See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/251260309

Estimation of river discharge using mean velocity equation

Article  in  KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering · May 2011

DOI: 10.1007/s12205-011-1133-9

CITATIONS READS

7 415

4 authors, including:

Tai Ho Choo
Pusan National University
39 PUBLICATIONS   49 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

1.The Estimation of Friction Velocity by Hydraulic Parameters Reflecting Turbulent Flow Characteristics in a Smooth Pipe Line View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Tai Ho Choo on 14 August 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering (2011) 15(5):927-938 Water Engineering
DOI 10.1007/s12205-011-1133-9
www.springer.com/12205

Estimation of River Discharge Using Mean Velocity Equation

Tai Ho Choo*, Sang Kil Park**, Sang Jin Lee***, and Ryun Su Oh****
Received February 4, 2010/Revised July 12, 2010/Accepted August 16, 2010

···································································································································································································································

Abstract

For the improvement of the conventional stage-discharge curve equation based on just stage, this study proposed a method to
estimate river discharge using hydraulic characteristics, such as hydraulic radius, bed slope, depth, etc. Hydraulic gradients in
Manning’s Equation and Chezy’s Equation, both of which are among mean velocity equations, were computed using those
characteristics. For that computation, hydrological data actually measured in a laboratory channel and a natural open channel from
the Albert University Report were used. And then, river discharge was calculated using the hydraulic gradients. For comparison with
the conventional method of inversely calculating roughness coefficients, their power function was formulated. And river discharge
estimated using the proposed method was compared with the corresponding one estimated using stage-discharge relations. As a
result, the proposed method showed results more approximate to measured discharge. An analysis of discrepancy ratio distribution
revealed that non-dimensional errors lied within the ranges of -0.2 to 0.23. This indicates that river discharge estimated using the
proposed method showed some improvements in accuracy, compared with river discharge estimated using the conventional stage-
discharge curve equation or inverse roughness coefficients.
Keywords: stage-discharge curve equation, regression analysis, roughness coefficient, mean velocity equations
···································································································································································································································

1. Introduction formulating the stage-discharge curve equation. These kinds of

For the accurate and reasonable management of water resources
in a basin, it’s very important to produce hydrological data with
high reliability. They are used as basic data for reservoir operation,
hydraulic structure design, and basin-scale water resources
planning & assessment. Generally, a continuous collection of
discharge data requires the installation of stage-observation
stations at key points where it’s easy to observe (or measure)
river stage. The stage-discharge curve equation derived using
those discharge data are used for water-resource practices.
Recently, however, hydrological data collected through pre-
liminary studies suffer from decreased reliability resulting from
insufficient observation points & measurements, dilapidated
observation facilities, lack of measured data, negligence in
observation, incomplete hydrological data management methods
& systems, unsatisfactory water management development, etc.
In addition, finally-calculated discharge data accompany errors
in choosing a velocity equation used for conversion to mean
velocity, errors happening when stage-discharge measurements
are undertaken mainly using such methods as one-point method,
two-point method and three-point method instead of the precision
method, and errors in determining a regression equation used for
errors have cumulative influences on the calculated discharge
data and, consequently, cause them to have large differences
from directly measured data. Such differences result mainly from
lack of studies on other hydraulic factors than mean velocity, and
dependence on relatively simple, limitative mean-velocity
measuring methods (including one-point method, two-point
method and three-point method) and the conventional stage-
discharge curve easily accessible.
Rahimpour et al. (2006) estimated the stage-discharge curve
using velocity distributions at a fixed point in a natural open
channel, and identified the limits of conventional methods and
proposed their alternative. Leon et al. (2006) developed the
rating curve using satellite altimeter data and modeled discharges
in the Negro Rive of the Amazon River basin. Rating-curve
parameters were estimated by fitting with a power law the
temporal series of water surface altitude derived from satellite
measurements and the discharges. These discharges were
calculated using ProGUM, a flow routing model based on the
Muskingum−Curve(M−C). Petersen−Øverleira et al. (2009) held
that extreme flood discharges are especially affected by some
uncertainties since they are found at the very end of the measured
rating curve area, and not infrequently, beyond. The purpose of

*Member, Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Pusan National University, Busan 609-735, Korea (E-mail: thchoo@pusan.ac.kr)
**Member, Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Pusan National University, Busan 609-735, Korea (E-mail: sakpark@pusan.ac.kr)
***Member, Principal Researcher, Water Resources Research Center, K-water Institute, Daejeon 305-730, Korea (Corresponding Author, E-mail:
sjlee@kwater.or.kr)
****Dept. of Water Resources & Environment, Dongbu Engineering Co., Ltd., Seoul 140-709, Korea (E-mail: ryunsu80@dbeng.co.kr)

− 927 −
 Tai Ho Choo, Sang Kil Park, Sang Jin Lee, and Ryun Su Oh
their study was to develop a statistically consistent framework
which allowed for the analysis of the joint impact of simple
variability and rating curve imprecision in flood frequency
analysis. This was achieved using likelihood-based methods.
Sahoo et al. (2006) developed a model to calculate discharge in a
natural open channel by analyzing stage-discharge correlations
for a Hawaii basin based on the Artificial Neural Network (ANN)
model. Kwon et al. (2008) introduced a Hierarchical Bayesian
model to derive the stage-discharge curve equation for
quantitatively distinguishing between low and high stages and
analyzing uncertainties. Lee et al. (2008) undertook a study
using the secant method to judge whether a boundary between
low and high stages is congruous with a curvilinear point of
contact and identify the magnitude of errors. Choo et al. (2002)
determined discharge using surface velocity in the mainstream of
the Nakdong River. They used an entropy-based method to
calculate the surface velocity. Lee et al. (2009) developed a
multiple regression equation for reaches affected by the tidal
level of the lower Nakdong River; the equation took into account
relations among stage, discharge and tidal level.
But these studies didn’t propose direct, clear solutions to
limitations the conventional stage-discharge curve equation had.
Some of them are too difficult and complex to apply to river
design practices. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to seek
the improvement of the conventional stage-discharge curve
equation. For that purpose, mean velocity and discharge under
the constraints of uniform and steady flow were calculated using
flow velocity, bed slope, hydraulic gradient, stage, width, etc. To
determine hydraulic gradients in Manning’s Equation and Chezy’s
Equation, both of which are useful for river design practices,
actually-measured hydrological data with objective reliability
from the Albert University Report (which was prepared by
Peterson & Howellsas with the help of Environment Canada
(Report No. HY-1973-ST3)) were used (measured data sets in a
laboratory channel: Government of Bengal (1965); Kalinske and
Hsia (1945); Foley (1975); and Hill et al. (1969); and measured
data sets in a natural open channel: U.S. Department of the Interior
(1958); Einstein (1944); Colby and Hembree (1955); and Mihous
(1973)). And the relations between calculated hydraulic gradients
and flow velocity were analyzed. Thus, this study attempted to
propose a simple method to calculate discharge using the
physical parameters of river bed, beyond stage-discharge relations.
2. Theoretical Background
Methods to continuously estimate non-measured discharge in-
clude linear regression analysis and non-linear regression analysis.
A stage-discharge curve equation depends on the high coefficient
of determination between actually-measured stage and dis-
charge.
2.1 Log-Log Paper Method
Log-Log Paper Method is a method in which stage-discharge
relations can be expressed as shown in Eq. (1):
− 928 −
Q = a(H – z )b (1)
Where a and b are constants, and z and Q refer to elevation
gain (m) between the elevation of gauge zero and the elevation
of "0" in discharge, and discharge (m3/sec) corresponding to stage
H(m), respectively.
If stage-discharge relations fit into Eq. (1), they would be
represented as a straight line on log-log paper that is likely to be
easily extended. But it will be problematic to determine z if the
elevation of gauge zero is indistinct. In that case, z is positive (+)
(negative (-)) if the stage-discharge curve takes on the shape of
( ) on log-log paper.
After the sign of z has been identified as above, its most
suitable value is determined until stage-discharge relations as
shown in Eq. (1) approximate a straight line on log-log paper, so
that the straight line can be extended. But this method has no
theoretical grounds for the assumption that stage-discharge
relations can be expressed as a power function in Eq. (1). And
besides, a large increase in flood water level would cause a sharp
increase in conveyance area by causing flooding to a flooded
site. These are why the use of this method requires carefulness.
2.2 Stevens Method
Discharge for a specific cross section that can be formulated
using Chezy’s mean velocity equation and continuity equation is
shown in Eq. (2):
Q = CA RS (2)
Where Q, A, R, S and C refer to discharge (m3/sec),
conveyance area (m2), hydraulic radius (m), slope of energy line
and Chezy’s mean velocity coefficient, respectively. If S 1/2 at the
observation point is fixed, and R is replaced by hydraulic mean
depth (Dm), Eq. (2) can be converted as follows:
Q = KA Dm (3)
Where K = C S is a constant. This indicates that there are
linear relations between Q measured at the observation point and
A Dm ; Q is a function of H that will be measured, and A Dm is
also a function of H in that it’s determined depending on stage
for a specific cross section at the observation point. Therefore,
it’s possible to represent a straight line showing relations between
Q and A Dm and a curve showing relations between H and
A Dm together, and extend them on linear graph paper. This is
how discharge corresponding to high stages is estimated.
2.3 Linear Regression Analysis
Equation (4) show an stage-discharge curve equation for linear
regression analysis:
Q = a ( h + b )c (4)
A natural logarithm of both sides converts the equation to Eq. (5):
KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering
 Estimation of River Discharge Using Mean Velocity Equation
ln Q = lna + cln(h + b)
This shows a simple linear regression model in which ln(h + b)
and lnQ are considered as an explanatory variable and a response
variable, respectively. Parameters for the above equation can be
estimated using least squares method that minimizes the sum of
each error squared.
2.4 Non-Linear Regression Analysis
Equation (6) shows a non-linear regression model of the stage-
discharge curve equation. In the equation, Q and h are replaced
by y (response variable) and x (explanatory variable), re-
spectively:
yi = f ( x i, θ ) + εi = a ( xi + b )c + εi i + 1, 2, ..., n
Where θ is an unknown parameter vector with p dimensions. If
the curve equation is not separated, the vector will have 3
dimensions. εi is an error term with normally-distributed
independent random variables whose mean and variance are 0
and σ i2 . θ is estimated mainly using least-squares method. If the
variance of the error term εi is fixed, it can be also estimated
using OLS (ordinary least squares); since θ̂ is a given θ that
minimizes the sum of errors squared, an equation to calculate θ
Fig. 1. Stage-Discharge Curve Equation for the Laboratory Channel: (a) Measured Data Sets by the Government of Bengal (1965), (b)
Measured Data Sets by Kalinske and Hsia (1945)
Fig. 2. Stage-Discharge Curve Equation for the Natural Open Channel: (a) Measured Data Sets by the U.S. Department of the Interior
(1958), (b) Measured Data Sets by Milhous (1973)
Vol. 15, No. 5 / May 2011
(5) is converted to an equation for optimization as shown in Eq. (7):
min
n n2
θ J(θ) = ∑ [ ei ] 2 = ∑ ( yi – ŷi )2 (7)
i=1 i=1
Where yi is i th measured discharge, and ŷi is i th predicted
discharge based on the estimated parameter, with n referring to
the number of measured data.
3. Stage-Discharge Curve Equation Analysis
To calculate accurate discharge for high stages in the stage-
discharge curve, there is a need to have the curve extended (or
extrapolated) using a reasonable method. It's general that such an
(6) extension is based on extrapolation. But this causes significant
errors in discharge at high stages, and, consequently, results in a
large variability in the total volume of discharge. These kinds of
uncertainties, in turn, lower water management efficiency in
terms of water uses and conservation (that involve the calculation
of ratio of inflow to outflow, water intake, releases, etc.).
Therefore, this study attempted to analyze the foregoing problems
using measured data with high reliability.
Figures 1 and 2 show the analysis of open channel flow using
measured data in a laboratory channel and a natural open
− 929 −
 Tai Ho Choo, Sang Kil Park, Sang Jin Lee, and Ryun Su Oh

channel, respectively. Measured data in a laboratory channel Table 2. Comparison of Each H-Q Curve Equation and R2
include 18 data sets with 0.457m in width and 0.315mm in bed Fig. 2(a)
particle diameter (Government of Bengal, 1965); 9 data sets with H-Q Curve Equation R2
0.686 m in width and 0.011 mm in bed particle diameter (Kalinske
1 Q = −116.7237 +171.9417H−8.5223H2 0.7119
and Hsia, 1945); 12 data sets with 0.267 m in width and 0.290 mm
2 Q = 1511794.67(1−H −0.0002) 0.6935
in bed particle diameter (Foley, 1975); and 46 data sets with
0.610 m in width and 0.088 mm in bed particle diameter 3 Q = 25.6017(1−H) 1.8241 0.6993
(Srinirasan and Unny, 1969). Measured data in a natural open 4 Q = −3842.2164 +1520.6239(H+9.2076) 0.7114
channel include 131 data sets for the Colorado River with Fig. 2(b)
92.644~254.550 m in width and 0.180 ~0.385 mm in bed particle H-Q Curve Equation R2
diameter (U.S. Department of the Interior, 1958); 18 data sets
1 Q = −7.3976 + 62.6612H−153.1324H +138.7245H 2 3
0.9676
for the Mountain Creek with 3.292~4.334 m in width and 0.286
~0.889 mm in bed particle diameter (Einstein, 1944); 40 data sets 628167.4179
Q = ---------------------------------------------------
– 1.8080
-
2 H 0.9509
for the Niobrara River with 21.031~21.946 m in width and 1 + -------------------------⎞
⎛
⎝ 1037.3476⎠
0.229~0.337 mm in bed particle diameter (Colby and Hembree,
1955); and 46 data sets for the Oak Creek with 4.225~5.741 m in 3 Q = −6730.8798 +1326.8968 ln(H+160.0617) 0.9309
width and 8.20~27.0 mm in bed particle diameter (Mihous, 1973).
Data sets plotted in Fig. 1(a) shows 0.99 or higher in R2
(coefficient of determination). This suggests that they can curves can be estimated even under small differences in the
determine a single regression equation. On the other hand, data coefficients of determination, as shown in Tables 1 and 2.
sets in Fig. 1(b) show a relatively high degree of dispersion. This
indicates that they can determine several regression equations; 4. Improvement of Stage-Discharge Curve Equa-
accordingly, if stage data based on those regression equations are tion
used to calculate discharge, especially corresponding to high
stages, the calculated discharge may have a high level of errors. 4.1 Estimation of River Discharge using Mean Velocity
Figures 2(a) and 2(b) show that the determination of a stage- Equation
discharge curve equation based on the high coefficients of This study attempted to analyze relations between the two
correlation may cause significant errors. This is because various equations (Manning’s Equation & Chezy’s Equation) and the
values of measured velocity using physical characteristics (such
Table 1. Comparison of Each H-Q Curve Equation and R2 as hydraulic radius {R = (A(cross section))/(P(wettedperimeter))},
Fig. 1(a) case Fig. 1(b) case
energy slope { Sf = (z(bedslope))/(L(Length))}, angle of channel
2
bed {tan α = (z(bedslope))/(L(Length))}, beyond stage-discharge
H-Q Curve Eq. R H-Q Curve Eq. R2
relations based on just stage. To do so, Manning’s Equation and
0.0738 Chezy’s Equation in the form y = a × x of were derived using
Q = ------------------------------------------
-
1 ⎛ H ⎞ –6.6614 0.5536 measured data in a laboratory channel and a natural open
Q = 0.1038H−0.0004 0.9982 1+ ---------------
-
⎝ 0.1197⎠
channel, and then their hydraulic gradients were calculated.
2 Q = −86.5726+86.7606H0.0008 0.5124 Figures 3(a) and 3(b) show relations between the two equations

Fig. 3. Analysis of Relations between Mean Velocity and the Two Equations (Manning's Equation & Chezy's Equation): Measured Data
Sets by the Government of Bengal (1965): (a) Relations between Mean Velocity and Manning's Equation in the Laboratory Chan-
nel, (b) Relations between Mean Velocity and Chezy's Equation in the Laboratory Channel

− 930 − KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering

 Estimation of River Discharge Using Mean Velocity Equation

Fig. 4. Analysis of Relations between Mean Velocity and the Two Equations (Manning's Equatjion & Chezy's Equation): Measured Data
Sets by Foley (1975): (a) Relations between Mean Velocity and Manning's Equation in the Laboratory Channel, (b) Relations
between Mean Velocity and Chezy's Equation in the Laboratory Channel

Fig. 5. Analysis of Relations between Mean Velocity and the Two Equations (Manning's Equation & Chezy's Equation): Measured Data
Sets by Hill et al. (1969): (a) Relations between Mean Velocity and Manning's Equation in the Laboratory Channel, (b) Relation-
ship between Mean Velocity and Chezy's Equation in the Laboratory Channel

Fig. 6. Analysis of Relations between Mean Velocity and the Two Equations (Manning's Equation & Chezy's Equation): Measured Data
Sets by Kalinske and Hsia (1945): (a) Relations between Mean Velocity and Manning's Equation in the Laboratory Channel, (b)
Relationship between Mean Velocity and Chezy's Equation in the Laboratory Channel

(Manning’s Equation & Chezy’s Equation) and measured data 55.655 in Chezy’s gradient and 0.1768 in Chezy’s R2. This
sets in a laboratory channel by the Government of Bengal suggests that they’re highly correlated. Figs. 4(a) and 4(b) show
(1965). As seen in the figures, Manning’s gradient and R2 were relations between the two equations (Manning’s Equation &
calculated as 96.044 (n = 0.0104) and 0.7763, respectively, with Chezy’s Equation) and measured data sets in a laboratory

Vol. 15, No. 5 / May 2011 − 931 −

 Tai Ho Choo, Sang Kil Park, Sang Jin Lee, and Ryun Su Oh

channel by Foley (1975). As seen in the figures, Manning’s
gradient and R2 were calculated as 84.299(n = 0.0118) and 0.8242,
respectively, with 46.525 in Chezy’s gradient and 0.7703 in
Chezy’s R2. Figs. 5(a) and 5(b) show relations between the two
equations (Manning’s Equation & Chezy’s Equation) and
measured data sets in a laboratory channel by Hill et al. (1969).
As seen in the figures, Manning’s gradient and R2 were
calculated as 96.239 (n = 0.0103) and 0.8635, respectively, with
67.624 in Chezy’s gradient and 0.7966 in Chezy’s R2. This
indicates that they’re highly correlated. Figs. 6(a) and 6(b) show
relations between the two equations (Manning’s Equation &
Chezy’s Equation) and measured data sets in a laboratory

Table 3. Estimation of Manning's Equation & Chezy's Equation

Figs. 3, 4, 5 & 6
Manning's Equation Gradient R2 Chezy's Equation Gradient R2
2 1
--- ---
1 3 2
1 V = ---------------- × R I 96.044 0.7763 V = 55.655 × RI 55.655 0.1768
0.0104
2 1
--- ---
1 3 2
2 V = ---------------- × R I 84.299 0.8242 V = 46.525 × RI 46.525 0.7703
0.0118
2 1
--- ---
1 3 2
3 V = ---------------- × R I 96.239 0.8635 V = 67.624 × RI 67.624 0.7966
0.0103
2 1
--- ---
1 3 2
4 V = ---------------- × R I 93.966 0.9532 V = 64.441 × RI 64.441 0.9289
0.0106

Fig. 7. Analysis of Relations between Mean Velocity and the Two Equations (Manning's Equation & Chezy's Equation): Measured Data
Sets by the U.S. Department of the Interior (1958): (a) Relations between Mean Velocity and Manning's Equation in the Natural
Open Channel, (b) Relations between Mean Velocity and Chezy's Equation in the Natural Open Channel

Fig. 8. Analysis of Relations between Mean Velocity and the Two Equations (Manning's Equation & Chezy's Equation): Measured Data
Sets by Einstein (1944): (a) Relations between Mean Velocity and Manning's Equation in the Natural Open Channel, (b) Relations
between Mean Velocity and Chezy's Equation in the Natural Open Channel

− 932 − KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering

 Estimation of River Discharge Using Mean Velocity Equation

channel by Kalinske and Hsia (1945). As seen in the figures,
Manning’s gradient and R2 were calculated as 93.966 (n = 0.0106)
and 0.9532, respectively, with 64.441 in Chezy’s gradient and
0.9289 in Chezy’s R2. This means that they’re also highly
correlated. Table 3 shows the summary of these results:
Figures 7(a) and 7(b) show relations between the two equations
(Manning’s Equation and Chezy’s Equation) and measured data
sets in a natural open channel (the Colorado River) by the
Bureau (1958). As seen in the figures, Manning’s gradient and R2
were calculated as 34.318 (n = 0.0309) and 0.0651, respectively,
with 39.531 in Chezy’s gradient and -0.1337 in Chezy’s R2. Figs.
8(a) and 8(b) show relations between the two equations
(Manning’s Equation and Chezy’s Equation) and measured data
sets in a natural open channel (the Mountain Creek) by Einstein
(1944). As seen in the figures, Manning’s gradient and R2 were
calculated as 42.014 (n = 0.0238) and -1.27, respectively, with
33.205 in Chezy’s gradient and -0.5 in Chezy’s R2. Table 4 shows
the summary of these results.
Figures 9(a) and 9(b) show relations between the two equations
(Manning’s Equation and Chezy’s Equation) and measured data
sets in a natural open channel (the Niobrara River) by Colby and
Hembree (1955). As seen in the figures, Manning’s gradient and

Table 4. Estimation Manning's Equation & Chezy's Equation

Figs. 7 & 8
Manning‘s Equation Gradient R2 Chezy's Equation Gradient R2
2 1
--- ---
1 3 2
1 V = ---------------- × R I 34.318 0.0651 V = 39.531 × RI 39.531 0.1337
0.0309
2 1
--- ---
1 3 2
2 V = ---------------- × R I 42.014 -1.27 V = 33.205 × RI 33.205 -0.5
0.0238

Fig. 9. Analysis of Relationship between Mean Velocity and the Two Equations (Manning's Equation & Chezy's Equation): Measured
Data Sets by Colby and Hembree (1955): (a) Relations between Mean Velocity and Manning's Equation in the Natural Open
Channel, (b) Relationship between Mean Velocity and Chezy's Equation in the Natural Open Channel

Fig. 10. Analysis of Relations between Mean Velocity and the Two Equations (Manning's Equation & Chezy's Equation): Measured Data
Sets by Milhous (1973): (a) Relations between Mean Velocity & Manning's Equation in the Natural Open Channel, (b) Relations
between Mean Velocity and Chezy's Equation in the Natural Open Channel

Vol. 15, No. 5 / May 2011 − 933 −

 Tai Ho Choo, Sang Kil Park, Sang Jin Lee, and Ryun Su Oh

Table 5. Estimation of Manning's Equation & Chezy's Equation

Figs. 9 and 10
Manning’s Equation Gradient R2 Chezy’s Equation Gradient R2
2 1
--- ---
1 3 2
1 V = ---------------- × R I 39.999 0.4445 V = 35.115 × RI 35.115 0.4321
0.0250
2 1
--- ---
1 3 2
2 V = ---------------- × R I 17.9540 0.7879 V = 15.1310 × RI 15.1310 0.5780
0.0556

Table 6. Development of Power Function n Model between roughness coefficients and discharge, as shown in. Eq.
Power Function 2
R (8):
Da Chuha (1969) n = 0.1523Q −0.235 0.5351
n = αQβ (8)
Toffaleti (1968) n = 0.0124Q 0.1734 0.6937

Where α and β are constants in a power function to estimate

R2 were calculated as 39.999 (n = 0.0250) and 0.4445, re-
spectively, with 35.115 in Chezy’s gradient and 0.4321 in Chezy’s
R2. Figs. 10(a) and 10(b) show relations between the two
equations (Manning’s Equation & Chezy’s Equation) and
measured data sets in a natural open channel (the Oak Creek) by
Milhous (1973). As seen in the figures, Manning’s gradient and
R2 were calculated as 17.9540 (n = 0.0556) and 0.7879,
respectively, with 15.1310 in Chezy’s gradient and 0.5780 in
Chezy’s R2. Table 5 shows the summary of these results.
5. Estimation of River Discharge using Inverse n
(=Roughness Coefficient) Method
roughness coefficients, and Q and n refers to measured discharge
and roughness coefficients, respectively; actually, roughness
coefficients corresponding to measured discharge could be
inversely calculated by applying to Eq. (8) hydraulic radius,
basin slope, measured velocity etc. (determined using actually-
measured data for the stage-discharge curve above) For that
calculation, a typical cross section at discharge measuring points
was took into account. In addition, Power Function n (=roughness
coefficient) Model for discharge measuring points was developed
by undertaking linear regression analysis through the use of data
used for inversely calculating roughness coefficients. Figs. 11(a)
and 11(b) shows inverse n and power function n derived using
inverse n method.

There have been studies in which roughness coefficients in 6. Analysis of Results

natural open channels are inversely calculated from Manning's
Equation. Yun et al. (2008) simulated hydraulic flood routing in
a channel using inverse roughness coefficient method, and Bae
et al. (2001) used the same method to calculate optimal roughness
coefficients in a natural open channel and built GUI systems to
put it to practical uses.
Roughness coefficients can be calculated by estimating
constants ( α , β ) in a power function that defines relations
River discharge was calculated using hydraulic gradients that
were determined from Manning's Equation and Chezy’s
Equation. Fig. 13 illustrates the case where measured data sets in
a laboratory channel were used. As seen in Figs. 13(a) and 13(b),
the method proposed in this study shows the values of discharge
more approximate to those of measured discharge than the
conventional stage-discharge curve equation. Similarly, Fig. 14

Fig. 11. Derivation of Power Fn. n Using n Method: (a) Da Cunha (1969), (b) Toffaleti (1968)

− 934 − KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering

 Estimation of River Discharge Using Mean Velocity Equation

Fig. 12. Analysis of Relations Measured Discharge and Predicted Discharge (Natural Open Channel) : (a) Measured Data Sets (Da Cunha,
1969), (b) Measured Data Sets (Toffaleti, 1968)

Fig. 13. Analysis of Relations between Measured Discharge and Predicted Discharge (Lab. Channel): (a) Measured Data Sets (Govern-
ment of Bengal, 1965), (b) Measured Data Sets (Foley, 1975)

Fig. 14. Analysis of Relations between Measured Discharge and Predicted Discharge (Natural Open Channel): (a) Measured Data Sets
(Colby and Hembree, 1955), (b) Measured Data Sets (Milhous, 1973)

illustrates the analysis of a natural open channel. It can be also
seen that river discharge calculated using the two equations
shows less errors than the conventional equation.
Influences that the application of hydraulic characteristics to
Manning’s Equation and Chezy’s Equation has on the estimation
of the stage-discharge curve equation were analyzed. To estimate
river discharge, hydraulic gradients in the two equations were
calculated using those characteristics, beyond the estimated stage-
discharge curve. Regression analyses based on actually-measured
velocity were undertaken to analyze stage-discharge relations.
Thus, this method takes into account various hydraulic factors to
estimate river discharge. Roughness coefficients were inversely
calculated using Manning’s mean velocity formula. And Power
Function n (= roughness coefficient) Model was developed
through linear regression analyses; a use of measured data sets in
a natural open channel by Da Cuuha (1969) and Toffaleti (1968)

Vol. 15, No. 5 / May 2011 − 935 −

 Tai Ho Choo, Sang Kil Park, Sang Jin Lee, and Ryun Su Oh

Fig. 15. Comparison of Discrepancy Ratio of Rating Curve Equation for Measured Data (Laboratory Channel): Measured Data Sets (Gov-
ernment of Bengal, 1965), (b) Measured Data Sets (Foley, 1975)

Fig. 16. Comparison of Discrepancy Ratio of Rating Curve Equation for Measured Data (Natural Open Channel): (a) Measured Data Sets
(U.S. Department of the Interior, 1958), (b) Measured Data Sets (Milhous, 1973)

resulted in n = 0.1523Q –0.235 and n = 0.0124Q 0.1734 , respec-
tively. A discharge formula, Q = A ⋅ V , was used to compare
measured discharge with predicted discharge, as shown in Eqs.
(9) and (10). Figs. 12(a) and 12(b) show their results:
R2 / 3I1 / 2 -
Q = A ⋅ V = A ⋅ ------------------------------
0.1523Q –0.235
R2 / 3I1 / 2 -
Q = A ⋅ V = A ⋅ ------------------------------
0.0124Q 0.1734
As seen in graphs plotted actively using actually-measured
data sets, the values of discharge calculated using Manning’s
Equation and Chezy’s Equation were found to be more ap-
proximate to actually-measured discharge than those of discharge
estimated using the conventional stage-discharge curve equation.
To verify this, measured and predicted data sets were compared
using their discrepancy ratios; that is, RD (discrepancy ratio
= log( Qp / Qm )) meaning the logarithmic ratio of predicted
discharge (Qp) to measured discharge (Qm), was considered. If
RD is more than 0, Qp has been overestimated. On the other hand,
if RD is less than 0, Qp has been underestimated. The distribution
of discharge values improved through the two velocity formulae
(Manning’s Equation & Chezy’s Equation) was compared with
that of discharge values estimated using the conventional
equation as shown in Figs. 15(a) and 15(b). As a result, discharge
values using the mean velocity equations that takes into physical
(9) properties were found to be more approximate to the values of
measured discharge. Similarly, Figs. 16(a) and 16(b) show the
same findings in a natural open channel in which the values of
(10) discharge were normally distributed.
7. Conclusions
For the improvement of the conventional stage-discharge
curve equation based on just stage, this study proposed a method
to continuously estimate discharge data through the two mean
velocity formulae (Manning’s Equation & Chezy’s Equation)
that take into account hydraulic characteristics, such as hydraulic
radius, bed slope, depth, etc.
To determine hydraulic gradients in Manning’s Equation and
Chezy”s Equation, actually-measured hydrological data sets
with objective reliability in a laboratory channel and natural open

− 936 − KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering

 Estimation of River Discharge Using Mean Velocity Equation
channel (addressed in the Albert University Report which was
prepared by Peterson & Howellsas with the help of Environment
Canada) were used.
According to the analysis of relations between the two equations
(Manning’s Equation & Chezy’s Equation) and measured data
sets in a laboratory channel by the Government of Bengal (1965),
Manning’s gradient and R2 were calculated as 96.044 (n = 0.0104)
and 0.7763, respectively, with 55.655 in Chezy’s gradient and
0.1768 in Chezy’s R2. The analysis of relations between the
two equations and measured data sets in a laboratory channel by
Foley (1975) revealed that Manning’s gradient and R2 were
calculated as 84.299 (n = 0.0118) and 0.8242, respectively, with
46.525 in Chezy’s gradient and 0.7703 in Chezy’s R2. In the
analysis of relations between the two equations and measured
data sets in a laboratory channel by Hill et al. (1969), Manning’s
gradient and R2 were calculated as 96.239 (n = 0.0103) and
0.8635, respectively, with 67.624 in Chezy’s gradient and 0.7966
in Chezy’s R2. And the analysis of relations between the two
equations and measured data sets in a laboratory channel by
Kalinske and Hsia (1945) showed that Manning’s gradient and R2
were calculated as 93.966 (n = 0.0106) and 0.9532, respectively,
with 64.441 in Chezy’s gradient and 0.9289 in Chezy’s R2.
In the analysis of relations between the two equations
(Manning’s Equation & Chezy’s Equation) and measured data
sets in a natural open channel (the Colorado River) by the U.S.
Department of the Interior (1958), Manning’s gradient were
calculated as 34.318 (n = 0.0309), with 39.531 in Chezy’s
gradient. The analysis of relations between the two equations and
measured data sets in a natural open channel (the Mountain
Creek) by Einstein (1944), revealed that Manning’s gradient were
calculated as 42.014 (n = 0.0238), with 33.205 in Chezy’s
gradient. According to the analysis of relations between the two
equations and measured data sets in a natural open channel (the
Niobrara River) by Colby and Hembree (1955), Manning’s
gradient and R2 were calculated as 39.999 (n = 0.0250) and
0.4445, respectively, with 35.115 in Chezy’s gradient and 0.4321
in Chezy’s R2. According to the analysis of relations between the
two equations and measured data sets in a natural open channel
(the Oak Creek) by Milhous (1973), Manning’s gradient and R2
were calculated as 17.9540 (n = 0.0556) and 0.7879, respectively,
with 15.1310 in Chezy’s gradient and 0.5780 in Chezy’s R2.
Roughness coefficients were inversely calculated using Manning’s
mean velocity formula. And Power Function n (= roughness
coefficient) Model was developed through linear regression
analyses; a use of measured data sets in a natural open
channel by Da Cunha (1969) and Toffaleti (1968) resulted in n =
0.1523 Q –0.235 and n = 0.0124 Q 0.1734 respectively. A discharge
formula, Q = A ⋅ V , was used to compare measured discharge
with predicted discharge. The values of discharge calculated
using Manning’s Equation and Chezy’s Equation were found to
be more approximate to actually-measured discharge than those
of discharge estimated using the conventional stage-discharge
curve equation. To verify this, measured and predicted data sets
were compared using their discrepancy ratios. As a result,
Vol. 15, No. 5 / May 2011 − 937 −
discharge values using the mean velocity equations that takes
into physical properties were found to be more approximate to
the values of measured discharge. But the proposed method has
constraints, such as steady and uniform flow. This suggests that it
has its own limitations in addressing non-steady flow. Therefore,
there is a need to undertake a further study to solve these kinds of
problems.
References
Bae, D. H., Han, G. Y., Park, J. W., and Baek, C. H. (2001).
“Establishment of GUI far the optimal roughness coefficient
estimation.” Proceedings of the Korea Water Resources Association
Conference 2001(II), pp. 757-762.
Chow, V. T. (1959). Open channel hydraulics, Mcgraw-Hill Book
Company, New York, N.Y.
Chu, T. H. (2002). “Velocity measuring method using the concept of
entropy(II) - Focusing on surface velocity.” Journal of the Korean
Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 22, No. 4B, pp. 507-515.
Colby, B. R. and Hembree, C. H. (1955). Computations of total
sediment discharge Niobrara River near Cody, Nebraska, Water-
Supply Paper 1357, U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C.
Da Cunha. L. V. (1969). “River mondego.” Portugal, Personal
Communication, Laboratorio Nacional De Engenharia Civil, Lisboa.
Einstein, H. A. (1944). “Bed load transportation in mountain creek,”
U.S. Soil Conservation Service, SCS-TP-55, 1944, p.50.
Foley, M. G. (1975). Scour and fillin ephemeral streams, W. M. Keck
Laboratory Report No. KH-R-33, California Institute of Technology,
Pasadena, California.
Government of Bengal (1965). Study on the critical tractive force
various grades of sand, Annual Report of the River Research
Institute, West Bengal, Publication No. 26, Part I, pp. 5-12.
Hill, H. M., Srinivasan, V.S., and Unny, T. E. (1969). “Instability of flat
bed in alluvial channels.” Journal of Hydraulics Division, ASCE,
Vol. 95, No. HY5, September 1969, pp. 1545-1558.
Ho, P.-Y. (1939). “Abhangigeit der geschiebebewegung von der
kornform und der temperature.” Preuss. Versuchsanst. fur
Wasserbau and Schiffbau, Berlin, Mitt., Vol. 37, pp. 43.
Kalinske, A. A. and Hsia, C. H. (1945). “Study of transportation of fine
sediments by flowing water.” Iowa University Studies in
Engineering, Bulletin 29, p. 30.
Kwon, H. H., Mun, Y. I., Choi, B. G., and Kim, M. S. (2008).
“Derivation and uncertainty analysis of rating curve using
hierarchical bayesian model.” Proceedings of the Korea Water
Resources Association Conference 2008, Korea Water Resources
Association, pp. 1211-1214.
Lee, C. H. and Jang, S. H. (2008). “Joint connection of stage-discharge
rating curves by cubic spline.” Proceedings of the Korea Water
Resources Association Conference 2008, Korea Water Resources
Association, pp. 199-203.
Lee, S. J. and Jeong, T. S. (2009). “Development of regression equations
for the water discharge eatimation in tidally affected rivers.” KSCE
Journal of Civil Engineering, Vol. 13, No. 3, pp. 195-203.
Leon, J. G., Calmant, S., Seyler, F., Bonnet, M.-P., Cauhopé, M.,
Frappart, I., Filizola, N., and Fraizy, P. (2006). “Rating curves and
estimation of average water depth at the upper Negro River based on
satellite altimeter data and modeled discharges.” Journal of
Hydrology, Vol. 328, Issues 3-4, pp. 481-496.
Meyer-Peter, E. and Muller, R. (1948). “Formulas for bed load
 Tai Ho Choo, Sang Kil Park, Sang Jin Lee, and Ryun Su Oh

transport.” Proceedings, Decond Meeting of International
Association for Hydraulic Structures Research, Stockholm, p. 26.
Milhous, R. T. (1973). Sediment transport in a gravel-bottomed stream,
PhD Thesis, Oregon State University, p. 232.
Petersen-Øverleir, A. and Reitan, T. (2009). “Accounting for rating
curve imprecision in flood frequency analysis using likelihood-
based methods.” Journal of Hydrology, Vol. 366, pp. 89-100.
Peterson, A. W. and Howells, R. F. (1973). “A compendium of solids
transport data for mobile boundary channels.” HY-1973-ST3.
Rahimpour, M. and Maghrebi, M. F. (2006). “Prediction of stage-
discharge curves in open-channels using a fixed-point velocity
measurement.” Flow Measurement and Instrumentation, Vol. 17,
Issue 5, October 2006, pp. 276-281.
Sahoo, G. B. and Ray, C. (2006). “Flow forecasting for a Hawaii stream
using rating curves and neural networks.” Journal of Hydrology,
Vol. 317, Issues 1-2, 5 February 2006, pp. 63-80.
Toffaleti, F. B. (1968). A procedure for computation of the total river
sand discharge and detailed distribution, Bed to Surface, Technical
Report No. 5, Committee of Channel Stabilization, Crops of
Engineers, U.S. Army, November.
United States Department of the Interior (1958). Interim report, total
sediment transport program, lower Colorado River basin, Bureau of
Reclamation, January 1958, p.175.
Yun, Y. N. (2008). Hydrology - Basics & applications, Cheongmungak.
Yun, S. G., Kim, J. S., Mun, Y. I., and An, J. H. (2008). “Hydraulic flood
routing using inverse roughness coefficient method.” Proceedings of
the Korea Water Resources Association Conference 2008, Korea
Water Resources Association, pp. 1654-1658.

− 938 − KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering

View publication stats