Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />Andrews and Nelson 477 <br /> 0 <br /> 5.0 <br /> 4.0 34 <br /> 3.0 <br /> 2.0 <br /> 1.0 <br /> 0.0 <br />U 5.0 <br />r.J <br />~ 4.0 31 <br />t!. <br />t5 3.0 <br />a:: <br />< <br />is 2.0 <br />en <br />S 1.0 <br />f: <br />z <br />:J 0.0 <br /> 5.0 <br /> 23 <br /> 4.0 <br /> 3.0 <br /> 2.0 <br /> 1.0 <br /> 00 <br /> 0.0 <br /> 125.0 0.0 -125.0 <br /> DISTANCE FROM CENTERLINE [M) <br /> Fig. 6. eooL' <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />distribution of unit discharge, determined from measurements made at six cross <br />sections using a temporary cable and boat, is compared to the lateral distribution of <br />unit discharge computed by the model. The largest errors, as one would expect, <br />occur at the upstream end of the study reach in the vicinity of cross section 5. This <br />result occurs because the lateral distribution of flow entering the study reach has <br />been assumed to be uniform, althou~h this assumption is only an approximation. <br />In some instances, where the unit discharge is increasing or decreasing rapidly in <br />the cross stream direction, there appears to be discrepancies between the measured <br />and computed values. These apparent discrepancies OCCur because the model results <br />