Abstract The hydrodynamic derivation of a variable parameter Muskingum method and its solution procedure for estimating a routed hydrograph were presented in Part I of this series (Perumal, 1994a). In this paper, the limitations of the method, the criterion for its applicability and its accuracy are discussed based on the assumptions used. The method is verified by routing a given hypothetical inflow hydrograph through uniform rectangular cross-section channels and comparing the results with the corresponding numerical solutions of the St. Venant equations. The stage hydrographs as computed by the method are also compared with the corresponding St. Venant solutions. It is demonstrated that the method closely reproduces the St. Venant solutions for the discharge and stage hydrographs subject to the compliance of the assumptions of the method by the routing process.
[1]
P. Weinmann,et al.
Approximate Flood Routing Methods: A Review
,
1979
.
[2]
The cause of negative initial outflow with the Muskingum method
,
1992
.
[4]
J. Garbrecht,et al.
Hydrologic Channel‐Flow Routing for Compound Sections
,
1991
.
[5]
James C. I. Dooge,et al.
Linear Theory of Hydrologic Systems
,
1973
.
[6]
Muthiah Perumal,et al.
Hydrodynamic derivation of a variable parameter Muskingum method: 1. Theory and solution procedure
,
1994
.
[7]
P. Gregory,et al.
February
,
1890,
The Hospital.
[8]
J. Nash,et al.
River flow forecasting through conceptual models part I — A discussion of principles☆
,
1970
.
[9]
Accuracy Criteria in Diffusion Routing
,
1982
.