Article

Measuring Variable Discharge Under Partially Full Pipe Flow

Vasiliki Koutsospyrou 1 , Graham Sander 1, * , Ashraf El-Hamalawi 1 , Duncan Wallace 2 and Martin Croft 2

1 School of Architecture, Building and Civil Engineering, Loughborough University, Loughborough LE11 3TU, UK;
[email protected] (V.K.); [email protected] (A.E.-H.)
2 Dynamic Flow Technologies Ltd., Loughborough DE1 1TJ, UK; [email protected] (D.W.);
[email protected] (M.C.)
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: Accurately measuring the discharge in partially full pipe flow is both diffi-
cult and demanding. In this regard, a new meter sensor using microwave technology
has been evaluated for determining partially full pipe discharge across a range of flow
depths. A range of experiments with smooth PVC pipes of two different pipe diameters
(101.6 and 152.4 mm) at two different pipe slopes (1◦ and 2◦ ) were carried out under turbu-
lent (Reynolds numbers = (0.27–3.25) × 105 ) and supercritical flows with Froude numbers
Fr in the range of 1.5 ≤ Fr ≤ 3.6. Our results showed that when combining the microwave
sensor readings with either the Chezy equation or Manning’s law, reliable discharge predic-
tions were found compared to the measured discharge across all experiments. The range of
R2 values obtained from the plots of predicted versus measured discharge were all greater
than 97%, indicating an accuracy allowing the meter to be used in commercial applications.

Keywords: partial full pipe-flow; microwave; sensor; Chezy; Manning; ColeBrook-

White; discharge

1. Introduction
Flow in partially filled pipe is analogous to open channel flow in that it is primar-
Academic Editors: Valentina E. Balas
ily driven by gravity. While it has received far less attention than pressured full pipe
and Rajeeb Dey flow, nonetheless there are important engineering applications within (i) the transport of
Received: 12 February 2025
wastewater in sewers, (ii) the transport of slurries in mining and nuclear industries, and
Revised: 25 March 2025 (iii) road-crossing culverts [1–3]. Determining the flow in partially filled pipes is a challeng-
Accepted: 2 April 2025 ing measurement environment where the entire range from very low to nearly full pipe
Published: 4 April 2025 flows can occur. This is primarily due to the significant variation in the cross-sectional fluid
Citation: Koutsospyrou, V.; Sander, flow velocity. The level of variation has been shown quite clearly in studies by Refs. [1,2,4,5].
G.; El-Hamalawi, A.; Wallace, D.; Partially filled pipe flow is usually “treated” as open channel flow, and the area velocity
Croft, M. Measuring Variable
method is the most commonly used approach for flow measurement [6]. They found that
Discharge Under Partially Full Pipe
to obtain an accurate measurement of flow in the pipes, an understanding of the mean,
Flow. Processes 2025, 13, 1089.
https://doi.org/10.3390/
average, and maximum stream-wise velocity distributions for various flow conditions,
pr13041089 i.e., laminar and turbulent, as well as frictional losses and values of Manning’s coefficient
n, was essential. However, in experiments by Ref. [7] on partially full smooth-walled
Copyright: © 2025 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
pipes, they concluded that the use of Manning’s n in small-diameter (i.e., 100 mm) partially
This article is an open access article filled smooth pipes is unsuitable. Instead, they found that the Colebrook–White formula
distributed under the terms and provided improved predictions of maximum depth and velocity along the pipe.
conditions of the Creative Commons In Ref. [5], particle imaging velocimetry (PIV) was used to investigate the mean
Attribution (CC BY) license
stream-wise velocity distribution and friction factor values in a smooth circular open
(https://creativecommons.org/
channel. Their data showed that flow characteristics vary whether the flow depth is higher
licenses/by/4.0/).

Processes 2025, 13, 1089 https://doi.org/10.3390/pr13041089

Processes 2025, 13, 1089 2 of 14

or lower than 50% of the pipe diameter. They stated that “even though [the] mean and
maximum velocities increase with flow depth, the ratio of mean to maximum velocities
decreases when the flow depth is lower than 50%, whereas it is nearly identical for higher
flow depths [greater than 50%]”. According to the authors, the Chézy C and Manning’s
n coefficients vary significantly for flow depths below 50%. This is because of the relatively
larger frictional force, compared to a smaller mean velocity, which reduces as flow depth
increases.
Consequently, accurate flow measurement in partially full pipes is a difficult task,
especially when flow meters rely on measuring velocities. With respect to wastewater
collection systems, they require measurement capabilities for the real-time control of flows,
as well as for performance evaluation in line with European regulations. At present, sewer
flow is almost completely confined to short-term and investigative measurements and is
undertaken mainly by electromagnetic or Doppler measurements. Electromagnetic flow
meters require full pipes, and they are a contact method of measurement, i.e., the flow
meter/sensor is in contact with the fluid. A drawback of the Doppler flow meters is that
the velocity profile they are measuring is not uniform and depends not only on upstream
and downstream arrangements but also on water levels, flow rates, and wall conditions,
and therefore need to be corrected to obtain the averaged velocity [8].
Acoustic reflectometry survey techniques are a contact method and cost considerably
less than other techniques [9]. While they are also quicker and simpler to use, this technique
only yields a limited number of measurements in a cross-section [10]. Choosing a measuring
section for flow contact methods may be difficult, as it is necessary to take both hydraulic
conditions and practical criteria into account, such as accessibility, safety of staff, equipment,
and connection to electrical and communication networks.
In an effort to overcome these problems, a new microwave meter (MWM), shown
in Figures 1–4, was developed by Dynamic Flow Technologies Ltd. (Loughborough, UK)
and tested at the Fluid Mechanics Laboratories of Loughborough University. Microwave
analysis can be applied to suit a wide range of requirements and has a number of ad-
vantages over competing technologies, especially for wastewater sensing applications.
This includes capabilities to measure non-destructively true real-time sensing and direct
sample measurement, i.e., continuous sampling [11], a feature currently unavailable 3inof
Processes 2025, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 16
many competing technologies.

Feeder Tank

MWM

Reference meter

Figure 1. Test rig

Figure 1. Test rig encompassing encompassing
mainly the pipemainly
systemthesupported
pipe system on
supported on scaffolding
scaffolding and theand the feeder
feeder tank.tank.
Processes 2025, 13, 1089 3 of 14
Figure 1. Test rig encompassing mainly the pipe system supported on scaffolding and the feeder tank.

Processes 2025, 13, xProcesses

FOR PEER REVIEW
2025, 13, Figure 2. Schematic
x FOR PEER 4 of 16 and
REVIEW representation of the experiment showing relative positions of the reference 4 of 16
Figure 2. Schematic representation of the experiment showing relative positions of the reference and
microwave
microwavemeters,
meters,flow
flowdirection, and section
direction, and sectionofoftranslucent
translucentpipe.
pipe. Distances
Distances areare
notnot drawn
drawn to scale.
to scale.

Sensor

Sensor
1

1
Sensor

Sensor
2

2
Sensor

Sensor
3

3
Direction of Flow Direction of Flow

Themicrowave
Figure 3.3.The
Figure microwave instrumentation
Figure 3. instrumentation
The consists
microwave consists of aof a consists
sensor,
sensor,
instrumentation remote
remote access
of aaccess service
service
sensor, remote(RAS)(RAS)
and
access a and (RAS)
service a and a
laptop with data control
laptop with data laptop software.
controlwith
software.
data control software.

MWMprinciple
Figure4.4.MWM
Figure principle of operation.
TheThe numbers correspond to 1—pipe, 2—variable water
level, level,
Figure 4.of operation.
MWM principle numbers
of correspond
operation. to 1—pipe,
The numbers 2—variable
correspond water2—variable
to 1—pipe, water level
3—airspace,
3—air space,4—waveguide
4—waveguide interface
interface to the
to the pipe,
pipe, 5—microwave
5—microwave sensor,
sensor, and 6—connector
and 6—connector cable cable to
to
3—air space, 4—waveguide interface to the pipe, 5—microwave sensor, and 6—connector cable to
electronicinstrumentation.
electronic instrumentation. The
The solid
solid vertical
vertical arrow
arrow is the
is vertical
the emitted
emiLed signal
signal while
while the dotted
the doLed vertical
vertical
electronic instrumentation. The solid arrow is the emiLed signal while the doLed vertica
arrows are the reflected
arrows are the reflected
signals.
arrows signals.
are the reflected signals.

A series of tests
A series of testsA
of several
ofseries
several
different types of microwave water-level sensors were
of different types of
tests of several microwave
different typeswater-level sensors
of microwave were car-
water-level sensors were car
carried out by [12] the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
ried out by [12] the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Centre (NOAA) Centre
ried out by [12] the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Centre
for Operationalfor
Oceanographic Products (CO-OPS)
Operational Oceanographic in order
Products to gaininanorder
(CO-OPS) understanding of
to gain an understanding o
sensor functions and performance
sensor functions andcapabilities.
performance Thecapabilities.
experiments Thewere conductedwere
experiments at the
conducted at the
National Surface WarfareSurface
National CentreWarfare
(NSWC)Centre
Mask Facility
(NSWC)inMask
Carderock
Facility(Maryland, USA),
in Carderock (Maryland, USA)
and resulted in and
the collection of a unique and valuable data set for assessing the impact
resulted in the collection of a unique and valuable data set for assessing of the impact o
surface waves on microwave meter readings. For most of the test runs, the sensors per-
Processes 2025, 13, 1089 4 of 14

for Operational Oceanographic Products (CO-OPS) in order to gain an understanding of

sensor functions and performance capabilities. The experiments were conducted at the
National Surface Warfare Centre (NSWC) Mask Facility in Carderock (Maryland, USA),
and resulted in the collection of a unique and valuable data set for assessing the impact
of surface waves on microwave meter readings. For most of the test runs, the sensors
performed well, measuring water levels within 1 cm accuracy in the presence of ocean
waves [12]. In Ref. [13], a low-cost microwave device (microstrip line technique) was
developed that operated at high frequencies for detecting humidity levels in a gas line. The
sensor showed a high sensitivity to humidity (5 kHz per %Relative Humidity) and good
reversibility, i.e., returning to initial conditions without hysteretic behavior.
The objective of this paper is to determine whether a newly developed microwave
sensor can be used to reliably estimate, in real time, discharges in pipes running partially
full. To achieve this, validation data were obtained by conducting a series of experiments
across a range of pipe flow depths (0.05–0.9) D, D = pipe diameter, with two different slopes
and pipe diameters. The microwave sensor data were then used in combination with the
Chezy, Manning and Colebrook–White equations to predict the discharge. The accuracy of
the predictions was then evaluated against separate, direct measurements of discharges.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Experimental Details
The test rig in Figure 1 was constructed just outside the Hydraulics Laboratories at
Loughborough University. The 21 m-long experimental “sewer” was constructed from
101.6 and 152.4 mm-diameter PVC pipes, supported on scaffolding tubes and providing
a gentle slope of 1◦ , the industry-recommended minimum for wastewater pipes [14]. A
second set of experiments was also performed on a slightly steeper slope of 2◦ . A 3 m-long,
101.6 mm-diameter translucent pipe was used for observations. This clear section was
positioned immediately before the microwave meeting for visualizing flow conditions.
While the aim is to develop a microwave meter for measuring wastewater flows under
gravity drainage, the current experiments used clear water in order to first test the reliability
of the meter without the additional complexity of dealing with either dissolved or solid
contaminants, or the effects of humidity, temperature, and viscosity. The impact of these
effects and the variability of sediments and debris on sensor performance will be considered
in a future paper. Clear water was pumped from the laboratory sump to a 10 m-high tower
tank, from where it flowed via gravity through an electromagnetic flowmeter (reference
meter) and then into the experimental test rig. Flow was controlled by a manual gate valve,
with an accuracy of 2–3%. The reference meter (Siemens Danfoss xyz, RS Hydro UK) was
positioned before the feeder tank and was calibrated against a BSI-certified weigh tank
(Avery ABC, Avery UK) with an accuracy of 3.17 g, corresponding to a water volume of
0.003 m3 . The typical correlation R2 was between 0.9603 and 0.9916, and it varied with flow
rate and depth. At the bottom of the feeder tank, the flow was taken through honeycomb
baffles in order to readjust the flow to near normal conditions as it entered the 7 m pipe test
section. The microwave meter was placed 6 m downstream of the feeder tank.
The experiments were designed to investigate the effects of flow rate, slope, and pipe
diameter on the ability of the microwave sensor to reliably measure discharge. Pictures of
the pipe system are shown in Figure 1, with a corresponding schematic given in Figure 2.
On the bottom right-hand side of Figure 1, the electromagnetic reference meter used for
comparison is clearly visible. The microwave meter (also shown enlarged) is visible on the
left-hand side of Figure 1.
The microwave meter is shown in Figure 3, along with a schematic in Figure 4 showing
the layout of the sensor operation. The meter consists of three microwave sensors placed
Processes 2025, 13, 1089 5 of 14

equidistant in the head of the meter and parallel to the direction of the pipe flow. Each of
these sensors is based on a dielectric resonator, a stabilized microwave FET (field effect
transistor), and an oscillator in the X-band. The microwave meter operates according to
the Doppler radar principle by transmitting a continuous signal of low-energy microwave
radiation at the target area and then analyzing the phase of the reflected signal, which
provided a high-resolution 0.1 mm measurement capability for the water height. The
detector operates at a frequency of 10 GHz. Calibration of the meter was then obtained by
combining the sensor data with a range of separate laboratory experiments on a test rig
with known discharges and slopes.
The flow conditions during testing are summarized in Table 1 below and represent a
range of flow rates (based on real flows that a gravity drainage system might experience)
for the pipe. While the Reynolds number range was not large, it is similar to that used
in other partially filled pipe flow studies. For example, Ref. [2] considered a range of
(1.9–8.6) x 105 , while direct numerical simulations by Ref. [15] and large-eddy simulations
by Ref. [16] were for bulk Reynolds numbers in the ranges of 3240–15,452 and 17,000–19,000,
respectively.

Table 1. Summary of main hydraulic parameters for the experiments.

Parameters Range
Discharge, Q (L/s) 0.6–22.6
Reynolds number, Re (0.27–3.25) × 105
Froude number, Fr 1.5–3.6

2.2. Theory
To optimize the quality of the flow measurements, a measurement section was selected
where normal flow conditions were expected to occur. Since the depth (h) at the inlet is
known, the position where normal depth occurs can be found by integrating the gradually
varying flow equation in the form:
 
dθ S0 − S f Q2 T
= , Fr2 = , (1)
dx dh 2 gA3
dθ (1 − Fr )

where x is the distance down the pipe; θ (0 ≤ θ ≤ π) is the angle to where the water surface
intersects the edge of the pipe with a dry, half full, and full pipe, given by θ = 0, θ = π/2, and
θ = π respectively; T (m) is the top width of the free surface; A (m2 ) is the cross-sectional
area of the flow; and Fr is the Froude number. The angle θ was chosen as the dependent
variable to remove the need for iteration in determining terms on the right-hand side of
Equation (1), which are found from:

A = r2 (θ − sin θ cos θ ), (2)

T = D sin θ, h = r (1 − cos θ ), (3)

 
r sin 2θ
P = 2rθ, R= 2− , (4)
4 θ
where r is the pipe radius (m), D is the pipe diameter (m), h is the flow depth (m), P is the
wetted perimeter (m), and R is the hydraulic radius (m).
Taking Manning’s metric equation for Sf :
Processes 2025, 13, 1089 6 of 14

n2 Q2
Sf = , (5)
A2 R4/3
with a typical value of the roughness coefficient of n = 0.009 for a PVC pipe, for the range
of discharges from Table 1, positioning the meter 6 m downstream from the baffles would
ensure that essentially normal flow conditions in the pipe would be realized.
Given that the data were collected under normal flow conditions, in addition to the
application of Manning’s equation, we were also interested to see whether the Chezy
equation can be used to analyze the data. The Chezy equation is applicable to both uniform
equilibrium and gradually varied turbulent flows [17], and is given by:

Q = CA( RS0 )1/2 , (6)

where C is the Chezy coefficient: s

8g
C= , (7)
f

where f is the friction factor (-) and g is gravity (m/s2 ). This is suitable for partially filled
pipes provided the surface is moderately hydraulically smooth and the pipe diameter is
small and less than 0.25 m [18].
In general, f is not constant but rather is a function of the flow Reynolds number
(Re ) and the relative roughness (ks /DH ) of the channel/conduit, and is given through the
Colebrook–White formula as:
!
1 ks 2.51
p = −2 log10 + p , (8)
f 3.71D H Re f

where the Reynolds number is given by:

VD H
Re = , D H = 4R, (9)
ν
and where V = Q/A is the bulk flow velocity (m/s), DH is the hydraulic diameter (m), ν is
the kinematic viscosity (m2 /s), and ks is the surface roughness measure (m). Combining
Equations (6), (7), and (9) yields:

p DH p
Re f = 8gRS0 , (10)
ν
which, with Equation (8), allows for the friction factor under normal flow conditions to be
obtained explicitly as:
!
1 ks 2.51ν
p = −2log10 + p . (11)
f 3.71D H D H 8gRS0

While the Colebrook–White formula was developed for full pipe flow, it has been
commonly applied to open channel flow. In a study on laminar and turbulent flow in
partially filled pipes, Ref. [1] suggested that to facilitate a direct comparison with full pipe
flow, the Reynolds number should be based on an equivalent diameter DEQ rather than DH .
DEQ is the equivalent hydraulic diameter for a full pipe with the same flow cross-sectional
area of the semi-filled pipe and is given by:
r
A 2r
DEQ = 2 = √ (θ − sin θ cos θ )1/2 . (12)
π π
Processes 2025, 13, 1089 7 of 14

By replacing DH with DEQ in Equations (9)–(11), we obtain a modified Colebrook–

White formula that can also be tested against the experimental data. We adopt the termi-
nology of CWH for Equations (9) and (11) and CWEQ when Equation (12) is used in place
of DH . Thus, in total we have four different discharge equations: Manning, Chezy C with
a constant friction factor, CWH , and CWEQ , which can be combined with the microwave
meter readings and be evaluated against the measured data.

2.3. Data Collection

All experiments were performed under the same environmental conditions using clear
water. Data from the microwave meter were collected using a remote access service (RAS)
and transferred to servers using Bluetooth technology. Data from the reference flowmeter
were collected using a conventional data logger. All data were processed with MATLAB
R2023b software (MathWorks, Natick, MA, USA). The volumetric flow through the pipe
Processes 2025, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW
was varied in a cyclic pattern through time, as shown below in Figure 5, with each data
8 of 16
point measured after steady flow conditions were visually observed. This was carried out
to test for reproducibility in the microwave meter by approximately replicating flow rates.
Q ref

Figure 5. Temporal pattern of varying discharge flow rates for the three different pipe diameter and
Figure
slope5.experiment
Temporal paLern of varyingQdischarge
combinations. flow rates for
is the discharge the threebydifferent
measured pipe diameter
the reference meter. and
ref
slope experiment combinations. Qref is the discharge measured by the reference meter.
Photogrammetry was also used to determine the shape of the water surface in the
Photogrammetry
pipe, whereby surfacewaswaves
also used to determine the
of approximately 2.5shape of thefound.
mm were water surface in the
The effect of surface
pipe, whereby surface waves of approximately 2.5 mm were found. The effect of surface
waves of up to 10 mm on measurement reliability were investigated, and it was found that
waves of up to 10 mm on measurement reliability were investigated, and it was found
these could be resolved up to an accuracy of 0.1 mm. To minimize the impact of surface
that these could be resolved up to an accuracy of 0.1 mm. To minimize the impact of sur-
waves on measuring flow depth, a large amount of data were collected (20 readings/sec)
face waves on measuring flow depth, a large amount of data were collected (20 read-
over approximately 3 min for a set flowrate. The average value of these readings was then
ings/sec) over approximately 3 min for a set flowrate. The average value of these readings
used to determine the flow depth.
was then used to determine the flow depth.

3. 3. Results
Results
As noted previously, the microwave meter is calibrated to provide estimates of the flow
As noted previously, the microwave meter is calibrated to provide estimates of the
flowdepth h. With
depth h being
h. With known,
h being known,both
boththetheflow areaAAand
flowarea and the
the hydraulic radiusRRcan
hydraulic radius canbe
be found
found through Equations (2)–(4). Overall, 175 separate discharge experiments were car- out. A
through Equations (2)–(4). Overall, 175 separate discharge experiments were carried
least-squares
ried analysisanalysis
out. A least-squares was used
wastoused
determine the parameter
to determine n for
the parameter thethe
n for Manning
Manningequation
equation (Equation (5) with Sf = S0), the Chezy equation with a constant C, or the Chezy
equation with ks, using either CWH or CWEQ for the best least -squares estimate of the
measured discharge. The results of this analysis across all three pipe setups for the four
different discharge equations along with the resulting parameter values are shown in Fig-
ure 6 using the dimensionless discharge Qd, given by:
Processes 2025, 13, 1089 8 of 14

(Equation (5) with Sf = S0 ), the Chezy equation with a constant C, or the Chezy equation
with ks , using either CWH or CWEQ for the best least -squares estimate of the measured
discharge. The results of this analysis across all three pipe setups for the four different
discharge equations along with the resulting parameter values are shown in Figure 6 using
the dimensionless discharge Qd , given by:

Processes 2025, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW Q 9 of 16(13)

Qd = 1/2
.
D2 ( gDS o)

Mannings: n = 0.0086 Chezy: C = 64.1

10 10
D=101.6 mm, S o =1o
8 D=101.6 mm, S o =2o 8
o
Q/(gD5So )0.5

Q/(gD5So )0.5
D=152.4 mm, S o =1
6 6

4 4

2 2

0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Dr Dr

Colebrook-White D H : ks = 0.07 Colebrook-White D EQ: ks = 0.04

10 10

8 8
Q/(gD5So )0.5

Q/(gD5So )0.5

6 6

4 4

2 2

0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Dr Dr

Figure 6. Comparison of measured reference data (symbols) against predicted discharge (solid lines)
Figure 6. Comparison of measured reference data (symbols) against predicted discharge (solid lines)
for three different experimental conditions, as indicated in the legend, as a function of relative flow
for three different experimental conditions, as indicated in the legend, as a function of relative flow
depth Dr = h/D. The corresponding parameters, n, C, and ks , were determined via least squares.
depth Dr = h/D. The corresponding parameters, n, C, and ks, were determined via least squares.
We note that for the Chezy law, this scaling will result in Qd being independent of both
An alternative approach to processing the data is to calculate the value of the param-
the pipe diameter and slope, and only depends on θ and the constant value for f. However,
eter that matches exactly onto the data point and plot the corresponding frequency distri-
there will still remain a slight D dependence for the Manning equation (D1/6 ) and for the
bution. For example, for each measured Q from a given pipe diameter and slope experi-
Colebrook–White formulations through both DH and DEQ via Equation (11), which is why
ment, the Manning equation can be rearranged to find the corresponding n, and then the
multiple curves appear for these particular cases in Figure 6.
distribution of n values for that experiment can be produced. This can be repeated for each
discharge law withapproach
An alternative to processing
the various the data is topresented
histogram distributions calculate the value of
in Figure the parameter
7. Using both
that matches exactly onto the data point and plot the corresponding frequency distribution.
versions of the Colebrook–White formula, Figure 8 presents the results of the friction fac-
For
torexample, for each
as a function Reynolds Q
of themeasured from af(R
number given
e). pipe diameter and slope experiment, the
Manning equation can be rearranged to find the corresponding n, and then the distribution
of n values for that experiment can be produced. This can be repeated for each discharge
law with the various histogram distributions presented in Figure 7. Using both versions
of the Colebrook–White formula, Figure 8 presents the results of the friction factor as a
function of the Reynolds number f (Re ).
Processes 2025, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 16
Processes 2025, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 16
Processes 2025, 13, 1089 9 of 14

D = 101.6 mm D = 101.6 mm D = 152.4 mm

S0 = 1 S0 = 2 S0 = 1
D = 101.6 mm D = 101.6 mm D = 152.4 mm
10 S 0 = 110 S 0 = 210 S0 = 1

frequency

frequency

frequency
10 10 10

frequency

frequency

frequency
5 5 5

5 5 5
0 0 0
2 4 6 8 10 2 4 6 8 10 2 4 6 8 10
n (s/m 1/3
0 ) 10 -3 n (s/m 1/3
0 ) 10 -3 n (s/m 1/3
0 ) 10 -3
2 4 6 8 10 2 4 6 8 10 2 4 6 8 10
-3 -3
15 n (s/m 1/3
15 ) 10 n (s/m 1/3
15 ) 10 n (s/m 1/3 ) 10 -3
frequency

frequency

frequency
10 frequency 15 10 15 10 15

frequency

frequency
5 10 5 10 5 10

0 5 0 5 0 5
20 40 60 80 20 40 60 80 20 40 60 80
Chezy 0C Chezy 0C Chezy 0C
20 40 60 80 20 40 60 80 20 40 60 80
15 Chezy C
15 Chezy C
15 Chezy C
frequency

frequency

frequency
10 15 10 15 10 15
frequency

frequency

frequency
5 10 5 10 5 10

0 5 0 5 0 5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0 0.2 0.4 0.6
k s (mm) CW
0
H
k s (mm) CW
0
H
k s (mm) CW
0
H
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0 0.2 0.4 0.6
15 k s (mm) CW
15
H
k s (mm) CW
15
H
k s (mm) CWH
frequency

frequency

frequency
10 15 10 15 10 15
frequency

frequency

frequency
5 10 5 10 5 10

0 5 0 5 0 5
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
k (mm) CW
s
0
EQ
k (mm) CW
s
0
EQ
k s (mm) CW
0
EQ
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
k s (mm) CWEQ k s (mm) CWEQ k s (mm) CWEQ

Figure 7. Frequency
Figure distributions
7. Frequency for n, Chezy
distributions for n, C, and ksC,
Chezy forand
the ktwo versions
for the twoof versions
the Colebrook–White
of the Colebrook– s
formula. Figure 7. Frequency distributions for n, Chezy C, and ks for the two versions of the Colebrook–White
White formula.
formula.
0.03
o
0.03 D=101.6 mm, S o =1
o
D=101.6 mm, S =2 D=101.6 mm, S =1 o
0.025 o o
o
D=152.4 mm, S =1 D=101.6 mm, S =2 o
0.025 o o
fH

Smooth pipe D=152.4 mm, S =1

o
o
0.02
fH

Smooth pipe
0.02

0.015

0 0.50.015 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4

ReH 5
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 310 3.5 4
ReH 5
10
0.03

0.03

0.025
f EQ

0.025
f EQ

0.02

0.02

0.015
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
0.015 ReEQ 5
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 10 2.5 3
ReEQ 5
10
Figure 8. Plots of f (Re ), where subscripts H and EQ refer to using either DH or DEQ in the
Figure 8. Plots of f(Re), where subscripts H and EQ refer to using either DH or DEQ in the Colebrook–
Colebrook–White formula, respectively. The solid black line corresponds to the smooth pipe case of
White formula, Figure
respectively.
8. PlotsThe solid
of f(R black line
e), where corresponds
subscripts H andto
EQthe smooth
refer pipeeither
to using DHksor
case of =D0.EQ in the Colebrook–
ks = 0.
White formula, respectively. The solid black line corresponds to the smooth pipe case of ks = 0.
Figure 9 highlights the relationship between the Froude number with relative depth
Fr (Dr ), the dependence between the Reynolds and Froude numbers Fr (Re ) (data = crosses),
and the theoretical curves resulting from both the Manning and the constant C Chezy
 Processes 2025, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 16
Processes 2025, 13, 1089 10 of 14

Figure 9 highlights the relationship between the Froude number with relative depth
F r(Dr), the dependence between the Reynolds and Froude numbers Fr(Re) (data = crosses),
laws (solid lines). The theoretical curves are obtained by first rewriting both the Froude
(Equation (1))and thethe
and theoretical
Reynolds curves resulting
(Equation from
(9)) both the Manning
equations as: and the constant C Chezy laws
(solid lines). The theoretical curves are obtained by first rewriting both the Froude (Equa-
tion (1)) and the Reynolds (Equation (9)) equations as:
s
Q T Q 4R
Fr = , Re = , (14)
+ . + /%
A
)* = , -$, ,
gA A ν
=, , (14)

and then noting that Q/A for the discharge laws can be written as:
and then noting that Q/A for the discharge laws can be wriLen as:

Q p Q
, S0 R β ,
= α S0 R=βα (15)(15)
A A
where α = 1, where
β = 4/3 α =for
1, βManning,
= 4/3 for Manning,
and α =andC, βα =
= C, β = 1Chezy.
1 for for Chezy. 0 <0θ< <θ π/2,
For For < π/2,Equations
Equations (2)–
(4) allow
(2)–(4) allow A(θ), A(θ),
T(θ), andT(θ), and
R(θ) toR(θ) to be calculated,
be calculated, alongalong
with DrD=r =h(θ)/D,
with h(θ)/D, with
withh(θ)
h(θ)given
givenbyby
Equa-
tion (3), which permits the theoretical curves to be determined parametrically
Equation (3), which permits the theoretical curves to be determined parametrically though θ. though θ.

Mannings, n = 0.0086 Chezy, C = 64.1

o
3.5 D=101.6 mm, S =1 3.5
o
o
D=101.6 mm, S =2
o
o
D=152.4 mm, S =1
o
3 3
Fr

Fr
2.5 2.5

2 2

1.5 1.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Dr Dr

4 4

3.5 3.5

3 3
Fr

Fr

2.5 2.5

2 2

1.5 1.5

1 1
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
Re 10 5 Re 105

Figure 9. The top plot shows the Froude number as a function of the relative depth, with the bottom
Figure
plot showing the 9. Thenumber’s
Froude top plot shows the Froudeon
dependence number as a function
the Reynolds of the relative
number. depth,
The solid withare
lines thethe
boLom
plot showing the Froude number’s dependence on
theoretical curves using Manning’s equation with n from Figure 6. the Reynolds number. The solid lines are the
theoretical curves using Manning’s equation with n from Figure 6.
4. Discussion
4. Discussion
From Figure 6, we see that there is a very good level of agreement between the
From Figure 6, we see that there is a very good level of agreement between the pre-
predicted discharges based on all four discharge formulations and the measured discharge,
dicted discharges based on all four discharge formulations and the measured discharge,
with R2 > 0.98 for all cases. The results in Figure 6 also cover a wide range of flow depths
with R2 > 0.98 for all cases. The results in Figure 6 also cover a wide range of flow depths
in the pipe, from low flow depths of Dr nearof0.1
in the pipe, from low flow depths
up to nearly 90% of the full pipe diameter.
Dr near 0.1 up to nearly 90% of the full pipe diameter.
For the higherForwater levels,water
the higher the predictions have an accuracy
levels, the predictions of approximately
have an accuracy ± 5%,± while
of approximately 5%, while
for the lowest discharges, the accuracy varies within ± 15%. We also see that
for the lowest discharges, the accuracy varies within ± 15%. We also see that that there
that there is
is quite a bit of scatter in the measured discharges. We believe that there are a couple of
factors involved here. The 7 m pipe slope section that was used for the data collection
was set using a total station and has a potential error of plus or minus 10%. The second
reason is due to the experiments being conducted at high Froude numbers corresponding
to supercritical flow with roll waves. These are very demanding conditions for any meter
that obtains readings based on a reflected signal. In general, there is very little difference
Processes 2025, 13, 1089 11 of 14

between the magnitude of the differences across the various discharge relations. Due to
the type of pump being used, it was not possible to reproduce experiments at the same
discharge, but only at similar discharges, and therefore a direct measure of repeatability
could not be obtained. However, we looked to overcome this issue by conducting the
experiments with a series of increasing and decreasing pumping rates, or discharge cycles,
as shown in Figure 5. This provided data at many similar pumping rates, and consequently,
a good measure of the level of repeatability is demonstrated by the narrow spread of the
experimental data in Figure 6.
The frequency distributions of n and C in Figure 7 are reasonably compact, and all
closely centered approximately around n = 0.009 and C = 64. For C = 64, this results in
a value for the friction factor of f = 0.019. The corresponding standard deviations going
across the top two rows of Figure 7 are 0.00063, 0.00043, and 0.0006 for n and 4.6, 3.2, and
4.3 for C, respectively. However, when it comes to the distribution of ks for the two bottom
rows of Figure 7, they are quite broad, with a greater spread compared to n and C, and
all of their corresponding standard deviations are of the same order of magnitude as their
respective means. The distribution of ks for CWEQ is lower compared to CWH because, for
our data, DEQ is nearly always considerably less than DH . We note that for D = 101.6 mm
and S0 = 1◦ , there is a single data point that sits well away from the main distribution, and
we see this as an isolated outlier.
While typical published values for PVC pipes give values for ks as approximately
0.0015 mm, our values are at least an order of magnitude greater and would normally
reflect pipes made of steel. A range of 0.01 < ks < 0.02 mm for PVC pipes was given by
Ref. [17], and while this is still smaller than what we obtained, we are at least in the same
order of magnitude. However, while our ks is high, Figure 7 shows that the Moody-style
plots for both CWDH and CWEQ agree with the Moody diagram for the range of our
experimental Reynolds numbers. A possible explanation, therefore, for the high ks is that
because of the supercritical flow and presence of roll waves, not all energy losses are just
from the boundary shear stresses. Consequently, the effects of these additional losses are
incorporated into ks through the least-squares process and thus make ks more of a curve-
fitting parameter. In addition, Ref. [19] on p. 427 noted that tabulated ks values correspond
to new, clean pipes and that “after considerable use, most pipes (because of buildup of
corrosion or scale” may have a relative roughness that is considerably larger (perhaps by an
order of magnitude).” Given that our experimental pipe rig has been outdoors for several
years in all weather conditions with numerous experimental runs, our ks values tend to
align with the comments of Ref. [19]. On p. 22 of Ref. [20] it was noted that the resistance
to a uniform, steady flow is only a function of the Reynolds number and ks , provided that
the Froude number is not high, and its effect is negligible.
In experiments on partially full pipes, Ref. [4] looked at the effect of Fr on boundary
shear stress distributions and found only a minimal effect, though their similar experiments
were also subcritical. In Figure 9, the highest Froude numbers for Manning’s equation
occurred for a Dr of around 0.3, with Fr decreasing for both Dr < 0.3 and Dr > 0.3. For the
Chezy law, Fr is at maximum at zero depth and decreases as Dr increases, which is quite
different than the behavior exhibited by Manning’s equation. By expanding both formulas
for Dr → 0, or equivalently θ → 0, then it is straightforward to show that for the Chezy law,
Fr approaches the constant C(S0 /g)0.5 , while for the Manning law, it approaches zero as
proportional to θ 1/6 . However, for the range of data shown in Figure 9, either the Manning
or the Chezy laws are equally acceptable in representing the data. It is also worth noting
that in the limit of θ near zero, neither the Chezy nor the Manning law apply, as we are
now in the realm of thin film flow, where surface tension effects are far more important.
Figure 4 of Ref. [1] has Fr increasing with Re at subcritical flows but remaining constant for
Processes 2025, 13, 1089 12 of 14

weakly supercritical flow. This essentially agrees with the theoretical prediction from the
Manning equation for subcritical flow and with our data for supercritical flows (Figure 9).
However, the solid theoretical lines based on the fitted Manning’s n suggest that there is a
slight decrease in Fr as Re increases, especially for the smallest pipe diameter and slope.
In Figure 12 of Ref. [5], they show that C rapidly increased as the relative flow depth
increased for 0 < Dr < 0.5, followed by a very gradual increase to Dr = 0.8. Even though
there is a degree of scatter in our data, it is difficult to see such a similar trend in our data.
While the value for C of 64.1 is much higher than those in Ref. [5], who used an acrylic
pipe, the Reynolds numbers from our experiments were an order of magnitude higher than
theirs, which then led to a lower f, and therefore a higher C. A series of experiments in
PVC pipes were also conducted by Ref. [21], with similar Reynolds numbers at both sub-
and supercritical flow. Unfortunately, the Fr > 1 experiments were conducted with a flat
horizontal section inserted at the bottom of the pipe and are therefore qualitatively different.
However, for their subcritical experiments without a flat bottom section, they obtained a
similar distribution to Figure 8 for the friction factors as a function of Dr primarily centered
around f = 0.02 (see Figure 19 of [21]). As seen in Figure 8, f = 0.02 sits approximately in the
mid-range of each of the three pipe cases, and given the relatively small range of Reynolds
numbers, it is therefore not surprising that a constant Chezy C value of around 64 provides
a good match to the data (Figure 6).
According to Ref. [22], “The results of the 25 field measurements taken from four
different localities showed that the value of Manning’s n should be taken equal to 0.009
for a PVC pipe.” The findings of Ref. [22] very much agree with our curve-fitted values of
Manning’s n in Figure 6. Indeed, it strongly suggests that for PVC pipes, the microwave
readings can simply be combined with tabulated n values to estimate the pipe discharge.
There have been several previous studies by Refs. [5,23,24] where it has been found that
the Manning’s n will vary depending on the relative depth of fluid in the pipe. Data
obtained from Ref. [5] have shown n to be a decreasing function for flow depths that are
less than the pipe radius, and almost constant for flow depths greater than the pipe radius.
Data provided in Refs. [23,25] showed n to be a concave down function of the relative
depth. However, there is also additional support for a constant n by Ref. [2] obtained from
experiments on partial flow in a circular corrugated pipe of D = 0.622 m. They obtained a
value of n = 0.023 for three different slopes of 0.55, 1.14, and 2.55% and relative flow depths
of Dr < 0.55. This behavior has also been confirmed through field tests in sanitary sewers
by Ref. [22].
For Manning’s n, Figure 12 of Ref. [5] showed a decrease in Dr for 0 < Dr < 0.5 and
then remained relatively constant. Similar to our findings for C, our results for n do
not show the same behavior as those of Ref. [5] and suggest that n could be taken as a
constant. However, we also note that their experiments were all run at subcritical flows with
Fr < 0.55, as opposed to our range of 1.5 < Fr < 3.6. Interestingly, Ref. [26] comments that an
advantage of Manning’s n is “its near invariance over its values over a wide range of flow
depth or hydraulic radius for fully developed turbulent, steady, uniform flow in straight
circular pipes or wide, straight, prismatic open channels of impervious fixed boundary”,
which essentially agrees with our findings of using a constant n (Figure 6).

5. Conclusions
A range of experiments were carried out to test the ability of a microwave water meter
to measure pipe discharges under varying flow depths. Two different pipe diameters and
pipe slopes were considered. By plotting the dimensionless discharge against the relative
flow depth for all 175 experimental runs, very good agreement between the data and the
meter predictions were obtained. It was found that either the Chezy law with a constant
Processes 2025, 13, 1089 13 of 14

friction factor or Manning’s law could be used in conjunction with the microwave sensor
readings to provide reliable discharge predictions compared to the measured discharge. Of
these six fits to the data, all of the R2 values obtained from the plots of predicted versus
measured discharge were greater than 98%.
It was found that the Colebrook–White formula in conjunction with either the hy-
draulic diameter or the equivalent diameter for full pipe flow could also be used to match
the data. However, it was found that the resulting roughness coefficient was significantly
larger than values typically used for a PVC pipe. In contrast, for Manning’s law, recom-
mended tabulated values for n were a good match to those obtained for our data. This
suggests that for smooth PVC pipes, anyway, Manning’s equation could also be used in a
totally predictive capacity.
We have demonstrated the potential for our microwave sensor to provide a reliable
prediction for the discharge under fully turbulent flow in a PVC pipe; however further ex-
periments are required to test discharge predictions from the sensor under transitional and
fully developed rough, turbulent flows in different types of pipes. From such experiments,
we should be able to identify the reliable discharge-operating regime of the microwave
sensor and whether Manning’s law with tabulated values for n can still provide the same
accuracy of discharge prediction when combined with the microwave sensor readings.
Lastly, the meter was only tested with clear water flows, and much further research is also
required to evaluate the meter using true wastewater flows under real-world conditions
containing debris loads at various concentrations and temperatures, where the dialectic
permittivity is likely to be quite different.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, methodology, validation, and formal analysis: all authors;
investigation, V.K., D.W. and M.C.; writing—original draft preparation and editing, V.K., G.S. and
A.E.-H.; software, V.K. and G.S.; supervision, G.S., A.E.-H., D.W. and M.C. All authors have read and
agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding: We would like to thank the UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC)
and the Centre for Innovative and Collaborative Construction Engineering (CICE) at Loughborough
University for the provision of a grant (number EPG037272) to undertake this research project in
collaboration with Dynamic Flow Technologies Ltd.

Data Availability Statement: The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made
available by the authors on request.

Conflicts of Interest: Authors Duncan Wallace and Martin Croft were employed by Dynamic Flow
Technologies Ltd. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of
any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

References
1. Ng, H.C.H.; Cregan, H.L.F.; Dodds, J.M.; Poole, R.J.; Dennis, D.J.C. Partially filled pipes: Experiments in laminar and turbulent
flow. J. Fluid. Mech. 2018, 848, 467–507. [CrossRef]
2. Ead, S.A.; Rajaratnam, N.; Katopodis, C.; Ade, F. Turbulent Open-Channel Flow in Circular Corrugated Culverts. J. Hydraul. Eng.
2000, 126, 750–757. [CrossRef]
3. Cunliffe, C.J.; Dodds, M.; Dennis, D.J.C. Flow correlations and transport behaviour of turbulent slurries in partially filled pipes.
Chem. Eng. Sci. 2021, 235, 116465. [CrossRef]
4. Knight, D.W.; Sterling, M. Boundary Shear in Circular Pipes Running Partially Full. J. Hydraul. Eng. 2000, 126, 263–275. [CrossRef]
5. Yoon, J.-I.; Sung, J.; Ho Lee, M. Velocity profiles and friction coefficients in circular open channels. J. Hydraul. Res. 2012, 50,
304–311. [CrossRef]
6. Wada, S.; Furuichi, N.; Shimada, T. Development of ultrasonic pulse-train Doppler method for velocity profile and flowrate
measurement. Meas. Sci. Technol. 2016, 27, 115302. [CrossRef]
7. Swaffield, J.A.; Bridge, S. Applicability of the Colebrook-White Formula to Represent Frictional Losses in Partially Filled Unsteady
Pipeflow. J. Res. Natl. Bur. Stand. 1983, 88, 389. [CrossRef]
Processes 2025, 13, 1089 14 of 14

8. Tezuka, K.; Mori, M.; Suzuki, T.; Kanamine, T. Ultrasonic pulse-Doppler flow meter application for hydraulic power plants. Flow
Meas. Instrum. 2008, 19, 155–162. [CrossRef]
9. Tareq Bin, M. Development of Acoustic Sensor and Signal Processing Technique. Available online: https://bradscholars.brad.ac.
uk/handle/10454/4908 (accessed on 25 July 2024).
10. Larrarte, F.; Bardiaux, J.B.; Battaglia, P.; Joannis, C. Acoustic Doppler flow-meters: A proposal to characterize their technical
parameters. Flow Meas. Instrum. 2008, 19, 261–267. [CrossRef]
11. Korostynska, O.; Mason, A.; Al-Shamma’A, A. Microwave sensors for the non-invasive monitoring of industrial and medical
applications. Sens. Rev. 2014, 34, 182–191. [CrossRef]
12. Boon, J.D.; Brubaker, J.M. Acoustic-microwave water level sensor comparisons in an estuarine environment. In Proceedings of
the OCEANS 2008, Quebec City, QC, Canada, 15–18 September 2008. [CrossRef]
13. Bernou, C.; Rebière, D.; Pistré, J. Microwave sensors: A new sensing principle. Application to humidity detection. Sens. Actuators
B Chem. 2000, 68, 88–93. [CrossRef]
14. Water, U.K. Sewerage Sector Guidance-Approved Documents|Water UK. Available online: https://www.water.org.uk/sewerage-
sector-guidance-approved-documents (accessed on 25 July 2024).
15. Brosda, J.; Manhart, M. Numerical investigation of semifilled-pipe flow. J. Fluid. Mech. 2022, 932, A25. [CrossRef]
16. Liu, Y.; Stoesser, T.; Fang, H. Effect of secondary currents on the flow and turbulence in partially filled pipes. J. Fluid. Mech. 2022,
938, A16. [CrossRef]
17. Chanson, H. The Hydraulics of Open Channel Flow: An Introduction: Basic Principles, Sediment Motion, Hydraulic Modelling, Design of
Hydraulic Structures, 2nd ed.; Butterworth Heinemann: Oxford, UK, 2004; pp. 1–585. [CrossRef]
18. Henderson, F.M. Open Channel Flow; Macmillian: New York, NY, USA, 1966.
19. Munson, B.R.; Okiishi, T.H.; Huebsch, W.W.; Rothmayer, A.P. Fluid Mechanics, SI Version, 7th ed.; Wiley: Singapore, 2013.
20. Yen, B.C. Open Channel Flow Resistance. J. Hydraul. Eng. 2002, 128, 20–39. [CrossRef]
21. Sterling, M.; Knight, D.W. Resistance and boundary shear in circular conduits with flat beds running part full. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng.
Water Marit. Eng. 2000, 142, 229–240. [CrossRef]
22. Bishop, R.R. Hydraulic Characteristics of PVC Pipe in Sanitary Sewers (A Hydraulic Characteristics of PVC Pipe in Sanitary
Sewers (A Report of Field Measurements) Report of Field Measurements). 1978. Available online: https://digitalcommons.usu.
edu/water_rep (accessed on 17 September 2021).
23. Camp, T. Design of sewers to facilitate flow. Sew. Work. J. 1946, 18, 3–16.
24. Enfinger, K.L.; Kimbrough, H.R. Scattergraph Principles and Practice a Comparison of Various Applications of the Manning
Equation. In Pipeline Engineering and Construction: What’s on the Horizon? American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE): Reston, VA,
USA, 2004; pp. 1–13. [CrossRef]
25. Akgiray, Ö. Simple Formulae for Velocity, Depth of Flow, and Slope Calculations in Partially Filled Circular Pipes. Environ. Eng.
Sci. 2004, 21, 371–385. [CrossRef]
26. Yen, B.C. Dimensionally Homogeneous Manning’s Formula. J. Hydraul. Eng. 1992, 118, 1326–1332. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.