CE 7995

Lab#1
Flow and Velocity Measurements

Page 0

Flow/Velocity Measurements
CE 7995 Lab#1
Due: 5/27/2015
Table of Contents
1.0

Introduction..............................................................................................................

2.0

Methods and Assumptions.......................................................................................

3.0

Ocular Estimates......................................................................................................

4.0

Field Measurement...................................................................................................

5.0

Mechanical Velocity Measurement...........................................................................

6.0

Acoustic Doppler Velocimeter Measurement............................................................

7.0

Water Surface Slope.................................................................................................

8.0

Calculation of Mannings Roughness Coefficient......................................................

9.0

Narrative..................................................................................................................

Attachments:
I - Field Notes

Page 1

1.0

INTRODUCTION

The following data was collected on May 16, 2015 in the north branch of the Clinton
River assessed from the Wolcott Mill Metropark/Farm in Ray, Michigan. The
assessment included one cross section at a run just downstream of a river crossing.
Ambient air temperatures were approximately 75 degrees Fahrenheit and weather
was cloudy/light rain. The general location of the river reach assessed is shown in
the Google Earth image provided as Figure 1, with the specific cross section
measured shown in red. Approximate coordinates of the cross section examined are
424634.84N, 825637.26W, with an elevation of approximately 677 feet above
mean sea level. A copy of the field notes collected during the lab are provided as
Attachment I and hand-drawn sketch of the area provided as Figure 2.

Figure 1 Google Earth Image containing River Reach Assessed

Page 2

Figure 2 Hand-Drawn Sketch

Page 3

2.0

METHODS AND ASSUMPTIONS

The data collection site was 101 ft. downstream of the river crossing. This site was
chosen due to the stability of the stream at this location, since this section did not
appear to be affected by the crossing nor was it near the bend in the stream. The
flow appeared to be steady and the water was not turbid at this location.
Four different methods were utilized to determine the flow at this cross-section, with
velocity of the water at a particular location, width, and depth being the data
collected for each flow calculation. First, ocular estimates were made as each team
member became acquainted to the stream, estimating velocity of the water, along
with width and average depth of the cross section. Next, field measurements were
made using leaves and foam to calculate velocities after measuring the width of the
cross section and depth at the representative point along the cross section. Both
measurements allowed for a better understanding of the streams movement on
this particular day, however they are not meant to be used for future calculations
and determinations.
The third flow measurement made was done using a mechanical velocity meter.
The mechanical meter measures velocity via revolutions of the propeller.
Limitations of this device include possible variations in velocity measurements due
to disturbances in flow caused the propeller as well as the instruments inefficiency
for measuring turbulence. The final flow measurement was made from velocity
determined using an Acoustic Doppler Velocity (ADV) meter. Due to the devices
emission of acoustic signals to measure the reflection of the sound waves, the flow
of the stream remains undisturbed at the point of data collection. The stream had
sufficient turbidity to reflect the signal back to the ADV. For flow determinations
made using both the mechanical flowmeter and ADV, the cross section was divided
into two-foot bins, and the meter was placed at the center of each bin. It was
assumed that the center of each bin provided the representative depth of the entire
bin. The final bin for each measurement had very low flow, and the bin was only 1.5
ft wide, rather than 2 ft.
To make our final calculation of Mannings roughness coefficient, we also needed to
determine the slope of the water surface. To do this, a stretch of river was used
slightly upstream from the cross section used to make measurements for the flow
determination. The stretch used began at a riffle 498 ft. upstream from the flowdetermination cross section, and ended at the next riffle, which was 131 ft.

Page 4

upstream from the flow-determination cross section. It was assumed that the slope
of this stretch of river represented the slope at the cross section.

3.0

OCULAR ESTIMATES

Each team member, for the selected cross-section, conducted an ocular

estimate of the channel flow. Ocular estimates can be a valuable tool for an
engineer; they provide an approximate flow rate for a cross section. This
method is dependent on the Engineers ability and familiarity of calculating
stream flows. The practice of estimating before measuring with a second
method can improve ocular estimating by improving an engineers familiarity
with a variety of flow rates. This technique is useful when measurement
supplies are limited or conditions in the channel are too extreme to get close
(high floods, animals, etc). The estimated flow rates are provided in Table 1.
Flow
Rate
ft3/se
c
35
75
80
60
51
60.2

Person
Megan
Jared
Kristen
Taylor
Dr. Selegan
Average

Table 1 Ocular Estimate Data

4.0

FIELD MEASUREMENT

Field measurements were taken near the midpoint of cross-section at 19'

mark on tape using a four-foot meter. The 19 mark on the cross section was
selected because it was decided to be an accurate representation of the
stream (not the slowest or fastest spot on the cross section). Floating
objects (leaves and foam) were observed moving past the four-foot meter on
the water surface while being timed using a cell phone stopwatch. Due to
the variability in measurements, seven separate velocity measurements
were collected and averaged. The field measurement data collected is
provided in Table 2.

Page 5

Table 2 Field
Data
5.0

MECHANICAL

MEASUREMENT
Velocity
taken across the
mechanical meter in

Dept Veloci
h
ty
ft
ft/sec
43.5
1.08
1.16
43.5
1.08
1.43
43.5
1.08
1.31
43.5
1.08
1.23
43.5
1.08
1.42
43.5
1.08
1.29
43.5
1.08
1.45
Average
1.33

Width
ft

Flow
ft3/se
c
54.47
67.11
61.41
57.82
66.88
60.62
68.33
62.38

bins. Due to the

Measurement
VELOCITY

measurements were
stream using a
two-foot interval
variability in stream

flow, velocity measurements were collected once every five seconds until
eight measurements were collected for each bin. When taking
measurements for each bin the measurement location height was 60 percent
of the depth from the water surface. The particular mechanical velocity
meter used was a top setting wading rod, allowing adjustment of the
measurement depth without getting your hands wet. The velocity
measurements were averaged for each bin and the average velocity were
each used to calculate the flow rate of the stream. The mechanical velocity
meter data collected is provided in Table 3.
Stati
on
ft

Dept
h
ft

Veloci
ty 1
ft/sec

Veloci
ty 2
ft/sec

Veloci
ty 3
ft/sec

Veloci
ty 4
ft/sec

Veloci
ty 5
ft/sec

Veloci
ty 6
ft/sec

Veloci
ty 7
ft/sec

Veloci
ty 8
ft/sec

2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32

0.70
1.00
1.25
1.20
1.30
1.20
1.20
1.10
1.00
1.10
1.10
0.90
1.10
1.15
0.60
0.80

0.5
0.9
0.9
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.1
1.4
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.5
1.4
1.4
1.3
1.3

0.7
1.0
0.9
1.1
1.1
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.5
1.2
1.5
1.3
1.1
1.4
1.1

0.6
1.0
0.8
1.0
1.0
1.3
1.5
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.3
1.4
1.4
1.2
1.4
1.1

0.7
0.8
0.8
1.1
1.0
1.3
1.1
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.5
1.2

0.6
1.0
0.8
1.1
1.1
1.4
1.1
1.1
1.3
1.2
1.1
1.2
1.4
1.2
1.5
1.1

0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.1
1.3
1.3
1.5
1.5
1.2
1.1
1.1
1.0
1.5
1.2

0.6
0.9
0.9
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.4
1.4
1.3
1.5
1.0
1.4
1.3
1.1
1.4
1.2

0.7
1.1
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.4
1.2
1.2
1.5
1.4
1.4
1.3
1.2
0.9
1.4
1.1

Avera
ge
Veloci
ty
ft/sec
0.6
0.9
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.4
1.4
1.2
1.3
1.3
1.1
1.4
1.2

Page 6

Flow
ft3/se
c
0.89
1.88
2.16
2.46
2.80
3.12
3.03
2.86
2.73
3.03
2.67
2.36
2.81
2.59
1.71
1.86

34
36
38
40
42

0.80
0.85
0.90
1.00
0.90

1.2
0.8
0.7
0.5
0.1

1.1
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.0

1.2
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.1

1.1
0.8
0.8
0.5
0.1

1.1
0.7
0.8
0.7
0.1

1.1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.1

0.9
0.7
0.9
0.4
0.0

0.9
0.7
0.9
0.6
0.1

1.1
0.8
0.8
0.6
0.1

1.72
1.30
1.42
1.18
0.14

43

0.75

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0
Total
Flow

0.00
44.6
8

Table 3 Mechanical Velocity Meter Data

Page 7

6.0

ACOUSTIC DOPPLER VELOCIMETER MEASUREMENT

Velocity measurements were also collected across the stream using an

acoustic doppler velocimeter (ADV) in the same two-foot interval bins used in
the mechanical velocity meter analysis. The major advantages to the ADV
over the mechanical unit were being able to measure flow while not
disturbing the region being measured and, being able to measure
turbulence. The ADV unit used was also top setting, similar to the
mechanical velocity meter. The velocity measurements for each bin were
used to calculate flow. The mechanical velocity meter data collected is
provided in Table 4.
Statio
n
ft
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
43

Dept Veloci Flow

h
ty
ft3/se
ft
ft/sec
c
0.75
0.69
1.55
1.10
0.73
1.61
1.30
1.00
2.60
1.20
1.22
2.93
1.30
1.25
3.25
1.25
1.29
3.23
1.20
1.34
3.22
1.20
1.33
3.19
1.10
1.33
2.93
1.05
1.41
2.96
1.10
1.28
2.82
0.85
1.39
2.36
1.00
1.19
2.38
1.10
1.18
2.60
0.70
1.34
1.88
0.80
1.08
1.73
0.90
0.98
1.76
0.90
0.81
1.46
0.90
0.80
1.44
1.05
0.50
1.05
0.90
0.35
0.63
0.40
0.01
0.01
43.67
Area
5 ft2
ft3/se
Flow
47.57 c

Page 8

Table 4 ADV Meter Data

7.0

WATER SURFACE SLOPE

The water surface slope was calculated by surveying the elevation at two points
corresponding to an upstream and downstream riffle. The difference in height
between the two riffles was 1.21 and the distance between the two riffles was 367.
The resulting water surface slope was calculated to be 0.0033 ft/ft. The survey data
collected to calculate water surface slope is provided in Table 5.

Station
ft
-397

Relative
Water
Surface
Elevation
ft
6.34

-30

5.13

0
11
101

-------

Slope
ft/ft

Notes

--Upstream riffle for slope measurement

0.0032 Survey station just upstream of road river
97 crossing at riffle
Start of survey tape just upstream of river
--crossing
--Centerline of road to cross river in riffle
Cross-section for velocity measurements in run
---

Table 5 Slope Survey Data

8.0

CALCULATION OF MANNINGS ROUGHNESS COEFFICIENT

The measured stream parameters (velocity, flow, slope, etc.) were used to
calculate Mannings roughness coefficient for the cross section of the river
examined. The following tables provide equations and values used to
calculate the resulting mannings roughness coefficient values for each
different velocity scenario (ocular estimate, field measurement, mechanical
meter, and ADV). According to Hydrology and Hydraulic Systems by Ram S.
Gupta, the expected value of the Mannings roughness coefficient (n) for a
plain, clean, and winding natural stream with some pools would be 0.04.
Equations
V = (1.49*R2/3*S1/2)/n
Q = V*A

Page 9

n = (1.49*R2/3*S1/2)/
(Q/A)

Parameter
Ocular Estimate
Flow (Q)
Field Estimate Flow
(Q)

Value

Unit

60.20 ft3/sec
62.38 ft3/sec
44.68 ft3/sec

Mechanical Flow (Q)

ft3/sec
ft
ft
ft

ADV Flow (Q)

Width
Average Depth
Hydraulic Radius (R)

47.57
43.5
1.0023
0.9581

Area (A)
Water Surface Slope
(S)

43.60 ft2
0.0032
97 ft/ft

Manning's Roughness
Coefficient

Valu
e
0.060
Ocular Estimate n
2
0.058
Field Estimate n
1
0.081
Mechanical n
2
0.076
ADV n
2
0.068
Average
9

9.0

NARRATIVE

The mechanical flow measurements and ADV measurement were very similar,
within 6% of each other. The field estimate and ocular estimate were 31% and 27%
different than the ADV measurement, respectively. Considering the general

Page 10

closeness of the two more accurate forms of measurement, the expected flow of the
river is 48 cfs +- 4 cfs.
The expected Mannings roughness coefficient n was higher than anticipated. The
ADV and Mechanical meter value of n ranged higher than 0.07, which would be
considered a plain sluggish, weedy deep pool. Based on our field observations, that
is not the case. The expected slope of rivers in Michigan is 0.001-0.0001. If the
slope were 0.001, the expected n value for the ADV measurement would be
approximately 0.04, which would relate to a plain, clean, winding stream with some
pools, which would match our river description. The measurement was taken from
one riffle to the next riffle. The slope may need to be measured from multiple riffles,
to gather a more true representation of the slope. Also to be considered, the
Mannings n could be too high because the wetted perimeter calculated is not
representative of the river bottom. The river bottom is very irregular and there may
be added distance that is unaccounted for. If the river bottom were longer than
assumed, the wetted perimeter would be larger thus lowering the hydraulic radius
and Mannings roughness coefficient. A cross section of the location measured
would be recommended for more accurately determining the correct wetted
perimeter and area of the stream.

Page 11