Quels apports hydrologiques pour les modèles hydrauliques? Vers ...

1000(a) Tahlequah, Event no. 2Obs.1000(b) Tahlequah, Event no. 7Obs.1000(c) Tahlequah, Event no. 11Obs.Option 1, 2 Trib.Option 1, 2 Trib.Option 1, 2 Trib.Q (m3/s)500Option 2, 2 Trib.500Option 2, 2 Trib.500Option 2, 2 Trib.004−01−98 07−01−98 10−01−98028−06−00 01−07−00 04−07−00022−04−04 25−04−04 28−04−041500(d) Siloam Springs, Event no. 21500(e) Siloam Springs, Event no. 71500(f) Siloam Springs, Event no. 11tel-00392240, version 1 - 5 Jun 2009Q (m3/s)Q (m3/s)750004−01−98 07−01−98 10−01−98400200(f) Kansas, Event no. 2004−01−98 07−01−98 10−01−98750028−06−00 01−07−00 04−07−00400200(g) Kansas, Event no. 7028−06−00 01−07−00 04−07−00750022−04−04 25−04−04 28−04−04400200(h) Kansas, Event no. 11022−04−04 25−04−04 28−04−04Fig. 5. Observed and simulated hydrographs in validation mode for the events (no.2, no. 7 and no. 11) having the three largest peakflows at Tahlequah station (729,831 and 874 m 3 /s respectively; see Table 1). Two options were considered for lateralinflow injections: option 1 makes use of point and uniformly distributed inflows, option2 uses only point inflows. Both options were applied with a spatial configurationincluding two tributaries modelled individually.37