195 tayangan

Diunggah oleh Mac Shaik

Chezy Formula

Chezy Formula

© All Rights Reserved

- t4 - Theory of Urban Design
- Hydraulic Calculation-50!75!100 Load - Copy
- Time and Space
- Engineering Drainage Design Report
- Pure Mathematics Specimen Paper U1 Paper 03-B
- Proving Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion Mathematically
- Rezistenta materialelor anexa2
- Cassirer PhilosopPhilosophy of Symbolic Formshy of Symbolic Forms
- SA1 World
- 2 Sketching
- Defining existential space in virtual environments
- KrahTehnJuhendENGpreview
- 2 0 keyterms
- CBSE Class 7 Mathematics Question Paper SA 1 2013
- SAT 2 past paper - Mathematics Level 2 year 2012(2)
- waterlevelsensorsrepot-140720115049-phpapp02
- m2 u2 theory sheet1 lt
- Ouspensky, P.D. - Tertium Organum.pdf
- The Man Who Counted a Collection of Mathematical Adventures
- FORENSIC PHILOSOPHY.pdf

Anda di halaman 1dari 16

Chezy formula with constant roughness:

I. Depth-discharge curve

WITOLD G. STRUPCZEWSKI

Institute of Geophysics, Polish Academy of Sciences, Ks. Janusza 64,

01-452 Warsaw, Poland

ROMUALD SZYMKIEWICZ

Technical University of Gdansk, Majakowskiego 11/12, 80-952 Gdansk,

Poland

Abstract The Chezy friction formula for steady flow in a uniform

symmetrical channel with constant slope-friction factor is examined

mathematically. Firstly, a wide rectangular channel and a semi-circular

channel are compared in respect of the mean flow velocity using the

Chezy formula with the Manning, Chezy and logarithmic laws for velo-

city. Then the inverse Chezy problem, i.e. the determination of the

channel shape above the reference level for a given depth/discharge

rating curve, is posed and the differential-integral equation for its

solution is derived. The rating curves used for computation are the

results of multiplying the discharge for a trapezoidal shape above the

reference level by an exponential function. To facilitate interpretation of

the numerical results, the relationship between side slope and discharge

is analysed. It is shown by the inverse problem solution that an exponen-

tial reduction of channel flow capacity changes linear channel sides into

convex sides (making the cross section shape wider) while an exponential

increase of capacity causes changes into concave sides (reducing a section

width) which is against common sense.

Analyse des paradoxes rsultant de la formule de Chezy avec

rugosit constante: I. Courbe hauteur-dbit

Rsum La formule de Chzy pour l'coulement permanent dans un

canal symtrique dont le facteur pente-frottement est constant a t

analyse mathmatiquement. On a tout d'abord compar un canal rect-

angulaire et un canal semi-circulaire eu gard la vitesse moyenne de

l'coulement l'aide de la formule de Chzy avec les lois de Manning,

de Chzy et logarithmique pour la vitesse. On a ensuite pos le problme

de Chzy inverse, c'est dire celui de la dtermination de la section

transversale du canal au dessus d'un niveau initial, pour une courbe

hauteur-dbit donne. Une quation diffrentielle-intgrale a t propose

pour rsoudre ce problme. Les courbes utilises dans les calculs ont t

dtermines en multipliant le dbit pour une section trapzodale au

dessus du niveau de dbit nul par une fonction exponentielle. Pour

faciliter l'interprtation des rsultats numriques on a analys la relation

entre la pente et le dbit. On a montr, l'aide de la solution du

problme inverse, que la rduction de l'coulement rend la section plus

large, tandis que son augmentation implique la rduction du canal, ce qui

contredit le sens commun.

660 W. G. Strupczewski & R. Szymkiewicz

INTRODUCTION

channel is widely acknowledged, as can be seen from the numerous formulae

for the Chezy coefficient quoted in the literature (Leliavsky, 1959; Chow,

1959). Among them the Manning formula has become the most widely used

for open channel turbulent flow computations. Jarrett (1994) stated: "Given

the extensive work in theoretical fluid mechanics during this century, it is

remarkable that the Manning formula has not been superseded by a theo-

retically-based formula developed from modern fluid mechanics". However,

as shown in numerous studies, the assumption of a single value of Manning's

roughness coefficient, n, rarely holds in practice. The blame for the high

variability of n with flow depth is placed mainly on the nonuniformity of both

channel shape and surface roughness along the wetted perimeter of the cross

section. The other reason may be that the distribution of shear stress on the

channel bed is not, in general, uniform as assumed in Chezy's equation,

making the equation insufficiently accurate for natural shapes.

Since in reality the ideal channel of uniform shape and roughness does

not exist, the potential influence of its shape on the roughness coefficient may

be overshadowed by all kinds of irregularities of natural channels. Chow

(1959) named several factors affecting the variability of n stating that "there

is no evidence about the size and shape of a channel as important factors

affecting the value of n". A relationship of n to the hydraulic radius (or

depth) and the friction slope or the bed material size has been frequently

investigated (Limerinos, 1970; Jarrett, 1992). According to Jarrett (1985) the

basic n value for a uniform channel does not vary with depth of flow if the

ratio of the mean depth to the median diameter of bed-material particles is

greater than five and less than 276. The channel shape is not considered

directly in the evaluation of roughness but indirectly, to a certain extent, by

means of a cross section irregularities adjustment factor (Aldridge & Garrett,

1973; Jarrett, 1985).

In fact, a significant dependence of n on shape would act as a strong

argument against unlimited use of the Chezy equation with Manning rough-

ness, showing either that its two shape parameters describe the section shape

unsatisfactorily from the hydraulic point of view or that the form of the

equation is not sufficiently accurate for practical purposes. Leliavsky (1959)

has reviewed some experimental findings concerning the universal use of the

hydraulic radius (R) in discharge formulae, concluding that "there are still

many reasons for believing that the estimate of the hydraulic efficiency of a

canal profile may possibly be derived in future from a more sound basis than

the hydraulic radius". Yen (1992) indicated that the longevity of the

century-old Manning formula is a mixed blessing. He questioned if the

formula is fundamentally sound and practical or if it merely reflects a lack of

progress.

Since steady state flow in an open channel has been quite well

Paradoxes arisingfromthe Chezy formula depth-discharge curve 661

recognized during the many years of irrigation practice, it is possible to

compare the Chezy formula with practical common sense gained by experience

of life. Therefore, an attempt has been made in this paper to investigate

whether the formula is rationally sound without going into underlying

assumptions and without using any empirical data. However, to start with, one

may try to deduce from a rational basis using any monomial formula: what

is the relationship of a roughness coefficient to a channel shape. Next, the

only tool used here will be a mathematical analysis of the Chezy function. Its

result, i.e. Chezy function properties, will be compared with common sense.

It will be considered as axiomatic that the flow capacity of a channel

increases with the channel size. The solution of the Chezy inverse problem

will be used to check whether the Chezy equation satisfies that axiom.

Standard applications of the Chezy equation with Manning friction are either

to determine the depth of flow for a specified flow rate and a channel shape,

or to determine the discharge for a specified depth of flow and channel shape

taking into account the resistance to flow in the channel and the friction slope.

Therefore, the determination of a channel shape for a given depth (or area)

discharge relationship, given both the roughness coefficient and the bed slope,

can be considered as an inverse problem to that usually solved.

There are two variables used in the Chezy formula to characterize the

cross section shape, viz. the cross section area (^4) and the wetted perimeter

(P). To find the unique shape for the flow area-depth and the wetted

perimeter-depth relationships of a given section, the assumption of a sym-

metrical section is necessary except for those particular cases in which the

relationships describe elliptical or equilateral trapezoidal shapes. The reason

for this is to avoid an infinite number of solutions of the inverse problem

caused by insensibility of the lumped cross section parameters on the left-hand

or right-hand side of any cross section segment.

The study herein is a continuation of previous work (Strupczewski &

Szymkiewicz, 1989; Strupczewski, 1996). Since the inverse solution concerns

a shape above a reference level, geometrically feasible reference conditions

are defined (Strupczewski & Szymkiewicz, 1989) and the differential-integral

equation of the inverse problem is derived for a depth-discharge rating curve

for a channel with constant side slopes above the reference level. Strupczewski

(1996) using various steps in a numerical solution showed that the Chezy

formula does not meet the above mentioned axiom. The algorithm of the solu-

tion has subsequently been considerably developed and improved, creating

many more opportunities for analysing the Chezy equation. Impressions so far

are that while practising hydrologists show a high interest in the problem,

some scientists are rather less interested and consider that its time has passed.

Since about the mid-1960s, there has been limited hydraulic research,

primarily because funding has been diverted to other needed water resources

and environmental studies. In fact, the idea for this study came directly from

a practical problem while the senior author was working in Liberia and facing

a shortage of flow measurement data (Strupczewski & Sua, 1983).

662 W. G. Strupczewski & R. Szymkiewicz

usually expressed as:

Q = KSm = aARr-lSm (D

where a denotes a resistance factor, Q and A are the normal flow discharge and

flow area respectively, R is the hydraulic radius and S the bottom slope. The

term K is known as the conveyance of the channel section, being a measure of

the carrying capacity of the section, and was introduced by Bakhmeteff (1932).

The related dimensionless factor K' was extensively tabulated by King (1954)

and by the US Corps of Engineers (1959).

Since both the surface roughness of the channel boundary and the water

surface slope are assumed here to be constant, it is convenient to express the

Chezy equation as the product of the slope-friction factor (SF) and the geo-

metrical factor (G):

Q =SFxG ( la )

where SF = aSm is constant under the above assumption, while

G = ArIPr~l (2)

where P denotes the wetted perimeter. The exponent r equals 3/2 and 5/3 for

Chezy and Manning friction, respectively.

Since the inverse solution of the Chezy formula raises the question of a

relationship between the roughness coefficient and the section shape, it is worth

looking first at what can be deduced about the relationship from the rational

basis of any monomial formula for uniform flow in an open channel. Four

aspects are relevant:

(a) for uniform flow there is a balance between boundary resistance and

gravity, so that:

T0P = y AS (3)

where r0 is the average boundary shear stress, y the specific gravity of

water and S the slope (i.e. the sine of the angle between the direction of

flow and the horizontal);

(b) in the case of rough turbulent flow in a uniform channel of a regular

shape, the simplest assumption for the velocity v at a given distance, y,

from the rough boundary is to express it as a ratio to the so-called shear

velocity defined as:

v* = fji (4)

or, substituting the value of r0 from equation (3)

V* = yJgRS (4a)

Paradoxes arisingfromthe Chezy formula - depth-discharge curve 663

where p and g are the fluid density and the gravitational acceleration,

respectively. The ratio may then be expressed as a function of the

relative distance from the boundary, i.e.:

y_ (5)

y0

In the case of the Chezy and Manning formulae, this universal

velocity relationship is written as:

y_ (5a)

y0

with/? = 0 (i.e. v constant which in fact unreal) for Chezy and/? = 1/6

for Manning. It is to be noted that from theoretical concepts of open

channel flow mechanics equation (5) takes the form of the Prandtl-von

Krmn universal velocity distribution law:

1In y_ (5b)

ya

in the two-dimensional case of a wide rectangular channel or the axi-

symmetrical case of a semi-circular channel flowing full, the boundary

shear will be the same at all points on the wetted perimeter and the

length of the normals from the boundary to the surface will all have the

same value, ymax. Under these conditions, the velocity distribution

formula of equation (5a) can be integrated to give the mean velocity, V,

in a wide rectangular section:

vdA

av*B av*Bh{P+l) (6)

V = yPdy

A

Ay/ V ' (p + DAyf

where B is the width of the channel, while in the semi-circular section:

vA

h(p+2) (7)

V= irav yP+ldy = irav

^y0f (p+2)Ay/

Substituting equation (4a) for v* and expressing the depth h by the

hydraulic radius for the wide rectangular channel yields:

W. G. Strupczewski & R. Szymkiewicz

aRP

V= -4gRS (6a)

V y/gRS (7a)

(P+2)y/'

For the semi-circular form, equation (7a) can be rewritten in the form

of equation (6a) as:

aRP

V = F- -yfgRS (7b)

p

(p^)y0

where F is the shape factor:

(p+2)

and has the value 1.2088 for the Chezy equation with Manning friction

(p = 1/6) and 1 for Chezy friction (p = 0). The difference of 21 %

between the values of the shape factor using Manning friction for two

model shapes for uniform flow in an open channel shows that the

influence of channel shape on Manning roughness may be quite signifi-

cant. It should be noted that the above result has been obtained from a

rational basis and the Chezy-Manning equation, i.e., if the underlying

assumptions are correct the result is correct as well. However, it is the

only simple conclusive way to confront properties of the Chezy equation

(with constant Manning or Chezy roughness) with reality. This will be

done further in the next sections and continued in the second part of this

study (Strupczewski & Szymkiewicz, 1996).

Assuming that the logarithmic law of velocity distribution

(equation (5b)) is correct and proceeding in a similar way the shape

factor can be shown to be:

In 0.5

y0 R

F = (9)

R_ + 1-X

In

To R

In this case the shape factor tends very slowly to unity for the hydraulic

radius/representative roughness height ratio, goes to infinity, i.e. for

frictionless channels, as shown in Fig. 1.

for other shapes, the distribution of shear stress along the wetted peri-

meter is not uniform and the isovels (lines of equal velocity) will not be

similar to those in the two special cases above.

Paradoxes arising from the Chezy formula - depth-discharge curve 665

MATHEMATICAL FORMULATION

h0, called the initial or reference level. Its geometry at the reference level is

defined by area, A0, wetted perimeter, P0 and the width of the channel T0;

alternatively by A0, the hydraulic radius, R0 and T0. For simplicity of notation,

the origin of the /z-axis will be at the reference level, i.e. h0 = 0.

R/y0

Fig. 1 Shape factor as a function of the ratio of the hydraulic radius to the

roughness height for the logarithmic law of velocity distribution.

Above the reference level (h0) the geometrical factor (equation (2)) is:

G=fh{h) for h > h (10)

Given the initial conditions (A0, P0, T0) the task is to find the symmetrical cross

section profile above the initial level, i.e.:

T = 4>(h) for h > h (11)

The restriction of a symmetrical section is applied in order to get the unique

shape for the surface width-depth profile given by equation (11).

By means of the inverse problem solution it will be possible to check

whether the Chezy formula is conformable with common sense with respect to

the channel capacity/size axiom and, if not, to assess whether such noncon-

forming shapes can be frequently met in natural or trained river channels.

Because equation (11) contains only T and h variables, A and P in

equation (2) and their derivatives with respect to depth shall be expressed in

terms of these two variables by means of the following geometrical relation-

ships, the last two of which are valid for a symmetrical section only:

666 W. G. Strupczewski & R. Szymkiewicz

=T (12b)

dh

P = P0 + 2 f [l +(d772d/z)2f5d/z (12c)

= 2[l+(d772d/z)2f5 (12d)

A basic shape (1) will be assumed with its stage-discharge rating curve derived

from the Chezy equation with Manning or Chezy friction. Modifying the stage-

discharge equation over the reference level, the inverse problem solution will

be used to generate secondary shapes (2) which will be analysed from the point

of view of the capacity/size axiom.

For simplicity assume that the basic channel (1) has constant sides of

slope z above an initial level h0 = 0. Then the relationships (12a-d) take the

form:

Ax = A0 + T0h+zh2 (14a)

i l l = T0 + 2zh (14b)

dh

(14c)

Px = P0 + 2hyi+z

dP

I = 2V1 +Z2 < 14d )

dh

so that equation (2) becomes:

(A0+T0h+Zh2r

G1 = r.1 (14)

(P0 + 2hil+z2 )

Therefore the basic section shape (1) of the prismatic channel is sym-

metrical and composed of a reference shape defined at a reference level h0 by

A0, P0 and T0, with an upper part with sides constant slope z above the level

K

A secondary shape (2) related to the basic shape (1) may be found from:

G2(h) = CGx(h) (15)

where:

1 for h < 0 (16)

C= i

C{h) for h > 0

Paradoxes arising from the Chezy formula - depth-discharge curve 667

decreasing function.

The solution of the inverse Chezy problem may be obtained numerically from

the equivalence of terms:

1

(17)

d/z d/z d/z

with the initial conditions Ax = A2 = A0, Px = P2 = P0, Tx = T2 = T0 for

h = 0. G2 and Gx are given by equations (2) and (14), respectively, while their

first derivatives with respect to stage h are given by:

CG, (18)

A2 d/z d/z

and

GX r(T0+2zh) _2(r-l)Vl+z

= G, (19)

2

An + Tnh+zh f ^

0

Pn+2hyl+z

Substituting equations (18), (19) and (2) into equation (17) yields:

A2 d/z P2 d/z ^ j d/z d/z Cd/T

Then substituting equations (12b,d) and (14a,d) into equation (17a) gives T2 in

terms of h and P2:

0.5

d^

1+

^2 2 2d/z

(17b)

2 +

Cd/z"

4,+^+z* V2*/n5

To do so substitute G2 from equations (15) and (14) into equation (2):

668 W. G. Strupczewski & R. Szymkiewicz

l/(r-l) l/(r-l)

4

G, CG,

A2r/{r-l)(P0+2hil+z2 ) (20)

Substituting equation (20) into equation (17b) and introducing the auxiliary

functions:

r(T0+2zh) _ 2(r-l)\/l+z 2

Uh) (21c)

cw*> (po+2hir^F')

one arrives at:

0.5

f 12

dr2 (17c)

.Lji-^.c" 1+

h 3

Cd/z

Reordering and denoting A2 = A, T2 = T gives the differential-integral

equation:

dF = 2C1/(1"r) (22)

3 1 2

d^ ~~ 0 r 0 2 ^ A C d / z

Equation (22) has been solved numerically by the Runge-Kutta fourth order

method. An exponential function may be taken for C(h):

C = i

exp(e/z) for h > 0

i.e. negative values of e, according to the Chezy-Manning formula, result in

the shape (2) carrying a lower discharge than shape (1) for any h over the

reference level, i.e.:

G2(h) < Gx(h) for h > 0 and e < 0

The computer program used solved equation (22) step by step in finite

difference form, starting from the initial conditions (A0, P0, T0, G0) at h0 = 0

up to an arbitrary upper limit, /zmax taken here as equal to the initial depth. It

produced values of T, P, A and G for both shapes (1) and (2) and

Paradoxes arising from the Chezy formula - depth-discharge curve 669

0 < h < /zmax. The step (Ah) of the computation was each time selected to

fulfil two accuracy conditions:

1. there shall be no deviation of the solution from a straight line for shape

(1), i.e. for e = 0; and

2. equation (15) shall be preserved within the whole range of computation,

i.e. for 0 < h < /zmax.

Obviously it is sufficient to check both conditions at the /zmax stage. In general,

a shorter step Ah is applied for small values of the side slope z than for large

values.

to analyse the relationship of the discharge (or equivalently of the geometrical

factor, G) to the side slope via the Chezy formula. To do so, expand the depth-

geometrical factor relationship of equation (10) into a Taylor series around h,

assuming its differentiability:

For a small depth increment, h, all terms higher than the linear one can be

neglected and equation (23) reduces to:

Taking the basic shape (1) and expansion around the reference level, i.e.

h = 0 + , one finds:

where G[(h, z) is given by equation (19).

The derivative of G|(0 + ,z) with respect to z is:

2 (

i-G^O+.z) - - ^iG l ( Q) (25)

2

Pjl +z

Therefore,

' r.T 2(r-l) Gj(0) (26)

maxGjXCnz) = G^O'.O)

z K P0

and consequently from equation (24a):

Gx(h,z} < Gt(h,Zp for zt > Zj > 0 and h > 0 (27)

which contradicts the capacity/size axiom.

670 W. G. Strupczewski & R. Szymkiewicz

One can deduce from equation (26) the existence of an upper bound to

e in equation (16a). Confronting equations (17) and (26):

2(r-l) (28)

< 1+z2 -1

Lack of a finite lower bound to e points out the possibility of getting from

equation (22) a shape for G being a monotonically decreasing function of h.

For a pair (z, ,zj) where z-t > Zj and the initial conditions, one can derive

the upper limit of stage interval h* for which:

G{h,z,) < G(h,zp (29)

as the greater of two roots of the equation:

Gih*,Zi) = Gih*,Zj) (30)

Fig. 2 for a trapezoidal reference shape with A0 = 9, P0 = 12.324 and

Tg - 12, and for unit initial depth, side slopes z0 3, and Manning friction.

For Zj = -5, 1, 2 and 3 vs z{ = 0 (vertical wall) one gets h* = .16, .33, .56

and .68 respectively, while h* = .97 is obtained for zt = 2.5 and Zj = 3.0,

which are quite considerable values if compared with the unit reference depth.

There is a rapid rise of every curve at its origin, except for the one corre-

sponding to a vertical side slope. This feature is not dependent on reference

conditions.

1.0

1.

0.8

z

j

=

.5

f

0.2

.0

0.0

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.8 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3.0

Reference condition: trapezoidal channel A0 = 9, T0 = 12, P0 = 12.324,

i.e. z = 3.

One may argue that due to the discontinuity of the G^h) derivatives at

the reference level, such a shape should not be considered as a simple one, i.e.

Paradoxes arising from the Chezy formula - depth-discharge curve 671

natural shape is, its representation got from measurements is composed of

several straight line segments, i.e. it has several vertices. Therefore, in the

above case it is rather the difference between G{(0~) and G{(0+) which is

decisive in distinguishing between a simple and a complex shape.

NUMERICAL RESULTS

The previous section led to the conclusion that, according to the Chezy

formula, making side walls steeper results in an increase of discharge over a

finite stage interval, which is against common sense. Furthermore, to avoid the

argument about the discontinuity of the geometrical factor derivatives, one can

replace equation (16a) by:

Then for a basic shape (1) with both Gx{h) and G[(h) continuous one finds a

secondary shape (2) with the same properties. It can be easily achieved here by

assuming a constant side slope for the whole basic shape (1), i.e. taking z0 = z.

Values of a = 2 and e = 1, .1, -.01 , .01, .1, 1 were used in the compu-

tation of the secondary shapes (2) via equation (22). As a basic shape, a

trapezoid was selected with the reference shape as in Fig. 2 and the side slopes

z = z0 = 3, and Manning friction assumed. The results presented in Fig. 3

indicate high sensitivity of channel shape to any deviations from the basic

stage-discharge rating curve, e.g., for e = .01 and .01 and h = 1.5 the

(T - T 0 )/2

Fig. 3 Secondary shapes related by equations (15) and (16b) to the basic

one shown above the reference level. The basic shape: trapezoidal with the

reference values A0 = 9, T0 = 12 and P0 = 12.324 (z = z0 = 3).

Manning friction, i.e. r = 5/3.

672 W. G. Strupczewski & R. Szymkiewicz

discharge ratio Q2/Q\ equals 1.0228 and .9777, respectively ,while the surface

width ratio T2ITX equals .8959 and 1.1077, respectively. However, most impor-

tantly, note that secondary shapes wider than the basic shape correspond to

lower flow capacity and vice versa. A third observation is that, while for

negative values of the parameter e the solution is unbounded, there is an upper

bound for positive value of e. The upper bound corresponds to the vertical

slope (z = 0), which is in conformity with equation (26). Then the maximum

possible flow increment (26), where subscript "0" denotes the bound, becomes

insufficient to fulfil equation (15). The value of the bound decreases as the side

slope of the basic shape decreases.

It is seen in Fig. 3 that the discharge decreases with a growing channel

width in both the cases of convex and concave shapes. Bringing the capacity/

size axiom to mind, if the rating curve of the basic trapezoidal section shape

got from the Chezy formula with a constant value of Manning roughness were

correct, discharge would be underestimated for all secondary convex shapes

and overestimated for concave shapes.

Quite similar results can be obtained repeating the computations for

Chezy friction as well as using equation (16a) instead of (16b). Therefore, the

blame for the disagreement of the results with common sense should be put

first on the Chezy formula but not on the friction law.

CONCLUSIONS

of the Manning formula. The comparison drawn of the uniform flow formula

based on its rationale for a wide rectangular channel and a semi-circular

channel has pointed out a dependence of Manning's n on channel shape

amounting to a difference of 21% between the values of n. One can expect

differences for natural river channels to be greater than for the two model

shapes. Therefore, the conviction that the shape of a channel is not an

important factor affecting the value of n must have come from applications.

To deal with any shape, mathematical analysis of the Chezy function

with constant roughness has been applied and its results have been confronted

with common sense. It was shown (Fig. 2) that the maximum increase of dis-

charge on the depth-discharge curve above a reference level corresponds to

vertical side slopes (z = 0) of the channel cross section independently of a

reference shape and then it decreases monotonically with increasing z. The flow

capacity of a channel with vertical side slopes above a reference level remains

the highest possible one over quite a long interval of depth.

The inverse solution has proved very suitable to study properties of the

Chezy formula with constant roughness. Taking a trapezoid as a basic shape,

it was found via the inverse solution that any reduction of flow capacity (made

according to equations (16a) or (16b) changes the basic shape into one with

convex sides. A greater reduction results in a greater convexity and conse-

Paradoxes arising from the Chezy formula - depth-discharge curve 673

quently in a wider channel (Fig. 3). The solution has no upper bound of depth.

On the other hand, an increase of flow capacity changes constant slope sides

into concave sides, decreasing the channel width (Fig. 3). The solution has an

upper bound of depth where the flow increment demanded becomes greater

than the maximum possible.

H. Minkowski (the co-author of the special theory of relativity and

Hilbert's great friend) expressed his admiration of the profound relationships

of convex sets in the famous statement: " Everything that is convex is interes-

ting for me". Indeed to get meaningful results from the Chezy equation more

attention should be put on channel shapes both convex and concave.

The properties of the Chezy function discussed above are contrary to

common sense about the open channel flow process.

for their valuable comments and in particular to thank J. C. I. Dooge, who

significantly enhanced the quality of the paper.

REFERENCES

Aldridge, B. N. & Garrett, J. M.(1973) Roughness coefficients for streams in Arizona. US Geological

Survey open-file report.

Bakhmeteff, B. A. (1932) Hydraulics of Open Channels. McGraw Hill, New York, USA.

Chow, V. T. (1959) Open Channel Hydraulics. McGraw Hill, New York, USA.

Jarrett, R. D. (1985) Determination of roughness coefficients for streams in Colorado. Water Res.

Investigations Report 85-4004, US Geological Survey, Lakewood, Colorado, USA.

Jarrett, R. D. (1992) Hydraulics of mountain rivers. In: Channel Flow Resistance, 287-298. Water

Resources Publ., Colorado, USA.

Jarrett, R. D. (1994) Circular of ASCE Session on Applied Hydraulics of Flow in Mountain Rivers.

Buffalo, USA.

King, H. W. (1954) Handbook of Hydraulics. McGraw Hill, New York, USA.

Leliavsky, S. (1959) Irrigation and Hydraulic Design. Vol. I, Chapman & Hall, London, UK.

Limerinos, J. T. (1970) Determination of the Manning coefficient from measured bed roughness in natural

channels. Water Supply Paper 1898-B, US Geological Survey.

Strupczewski, W. G. (1996) Warning of application of the Chezy-Manning formula regardless of channel

shape. In: Proc. Int. Conf. Hydrology and Water Resources, (December 1993, New Delhi, India),

371-387. Kluwer Academic Publishers, The Netherlands.

Strupczewski, W. G. & Sua, D. Z. (1983) Rating curves of Liberian rivers. Part III. Hydraulic estimation.

UN ProjectTech. ReportNo. 61, Liberian Hydrological Service, Department of Mineral Exploration

and Research, Ministry of Lands & Mines, Monrovia, Liberia.

Strupczewski, W. G. & Szymkiewicz, R. (1989) On direct applicability of the Chezy formula to natural

channels. In: Proc. Int. Conf. on Channel Flow and Catchment Runoff, (University of Virginia,

USA), 350-361.

Strupczewski, W. G. & Szymkiewicz, R. (1996) Analysis of paradoxes arising form the Chezy formula with

constant roughness: II. Flow area-discharge curve. Hydrol. Sci. J. 41(5).

US Corps of Engineers (1959) Hydraulic Design Criteria. Vicksburgs Experimental Station.

Yen, B. C. (ed) (1992) Channel Flow Resistance: Centennial ofManning's Formula, 453. Water Resources

Publ., Littleton, Colorado, USA.

- t4 - Theory of Urban DesignDiunggah olehKaren Mae Maravilla
- Hydraulic Calculation-50!75!100 Load - CopyDiunggah olehAyham Kr
- Time and SpaceDiunggah olehWASHU_CHAN
- Engineering Drainage Design ReportDiunggah olehdesignhold.com
- Pure Mathematics Specimen Paper U1 Paper 03-BDiunggah olehM Cubed
- Proving Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion MathematicallyDiunggah olehAlex Ting
- Rezistenta materialelor anexa2Diunggah olehBendis Amm
- Cassirer PhilosopPhilosophy of Symbolic Formshy of Symbolic FormsDiunggah olehkayne69
- SA1 WorldDiunggah olehNEHA
- 2 SketchingDiunggah olehaliff
- Defining existential space in virtual environmentsDiunggah olehRafael Suarez Ziegelmaier
- KrahTehnJuhendENGpreviewDiunggah olehLaveztiesota2
- 2 0 keytermsDiunggah olehapi-307161078
- CBSE Class 7 Mathematics Question Paper SA 1 2013Diunggah olehcbecdm
- SAT 2 past paper - Mathematics Level 2 year 2012(2)Diunggah olehJinhui Zheng
- waterlevelsensorsrepot-140720115049-phpapp02Diunggah olehanand011
- m2 u2 theory sheet1 ltDiunggah olehapi-286106888
- Ouspensky, P.D. - Tertium Organum.pdfDiunggah olehMike Songer
- The Man Who Counted a Collection of Mathematical AdventuresDiunggah olehKelvin Requena
- FORENSIC PHILOSOPHY.pdfDiunggah olehÁngel Lovera
- Geo IA SaunjayDiunggah olehA'moy Peart
- Kiran Universal CouplingDiunggah olehMurali Siddarth
- Drenaje 2Diunggah olehisvicmon
- P102 M1 Summer 15-16 SolDiunggah olehRedion Xhepa
- Section Views[1]Diunggah olehMaruan Muhammad
- ProtractorDiunggah olehCarlos Pete
- Bookelementsofelectromagnetics Sadiku 3rded 110218082456 Phpapp02 (1)Diunggah olehRepana Ramanjanprasad
- lp 3Diunggah olehapi-404604545
- lecture_2Diunggah olehKathakoli dutta
- Problem Set 1 Solutions 1Diunggah olehJuan José Jiménez Vallejo

- storm waterDiunggah olehMac Shaik
- Chapter IV. Sewer AirDiunggah olehMac Shaik
- Chapter 9 - VentsDiunggah olehMac Shaik
- Calendar Landscape in ColorDiunggah olehMac Shaik
- Design Of 6 storey Building in EtabsDiunggah olehMisqal A Iqbal
- Structural Design for Residential ConstructionDiunggah olehtimsano
- contract.docDiunggah olehMichellene Tadle
- Liquid Pressure Drop CalculationDiunggah olehMichaelMahony
- caihe_ch1Diunggah olehdwaraganathan
- Top 10 plumbing mistakes handout-4-09.pdfDiunggah olehmohdnazir
- Work Plan Template _By Day.xlsxDiunggah olehMac Shaik
- Work Plan Template _By MonthDiunggah olehMac Shaik
- Hydraulics Pressure Dwfsom150Diunggah olehchelimil
- Work Plan Template _By QuarterDiunggah olehMac Shaik
- Work Plan Template _By Week.xlsxDiunggah olehMac Shaik
- Work Plan ExampleDiunggah olehMac Shaik
- 040414-2Diunggah olehSwe Zin
- HydroMax CSI SpecificationDiunggah olehMac Shaik
- Hazen William formula.pdfDiunggah olehMac Shaik
- Water Supply Hand BookDiunggah olehsrekha11
- Gravity Flow in pipes.pdfDiunggah olehMac Shaik
- Calculo de Descarga en TubosDiunggah olehyanezsimon
- Construction Staking ReqDiunggah olehMac Shaik
- Construction Staking GuidelinesDiunggah olehMac Shaik
- OPTIMIZATION OF WATER DISTRIBUTION NETWORKSDiunggah olehBenny Aryanto Sihaloho
- Sewer Design GuidelinesDiunggah olehSooraj Rajendran
- Code of Practice on Sewerage and Sanitary WorksDiunggah olehexlife86
- WS CalculationDiunggah olehMac Shaik
- Chapter-6 hvacDiunggah olehMac Shaik

- Manning EquationDiunggah olehsevero97
- descargaDiunggah olehKevin Aguirre
- CIV321_9_20153Diunggah olehOsama Maher
- Water Flow in Open ChannelsDiunggah olehShashank Shaw
- Street Floods JESDiunggah olehChristian Agano
- Hydraulic Structures II ExamplesDiunggah olehBona Hirko
- BFC21103 Chapter2Diunggah olehbadrul
- Chapter 4 Drainage DesignDiunggah olehnuh ali
- HEC-2_UsersManual_(CPD-2a).pdfDiunggah olehGertjan Duniceri
- Plastic.pipe.Design.manualDiunggah olehhatziliontos
- WTP_hydraulic calculation.xlsxDiunggah olehabhishek5810
- ONE-Side Slope RoadDiunggah olehHenry Turalde
- Fluid MechanicsDiunggah olehkibzeam
- Hydrologic Computations of SCS-CN, Rational, Area Velocity and TC Methods for Quantifying the Forest Surface Water Runoff - A Case Study in Sirumalai Hill Environs of Sathiyar Reservoir, Madurai, Tamil Nadu, IndiaDiunggah olehIRJET Journal
- Water Supply Hand BookDiunggah olehsrekha11
- Watershed HydrologyDiunggah olehBinyam Kebede
- 15 Gravity Sewer SpreadsheetDiunggah olehodjan21_691446
- CE141 Quiz3 Answer Key 03Dec2010Diunggah olehYoyet Lugatiman
- streamDiunggah olehrinjalb7752
- 214071480 5 Non Uniform FlowsDiunggah olehNur Salwani
- Flow of Water Through CulvertsDiunggah olehRuben William
- Methodology for Analysis of the Performance of Mesh-type RegeneratorsDiunggah olehSEP-Publisher
- WWTFSP App.F1 Wastewater Flow ProjectionsDiunggah olehHuy Nguyen
- 1-Dimensional Hydraulic and Sediment Transport Modelling of an EmDiunggah olehSiharath Phoummixay
- Sewerage Manual 1 EurocodesDiunggah olehZiThiam
- PEAD VELOCIDADEDiunggah olehEloy Pereira Neto
- Pubs.usgs.Gov Ds 668 PDF DataSeries 668 2Diunggah olehAditya Koutharapu
- 72B.docxDiunggah olehTracy Wilson
- Made Easy Online Test SeriesDiunggah olehDeepak Raina
- Pipes. Flow Rate and Pressure Loss EquationsDiunggah olehFrancisco Alvarez