Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://hdl.handle.net/11681/48268| Title: | Application of limited-field-data methods in reservoir volume estimation : a case study |
| Authors: | Vandevort, Daniel T. Engel, Chandler S. Stanton, Shaun R. Ellis, Jeffrey D. |
| Keywords: | Interpolation Limited-Data Fort Jackson Sonar data Reservoirs Volume estimation |
| Publisher: | Engineer Research and Development Center (U.S.) |
| Series/Report no.: | Technical Report (Engineer Research and Development Center (U.S.)) ; no. ERDC TR-24-5 |
| Abstract: | The conventional approach to estimating lake or reservoir water volumes hinges on field data collection; however, volume estimation methods are available that use little or no field data. Two such methods—the simplified V-A-h (volume-area-height) and the power function—were applied to a set of six anthropogenic reservoirs on the Fort Jackson, South Carolina, installation and checked against a validation data set. Additionally, seven interpolation methods were compared for differences in total volume estimation based on sonar data collected at each reservoir. The simplified V-A-h method overestimated reservoir volume more than each technique in the power function method, and the categorical technique underestimated the most reservoir volumes of all three techniques. Each method demonstrates high Vₑᵣᵣ variability among reservoirs, and Vₑᵣᵣ for the Power Function techniques applied here is consistent with that found in previous research in that it is near or less than 30%. Compared with Vₑᵣᵣ in other studies evaluating the simplified V-A-h method, Vₑᵣᵣ in this study was found to be 10%–20% higher. |
| Description: | Technical Report |
| Gov't Doc #: | ERDC TR-24-5 |
| Rights: | Approved for Public Release; Distribution is Unlimited |
| URI: | https://hdl.handle.net/11681/48268 http://dx.doi.org/10.21079/11681/48268 |
| Appears in Collections: | Technical Report |
Files in This Item:
| File | Description | Size | Format | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ERDC TR-24-5.pdf | 1.3 MB | Adobe PDF |  View/Open |