Hydrometry. Measuring river velocity and discharge with acoustic Doppler profilers

2015 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
2008 ◽  
Vol 2008.45 (0) ◽  
pp. 147-148
Author(s):  
Kiyokazu SUGAWARA ◽  
Shuichi YAMADA ◽  
Tsutomu TAKAHASHI ◽  
Masataka SHIRAKASHI

2019 ◽  
Vol 65 ◽  
pp. 110-121 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Khalid ◽  
L. Pénard ◽  
E. Mémin

1994 ◽  
Vol 51 (7) ◽  
pp. 1634-1643 ◽  
Author(s):  
James H. Thorp ◽  
A. Ross Black ◽  
Kim H. Haag ◽  
John D. Wehr

Ohio River Zooplankton were collected monthly or quarterly for 1 yr from littoral and pelagic (main channel) areas in three navigation pools (constricted and floodplain) with four intrapool locations (lower pool and above, below, and within major tributaries). Total densities were minimal (1.64/L) when discharge and turbidities peaked (December–April) but were relatively high otherwise (21.63/L). Seasonal rises in rotifer density preceded increases in cladocerans and copepods; rotifers were nearly twice as abundant as cladocerans and copepods. Diversity (species richness) was not correlated with temperature, velocity, or turbidity. Density was positively linked with temperature and negatively correlated with river velocity and turbidity. Diversities in littoral and pelagic areas were not different, but densities were higher nearshore (mostly copepods and cladocerans); rotifers were usually more common in the main channel. Neither proximity to low-head navigation dams nor channel morphology had detectable effects on zooplankton. Although total diversity and density were similar in tributaries and the main channel, rotifers were more abundant in tributaries, and the Ohio contained more cladocerans and copepods. Densities in the Ohio were greater below than above tributaries for rotifers and cladocerans but lower for copepods, primarily because of nauplii.


1973 ◽  
Vol 1973 (1) ◽  
pp. 583-588
Author(s):  
Al J. Smith

ABSTRACT This paper presents a brief review of several spill cases that have occurred in the Southeast in the recent past. Each case describes a unique situation — either in terms of containment, retention or removal methodology. At Athens, Georgia, a pipeline break caused the closure of the Athens Water Supply System for twenty-four (24) hours. Poor initial retention allowed taste, odors, and some light sheens to pass through the filters at the water plant into the home, causing some sixty-four (64) complaints within a matter of hours. Several inexpensive changes in retention procedures and water treatment techniques returned the situation to normal in a matter of hours. A pipeline break near Shepherdsville, Kentucky, forced some 16,000 gallons of crude oil into a subsurface layer of gravel. Storage of the oil in this fashion constituted a leaching source for the nearby water course that could have persisted for a year or more. Interception trenches were used to tap the gravel layers and water was forced into the layer up the gradient in order to “flush” the system. Ninety percent recovery was achieved at moderate expense. A vandalized storage tank adjacent to the Congaree River was emptied of 10,000 gallons of Bunker “C” near Columbia, South Carolina. Elaborate containment and recovery procedures were employed downstream. The oil, however, disappeared — save for minor vegetation stain. Not even a sheen reached the recovery site. River velocity, wind speed, temperature of the water and turbidity are discussed as contributors to this phenomena. At Jackson, Mississippi, a broken sludge pond dyke at a drilling operation dumped 40,000 gallons of “oil slops” and brine into the Big Black River. Retention on the surface was impossible because of the eight to ten knot river velocity. Light disposable sorbing booms were used to recover an estimated eighty percent of the oil. At Memphis, Tennessee, a piston film “Herder” was used to aid in recovering a portion of a 100,000 gallon spill. Because of surface debris, wind and river velocity, the Herder forced the oil into difficult tree and brush infested areas. The oil literally “ringed” every obstacle floating – or fixed — in the area. Cleanup costs soared. Pictures and sketches will be utilized to emphasize technical aspects of each situation.


2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 8805-8809

DO modeling by Streeter Phelps equation [1] is most popular method to determine the water quality of a River. To compute DO by Streeter Phelps equation River coefficients k1 and k2 (de-oxidation and re-oxygenation) are required. Determination of these coefficients is tedious because it requires field observation of river velocity and depth over a long period of time at river site. To avoid maximum field work in calculating DO of River water DO Modeling approach is developed by combining Lab analysis of water samples DO with field data, e.g. river velocity and depth. Streeter Phelps (1925) developed the 1st important water quality model describing the BOD-DO relationship in a stream. In their pioneering work the simplest system was considered, in which biodegradable waste is discharged to the stream and consumes oxygen, atmospheric reaeration being the only source of oxygen. The model is based on complicated solution of differential equation for above process. The equation is derived assuming River coefficients k1 and k2 as exponential function of time variation. The authors have simplified the derivation of DO-Sag equation [4] by replacing the exponential function with a quadratic polynomial. To explain the use of new equation, authors have defined the geometry of DO curve known as ‘River Water DO Mechanics’. Also in this paper, new equation is applied to make ‘Shivnath River water DO Model’ with data taken by the author as part of his Ph. D. research work. The results justify the acceptance of new modified equation for River Water Quality Assessment.


2015 ◽  
Vol 30 (1) ◽  
pp. 21-33
Author(s):  
Matthew B. Dugas ◽  
Nathan R. Franssen ◽  
Maya O. Bastille ◽  
Ryan A. Martin

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document