Relating flow resistance to equivalent roughness

Abstract

Describing flow resistance using the physical properties of an underlying surface is a recalcitrant problem in overland flow models. If discharge measurements are available, an equivalent roughness (e.g., Manning’s $n$) can be calibrated to represent the effects of surface properties within the domain with a single numerical value. Alternatively, the flow resistance can be estimated from discharge and velocity measured at a point, typically a runoff plot outlet. However, such experimental estimates are often inconsistent with the equivalent roughness determined from calibration to discharge, even if both derive from the same dataset. For example, if Manning’s equation is used to parameterize flow resistance, the Manning’s $n$ obtained by calibrating a model to discharge differs from the value of $n$ calculated from measured flow and velocity at the hillslope outlet.

Here, this discrepancy is resolved by deriving a correction factor relating experimentally-determined flow resistance to the equivalent roughness. The derived correction factor is tested for four commonly-used resistance formulations using 129 rainfall simulator experiments. The correction factor is necessary to reproduce measured velocities, and yields minor improvements in discharge prediction.

Plain Language Summary

Accurate runoff prediction is needed for land and water management in dryland regions, where sporadic and limited rainfall necessitate efficient water use and drought mitigation strategies. The skill of runoff models is known to be hindered by out ability to estimate flow resistance, which is the quantity that describes how energy is lost from flowing water to the underlying surface. Typically, models represent flow resistance with an equivalent roughness, e.g., Manning’s $n$, that is adjusted until the model can reproduce available discharge observations at watershed scale. However, the flow resistance measured in plot-scale experiments (1–10 m) often exceeds equivalent roughness coefficients by a factor of 10. This means that the direct use of plot-scale experimental data to parameterize runoff models could cause errors in discharge and runoff velocity predictions.

Here, we resolve these differences by deriving an analytic correction factor that relates flow resistance to the equivalent roughness required for models to reproduce experimental velocity and discharge data. This correction factor is tested using rainfall simulator data from 129 experiments performed in the US Southwest covering a wide range of precipitation intensities, soil textures and vegetation types. Use of the correction factor substantially improves model prediction of flow velocity, which is needed for reproducing the timing of flood events and the estimation of erosion.