59 views

Uploaded by SamerMohamad

Hydraulics for partially filled

- Fundamentals of the Finite Element Method
- Field Handbook - Performance Pipe
- Wtp Hydraulics 1
- edsc 504 playlists
- GRAPHING LINEAR INEQUALITIES.ppt
- Problem 002-Mm _ Method of Members _ Engineering Mechanics Review
- 2015 SP 12 Mathematics 01
- Inferring Channel Bed Topography From Known Free Surface Data
- Determine Mannings Roughness Coefficient and Chezy Roughness Coefficient in a Labortary Flume
- Numerical Analysis and Computer Programming (Video)
- day 16 unit 2a review study guide
- How to Teach Your Child Math
- Final Math Project Unit 8
- hydraulics Topic 1 Flow in Open Channel.pdf
- permit package
- Module 17-Intro to Engr Mech
- January 2006 QP - C1 AQA.pdf
- Numerical method chapter 1
- Midterm Review
- Maths-3EM-2017

You are on page 1of 16

http://www.researchgate.net/publication/245336759

Flow, and Slope Calculations in Partially

Filled Circular Pipes

ARTICLE in ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING SCIENCE MAY 2004

Impact Factor: 0.99 DOI: 10.1089/109287504323067012

CITATIONS

READS

14

7,256

1 AUTHOR:

mer Akgiray

Marmara University

21 PUBLICATIONS 81 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Retrieved on: 03 November 2015

Volume 21, Number 3, 2004

Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.

Calculations in Partially Filled Circular Pipes

mer Akgiray*

Department of Environmental Engineering

Faculty of Engineering

Marmara University

Istanbul, Turkey

ABSTRACT

The application of the Manning equation to partially filled circular pipes is considered. Three different

approaches based on the Manning equation are analyzed and compared: (1) using a constant value for the

roughness coefficient n and defining the hydraulic radius as the flow area divided by the wetted perimeter. (2) Taking the variation of n with the depth of flow into account and employing the same definition

of the hydraulic radius. (3) Defining the hydraulic radius as the flow area divided by the sum of the wetted perimeter and one-half of the width of the airwater surface and assuming n is constant. It is shown

that the latter two approaches lead to similar predictions when 0.1 # h/D # 1.0. With any one of these

approaches, tedious iterative calculations become necessary when diameter (D), slope (S), and flow rate

(Q) are given, and one needs to find the depth of flow (h/D) and the velocity (V ). Simple explicit formulas are derived for each of the three approaches. These equations are accurate enough to be used in design and sufficiently simple to be used with a hand calculator.

Key words: hydraulic radius; Manning equation; roughness coefficient; sewer design

INTRODUCTION

it is necessary to be able to predict the velocity and discharge when a sewer is partly filled. Mannings equation

has been the most commonly used formula in sewer design because of its simplicity and the generally satisfactory results it has given. In metric units, the Manning

equation can be written as follows:

EW ERS ARE COMMONLY DESIGNED

or

1

V 5 } Rh2/3S1/2

n

(1)

A

Q 5 } Rh2/3S1/2

n

(2)

where V 5 the velocity (m/s), S 5 the slope of the energy grade line, Rh 5 the hydraulic radius defined as the

flow area divided by the wetted perimeter (m), A 5 the

cross-sectional area of flow (m2 ), Q 5 the discharge

(m3 /s), and n 5 Mannings coefficient of roughness. The

* Corresponding author: Faculty of Engineering, Department of Environmental Engineering, Marmara University, Goztepe

81040, Istanbul, Turkey. Phone/Fax: (90) 216-3481369; E-mail: akgiray@eng.marmara.edu.tr

371

372

AKGIRAY

following additional notation will be used in what follows: h 5 the depth of the water (m), D 5 the pipe diameter (m), u 5 the water surface angle in radians (see

Fig. 1). The values of the hydraulic radius and the flow

area are fixed once h/D or u is specified [Equations

(3)(5)].

If D, S, and h/D are known, one can calculate the other

variables A, Rh, Q, and V in a straightforward manner. If,

on the other hand, D, S, and Q are given, iterative calculations are required to find h/D and V. Saat (1990,

1992) and Giroud et al. (2000) devised solutions to this

problem, eliminating the need for iterative calculations

in the range 0 # h/D , 0.938. There is no doubt that,

with modern software, the mentioned iterative calculations can be completed quickly and accurately. Be that

as it may, an explicit solution is always preferred over

an implicit equation that must be solved iteratively. The

usefulness of the explicit solutions of the Manning equation and possible applications were discussed by Wheeler

(1992).

The Manning equation is usually applied by assuming

that the roughness coefficient n is constant (Metcalf &

Eddy, 1981; Benefield et al., 1984). The equations presented by Saat (1990, 1992) and Giroud et al. (2000),

for example, are based on this assumption. On the other

hand, it is reported that n changes with the ratio h/D

(Camp, 1946). Therefore, it is desirable to have equations

similar to those given by Saat and Giroud et al. in case

the designer wants to account for the dependence of n on

the depth of flow (h/D).

For completely filled pipe flow, the use of the DarcyWeisbach equation in conjunction with the Colebrook

formula (or its equivalent, the Moody diagram) is well

established. By equating the head loss calculated by the

Manning equation (with Rh 5 D/4 and n 5 nf) to that

given by the Colebrook formula, it is possible to show

that nf depends on the Reynolds number, the relative

roughness e/D, and the pipe diameter D (see Appendix

for details). As discussed by Massey (1989), the dependence on Reynolds number can be ignored only at high

values of the Reynolds number. It is assumed here that

a proper value for nf (corresponding to given e/D and D)

is known; the effect of the ratio h/D on the value of the

ratio n/nf is considered in detail in what follows.

Saat (1990) and Wheeler (1992) mentioned the possibility of using an alternative definition of the hydraulic

radius that was recommended by Escritt (1984). In this

approach, the hydraulic radius is defined as the flow area

divided by the sum of the wetted perimeter and one-half

of the width of the airwater surface. Saat (1992) proposed an explicit solution applicable with this approach

as well, allowing the direct estimation of h/D when D, S,

and Q are given. This solution method can be used when

0 # h/D # 0.80.

Another situation that necessitates iterative calculations is when D, V, and Q are known, and one needs to

calculate S and h/D. Esen (1993) presented an explicit

solution applicable in the range 0.02 , h/D , 0.40.

The following is an outline of this paper:

In the first part, equations applicable to partially filled

pipes are reviewed. This helps introduce the notation and

the terminology used here, and lays down the basis of the

material presented later in the paper.

Second, the problem of finding h/D when D, S, and Q

are given and n is taken as a constant is examined. Here,

an explicit solution is presented to replace the two equations given by Saat (1990, 1992) over the range 0 ,

h/D , 0.938. The equation is slightly more accurate and

simpler in form. Furthermore, another equation is developed for the range 0.938 # h/D # 1.0, facilitating the explicit calculation (without iterations) of h/D over the entire range 0 , h/D # 1.0, provided that n is independent

of the depth of flow.

In the third part, the effect of the dependence of n on

h/D is examined. Using the data presented by Camp

(1946), an expression for n/nf as a function of the surface

angle u is derived. Explicit equations are presented to facilitate the direct calculation of h/D and V when D, S,

and Q are known.

Next, the use of Escritts definition of the hydraulic radius in the Manning equation is considered. In this approach, n is assumed to be constant. Again, explicit equations are developed allowing the direct calculation of h/D

and V when D, S, and Q are known.

In the fourth part, three different approaches employing the Manning equation are compared: (1) assuming

constant n and using the conventional definition of the

hydraulic radius; (2) taking the variation of n with the

depth of flow into account and using the conventional

definition of the hydraulic radius; (3) assuming constant

n and using Escritts hydraulic radius. It is shown that

373

close to each other, but are significantly different from

those of the first approach.

Finally, as an alternative to the calculation method presented by Esen (1993), simple approximate equations

giving u, h/D, and S as functions of A/D2 are presented.

These equations are not restricted to h/D , 0.40, and facilitate the solution of the problem without iterations. Another equation is derived to estimate S directly from the

given values of Q, V, and D. This equation accounts for

the variation of n with h/D, a factor not considered by

Esen.

THEORY

For a partially filled circular pipe with diameter D, the

following equations apply (see Fig. 1):

2h

u 5 2 cos21 1 2 }

D

D2

A 5 } (u 2 sin u)

8

(3)

(4)

where h is the depth of the water in the pipe, u is the water surface angle in radians, and A is the area of flow. It

may be noted that some authors use the symbol u to denote half of this angle. Referral to Fig. 1 should help

avoid any possible confusion.

The hydraulic radius Rh is usually defined as the flow

area divided by the wetted perimeter. It can thus be written as

D

Rh 5 }

4

u 2 sin u

1 }u} 2

(5)

as the flow area divided by the sum of the wetted perimeter and one-half of the width of the airwater surface resulted in improved accuracy in calculations. The

hydraulic radius based on this definition will be denoted

by Re here. It can be calculated by using the following

expression:

D

Re 5 }

4

u 2 sin u

}

1}

u 1 sin(u/2) 2

(6)

Escritt (1984) noted that turbulent flow in open channels is different from that in fully charged pipes or culverts for as soon as there is a free surface, waves form,

and these dissipate energy. Escritt explained his definition of hydraulic radius by stating that the dissipation of

energy by waves is directly related to the surface over

which this dissipation can take place.

It is common practice to apply the Manning equation

by defining a coefficient K as follows:

K

Q 5 } D8/3S1/2

(7)

n

Substituting Equations (4) and (5) into Equation (2) and

comparing the resulting expression with Equation (7)

yields the following relation between K and u:

Qn

Kh 5 }

5 2213/3 (u 2 sin u)5/3u22/3 (8)

D8/3S1/2

where 2213/3 < 0.0496. The subscript h is used to emphasize that this expression is based on the usual definition of the hydraulic radius Rh [Equation (5)]. Equation

(8) holds regardless of whether n is a constant or a function of the depth of flow. To study the effect of the dependence of n on the flow depth, however, it will be convenient to define a new coefficient Khf based on the value

of n at full flow conditions:

n f Kh

Qnf

Kh

Kh f 5 }

5 } 5 }

8/3

1/2

D S

n

f(u)

(9)

function f(u) 5 n/nf gives the dependence of n on the

depth of flow.

Consider next the approach recommended by Escritt

(1984) for defining the hydraulic radius. If Re is used instead of Rh in the Manning equation, that is, when Equation (6) is substituted into Equation (2), the following is

obtained:

Qn

Ke 5 }

5 2213/3 (u 2 sin u)5/3

D8/3S1/2

1u 1 sin( }2 )2

u

22/3

u

5 Kh } }

u 1 sin(u/2)

2/3

(10)

or a function of h/D. An additional coefficient Kef analogous to Kh f could be defined. This will not be needed,

however, because n is assumed to be constant (i.e., n 5

nf) in Escritts approach.

In this and the next two sections, attention is focused

on the use of the Manning equation with the usual definition of the hydraulic radius. The use of Escritts hydraulic radius will be considered later in the paper.

Two possibilities will be considered here: (1) n 5 nf is

assumed to be a constant, or (2) dependence of n on h/D

is taken into account. With either approach, for given values of nf, D, S, and h/D, one can calculate the other variables directly in the following order.

1. u [using Equation (3)]

2. A [using Equation (4)], Rh [using Equation (5)], and

Kh [using Equation (8)].

3. n [using a relation of the form n/nf 5 f(u)]

4. Q [using Equations (2) or (7)] and velocity V [using

Equation (1) or V 5 Q/A].

ENVIRON ENG SCI, VOL. 21, NO. 3, 2004

374

AKGIRAY

It should be noted that these computations can be completed easily without the use of any nomographs or timeconsuming iterative calculations.

Another situation of interest is when nf, D, S, and Q

are known, and one needs to estimate h/D and V. Since

h/D and u are not known a priori, one cannot directly

calculate A, Rh, K, or n (when n is assumed to depend on

h/D). Iterative calculations are carried out in this case as

follows.

1. Substitute Equation (8) and the relation n/nf 5 f(u)

into Equation (7) to obtain:

2213/3 (u 2 sin u)5/3u22/3 5 n f f(u)QD28/3S21/2

(11)

method) to obtain u.

3. Calculate h/D [using Equation (3)], A [using Equation

(4)], and V (using V 5 Q/A).

To eliminate the need for the mentioned iterative calculations, Saat (1990) proposed the following approximate relation, giving u explicitly as a function of Kh :

3p

u< }

2

1212 pKh

(12)

u # 265 (Kh # 1/p). In response to Wheeler (1992),

Saat (1992) presented a second equation applicable in

the range 265 # u # 302.41 (1/p # Kh # 0.33528):

302p

u < } (1 2 0.2765 2 0.824Kh )

180

(13)

(13) are very useful in that they obviate the need for iterative calculations. The calculation method becomes

very simple, making easy manual computation feasible,

provided that n is constant:

1. Calculate Kh using Equation (7) [n 5 nf, f(u) 5 1, and

therefore K 5 Kh 5 Khf in this case.]

2. Calculate u using either Equation (12) or Equation

(13).

3. Calculate h/D [using Equation (3)], A [using Equation

(4)], and V (using V 5 Q/A).

Giroud et al. (2000) developed the following explicit

equation for the direct calculation of velocity without calculating u or h/D first:

K

D2/3S1/2

V < 0.7591 1 2 }h Kh4/13 }

nf

2

(14)

make the direct solution of the problem possible only

u , 302.41.

Consider next the case when nf, D, V, and Q are known,

and one needs to calculate S and h/D. The calculations

in this case would proceed as follows:

1. Calculate A using A 5 Q/V.

2. Solve Equation (4) iteratively to obtain u.

3. Calculate h/D [using Equation (3)] and Rh [using

Equation (5)].

4. Calculate n [using a relation of the form n/nf 5 f(u)].

5. Calculate S [using Equations (1) or (2)].

To eliminate the iterative calculations in this case, Esen

(1993) proposed the following equations applicable in the

range 30 , u , 160 (0.02 , h/D , 0.40):

Vnf

Q

}

5 0.6148 }2

2/3

D S1/2

VD

and

h

Q

} 5 0.9106 }2

D

VD

0.4256

0.6876

(15a)

(15b)

Consider the problem studied by Saat (1990): the

Manning equation and the classical definition of the hydraulic radius are to be used to estimate V and h/D from

known values of Q, D, S, and nf. When the dependence

of Mannings n on the depth of flow is ignored, Equation (11) can be written as follows:

2213/3 (u 2 sin u)5/3u22/3 5 nf QD28/3S21/2 5 Kh (16)

Since Q, D, S, and nf are known, Kh is first calculated

via the equality on the right. The value of u is next calculated. The development of the new explicit solution for

u is explained below.

Kh has the maximum value 0.3353 at u 5 302.41

(5.278 radians). The functional relationship in Equation

(16) has the following additional properties (Fig. 2): when

u is considered as a function of Kh , Equation (16) has

two roots in the range 0.3117 # Kh , 0.3352. It can be

shown that dKh/du 5 0 and du/dKh 5 ` at u 5 0 and u 5

302.41.

The first equation proposed by Saat (1990) [Equation (12) here] satisfies the condition du/dKh 5 ` at u 5

0, whereas his second equation [Equation (13) here] satisfies du/dKh 5 ` at u < 302.41. It appears desirable to

replace these two equations by a simple equation that satisfies both conditions at once. It is easy to see that the

function cos21 (1 2 2K/Kmax ) has the desired properties.

By multiplying this expression with aKb , and carrying

375

and b that give the best agreement with the exact solution at the discrete points 10, 20, . . . , 290, 300, and

302.41, the following expression is obtained (with r 2 5

0.9997):

u 5 1.28Kh20.26 cos21 (1 2 5.965Kh)

(17)

0 , u # 302.41 (0 , h/d # 0.938), and is recommended to replace Equations (12) and (13) (see Fig. 2).

Saat did not present an equation to represent the upper portion of the curve, that is, beyond 302.41 (5.278

radians). The following approximation matches the exact solution very closely (with a maximum error of

0.04%), and can be used to find the second root in the

range for 302.41 # u # 360 and 0.311686 # Kh #

0.335282:

u 5 5.2781 (22.1512 50.087Kh) 0.335282 2 Kh (18)

Figure 2 compares Equation (17) with the curve obtained

using Equation (16). Since the curve derived from Equation (18) is not visually distinguishable from the solution

of Equation (16) in the range 302.41 # u # 360, it is not

separately shown in this figure. The error (uextimated 2

uexact) is plotted in Fig. 3. It is seen that Equation (17),

which is proposed here to replace Equations (12) and

(13), although simpler in form, has slightly better accuracy than those equations. On the other hand, as far as

the calculation of u is concerned, Equations (12) and (13)

are already sufficiently accurate in the range they are applicable (i.e., u # 302.41). The advantage of Equation

(17) is that it is simpler (a single equation instead of two

over the entire range u # 302.41) and easier to use.

Once u is calculated, the expression V 5 8(Q/D2 )/(u 2

sinu) can be used to calculate the velocity. Small errors

Figure 2.

quantity (u 2 sinu), especially when u # 10 (h/D ,

0.02). The following are recommended: (1) if the values

of u and h/D are not needed, the equation developed by

Giroud et al. (2000) [Equation (14) herein] should be

used to estimate V directly. (2) If both u (or h/D) and V

are needed, Equation (17) should be used to calculate u

and h/D, whereas Equation (14) should be employed to

calculate V. (3) To study conditions close to full flow

(u . 302.41), Equation (18) should be used to calculate

u and all the dependent quantities including V 5

8(Q/D2)/(u 2 sinu).

Camp (1946) presented data in graphical form showing the ratio n/nf as a function of h/D. This graph has

been reproduced in many widely used texts (e.g., Chow,

1959; Metcalf & Eddy, 1981; Benefield et al., 1984). It

will be employed here to derive expressions similar to

Equations (14), (17), and (18). These expressions can be

used to take the dependence of n on depth of flow into

account.

A regression equation was first derived from Camps

curve by carrying out a least-squares analysis. The values of n/nf at several discrete values of h/D were read

from Camps curve, and a fifth degree polynomial was

found to pass through these data points with negligible error (r2 5 0.9996). The constraint n/nf 5 1 at h/D 5

1 was imposed in the derivation of this equation:

n

} 5 20.8627X5 1 0.4281X4 1 0.7626X3

nf

2 1.02X2 1 0.8057X 1 1

(19a)

376

AKGIRAY

Figure 3.

where

X 5 1 2 h/D

(20)

h/D 5 (1 2 cos(u/2))/2

(21)

and

(19) yields a curve that is indistinguishable from that

given by Camp (1946). It may be noticed that Equation

(19) is rather bulky, and it has not been developed for

end usage. It is an intermediate result that is utilized in

this paper as explained in what follows.

It should be mentioned that some authors (e.g., Benefield et al., 1984; Grant, 1992) extend Camps curve to

h/D 5 0 (i.e., 1 2 h/D 5 1) by assuming n 5 nf there, although Camp (1946) did not indicate the shape of the

curve for h/D , 0.025 [Equation (19a) predicts n/nf 5

1.11 at h/D 5 0.) As an alternative to Equation (19a), the

following expression has been developed, and will be presented here:

n

} 5 1 1 0.37X 0.58[sin(pX)]0.36

nf

(19b)

Equation (19a), while at the same time satisfying the condition n/nf 5 1 at h/D 5 0. Equation (19a) will be employed in the rest of this paper as an intermediate equation in the development of other equations [i.e., Equations

Figure 4. Data points were read from the curve given by Camp (1946). The curve drawn with the solid line is the polynomial

fitted to these points. The dashed lined is obtained from Equation (36).

377

(23), (24), (25), and (46)], as it agrees with the data points

in Camp (1946) better. Equation (19b), however, may be

easier to use when the value of n/nf is needed.

It should be noted that when Equations (20) and (21)

are substituted into Equation (19), one obtains the functional relation n/nf 5 f(u). Note also that, if the value of

n (say, n1 ) at a u value (say, u1) other than 2p is known,

the value of nf can be calculated (nf 5 n1 /f(u1)).

An inspection of Equation (9) shows that, since nf, D,

S, and Q are known in the situation considered here, one

can directly calculate Khf. The following equation then

needs to be solved for u:

2213/3(u 2 sinu)5/3u22/3

Qnf

Kh

Khf 5 }

5}

5 } } } (22)

8/3

1/2

f(u)

D S

f(u)

where f(u) is the expression given by Equations (19)(21).

Again, this is a nonlinear algebraic equation and could be

solved using an iterative procedure.

To find an explicit expression for u, it is first noted that

Khf has the maximum value 0.324642 at u 5 321.46136

(5.61056 radians). Note also that Equation (22) has two

roots in the range 0.311686 # Khf , 0.324642.

To eliminate iterative calculations, the following explicit approximate solution has been developed:

u 5 1.3645Khf20.2537cos21(1 2 6.1606Khf)

(23)

321.46 (which corresponds to 0 , h/D # 0.972) and

0 , Khf # 0.324642. The mean error at the discrete

points 10, 20, . . . , 310, 320, and 321.46 is less

than 1.5%.

For completeness, an explicit equation applicable in

the range 321.46 # u # 360 and 0.311686 # Khf #

0.324642 will also be given here:

u 5 5.6106 1 (18.9 2 41.6Khf)0.324642 2 Khf

(24)

Equation (24) is very accurate, and can be used to calculate all the quantities that depend on u, including the

velocity V 5 8(Q/D2 )/(u 2 sinu), provided that u .

321.46. The following equation has been developed here

for the calculation of velocity when u # 321.46o:

D2/3S1/2

V 5 (10.18 2 9.61Khf0.0036)Khf0.336 }

nf

to be constant in this approach.) The equation to be solved

in this case is:

Qnf

Ke 5 }

52213/3 (u 2 sin u)5/3

D8/3S1/2

u

u 1 sin( } )

2

22/3

(10)

(5.604 radians), and Equation (10) has two roots in the

range 0.3117 # Ke , 0.3193. Saat (1992) presented an

approximate explicit solution applicable in the range 0 #

u # 255.0, which corresponds to 0 # h/D # 0.80:

3p

u 5 } 1212 3.636Ke

(26)

2

The following explicit solution developed here is applicable in the range 0 , u # 321.08 (which corresponds to 0 , h/D # 0.9714) and 0 , Ke # 0.3193:

u 5 1.3291Ke20.2587 cos21(1 2 6.263Ke)

(27)

310, 320, and 321.08 is ,1.1%. Equation (27) is

slightly more accurate than Equation (26) in the range

0 , u # 255.0. The main motivation for introducing

Equation (27) is that it is applicable over the entire range

0 , u # 321.0839.

An explicit formula applicable in the range 321.08 #

u # 360 and 0.311686 # Ke # 0.319314 is also derived:

u 5 5.604 1 (58.92 2 164Ke)0.31932 2 Ke

(28)

calculate all the quantities that depend on u, including

the velocity V 5 8(Q/D2 )/(u 2 sinu), provided that u .

321.08. The following equation has been developed here

for the calculation of velocity when u # 321.08:

D2/3S1/2

V 5 (0.625 2 0.815K e2.71)K e0.307 }

nf

(29)

1.0% of the exact values in the entire range 1 # u #

321.08 (0.00002 # h/D # 0.9714).

(25)

62.0% of the exact values over the entire range 1 #

u # 321.46 (0.00002 # h/D # 0.972).

HYDRAULIC RADIUS

An inspection of the leftmost equality in Equation (10)

shows that, if nf, D, S, and Q are known, one can calcu-

COMPARISON OF DIFFERENT

APPROACHES

Saat (1990) and Wheeler (1992) refer to the work of

Escritt (1984), who recommended an alternative definition of the hydraulic radius [Equation (6) herein].

Wheeler (1992) states that Escritts definition of the hydraulic radius agrees with the observations in Fig. 24 of

the Manual of Practice (ASCE, 1976) within an average

of about 3%. The purpose of this section is to examine

ENVIRON ENG SCI, VOL. 21, NO. 3, 2004

378

AKGIRAY

Escritts approach and compare it with the use of the classical definition of the hydraulic radius in the Manning

equation.

While Saat (1990, 1992) and Wheeler (1992) were

considering the use of Equation (6) in conjunction with

the Manning formula, Escritt (1984) actually recommended the use of the following equation instead of the

Manning equation:

Q 5 76.253ARe0.62S1/2

(30)

divided by the sum of the wetted perimeter and one-half

of the width of the airwater surface:

u 2 sin u

D

Re 5 } } }

u

1 sin(u/2)

4

(6)

Based on Equations (6) and (30), Escritt (1984) presented the values listed in Table 1 (Table 3 in Escritt,

1984). As a footnote in the table, Escritt states that these

values are based on numerous tests on partially-filled

small pipes and large sewers, and now accepted as more

accurate than previous figures. Escritt goes on to state

the following: In the past, tables and diagrams were prepared showing partially-filled circular pipes and culverts,

and on the basis of these theoretical calculations, it was

thought that at a depth of flow of 0.94 of the diameter,

the discharge would be about 1.0757 times the flowingfull discharge. For the reasons just described this has been

proved a fallacy, as is shown in Table 3. These statements seem to require a closer scrutiny.

First, although Q/Qf increases monotonically with h/D

in the table presented by Escritt, his formula predicts the

presence of a maximum in Q/Qf. It is an easy exercise to

show that the following expressions follow from Escritts

formula [Equation (30)].

(u 2 sin u)1.62

Q

1

} 5 } }}

Qf

2p (u 1 sin(u/2))0.62

(31a)

h/D

A/Af

V/Vf

Q/Qf

1

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

1

0.9480

0.8576

0.7477

0.6265

0.5000

0.3735

0.2523

0.1424

0.0520

1

1.0394

1.0189

0.9765

0.9173

0.8425

0.7517

0.6426

0.5095

0.3373

1

0.9853

0.8738

0.7301

0.5747

0.4213

0.2808

0.1621

0.0725

0.0176

u 2 sin u

V

} 5 }}

u 1 sin(u/2)

Vf

0.62

(31b)

The Q/Qf and V/Vf values in the table are consistent with

these equations. Differentiating Equation (31a) with respect to u, setting d(Q/Qf)/du 5 0 and solving for u gives

the following values: u 5 322.04 (h/D 5 0.9728) and

(Q/Qf)max 5 1.022. Therefore, Escritts formula also predicts a maximum in Q/Qf, although this maximum is

weaker and occurs at a greater flow depth than that predicted by the Manning formula with the usual definition

of the hydraulic radius. Escritts table contains Q/Qf values at the discrete values h/D 5 0.9 and h/D 5 1.0, and

therefore, the maximum at h/D 5 0.9728 is not visible in

the table. Figure 5 displays the curve (labeled Curve I)

obtained from Equation (31a).

Also plotted in Fig. 5 are three additional curves. These

are explained next.

Curve II is obtained using the Manning equation and the

usual definition of the hydraulic radius [Equations (2) and

(5)]. It is derived by assuming that n is independent of h/D:

Q

1 (u 2 sin u)5/3

}

} 5 } } 2/3

u

Qf

2p

(32)

. . . , 0.99, 1.00, the mean deviation of Equation (32) from

Equation (31a) is 15.8%; the maximum deviation is

20.9%.

Curve III is also obtained using the Manning equation

and the usual definition of the hydraulic radius [Equations (2) and (5)]. It is derived by assuming that n depends on the depth of flow as given by Equations (19),

(20), and (21):

Q

1 (u 2 sin u)5/3 n 21

} }

} 5 } } 2/3

(33)

u

Qf

nf

2p

1 2

1.00, the average deviation of Equation (33) from Equation

(31a) is 3.3%; the maximum deviation is 5.9% (see Fig. 6).

Curve IV is obtained using the Manning equation and

Escritts definition of the hydraulic radius [Equations (2)

and (6)]. It is derived by assuming that n is independent

of h/D:

Q

(u 2 sin u)5/3

1

} 5 } }}

(34)

Qf

2p (u 1 sin(u/2))2/3

When evaluated at the points h/D 5 0.01, 0.02, . . . , 0.99,

1.00, the average deviation of Equation (34) from Equation (31a) is 2.7%. As can be seen in Fig. 6, however, the

percent difference between the two equations increases

when h/D , 0.1. At the same discrete points, the average

difference between Equations (33) and (34) is 2.9%.

The following conclusions can be drawn from the above

information and Figs. 5 and 6. (1) when h/D . 0.1, the Q/Qf

379

Figure 5. Curve I: Escritts formula [Equation (30)] with Escritts hydraulic radius [Equation (6)]. Curve II: Manning equation,

constant n 5 nf, usual definition of hydraulic radius [Equation (5)]. Curve III: Manning equation, variable n, usual definition of

hydraulic radius. Curve IV: Manning equation, constant n 5 nf, Escritts hydraulic radius.

and IV) are approximately the same. Escritt (1984) stated

that the Q/Qf values reported in Table 1 are in good agreement with experimental data. It is thus seen that similar

Q/Qf values are obtained using the Manning equation provided that either Escritts definition of the hydraulic radius

is employed, or the variation of n on h/D is taken into account in accordance with the data presented by Camp

(1946). (2) All four curves contain a maximum at a value

of h/D less than 1. Accounting for the dependence of n on

depth of flow or using Escritts definition of hydraulic radius, however, suppresses the value of (Q/Qf)max.

Figure 6.

It should be noted that the Manning equation [Equation (2)] and Escritts formula [Equation (30)] do not give

the same Qf value when applied to completely filled

pipes, although the two hydraulic radii are the same when

h/D 5 1 (Re 5 Rh 5 D/4). This means that the prediction

of approximately the same Q/Qf values by the two formulas (as in curves I and III or curves I and IV in Fig.

5) does not mean that the Q values calculated will be in

agreement. Note also that Escritts formula [Equation

(30)] does not include a roughness coefficient similar

to Mannings n. No further consideration will be given

to Equation (30) here. The use of Escritts hydraulic

380

AKGIRAY

radius [Equation (6)] in the Manning equation, however, will be discussed in some detail in what follows.

In practice, the Manning equation is most commonly

applied by using a constant value for n (Chow, 1959;

Metcalf & Eddy, 1981; Benefield et al., 1984). Equation

(5) is normally used to define the hydraulic radius. This

approach yields Curve II in Fig. 5.

Consider the other two alternative approaches that employ the Manning equation. In one approach, the dependence of n on h/D is taken into account, and the usual definition of the hydraulic radius is employed [Curve III and

Equation (33)]. In the other approach, n 5 nf is assumed

to be constant and Escritts definition of hydraulic radius

is employed [Curve IV and Equation (34)]. The possibility of using this latter approach was mentioned by Saat

(1990) and recommended by Wheeler (1992). Since the Qf

values predicted by these two approaches are the same

(both using the Manning equation), the closeness of Q/Qf

values for flow depths h/D . 0.1 implies the closeness of

predicted Q values in the same range.

To make the comparison concrete, assume that nf, D,

S, and h/D are known, and the value of Q will be calculated. Let QIII and QIV denote the Q values calculated by

the two approaches, respectively. Using Equations (2),

(5), and (6), the following is obtained:

QIV

R

(A/nf)Re2/3 S1/2

}

5 }

}

5 }e

2/3

1/2

QIII

Rh

(A/n)Rh S

2/3

1 2 1 }n 2

f

u 1 sin(u/2)

5 }}

u

22/3

f(u)

(35)

Figure 7 displays Q IV /QIII values obtained using Equation (35). It is seen that QIII and QIV differ by at most

64% in the range 0.11 # h/D # 1.0. Further insight can

be gained by forming the ratios QII /QIII and QII /QIV ,

where QII represents the value calculated assuming constant n and the usual definition of Rh:

(A/nf)Rh2/3 S1/2

QII

R

}

5}}

5 }h

2/3

1/2

Q IV

Re

(A/nf)Re S

2/3

1 2

u 1 sin(u/2)

5 }u}

2/3

(36)

(A/nf)Rh2/3S1/2

QII

n

}

5 }}

5 } 5 f(u)

QIII

nf

(A/n)Rh2/3S1/2

(37)

1 2

The rightmost expression of Equation (36) was plotted in Fig. 4 (dashed line) together with the right-hand

side of Equation (37) [f(u), solid line]. Again, it is seen

that the difference between these two functions is not

very large, and their ratio QIV /Q III [Equation (35)] is not

far removed from 1.0 when 0.1 # h/D # 1.0.

From Fig. 4, it is apparent that each of QIII and QIV differs from QII by as much as 15 to 30% in the range 0.2 ,

h/D , 1.0. (One caveat: it is assumed that n 5 nf is the value

used in calculating QII. If the constant value used for n is

the value corresponding to, say, 50% filled pipe, then a

smaller value for QII will be predicted.) It is also seen that,

when compared to using a constant n 5 nf value in conjunction with the usual definition of the hydraulic radius

(giving QII), either taking the variation of n with h/D into

account (giving QIII), or using Escritts definition of hydraulic radius (giving QIV), leads to comparable decreases

in the predicted values of Q in the range 0.1 # h/D # 1.0.

No attempt has been made here to compile past experimental data to determine the most accurate approach. It is

apparent, however, that accounting for the variation of the

roughness coefficient with flow depth as suggested by

Camp (1946) leads to good general agreement with the experimental data referred to by Escritt (1984) and Wheeler

(1992). Simple explicit equations have been presented here

Figure 7. Q III : obtained with variable n and the usual definition of Rh. QIV : obtained with constant n and Escritts definition

of the hydraulic radius Re.

381

three approaches. It will be up to the judgment of the designer to choose the most appropriate approach. Whatever

the approach employed is, the equations presented herein

will facilitate calculations.

VELOCITY AND FLOW RATE

Assume nf, D, V, and Q are known, and one needs to

calculate S and h/D. The calculations involved in this case

were described previously. As an alternative to the

method proposed by Esen (1993), Li (1994) presented

the following two equations applicable over 0 , u ,

360:

For 0 , 8A/D2 , p:

h

} 5 0.0047Y3 2 0.0453Y 2 1 0.2554Y

D

(42)

(42) is approximately 0.02. This means that the error in

the predicted value of h will be less than ,2% of the pipe

diameter. The error involved in the two-step calculation

[u by Equation (41), and then h/D by Equation (3)] is

about half of this value.

Next, consider the calculation of S. Since D, V, and Q

are known in this case, u and h/D are uniquely fixed by

Equations (3) and (40). The value of S, on the other hand,

depends on the approach adopted in applying the Manning

equation. Employing the usual definition of the hydraulic

radius [Equation (5)], the following can be written:

S 5 1(D/2Q)4/3V10/3n2f 2 f 2(u)u4/3

(43)

u 5 } } } 3} } }

1 2 cos148A/D2 2

(38)

(2p 2 8A/D2) 1 sin 16(2p 2 8A/D2 )2 2 6(2p 2 8A/D2 ) cos 16((2p 2 8A/D2)2

u 5 2p 2 } } } } } } } } }

3

1 2 cos 16(2p 2 8A/D2 )2

(39)

3

keep things in perspective, however, it should be remembered that the purpose here is to solve the equation

assumed, then f(u) ; 1 in Equation (43). If Equation (6)

is used to define the hydraulic radius, and assuming that

n 5 nf, one gets:

8A

}2 5 u 2 sin u

D

S 5 1(D/2Q)4/3V10/3n2f 2 (u 1 sin(u/2))4/3

(8A/D2

(40)

8(Q/V)/D2)

5

for u when the left-hand side

is

known. Remembering that the Manning equation is itself

an approximate relation, and considering the possible

lack of precision in the other variables in a system (e.g.,

n values), Equations (38) and (39), which are arguably

quite cumbersome for manual computations, may often

be more accurate than necessary. The following simpler

formula is therefore presented here for use in quick manual calculations (see Fig. 8):

u 5 2.51Y20.34[cos21 (1 2 0.3183Y)]1.33

(41)

use of this equation will be less than 3% in the range

0.05 , h/D , 1.0. The mean error at the discrete points

10, 20, . . . , 350, 360 is 1.7%. Once u is computed,

Equation (3) can next be used to calculate h/D. To calculate h/D directly, the following approximate relation

may be more convenient:

(44)

(curve III), and [u 1 sin(u/2)]4/3 (curve IV). It is again seen

that accounting for the variation of n with the depth of flow

or using Escritts definition of the hydraulic radius lead to

similar predictions: The slopes calculated are within 66%

of each other when 0.1 # h/D # 1.0. On the other hand,

accounting for the variation of n as suggested by Camp

(1946) leads to considerably higher slope values (curve III)

compared to assuming n 5 nf (curve II).

The function f 2 (u)u4/3 (curve III) is well approximated

by the following equation in the range 0.05 , h/D , 0.98

and 0.1 , (8A/D2 ) , 6.25:

f 2 (u)u4/3 < 3.9Y 0.512

(45)

This formula can be combined with Equation (43) to estimate S directly without having to calculate u or h/D

first:

S 5 4.49n2f Q 20.82D0.309 V 2.82

(46)

382

AKGIRAY

Figure 8.

Camp (1946), and yields accurate results provided that

0.05 , h/D , 0.98.

APPLICATIONS

The following examples illustrate the applications of

some of the new equations proposed in this paper.

m3 /s. Employ the usual definition of the hydraulic radius.

From Equation (16),

( 0.015)(0.01)

Kh 5 nf QD28/3S21/2 5 }

} 5 0.0526

0.38/30.0051/2

From Equation (17),

u 5 1.28(0.0526)20.26 cos21(1 2 5.965(0.0526)) 5

2.242 radians

From Equation (3),

Example 1

Determine the depth of flow and velocity in a sewer

with a diameter of 300 mm laid on a slope of 0.005 m/m

Figure 9.

h

1

} 5 } (1 2 cos(2.242/2)) 5 0.283

D

2

From Equation (4),

(0.3m)2

A 5 } (2.242 2 sin 2.242) 5 0.0164 m2

8

Answers:

h 5 (0.283)(0.3 m) 5 0.084 m 5 84.8 mm

(exact value is 83.4 mm)

V 5 Q/A 5 0.01/0.0164 5 0.609 m/s

(exact value is 0.624 m/s).

Alternatively, Equation (14) can be used to calculate V

directly:

V 5 0.7591

0.0526

0.32/30.0051/2

1 2 } 0.05264/13 } }

2

0.015

2 5 0.631 m/s

Example 2

Calculate the minimum slope of a sewer to carry a flow

of 0.01 m3 /s. The minimum velocity is specified as 0.5

m/s and as a preliminary value the diameter of the sewer

will be assumed to be 0.45 m. Assume nf 5 0.013. [This

example was used by Esen (1993) and Li (1994) to illustrate their calculation methods.]

First calculate 8A/D2 5 8Q/(VD2) 5 8(0.01)/0.5(0.45)2

5 0.7901.

From Equation (42),

h

} 5 0.0047(0.7901)3 2 0.0453(0.7901)2

D

1 0.2554(0.7901) 5 0.176

h 5 (0.45)(0.176) 5 0.079 m

This should be compared with the exact value

0.0825m. The error is 0.35 cm, that is, ,0.8% of the pipe

diameter. Equation (15b) predicts 0.0834 m, which is

more accurate. It should be remembered, however, that

Equation (15) is applicable for h/D , 0.4 only, whereas

Equation (42) can be used for essentially all values of

h/D. Alternatively, using Equation (41), better accuracy

can be obtained albeit in two steps:

u 5 2.51(0.7901)20.34[cos21

(1 2 0.3183(0.7901))]1.33 5 1.7730 radians 5 101.58

Substituting this value into Equation (3),

h

1

} 5 } (1 2 cos(1.7730/2)) 5 0.184, and h

D

2

5 (0.45m)(0.184) 5 0.0828 m

The exact values of u and h/D are 1.7703 radians

(5101.43) and 0.183, respectively. To estimate the

slope, the calculated value of u may first be used in Equations (5) and (19) to calculate Rh and n, respectively, and

383

then Equation (1) can be employed. It is simpler to use

Equation (46):

S 5 4.49(0.013)2 (0.5)2.82(0.45)0.309

(0.01)20.82 5 0.00367

The exact value is 0.00368, that is, the error is 0.28%. If

the dependence of n on h/D is ignored, and the value n 5

nf 5 0.013 is used in the calculations, then Equation (43)

gives [with f(u) ; 1]:

S 5 ((0.45/2 3 0.01)4/30.510/30.0132 )

1.7734/3 5 0.00229

The exact value is 0.00228. Li (1994) obtained

0.00227, whereas Esen (1993) found 0.00232. These authors did not consider the variation of n with the depth

of flow. This example illustrates the fact that the effect

of this variation may be quite significant.

The application of the Manning equation to partially

filled circular pipes is considered. Three different approaches based on the Manning equation are analyzed and

compared. The hydraulic radius that appears in the Manning formula is normally defined as the area of flow divided by the wetted perimeter. The use of this definition in

conjunction with the assumption that Mannings n is constant is the most commonly used approach in practice. An

alternative definition for the hydraulic radius, that is, flow

area divided by the sum of the wetted perimeter and onehalf of the width of the airwater surface, was proposed by

Escritt (1984) and recommended by Wheeler (1992). Mannings n is assumed to be constant in this approach as well.

The third alternative approach considered here is the use of

the data presented by Camp (1946) to account for the dependence of n on h/D while preserving the usual definition

of the hydraulic radius. It is shown that the latter two approaches give approximately the same results (predicted Q

values are within 64%) in the range 0.1 # h/D # 1.0. Both

approaches yield Q values about 2030% less than that obtained by assuming constant n 5 nf in conjunction with the

usual definition of the hydraulic radius.

A significant part of this work concerns the development

of simple and accurate explicit equations that can be used

to calculate the depth of flow (h/D) and velocity (V) when

D, S, and Q are given. These equations obviate the need

for iterative calculations. Wheeler (1992) noted that hydraulic designers should have a choice of methods of computation. This not only gives them the option of exercising

judgment about unusual conditions, but enables them to develop an envelop of curves bracketing upper an lower conditions. In line with this point of view, explicit equations

for each of the mentioned three methods have been develENVIRON ENG SCI, VOL. 21, NO. 3, 2004

384

AKGIRAY

oped and presented. Another set of explicit relations facilitating the estimation of u, h/D, and S from known values

of D, Q, and V are presented. A simple explicit equation

that takes the dependence of Mannings n on h/D into account is developed to estimate S from given values of D,

Q, and V. Examples are provided to illustrate the applications of the proposed equations. All of the formulas proposed in this paper are accurate enough to be used in computer calculations (so that simpler and more robust

programs can be written), and simple enough to be used

with a hand calculator.

APPENDIX

For completely filled pipe flow, it is widely accepted

that the use of the Darcy-Weisbach equation in conjunction with the Colebrook formula (or its equivalent, the

Moody diagram) is the most accurate calculation method.

The Darcy-Weisbach equation is written as follows:

L V2

hf 5 f } }

D 2g

(47)

relative roughness e/D and the Reynolds number NR :

1

2.51

e

} 5 22 log }

1 }

NR f

f

3.7D

(48)

equivalent explicit equations have been proposed in the

literature. One such equation is the Haaland equation

(Finnemore and Franzini, 2002):

1

} 5 21.8 log

f

31

e

}

3.7D

1.11

6.9

1 }

NR

(49)

When applied to completely filled pipe flow, the Manning equation should lead to predictions consistent with

the above equations. Setting u 5 2p, h 5 D, n 5 nf, and

Rh 5 D/4 in the Manning equation and combining it with

Equations (47) and (49) gives, after some algebraic manipulation, the following result:

nf 5

0.22D1/6

}}}

}

e 1.11 6.9

22g log } }

1 }}

NR

3.7D

31

(50)

absolute roughness height e), nf depends on the pipe diameter and the Reynolds number. For large values of the

Reynolds number, Equation (50) simplifies to the following:

0.20D1/6

}}

nf 5

(51)

3.7D

2g log } }

e

If the Colebrook formula and the Darcy-Weisbach equation are assumed to be applicable to partially filled pipes

as well, the following equation is obtained for large values of Reynolds number (Massey, 1989; Finnemore and

Franzini, 2002):

Rh1/6

}

}

}

n5

14.8Rh

}

}

42g log

e

(52)

Using Equation (5) for the hydraulic radius and combining Equations (51) and (52), the following is obtained:

(u 2 sin u)1/6

n

log(3.7D/e)

} }}}

} 5 } 1/6

u

nf

log(3.7D(u 2 sin u)/(eu))

(53)

when h/D . 0.1 (see Fig. 10), that is, Equation (53)

does not explain or fit the data presented by Camp

(1946). It may be noted that there is a discontinuity in

Equation (53) at [(u 2 sinu)/u 5 e/(3.7D)]. The deviation of n/nf from unity increases as the point of discontinuity is approached. When Equation (53) is inserted into Equation (33), and values between 0.04 and

0.0001 (typical range of e/D values in the Moody diagram) are employed for e/D, the resulting Q/Q f curves

(not shown) are either visually indistinguishable from

Curve II of Fig. 5 or are very close to it (Curve II is

obtained using constant n 5 n f and the usual definition

of Rh ). The deviation of n/nf from unity for small values of h/D (see Fig. 10) does not lead to a visible change

in the Q/Q f curve because Q/Q f values are very close

to zero for h/D , 0.1.

385

REFERENCES

ASCE. (1976). Manual of Practice no.37: Design and Construction of Sanitary and Storm Sewers. New York. (Quoted

in Wheeler (1992).)

BENEFIELD, L.D., JUDKINS, J.F., and PARR, A.D. (1984).

Treatment Plant Hydraulics for Environmental Engineers.

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

CAMP, T.R. (1946). Design of sewers to facilitate flow. Sewage

Works J., 18, 316.

CHOW, V.T. (1959). Open Channel Hydraulics. New York:

McGraw-Hill.

ESCRITT, L.B. (1984). Flow in sewers. In: Sewerage and

Sewage TreatmentInternational Practice. New York: John

Wiley & Sons.

ESEN, I.I. (1993). Design of sewers based on minimum velocity. ASCE J. Environ. Eng. 119(3), 591594.

ESEN, I.I. (1994). Closure by author. ASCE J. Environ. Eng.

120(5), 1350.

NOMENCLATURE

A

D

e

f

f

area of flow

pipe diameter

roughness height

functional relation between n/nf and u

(In the Appendix) friction factor defined by the

Darcy-Weisbach equation

h Water depth

n Mannings roughness coefficient

nf the value of n when h 5 D

NR Reynolds number

Q volumetric flow rate

Qf volumetric flow rate when the pipe is full

Rh hydraulic radius based on Equation (5)

Re hydraulic radius based on Equation (6)

S slope of the energy grade line

V velocity of flow

Vf velocity when the pipe is full

Y intermediate quantity defined as 8A/D2

u surface angle in radians (Fig.1)

FINNEMORE, E.J., and FRANZINI, J.B. (2002). Fluid Mechanics, 10th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, pp. 427428.

GIROUD, J.P., PALMER, B., and DOVE, J.E. (2000). Calculation of flow velocity in pipes as a function of flow rate.

Geosynthet. Int. 7(46), 583600.

GRANT, D.M. (1992). ISCO Open Channel Flow Measurement Handbook, 3rd ed. Lincoln, NE: ISCO.

LI, K.S. (1994). Discussion of design of sewers based on minimum velocity by I.I. Esen. ASCE J. Environ. Eng. 120(5),

13481350.

MASSEY, B.S. (1989). Mechanics of fluids, 6th ed. London:

Chapman & Hall.

METCALF & EDDY. (1981). Wastewater Engineering: Collection and Pumping of Wastewater. New York: McGraw-Hill.

SAATI, A.M. (1990). Velocity and depth of flow calculations

in partially filled pipes. ASCE J. Environ. Eng. 116(6),

12021212.

SAATI, A.M. (1992). Closure by author. ASCE J. Environ.

Eng. 118(3), 454.

WHEELER, W. (1992). Discussion of velocity and depth of

flow calculations in partially filled pipes by A.M. Saat.

ASCE J. Environ. Eng. 118(3), 451454.

- Fundamentals of the Finite Element MethodUploaded byDerrick Corea
- Field Handbook - Performance PipeUploaded byJUPITERSS
- Wtp Hydraulics 1Uploaded byHemant Sonawadekar
- edsc 504 playlistsUploaded byapi-441112446
- GRAPHING LINEAR INEQUALITIES.pptUploaded byArianne Villanueva
- Problem 002-Mm _ Method of Members _ Engineering Mechanics ReviewUploaded byRoxcell Gloriani
- 2015 SP 12 Mathematics 01Uploaded bysharmi
- Inferring Channel Bed Topography From Known Free Surface DataUploaded byAlex Fekade
- Determine Mannings Roughness Coefficient and Chezy Roughness Coefficient in a Labortary FlumeUploaded byFaisal Sardar
- Numerical Analysis and Computer Programming (Video)Uploaded bycivil11
- day 16 unit 2a review study guideUploaded byapi-316619857
- How to Teach Your Child MathUploaded byRobert-Myra Jigs Ramos
- Final Math Project Unit 8Uploaded byOlivia Gardiner
- hydraulics Topic 1 Flow in Open Channel.pdfUploaded byfahmy
- permit packageUploaded byapi-323822952
- Module 17-Intro to Engr MechUploaded byAvinash Gamit
- January 2006 QP - C1 AQA.pdfUploaded byTamannaBhatia
- Numerical method chapter 1Uploaded bybig boy smkak
- Midterm ReviewUploaded bythien
- Maths-3EM-2017Uploaded bymanoj smart
- Cauchy's Theorem for solving transcendental equations.pdfUploaded byEdgar R. Mondragón
- 2008_ACJC_Paper_1.pdfUploaded bykarpeo
- Problem 2.128Uploaded byEric Castillo Martínez
- Solomon DUploaded byKevinCheung
- C1pp_jan13Uploaded byakizdbest
- examiner report a levelUploaded bysakhararshed
- Fracture OrientationUploaded bybufalote
- hgf y yu yu yu yuyu uuyyu yuUploaded byShafayat
- assg_2_solnUploaded byjoe dawn
- Differential EquationsUploaded bysreekantha

- MAINS QPUploaded byudaysrinivas
- Delhi School ListsUploaded byLokesh Bangalore
- What are Integers.docxUploaded byevelyn espino
- A Detailed Lesson Plan in LanguageUploaded byliyahgotiza
- Grade 7 ScienceUploaded byVarshLok
- [Aptitude] Time n Distance_ Early and late to office (shortcut using product consistency method) for SSC, IBPS, CSAT, CAT, CMAT « MrunalUploaded byKhalid Khan
- s19 Brasssyl 2003 SecuredUploaded byDiones John Pallones
- Cert AssmepsUploaded byJadie Ace
- DVSF Winners SummaryUploaded bytheredgem
- PNUAT Application FormUploaded byesequielbaje
- Test Matematika Mid Semester 2 Class 7 2011Uploaded byEko Budi Prasetyo
- math lesson plan 5 - geometryUploaded byapi-317717290
- resumeUploaded byapi-285694827
- Advertisement Admission in Class Prep 2017 (1)Uploaded bySamia Khalid
- Class-Teachers Program- Lalaine BonifacioUploaded byGim Reyes
- Tut Math - Calculator Techniques by Sirhoseven -Final 2Uploaded byJerome Ambagan
- blog 6 classrm management planUploaded byapi-244953882
- HyperbolaUploaded byAngelo Luigi Yasay
- Fundamental of Fourier SeriesUploaded byMomita Chowdhury
- resume2015Uploaded byapi-288169796
- Jamal Hannun 201300283 GENG106-Assignment3-14194Uploaded byJamalAdelHannun
- 01 Manipulative Geoboard 2012Uploaded byAribah Aida Johary
- ManifoldUploaded byMusa Serdar Arslan
- Geometry Scaffolding FrameworkUploaded byMelanie
- Delfin L. Cariaga Jr.'s PresentationUploaded byGodwin Pichay Cariaga
- Women in South East Asia by Ann BrooksUploaded bySophal Pen
- chemUploaded byjose_dino10005190
- Confused WordsUploaded byهيثم الشرجبي
- Inverse Hyperbolic FunctionsUploaded bycircleteam123
- K to 12 PPtUploaded byJoy Kenneth Ustare