FLOW RESISTANCE ESTIMATION

IN M O U N T A I N RIVERS

By James C. Bathurst 1
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Illinois Inst of Technology on 06/24/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

ABSTRACT: Examination of the flow resistance of high-gradient gravel and

boulder-bed rivers, using data collected in British mountain rivers with slopes
of 0.4-4%, shows that there are differences in resistance variation between
mountain and lowland rivers and that between-site variations do not neces-
sarily reflect at-a-site variations. Comparison of data with the familiar resistance
equation relating the Darcy-Weisbach friction factor to the logarithm of relative
submergence shows that the equation tends to overestimate the resistance in
uniform flow. The equation also tends to underestimate the rate of change of
resistance at a site (as discharge varies) at high gradients. The influences of
nonuniform channel profile, sediment size distribution, channel slope and sed-
iment transport are reviewed, but the data do not allow any quantification of
these effects. Instead an empirical approach based on the available data is pre-
sented, allowing the friction factor to be calculated from the relative submer-
gence with an error of up to ±25% to ±35%. A summary of the field data is
included.

INTRODUCTION

In mountain rivers characterized by high gradients, boulder beds a n d

flash floods, it is often difficult to gage water discharge directly, partic-
ularly at high flows; instead, it is necessary to use the indirect slope-
area method in which discharge is calculated from channel conveyance
and friction slope (2). However, application of the m e t h o d to mountain
rivers is hampered by a lack of knowledge concerning the characteristics
of such rivers and, especially, the evaluation of the flow resistance coef-
ficient for the channel conveyance. There is currently no satisfactory flow
resistance equation for high-gradient boulder-bed channels a n d n o sin-
gle unified means of quantifying the wide variations in resistance which
occur both at a site with changing discharge and between sites for var-
ious discharges.
In an attempt to dispel some of the uncertainty in discharge estima-
tion, this paper (one in a pair) uses both existing a n d n e w field and
flume data to indicate h o w the resistance coefficient varies a n d h o w it
might best be evaluated in mountain rivers. Since neither theory nor
data are yet adequate to support a truly analytical approach, an empir-
ical method, based on the semilogarithmic resistance law for gravel-bed
rivers (19), is adopted. Variations in the resistance coefficient both at a
site and between sites are reviewed so that the likely range of values
can be delineated and allowance can be m a d e for the errors attached to
the method. Application of the m e t h o d is limited to flows within well-
defined channels with uniform bed slopes w h e r e there is no significant
bank or vegetation flow resistance and w h e r e a n y sediment transport
'Sr. Scientific Officer, Inst, of Hydrology, Wallingford, Oxon, U.K.
Note.—Discussion open until September 1, 1985. To extend the closing date
one month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Manager of Journals.
The manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and possible publication
on October 10, 1983. This paper is part of the Journal of Hydraulic Engineering,
Vol. I l l , No. 4, April, 1985. ©ASCE, ISSN 0733-9429/85/0004-0625/$01.uO. Paper
No. 19661.

625

J. Hydraul. Eng. 1985.111:625-643.

 involves coarse (gravel and boulders) rather than fine (sand) material.
A full description of the field measurements and analysis of some of the
practical problems of applying, the slope-area method in mountain rivers
are provided in a separate but complementary paper (5).
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Illinois Inst of Technology on 06/24/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

FLOW CHARACTERISTICS

Bed slopes of mountain rivers are generally greater than 0.4% (see
Golubtsov, Ref. 15), but less than about 5%. At steeper slopes, channels
appear to develop a series of short pools and falls, a feature which is
not considered here (32). Bed material consists of gravel, cobbles and
boulders and the relative submergence, or ratio of depth, d, to sediment
size, D M , ranges from the region of large-scale roughness (d/DM < 1),
via intermediate-scale roughness (1 < d/Dm < 4), to the region of small-
scale roughness (d/D^ > 4) (6). Here d = mean flow depth and D ^ =
the size of median axis of the bed material which is larger than 84% of
the material. Significant sediment transport occurs only during large
floods, but may then have a considerable effect. Two-dimensional bed-
forms of the type observed in sand-bed channels are rare, although gravel
antidunes have been observed under exceptional conditions (7,32). On
a larger scale, pool/riffle series or alternating bars with a meandering
thalweg may develop (21). Froude numbers may attain high subcritical
or even supercritical values (22).

QUANTIFICATION OF FLOW RESISTANCE

Flow resistance may be quantified in terms of a coefficient, the most

familiar being the Manning n. Here the Darcy-Weisbach friction factor,
/, is used because it is dimensionless and is defined by

\fj A(gRSff2
in which Q = water discharge; A = flow cross-sectional area, g = ac-
celeration due to gravity; R = hydraulic radius; and Sf = friction slope.
Evaluation of / is potentially the biggest source of error in the slope-
area method since in mountain rivers variations in the value of /, of up
to 100%, can occur at a site as discharge and depth vary. Attempts to
predict these variations suffer from the lack of available resistance equa-
tions. Standard equations developed for rivers with gentler slopes and
finer bed material may not apply, especially in the region of large-scale
roughness (8,11,15). On the other hand those equations which have been
designed explicitly for mountain rivers tend to be either empirical and
valid only for high flows (1,15,33), or else theoretically based but cum-
bersome, based on restricted data and generally valid only for low and
moderate flows (3,6,22). While these offer insights into the flow resis-
tance processes, none is yet suitable for practical engineering use; and
it is clear that considerably more research into the hydraulics of moun-
tain rivers is needed. In view of this, the approach adopted here is to
fall back on and attempt to modify the semilogarithmic resistance equa-
tion derived from boundary layer theory and applied to gravel-bed rivers
of moderate slope. Several versions of this familiar relationship have been

626

J. Hydraul. Eng. 1985.111:625-643.

 developed (9,11,16,23,24) and they are represented here by Hey's ver-
sion (19) since this is currently the most theoretically complete, at least
for flows without sediment transport

(-/)"' =5 ' 621 ° s (dk) <2)

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Illinois Inst of Technology on 06/24/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

in which a = a function of channel slope varying from 11.1-13.46.

This approach combines a theoretical basis, relative simplicity, some
degree of proven applicability over a wide range of relative submer-
gences (1 < d/Dgi < 100, e.g., Ref. 16), and the possibility of accounting
for at-a-site, as well as between-site variations in flow resistance. How-
ever, equations such as Eq. 2 have not generally been tested at slopes
steeper than about 0.5-1%; and as their theoretical basis does not strictly
extend to flows with large-scale roughness, high Froude numbers and
sediment transport (4), it is not certain that they are relevant to moun-
tain rivers. Further, although such equations should in principle account
for at-a-site changes in resistance, they have been tested mainly on the
basis of between-site variations only.

DATA PREPARATION

In order to test the applicability of the semilogarithmic resistance law,

data were collected from 16 sites in upland British rivers. A full descrip-
tion of the necessary field surveys is given in the companion paper (5)
so that only those aspects of direct relevance to the study of flow resis-
tance are presented here.
Field Measurements.—All the sites were close to river gaging stations
with established stage-discharge rating curves so that discharge could
be easily obtained (Table 1). Reaches were selected so that the flow was
affected by channel controls rather than section controls such as down-
stream rises in bed elevation. Sites were, therefore, either on riffles be-
tween pools or along the characteristic mountain river reach of a bound-
ary bed without pools.
At each site, a survey of three cross sections was made—the mea-
surements being carried out in sufficient detail to show the outline of
the boulders projecting into the flow. Data were obtained during two
visits to each site and were augmented at some by surveys related to
highwater marks left by recent floods. At the Ettrick (Lindean) site, the
highest flow involved significant overbank flow (through tall grass and
reeds), while at the two Tromie sites the flood flows were probably af-
fected by the trees along the bank.
Size distribution of the bed material (all gravel, cobbles and boulders)
was obtained from a sample of 100 elements collected from the surface
layer by the Wolman method (34). Water temperature was noted at the
beginning and end of each visit.
Data Analysis.—Flow (water) cross-sectional area, A, for each cross
section was calculated from the surveyed water surface and bed eleva-
tions, and mean depth, d, was then calculated as A/w, in which w =
section width. The depth is assumed to be approximately the same as
hydraulic radius since ratios of width to depth generally exceed 20. At
a few reaches (the principal ones at which measurements were made at
627

J. Hydraul. Eng. 1985.111:625-643.

 TABLE 1.—Mean Reach Parameters of Flow, Channel
BED
MATERIAL
SIZE, D„, IN Standard Water
MILLIMETERS deviation Discharge, surface
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Illinois Inst of Technology on 06/24/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Gaging site _ of size Q, in cubic slope,

name and rercbiiiiic distribu- meters per S, as a
River name code 84 50 tion, u second percentage
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)
South Feather- 240 146 0.217 2.38 1.56
Tyne stone 12.3 1.15
23006
Kielder Kielder 327 123 0.426 0.315 1.45
Burn 23011 1.67 1.45a
Alwin Clennell 143 64 0.353 0.137 0.986
22008 0.750 1.17
Glen Kirknewton 113 60 0.274 0.490 1.11
21032 2.29 0.950
Ettrick Lindean 192 122 0.198 3.03 0.835
21007 40.4 0.590
103 0.458
Ettrick Brock- 193 86 0.352 0.615 0.495
hoperig 11.3 0,833
21017 76.9 1.04
Tweed Kingle- 183 90 0.309 1.10 0.592
dores 24.7 0.562
21014 59.3 0.452
81.2 0.398
Ruchill Culty- 211 138 0.184 3.54 0.898
braggan 11,0 0.813
16003
Almond Auchnafree 307 118 0.414 1.55 0.984
2.37 1.05
Braan Hermitage 740 343 0.334 6.74 1.28
15023 10.3 1.28
23.3 1.56
Ardle Kindrogan 244 120 0.309 4.32 0.925
15014 6.77 0.901
Tromie—1 Tromie 464 263 0.247 2.00 3.73
Bridge 2.69 3.60
08008 15.9 3.14
24.8b 3.64
Tromie—2 Tromie 387 125 0.490 2.07 1.30
Bridge 3.30 1.06
08008 12.2 1.19
25.5b 1.13
31.6" 1.54
102b 1.06
Avon Dalnash- 440 273 0.207 13.2 1.50
augh 28.3 1.20
08004
Dulnain Balnaan 500 251 0.299 4.35 1.36
08009 5.61 1.22

628

J. Hydraul. Eng. 1985.111:625-643.

 Shape and Bed Material Size for Field Sites

Cross-
sectional Mean Relative Water
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Illinois Inst of Technology on 06/24/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

area, A, Width, depth, submer- Resistance Froude temperature,

in square w, in d, in gence, function, number, in degrees
meters meters meters d/DM (8//) 1/2 U/igdY* Celsius
(8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14)
4.15 21.8 0.191 0.80 3.36 0.42 14.0
14.2 28.3 0.502 2.09 3.64 0.39 4.5

1.84 13.0 0.142 0.43 1.21 0.15 13.0

2.36 13.3 0.178 0.54 4.44 0.53 3.5
0.518 5.07 0.102 0.71 2.66 0.26 15.0
1.18 5.43 0.218 1.52 4.02 0.44 5.5
1.18 10.8 0.109 0.97 3.80 0.40 17.0
3.16 12.2 0.260 2.31 4.65 0.45 6.0
4.73 22.9 0.210 1.09 4.89 0.45 16.5
20.3 24.7 0.831 4.33 9.09 0.70 5.5
52.3 45.6 1.15 5.97 8.63 0.58 8.0
1.97 14.3 0.138 0.72 3.82 0.27 14.0
6.96 15.0 0.465 2.40 8.32 0.76 7.0
21.5 22.3 0.960 4.96 11.5 1.17 7.0'
3.25 21.4 0.152 0.83 3.60 0.28 12.5
17.4 24.1 0.721 3.93 7.13 0.54 7.0
26.8 25.2 1.07 5.81 10.2 0.69 7.0'
34.7 26.7 1.30 7.10 10.4 0.66 7.0'
5.14 21.9 0.236 1.12 4.78 0.45 7.5
8.53 22.5 0.381 1.81 7.40 0.67 6.5

2.78 10.7 0.261 0.85 3.52 0.35 8.5

3.86 10.9 0.353 1.15 3.22 0.33 4.5
12.3 27.4 0.456 0.62 2.28 0.26 8.5
15.5 27.4 0.572 0.77 2.47 0.28 12.0
24.2 27.5 0.884 1.19 2.61 0.33 7.0
5.43 14.9 0.363 1.49 4.38 0.42 5.5
6.65 15.1 0.440 1.80 5.16 0.49 9.5
3.81 14.0 0.277 0.60 1.65 0.32 7.5
4.36 14.8 0.301 0.65 1.90 0.36 10.0
10.8 17.7 0.628 1.35 3.36 0.60 9.5
15.8 18.7 0.843 1.82 2.85 0.54 8.0
4.58 15.3 0.299 0.77 2.31 0.26 7.5
6.22 15.4 0.404 1.04 2.59 0.27 9.0
10.7 16.3 0.657 1.70 4.12 0.45 9.5
13.6 16.4 0.829 2.14 6.19 0.66 9.5
14.8 16.6 0.891 2.30 5.84 0.72 9.0'
27.4 20.9 1.31 3.39 10.1 1.04 9.5C
12.9 29.0 0.449 1.02 3.97 0.49 5.5
17.7 30.1 0.593 1.35 6.04 0.66 7.5

7.65 18.6 0.417 0.83 2.41 0.28 7.0

7.99 19.0 0.427 0.85 3.10 • 0.34 6.5

629

J. Hydraul. Eng. 1985.111:625-643.

 TABLE 1.—
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)
Findhorn Shenachie 140 73 0.283 9.86 0.532
07001 20.1 0.480
195 0.429
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Illinois Inst of Technology on 06/24/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

'Surveying measurements are suspect for this flow.

b
Based on extrapolated stage-discharge rating curve.
'Estimated for surveys based on trash lines.
Note: 1 mm = 0.00328 ft; 1 m = 3.281 ft; 1 m 2 = 10.77 sq ft; 1 m 3 = 35.3 cu ft.

three or more discharges), the total cross-sectional area, AT, comprising

water plus boulders projecting into the flow, was calculated for the cen-
ter section. In defining the channel bottom, straight lines were drawn
between successive low points (Fig. 1). The relative roughness area or
ratio of projecting wetted roughness area, Aw, to total area, AT, was
then calculated as (AT - A)/AT (6) (Table 2).
Mean water surface level at each section was calculated by integrating
the individual water surface level measurements across the section width
and then dividing by section width. The mean levels at the upstream
and downstream sections were then used to derive the water surface
slope, S, for the reach. Mean reach values of flow area, width and depth
were obtained by averaging the three respective sectional values. Con-
sequently mean reach cross-sectional area may not exactly equal the
product of mean width and mean depth, although the differences are
generally less than 1% (5).
Values of the resistance function, (8//) 1/2 , were obtained from Eq. 1
using the mean reach flow parameters and with friction slope, Sf, given
by reach water surface slope, S. This was permissible since the change
in velocity head produced by nonuniform flow along a reach was gen-
erally less than 5% of the water surface slope, a point considered in
greater detail in the companion paper (5).
For the bed material data, cumulative percentage frequency curves of
the size distribution were plotted. The Dm and D^ percentile values were
then extracted and the standard deviation of the distribution calculated
as
3
'-*(£) <>

Transverse tfislance melers

FIG. 1.—Definition Diagram for Roughness Cross-Sectional Area Based on Sur-

vey of Center Section of Tromie 2 Site
630

J. Hydraul. Eng. 1985.111:625-643.

 Continued
(8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14)
12.7 41.9 0.304 2.17 6.16 0.45 7.5
19.2 42.6 0.452 3.23 7.14 0.50 7.5
79.5 49.8 1.60 11.42 9.46 0.62 7.5C
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Illinois Inst of Technology on 06/24/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

All the data (based on mean reach values) are shown in Table 1.
Measurement Errors.—The most significant sources of error arose in
the measurement of water surface level and discharge. In the first case,
surface waves lapping against the surveying staff resulted in estimated
errors of up to ±5% in the depth values, and up to ±8% in water surface
slope. In the derivation of discharge values from the stage-discharge rat-
ing curves, difficulties were caused by the variations in discharge which
occurred during some of the surveys and by approximations inherent in
the rating curves. Time variations were dealt with by calculating a time-
averaged discharge, and in nearly all cases, the variations were less than

TABLE 2.—Parameters of Roughness Cross Section for Center Sections of Se-

lected Sites In Table 1
Total Flow
cross- cross-
Discharge, sectional sectional Relative
Q, in cubic area, AT, area, A, Relative submer-
meters in square in square roughness gence,
River name per second meters meters area, AW/AT d/Du
d) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
Ettrick 0.615 2.99 2.03 0.32 0.80
(Brock- 11.3 7.50 6.44 0.14 2.26
hoperig) 76.9 22.3 21.3 0.048 5.00
Tweed 1.10 4.36 3.07 0.30 0.77
24.7 18.5 17.2 0.071 3.91
59.3 27.4 26.2 0.044 5.72
81.2 36.0 34.5 0.040 6.97
Braan 6.74 17.9 11.6 0.35 0.68
10.3 20.9 14.2 0.32 0.83
23.3 28.4 21.2 0.25 1.24
Tromie—1 2.00 4.58 2.87 0.37 0.52
2.69 5.17 3.37 0.35 0.59
15.9 11.5 9.19 0.20 1.28
24.8 14.1 11.8 0.16 1.54
Tromie—2 2.07 6.05 4.08 0.33 0.70
12.2 11.6 9.51 0.18 1.56
25.5 13.4 11.3 0.16 1.79
102 28.2 25.9 0.078 3.35
Note: 1 m 2 = 10.77 sq ft; 1 m 3 = 35.3 cu ft.

631

J. Hydraul. Eng. 1985.111:625-643.

 5% of the average value. With the rating curves, each gaging authority
warned that the curves were likely to be slightly in error because of the
very problems in discharge gaging in high-gradient rivers alluded to ear-
lier. In fact errors in the rating curve predictions were found from com-
parison with current-metered discharges to range up to about ±8%. At
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Illinois Inst of Technology on 06/24/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

the Tromie sites, the errors may be larger since calculation of the higher
discharges involved extrapolation of the rating curve considerably be-
yond the maximum current-metered flow of 16.7 m 3 /s. Finally, the error
in measuring bed material size was estimated by the method of Hey and
Thorne (20) to be up to ±15%, while the error in measuring distance
was estimated to be up to ±1%.
From the foregoing, the range of errors in selected terms derived from
the basic quantities and appearing in the following review are by the
theory of errors ( 1 8 ) : - ( 8 / / ) ^ : ±12%; d/Dm :±16%; F : ± l l % in which F
= Froude number.

ANALYSIS

Flow Resistance Variation.—In order to test the validity of Eq. 2 for

mountain rivers, the relationship between (8//) 1/2 and log (d/DM) is ex-
amined. The function, (8//) 1/2 , (which is inversely proportional to resis-
tance) is used instead of the simple coefficient, /, partly because it is
more convenient when considering semilogarithmic resistance equations
and partly because it equals dimensionless velocity given by the ratio of
mean flow velocity to shear velocity (gdS)1/2. Four plots are presented.
Fig. 2 presents data for flows thought to be uniform and with no sedi-
ment transport; slopes generally exceed 4%. Fig. 3 contains data selected
from this group to show the change in flow resistance at a site as dis-
charge varies; slope is given as a third variable. Fig. 4 presents data for
flows along channel reaches likely to have nonuniform longitudinal bed
profiles; flows are without sediment transport and slopes exceed 0.4%.
Here d/DS0 replaces d/Dm since not all the sources give a value for DM .
(For natural river gravels, Dsi/D5a is about 2 on average.) Fig. 5 presents
data from steep flumes at Colorado State University (where the rough-
ness bed was a single even layer of gravel, one particle thick, glued to
the flume bed) (6), and the Ecole Polytechnique Federate de Lausanne,
Switzerland, (where the roughness bed was a loose layer of gravel sev-
eral particles thick) (7). In Fig. 5, flows are uniform and without sedi-
ment movement; slopes range from l%-9%. In each case, the line of Eq.
2 is shown—the upper and lower bounds accounting for the variation
of the parameter, a. For Fig. 4, the term 3.5 D ^ , is replaced by 6.8 D 5 0 ,
as recommended by Bray (10). In order to aid visual comparison of the
resistance variations, an error margin of +66% relative to the line of Eq.
2 is shown in the various resistance diagrams, that value being chosen
since it contains most of the data of this study.
Examination of the resistance diagrams highlights two points. First,
for the more uniform flows (Fig. 2 for the field data and Fig. 5 for the
flume data), the data tend to plot above or along, rather than below,
the line of Eq. 2. Such a pattern is unexpected since, particularly for the
region of large-scale and intermediate-scale roughness (d/DM < 4 or
d/D50 < 8), it would be imagined that Eq. 2, designed for the lower re-
632

J. Hydraul. Eng. 1985.111:625-643.

 I I I | I II I | I I I | |-1 71 1
— DATA SOURCE
bb percent
/
This study /
- Barnes 11967)
margin
\ ^
-
"11 —- B Bathurst (1978)

Hey (1979)
V _
©
- + Judd and Peterson 11969)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Illinois Inst of Technology on 06/24/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

A Virmani 119731 / . > ,

D Zevenbergen(1983) / @ / s
. ® o

' - / // / _
- -
- 4 ' » °' ' -
- -
- -

"~
.?#P* • -
— ''^y* Hey equation
1 A / 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 l i l 1l l l
0.1 0.5 1 5 20
Relative Submergence d/D„.

FIG. 2.—Variation of (8//)1/2 with Relative Submergence, d/D 84 , for Field Sites of
this and other Studies

1 1 I | II I I | I I | 1 lll|
u
„ 13
- SITES
Slope Site
A 0.005 Findhorn
In 12 - # 0.005 Tweed
-
T3 D 0.010 Ettrick (Brockhoperigl
fl1 - • 0.010 Logan River 32 (Judd
J /7
t
ii 10
9
- v 0,011
and Peterson 19691
Tromie 2 /[
,
1
1 s"'
/*''
2 8
o 0.012 Bear River dl 1 s^' /
(Virmani 19731 / } 1/ ' /
7 / s
c
6
//
5 / / In '/ /
/ //I '
/ // r '
§ s

I3 - 1
/ /*"
Hey equation
~
In -
« 2 , < y
\ 1 i i i i 1 i i 1 1 1 1 11
cr
1 0.5 1 5 20
Relative Submergence d/D„,

FIG. 3.—Variation of (8//)1/2 with Relative Submergence, d/DM, for Principal Field
Sites in Fig. 2

sistance of small-scale roughness, would, if anything, underestimate the

flow resistance and, therefore, overestimate the value of (8//) 1/2 . Indeed
deviations of that nature have been shown- by Bayazit (8) and Day (12)
for flume data with d/D90 < 3, and by Charlton et a l , (Ref. 11, Fig. 19)
633

J. Hydraul. Eng. 1985.111:625-643.

 14 I I 111 I 1 I I 1 1 1 1 | f 1 1 1 | 1 1 /1 /1
13 - DATA SOURCE ~~~66 percent > // _
# Barnes 11967) , margin / /
-— 12
i/i e Bray (19791 . A
A~
•a ' ® x^/
_ a Charlton et al / A® / /
5*11 A
\ (19781 / ** //
=> i o - • Griffiths (19811 ' // -
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Illinois Inst of Technology on 06/24/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

A Williams (19781 /A / /
^L 9
e e

/ ® /%/
e
oo 8 * /Z • -
/
/ a . DD» * °°
y/A
7
t
c
= 6 ' e./ x —
/ ©
/ A / /,

hu
— '
/
'
s\s
* 0/ / / a
a
#®
•
^
A
-
—
3 - f / As // —
I , /V ^ \ A
A

tfl
'« 2 ' /
'// Hey equo tion
en
1 Mill 1 I I I i i i i1 i i i 1 i i n
0 0.5 5 10 50
Relative Submergence d/0.„

FIG. 4.—Variation of (8//)1/2 with Relative Submergence, d/D 50 , for Field Sites
Thought to Have Nonuniform Flows, Using Data from other Studies

12 1 1 1 | 1 1 1 1 | 1 1 1 |. M I I
_ DATA SOURCE •'
U)
"O o CSU (Bathurst et al 1981 I
o>10
X • EPFL (Bathurst et al 1983) /
~
/ * / /
~L 8 66 percent / / £
%
| 7 - margin /,' % \y /

6 -
c
.2 5 -
u
§ 4
LL
3 -
o - 1>?*v
2
§ £/°——-Hey equation
™ 1
a>

" o I < 'i 1 1i I i 1 i I I 1 i I II

D.1 0.5 1
Relative Submergence d/D„

FIG. 5.—Variation of (8//)1/2 with Relative Submergence, d/D M , for Flume Data

for river data with d/D90 s 5. However, in collecting their data, Charlton
et a l , specifically excluded regions of rapids (riffles) which implies that
their field sites were in pools. Thus the reason for Eq. 2 overpredicting
(8//) 1/2 is probably connected with the effect of a nonuniform bed profile
in which downstream controls such as bars maintain the depth at a value
higher than that which would be maintained by boundary resistance
only in a uniform flow. This idea is supported both by Hey (19) and by
Fig. 4 in which numerous data for flows with nonuniform bed profiles
634

J. Hydraul. Eng. 1985.111:625-643.

 plot below the line of Eq. 2 in contrast to Fig. 2. The effect should be
less pronounced at high flows when the controls become drowned out
(27). For the data of Bayazit and Day (not shown here), for which uni-
form flow conditions presumably prevailed, a more likely explanation is
that the depth measurements did not adequately allow for the projec-
tions of the bed material into the flow. A small overestimation of depth
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Illinois Inst of Technology on 06/24/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(by less than the size of the bed material) could be quite sufficient to
cause the reported trend below the line of Eq. 2. It is important, there-
fore, to select slope-area sites carefully on the basis of uniform bed pro-
file and to survey the cross sections in detail sufficient to account for
the projections of the bed material.
Second, Fig. 3 shows that much of the scatter relative to the line of
Eq. 2 for the higher flows included in Fig. 2 results not from random
scatter but from at-a-site variations of (8//) 1/2 with d/D 84 which do not
parallel the line of Eq. 2. At sites where such deviations occur, it is no-
ticeable that they tend to begin in the region of intermediate-scale rough-
ness (1 < d/DM < 4), which suggests that the region is one in which
the effects of large-scale roughness are drowned out and resistance falls
to values compatible with small-scale roughness. Measured values of
(8//) 1/2 may then be up to 66% higher than values predicted by Eq. 2.
Such systematic deviations are less evident for the flume data (Fig. 5)
where equivalent at-a-site variations (for flows with a given bed material
and slope) tend to plot in a more restricted range.
From the foregoing, it is clear that patterns of flow resistance behavior
for high-gradient, boulder-bed rivers do not parallel those for lowland
rivers, at least as expressed by the semilogarithmic type of equation.
Modification of Eq. 2 is, therefore, necessary if it is to represent the ob-
served variations. One proposal, in which allowance is made for the
projections of the boulders into the flow, has been put forward by
Thompson and Campbell (30), but it does not apply here since it has
the effect of reducing the predicted value of (8//) 1 / 2 below that of Eq. 2
rather than raising it, as required. Instead, examination of the data sug-
gests that the most likely causes of the observed variation in resistance
are processes connected with bed material size distribution and channel
slope, since the river sites with the more rapid rates of change of resis-
tance [Tromie 2, Ettrick (Brockhoperig)] tend to have wider size distri-
butions (cr S 0.35) and steeper slopes (S = 1%), whereas the less rapid
rates of change are found at sites (Tweed and Findhorn) with narrower
size distributions (a s 0.31) and gentler slopes (S ~ 0.4%). The possible
dependence of at-a-site variations in flow resistance on these two pa-
rameters is, therefore, examined in more detail.
Effect of Bed Material Size Distribution.—This is likely to affect both
the relative roughness area, AW/AT (the proportion of the total cross-
sectional area occupied by significantly projecting boulders), and the
roughness concentration or spacing (the proportion of the bed area oc-
cupied by significantly projecting boulders). The two factors are ob-
viously related and together provide a three-dimensional picture of bed
material disposition in the channel.
Relative roughness area significantly affects flow resistance by deter-
mining the degree to which the flow is funnelled between projecting
elements (6,17,30). A connection with bed material size distribution and
635

J. Hydraul. Eng. 1985.111:625-643.

 0.7 1 1 1 1! | 1 1 1 1 I 111
1
- SITES
< a Site
•s 0.6 o 0.247 Tromie 1
s
< - O 0.309 Tweed
* 0.334 Braan
0.5 - D 0.352 Ettrick
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Illinois Inst of Technology on 06/24/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(Brock hoperig)
v 0.490 Tromie 2
8 0.4
<
- ^ -
in
S 0.3
c:
- «\ -
en
o
- \ -
* 0 . 2 - o \ _
Of
_ s\.
"5 A W / A T = 0.275
» 0.1
- 0.375 l o g l d / D a 4 )
\ o _

0 i i I 1 , 1 111 1 I i 1 I I II
0.1 0.5 1 5 10
Relative Submergence d/D84

FIG. 6.—Variation of Relative Roughness Area, AW/AT, with Relative Submer-

gence, d/DM, for Principal Field Sites of this Study

channel properties was considered by Bathurst et al., (6) while Thomp-

son and Campbell (30) proposed a relationship involving relative sub-
mergence. The river data of this study confirm the importance of relative
submergence and bed material size distribution since the values of Aw/
AT in Table 2 correlate very well with D„/d if D„ is a large percentile (DM
as in Fig. 6), but less well if a smaller percentile such as D50 is used. In
other words, the relative roughness area depends on the larger elements
in the size distribution as might indeed be expected. However, the greater
significance of Fig. 6 is that because of the close correlation between Aw/
AT and D84/d, the employment of D ^ in the resistance diagram means
that the effect of size distribution via relative roughness area is effec-
tively accounted for (although not explained in physical terms). In other
words, any variation in (8//) 1/2 at a given value of d/Dm is not depen-
dent on relative roughness area because the effects of that parameter are
then constant.
In Fig. 6, the variation of relative roughness area could perhaps be
represented more accurately by a shallow curve. However, straight lines
are used here in order to highlight the sharp change in the rate of vari-
ation which occurs at around d/DM = 4. For d/Du < 4
Aw ( d \
-f = 0.275 - 0.375 log — (4)

in which the range of a = 0.247 - 0.49 (Eq. 3). For d/Du > 4, a different,
less rapid rate of change is evident. This corresponds to the region of
small-scale roughness in which AW/AT (s5%) does not change much and
in which the effect of flow funnelling is not significant. Thus, the im-
portance of the region of intermediate-scale roughness as one of tran-
636

J. Hydraul. Eng. 1985.111:625-643.

 j sition, in which large-scale roughness effects are drowned out, is again
j confirmed. (In Fig. 6, standard deviation of size distribution is given as
I a third variable.)
j With roughness spacing, the importance of bed material size distri-
] bution was reviewed by Bathurst et al., (6). Again, there is some evi-
| dence to link spacing with d/DM, so that the influence of bed material
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Illinois Inst of Technology on 06/24/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

size distribution can automatically be accounted for if D84 is used in the

relative submergence (3,35). However, this is not yet confirmed, and, in
any case, may apply only to the region of large-scale and intermediate-
scale roughness.
Quantification of the resistance effect of bed material size distribution
is not possible with the few available data. However, the foregoing sug-
gests that much of the effect is accounted for by the inclusion of D M (or
a similarly large percentile of the size distribution) in the resistance re-
lationship and that any remaining size distribution influence is small.
This is also supported by Moore's (26) correlation analysis (for data from
mountain rivers) which showed that size distribution explained only 4%
of the observed variation in his measured values of (8//) 1/2 , while slope
and relative submergence together explained 86%. Apart from the in-
clusion of DM in the relative submergence, size distribution is, therefore,
neglected in the approach developed here.
Effect of Slope.—Slope is not directly related to resistance, but tends
to have an indirect influence, e.g., via the agency of Froude number.
However, for the flows in question it is doubtful whether Froude num-
ber can be invoked to explain the at-a-site variations. Certainly for large-
scale roughness, Froude number does seem to affect flow resistance via
the development of surface wave drag around protruding bed elements,
but this effect dies away once d/D 84 exceeds about 1 (6,13). At larger
relative submergences, the only effects which can be related to Froude
number are surface instabilities and waves (e.g., 28). However, these
would be expected to increase resistance [i.e., reduce (8//) 1 / 2 ], while the
evidence of the data (Fig. 2) shows that the higher the Froude number,
the higher is the value of (8//) 1/2 and the lower is the resistance. It is
probable, therefore, that the high Froude numbers result from a reduced
resistance, rather than vice versa.
A more likely means by which slope could influence flow resistance
is highlighted by current research by R. D. Jarrett (U.S. Geological Sur-
vey, Denver, personal communication, 1983). Preliminary measure-
ments in high-gradient channels with boulder beds suggest that the ver-
tical velocity profile is S-shaped and has rather exaggerated surface
velocities. By comparison, profiles in boulder-bed channels with gentle
slopes are more like the right half of a U and, often, approximate to a
semilogarithmic trend. The implication of this research is that high-
gradient channels have larger velocities and, therefore, larger values of
(8//) 1/2 than would be predicted by a semilogarithmic law—the differ-
ence becoming most obvious once the boulders are covered by water,
i.e., in the region of intermediate-scale roughness. Obviously, the fore-
going preliminary findings need to be confirmed, but the possible effect
on resistance is consistent with the patterns in Fig. 3. The steeper slopes
correlate with more rapid at-a-site variations in resistance in the region
of intermediate-scale roughness while at the gentler slopes, the rate of

637

J. Hydraul. Eng. 1985.111:625-643.

 change of (8//) 1/2 with rf/D^ approaches that indicated by Eq. 2 for more
lowland rivers, as should indeed be required. Further, the acceleration
of flow producing the S-shaped profile over the boulders should be more
pronounced for a bed material of nonuniform size distribution, which
is consistent with the absence of slope effect with the flume data for
which the bed materials were uniform. Again, however, the pattern is
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Illinois Inst of Technology on 06/24/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

not completely explained by this correlation and the data are not suffi-
cient to allow any dependency on slope to be quantified.
Sediment Transport and Flow Resistance.—Many studies have in-
vestigated the interaction of sediment transport, bedform development
and flow resistance for sand-bed channels (e.g., Ref. 29), but rather less
is known about gravel- and boulder-bed channels. Both Griffiths (16)
and Charlton, et al. (11), have proposed, on the basis of field studies,
that separate flow resistance relationships should be used for moving
and stationary beds. On the other hand, several flume studies have shown
that for gravel-bed channels with high gradients, the preferred two-di-
mensional bedforms are the transitional plane bed and the antidune (7,32),
neither of which is likely to increase very significantly flow resistance
due to form drag (29). Three-dimensional bed features such as alternate
bars also do not seem to produce a much higher resistance through form
drag (at least at sediment-moving flows) (21,27), although the consid-
erable sediment transport associated with their movement and forma-
tion could increase resistance (7).
In order to study the influence of sediment transport, the variation of
(8//) 1/2 with d/D50 for flume (7,25) and river flows (14,16) with sediment
transport is shown in Fig. 7. D50 is used because Griffith's data (16) do
not include values for D ^ , and the line of Eq. 2 is accordingly based on
6.8 Dso rather than 3.5 D M . Only data for channels with slopes greater

5 10
Relative Submergence

FIG. 7.—Variation of (8//)1/2 with Relative Submergence, d/D50, for Fiume and
River Flows with Sediment Transport, Using Data from other Studies

638

J. Hydraul. Eng. 1985.111:625-643.

 than 0.4% are plotted: Generally for the river sites, S < 0.7%, while the
flume slopes range up to 9%. Data points for individual river sites are
joined in order of increasing discharge; and the error margin provides
a comparison with the value of (8//) 1 / 2 predicted by Hey's equation (Eq.
2). Bedforms are indicated for the Ecole Polytechnique Federate de Lau-
sanne data (7), but are unknown for the Eidgenossische Technische
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Illinois Inst of Technology on 06/24/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Hochschule Zurich data of Meyer-Peter and Muller (25). Griffiths sug-

gests that his sites were affected by bars (16). Gladki does not describe
the bed features at her site (14).
For points with plane beds and antidunes (principally the flume data),
the values of (8//) 1/2 lie along or above the line of the equation, indi-
cating that these bedforms cause little extra form drag relative to sta-
tionary beds. For the points with bars (the EPF-Lausanne and river data),
the resistance is greater, but research still in progress suggests that at
least for the flume data, this may be related to the sediment concentra-
tion in the flow, rather than to any form drag associated with the bars
themselves. (See, though, Ref. 21.) Within this broad trend, however,
there is considerable variation in flow resistance at a site, both for the
flume data (7) and the river data. Thus for Griffiths's and Gladki's sites
(8//) 1/2 fluctuates quite considerably around a value of 10-11, and may
even be considered independent of d/D50. Further, since similar fluc-
tuations are shown by Griffith's data for stationary beds (not reproduced
here), they are unlikely to be caused solely by sediment transport. It is
assumed, therefore, that although flow resistance probably is affected
by sediment transport, the effect may be neglected in comparison with
the effects of other uncertainties. This depends, however, on the bed
material and range of bedforms not being altered by a disruption of an
armour layer or a sudden injection of fine material from outside the
channel. Also, of course, as already noted, three-dimensional bed fea-
tures acting as section controls increase flow resistance along a reach at
low flows.

EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS AND APPLICATION

The rather negative conclusion from the foregoing analysis is that the
complicated nature of the flow resistance processes, coupled with the
lack of available data, currently prevent the development of a satisfac-
tory practical method for predicting flow resistance in steep mountain
rivers. In particular, Eq. 2, while applying in an approximate way, can-
not easily be extended to cover all conditions in such rivers. Application
of the results of this study is, therefore, restricted to an empirical ap-
proach in which the likely limits to the resistance variation are deline-
ated, and the flow resistance variation itself is calculated from the avail-
able data (Fig. 8).
In Fig. 8, the envelope of available data refers to data for uniform flow.
(The diagram is based on data from this and other studies for flows at
slopes exceeding 0.4%; roughness scale and Eq. 2 are included for com-
parison.) For d/Dsi < 1 (large-scale roughness), the data lie in a relatively
restricted range and the average rate of change of (8//) 1/2 with d/DM is
parallel with the line of Eq. 2. For 1 < d/DBi < 6 (essentially interme-
diate-scale roughness), the range widens and, on average, the flow re-

639

J. Hydraul. Eng. 1985.111:625-643.

 14 I | l l li| I 1 1 | 1 1 1 11 1 I I . '
13 - SLOPE > 0.004 /
/ / / /—
'
12 - /
£ region / •
//
11
f . s/
10 _
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Illinois Inst of Technology on 06/24/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

9 - envelope
/
' sediment —

8 - ,' ' ' transport—

available
7 — data
' '
fi
Hey equation
5
eq5 X
4 • ' ^ r e g i o n of
1 S / • 'Jj r nonuniform or
overbank flow
?
'/
'// roughness _
/• ^mrge intermediate small scale ~
n f 1 , ml 1 1 i 1 i i i i 1 1 I I
0.3 0.5 1 5 50
Relative Submergence d/D„,

FIG. 8.—Summary Diagram for Calculation of (8//) 1/2 as Function of d/DM for Uni-
form Flows

sistance changes more rapidly with relative submergence. For both these
regions, data points for nonuniform or over-bank flows are likely to fall
below the envelope. For d/D8i > 6 (small-scale roughness), the pattern
of variation is unclear, but on average the rate of change appears to level
off. A possible reason for this is that flows with higher values of (8//) 1/2
simply do not occur in mountain rivers: Generally, the steeper the
channel gradient, the lower are the values of d/DM and (8//) 1/2 at which
bankfull and flood conditions are attained. Certainly there are few pub-
lished values of (8//) 1/2 greater than about 12 for channels with slopes
exceeding 1%.
There are three simple but different ways of quantifying the variation.
The first is to plot three straight-line equations along the center of the
envelope—one for each roughness scale. Given the empirical approach,
this is logical, but it has the disadvantage of setting the flow resistance
constant for d/DM > 6, a pattern which conflicts with theory. The second
method is to adopt the Hey equation (Eq. 2). However, while this equa-
tion provides a reasonable average value of (8//) 1/2 for d/DM > 6, it lies
along the bottom of the envelope for shallower flows. The third ap-
proach, adopted here, is to combine the first two, defining an equation
which is parallel to Eq. 2, but which lies nearer the center of the en-
velope. The equation suggested here lies along the center of the region
of large-scale roughness and along the center of the flume data in
Fig. 5

(?r =5 ' 62i ° s (^) +4 (5)

Using the data of this study, the error in the resistance function pre-
640

J. Hydraul. Eng. 1985.111:625-643.

 in-

dicted by Eq. 5, (8//) t 1/2 , relative to the observed value, (8//)J /2 , was
J calculated as [(8//)J/2 - (8//) c 1/2 ]/[(8//)J /2 ]. For the 44 data points, the
i mean error is about - 1 3 % . The root mean square error, (2e 2 /n) 1/2 , is
J about 34%, in which e = the individual error; and n = the number of
1
data points. It should be noted, however, that the data are not well
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Illinois Inst of Technology on 06/24/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

i distributed over the range of relative submergences: Most of the points

| are clustered at d/Dm < 2; and relatively few represent the region where
j observed values of (8//) 1/2 may be expected to be greater than predicted
• values. More generally, for most flows the possible range of error rel-
* ative to Eq. 5 within the envelope is about ±25% to ±35%.
| Eq. 5 does not in the limit tend to a recognized flow resistance equa-
I tion, such as Eq. 2, as flow conditions approach those of lowland rivers
} with gentler slopes. However, the approach reviewed here does delin-
eate the likely range of the resistance variation for channels with slopes
>0.4%. It also allows the flow resistance to be calculated more accurately
over the full range of conditions encountered in mountain rivers than is
| possible with existing resistance equations.

\ CONCLUSION

I 1. Flow resistance in mountain rivers varies in a complicated manner

| depending on roughness scale and the interaction of resistance pro-
cesses: Average between-site variations do not necessarily reflect at-a-
site variations.
2. Genuine differences in flow resistance between mountain and low-
land rivers are apparent: The semilogarithmic resistance equation for small-
j scale roughness (Eq. 2) provides a minimum value of (8//) 1/2 for uniform
flows with d/DM :S 6, but values up to 66% higher are possible.
3. No satisfactory research equation for all flow conditions has been
developed, but Fig. 8 and Eq. 5 summarize the available data and allow
(8//) 1/2 to be calculated with an associated error of up to about ±25% to
±35%.
4. Further research into mountain river hydraulics should concentrate
on the higher range of flows (for which d/DM > 4) and on at-a-site vari-
ations, particularly as they are affected by slope, vertical velocity profile
and sediment transport.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Considerable and generous help with the selection of field sites and
the provision of discharge data was given by: Mr. J. M. Storey (Nor-
thumbrian Water Authority), Mr. C. S. Stevenson (Tweed River Purifi-
cation Board), Mr. J. A. Reid (Tay River Purification Board), Mr. K. Grib-
ben and Mr. D. Fraser (Northeast River Purification Board) and Mr. T.
) Inglis (Highland River Purification Board). Miss A. Whitcombe, Mr. D.
Lapping and Mr. A. Flower (Institute of Hydrology and Coventry Poly-
technic) were cheerful and excellent field assistants under adverse con-
ditions. Part of the work on this paper was carried out while the writer
was visiting the Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne, Switzerland,
and he therefore thanks Prof. W. H. Graf for the generous provision of

641

J. Hydraul. Eng. 1985.111:625-643.

 facilities. The writer is also most grateful to Mr. R. D. Jarrett (U.S. Geo-
logical Survey, Denver) for a discussion of the latter's research into
mountain river hydraulics..Helpful comments on the paper have been
given by Dr. R. Bettess (Hydraulics Research, U.K.) a n d Dr. P. E.
O'Connell (Institute of Hydrology). The research described forms part
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Illinois Inst of Technology on 06/24/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

of a study of discharge estimation funded b y the United Kingdom Over-

seas Development Administration.

APPENDIX.—REFERENCES

1. Barnes, H. H., "Roughness Characteristics of Natural Channels," Water Sup-

ply Paper 1849, United States Geological Survey, Washington, D.C., 1967.
2. Barnes, H. H., and Davidian, J., "Indirect Methods," Hydrometry, R. W. Her-
schy, ed., John Wiley and Sons Ltd., New York, N.Y., 1978, pp. 149-204.
3. Bathurst, J. C , "Flow Resistance of Large-Scale Roughness," Journal of the
Hydraulics Division, ASCE, Vol. 104, No. HY12, Proc. Paper 14239, Dec, 1978,
pp. 1587-1603.
4. Bathurst, J. C , "Theoretical Aspects of Flow Resistance," Gravel-Bed Rivers,
R. D. Hey, J. C. Bathurst, and C. R. Thome, eds., John Wiley & Sons Ltd.,
New York, N.Y., 1982, pp. 83-108.
5. Bathurst, J. C , "Slope-Area Discharge Gauging in Mountain Rivers," Journal
of Hydraulic Engineering, ASCE, in press.
6. Bathurst, J. C , Li, R-M., and Simons, D. B., "Resistance Equation for Large-
Scale Roughness," Journal of the Hydraulics Division, ASCE, Vol. 107, No. HY12,
Proc. Paper 16743, Dec, 1981, pp. 1593-1613.
7. Bathurst, J. C , Graf, W. H., and Cao, H. H., "Bedforms and Flow Resistance
in Steep Gravel-Bed Channels," Mechanics of Sediment Transport Proceedings of
the EUROMECH 156 Colloquium, Istanbul, Turkey, July, 1982, B. M. Sumer,
and A. Miiller, eds., A. A. Balkema Publishers, Rotterdam, The Nether-
lands, 1983, pp. 215-221.
8. Bayazit, M., "Flow Structure and Sediment Transport Mechanics in Steep
Channels," Mechanics of Sediment Transport Proceedings of the EUROMECH 156
Colloquium, Istanbul, Turkey, July, 1982, B. M. Sumer and A. Miiller, eds.,
A. A. Balkema Publishers, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 1983, pp. 197-206.
9. Bray, D. I., "Estimating Average Velocity in Gravel-Bed Rivers," Journal of
the Hydraulics Division, ASCE, Vol. 105, No. HY9, Proc. Paper 14810, Sept.,
1979, pp. 1103-1122.
10. Bray, D. I., "Flow Resistance in Gravel-Bed Rivers," Gravel-Bed Rivers, R. D.
Hey, J. C. Bathurst and C. R. Thome, eds., John Wiley & Sons Ltd., New
York, N.Y., 1982, pp. 109-137.
11. Charlton, F. G., Brown, P. M., and Benson, R. W., "The Hydraulic Geom-
etry of Some Gravel Rivers in Britain," Report No. IT180, Hydraulics Research
Station, Wallingford, U.K., July, 1978.
12. Day, T. J., discussion of "Resistance Equation for Alluvial-Channel Flow,"
by D. E. Burkham and D. R. Dawdy, Journal of the Hydraulics Division, ASCE,
Vol. 103, No. HY5, Proc. Paper 12896, May, 1977, pp. 582-584.
13. Flammer, G. H., Tullis, J, P., and Mason, E. S., "Free Surface, Velocity Gra-
dient Flow Past Hemisphere," Journal of the Hydraulics Division, ASCE, Vol.
96, No. HY7, Proc. Paper 7418, July, 1970, pp. 1485-1502.
14. Gladki, H., "Resistance to Flow in Alluvial Channels with Coarse Bed Ma-
terials," Journal of Hydraulic Research, International Association for Hydraulic
Research, Vol. 17, No. 2, Delft, The Netherlands, 1979, pp. 121-128.
15. Golubtsov, V. V., "Hydraulic Resistance and Formula for Computing the
Average Flow Velocity of Mountain Rivers," Soviet Hydrology: Selected Papers,
American Geophysical Union, No. 5, 1969, pp. 500-511.
16. Griffiths, G. A., "Flow Resistance in Coarse Gravel Bed Rivers," Journal of
the Hydraulics Division, ASCE, Vol. 107, No. HY7, Proc. Paper 16363, July,
1981, pp. 899-918.

642

J. Hydraul. Eng. 1985.111:625-643.

 17. Herbich, J. B., and Shulits, S., "Large-Scale Roughness in Open Channel
Flow," Journal of the Hydraulics Division, ASCE, Vol. 90, No. HY6, Proc. Paper
4145, Nov., 1964, pp. 203-230.
18. Herschy, R. W., "Accuracy," Hydrometry, R. W. Herschy, ed., John Wiley
and Sons Ltd., New York, N.Y., 1978, pp. 353-397.
19. Hey, R. D., "Flow Resistance in Gravel-Bed Rivers," Journal of the Hydraulics
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Illinois Inst of Technology on 06/24/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Division, ASCE, Vol. 105, No. HY4, Proc. Paper 14500, Apr., 1979, pp. 365-
379.
20. Hey, R. D., and Thome, C. R., "Accuracy of Surface Samples from Gravel
Bed Material," Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 109, No. 6, Proc.
Paper 18047, June, 1983, pp. 842-851.
21. Jaeggi, M. N. R., "Formation and Effects of Alternate Bars," Journal of Hy-
draulic Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 110, No. 2, Proc. Paper 18580, Feb., 1984, pp.
142-156.
22. Judd, H. E., and Peterson, D. F., "Hydraulics of Large Bed Element Chan-
nels," Report No. PRWG 17-6, Utah Water Research Lab., Utah State Uni-
versity, Logan, Utah, 1969.
23. Keulegan, G. H., "Laws of Turbulent Flow in Open Channels," Journal of
Research of the National Bureau of Standards, Vol. 21, Research Paper RP1151,
Dec, 1938, pp. 707-741.
24. Limerinos, J. T., "Determination of the Manning Coefficient from Measured
Bed Roughness in Natural Channels," Water Supply Paper 1898-B, United States
Geological Survey, Washington, D.C., 1970.
25. Meyer-Peter, E., and Mxiller, R., "Formulas for Bed-Load Transport," Pro-
ceedings of the Second Meeting of the International Association for Hydraulic Struc-
tures Research, Stockholm, Sweden, Appendix 2, June, 1948, pp. 39-64.
26. Moore, R. C , "Modeling Hydraulic Roughness in Steep Mountain Streams,"
thesis presented to Colorado State University, at Fort Collins, Colorado, in
1980, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of
Science.
27. Parker, G., and Peterson, A. W., "Bar Resistance of Gravel-Bed Streams,"
Journal of the Hydraulics Division, ASCE, Vol. 106, No. HY10, Proc. Paper 15733,
Oct., 1980, pp. 1559-1575.
28. Rouse, H., "Critical Analysis of Open-Channel Resistance," Journal of the Hy-
draulics Division, ASCE, Vol. 91, No. HY4, Proc. Paper 4387, July, 1965, pp.
1-25.
29. Simons, D. B., and Richardson, E. V., "Resistance to Flow in Alluvial Chan-
nels," Professional Paper 422-J, United States Geological Survey, Washington,
D.C., 1966.
30. Thompson, S. M., and Campbell, P. L., "Hydraulics of a Large Channel Paved
with Boulders," Journal of Hydraulic Research, International Association for
Hydraulic Research, Vol. 17, No. 4, Delft, The Netherlands, 1979, pp. 341-
354.
31. Virmani, J. K., "The Relationship between Channel Forming Flows and the
Cross-Section Shape, Slope and Bed Materials in Large Bed Element Streams,"
thesis presented to Utah State University, at Logan, Utah, in 1973, in partial
fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
32. Whittaker, J. G., and Jaeggi, M. N. R., "Origin of Step-Pool Systems in
Mountain Streams," Journal of the Hydraulics Division, ASCE, Vol. 108, No.
HY6, Proc. Paper 17160, June, 1982, pp. 758-773.
33. Williams, G. P., "Bank-Full Discharge of Rivers," Water Resources Research,
Vol. 14, No. 6, Dec, 1978, pp. 1141-1154.
34. Wolman, M. G., "A Method of Sampling Coarse River-Bed Material," Trans-
actions, American Geophysical Union, Vol. 35, No. 6, Part 1, Dec, 1954, pp.
951-956.
35. Zevenbergen, L. W., "Flow Resistance of Boulder-Bed Streams," thesis pre-
sented to Colorado State University, at Fort Collins, Colorado, in 1983, in
partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science.

643

J. Hydraul. Eng. 1985.111:625-643.