What is the standard Q-calculation used operationally in different countries?

[Ole]

In Germany, we currently have a huge discussion on how to calculate Q from moving-boat ADCP measurements, and – as we see (small) differences in Qs steming from the different software products used – this software to apply in a standardized operational use.

First, there is the (new) ISO 24578, describing what is mostly accomplished in the Software RSL, WinRiver, Pulse(?), ViSea, and of cource QRev and QRevInt.

Second, in Germany we calculate Q from moving-boat measurements applying the velocity-area-method  (softwarewise: RSL or WinRiverII  and afterwards in AGILA)  – at least for federal gauges. At a state or water administriative level we additionally find applications of RSL or WinRiver, only (and by that changing the calculation method).

I wonder what other National Hydrological Instituts apply for their operational measurements. I know the practise in some countries , but I would be interested in a more wider spectrum of countries (Italy, Spain, Greece, SA, …. ).

Saying this, I would be glad if you all could contribute to this question, by briefly answering

a) wich method is applied

b) which Software is used

 

Or… to shorten this effort:  Has somebody an current overview on this?

 

Thanks a lot in advance.

~~~~~~~~~~~
Ole Rössler
Federal Institute of Hydrology
Koblenz, Germany
email: roessler at bafg.de

Topic

[kevinaoberg]

Ole

In the US (and more specifically, the USGS), QRev discharge computation algorithms are the ‘standard’ for all moving boat ADCP discharge computations.  It is a requirement in the USGS.  This is one of the reasons that QRev was written.  Many (most?) other agencies in the US track what the USGS does and therefore, I suspect that most would be using QRev, but I have no proof of that.   I am sure that Dave Mueller can provide even more information than this.

Kevin

[Ole]

Dear Kevin,

thanks a lot for your answer. I was aware of usage of QRev in the USGS, but it is interesting to hear that not all agencies might follow that example.

It is the same in Germany, but based on a different standard:  Which brings me to my point (of asking this simple question): Q-determination, despite ISO standards, is still depending on the software you use/prefer and – at least in Germany – we see that this can lead to systematic differences in the order of 3-5% in the measurements.

Ole

 

~~~~~~~~~~~
Ole Rössler
Federal Institute of Hydrology
Koblenz, Germany
email: roessler at bafg.de

[Kristoffer Florvaag-Dybvik]

Hi, Ole

In NVE (Norway) we made it mandatory to use Qrev/QrevInt for all ADCP measurements we store in our database.

Is the 3-5 percent difference you see in our measurements the difference between AGILA and the others?

Kristoffer

 

[Mikael Lennermark]

Hi Ole, At SMHI (Sweden)

~>80% of our measurements. We use QRevINT for moving boat and it is mandatory.

~10% of our measuements. Stationary ADCP QRevINT MS – but not as mandatory, since its new, earlier years SxSpro. Most common we use stationary ADCP methods for correcting the long ice jams or in cases where moving boat fails for some reason.

~10% of our measurments. At shallower streams we use FlowTracker2 or salt dilution methods from Fathom QiQuac or Sommer.

Mikael

[Author]

Replies