Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Explicit solutions for critical and normal depths in channels with different shapes
Ali R. Vatankhah a,∗ , Said M. Easa b
a
Department of Irrigation and Reclamation Engineering, University College of Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of Tehran, P.O. Box 4111, Karaj, 31587-77871, Iran
b
Department of Civil Engineering, Ryerson University, Toronto, ON, Canada M5B 2K3
0955-5986/$ – see front matter © 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.flowmeasinst.2010.12.003
44 A.R. Vatankhah, S.M. Easa / Flow Measurement and Instrumentation 22 (2011) 43–49
Notations
A Cross section area
a, b, and c Coefficients
b Bed width
D Channel diameter
g Gravitational acceleration
H Height of the conduit
n Manning’s roughness coefficient
P Wetted perimeter Fig. 1. Cross section of a trapezoidal channel.
Q Discharge
R, r Circle radius
sin(θ) Longitudinal slope of the channel
S0 Longitudinal slope of the channel
t = R/r A characteristic parameter
T Width of the channel at the water surface
y Flow depth
yn Normal flow depth
z Side slope of the channel
α Energy correction factor
λ Unit conversion constant
γ Water surface angle in radians
η = y/D Dimensionless depth
εc = α Q 2 /[gD5 cos(θ )] Dimensionless discharge for critical
depth computations (circular cross section)
εh = α Q 2 /[gH 5 cos(θ )] Dimensionless discharge for critical Fig. 2. Cross section of a partially filled pipe channel.
depth computations (standard horseshoe cross
section) 2.2. Circular channels
εt = α z 3 Q 2 /[gb5 cos(θ )] Dimensionless discharge for criti-
cal depth computations (trapezoidal cross section) For a partially filled circular channel section, shown in Fig. 2, the
γc = 2 cos−1 (1 − 2ηcc ) For critical depth computations geometric elements are as follows
γn = 2 cos−1 (1 −√2ηnc ) For normal depth computations
D2
βc = nQ /(λD8/3 S0 ) Dimensionless discharge for normal A= (γ − sin γ ) (4)
depth computations (circular cross section) 8
√
βh = nQ /(λH 8/3 S0 ) Dimensionless discharge for normal 1
depth computations (standard horseshoe cross P = Dγ (5)
2
section)√ γ
βr = nQ /(λb8/3 S0 ) Dimensionless discharge for normal T = D sin (6)
2
depth computations
√ (rectangular cross section)
βt = nQ /(λb8/3 S0 ) Dimensionless discharge for normal γ = 2 cos−1 (1 − 2η) (7)
depth computations (trapezoidal cross section) where D is channel diameter, γ is water surface angle in radians,
ηcc = yc /D Dimensionless critical depth (circular cross sec- and η = y/D.
tion)
ηch = yc /H Dimensionless critical depth (standard horse- 2.3. Standard horseshoe channels
shoe cross section)
ηct = zyc /b Dimensionless critical depth (trapezoidal cross A horseshoe cross section, shown in Fig. 3, consists of four arc
section) segments: a top arc (BC ) with radius r, a bottom arc (AD) with
ηnc = yn /D Dimensionless normal depth (circular cross radius R, and two lateral arcs (AB and DC ) with the same radius
section) R but with different circular centers [14]. Horseshoe cross sections
ηnh = yn /H Dimensionless normal depth (standard horse- can be classified using the characteristic parameter t = R/r. For
shoe cross section) t = 3 and t = 2, the cross sections are called standard Type I and
ηnr = yn /b Dimensionless normal depth (rectangular cross Type II horseshoe cross sections, respectively [14]. Note that when
section) t = 1, the horseshoe cross section becomes circular.
ηnt = yn /b Dimensionless normal depth (trapezoidal cross Fig. 3 shows a general horseshoe cross section and the
section) corresponding geometric symbols for three ranges of water depths
(y): (a) 0 ≤ y ≤ e, (b) e ≤ y ≤ r, and (c) r ≤ y ≤ 2r, where e is
Subscripts the height of the bottom arc, which is given by e = 0.12917r (θ =
0.294515 rad) for Type I, and e = 0.17712r (θ = 0.424031 rad)
c and n Denote critical and uniform flow conditions, respec- for Type II cross sections, respectively [15].
tively The required formulae for computing the geometric elements
c Denotes circular cross section of standard horseshoe cross sections (wetted perimeter and flow
h Denotes standard horseshoe cross section area) for the three zones of flow depth were presented in [15].
r Denotes rectangular cross section These formulae are presented in Table 1. In addition, formulae for
t Denote trapezoidal cross section computing the width of the channel at the water surface, which
I and II Denote Type I and Type II, respectively are needed for developing the critical depth equation, are derived
in this study and are presented in the table.
A.R. Vatankhah, S.M. Easa / Flow Measurement and Instrumentation 22 (2011) 43–49 45
Fig. 3. Horseshoe cross section and its geometric symbols for three zones of flow depth: (a) 0 ≤ y ≤ e; (b) e ≤ y ≤ r; and (c) r ≤ y ≤ 2r = H.
Table 1
Formulae for computing geometric elements for three zones of flow depth of a horseshoe cross section.
Zones of flow depth
0 ≤ y ≤ e or 0 ≤ β ≤ θ e≤y≤ H
2
or 0 ≤ α ≤ θ H
2
≤ y ≤ H or 0 ≤ ϕ ≤ π
t −2η t −2η
β = cos−1 t
α = sin−1 t
ϕ = 2 cos−1 (2η − 1)
2(t −1)
1 2
β− 1
sin(2β) 1 2 2
C −α− 1
sin(2α) + sin(2α) A = 14 H 2 Ct 2 + 12 (π − ϕ + sin(ϕ))
2
A= 4
t H 2
A= 4
t H 2 t
P = tH β P = tH (2θ − α) P = H2 (4t θ + π − ϕ)
ϕ
T = tH sin(β) T = H [1 − t + t cos(α)] T = H sin 2
Note: C = 2θ + 1 − sin(2θ) − cos(2θ), H = 2r = height of the tunnel and η = y/H.
3. Computation of critical depth (governing equation) about 2.5%. In such a case, the advantage of the presented equations
over his previous regression-based equation is rather questionable.
The critical flow condition in an open channel is described by Based on the infinite series presented by Swamee and Rathie [7],
the following relationship [16] Srivastava [10] found that a fitted series would be more accurate
than a truncated one.
αQ 2 T To further develop an improved explicit solution in the current
=1 (8)
g cos(θ ) A3 study, Eq. (9) is first numerically inverted using the curve fitting
method as follows
where α is the energy correction factor, sin(θ ) is the longitudinal 1/3
slope of the channel, and g is gravitational acceleration. Most of ηct = εt (1 + aεtb )c (10)
the channels have slopes smaller than 1/100, thus it is reasonable where a, b, and c are coefficients. To determine these coefficients,
to assume cos(θ ) ≈ 1 for these channels. Using Eq. (8), explicit the percentage error (PE) of the dimensionless critical depth, ηct , is
equations for the critical depth are derived next for trapezoidal, expressed as follows
circular, and horseshoe channels.
ηct − F (ηct )1/3 (1 + aF (ηct )b )c
PE = × 100 (11)
3.1. Trapezoidal channels ηct
in which the dimensionless function F (ηct ) is determined using
Substituting for A and T from Eqs. (1) and (3) into Eq. (8) yields the geometry of the trapezoidal cross section according to Eq. (9).
the following dimensionless form Then, the sum of the squares of the PE values is minimized
as an objective function using the Solver toolbox of Microsoft
ηct3 (1 + ηct )3 Excel. The resulting explicit equation in the practical range of the
εt = F (ηct ) = (9)
1 + 2ηct dimensionless normal depth, 0 ≤ ηct ≤ 3, is given by
1/3
where εt and ηct are dimensionless variables with εt = α z 3 Q 2 / ηct = εt (1 + 1.1524εt0.347 )−0.339
[gb5 cos(θ )] and ηct = zyc /b, and the subscripts c and t denote (proposed-trapezoidal channels). (12)
critical flow conditions and the trapezoidal section, respectively.
The maximum error involved in Eq. (12) is less than 0.06% in
Using the curve fitting method, Swamee [4] obtained an explicit
the practical range of 0 ≤ ηct ≤ 3. A summary of the existing
solution for Eq. (9). The maximum error of that solution is less
explicit solutions of the critical depth for trapezoidal channels and
than 2.2% in the practical range of 0 ≤ ηct ≤ 3. Vatankhah and
their maximum errors is shown in Table 2. As noted, the proposed
Kouchakzadeh [5] improved Swamee’s solution by developing a solution is preferable to other solutions in terms of both accuracy
similar equation that has a maximum error less than 0.28% in and simplicity.
the practical range of 0 ≤ ηct ≤ 15. Using the fixed point itera-
tion method, Wang [6] obtained a very accurate but complicated
3.2. Circular channels
solution for the critical depth of trapezoidal sections. Subse-
quently, Swamee and Rathie [7] obtained analytical solutions of Substituting for A and T from Eqs. (4) and (6) into Eq. (8) yields
the critical depth for trapezoidal sections in the form of converging the following dimensionless form
infinite series, based on Lagrange’s inversion theorem. When the
number of terms in the proposed series is limited to 4–5 for prac- (γc − sin γc )3
εc = h1 (ηcc ) = γc (13)
tical cases, the maximum relative error involved in the solution is 83 sin 2
46 A.R. Vatankhah, S.M. Easa / Flow Measurement and Instrumentation 22 (2011) 43–49
Table 2
Summary of proposed and existing explicit equations for critical depth in trapezoidal and circular channels.
Equation reference Proposed formulae Application range Maximum relative error (%)
Trapezoidal channels
√ 0.4P −1/P
[ ]
1/3 1/3
Vatankhah and ηct = εt 1 + εt / 2 P = 2.129εt−0.01565 0 ≤ ηct ≤ 15 0.28
Kouchakzadeh [5]
1/3 2/3
ηct = ε t − 0.33662ε t + 0.13529εt1.075 0 ≤ ηct ≤ 0.347 0.021
Srivastava [10]
ηct−1 = (2εt )−0.2 + 0.37913εt−0.4 + 0.071776εt−0.6 − 0.02409εt−0.75 ηct > 0.347 0.014
1/3 −0.347 −0.339
Proposed ηct = ε t (1 + 1.1524εt ) 0 ≤ ηct ≤ 3 0.06
Circular channels
Straub [8] ηcc = 1.01 × D−0.01 × εc0.25 0.1 ≤ ηcc ≤ 0.85 5.8 (D ≥ 0.25 m)
Swamee [4] ηcc = (1 + 0.77εc−3 )−0.085 0.02 ≤ ηcc ≤ 1 1.46
0.9584εc0.25
Vatankhah and ηcc = (1+0.0106εc0.26 −0.0132εc1.863 )−10.022
0 ≤ ηcc ≤ 0.92 0.25
Bijankhan [9]
Proposed ηcc = (1 + 13.6εc−2.1135 − 13εc−2.1 )−0.1156 0.01 ≤ ηcc ≤ 1 0.27
There are no explicit equations available in the literature for the horseshoe cross section, and the proposed equations are presented in the paper.
where εc and ηcc are dimensionless variables with εc = α Q 2 / As previously mentioned, there is currently no explicit equation
[gD5 cos(θ )], γc = 2 cos−1 (1 − 2ηcc ), and ηcc = yc /D. for calculating the critical depth of horseshoe channels. Therefore,
Straub [8] proposed a semi-empirical equation for the critical using the curve fitting method the following explicit equations
depth in circular open channels as follows were developed for computing the critical depth for standard
horseshoe channels
ηcc = 1.01 × D−0.01 × εc0.25 . (14)
(1.7εh10.7 + 0.000006εh8.877 )0.02799
As noted, Eq. (14) is dimensionally inhomogeneous. This equation ηchI =
is not very accurate and its error depends on the diameter of the
(1 + 1.6εh2.4 )0.11
channel. For example, for D ≥ 0.25 m, the maximum error is 5.8%. (proposed-standard Type I horseshoe channels) (19)
Swamee [4] numerically inverted Eq. (13) for the dimensionless
(3.37εh12.74 + 0.000053εh10.954 )0.02275
critical depth, ηcc , using the curve fitting method as follows ηchII =
−0.085
(1 + 1.07εh2.15 )0.14
ηcc = (0.77εc + 1)
−3
. (15)
(proposed-standard Type II horseshoe channels) (20)
The maximum error of Eq. (15) is less than 1.46% in the practical
range of 0.02 ≤ ηcc ≤ 1. where the subscripts I and II denote Type I and Type II, respectively.
Recently, Vatankhah and Bijankhan [9] used the curve fitting The maximum error of Eq. (19) is less than 0.65% in the practical
method to obtain a more accurate equation for the critical depth of range of 0.01 ≤ ηch ≤ 0.988 and that of Eq. (20) is less than 0.55%
a circular channel by inverting Eq. (13) as follows in the practical range of 0.01 ≤ ηch ≤ 0.99.
The proposed explicit equations of the dimensionless critical
0.9584εc0.25 depth for trapezoidal, circular, horseshoe channels, Eqs. (12), (17),
ηcc = 0.26
. (16) (19) and (20), are depicted graphically in Fig. 4. The actual data used
(1 + 0.0106ε c − 0.0132εc1.863 )−10.022
for estimating these equations using regression are also shown. The
The maximum error of Eq. (16) is less than 0.25% in the practical (almost) perfect match between the actual and proposed critical
range of 0 ≤ ηcc ≤ 0.92. depths is evident.
In the current study, the following regression-based equation is
proposed for computing the critical depth 4. Computation of normal depth (governing equation)
ηcc = (13.6εc−2.1135 − 13εc−2.1 + 1)−0.1156
The uniform flow condition in an open channel is described by
(proposed-circular channels). (17) the following Manning’s formula [17]
The maximum error of Eq. (17) is less than 0.27% in the practical √
range of 0.01 ≤ ηcc ≤ 1. Table 2 presents a summary of the pro- λ S0 A5/3
Q = (21)
posed and existing explicit equations for circular cross sections. n P 2/3
Clearly, the proposed solution offers both simplicity and accuracy in which λ is the unit conversion constant, 1.0 (SI), 1.49 (CU), S0 is
compared with other solutions. the longitudinal slope of the channel, and n is Manning’s roughness
coefficient.
3.3. Standard horseshoe channels
4.1. Trapezoidal channels
Substituting for A and T from Table 1 into Eq. (8) yields the
following dimensionless form Substituting for A and P from Eqs. (1) and (2) into Eq. (21), the
Manning’s equation becomes
A3ch 5/3
εh = h2 (ηch ) = (18) ηnt (1 + z ηnt )5/3
H 5 Tch βt = √ (22)
in which εh and ηch are dimensionless variables with εh = α Q 2 / (1 + 2ηnt 1 + z 2 )2/3
√
[gH 5 cos(θ )], ηch = yc /H , H is height of the conduit, and the sub- where ηnt = yn /b, yn is the normal depth, βt = nQ /(λb8/3 S0 )
script h denotes the standard horseshoe cross section. and the subscript n denotes normal flow conditions.
A.R. Vatankhah, S.M. Easa / Flow Measurement and Instrumentation 22 (2011) 43–49 47
The maximum error involved in Eq. (26) is less than 0.06% in the
range of 0 ≤ ηnr ≤ 100. Note that from an engineer’s viewpoint,
it would be more useful to have a simple and reasonably accurate
expression for the practical range rather than a complicated and
more accurate expression for a much wider range. Eq. (26) is more
accurate over a larger range, but Eq. (25) is simpler to use, less
computationally intensive, and reasonably accurate. It is applicable
for the entire practical range of ηnr .
Substituting for A and P from Eqs. (4) and (5) into Eq. (21) the
following equation is obtained
Table 3
Summary of proposed and existing explicit equations for the normal depth in rectangular and standard horseshoe channels.
Equation reference Proposed formulae Application range Maximum relative error (%)
Rectangular channels
3/5 2/5
ηnr = βr 1 + 2.404βr0.6321 (1 + 2.030βr0.9363 )0.3929 0 ≤ ηnr ≤ 100
Srivastava [10] 0.06
3/5 3/5 6/5
Proposed ηnr = βr (1 + 2βr + 1.712βr )2/5 0 ≤ ηnr ≤ 3 0.08
Liu et al. [15] (Types I and II) ηnh = (−0.1997t 2 + 1.124t − 0.9243)βh1.2 + (0.0956t 2 Q (e) ≤ Q ≤ Q (0.5H ) 0.35
− 0.5401t + 1.8479)βh0.6 + (0.002t 2 − 0.0166t + 0.0524)
ηnh = (−0.0111t 2 + 0.0501t + 2.8232)βh1.2 + (0.0381t 2 Q (0.5H ) ≤ Q and ηnh ≤ 0.82 1.35
− 0.2063t − 0.3739)βh0.6 + (0.0001t 2 − 0.0063t + 0.3789)
(−1.722βh0.892 −17.6βh4.2 +0.3956)
Proposed (Type I) ηnhI = 0.5βh 0.05 ≤ ηnh ≤ 0.82 0.63
(−1.5βh1.14 −182.46βh6.9 +0.4414)
Proposed (Type II) ηnhII = 0.75βh 0.05 ≤ ηnh ≤ 0.82 0.63
There are no proper explicit equations available in the literature for circular and trapezoidal cross sections, and the proposed equations are presented in the paper.
where the subscripts I and II denote Type I and Type II, respectively.
The proposed approximations of the dimensionless normal depth
of Eqs. (33) and (34) work very well over the entire practical range
of depth (0.05 ≤ ηnh ≤ 0.82) with a maximum percentage error
less than 0.63%. Table 3, presents a summary of the proposed and
existing explicit equations for rectangular and Standard Horseshoe
cross sections. Clearly, the proposed solution offers both simplicity
and accuracy compared with other solutions. Fig. 5. Comparison of actual and proposed dimensionless normal depth: (a)
The proposed explicit equations of the dimensionless normal trapezoidal channels and (b) circular and standard horseshoe channels.
depth for trapezoidal, circular, and horseshoe channels, Eqs. (23),
(28), (33) and (34), are depicted graphically in Fig. 5, along with the equations are available for only rectangular and horseshoe
actual data. Again, the proposed critical depth equations (almost) channels, but not for trapezoidal or circular channels.
perfectly match actual data. This paper has presented explicit solutions of these elements
for three types of channels: trapezoidal, circular, and horseshoe.
For the critical depth, new explicit equations for horseshoe
5. Conclusions channels and improved explicit equations for trapezoidal and
circular channels are presented. For the normal depth, new explicit
The critical and normal depths are important elements in equations for circular and trapezoidal channels and improved
the design, operation, and maintenance of open channels. The solutions for horseshoe channels are presented.
calculation of these elements is traditionally performed using trial Dimensionless variables of the governing equations (Eqs. (8)
procedures, numerical/graphical methods, or explicit regression- and (21)) are very powerful tools for developing general regression
based equations. Explicit solutions for the critical depth are equations without the need for using actual data. The explicit
available in the literature for trapezoidal and circular channels, equations were developed using regression analysis based on the
but not for horseshoe channels. For the normal depth, explicit practical ranges of the corresponding dimensionless variables.
A.R. Vatankhah, S.M. Easa / Flow Measurement and Instrumentation 22 (2011) 43–49 49
The functional form of the regression equation is determined depth in a trapezoidal canal’. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering
by evaluating different mathematical functions and selecting 2007;133(5):508.
[6] Wang Z. Formula for calculating critical depth of trapezoidal open channel.
the one that minimizes the maximum relative error. This error Journal of Hydraulic Engineering 1998;124(1):90–1.
also depends on the number of data points selected within the [7] Swamee PK, Rathie PN. Exact equations for critical depth in a trapezoidal canal.
ranges of the dimensionless variables. In addition, visualization Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering 2005;131(5):474–6.
[8] Straub WO. A quick and easy way to calculate critical and conjugate depths in
of the response surface of the governing equation was found to circular open channels. Civil Engineering 1978;70–1.
greatly help in selecting the appropriate mathematical functions [9] Vatankhah AR, Bijankhan M. Choke-free flow in circular and ovoidal channels.
for evaluation. These factors and the skills of the analyst could Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, Water Management 2010;
163(4):207–15.
result in different regression equations for the same dimensionless [10] Srivastava R. Discussion of ‘‘exact solutions for the normal depth problem’’ by
variables. Prabhata K. Swamee and Pushpa N. Rathie. Journal of Hydraulic Research 2006;
The maximum relative error of the proposed regression 44(3):427–8.
[11] Swamee PK, Rathie PN. Exact solutions for normal depth problem. Journal of
equations is less than 1%. The proposed equations exhibit both
Hydraulic Research 2004;42(5):541–7.
simplicity and accuracy. It is hoped that the efficient computational [12] Kouchakzadeh S, Vatankhah AR. Discussion of ‘‘exact solutions for normal
tools presented in this paper will be useful in the design and depth problem’’ by Prabhata K. Swamee and Pushpa N. Rathie. Journal of
analysis of open channels. Hydraulic Research 2007;45(4):567–71.
[13] Zhao YF, Lu Q, Zhang KD. An approximate formula for calculating water depth
of uniform flow in circular cross section. Journal of Northwest Agriculture and
References Forestry (Natural Science Edition) 2008;36(5):225–8.
[14] Lv HX, Xin QC, Hua LF. Calculation on normal depth of horseshoe cross section
[1] Raikar RV, Shiva Reddy MS, Vishwanadh GK. Normal and critical depth by iterative method. Journal of Yangtze River Scientific Research Institute
computations for egg-shaped conduit sections. Flow Measurement and 2001;18(3):7–10.
Instrumentation 2010;21(3):367–72. [15] Liu J, Wang Z, Fang X. Iterative formulas and estimation formulas for
[2] Jain SC. Open channel flow. New York: John Wiley and Sons; 2001. computing normal depth of horseshoe cross-section tunnel. Journal of
[3] Chaudhry MH. Open-channel flow. New York: Springer; 2006. Irrigation and Drainage Engineering 2010;136(11):786–90.
[4] Swamee PK. Critical depth equations for irrigation canals. Journal of Irrigation [16] Subramanya K. Flow in open channels. New Delhi (India): Tata McGraw-Hill;
and Drainage Engineering 1993;119(2):400–9. 1986.
[5] Vatankhah AR, Kouchakzadeh S. Discussion of ‘exact equations for critical [17] Chow VT. Open-channel hydraulics. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1959.