KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering pISSN 1226-7988, eISSN 1976-3808

DOI 10.1007/s12205-021-1576-6 www.springer.com/12205

Hydraulic Engineering

Friction Coefficient Equation in a Gravel Bed under Bedload Regime

Using the Dimensional Analysis
a
Herizi Toufik and Hasbaia Mahmoudb
aDépartement Hydraulique, Faculté de Technologie, Université de Bejaia, Bejaia 06000, Algeria
bCEHSD Laboratory, University of M'sila, M'sila 28000, Algeria

ARTICLE HISTORY ABSTRACT

Received 1 September 2020 The wadis in Algeria organize the beds as gravel by transporting fine sediments form through
Revised 1st 21 December 2020 hydrosedimentary dynamic of intermittent flood events along the time. In this paper, a new
Revised 2nd 11 March 2021 flow resistance equation is proposed for gravel bed bedload regime. Due to the field
Accepted 1 June 2021 measurements lack in wadis, the study is based on 2,147 flume data with friction factor
Published Online 19 Ju
J ly 2021 measurements. The development of convenient equation is achieved through theoretical
analysis by taking into account wadi dominant parameters based on dimensional analysis.
KEYWORDS Hence, deduced relationships are considered between friction coefficient f, the flow
characteristics, bed grains size, geometric parameter and bed slope. The proposed equation
Flow resistance gives satisfactory results; the estimated mean normalized error is less than 17%.
Gravel bed
Wadi
Bedload
Free-surface flow
Hydraulic structure

1. Introduction Manning coefficient and C is the Chézy coefficient. Each formula

The accurate estimation of friction coefficient in open channel is
still considered as challenge, despite significant research efforts
in recent decades.
The pioneering study is due to Strickler (1923) sought to
estimate the grain resistance as Strickler coefficient based on the
grain size of the bed (Ks = 21.1/D1/6). His contribution was
proven experimentally a few years later.
There are three commonly used formulas to calculate flow
velocity; the first flow resistance equation suggested as the
Manning's equation, which continues to be widely used all
over the world and another two previous general formulas are
known in the literature as, the Chezy and Darcy-Weisbach
equations. These equations can be related to each other for a
uniform flow in the following form (Ferro, 1999; Powell,
2014):
So Rh 8 g Rh S o
1/ 2 2/3
employs a single resistance coefficient. The central problem in
using these equations is the evaluation of the coefficients. Generally,
Darcy's friction coefficient is used, because it is dimensionless.
According to Ferro (2018) among the methods used to evaluate
the Darcy friction coefficient f, there is a method based on
integration of the velocity profile, where the measured ratio U/
U* is used; herein U* is the shear velocity.
For a uniform flow in open channel systems, the friction factor f
can be expressed also by Darcy–Weisbach equation given below:
8 U U
= = . (2)
f g Rh So U *
To calculate the shear velocity U*, there are three methods,
which are based on energy slope S according to Eq. (2) or by
extrapolation of U(z) to zero on a semi-logarithmic graph or
by extrapolation of the measured Reynolds shear stress
profile (t = − ρu'ν ') to the mean bed level, in which u' and ν '

U= = C Rh S o = , (1) are the turbulent fluctuations (Song et al., 1998). According

n f to Song et al. (1995) for a uniform flow, the three methods yield
in which f is the Darcy-Weisbach friction factor, (n = 1/ ks) is the the same results, with an error less than 5%. On the other hand,

CORRESPONDENCE Herizi Toufik herizitoufik@yahoo.fr Dept. of Hydraulics, Faculty of Technology, University of Bejaia, Bejaia 06000, Algeria
ⓒ 2021 Korean Society of Civil Engineers
2 H. Toufik and H. Mahmoud
8 U
= is calculated from bed slope So and hydraulic radius
f U *
Rh as it is in Eq. (2).
Through the results of several studies (Bathurst, 1982; Ferguson,
2007; Rickenmann and Recking, 2011; Di Stefano et al., 2017;
Namaee and Whitcombe, 2017), it has been observed as the
relative depth Rh/D increases, the coefficient f decreases. This
finding shows the dominant role of grain size to estimate the
friction coefficient in a gravel bed.
One can cite other friction sources, among the factors affecting
the friction phenomenon, herein; these are the bed shape (dune,
antidune, ripple, etc.) and the bedload (Palucis et al., 2018).
Bedload implies the resistance resulting from solid transport,
especially in alluvial rivers, where this type of resistance develops
(Bathurst et al., 1983; Colosimo et al., 1988; Song et al., 1998;
Bergeron and Carbonneau, 1999; Omid et al., 2010). There is
resistance due to the bed shape, because the natural beds of
watercourses do not keep the same configuration (Hill, 1967;
Gladki, 1979; Ashmore and Rennie, 2012). Flow resistance in
gravel beds is due to both solid grains and bed shapes (Afzalimhr
et al., 2007).
Flow velocity in a bed with dunes can be 60% smaller than
that in a rigid and flat bed (Yu and Lim, 2003). In gravel beds,
the shear stress due to the bedforms is greater than that due to
bed grains by three times the critical stress of Shields in subcritical
flow and five times in supercritical flow (Griffiths, 1989). López
et al. (2007) have summarized numerous works based on flow
resistance evaluation without explicit estimation of friction
coefficient. Golubstov (1969), Bray (1979), Jarrett (1984), and
Sauer (1990) proposed formulas developed based on the
correlations between Manning coefficient n (or friction coefficient f)
and representative variables of flow (energy gradient S, and hydraulic
radius Rh). Riggs (1976), Williams (1978), Dingman and Sharma
(1997), Bjerklie et al. (2003, 2005) assumed that Manning coefficient
is a function of hydraulic radius Rh and the energy gradient S.
They proposed relations among flow discharge Q, Rh and S through
statistical multiple regression techniques. López et al. (2007)
calibrated and validated three types of such relationships based
on 904 data from gravel rivers and mountain streams.
In this study; the interest lies in flow resistance for a gravel
bed under bedload regime, which is the case of the most Algerian
wadis regime. The scientific literature is rich in contributions to
evaluate this resistance, in particular based on friction coefficient
estimation. In this objective, many formulas are proposed for the
friction coefficient as function of the phenomenon parameters
like grains size D, mean flow velocity U, hydraulic radius Rh,
fluid density ρ, fluid viscosity μ and bed slope So. In open
channel flow, the flow resistance laws are established on the
basis of those proposed for pipe. According to the pioneering
work of Keulegan (1938), for rough turbulent flows, the friction
coefficient f can be related directly to the flow’s relative roughness
Rh/k (Recking, 2006; Powell, 2014; Banerjee et al., 2018). This
verdict can be explained by the dominance of the effect of
relative roughness in friction; moreover, the term relative to
regime type in flow resistance laws (e.i., in Collebrook law) is
negligible because it is divided by high Reynold number. By
statistical analysis of data, Griffiths (1981) observed that in
gravel bed flow the relative depth (Rh/D) explains about 59% of
friction coefficient, while Froude number (Fr) and shape parameters
explain only 9%, 3%, respectively. In several approaches, the
friction coefficient is related to Rh/D ratio only (Ghriffiths, 1981;
Nikora and Smart, 1997; Julien, 2002; Cao et al., 2006; Banerjee
et al., 2018). Other approaches have proposed expressions of
friction coefficient using Froude number Fr, Reynolds number
Re and bed slope So (Ferro, 2018; Ferro and Porto (2018, 2019);
Di Stefano et al., 2019).
The influence of bedload on flow resistance has been studied
by many researchers. Chien and Wan (1999) confirmed that the
friction coefficient value in flow with bedload is higher than in
clear water flow, which is illustrated by the decrease in flow
velocity against increases in the length of apparent roughness as
proportions related to the thickness of the moving sediment layer
(Mendicino and Colosimo, 2019). Wang et al. (1998) carried out
experiments on the variation of the flow resistance on smooth,
gravelly and stony beds. They confirmed that flow resistance
was clearly influenced by suspended sediment. Higher sediment
concentration in the water increases the flow resistance until a
peak, when sediment rate is close to equilibrium conditions
(Chow, 1959; Vanoni and Nomicos, 1960; Omid et al., 2003;
Calomino et al., 2004; Gao and Abrahams, 2004; Hu and Abrahams,
2004; Mahdavi and Omid, 2004; Campbell et al., 2005; Wang et
al., 2011). Recking et al. (2008) studied relationship between
bedload and flow resistance through 152 experiments on a
laboratory flume. This study showed that bed load is responsible
for a large increase in friction factor f, and it can reach 50% in
some cases (Song et al., 1998).
In this study, a friction calculation model is proposed, which
dependent on the Rh/D ratio, and it combines the geometric
characteristics of the watercourse represented by the hydraulic
radius Rh and the constitutions of the bed represented by grains
size D, in addition the bed slope So.
The purpose of this model is to avoid reliance on a single
parameter, when calculating the friction coefficient. Models that
are based on the Rh/D ratio only and according to Ferro (2018)
have a high error rate (Ghriffiths, 1981; Nikora and Smart, 1997;
Julien, 2002; Cao et al., 2006; Banerjee et al., 2018). To solve
this problem, Ferro (2018), Ferro and Porto (2018, 2019) and Di
Stefano et al. (2019) have used the evaluation of the friction
coefficient depending on the bed slope, the Froud number and
the Reynolds number. These three models, give less error rate
compared to the models that adopted the ratio Rh/D only (despite
the good trend between the friction coefficient f and the relative
depth Rh/D). The problem of the models is the complex form of
the friction equation and they are difficult to use in the field
(Ferro, 2018; Ferro and Porto, 2018, 2019; Di Stefano et al.,
2019). The advantage of the model in this paper is that the
friction coefficient evaluation is based on the relative depth Rh/D
and the bed slope So (avoid relying on a single parameter as in
 KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering 3

the first models mentioned), following a dimension analysis and
simplicity (avoid the complexity mentioned in the second
models), while reducing the error rate as much as possible (< 17%).
2. Available Experimental Data
For lack of field measurements in wadis, this study is based on
2147 flume data with measure values of friction factor, in a
gravel bed with bedload. This dataset is collected from many
references (Gilbert, 1914; Casey, 1935; Mavis et al., 1937; Ho,
1939; Bogardi and Yen, 1939; Meyer-Peter and Müller, 1948;
Einstein and Chien, 1955; Paintal, 1971; Smart and Jaeggi, 1983;
Cao, 1985; Graf and Suszka, 1987; Rickenmann, 1990; Recking,
2006; Banerjee et al., 2018). It covers over more than a century
of research in flow resistance field (see Table 1).
Using the results of laboratory experiments carried out by
Gilbert (1914), Casey (1935) and Mavis et al. (1937) in gravel
bed with uniform and non-uniform sediments, Meyer-Peter and
Müller (1948) performed a large number of tests and established
the well-known Meyer-Peter and Müller (MPM) bed load
formula.
In a gravel bed with a bed load regime, experiments were
performed on an open channel by Ho (1939), Bogardi and Yen
(1939) and Myer-Peter and Müller (1948). Smart and Jäggi
(1983) carried out the work of Meyer-Peter and Müller (1948)
for channels with steeper slopes up to 20% and provide the
extended MPM-formula. They incorporated the influence of a
wider grain size distribution in the formula and suggested that
the value of the critical Shields parameter varies with the grain
Reynolds number instead of being kept constant. The formulas
of Einstein and Chien (1955), Paintal (1971) and Smart and
Jaeggi (1983) were obtained from experiments carried out under
turbulent flows in a gravel bed with bedload regime such as:
16,922 ≤ Re ≤ 1,023,408, 3.62 ≤ Rh/D ≤ 77 and 0.00117 ≤ So ≤
0.2. Cao (1985) generated a general curve fitting processes
without any physical consideration of slope effects. Later Cao et
al. (2006), proposed a semi-logarithmic model also depending on
relative depth Rh/D. This model was established on a laboratory
flume, through 106 experiments and with following data: based
on the bed slope ranging from 0.005 to 0.09 and Froude number
values in interval of 0.44 < Fr < 1.6, variable particle size 11.5,
22.2 and 44.3 mm, flow discharge between 0,015 and 0.25 m3/s
and flow depth from 0.0218 to 0.26 m. Experiments by Recking
(2006) were carried out in a flume of 8 m useful length with
tilting channel, from flow discharge between 0,0002 and 0,025
m3/s, whose slope varied from 0,010 to 0,090. The flow at the
inlet of the channel was controlled using two constant head tanks
and measured by two electromagnetic flowmeters.
Recently, Banerjee et al. (2018) carried out an experiment
under intense load conditions; and the experimental investigation
was carried out in an open channel flow with gravel bed surface
of grain size of D50 values 6.5 mm, with a constant channel bed
slope (0.25%).
3. Application of Dimensional Analysis for
Development of the Model
Using the dimensional analysis, we can establish many non-
dimensional groups (Eq. (4)) from the important variables governing
the physical phenomenon (Eq. (3)):
f (v1, v2, v3, ………, vn) = 0, (3)
φ (π , π , π ... π m ) = 0 .
1 2 3,
(4)
In large-scale, the roughness coefficient can be expressed by
grain size D; this was concluded in many studies (Einstein and
Barbarossa, 1952; Bathurst, 1978; Bray, 1982; Lawrence, 1997;
Ferro, 1999). The flow resistance can also be expressed by other
parameters such as flow velocity U, hydraulic radius Rh, fluid
density ρ, fluid viscosity μ and bed slope So (López et al., 2007;

Table 1. Parameter Range of the Used Data

Reference Nd So (m/m) Q (m3/s) h (m) Rh/D D (mm) Re Fr
Bogardi and Yen (1939) 85 0,0104 − 0,0245 0,0157 − 0,06422 0,034 − 0,138 4,24 − 10,9 6,8 − 15,2 305,704 − 567,000 1,15 − 1,61
Cao (1985) 102 0,005 − 0,09 0,015 − 0,25 0,0348 − 0,254 1,3 − 15,3 11,5 − 44,3 22,400 − 1,409,744 0,44 − 1,6
Casey (1935) 148 0,00119 − 0,00519 0,0008 − 0,0992 0,009 − 0,287 8,88 − 103,0 1 − 2,5 3,921 − 646,720 0,42 − 0,95
Einstein and Chien (1955) 9 0,0141 − 0,0258 0,074 − 0,0793 0,108 − 0,138 65,5 − 77,0 1,3 135,952 − 761,040 1,87 − 2,43
Gilber (1914) 208 0,0062 − 0,0225 0,00515 − 0,0317 0,027 − 0,170 6,38 − 27,3 3,17 − 7 14,325 − 502,208 0,72 − 1,67
Graf and Suszka (1987) 212 0,005 − 0,025 0,04 − 0,205 0,070 − 0,259 3,84 − 17,4 12,2 − 23,5 53,764 − 1,136,400 0,76 − 1,3
Ho (1939) 140 0,00099 − 0,00504 0,0034 − 0,0691 0,036 − 0,262 13,8 − 103 1,4 − 6,3 7,205 − 511,632 0,37 − 0,93
Mavis et al. (1937) 507 0,00135 − 0,0101 0,00218 − 0,0779 0,009 − 0,133 6,36 − 51,2 1,4 − 4,2 3,177 − 338,112 0,53 − 1,23
Myer-Peter and Müller (1948) 195 0,00128 − 0,0227 0,0006 − 4,610 0,010 − 1,090 6,0 − 81,0 1,17 − 28,7 3,529 − 8,368,128 0,6 − 1,47
Paintal (1971) 125 0,00117 − 0,0103 0,017 − 0,255 0,045 − 0,213 4,14 − 61,8 2,5 − 22,2 16,922 − 1,023,408 0,43 − 1,04
Recking (2006) 186 0,010 − 0,090 0,0002 − 0,025 0,0113 − 0,086 1,97 − 28,2 2,3 − 12,5 2,735 − 458,440 0,93 − 2,0
Rickenmann (1990) 90 0,070 − 0,200 0,010 − 0,030 0,0316 − 0,086 3,04 − 7,85 10 34,472 − 557,032 1,45 − 3,93
Smart and Jaeggi (1983) 121 0,030 − 0,200 0,005 − 0,030 0,02 − 0,0893 3,62 − 25,7 2 − 10,5 19,048 − 547,352 1,33 − 5,6
Banerjee et al. (2018) 19 0,0025 0,0006 – 1,00 0,014 − 2,000 2,07 − 12,4 6,5 3,640 − 12,000,000 0,37 − 1,35
Nd: number of dat
4 H. Toufik and H. Mahmoud
Achour, 2015). Ferro (2018) have used the bed slope to calibrate
the flow resistance equation deduced from 143 flume experiences in
conditions of equilibrium bed-load transport. To evaluate flow
resistance relations and sediment transport rates for steep channel
beds, Palucis et al. (2018) conducted experiences using a different
range of water and sediment discharges in a 12 m long recirculating
flume with bed slopes of 10%, 20%, and 30%, and gravel bed.
In this study, these seven parameters and three dimensions are
used, and therefore, four π terms can be identified with U, Rh and
ρ are as selected repeating variables (Barenblatt, 1987). Thus,
one can express the friction coefficient as follows:
Rh
f = f ( Re , , So ) . (5)
D
The dimensional analysis already carried out is based on the
identification of the factors that intervene to influence the friction
phenomenon, without going into the remaining details of field
experiments to determine them.
From this analysis, one can conclude that f is mainly dependent
on three parameters, which are ratio Rh/D, Reynolds number Re
and bed slope So.
To identify the dependence between the friction coefficient
and the ratio Rh/D, the correlation between the two parameters
using the measured data is studied (Table 1).
From Fig. 1, one can observe a close correlation between the
two parameters as concluded by many studies such as: the
comparison of Hey (1979) between relative depth Rh/D and
measured friction coefficient fm in three UK gravel-bed rivers.
The same trend was observed by Griffiths (1981) based on a
sample of 186 field data and by Cao et al. (2006) through 106
experiments. Namaee et al. (2017) made also a comparison
between the value of Rh/D and the velocity ratio U/U* on all field
measurements from several researchers. The comparison showed
an acceptable trend between the two parameters, and the same
results were achieved with Banerjee et al. (2018) through 19
flume experiments.
Using the same measured dataset (Table 1), one can also
study the correlation between the friction coefficient and the bed
slope So. Through Fig. 2, it is possible to notice that an acceptable
Fig. 1. Correlation between Measured Data (Rh/D, fm)
Fig. 2. Correlation between Measured Data of (So, fm)
correlation exists between the two parameters (coefficient of
determination R2 = 0.68), especially after reduction of the dispersion
by a logarithmic transformation. Bathurst (1982) described a
sharp increase in flow resistance with slopes varying from 3% to
9%. Song et al. (1998) carried out 55 velocity measurements,
they deduced and noted from their analysis that friction coefficient
increases with the increase in the bed slope. This is what many
researchers have mentioned in this regard as Di Stefano et al.
(2017), Hajbabaei et al. (2017), Hohermuth and Weitbrecht
(2018), Palucis et al. (2018) and Mendicino and Colosimo (2019).
Recking (2006) has expressed that in some cases, the friction is
in a direct function of the decimal logarithm of bed slope log
(So). Ferro (2018) invented the velocity profile, function Γ,
depending on the values of bed slope and Froude number for the
subsequent evaluation the values of friction coefficient in a gravel
bed, these observations are consistent with what was previously
described for the relationship between the two parameters.
Particularly in natural streams such as wadis, the flow is often
in turbulent rough regime. In this case, the friction coefficient is
dependent little on the Reynolds number, which has been
verified by Graf (1984), Bray (1979), Hey (1979), Colosimo et
al. (1988), and Baiamonte and Ferro (1997). To verify this verdict,
the correlation between friction coefficient and Reynolds number
Re is checked in this paper (Fig. 3), using the measured data in
Fig. 3. Correlation between Measured Data of (Re, fm)

Table 1.
In this study the Reynolds number is ignored by consideration
of the proposed friction relationship expressed as follows:
8 R
= f ( h , So ) .
f D
4. Results and Discussion
Respecting the different values ranges of the whole parameters,
the 2,147 used data are arbitrarily grouped into 1,127 data for the
calibration of the proposed model, while the rest i.e., 1,020 data
are reserved for the validation.
From whole dataset it is observed that, when relative depth
Rh/D increases, coefficient fm decreases (Fig. 1). This result
confirms the dominance of grain sediment friction in gravel bed
flow resistance, and the same finding is reported in other studies
by Bathurst (1982), Ferguson (2007), Rickenmann and Recking
(2011), Di Stefano et al. (2017), Namaee and Whitcombe (2017)
and Palucis et al. (2018). To cover the maximum data range of
parameters, the friction is often formulated from 8 ⁄ f values as
a function to the niperian logarithm of relative depth Ln (Rh/D)
such as in Keulegan (1938), Nikora and Smart (1997), Lim
(2018).
The observed scatter in Fig. 2 can be reduced by reformulating
the parameters to 8 ⁄ f and Log (So) (Fig. 4). This last figure
confirms the dependence between the friction and the bed slope
(R2 = 0.75); consequently, the introduction of the slope parameter in
the friction formulation can clearly improve its estimation.
As already mentioned to reduce the scatter observed in the
correlation between the governing parameters in flow resistance
are expressed in terms of the friction coefficient by 8 ⁄ f as used
by Keulegan (1938), Smart and Jäggi (1983), Bathurst (1985),
Cao et al. (2006), Rickenmann and Recking (2011), Hohermuth
and Weitbrecht (2018) and Mendicino and Colosimo (2020).
Using the calibration data and the multiple regressions analysis, it
is established in this paper many expressions for friction factor
with the main factors (Eq. (5)). The best fitted expression to
calculate the friction coefficient in gravel bed wadi with bedload
Fig. 4. Correlation between Measured Data of (Log So, 8⁄f )
KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering 5
Fig. 5. Measured and Calculated Friction Coefficient Comparison
regime is proposed as
8 ⎛R ⎞
= 2.16. Ln⎜ h ⎟ − 2.09.Log ( S o ) + 1.18 . (6)
f ⎝D⎠
A quick comparison between the measured and calculated
values of friction coefficient by Eq. (6) shows a good acceptable
correlation, where R2 = 0.83 (Fig. 5), especially in the low values
range ( fm< 0.5) this represents the most common practical case.
To check the sensitivity of the proposed model against the
different flow resistance parameters (Eq. (5)), many expressions
with single parameter are tested with single parameter, different
couple of parameters and with the three parameters. From this
analysis, it is confirmed that the friction factor is mainly
dependent on the two parameters of relative depth Rh/D and bed
slope So.
The result of this model is not affected when expressions are
used with and without the Reynolds number parameter. This
verdict confirm the negligible effect Reynolds number on friction
factor as already explained by Graf (1984), Bray (1979), Hey
(1979), Colosimo et al. (1988), Baiamonte and Ferro (1997) and
Banerjee et al. (2018).
To validate this proposed model, it is compared with the
calculated friction coefficient fc to the measured friction coefficient
fm using the 1020 validation data. For that, the normalized error
(NE) is defined in this paper as
f calculated − f measured
NE = .100 , (7)
f measured
in which fcalculated is friction coefficient calculated by Eq. (6) and
fmeasured is its corresponding measured value. For a set of
experiments (1020 validation data), we define the mean normalized
error (MNE). The results show an acceptable MNE, less than
17% for the whole validation data. For data relative to friction
factor inferior to 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5 the MNE is estimated at
14%, 15%, 15.8%, 16.3% and 16.5%, respectively. These outcomes
show better efficiency of the model proposed in this paper in the
low value range of friction factor. This is the most frequently
practical cases.
To check the efficiency of the proposed model, its results are
6 H. Toufik and H. Mahmoud

Table 2. Comparison of Measured and Calculated Friction Coefficient for Gravel Bed with Bedload
Percentage of calculated friction
Model Equations coefficient in error range MNE (%)
-10% -20% -30%
Proposed model 8 ⎛R ⎞ 39 65 84 17
= 2 . 16 . Ln ⎜ h ⎟ − 2 . 09 . Log ( S o ) + 1 . 18
f ⎝ D ⎠
New fitted function − 0 . 6808 22 40 60 27
⎛R ⎞
Model N°1 f = 0 . 4374 .⎜ h ⎟
⎝ D ⎠
Ferro and Porto (2018) − 2 /( 1+ δ )
16 42 67 25
⎡ 2 − δ .Γ . R δ e ⎤ 1

Model N°2 f =8⎢ ⎥

⎣ (δ + 1).( δ + 2 ) ⎦
(MNE) mean normalized error as percentage of measured friction coefficient

1.5
δ= (11)
Ln Re

The MNE relative to Ferro and Porto (2018) is about 25%,

while the MNE of the proposed model is only 17%. The same
observation is concluded for the different error values ranges
(Table 2 and Fig. 6), which confirms the good quality of results.

5. Conclusions

In this study, the interest lied in flow resistance for a gravel bed
in bedload regime by evaluation of friction coefficient and
development of an acceptable and efficient model. To achieve
this objective a 2147 flume experiences are used. By this new
Fig. 6. Comparison between the Proposed Model and Models 1 and 2
approach, the complexity in friction equation formulation is
avoided with no reliance in evaluation on a single parameter. The
compared a new fitted function deduced from Fig. 1 (Eq. (8)) proposed model as expressed by Eq. (6) takes into consideration
which explains a good correlation between the friction coefficient f the geometrical parameters of the channel represented by the
and the relative depth Rh/D, as follows: hydraulic radius Rh, in addition to the bed grain size and the bed
−0.6808 slope So. The model validation shows that it provides an acceptable
⎛R ⎞
f = 0.4374 .⎜ h ⎟ . (8) prediction of the friction coefficient with acceptable mean
⎝D⎠ normalized error less than 17% (Fig. 6). This error can be lower
The new fitted model (Eq. (8)) estimates the friction coefficient for low values of friction coefficient.
with a mean relative error of 27% which can be reduced to 17%
using the proposed model (Eq. (6)), the same observation is Acknowledgments
concluded for the other error ranges (Table 2 and Fig. 6).
Similarly, we have also compared the results of the proposed The authors express their gratitude and thanks to Dr Alain Recking
model (Eq. (6)) to those of Ferro and Porto (2018). This later for providing a several set of experimental data, and also to
model has a complex form which needs a many steps calculation Professor Zekâi Şen for his help to improve the redaction of this
to obtain the friction coefficient value as follows: paper.
− velocity profile function:
Fr
1.0130 Nomenclature
Γ = 0.3043 (9)
So
0.5419

Co = Sediment concentration in ppm (g/m3)

− friction coefficient equation: D = Particles diameter constituting bed (granulate size
−2 /(1+δ ) in mm)
⎡ 2 −δ .Γ. R δ e ⎤
1

f =8 ⎢ ⎥ (10) Dh = Hydraulic diameter (m)

⎣ (δ + 1).(δ + 2) ⎦ D50 = Sediment size of which 50% is finer
− in which δ is calculated by this relation: D84 = Sediment size of which 84% is finer
 KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering 7

f= Friction coefficient 0733-9429(1985)111:4(625)

fc = Friction coefficient calculated Bathurst J, Li R, Simons D (1983) Closure to “Resistance equation for
fm = Friction coefficient measured large-scale roughness” by James C. Bathurst, Ruh-Ming Li, and Daryl
B. Simons (December, 1981). Journal of Hydraulic Engineering
Fr = Froude number, Fr = U/(gh)0.5
109(5):781-783, DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9429(1983)109:5(781)
g= Gravity acceleration (m/s2) Bergeron N, Carbonneau P (1999) The effect of sediment concentration
H= Flow depth (m) on bedload roughness. Hydrological Processes 13(16):2583-2589,
k= Roughness coefficient DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1085(199911)13:16<2583::AID-HYP939>
ks = Strickler coefficient, ks = 1/n 3.0.CO;2-S
Ks = Grain resistance Manning-Strickler coefficient (Ks Bjerklie D, Dingman S, Bolster C (2005) Comparison of constitutive
= 21.1/D1/6) flow resistance equations based on the Manning and Chezy equations
MNE = A mean normalized error applied to natural rivers. Water Resources Research 41(11), DOI:
10.1029/2004WR003776
n= Manning coefficient (s/m1/3)
Bjerklie D, Dingman S, Vorosmarty C, Bolster C, Congalton R (2003)
Q= Flow discharge (m3/s) Evaluating the potential or measuring river discharge rom space.
r= Density of water Journal of Hydrology 278(1-4):17-38, DOI: 10.1016/S0022-1694
Re = Reynolds number, Re = 4Uh/ν (03)00129-X
Rh = Hydraulic radius (m) Bogardi J, Yen CH (1939) Tractation of pebbles by flowing water. State
Rh/D = Relative depth Univeristy of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA
S= Slope of the energy line Bray D (1979) Estimating average velocity in gravel-bed rivers. Journal
So = Bed slope of Hydraulic Division 105(9):1103-1123, DOI: 10.1061/JYCEAJ.
0005270
U= Average velocity (m/s)
Bray D (1982) Flow resistance in gravel-bed rivers. In: Hey RD,
U* = Friction velocity (m/s) Bathurst JC, Thorne CR (eds) Gravel-bed rivers. Wiley, Toronto,
μ= Dynamic viscosity in kg/m.s, N.s/m2 Canada, 109-132
ν= Kinematic viscosity in m2/s Calomino F, Gaudio R, Miglio A (2004) Effect of bed-load concentration
on friction factor in narrow channels. River Flow 279-285
ORCID Campbell L, McEwan I, Nikora V, Pokrajac D, Gallagher M, Manes C
(2005) Bed-load effects on hydrodynamics of rough-bed open-
Herizi Toufik https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3968-4000 channel flows. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering 131(7):576-585,
DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9429(2005)131:7(576)
Cao HH (1985) Resistance hydraulique d’un lit à gravier mobile à pente
References raide; Étude expérimentale. PhD Thesis, Ecole Polytechnique Federale
de Lausane, Lausanne, Switzerland, DOI: 10.5075/epfl-thesis-589
Achour B (2015) Chezy’s resistance coefficient in a circular conduit. Cao Z, Pender G, Meng J (2006) Explicit formulation of the shields diagram
The Open Civil Engineering Journal 9(1):187-195, DOI: 10.2174/ for incipient motion of sediment. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering
1874149501509010187 132(10):1097-1099, DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9429(2006)132:10
Afzalimhr H, Dey S, Rasoulianfar P (2007) Influence of decelerating (1097)
flow on incipient motion of a gravel-bed stream. Sadhana 32(5): Casey H (1935) Uber geschiebebewegung. Preuss. Versuchsanst. fur
545-559, DOI: 10.1007/s12046-007-0041-7 Wasserbau und Schifibau, Berlin, Germany
Ashmore P, Rennie C (2012) Gravel-bed rivers: From particles to Chien N, Wan Z (1999) Mechanics of sediment transport. ASCE, Reston,
patterns. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 38(2):217-220, VA, USA, DOI: 10.1061/9780784404003
DOI: 10.1002/esp.3361 Chow V (1959) Open channel hydraulics. McGraw Hill, New York,
Baiamonte G, Ferro V (1997) The influence of roughness geometry and NY, USA
Shields parameter on flow resistance in gravel-bed channels. Earth Colosimo C, Copertino V, Veltri M (1988) Friction factor evaluation in
Surface Processes and Landforms 22(8):759-772, DOI: 10.1002/ gravel-bed rivers. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering 114(8):861-
(SICI)1096-9837(199708)22:8<759::AID-ESP779>3.0.CO;2-M 876, DOI: 10.1061/(asce)0733-9429(1988)114:8(861)
Banerjee S, Naik B, Singh P, Khatua K (2018) Flow resistance in gravel Di Stefano C, Ferro V, Palmeri V, Pampalone V (2017) Flow resistance
bed open channel flows case: Intense transport condition. ISH equation forrills. Hydrological Processes 31(15):2793-2801, DOI:
Journal of Hydraulic Engineering 25(3):298-309, DOI: 10.1080/ 10.1002/hyp.11221
09715010.2017.1422189 Di Stefano C, Nicosia A, Pampalone V, Palmeri V, Ferro V (2019) Rill
Barenblatt G (1987) Dimensional analysis. Gordon & Breach, Science flow resistance law under equilibrium bed-load transport conditions.
Publishers Inc., Amsterdam, The Netherlands Hydrological Processes 33(9):1317-1323, DOI: 10.1002/hyp.13402
Bathurst J (1978) Flow resistance of large-scale roughness. Journal of Dingman S, Sharma K (1997) Statistical development and validation of
the Hydraulics Division 104:1587-1603 discharge equations or natural channels. Journal of Hydrology
Bathurst J (1982) Flow resistance in boulder-bed streams. In: Hey RD, 199(1-2):13-35, DOI: 10.1016/S0022-1694(96)03313-6
Bathurst JC, Thorne CR (eds) Gravel-bed rivers. Wiley, Chichester, Einstein H, Barbarossa N (1952) River channel roughness. Transactions
UK, 443-462 of the American Society of Civil Engineers 117:1121-1146
Bathurst J (1985) Flow resistance estimation in mountain rivers. Journal Einstein H, Chien N (1955) Effects of heavy sediment concentration
of Hydraulic Engineering 111(4):625-643, DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE) near the bed on velocity and sediment distribution. University of
8 H. Toufik and H. Mahmoud
California, Berkeley, CA, USA
Ferguson R (2007) Flow resistance equations for gravel- and boulder-
bed streams. Water Resources Research 43(5), DOI: 10.1029/
2006WR005422
Ferro V (1999) Friction factor for gavel-bed channel with high boulder
concentration. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering 125:771-778,
DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9429(2000)126:11(856)
Ferro V (2018) Assessing flow resistance in gravel bed channels by
dimensional analysis and self-similarity. CATENA 169:119-127,
DOI: 10.1016/j.catena.2018.05.034
Ferro V, Porto, P (2018) Applying hypothesis of self-similarity for flow-
resistance law in Calabrian gravel-bed rivers. Journal of Hydraulic
Engineering 144(2):04017061, DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)HY.1943-
7900.0001385
Ferro V, Porto P (2019) Closure to “Applying hypothesis of self-
similarity for flow-resistance law in Calabrian gravel-bed rivers” by
Vito Ferro and Paolo Porto. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering
145(4):07019002, DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)HY.1943-7900.0001575
Gao P, Abrahams A (2004) Bedload transport resistance in rough open-
channel flows. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 29(4):423-
435, DOI: 10.1002/esp.1038
Gilbert G (1914) The transportation of debris by running water. US
Geological Survey, Reston, VA, USA
Gladki H (1979) Resistance to flow in alluvial channels with coarse bed
materials. Journal of Hydraulic Research 17(2):121-128, DOI:
10.1080/00221687909499591
Golubstov V (1969) Hydraulic resistance and formula for computing the
average low velocity of mountain rivers. Soviet Hydrology 5:500-
511
Graf W (1984) Flow resistance for steep, mobile channels. In: Proceedings
of workshop on 'idraulica del territorio montano'. Bressanone, Italy
Graf W, Suszka L (1987) Sediment transport in steep channels. Journal
of Hydrosciences and Hydraulic Engineering 5(1):11-26
Griffiths G (1981) Flow resistance in coarse gravel bed rivers. Journal
of the Hydraulics Research 107:899-918
Griffiths G (1989) Form resistance in gravel channels with mobile beds.
Journal of the Hydraulic Engineering 115(3):340-355, DOI: 10.1061/
(ASCE)0733-9429(1989)115:3(340)
Hajbabaei E, Hosseini S, Sanei M (2017) Bed load pickup rate and flow
resistance for turbid flow on a movable plane bed. Environmental
Processes 4(1):255-272, DOI: 10.1007/s40710-017-0211-5
Hey RD (1979) Flow resistance in gravel-bed rivers. Journal of the
Hydraulics Division 105:365-379, DOI: 10.1061/JYCEAJ.0005178
Hill IK (1967) Fluvial sediment transport at a large bed shear stress.
PhD Thesis, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand,
DOI: 10.26021/3199
Ho P-Y (1939) Abhangigkeit der Geschiebebewegung von der kornform
und der temperature. Preuss. Versuchsanst. Fur Wasserbau und
Schifibau, Berlin 37(43)
Hohermuth B, Weitbrecht V (2018) Influence of bed-load transport on
flow resistance of step-pool channels. Water Resources Research
54(8):5567-5583, DOI: 10.1029/2017WR021523
Hu S, Abrahams A (2004) Resistance to overland flow due to bed-load
transport on plane mobile beds. Earth Surface Processes and
Landforms 29(13):1691-1701, DOI: 10.1002/esp.1123
Jarrett R (1984) Hydraulics of high-gradient streams. Journal of Hydraulic
Engineering 110(11):1519-1539
Julien PY (2002) River mechanics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
UK, 125-130
Keulegan G (1938) Laws of turbulent flow in open channels. Journal of
Research of the National Bureau of Standards 21(6):707, DOI:
10.6028/jres.021.039
Lawrence D (1997) Macroscale surface roughness and frictional
resistance in overland flow. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms
22(4):365-382, DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1096-9837(199704)22:4<365::
AID-ESP693>3.0.CO;2-6
Lim H (2018) Open channel flow friction factor: Logarithmic law.
Journal of Coastal Research 341:229-237, DOI: 10.2112/
JCOASTRES-D-17-00030.1
López R, Barragán J, Colomer M (2007) Flow resistance equations
without explicit estimation of the resistance coefficient for coarse-
grained rivers. Journal of Hydrology 338(1-2):113-121, DOI:
10.1016/j.jhydrol.2007.02.027
Mahdavi A, Omid M (2004) The effect of bed roughness on velocity
profile in open channels. River Flow 295-300
Mavis FT, Liu T, Soucek E (1937) The transportation of detritus by
flowing water. New Series N° 341, Bulletin N° 1, University of
Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA
Mendicino G, Colosimo F (2019) Analysis of flow resistance equations
in gravel-bed rivers with intermittent regimes: Calabrian fiumare
data set. Water Resources Research 55(8):7294-7319, DOI: 10.1029/
2019WR024819
Mendicino G, Colosimo F (2020) Reply to comment by J. Qin and T.
Wu on “Analysis of flow resistance equations in gravel bed rivers
with intermittent regimes: Calabrian fiumare data set”. Water Resources
Research 56(3), DOI: 10.1029/2019WR027003
Meyer-Peter E, Müller R (1948) Formulas for bed-load transport.
IAHSR, Stockholm, Sweden, 39-64
Namaee M, Sui J, Whitcombe T (2017) A revisit of different models for
flow resistance in gravel-bed rivers and hydraulic flumes. International
Journal of River Basin Management 15(3):277-286, DOI: 10.1080/
15715124.2017.1287710
Nikora V, Smart G (1997) Turbulence characteristics of New Zealand
gravel-bed rivers. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering 123(9):764-
773, DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9429(1997)123:9(764)
Omid M, Karbasi M, Farhoudi J (2010) Effects of bed-load movement
on flow resistance over bed forms. Sadhana 35(6):681-691, DOI:
10.1007/s12046-010-0045-6
Omid M, Mahdavi A, Narayanan R (2003) Effects of bedload transport
on flow resistance in rigid boundary channels. IAHR, Thessaloniki,
Greece, 641-646
Paintal A (1971) Concept of critical shear stress in loose boundary open
channels. Journal of Hydraulic Research 9(1):91-113, DOI: 10.1080/
00221687109500339
Palucis M, Ulizio T, Fuller B, Lamb M (2018) Flow resistance, sediment
transport, and bedform development in a steep gravel-bedded river
flume. Geomorphology 320:111-126, DOI: 10.1016/j.geomorph.2018.
08.003
Powell D (2014) Flow resistance in gravel-bed rivers: Progress in
research. Earth-Science Reviews 136:301-338, DOI: 10.1016/
j.earscirev.2014.06.001
Recking A (2006) An experimental study of grain sorting effects on
Bedload. PhD Thesis, French Engineering University INSA Lyon,
Villeurbanne, France
Recking A, Frey P, Paquier A, Belleudy P, Champagne J (2008) Feedback
between bed load transport and flow resistance in gravel and cobble
bed rivers. Water Resources Research 44(5), DOI: 10.1029/
2007WR006219
Rickenmann D (1990) Bedload transport capacity of slurry flows at steep
slopes. PhD Thesis, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich,

Zurich, Switzerland, DOI: 10.3929/ethz-a-000555802
Rickenmann D, Recking A (2011) Evaluation of flow resistance in
gravel-bed rivers through a large field data set. Water Resources
Research 47(7), DOI: 10.1029/2010WR009793
Riggs HC (1976) A simplified slope-area method or estimating flood
discharges in natural channels. Journal of Research of the U.S.
Geological Survey 4(3):285-291
Sauer VB (1990) US geological survey, written communication. In:
Coon WF (ed) Estimation of roughness coefficients for natural stream
channels with vegetated banks, Water-Supply paper 2441. US
Geological Survey, USA, 125-130, DOI: 10.3133/wsp2441
Smart G, Jaeggi M (1983) Sediment transport on steep slopes. Mitteilungen
der Versuchsanstalt für Wasserbau, Hydrologie und Glaziologie,
Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule (ETH), Zürich, Switzerland
Song T, Chiew Y, Chin C (1998) Effect of bed-load movement on flow
friction factor. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering 124(2):165-175,
DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9429(1998)124:2(165)
Song T, Graf WH, Lemmin U (1995) Uniform flow in open channels
with movable gravel bed. Journal of Hydraulic Research 32(6):861-
KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering 9
875, DOI: 10.1080/00221689409498695
Strickler A (1923) Contributions to the question of a velocity formula
and roughness data for streams, channels and closed pipelines. Mitt.
des Eidgenössischen Amtes für Wasserwirtschaft, Bern, Switzerland
Vanoni VA, Nomicos GN (1960) Resistance properties of sedimentladen
streams. Transactions of the American Society of Civil Engineers
125:1140-1175
Wang Z, Larsen P, Nestmann F, Dittrich A (1998) Resistance and drag
reduction of flows of clay suspensions. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering
124(1):41-49, DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9429(1998)124:1(41)
Wang X, Yang Q, Lu W, Wang X (2011) Effects of bed load movement on
mean flow characteristics in mobile gravel beds. Water Resources
Management 25(11):2781-2795, DOI: 10.1007/s11269-011-9838-6
Williams G (1978) Bank-full discharge of rivers. Water Resources
Research 14(6):1141-1154
Yu G, Lim S (2003) Modified Manning formula for flow in alluvial
channels with sand-beds. Journal of Hydraulic Research 41(6):597-
608