Talk:Volkerakdam

Dams Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dams, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Dams on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DamsWikipedia:WikiProject DamsTemplate:WikiProject DamsDam articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Netherlands

This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Netherlands, an attempt to create, expand, and improve articles related to the Netherlands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.NetherlandsWikipedia:WikiProject NetherlandsTemplate:WikiProject NetherlandsNetherlands articles

Civil engineering Low‑importance

	Engineering portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Civil engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Civil engineering on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Civil engineeringWikipedia:WikiProject Civil engineeringTemplate:WikiProject Civil engineeringCE articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Clarification

On the "Effects on tidal behavior" subsection, there appear to be conflicting wording, unless I'm reading something incorrect:

"In areas south of the dam, the tidal range increased considerably, whereas in areas on the north side the tidal range decreased."

And

The tide on the Oosterschelde side of the dam decreased, the high water at Tiengemeten and Willemstad dropped by 30 centimetres, with the difference becoming smaller along the Dordtsche Kil and the Noord. However, in the Biesbosch (Mouth of the Donge and Werkendam/Bakkerskil), the tidal range has been significantly reduced."

How is this all supposed to read? The Oosterschelde side is the south side of the dam, right? Criticalthinker (talk) 10:30, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are absolutely right. I have corrected the text.HJVerhagen (talk) 15:26, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Another question. I'm still a bit confused why there wasn't also a dam built across where the A29. Because wouldn't leaving open the Haringvliet at the Goeree Gat during the interim produce larger tides in that body of water after construction of the Volkerakdam? I'm admittedly still learning about these subject of compartmentalization, but I thought that the smaller the body of water on the seaward side of a lock/barrier, the greater the tide? But the article argues that tides weakened in the Haringvliet and Hollands Diep after construction of the dam. I guess I'm not understanding why Volkerakdam was built where it was built. In fact, the article states it was intially going to be built ever further south into the Volkerak. Criticalthinker (talk) 02:13, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Realise that Haringvliet is the main mouth of the Rhine river, with a design peak run-off of 18000 m3/s. Approx 70% of that water has to be discharged through Haringvliet. That is also the reason why in the Haringvlietdam is a huge sluice complex. Making a dam on the site of the present A29 bridge would have implied to build there a similar sluice complex.

The main reason to build the Volkerakdam was to separate Haringvliet from the southern inlets (Brouwershavense Gat and Oosterschelde) to prevent strong currents at the site of the tidal divide. The Dutch article https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afsluiten_van_zeegaten explain this. I am working on an English translation of that article. Maybe YouTube clip vz4vyjTZX4c makes things more clear (I cannot include full link, because YouTube links are blacklisted in Wikipedia). HJVerhagen (talk) 15:20, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]