DISCHARGE ASSESSMENT IN MEANDERING AND STRAIGHT COMPOUND CHANNELS

PROF KANHU CHARAN PATRA1, ELLORA PADHI2

(1) Department of Civil Engineering, National Institute of Technology, Rourkela, India,

prof_kcpatra@yahoo.com
(2) Department of Civil Engineering, National Institute of Technology, Rourkela, India,
ellora.padhi@yahoo.co.in

ABSTRACT

Reliable estimates of discharge capacity in open channels are essential for the design, operation and maintenance of open
channels, and more importantly the prediction of flood, water level management, and flood design. The methods of
discharge estimation that are used in the available river modeling software are principally based on historic hand-
calculation formulae, with little or no account taken of the more recent advances in knowledge and understanding. The
paper describes some of the conclusions of predicting discharge in meandering and straight compound channels with the
proposed method by authors, the diversity of current knowledge and the outline of the targeted program of research that
is now underway to produce an improved discharge estimation system. Particular issues of concern are the effects of the
interaction between river channels and flood plain.

Key words: Meandering channel, Overbank flow, Floodplain, Apparent shear, Discharge.

1. INTRODUCTION It is the responsibility of a river engineer to predict the

discharge (hence the water level) and to develop flood
When floodwater overtops the banks of a natural river defense schemes to protect against such flood damages.
channel and inundates its floodplains, these provide the
The maximum flood level during discharge depends on
extra capacity required to attenuate the flood peak and to
the resistance to flow exerted by bed friction and other
facilitate the transmission of the floodwaters down the
head loss mechanisms. Research has shown that the flow
river corridors (Fig.1). The extent of the damage and
structure is complex, even for straight compound
devastation in the event of a flood depends on the flood
channels. The flow mechanisms are therefore more
magnitude and the density of the settlements on the
difficult to analyze for compound meandering channels
floodplain. One of the common tasks of a river engineer is
due to the three-dimensional (3D) nature of flow involved
to make accurate assessment of water level based on an
in the system. At overbank stages the hydraulic radius
estimated, recorded or simulated flood discharge. Natural
changes. The main channel and floodplains have different
streams and man-made surface drainage channels often
longitudinal slopes and boundary roughness.
overflow their banks during the occurrence of high
rainfall, thereby causing extensive damage to nearby
properties and, in many parts of the world, loss of life.

All natural channels meander. Infect straight river

reaches of lengths exceeding 10 times their widths are
rather rare. Channels with sinuosity, that is, ratio between
channel slopes to valley slope exceeding 1.5 is referred as
meandering (Chang 1984). Meandering is a degree of
adjustment of the flow and the sediment laden river with
the surrounding such that a flatter river can exist in a
steep valley slope. Meandering and the flow interaction
between main channel and its adjoining flood plains are Fig.1 Two-Stage Compound Channels of Typical Water Ways
those natural processes that have not been fully (ASCE, 1992)
understood. Discharge estimation methods currently
employed in river modeling software are based on historic 2 HYDRAULICS OF COMPOUND CHANNELS
hand calculation formulae (Chezys 1769, Darcy-Weisbach
At high stages, almost all natural rivers exhibit a
1857 or Mannings 1889). Recent works have provided
compound or two-stage geometry, consisting of a deep
significant improvement in understanding and calculation
main channel flanked by one or two floodplains disposed
of channel discharge, ranging from interpretation of
off to its sides that carries part of the river discharge. Due
complex flow mechanisms to the advent of computing
to different hydraulic conditions prevailing in the river
tools that enable more sophisticated solution techniques.
and floodplain, the mean velocity in the main channel and
Assessing the discharge capacity of meandering channels
in the floodplain are different. Just above the bank-full
is essential in controlling floods and in designing artificial
stage, the velocity in main channel is much higher than
waterways, and is fundamental to the flood warning,
the floodplain. Therefore the flow in the main channel
determining the development approach to be adopted in
exerts a pulling or accelerating force on the flow over
flood-risk areas and the long-term management of rivers.
floodplains, which naturally generates a dragging or
retarding force on the flow through the main channel. This
leads to the transfer of momentum between the main
channel water and that of the floodplain (Fig 2). The
interaction effect is very strong at just above bank full
stage and decreases with increase in depth of flow over
floodplain. The relative pull and drag of the flow conventional Mannings, Chezys or Darcy-Weisbach
between faster and slower moving sections of a
compound section complicates the momentum transfer
between them. Failure to understand this process leads to
either overestimate or underestimate the discharge
leading to the faulty design of channel section. This causes
frequent flooding at its lower reaches.
Fig. 2 Momentum Transfer Between Main Channel and Flood
Plain in Compound Channels
At the junction region between the main channel and that
of the floodplain, Sellin (1964) indicated the presence of
artificial banks made of vortices, which acted as a medium
for transfer of momentum between the main channel and
floodplain. At low depths over floodplain, transfer of
momentum takes place from the main channel flow to the
floodplain leading to the decrease in the main channel
velocity and discharge, while its floodplain components
are increased. As the depth of flow in the floodplain
increases beyond a limiting depth, no transfer of
momentum takes place between the main channel and the
floodplain. At still higher depths of flow in the floodplain
the process of momentum transfer reverses. These flow
processes are reported by Patra (1999), Patra and Kar
(2000), Khatua (2008) and others.
An attempt is made here to apply the one-dimensional
models proposed by various investigators to meandering
compound channel using the data available with the
authors. Brief discussions on the three-dimensional (3D)
and two-dimensional (2D) models have also been made to
give an overall picture of the flow analysis in compound
channels.
3 METHODS OF DISCHARGE ESTIMATION
USING 1-D APPROACHES
3.1 Single Channel Method
When the flow is bound only in the main channel,
conventional methods are used to assess discharge
capacity. A major area of uncertainty in river channel
analysis is the accuracy in predicting the capability of
river channel with floodplains which is termed as
compound channel. At overbank stages, the classical
formula either overestimates or underestimates the actual
discharge. Standard sub division and composite
roughness methods given by Chow (1959) are essentially
flawed when applied to the flow estimation of compound
channels. The discharge calculation for compound channel
is based mainly on refined one dimensional analysis. If a
compound channel is considered as single entity (Fig. 3),
the carrying capacity is underestimated because the single
channel method suffers from a sudden reduction in
hydraulic radius at just above bank full, that produces
spurious discharge assessment when using the
equation expressed as:
1 2 1
Mannings equation = 3 2 [1]
Chezys equation = [2]
1
8g 2
Darcy-Weisbach equation Q = ( ) ARS [3]
f
Fig. 3: A compound Channel in SCM without Division into
Subsections
Patra and Kar (2000) have shown the inadequacy of this
simple method in estimating the discharge in compound
channels.
3.2 Divided Channel Method (DCM)
By assuming either a vertical, horizontal or diagonal
interface planes running from the main channel-
floodplain junctions, a compound section can be divided
into its subsections. Discharge for each subsection is
calculated using Mannings or Chezys or Darcy-Weisbach
equation and added up to get the total discharge carried
by the compound section. For meandering river with
flood plains, knowledge to accurately divide the section to
hydraulically homogeneous sections while taking care of
proper inclusion of the interface length to the wetted
perimeter resulting from the interaction at the interface
planes is a must. To do this, understanding the flow and
the interaction process between the meandering rivers
with its flood plain is essential. Using Mannings equation
and divided channel method the equation for discharge is
written as
1 1 1 1
1 1
Q = S ( Amc2 Pmc 2
+ Afp2 Pfp 2
) [4]
nmc nfp
In the light of the knowledge gained about flow structure
in compound channels a number of suggestions have been
made as to how these divided channel methods might be
modified to simulate the interaction process more
accurately (Lambert and Myers, 1998). Brief discussion on
the various approaches using divided channel method
is made below.
3.2.1 Approach I (Altering the Subarea wetted Perimeters)
It is based on altering the sub-area wetted perimeters,
typically not considering the length of the interface to the
floodplain perimeter, but including it to the value of
perimeter for the main channel. This is intended to have
the effect of retarding the flow in the main channel sub
area and enhancing it in the floodplain sub-area. The
following methods are used under this approach:
3.2.1.1 Vertical Division Methods (VDM)

There are several vertical division methods which are

based on altering the wetted perimeter of the sub area to
account for the effect of interaction. Typically the length of
vertical division lines between the main channel and the
floodplain (Fig. 4) is included to the wetted perimeter of Fig.4 Division of Compound Section Using Vertical Interface Plains
main channel for the discharge calculation of the main
channel flow but is not included to the wetted perimeter 3.2.1.1.1 VDM Approach - I
for the discharge calculation of flood plain flow. This is
Here, the length of interface (H-h) is not included to the
intended to have the effect of retarding the flow of main
main channel and/or to the floodplain sub sections and
channel and enhancing to that of the floodplain. However,
therefore does not take care of the interaction effect at the
simply altering the wetted perimeter by the vertical line
vertical interface. It assumes zero apparent shears at the
does not completely take care of the interaction effect
interface. Though this method gives good discharge results
(Wormleaton 1982, Knight and Demetriou 1983; Knight
for 0.3 but it cannot be accepted for all over bank flow
and Hamed 1984a; Knight and Sihno 1990, Patra and Kar
depths because of its ineffectiveness to take care of the
2000), and over predicts the flow rate. Conceptually it is
interaction between main channel and its adjoining
flawed as it imbalances shear forces at the interface.
floodplain. Basing on the scheme of experimental results on
Discharges carried by all 3 subsections (Fig. 4) are
various types of channels as given in Table -1, the discharge
calculated using Mannings equation and added to get the
results following the approach is given at col 4 of Table 2
total discharge.
that gives maximum discharge errors.
Table 1 Scheme of Experimental Runs for Meandering Channel with Floodplains.

Top Main Depth of

Bed Depth over =
Nature of Channel width channel lower
Series No. Slope Main channel = B/b (H-h)/H Sinuosity Sr
surface B(cm) width Main
(10-3) h (cm)
b(cm) channel (cm)
A.1 smooth 0.61 52.5 10 11.6 10 5.25 0.137 1.22
A.2 smooth 0.61 52.5 10 14.9 10 5.25 0.328 1.22
A.3 smooth 0.61 52.5 10 16.8 10 5.25 0.404 1.22
C.4 smooth 0.4 21.3 10 12.19 10 2.13 0.180 1.21
C.5 smooth 0.4 21.3 10 13.81 10 2.13 0.275 1.21
C.6 smooth 0.4 21.3 10 15.24 10 2.13 0.343 1.21
D.7 smooth 0.4 41.8 10 12.19 10 4.18 0.1796 1.21
D.8 smooth 0.4 41.8 10 14.08 10 4.18 0.2898 1.21
F.9 Rough 0.4 21.3 10 12.22 10 2.13 0.181 1.21
F.10 rough 0.4 21.3 10 13.71 10 2.13 0.270 1.21
F.11 rough 0.4 21.3 10 15.24 10 2.13 0.343 1.21
G.12 Rough 0.4 41.8 10 12.49 10 4.18 0.209 1.21
G.13 rough 00.4 41.8 10 14.23 10 4.18 0.301 1.21
G.14 rough 0.4 41.8 10 15.84 10 4.18 0.369 1.21
I.15 smooth 0.278 138 44 29.5 25 3.136 0.1525 1.043
I.16 smooth 0.278 138 44 30.7 25 3.136 0.1857 1.043
I.17 smooth 0.278 138 44 31.6 25 3.136 0.2089 1.043
the vertical interface is increased suitably by trial and
3.2.1.1.2. VDM Approach - II added to the main channel perimeter. The length of
interface added to the main channel is found to be higher
Typically, the length of vertical division lines between the
at low depths of flow over floodplain and gradually
main channel and the floodplain is included to the wetted
reduces as the depth of flow increases. A graph between
perimeter of main channel for discharge calculation of the
vs. (H-h) times the length of interface that is added to the
main channel flow, but is not included to the wetted
main channels are plotted from which a factor C
perimeter of floodplain for the discharge calculation of the
representing the length of interface (H-h) times that is
floodplain. This is intended to have the effect of retarding
added to the main channel perimeter only is obtained
the flow of main channel and enhancing to that of the
from a regression analysis given as
floodplain. Discharge results are given in column 5 of
Table 2. C = 4 105 6.2712 [5]
3.2.1.1.3. VDM Approach - III The values of C for various channels are given in col.6 of
Table 2. It can be seen from the table that the magnitude of
To further improve the approach-II, and to calculate the C decreases with increase in values. The method is
discharge of the present compound channels close to the simple, straight forward and can easily be adoptable to
observed values by divided channel method, the length of any channel.
Table 2: Discharge Results Using Different Interface Plane Approaches

Discharge Results Using Alternative Interface Planes (cm3/s)

VDM VDM VDM Coher- ZASIM ZASIM ZASIM
VDM approach-IV HDM
approach approach- approach- ence Approach-1- Approach- Approac
Depth (Proposed Method) Approach
-I II III approach (DDM) 1I h-1II
over
Flood Discharge
Series Observed Varia
Plain d Interface when
No discharge Length of Interface Calculated ble
= length interface
Q (cm3/s) Discharge Discharge interface = length to subtracted discharge length is Discharge
inclin
(H-h) d times the mc = d (Modified Values of Area ed
(cm) results results from fp = d omitted both results
values times the Interface COH method interf
(cm3/s) (cm3/s) times the from main (cm3/s)
below values Method) ace
values channel and
(cm) below(cm) (cm3/s) metho
below( cm) floodplains
d
(cm3/s)
A.1 1.6 3960 4458 4233 5.0 16.2 12.6 3800 4157 0.888 4291 4050 3972
A.2 4.9 14000 14132 12989 0.12 2.1 1.65 13857 14244 0.993 14018 14004 14038
A.3 6.8 19500 19620 17869 0.005 1.23 0.93 19385 20321 0.999 19686 19491 19524
C.4 2.19 5800 6057 5823 1.1 2.38 2.51 5823 5809 0.958 5945 7891 5800
C.5 3.81 8450 8563 8087 0.2 2.01 1.47 8298 8524 0.987 8488 9348 8481
C.6 5.24 11200 11245 10501 0.04 1.75 1.10 10986 11490 0.996 11207 11582 11301
D.7 2.19 5800 6091 5899 1.5 6.1 5.27 5709 5861 0.952 6006 5827 5877
D.8 4.08 8450 8471 8133 0.04 2.32 1.68 8362 8517 0.998 8455 8446 8588
F.9 2.22 5500 5738 5514 1.44 2.37 2.47 5517 5507 0.959 5634 7151 5509
F.10 3.71 8200 8319 7863 0.23 2.03 1.51 8056 8263 0.986 8242 9118 8227
F.11 5.24 10900 10944 10220 0.048 1.75 1.10 10692 11182 0.996 10907 11246 10949
G.12 2.49 5500 5693 5502 1.01 4.95 4.17 5414 5521 0.966 5628 5500 5525
G.13 4.23 8200 8213 7883 0.02 2.20 1.57 8122 8281 0.998 8202 8196 8239
G.14 5.84 10900 10918 10451 0.02 1.46 0.91 10921 11252 0.998 10927 10962 11083
I.15 4.5 94535 110807 104999 6.6 4.39 7.85 103801 100068 0.853 104717 94585 99381
I.16 5.7 103537 117395 110107 4.2 3.43 5.60 110984 106413 0.882 110867 103459 105860
I.17 6.6 108583 120793 112520 3.1 2.95 4.51 114829 110127 0.899 114185 108549 109835
going for the adjustment of area and the perimeters of the
3.2.1.2. Horizontal Division Methods (HDM)
subsections of the compound channel. Methods under this
Toebes and Sooky (1967) carried out laboratory approach are discussed below
experiments on two composite channel sections and
showed that a nearly horizontal fluid boundary located at 3.2.2.1. The Coherence Method (COHM)
the junction between the main channel and floodplain is The coherence method (COHM) of Ackers (1992 b and
more realistic than a vertical fluid boundary along the 1993 a, b) is an established approach of 1-D flow analysis
banks of the meandering channel in dividing the in dealing with compound channel with heterogeneous
compound channel for discharge calculation. Using a roughness and shape effects. Coherence (COH) is defined
horizontal interface a compound section is divided into 2 as the ratio of the basic conveyance, calculated by treating
subsections (Fig. 5). Discharge for each subsection is the channel as a single unit with perimeter weighting of
calculated and added up to give the total discharge of the the friction factor, to that calculated by summing the basic
compound section (Col 10 in Table 2). conveyances of the separate zones given as

= = =
=1 =1 / =1 ( )
= [6]
=
=1 [ /( )]

where i identifies each of the n flow zones, A the sub-area,

Fig. 5 Division of Compound Section Using Horizontal Interface
Plain
3.2.2. Approach-II (subarea Discharge Adjustments)
The approach is based on the principle that it is better to
adjust the discharges in each sub-area by some
appropriate method, in the calculation procedure than
P the wetted perimeter and f the Darcy-Weisbach friction
factor. Vertical division lines are used to divide a
compound channel into sub-areas, which are not used in
the wetted perimeters for any of the sub-areas. The 'basic'
subarea discharges are calculated from standard
resistance equations (1, 2 and 3) and added together to
obtain the 'basic' discharge (Qbasic), which is then adjusted
to account for the effects of the interaction between the
main channel and the floodplain flows. The adjustment
required depends on the characteristics of the channel and
stage. Ackers (1993a) introduced a modified conveyance
parameter KD in order to make it more suitable for use in
compound channel flow analysis and is defined as
= = /(. )
8 depth to main channel depth { = (H - h)/H} as a primary
The basic conveyance, KDB (that is before allowing for any
interaction effects) is obtained by the sum of the
individual conveyances for each sub-area. Thus for a
typical compound channel divided into three sub-areas,
the main river channel and two symmetric floodplains, the
basic conveyance
= { /( . )} + 2 { / } [8] direction for the main channel or the floodplains. From
Where the subscripts 'm' and 'f' refer to main channel and
floodplain respectively. The modified conveyance
parameter, KD is obtained by multiplying the basic
conveyance KDB by a 'discharge adjustment factor
(DISADF) to give the correct discharge, allowing for any
interaction effects.
Thus = [9]
If Sf is the energy slope of the channel, actual discharge is
obtained as
1
= 2
Experimental evidence shows that
for various channel geometry, roughness parameters and
< < 1.0 1 [11]
This implies that in compound channel flow for a given
stage the actual discharge is always less than the basic
value calculated on the basis of summing the discharge in
different zones, but greater than the value based on
treating the channel as a single unit, i.e. the actual
discharge is usually somewhere between these two values.
[12]
The closer to unity the COH approaches; the more
appropriate it is to treat the channel as a single unit, using
the overall geometry. In an extreme cases COH may be as
low as 0.5. Where the coherence is much less than unity
then discharge adjustment factors DISADF are required in
order to correct the individual discharges in each sub-
area. Although the coherence method is based on
laboratory data from the FCF, it has been applied
successfully to a number of natural rivers. The COHM is
more difficult to apply when the roughness of the main
channel river bed varies with discharge, as is the case in
sand bed rivers. Values of COH for the channels of Table 1
are shown in column 11 of Table 2.
3.2.3. Approach III (Apparent Shear Adjustments)
This method is based on quantifying the apparent shear
stresses (ASS) or apparent shear forces (ASF) on the sub-
area division lines. This requires knowledge of the depth-
averaged Reynolds stresses and vorticity terms, described
in detail by Knight (2003). These inter-facial forces can
then be included in a 1-D analysis to give the effective
shear force or resistance for each sub-area and hence the
correct sub-area conveyance capacity. This in turn gives
the correct division of flow within the cross-section. Many
authors have attempted to develop empirical equations
for these ASS or ASF quantities on specific division lines.
Most of these equations include the ratio of the floodplain
[7]
variable and the floodplain width and relative ( = B/b)
and roughness ( = nfp/nmc) as subsidiary variables
(Knight and Demetriou 1983, Knight and Hamed 1984,
Wormleaton and Merrett 1990, Patra and Kar 2000). From
the basic knowledge on uniform flow in open channels,
we consider that the resistance to the flow in the flow
direction is balanced by the weight of the fluid in that
this, the shear force at the assumed interface plains of
separation of compound channel can be quantified as
% = 100 {100 % } [13a]
where %ASFip is the shear force at the interface plane, %Sfp
the shear force in the floodplain and A the areas. Shear
along the vertical, horizontal or diagonal interfaces can be
evaluated from the following relations:
50 1
% = 100 [(1)+1] {100 % } [13b]
2
100(1) 1
% = 100 [(1)+1] {100 % } [13c]
2
[10] 25(2) 1
% = [(1)+1] {100 % } [13d]
2
Investigators have tried to evaluate the values of %Sfp
division lines and proposed their equations (Knight and
Hamed 1984, Patra and Kar 2000, Khatua and Patra 2010,
Khatua and Patra 2012). Once %Sfp is evaluated, it is easy
to specify the division lines across which there is
minimum shear or momentum transfer.
3.2.4. ApproachIV (Zero Apparent Shear at the Interface)
In this method it is required to specify the division lines
between sub areas along lines of zero shear stress.
However, the 3-D nature of the velocity field makes it
extremely difficult to generalize the position of these
division lines for all types of channel shape, flow depth
and roughness configuration (Knight and Hamed 1984).
Moreover it is known from three dimensional turbulence
considerations that orthogonal lines to the isovels do not
necessarily imply lines of zero shear stress. Methods
under this approach are discussed below:
3.2.4.1. Diagonal Division Methods (DDM)
Experimental results demonstrate that the shear stress
along the diagonal division lines (Fig. 6)are the minimum
when compared to other division lines, except at small
floodplain depths (Wormleaton et al 1982; Knight and
Hamed 1984; Patra 1999) that are commonly experienced
when a river just goes over bank. The diagonal line (Fig. 6)
that originates from the junction of main channel-flood
plain is inclined towards center of the main channel water
surface, separating the main channel flow area from its
flood plains. Total section discharge is obtained as
summed up discharges from each of the three individual
subsections. The idea of drawing division line having zero
shear stress is logically acceptable. Discharge results using
DDM are shown in column 12 of Table 2.

Fig. 6 Division of Compound Section Using Diagonal Interface
Plain
3.2.4.2. The Area Method (AM)
The zero shear stress line is assumed to act on an interface
between main channel and floodplain in an arbitrary
position (Fig. 7). The flow area for each part of channel are
then adjusted (Stephenson and Kolovopouls 1990). If Acc
and Aff are the modified area of main channel and flood
plain respectively and Ac is the area of main channel and
Af is the area of floodplain subsection when a vertical
interface divides the main channel from flood plain than
we have
= 2() and = + 2() [14] the relation given as
Fig. 7 Area Method of Separation of Compound Channels
Assuming the channel to be regular, prismatic and flow
under uniform conditions the boundary shear forces
acting on the floodplain and main channel with due care
of the apparent shear force on the assumed interface must
be equal to the weight component of water of the
floodplain and main channel respectively. Following the
principle we get
= ( /) [15]
in which v is the apparent shear stress on vertical
interface given by Prinos-Townsend empirical formula
(1984) as
= 0.874()0.982 (/)1.129 (/)0.514 [16] Therefore the wetted perimeter of the main channel needs
Where d is the depth of flow over floodplain, S the
longitudinal slope of the channel, g the acceleration due to
gravity, B and b the widths of flood plain and main
channel respectively and V the difference of mean
velocity between main channel and flood plain. It should
be noted that this method is only valid with the range of
empirical results employed and is not generally
applicable. Discharge results using AM are shown in
column 13 of Table 2.
3.2.4.3. Variable Inclined Interface Method (VIIM)
Patra (1999), Patra and Kar (2000) proposed a method of
selecting the interface plane for meandering channel for
which the apparent shear stress is found close to zero.
They tried to locate the interface planes of zero shear in
the fluid from isovel plots and found that the angle of
inclination of this plane (Fig. 8) to the vertical plane
increases with depth over the floodplain. Equation of the
angle is proposed as
= ( )(1 ) (5.25)0.075 () [17]
Fig. 8 Compound Channels Showing Variable Inclined Interfaces
Where is the width ratio = B/b; the relative depth = (H
- h)/H, R the ratio of amplitude to the width of the
compound channel. The apparent shear force percentage
at this plane can be obtained from the equation given as
50
% = 100 {100 % } [18]
[(1)+1]
where %ASFVI = apparent shear force on the variable
inclined interface as percentage of total; %Sfp = the shear
force in flood plain boundary that can be calculated from
13.25
% = 48( 0.8)0.289 (2) [1 + ] {1 +
1.02 } [19]
where = the ratio of Mannings n of the floodplain to
that of the main channel. Discharge results using VIIM are
shown in column 14 of Table 2.
3.2.4.4. Modified Interface Method (MIM)
This method developed by the authors recently (Khatua
and Patra 2012) is an improvement to the DCM and is
quite adequate to deal with all types of channel geometry
and flow conditions. Myer (1975), Knight and Demetriou
(1983) have shown that apparent shear in the vertical,
horizontal or diagonal interface is many times greater than
the boundary shear stress in main channel or floodplain at
low floodplain depths. Wormelaton et al. (1982) have
shown that the total dragging force on the main channel
due to floodplain at the interfaces must be equal to the
accelerating force on floodplain due to the main channel.
to be increased suitably to take care of the net dragging
force on the main channel, and the wetted perimeter of the
floodplain needs to be reduced by subtracting a suitable
length of interface to account for the accelerating force on
the floodplain due to the pulling of the main channel
water. Net force at the assumed vertical interface should
balance each other. Let Xmc be the interface length for
inclusion in the main channel wetted perimeter and Xfp
the length of interface length to be subtracted from the
wetted perimeter of floodplain then
+ = [20a]
Similarly for the floodplain equation (20a) is written as
+ = [20b]
where Pmc is the wetted perimeter of the main channel, Pfp
is the wetted perimeter of the floodplain, A is the area of
cross section of the compound channel section = Amc +Afp,
Amc and Afp the area of cross sections of main channel and
floodplain subsections respectively, mc and fp the mean
boundary shear stress in main channel and floodplain per
unit length, and S the longitudinal slope of the channel.
Again for a compound section, the total boundary shear
must be equal to the weight component of flowing fluid
along longitudinal direction and is written as
+ = [21] I. Jarretts (1984) equation for high gradient channels
Since + = , = [26]
We get = [22] Where S is the channel gradient and R is the hydraulic
Equation (22) can be further developed to give a general
expression for Xmc and Xfp as
100
= [ 1] [23]
(100% )
and
100
= [ ( 1) 1] [24]
%
where the percentage of shear force (%Sfp) carried by the
floodplains can be calculated from equation (18). Knowing
%Sfp and channel geometries parameters the interface
lengths XmcV and XfpV are calculated. Next the discharge
for main channel and floodplain are calculated using
Mannings equation given as
5 5
=
3 ( + )23 + 3 ( )
23
Discharge results using MIM are shown in columns 7-9 of
Table 2.
4. EVALUATION OF CHANNEL RESISTANCE
COEFFICIENTS
While using Mannings equation in the above discussions,
selection of a suitable value of n is one of the single most
important parameter for the proper estimation of velocity
in an open channel. Major factors affecting Mannings
roughness coefficient are the (i) surface roughness, (ii)
vegetation, (iii) channel irregularity, (iv) channel
alignment, (v) silting and scouring, (vi) shape and the size
of a channel, and (vii) stage-discharge relationship. Patra
(1999), Patra and Kar (2000), Pang (1998), Willets and
Hardwick (1993) have shown that Mannings n not only
denotes the roughness characteristics of a channel but also
the energy loss in the flow. The influences of all the forces
that resist the flow in an open channel are assumed to
have been lumped to a single coefficient n.
Due to flow interaction between the main channel and
floodplain, the flow in a compound section consumes
more energy than a channel with simple section carrying
the same flow and having the same type of channel
surface. The energy loss is manifested in the form of
variation of resistance coefficients of the channel with
depth of flow. There is a good variation of Mannings
roughness coefficient n, Chezys C and Darcy - Weisbach
friction factor f with depths of flow ranging from in-bank
channel to the over-bank flow.
Floodplains of river basins are densely vegetated. The n
value for this type of floodplain can be determined by
measuring the vegetation density of the floodplain.
Suggested values for Manning's n are tabulated in Chow
(1959) and Henderson (1966). Roughness characteristics of
natural channels are given by Barnes (1967). Though there
are large numbers of formulae/ procedures available to
calculate Mannings n for a river reach, the following four
methods are found to be more useful.
0.32 0.38
0.16
radius in meter. The equation was developed for natural
main channels having stable bed and bank materials
(boulders) without bed rock. It is intended for channel
gradients from 0.002 0.04 and hydraulic radii from 0.15
2.1m, although Jarrett noted that extrapolation to large
flows should not be too much in error as long as the
channel substrata remains fairly stable.
II. Limerionss (1970) equation for natural alluvial
channels
0.09260.17
= [27]
1.16+2(/84 )
where R is the hydraulic radius and d84 the size of the
intermediate particles of diameter that equals or exceeds
that of 84% of the streambed particles, with both variables
[25] in feet. This equation was developed for discharges from 6
430 m3/s, and n/R0.17 ratios up to 300 although it is
reported that little change occurs over R > 30.
III. Visual estimation of n values at each site using
Barnes (1967) guideline.
IV. The Cowan (1956) method for estimation of n, as
modified by Arcement and Schneider (1989) is
designed specifically to account for floodplain
resistance given as
= ( + 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 ) [28]
where nb is the base value of n for the floodplains natural
bare soil surface; n1 a correction factor for the effect of
surface irregularities on the flood plain (range 0-0.02); n2 a
value for variation in shape and size of floodplain cross
section, assumed equal to 0.0; n3 a value for obstructions
on the floodplain (range 0-0.03); n4 a value for vegetation
on the flood plain (range 0.001-0.2); and m a correction
factor for sinuosity of the floodplain, equal to 1.0. Values
for each of the variables are selected from tables given by
Arcement and Schneider (1989). This equation was
verified for wooded floodplains with flow depths from
0.8-1.5 m.
The above methods give a general guidance for
selection of n depending on the surface of a channel.
Experimental evaluation of the variation of n values with
depth of flow characterizing the loss of energy with flow
depth from in-bank to over-bank flow is shown in Fig. 9.
 Fig 10 Error Percentages between Calculated and Observed
Discharges for Various Interface Plains for the Channel of Knight
and Demetriou (1983)
Fig. 9 Observed Variation of Mannings n with depth of flow in
experimental channels 5.2 Meandering Compound Channels
5. EVALUATION OF THE APPROACHES The approaches are also applied to the meandering
5.1 Applied to Straight Compound Channels compound channels and percentage errors of discharge
estimation various experimental channels are shown in
The above one-dimensional approaches of analysis have
Fig.11.
been extended to the straight compound channels of
Knight and Demetriou (1983). The pattern of curves Vee,
Vie, M, Hee, Dee, VI and A shown in Fig.4 for meandering
compound channels and for the two types of straight
compound channels ( = 2 and 4) are found to be almost
similar. The curves are shown in Fig.10.

Vee=Interface Excluded from MC and FP, Vie = Interface Included in MC only, M = Interface Length of d times Included in MC and
Subtracted from FP, VI = Variable Interface Plane Method, H ee=Horizontal Interface Excluded both from MC and FP, D ee=Diagonal
Interface Excluded both from MC and FP, A = Area Method, MC = main channel, and FP = Floodplain

Fig.11 Error percentages between calculated and observed discharges for various interface plains for the meandering compound channels

6 THREE DIMENSIONAL MODELS sin + ( + ) +

To predict the lateral variation of depth-averaged velocity ( +

) = [29]

and boundary shear in compound channels, the depth
averaged momentum equation with continuity equation where is the density of fluid, s the bed slope of channel
needs to be solved. Shino and Knight (1989, 1990 and (slope S = sins), g the gravitational acceleration, yx the
1991) have applied the 3-D momentum equation to a vertical Reynold stresses arising from friction on channel
single point P which is considered as a small element bed and sides, zx the lateral Reynold stresses due to
(rectangular parallelepiped) within the cross section of the secondary flows (v, w) transverse to the mean stream wise
channel as shown in Fig. 12. For this element, the driving direction of flow, and ax the longitudinal acceleration.
force due to gravity is balanced by the force required to Substituting the value of ax in equation (29) and solving
maintain secondary flow and two Reynolds stress terms. we have
The momentum equation in longitudinal stream wise
sin = [ + ][ + ] [30]
direction of the control volume of the element (P) is
expressed as
Equation (30) can also be expressed quantitatively as
 = Discharge estimation using 3D and 2D models could not
( + be carried out as they involve altogether a higher
) [31] magnitude of work.

When equation (34) is integrated over the cross

sectional area, it will lead to one-dimensional (1-D)
equation and the flow structure will lead to simple bulk
formula of Mannings, Chezys or Darcy-Weisbatch
equation, where n, C or f are the equivalent resistance
coefficient of the entire cross section. Using the above
proposed 3D and 2D models, Shiono and Knight (1989,
1991) have computed the flow and discharge in
meandering and straight compound channels.
Fig. 12 Flow Parameter in Natural Channel
8 CONCLUSIONS
Let u , v, w are the temporal mean velocity The calculation methodology for the discharge
components in x-, y-, and z-directions respectively, then generator has been described in detail. The
Reynoldss stress terms are expressed as = and methodology outlined here is physically based,
. By substituting the values of xy and zx in
= considers all the energy loss mechanisms, and can be
equation (30), we get extended to meandering channels with the added
advantage of providing the depth-averaged velocity
= [ + ]+ (
) + (
) [32]
distribution. The discharge generator will thus
Considering steady uniform flow in the longitudinal provide a substantial improvement on existing river
stream wise direction with velocity component u along the modeling approaches to discharge estimation.
x-direction, and the secondary currents v and w along y- It has been discussed that the complexity of flow
and z-directions respectively, the continuity equation is structure in compound channels that makes analysis
expressed as even at a 1-D level difficult. The investigators have
pointed to the significant advances that have been
+ =0 [33] made over the last 25 years, partly due to careful and

well-focused experiments, but also due to better
With suitable boundary conditions equation (32) together
measurement techniques becoming available for both
with equation (33) can be solved by any of the known
laboratory and field work.. However, it must be
mathematical techniques to get the three-dimensional (3-
recognized that measuring sufficient parameters such
D) flow field in a compound channel.
as velocity distribution, turbulence, coherent
Some turbulence closure equations are required to be structures, boundary shear stress distribution,
inserted for effect of lateral eddies observed in rivers to sediment flux, etc in natural channels is simply not
equation (32) and solving gives 3-D flow field. The flow possible in sufficient spatial and temporal detail
field has to be simplified by integrating over the depth, under flood flow conditions. This partly explains the
width or area for the practical purpose. rationale behind the well-focused laboratory
experiments described earlier, aimed at
7 TWO DIMENSIONAL MODELS understanding flow structure and quantifying
particular phenomena.
In natural channels since the lateral distribution of flow is
important, integration of equation (30) over the water To date most of these experiments have been
depth H is carried out to get 2-D depth averaged velocity conducted in rigid boundary channels in order to
model. By assuming suitable boundary conditions and simplify these tasks. However, it is recognized that
simplifying Knight 1989 and Shiono 1991) proposed most natural river channels are formed in sediments,
equation (30) as and therefore any fluid/sediment interaction will also
affect the flow structure. Issues related to sediment
1 1
1 1 transport and morphology with over bank flow
2 (1 + 2) +
2 2
{ 2 ( ) } [34a]
8 8 therefore also needs to be considered.
or REFERENCES

1
1
2 Ackers, P., (1992). Hydraulic Design of Two Stage
(1 + 2) +
= [34b] Channels, Proc. Instn Civ. Engrs Wat., Marit.

&Energy, 96, Dec., Paper No. 9988, 247-257.
The two-dimensional equation (34) proposed by Shiono
Ackers, P., (1993a). Stage-Discharge Functions for Two-
and Knight (1989, 1991) for a trapezoidal section with side
Stage Channels: The Impact of New Research, J. of
slope (1: s) is known as SKM model. Equation (34) is the
Instn. Water & Envtal. Managmt., 7, No. 1, February,
basis of 2-D approach for a trapezoidal or rectangular
52-61.
section. In the 2-D SKM model, the calibration coefficients
Ackers, P., (1993b). Flow Formulae for Straight Two-Stage
are f, and Analytical solution to equation (34) may be
Channel, J. of Hyd. Res., IAHR, 31, 4, 509-531.
carried out to serve a closed check on numerical work.
Acrement, G.J, Jr; and Schneider, V. R. (1989), Guide for
selecting Mannings roughness coefficients for natural
channels and flood plains. US Geol survey, Water-
Supply paper 2339, Federal Center, Colo.
Barnes, H.H., Jr. (1967). Roughness characteristics of
natural channels. US Geological Survey Water-
Supply Paper 1849, 213
Cowan, W. L. (1956), Estimating Hydraulic roughness
Coefficients Agric. Engrg, 37, pp 473-475.
Chang, H.H., (1984). Regular Meander Path Model, J of
Hyd. Engrg., ASCE, 110, No.10,1398-1411.
Chow, V.T., (1959). Open Channel Hydraulics, McGraw
Hill Book Co. Inc., New York.
Henderson, F. M. (1966), Open Channel Flow Mac
Million, New York
Holden (1986). Shear stress and discharge in compound
channels, Thesis presented to the University of the
Witwatersrand at Johannesburg, South Africa for partial
fulfillment of the degree of Master of Science..
Jarrett,R.D. (1984). Hydraulics of high gradient streams.
J. Hydr. Engrg., ASCE, 110, 15191539.
Khatua, K K., and Patra, K C, (2012). Stage-Discharge
Prediction for Straight and Smooth Compound
Channels with Wide Floodplains. Jr of Hyd. Engrg.,
ASCE, 138, No. 1, 93-99.
Knight, D.W., and Demetriou, J.D., (1983). Flood plain
and Main Channel Flow Interaction, J. of Hyd. Eng.
ASCE, 109, No.8, 1073-1092.
Knight, D.W., and Hamed, M.E, (1984). Boundary Shear
in Symmetrical Compound Channels, J of Hyd.
Engrg., ASCE, 110, No. HY10, Paper 19217, 1412-
1430.
Lambert,M.F. and Myers, W.R., (1998). Estimating the
Discharge Capacity in Straight Compound
Channels, Proc. Instn. Civ. Engrs. Wat., Mar. &
Energy, 130, pp84-94, 1998.
Limerinos,J.T..(1970).Determination of Mannings
coefficients from measured bed roughness in natural
channels. U.S.Geological survey Water-Supply paper
1898 -B,Federal Center, Colo.
Pang, B. (1998).River flood flow and its energy loss. J.
Hydr. Engrg., ASCE, 124(2), 228231.
Patra, K.C (1999), Flow Interaction of Meandering River
With Floodplains, Ph.D thesis submitted at IIT
Kharagpur
Patra, K. C., Kar, S. K (2000). Flow Interaction of
Meandering River with Floodplains, J. of Hyd.
Engrg, ASCE, 126, No.8, 593-603.
Prinnos, P., and Townsend, R. D. (1984). Comparison of
methods of predicting discharge in compound
open channels, Adv. in Water Res. 7 (12), 180187.
Shiono K., and Knight, D. W. (1989). Two dimensional
analytical solution of compound channel, Proc., 3rd
Int. Symp. On refined flow modeling and turbulence
measurements, Universal Academy Press,591599.
Shiono, K., and Knight, D. W. (1991). Turbulent Open
Channel Flows with Variable Depth Across the
Channel, J. of Fluid Mech., Cambridge, U.K., 222,
617646.
Sellin, R.H.J., (1964). A Laboratory Investigation into the
Interaction between Flow in the Channel of a River
and that of its Floodplain, La Houille Blanche, No.7,
793-801.
Stephenson, D., and Kolovopoulos, P., (1990). Effects of
Momentum Transfer in Compound Channels, J. of
Hyd. Engrg, ASCE, 116, No.HY12, 1512-1522.
Willetts, B. B., and Hardwick, R. I. (1993). Stage
dependency for overbank flow in meandering
channels. Proc., Instn. Civ. Engrs., Water, Marit. and
Energy, 101(March), 4554.
Wormleaton, et. al. (1982). Discharge Assessment in
Compound Channel Flow, J. of Hyd. Dvn, ASCE,
108, No. 9, 975-994.
NOTATIONS
The following symbols are used in this paper:
C = Interface length added to main channel only using
equation 18/(H-h);
Cm= Interface length added to main channel using
equation 16/(H-h)
Cf = Interface length subtracted from floodplain using
equation 17/(H-h)
Cf = Interface length subtracted from floodplain using
equation 21/(H-h)
H = depth of flow in main channel;
h = height of main channel up to floodplain bed;
m = exponent used in Eq. (1a);
n = Mannings roughness factor;
R = ratio of amplitude of compound channel to top width
B;
Sf = energy slope line;
sr = sinuosity of meander channel = (ls /lc);
= width ratio = B/b;
= relative depth = (H h)/H;
= ratio of floodplain roughness to main channel
roughness;
= ratio between main channel width to its depth (b/h);
= amplitude of meander channel;
%ASF = percentage of total channel shear force carried by
assumed interface planes;
%ASFH = ASF on horizontal interface (aa) as percentage of
total shear force;
%ASFip = ASF on an interface plane as percentage of total
shear force;
%ASFV = ASF on vertical interface (aa1) as percentage of
total shear force;
ASFIP = Apparent shear at the interface
Q = Calculated discharge.