Water Sources and Quality Along the Lower Jordan River
133
measurements from only one bank of the river. As shown in Fig. 4, the ADV was
mounted on a vertical pole held by a construction bridge and floats. The pole is
capable of moving up and down using a step motor and a control cable. A serial
communication and a portable computer were used for instrument control and data
recording. By cruising the floating construction across the river, both water
velocity and river bed profiles were obtained.
1
Fig. 4. The ADV and its floating traverse construction
Flow-rate of the western tributaries was measured with a Marsh McBirney
electromagnetic current meter (Flo-Mate, model 2000), using a spherical sensor
head of 0.013 m in diameter. A comparison between an ADV system and the
electromagnetic current meter (ECM) has been undertaken by Lane et al. (1998)
showing reasonable agreement. A good agreement was found when we compared
the ADV and ECM results in the Jordan River tributaries. Velocity measurements
were taken at a few locations across the stream. A cross-section profile was
drawn, its area was calculated, and the velocity was integrated to provide a flowrate result with an error of less than 10%. Flow-rate of the eastern tributaries was
measured with a tilted bar instrument. By means of calibration, velocity was
obtained using the bar angle created by the stream momentum. Similarly to the
ECM analysis, flow-rates were calculated with an estimated error of less than
10%.
133
measurements from only one bank of the river. As shown in Fig. 4, the ADV was
mounted on a vertical pole held by a construction bridge and floats. The pole is
capable of moving up and down using a step motor and a control cable. A serial
communication and a portable computer were used for instrument control and data
recording. By cruising the floating construction across the river, both water
velocity and river bed profiles were obtained.
1
Fig. 4. The ADV and its floating traverse construction
Flow-rate of the western tributaries was measured with a Marsh McBirney
electromagnetic current meter (Flo-Mate, model 2000), using a spherical sensor
head of 0.013 m in diameter. A comparison between an ADV system and the
electromagnetic current meter (ECM) has been undertaken by Lane et al. (1998)
showing reasonable agreement. A good agreement was found when we compared
the ADV and ECM results in the Jordan River tributaries. Velocity measurements
were taken at a few locations across the stream. A cross-section profile was
drawn, its area was calculated, and the velocity was integrated to provide a flowrate result with an error of less than 10%. Flow-rate of the eastern tributaries was
measured with a tilted bar instrument. By means of calibration, velocity was
obtained using the bar angle created by the stream momentum. Similarly to the
ECM analysis, flow-rates were calculated with an estimated error of less than
10%.