Lemming
Member
We are working on a project where an extracted flow to the local WTP is prior to a couple of small dams. The requirement is to maintain a residual flow over the dam of 30 l/s. The nominated sub for that is a hydrological company, who derives the flow by measuring the level on the upstream portion of the dam, then gauges the resultant flow downstream. They generate a rating table based on several vists, which is used to generate the compliant flow. This is updated 4 x a year, so is costly thing to maintain.
We have to slave this value back to the WTP Scada, so have the same hydrostatic loop into the local PLC, and have to apply the same rating table 4 x a year...
Where I have a query is both dams have engineered weirs, and I have argued that all that is really necessary is to calibrate the hydrostatic datum to the weir crest, and apply the calc?? On top of this the method of proving accuracy is to check the level, and make sure there isn't a dead sheep blocking the flow etc...
The response is pretty much the stream gauging is more accurate.. I cant understand this at all. Has anyone any experience with river gauging??, and can explain....
We have to slave this value back to the WTP Scada, so have the same hydrostatic loop into the local PLC, and have to apply the same rating table 4 x a year...
Where I have a query is both dams have engineered weirs, and I have argued that all that is really necessary is to calibrate the hydrostatic datum to the weir crest, and apply the calc?? On top of this the method of proving accuracy is to check the level, and make sure there isn't a dead sheep blocking the flow etc...
The response is pretty much the stream gauging is more accurate.. I cant understand this at all. Has anyone any experience with river gauging??, and can explain....