You are right John.  It seems the units should be 

A---- square meters
i ------ meters per second
Q----- cubic meters per second

Then c would be unit-less (if needed in SI units).

How could a professor state "....... that they have to be in these units or it 
doesn't work:"?  

As you noted the English units don't work out but the metric ones do.

Jerry


 



________________________________
From: John M. Steele <[email protected]>
To: U.S. Metric Association <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 7:17:26 PM
Subject: [USMA:44266] Re: Rainfall computation and Manning's equation


Pierre,

I had to look up Manning's equation.  I find myself rather confused by it as it 
is dimensionally incorrect, or there are dimensions hiding in the constants.  
Like most EE's, I'm terrible at hydrology, but I spent some time trying to 
understand it.

You might be interested in this paper which develops it theoretically.  They 
include gravity, so it can be fit to Martian data.  However, they don't quite 
relate their arbitrary constant to the Manning constant in the usual form.
http://cee.engr.ucdavis.edu/faculty/bombardelli/PRL14501.pdf


--- On Tue, 3/31/09, Pierre Abbat <[email protected]> wrote:

From: Pierre Abbat <[email protected]>
Subject: [USMA:44253] Rainfall computation and Manning's equation
To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]>
Date: Tuesday, March 31, 2009, 12:37 PM


Yesterday I talked with one of my profs about some hydrology equations. Q=ciA   
is used to calculate runoff; i is rainfall intensity, A is area, c is the   
runoff coefficient, and Q is the resulting water flow. He said that they have   
to be in these units or it doesn't work: Q is in cubic feet per second, i  is   
in inches per hour, and A is in acres. This bizarre combination of units just   
happens to be within 1% of coherence (the exact ratio is 121/120). I sent him   
a worked example in coherent metric units.    Manning's equation is used to 
calculate water flow in open channels and  unfull   pipes. He knows it only in 
feet, with a weird number that he took to be an   empirical constant. I told 
him the equation is metric. The constant is none   other than the cube root of 
the number of feet in a meter, and if all   distances in the equation are in 
meters, it vanishes.    If this sounds like a repeat of a message from last 
semester, it is. Same  
 equation, different prof. I'm now taking subdivision design, and we're  going  
 to design storm drain systems.    Pierre     


      

Reply via email to