Affiliation:
1. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering Villanova University Villanova PA USA
2. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering University of Connecticut Storrs CT USA
3. Department of Civil Engineering University of Texas Arlington TX USA
4. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering The Pennsylvania State University University Park PA USA
5. Department of Geography and the Environment The University of Alabama Tuscaloosa AL USA
Abstract
AbstractManning's roughness coefficient, n, is used to describe channel roughness, and is a widely sought‐after key parameter for estimating and predicting flood propagation. Due to its control of flow velocity and shear stress, n is critical for modeling timing of floods and pollutants, aquatic ecosystem health, infrastructural safety, and so on. While alternative formulations exist, open‐channel n is typically regarded as temporally constant, determined from lookup tables or calibration, and its spatiotemporal variability was never examined holistically at large scales. Here, we developed and analyzed a continental‐scale n dataset (along with alternative formulations) calculated from observed velocity, slope, and hydraulic radius in 200,000 surveys conducted over 5,000 U.S. sites. These large, diverse observations allowed training of a Random Forest (RF) model capable of predicting n (or alternative parameters) at high accuracy (Nash Sutcliffe model efficiency >0.7) in space and time. We show that predictable time variability explains a large fraction (∼35%) of n variance compared to spatial variability (50%). While exceptions abound, n is generally lower and more stable under higher streamflow conditions. Other factorial influences on n including land cover, sinuosity, and particle sizes largely agree with conventional intuition. Accounting for temporal variability in n could lead to substantially larger (45% at the median site) estimated flow velocities under high‐flow conditions or lower (44%) velocities under low‐flow conditions. Habitual exclusion of n temporal dynamics means flood peaks could arrive days before model‐predicted flood waves, and peak magnitude estimation might also be erroneous. We therefore offer a model of great practical utility.
Funder
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Publisher
American Geophysical Union (AGU)