Field Applications of a Variable-Parameter Muskingum Method
Publication: Journal of Hydrologic Engineering
Volume 6, Issue 3
Abstract
This study demonstrates field applications of a physically based variable-parameter Muskingum method for routing floods using daily and two hourly flood data available for six reaches of three Australian rivers and using hourly flood data available for a specified stream-network segment of the Tyne River in the United Kingdom. Some of the flood events studied for Australian rivers inundated the floodplain. The study illustrates how to estimate the routing parameters at every routing time interval using limited channel cross section data, and the wave speed-discharge relationship developed for the routing reach; this can be derived from past observed flood hydrographs or the rating curves available at the inlet and outlet of the study reach. Overbank floods are routed through a two-stage rectangular compound cross section channel, and the method used to determine the floodplain width on the basis of the applicability criterion of the method is described. The major advantage of the routing approach followed in the study is that no information on channel roughness and no calibration are required to estimate the parameters. The ability of the method to reproduce the observed flood hydrographs is evaluated using the Nash-Sutcliffe criterion. The results of the field studies reveal the appropriateness of the method for practical flood routing in river channels.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
References
1.
ASCE Task Committee on Definition of Criteria for Evaluation of Watershed Models of the Watershed Management Committee, Irrigation and Drainage Division. (1993). “Criteria for evaluation of watershed models.”J. Irrig. and Drain. Engrg., ASCE, 119(3), 429–442.
2.
Chow, V. T., Maidment, D. R., and Mays, L. W. ( 1988). Applied hydrology, McGraw-Hill Book Co., Singapore.
3.
Cunge, J. A. (1969). “On the subject of a flood propagation computation method (Muskingum method).”J. Hydr. Res., Delft, The Netherlands, 7(2), 205–230.
4.
Dooge, J. C. I., Strupczewski, W. G., and Napiorkowski, J. J. ( 1982). “Hydrodynamic derivation of storage parameters of the Muskingum model.” J. Hydro., Amsterdam, 54, 317–387.
5.
Ferrick, M. G., Bilmes, J., and Long, S. E. ( 1984). “Modeling rapidly varied flow in tailwaters.” Water Resour. Res., 20(2), 271–289.
6.
Flood studies report. (1975). Vol. 3, Flood routing studies, National Environment Research Council, Wallingford, U.K.
7.
Fread, D. L. ( 1990). “DAMBRK: The NWS dam-break flow forecasting model.” National Weather Service, Office of Hydrology, Silver Spring, Md.
8.
Garbrecht, J., and Brunner, G. (1991). “Hydrologic channel-flow routing for compound sections.”J. Hydr. Engrg., ASCE, 117(5), 629–642.
9.
Hayami, S. ( 1951). “On the propagation of flood waves.” Bull. Disaster Prev. Res. Inst., Kyoto Univ., Japan, 1, 1–16.
10.
HEC-1, Flood hydrograph package, user's manual (version 4). (1990). Hydrologic Engrg. Ctr., U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Davis, Calif.
11.
Kilsby, C. G., et al. ( 1999). “The VP modelling system for large scale hydrology: Simulation of the Arkansas-Red River basin.” Hydro. Earth System Sci., 3(1), 137–149.
12.
Nash, J. E., and Sutcliffe, J. V. ( 1970). “River flow forecasting through conceptual models. Part I: A discussion of principles.” J. Hydro., Amsterdam, 10, 282–290.
13.
O'Donnell, T. ( 1985). “A direct three-parameter Muskingum procedure incorporating lateral inflow.” Hydrological Sci. J., Oxford, England, 30(4), 479–496.
14.
O'Donnell, T., Pearson, C. P., and Woods, R. A. (1988). “Improved fitting for the three-parameter Muskingum procedure.”J. Hydr. Engrg., ASCE, 114(5), 516–528.
15.
Perumal, M. ( 1994a). “Hydrodynamic derivation of a variable parameter Muskingum method: 1. Theory and solution procedure.” Hydrological Sci. J., Oxford, England, 39(5), 431–442.
16.
Perumal, M. ( 1994b). “Hydrodynamic derivation of a variable parameter Muskingum method: 2. Verification.” Hydrological Sci. J., Oxford, England, 39(5), 443–458.
17.
Perumal, M., and Ranga Raju, K. G. (1998). “Variable-parameter stage-hydrograph routing method. Part II: Evaluation.”J. Hydrologic Engrg., ASCE, 3(2), 115–121.
18.
Ponce, V. M., and Chaganti, P. V. ( 1994). “Variable parameter Muskingum-Cunge method revisited.” J. Hydro., Amsterdam, 162, 433–439.
19.
Ponce, V. M., and Yevjevich, V. (1978). “Muskingum-Cunge method with variable parameters.”J. Hydr. Div., ASCE, 104(12), 1663–1667.
20.
Price, R. K. ( 1973). “Flood routing methods for British rivers.” Proc., Instn. Civ. Engrs., London, Part 2, 55(2), 913–930.
21.
Richey, J. E., et al. ( 1989). “Sources and routing of the Amazon river flood wave.” Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 3(3), 191–204.
22.
Tang, X.-N., Knight, D. W., and Samuels, P. G. (1999). “Volume conservation in variable parameter Muskingum-Cunge method.”J. Hydr. Engrg., ASCE, 125(6), 610–620.
23.
Wong, T. H. F. ( 1984). “Improved parameters and procedures for flood routing in rivers.” PhD thesis, Dept. of Civ. Engrg., Monash University, Victoria, Australia.
24.
Younkin, L. M., and Merkel, W. H. ( 1988). “Evaluation of diffusion models for flood routing.” Proc., ASCE Hydr. Div. Annu. Conf., ASCE, New York, 674–680.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Hydrologic Engineering
Volume 6 • Issue 3 • June 2001
Pages: 196 - 207
History
Received: Aug 17, 1998
Published online: Jun 1, 2001
Published in print: Jun 2001
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.