- Figure 2.1 Storage and non-steady flow (after Shaw, 1994).
- Figure 2.2 Example of inflow and outflow hydrographs.
- Figure 2.3 Cunge curve (Cunge, 1969 cited by NERC, 1975).
- Figure 2.4 River routing storage loops (after Wilson, 1990).
- Figure 2.5 Muskingum routed hydrographs (after Shaw, 1994).
- Figure 2.6 Loop-rating curve (after NERC, 1975).
- Figure 2.7 Lateral inflow model (after O’Donnell et al., 1988).
- Figure 2.8 Channel routing using the Convex method (after NRCS, 1972).
- Figure 2.9 Mean stream slope (after Linsley et al., 1988).
- Figure 3.1 Thukela location map.
- Figure 3.2 Selected gauging stations.
- Figure 3.3 Selected gauging stations at the Klip river in Sub-catchment-I.
- Figure 3.4 Selected gauging stations at the Mooi River in Sub-catchment-II.
- Figure 3.5 Selected gauging stations at the Mooi River in Sub-catchment-III.
- Figure 3.6 The Klip River in Sub-catchment-I.
- Figure 3.7 Longitudinal profile of the Klip River in Sub-catchment-I.
- Figure 3.8 The Mooi River in Sub-catchment-II.
- Figure 3.9 Longitudinal profile of the Mooi River in Sub-catchment-II.
- Figure 3.10 The Mooi River in Sub-catchment-III (Downstream).
- Figure 3.11 Longitudinal profile of the Mooi River in Sub-catchment-III.
- Figure 3.12 Observed inflows and outflows of Reach-I.
- Figure 3.13 Observed inflows and outflows of Reach-II.
- Figure 3.14 Observed inflows and outflows of Reach-III.
- Figure 3.15 Observed rating curve at gauging station V1H038 (after DWAF, 2003).
- Figure 3.16 Observed rating curve at gauging station V2H002 (after DWAF, 2003).
- Figure 3.17 Observed rating curve at gauging station V2H004 (after DWAF, 2003).
- Figure 3.18 Example of poor data in Reach-I.
- Figure 3.19 Events-1 and 2 selected from Reach-I.
- Figure 3.20 Event-3 selected from Reach-I.
- Figure 3.21 Event-1 selected from Reach-II.
- Figure 3.22 Event-2 selected from Reach-II.
- Figure 3.23 Event-3 selected from Reach-II.
- Figure 3.24 Event-4 selected from Reach-II.
- Figure 3.25 Events-1 and 2 selected from Reach-III.
- Figure 3.26 Event-3 and 4 selected from Reach-III.
- Figure 4.1 Estimation of Muskingum K parameter from observed hydrographs.
- Figure 5.1 Observed and computed hydrographs of Event-1 in Reach-I.
- Figure 5.2 Observed and computed hydrographs of Event-2 in Reach-I.
- Figure 5.3 Observed and computed hydrographs of Event-3 in Reach-I.
- Figure 5.4 Observed and computed hydrographs of Event-1 in Reach-II.
- Figure 5.5 Observed and computed hydrographs of Event-2 in Reach-II.
- Figure 5.6 Observed and computed hydrographs of Event-3 in Reach-II.
- Figure 5.7 Observed and computed hydrographs of Event-4 in Reach-II.
- Figure 5.8 Observed and computed hydrographs of Event-1 in Reach-III.
- Figure 5.9 Observed and computed hydrographs of Event-2 in Reach-III.
- Figure 5.10 Observed and computed hydrographs of Event-3 in Reach-III.
- Figure 5.11 Observed and computed hydrographs of Event-4 in Reach-III.
- Figure 5.12 Rating curve for Reach-I (developed).
- Figure 5.13 Rating curve for Reach-II (developed).
- Figure 5.14 Rating curve for Reach-III (developed).
- Figure 5.15 Observed and computed hydrographs for Event-1 in Reach-I.
- Figure 5.16 Observed and computed hydrographs for Event-2 in Reach-I.
- Figure 5.17 Observed and computed hydrographs for Event-3 in Reach-I.
- Figure 5.18 Observed and computed hydrographs of Event-1 in Reach-II.
- Figure 5.19 Observed and computed hydrographs of Event-2 in Reach-II.
- Figure 5.20 Observed and computed hydrographs of Event-3 in Reach-II.
- Figure 5.21 Observed and computed hydrographs of Event-4 in Reach-II.
- Figure 5.22 Observed and computed hydrographs of Event-1 in Reach-III.
- Figure 5.23 Observed and computed hydrographs of Event-2 in Reach-III.
- Figure 5.24 Observed and computed hydrographs of Event-3 in Reach-III.
- Figure 5.25 Observed and computed hydrographs of Event-4 in Reach-III.
- Figure 5.26 Percentage change in peak flow error relative to reference peak flow for a 50% increase and decrease in the roughness coefficient.
- Figure 5.27 Percentage change in RMSE error relative to reference RMSE for a 50% increase and decrease in the roughness coefficient.
- Figure 5.28 Percentage change in volume error relative to reference volume for a 50% increase and decrease in the roughness coefficient.
- Figure 5.29 Percentage change in coefficient of efficiency (E) relative to a reference E for a 50% increase and decrease in the roughness coefficient.
- Figure 5.30 Percentage change in peak flow error relative to reference peak flow for a 50% increase and decrease in the channel slope.
- Figure 5.31 Percentage change in RMSE error relative to reference RMSE for a 50% increase and decrease in the channel slope.
- Figure 5.32 Percentage change in volume error relative to reference volume for a 50% increase and decrease in the channel slope.
- Figure 5.33 Percentage change in coefficient of efficiency (E) relative to a reference E for a 50% increase and decrease in the channel slope.
- Figure 5.34 Percentage change in peak flow error relative to reference peak flow for a change in the channel geometry.
- Figure 5.35 Percentage change in RMSE error relative to reference RMSE for a change in the channel geometry.
- Figure 5.36 Percentage change in volume error relative to reference volume for a change in the channel geometry.
- Figure 5.37 Percentage change in coefficient of efficiency (E) relative to a reference E for a 50% increase and decrease in the channel geometry.
- Figure A.1 Curves for determining the normal depth (Chow, 1959).