The Uncertainty of Measurements in River Hydraulics: Evaluation of Friction Velocity Based on an Unrepeatable Experiment

  • Magdalena M. Mrokowska
  • Paweł M. Rowiński
  • Monika B. Kalinowska
Part of the GeoPlanet: Earth and Planetary Sciences book series (GEPS)


The chapter addresses the issue of evaluating uncertainty of measurements in river hydraulics. As replication of experiments in natural settings is not possible, the chapter highlights the case of unrepeatable experiments. Evaluation of friction velocity under flood conditions basing on the Saint-Venant set of equations serves as an example of indirect measurement of physical quantity.


Uncertainty Analysis Friction Velocity Standard Uncertainty Sensitivity Coefficient Deterministic Approach 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



This study has been financed by National Science Centre. Grant No. DEC-2011/01/N/ST10/07395. The authors would like to express their appreciation to Jerzy Szkutnicki from the Institute of Meteorology and Water Management for his help in obtaining and interpreting field measurement data.


  1. Afzalimehr H, Anctil F (2000) Accelerating shear velocity in gravel-bed channels. Hydrol Sci-J-des Sci Hydrol 45(1):113–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baldassarre GD, Montanari A (2009) Uncertainty in river discharge observations: a quantitative analysis. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 13:913–921CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barwick VJ, Ellison SL, Lucking CL, Burn MJ (2001) Experimental studies of uncertainties associated with chromatographic techniques. J Chromatogr A 918:267–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Domeneghetti A, Castellarin A, Brath A (2012) Assessing rating-curve uncertainty and its effects on hydraulic model calibration. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 16:1191–1202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Fornasini P (2008) The uncertainty in physical measurements an introduction to data analysis in the physics laboratory. Springer.Google Scholar
  6. Ghimere B, Deng ZQ (2011) Event flow hydrograph-based method for shear velocity estimation. J Hydraul Res 2:272–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gong L, Xu C, Chen D, Halldin S, Chen Y (2006) Sensitivity of the penman-monteith reference evapotranspiration to key climatic variables in the changjiang (yangtze river) basin. J Hydrol 329:620–629CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Graf W, Song T (1995) Bed-shear stress in non-uniform and unsteady open-channel flows. J Hydraul Res 33(5):699–704CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gutenbaum J (1992) Mathematical modeling of systems. Omnitech Press, WarsawGoogle Scholar
  10. Hupert F, Vanclooster M (2001) Effect of the sampling frequency of methodological variables on the estimation of the reference evapotranspiration. J Hydrol 243:192–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. ISO (1999) Guide to expression of uncertainty in measurement, ISO, 1995. Polish translation, Central Office of Measures.Google Scholar
  12. JCGM (2008) Evaluation of measurement data–guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement. JCGM 100:2008 GUM 1995 with minor corrections. Joint Committee for Guides in Metrology.Google Scholar
  13. Kalinowska MB, Rowiński PM (2012) Uncertainty in computations of the spread of warm water in a river lessons from environmental impact assessment. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci Discuss 9:5871–5904CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kim SC, Friedrichs T, Maa JY, Wright L (2000) Estimating bottom stress in tidal boundary layer from acoustic doppler velocimeter data. J Hydraul Eng 126(6):399–406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Mekid S, Vaja D (2008) Propagation of uncertainty: expressions of second and third order uncertainty with third and fourth moments. Measurement 41:600–609CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Nezu I, Kadota A, Nakagawa H (1997) Turbulent structure in unsteady depth-varying open channel flows. J Hydraul Eng 123(9):752–763CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Pokrajac D, Finnigan J, Manes C, McEwan I, Nikora V (2006) On the definition of the shear velocity in rough bed open channel flows. River Flow 2006. Taylor and Francis Group, London.Google Scholar
  18. Qiu GY, Yano T, Momii K (1998) An improved methodology to measure evaporation form bare soil based on comparison of surface temperature with a dry soil surface. J Hydrol 210:93–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Romanowicz R, Beven K (2006) Comments on generalized likelihood uncertainty estimation. reliab eng syst saf. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 91:1215–1321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Rowiński PM, Czernuszenko W (1998) Experimental study of river turbulence under unsteady conditions. Acta Geophys Pol XLVI 4:462–480Google Scholar
  21. Rowiński PM, Czernuszenko W, Pretre JM (2000) Time-dependent shear velocities in channel routing. Hydrol Sci J 45(6):881–895CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Rowiński PM, Aberle J, Mazurczyk A (2005) Shear velocity estimation in hydraulic research. Acta Geophys Pol 53(4):567–583Google Scholar
  23. Shen Y, Diplas P (2010) Modeling unsteady flow characteristics for hydropeaking operations and their implications on fish habitat. J Hydraul Eng 136(12):1053–1066CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Sime L, Ferguson RI, Church A (2007) Estimating shear stress from moving boat acoustic doppler velocity measurements in a large gravel bed river. Water Resour Res 43:W03418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Szkutnicki J (1996) Assessment of roughness of a small river-channel influenced by vegetation. Materiały badawcze. Seria: Hydrologia i Oceanologia 19. Institute of Meteorology and Water Management, Warszawa.Google Scholar
  26. Yen B (2002) Open channel flow resistance. J Hydraul Eng 128(1):20–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Zieba A (2001) The nature of the measurement uncertainty theory and its new codification. Adv Phys 52(5):238–247Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Magdalena M. Mrokowska
    • 1
  • Paweł M. Rowiński
    • 1
  • Monika B. Kalinowska
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Geophysics PASWarsawPoland

Personalised recommendations