WMO / OMM

Volta-HYCOS PROJECT

TRAINING SESSION ON RATING CURVES :

Case study

Accra, 23rd– 27th April 2007

 CASE STUDY

RATING CURVE OF THE SENEGAL RIVER

AT GOUINA – UPSTREAM STATION

The rating curve of the Senegal River at Gouina-upstream station is of a single value
stage/discharge relationship type, steady and without any anomaly. The station is located
upstream of a fall of about 10 meters, and therefore has a very efficient downstream control
section.

Numerous flow measurements have been carried out for mean water levels, for which the
water surface slope has been measured. The rating curve is well defined for mean water
levels, but the extension from a flow of 2 500 m3.s-1 to 7 000 m3.s-1 is quite difficult.

Volta-HYCOS Project Training session on Rating curve - Case study -2–

I LOCATION OF THE STATION
Gouina station is located in the upper part of the Senegal River basin at about 50 km from
Kayes city, an important regional capital in the Republic of Mali.

The coordinates of the station are: 14°00N & 11°06W

II CHARACTERISTICS OF THE STATION

See figures A2.1, A2.2 & A2.3

2.1 The first staff gauge was installed in 1925 by UHEA Company in charge of the hydro-
power dam project at the level of Gouina falls (height about 10 meters). The catchment area is
of 128 600 km².

2.2 Six different sections for the staff gauges have been used from 1925 to 1979 to monitor
the water levels of the river.

The cross section of the upstream station, for which the rating curve is studied in this
example, is of a quite complex shape (see fig. A2.3) with a double central canal, a maximum
depth of more than 20 meters for high water levels and a channel width of about 300 meters.
The river bed is rocky and perfectly steady.

2.3 The cross section levelling carried out by the UHEA Company was in 4th June 1951 and
allowed the definition, with a good accuracy, of the relationships W(h) (Wetted Area) and
R(h) (Hydraulique radius), h being the water level at the upstream water level recorder. Table
A2.1 shows the list of the 27 levelling points and all the geometric parameters of the cross
section.

Figure A2.6 shows the shape of the W(h) & R(h) curves. To facilitate the extension
calculations these two curves are given by the formula below:

- Wetted area : W = 0.000259 h2 + 2.2993 h + 1261

o for 0 < h < 692 (max water level)
The error in W is less than 0.1% for the whole range

- Hydraulic radius : R = 0.007982 h + 5.42 for 0 < h < 550

R = -0.0000207 h2 + 0.008577 h + 9.81 for 550 < h < 700

The error in R is less than 0.3% for both equations.

Remark: We have drawn on figures A2.4 & A2.5 the variations in wetted area and in
hydraulic radius with the water level for the whole section. As the W curve is very regular, it
is very different for the R curve.

2.4 The gauging section for the mean and high water levels is located 1 040 m upstream and
at about 3 km upstream of the falls. The cross section profile is more regular and the section is
wider at the gauging section(see fig. A2. 3).

Volta-HYCOS Project Training session on Rating curve - Case study -3–

III HYDROMETRIC EQUIPMENT
3.1 Four staff gauges have been installed at Gouina station, on the left bank of the river
between 1925 and 1929. These staff gauges rank from upstream to downstream are:

- Staff gauge N°1 installed in 1925 just upstream of the falls and made of a leaning rail
graduated from 0 to 5 meters;
- Staff gauge N°2 equipped the first reach at the foot of the falls. It is a vertical rail of 8
meters, fixed on a concrete pile against the rocky bank of the river;
- Staff gauge N°3 is located at the beginning of the second reach downstream the falls it
is also a vertical rail of 8 meters;
- Staff gauge N°3 equipped the third reach. It is located 900 meters downstream the
previous one in the area planed by UHEA for the tail water of the hydropower plan of
Gouina. It is a vertical rail of 9 meters.

3.2 UHEA has completed this equipment with two water level recorders in 1950:

- The first installation is called Gouina-upstream (Bär trade mark, mensual type) and is
located 2 km upstream of the falls. Its gauge Zero level is at an altitude of 63.35 meters MEFS
(Mission d’Etudes du Fleuve Senegal);

- The other installation is called Gouina-downstream (same trade mark) and is located on the
right bank at about 400 meters downstream of the staff gauge N°4. Its gauge Zero level is at
an altitude of 48.09 meters MEFS.

3.3 From 1953 the MAS (Mission d’Aménagement du Senegal) neglected the four staff
gauges of UHEA but monitored the two water level recorders and added to them auxiliary
staff gauges.

3.4 This historical summary of the Gouina station historical gives an idea of the work that has
been done to ensure a homogeneous water level time series: with six different sections the
problem must be complex.

IV WATER LEVEL SERIES

4.1 The four old staff gauges have been monitored from 1925 to 1950: the staff gauge N°1
from 1929 to 1942, and the three others from 1936 to 1942.

The correspondence graphs, built in plotting the water levels at the staff gauges N°1, N°2,
N°4, against the water levels at the staff gauge N°3, show a high scattering of the results
which gave evidence of the wrong readings. As the readings have also a lot of gaps it has not
be possible to use them. So, despite the very nice and useful installations from a building
point of view as two staff gauges are always in a very good condition today, the readings
between 1925 and 1950 are useless.

This situation is due to the lack of staff gauges maintenance which were either badly
graduated or unreadable and to the fact that the gauge readers were inefficient. Nevertheless,
we have kept the maximum water levels data observed during this period. For Gouina-

Volta-HYCOS Project Training session on Rating curve - Case study -4–

upstream the maximum observed water level between 1929 and 1942 was 600 cm (it occurred
in 1935).

4.2 From June 1950 to October 1952, UHEA took advantage of the whole set of staff gauges
of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd reaches and of both the upstream and downstream water level recorders.
The only missing information was the record of the peak flood in 1950.

4.3 From 1953 to 1956 the staff gauges at Gouina station were no more observed and the
monitoring of the water levels is hazardous. Despite this situation, we have corrected the
records and filled the gaps for the missing or bad data.

4.4 Data are then completed from 1953 to 1955. For 1954 two months of data are missing
(September and October). Since 1956 we have completed and accurate readings for the 2nd
reach staff gauges, installed by the M.A.S. After two years of good monitoring (1956 &
1957), the water level recorders were no more monitored.

4.5 During the period for which records are available in the ORSTOM files, i.e. from June1st
1955 to December 31st 1979, the maximum water levels recorded at Gouina-upstream are:

- 692 cm on the 24/08/1958 for the maximum (978 cm at the 2nd reach staff gauge)
- 626 cm on the 04/06/1964
- 613 cm on the 23/08/1964
- The minimum water level of 25 cm occurred in 1976 (no date).

V GAUGING & CALIBRATION

5.1 Sixty one flow measurements have been carried out by UHEA for water levels recorded at
the upstream water level recorder ranging from 0.68 m to 4.21 m (discharge from 6.5 m3.s-1 to
2 300 m3. s-1).
Table A2.2 shows chronological series of the flow measurements and table A2.3 the ranking
list of these gaugings.

For the gauging in mean and high water levels, the water surface profiles were levelled each
time with respect to the benchmark N°11 (alt. 70.84 m MEFS); So, are known the difference
in level between the gauging point and the recorder sections (distance 1 040 m). For the low
water levels, gaugings were carried out at Dipari village (6 km upstream of Galougo). A
control measurement has been carried out at this section by ORSTOM in 1965.

5.2 The 61 gaugings carried out by UHEA ware undertaken between October 1950 and June
1952. The ORSTOM gauging carried out in February 1965 is of a high importance as it is the
single one during the period of records. It is a chance that the calibration is steady and that the
upstream and downstream staff gauges relationship is well known.

On the other hand, the two gauging carried out on 3rd & 4th of October 1951 are not usable
due to cable breaking over the cross section. Despite this, the two gauging are very important
as the water surface slope was measured.

The results of the discharge measurements are very good and gave an excellent rating curve
between the stage 0.65 and 4.20 m (6 to 2 300 m3.s-1). The curve is very regular (Fig. A2. 7),

Volta-HYCOS Project Training session on Rating curve - Case study -5–

the gaugings are enough and the good distribution of the gaugings enables to avoid any
uncertainity in the drawing, except for discharges less than 100 m3.s-1. In view of the large
cross section at Gouina-upstream, it is observed that the station is not very sensitive.

The single value stage/discharge relationship type at this station is confirmed by the graph as
it was expected due to the location upstream of the falls.

The mean deviation between the measured discharges and the calculated one is of 3.3% for
the 60 gaugings carried out by UHEA & IRD and 2.3 % for the gauging out of the stage 1.50
m. This shows the excellent quality of the gauging carried out by UHEA.

If the water level range were just a little bit more than the maximum gauging the extension of
the rating curve of Gouina upstream would be easy, but the curve has to be extrapolated to the
level 6.92 m (i.e. an additional 2.70 m).

VI RATING CURVE EXTENSION

6.1 Remark

A gauging carried out by a Russian team in 1965 doesn’t appear in the list, as it was known
only after this study. So, the value was not used in establishing the rating curve but for
validation.

Taking into account the three usual methods for rating curve extension, it will be useful to
check the limits of use for each one and to make his own judgment if the constraints are
respected or not.

6.2 Logarithmic method

Constraint 1 (Single value stage/discharge relationship of exponential type), 3 (Regular shape

cross section), and 4 (downstream hydraulic control) are well respected. On the other hand,
the second constraint (numerous gauging up to a sufficient water level) is not well respected,
despite the fact that the plotting of the gauging shows a good alignment of the points (Fig.
A2.8) and allows an attractive but daring extension. The discharge for the maximum water
level (692 cm) can be read directly on the graph: 9400m3.s1.

6.3 Steven’s method

The use constraints are the same as for the previous method and, as for this one the gauging
are not enough to well define the curve of discharges. Figure A2.9 shows this deficiency
better than in the figure A2.8, maybe due to logarithmic coordinates? The extension of the
discharge curve may or may not give good results :

- The extension has to be made according to the line (1), fitted with the gauging points
between 1 000 & 2 300 m3.s1, the result for the maximum discharge is 6 150 m3.s1 for
the stage 692cm;
- The Stevens method doesn’t allow the extension following the curve (2) which brings
to the result of the log. Method;

Volta-HYCOS Project Training session on Rating curve - Case study -6–

 - We will justify below the extension following the curve (3), drawing which cannot be
“guessed” a priori.

6.4 Slope - Area method

Even if the wetted area is fully defined till the maximum level, the extension of the
relationship U(h) (U = mean velocity) is not possible (see fig; A2.10). So, it is necessary to
use the Strickler’s formula, accordingly we known the value of the surface water slope for all
complete gauging and also for the two incomplete one carried out for stages 489 & 557 cm.
The two parameters that we have to calculate are the roughness coefficient (K) and the water
surface slope. Figure A2.11 shows the distribution of the K coefficient for all the gauging. We
have retained the value of K + 19 which correspond to the two maximum gauging stages. It
will be possible also to select the value K = 1_ which correspond to the median value, but it
seems that K is not yet stabilized for the stage 420 cm.

On figure A2. 12 the relationship J(h) is represented, the two values of the water surface slope
measured for the stages 489 & 557 are of a high interest to guide the extension of the curve to
the stage 692 cm. The extension is made quasi-linear as we don’t have any more information.

The extension consists in the estimation of the K value and the drawing of the J(h) curve to
the 692 range.

With K = 19 and the value of the surface water slope read on the figure A2. 12, we have to
calculate the discharges for the maximum stages by using the Strickler formula:

H S R J KJ 1/2 U Q calculated Q tabulated Deviation

cm m2 m cm/km m/s m3/s m3/s %

489 2447 9.32 30.19 0.330 1.662 3580 3510 + 2.0

557 2622 9.87 43.27 0.395 1.819 4770 4770 0
613 2591 10.27 56.00 0.450 2.124 5880 5850 + 0.6
626 2802 10.34 58.00 0.458 2.172 6085 6100 - 0.2
692 2976 10.61 73.50 0.515 2.487 7400 7400 0

The rating curve is shown on figure A2. 14.

Remark: The shape of the U(h) & KJ1/2 curves (fig. A2.10 & A2.13) are a little bit strange, in
fact, this is regular as the K value is not yet stabilized and the value of J increased more
slowly.

Volta-HYCOS Project Training session on Rating curve - Case study -7–

VII CONCLUSION
The case study of the rating curve calibration for the Gouina upstream station on the Senegal
River shows that it is very important to check the three methods for the extension of the rating
curve, the difference in the results obtain by the logarithmic and Stevens methods should alert
the operator. The water surface slope variation study in respect with the elevation of the water
level is the single method to solve correctly this problem.

This also shows the importance of carrying out levelling on each station as well as cross
section and longitudinal profiles.

Volta-HYCOS Project Training session on Rating curve - Case study -8–

Table A2.1: CROSS SECTION PROFILE AT THE GOUINA UPSTREAM WLR
LEVELLING

Point Distance Height Point Distance Height

(m) (cm) (cm) (m) (cm) (cm)
1 0.0 693 14 105.9 -1276
2 5.2 659 15 113.9 -1516
3 12.9 373 16 127.4 -1186
4 19.2 174 17 138.9 -656
5 26.5 3 18 157.4 -646
6 29.4 -30 19 170.4 -886
7 32.4 -53 20 197.3 -186
8 38.4 -196 21 217.9 -166
9 50.4 -296 22 230.9 -186
10 70.4 -336 23 245.9 -206
11 80.6 -676 24 258.1 114
12 89.4 -786 25 264.1 510
13 90.4 -966 26 268.3 619
27 273.8 690

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE CROSS SECTION PROFILE

Stage Wetted Area Wetted perimeter Width Hydraulic radius Mean depth
CM M² M M M Mm
0 1261.09 232.51 226.99 5.42 5.56
25 1318.12 234.73 229.15 5.62 5.75
50 1375.66 236.81 231.17 5.81 5.95
75 1433.7 238.99 233.19 6.00 6.15
100 1492.25 240.97 235.21 6.19 6.34
125 1551.29 242.82 236.98 6.39 6.55
150 1610.72 244.37 238.42 6.59 6.76
175 1670.50 245.91 239.86 6.79 6.97
200 1730.62 247.19 241.03 7.00 7.18
225 1791.02 248.48 242.20 7.21 7.40
250 1851.71 249.76 243.37 7.41 7.61
275 1912.70 251.05 244.54 7.62 7.82
300 1973.98 252.33 245.71 7.82 8.03
325 2035.55 253.61 246.88 8.03 8.25
350 2097.42 254.90 248.05 8.23 8.46
375 2159.58 256.17 249.21 8.43 8.67
400 2222.01 257.34 250.26 8.63 8.88
425 2284.71 258.52 251.31 8.84 9.09
450 2347.67 259.69 252.36 9.04 9.30
475 2410.89 260.86 253.42 9.24 9.51
500 2474.38 262.03 254.47 9.44 9.72
525 2538.15 263.53 255.87 9.63 9.92
550 2602.32 265.24 257.21 9.81 10.11
575 2666.90 266.96 259.14 9.99 10.29
600 2731.89 268.67 260.78 10.17 10.48
625 2797.30 270.61 262.65 10.34 10.65
650 2863.29 273.28 265.26 10.48 10.79
675 2930.21 277.95 269.89 10.54 10.86
700 2998.21 281.88 273.80 10.64 10.95

Volta-HYCOS Project Training session on Rating curve - Case study -9–

 SENEGAL RIVER. GOUINA HYDROMETRIC STATION.

Fig- A2-1- LOCATION SKETCH (approximative scale: 1cm 250cm

downstream
WLR
Reaches
SIBITOU village

Falls

Gauging section Mas Camp

upstream WLR

Staff gauges

Fig- A2-2- LONGITUDINAL PROFILE (max.water level- 1942)

WLR upstream G1 G2 G3 G4

Fig-A2-3- CROSS SECTION PROFILE

Upstream WLR section

Gauging section
Right bank
Left bank

max. observed water level

zero of the upstream WLR

Volta-HYCOS Project Training session on Rating curve - Case study - 10 –

Table A2.2a: GAUGING TIME LIST
Date Stage Discharge A U R Slope KJ 1/2 K
(cm) m3/s M² m/s m cm/km Strickler
30.10.50 333 1150 2055 0.560 8.08 5.87 0.139 18.16
02.11.50 314 996 2009 0.496 7.93 7.40 0.125 14.50
04.11.50 303 890 1981 0.449 7.84 4.62 0.114 16.74
06.11.50 294 828 1959 0.423 7.77 3.85 0.108 17.38
09.11.50 282 735 1930 0.381 7.67 2.40 0.098 20.00
13.11.50 264 606 1886 0.321 7.53 3.46 0.084 14.21
21.11.50 238 434 1823 0.238 7.32 2.50 0.063 12.68
05.12.50 206 308 1746 0.176 7.06 0.48 0.048 21.82
13.12.50 194 289 1717 0.168 6.97 0.02 0.046 103.00
11.01.51 163 140 1643 0.085 6.72 - - -
22.01.51 129 57 1562 0.036 5.88 - - -
23.01.51 152 108 1616 0.067 6.63 - - -
19.03.51 108 28 1512 0.019 5.64 - - -
15.07.51 252 510 1857 0.275 7.43 2.69 0.072 13.92
19.07.51 292 758 1954 0.388 7.75 4.04 0.099 15.59
22.07.51 281 631 1928 0.327 7.66 3.27 0.084 14.71
25.07.51 256 505 1867 0.271 7.46 2.31 0.071 14.76
02.08.51 254 495 1862 0.266 7.45 1.83 0.070 16.31
04.08/51 319 956 2020 0.473 7.97 5.29 0.119 16.30
06.08.51 338 1185 2068 0.573 8.12 7.21 0.142 16.71
09.08.51 363 1495 2130 0.702 8.32 9.13 0.171 17.90
10.08.51 350 1265 2097 0.603 8.21 9.13 0.148 15.5
14.08.51 364 1470 2132 0.689 8.33 9.23 0.168 17.46
18.08.51 337 1195 2065 0.579 8.11 7.12 0.143 17.00
20.08.51 385 1730 2185 0.792 8.49 12.21 0.190 17.22
21.08.51 415 2160 2260 0.956 8.73 16.25 0.225 17.68
23.08.51 379 1645 2170 0.758 8.45 11.25 0.183 17.23
25.08.51 368 1495 2142 0.698 8.36 10.28 0.169 16.72
30.08.51 360 1470 2122 0.693 8.29 10.66 0.169 16.38
04.09.51 391 1865 2200 0.848 8.54 13.08 0.203 17.75
05.09.51 406 2060 2237 0.921 8.66 14.62 0.218 18.06
06.09.51 410 2130 2247 0.948 8.69 15.48 0.224 18.02
29.09.51 393 1830 2205 0.830 8.56 12.79 0.198 17.54
03.10.51 489 3700 2450 1.512 9.32 30.19 0.341 19.64
04.10.51 557 5080 2620 1.937 9.87 43.27 0.421 20.24
17.10.51 411 2130 2250 0.947 8.70 14.42 0.224 18.64
21.10.51 403 2015 2230 0.904 8.64 14.52 0.215 17.82
27.10.51 406 2075 2237 0.928 8.66 14.90 0.220 18.03
28.10.51 420 2305 2272 1.014 8.77 15.48 0.238 19.16
29.10.51 421 2280 2275 1.002 8.78 15.77 0.235 18.75
31.10.51 379 1825 2170 0.841 8.45 12.30 0.203 18.29
02.11.51 372 1610 2152 0.748 8.39 10.67 0.181 17.56
11.11.51 355 1400 2110 0.664 8.25 8.46 0.163 17.68
13.11.51 337 1210 2065 0.586 8.11 8.22 0.145 16.01
15.11.51 328 1070 2043 0.524 8.04 6.25 0.131 16.52
16.11.51 309 900 1996 0.451 7.89 4.52 0.114 16.93
23.11.51 281 671 1928 0.348 7.66 2.21 0.090 19.05
23.11.51 264 556 1886 0.295 7.53 2.79 0.077 14.54
30.11.51 254 495 1862 0.266 7.45 2.89 0.070 13.00

Volta-HYCOS Project Training session on Rating curve - Case study - 11 –

Table A2.2b: GAUGING TIME LIST

Date Stage Discharge A U R Slope KJ 1/2 K

(cm) m3/s m2 m/s m cm/km Strickler
03.12.51 245 458 1840 0.249 7.38 1.25 0.066 18.59
08.12.51 233 421 1811 0.232 7.28 0.96 0.062 19.93
13.12.51 221 360 1782 0.202 7.18 1.92 0.054 12.38
20.12.51 211 314 1758 0.179 7.10 - - -
31.12.51 195 243 1719 0.141 6.98 0.67 0.039 14.92
21.01.52 175 185 1671 0.111 - - - -
19.02.52 150 105 1612 0.065 - - - -
24.03.52 121 52 1543 0.034 - - - -
30.04.52 89 11 1468 0.007 - - - -
24.05.52 68 6.5 1419 0.005 - - - -
04.06.52 85 10 1458 0.007 - - - -
24.06.52 120 51 1541 0.033 - - - -
17.02.65 137 63.6 1581 0.040 - - - -

Volta-HYCOS Project Training session on Rating curve - Case study - 12 –

Table A2.3a: RANKING GAUGING LIST

Date Water level Measured discharge Tabulated discharge Deviation

cm m3/s m3/s en %
24.05.52 68 6.5 6.5 0
04.06.52 85 10 10.4 - 4.0
30.04.52 89 11 12.4 -12.7
19.03.51 108 28 28.3 - 0.9
24.06.52 120 51 44.1 +13.5
24.03.52 121 52 45.6 +12.3
22.02.51 129 57 58.7 - 3.0
17.02.65 137 63.6 74.2 -16.7
19.02.52 150 105 405 0
23.01.51 152 108 110 - 2.2
11.01.51 163 140 143 - 1.9
21.01.52 175 185 183 +0.9
13.12.50 194 209 252 +12.8
31.12.51 195 243 256 - 5.2
05.12.50 206 308 299 +3.0
20.12.51 211 314 319 - 1.6
13.12.51 221 360 361 - 0.4
08.12.51 233 421 415 +1.5
21.12.50 238 424 438 - 0.8
03.12.51 245 458 471 - 2.8
15.07.51 252 510 506 +0.9
02.08.51 254 495 516 - 4.3
30.12.51 254 495 516 - 4.3
27.05.51 256 505 527 - 4.5
13.11.50 264 606 574 +5.2
27.11.51 264 556 574 - 3.3
22.07.51 281 631 687 - .8
23.11.51 281 671 687 - 2.3
09.11.50 282 735 694 +5.6
19.07.51 292 758 769 - 1.4
06.11.50 294 828 785 +5.2
04.11.50 303 890 859 +3.5
18.11.51 309 900 911 - 1.2
02.11.50 314 996 956 +4.1
04.08.51 319 956 1002 - 4.8
15.11.51 328 1070 1090 - 1.9
30.10.50 333 1150 1141 +0.8
18.08.51 337 1195 1183 +1.0
13.11.51 337 1210 1183 +2.3
06.08.51 338 1185 1193 - 0.7
10.08.51 350 1265 1325 - 4.7
11.11.51 355 1400 1383 +1.2
30.08.51 360 1470 1442 +1.9
09.08.51 363 1495 1478 +1.1
14.08.51 364 1470 1490 -1.4
25.08.51 368 1495 1540 -3.0
02.11.51 372 1610 1590 +1.2

Volta-HYCOS Project Training session on Rating curve - Case study - 13 –

Table A2.3b: RANKING GAUGING LIST

Date Water level Measured discharge Tabulated discharge Deviation

cm m3/s m3/s en %
23.08.51 379 1645 1680 -2.2
31.10.51 379 1825 1680 +7.9
20.08.51 385 1730 1760 -1.8
04.09.51 391 1865 1845 +1.2
29.09.51 393 1830 1870 -2.2
21.10.51 403 2015 2015 0
05.09.51 406 2060 2060 0
27.10.51 406 2075 2060 +0.8
06.09.51 410 2130 2120 +0.6
17.10.51 411 2130 2130 0
21.08.51 415 2160 2190 -1.5
28.10.51 420 2305 2270 +1.5
29.10.51 421 2280 2290 -0.3
03.10.51 489 3700*
04.10.51 557

* Incomplete, partially calculated (cf. table A2.2)

Table A2.4: Splitting in parabola segments

MALI SÉNÉGAL SÉNÉGAL GOUINA-Upstream

ÉTAL. n° 1 : validity from 30th October 1950 to 31 December 1979

Values of limit height HP(L) and intermediates HINT (L) & limit discharges Q(L)
& intermediates QINT (L)

L HP(L) in m Q(L) in m3/s HINT (L) in m QINT (L) in m3/s

1 0.68 6.500

2 0.85 10.000
1.00 20.000

3 1.15 36.800
1.30 60.500

4 1.50 105.000
1.74 180.000

5 2.10 317.000
2.50 495.000

6 3.20 1010.000
4.20 2320.000

7 5.50 4100.000
6.92 7400.000

Volta-HYCOS Project Training session on Rating curve - Case study - 14 –

 VALUES OF THE PARABOLAS COEFFICIENTS

SEGMENTS C (1.L) C (2.L) C (3.L)

1 0.1439950E+03 -.3890940E+01 0.6500000E+01
2 0.1533330E+03 0.8900000E+02 0.2000000E+02
3 0.2045460E+03 0.1815910E+03 0.6050000E+02
4 0.8479510E+02 0.3500290E+03 0.1800000E+03
5 0.3378150E+03 0.4992430E+03 0.4950000E+03
6 0.5095770E+02 0.1729040E+04 0.2320000E+04

ANGLE BETWEEN THE TANGENTS AT THE LIMITS

SEGMENTS LIMITS ANGLES

POINTS (in degrees)

H (in m) Q (in m3/s)

1-2 1.00 20.000 0.24
2-3 1.30 60.500 0.09
3-4 1.74 180.000 -0.93
4-5 2.50 495.000 1.19
5-6 4.20 2320.000 1.38

Volta-HYCOS Project Training session on Rating curve - Case study - 15 –

4TH November 1986

STATION NUMÉRO: 27260115

MALI SÉNÉGAL GOUINA-Upstream

Rating curve n°1: validity from 30 October 1950 to 31 December 1979

H(m) Q(m3/s) H(m) Q(m3/s H(m) Q(m3/s)

0.60 7.733 2.80 675.000 4.90 3560.000
0.70 6.480 2.90 749.000 5.00 3740.000
0.80 8.110 3.00 829.000 5.10 3920.000
0.90 12.600 3.10 916.000 5.20 4100.000
1.00 20.000 3.20 1010.000 5.30 4280.000
1.10 30.400 3.30 1110.000 5.40 4470.000
1.20 43.900 3.40 1220.000 5.50 4650.000
1.30 60.500 3.50 1330.000 5.60 4840.000
1.40 80.700 3.60 1450.000 5.70 5030.000
1.50 105.000 3.70 1580.000 5.80 5220.000
1.60 133.000 3.80 1710.000 5.90 5410.000
1.70 166.000 3.90 1860.000 6.00 5600.000
1.80 201.000 4.00 2000.000 6.10 5790.000
1.90 238.000 4.10 2160.000 6.20 5980.000
2.00 277.000 4.20 2320.000 6.30 6180.000
2.10 317.000 4.30 2490.000 6.40 6370.000
2.20 359.000 4.40 2670.000 6.50 6570.000
2.30 403.000 4.50 2840.000 6.60 6760.000
2.40 446.000 4.60 3020.000 6.70 6960.000
2.50 495.000 4.70 3200.000 6.80 7160.000
2.60 548.000 4.80 3380.000 6.90 7360.000
2.70 608.000

Volta-HYCOS Project Training session on Rating curve - Case study - 16 –

 SENEGAL AT GOUINA - UPSTREAM - WLR . SECTION

Fig-A2-4- Variation of the wetted area Fig-A2-5- Variation of the hydraulic radius

zero WLR zero WLR

Fig-A2-6- Curves S (h) - R (h)

h upstream WLR

Volta-HYCOS Project Training session on Rating curve - Case study - 17 –

 Fig-A2-7- SENEGAL AT GOUINA - UPSTREAM - RATING CURVE

Low water level

h upstream WLR (cm)

High water level

h upstream WLR

Volta-HYCOS Project Training session on Rating curve - Case study - 18 –

 Fig-A2-8- SENEGAL AT GOUINA - UPSTREAM

Extension of the rating curve

Logarithmic method

max. level

Russian gauging (1965)

Incomplete gauging

upstream WLR

Volta-HYCOS Project Training session on Rating curve - Case study - 19 –

 Fig-A2-9- SENEGAL AT GOUINA - UPSTREAM - EXTENSION OF THE RATING CURVE. STEVENS METHOD

_
A VR

log-log value
Q = 9400m3/s

Extension calculated
Q = 7400m3 /s

Regular extension
Q = 6150m3 /s

Volta-HYCOS Project Training session on Rating curve - Case study - 20 –

Volta-HYCOS Project Training session on Rating curve - Case study - 21 –
 Fig-A2-10- SENEGAL AT GOUINA - UPSTREAM - CURVE U(h)

Extension based on STRICKLER formula- with K=19

complete gauging calculated value

incomplete gauging russian gauging

max.water level
observed

Fig-A2-11- SENEGAL AT GOUINA - UPSTREAM

Research of the STRICKLER coefficient K for high water levels

Volta-HYCOS Project Training session on Rating curve - Case study - 22 –

 Fig-A2-12- SENEGAL AT GOUINA - UPSTREAM

Water surface slope variation

complete gauging
incomplete gauging but slope measured
extension

Fig-A2-13- SENEGAL AT GOUINA - UPSTREAM

_
Variation of the product K V J
complete gauging
incomplete gauging
extension with K=19

Volta-HYCOS Project Training session on Rating curve - Case study - 23 –

 Fig-A2-14- SENEGAL AT GOUINA - UPSTREAM

(between h = 68 e h = 692cm validit from 30/10/50 to 31/12/79

incomplete gauging
calculated discharge
maximum level

ruissan gauging; measured discharge

extended part

Volta-HYCOS Project Training session on Rating curve - Case study - 24 –