2018
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2018.04.073
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Computing under-ice discharge: A proof-of-concept using hydroacoustics and the Probability Concept

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

1
3
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 6 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 20 publications
1
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Values of φ, which is constant at any cross-section and used to transform u max to u mean , ranged from 0.571 to 0.658, which is consistent with previously published work (Chiu and Hsu, 2006;Fulton et al, 2020bFulton et al, , 2018Moramarco et al, 2017) where values ranging from 0.522 to > 1 have been reported. Table 4 shows the velocity distributions at the y-axis for each cross-section of interest, which was established through repeat current-meter wading measurements.…”
Section: Lspiv Pc Model Validationsupporting
confidence: 89%
“…Values of φ, which is constant at any cross-section and used to transform u max to u mean , ranged from 0.571 to 0.658, which is consistent with previously published work (Chiu and Hsu, 2006;Fulton et al, 2020bFulton et al, , 2018Moramarco et al, 2017) where values ranging from 0.522 to > 1 have been reported. Table 4 shows the velocity distributions at the y-axis for each cross-section of interest, which was established through repeat current-meter wading measurements.…”
Section: Lspiv Pc Model Validationsupporting
confidence: 89%
“…Below-ice discharge is difficult to measure, and therefore determining flow conditions, including whether flows have dried or completely frozen, can be challenging (Melcher & Walker, 1992). If flow cannot be safely or accurately measured, flows are typically estimated (Fulton et al, 2018;Melcher & Walker, 1992;Hamilton & Moore, 2012;Sauer & Turnipseed, 2010), and especially in very cold regions, long periods of inferred zero flow may be reported after the river profile has been observed to completely freeze (Figure 3a). A zero-flow reading is likely due to disruption of equipment by ice or because of fully frozen, no-flow conditions or when downstream ice-jams cause upstream backwater effects (Beltaos & Prowse, 2009;Spencer, 1910).…”
Section: Frozen Surface Watermentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Detection of ice presence is typically based on direct observation, including drone use, or indirectly detected based on temperature readings. The USGS typically flags ice-affected flow measurements using the USGS Quality Code of "Ice" and rates the accuracy classification as "poor" (Fulton et al, 2018). Ice break-up is generally easier to identify than ice freeze-up due to a characteristic spike in the hydrograph (Figure 3a); post hoc corrections of iceaffected flow conditions can be useful.…”
Section: Frozen Surface Watermentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…However, under-ice discharge must also be considered when estimating the fresh water flux into open-sea, but the measurement water flow for ice-affected sites are generally qualified as poor. To overcome this obstacle, one possible field approach is to moor an ADCP at the sea bottom and river bed to analyze the impacts of ice cover on near-bed flow characteristics in rivers (Fulton et al, 2018;Lotsari et al, 2022) and estimate vertical and temporal variability in total suspended particulate matter (Ha et al, 2015).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%