CHAPTER 3

METHOD OF ANALYSIS
In this research the goal is to determine an IUH from observed rainfall-runoff
data. 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 (unknon 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 knon a-priori, then
the $%H signal should be obtainable by convolution of the rainfall input signal ith the
IUH response function. The difference beteen the observed $%H and the model $%H
should be negligible if the data have no noise, the system is truly linear, and e have
selected both the correct function and the correct coefficients.
If the analyst postulates a functional form (the procedure of this thesis! then
searches for correct values of coefficients, the process is called de-convolution. In the
present ork by guessing at coefficient values, convolving the effective precipitation
((
signal, and comparing the model output ith the actual output, e accomplish de-
convolution. ) merit function is used to &uantify the error beteen the modeled and
observed output. ) simple searching scheme is used to record the estimates that reduce
the value of a merit function and hen this scheme is completed, the parameter set is
called a non-inferior (as opposed to optimal! set of coefficients of the transfer function.
3.1. Database Construction
U*+* small atershed studies ere conducted largely during the period spanning
the early (,-./s to the middle (,0./s. The storms documented in the U*+* studies can be
used to evaluate unit hydrographs and these data are critical for unit hydrograph
investigation in Texas. 1andidate stations for hydrograph analysis ere selected and a
substantial database as assembled.
Table 2.( is a list of the 33 stations eventually keypunched and used in this
research. The first to columns in each section of the table is the atershed and sub
atershed name. The urban portion of the database does not use the sub atershed
naming convention, but the rural portion does. The third column is the U*+* station I$
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!.
(4
Table 2.(.*tations and 6umber of *torms used in *tudy
Watershed Sub-Shed Station ID #Events Watershed Sub-Shed Station ID #Events
BartonCreek 08155200 5 AshCreek 0805720 5
BartonCreek 0815500 8 Ba!h"anBran!h 08055700 #1
BearCreek 08158810 8 CedarCreek 08057050
BearCreek 08158820 2 Coo"bsCreek 08057020 7
BearCreek 08158825 2 CottonWoodCreek 080571#0 $
Bo%%&Creek 08158050 10 Du!kCreek 080$1$20 8
Bo%%&SouthCreek 08158880 1# E'a"Creek 08057#15 8
Bu''Creek 0815#700 1 (ive)i'eCreek 08057#18 7
*itt'eWa'nutCreek 0815880 2 (ive)i'eCreek 08057#20 10
+nionCreek 08158700 $ ('o&dBran!h 080571$0 8
+nionCreek 08158800 2 ,oesCreek 08055$00 1#
Shoa'Creek 0815$$50 1 -e.tonCreek 08057#5
Shoa'Creek 0815$700 1$ /rairieCreek 08057##5 8
Shoa'Creek 0815$750 1 0ushBran!h 0805710 5
Shoa'Creek 0815$800 2# South)es1uite 080$1220 2
S'au%hterCreek 081588#0 2 South)es1uite 080$1250 1
S'au%hterCreek 081588$0 2 S3ank&Creek 08057120 #
Wa''erCreek 08157000 #0 4urt'eCreek 0805$500 #2
Wa''erCreek 08157500 8 Wood&Bran!h 08057#25 1
Wa'nutCreek 08158100 15
Wa'nutCreek 08158200 17 Watershed Sub-Shed Station ID #Events
Wa'nutCreek 08158#00 10 Dr&Bran!h 080#8550 25
Wa'nutCreek 08158500 1# Dr&Bran!h 080#8$00 27
Wa'nutCreek 08158$00 22 *itt'e(ossi' 080#8820 20
WestBou'dinCreek 08155550 10 *itt'e(ossi' 080#8850 2#
Wi'bar%erCreek 08152150 22 S&!a"ore 080#8520 2#
Wi''ia"sonCreek 08158220 1# S&!a"ore 080#850 28
Wi''ia"sonCreek 0815820 18 S&!a"ore 080#85#0 2#
Wi''ia"sonCreek 08158270 1$ S&!a"ore SSSC 21
Watershed Sub-Shed Station ID #Events Watershed Sub-Shed Station ID #Events
A'a5anCreek 0817800 0 BrasosBasin Co.Ba&ou 0802$800 #8
*eonCreek 08181000 10 BrasosBasin 6reen 0802#000 28
*eonCreek 08181#00 15 BrasosBasin /ond-E'" 0802800 12
*eonCreek 08181#50 22 BrasosBasin /ond-E'" 08108200 21
+'"osCreek 08177$00 12 Co'oradoBasin Dee3 0812000 27
+'"osCreek 08177700 2 Co'oradoBasin Dee3 081#0000 28
+'"osCreek 08178555 10 Co'oradoBasin )uke.ater 081$200 22
Sa'adoCreek 08178$00 1 Co'oradoBasin )uke.ater 0817000 8
Sa'adoCreek 08178$#0 10 Co'oradoBasin )uke.ater 0817500 #
Sa'adoCreek 08178$#5 5 SanAntonioBasin Ca'averas 08182#00 2#
Sa'adoCreek 08178$20 2 SanAntonioBasin Es!ondido 08187000 1
Sa'adoCreek 081787$ 12 SanAntonioBasin Es!ondido 08187200 21
4rinit&Basin E'"(ork 08050200 #
4rinit&Basin 7one& 08057500 1
4rinit&Basin 7one& 08058000 22
4rinit&Basin *itt'eE'" 08052$0 22
4rinit&Basin *itt'eE'" 08052700 58
4rinit&Basin -orth 080#2$50 1#
4rinit&Basin -orth 080#2700 5$
4rinit&Basin /in+ak 080$200
(ort Worth
Da''as Austin
S"a''0ura'Sheds San Antonio
3.. Data Pre!aration
)n additional processing step used in this thesis is the interpolation of the
observed data into uniformly spaced, one minute intervals.
(2
3..1. "ase F#o$ 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
(Helett 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.
$ischarge (<
2
=T!
Time (T!
$ischarge (<
2
=T!
Time (T!
;igure 2.( %epresentative Hydrograph
(5
1onstant-discharge method
The base flo is assumed to be constant regardless of stream height (discharge!.
Typically, the minimum value immediately prior to beginning of the storm is pro>ected
hori#ontally. )ll discharge prior to the identified minimum, as ell as all discharge
beneath this hori#ontal pro>ection is labeled as 8base flo9 and removed from further
analysis. ;igure 2.4 is a sketch of the constant discharge method applied to the
representative hydrograph. The shaded area in the sketch represents the discharge that
ould be removed (subtracted! from the observed runoff hydrograph to produce a direct-
runoff hydrograph.
$ischarge (<
2
=T!
Time (T!
$ischarge (<
2
=T!
Time (T!
;igure 2.4. 1onstant-discharge base flo separation.
The principal disadvantage is that the method is thought to yield an extremely
long time base for the direct runoff hydrograph, and this time base varies from storm to
storm, depending on the magnitude of the discharge at the beginning of the storm
(?
(<insley et, al, (,5,!. The method is easy to automate, especially for multiple peak
hydrographs.
1onstant-slope method
) line is dran from the inflection point on the receding limb of the
storm hydrograph to the beginning of storm hydrograph, as depicted on ;igure 2.2. This
method assumes that the base flo began prior to the start of the current storm, and
arbitrarily sets to the inflection point.
$ischarge (<
2
=T!
Time (T!
inflection point identified as
location here second derivative
of the hydrograph passes through #ero
$ischarge (<
2
=T!
Time (T!
inflection point identified as
location here second derivative
of the hydrograph passes through #ero
;igure 2.2. 1onstant-slope base flo separation.
The inflection point is located either as the location here the second derivative
passes through #ero (curvature changes! or is empirically related to atershed area. This
method is also relatively easy to automate, except multiple peaked storms ill have
multiple inflection points.
(-
1oncave method
The concave method assumes that base flo continues to decrease hile stream
flo increases to the peak of the storm hydrograph. Then at the peak of the hydrograph,
the base flo is then assumed to increase linearly until it meets the inflection point on the
recession limb.
;igure 2.5 is a sketch illustrating the method applied to the representative
hydrograph. This method is also relatively easy to automate except for multiple peak
hydrographs hich, like the constant slope, method ill have multiple inflection points.
$ischarge (<
2
=T!
Time (T!
inflection point identified as
location here second derivative
of the hydrograph passes through #ero
$ischarge (<
2
=T!
Time (T!
inflection point identified as
location here second derivative
of the hydrograph passes through #ero
;igure 2.5 1oncave-method base flo separations
$epletion curve method
This method models base flo as discharge from accumulated groundater
storage. $ata from several recessions are analy#ed to determine the basin recession
constant. The base flo is modeled as an exponential decay term
! exp( ! (
,
kt q t q
o b b
=
.
The time constant, k, is the basin recession coefficient that is inferred from the recession
portion of several storms.
(0
Individual storms are plotted ith the logarithm of discharge versus time. The
storms are time shifted by trial-and-error until the recession portions all fall along a
straight line. 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 o b
q
, . ;igure 2.?
illustrates five storms plotted along ith a test storm here the base flo separation is
being determined. The storm ith the largest flo at the end of the recession is plotted
ithout any time shifting. The recession is extrapolated from this storm as if there ere
no further input to the groundater store. The remaining storms are time shifted so that
the straight line portion of their recession limbs come tangent to this curve. 'y trial-and-
error 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.
1
10
100
0 100 200 00 #00 500 $00
4i"e 8hours9
D
i
s
!
h
a
r
%
e

8
!
:
s
9
)aster;De3'etion;Curve 4est;Event #;11;#1
#;11;2$ #;1;#$ ;2;7
2;22;#0
;igure 2.? 7aster-$epletion 1urve 7ethod
($ata from 7c1uen, (,,3, Table ,-4, pp 53-!
(3
"nce the master curve is determined, then the test storm is plotted on the curve
and shifted until its straight-line portion come tangent to the master curve, and the point
of intersection is taken as the base flo value for that storm. In the example in ;igure
2.?, the base flo for the test event is approximately 9.1 cfs, the basin recession constant
is 0.0045/hr, and the base flo at the beginning of the recession is 17 cfs. "nce the base
flo value is determined for a particular test event, then base flo separation proceeds
use the constant discharge method.
The depletion curve method is attractive as it determines the basin recession
constant, but it is not at all easy to automate. ;urthermore, in basins here the stream
goes dry (such as much of Texas!, the recession method is difficult to apply as the first
storm after the dry period starts a ne master recession curve. "bserve in ;igure 2.? the
storms used for the recession analysis span a period of nearly 5. years, and implicit in the
analysis is that the basin recession constant is time invariant and the storms are
independent.
The folloing ;igure 2.- is a multiple peak storm event from $allas )sh1reek
station.3.?024.. To automate the rest of data set using this method ill be a challenge
because of the change of master recession curve for different peaks.
(,
File : #IUH_1_sta08057320_1977_0327.dat
Dallas AshCreek
0<00E=00
5<00E-0
1<00E-02
1<50E-02
2<00E-02
2<50E-02
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
4i"e 8"inutes9
A
!
!
u
"
<

D
e
3
t
h

8
i
n
!
h
e
s
9
#0A4E;/0ECI/ #0A4E;0>-+((
;igure 2.- 7ultiple peak storms from $allas module
Se#ection o% Met&o' to E(!#o)
The principal criterion for method selection as based on the need for a method
that as simple to automate because hundreds of events needed processing. )ppleby
((,0.! reports on a base flo separation techni&ue based on a %icatti-type e&uation for
base flo. The general solution of the base flo e&uation is a rational functional that is
remarkably similar in structure to either a <a@lace transform or ;ourier transform.
Unfortunately the paper omits the detail re&uired to actually infer an algorithm from the
solution, but it is useful in that principles of signal processing are clearly indicated in the
model.
6athan and 7c7ahon ((,,.! examined automated base flo separation
techni&ues. The ob>ective of their ork as to identify appropriate techni&ues for
determination of base flo and recession constants for use in regional prediction
e&uations. To techni&ues they studied in detail ere a smoothed minima techni&ue and
a recursive digital filter (a signal processing techni&ue similar to )pplebyAs ork!. 'oth
techni&ues ere compared to a graphical techni&ue that extends pre-event runoff (>ust
before the rising portion of the hydrograph! ith the point of greatest curvature on the
4.
recession limb (a constant-slope method, but not aimed at the inflection point!. 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. ;urthermore the
authors ere vague on the constraint techni&ues employed to make the recursive filter
produce non-negative flo values and to produce peak values that did not exceed the
original stream flo. @ress et.al. ((,3-! provide convincing arguments against time-
domain signal filtering and especially recursive filters. 6evertheless the result for the
smoothed minima is still meaningful, and this techni&ue appears fairly straightforard to
automate, but it is intended for relatively continuous discharge time series and not the
episodic data in the present application.
The constant slope and concave methods are not used in this ork because the
observed runoff hydrographs have multiple peaks. It is impractical to locate the recession
limb inflection point ith any confidence. The master depletion curve method is not
used because even though there is a large amount of data, there is insufficient data at each
station to construct reliable depletion curves. %ecursive filtering and smoothed minima
ere dismissed because of the type of events in the present ork (episodic and not
continuous!. Therefore in the present ork the discharge data are treated by the constant
discharge method.
The constant discharge method as chosen because it is simple to automate and
apply to multiple peaked hydrographs. @rior researchers (e.g. <aurenson and "A$onell,
(,-,: 'ates and $avies, (,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(
the flood hydrograph B a situation satisfied in this ork. The particular implementation
in this research determined hen the rainfall event began on a particular day: all
discharge before that time as accumulated and converted into an average rate. This
average rate as then removed from the observed discharge data, and the result as
considered to be the direct runoff hydrograph.
The candidate models ill be run in to cases ith or ithout base flo
separation, so one can compare ho much the separation ould effect the runoff
prediction.
3... E%%ecti*e Preci!itation
The effective precipitation is the fraction of actual precipitation that appears as
direct runoff (after base flo separation!. Typically the precipitation signal (the
hyetograph! is separated into three parts, the initial abstraction, the losses, and the
effective precipitation.
Initial abstraction is the fraction of rainfall that occurs before direct runoff.
"perationally several methods are used to estimate the initial abstraction. "ne method is
to simply censor precipitation that occurs before direct runoff is observed. ) second
method is to assume that the initial abstraction is some constant volume (Ciessman,
(,-3!. 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!.
<osses after initial abstraction are the fraction of precipitation that is stored in the
atershed (depression, interception, soil storage! that does not appear in the direct runoff
hydrograph. Typically depression and interception storage are considered part of the
initial abstraction, so the loss term essentially represents infiltration into the soil in the
44
atershed. *everal methods to estimate the losses includeD @hi-index method, 1onstant
fraction method, and infiltration capacity approaches (HortonAs curve, +reen-)mpt
model!.
@hi-index model
The -index is a simple infiltration model used in hydrology. The method
assumes that the infiltration capacity is a constant E(in=hr!. Fith corresponding
observations of a rainfall hyetograph and a runoff hydrograph, the value of can in many
cases be easily guessed. ;ield studies have shon that the infiltration capacity is greatest
at the start of a storm and that it decreases rapidly to a relatively constant rate. The
recession time of the infiltration capacity may be as short as (. to (? minutes. Therefore,
it is not unreasonable to assume that the infiltration capacity is constant over the entire
storm duration. Fhen the rainfall rate exceeds the capacity, the loss rate is assumed to
e&ual the constant capacity, hich is called the phi (! index. Fhen the rainfall is less
than the value of , the infiltration rate is assumed to e&ual to the rainfall intensity.
7athematically, the phi-index method for modeling losses is described by
;(t!G I(t!, for I(t! H (2.(!
;(t!G ,for I(t!I , (3.2)
here ;(t! is the loss rate, I(t! is storm rainfall intensity, t is time, and is a constant.
If measured rainfall-runoff data are available, the value of can be estimated by
separating base flo from the total runoff volume, computing the volume of direct
runoff, and then finding the value of that results in the volume of effective rainfall
being e&ual to the volume of direct runoff. ) statistical mean phi-index can then be
42
computed as the average of storm event phi values. Fhere measured rainfall-runoff data
are not available, the ultimate capacity of HortonAs e&uation, f
c
, might be considered.
HortonAs model
Infiltration capacity (f
p
! may be expressed as
f
p
G f
c
J (f
o
B f
c
! e
-Kt
, (2.2!
here f
o
G maximum infiltration rate at the beginning of a storm event and reduces to a
lo and approximately constant rate of f
c
as infiltration process continues and the soil is
saturated K G parameter describing rate of decrease in f
p
.
;actors assumed to be influencing infiltration capacity, soil moisture storage,
surface-connected porosity and effect of root #one paths follo the e&uation
f G a*
a
(.5
J f
c
, (2.5!
here f G infiltration capacity (in=hr!,
a G infiltration capacity of available storage ((in=hr!=(in!(.5!
(Index of surface connected porosity!,
*
a
G available storage in the surface layer in inches of ater e&uivalent ()-hori#on in
agricultural soils - top six inches!.
;actor f
c
G constant after long etting (in=hr!.
The modified Holton e&uation used by U* )gricultural %esearch *ervice is
f G +Ia *a
(.5
Jf
c
, (2.?!
here +I G +roth index - takes into consideration density of plant roots hich assist
infiltration (... - (..!.
+reen-)mpt 7odel
45
+reen L )mpt ((,((! proposed the simplified picture of infiltration shon in
;igure 2.0.
;igure 2.0.Cariables in the +reen-)mpt infiltration model. The vertical axis is the
distance from the soil surface: the hori#ontal axis is the moisture content of the soil.
(*ourceD Applied Hydrology by 1ho=7aidement=7ays (,33!
The wetting front is a sharp boundary dividing soil belo ith moisture content
i
from saturated soil done ith moisture content
i
above. The etting front has penetrated
to a depth L in time t since infiltration began. Fater is ponded to a small depth h
.
on the
soil surface. The method computes total infiltration rate at the end of time t, ith the
folloing e&uation,
;(t! G Mt J NO lnP ( J ;(t!=( NO!Q, (2.-!
here
M G Hydraulic conductivity,
4?
t G time in hrs,
;(t! G Total infiltration at the end of time t,
! " Fetting front soil suction head, and
NO G increase in moisture content in time t.
Unlike the *1* curve method, this method gives the total amount of infiltration in
the soil at the end of a particular storm event. $epending on this value and the total
amount of precipitation, e can easily calculate the amount of runoff.
1onstant ;raction 7odel
The constant fraction model simply assumes that some constant ratio of
precipitation becomes runoff: the fraction is called a runoff coefficient. )t first glance it
appears that it is a rational method disguise, but the rational method does not consider
storage and travel times. Thus in the rational method, if one doubles the precipitation
intensity, and halved the duration, one ould expect the peak discharge to remain
unchanged, hile in a unit hydrograph such changes should have a profound effect on the
hydrograph. )s a model, the method is simple to apply, essentially

=
=
dt t #$H dt t Ap
t p %rp t p
e
raw e
! ( ! (
! ( R ! (
,
(2.0!
here
%rp
G the runoff coefficient,
e
p
G the effective precipitation,

raw
p
G the ra precipitation,
) G drainage area.
4-
The first e&uation states that the effective precipitation is a fraction of the ra
precipitation, hile the second states that the total effective precipitation volume should
e&ual the total direct runoff volume.
3.3. Su((ar) o% Data Pre!aration
'ase flo separation as accomplished using the constant discharge method
because it is amenable to automation. Fe analy#ed the data ith and ithout a
separation to test hether separation as necessary in our data set. Sffective
precipitation as alays modeled using the constant fraction model, because of the need
to automate and also because of the sheer magnitude of the dataset, but the fraction as
left as a fitting constant. Ideally, the fitted result should preserve the re&uired mass
balance (precipitation volume G runoff volume!.
)n important detail in this research as the conversion of the original data into
8pseudo data9 for IUH analysis. The time-step length used in the research as one-
minute. This time length as chosen because it is the smallest increment that can be
represented in the current $)TSTTI7S format in the database. 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, then
numerical differentiation is performed to obtain the rainfall rates. The resulting units are
inches per minute.
;igure 2.3 is a sketch shoing the incremental rate and the cumulative depth
relationship. The cumulative depth scale is the left vertical scale and the incremental rate
scale is the right vertical scale. 7athematically the cumulative rainfall distribution is the
integral of the incremental rainfall distribution (or rainfall density! over the entire rainfall
40
event. S&uation 2.3 expresses this relationship: integration over the entire number line is
intended to indicate the entire lifetime of the individual rainfall event.

= dt t p t & ! ( ! (
. (2.3!
;igure 2.3. 1umulative @recipitation and Incremental @recipitation %elationship
In ;igure 2.3 the cumulative precipitation, &'t(, is indicated by the open circles,
hile the rate, p't!, is indicated by the open s&uares. In practice only the cumulative
depth is recorded as a function of time: so to determine the rate e simply differentiate
the cumulative precipitation.
Q ! ( P
! (
! (

= = dt t p
dt
d
dt
t d&
t p
. (2.,!
The present ork used a simple centered differencing scheme, except at the first
and last time interval, hen forard and backard differencing ere used, respectively.
t
t t & t t &
t p

4
! ( ! (
! ( . (2.(.!
0
0<5
1
1<5
2
2<5
0 20 #0 $0 80 100
4i"e 8"in<9
C u " u ' a t i v e / r e ! i 3 < 8 i n < 9
0
0<01
0<02
0<0
0<0#
0<05
0<0$
0<07
0<08
/
r
e
!
i
3
<

0
a
t
e

8
i
n
<
?
"
i
n
<
9
A!!/re!i3 Inst/re!i3
43
0
0<5
1
1<5
2
2<5
0 20 #0 $0 80 100
4i"e 8"in<9
0
0<01
0<02
0<0
0<0#
0<05
0<0$
0<07
0<08
$etails of the 8pseudo data9 conversion ere reported by 1leveland et. al, (4..2!.
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.
3.+. NRCS ,nit H)'ro-ra!&
The 6atural %esources 1onservation *ervice (6%1*!, formerly the *oil
1onservation *ervice, developed a unit hydrograph (UH! in the (,?.s. This UH as used
to develop storm hydrographs and peak discharges for design of conservation measures
on small agricultural atersheds.
7ockus ((,?-! discussed development of the standard 6%1* unit hydrograph
and the peak rate e&uation,
&
p
GM)U=T
p
, (2.((!
here the peak discharge rate &
p
is a function of drainage area ), direct runoff
volume U, factor M, and time to peak of the unit hydrograph T
p
. He indicated that the
peak rate factor (@%;! of M is e&ual to
MG(4,..-=((JH!, (2.(4!
here H is the ratio of the time of recession to the time peak (T
r
= T
p
!. 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. M
also includes a conversion factor to make the e&uation dimensionally correct.
7ockus used the triangular UH shape in development of above to e&uations. It
appears that 7ockus analy#ed many flood hydrographs to >ustify the selection of the peak
rate factor M of 535. ) UH ith @%; of M of 535 as felt to be representative of small
agricultural atersheds in the U.*.
4,
NRCS.D,H /0a((a a!!ro1i(ation2
The 6%1* $imensionless Unit Hydrograph (U*$), (,3?! used by the 6%1*
(formerly the *1*! as developed by Cictor 7ockus in the late (,5.As. The *1*
analy#ed a large number of unit hydrographs for atersheds of different si#es and in
different locations and developed a generali#ed dimensionless unit hydrograph in terms
of t/t
p
and q/q
p
here, t
p
is the time to peak. The point of inflection on the unit graph is
approximately (.0 the time to peak and the time to peak as observed to be ..4 the base
time (hydrograph duration! ()
b
!.
The functional representation is presented as tabulated time and discharge ratios,
and as a graphical representation. Table 2.4 is the tabulation of the 6%1* $UH from
the 6ational Sngineering Handbook.
Table2.4. %atios for dimensionless unit hydrograph and mass curve
Time ratios
(t=Tp!
$ischarge ratios
(&=&p!
7ass 1urve %atios
(U=Up!
... ... .....
..( ...2 ....(
..4 ..(. ....-
..2 ..(, ...(4
..5 ..2( ...2?
..? ..50 ...-?
..- ..-- ..(.0
..0 ..34 ..(-2
..3 ..,2 ..443
.., ..,, ..2..
(.. (... ..20?
(.( ..,, ..5?.
(.4 ..,2 ..?44
(.2 ..3- ..?3,
(.5 ..03 ..-?.
(.? ..-3 ..0..
(.- ..?- ..0?(
(.0 ..5- ..0,.
(.3 ..2, ..344
(., ..22 ..35,
4.. ..43 ..30(
4.4 ..4.0 ..,.3
2.
4.5 ..(50 ..,25
4.- ..(.0 ..,?2
4.3 ...00 ..,-0
2.. ...?? ..,00
2.4 ...5. ..,35
2.5 ...4, ..,3,
2.- ...4( ..,,2
2.3 ...(? ..,,?
5.. ...(( ..,,0
5.? ....? ..,,,
?.. ..... (....
-0CS Di"ension'ess >nit 7&dro%ra3h and )ass Curve
0
0<1
0<2
0<
0<#
0<5
0<$
0<7
0<8
0<2
1
0 1 2 # 5 $
t?t3
1
?
1
3

0
0<1
0<2
0<
0<#
0<5
0<$
0<7
0<8
0<2
1
@
?
@
a
Dis!har%e 0atios 81?139 )ass Curve 0atios 8@?@39
;igure2.,. @lot of $UH and 7ass 1urve
;igure 2., is a plot of these ratios. This figure is identical to ;igure (-.( in the
6ational Sngineering handbook (except this figure is computer generated!.
2(
The IUH analysis assumed that the hydrograph functions are continuous and the
database as analy#ed using discrete values calculated from continuous functions.
%ather than use the 6%1* tabulation in this ork, 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. ) similar approach as used by *ingh (4...! to express
common unit hydrographs (*nyderAs, *1*, and +rayAs! by a gamma distribution.
The gamma function used to fit the tabulation is
! ( = ! (
(


=
*
*
e * k + & .
(2.(2!
The variables , and k are unknon, and ere determined by minimi#ation of the sum
of s&uared errors beteen the tabulation and the model (the function! by selection of
numerical values for the unknon parameters. 8Sxcel solver9 as used to perform the
minimi#ation. The values for parameters , and k ere 2.33, 5.3( and (.4,
respectively. *o the 6%1* $UH approximation is
. (2.(5!
;igure 2.(. is a plot of the model and tabulation, the variable * in the e&uations is
the dimensionless time. Uualitatively the fit is good. The maximum residual(s! occur
early in dimensionless time and at -.V of the runoff duration, but the magnitudes are
&uite small, and thus this model of the 6%1* $UH is deemed acceptable for use.
24
*
*
e * + &
33 . 2 3( . 2 3( . 5
33 . 2 R 4, . ( ! (

=
-0CS Curve-(ittin% >sin% 6a""a : un!tion
0
0<1
0<2
0<
0<#
0<5
0<$
0<7
0<8
0<2
1
0 1 2 # 5 $
t?43
1
?
1
3
+bserved )ode'ed
;igure2.(.. @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. The test statistic for the chi-s&uare test as calculated as
i
k
i
i i %
, , - = ! (
(
4 4

=
=
. (2.(?!
The test statistic is ..?242. ;or to degrees of freedom and ,. V confidence limits the
value as (..- hich is greater than the test statistic (..?242! therefore the hypothesis
(model! represent the observed values.
The 6%1* $UH as presented in the 6SH integrates to a little over (.5 and thus it
is not a true unit hydrograph as presented. 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 (..
(thus the factor that scales the integral correctly is imbedded in the &
p
value!. The
research assumes that all unit graphs and the accompanying functional representations of
22
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, in this case the value is (.4,.2. Therefore
the final approximation to the 6%1* $UH as a functional representation useful in IUH
analysis is
*
e * + &*
33 . 2 3( . 2 3( . 5
33 . 2 ! (

= .
(2.(-!
"r ith all the constants evaluated and simplified and expressed in the 6%1*
terminology the 6%1* $UH (as an IUH function! is
p
t
t
p p
e
t
t
q
t q
33 . 2
3( . 2
! ( ?230 . 23
! (

= . (2.(0!
3.3. Co((ons H)'ro-ra!&
1ommons ((,54! developed a dimensionless unit hydrograph for use in Texas,
but details of ho the hydrograph ere developed are not reported. The labeling of axes
in the original document suggests that the hydrograph is dimensionless. ;or the sake of
completeness in this ork, an approximation as produced for treatment as another
transfer function by fitting a three-gamma summation model. Sssentially there ere
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.e. 6%1* $imensionless
Unit Hydrograph! B it has a very long time base on the recession portion of the
hydrograph.
25
;igure 2.((. Hydrograph developed by trial to cover a typical flood
1ircles are tabulation from digiti#ation of the original figure. 1urve is a *mooth
1urve )pproximation. ;igure 2.(( is 1ommonsA hydrograph reproduced from a manual
digiti#ation. The smooth curve is given by the folloing e&uation that as fit by trial and
error.
p
p
p
t
t
p
t
t
p
t
t
p
e
t
t
e
t
t
e
t
t
t q
-5( . ?
(24 . .
-,5 . 4
,-? . .
0.0 . 5
(0- . .
!
-5( . ?
(
! 433 . . (
33 . 2

!
-,5 . 4
(
! ,4? . . (
?3 . 0

!
0.0 . 5
(
! ((3 . . (
..( . 00
! (

=
. (2.(3!
The numerical values are simply the result of the fitting procedure. The time axis
as reconstructed (in the fitting algorithm! so that the t
p
parameter could be left variable
for consistency ith the other hydrograph functions. The tabulated function integrates to
2?
approximately ((-.: thus the function above is divided by this value to produce a unit
hydrograph distribution.
3.4. 0a((a S)nt&etic H)'ro-ra!&s
The gamma distribution is given in the e&uation
a b *
* .e * f
=
! (

= . (2.(,!
In the e&uation 1 e&uals
! ( (
(
(
+
+
a b
a
to make the area enclosed by the curve e&ual to
unity. is called the gamma function. Calues can be found tabulated in mathematical
handbooks. The gamma distribution is similar in shape to the @oisson distribution that is
given the form as
W
! (
*
e /
* f
/ *
= .The curve starts at #ero hen the variable x is #ero,
rises to a maximum, and descends to a tail that extends indefinitely to the right. The
values that the variable x can take on are thus limited by . on the left. Calues can extend
to infinity on the right.
The gamma distribution differs from the @oisson distribution is that it has to
parameters instead of the single parameter of the @oisson. This allos the curve to take
on a greater variety of shapes than the @oisson distribution. The parameter a is a shape
parameter hile b is a scale parameter. The shape of the +amma distribution is similar to
the shape of a unit hydrograph, so many researchers started looking for the application of
the +amma distribution into hydrograph prediction. This first started ith Sdson ((,?(!,
ho presented a theoretical expression for the unit hydrograph assuming U to be
proportional to
yt *
e t

2-
! ( (
! (
+
=

*
e yt %Ay
0
yt *
, (2.4.!
here UG discharge in cfs at time t: )G drainage area in s&uare miles: x and y G
parameters that can be represented in terms of peak discharge: and
! ( ( + *
is the
gamma function of (xJ(!. 6ash ((,?,! and $ooge ((,?,!, based on the concept of n
linear reservoirs ith e&ual storage coefficient M, expressed the instantaneous UH (IUH!
in the form of a +amma distribution as
k t
n
e
1
t
n 1
q
=
(
! (
(

= , (2.4(!
in hich n and MG parameter defining the shape of the IUH: and &Gdepth of runoff per
unit time per unit effective rainfall. These parameters have been referred to as the 6ash
model parameters in the subse&uent literature.
@revious attempts to fit a +amma distribution to a hydrograph ere by 1roley((,3.!,
)ron and Fhite ((,34!, Hann et al. ((,,5!, and *ingh ((,,3!. The procedure given by
1roley ((,3.! to calculate n for knon values of &
p
and t
p
re&uires programming to
iteratively solve for n. 1roley also proposed procedures to obtain a UH from other
observable characteristics. The method by )ron and Fhite ((,,4! involves reading the
values from a graph, in hich errors are introduced. 'ased on their methods, 7c1uen
((,3,! listed a step-by-step procedure to obtain the UH, hich maybe briefly described
by the folloing e&uations,
nG(..5?J..?fJ?.-f
4
J..2f
2
, (2.44!
20
in hich
A
t 0
f
p p
= , here U
p
is in cubic feet per second, t
p
is in hours, and ) is in
acres. These to e&uations re&uire careful attention for the units, and these cannot be
used as such hen U
p
t
p
is re&uired to be computed for a value of n knon from other
sources. Hann et al. ((,,5! gave the folloing expression to calculate n,
,4 . (
! ( ? . - (
2
t 0
n
p p
+ = , (2.42!
here CGtotal volume of effective rainfall. )n e&uation provided by *ingh ((,,3! to
obtain the value of n may be ritten,
4
(, . - (-5 . . ., . ( + + = n , (2.45!
here p p
t q =
(dimensionless!, in hich p
q
is the peak runoff depth per unit time per
effective rainfall. *ingh observed that the error in n obtained from the e&uationD
4
(, . - (-5 . . ., . ( + + = n (2.4?!
is ..?2V hen
4? . . =
and ...?V hen
. . ( =
. The error in n calculated decreases
ith increasing values of

.
3.5. 6eibu## Distribution
Historically a to-parameter Feibull distribution is employed to define the
configuration of a natural hydrograph of direct runoff and is given in the folloing forms
as (1anavos, (,35!
n
k t n
e 3t 0
! = ( (
= , (2.4-!
here U is the discharge ordinate of the natural hydrograph corresponding to the time t
after the commencement of direct runoff, n is the dimensionless shape factor, and k is the
23
storage time constant. 'oth n and k reflect the basin characteristics and are related to the
time to peak t
p
in the folloing manner.
n n k t
n
p
= ! ( ( ! = ( =
. (2.40!
The constant of proportionality ' in S&uation (2.4-! is evaluated as
n
p
k t
n
p
p
e t
0
3
! = (
(
! (

=
, (2.43!
here U
p
is the peak discharge and e is the base of the natural logarithms. 1ombining
S&uation (2.4-!, (2.40! and (2.43! yields
n t t n
n
p p
n
p
e t t 0 0
= ! ! = ( ( !( ( (
(
! = ( =

= . (2.4,!
S&uation (2.4,! is the desired form of the dimensionless Feibull distribution as used in
this study. )nalytical formulation of the parameter n can be developed as follos.
$esignating p
0 0 q =
R
=
, and p
t t t =
R
=
, S&uation (2.4,! may be ritten as
n t n n
n
e t q
= ! ( !( ( ( (
R R
R
! (

= . (2.2.!
Taking natural logarithms of both sides of the above e&uation and solving for n, one
obtains
R R R
ln = ! = ln ! ( ( ( ln ln( t n q n t n n + =
. (2.2(!
The value of n can be obtained from S&uation (2.2(! through graphical means. "nce the
value of n has been ascertained properly, the value of k can then be determined from
S&uation (2.2(! conveniently.
3.7. Reser*oir E#e(ents
)n alternative ay to construct the hydrograph functions is to model the
atershed response to precipitation as the response from a cascade of reservoirs. The
response function is developed as the response to an impulse of input, and the response to
2,
a time series of inputs is obtained from the convolution integral. The end result is the
same, a function that is a distribution function, but the parameters have a physical
interpretation. The kernel (response function! to an impulse in this ork is an
instantaneous unit hydrograph (IUH!. The conceptual approach for a cascade of
reservoirs is ell studied and orks ell for many unit hydrograph analyses (e.g. 6ash,
(,?3: $ooge, (,?,: $ooge, (,02: 1roley, (,3.!. In this ork the cases are examined
here a +amma, %ayleigh, and Feibull distribution govern the individual reservoir
element responses, respectively. In addition, e have also converted the 6%1*-$UH
into its on response model (a special case of gamma!.
water4hed 4y4te/
re4pon4e /odel
5
1,t
q
1,t
5
6,t
q
6,t
5
7,t
q
7,t
5
8,t
q
8,t

e*%e44 pre%ipitation 'depth(

ob4er9ed dire%t r:noff 'depth(
A
;igure 2.(4 1ascade of %eservoir Slements 1onceptuali#ation
;igure 2.(4 is a schematic of a atershed response conceptuali#ed as a series of
identical reservoirs ithout feedback. The outflo of each reservoir is related to the
5.
accumulated storage in the reservoir. The behavior of the individual reservoir elements
determines hether the model becomes a +amma, %ayleigh, or Feibull distribution.
;igure 2.(2 is a schematic of a reservoir response element. In the sketch, the element
area is A, the accumulated excess storage is 5, and the outlet flo area is a.
5
a
q"a9
A
p
e
5
a
q"a9
A
p
e
;igure 2.(2 %eservoir Slement 7odel
The outlet discharge is the product of the outlet area, a, and the flo velocity 9. The
input is p
e
.
3.7.1 Linear /0a((a2 Reser*oir E#e(ent
The first response model is a linear reservoir model, here the reservoir discharge
is proportional to the accumulated depth of input. The constant of proportionality is %.
The discharge e&uation is
a%5 a9 q = =
. (2.24!
) mass balance of the reservoir is
a%5
dt
d5
A =
. (2.22!
The input p
e
is applied over a very short time interval: so the resulting depth, before
outflo begins is 5
o
. The solution to this "$S ("rdinary $ifferential S&uation! is
! exp( ! (
.
t
A
a%
5 t 5 =
. (2.25!
The ratio A/a% is called the residence time of the linear reservoir.
5(
a%
A
t =
. (2.2?!
Thus in terms of residence time the accumulated depth in a linear reservoir is
! exp( ! (
.
t
t
5 t 5 =
.
(2.2-!
The discharge rate is the product of this function and the constant of proportionality
! exp( ! exp( ! (
. .
t
t
5
t
A
t
t
a%5 t q = =
. (2.20!
;igure 2.(5 <inear %eservoir 7odel 4 = t , AG(, 5
0
G1
This particular atershed model has the folloing propertiesD
1umulative discharge is related to accumulated time.
Instantaneous discharge is inversely related to accumulated time.
The peak discharge is proportional to the precipitation input depth, and occurs at
time #ero.
The peak discharge is proportional to the atershed area.
54
3.7. 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!. The constant of
proportionality in this case is 6%.
%5t a a9 q 4 = =
. (2.23!
) mass balance for this model is
%5t a
dt
d5
A 4 =
. (2.2,!
The solution (using the same characteristic time re-parameteri#ation as in the linear
reservoir model! is
! ! ( exp( ! (
4
.
t
t
5 t 5 =
. (2.5.!
The discharge function is
! ! ( exp(
4
! ! ( exp( 4 ! (
4
4
.
4
.
t
t
t
t
A5
t
t
%t5 a t q = = . (2.5(!
This result is a %ayleigh distribution eighted by the product of atershed area
and the initial charge of precipitation (hence the name %ayleigh reservoir!. The discharge
function for unit area and depth integrates to one: thus it is a unit hydrograph, and it
satisfies the linearity re&uirement, thus it is a candidate IUH function.
52
;igure 2.(?. %ayleigh %eservoir Fatershed 7odel. 4 = t , AG(, 5
0
G1
"f particular interest, the %ayleigh model &ualitatively looks like a hydrograph
should, 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. Sxamination of
the discharge function includes the folloing relationshipsD
1umulative discharge is proportional to accumulated time.
Instantaneous discharge is proportional to accumulated time until the peak, then
inversely proportional afterards.
The peak discharge is proportional to the precipitation input depth, and occurs at
some non-#ero characteristic time.
The peak discharge is proportional to the atershed area.
3.7.3 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
some non-#ero poer since the impulse of precipitation as added to the atershed
(translation reservoir!. The constant of proportionality in this case is p%.
(
= =
p
ap%5t a9 q . (2.54!
) mass balance for this model is
(
=
p
ap%5t
dt
d5
A
. (2.52!
The solution (using the same characteristic time re-parameteri#ation as in the linear
reservoir model! is
! ! ( exp( ! (
.
p
t
t
5 t 5 =
. (2.55!
The discharge function is
! ! ( exp( ! ! ( exp( ! (
(
. .
( p
p
p
p p
t
t
t
pt
A5
t
t
5 ap%t t q = =

. (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!. The discharge
function for unit area and depth integrates to one, thus it is a unit hydrograph, and it
satisfies the linearity re&uirement, thus it is a candidate IUH function.
These three models constitute the reservoir element models used in this research.
3.8. Casca'e Ana#)sis
;igure 2.(4 is the schematic of a cascade model of atershed response. In our
research e assumed that the number of reservoirs 8internal9 to the atershed could
range from . to J . "ur initial theoretical development assumed integral values, but
others have suggested fractional reservoirs can be incorporated into the theory. To
develop the cascade model(s!, start ith the mass balance for a single reservoir element,
and the discharge from this reservoir becomes the input for subse&uent reservoirs and e
5?
determine the discharge for the last reservoir as representative of the entire atershed
response.
3.8.1. 0a((a Reser*oir Casca'e
S&uation 2.5-, here 5
i
represents the accumulated storage depth, a% is the
reservoir discharge coefficient, q
i
is the outflo for a particular reservoir, and A is the
atershed area, represents the discharge functions for a cascade of linear reservoirs that
comprise a response model. The subscript, i , is the identifier of a particular reservoir in
the cascade.
t i t i
a%5 Aq
, ,
=
. (2.5-!
S&uation 2.50 is the mass balance e&uation for a reservoir in the cascade. In
S&uation 2.5-, the first reservoir receives the initial charge of ater, 5
o
over an
infinitesimally small time interval, essentially an impulse, and this impulse is propagated
through the system by the drainage functions.
t i t i t i
a%5 Aq 5 A
, , ( ,
=

.
(2.50!
The entire atershed response is expressed as the system of linear ordinary
differential e&uations, S&uation 2.53, and the analytical solution for discharge for this
system for the 8-th reservoir is expressed in S&uation 2.5,.
5-
8 8 8
o
5
t
5
t
5
5
t
5
t
5
5
t
5
t
5
5
t
5 5
( (
( (
( (
(
(
2 4 2
4 ( 4
( (
=
=
=
=

. (2.53!
The result in e&uation 2.53 is identical to the 6ash model (6ash (,?3! and is
incorporated into many standard hydrology programs such as the 1"**)%% model
(%ockood et. al. (,04!. The factorial can be replaced by the +amma function (6auman
and 'uffham, (,32! and the result can be extended to non-integer number of reservoirs.
! exp(
!W ( (
(
(
(
. ,
t
t
t 8
t
t
A5 q
8
8
t 8

.
(2.5,!
To model the response to a time-series of precipitation inputs, the individual
responses (S&. 2.5,! 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
(5
o
't(

" q
o
't(

dt! then the individual response is (note the +amma function is substituted
for the factorial!

d
t
t
t 8
t
t
Aq dq
8
8
i
! exp(
! (
! ( (
! (
(
(
. ,

. (2.?.!
The accumulated responses are given by

t
8
8
8
d
t
t
t 8
t
t
Aq t q
.
(
(
.
! exp(
! (
! ( (
! ( ! (

.
(2.?(!
50
S&uation 2.?( represents the atershed response to an input time series. The
convolution integral in 1hapter 0 in 1ho, et al ((,33!, an overvie of that ork, is
repeated as S&uation 2.?4,

=
t
d t : ; t 0
.
! ( ! ( ! (
. (2.?4!
The analogs to our present ork are as follos (1hoAs variable list is shon on
the left of the e&ualities!D
! exp(
! (
! ( (
! (
! ( ! (
! ( ! (
(
(
.
t
t
t 8
t
t
A t :
q ;
t q t 0
8
8
8

=
=
=

(2.?2!
Fe call the kernel ( :'t <( ! for the linear reservoir a gamma response because
the kernel is essentially a gamma probability distribution. The reason for representing the
function as being derived from a cascade is that this derivation provides a 8physical9
meaning to the distribution parameters.
The analysis is repeated for the %ayleigh and Feibull distributions.
3.8.. Ra)#ei-& Reser*oir Casca'e
) %ayleigh response is developed in the same fashion as the gamma, except the
%ayleigh reservoir element is used instead of the linear (gamma! response. The discharge
and mass balances for the %ayleigh case are given as S&uations 2.?5 and 2.??,
respectively,
t i t i
a%t5 Aq
, ,
4 =
, (2.?5!
t i t i t i
a%t5 Aq 5 A
, , ( ,
4 =

. (2.??!
53
The entire atershed response is expressed as the system of linear ordinary
differential e&uations in S&uation 2.?-.
8 8 8
o
5
t
t
5
t
t
5
5
t
t
5
t
t
5
5
t
t
5
t
t
5
5
t
t
5 5
4 4
4 4
4 4
4
(
2 4 2
4 ( 4
( (
=
=
=
=

(2.?-!
The analytical solution for any reservoir is expressed in S&uation 2.?0.
! ! ( exp(
! !( (
! (
4
4
( 4
( 4
4
. ,
t
t
t 8
t
t
t
A5 q
8
8
t 8

, (2.?0!
S&uation 2.?3 gives the convolution integral using this kernel.

t
8
8
i
d
t
t
t 8
t
t
t
Aq t q
.
4
4
( 4
( 4
4
.
!
! (
exp(
! !( (
! ! ((
! ( 4 ! (

, (2.?3!
This distribution is identical to <einhardAs 8hydrograph distribution9 (<einhard,
(,04! that he developed from statistical-mechanical analysis.
3.8.3. 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. The discharge and mass
balances are given as S&uations 2.?, and 2.-., respectively,
t i t i
a%t5 Aq
, ,
4 =
, (2.?,!
t i t i t i
a%t5 Aq 5 A
, , ( ,
4 =

. (2.-.!
The entire atershed response is again expressed as a system of linear ordinary
differential e&uations: S&uation 2.-(.
5,
8
p
8
p
8
p p
p p
p
o
5
t
t
p 5
t
t
p 5
5
t
t
p 5
t
t
p 5
5
t
t
p 5
t
t
p 5
5
t
t
p 5 5
(
(
(
2
(
4
(
2
4
(
(
(
4
(
(
(

=
=
=
=

(2.-(!
The analytical solution to this system for any reservoir is expressed in S&uation
2.-4,
! ! ( exp(
! !( (
! (
(
( (
. ,
p
8 p
8 p
p
p
t 8
t
t
t 8
t
t
t
pA5 q

. (2.-4!
The accumulated responses to a time series of precipitation input are given by
S&uation 2.-2.

t
p
p
8
8 p p
i
d
t
t
t 8
t
t
t
pAq t q
.
(
( (
.
!
! (
exp(
! (
! ! (( ! (
! ( ! (

.
(2.-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, thus if e program
a Feibull-type model as the IUH, e can investigate other models by restricting
parameter values. The parameters have the folloing impacts on the discharge functionD
(. The poer term controls the decay rate of the hydrograph (shape of the falling
limb!. If p is greater than one, then decay is fast (steep falling limb!: if p is less
than one then the decay is slo (long falling limb!.
4. The t term controls the scale of the hydrograph. It simultaneously establishes
the location of the peak and the magnitude of the peak.
?.
2. The reservoir number, 8, controls the lag beteen the input and the response, as
ell as the shape of the hydrograph.
The next chapter describes ho the distribution parameters are determined from
observations.
?(