Home About HyMeX
Motivations
Science questions
Observation strategy
Modelling strategy
Target areas
Key documents
Organisation
International coordination
Working groups
Task teams
National contributions
Endorsements
Resources
Database
Data policy
Publications
Education and summer schools
Drifting balloons (BAMED)
SOP web page
Google maps data visualisation
Workshops Projects
ASICS-MED
MOBICLIMEX
MUSIC
IODA-MED
REMEMBER
FLOODSCALE
EXAEDRE
Offers Links Contacts
Science & Task teams
Science teams
Task teams
Implementation plan
Coordination
International Scientific Steering Committee (ISSC)
Executive Committee for Implementation and Science Coordination (EC-ISC)
Executive Committee - France (EC-Fr)
HyMeX France
HyMeX Italy
HyMeX Spain
Archive
by Welber, M., Le Coz, J., Laronne, J., Zolezzi, G., Zamler, D., Dramais, G., Hauet, A. and Salvaro, M.
Abstract:
The applicability of a portable, commercially available surface velocity radar (SVR) for noncontact stream gauging was evaluated through a series of field-scale experiments carried out in a variety of sites and deployment conditions. Comparisons with various concurrent techniques showed acceptable agreement with velocity profiles, with larger uncertainties close to the banks. In addition to discharge error sources shared with intrusive velocity-area techniques, SVR discharge estimates are affected by flood-induced changes in the bed profile and by the selection of a depth-averaged to surface velocity ratio, or velocity coefficient (α). Cross-sectional averaged velocity coefficients showed smaller fluctuations and closer agreement with theoretical values than those computed on individual verticals, especially in channels with high relative roughness. Our findings confirm that α = 0.85 is a valid default value, with a preferred site-specific calibration to avoid underestimation of discharge in very smooth channels (relative roughness ∼ 0.001) and overestimation in very rough channels (relative roughness > 0.05). Theoretically derived and site-calibrated values of α also give accurate SVR-based discharge estimates (within 10%) for low and intermediate roughness flows (relative roughness 0.001 to 0.05). Moreover, discharge uncertainty does not exceed 10% even for a limited number of SVR positions along the cross section (particularly advantageous to gauge unsteady flood flows and very large floods), thereby extending the range of validity of rating curves.
Reference:
Welber, M., Le Coz, J., Laronne, J., Zolezzi, G., Zamler, D., Dramais, G., Hauet, A. and Salvaro, M., 2016: Field assessment of noncontact stream gauging using portable surface velocity radars (SVR)Water Resources Research, 52, 1108-1126.
Bibtex Entry:
@Article{Welber2016,
  Title                    = {Field assessment of noncontact stream gauging using portable surface velocity radars (SVR)},
  Author                   = {Welber, M. and Le Coz, J. and Laronne, J. and Zolezzi, G. and Zamler, D. and Dramais, G. and Hauet, A. and Salvaro, M.},
  Journal                  = {Water Resources Research},
  Year                     = {2016},

  Month                    = {February},
  Number                   = {2},
  Pages                    = {1108-1126},
  Volume                   = {52},

  Abstract                 = {The applicability of a portable, commercially available surface velocity radar (SVR) for noncontact stream gauging was evaluated through a series of field-scale experiments carried out in a variety of sites and deployment conditions. Comparisons with various concurrent techniques showed acceptable agreement with velocity profiles, with larger uncertainties close to the banks. In addition to discharge error sources shared with intrusive velocity-area techniques, SVR discharge estimates are affected by flood-induced changes in the bed profile and by the selection of a depth-averaged to surface velocity ratio, or velocity coefficient (α). Cross-sectional averaged velocity coefficients showed smaller fluctuations and closer agreement with theoretical values than those computed on individual verticals, especially in channels with high relative roughness. Our findings confirm that α = 0.85 is a valid default value, with a preferred site-specific calibration to avoid underestimation of discharge in very smooth channels (relative roughness ∼ 0.001) and overestimation in very rough channels (relative roughness > 0.05). Theoretically derived and site-calibrated values of α also give accurate SVR-based discharge estimates (within 10%) for low and intermediate roughness flows (relative roughness 0.001 to 0.05). Moreover, discharge uncertainty does not exceed 10% even for a limited number of SVR positions along the cross section (particularly advantageous to gauge unsteady flood flows and very large floods), thereby extending the range of validity of rating curves.},
  Copublication            = {8: 3 It, 3 Fr, 2 Is},
  Doi                      = {10.1002/2015WR017906},
  Owner                    = {hymexw},
  Timestamp                = {2016.08.26},
  Url                      = {http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015WR017906/full}
}