Comparison of linear systems and finite difference flow‐routing techniques

Keefer, Thomas N.

doi:10.1029/wr012i005p00997

Cited by 21 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The MLSR model has none of the numerical solution problems of more complex methods nor any of the drawbacks of simpler methods. Although only results for circular storm drains have been presented here, the method has been shown by Keefer (1976) to work equally well for rectangular and trapezoidal channels. Special problems such as routing through reaches with undersized storm drains, which causes temporary detention storage, and compatibility for routing of pollutants are easily handled by the MLSR model.…”

Section: Testing the Routing Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…According to Yen, direct applications of diffusion-wave methods do not appear promising; however, the authors of the present report believe convolution methods based on the diffusion-wave concept have merit. Such methods have been found useful in natural, open-channel flow routing by Keefer and McQuivey (1974) and have been compared favorably to a numerical solution method by Keefer (1976). The method applied to storm-drain routing is called the MLSR (multiple-linearization storm-drain routing) method.…”

Section: Routing Of Stormwater Flows Through Storm Drainsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Journal of Research of the U. S. Geological Survey, 1977, volume 5, issue 3

1977

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Testing the Routing Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Routing Of Stormwater Flows Through Storm Drainsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Journal of Research of the U. S. Geological Survey, 1977, volume 5, issue 3

1977

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The J879DB model originated as a general-purpose streamflow simulation model. Land (1978b) documented the J879 version of the model, which was formulated by Keefer (1976). The MOC model has undergone extensive modifications to incorporate the shock equations and the dam-break boundary conditions.…”

Section: The Functions Yq (X) Vq (X)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The numerical analysis technique used by the J879DB discretizes the partial derivatives of equations 8 and 9, linearizes the equations by representing nonlinear multipliers of the space derivatives at the known time level, and solves the resulting linear algebraic equations implicitly (Keefer, 1976). The finite-difference approximations are based on a six-point grid net, four on the old time line and two on the new time line.…”

Section: The Functions Yq (X) Vq (X)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of selected dam-break flood-wave models by using field data

Land¹

1980

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Final 14. Abstract (Limit: 200 words)Four dam-break flood-wave models have been evaluated by using three field data sets and selected criteria of desirable features. The models include (1) modified Puls (MP), (2) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' unsteady flow profiles (USTFLO), (3) National Weather Services' dam-break flood forecast (DBFF), and (4) U.S. Geological Survey's coupled method of characteristics and a general purpose streamflow simulation (MOC-J879DB). The field data sets documented the disasters at Teton Dam, Idaho, Laurel Run, Pa., and Toccoa Falls, Ga.The computed discharges were often within 20 percent of the observed values with the exception of the simulations at Teton Dam and for a short distance below the dams by the * MOC-J879DB. With the same exceptions noted above, the computed flood crests were usually within 2 feet of the observed high-water marks.A modified version of the DBFF model is identified as the most accurate, economical, flexible, numerically stable, easiest to apply, and descriptive of the boundary and flow conditions. Four dam-break flood-wave models have been evaluated by using three field data sets and selected criteria of desirable features. The models include (1) modified Puls (MP), (2) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' unsteady flow profiles (USTFLO), (3) National Weather Services' dambreak flood forecast (DBFF), and (4) U.S. Geological Survey's coupled method of characteristics and a general purpose streamflow simulation (MOC-J879DB). The field data sets documented the disasters at Teton Dam, Idaho, Laurel Run, Pa., and Toccoa Falls, Ga.The computed discharges were often within 20 percent of the observed values with the exception of the simulations at Teton Dam and for a short distance below the dams by the MOC-J879DB. With the same exceptions noted above, the computed flood crests were usually within 2 feet of the observed high-water marks.A modified version of the DBFF model is identified as the most accurate, economical, flexible, numerically stable, easiest to apply, and descriptive of the boundary and flow conditions.

show abstract

“…Because the model solves a linearized form of the dynamic-wave equations, relatively small time and distance steps were required to minimize the numerical dispersion. The model was further tested by comparing results with a linear implicit finite-difference model developed by Keefer (1976) and documented by Land (1978). The results from these two dynamic-wave models were the same.…”

Section: Further Limitations Of Applicabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Basic concepts of kinematic-wave models

Miller¹

1984

Professional Paper

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PREFACEKinematic-wave models are used extensively by the U.S. Geological Survey. Both kinematic-and modified kinematic-wave models are used for channel and overland-flow routing in the Precipitation-Runoff Modeling system and in the Distributed Routing Rainfall-Runoff Model. The development of the theory and application of kinematic waves is complex, but it is not readily available in any one text. Therefore, the purpose of this report is to present the basic concepts of the kinematic-wave approximation of one-dimensional dynamic waves. The report is intended for an audience of field hydrologists applying kinematicwave models in practical situations such as watershed models. This report does not propose to assess or describe the current state of the art of approximate hydraulic-flow routing techniques. It is intended to be used as a basic reference on the theory and application of kinematic-wave models and modified kinematic-wave models.The kinematic-wave model is one of a number of approximations of the dynamic-wave model. Because of the numerous approximations made in the development of the models and the difficulty involved in applying the solution techniques, the kinematic-wave approximation needs to be understood in relation to the other models. Therefore, a significant part of the report describes the dynamic-wave model, including a detailed development of the governing equations. This development is important because it shows the assumptions made in describing unsteady flow with the full dynamic-wave equations. These assumptions are inherent in any of the models that are approximations of the dynamic-wave model, such as the kinematic-wave model.Because of the intended audience, the equation developments are given in detail so that they will be understood as easily as possible. There are many basic concepts involved in the application of kinematic-wave models that can be confusing. Instead of assuming that these concepts are obvious to the reader, they are included in a supplemental information section.

show abstract

Comparison of linear systems and finite difference flow‐routing techniques

Cited by 21 publications

References 1 publication

Journal of Research of the U. S. Geological Survey, 1977, volume 5, issue 3

Journal of Research of the U. S. Geological Survey, 1977, volume 5, issue 3

Evaluation of selected dam-break flood-wave models by using field data

Basic concepts of kinematic-wave models

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About