You are on page 1of 16

See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at:


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

Simple Formulae for Velocity, Depth of


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

Available from: mer Akgiray


Retrieved on: 03 November 2015

ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING SCIENCE


Volume 21, Number 3, 2004
Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.

Simple Formulae for Velocity, Depth of Flow, and Slope


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

to flow full only under maximum conditions. In sewer design, therefore,


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

Figure 1. Cross-section of a partially filled pipe.

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

SIMPLE FORMULAE IN CIRCULAR PIPES

373

the predictions based on the latter two approaches are


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)

Escritt (1984) noted that 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 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)

where nf is the value of n when h/D 5 1 and u 5 2p. The


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)

This equation holds regardless of whether n is a constant


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)

2. Solve Equation (11) iteratively (using, e.g., Newtons


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)

Saat (1990) noted that this equation is applicable for


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)

As pointed out by Wheeler (1992), Equations (12) and


(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)

It should be noted that Equations (12), (13), and (14)


make the direct solution of the problem possible only

when n is constant [i.e., when f(u) 5 1] and then only for


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)

EQUATIONS FOR CONSTANT n


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

SIMPLE FORMULAE IN CIRCULAR PIPES

375

out a least-squares analysis to determine the values of a


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)

This single equation is applicable over the entire range


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.

in u, however, can lead to relatively large errors in the


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).

EQUATIONS FOR VARIABLE n


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)

Proposed approximate explicit solution and the exact solution.

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

376

AKGIRAY

Figure 3.

Difference between estimated and exact values of u.

where
X 5 1 2 h/D

(20)

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

(21)

and

When plotted against h/D (solid line in Fig. 4), Equation


(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 (19b) has the advantage of being simpler than


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).

SIMPLE FORMULAE IN CIRCULAR PIPES

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)

This equation is applicable in the range 0 , u #


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

late Ke. (It should be remembered that n 5 nf is assumed


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)

Ke has the maximum value 0.3193 at u 5 321.08


(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)

The mean error at the discrete the points 10, 20, . . . ,


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)

Equation (28) 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 .
321.08. 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)

This explicit equation yields values that are within 6


1.0% of the exact values in the entire range 1 # u #
321.08 (0.00002 # h/D # 0.9714).

(25)

This explicit equation yields values that are within


62.0% of the exact values over the entire range 1 #
u # 321.46 (0.00002 # h/D # 0.972).

EQUATIONS BASED ON ESCRITTS


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)

where Re is the hydraulic radius defined as the flow area


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)

Table 1. Reproduced from Table 3 given in Escritt (1984).


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)

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


. . . , 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

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


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

SIMPLE FORMULAE IN CIRCULAR PIPES

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.

values predicted by three of the approaches (curves I, III,


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

Percent differences of (Q/Qf)III and (Q/Qf)IV from (Q/Qf)I.

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

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)

Note that f(u) 5 n/nf is given by Equations (19)(21).


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.

SIMPLE FORMULAE IN CIRCULAR PIPES

381

to avoid iterative calculations when using any one of the


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.

CALCULATION OF SLOPE FOR GIVEN


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)

The maximum error uhpredicted 2 hexactu/D in Equation


(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)

(8A/D2) 1 sin148A/D2 2 248A/D2 cos148A/D22


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)

For p , 8A/D2 , 2p:


3

These equations are very accurate (Esen, 1994). To


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

Equation (19) may be used to calculate f(u). If n 5 nf is


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)

where Y 5 8A/D2. The maximum error (in u) due to the


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)

Figure 9 compares the functions u4/3 (curve II), f 2(u)u4/3


(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)

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

382

AKGIRAY

Figure 8.

Angle u as a function of 8A/D2 5 8Q/(VD2).

This equation applies if n varies with h/D as reported by


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.

with a constant n value of 0.015 and a discharge of 0.01


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

S(D/2Q)24/3V210/3n22f as a function of 8A/D2 5 8Q/(VD2).

SIMPLE FORMULAE IN CIRCULAR PIPES


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.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS


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)

The Colebrook formula relates the friction factor f to the


relative roughness e/D and the Reynolds number NR :
1
2.51
e
} 5 22 log }
1 }
NR f
f
3.7D

(48)

Since the Colebrook formula is implicit in f, a number of


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)

This equation shows that, for a given pipe material (given


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)

According to this equation n/nf is approximately unity


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

Figure 10. The ratio n/nf according to Equation (53).

SIMPLE FORMULAE IN CIRCULAR PIPES


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.

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