Review of literature on the testing of point-velocity current meters

Thibodeaux, Kirk G.

doi:10.3133/ofr94123

Cited by 7 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Staubli (1988) only mentions that there is some temperature effect but without any other comments. Thibodeaux (1994) in his very extensive literature review mentions Johnson's research which was carried out on several Neyrpic meters. Johnson found that a change of water temperature of about 17°C caused a maximum error of 6.2%.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Influence of Water Temperature on Results of Current Meter Calibration and Measurement

Mattas¹,

Ramešová²

2013

Journal of Hydrology and Hydromechanics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

On the basis of the results of calibration of current meters at water of varying temperatures, a hypothesis that water temperature influences measured water velocities was formulated. The analysis of our long-term data showed that the water temperature does have an influence on measured water velocity. This influence can be taken into account for practical purposes as a contribution to the uncertainty of measurements. The influence depends on the type of current meter propeller. This paper presents results obtained for the Ott C-2 current meter with propellers of the types 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6. Our analysis showed that the uncertainty is equal or less than 5% for measurements carried out in water with temperatures above 8°C. The differences between measured water velocities for water temperatures 5°C and 20°C reached maximum 6% (depending on the propeller) in a slowly flowing water (rotational frequency n = 1 s -1 ). For rotational velocity n ≥ 2 s -1 the differences between velocities measured at water temperatures 5 and 20°C were mostly under 3%. The less influenced propeller is of type 3 for which the uncertainty of measurement does not reach 5% even for water temperature 1ºC if the rotational frequency is bigger than 0.7 s -1 .

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Influence of Water Temperature on Results of Current Meter Calibration and Measurement

Mattas¹,

Ramešová²

2013

Journal of Hydrology and Hydromechanics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Comparisons of some methods have been performed by various researchers (Fulford et al. , 1994; Thibodeaux, 1994; Fulford, 2001); however, none cover the broad range of technologies currently employed to measure low flows.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Comparative Study of Stream‐Gaging Techniques for Low‐Flow Measurements in Two Virginia Tributaries¹

Soupir

Mostaghimi

Mitchem³

2009

J American Water Resour Assoc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Nonpoint source pollution (NPS) studies, such as total maximum daily loads development, often require quantification of flow in small first-order and second-order streams. Frequently, stream-gaging techniques are implemented in flows that are below the manufacturer's recommended minimum velocity. A comparative analysis of the accuracy of current technologies used in NPS pollution stream-gaging applications and their applicability in low-flow conditions was conducted. Nine stream-gaging methods were evaluated for their field and laboratory performance and control structures were used as the statistical control. Analysis of the field investigation data indicated that Marsh McBirney current meter and the One-orange method were the most accurate in the field while the results of the laboratory experiments found that the Starflow acoustic Doppler and Valeport Braystoke current meter performed best among the 10 methods. Overall, the Marsh McBirney and Valeport Braystoke current meters exhibited the best performance for both field and laboratory situations.(KEY TERMS: stream gaging; monitoring; streamflow; nonpoint source pollution.) Soupir, Michelle L

show abstract

“…Previous investigations on current meters have been conducted by many researchers and are summarized by Thibodeaux (1994). Yarnell and Nagler's (1931) study on mechanical current meters is one often referenced.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

ACCURACY AND CONSISTENCY OF WATER‐CURRENT MIETERS¹

Fulford¹

2001

J American Water Resour Assoc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The measurement of discharge in natural streams requires hydrographers to use accurate meters that have consistent performance among meters of the same model. This paper presents the results of an investigation into the accuracy and consistency of four models of current meters‐Price Type‐AA, Price Pygmy, Marsh McBirney 2000, and Swoffer 2100. Test results for six meters of each model are presented. Variation of meter performance within a model is used as an indicator of consistency, and percent velocity error that is computed from a measured reference velocity is used as an indicator of meter accuracy. Velocities measured by each meter are also compared to the manufacturer's published or advertised accuracy limits. The investigation found the Price models to be more accurate and consistent than the other models. The Price models met their respective accuracy limits over the range of test velocities better than the other models. The Marsh McBirney model usually measured within its accuracy specification. The Swoffer meters did not meet the stringent Swoffer accuracy limits for all the velocities tested. The Swoffer model had accuracies similar to the Price Type‐AA model when individual meter rating equations were computed and used. Every model tested had meters that did not meet manufacturer accuracy limits. Because current meters are not consistently accurate within a model, hydrographers should periodically check meters against a velocity standard.

show abstract

Review of literature on the testing of point-velocity current meters

Cited by 7 publications

References 21 publications

Influence of Water Temperature on Results of Current Meter Calibration and Measurement

Influence of Water Temperature on Results of Current Meter Calibration and Measurement

A Comparative Study of Stream‐Gaging Techniques for Low‐Flow Measurements in Two Virginia Tributaries¹

ACCURACY AND CONSISTENCY OF WATER‐CURRENT MIETERS¹

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Review of literature on the testing of point-velocity current meters

Cited by 7 publications

References 21 publications

Influence of Water Temperature on Results of Current Meter Calibration and Measurement

Influence of Water Temperature on Results of Current Meter Calibration and Measurement

A Comparative Study of Stream‐Gaging Techniques for Low‐Flow Measurements in Two Virginia Tributaries1

ACCURACY AND CONSISTENCY OF WATER‐CURRENT MIETERS1

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

A Comparative Study of Stream‐Gaging Techniques for Low‐Flow Measurements in Two Virginia Tributaries¹

ACCURACY AND CONSISTENCY OF WATER‐CURRENT MIETERS¹