Hydrological Sciences Journal

ISSN: 0262-6667 (Print) 2150-3435 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/thsj20

Clark's and Espey's unit hydrographs vs the

gamma unit hydrograph / Les hydrogrammes
unitaires de Clark et de Espey vs l'hydrogramme
unitaire de forme loi gamma

Sushil K. Singh

To cite this article: Sushil K. Singh (2005) Clark's and Espey's unit hydrographs vs the gamma
unit hydrograph / Les hydrogrammes unitaires de Clark et de Espey vs l'hydrogramme unitaire de
forme loi gamma, Hydrological Sciences Journal, 50:6, -1067, DOI: 10.1623/hysj.2005.50.6.1053

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1623/hysj.2005.50.6.1053

Published online: 15 Dec 2009.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1274

View related articles

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=thsj20
 Hydrological Sciences–Journal–des Sciences Hydrologiques, 50(6) December 2005 1053

Clark’s and Espey’s unit hydrographs vs the

gamma unit hydrograph

SUSHIL K. SINGH
National Institute of Hydrology Roorkee, Roorkee 247 667, Uttar Anchal, India
sukusi1@yahoo.com

Abstract A two-parameter gamma distribution for synthetic unit hydrographs (SUH)

is compared with the Clark’s and Espey’s SUHs. A critical comparison of Clark’s and
gamma UHs, in terms of recession characteristics and time–area curve, is presented. It
is observed that, in principle, a gamma UH can represent the hydrograph recession
better than the Clark’s UH does. Selection of a time–area curve is needed for
obtaining the Clark’s UH. The main problem in developing a SUH using the Clark’s
method is identified as the non-availability of a parametric form of the time–area
curve. The time–area curve as represented in the hydrological model HEC-1, for the
use in Clark’s method, is found inadequate and unjustified. Gamma UHs obtained
without optimization, for several examples, are found consistent with their physical
meanings and better than the respective Clark’s UH in reproducing runoff obtained
with optimization. The parameters of Clark’s UH (i.e. time of concentration and
recession constant), as optimized through the HEC-1 program, are found inconsistent
with their empirical origins and physical meanings; these lose their physical meaning
and serve only as fitting parameters. This is due to the inappropriate time–area curve.
A gamma UH has also the advantage of having fewer parameters than Clark’s UH,
which makes it more identifiable while still maintaining a connection with the physics
of the problem. Espey’s SUH for urban watersheds is transmuted to a gamma
distribution using the empirical equations for the peak and time to peak of the UH. A
numerical UH for a gauged catchment, generally obtained through linear program-
ming or a least-squares approach, can be easily transmuted to a gamma UH and,
hence, can be given a conceptual interpretation. Thus, these can also be used for
developing a SUH.
Key words Clark’s unit hydrograph; Espey’s unit hydrograph; gamma distribution;
rainfall–runoff modelling; synthetic unit hydrograph; unit hydrograph
Les hydrogrammes unitaires de Clark et de Espey vs l’hydrogramme
unitaire de forme loi gamma
Résumé Des hydrogrammes unitaires synthétiques (HUS) basés sur une loi gamma à
deux paramètres sont comparés avec les HUS de Clark et de Espey. Une comparaison
critique des HUs de Clark et de forme loi gamma est présentée, en termes de
caractéristiques de décrue et de courbe temps–aire. Il apparaît que, en principe, un HU
de forme loi gamma peut mieux représenter la décrue que ne le fait l’HU de Clark. La
sélection d’une courbe temps–aire est nécessaire pour obtenir l’HU de Clark. Le
principal problème lors de l’élaboration d’un HUS à partir de la méthode de Clark
apparaît être l’indisponibilité d’une forme paramétrique de la courbe temps–aire. La
courbe temps–aire, telle qu’elle est représentée dans le modèle hydrologique HEC-1,
se révèle être inadéquate et injustifiée pour la mise en œuvre de la méthode de Clark.
Les HUs de forme loi gamma obtenus sans optimisation, pour plusieurs exemples,
sont cohérents avec leurs significations physiques et en outre meilleurs, pour la
reproduction du débit, que les HUs de Clark correspondant obtenus par optimisation.
Les paramètres de l’HU de Clark (i.e. temps de concentration et constante de décrue),
optimisés grâce au programme HEC-1, apparaissent être incohérents avec leurs
origines empiriques et leurs significations physiques. Ils perdent leur signification
physique et ne servent que comme paramètres d’ajustement. Cela est dû à la courbe
temps–aire inappropriée. Un HU de forme loi gamma a également l’avantage d’avoir
moins de paramètres que l’HU de Clark, ce qui le rend mieux identifiable tout en
maintenant un lien avec la physique du problème. L’HUS d’Espey pour les bassins
versants urbains est transformé en une loi gamma via l’utilisation des équations
empiriques du pic et du temps de montée de l’HU. L’HU numérique d’un bassin
versant jaugé, généralement obtenu par programmation linéaire ou par une approche
des moindres carrés, peut être aisément transformé en un HU de forme loi gamma et

Open for discussion until 1 June 2006 Copyright  2005 IAHS Press
1054 Sushil K. Singh

bénéficier ainsi d’une interprétation conceptuelle. Cela peut donc également être
utilisé pour élaborer un HUS.
Mots clefs hydrogramme unitaire de Clark; hydrogramme unitaire de Espey; loi gamma;
modélisation pluie–débit; hydrogramme unitaire synthétique; hydrogramme unitaire

INTRODUCTION

Simulation and prediction of storm runoff for gauged or ungauged catchments is a

prime concern of hydrologists. Computationally simple procedures giving acceptable
results have mostly been preferred. Although not fully justified in representing
physical processes, the unit hydrograph (UH) approach offers such a procedure and is
widely used for simulating and predicting event-based storm runoff. The UH approach
is also used for the simulation of continuous streamflow (e.g. Littlewood, 2003). Even
in the present era of high-speed computers, the UH approach is being employed in
hydrological models (e.g. HEC-1, 1990). A synthetic UH (SUH) is used in place of a
UH for ungauged catchments. A SUH is obtained mostly using the methods developed
by Snyder (1938), Clark (1945), Gray (1961) and NRCS (1972) [previously SCS
(1972)]. Singh (2000) showed that the popular SUHs (Snyder, 1938; NRCS, 1972;
Gray, 1961) can be easily transmuted to a two-parameter gamma distribution. He also
observed that the UHs obtained using the NRCS and Snyder approaches are subject to
serious conceptual errors. Espey et al. (1977) gave a procedure for obtaining a SUH
for urban drainage studies based on Snyder’s concept.
In this paper, the UH methods of Clark (1945) and Espey et al. (1977) are analysed
vis-à-vis a two-parameter gamma distribution for modelling event-based storm runoff.
The recession characteristics and time–area curve as used in the Clark’s method are
scrutinized with special reference to the HEC-1 application. It is shown that the widely
used Clark’s method for UH derivation yields results inconsistent with its empirical
origin. Transmutability of numerical UHs obtained using other methods, to a gamma
UH, is also presented and discussed.

BACKGROUND
Clark’s method uses a time–area curve and its routing through a linear reservoir that
has a constant storage factor for calculating a runoff hydrograph resulting from a given
rainfall excess. Hence, the intermediate steps and the use of convolution in calculating
the UH can be avoided. However, a UH, being a basic property of a catchment, needs
to be calculated and stored for further application to a different rainfall excess, using
convolution. The routing of a time–area curve for an instantaneous unit effective
rainfall, through a linear reservoir, gives an instantaneous UH (IUH). This IUH is then
used to obtain a UH of specified duration.
Espey et al. (1977) and Espey & Altman (1978) proposed an empirical method to
obtain a 10-min SUH for urban watersheds; the method is based upon the concept of
Snyder’s UH. They proposed several empirical equations; the two that are used in this
paper are:
31620 A0.96
Qp = (1)
t1p.07

Copyright  2005 IAHS Press

 Clark’s and Espey’s unit hydrographs vs the gamma unit hydrograph 1055

3.1L0.23 φ1.57
tp = (2)
S a0.25 I a0.18
where Qp is the peak of UH (cfs—cubic feet per second), tp is the time to peak of UH
(min), L is the mean length of the stream (ft), Sa is the average slope of the main
channel, A is the basin area (mi2), Ia is the percentage of impervious area in the
catchment, and φ is a dimensionless conveyance factor that depends upon the weighted
main channel Manning’s roughness coefficient. The other empirical equations pro-
posed by Espey et al. (1977) and Espey & Altman (1978) are for the time base of the
UH and hydrograph widths at 50% and 75% of the UH peak, to define the UH. The
time base of the UH is defined as the hydrograph width at 0% of the UH peak. They
proposed manual sketching through the points defined by the empirical equations with
few trials so that the area under the UH is unity.

OBTAINING A GAMMA DISTRIBUTION

The two-parameter gamma distribution has long been used for modelling event-based
rainfall–runoff processes (e.g. Edson, 1951; Nash, 1958). In the present context, a two-
parameter gamma distribution is expressed as:
( n −1) t
1 æ t ö −
q (t ) = ç ÷ e K
(3)
KΓ ( n ) è K ø
where n and K are parameters that define the shape and scale of the gamma
distribution; and q is the IUH (runoff depth resulting from effective rainfall in the form
of Dirac delta-function, cf. Dooge, 1959). In conceptual terms, n is the number of
linear reservoirs with equal storage coefficient K (Nash, 1958, 1959; Dooge, 1959).
These parameters have been referred to as Nash-model parameters in the subsequent
literature. The time to peak can be obtained by equating the first derivative of q with
respect to t, to zero (e.g. see Nash, 1960; Wu, 1963):
t p = (n − 1) K (4)
The other works on the use of the gamma IUH are by Nash (1960), Wu (1963), Valdes
et al. (1979), Croley (1980), Aron & White (1982), Collins (1983), Rosso (1984),
Hann et al. (1994), and Singh (1998, 2000, 2004). The procedure outlined below is for
obtaining a gamma UH from a SUH or a UH derived using other methods. While
proposing the transmutability of different synthetic unit hydrographs into a gamma
distribution, Singh (2000) showed that the gamma distribution is defined by the
dimensionless parameter β = qptp (where qp and tp are the peak and time to peak of the
UH) and tp. He proposed the following equations for computing the ordinates of a
gamma UH:
7
n = 2πβ 2 + (5)
6
Q q
= = e ( n −1) α (6)
Qp q p

Copyright  2005 IAHS Press

1056 Sushil K. Singh

t æ t ö
α = 1− + lnç ÷ (7)
tp çt ÷
è pø
where Q and Qp are discharge and peak discharge in volumetric units [L3 T-1]. The
parameters β or n depend upon catchment characteristics. The constants 2π and 7/6
(equation (5)) are derived from analytical approximation and remain the same for all
catchments.

RECESSION CHARACTERISTICS
Clark’s method assumes the storage, S, to be proportional to discharge Q, for routing
the time–area curve through a linear reservoir:
S = RQ (8)
Equation (8) gives:
∆t
Qm −
=e R (9)
Qm−1
where S is catchment storage [L3]; R is a recession or storage constant of the linear
reservoir [T]; Q is outflow or discharge [L3 T-1]; ∆t is the computational time interval
or time-step size [T]; and Qm is the discharge at the end of the mth time step [L3 T-1],
where m is an index for denoting time steps [-]. Let Qm/Qm-1 be defined as recession
constant. From equation (3), the recession characteristics of the two-parameter gamma
unit hydrograph can be written as:
( n −1) ∆t
Qm æ m ö −
=ç ÷ e K
(10)
Qm−1 è m − 1 ø
The hydrograph recession is observed due to the depletion of (a) channel storage,
(b) interflow storage and (c) groundwater storage. The UH recession consists of only
(a) and (b), as the contribution from groundwater is separated from the hydrograph to
obtain the UH. The response times for the recession of channel storage and interflow
storage are different; hence, the recession constants representing these are also
different. Equation (9) shows that the recession constant for the gamma UH changes as
the time or m increases. A gamma UH can reasonably represent the varying recession
constants due to the contributions from the channel and interflow storages.
From equation (9), it is observed that Clark’s method uses a single recession
constant that does not vary with time to represent the entire hydrograph recession.
Therefore, the depletions of, or the contributions from, interflow and channel storages
are not distinguished in Clark’s method. An unvarying recession constant may not
satisfactorily reproduce the hydrograph recession. Due to this, an unnecessary long tail
of the unit hydrograph is obtained. Viessman et al. (1989, pp. 222–223) also observed
that Clark’s method often produces prolonged runoff. The author’s scrutiny of a
number of flood events from different catchments showed that the hydrograph
recession may not follow equation (9) in many cases. When the hydrograph recession
(equation (9)) is plotted on a semi-logarithmic graph with Q on the log-axis, two or

Copyright  2005 IAHS Press

 Clark’s and Espey’s unit hydrographs vs the gamma unit hydrograph 1057

more distinct linear segments are obtained. However, if a single straight line can be
fitted on such a graph, its slope gives the value of R (equation (9)). Straight lines with
different slopes give different values of R. With different straight lines, the estimation
of a representative R for use in Clark’s method is not justified and may cause errors.

Time–area curve and its representation

Clark’s method uses a time–area curve; hence, the selection or construction of a time–
area curve is vital for the accuracy of runoff prediction. The main problem in the
application of Clark’s method is the unavailability of a parametric form of the time–
area curve. The parametric form refers to a mathematical form with parameters that
can assume different values for different catchments. Due to unavailability of a
parametric form of the time–area curve, an adjustment of the time–area curve is
needed for obtaining the Clark’s UH from observed rainfall–runoff data. Linsley et al.
(1982) state that there is no simple and rigorous means of deriving the time–area curve.
In most of the studies using Clark’s time–area method, isochrones of equal travel time
are constructed and the time of concentration is estimated using an appropriate
equation. Generally, it is assumed that the travel time is proportional to the channel
length from the point under consideration to the catchment outlet. Sometimes, the
equation proposed by Kirpich (1940) is used to construct the time–area curve. The
equations for time of concentrations are applicable at the outlet of the catchment.
These equations do not give the variation of travel time with different fractions of area
contributing to runoff at different times; hence, in principle, these equations cannot be
used to construct a rigorous time–area diagram. Because of these problems, the use of
Clark’s UH as a SUH is debatable.
A default option is available in the HEC-1 (1990) computer program, which gives
a fixed shape of the time–area curve irrespective of the catchments. It uses the
following equations for a time–area curve:
AI = 1.414T 1.5 for T ≤ 0.5 (11)
1 − AI = 1.414(1 − T )1.5 for T > 0.5 (12)
where AI is the cumulative area as a fraction of sub-basin area [-]; T is time expressed
as a fraction of time of concentration Tc [-]; and Tc is time measured from the end of
effective precipitation to the inflection point of the recession limb of the hydrograph.
No justification for the values 1.414 and 1.5 has been given; it only says that these are
based upon a single elliptical area.
In HEC-1 procedure, for known values of Snyder’s (1938) Cp and tp, the
parameters R and Tc (recession constant and time of concentration) are optimized to
get a minimum difference between the observed and computed hydrographs for a
known effective rainfall hyetograph. The Cp is a parameter known as Snyder’s factor.
Singh (2000) has provided the physical and mathematical meanings of Cp. Thus, the
HEC-1 procedure uses the empirical equations (for Cp and tp) for obtaining the
parameters (R and Tc) of the SUH. This also highlights the difficulties in considering
Clark’s UH as a SUH. Clark’s UH requires Cp, tp, R and Tc and the gamma UH
requires only qp and tp. A comparison of Clark’s and gamma UHs shows that n (a
parameter of the gamma UH) takes care of the exponent for the time–area curve as

Copyright  2005 IAHS Press

1058 Sushil K. Singh

used in the Clark’s method. Singh (2000) showed that n is a function of β that depends
on catchment characteristics. Also, the time–area curve depends on the catchment
characteristics. The runoff at the outlet at any time is proportional to the contributing
area. The area contributing to the runoff at any time, i.e. A(t), for a gamma distribution
may be written from equation (3) as:
A(t ) = Ct ( n −1) (13)
The constant of proportionality C in equation (13) depends on n and K. Therefore, the
time–area curve is implicitly incorporated into the gamma distribution, while in
Clark’s method it has to be externally supplied. The parameters of the time–area curve
as considered in HEC-1, i.e. 1.414 and 1.5, are assumed invariant irrespective of the
shape, size and location of the catchments. The shape and scale of the time–area curve
may vary from one catchment to another, because it depends upon the shape, size, and
hydraulic factors of the catchment, which govern the runoff at the outlet. Also, the
time–area curve defined by equations (11) and (12) is symmetrical with respect to t =
0.5Tc, which may not be appropriate for many catchments. These problems may cause
severe errors and inconsistency in the predicted runoff for ungauged basins. Use of
equations (5)–(7) is theoretically more justified than that of equations (11)–(12). If a
parametric form of time–area curve is assumed and its parameters are considered to
vary from one catchment to another, Clark’s method will have three to four parameters
to be optimized (including one or two parameters for the time–area curve). Since no
parametric representation of the time–area curve is currently available, a proper
optimization in this case is not feasible. However, in the case of a gamma UH, if qp or
β and tp are known, the UH can be determined even without optimization (equations
(5)–(7)). However, optimization is feasible only in cases of gauged catchments. The
gamma UH uses qp and tp (β = qptp) to completely define the shape of a UH. Both these
parameters have physical significance, and empirical relations that incorporate catch-
ment characteristics are available for their estimation (e.g. that of Snyder, 1938, which
incorporates slope and area). On the other hand, the parameters defining the time–area
curve (to be used in Clark’s method) are unavailable and empirical equations to relate
them to catchment characteristics are the subject of future studies (these can only be
available if a parametric form of time–area curve becomes available). Therefore, a
gamma UH offers more flexibility with fewer parameters than does Clark’s UH.

APPLICATION AND DISCUSSION

Espey’s UH vs gamma distribution

In order to show the transmutability of Espey’s UH to a two-parameter gamma UH, an
example was taken from Akan (1993, pp. 82–87). For this example, values of tp =
20 min, and Qp = 13.42 m3 s-1 (474 cfs), were obtained for an urban catchment of area
0.919 km2 (0.355 mi2), using equations (1) and (2) for a UH of 10 min duration. Using
these values, β is obtained as 0.6897 (qp = 0.03448 min-1). Using equation (4),
n = 4.155 is obtained for β = 0.6897. The value of K is calculated as 6.339 min using
equation (4). For these values of Qp, tp and n, the ordinates of a 10-min gamma UH
(∆t = 10 min) were calculated using equations (6) and (7). The UH thus obtained is

Copyright  2005 IAHS Press

 Clark’s and Espey’s unit hydrographs vs the gamma unit hydrograph 1059

Fig. 1 Comparison of an urban UH and a gamma UH.

compared in Fig. 1 with that obtained (Akan, 1993) using Espey & Altman’s (1978)
method. A statistical measure for the difference between the two UHs, RMSE =
1.17 m3 s-1, is obtained. It is observed that, using the relation for only Qp and tp, the
gamma UH can be obtained without any trial and error. Therefore, other empirical
equations proposed by Espey et al. (1977) are found redundant for developing a
gamma UH.

Clark’s UH vs gamma distribution

In order to demonstrate the comparative performance of Clark’s UH and the gamma

UH, several examples were taken from published sources. The results from these
examples were used to show the inconsistencies in UHs obtained using Clark’s
method, especially in HEC-1 applications. In all examples, the gamma UHs were
obtained without optimization and using the regional values of Snyder’s Cp and tp,
while the reported Clark’s UHs were obtained using optimization (HEC-1; optimized
parameters are R and Tc) with the same input as Cp and tp. Thus, once qp and tp (or Cp
and tp) are known, the HEC-1 approach of optimizing the Clark’s UH is redundant for
obtaining a UH. A consistent UH should have tp < tg < Tc and an inflection point at Tc,
where tg is the lag of the UH defined as the time measured from the centre of mass of
effective rainfall to the centre of mass of direct runoff.
This example is from HEC-1 (1990, Example 4). The optimized values of Clark’s
parameters are Tc = 3.16 h and R = 3.88 h. The values for tp and Cp were obtained as
2.99 h and 0.52. The parameter Cp may be considered equal to β (Singh, 1998, 2000)
and the value of n is obtained using equation (5). Since tp = 2.99 h, qp = 0.1739 h-1,
Qp = 120.4 m3 s-1 (4253 cfs) for the catchment area (A) of 98.15 km2 (37.9 mi2) [Qp =
0.1739 × A × (1 in h-1); intensity of effective rainfall for obtaining UH is 1 in h-1]. The
values of n and K for the gamma UH are obtained as 2.866 and 1.602 h, respectively.

Copyright  2005 IAHS Press

1060 Sushil K. Singh

For these values of n, tp and Qp, the ordinates of the gamma UH at computational
interval of 0.25 h were obtained using equations (6) and (7). The sample calculation
for the selected ordinates of the UH are given in Table 1. The gamma UH thus
obtained is compared in Fig. 2 to the Clark’s UH obtained using optimized parameters.
Although the Clark’s UH uses Tc as its parameter, the inflection point is observed just
close to the peak and the entire recession part of the Clark’s UH has unidirectional
curvature (see Fig. 2). The inflection point needs to be at Tc. This shows Tc loses its
significance in Clark’s method and serves as a fitting parameter. Mention is made here
that the gamma UH is obtained without optimization. The computed hydrographs for
the example using the two methods are shown in Fig. 3 (the baseflow and infiltration
losses were assumed the same in both UHs). The hydrograph obtained using the
gamma UH (gamma UH is convoluted with rainfall excess to get the computed
hydrograph) is more close to the observed hydrograph than that using Clark’s UH. The
integral squared error in the case of the gamma UH is 2.83 × 105 (m3 s-1)2

Table 1 Sample calculations for gamma UH.

T (h) t/tp Q/Qp Q (m3 s-1)
0.25 0.0836 0.0539 6.5
0.50 0.1672 0.1681 20.2
1.00 0.3344 0.4485 54.0
2.00 0.6689 0.8759 105.5
3.00 1.0033 0.9999 120.4
4.00 1.3378 0.9164 110.3
6.00 2.0067 0.5605 67.5
8.00 2.6755 0.2752 33.2
10.00 3.4444 0.1198 14.4
12.00 4.0134 0.0483 5.8
14.00 4.6823 0.0185 2.2

Fig. 2 Comparison of Clark’s UH and a gamma UH (HEC-1 example).

Copyright  2005 IAHS Press

 Clark’s and Espey’s unit hydrographs vs the gamma unit hydrograph 1061

Fig. 3 Observed and computed hydrographs for the HEC-1 example.

(3.046 × 106 (cfs)2), while with Clark’s UH it is 4.125 × 105 (m3 s-1)2 (4.441 × 106
(cfs)2) with 61 ordinates. In this example, for Clark’s UH, the optimized Tc is 3.16 h
while tg is 4.38 h, which is more than Tc. This shows inconsistency because tg should
be less than Tc (this condition can be derived, see, equation (16)) The lag obtained
using the parameters of the gamma UH is 4.38 h which is less than the calculated Tc =
5.0 h (taking tp/Tc = 0.58 using equation (17)). It may be noted here that the lag in the
case of the gamma UH comes out to be the same as for Clark’s UH. The different
values of Tc in the two methods may be due to inappropriate parameterization of
Clark’s method as used by HEC-1.
The example (Viessman et al., 1989, Example 25.1) taken next is for Oak Creek
catchment, in which the optimized UH for the sub-areas A and B were obtained using
Clark’s method through the HEC-1 program. For Sub-area A (86.5 km2 (33.4 mi2)),
Cp = 0.8 and tp = 2.93 h, the optimized Clark’s parameters are Tc = 3.74 h and R =
1.45 h with tg (lag) calculated as 2.92 h. The tg and tp in Clark’s UH come out to be
equal. This shows an inconsistency in the derived Clark’s UH because tg should be
more than tp for a UH with recession. Taking β ≈ Cp = 0.8 and tp = 2.93 h, Qp =
166.6 m3 s-1 (5885 cfs) is obtained. Thus, the values of n and K are obtained as 5.188
and 0.7 h, respectively. With these values, tg = 3.63 h, which is more than tp; hence, the
gamma UH has no such inconsistency. The Sub-area B (69.6 km2 (26.9 mi2)) has Cp =
0.8. The Clark’s UH parameters obtained through HEC-1 application are Tc = 3.4 h,
R = 1.065 h. The calculated value of tp = 2.51 h and lag = 2.49 h. Here, tg < tp, which
shows inconsistency in the derived Clark’s UH. For Cp = 0.8 and tp = 2.51 h, the
calculated parameters of gamma UH are n = 5.188 and K = 0.6 h, which give tg =
3.11 h, which is consistent. The Clark’s and gamma UHs are compared in Figs 4 and 5
for the sub-areas A and B, respectively.
Two other examples were taken from HEC-1 (1990). One is for Minnesota River
basin (Example 3 of HEC-1), where optimized Clark’s parameters are Tc = 46.00 h,
R = 183 h with Cp = 0.23 and tp = 49.11 h. Here, Tc < tp, which is an inconsistency of

Copyright  2005 IAHS Press

1062 Sushil K. Singh

Fig. 4 Comparison of Clark’s UH and a gamma UH (example from Viessman et al.,

1989, Sub-area A).

Fig. 5 Comparison of Clark’s UH and a gamma UH (example from Viessman et al.,

1989, Sub-area B).

the derived UH. The values of n and K for a gamma UH are obtained as 1.5 and
98.22 h, respectively. The gamma and Clark’s UHs for this example are shown in Fig.
6. The second is Example 6 of HEC-1 (1990). It has A = 9072 km2 (3503 mi2), Tc =
12.30 h, R = 8.60 h with Cp = 0.65 and tp = 10.29 h. Here, the difference between Tc
and tp is less than one sixth of Tc, which is very low and the UH may be termed
inconsistent. The gamma UH gives a larger difference. The gamma UH for this
example has n = 3.821 and K = 3.647 h.

Copyright  2005 IAHS Press

 Clark’s and Espey’s unit hydrographs vs the gamma unit hydrograph 1063

Fig. 6 Comparison of Clark’s UH and a gamma UH (Example 3 of HEC-1).

Numerical UH vs gamma distribution

The UH may also be obtained using numerical methods, e.g. least squares (LS), linear
programming (LP) and transfer function (TF) for gauged catchments. In these
methods, the ordinates of the UH are considered independent variables. Thus, the UH
obtained (i.e. the ordinates of the UH) is applicable to the particular gauged catchment,
the data of which are utilized to develop the UH. The gamma UH for gauged
catchments can be obtained by optimizing qp and tp and the empirical equations can be
developed to relate these to the catchment characteristics and slope. Hence, the gamma
UH is suitable for developing a SUH. Numerical UHs cannot be used for developing a
SUH for ungauged catchments because they are characterized by the ordinates of UH
and not by few parameters. In order that the numerical UHs can be utilized for
developing a SUH, its interpretation in terms of a parametric form of UH (e.g. gamma
UH) is required. This is possible if a numerical UH is transmuted to a gamma UH to
impart a conceptual meaning to it in terms of the parameters of a gamma UH. This will
enhance the utility of numerical UHs for developing a SUH.
The numerical UH can also be transmuted to a gamma UH using equations (5)–(7)
for known values of only qp and tp. Thus, a numerical UH is imparted a conceptual
meaning in terms of the parameters of the gamma UH. The values of qp and tp can be
obtained by sketching a smooth curve near the peak of the numerical UH.
Approximate values of qp and tp can alternatively be obtained by selecting a triplet
(three consecutive points on a UH) on a smoothed numerical UH, which spans the
peak and using the following equations:
4q 2 − q3 − 3q1
t p = t1 + ∆t (14)
2(2q 2 − q3 − q1 )
(4q2 − q3 − 3q1 ) 2
q p = q1 + (15)
8(2q2 − q3 − q1 )

Copyright  2005 IAHS Press

1064 Sushil K. Singh

where t1 and q1 correspond to the first point of the triplet and q1, q2, q3 are the
consecutive ordinates of the UH for the selected triplet within which the peak occurs.
The times t1, t2 and t3 correspond to the ordinates q1, q2 and q3, respectively.
For the examples from Singh (1976, Table 2), the values of tp and qp are obtained
using equations (15) and (16) as 13.38 h, 0.0582 h-1 and 18.29 h, 0.0454 h-1 for
Storm 1 and Storm 2, respectively. The values of β calculated from these values are
0.7787 and 0.8304 for Storm 1 and Storm 2, respectively. The UHs obtained by Singh
(1976) using LP and the corresponding gamma UHs are compared in Fig. 7. Another
example for a numerical UH was taken from Diskin & Boneh (1975); they obtained an
optimal UH utilizing the rainfall–runoff data of eight storms on a catchment of the
Cache River at Forman in southern Illinois, USA. The area of the catchment is
627 km2 (242 mi2). The catchment has a fairly flat (mild slopes) topography with a
well developed drainage network. The rainfall data were taken from daily
measurements at three stations. The storms were observed during February–May from
the years 1935–1951. Their optimal UH (Table III, last line) gave a triplet containing
the peak as (t1, q1) = (2 h, 0.2328 h-1); (t2, q2) = (3 h, 0.2817 h-1); (t3, q3) = (4 h,
0.1790 h-1). Using equations (15) and (16), tp = 2.83 h and qp = 0.2843 h-1 are obtained,
which give β = 0.8016 and n = 5.204. The gamma UH obtained (without optimization)
from equation (5) using these values is compared to the optimal UH obtained by
Diskin & Boneh (1975) using linear programming (Fig. 8). Both the UHs are in close
agreement. If the few points near the peak are corrupted by noise, a smooth curve
needs to be sketched through these points and then the triplet is selected.

Fig. 7 Comparison of a numerical UH and a gamma UH (Storm 1 and Storm 2).

Parameters of the gamma UH from catchment characteristics

The empirical equations relating catchment characteristics to the parameters of a UH

are required for developing a SUH for ungauged catchments. Since Clark’s method, or

Copyright  2005 IAHS Press

 Clark’s and Espey’s unit hydrographs vs the gamma unit hydrograph 1065

Fig. 8 Comparison of a numerical UH and a gamma UH (multi-storm data).

especially the parameters of Clark’s UH, are not completely defined due to the lack of
a parametric form of the time–area curve, its direct use as a SUH is not feasible.
Hence, the empirical equations developed on the basis of the results obtained from
HEC-1 should be used with a caution. The parameters of a gamma UH can be obtained
using the existing empirical equations and guidelines for obtaining tp and qp or Cp. Few
empirical equations are also available for calculating the parameters n and K of a
gamma UH (e.g. Nash, 1960). Sometimes, the empirical equation for Tc is available.
For a gamma UH, Tc can be obtained using:
tp
Tc = t p + (16)
n −1
Equation (16) is re-arranged to obtain the value of n from known values of Tc and tp:
−2
æT ö
n = 1 + ç c − 1÷ (17)
çt ÷
è p ø
Once Tc and tp are known, n can be obtained using equation (17) and then the gamma
UH can be obtained using equations (6) and (7). Knowing the peak rate factor Df
(NRCS, 1972) and tp, the gamma UH can be obtained (see, Singh 2000). Using the tg
(lag of UH) and tp, a gamma UH can easily be calculated:
−1
æ tp ö
n = ç1 − ÷ (18)
ç t ÷
è g ø
tg
K= (19)
n
For the urban UH (e.g. Espey’s), the empirical equations for Qp and tp (equations
(1) and (2)) can be used to obtain the gamma UH. These equations in SI units take the

Copyright  2005 IAHS Press

1066 Sushil K. Singh

forms:
β = 1.4738t p−0.07 A −0.04 (20)
4.07 L0.23 φ1.57
tp = (21)
S a0.25 I a0.18
where L is in m, A is in m2, and t in min. Thus, a gamma UH can be obtained using the
available empirical equations for the parameters of other SUHs.

CONCLUSIONS
Clark’s method and a two-parameter gamma distribution for obtaining unit hydro-
graphs (UHs) for a gauged or an ungauged catchment have been critically compared in
terms of recession characteristics and time–area curve for modelling event-based
runoff. Several examples of Clark’s UH were taken (especially from HEC-1
applications) to show the inconsistencies in the derived Clark’s UHs; the
inconsistencies have been judged upon the relative values of tp, tg and Tc. The use of
the gamma UH does not show such inconsistencies. The urban unit hydrograph using
Espey’s (Espey et al., 1997) method has been transmuted to a two-parameter gamma
UH. The conclusions from the study on several examples are:
– As optimized in the HEC-1 program, Clark’s UH parameters, R and Tc, lose their
physical significance and serve merely as fitting parameters. The main problem in
using Clark’s method for developing a synthetic unit hydrograph is the unavail-
ability of a parametric form of the time–area curve. The equations that represent
the time–area curve in HEC-1 are found inadequate and unjustified, which results
in an inconsistent estimate of Tc (time of concentration).
– In Clark’s method, the entire hydrograph recession is represented by a single
recession constant, while a recession constant that varies with time is implicitly
incorporated into the gamma UH. The hydrograph recession is better represented
in a gamma UH than in Clark’s UH.
– HEC-1 uses Snyder’s Cp and tp to optimize the parameters (Tc and R) of Clark’s
UH. In addition to this, it requires that the time–area curve should be supplied
(empirical equations relating the time–area curve to catchment characteristics are
not available). This is a limitation of Clark’s UH to be used as a SUH (synthetic
UH). Once Cp and tp are known, the optimization of parameters of Clark’s UH is
not needed for developing a UH (i.e. gamma UH); the gamma UH is completely
defined without the need for optimization.
– Inconsistencies in the optimized Clark’s UH were observed in several examples of
HEC-1 applications. These are due to the unavailability of a general parametric form
of the time–area curve and lack of proper distinction between recession of interflow
and channel storages. The gamma UH takes into account interflow and channel stor-
ages by a variable recession constant. Better-fitted hydrographs and consistent UHs
are obtained for these examples using a gamma UH (even without optimization).
– Empirical relations for the parameters are not feasible in the case of Clark’s UH
due to lack of a parametric representation of the time–area curve. If such a
representation is assumed, the number of parameters of Clark’s UH is likely to be
increased to three or four; a gamma UH has only two parameters.

Copyright  2005 IAHS Press

 Clark’s and Espey’s unit hydrographs vs the gamma unit hydrograph 1067

– Numerical UHs obtained for gauged catchments using linear programming or least
square approach have been shown easily transmutable to a gamma UH. Hence,
they can be imparted conceptual interpretation in terms of the parameters of a
gamma UH. This enhances the utility of numerical UHs for developing a SUH.
– The urban UH proposed by Espey et al. (1977) is shown to be easily transmutable
to a two-parameter gamma UH. It does not involve any trial and error and uses
empirical equations for only peak and time to peak of the UH, to define completely
the gamma UH. Other empirical equations proposed by them are found redundant
for developing the UH.

REFERENCES
Akan, A. O. (1993) Urban Stormwater Hydrology, 82–87. Technomic Publ. Co. Inc., Lancaster, USA.
Aron, G. & White, E. L. (1982) Fitting a gamma distribution over a synthetic unit hydrograph. Water Resour. Bull. 18(1),
95–98.
Clark, C. O. (1945) Storage and unit hydrograph. Trans. Am. Soc. Civil Engrs 110, 1419–1446.
Collins, M. A. (1983). Discussion of “Fitting a gamma distribution over a synthetic unit hydrograph” by G. Aron &
E. L. White. Water Resour. Bull. 19(2), 303–304.
Croley, T. E., II (1980) Gamma synthetic hydrographs. J. Hydrol. 47, 41–52.
Diskin, M. H. & Boneh, A. (1975) Determination of an optimal IUH for linear, time invariant systems from multi-storm
records. J. Hydrol. 22, 57–76.
Dooge, J. C. I. (1959) A general theory of the unit hydrograph. J. Geophys. Res. 64(2), 241–256.
Edson, C. G. (1951) Parameters for relating unit hydrograph to watershed characteristics. Trans. Am. Geophys. Union
32(4), 591–596.
Espey, W. H. & Altman, D. G. (1978). Nomograph for 10-minute unit hydrographs for small watersheds. Addendum 3 of
Urban Runoff Control Planning, Report EPA-600/9-78-035, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington DC, USA.
Espey, W. H., Jr, Altman, D. G. & Graves, C. B., Jr. (1977) Nomograph for 10 minutes unit hydrographs for urban
wartersheds. Tech. Memo. 32, Am. Soc. Civil Engrs, New York, USA.
Gray, D. M. (1961) Synthetic unit hydrograph for small drainage areas. J. Hydraul. Div. ASCE 87(4), 33–54.
HEC-1 (1990) Flood Hydrograph package, User’s Manual, Version 4.0. Hydrologic Engineering Center, US Army Corps
of Engineers, Davis, California, USA.
Hann, C. T., Barfield, B. J. & Hays, J. C. (1994) Design Hydrology and Sedimentology for Small Catchments. Academic
Press, New York, USA.
Kirpich (1940) Time of concentration of small agricultural watersheds. Civil Engng ASCE 10, 362.
Linsley, R. K., Kohler, M. A. & Paulhus, J. L. H. (1982) Hydrology for Engineers (third edn), 278–282. McGraw-Hill,
New York, USA.
Littlewood, I. G. (2003) Improved unit hydrograph identification for seven Welsh rivers: implications for estimating
continuous streamflow at ungauged sites. Hydrol. Sci. J. 48(5), 743–762.
Nash, J. E. (1958) Determining runoff from rainfall. Proc. Instn Civil Engrs London 10, 163–184.
Nash, J. E. (1959) Systematic determination of unit hydrograph parameters. J. Geophys. Res. 64(1), 111–115.
Nash, J. E. (1960) A unit hydrograph study with particular reference to British catchments. Proc. Instn Civil Engrs London
17, 249–282.
NRCS (National Resources Conservation Service) (1972) Hydrology, Sect. 4, National Engineering Handbook. NRCS
[formerly Soil Conservation Service (SCS)], USDA, Washington DC, USA.
Rosso, R. (1984) Nash model relation to Horton order ratios. Water Resour. Res. 20(7), 914–920.
Singh, K. P. (1976) Unit hydrograph—a comparative study. Water Resour. Bull. 12(2), 381–392.
Singh, S. K. (1998) Reconstructing a synthetic unit hydrograph into a gamma distribution. In: Proc. Int. Conf. on Integrated
Water Resources Management (Univ. of Alexandria, Egypt, 11–14 October 1998), 104–110. Alexandria Univ., Egypt.
Singh, S. K. (2000) Transmuting synthetic unit hydrograph into a gamma distribution. J. Hydrol. Engng ASCE 5(4), 380–385.
Singh, S. K. (2004) Simplified use of gamma-distribution/Nash model for runoff modelling. J. Hydrol. Engng ASCE 9(3),
240–243.
Snyder, F. F. (1938) Synthetic unit-graphs. Trans. Am. Geophys. Union 19, 447–454.
Valdes, J. B., Fiallo, Y. & Rodriguez-Iturbe, I. (1979) A rainfall–runoff analysis of the geomorphologic IUH. Water
Resour. Res. 15(6), 1421–1434.
Viessman, W., Lewis, G. L., Jr & Knapp, J. W. (1989) Introduction to Hydrology, 222–223, 596–608. Harper & Row,
New York, USA.
Wu, I. P. (1963) Design hydrographs for small watersheds in Indiana. J. Hydraul. Div. ASCE 89(6), 35–66.

Received 13 March 2004; accepted 9 September 2005

Copyright  2005 IAHS Press