Numerical Investigations of

Momentum and Kinetic Energy

Correction Coefficients in
Circular Cross-Sections
Bouabdellah Guemou
Academic center of Ain Temouchent
Ain Temouchent, Algeria
e-mail: gomane8@yahoo.fr

Abdelali Seddini
Department of Hydraulics, University of Tlemcen, Algeria
e-mail: abdelseddini@yahoo.fr

Abderrahmane Ghenim
Department of Hydraulics, University of Tlemcen, Algeria
e-mail: anghenim@yahoo.fr

ABSTRACT
The main aim of this numerical study was to determine the momentum and kinetic energy correction
coefficients and to investigate the Relation between these two coefficients and the Reynolds number.
In this paper a numerical work was performed to study the variations of the momentum and kinetic
energy correction coefficients along a pipe shaped as the venturi meter apparatus. For that purpose, a
number of simulations have been carried out using a Finite Volume Method (FVM) and RSM SST for
the turbulence model. The result reveals that, first, the momentum and kinetic energy correction
coefficients (β and α) come in a very good agreement with the Reynolds number and the average
velocity in an exponential equation and second the linear equation of (Jaeger, 1956) between α and β is
verified. The discussion of the relation between the Reynolds number and the momentum and kinetic
energy correction coefficients proposed in this paper is promising and experiments in this field provide
more details about those coefficients.
KEYWORDS: correction coefficients, momentum, kinetic energy, numerical

INTRODUCTION
Energy and momentum principles are used in continuous application in our day-to-day water
conveyance activities. In open channel flow, normally the velocity distributions are not uniform over
the cross-section; hence, the velocity head and the momentum flux are generally greater than the
values computed by using the average velocity. These values may be corrected by using correction
coefficients. [1]

- 5233 -
 Vol. 22 [2017], Bund. 13 5234

In the application of the energy and momentum principles in pipes and channels, standard
hydraulic practice is to assume that the velocity is constant across a section and to ignore the fact that
there are boundary layers on all solid surfaces. This seems unnecessary and unsatisfactory. A simple
and approximate method of simulating the real flow is to introduce energy (Coriolis) and momentum
(Boussinesq) correction factors as fundamental to the process of describing real fluid flow. [2]
Often for simplicity in river engineering practice the velocity is considered uniform and analysis
is carried out considering energy or momentum approach. But any deviations from such theoretical
uniformity are usually accounted for by introduction of two coefficients, namely kinetic energy
correction coefficient α (also termed as Coriolis Coefficient) and momentum coefficient (β) (also
termed as Boussinesq coefficient). The former is applied when energy principle is adopted for
computation while the latter is introduced in case of momentum approach for computation. [3]
Kinetic energy and momentum correction coefficients, α and β, often are assumed to be unity
when the energy and momentum principles are used in the computations [4] (example, Chow, 1959;
Streeter and Wylie, 1979; French, 1987; Massey, 1989; Roberson and Crowe, 1998).
But because of the non-uniform distribution of velocities over a channel cross section, α and β
generally are greater than unity.
Different theoretical expressions for α and β based on different assumptions and conditions have
been derived by many authors (999) (Rouse, 1965; Golubtsov, 1976; Benedict, 1980; Fox and
McDonald, 1985; Chen,1991).
In this paper we have simulated the pipe flow using the RSM SST turbulence model. Four
Reynolds numbers have been simulated and investigated: two in the laminar regime and two in the
turbulent regime.
We have created 160 sections (40 sections for every Reynolds number) to compute the Kinetic
energy and momentum correction coefficients, α and β. We have extracted the velocity magnitude in
function of the area for every section and after a lot of work we have got α and β. The last step was to
work on a statistic model that better represent the relation between all those parameters (Reynolds
number, α, β, the mean velocity and maybe the diameter…).

THEORETICAL CONSIDERATIONS
Most presentations of the energy principle in hydraulics use Bernoulli’s equation, valid along a
streamline. In general the Bernoulli ”constant” varies across streamlines, a point that is not always
emphasized in lectures, books, or understood by students; and, for real fluids it varies along the
streamline, but by different amounts for different streamlines. It would be more satisfactory to use the
energy principle in hydraulics in an integrated sense. Many textbooks do this, but usually as an
afterthought. Similarly, the momentum principle has been treated inadequately, although it has always
been presented as an integral principle. Although the Coriolis and Boussinesq coefficients or energy
and momentum correction factors are mentioned in textbooks, also as an afterthought, they are rarely
applied. This neglect of the proper consideration of energy and momentum in practical flow problems
means that there can be up to a 5-10% error even in simple flow calculations. [2]
In elementary hydraulics, the total energy per unit weight of the flowing fluid on any stream line
passing through a channel section may be expressed as the total head, which is equal to the sum of the
elevation above a datum, the pressure head and the velocity head. [5]
As mentioned previously, the velocity distribution is non-uniform in open channel flow. As a
result, the velocity head of an open channel flow is generally greater than the value computed by
using the average velocity.
 Vol. 22 [2017], Bund. 13 5235

Influence of the velocity distribution

In general, each streamline passing through a channel section has a different velocity head due to
the non-uniform velocity distribution. On the other hand, in open channel flow when the energy
principle is used, it is customary to use average velocity and write the head at a section rather than on
each streamline. Hence, as a result of non-uniform velocity distribution, the velocity head of an open
channel flow is generally greater than the value computed by using the average velocity. [5]
The developments of the Energy and momentum principles were obtained assuming (or implying)
uniform velocity distributions: i.e. the velocity was assumed constant over the entire cross-section. In
practice, the velocity distribution is not uniform because of the bottom and sidewall friction. [6]
Different theoretical expressions for α and β are based on different assumptions and conditions
that have been derived by many authors (Streeter, 1942; Iwasa, 1954; Rouse, 1965; Golubtsov, 1976;
Benedict, 1980; Fox and McDonald, 1985; Chen, 1991). [5]

Momentum correction coefficient

If the velocity distribution is not uniform over the cross-section, a correction coefficient must be
introduced in the momentum equation if the average velocity is used. The momentum correction
factor β is defined as:

∫𝐴𝐴 𝜌𝜌𝑉𝑉 2 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑

𝛽𝛽 = (1)
𝜌𝜌𝑈𝑈 2 𝐴𝐴
where V is the mean velocity over a cross section (i.e. U=Q/A). The momentum correction coefficient
is sometimes called the Boussinesq coefficient (the Boussinesq coefficient is named after J.
Boussinesq, French mathematician (1842-1929) who proposed it first (Boussinesq, 1877)). [6]

Kinetic energy correction coefficient

If the velocity varies across the section, the mean of the velocity head (V²/2g) mean is not equal
to (U²/2g), where the subscript means refers to the mean value over the cross section. The ratio of
these quantities is called the Coriolis coefficient, denoted α and defined as:

∫𝐴𝐴 𝜌𝜌𝑉𝑉 3 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑

𝛼𝛼 = (2)
𝜌𝜌𝑈𝑈 3 𝐴𝐴
The Coriolis correction coefficient is sometimes called the kinetic energy coefficient (the Coriolis
coefficient is named after G.G. Coriolis, French engineer, who introduced first the correction
coefficient (Coriolis, 1836). [6] [7]

For the two equations of the Kinetic energy and momentum correction coefficients (α and β): V is
the point velocity at each point in the cross section, U is the cross-sectional mean velocity, A the
whole water area, and dA the elementary area in the whole water area.
For the case where the velocities are unidirectional but non uniform across the section (I),
(Jaeger, 1956) found that:
1 𝑉𝑉−𝑈𝑈 3
𝛼𝛼 − 1 = 3(𝛽𝛽 − 1) + ∫𝐴𝐴 � � 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 (3)
𝐴𝐴 𝑈𝑈
However, A. Lencastre (1979) in [10] gives an approximated relation as fellow:
 Vol. 22 [2017], Bund. 13 5236

𝛼𝛼 − 1 = 3(𝛽𝛽 − 1) (4)

The venturi meter apparatus

The venturi Meter is typical of meters used throughout industry. It allows full study of the
pressure distribution along the convergent divergent passage. The apparatus includes a horizontal
Venturi tube, a downstream flow-control valve and manometer tubes. A manometer panel holds the
manometer tubes vertically. A common manifold above the tubes has an air pressure control valve.
The base has adjustable feet. The manometer panel has a scale behind the manometer tubes for direct
reading of the water levels in the tubes (figure1).

Figure 1: The experimental venturi meter apparatus

NUMERICAL SIMULATIONS
Numerical models are often used for turbulent flow investigations. [8] Flow observations reveal
that a complex flow pattern occurs even in the case of a simple geometric hydraulic structure. [9] The
main purpose of this numerical simulation is to provide the exact velocity distribution in all sections
and consequently to simplify the calculation of the kinetic energy and momentum correction
coefficients.
In this section we present the turbulence model, the geometric setup and the boundary conditions
used along all simulations.
The turbulence model chosen in this paper (RSM SST) is known for his ability to capture the rich
dynamic structures in such flow configurations.

The governing equation

Throughout the past several decades, numerical models have been paid more and more attention
for turbulent flow studies. The three dimensional Navier-stockes and continuity equations can be
written as follows:
 Vol. 22 [2017], Bund. 13 5237

�𝑖𝑖
𝜕𝜕𝑢𝑢
=0 (5)
𝜕𝜕𝑥𝑥𝑖𝑖
�𝑖𝑖
𝜕𝜕𝑢𝑢 �𝑖𝑖 𝑢𝑢
𝜕𝜕𝑢𝑢 �𝑗𝑗 1 𝜕𝜕𝑃𝑃� �𝑖𝑖
𝜕𝜕²𝑢𝑢 𝜕𝜕𝜏𝜏𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖
+ =− + 𝜗𝜗 � �+� � (6)
𝜕𝜕𝑡𝑡𝑖𝑖 𝜕𝜕𝑥𝑥𝑗𝑗 𝜌𝜌 𝜕𝜕𝑥𝑥𝑖𝑖 𝜕𝜕𝑥𝑥²𝑗𝑗 𝜕𝜕𝑥𝑥𝑗𝑗

where Xi=1, 2, 3 denotes the stream-wise and vertical directions, respectively, u� i time average or
filtered velocity components in the mentioned directions, P � time average or filtered pressure, ρ the
density, ϑ the kineatic viscosity of the fluid, and τij Reynolds shear stresses or sub grid shear stresses.

The geometry and mesh

The geometry used in the simulations is a reproduction of an experimental device (the venturi
meter apparatus) at the scale 1 (figure 2), the geometry is 0.4 m long and 0.026m diameter at the inlet
and the smallest section is 0.016m diameter at 0.225m from the inlet.

Figure 2: Geometry of the venturi meter apparatus

The geometry is meshed in hexahedra element, we have generated 247417 elements (figure 3),
and we have got a good mesh quality (aspect ratio and skewness). For the boundary conditions, the
inflow consists of a velocity inlet and its located upstream of the datum, at a distance of 241mm. The
outlet boundary condition consists of pressure outlet and it’s located at 159mm downstream of the
datum. The tube is set as smooth wall.

Figure 3: Mesh of a section of the venturi meter apparatus

 Vol. 22 [2017], Bund. 13 5238

Calculation procedure
A partial method of arriving at the values of α and β is a semi graphical and arithmetical solution
based on planimetered areas of isovels plotted from data measurable at the cross section. Kinetic
energy and momentum correction coefficients α and β are computed using equation (1) and (2) above
with the graphical method or the velocity area method where the flow area is divided into small areas
(number of grid cells) and local velocities are computed in each one and finally we have integrated
them to get the average velocity, α and β. The numerical code used in this work allows us to get a
precise partial area and velocities distributions.
For four different discharges (four Reynolds number in the inlet), the computed values of kinetic
energy and momentum correction coefficients of forty sections are used in this work, the geometric
configuration includes a convergent divergent where the sections are located to get different measures
of the velocity, the area, α and β.
In the numerical model (after convergence) first, we create the section (example of the section E:
at x=0.248m from the inlet), then we plot the velocity distribution (presented in the figure 4), after
that we extract the histogram of the velocity distribution in function of the partial area (table1).

Figure 4: velocity magnitude distribution in the section E (at x=0.248m from the inlet)
To get better results we have worked on 40 sections for every Reynolds number configuration
(from x=0.240m to x=0.28m with the interval of 1 mm between sections), and we have changed the
velocity inlet for four values: two values to get laminar Reynolds number and two for the turbulent
Reynolds number, this procedure has provided to us 160 values of α and β and that gives accuracy to
the equation developed below.

Table 1: velocity magnitude distribution in the section E (at x=0.248m from the inlet)
Si (With V>Vi) V V² V3
0 1,83784231 3,37766436 6,20761446
0,0001451 1,74594932 3,04833903 5,32224545
0,00016985 1,65405725 2,73590539 4,52534414
0,00017381 1,56216518 2,44036005 3,8122455
0,00019744 1,47027311 2,16170302 3,17829382
0,00020387 1,37838104 1,89993429 2,6188334
0,0002049 1,28648897 1,65505387 2,12920855
0,0002211 0 0 0
 Vol. 22 [2017], Bund. 13 5239

To compute the kinetic energy and momentum correction coefficients α and β in a precise
section, we have to extract data for each section (velocity averaged area), we have first of all
represented graphically the variations of the sections S1, S2, etc. where the velocity is superior to V1,
V2, etc. in function of V1, V2, etc. that gives us the graph (V), doing the same operation with V1² and
V2², etc. we get the graph (V²), and with V13, V23, etc. we get the graph (V3) all graphs are plotted on
the Figure 4. [10]
The average velocity U is computed by dividing the area between the graph (V) and the OS axe
by the section area S. For every section of the 160 sections we have compute ∫ V²dA and ∫ 𝑉𝑉 3 dA
(the area between the graph V² and the graph V3 and the axe OS).
The correction coefficient α is obtained by dividing the area between the graph (V3) by U3S, and
by the same operation the correction coefficient β is obtained by dividing the area between the graph
V2 and the OS axe by U2S. [10]

Figure 5: Calculation procedure of α and β using the graphical method

MODEL VALIDATION
The validation of the numerical simulation results is a very important step; it provides the
accuracy to our numerical investigations.
For the purpose of validation we have choose one of the four Reynolds numbers at the inlet of the
numerical configurations Re (at the inlet) =18590 and we have reproduce the experience in the
hydraulic laboratory of Ain Temouchent university, we have first fixed a velocity (the inlet velocity
in Fluent=0.715m/s) and then we have compute the flow rate from that mean velocity (Q=US), after
 Vol. 22 [2017], Bund. 13 5240

that we have lunch experiences using the venturi meter apparatus (exactly the same geometry that we
have reproduced in Fluent at the beginning of this research).
The venturi allows the direct measurement of the static head distribution along a tube (see the
venturi figure), to get a better comparison we have compute the static head differences between two
successive sections.
Finally, on the numerical model we have created sections in the same order and distances as the
experimental configuration and also we have computed the static pressures differences between two
successive sections.
All results of the validation process are represented in the table below:
Table 2: Numerical and experimental static pressures differences
between two successive sections
Sections Distance P/ρg (Pi-Pi+1) /ρg (Pi-Pi+1) /ρg
from the Inlet (Experimental) (Experimental) (Numerical)
section
A 0.187m 0.213m (PA/ρg- PB/ρg)=0.7cm (PA/ρg- PB/ρg)=1.64cm
B 0.207m 0.206m (PB/ρg- PC/ρg)=6.3cm (PB/ρg- PC/ρg)=6.03 cm
C 0.219m 0.143m (PC/ρg- PD/ρg)=9.8cm (PC/ρg- PD/ρg)=9.31cm
D 0.233m 0.045m (PD/ρg- PE/ρg)=2.2cm (PD/ρg- PE/ρg)=2.5cm
E 0.248m 0.067m (PE/ρg- PF/ρg)=4.8cm (PE/ρg- PF/ρg)=4.315cm
F 0.263m 0.115m (PF/ρg- PG/ρg)=2.6cm (PF/ρg- PG/ρg)=2.64cm
G 0.278m 0.141m (PG/ρg- PH/ρg)=1cm (PG/ρg- PH/ρg)=1.61cm
H 0.293m 0.158m (PH/ρg- PJ/ρg)=1cm (PH/ρg- PJ/ρg)=1.08 cm
J 0.308m 0.168m (PJ/ρg- PK/ρg)=0.9cm (PJ/ρg- PK/ρg)=0.74cm
K 0.323m 0.177m (PK/ρg- PL/ρg)=0.6cm (PK/ρg- PL/ρg)=0.48cm
L 0.343m 0.183m // //

Graphical representations of the comparison tell us that a good concordance exists between the
numerical and experimental results. As shows in the figure 6 the numerical static pressure differences
comes in good agreement with the experimental static pressure differences. This validation provides
recognition to the numerical work.
 Vol. 22 [2017], Bund. 13 5241

10

8 y = 0.9603x
R² = 0.9761
7
(Pi-Pi+1)/ρg Nuerical

0
0 2 4 6 8 10
(Pi-Pi+1)/ρg Experimental

Figure 6: Numerical and experimental static pressures differences

between two successive sections

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

The velocity distribution in the flumes was determined mainly by the shape and roughness of the
channel (or the pipe). It is well known that the values of may exceed 2 (example: Chow, 1959;
French, 1987) for natural channels where the velocity distribution and roughness effects are often
different from those of the laboratory flumes. Jaeger (1968) demonstrated that depended on the
friction coefficient only if uniform flow is considered. [4]
Prabir et al in [3] précises that both the kinetic energy and momentum coefficients reach high
values with low overbank flow or at small relative depth, at low overbank depths due to large widths
of flood plain attached to a comparably small trapezoidal main channel, the slow moving flow in
floodplains interact with fast moving main channel flow intensely and considerable momentum
exchange takes place giving rise to large non uniformity in lateral velocity distribution such intense
exchange of momentum between faster and deeper main channel flow and slower and shallower
floodplain flow at low relative depth in case of a compound channel has been well researched and
documented in literature in past ([11], [12],[13]). [3]
Using the velocity distribution data and through the graphical method, the kinetic and momentum
correction coefficients are computed using equations 1 and 2 for the current numerical work. We have
created 160 sections (40 sections for every Reynolds number) to compute the Kinetic energy and
momentum correction coefficients, α and β. The purpose was to find a statistic model that better
represent the relation between all those parameters (Reynolds number, α, β, the mean velocity and the
diameter).
 Vol. 22 [2017], Bund. 13 5242

Investigation of the relation between α and β

Some of the more scholarly books on the subject include Jaeger (1956, Chapter II, §7 & 9) who
incorporated the effects of non-uniformity of velocity distribution using Coriolis and Boussinesq
coefficients in channel flow expressions. Montes (1998, Chapter 2) included both in his fundamental
equations for open channel flows; gave numerical values from experiments including the effects on
converging and diverging flows; and included the coefficients in all the equations involved with
energy and momentum considerations. These seem to be the most satisfactory presentations, and it is
surprising that other textbooks of a more fluid mechanical nature give less satisfactory treatments. [2]
Lot of authors (jaeger, Lencastre, Galip Seckin et al, Cobb..) have developed an equation between
α and β. In this work we have investigated this relation and we have found that a good agreement
exists between (α-1) and (β-1) this equation comes as:
(𝛼𝛼 − 1) = 3.088(𝛽𝛽 − 1) − 0.051 With R²=99.4% (7)

0.8

0.7
y = 3.088916x - 0.051628
0.6 R² = 0.994092

0.5
α-1

0.4

0.3
y = 2.7726x
0.2 R² = 0.9814

0.1

0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
β-1
Figure 6: Investigation of the relation between (α-1) and (β-1)

Then to make a comparison with Lencastre (1979) equation, we have plotted a linear line trend
and we have got the equation bellow with a very good correlation number

𝛼𝛼 − 1 = 2,77(𝛽𝛽 − 1) With R2=98.13% (8)

 Vol. 22 [2017], Bund. 13 5243

Galip Seçkin et al in [I] using 37 data of α and β have found that

𝛼𝛼 − 1 = 2,7336(𝛽𝛽 − 1) With a determination coefficient of 0.9934 (9)

In addition to the relationship between (α-1) and (β-1), the relationship between α and β is given
by equation as follows:

α = 2.6777β - 1.6748 the determination coefficient is 0.994.
 [I] (10)

Others, as Cobb (1968) using 105 corresponding α and β values from open channels found the
following empirical relation:
𝛼𝛼 = 2,66𝛽𝛽 − 1,66 (11)

In this numerical work we have found two equations between α and β, the first one is based on
the equation (10) with less correlation number but it’s similar to other authors equation

𝛼𝛼 = 2,77𝛽𝛽 − 1,77 With R2=98,13% (12)

Then, the second equation is based on a new mathematical correlation with high correlation
number 99,40%.

1.8

1.6

1.4

1.2
y = 3.088916x - 2.140544
1 R² = 0.994092
α

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
1 1.05 1.1 1.15 1.2 1.25
β
Figure 7: Investigation of the relation between α and β
 Vol. 22 [2017], Bund. 13 5244

The computed values of the kinetic energy and momentum correction coefficients, α and β, are
plotted in Figures 7, it indicates that the values of α and β are strongly related, and other authors
confirm this observation. [2]
These coefficients depend only on the velocity distribution and this distribution can be multiplied
by a constant to change the mean velocity and the values of α and β will be unchanged.

Investigation of the relation between α, β and the Mean

Velocity U
The aims of this study was to find a relation between the correction coefficients (α and β) and
Reynolds number or the mean velocity, in this section we investigate the relation between the kinetic
energy and momentum correction coefficients and the mean velocity. For that purpose, we have first
plotted the values of α and the mean velocity for different Reynolds number (figure 8).

Relation between the kinetic energy correction coefficient (α) and the
cross-sectional mean velocity (U).
1.8
388<Re<485
1.7
y = -22.344x + 2.1661
1162<Re<1448
1.6
R² = 0.9044
3865<Re<4811

1.5 23039<Re<28672
y = -7.0775x + 1.9469
R² = 0.9693
1.4
α

y = -2.0633x + 1.7606
1.3
R² = 0.9982

1.2 y = -0.1563x + 1.3566

R² = 0.937

1.1
y = 1.214x-0.2
R² = 0.9667
1
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
U(m/s)
Figure 8: Investigation of the relation between α and the mean velocity

The first observation that for the 160 values of α and the mean velocity (80 value for laminar
flow, 40 value for Transient flow and 40 value for turbulent flow) the data are distributed in
accordance with the Reynolds number range. A very good linear agreement exists for the transient
Reynolds number with the correlation number of 99,82%, less values of the relation coefficient are
observed in the other Reynolds number ranges but a linear trend line is good for the laminar flow and
 Vol. 22 [2017], Bund. 13 5245

the transition flow. For the turbulent flow the best model is the power model, the data becomes a little
curved in the turbulent flows.
High values of α are observed in the case of laminar flow (α =1,7) and α get lower when the
velocity gets higher and the flow becomes turbulent (α=1,08).
The other observation is that for the laminar flow, when the mean velocity changes slowly α
moves considerably but for full turbulent flow slow variations of both α and the mean velocity.
For the investigation between the momentum correction coefficient β and the mean velocity, we
have the similar observations for the four ranges of Reynolds number; the relation between β and the
mean velocity was strong in the case of transient flow (figure 9).

Relation between the momentum correction coefficient (β) and the

cross-sectional mean velocity (U).
1.3
388<Re<485

1.25
1162<Re<1448
y = -5.1184x + 1.3416
R² = 0.8233 3865<Re<4811
1.2

y = -1.8599x + 1.2948 23039<Re<28672

R² = 0.9285
1.15
β

y = -0.6907x + 1.2695
1.1 R² = 0.9941
y = -0.0538x + 1.1339
R² = 0.9351
1.05
y = 1.0844x-0.074
R² = 0.9625
1
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
U(m/s)
Figure 9: Investigation of the relation between β and the mean velocity

The maximum value of β is 1,23 was observed at laminar flow and the lower value of β is 1,04
observed at high Reynolds number, in the turbulent range of Reynolds number.
Even if there is a strong relation between α, β and the mean velocity in transition flow but in
general there is no clear relation between α, β and the mean velocity for the whole Reynolds number
range, so we need to introduce other parameters with α, β and the mean velocity to get a relation for
the full ranges of Reynolds number.
 Vol. 22 [2017], Bund. 13 5246

Investigation of the relation between α, β and the

Reynolds number
In the literature, the kinetic energy correction coefficients value for a fully developed laminar
pipe flow is around 2, whereas for a turbulent pipe flow it is between 1.04 to 1.11. It is usual to take it
is 1 for a turbulent flow. It should not be neglected for a laminar flow; the relation between the kinetic
energy and momentum correction coefficients and the Reynolds number is indisputable.
In this part of the numerical work, we have introduced the Reynolds number in the research of an
equation for the kinetic energy and momentum correction coefficients. We have first made a few
combinations of the average velocity, the Reynolds number and α. The best model is illustrated in the
graph bellow, where α/Re is represented in function with the average velocity (U).

The average velocity (U ) function of α/Re

2

1.8

1.6

1.4

1.2
U (m/s)

0.8

0.6 y = 0.000137x-0.920250
0.4
R² = 0.999188
0.2

0
0 0.0005 0.001 0.0015 0.002 0.0025 0.003 0.0035 0.004 0.0045 0.005
α/Re
Figure 10: Investigation of the relation between α/Re and the mean velocity

A very high correlation coefficient was observed (99,92%) for the four ranges of the Reynolds
number. We have got an equation for the average velocity, the Reynolds number and α that satisfy
our numerical work. We have found that:
𝛼𝛼 𝐵𝐵
𝑈𝑈 = 𝐴𝐴 � � With A=0,000137 and B= -0,92025 (13)
𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅
 Vol. 22 [2017], Bund. 13 5247

Then second, the same combination of the Reynolds number, the average velocity and the
momentum correction coefficient β, have been used and we have also got an equation with high
correlation coefficient (the graph bellow). We have found that:
𝛽𝛽 𝐵𝐵′
𝑈𝑈 = 𝐴𝐴′ � � With A’=0,00008 and B’= -0,96809 (14)
𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅

The coefficient A, B, A’ and B’ of the equations may be related to other parameters (the viscosity
or the pipe diameter,..) further investigations may confirm this or not.
Other combinations have been used but low correlation coefficients have been observed and the
best result is presented in this investigations.

The average velocity (U) function of β/Re

2

1.8

1.6

1.4

1.2
U (m/s)

0.8

0.6
y = 0.00008x-0.96809
R² = 0.99844
0.4

0.2

0
0.00E+00 5.00E-04 1.00E-03 1.50E-03 2.00E-03 2.50E-03 3.00E-03 3.50E-03
β/Re
Figure 11: Investigation of the relation between β /Re and the mean velocity

When using the Bernoulli’s equation in the case of laminar flow where both the kinetic energy
and momentum correction coefficients α and β had high values, we should get α and β. Usually to get
those coefficients we must use the velocity distribution in the cross section. In this numerical
investigation we have found a relation between the two coefficients and the Reynolds number and the
average velocity, it’s a simple and exact way to get these two correction coefficients.
 Vol. 22 [2017], Bund. 13 5248

CONCLUSION
Kinetic energy and momentum correction coefficients, α and β, are often used to be unity when
the energy and momentum principles are used in the hydraulic computations. However, because of
nonuniform distribution of velocities over a channel section, α and β, are generally greater than unity
and the values of α and β are related to the Reynolds number.
In the present study, a series of numerical work was conducted to investigate the momentum and
kinetic energy coefficients in circular cross-sections. The values of α and β
In 160 sections was used with four ranges of Reynolds number (two laminar, one transient and
one turbulent).
The aims of this numerical study were to investigate and find a relation between α or β and the
average velocity and the Reynolds number. From the analysis of the numerical results, the following
conclusions can be drawn: First, we have found that the relation between α and β developed in this
numerical investigation comes in good agreement with the work of lot of authors (jaeger, Lencastre,
Galip Seckin et al, Cobb..) this relation can be written as:
𝛼𝛼 − 1 = 2,77(𝛽𝛽 − 1) With R2=98,13%
Second, for all the Reynolds number ranges we have found two relations for α and β in function
of the average velocity and the Reynolds number with a very good correlation coefficient (99%), this
relation comes as:
𝛼𝛼 𝐵𝐵
𝑈𝑈 = 𝐴𝐴 � � With A=0,000137 and B= -0,92025
𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅
𝛽𝛽 𝐵𝐵′
𝑈𝑈 = 𝐴𝐴′ � � With A’=0,00008 and B’= -0,96809
𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅
With U: the average velocity, Re: the Reynolds number.
Finally, in view of the above findings and for further studies, it is suggested that the relation
developed in this paper should be investigated and tested on experimental configurations.
Vol. 22 [2017], Bund. 13 5249

REFERENCES
[1] Issam A. Al-Khatib, Investigation of momentum and kinetic energy correction
coefficients in asymmetric compound cross-section flumes, Turkish Journal of
Engineering & Environmental Sciences, Vol 37, pp 69 – 78
, 2013
[2] John D. Fenton, On The Energy And Momentum Principles In Hydraulics , Xxxi Iahr
Congress, September 11~16, 2005, Seoul, Korea
[3] Prabir K Mohanty, Saine S Dash, Kishanjit K Khatua and Kanhu C Patra, Energy and
momentum coefficients for wide compound channels, conference paper, Mai 2013
[4] Galip Seçkin, Mehmet Ardiçlioglu, Hatice Çagatay, Murat Çobaner and Recep Yurtal,
Experimental investigation of kinetic energy and momentum correction coefficients in
open channels, scientific research and essay Vol 40 (5) pp, 473-478, April 2009
[5] Issam A. Al-Khatib, Mustafa Gogus: Momentum and Kinetic Energy Coefficients in
Symmetrical Rectangular Compound Cross Section Flumes, Tr. J. of Engineering and
Environmental Science, Vol 23, pp 187 – 197.
 1999
[6] Hubert Chanson, Hydraulics of Open Channel Flow: an introduction, Elsevier
Butterworth Heinemann edition, second edition 2004
[7] Saad Bennis, Hydraulique et hydrologie, 2e edition, edition presses de l’université du
québec, 2009
[8] Pasiok. R, Stilger-Szydło. E, Sediment particles and turbulent flow simulation around
bridge piers, Archives of civil and mechanical engineering Volume X, Institute of
Geotechnics and Hydrotechnics, Wrocław University of Technology, Wybrzeże
Wyspiańskiego 27, 50-370 Wrocław, Poland, 2010.
[9] Graf. W. H, Istiarto. I, Flow pattern in the scour hole around a cylinder , Journal of
Hydraulic Research, Vol. 40, No. 1, 2002, pp. 13–20.
[10] Armando Lencastre, manuel d’hydraulique générale, eyrolles edition, seventh edition
1979
[11] Bousmar, D and Zech Y, Momentum transfer for practical flow computation in
compound channels, journal of hydraulic engineering, ASCE, Vol 125, N 7 pp 696-906
july 1999.
[12] Khatua K K, Patra K C and Mohanty, P K, stage Discharge prediction for straight and
smooth compound channels with wide floodplains, J. hydr. Eng, ASCE, 138, 93(2012).
[13] Anderson M G, Walling, D.E.S and Bates, P. D, Floodplain Processes, J. Wiley 1-658,
1996
Other papers in EJGE on Numerical Investigation:
[14] Liu Jianjun and Luo Wei: “Numerical Investigation of Oil Reservoir Fracture
Propagation during Waterflooding Process” Electronic Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering, 2014 (19.N) pp 3367-3375.
[15] Liu Jianjun and Luo Wei: “Numerical Investigation of Oil Reservoir Fracture
Propagation during Waterflooding Process” Electronic Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering, 2014 (19.N) pp 3367-3375.
Vol. 22 [2017], Bund. 13 5250

[16] Liu JianJun and Li Guang: “Numerical Simulation of CO2 Flooding Coal Bed Methane
Considered Mixture Shrinkage Effect” Electronic Journal of Geotechnical Engineering,
2012 (17.Z) pp3797-3802. Available at ejge.com.

© 2017 ejge

Editor’s note.
This paper may be referred to, in other articles, as:
Bouabdellah Guemou, Abdelali Seddini, and Abderrahmane Ghenim:
“Numerical Investigations of Momentum and Kinetic Energy Correction
Coefficients in Circular Cross-Sections” Electronic Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, 2017 (22.13), pp 5233-5250. Available at
ejge.com.