Adjustment Factors for

Unsteady State-Discharge Measurements

N. Ozbey,
THIESS Hydrographic Services
Symes Road
Woori Yallock VIC 3139
AUSTRALIA
E-mail: nozbey@thiess-services.com.au

Abstract: The effect of hysteresis or loop rating is most significant for mild sloped streams where
backwater effects from downstream are not negligible and reaches downstream of locks or gates
during periods of releases.
SonTek Acoustic Doppler Velocity Meters were deployed at selected stream gauging sites with natural
controls and irregular cross sections through Victoria. ADVM’s flows were calibrated and verified with
discharge measurements. Uncertainties in flows were estimated utilising the method articulated in the
International Standard, ISO 15769.Steady flow rating curves were derived from loop. Adjustment
factor, 1/vwSc and, Sc0.5/n (the term as an integrated parameter in Manning’s Equation) of discharges
recorded during the events were calculated. Relationships between these terms were sought for the
sites with different hydraulic characteristics. The term of Manning Equation, as a single parameter,
were calculated for two sections in close proximity. Results indicate that unsteady state - discharge
measurements at a gauging site can be calibrated with a family of curves by evaluating 1/vwSc as a
single parameter utilising the Jones Formula based on kinematic wave assumption.

Keywords: Unsteady State-discharge, Hysteresis, and Adjustment Factor.

1. INTRODUCTION
In a stream gauging network, the conventional method is used to produce flow data. Water level is
recorded continuously; periodic discharge measurements are undertaken to develop or to verify a
stage-discharge relationship, which then is utilised to convert continuous water level information to
flow data. The conventional method is only applicable when flow is classified as steady flow, energy
gradient as a flow parameter, like many other parameters, is not changing with time.

Discharge for a given stage when flow is unsteady will be greater than the steady flow discharge
during rising stages and less than normal during falling stages. This effect is known as hysteresis, or
loop rating. It is most substantial for very mild sloped streams where backwater effects from
downstream disturbances are not negligible and at stream reaches downstream of weirs, gates or
locks during periods of releases and for streams in urban areas where runoff is accelerated because
of drainage improvement. In many cases, it may not be possible to obtain discharge measurements at
a flood peak; hence an extrapolation of a rating table beyond maximum measured discharge is
required. The high flow extrapolation techniques based on steady flow equations relay on fewer
discharge measurements which are generally undertaken when flow in a river was classified as
unsteady state-flow. Inevitably, uncorrected discharges will introduce additional systematic error in
estimated peak discharge and volumes where large and complex loop curves occur, casts doubt on
reliability of flood estimate.

Several formulas derived from the momentum equation were developed to correct the unsteady flow
discharge value. The Jones Formula is the oldest and the most well-known of those, offering solutions
to the problem (Jones 1915). The summaries of these studies and the comments on applicability of
them were articulated by Fenton (Fenton et al 2001) and Dottori. (Dottori et al 2009) In these
equations, assumptions are made and a number of coefficients are used, which might vary from
section to section in field conditions, depending on physical features of reaches and nature of events.
This will introduce significant uncertainty and calculated flow, and presents genuine challenges for the
engineers.

PREPRESS PROOF FILE 1 CAUSAL PRODUCTIONS

Recently the usage of Acoustic Doppler Velocity Meter (ADVM) has provided a valuable tool to
quantify the impact of hysteresis on accuracy of hydrograpic data. The instruments were deployed at
selected stream gauging sites across the Victoria Stream Gauging Network to collect flow data during
the floods so that the stage discharge relationships of the stream gauging sites for high flows were
verified and the reliability of flood estimates were improved. The data collected during the flood events
also presented a unique opportunity to examine natures of the loops occurring at these sites and the
relationships between steady and unsteady flow discharges. In this study, “the Jones Formula” was
tested utilizing the verified and calibrated flow data from ADVMs deployed at natural rivers with
irregular cross sections.

2. THE JONES FORMULA

Jones has derived his well-known formula from Chezy’s equation for the flow of water in open
channels utilising theoretical slope diagram. The Jones formula which is based on kinematic wave
theory neglecting “attenuation”, the reduction in the peak of a hydrograph as a wave moves
downstream, may be written:

(1)

Where; Q1 and Q2 are steady and unsteady state discharges respectively, S1 is slope of the stream at
constant flow, “velocity” is the speed of wave.

Jones also argued that “the increase in slope” between two points a short distance apart in channel
during a flood event “equals the rate of change of stage divided” by the speed of flood. “The mean
velocity at downstream point is increased not at the rate of the slow mowing mean velocity at
upstream point, but more nearly at the rate of the surface velocity”. For that reason it is assumed that
“the flood travels very nearly at the rate of the surface velocity and the speed of flood can be
estimated from mean velocity of a measurement divided by 0.9 for large rivers and 0.85 for the smaller
streams”. (Jones, 1915: 119-120)

As it was stated by Petersen-Øverleir, “The Jones formula is based on several simplifying

assumptions, some of which will never be fully met in any natural river. Applying it to model hysteresis
in rating curves caused by unsteady flow will, in most cases, imply an unknown amount of trade-off
between model bias and model simplicity.” (Petersen-Øverleir, 2006: 375) Fenton and Keller have
suggested an extension to the Jones formula. The diffusion term they added in Jones Formula
accounts for the effects of flow attenuation. They argued that although “a widely held opinion is that
the Jones formula is not accurate… indeed it is not accurate in predicting the peak flow however over
almost entire flood it is accurate and predicts the time of the flood peak well” although “a widely held
opinion is that the Jones formula was not accurate”. (Fenton 2001: 18)

3. SELECTED STREAM GAUGING SITES

An ideal measurement site for ADVM deployment should have smooth and even surface conditions,
should be free from weed growth, turbulence and variable flows especially during a flood event. The
most suitable section was selected which were in very close proximity to the existing stream gauging
sites. Goulburn R. at Murchison: The site is located approximately 30 km. downstream from the
Goulburn Weir. 60 m. wide-river is confined to a main channel up to 10 m. Anabranching consists of
multiple bridges at high flows. Goulburn R. at McCoy: The site is located approximately 70.6 km
upstream from Murray River confluence. 45 m. wide-river is confined to a main channel up to 7 m.
Floodplains at both banks stretch for 400 m. Anabranching consists of multiple channels and creeks at
high flows. Latrobe R. at Kilmany: The site is located approximately 15 km. upstream from Thomson
River confluence. 20 m. wide-river is confined to a main channel up to 4.9 m. There are two major
anabranches at high flows. Thomson R. at Bundalaguah: The site is located approximately 15 km.
upstream from Latrobe River Confluence. 50 m. wide river is confined to a main channel up to 9.0 m.
Mitchell R. at Rosehill: Typically 40 m. wide river is confined to a main channel up to 7.50 m.
Floodplain on the right bank stretches for 1.5 km. Wimmera R. at Huddleston: 15 m. wide river is
confined to a main channel up to 3.3 m. Floodplains at both banks stretch for kilometers.

2
 Figure 1 Adjustment Factors vs. the term, Steady flow rating table and loop rating & observed
discharges, errors in calculated discharges at Murchison

Figure 2 Adjustment Factors vs. the term, Steady flow rating table and loop rating & Observed
discharges, errors in calculated discharges at McCoy

3.1. Uncertainty in discharges

Quantifying flow is imperative to establish objective and transparent communication between data
analysts and users. The existing method (ISO 1100/2) to estimate uncertainty in flow is applicable for
steady flow rating curves and is not appropriate for the estimation of uncertainty in discharge when
flow is classified as unsteady. Although some correction methods are recommended for unsteady flow
discharge measurement, inevitably, assumptions or estimations made for flow resistance and water
surface slope in this process will introduce “uncertainty in the estimated uncertainty in discharge”.
(Ozbey et al 2008)

The method articulated in International Standard (ISO-15769 2010) was used to quantify the flow
recorded during the events at Kilmany, Murchison and McCoy; 8, 13 and 9 calibration measurements
were undertaken during the floods events respectively. It should be noted that the sites have
insufficient gauged discharge measurements to meet the minimum number of gaugings, ISO 1100/2
recommends that at least 20 measurements, required for a “statistically valid” analysis of the
uncertainty associated with the current rating table. Uncertainties in discharges at 95% confidence
level at these sites are estimated between ±4.5 and ±10.0% varying with discharges. (Figure 3) The
flows at other four sites were calibrated by utilizing the calibration measurements available and the
established rating tables of existing stream gauging sites. All discharge measurements were
undertaken these flood events.

Turbulence and variable flows can cause large standard error. Hence ADVM was set to collect velocity
and water level for 810 seconds (one measurement per second) within 900 seconds sampling period
to reduce noise in data therefore uncertainty in data. Discharge measurement, which was the average
of 810 readings, was undertaken every 15 minutes for entire flood period.

3.2. Steady flow rating curves

The individual flood waves describe individual loops in the rating. It was experienced that a steady

3
flow rating curve for an event derived from a loop rating curve yielded a different volume when it was
used for another flow event. For this reason traditional method, “power law stage discharge relation”
recommended by International Standard (ISO 1100/2) and other relevant documents (Venetis 1970),
(Herschy 1999), (Petersen-Øverleir 2005), is not utilized. A polynomial fitting to each set of points is
used to develop steady flow rating curve for individual loop. The steady flow rating tables are skewed
to obtain equal volumes to that complex multi loop curves produce. Once the flow is calibrated using
the index rating table process (ISO-15769 2010), the steady flow rating table is produced for individual
loop ratings by utilizing commercially available a software package. The algorithm which yields
identical volume of loop rating curve for an event is chosen.

Figure 3 Uncertainties in Discharges estimated for the loop rating recorded at Murchison

3.3. Adjustment Factor and Manning Term as an integrated parameters

The Jones formula above is re-organised as below,

(2)

Where, Qc and Qm are steady and unsteady state discharges respectively, Sc is slope of the stream at
constant flow, vw is the speed of wave, dh/dt is the rate of change of stage with respect to time.

Since water surface slope of a site usually varies with gauge height; it requires establishing additional
stream gauging sites upstream and downstream of a site to obtain steady flow water surface slope for
entire water level ranges. The precision and accuracy of instrument recording water level is also
imperative to estimate water surface slope for a relatively flat stream.

A relation between the Adjustment Factor and the water level may provide a sound solution for a
particular site. But water level recorded at a location upstream of the site or at any other location within
a catchment, as independent variable, will say nothing about the Adjustment Factor which is a
dependant variable changing spatially and temporally, while the size and shape of a loop rating curve
is a function of water surface slope, channel roughness, and rate of change of stage. In this study, the
0.5
relationship between the Manning Term, Sc /n and the Adjustment Factor, 1/vwSc, is sought because
the Manning Terms as integrated parameters of a section can be related to the Adjustment Factors
derived for another section on a river. Such an approach eliminates the need to make any assumption
on the slope, Sc, or Manning Roughness, n, as individual parameters which present a significant
challenge for hydrographers and engineers. As a result no uncertainty in the calculation of any
parameter due to assumption or estimation is introduced.

Large Scatter in calculated Adjustment Factors

The adjustment factors estimated for the events have showed large scatter. (Figures1, 2 above and 4
below) As demonstrated in the Table 1, the combination of the factors such as uncertainties in
discharge records, which is estimated ±4.5% at 95 confidence levels in measurements below, and
natural fluctuation in velocity may yield significant differences in the calculated adjustment factors
utilising the equation 2 above. The curve fitting to the points is plotted by eye utilising 150 and 5200
discharge measurements varying with flood periods which were undertaken during each event.

4
 Table 1 Estimated uncertainty in consecutive discharges and calculated adjustment factors

Consecutive Steady Flow Adjustment Uncertainty Discharge at Adjustment

Observed Dis. from rating Factor at 95% level 95% level Factor for Dis.
Dis. (Cumecs) (Cumecs) at 95% Level
42.286 42.680 2406 4.46% 40.399 13619
42.497 42.615 815 4.46% 40.602 13553
41.219 42.550 9237 4.48% 39.372 21568

4. ANALYSIS OF RESULTS FOR THE METHODS

The Adjustment Factors and Manning Terms are calculated for each measurement and are plotted
against each other. Then a curve, (red dots with a line in Figure 4 right hand-side), is fitted to the
points by eye. The corresponding Adjustment Factors of the Manning Terms derived from this relation
are used in the calculation for each individual event.

Method yields accurate results including for the events when multi-loop curves were formed.
Differences between observed and calculated volumes of the events are within 1.1% with exceptions
at two occasions which were 1.6% and 2.2% respectively. The method also predicts the peak
discharges within ±4.5% of observed discharges. (Table 3) One of the strengths of the method is that
it does not neglect the variation in Adjustment Factor with the Manning Term and provides very
accurate approximation in estimating volumes as well as the peak discharges observed at a particular
site.

The data collected from all sites during the number of events as illustrated in Figure 4-left hand side
below has indicated that, there is a sound relationship between Manning Terms as an integrated
th
parameter and Adjustment Factors. A 5 degree polynomial curve is fitted to the points for selected
events. Method yields slightly less accurate results including for the events when multi-loop curves
were formed. Differences between observed and calculated volumes of the events are within 1.1%
with exceptions at two occasions which were 1.6% and 2.2% respectively. The method also predicts
the peak discharges within ±4.5% of observed discharges. (Table 3 and, Figure 4) One of the
strengths of the method is that it does not neglect the variation in Adjustment Factor with the Manning
Term and provides very accurate approximation in estimating volumes as well as the peak discharges
observed at a particular site.

Figure 4 The Manning Terms as integrated parameters vs. Adjustment Factors for selected
events and individual event

For the second method application; the Adjustment Factors are calculated for each discharge
measurement. The median of the series of Adjustment Factors is used to regenerate unsteady flow
discharges and volumes.
The results are summarized in Table 3 based on the median values of Adjustment Factors calculated
for each event separately. The calculated volumes and peak discharges are within ±1.7% and 3.3% of
observed values respectively, which are well within estimated uncertainties in observed discharges.

5
The method generated reasonable results including for the events when multi-loop curves were
formed. (Table 3, Figure 5 left hand side)

Figure 5 Adjustment Factors vs. the Manning Terms as the median of series for a single event
and Adjustment Factors vs. the Manning Term - the medians of series for all sites

Similarly a relationship between the medians of Adjustment Factors and Manning Terms of the series
for the events recorded at the sites is sought and a linear equation for Adjustment Factor as a function
of Manning Term is derived. (See Figure 5 on right hand side) One of the reasons of relatively larger
scatter of the adjustment factors for the lower ranges of the term is that the steady flow rating curves
are skewed at different rate to produce equal volumes of looped rating curves when the multi peaks
hydrograph occurred. As a result the adjustment factors for single looped rating produced by a single
hydrograph event differed from the adjustment factors for a complex-looped rating of a multi peaks
hydrograph.

It should be cited that the adjustment for an unsteady flow discharge is not a simple mathematical
calculation process. The shape of hydrograph, channel characteristic not reflected in the Manning
Term and other factors such as impact of a weir located upstream or downstream or a confluence with
another river in the vicinity of a site must be examined carefully before any adjustment is made. It is
also recognized that the physical mechanisms governing river flow in natural channels are intricate
and diverge significantly temporally and spatially. The nonlinearity of stream flow in natural river
system makes it necessary to simplify the process for practicality. As Aristotle, a philosopher warned
us that “in undertaking any study one should not expect more precision than the nature of subject
matter admits”. In this study, the physical discharge measurements undertaken during the floods and
the Jones formula, “which is based on several simplifying assumptions, some of which will never be
fully meet in any natural river,” are used to develop relationships between Manning Terms and
Adjustment Factors. The methods provide sound guidelines to make an adjustment for unsteady flow
discharge measurement but will not substitute for critical thinking.

The results from these analyses have indicated that the Methods utilizing a representative Adjustment
Factor or a relationship between the Terms are stable and “would thus lend itself best for developing a
general method for broad application by practicing hydrographers”.

The exercises has revealed that the conventional rating table is not adequate to estimate peak
discharge at a site where the hysteresis effect is significant and does not yield accurate results for the
entire volume of an event if a multi peak hydrograph occurs, it does not provide accurate data if multi-
loop curve occurs due to combined hydrographs. Complex flow conditions at many potential stream
gauging stations which are subject to variable backwater negates stable stage discharge ratings and
make the use of conventional methods impractical or impossible. (See Figure 6 below) Acoustic
Doppler technology provides cost-effective and sound solutions for both cases to record flow
accurately.

6
 Table 2 Summary of observed and calculated discharges and volumes for the events

VOLUMES, ML Peak Discharges, m3/s

From Deviation from Method Deviation from From single Deviation from From Method From single
Observed Curve Observed Median Observed curve* Observed Observed Curve Deviation Median Deviation curve Deviation
3 3 3 3
Site Event ML ML % ML % ML % m /s m /s % m /s % m /s %
Murchison 1st Peak 456 455 -0.3% 458 0.4% 460 0.8% 20.38 20.26 -0.6% 20.34 -0.2% 20.3 -0.3%
Murchison 2nd Peak 24129 23886 -1.0% 23906 -0.9% 23852 -1.1% 101.60 101.49 -0.1% 102.31 0.7% 100.3 -1.3%
Murchison 3rd Peak 12569 12452 -0.9% 12451 -0.9% 12430 -1.1% 65.49 65.33 -0.3% 65.65 0.2% 65.6 0.1%
Murchison 4th Peak 48314 48061 -0.5% 48071 -0.5% 48155 -0.3% 149.60 147.69 -1.3% 149.03 -0.4% 147.6 -1.4%
Murchison 4th-I Peak 88874 88286 -0.7% 88148 -0.8% 88521 -0.4% 216.40 209.87 -3.0% 210.39 -2.8% 215.6 -0.4%
Murchison 4th-II Peak 86347 86033 -0.4% 86082 -0.3% 86206 -0.2% 170.82 163.24 -4.4% 163.11 -4.5% 166.4 -2.6%
Murchison 5th Peak 343956 340727 -0.9% 341583 -0.7% 342509 -0.4% 565.82 561.85 -0.7% 563.86 -0.3% 563.7 -0.4%
Murchison 6th Peak 73808 73448 -0.5% 73437 -0.5% 73597 -0.3% 112.55 110.68 -1.7% 110.07 -2.2% 107.9 -4.1%
Murchison 7th Peak 84884 84105 -0.9% 84239 -0.8% 84346 -0.6% 175.83 177.75 1.1% 177.27 0.8% 177.0 0.7%
Murchison 8th Peak 10243 10199 -0.4% 10207 -0.3% 10169 -0.7% 41.40 41.14 -0.6% 41.15 -0.6% 41.2 -0.6%
Murchison 8th-II Peak 5173 5149 -0.5% 5151 -0.4% 5136 -0.7% 41.40 41.23 -0.4% 41.24 -0.4% 41.3 -0.3%
Murchison 9th-I Peak 176954 173922 -1.7% 174003 -1.7% 174103 -1.6% 430.59 420.03 -2.5% 417.54 -3.0% 410.8 -4.6%
Murchison 9th-II Peak 83678 83371 -0.4% 83388 -0.3% 83647 0.0% 334.08 275.25 0.1% 335.37 0.4% 343.3 2.8%
Murchison 9th-III Peak 39988 39804 -0.5% 39882 -0.3% 39786 -0.5% 232.51 228.30 1.7% 229.63 -1.2% 235.6 1.3%
Murchison 9th-IV Peak 185501 183946 -0.8% 183237 -1.2% 184009 -0.8% 510.26 504.93 -1.0% 503.23 -1.4% 505.3 -1.0%
Kilamany 2nd Peak 8785 8784 0.0% 8784 0.0% 8786 0.0% 25.71 25.72 0.1% 25.72 0.1% 25.7 0.1%
Kilamany 3rd Peak 22041 22031 0.0% 22029 -0.1% 22030 0.0% 47.59 47.06 -1.1% 47.05 -1.1% 47.0 -1.2%
Kilamany 4th Peak 54930 54932 0.0% 54938 0.0% 54933 0.0% 46.09 46.26 0.4% 46.25 0.3% 46.3 0.3%
7

Kilamany 5th Peak 60069 60060 0.0% 60057 0.0% 60062 0.0% 38.52 38.58 0.1% 38.60 0.2% 50.4 0.1%
Kilamany 6th Peak 42517 42513 0.0% 42516 0.0% 42515 0.0% 51.36 50.08 -2.5% 50.08 -2.5% 50.1 -2.5%
Kilamany 7th Peak 12721 12582 -1.1% 12582 -1.1% 12583 -1.1% 36.09 35.40 -1.9% 35.39 -1.9% 35.4 -1.9%
Kilamany 8th Peak 16350 16351 0.0% 16352 0.0% 16335 -0.1% 41.23 41.31 0.2% 41.32 0.2% 41.3 0.2%
Bundalahuah 1st Peak 7763 7757 -0.1% 7757 -0.1% 7757 -0.1% 35.55 35.56 0.0% 35.56 0.0% 35.6 0.0%
Bundalahuah 2nd Peak 5981 5981 0.0% 5981 0.0% 5980 0.0% 19.40 19.33 -0.3% 19.33 -0.3% 19.3 -0.5%
Bundalahuah 3rd Peak 17373 17360 -0.1% 17359 -0.1% 17530 0.9% 57.82 57.64 -0.3% 57.64 -0.3% 57.6 -0.3%
Bundalahuah 4th Peak 11925 11923 0.0% 11928 0.0% 11947 0.2% 46.93 47.03 0.2% 47.03 0.2% 47.0 0.2%
Bundalahuah 5th Peak 26878 26863 -0.1% 26862 -0.1% 26843 -0.1% 65.68 65.42 -0.4% 65.41 -0.4% 65.4 -0.5%
McCoys 2nd Peak 26491 26419 -0.3% 26404 -0.3% 26457 -0.1% 71.30 70.30 -1.4% 70.15 -1.6% 69.2 -3.0%
McCoys 3rd Peak 123156 122652 -0.4% 122697 -0.4% 123023 -0.1% 165.62 159.98 -3.4% 160.07 -3.3% 158.7 -4.2%
McCoys 4th Peak 134394 134133 -0.2% 133815 -0.4% 134237 -0.1% 187.33 191.12 2.0% 191.04 2.0% 191.2 2.1%
McCoys 5th Peak 466686 468820 0.5% 469098 0.5% 469460 0.6% 505.88 506.53 0.1% 512.53 1.3% 501.8 -0.8%
McCoys 5th-1 Peak 903647 901970 -0.2% 901205 -0.3% 903154 -0.1% 146.57 144.16 -1.6% 144.27 -1.6% 143.9 -1.8%
McCoys 6th Peak 17106 17099 0.0% 17099 0.0% 17103 0.0% 51.26 50.86 -0.8% 50.86 -0.8% 50.9 -0.8%
McCoys 7th Peak 544143 543173 -0.2% 554977 2.0% 555112 -0.4% 483.40 482.41 -0.2% 481.12 -0.5% 482.6 -0.2%
Rosehill 1st Peak 26400 26358 -0.2% 26363 -0.1% 26346 -0.2% 104.78 105.03 0.2% 105.05 0.3% 104.6 -0.2%
Rosehill 2nd Peak 41624 41571 -0.1% 41575 -0.1% 41557 -0.2% 101.98 101.82 -0.2% 101.82 -0.2% 101.9 -0.1%
Rosehill 4th Peak 20946 20908 -0.2% 20930 -0.1% 20930 -0.1% 111.43 110.46 -0.9% 109.64 -0.1% 111.8 0.4%
Rosehill 5h Peak 67174 67120 -0.1% 67118 -0.1% 67013 -0.2% 243.51 238.90 -1.9% 241.66 0.9% 242.1 -0.6%
Huddleston 1st peak 4951 4950 0.0% 4949 0.0% 4950 0.0% 15.43 15.35 -0.5% 15.32 -0.7% 15.3 -0.9%
Huddleston 2nd Peak 20879 20871 0.0% 20858 -0.1% 20872 0.0% 34.17 34.29 0.3% 34.29 0.3% 34.3 0.4%
* The volumes and peak discharges are produced utilizing 5th degree polynomial equation, representing generalized relation between the terms
 Figure 6 Events recorded at Murchison – Time series for the stage and the loop rating curves

5. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This project was commissioned and part funded by DSE. The author of this report sincerely thanks
John Cameron, Sabina Schreiber and Adrian Spall from DSE for their ongoing support and
commitment to providing high quality water resource information. THIESS acknowledges the support
provided by the Federal Government through the Bureau of Meteorology’s Modernisation and
Extension of Hydrologic Systems funding program. The author of this paper also thanks THIESS
Hydrographic Services Maffra, Tatura and Kerang Regional Offices for support on this research.

6. REFERENCES
Dottori, F., and Todini E., (2010) “A dynamic rating curve approach to indirect discharge measurement”:
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 13, 847–863
Fenton, D.J., Keller R. J., (2001) “The calculation of Streamflow from Measurement of Stage”:
Cooperative Research Centre for Catchment Hydrology Technical Report 01/6, pp 13-15
Fenton, J. D., (2001) “Rating Curve: Part 1 – Correction for Surface Slope”: Paper presented to
Conference on Hydraulics in Civil Engineering Hobart 28-30 November 2001, pp 309-317
Herschy, R.W., (1999) “Flow measurements”: Hydrometry: Principles and Practices, Wiley, England
ISO 15769, First edition (2010) Hydrometry — “Guidelines for the application of acoustic velocity meters
using the Doppler and echo correlation methods”: International Standard
ISO 1100-2, (1998/Cor.1:2000) “Determination of the stage-discharge relationship”: International
Standard
Jones, B.E. (1915) “A Method of Correcting River Discharge For a Changing Stage-Contribution to the
hydrology of the United Sates”: U.S Geological Survey Water Supply paper 375-E
Koussis, A.D., (2009) “Comment on A dynamic rating curve approach to indirect discharge
measurement: by Dottori et al” Institute for Environmental Research & Sustainable Development,
National Observatory of Athens, Athens, Greece-Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. Discuss., 6, 7429–7437
Laenen, A. and Curtis R.E., (1989) “Accuracy of acoustic velocity metering systems for measurement of
low velocity in open channels”: US Geological Survey, Water Resources Investigations Report 89-4090
Ozbey N., Scanlon P., Western A. (2008) “Investigating the uncertainty in flow at gauging sites in
Gippsland using Australian Standard 3778.2.3.”: Paper presented to Conference, “WATER DOWN
UNDER 2008”, Adelaide
Petersen-Øverleir, A., (2009) “Modelling stage—discharge relationships affected by hysteresis using the
Jones formula and nonlinear regression”: Hydrological Sciences Journal, 51: 3, 365 — 388
Petersen-Øverleir, A., (2005) “A hydraulics perspective on the power-law stage-discharge rating
curve”: Report No: 5-05, Oslo
Venetis, C., (1970) “A note on the estimation of the parameters in logarithmic stage–discharge
relationships with estimation of their error” Bulletin IASH 15, 105–111.