Flows question...

This is what it's all about. Just like the real parking lot, this is the place to shoot the breeze and talk trash. Just keep it clean!

Moderators: bdk, bigtime

Posts: 841
Joined: Sun Aug 10, 2008 8:23 pm
Location: Planet Earth

Re: the diff

Postby Blood_Runs_Orange » Wed Apr 15, 2009 1:16 pm

Cheetah wrote:is in the river's change in depth, pools and width. those gauges will never match but they do correlate. please see flow logger study on Saludahydrorelicense web page under studies.

For sure. Thanks for the lead. :notworthy:
User avatar
Posts: 2191
Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2004 6:03 pm

Postby scoob » Wed Apr 15, 2009 1:38 pm

Yes, bigtime, I agree.
However, last summer, I thought that the zoo read less flow than coming out of the dam... due to water from the river sneaking into the dry creek beds and soaking in (rather than the creeks feeding water into the river)... so, we lost water between the dam and the zoo.
User avatar
Posts: 3126
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Lexington, SC

Postby bigtime » Wed Apr 15, 2009 2:47 pm

that could be true...I know Edisto was losing water because the water table itself was so low...
User avatar
Posts: 274
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2007 12:11 pm
Location: Columbia, SC

Postby redbeard » Wed Apr 15, 2009 4:38 pm

speaking of flows...

would it be possible to have a Broad River gauge included on the main page?
Posts: 145
Joined: Fri Dec 26, 2008 3:36 pm
Location: Recovery

Postby FlipMe » Wed Apr 15, 2009 6:51 pm

I noticed that the flow rates between the dam and the zoo arent the same as well. Earlier this week i did some math using some of the data from previous months this year. I used times when both the dam and zoo had reached there peaks and sustained them for atleast one hour.

I found that on average the Zoo's cfs is between 1.17 (with little or no rain) and 1.23 (with moderate to heavy rain) times greater than the dam itself. Also the greater cfs realease by the dam the greater the difference the zoo will see. it is a proportional relationship.

We also know that the USGS times for instantaneous data is two hours off and that it takes two hours approx. for water to get to the zoo from the dam. So using this average you can get an instantaneous flow at the zoo when the dam has peaked.

Here is data from yesterday the 14th as of 3 pm.

Dam 4770
Zoo predicted 5580 to 5867
Zoo observed 5880

April 10th 3 pm.

Dam 573
Zoo predicted 670 to 704
Zoo observed 668
Hope this helps.
User avatar
Posts: 546
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 3:01 pm
Location: Undisclosed

Postby EricMckeehan » Wed Apr 15, 2009 8:33 pm

My gauges read "bodacious".
Complacency Kills
User avatar
Posts: 142
Joined: Wed May 11, 2005 9:07 am
Location: Lexington

Postby crash » Wed Apr 15, 2009 9:01 pm

I could be wrong and I hate to put a turd in everyone's water... BUT, I see it as BRO's equation is flawed. He had the model equation as


but I see the equation as

flow(dam) + flow(creeks) + flow(treatment_plant) - ground_absorption = flow(zoo)

and I'd bet a little money that the higher the flow from the dam the more allowable flow from the treatment plant.

It's not a pleasant thought but it fits the data. I did throw the ground_absorption in there because that was probably a factor last summer.

My :2cents:
User avatar
Posts: 306
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 1:53 pm
Location: Saluda Shoals

Postby Steve_I » Wed Apr 15, 2009 10:39 pm

I spoke with a squirtboater with a USGS approved pfd, I mean he works for USGS and he said the extra cfs was due to groundwater inputs. The water table is high at this time of year.
User avatar
Posts: 1114
Joined: Wed Nov 17, 2004 2:21 pm
Location: Dagobah

Postby redneckjedi » Wed Apr 15, 2009 10:46 pm

I think we could refer to Robbie's added variable as the "Irmo Flush"?

No, I don't want a danish
Yes, that boat does make your ass look big

Return to “The Parking Lot”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest