This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
This research assumes that an IUH exists, and that it is the response function to a linear system, and the research task is to find the parameters (unkno n coefficients! of the transfer function. To accomplish this task a database must be assembled that contains appropriate rainfall and runoff values for analysis. "nce the data are assembled, the runoff signal is analy#ed for the presence of any base flo , and this component of the runoff signal is removed. "nce the base flo is removed, the remaining hydrograph is called the direct
runoff hydrograph ($%H!. The total volume of discharge is determined and the rainfall input signal is analy#ed for rainfall losses. The losses are removed so that the total rainfall input volume is e&ual to the total discharge volume. The rainfall signal after this process is called the effective precipitation. 'y definition, the cumulative effective
precipitation is e&ual to the cumulative direct runoff. If the rainfall-runoff transfer function and its coefficients are kno n a-priori, then the $%H signal should be obtainable by convolution of the rainfall input signal ith the
IUH response function. The difference bet een the observed $%H and the model $%H should be negligible if the data have no noise, the system is truly linear, and selected both the correct function and the correct coefficients. If the analyst postulates a functional form (the procedure of this thesis! then searches for correct values of coefficients, the process is called de-convolution. In the present ork by guessing at coefficient values, convolving the effective precipitation e have
signal, and comparing the model output
ith the actual output,
e accomplish de-
convolution. ) merit function is used to &uantify the error bet een the modeled and observed output. ) simple searching scheme is used to record the estimates that reduce the value of a merit function and hen this scheme is completed, the parameter set is
called a non-inferior (as opposed to optimal! set of coefficients of the transfer function. 3.1. Database Construction U*+* small atershed studies ere conducted largely during the period spanning the early (,-./s to the middle (,0./s. The storms documented in the U*+* studies can be used to evaluate unit hydrographs and these data are critical for unit hydrograph investigation in Texas. 1andidate stations for hydrograph analysis substantial database as assembled. Table 2.( is a list of the 33 stations eventually keypunched and used in this research. The first t o columns in each section of the table is the atershed and sub atershed name. The urban portion of the database does not use the sub atershed naming convention, but the rural portion does. The third column is the U*+* station I$ number. This number identifies the gauging station for the runoff data. The precipitation data is recorded in the same reports as the runoff data so this I$ number also identifies the precipitation data. The last numeric entry is the number of rainfall-runoff records available for the unit hydrograph analysis. The details of the database construction are reported in )s&uitn et. al (4..5!. ere selected and a
Table 2.(.*tations and 6umber of *torms used in *tudy
Austin Watershed BartonCreek BartonCreek BearCreek BearCreek BearCreek Bo%%&Creek Bo%%&SouthCreek Bu''Creek *itt'eWa'nutCreek +nionCreek +nionCreek Shoa'Creek Shoa'Creek Shoa'Creek Shoa'Creek S'au%hterCreek S'au%hterCreek Wa''erCreek Wa''erCreek Wa'nutCreek Wa'nutCreek Wa'nutCreek Wa'nutCreek Wa'nutCreek WestBou'dinCreek Wi'bar%erCreek Wi''ia"sonCreek Wi''ia"sonCreek Wi''ia"sonCreek Sub-Shed Station ID 08155200 08155 00 08158810 08158820 08158825 08158050 08158880 0815#700 08158 80 08158700 08158800 0815$$50 0815$700 0815$750 0815$800 081588#0 081588$0 08157000 08157500 08158100 08158200 08158#00 08158500 08158$00 08155550 08152150 08158220 081582 0 08158270 #Events 5 8 8 2 2 10 1# 1 2 $ 2 1 1$ 1 2# 2 2 #0 8 15 17 10 1# 22 10 22 1# 18 1$ Watershed AshCreek Ba!h"anBran!h CedarCreek Coo"bsCreek CottonWoodCreek Du!kCreek E'a"Creek (ive)i'eCreek (ive)i'eCreek ('o&dBran!h ,oesCreek -e.tonCreek /rairieCreek 0ushBran!h South)es1uite South)es1uite S3ank&Creek 4urt'eCreek Wood&Bran!h Watershed Dr&Bran!h Dr&Bran!h *itt'e(ossi' *itt'e(ossi' S&!a"ore S&!a"ore S&!a"ore S&!a"ore Da''as Sub-Shed Station ID 08057 20 08055700 08057050 08057020 080571#0 080$1$20 08057#15 08057#18 08057#20 080571$0 08055$00 08057# 5 08057##5 080571 0 080$1220 080$1250 08057120 0805$500 08057#25 Station ID 080#8550 080#8$00 080#8820 080#8850 080#8520 080#85 0 080#85#0 SSSC #Events 5 #1 7 $ 8 8 7 10 8 1# 8 5 2 1 # #2 1 #Events 25 27 20 2# 2# 28 2# 21
(ort Worth Sub-Shed
Watershed A'a5anCreek *eonCreek *eonCreek *eonCreek +'"osCreek +'"osCreek +'"osCreek Sa'adoCreek Sa'adoCreek Sa'adoCreek Sa'adoCreek Sa'adoCreek
San Antonio Sub-Shed Station ID 08178 00 08181000 08181#00 08181#50 08177$00 08177700 08178555 08178$00 08178$#0 08178$#5 08178$20 081787 $
#Events 0 10 15 22 12 2 10 1 10 5 2 12
Watershed BrasosBasin BrasosBasin BrasosBasin BrasosBasin Co'oradoBasin Co'oradoBasin Co'oradoBasin Co'oradoBasin Co'oradoBasin SanAntonioBasin SanAntonioBasin SanAntonioBasin 4rinit&Basin 4rinit&Basin 4rinit&Basin 4rinit&Basin 4rinit&Basin 4rinit&Basin 4rinit&Basin 4rinit&Basin
S"a''0ura'Sheds Sub-Shed Station ID Co.Ba&ou 0802$800 6reen 0802#000 /ond-E'" 08028 00 /ond-E'" 08108200 Dee3 081 2000 Dee3 081#0000 )uke.ater 081 $200 )uke.ater 081 7000 )uke.ater 081 7500 Ca'averas 08182#00 Es!ondido 08187000 Es!ondido 08187200 E'"(ork 08050200 7one& 08057500 7one& 08058000 *itt'eE'" 08052$ 0 *itt'eE'" 08052700 -orth 080#2$50 -orth 080#2700 /in+ak 080$ 200
#Events #8 28 12 21 27 28 22 8 # 2# 1 21 # 1 22 22 58 1# 5$
3. . Data Pre!aration )n additional processing step used in this thesis is the interpolation of the observed data into uniformly spaced, one minute intervals.
3. .1. "ase F#o$ Se!aration Hydrograph separation is the process of separating the time distribution of base flo from the total runoff hydrograph to produce the direct runoff hydrograph (7c1uen (,,3!. 'ase flo separation is a time-honored hydrologic exercise termed by hydrologists as 8one of the most desperate analysis techni&ues in use in hydrology9 (He lett and Hibbert (,-0! and 8that fascinating arena of fancy and speculation9 ()ppleby (,0.: 6athan and 7c7ahon (,,.!. Hydrograph separation is considered more of an art than a science ('lack (,,(!. *everal hydrograph separation techni&ues such as constant discharge, constant slope, concave method, and the master depletion curve method have been developed and used. ;igure 2.( is a sketch of a representative hydrograph that ill be used in this section to explain the different base flo separation methods.
;igure 2.( %epresentative Hydrograph
$ischarge (<2=T! Time (T! .4. Typically. The shaded area in the sketch represents the discharge that ould be removed (subtracted! from the observed runoff hydrograph to produce a directrunoff hydrograph.igure 2. depending on the magnitude of the discharge at the beginning of the storm (? .4 is a sketch of the constant discharge method applied to the representative hydrograph. as ell as all discharge beneath this hori#ontal pro>ection is labeled as 8base flo 9 and removed from further analysis.igure 2. The principal disadvantage is that the method is thought to yield an extremely long time base for the direct runoff hydrograph. )ll discharge prior to the identified minimum. and this time base varies from storm to storm. the minimum value immediately prior to beginning of the storm is pro>ected hori#ontally. 1onstant-discharge base flo separation. .1onstant-discharge method The base flo is assumed to be constant regardless of stream height (discharge!.
The inflection point is located either as the location here the second derivative atershed area.igure 2. al. The method is easy to automate.(<insley et.2. as depicted on . This method assumes that the base flo arbitrarily sets to the inflection point. (. (- . and inflection point identified as location here second derivative of the hydrograph passes through #ero Time (T! . This ill have passes through #ero (curvature changes! or is empirically related to method is also relatively easy to automate. especially for multiple peak hydrographs.2. 1onstant-slope method ) line is dra n from the inflection point on the receding limb of the storm hydrograph to the beginning of storm hydrograph. $ischarge (<2=T! began prior to the start of the current storm.!.igure 2. except multiple peaked storms multiple inflection points.5. 1onstant-slope base flo separation.
k. The time constant.o exp(−kt ! . This method is also relatively easy to automate except for multiple peak hydrographs hich. $ischarge (<2=T! inflection point identified as location here second derivative of the hydrograph passes through #ero Time (T! . is the basin recession coefficient that is inferred from the recession portion of several storms.igure 2. $ata from several recessions are analy#ed to determine the basin recession constant. (0 . method ill have multiple inflection points.1oncave method The concave method assumes that base flo flo continues to decrease hile stream increases to the peak of the storm hydrograph. like the constant slope. the base flo is then assumed to increase linearly until it meets the inflection point on the recession limb.igure 2.5 1oncave-method base flo separations $epletion curve method This method models base flo as discharge from accumulated ground ater storage. The base flo is modeled as an exponential decay term qb (t ! = qb . Then at the peak of the hydrograph.5 is a sketch illustrating the method applied to the representative hydrograph. .
The storm ith the largest flo at the end of the recession is plotted ere ithout any time shifting.#$ #.#0 4est. (.? ith a test storm here the base flo separation is illustrates five storms plotted along being determined.igure 2. The recession is extrapolated from this storm as if there no further input to the ground ater store.#1 . .22. 7 #00 500 $00 . The storms are time shifted by trial-and-error until the recession portions all fall along a straight line.1.o .11. The remaining storms are time shifted so that the straight line portion of their recession limbs come tangent to this curve.Individual storms are plotted ith the logarithm of discharge versus time.Event #.2 . 100 Dis!har%e 8!:s9 10 1 0 100 200 00 4i"e 8hours9 )aster.igure 2. Table ..11.Curve #.? 7aster-$epletion 1urve 7ethod ($ata from 7c1uen.3.-4. pp 53-! (3 .De3'etion. The slope of this line is proportional to the basin recession coefficient and the intercept ith the discharge axis at #ero time is the value for q b .2$ 2. 'y trial-anderror the master depletion curve can be ad>usted and the storms time shifted until a reasonable agreement of all storms recessions ith the master curve is achieved.
the recession method is difficult to apply as the first storm after the dry period starts a ne master recession curve.?.?024. The follo ing .is a multiple peak storm event from $allas )sh1reek station. "bserve in .0045/hr. .."nce the master curve is determined. the basin recession constant is 0.igure 2.1 cfs. and the base flo at the beginning of the recession is 17 cfs. .urthermore. and implicit in the analysis is that the basin recession constant is time invariant and the storms are independent. then base flo separation proceeds use the constant discharge method. then the test storm is plotted on the curve and shifted until its straight-line portion come tangent to the master curve. In the example in . and the point of intersection is taken as the base flo value for that storm. The depletion curve method is attractive as it determines the basin recession constant. in basins here the stream goes dry (such as much of Texas!. ill be a challenge (. years. but it is not at all easy to automate.igure 2.igure 2.. "nce the base flo value is determined for a particular test event.3. To automate the rest of data set using this method because of the change of master recession curve for different peaks.? the storms used for the recession analysis span a period of nearly 5. the base flo for the test event is approximately 9.
6athan and 7c7ahon ((.dat Dallas AshCre ek A!!u"< De3th 8in!hes9 2<50E-02 2<00E-02 1<50E-02 1<00E-02 5<00E-0 0<00E =00 0 500 1000 4i" e 8"inutes9 1500 2000 2500 #0A 4E. Unfortunately the paper omits the detail re&uired to actually infer an algorithm from the solution.ourier transform. )ppleby separation techni&ue based on a %icatti-type e&uation for e&uation is a rational functional that is ((..0.7ultiple peak storms from $allas module Se#ection o% Met&o' to E(!#o) The principal criterion for method selection that as based on the need for a method as simple to automate because hundreds of events needed processing./0E CI/ #0A 4E. 'oth e&uations...File : #IUH_1_sta08057320_1977_0327.0>-+(( .! examined automated base flo techni&ues. The ob>ective of their ork separation as to identify appropriate techni&ues for determination of base flo and recession constants for use in regional prediction ere a smoothed minima techni&ue and ork!. . but it is useful in that principles of signal processing are clearly indicated in the model. T o techni&ues they studied in detail a recursive digital filter (a signal processing techni&ue similar to )pplebyAs techni&ues ere compared to a graphical techni&ue that extends pre-event runoff (>ust ith the point of greatest curvature on the before the rising portion of the hydrograph! 4.igure 2.! reports on a base flo base flo . The general solution of the base flo remarkably similar in structure to either a <a@lace transform or .
g.al.: 'ates and $avies.recession limb (a constant-slope method. They concluded that the digital filter as a fast ob>ective method of separation but their paper suggests that the smoothed minima techni&ue is for all practical purposes indistinguishable from either the digital filter or the graphical method. The constant slope and concave methods are not used in this ork because the observed runoff hydrographs have multiple peaks. %ecursive filtering and smoothed minima ere dismissed because of the type of events in the present continuous!. but it is intended for relatively continuous discharge time series and not the episodic data in the present application. @ress et.33! have reported that unit hydrograph derivation is insensitive to base flo separation method hen the base flo is not a large fraction of 4( . 6evertheless the result for the smoothed minima is still meaningful. <aurenson and "A$onell.urthermore the authors ere vague on the constraint techni&ues employed to make the recursive filter values and to produce peak values that did not exceed the produce non-negative flo original stream flo . but not aimed at the inflection point!.3-! provide convincing arguments against timedomain signal filtering and especially recursive filters. there is insufficient data at each station to construct reliable depletion curves.-. (. Therefore in the present discharge method. ((. (. and this techni&ue appears fairly straightfor ard to automate. . It is impractical to locate the recession limb inflection point ith any confidence. @rior researchers (e. The constant discharge method as chosen because it is simple to automate and ork (episodic and not ork the discharge data are treated by the constant apply to multiple peaked hydrographs. The master depletion curve method is not used because even though there is a large amount of data.
3. Initial abstraction is the fraction of rainfall that occurs before direct runoff. <osses after initial abstraction are the fraction of precipitation that is stored in the atershed (depression. and the result considered to be the direct runoff hydrograph. the losses. .the flood hydrograph B a situation satisfied in this in this research determined discharge before that time average rate ork. so one can compare ho prediction. so the loss term essentially represents infiltration into the soil in the 44 . The candidate models ill be run in t o cases ith or ithout base flo separation. Typically the precipitation signal (the hyetograph! is separated into three parts. The 6%1* method assumes that the initial abstraction is some fraction of the maximum retention that varies ith soil and land use (essentially a 16 based method!. the initial abstraction. This as as then removed from the observed discharge data. E%%ecti*e Preci!itation much the separation ould effect the runoff The effective precipitation is the fraction of actual precipitation that appears as direct runoff (after base flo separation!. Typically depression and interception storage are considered part of the initial abstraction. and the effective precipitation. "perationally several methods are used to estimate the initial abstraction. . interception. soil storage! that does not appear in the direct runoff hydrograph. (. ) second method is to assume that the initial abstraction is some constant volume (Ciessman. The particular implementation hen the rainfall event began on a particular day: all as accumulated and converted into an average rate. "ne method is to simply censor precipitation that occurs before direct runoff is observed.-3!.
to (? minutes. the value of φ can be estimated by separating base flo from the total runoff volume. and then finding the value of φ that results in the volume of effective rainfall being e&ual to the volume of direct runoff. hich is called the phi (φ! index. the infiltration rate is assumed to e&ual to the rainfall intensity. I(t! is storm rainfall intensity. for I(t! H φ . 1onstant fraction method.(t!G I(t!.2) here . 7athematically. +reen-)mpt model!. and φ is a constant. the loss rate is assumed to e&ual the constant capacity. Fith corresponding observations of a rainfall hyetograph and a runoff hydrograph. @hi-index model The φ-index is a simple infiltration model used in hydrology. the value of φ can in many cases be easily guessed. The recession time of the infiltration capacity may be as short as (. Fhen the rainfall is less than the value of φ. t is time.atershed.(t! is the loss rate. the phi-index method for modeling losses is described by .(t!G φ . Fhen the rainfall rate exceeds the capacity. (2. . If measured rainfall-runoff data are available.ield studies have sho n that the infiltration capacity is greatest at the start of a storm and that it decreases rapidly to a relatively constant rate.for I(t!I φ. Therefore.(! (3. ) statistical mean phi-index can then be 42 . computing the volume of direct runoff. and infiltration capacity approaches (HortonAs curve. The method assumes that the infiltration capacity is a constant φE(in=hr!. *everal methods to estimate the losses includeD @hi-index method. it is not unreasonable to assume that the infiltration capacity is constant over the entire storm duration.
the ultimate capacity of HortonAs e&uation. . might be considered. .5! (Index of surface connected porosity!.actor fc G constant after long etting (in=hr!.computed as the average of storm event phi values. . a G infiltration capacity of available storage ((in=hr!=(in!(. (2. (2.5 Jfc.actors assumed to be influencing infiltration capacity.5J fc. here f G infiltration capacity (in=hr!. surface-connected porosity and effect of root #one paths follo the e&uation f G a*a(..takes into consideration density of plant roots hich assist infiltration (.2! here fo G maximum infiltration rate at the beginning of a storm event and reduces to a lo and approximately constant rate of fc as infiltration process continues and the soil is saturated K G parameter describing rate of decrease in fp. Fhere measured rainfall-runoff data are not available..!. +reen-)mpt 7odel 45 . HortonAs model Infiltration capacity (fp! may be expressed as fp G fc J (fo B fc! e-Kt.5! here +I G +ro th index . soil moisture storage. fc..?! (2. *a G available storage in the surface layer in inches of ater e&uivalent ()-hori#on in agricultural soils .(.top six inches!. The modified Holton e&uation used by U* )gricultural %esearch *ervice is f G +Ia *a(.
ith the follo ing e&uation.igure 2.((! proposed the simplified picture of infiltration sho n in .0. . (2.+reen L )mpt ((. . The etting front has penetrated to a depth L in time t since infiltration began.(t! G Mt J here M G Hydraulic conductivity. (*ourceD Applied Hydrology by 1ho =7aidement=7ays (.(t!=( NO!Q. The vertical axis is the distance from the soil surface: the hori#ontal axis is the moisture content of the soil. NO lnP ( J . on the soil surface. Fater is ponded to a small depth h. The method computes total infiltration rate at the end of time t.0.33! The wetting front is a sharp boundary dividing soil belo ith moisture content θi from saturated soil done ith moisture content θi above.igure 2.-! 4? .Cariables in the +reen-)mpt infiltration model.
Unlike the *1* curve method. ! " Fetting front soil suction head. one ould expect the peak discharge to remain unchanged.(t! G Total infiltration at the end of time t. the method is simple to apply. and NO G increase in moisture content in time t. e (t !dt = ∫ #$H (t ! dt .t G time in hrs. e can easily calculate the amount of runoff.0! here %rp G the runoff coefficient. . but the rational method does not consider storage and travel times. 4- .raction 7odel The constant fraction model simply assumes that some constant ratio of precipitation becomes runoff: the fraction is called a runoff coefficient. )s a model. )t first glance it appears that it is a rational method disguise. essentially p e (t ! = %rp R p raw (t ! ∫ Ap (2. and halved the duration. this method gives the total amount of infiltration in the soil at the end of a particular storm event. praw G the ra precipitation. ) G drainage area. hile in a unit hydrograph such changes should have a profound effect on the hydrograph. Thus in the rational method. $epending on this value and the total amount of precipitation. 1onstant . if one doubles the precipitation intensity. pe G the effective precipitation.
but the fraction left as a fitting constant.3. as al ays modeled using the constant fraction model. because of the need as to automate and also because of the sheer magnitude of the dataset. the fitted result should preserve the re&uired mass balance (precipitation volume G runoff volume!.The first e&uation states that the effective precipitation is a fraction of the ra precipitation. Su((ar) o% Data Pre!aration 'ase flo separation as accomplished using the constant discharge method Fe analy#ed the data ith and ithout a Sffective because it is amenable to automation. separation to test precipitation hether separation as necessary in our data set. )n important detail in this research 8pseudo data9 for IUH analysis. The cumulative depth scale is the left vertical scale and the incremental rate scale is the right vertical scale. The resulting units are inches per minute.3 is a sketch sho ing the incremental rate and the cumulative depth relationship. then numerical differentiation is performed to obtain the rainfall rates. It should be noted that there are very fe actual one-minute intervals in the original data. so linear interpolation as used to convert the cumulative precipitation into one-minute intervals. minute. .igure 2. 7athematically the cumulative rainfall distribution is the integral of the incremental rainfall distribution (or rainfall density! over the entire rainfall 40 . This time length as the conversion of the original data into as one- The time-step length used in the research as chosen because it is the smallest increment that can be represented in the current $)TSTTI7S format in the database. hile the second states that the total effective precipitation volume should e&ual the total direct runoff volume. 3. Ideally.
hile the rate.(. is indicated by the open s&uares.3. p (t ! = d& (t ! d = P ∫ p (t ! dtQ . respectively.igure 2. 1umulative @recipitation and Incremental @recipitation %elationship In . hen for ard and back ard differencing ere used.3 the cumulative precipitation.. &'t(. p't!. except at the first and last time interval.3 expresses this relationship: integration over the entire number line is intended to indicate the entire lifetime of the individual rainfall event. p (t ! ≈ & (t + ∆t ! − & (t − ∆t ! . 4∆t (2.igure 2. In practice only the cumulative depth is recorded as a function of time: so to determine the rate the cumulative precipitation. (2. & (t ! = ∫p (t ! dt − ∞ ∞ .event.! 43 . dt dt − ∞ ∞ e simply differentiate /re!i3< 0ate 8in<?"in<9 2<5 2<5 0<08 0<08 (2. S&uation 2.! The present ork used a simple centered differencing scheme. is indicated by the open circles.3! 0<07 0<07 2 2 0<0$ 0<0$ 0<05 0<05 0<0# 0<0# 0<0 0<0 0<02 0<02 0<5 0<5 0<01 0<01 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 100 1<5 1<5 Cu"u'ative /re!i3<8in<9 1 1 2020 #0#0 $0$0 4i"e 4i"e 8"in<9 8"in<9 8080 A!!/re!i3 Inst/re!i3 .
and time to peak of the unit hydrograph Tp.?. NRCS .*.2!. &pGM)U=Tp. 7ockus used the triangular UH shape in development of above t o e&uations. formerly the *oil 1onservation *ervice. M also includes a conversion factor to make the e&uation dimensionally correct. (2. direct runoff volume U. al.-=((JH!. 3.. He also indicated that M as a function of the UH shape and that 2=3 of the storm runoff volume in the rising limb and ?=3 in the recession limb ere typical of small agricultural atersheds. It appears that 7ockus analy#ed many flood hydrographs to >ustify the selection of the peak rate factor M of 535.$etails of the 8pseudo data9 conversion ere reported by 1leveland et.(4! here H is the ratio of the time of recession to the time peak (Tr= Tp!. 7ockus ((. (2.s.. . of M of 535 as felt to be representative of small agricultural atersheds in the U.! of M is e&ual to MG(4. developed a unit hydrograph (UH! in the (.((! here the peak discharge rate &p is a function of drainage area ). This UH as used to develop storm hydrographs and peak discharges for design of conservation measures on small agricultural atersheds.?-! discussed development of the standard 6%1* unit hydrograph and the peak rate e&uation. He indicated that the peak rate factor (@%. ) UH ith @%.. factor M. The (-minute data for roughly (-54 storms are located on a University of Houston server and can be publicly accessed at the U%< associated ith this citation.nit H)'ro-ra!& The 6atural %esources 1onservation *ervice (6%1*!. (4.+. 4.
... . ....2... ..344 ... . ... 4.( .443 .( ..-.. %atios for dimensionless unit hydrograph and mass curve Time ratios (t=Tp! .35. ........0 ...2( . (...2.30( .5 (...43 . . and as a graphical representation. The point of inflection on the unit graph is as observed to be .4 the base approximately (.3.H /0a((a a!!ro1i(ation2 The 6%1* $imensionless Unit Hydrograph (U*$).2 ...0.4 . (... (..3 ..0 7ass 1urve %atios (U=Up! .03 .? ...(.(...22 .D. Table 2...2 .0.0 (.0 the time to peak and the time to peak time (hydrograph duration! ()b!... tp is the time to peak.3 2. .-3 ....2 .(4 .. ..34 .2? .... ....... Table2..5.0?( .. .5?..4 $ischarge ratios (&=&p! . ..5 .0 .4.?44 .2 (.3?! used by the 6%1* (formerly the *1*! as developed by Cictor 7ockus in the late (.( (.4 (.? (.(. The functional representation is presented as tabulated time and discharge ratios...-?.2 .... ..50 . 4. ..As. The *1* atersheds of different si#es and in analy#ed a large number of unit hydrographs for different locations and developed a generali#ed dimensionless unit hydrograph in terms of t/tp and q/qp here.5...20? ... .....(-2 .-? ..4 is the tabulation of the 6%1* $UH from the 6ational Sngineering Handbook...NRCS....?.... .4. (.3 (...(.?3.
4( .? ?.? .......(( ..0 .(.?2 .188.8.131.52.igure (-.3 2..... . ..... 5...( in the 6ational Sngineering handbook (except this figure is computer generated!......2 .-0 .....0 .... @lot of $UH and 7ass 1urve ..25 ......4. ... (...? .. .?? .5 2...5 4.....00 . is a plot of these ratios..4 2...00 .. 2. This figure is identical to ..4.igure2...(50 .. . 2( ..(? .igure 2.3 5.. -0CS Di"ension'ess >nit 7&dro%ra3h and )ass Curve 1 0<2 0<8 0<7 0<$ 1?13 0<5 0<# 0< 0<2 0<1 0 0 1 2 t?t3 Dis!har%e 0atios 81?139 )ass Curve 0atios 8@?@39 # 5 $ 1 0<2 0<8 0<7 0<$ 0<5 0<# 0< 0<2 0<1 0 @?@a .35 ..
3( and (.33 5.4. *o the 6%1* $UH approximation is &* ( + ! =(. is a plot of the model and tabulation. 24 .! to express common unit hydrographs (*nyderAs. 5..3( * 2. and thus this model of the 6%1* $UH is deemed acceptable for use. R 2.33 * . η and k as used to perform the ere 2.(2! The variables λ .The IUH analysis assumed that the hydrograph functions are continuous and the database as analy#ed using discrete values calculated from continuous functions. respectively. %ather than use the 6%1* tabulation in this ork. and ere determined by minimi#ation of the sum of s&uared errors bet een the tabulation and the model (the function! by selection of numerical values for the unkno n parameters. the variable * in the e&uations is the dimensionless time. but the magnitudes are &uite small. *1*.V of the runoff duration. and +rayAs! by a gamma distribution..(5! .(.3(e −2. The gamma function used to fit the tabulation is &* ( + ! = kλη * η−(e −λ* = Γ(η! . The maximum residual(s! occur early in dimensionless time and at -. η and k are unkno n. The values for parameters λ . 8Sxcel solver9 minimi#ation. (2.4. the fit as tested of a function of the same family (the gamma distribution! as the IUH function and this function as used in place of the 6%1* tabulation.33. (2. ) similar approach as used by *ingh (4.igure 2. Uualitatively the fit is good.
-0CS Curve-(ittin% >sin% 6a""a :un!tion 1 0<2 0<8 0<7 0<$ 1?13 0<5 0<# 0< 0<2 0<1 0 0 1 2 t?43 +bserved )ode'ed # 5 $ . The 6%1* $UH as presented in the 6SH integrates to a little over (.hich is greater than the test statistic (.?242! therefore the hypothesis (model! represent the observed values..?242.i ! 4 = .or t o degrees of freedom and . @lot of Tabulated and +amma-7odel $UH ) 1hi-s&uare fitness test as performed to further support the decision to use the model in lieu of the tabulation..i . i =( k (2. The research assumes that all unit graphs and the accompanying functional representations of 22 .(?! The test statistic is . The test statistic for the chi-s&uare test as calculated as χ %4 = ∑ (-i − .(.igure2...5 and thus it is not a true unit hydrograph as presented. . V confidence limits the value as (. (thus the factor that scales the integral correctly is imbedded in the & p value!. It is likely that it originally as a UH: then it as ad>usted procedurally so that the peak value of the dimensionless distribution is (...
3( e .IUHs integrate to one: so in this ork the 6%1* $UH approximation is ad>usted by dividing by the integral of the original $UH. (2. in this case the value is (.54! developed a dimensionless unit hydrograph for use in Texas. 6%1* $imensionless Unit Hydrograph! B it has a very long time base on the recession portion of the hydrograph.4.3. The labeling of axes in the original document suggests that the hydrograph is dimensionless.3( * 2.33 * . Co((ons H)'ro-ra!& 1ommons ((.(0! 3.(-! "r ith all the constants evaluated and simplified and expressed in the 6%1* terminology the 6%1* $UH (as an IUH function! is −2.e. but details of ho the hydrograph ere developed are not reported.33 5. Sssentially there three integrated gamma models ith different peaks and eights to reproduce the shape of 1ommonsA hydrograph. The 1ommons hydrograph is &uite different in shape after the peak than other dimensionless unit hydrographs in current use (i.3(e −2.33 q (t ! t tp = 23. an approximation as produced for treatment as another ere transfer function by fitting a three-gamma summation model.. qp tp t (2.?230( ! 2. . 25 . Therefore the final approximation to the 6%1* $UH as a functional representation useful in IUH analysis is &* ( + ! = 2.or the sake of completeness in this ork.2.
e Γ(. The smooth curve is given by the follo ing e&uation that as fit by trial and error..0t p t + − 0.0 t p q (t ! = ( ! .?3 t 4. 1urve is a *mooth 1urve )pproximation. Hydrograph developed by trial to cover a typical flood 1ircles are tabulation from digiti#ation of the original figure.-5(t p t t . (2..((3! 5.-..0.-5(t p − ( ! ..-? e Γ(.33 t ?....(3! The numerical values are simply the result of the fitting procedure. The tabulated function integrates to 2? .4?! 4.(0.igure 2.(24 e Γ(.5t p − 2.-.( t 5.igure 2..0. .433! ?. − 00.. The time axis as reconstructed (in the fitting algorithm! so that the tp parameter could be left variable for consistency ith the other hydrograph functions..((.(( is 1ommonsA hydrograph reproduced from a manual digiti#ation..5 t p ( ! .
The gamma distribution is similar in shape to the @oisson distribution that is given the form as f ( * ! = / * e −/ . This allo s the curve to take on a greater variety of shapes than the @oisson distribution. 3. The parameter a is a shape parameter hile b is a scale parameter. rises to a maximum. Calues can be found tabulated in mathematical handbooks. and descends to a tail that extends indefinitely to the right. on the left.(. The values that the variable x can take on are thus limited by .?(!.: thus the function above is divided by this value to produce a unit hydrograph distribution. This first started ith Sdson ((. 0a((a S)nt&etic H)'ro-ra!&s The gamma distribution is given in the e&uation f ( * ! = . (2.e −* = b * a . so many researchers started looking for the application of the +amma distribution into hydrograph prediction. ho presented a theoretical expression for the unit hydrograph assuming U to be proportional to t * e −yt 2- . Calues can extend to infinity on the right.! In the e&uation 1 e&uals b a+ ( ( to make the area enclosed by the curve e&ual to Γ ( a +(! unity. Γ is called the gamma function.The curve starts at #ero *W hen the variable x is #ero. The shape of the +amma distribution is similar to the shape of a unit hydrograph.4.approximately ((-. The gamma distribution differs from the @oisson distribution is that it has t o parameters instead of the single parameter of the @oisson.
-f4J.! here UG discharge in cfs at time t: )G drainage area in s&uare miles: x and y G ( * +(! is the parameters that can be represented in terms of peak discharge: and Γ gamma function of (xJ(!. These parameters have been referred to as the 6ash model parameters in the subse&uent literature.3.?.4! involves reading the values from a graph.44! 20 . @revious attempts to fit a +amma distribution to a hydrograph ere by 1roley((. Hann et al. 'ased on their methods. and *ingh ((.. nG(.!.! to calculate n for kno n values of &p and tp re&uires programming to iteratively solve for n..!. The procedure given by 1roley ((.?fJ?... )ron and Fhite ((. 6ash ((.34!.4.5?J.?. The method by )ron and Fhite ((. in hich errors are introduced.4(! in hich n and MG parameter defining the shape of the IUH: and &Gdepth of runoff per unit time per unit effective rainfall.0= %Ay ( yt ! * e − yt . Γ( * + (! (2. based on the concept of n linear reservoirs ith e&ual storage coefficient M..! listed a step-by-step procedure to obtain the UH. (2. 1roley also proposed procedures to obtain a UH from other observable characteristics..5!. ((.3. 7c1uen ((.2f2. expressed the instantaneous UH (IUH! in the form of a +amma distribution as q= ( t 1Γ( n! 1 n− ( e −t = k .! and $ooge ((.3!.3. (2. hich maybe briefly described by the follo ing e&uations.
(. n is the dimensionless shape factor. + . ((. and these cannot be used as such hen Uptp is re&uired to be computed for a value of n kno n from other sources.4-! here U is the discharge ordinate of the natural hydrograph corresponding to the time t after the commencement of direct runoff.3! to obtain the value of n may be ritten.... (2.. n = ( + -. )n e&uation provided by *ingh ((..(. The error in n calculated decreases ith increasing values of β . in hich q p is the peak runoff depth per unit time per effective rainfall. (2.. and ) is in acres.4?! is .?( 0 pt p 2 !(. β 4 (2.. These t o e&uations re&uire careful attention for the units. 6eibu## Distribution Historically a t o-parameter Feibull distribution is employed to define the configuration of a natural hydrograph of direct runoff and is given in the follo ing forms as (1anavos.45! here β = q p t p (dimensionless!.5. tp is in hours. n (2..?2V hen β = .. and k is the 23 . here Up is in cubic feet per second..(-5 β + -.. .4? and . *ingh observed that the error in n obtained from the e&uationD n =(.. Hann et al..in hich f = 0 pt p A . + .5! gave the follo ing expression to calculate n.(-5 β + -. β 4 .4 .. 3.(. n =(.?V hen β =(.42! here CGtotal volume of effective rainfall.35! 0 = 3t n −(e −( t = k ! .
$esignating qR = 0 = 0 p . (2. one obtains n = ln(n ln t R +( − (n −(! ln qR = n! = ln t R . Reser*oir E#e(ents )n alternative ay to construct the hydrograph functions is to model the The atershed response to precipitation as the response from a cascade of reservoirs. S&uation (2.2. 1ombining S&uation (2.4.2(! conveniently. 3.! S&uation (2.43! yields 0 = 0 p = (t = t p ! n −( e ( n −(!((−( t = t p ! n ! = n .! Taking natural logarithms of both sides of the above e&uation and solving for n. (2. . (2.43! here Up is the peak discharge and e is the base of the natural logarithms. (t p = k ! n = (n −(! = n .4-!.40! The constant of proportionality ' in S&uation (2. "nce the value of n has been ascertained properly.40! and (2.storage time constant.! may be ritten as qR = (t R ! n −( e ( n −(!((−tR n !=n .4. (2. and t R = t = t p .4-! is evaluated as 3= 0p (t p ! n −( e −( t p = k ! n .2(! through graphical means. (2. the value of k can then be determined from S&uation (2. and the response to 184.108.40.206(! The value of n can be obtained from S&uation (2. response function is developed as the response to an impulse of input.! is the desired form of the dimensionless Feibull distribution as used in this study. )nalytical formulation of the parameter n can be developed as follo s. (2. 'oth n and k reflect the basin characteristics and are related to the time to peak tp in the follo ing manner.
respectively. (. e*%e44 pre%ipitation 'depth( A 51.a time series of inputs is obtained from the convolution integral. reservoirs is ell studied and orks The conceptual approach for a cascade of ell for many unit hydrograph analyses (e.t 56.(4 is a schematic of a identical reservoirs atershed response conceptuali#ed as a series of of each reservoir is related to the ithout feedback. . %ayleigh. 6ash.?3: $ooge.t q1. but the parameters have a physical interpretation.t water4hed 4y4te/ re4pon4e /odel 57. e have also converted the 6%1*-$UH into its o n response model (a special case of gamma!. The kernel (response function! to an impulse in this ork is an instantaneous unit hydrograph (IUH!. (.(4 1ascade of %eservoir Slements 1onceptuali#ation . ork the cases are examined (.?.02: 1roley. In this here a +amma.t ob4er9ed dire%t r:noff 'depth( .!. a function that is a distribution function.t 58.3.t q7.t q8.igure 2. The outflo 5.igure 2. and Feibull distribution govern the individual reservoir element responses. In addition. (. The end result is the same.: $ooge.t q6.g.
(2 is a schematic of a reservoir response element. and the flo input is pe. The solution to this "$S ("rdinary $ifferential S&uation! is 5 (t ! = 5 . The behavior of the individual reservoir elements determines hether the model becomes a +amma. dt (2. exp(− a% t! .igure 2. and the outlet flo area is a. In the sketch.1 Linear /0a((a2 Reser*oir E#e(ent The first response model is a linear reservoir model. A (2.accumulated storage in the reservoir.24! (2.25! The ratio A/a% is called the residence time of the linear reservoir. the accumulated excess storage is 5. or Feibull distribution.igure 2.7. here the reservoir discharge is proportional to the accumulated depth of input. The constant of proportionality is %. 3. ) mass balance of the reservoir is A d5 = −a%5 . The discharge e&uation is velocity 9. The q = a9 = a%5 . %ayleigh. pe 5 A a q"a9 . before outflo begins is 5o. a. . 5( . the element area is A.(2 %eservoir Slement 7odel The outlet discharge is the product of the outlet area.22! The input pe is applied over a very short time interval: so the resulting depth.
(5 <inear %eservoir 7odel t = 4 . exp(− ! = 5 . t t t (2. t (2. AG(. exp(− ! . a% (2. The peak discharge is proportional to the precipitation input depth. • The peak discharge is proportional to the atershed area.igure 2. 54 .2?! Thus in terms of residence time the accumulated depth in a linear reservoir is t 5 (t ! = 5 . Instantaneous discharge is inversely related to accumulated time.20! . and occurs at time #ero. exp(− ! .t = A .2-! The discharge rate is the product of this function and the constant of proportionality t A t q (t ! = a%5 . 50G1 This particular atershed model has the follo ing propertiesD • • • 1umulative discharge is related to accumulated time.
and it satisfies the linearity re&uirement. 52 . exp(−( ! 4 ! .! The solution (using the same characteristic time re-parameteri#ation as in the linear reservoir model! is t 5 (t ! = 5 . t (2.5(! t t t This result is a %ayleigh distribution eighted by the product of atershed area and the initial charge of precipitation (hence the name %ayleigh reservoir!. q = a9 = a 4%5t . (2. The discharge function for unit area and depth integrates to one: thus it is a unit hydrograph. dt (2. (2.7.23! ) mass balance for this model is A d5 = −a 4%5t . The constant of proportionality in this case is 6%.! The discharge function is t 4t t q (t ! = a 4%t5 .2.3. Ra)#ei-& Reser*oir E#e(ent The next response model assumes that the discharge is proportional to both the accumulated excess precipitation (linear reservoir! and the elapsed time since the impulse of precipitation as added to the atershed (translation reservoir!. thus it is a candidate IUH function. exp(−( ! 4 ! = A5 . 4 exp( −( ! 4 ! .5.
Instantaneous discharge is proportional to accumulated time until the peak. • The peak discharge is proportional to the atershed area. AG(. %ayleigh %eservoir Fatershed 7odel. 50G1 "f particular interest. and occurs at some non-#ero characteristic time.7.(?. the %ayleigh model &ualitatively looks like a hydrograph should. • The peak discharge is proportional to the precipitation input depth. Sxamination of the discharge function includes the follo ing relationshipsD • • 1umulative discharge is proportional to accumulated time. then inversely proportional after ards. ith a peak occurring some time after the precipitation is applied (unlike the linear reservoir! and a falling limb after the peak ith an inflection point.igure 2.. 3. t = 4 .3 6eibu## Reser*oir The Feibull response model assumes that the discharge is proportional to both the accumulated excess precipitation (linear reservoir! and the elapsed time raised to 55 .
To develop the cascade model(s!. and it satisfies the linearity re&uirement. t (2. (2.5?! This result is a Feibull distribution eighted by the product of atershed area and the initial charge of precipitation (hence the name Feibull reservoir!.8. start ith the mass balance for a single reservoir element.55! The discharge function is t pt p −( t q (t ! = ap%t p −( 5 . In our atershed could e assumed that the number of reservoirs 8internal9 to the range from . p t t t (2. to J ∞ . but others have suggested fractional reservoirs can be incorporated into the theory. thus it is a unit hydrograph.52! The solution (using the same characteristic time re-parameteri#ation as in the linear reservoir model! is t 5 (t ! = 5 . Casca'e Ana#)sis . e and the discharge from this reservoir becomes the input for subse&uent reservoirs and 5? . exp(−( ! p ! . The discharge function for unit area and depth integrates to one. exp(−( ! p ! .some non-#ero po er since the impulse of precipitation as added to the atershed (translation reservoir!.igure 2. These three models constitute the reservoir element models used in this research.(4 is the schematic of a cascade model of research atershed response.54! ) mass balance for this model is A d5 = −ap%5t p −( . exp(−( ! p ! = A5 . q = a9 = ap%5t p −( . The constant of proportionality in this case is p%. 3. thus it is a candidate IUH function. "ur initial theoretical development assumed integral values. dt (2.
8. (2. (2. atershed here 5i represents the accumulated storage depth.5-. 0a((a Reser*oir Casca'e S&uation 2.50! The entire atershed response is expressed as the system of linear ordinary differential e&uations. Aqi .53.5-! S&uation 2. 3.t = a%5 i .50 is the mass balance e&uation for a reservoir in the cascade.determine the discharge for the last reservoir as representative of the entire response. In S&uation 2. 5o over an infinitesimally small time interval. essentially an impulse. and A is the reservoir discharge coefficient. represents the discharge functions for a cascade of linear reservoirs that comprise a response model. and this impulse is propagated through the system by the drainage functions.t − a%5 i .t = Aq i −(. 5- . is the identifier of a particular reservoir in the cascade. The subscript.t .. qi is the outflo atershed area. and the analytical solution for discharge for this system for the 8-th reservoir is expressed in S&uation 2. S&uation 2. a% is the for a particular reservoir. the first reservoir receives the initial charge of ater.t A5 . i .5.5-. i .1.
! The accumulated responses are given by t 8 −( t −τ ( (t − τ ! exp(− q 8 (t ! = ∫ Aq. ⋅ 8 −( t t ( 8 −(!Wt (2.04!. the individual responses (S&.( = 5 4 = 5 2 = 5 8 = 5 5o ( − 5( t ( 5( t ( − 54 t ( 54 t ( − 52 t ( 5 8 −( t ( − 58 t .?3! and is incorporated into many standard hydrology programs such as the 1"**)%% model (%ock ood et.53! The result in e&uation 2. (τ ! ⋅ ! dτ . q 8 . 8 −( t t Γ ( 8 ! t .! are convolved and the result of the convolution is the output from the atershed. If each input is represented by the product of a rate and time interval (5o't( " qo't( dt! then the individual response is (note the +amma function is substituted for the factorial! 8 −( t −τ ( (t − τ ! exp(− dqi . (2.53 is identical to the 6ash model (6ash (. 8 −( t t Γ( 8 !t (2. (2.! To model the response to a time-series of precipitation inputs. (. (τ ! ⋅ ! dτ .?(! 50 .?. The factorial can be replaced by the +amma function (6auman and 'uffham. al.32! and the result can be extended to non-integer number of reservoirs. t 8 −( t ( exp(− ! . (.5.τ = Aq. 2.t = A5 .5.
(τ ! 8 −( t −τ ( (t −τ ! exp(− : (t −τ ! = A ⋅ ! 8 −( t t Γ( 8 !t (2.t = 4a%t5 i .33!. respectively. The discharge and mass balances for the %ayleigh case are given as S&uations 2. is convolution integral in 1hapter 0 in 1ho . (2.8. .?( represents the atershed response to an input time series. 0 (t ! = ∫ .S&uation 2. The reason for representing the function as being derived from a cascade is that this derivation provides a 8physical9 meaning to the distribution parameters. .t − 4a%t5 i . (τ !: (t −τ ! dτ .t . Ra)#ei-& Reser*oir Casca'e ) %ayleigh response is developed in the same fashion as the gamma.?2! Fe call the kernel ( :'t <τ( ! for the linear reservoir a gamma response because the kernel is essentially a gamma probability distribution.?5! (2. A5 53 . The analysis is repeated for the %ayleigh and Feibull distributions.??! i . 3.?5 and 2. (τ ! = q .t = Aq i −(. Aq i .?4. et al ((. except the %ayleigh reservoir element is used instead of the linear (gamma! response.??.t .?4! The analogs to our present ork are as follo s (1ho As variable list is sho n on the left of the e&ualities!D 0 (t ! = q 8 (t ! . an overvie repeated as S&uation 2. The of that ork. t (2.
(.! i .?0! S&uation 2.-.04! that he developed from statistical-mechanical analysis. (τ ! ⋅ 4 exp(− !dτ .8.?-! The analytical solution for any reservoir is expressed in S&uation 2.?. 6eibu## Reser*oir Casca'e ) Feibull response is developed in the same fashion as the gamma by substitution of the Feibull reservoir element in the analysis. 5. A5 The entire atershed response is again expressed as a system of linear ordinary differential e&uations: S&uation 2. and 2. respectively.3.t . 4 8 −( t4 t Γ( 8 !(t ! . .-. (2.The entire atershed response is expressed as the system of linear ordinary differential e&uations in S&uation 2. ( = 5 4 = 5 2 = 5 8 = 5 5o t − 4 5( t t 4 5( t t − 4 54 t t 4 54 t t − 4 52 t t 4 5 8 −( t t − 4 58 t (2.?0. ⋅ 4 t 4 8 −( t 4 (t ! Γ( 8 !(t 4 ! 8 −( exp(−( t ! ! .t . (2. t q 8 .-(.?3 gives the convolution integral using this kernel. 4 8 −( (t − τ ! 4 t − τ ((t − τ ! ! qi (t ! = ∫ 4 Aq .t = 4a%t5 i .?.?-.t = 4 A5 . t (2. 3.! (2. Aq i .t = Aq i −(..?3! This distribution is identical to <einhardAs 8hydrograph distribution9 (<einhard. The discharge and mass balances are given as S&uations 2.t − 4a%t5 i .
(τ ! ⋅ exp( − ! dτ . t (t − τ ! p −( ((t − τ ! p ! 8 −( (t − τ ! p qi (t ! = ∫ pAq . t p −( (t p ! 8 −( t p q 8 .( = 5 4 = 5 2 = 5 8 = 5 5o −p p t p −( 5( t t p −( 5( t −p p t p −( 54 t t p −( 54 t −p t p −( 52 t t p −( 58 t (2. ?.-(! p t p −( t 5 8 −( −p The analytical solution to this system for any reservoir is expressed in S&uation 2. The t term controls the scale of the hydrograph.t = pA5 . (2. e program e can investigate other models by restricting parameter values. . p Γ( 8 !t 8 −( t t . thus if a Feibull-type model as the IUH. 4. The parameters have the follo ing impacts on the discharge functionD (. (2. If p is greater than one.-2.-4! The accumulated responses to a time series of precipitation input are given by S&uation 2. ⋅ tp Γ( 8 !(t p ! 8 −( exp(−( t ! ! .-4.-2! The utility of the Feibull model is that both the linear cascade (exponential! and the %ayleigh cascade are special cases of the generali#ed Feibull model. then decay is fast (steep falling limb!: if p is less than one then the decay is slo (long falling limb!. The po er term controls the decay rate of the hydrograph (shape of the falling limb!. It simultaneously establishes the location of the peak and the magnitude of the peak.
controls the lag bet een the input and the response. the distribution parameters are determined from ?( .2. as ell as the shape of the hydrograph. The next chapter describes ho observations. 8. The reservoir number.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.