My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
7910
CWCB
>
UCREFRP
>
Public
>
7910
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/14/2009 5:02:31 PM
Creation date
6/1/2009 11:33:59 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
UCREFRP
UCREFRP Catalog Number
7910
Author
Bovee, K. D. and R. T. Milhous.
Title
Hydraulic Simulation In Instream Flow Studies
USFW Year
1978.
USFW - Doc Type
Theory And Techniques, Instream Flow Information Paper No. 5.
Copyright Material
NO
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
134
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
detect errors evolving from instrument setup. Another point to keep in <br />mind is that error reduction can be significant if backsights and fore- <br />sights are kept about the same length. <br />Figures A-6 and A-8 show a typical headstake level loop performed <br />on the hypothetical stream reach presented in the section on transect <br />placement. In Figures A-6 and A-8, backsights are indicated by plus <br />signs (++++) while foresights are indicated by minus signs (----). The <br />rod reading for each sight is written directly above the line of sight. <br />Elevations. of headstakes, turning points, and instrument heights are <br />given for each location. <br />Figure A-6 shows the forward (usually upstream) survey of headstake <br />elevations through the study reach. Field notes for the forward survey <br />are shown in Figure A-7. The left hand sheets of surveying field note- <br />books contain 6 columns. Five columns are needed for leveling notes. <br />From left to right, the column headings are station (STA), backlight <br />(BS), instrument height (HI), foresight (FS), and elevation (Elev.). <br />Elevations should be calculated for each headstake or turning point as <br />the survey proceeds, to facilitate finding errors on the return survey. <br />Figure A-8 shows instrument setups, rod readings, and elevations <br />for the return leg of the level loop. It is not unusual for the return <br />leg to be a bit more organized than the forward leg, as the crew becomes <br />more familiar with the study area. Figure A-9 shows the field notes for <br />0_1 the return survey of the study area. <br />Note that the field notes in Figures A-7 and A-9 contain the same <br />information as the schematics in Figures A-6 and A-8. It is somewhat <br />confusing to the beginner to interpret two readings on the same line, <br />such as the entries for turning points. This makes it especially impor- <br />tant to calculate elevations as the survey proceeds. Simply remember <br />that the elevation of a turning point must be calculated before a back- <br />sight on the turning point can be used to calculate the new HI. <br />Having completed the level loop, we may now determine whether or, <br />not we have "closed" within the allowable range of error. Using equa- <br />tion 20 (page _), the allowable error of closure is: <br />Allowable error = 0_05 X2$0 = 0.018 (Z1) <br />The error of closure at the benchmark for the sample level loop was <br />100.00 - 99.99 = 0.01 ft. Therefore, closure was obtained within allow- <br />able limits for third order precision. <br />Profile Leveling <br />Profile leveling requires the measurement of both horizontal <br />distances and vertical elevations. When measuring either the cross- <br />J <br />-7,?
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.