Affiliation:
1. KAHRAMANMARAŞ SÜTÇÜ İMAM ÜNİVERSİTESİ
2. İZMİR BAKIRÇAY ÜNİVERSİTESİ
3. KAHRAMANMARAŞ SÜTÇÜ İMAM ÜNİVERSİTESİ, ZİRAAT FAKÜLTESİ, BİYOSİSTEM MÜHENDİSLİĞİ BÖLÜMÜ, BİYOSİSTEM MÜHENDİSLİĞİ PR.
Abstract
Anything that cannot be measured cannot be managed. Based on the thought, the aims of this study are to evaluate water levels and flow rates measured by Limnigraph (OEL), pressure sensor (PS) and ultrasonic sensors (US) in the open irrigation canal. Limnigraph and pressure sensor sensed water levels and flow rates under un-fluctuating conditions in the Stilling Well and ultrasonic sensors directly measured them from water surface under fluctuating conditions at the Kartalkaya Dam in Kahramanmaraş. Assuming Limnigraph water level and flow rates readings correct and water levels and flow rates of Limnigraph were compared with that of pressure and ultrasonic sensor. Mean Absolute Percentage Error (MAPE) and ANOVA tests were done on 2454 observations. Average of water level and flow rates of limnigraph, pressure and ultrasonic sensor were 928±4.9 mm and 4.61±0.038 m3s-1, 927±4.9mm and 4.62±0.037 m3s-1, and 922±4.9 mm and 4.58±0.037 m3s-1, respectively. Differences between the average water levels and flow rates were 1 mm (928-927) and 0.01 m3s-1 (4.61-4.62) under un-fluctuating and 6 mm (928-922) and 0.03 m3s-1 (4.61-4.58) under fluctuating conditions. The fluctuation increased the differences between the average water levels and flow rates. MAPE of water levels and flow rates for pressure and ultrasonic sensor were calculated as 0.741% and 1.466% under un-fluctuation, and 1.453% and 2.490% under fluctuation conditions, respectively and since they were below 10%, the levels of agreement between the two data sets are considered as “very good”. However, fluctuation conditions increased MAPEs from 0.741% to 1.453%, from 1.466% to 2.490%. The water levels and flow rates of both sensors were not statistically different from those of optic encoder Limnigraph. Accordingly, both sensors can be used to measure water levels and flow rates in open irrigation canal but un-fluctuating conditions should be preferred. In addition, ultrasonic sensors can be used in environments that block, corrode the pressure sensors and make it difficult to use by floating objects.
Publisher
Tekirdag Ziraat Fakultesi Dergisi
Subject
Pollution,General Agricultural and Biological Sciences
Reference49 articles.
1. Abed, B. S. (2021). Flow Measurements in Open Channels Using Integrating-Floats. Journal of Engineering, 27(1):130-141.
2. Acatay, S. T. (1996). Sulama Mühendisliği, İzmir Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Vakfı Basım ve Yayın Merkezi, İzmir (in Turkish).
3. Alfa, M. I., Adie, D. B., Ajibike, M. A. and Mudiare, O. J. (2018). Development of rating curve for Ofu River at Oforachi Hydrometric Station. Nigerian Journal of Technological Development, 15(1), 14-19.
4. Ali, M., Gençoğlan, C., Gençoğlan, S. and Uçak, A. B. (2021). Yield and water use of eggplants (Solanum melongena L.) under different irrigation regimes and fertilizers. Journal of Tekirdag Agricultural Faculty, 18(3): 533-544.
5. Ardıçlıoğlu, M. ve İlkentapar, M. (2015). Açık Kanal Savak Akımlarında Debinin Farklı Yöntemler ile Belirlenmesi. İMO, 4. Su Yapıları Sempozyumu, s: 371-380 19-21 Kasım, Antalya, Türkiye. (in Turkish).
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献