4.7 Article

Identification of Parameters Influencing the Accuracy of the Solution of the Nonlinear Muskingum Equation

Journal

WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT
Volume 34, Issue 10, Pages 3147-3164

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11269-020-02599-0

Keywords

Flood routing; Nonlinear Muskingum equation; Kinematic wave equation; Dimensional consistency; Parameter identification

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Two nonlinear versions of the Muskingum equation are considered. The difference between both equations relates to the exponent parameter. In the first version, commonly used in hydrology, this parameter is considered as free, while in the second version, it takes a value resulting from the kinematic wave theory. Consequently, the first version of the equation is dimensionally inconsistent, whereas the proposed second one is consistent. It is shown that the difference between the results provided by both versions of the nonlinear Muskingum equation depends on the longitudinal bed slope of a channel. For an increasing slope, when a propagating wave becomes more kinematic, the value of the exponent considered as the free parameter tends to its value resulting from the kinematic wave theory. Consequently, when the character of an open channel flow tends to a kinematic one, the dimensionally inconsistent version of the nonlinear Muskingum equation becomes a consistent one. The results of the numerical analysis suggest that apart from the parameters involved in the Muskingum equation, usually considered as free, the parameters of the numerical method of the solution (the number of reservoirs and the time step) should be considered also as free parameters. This conclusion results from the fundamental property of the Muskingum equation, relating to the numerical roots of the wave attenuation process. All numerical examples and tests relate to the solutions of the system of Saint Venant equations, considered as the benchmark.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available