WSP01622 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

<'c<,,,,j,;.-j 5':// /"<''/1 Ii (,O~ /-/J<,c......:"'~ st.:b- ~ , '"".. en ...:i ,.(:>. Scenario 3 - We now note that the river concentration is too high because the return flow volume is multiplied by the salt pickup concentration. When the system was calibrated, It was for a specific return flow volume. Thus, we go into the computer and while preserving the new depletion value, we adjust the diversion value such that when we subtract the depletion from it the resultant retum flow value will be equal to Scenario 1, or base case scenario, on which the model and salt pickup were initially calibrated. Note now that even though the resultant river salinity is higher than Scenario 1 (due to our increasing the depletion and thus leaving less water in the river), the total salt mass in the river to pass on downstream is identical to Scenario 1 because salt mass is preserved whether it stays In the river or runs through a diversion and even though there has been a 50% increase In depletion. we have forced the return flow (which as it now functions really drives the salt pickup calculations) to match the base case. Up Stream River Flow: River Concentration: 500,000 AF 550 mgll Diversion to User X Depletion Diversion Rate Diversion Concentration 120,000 AF 200,000 AF 550 mgll Return Flow Volume Salt Pickup 80,000 AF 700 mgll Concentratina Effect: (The concentrating effect is equal to the diversion concentration multiplied by the ratio of the diversion volume to the return flow volume.) = 1,375 mgll Return Flow Concentration: 1.375 mgll + 700 mgll Return Flow Concentration Return Flow Volume = 2,075 m II 80,000 AF Down Stream River Flow: River Concentration: 380.000 AF 871 mgll 450.340 tons , /.J f '- &j~(Jc. A~ec". ft; 1J(~.1 .:3 ,J...+ f;.J "1" ? ' if " VJ m ,nk} S /4j1'ty c- / . c.,~...~j.~<J;7 ;. !~J fn <7 J..c..J / 7., '!j7J / .A.fi -i/v-~. .... t.c.'":;~-6 / (~~ P ~'-<'<1) J C<. /, J. f ~ ~ ~ ~ ~