dimensionless number (not
4.4
Chapter 4: Mean flow and flow resistance in open channels
g
from which it follows that v= aRhs (noting again that =g) ....(4.9)
Replacing the radical g/a by one constant, C, in equation (4.9) we have the formula
v = C Rhs ....................................................................(4.10)
which is known as the Chezy equation after its originator. Chezy C is a measure of flow
efficiency or conductance; as C increases for a given depth-slope product (shear stress)
so does the velocity. In other words, Chezy C is inversely related to the resistance to
flow. Evaluating Chezy C for natural channels has been a major engineering and
scientific enterprise during the last two centuries.
Many of our ideas about flow resistance in open channels were developed directly from,
or in parallel with, studies of flow through pipes. By the mid-19th century several
experimentalists, including d'Aubuisson (1840), Weisbach (1845), and Darcy (1854),
had showed that, in a run of cylindrical pipe, head loss (H) varies directly with the
velocity head (v2/2g) and pipe length (L), and inversely with pipe diameter (D). They
proposed empirical head-loss equations of the form:
L v2
H = D 2g ...............................................................(4.11)
4.5
Chapter 4: Mean flow and flow resistance in open channels
H 2g 8gRhs
=D L = ..........................................(4.12)
v2 v2
The general structure of equation (4.12) and its similarity to the Chezy equation, perhaps
becomes more apparent if it is written in the form:
8gRhs 8gRhs 8g
v2 = or v = or v= Rhs ...............(4.13)
8g
From equation (4.13) it now is clearly apparent that C = ..............................(4.14)
Of course, both the Chezy and Darcy-Weisbach equations can also be written in terms
of shear stress, giving:
v2 v2
C2 = g o or C= g o .........................................(4.15)
8 o
and = 2 ....................................................................................(4.16)
v
4.6
Chapter 4: Mean flow and flow resistance in open channels
v 8
and by taking roots, v* = ............................................................(4.17)
If it is assumed that shear stress (o) at a pipe wall is a function only of the following
variables, o = f(v, D, , , k), dimensional analysis suggests the dependency
where k is the representative height of the roughness elements on the pipe wall and D/k
therefore is an inverse measure of relative roughness ('relative smoothness').
The term Re in equation (4.18), known as the Reynolds number, is a dimensionless ratio
which expresses the relative importance of inertial and viscous forces in the flow:
inertial forces vL
Re = viscous forces =
It is a subject to which we will return and consider more fully in Chapter 5 but for now we
must at least consider the nature of the conceptual basis of the Reynolds number
because it bears directly on the present discussion.
4.7
Chapter 4: Mean flow and flow resistance in open channels
without mixing but rather is a much more chaotic motion in which water particles break
the bounds of viscosity and move significant vertical distances in the flow. In this flow
dominated by chaotic motion, called turbulent flow, , turbulence itself is the
characteristic that limits the rate of fluid deformation. In other words, turbulent flow is
the domain of relatively high Reynolds number. As you might imagine, the resistance to
flow encountered by water moving though a pipe or channel is not independent of the
type of motion, laminar or turbulent, exhibited by the flow.
The measured dependence of on the character of pipe flow was established in several
classical experiments conducted during the first few decades of this century, notably by
Stanton (1914), Nikuradse (1932-35), and Colebrook and White (1937-39); some of
these early observations are reviewed in A.S.C.E. (1963). These studies confirm the
validity of equation (4.12); typical results are summarized in the Stanton diagram shown
in Figure 4.2.
The Stanton diagram shows measured values of plotted against Reynolds number for
a wide range of pipe roughness. The data show that, in laminar flow (where Re<2000),
the resistance to flow is entirely dependent on Re and is quite independent of the
relative roughness. That is, resistance is a single-valued function of Reynolds number
[equation (4.19): = 64/Re] regardless of the pipe roughness. Beyond a narrow
transition zone (Re = 2000-3000), however, the flow becomes fully turbulent and
resistance to flow becomes independent of Re ( versus Re is a horizontal plot for given
roughness) and entirely dependent on D/k. In this fully turbulent domain, resistance to
flow is described by
1/ f = 1.14 + 2.0 log (D/k) ..................................(4.20)
The key to interpreting the behaviour of in Figure 4.2 is the relationship between the
roughness element height and
the thickness of the viscosity-dominated flow. In laminar
flow all the roughness elements are enclosed in viscous fluid in which there is no lateral
mixing. In consequence, the roughness geometry has no influence on the flow and
4.8
Chapter 4: Mean flow and flow resistance in open channels
0.10
relative roughness
Resistance coefficient,
30.0
0.05
61.0
increasing
0.04
120
0.03 252
504
0.02 1014
Figure 4.2: The Stanton diagram showing = (Re , D/k); after Rouse (1946).
4.9
Chapter 4: Mean flow and flow resistance in open channels
Rivers move through channels as fully turbulent flow over hydrodynamically rough
boundaries and resistance to flow appears to be determined largely by relative
roughness of the boundary. Nevertheless, the viscous sublayer may be important for
certain processes operating in the vicinity of the bed and we will have to revisit this
notion later when we consider the distribution of velocity close to the boundary.
Graphs similar to those in Figure 4.2 can be derived for Chezy C (called Moody
diagrams) using the transform of equation (4.9) although to my knowledge no primary
data have ever been collected for the purpose of an independent characterization so
obviously they show the same results with the same interpretation.
The most well known and widely applied assessment of Chezy C was provided in 1891
by the Irish engineer, R. Manning. He used experimental data from his own studies
and from the results of others to derive the empirical relationship:
kRh1/6
C= n ................................................................(4.21)
where n is a measure of channel roughness and k = 1.49 (for Imperial units) or 1.0 (for
SI units). Combining equations (4.10) and (4.21) yields the Chezy-Manning equation (or
simply, the Manning equation as it is now known), the SI-unit version of which states
that:
Rh2/3s1/2
v= n ............................................................(4.22)
Rh2/3s1/2 Rh2/3s1/2
Q =A n = wd n ...................................(4.23)
where A, w, and d, are respectively cross-sectional area, width, and mean depth, of the
channel.
4.10
Chapter 4: Mean flow and flow resistance in open channels
Equations (4.22) and (4.23) are widely used today by river engineers to predict the mean
velocity and discharge through open channels from measured values of hydraulic
radius (or mean depth in wide channels), channel width, and water-surface slope, and
an estimate of the roughness coefficient, n. Manning's n computed from measured
velocities typically varies between 0.01 and 0.10 in natural channels. Sample Problem
4.2 illustrates a typical application of the Manning equation.
Obviously the error in predicting the mean velocity from equation (4.22) is directly
proportional to the error in estimating Manning's n. For example, if the true value of n is
0.04 and was erroneously judged to be 0.03, the velocity and discharge would be
overestimated by 25 per cent. It is not surprising, therefore, that considerable attention
has been given to the problem of estimating accurately the magnitude of n in natural
channels. Before we examine some of these estimating procedures, however, we
should note two important properties of Manning's n and consider the factors which
contribute to most of its variation in natural channels.
First, equation (4.22) is not a dimensionally balanced physical statement and it can be
shown readily that n is not simply a length. From equation (4.14) we know that C
4.11
Chapter 4: Mean flow and flow resistance in open channels
1 k Rh1/6
= .....................................................(4.24)
f 8g n
Since is dimensionless and n is dependent only on roughness, the factor k must have
the dimensions of g . Furthermore, since Rh is a length, n must have the dimensions
Second, when evaluating n by measurement (of Rh, s, and v), Manning's n simply
becomes a coefficient of proportionality which reflects all sources of flow resistance, not
just that related to boundary roughness. Consequently, two channels with identical
boundary materials may have quite different values of Manning's n if they differ
markedly with respect to other sources of flow resistance.
1. Boundary roughness
2. Stage and discharge
3. Vegetation
4. Obstructions
5. Channel irregularity and alignment
6. Sediment load
Boundary roughness actually is a rather more difficult concept to define than you might
imagine. Although conventionally it is defined operationally as a roughness length (see
Figure 4.2) 'roughness' also depends on the spacing and shape of the roughness
elements. Widely spaced elements produce less roughness than those more closely
spaced, at least up to a certain close packing. If elements are shaped to allow close
4.12
Chapter 4: Mean flow and flow resistance in open channels
fitting, their spacing can be reduced to zero (all elements touch adjacent elements) and
boundary roughness will decline.
where D84 refers to the 84th percentile of the grain-size distribution measured in the
same units as the depth, y.
But equation (4.25) applies only to a regular and smooth boundary in which grain
roughness is the only source of skin or boundary resistance. The boundaries of rivers
invariably have other scales of roughness expressed on them and these constitute
additional 'roughness'. For example, sediment transport creates bedforms such as
ripples, dunes, and various kinds of bars, and these may be even more important than
grain size in controlling flow velocity (see Einstein and Barbarossa, 1952 and Simons
and Richardson, 1966). Generally, the larger and more closely spaced the bedforms,
the greater the skin resistance and the magnitude of Manning's friction factor.
It is important not to think of boundary roughness as simply a local effect at the channel
perimeter. Turbulence and macroturbulence generated along the rough boundary is
transmitted throughout the entire flow. The rougher the boundary the greater the flow
disturbance there and the greater the intensity of turbulence (and flow resistance)
experienced by the entire flow.
4.13
Chapter 4: Mean flow and flow resistance in open channels
Another factor which usually tends to reinforce the inverse relation between flow
resistance and stage is the typical difference between the roughness of the bed and
banks. Generally the banks are relatively smooth, often consisting of finer cohesive
material which presents smooth near-vertical faces to the flow. Therefore, the average
boundary roughness of the wetted perimeter of the channel declines as stage
increases. We also need to make a cautionary note here, however, because we can all
conceive of particular cases where the banks are actually rougher than the bed of the
channel. In such cases these two effects - drowning of bed roughness and
encountering greater bank roughness - will be opposed and the net effect on Manning's
n clearly will depend on the relative importance of each factor.
Vegetation plays an important but complex role in controlling flow resistance in open
channels (Hickin, 1984). Vegetation commonly grows on the banks of rivers so it is an
important element of bank roughness. Although isolated trees and short grasses may
offer little resistance to flow, dense growths of bushes and vines may represent an
important example of the effects referred to in the cautionary note above.
Within-channel vegetation such as weeds and lilies may be important sources of flow
resistance in some low-velocity streams. The direct effect of vegetation as roughness
often is enhanced by the trapping of other organic debris being transported by the flow.
Here it may be useful to distinguish between this type of small organic debris and the
4.14
Chapter 4: Mean flow and flow resistance in open channels
effects of treefall and logs incorporated into the channel. The latter class of vegetative
material, termed large organic debris, will be considered below as an Obstruction.
Obstructions in a river channel include fallen trees, log jams, large boulders, slumped
banks, bridge piers, and the like. All such occurrences contribute to increases in flow
resistance and the magnitude of Manning's n. The degree of increase clearly will
depend on the nature of the obstructions, their size, shape, number, and distribution
within the channel.
Large obstructions may result in the local acceleration of flow into the supercritical
domain, resulting in the formation of hydraulic jumps. Here, as we noted earlier, rapid
flow literally impacts on the more slowly moving downstream water mass, resulting in
the telescoping of stream lines and extreme energy loss through turbulence. This type
of flow resistance has been termed impact or spill resistance. Perhaps the most
extreme case of spill resistance occurs at the foot of a waterfall where a free-falling
stream impacts on a plunge pool before resuming channeled flow.
Early experimental studies (Leopold et al, 1960) showed that channel obstructions may
greatly increase flow resistance well beyond that attributable to boundary roughness.
4.15
Chapter 4: Mean flow and flow resistance in open channels
Channel irregularity and alignment refers to major changes in the mean boundary
geometry such as downstream variations in wetted perimeter and cross-sectional size
and shape of the channel. Such large-scale irregularity may be introduced by sand and
gravel bars, ridges, depressions, pools and riffles on the channel bed, and by the
presence of very large boulders. Although a gradual and uniform change in cross-
sectional size and shape will not appreciably effect the magnitude of Manning's n,
abrupt changes or alternations of small to large sections may increase the magnitude of
Manning's n by 0.005 or more.
Sediment load probably is not an important factor influencing flow resistance in most
rivers but it does become a significant control in rivers which carry unusually high
concentrations of suspended sediment. In sufficient concentration suspended
sediment can actually dampen the turbulence in the flow and reduce the overall level of
flow resistance; important early contributors to these ideas were Vanoni and Nomicos
(1960), and Bagnold (1954), among others.
4.16
Chapter 4: Mean flow and flow resistance in open channels
A major world river carrying such extremely sediment-laden flows is the Yellow River in
China. This river is so heavily laden with wind-blown loess eroded from the Interior
Plateau that it commonly transports more sediment than water! The flow is so
dominated by the suspended particulates that its special character is becoming the
basis of a new sub-branch of fluid mechanics - that of hyperconcentrated flow.
It also has been argued (Chow, 1959) that, because energy is used to maintain
bedload transport, Manning's n must increase as the rate of bedload transport
increases. It is not likely, however, that this effect is measurable because it is
accompanied by other confounding changes in the flow. In any case, general
observation suggests that this factor exerts a relatively unimportant influence on the
resistance to flow in open channels.
Estimating Manning's n
Manning's n is most commonly estimated for a river channel by employing either (a)
descriptive rating tables and reference photographs; (b) the Cowan procedure; or (c)
empirical relations directly linking n to the size of the boundary material.
An example of a simple descriptive rating table for Manning's n is shown in Figure 4.3.
Matching the field conditions to the nearest description facilitates the estimate of the
actual roughness factor. Although this estimating procedure is often quite a challenge
to the uninitiated, river engineers and scientists who work routinely at estimating
Manning's n quickly become adept at its quite accurate assessment based on a field
inspection.
4.17
Chapter 4: Mean flow and flow resistance in open channels
4.3: A rating table for Manning's friction factor, n, based on the type and condition of the channel
boundary and flood plain and the nature of riparian vegetation (based on data from the U.S.
Department of Agriculture and Simons and Richardson, 1966).
4.18
Chapter 4: Mean flow and flow resistance in open channels
For those unpracticed at the task, estimating Manning's n also can be facilitated by
comparing the field site in question with photographs of river channels for which
Manning's n has been measured. One widely used set of reference photographs is
published by the United States Geological Survey (Barnes, 1967). The field operator
simply refers to the reference channel which most closely resembles the field
conditions in order to form an estimate of Manning's n.
Estimating Manning's n from a general rating table often involves the mental integration
of a number of quite different contributions to the overall roughness factor and the
Cowan procedure is one attempt to break the assessment down into component
estimates (Cowan, 1954).
4.19
Chapter 4: Mean flow and flow resistance in open channels
Such a channel would correspond with the channel type B(a)3 in Figure 4.3.
Manning's n may also be estimated directly from the roughness of the boundary
measured as a representative particle diameter. For example, implicit in equation (4.25)
is a relationship linking Manning's n and the size of the bed material. Noting from the
1 1 Rh1/6
SI-unit version of equation (4.24) that = , equation (4.25) can
f 8g n
1 Rh1/6
be written = 1.0 + 2.0 log (y/D84) .................................(4.27a)
8g n
y1/6
or if Rh y, simplification leads to: n= y ......................(4.27b)
8.859(1.0+2.0log D )
84
It is important to note here that this Strickler relation, as it is known, and that expressed
by equation (4.27), only should be applied to gravel bed rivers in which total
resistance to flow is simply the result of skin resistance alone. As other sources of
resistance begin to contribute significantly to the total, these equations will increasingly
underestimate the actual magnitude of n. In this sense equations (4.27) and (4.28)
estimate the minimum value of Manning's n.
4.20
Chapter 4: Mean flow and flow resistance in open channels
Negligible.................0.00
n3 Determination of n3 is based on the presence and
characteristics of obstructions such as debris, slumps, 0.010
stumps, exposed roots, boulders and fallen and lodged Minor ................to 0.015
Relative logs. Conditions considered in other steps must not be
effect of reevaluated (double counted) in this determination. In 0.020
obstructions judging the relative effect of obstructions, consider the Appreciable... .....to 0.030
extent to which the obstructions occupy or reduce
average water area; the shape (sharp or smooth) and 0.040
position and spacing of the obstructions. Severe................to 0.060
Low: Dense but flexible grasses where flow depth is 2-3 x the
height of vegetation or supple tree seedlings (willow, poplar) 0.005
where flow depth is 3-4 x vegetation height...........................................................to 0.010
Medium: Turf grasses in flow 1-2 times vegetation height; stemmy grasses
n4 where flow is 2-3 x vegetation height; moderately dense brush on 0.010
banks where Rh>0.7 m............................................................................................to 0.025
High: Turf grasses in flow of same height; foliage-free willow or poplar,
Vegetation 8-10 years old and intergrown with brush on channel banks 0.025
where Rh>0.7m; bushy willows, 1 year old, Rh>0.7m...........................................to 0.050
Very High: Turf grasses in flow half as deep; bushy willows (1 year old)
with weeds on banks; some vegetation on the bed; trees with 0.050
weeds and brush in full foliage where Rh>5m.........................................................to 0.100
m
Minor: Sinuosity index = 1.0 to1.2................................................................................1.00
Degree of Appreciable: Sinuosity index = 1.2 to 1.5.....................................................................1.15
Meandering Severe: Sinuosity index >1.5.........................................................................................1.30
4.4: Determination of Manning's roughness coefficient by the Cowan procedure (after Chow,
1959).
4.21
Chapter 4: Mean flow and flow resistance in open channels
The relative performance of equations (4.27) and (4.28) is illustrated in Figure 4.5. It has
been assumed here that D84=2D50 (on the basis of typical grain-size distributions in
gravel-bed rivers; see Shaw and Kellerhals (1982). For the finer gravels (D50 = 5 mm;
D84 = 10 mm), equations (4.27) and (4.28) essentially yield the same results (n = 0.02)
although there clearly is considerable divergence in the coarser gravels at relatively
shallow depths of flow (<1.0 m). In general it seems likely that equation (4.27) is the
more reliable estimator simply because it includes the effects of depth variation in the
'relative smoothness term', y/D84. Nevertheless, for bed material up to about 10 cm in
diameter and depths greater than about 0.5 m, the simpler Strickler relation appears
to perform adequately. Examples of the application of equations (4.27) and (4.28) are
shown in Sample Problems 4.3 and 4.4.
.08
.07
Manning's n
.06
.05
.04
.03
.02
.01
0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5
Flow depth, y (metres)
4.5: Manning's n computed from equations (4.27) and (4.28) for a range of
particle size and depth of flow.
4.22
Chapter 4: Mean flow and flow resistance in open channels
y5/3 y5/3
300 = 2.236 = 2.236
0.0478D501/6 0.0478(0.1)1/6
y5/3
which simplifies to 300 = 2.236 and further to 300 = 67.758 y5/3
0.033
So, y5/3 = 4.428 and y = 4.4283/5 = 2.44 m
Thus the flow depth will be 2.44 m and the mean velocity will be 1.23 ms-1.
4.23
Chapter 4: Mean flow and flow resistance in open channels
Although the Strickler equation is used widely in gravel-bed river engineering, there are
other empirical relationships that might also be used (see Bray, 1982). All such
empirical relationships are similar in form and only work well when applied in
environments similar to those in which they were developed. Furthermore, we must not
forget that these relationships specify Manning's n for the given particle size or relative
roughness only. As such they are estimates of minimum n; actual values will be
higher to the extent that sources of flow resistance other than boundary roughness are
influencing flow in the channel.
In the discussion in this and earlier chapters we have been concerned only with the
mean velocity of flow and the factors controlling it. But of course we are all aware that,
in a natural channel, the velocity varies considerably within the flow, faster in the deeper
water in the middle of the stream and more slowly in the shallower water near the
banks. We now need to explore the nature of this within-flow variation in velocity and
the attempts that have been made to explain why it occurs.
References
A.S.C.E., 1963, Task force on friction factors in open channels: Proceedings of the American Society of
Civil Engineers, 89, HY2, 97.
Bagnold, R.A., 1954, Experiments on a gravity-free dispersion of large solid spheres in a Newtonian fluid
under shear: The Royal Society of London Proceedings, Series A, 225, 49-63.
Barnes,H.H., 1967, Roughness characteristics of natural channels. Water Supply Paper 1894, US
Geological Survey, Washington, DC, 213 pp.
Bray, D.I., 1982, Flow resistance in gravel-bed rivers. In Gravel-bed Rivers, Hey, R.D., Bathurst, C. and
Thorne, C.R. (Editors), John Wiley and Sons, 109-132.
Chow, V.T., 1959, Open Channel Hydraulics. McGraw Hill, New York, 680p.
Cowan, W.L., 1954, Estimating hydraulic roughness coefficients. Agricultural Engineering, Vol 37 (7) 473-
475.
Einstein, H.A. and Barbarossa, N.L., 1952, River channel roughness: American Society of Civil Engineers
Transactions, 117, 1121-1146.
4.24
Chapter 4: Mean flow and flow resistance in open channels
Hickin, E.J., 1984, Vegetation and river channel dynamics: Canadian Geographer, 28 (2) 111-126.
Leopold, L.B., Bagnold, R.A., Wolman, M.G. and Brush, L.M., 1960, Flow resistance in sinuous or
irregular channels: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 282D.
Leopold, L.B., Wolman, M.G. and Miller, J.P., 1964, Fluvial Processes in Geomorphology, Freeman San
Francisco, 522 p.
Limerinos, J.T., 1970, Determination of the Manning coefficient from measured bed roughness in natural
channels. Water Supply Paper 1898-B, US geological Survey, 47 pp.
Shaw, J. and Kellerhals, R., 1982, The composition of Recent alluvial gravels: Alberta Research Council,
Bulletin 41, 151p.
Simons, D.B. and Richardson, E.V., 1966, Resistance to flow in alluvial channels: United States
Geological Survey Professional Paper 422-J, 61p.
Vanoni, V.A. and Nomicos, G.N., 1960, Resistance properties of sediment laden streams: American
Society of Civil Engineers Transactions, 125, 1140-1175.
4.25